Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

Shrap

smacl wrote: »

For the sake of balance herself prefers Oz to Orange is the new black, as all the gratuitous nudity is blokes..

Hmm, is that a fact. Uh huh. Oz, you say...








Thanks, Friday night movie sorted

Bootros Bootros

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Which one was it, the one where Janeway got the crew stranded because she didn't understand the concept of a fuse?
Or the one where she was going to let a whole civilisation die because of the prime directive?
Or the one where she forced a young woman (Seven) to stay with the crew against her will?
Or the one where she killed a valued member of the crew because of science?
Or was it the one where she ensured that Neelix would be inflicted upon us for the rest of the ser... Oh, wait that was the last episode?
Or was it the one where she was tricked by Neelix into thinking he was a survival expert thus ensuring three deaths?
Or was it the one where she promoted the woman who couldn't recognise manure even with a tricorder to chief engineer?
Or was it even the one where Neelix nearly blew up the ship with CHEESE!?

There's a lot of scary episodes with Voyager when you think about it.

I read that in a comic book guy voice.

You might know too much about this series you claim to dislike to be taken seriously.

Hotblack Desiato

katydid wrote: »

One can see irony in anything if one really looks for it. Doesn't mean it exists, though.

Some say one can find meaning in the bible, too, if one really looks for it...

InTheTrees wrote: »

I know. I'm glad the owners manual for my car isnt so vague.

The Haynes Bible

"EXORCISM

Four spanners

This task is not recommended for inexperienced mechanics. The complete procedure should be read before commencing work. If possible, engage the help of an assistant. Alternatively entrust the work to your Spiritual dealer who will have the requisite tools and spare parts to complete the job without risk of damage to expensive components."

"Reassembly of the psyche is the reverse of disassembly"

"Use of special tool CR10001-2645 Flaming Cross is recommended, however if this is not available it may be possible to construct an improvised tool as follows..."

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

I read that in a comic book guy voice.

You might know too much about this series you claim to dislike to be taken seriously.

There are some posters here who have put quite a bit of effort into studying religion and scriptures - does that mean they cannot be taken seriously as atheists? On the contrary, it only lends more weight to their criticisms.

Hotblack Desiato

Here's one for yer:

(someone posted the other day about how Jesus never read or wrote a single word)

Why couldn't the LORD Jesus Christ, Son of God, read or write?

He could've written the NT himself and cut out all those middlemen. Could have written it in all then-current and future human languages as well.

It's not like he didn't have the time, either, hanging around his parents' house for 30 years and getting under their feet.

Hmm...

iguana

Shrap wrote: »

Wow, thanks for that. So glad I never watched it now!

That's nothing. There is an episode where the whole crew hangs out in a holodeck version of an historical Oirish village and the Janeway falls in love with the hologram owner of the village pub while the doctor pretends to be the parish priest. Not happy with that awful dross, the series revisits the village later on and in an unusual move, the holodeck malfunctions. This means the villagers see the crew doing 'magic' and egged on by the new local priest, decide the crew are evil spirits and attack them with red thread.

Shrap

iguana wrote: »

That's nothing. There is an episode where the whole crew hangs out in a holodeck version of an historical Oirish village and the Janeway falls in love with the hologram owner of the village pub while the doctor pretends to be the parish priest. Not happy with that awful dross, the series revisits the village later on and in an unusual move, the holodeck malfunctions. This means the villagers see the crew doing 'magic' and egged on by the new local priest, decide the crew are evil spirits and attack them with red thread.

FCUK OFF! No way!! What a fascinating insight into what our diaspora has implanted into cultural consciousness. Oh Christ, that's awful altogether I'm horrified!

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The Haynes Bible

Invaluable for determining what measure of abuse a Land rover has earned for its sins. I quite agree.

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, Janeway's voice is the most irritating heard on screen since the hooker in The Man With Two Brains.

MrP

Nah, Pulaski's from TNG season 2 was a lot worse. Though the actress playing her was quite a hottie back in the ToS days.

