Trend in RF

[sealchan]

View attachment 29924

Hulk smash!

;-)

 

[QuestioningMind]

Again it is not this I talking about.
What I trying to get forth is the constant negativity about how religions do their things, especially from people who do not follow that religion. It looks very much like it is a trend to talk down on beliefs that example say Homosexuality is a sin or that it shows less moral to act out the homosexual part in life.
But what people seem to not understand, those religious texts that say something like that, is NOT toward atheists who are homosexual, or about people in general who are homosexual, it is meant to say. if you are following example Christianity, it is ok to be homosexual, but one can not practice both being Christian and doing the act of same-gender sex. But if one dare to say this things one get almost harassed for being evil

it is ok to be homosexual, but one can not practice both being Christian and doing the act of same-gender sex.

Do you honestly not see how insulting and denigrating that statement is to the billions of people who consider themselves to be Christians who do not think homosexuality is a sin? Even those of us who are not Christian, we find classifying someone as sinful simply because they were born with a different sexual orientation to be a wicked and evil practice.

Do you really not see your own hypocrisy? You are bemoaning how people treat you negatively and talk down to you for what you believe, while preaching negativity and looking down on other people for simply being who they are.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Do you try to sidestep my OP? You do know i dont talk about sci-fi figures.
And again. I do not talk about someone attacking me personally, they attack religion in it self. But if a person is not religious why bother with what religious people say or do? it is their life to follow a religion. Atheists are not within a religion and would hence not be a part of the religious rules or guidelines. So yes some religious people do wrong too in saying bad about non belivers. But this thread is about why must non belivers "attack" belivers and their religion?

But if a person is not religious why bother with what religious people say or do?

Because people like YOU are constantly attempting to claim that certain people in society are sinful for simply being who they are. That's why homosexual individuals were denied the right to marry for decades in this country, all because of bigoted religions like the one you profess to follow.

 

[sooda]

But if a person is not religious why bother with what religious people say or do?

Because people like YOU are constantly attempting to claim that certain people in society are sinful for simply being who they are. That's why homosexual individuals were denied the right to marry for decades in this country, all because of bigoted religions like the one you profess to follow.

This past week Iran defended its right to execute homosexuals.

 

[Shad]

RF is one of the few larger religious sites on the net that is not a bubble site where everyone agrees with everyone else. This means that people's views will be criticized. Thus, RF is necessarily for people who can take a little criticism. That is, we can't be both diverse and a bubble site at the same time. If you see anything that you feel crosses the line into a personal attack, then you should report it to the mods.

I've been on RF for 15 years. I don't see a new trend. It's pretty much the way it's always been.

Isn't the "bubble" chamber handled by DIRs anyways?

 

[Samael_Khan]

People confident in their beliefs should welcome critique and scrutiny.

Very true. Since truth withstands scrutiny.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And during that time many overly sensitive people have left.They make a point. Someone disagrees, they get angry and they leave. Far more have left than have stayed.

I honestly find the notion of getting angry about something someone posts on a message board to be silly.

 

[stvdv]

But what people seem to not understand, those religious texts that say something like that, is NOT toward atheists who are homosexual, or about people in general who are homosexual, it is meant to say. if you are following example Christianity, it is ok to be homosexual, but one can not practice both being Christian and doing the act of same-gender sex. But if one dare to say this things one get almost harassed for being evil

If you start with "in my humble opinion" I don't think many will object when you say "it is ok to be homosexual, but one can not practice both being Christian and doing the act of same-gender sex"

Most forget adding IMHO adding "it's a fact ... Bible verse says so", then don't be surprised to get an avalanche running you over ... that's called "self created karma"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Again it is not this I talking about.
What I trying to get forth is the constant negativity about how religions do their things, especially from people who do not follow that religion. It looks very much like it is a trend to talk down on beliefs that example say Homosexuality is a sin or that it shows less moral to act out the homosexual part in life.
But what people seem to not understand, those religious texts that say something like that, is NOT toward atheists who are homosexual, or about people in general who are homosexual, it is meant to say. if you are following example Christianity, it is ok to be homosexual, but one can not practice both being Christian and doing the act of same-gender sex. But if one dare to say this things one get almost harassed for being evil

But not even everyone in the same religion shares the same beliefs. For example, there are many Christians who disagree with you on the matter of same-gender sex, and do so for reasons that they have been able to justify within their faiths. Canada's largest Protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada, for example, is quite happy to marry same-sex couples, in church, with all the same rules, and expectations, of other couples. Other, very good, Christians, have been arguing against discrimination against homosexuals for a long time.

