|
LadyConstanze -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (3/5/2014 6:18:15 AM)
|
Was my financial status attacked? I didn't even think financial status came into the discussion, apart from me asking what Lorraine does for work, because I was a bit puzzled about how she was going on about evidence, then discounted evidence completely when it didn't support her side of the story, I simply assumed she must have a good job to raise a large family, as it does cost a bit and wondered which job it could be where you can ignore facts at will (because then I'd like to change careers).
I think it is absolutely possible to discuss religion in a respectful manner, it's an open discussion, somebody puts the reasons out there why somebody should believe, I can put the reasons out there why I think what they say isn't correct. Now somebody saying "You don't accept Jesus as the saviour, you won't go to heaven" is a statement that can be discussed, I discussed it with several clerics who think the Jesus they believe in will look at the deeds of a person and not their belief system or by which name they call their deity. I think that is a very valid discussion point.
I honestly have no problem if somebody believes I'm going to hell, I have no problem if somebody believes in the tooth fairy, you're putting out there into the open that your belief is the only right one, you are opening up a discussion. And last time I checked, this IS a discussion board.
I also don't believe I attacked her for having children, if I'm having a discussion with somebody, I will look at their profile because it does give me an idea where the person is coming from, the profile stated babies and fathers, now since she was very much on about following the bible, I assumed one of her husbands had passed away (as the bible doesn't recognize divorce) and thought it is simply good manners to offer condolences for her loss.
Now in a discussion, you can't say "the bible is right" and bring up excerpts from said bible to substantiate your claims, yet ignore other passages completely that do contradict. I mean in that case, what value does the rule book have? That's like saying one law is right, another one is wrong, so you don't need to follow that one. Can you imagine how that would work in a court of law?
I never disputed anybody's right to believe whatever they want, even if they decide that they deliberately want to ignore facts, I'm a big believer in religious freedom, that same thing that allows you to worship whatever you want should also go for me, to not worship something that I find absurd due to lack of logic.
Surely if somebody can speak out about what they decided to believe, another person can speak out about why they think they do not believe in it? It's called a discussion and intellectual discourse, I'm terribly sorry if you can't see that what you claim for yourself as a right seems to offend you when somebody else just wants the same, that to me seems hypocritical.
quote:
If it is myth to you, and one doesn't believe it, then it shouldn't bother you if we believe in hell. SO it shouldn't be a problem. I am mean really, its just myth to you right and no one should feel condemned if it is not part of your life. But for those of us who do believe its very real. Believe how you want, believe what feels right and good to you.
Where did I say it bothers me? Why is it fine for you if somebody talks about about a myth, yet it is not fine for you if another person says it doesn't work for them and actually tells you why (which is what people do when they have a discussion, they use arguments, at least they should do once they're past pre-school)? Seems to me that you're the one being bothered here, which I actually find rather funny and if you go and look at your post, it's a bit absurd.
|
|
|
|