Brian Shanahan

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

I read that in a comic book guy voice.

You might know too much about this series you claim to dislike to be taken seriously.

Hey, what can I say, SFDebris' reviews are too damn funny.

Brian Shanahan

iguana wrote: »

That's nothing. There is an episode where the whole crew hangs out in a holodeck version of an historical Oirish village and the Janeway falls in love with the hologram owner of the village pub while the doctor pretends to be the parish priest. Not happy with that awful dross, the series revisits the village later on and in an unusual move, the holodeck malfunctions. This means the villagers see the crew doing 'magic' and egged on by the new local priest, decide the crew are evil spirits and attack them with red thread.

Worst thing is, it's still better than Up the Long Ladder from TNG. Even at age eleven I couldn't watch that episode.

smacl

iguana wrote: »

That's nothing. There is an episode where the whole crew hangs out in a holodeck version of an historical Oirish village and the Janeway falls in love with the hologram owner of the village pub while the doctor pretends to be the parish priest. Not happy with that awful dross, the series revisits the village later on and in an unusual move, the holodeck malfunctions. This means the villagers see the crew doing 'magic' and egged on by the new local priest, decide the crew are evil spirits and attack them with red thread.

Ah yes, the self same holo-deck they hocked on ebay only to get bought by the planet express crew;

Kif: This is the holo-shed. It can simulate anything you desire, and nothing can hurt you. Except when it malfunctions and the holograms become real.
Amy: Well, I'm sure that won't happen this time.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Ringing endorsement of the Bible as a guide to life there.

It is indeed. Forces us to think for ourselves; the best way to live one's life.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

It is indeed. Forces us to think for ourselves; the best way to live one's life.

How does it force once to think for oneself?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

It is indeed. Forces us to think for ourselves; the best way to live one's life.

Right then. So the Bible provides no answers, forcing us to think for ourselves.

Funny enough, I think we can make that equation a bit simpler.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Right then. So the Bible provides no answers, forcing us to think for ourselves.

Funny enough, I think we can make that equation a bit simpler.

I didn't say it provides no answers. I said it makes us think for ourselves. Not the same thing.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say it provides no answers. I said it makes us think for ourselves. Not the same thing.

Then what answers does it provide? If you could even start with one it would be a help.

katydid

obplayer wrote: »

Then what answers does it provide? If you could even start with one it would be a help.

The answers differ for every person, depending on their personal circumstances. The basis for those answers are the fundamental principle that Christ taught - love your neighbour as yourself.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

[...] the fundamental principle that Christ taught - love your neighbour as yourself.

As it's a "fundamental" one, that means we shouldn't think about it?

BTW, it's referred to as The Golden Rule and people were saying it hundreds or thousands of years before Jesus did.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

The answers differ for every person, depending on their personal circumstances. The basis for those answers are the fundamental principle that Christ taught - love your neighbour as yourself.

So the basis is the golden rule? The one which Jesus most certainly did not create?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Rushworth Kidder notes that the Golden Rule can be found in the early contributions of Confucianism. Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism

If that is what you believe then you could be better defined as a humanist. Or perhaps a Zoroastrian.

InTheTrees

katydid wrote: »

It is indeed. Forces us to think for ourselves; the best way to live one's life.

I think its only a small proportion of christians who seriously study their bibles in depth.

Its more likely that they accept some interpretation that they have been taught as children. And its also more than likely that they've been taught that interpretation without a lot of room for debate.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

As it's a "fundamental" one, that means we shouldn't think about it?

BTW, it's referred to as The Golden Rule and people were saying it hundreds or thousands of years before Jesus did.

And?

katydid

obplayer wrote: »

So the basis is the golden rule? The one which Jesus most certainly did not create?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule


If that is what you believe then you could be better defined as a humanist. Or perhaps a Zoroastrian.

It's the starting point. The Bible, especially the New Testament, expands on this in particular contexts and situations. For example, what to do when faced with the choice between obeying the law and doing what is morally right. The Bible has several instances of Jesus showing by example what his priorities were.