The plain fact of the matter is, there are those who argue, from a faith-based perspective, for things that will undoubtedly hurt others. This is certainly the case in the abortion debate, for instance, or homosexuality, or whether religion makes it okay to mutilate children's genitals. And when they make those sorts of arguments, they should expect those likely to be hurt (or those who care) to have something to say about it.

I do not criticize people for believing that they can be "saved" through Jesus Christ, though I do not understand what that means. But when a person says to me that I am a sinner because I don't believe that, then you must expect me to fight back.

Also, many religious believers make claims that are contrary to established knowledge, and wish to take those contrary claims into the schools. That would include those who want to argue for "Intelligent Design" in science class. But since "Intelligent Design" is NOT science, in way at all, science class is the wrong place for it. And once again, they have to expect that people who know better will fight back.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Living a spiritual/religious lifestyle does mean there are moral rules that are needed to understand and be followed, otherwise one can not rise inner wisdom.
It is a constant work on the inner spiritual life, to become without unwholsome thoughts, speech and acts. Living a religious life was not meant to be to do whatever we want, or desire

And that's all fine...but you have no right to expect anyone else to live your religious life, or to tell them that they cannot do whatever they want or desire, so long as they harm nobody else in the doing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This past week Iran defended its right to execute homosexuals.

Yes, and that defense is a key element in my defense of my detestation of the theocrats who rule Iran.

 

[sooda]

Yes, and that defense is a key element in my defense of my detestation of the theocrats who rule Iran.

I think they might just be crazy.

 

[siti]

I am not talking about confirmation of own belief, i have no doubt in my own belief, What i talking about is when someone in discussions or in debate talk trash about religion because some if not all religion has some moral rules that should be followed, and it is the "should" that seem to be a problem, because people do not want to be told what to do if following that religion. or what is expected of the practitioners.

Appealing to bronze age 'wisdom' as an inerrant and immutable standard for 21st century human morality is laughable - I can't think of a single good reason why anyone posting that kind of nonsense in a debate forum should not expect their religion to be "trashed" - although personally I tend to just ignore that kind of thread. Maybe you should too - if seeing someone's already faded and tattered religious 'outfit' torn completely to shreds is a painful experience for you.

 

[Samana Johann]

I honestly find the notion of getting angry about something someone posts on a message board to be silly.

What a fart...

 

[Cooky]

It look like there has become a trend in RF to have threads that want to degenerate religions and spiritual life, is this form not a religious form any more? Somehow it look like the form has become a forum for people to find fault in every religion they can. And make "fun" of those who take their religion seriously.

And if someone disagree in certain topic then they are bad people?

Rarely does anyone dare to challenge me in religious debate.

 

[Jim]

@Amanaki Is this about wanting to be able to say what you honestly think, without that being used against you, to vilify or stigmatize you?

 

[metis]

It look like there has become a trend in RF to have threads that want to degenerate religions and spiritual life, is this form not a religious form any more? Somehow it look like the form has become a forum for people to find fault in every religion they can. And make "fun" of those who take their religion seriously.

And if someone disagree in certain topic then they are bad people?

IMO, all too many take the "my way or the highway" approach to religion, thus being way too short-sighted, especially since it is almost impossible to verify supposed events that took place thousands of years ago, supposedly witnessed by people we don't even know.

IOW, it's an area of vast uncertainty, thus definitive statements ignore this painful fact. But there's another way of approaching this that makes much more sense to me, but I have to go for now as I'm leaving for a mini-vacation out of the country-- I need a break from Trump!

 

[atanu]

RF is one of the few larger religious sites on the net that is not a bubble site where everyone agrees with everyone else. This means that people's views will be criticized. Thus, RF is necessarily for people who can take a little criticism. That is, we can't be both diverse and a bubble site at the same time. If you see anything that you feel crosses the line into a personal attack, then you should report it to the mods.

I've been on RF for 15 years. I don't see a new trend. It's pretty much the way it's always been.

You have garnered ‘likes’ and ‘winners’ like Modi garnered votes in India. Naturally, I am suspicious.

 

[atanu]

It look like there has become a trend in RF to have threads that want to degenerate religions and spiritual life, is this form not a religious form any more? Somehow it look like the form has become a forum for people to find fault in every religion they can. And make "fun" of those who take their religion seriously.

And if someone disagree in certain topic then they are bad people?

I am sympathetic towards this post. There are fundamentalists on prowl. You have to ignore them. Yet, there is a saying “.....cast ye not your pearls before ......’.

It is weakness of one’s conviction if one wants approval from others.

 

[atanu]

I think that's quite true. Jerry Coyne -- who is safely retired -- is one of the few academics consistently raising hell about it.

But I happened to read a blog post by Jerry Coyne on supposed foolishness of Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. I found nothing but ad hominem.