quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

But I also think our definitions of religion are worthless, because in the final analysis they mostly devolve into being anything any nut can get a dozen or so people to believe.

You do realize, don't you, that EVERY religion starts this way*

e.g. Jesus and the Apostles

Well that's an interesting view. Why do you think Christ was a "nut"?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

I am going to go out on a limb here, Yachtie, you may need to get more popcorn[:D] ( hearing distant chainsaws)
This may anger a few people, or a lot. What does antigay mean to you? You may think that I am anti gay. I will not be one to vote for gay marriage. If I vote as such, it means I believe that it is okay. Its none of my business who one loves, and nor their sexual practices. It is your right. I can be friends, I can treat you with respect, but I can not vote that I want it to be all accepting. Most likely it will be voted in by the majority in the future, it will not be an issue anymore. I can tell you this though, I would never watch nor participate nor allow, if within my power, anyone giving you grief or hurting you. That is unacceptable, and any group or individual who does this, should be stopped or prosecuted. Is this anti gay to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

But I also think our definitions of religion are worthless, because in the final analysis they mostly devolve into being anything any nut can get a dozen or so people to believe.

You do realize, don't you, that EVERY religion starts this way*

e.g. Jesus and the Apostles

Well that's an interesting view. Why do you think Christ was a "nut"?

K.

Nut was YOUR word not mine. And in the time period in which he lived he was considered, by many people, to be a "nut" as YOU say. His perspective was NOT universally accepted or even tolerated at all. In your reading of history do you feel he was accepted/tolerated by anyone other than his followers during his lifetime. If you do, you have a unique read on the historical account - even that of the Bible itself. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You gave Jesus and the Apostles as an example (e.g.) of his claim, in fact emphasizing the point that every religion starts this way (your statement, not mine), Jesus and crew a prime example in your view.

So in fact, you certainly embraced the word, without question, until you were further pressed on the matter.

I think it's you who have a unique read on language. Unfortunately, if you choose to communicate using it, people will read it as having the established meanings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So in my opinion, for whatever may be worth, no teaching or practice that serves to divide creation, to separate man from Nature, or to set him against his neighbor, can properly be called religious.

K.

[/font][/size]

This definition does not even encompass Christianity or Islam. Are you saying neither Christianity nor Islam is a religion? And if you are saying that two of the major belief systems on the face of this planet are not actually religions then you are suggesting that over 50% of the world's population is claiming something as a religion that should not be. And who exactly are YOU to dictate that.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the definition that is Constitutionally accepted in the U.S. One that embraces all religions and belief systems. The goal is to find a way to peacefully co-exist while still trying to preserve some protections for the religious. Your definition does NOT accomplish that. You're telling over 50% of the world's populations that their entire belief system is NOT a religion. How very tolerant of you!

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You gave Jesus and the Apostles as an example (e.g.) of his claim, in fact emphasizing the point that every religion starts this way (your statement, not mine), Jesus and crew a prime example in your view.

So in fact, you certainly embraced the word, without question, until you were further pressed on the matter.

I think it's you who have a unique read on language. Unfortunately, if you choose to communicate using it, people will read it as having the established meanings.

Provide me evidence that . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So in my opinion, for whatever may be worth, no teaching or practice that serves to divide creation, to separate man from Nature, or to set him against his neighbor, can properly be called religious.

K.

[/font][/size]

This definition does not even encompass Christianity or Islam. Are you saying neither Christianity nor Islam is a religion? And if you are saying that two of the major belief systems on the face of this planet are not actually religions then you are suggesting that over 50% of the world's population is claiming something as a religion that should not be. And who exactly are YOU to dictate that.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the definition that is Constitutionally accepted in the U.S. One that embraces all religions and belief systems. The goal is to find a way to peacefully co-exist while still trying to preserve some protections for the religious. Your definition does NOT accomplish that. You're telling over 50% of the world's populations that their entire belief system is NOT a religion. How very tolerant of you!

I find it interesting that you have not bothered to respond to the fact that your definition of religion does not even include Christianity or Islam. Are you, in fact, intending to exclude them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes ya don't. Almond joy has nuts mounds don't........................

anyone remember that jingle?[:D]

I'm too young to remember it. [:)]

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

The definition is completely compatible with the idea that religion means different things to different people. The fact that you think it means something different suggests some intolerance on your part.

The point is, if religion can mean different things to different people YOU can't define it NARROWLY.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Not gay marriage... I am talking about gays in general...Homophobia is NOT exclusive to those who are spiritual.

Butch

You're right it's not completely exclusive, it's just almost completely exclusive to the religious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So in my opinion, for whatever may be worth, no teaching or practice that serves to divide creation, to separate man from Nature, or to set him against his neighbor, can properly be called religious.

K.

[/font][/size]

This definition does not even encompass Christianity or Islam. Are you saying neither Christianity nor Islam is a religion? And if you are saying that two of the major belief systems on the face of this planet are not actually religions then you are suggesting that over 50% of the world's population is claiming something as a religion that should not be. And who exactly are YOU to dictate that.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the definition that is Constitutionally accepted in the U.S. One that embraces all religions and belief systems. The goal is to find a way to peacefully co-exist while still trying to preserve some protections for the religious. Your definition does NOT accomplish that. You're telling over 50% of the world's populations that their entire belief system is NOT a religion. How very tolerant of you!

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes ya don't. Almond joy has nuts mounds don't........................

anyone remember that jingle?[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my inner imp can't resist sharing. [:)]

Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

MARK 3: 19b-21 (NRSV)

quote:

But really, he was Dominant (Mark 5:38-43):

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Back about a year ago (I think), this was a hot topic on the boards.

My contention was that marriage was the purview of religion but that I supported the idea of civil unions.

I was decried as a homophobe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Back about a year ago (I think), this was a hot topic on the boards.
It's mind-boggling.