What is the role of religion in our modern secular world?

[Balerion]

Are you angry with God because you're homosexual, and all scriptures (God-centered) regard your lifestyle as an abomination?

jan.

Ah yes, leave it to the simple-minded to ignore the substance and context of an argument so they may inject their own. Since you have no good response to MR's statement, you find it easier to assert this red herring in hopes that he'll stop smashing your ill-considered and even more ill-executed ideas to pieces. And considering how MR runs away at the slightest resistance to his own claims, it's pretty telling that he can dispatch yours with such ease.

But since you brought it up, would you mind listing the specific passages in which "all god-centered scriptures" condemn homosexuality as an abomination?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ah yes, leave it to the simple-minded to ignore the substance and context of an argument so they may inject their own. Since you have no good response to MR's statement, you find it easier to assert this red herring in hopes that he'll stop smashing your ill-considered and even more ill-executed ideas to pieces. And considering how MR runs away at the slightest resistance to his own claims, it's pretty telling that he can dispatch yours with such ease.

But since you brought it up, would you mind listing the specific passages in which "all god-centered scriptures" condemn homosexuality as an abomination?

Sorry man, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining stuff to you, because you simply don't get, and you end up going round and round in
circles.

Anyways, I thought you had me on ignore?

If you really want to dialogue, then explain what is the evidence that suggests the paranormal doesn't exist?


jan.

 

[Balerion]

Sorry man, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining stuff to you, because you simply don't get, and you end up going round and round in
circles.

Anyways, I thought you had me on ignore?

If you really want to dialogue, then explain what is the evidence that suggests the paranormal doesn't exist?


jan.

Typical. Refuse to answer the questions because you're too smart for everybody, then demand answers to questions of your own.

Troll.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Typical. Refuse to answer the questions because you're too smart for everybody, then demand answers to questions of your own.

Troll.

I gave you the reason why I ''refuse to answer your question'', then you try and get the upper-hand by insinuating that everybody asked me the question and I refused
to answer them, because I'm too smart.

The question I put to MR, is personal to MR alone, and if you care to read it you will see that the importance of that question is in ''Are you angry with God'', whch isrelevant to the point he made.The homosexual part is probably the strongest reason for that (especially as God seems to be the only unworldly concept he deny's outright). The reason I believe this to be the case is that I know there are homosexuals who want to rid man of God and religion because they don't think it's right that their lifestyle be deemed abominable, or sinful.

You're the troll Balerion, because with you, there can never be any real discussion as you simply want only to win by any means necesary, purposely refusing to see any subtleties in religious dialogue (not that you're unable, but you flat out refuse), and that's why you are a troll.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It's a cheap shot Jan. Atheists can't be angry at a God that doesn't exist. But it is true that a God who creates homosexuals and then calls them an abomination is kind of a bastard.

 

[Magical Realist]

Even if God WERE accepting of homosexuality, which indeed he might've been in the case of David and Jonathan, I would still not believe in him. The reasons for rejecting religion iow have nothing to with that. It has to do with its lack of relevance to real life. How does the cultural mythology of an ancient people even pretend to address man in the 21st century?

 

[Aqueous Id]

I know there are homosexuals who want to rid man of God and religion because they don't think it's right that their lifestyle be deemed abominable, or sinful.

People of all lifestyles deplore the singling out of any group or person on account of their traits. No doubt many people find this to be one of the more insidious forms of hatred rooted in religious taboos, and one of the great contradictions against the tenets that require solidarity and compassion. It's that contradiction which spells the demise of religion in the modern world, although there are different processes unfolding. One is that the rise of atheism is the logical consequence of better education and the common knowledge that belief in God is nothing more than perpetuation of ancient myth. Another is that taboos are understood as primitive norms that wither in the light of new ways of thinking, particularly attitudes about freedom and privacy. Yet another is that religions here in the US -- and other countries that have a legacy of Victorian-style Christianity -- the religious people have historically mounted political counter-attacks to try reverse social progress. But at its core, atheism is the natural state of philosophy, and the inevitable path for people to adopt as societies advance and the call to religion falls further and further out of reach of stronger minds, greater self-determination, and more vigorous definitions of solidarity and compassion.

 

[Balerion]

I gave you the reason why I ''refuse to answer your question'',

No, you ducked it like the coward you are. Like you always do.

then you try and get the upper-hand by insinuating that everybody asked me the question and I refused
to answer them, because I'm too smart.

Incorrect. I insinuated that you ducked the question because you think you're too smart. It's something you do all the time, so this can't be a surprise to you that someone is pointing it out. Deflect and redirect, that's how you operate.

The question I put to MR, is personal to MR alone,

No, it's an attempt to get him off-track. His sexuality is of no relevance.

and if you care to read it you will see that the importance of that question is in ''Are you angry with God'', whch isrelevant to the point he made.The homosexual part is probably the strongest reason for that (especially as God seems to be the only unworldly concept he deny's outright). The reason I believe this to be the case is that I know there are homosexuals who want to rid man of God and religion because they don't think it's right that their lifestyle be deemed abominable, or sinful.

