Evil...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i get aroused by women in burkhas, am I a lost cause?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

I'm not stretching it at all -- when I was in Jakarta last year during Ramadan, several restaurants and bars were firebombed in the south of the city (several miles from where I was staying) because they were "immoral".. In that context, it meant that guys and girls were meeting without chaperones and they were drinking alcohol. They may have bombed a few brothels too.

I must say that I'm having a hard time seeing much difference between the islamists' attitude and yours. You've both asserted that "sin" can arise through something that's perfectly normal and perhaps even entirely innocent, for one person. But when viewed from somebody else's point of view, this innocent activity becomes a "temptation" of which the person is "guilty". The question that the offended party is being an arse (by being offended to start with, then hanging around to continue to be offended) is never asked. The only difference between you and the islamists seems to be that the islamists are prepared to attempt to kill the other person to remove the temptation which is a ludicrous position.

Do you agree that your point of view is little different from the islamists?

Robin, you really are stretching it now! I already said that I wouldn't and couldn't force my morality on someone else. I think immodesty is sinful because it's vain and can tempt others to sin. I don't think anyone should be tortured for sinning, I just think it's wrong. Can you handle that?

Doctor DooM

Wicknight wrote: »

Interesting how it is always girls isn't it ...

Yes. It lends credence to the pagan theory that Patriarchal religions first arose as an antidote to the "Lady" worshiping religions that were there previous in an attempt to regain control from them (as women had "power" over procreation.)

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Robin, you really are stretching it now! I already said that I wouldn't and couldn't force my morality on someone else. I think immodesty is sinful because it's vain and can tempt others to sin.

You are missing the central point.

People are objecting to you (or your religion) telling other people what is or is not immodest.

Why do you get to decide if someone else is "tempting others to sin".

Its what the Islamic extremists do, they decide that, for example, a woman's hair is tempting men to sin, and proclaim that the woman is therefore guilty of this sin, even if the woman herself hasn't the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Robin, you really are stretching it now! I already said that I wouldn't and couldn't force my morality on someone else. I think immodesty is sinful because it's vain and can tempt others to sin. I don't think anyone should be tortured for sinning, I just think it's wrong.

As always, Wicknight has hit the nail on the head.

What's happening is that you are deciding, on your own, what other people can and cannot do without asking them what they might think. That, I trust (!), is selfish in anybody's book. Worse still, not only are you condemning them as immoral for what they are doing to themselves, but also for how their own private actions make you feel. This is doubly selfish.

How would you feel, for example, if tomorrow morning, I set up some strange atheistic mini-religion in which my holybook declared that it was immoral for people to annoy me by posting their thoughts on pro-christian forums? Do you think I've a right to be annoyed, or do think that's it's entirely reasonable for everybody else to point out that (a) I'm being an asshat and (b) if looking at pro-christian forums tempts me into immoral acts, then I shouldn't look at them?

At what point do I become fully responsible for my feelings?

robindch

SDooM wrote: »

Yes. It lends credence to the pagan theory that Patriarchal religions first arose as an antidote to the "Lady" worshiping religions that were there previous in an attempt to regain control from them (as women had "power" over procreation.)

Never had much time for that theory. It always seemed much more reasonable that religions are male-dominated because (a) men are bigger than women and can physically dominate them (women's "power" over recreation is moot when a man can force himself); (b) not being involved with childcare, men have more time to play and develop the endless games in the political framework that religion provides; (c) as figures of strength, if not omnipotence too, belief in violent and acquisitive gods typically propagates through military conquest (cf, The Covenant) at the expense of pacifist deities and the gods themselves seem to have acquired the characteristics of the male-dominated, violent and desert-based cultures and role-models which gave rise to them.

all the stars

kelly1 wrote: »

You're stretching it a bit now aren't you? I depends on their intentions. If the european looks at the girl innocently, there's nothing wrong with that. If he/she imagines him/herself in bed with her, that's wrong.

If the girl knows that she's causing temptation to sin and continues to remain naked, the she's guilty.

Three reasons why the girl isn't wrong

1) chances are she's not christian and doesn't adhere to these riduculous laws god placed on a select group of people - therefore she's not sinning regardless of how horny he's getting -

2) She is going along with her culture which doesn't have the lust factor - or the laws that hold the woman responsible for all impure thoughts a man has -

3) Even if she is naked and causing him to lust - ITS his fault not hers!! thats like saying, im not guilty of murder, you made me murder you, you were there and made me think about it- Get a frikkin grip -

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

You are missing the central point.

People are objecting to you (or your religion) telling other people what is or is not immodest.

Why do you get to decide if someone else is "tempting others to sin".

Its what the Islamic extremists do, they decide that, for example, a woman's hair is tempting men to sin, and proclaim that the woman is therefore guilty of this sin, even if the woman herself hasn't the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

Fine, as I already said, this is my opinion. I'm not forcing it down anyone's neck! But I don't go around telling women to cover themselves up. Am I not allowed express an opinion?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

But I don't go around telling women to cover themselves up.

Do you not think women read this forum?

kelly1 wrote: »

Am I not allowed express an opinion?

You certainly are allowed express your opinion (as I think you should be free to do on this forum any time you wish).

And we are, equally, allowed express the opinion that what your religion teaches (or at the very least what you interpret your religion teaches) on this matter is stupid and misogynistic, and to explain why.

Doctor DooM

robindch wrote: »

Never had much time for that theory. It always seemed much more reasonable that religions are male-dominated because (a) men are bigger than women and can physically dominate them (women's "power" over recreation is moot when a man can force himself); (b) not being involved with childcare, men have more time to play and develop the endless games in the political framework that religion provides; (c) as figures of strength, if not omnipotence too, belief in violent and acquisitive gods typically propagates through military conquest (cf, The Covenant) at the expense of pacifist deities and the gods themselves seem to have acquired the characteristics of the male-dominated, violent and desert-based cultures and role-models which gave rise to them.

I getcha, good theory, that the reason girly religions (to simplify) aren't as popular is because they simply aren't as aggressive in assimilating followers.

For another thread though

An Fear Aniar

Beruthiel wrote: »

Bullsh!t.
Psychopath's exist due to the nature of their make up. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'evil spirits'

Yes it does.

We live in a state of spiritual warfare. The proof is all around you.


.

CerebralCortex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yes it does.

We live in a state of spiritual warfare. The proof is all around you.


.

Change of record needed.

MrB

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yes it does.

We live in a state of spiritual warfare. The proof is all around you.

.

o_O O_o *Looks for proof of spiritual warfare*

Nope, can't find any.

seamus

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yes it does.

We live in a state of spiritual warfare. The proof is all around you.


.

Care to provide some proof of evil spirits?

Doctor DooM

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yes it does.

We live in a state of spiritual warfare. The proof is all around you.


.

Yes, I would say most right minded people are in a state of war with religious and spiritual extremists.

See what I did there?

kelly1

Folks, this thread has become farsical. I asked the question "Why are humans capable of extreme evil" and the only answers that appear to have come back are that it's human nature/bad environment/chemical imbalance". Personally I think there's also a supernatural element involved but I don't expect anyone here to by that so why don't we just leave it there.

BTW, I tried to call a truce yesterday but it was thrown back in my face so I'll stick to the Christianity forum for a while.

Regards,
Noel.

Sangre

turn the other cheek kelly!

Dades

This thread also seems to have run it's course.

As the OP isn't going to respond to replies here anymore, I'm going to close it.
Plenty more threads here!