Hey Hey You You I don't like your [chat] Thread

Pony

_J_ wrote: »

Pony wrote: »

But, for example, I know people who are anti-abortion and I'm still capable of being civil and friendly with them despite the fact that I think their views are terrible.

How?

If a person is beating their wife and you perceive it and do nothing? You condone their wife beating.

If a person maintains an anti-abortion stance and you do nothing? You condone their being anti-abortion.

How can you do that?

Because I don't see beliefs as being equal to actions?

Your first example is a person actively assaulting another human being which is completely unacceptable.

Your second example is someone who holds a disturbing and offensive viewpoint that, unless acted upon, ultimately results in nothing more than a negative personal trait.

Deeds, not words, mate.

But then, I suppose this is where I, as a utilitarian consequentialist, differ from a deontologist.

AJAlkaline40

Argh.

I've ran out of vaginas.

That's pretty bad.

Preacher

James wrote: »

If you fail to be friends with people because you have different beliefs, you are silly.

Different beliefs are fine, as long as the belief is not something harmful. There was a great statement from a british ruler once with regards to beliefs.

Greeper

RiemannLives wrote: »

Greeper wrote: »

RiemannLives wrote: »

Greeper wrote: »

I like to think of the Bible as written in two separate parts: The one part which has a bunch of stuff about forgiveness and love

and the other part which is all rules and 'do not divorce' and shit.

I like to think that they only added the second part so that the conservative disciples would vote for it.

There are several separate parts. But they absolutely are not divided on those lines.

There is the obvious distinction between the Tanakh or Old Testament and the new for example. Oddly enough, the textual history of the Old is far better than the new. There does not exist any portion of the NT which has not gone through at least one translation wheras the OT was preserved remarkably well in a range of dialects. This means there is no part of the NT that has not been homoginized and harmized via the translations process.

Even in the NT you have a pretty clear distinction between the 4 gospels (and John is a bit of an outlier) and sort-of-maybe Acts vs. the letters of Paul that might be genuine (the only bits dating prior to The War) vs. the half or so letters of paul inserted in the 2nd century vs the other letters and epsitles vs Revelations (which is exceedinly dubious).

But you will find within those in the same voice and hand the rules and sometimes the love. Paul was the one who wanted to bring the religion to the world and preached a brotherhood of all mankind. Yet he was also exceedingly homophobic. Jesus, in the same gospel, had both the sermon on the mount and the ranting against divorce.

You cannot separate one view from the other in the text. If you want to invent your own religion by cutting out the bits and pieces you like that's your perogotive of course. And a popular choice indeed. But at least be honest with yourself about what you are doing there. What you are choosing to believe has nothing to do with a fiery faith-healer from Nazerith. Or with the older roots in the Rider on the Clouds, YHWH of the mountain.

Wow you know a lot about religion.

That's so interesting! I didn't know most of that!

Alas, this is about the level of reply I should have expected. But still you disappoint me Greeper. Perhaps you should be less careless about what you believe if this is the level of thought you put into it.

Woah, I don't know anything about religion, I'm an atheist and stuff. All that stuff you said was interesting though.

I said 'I like to think' so and so, not that I seriously believe any of what I said in the first post.

AND I WILL PUT EXACTLY AS MUCH THOUGHT INTO WHAT I BELIEVE AS I WANT! NEENER NEENER NEENER!

Elki

One of the all time greats, and a personal favorite.