Nonsense. For one, he doesn't believe in God, so he's clearly not angry with it. He has disdain for religion, which he rightly perceives as being hostile toward homosexuality (in many cases, but not all, as you so ignorantly tried to say before you were called out on it and promptly dropped the claim), and it's a view shared by many people. In fact, there are more non-homosexual atheists than homosexual ones, so the supposed premise of your question is bunk...but we both know you're just trying to cover your snide, underhanded remark now that people have called you out on it. His sexuality is, again, of no relevance to this subject, just as mine isn't.

You're the troll Balerion, because with you, there can never be any real discussion as you simply want only to win by any means necesary, purposely refusing to see any subtleties in religious dialogue (not that you're unable, but you flat out refuse), and that's why you are a troll.

You're a joke. I ask you to support your claim, and you bail like a coward. All of this is just noise so you can escape without having to actually defend anything you say. And the comment about MR's sexuality was the definition of trolling, as you were just bringing it up to antagonize him. I wish a moderator would step in and ban your bigoted ass for it, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[spidergoat]

Talking to Jan is like talking to a wall. There are words coming out, but they aren't related to what you just said, so it's kind of pointless.

 

[Stanley]

Because I can't think of a single shred of scientific evidence for anything that would qualify as paranormal. So, by all means, share.

That is an emotional response. A more reasonable response is much technology can be viewed as formerly paranormal.

 

[Balerion]

That is an emotional response. A more reasonable response is much technology can be viewed as formerly paranormal.

Doesn't even make sense, Stanley. What "much technology" could possibly be viewed as formerly paranormal? And what does that have to do with the existence of evidence for actual paranormal activity?

 

[Balerion]

Talking to Jan is like talking to a wall. There are words coming out, but they aren't related to what you just said, so it's kind of pointless.

Agreed, which is why I usually just ignore him now. But I couldn't let this dishonest, cowardly bigot get away with that comment about MR's sexuality.

 

[Stanley]

Doesn't even make sense, Stanley. What "much technology" could possibly be viewed as formerly paranormal? And what does that have to do with the existence of evidence for actual paranormal activity?

Think of open heart surgery, cell phones, the internet, etc., the list goes on and on.

A century ago these things would not be viewed as paranormal?

Things we dont know or understand today may be viewed as paranormal. One day if we can generate lightning bolts and throw them would today be viewed as paranormal but if the technology came where we could do that then it is no longer paranormal.

Another example, 500 years ago if someone said "i can get travel 1000 miles in around an hours time". Would people have viewed that as paranormal? Yet today we can do that, the means by which we do that are now understood and really the methods to do just that have little bearing on weather or not it would be viewed as paranormal so then the paranormal becomes normal.

Well, i think that multiple universes\alternate realities very well may exist yet this was at one time viewed as paranormal but today it is actually being taken seriously.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

No, you ducked it like the coward you are. Like you always do.

I've given you a reason, so unless you can back up your criticism's of me, they are just baseless, personal attacks.
Work with what you have, and don't make shit up.

Incorrect. I insinuated that you ducked the question because you think you're too smart. It's something you do all the time, so this can't be a surprise to you that someone is pointing it out. Deflect and redirect, that's how you operate.

Same as above.

No, it's an attempt to get him off-track. His sexuality is of no relevance.

Even if I wanted to get him, (not that I am, or even need to) off track, so what?
Who decides it's of no relevance?

Nonsense. For one, he doesn't believe in God,

No shit Sherlock!

...so he's clearly not angry with it.

Non-Sequitor.

He has disdain for religion, which he rightly perceives as being hostile toward homosexuality (in many cases, but not all, as you so ignorantly tried to say before you were called out on it and promptly dropped the claim), and it's a view shared by many people.

The portion I responded to, which you decided to stick your ignorant hooter in, was expressing disdain for God by flippantly regarding Him as ''skydaddy''.

In fact, there are more non-homosexual atheists than homosexual ones, so the supposed premise of your question is bunk...but we both know you're just trying to cover your snide, underhanded remark now that people have called you out on it. His sexuality is, again, of no relevance to this subject, just as mine isn't.

What we both know is that you are a miserable little person who hates.
Again who decides what is relevant in this subject, plus how can you decide anything without a grasp of a bigger picture.

You're a joke. I ask you to support your claim, and you bail like a coward.

You prematurally jumped to the wrong conclusion, and you refuse to accept my explanation. Then as usual invent stuff that you cannot back up. That's trolling.
If you want to prove yourself right, then do so through discussion (the reason we are here). If you are correct, it will be revealed, but I know you won't because YOU are the coward (as you have proved time and time again).

1. All of this is just noise so you can escape without having to actually defend anything you say.
2. And the comment about MR's sexuality was the definition of trolling, as you were just bringing it up to antagonize him.
3. I wish a moderator would step in and ban your bigoted ass for it, but I won't hold my breath.

1. I'm prepared to defend what I say, but my response to MR does not require defending because they are questions. The hateful remarks you make regarding me do not fit, they're your issues. Deal with them.

