[Jordan]

No, I called BSDFA a liberal pansey. You think religion is stupid, he actually hates it.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 08 March 2008 - 08:40 PM

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

This is odd, typing while he sits no further than 10 feet from me. But here I go.

I do hate religion. However, I have no problem with Zen monks, Jains, or even most christians. I do take issue with people that adhere to the fundementals of any monotheistic doctrine because the core doctrines are incompatiable with modern society. They're hateful and prejudice towards certain groups claiming they have divine authority to do so.

I'm not a liberal since more often than not it's the liberal who attacks me for attacking religion. I'm also not anti-war everything. Many of our liberal minded friends seem to take exception with any form of international struggle.

I'd say I'm a contrarian or an independent.

This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 08 March 2008 - 09:25 PM

[TheOrator]

I do take issue with people that adhere to the fundementals of any monotheistic doctrine because the core doctrines are incompatiable with modern society. They're hateful and prejudice towards certain groups claiming they have divine authority to do so.

And polytheistic religions adapt more readily?

Stop throwing in buzzwords.

And what the hell kind of liberals do you have in Canada that seem to be the opposite of liberals in the United States?

See, in America, that bloke going on about pullying and pink shirts is what we call a liberal.

People disagreeing with him (much like BigStupidSomethingSomething) are called conservatives, or sometimes more colorful things.

If we abolish drivers' licenses, the bad drivers will pick each other off eventually.

And a contrarian? Are they like that guy from the Monty Python Sketch? The Man Who Contradicts People?

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

Orator, your post is all over the place. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I implied anything about polythesim. I'm also confused with your statement on driving licence. I don't under stand any of it actually.

[TheOrator]

Orator, your post is all over the place. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I implied anything about polythesim. I'm also confused with your statement on driving licence. I don't under stand any of it actually.

You said you were againt the fundamentals of any monotheistic doctrine, implying polytheistic ones were okay.

The rest makes sense anyway, so I refuse to explain. Maybe they'd be easier to understand if you mentally seperate the different parts of the post that are obviously unrelated with extra leading.

[civilian_number_two]

BSDF, you said

"I do take issue with people that adhere to the fundementals of any monotheistic doctrine "

so Orator took this to mean (and I did too) that you were making distinctions between a ) folks who follow religions liberal;ly and those who adhere strictly to the fundamentals; as well as b ) folks who follow monotheistic religions and those who follow religions of another sort (Orator suggests polythestic, but I suppose nontheistic religions might also be possible).

It sounds like you think that Zen or Jainism are nonthesitic religions. If you didn't suggest this, then yes, you were in that sentence cited above implying something about polytheism (even if it was your intention to say more about fundamentalism). Because otherwise, why mention monotheism? And blah blah blah.

The driver's license thing was a reply to another subject discussed in this very thread. Don't be pissy BSDF; read the whole thread before complaining about confusing responses.

Orator, in answer to the other question, Liberal is a political part in Canada, and a fairly conservative one at that. Similar to the way we refer to democracy without meaning the Democratic party, we refer to Liberals without necessarily meaning liberalism.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 12 March 2008 - 04:20 PM

[TheOrator]

The driver's license thing was a reply to another subject discussed in this very thread. Don't be pissy BSDF; read the whole thread before complaining about confusing responses.

I sure hope he got at least that, he was the one that brought up the driver's license thing in the first place:

We've all survived highschool and most of us figured out how to drive after 2 months. Our provincial government does not agree. According to the BC government we're all fragile minded idiots who can't take a bit of abuse; on top of which we can't drive properly and need massive restrictions attached to our driving privileges for at least the first two years.

[BigStupidDogFacedArse]

I thought his post sounded pissy, so I returned the favor. I still don’t understand his comment on driving, and I’m aware it was a sub topic in the thread, I initiated it. I'm over it, no harm done. Well, let me make myself clear on the subject, I believe all religion is man-made; I also believe no two religions are the same and thus cannot be dealt equal criticism. This is not to make a broad distinction, in ethical terms, between the polytheist and the monotheist, but I do find Eastern mysticism to be far less intrusive than any of the major monotheistic faiths. But to say that Hinduism is progressive and adaptable religion, because of polytheist doctrine, would be silly.

I used Jainsim as an example. The most fundamentally driven Jain would not resort to terrorism. The fundamentals of Jainism are reason as to why there is a lack of Jain terrorist in world. A rise in fundamentalism would endanger no one. The most observant Jains cover their faces with cloth so they don’t inhale small bugs. The end result of Jain fundamentalism, in any region, would see an increase in non-violence. The concept of subjugation and conversion does not apply to Jains. Zen Buddhism is on the same page in many regards. You could argue kamikaze pilots used Zen teachings in their attacks, but one would need to go out of their way to come to that conclusion. At its core, Zen Buddhism is relatively passive.

So to conclude, a liberal or fundamental follower of either Zen or Jainism is not endangering non-believers, creating geo-political turmoil, or cramming morality down any ones throats. I don’t consider these religions dangerous. Monotheistic religions are a different beast altogether which do all of the aforementioned. Fundamentalists are a serious hindrance to civilization. Liberals claim these radicals are a minority group because they feel the biblical texts are being misinterpreted. IE- it’s the human that’s evil not the religion, which is a load of shit. Liberal followers, unknowingly, act as a sort of shield between fundies and criticism. They safe guard the religion in the name of tolerance, yet these religions are anything but tolerant. Any one who maintains the Bible/Quran to be tolerant and peaceful have either not read them or are lying.

A great author once said--- Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But it takes religion to make Good people do bad things. I think that sums up my argument here. The core of the issue is not terrorism or geopolitical scandals or even poverty, it’s the religion.

[Spoon Poetic]

You obviously haven't done your research if you think all monotheistic religions are "endangering non-believers, creating geo-political turmoil, or cramming morality down any ones throats." I guess you think there are only the three basic monotheistic religions. And this is completely ignoring the fact that there can be different sects of the same religion, that interpret things differently and therefore go about things differently.

Also, Hinduism is monotheistic. Only people who don't really know or understand it think that it is polytheistic.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 11 March 2008 - 05:26 PM

[Heccubus]

Here's how I picture this Day Of Silence thing going down:

"Say, there, do you have the time?"
"..."
"Excuse me, I asked you a question. Do you have the time?"
"..."
"Asshole. Do you have the fucking time?"
"..."
"You know what? Fuck you, faggot."

Nobody wins. This whole thing is a great example of people having absolutely no idea how to go about making a point, or standing up for a cause. I'm all for gay rights, but is this seriously the best they could come up with?

[Spoon Poetic]

EXACTLY! That's what I've been trying to say.

(...How the hell did this get turned into an argument on religion anyway?)

[Heccubus]

(...How the hell did this get turned into an argument on religion anyway?)

Welcome to the Debate Club. Every time I look at a thread in here, it eventually spirals into an argument about something totally unrelated. That's why I rarely post here.

[Spoon Poetic]

Trust me, I know - but I usually can at least pinpoint where the subject change occurred and why.

[Slade]

I can pinpoint the change: Jordan called DogFacedArse a "liberal pansey [sic]" then DFA qualified with some stuff about him hating religion, then started an entire diatribe on it when Civ and others called him on inconsistencies in his initial posts.

As far as this Day of Silence is concerned, it's nonsense and counterproductive. It might be almost vaguely passable if they all wore T-shirts or something, but it's still dumb because they're complaining about a lack of voice by deliberately not speaking out. *facepalm*

[civilian_number_two]

It's hard to talk with all that cock in your mouth.