2. What comment?
You are simply judging by your own standard.

3. Please explain where my attitude to MR was ''bigoted''?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Even if God WERE accepting of homosexuality, which indeed he might've been in the case of David and Jonathan, I would still not believe in him. The reasons for rejecting religion iow have nothing to with that. It has to do with its lack of relevance to real life. How does the cultural mythology of an ancient people even pretend to address man in the 21st century?

Balerion seems to think that you are the ''God does not exist'' type of atheist, however this statement contradicts that.

Anyways, why don't you respond directly to my posts?
Let's go further into your beef with God and religion because right now your beef is the most interesting topic in the religion forum.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

People of all lifestyles deplore the singling out of any group or person on account of their traits. No doubt many people find this to be one of the more insidious forms of hatred rooted in religious taboos, and one of the great contradictions against the tenets that require solidarity and compassion. It's that contradiction which spells the demise of religion in the modern world, although there are different processes unfolding. One is that the rise of atheism is the logical consequence of better education and the common knowledge that belief in God is nothing more than perpetuation of ancient myth. Another is that taboos are understood as primitive norms that wither in the light of new ways of thinking, particularly attitudes about freedom and privacy. Yet another is that religions here in the US -- and other countries that have a legacy of Victorian-style Christianity -- the religious people have historically mounted political counter-attacks to try reverse social progress. But at its core, atheism is the natural state of philosophy, and the inevitable path for people to adopt as societies advance and the call to religion falls further and further out of reach of stronger minds, greater self-determination, and more vigorous definitions of solidarity and compassion.

Religion is much like education, there is good education, and bad education, there are people use education positively, and ones who use it negatively, there are big education systems and facilities, and there are (for the majority) small or no education facilities, but we must educate ourselves in some way, this is unavoidable. Ultimately, hatred and prejudice is a personal thing, and you will find that people like this are like this regardless/despite any religious or educational system.

You say that ''solidarity and compassion'' are essentially religious tenets. I disagree, these traits are required to follow religious tenets. How do you teach compassion to someone who is not compassionate? These traits can be brought to the surface by experience but you cannot teach it, like you can teach math.

When you say ''the demise of religion'', do you mean the demise of religious institutes, or the whole idea of linking with God? And do you honestly think that with the demise of religion(?) hatred will stop?

''The rise of atheism'' is just a substitute for religion. Whereas Christianity went round forcing people into their worldview, now ''atheism'' is at the dawn of it's rise to power.
That atheism is on the rise, is no surprise for anyone that reads scripture.

In short there is ''religion'' and there are ''religious institutes'' that practice religion. There is yoga, where the adherent is locating God within the heart by practicing austerely, breathing and physical exercises, and there is yoga where Dick and Jane envision a stress-free, healthy, beautiful lifestyle.

jan.

 

[Magical Realist]

Anyways, why don't you respond directly to my posts?

Because that's not the thread topic. The thread topic is how religion can be relevant in the modern world. I have no interest in you changing this to suit some personal agenda you have.

Let's go further into your beef with God and religion because right now your beef is the most interesting topic in the religion forum.

I have no beef with anything that doesn't exist. I have no beef against Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or God. Comprende?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because that's not the thread topic. The thread topic is how religion can be relevant in the modern world. I have no interest in you changing this to suit some personal agenda you have.



I have no beef with anything that doesn't exist. I have no beef against Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or God. Comprende?

Yes, but what is religion?
How can we have an honest discussion regarding it's relevance, with such a narrow view of the premise.
From the atheist pov, it has no relevance, and from the theist pov, it has relevance, so don't you think the reasons are worth exploring (from both sides), so we can have a
real discussion. It seems as soon as anyone offers other ideas (off the beaten pop/mainstream track ) of religion they get shot down.

Your idea of religion is one where people worship a god which (obviously) does not exist, therefore there is no need for belief, hence religion is not relevant.
Where can we go with that? Why bother to ask the question?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

It's a cheap shot Jan. Atheists can't be angry at a God that doesn't exist.

Atheists don't know that God doesn't exist, so that blows that reasoning out of the water. They can only, and I mean only, believe that God doesn't exist and to do that, they have to block natural inclination, such as other peoples experience, and the complexity and beauty of the world, (reducing it to blind unaided processes that just happen to form the way it did by chance), seriously taking into consideration the idea that something can come out nothing. I would be angry if I had to carry that stuff on my shoulders.

But it is true that a God who creates homosexuals and then calls them an abomination is kind of a bastard.

God didn't create ''homosexuals'', God created man, and man has the freedom to choose how to live his life. Homosexuality is an act, not a person, and while it may be as natural as daffodils to homosexuals, the act is regarded as abominable (in the Bible). There's nothing we can do ab.out that but try to understand (for those of us who are interested) why this is so. The act of adultery is also charged as an abominable act.


jan.

 

[leopold]

If religion ceased to exist tomorrow, what changes could we expect to see in our world?

if men cannot aspire to be like the gods then they will be worms.
-unknown.