I'm not sure how believing in the teachings of a person who was at the teachings of a person who was human and divine (according to my beliefs) is a humanist belief...

robindch

katydid wrote: »

And?

And I thought you might be interested to learn that Jesus nicked it from somebody else.

In future, I'll try to avoid introducing little thinklets from outside your comfort zone :rolleyes:

katydid

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think its only a small proportion of christians who seriously study their bibles in depth.

Its more likely that they accept some interpretation that they have been taught as children. And its also more than likely that they've been taught that interpretation without a lot of room for debate.

That is very true. Many Christians put little thought into their faith. Luckily their faith is accommodating enough to take that on board, and provide them with the kind of guidance that provides them with a good road map.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

And I thought you might be interested to learn that Jesus nicked it from somebody else.

In future, I'll try to avoid introducing little thinklets from outside your comfort zone :rolleyes:

I didn't need to learn. I AM aware of the Golden Rule.

I repeat - and? If you can't answer, just say so.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Many Christians put little thought into their faith. Luckily their faith is accommodating enough to take that on board [...]

Funny, I said pretty much the same on Friday!

robindch wrote:

[...] the bible is popular, not because it comports of a single, identifiable message, but [...] because it says exactly what people want it to say.

We agree on something again

katydid

robindch wrote: »

We agree on something again

You're agreeing with yourself...

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say it provides no answers. I said it makes us think for ourselves. Not the same thing.

Well you seem to find the bits that are true by guesswork, and these bits provide no clear answer, which means you have to think for yourself. The logical thing, therefore, is to ignore the bible and chart your own course in life.

katydid wrote:

The answers differ for every person, depending on their personal circumstances.

......which means that the bible is like a collection of song lyrics. You take out of it what meaning you put into it. Again, not the most accomplished Satnav to life. The I-ching does much the same and its less hastle.

katydid wrote:

The basis for those answers are the fundamental principle that Christ taught -
love your neighbour as yourself.

But you don't believe that part.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

It is indeed. Forces us to think for ourselves; the best way to live one's life.

You get this from a book which demands in every command for you to unthinkingly believe every single fable it tells (and they're all fables)?

Some weird loops your brain processes must have to get from there to where you are.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You get this from a book which demands in every command for you to unthinkingly believe every single fable it tells (and they're all fables)?

Some weird loops your brain processes must have to get from there to where you are.

Can you please cite the commands which demand this?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Well you seem to find the bits that are true by guesswork, and these bits provide no clear answer, which means you have to think for yourself. The logical thing, therefore, is to ignore the bible and chart your own course in life.



......which means that the bible is like a collection of song lyrics. You take out of it what meaning you put into it. Again, not the most accomplished Satnav to life. The I-ching does much the same and its less hastle.




But you don't believe that part.

Since the Bible isn't a collection of song lyrics (although there are some parts which could be described as such, i.e. the psalms) your analogy doesn't work. The Bible is clearly intended, despite the disparity of its material, to be a coherent outline of a particular understanding of the divine, and a guide and inspiration to those who wish to explore it and believe the essence of what it says.

Who says I don't believe "that part"?

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

Can you please cite the commands which demand this?

I'm not bulk quoting the whole book for you.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm not bulk quoting the whole book for you.

Just one line will do...

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Since the Bible isn't a collection of song lyrics (although there are some parts which could be described as such, i.e. the psalms) your analogy doesn't work. The Bible is clearly intended, despite the disparity of its material, to be a coherent outline of a particular understanding of the divine,"

You know it comes across as even worse when you describe it like that.

katydid wrote: »

and a guide and inspiration to those who wish to explore it and believe the essence of what it says. ,"

But you said yourself you guessed at what bits were true and which weren't.
That's not how guidebooks work. You don't even know for sure what the "essence" of it is

katydid wrote: »

Who says I don't believe "that part"?

"love your neighbour as yourself" - you clearly don't.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

You know it comes across as even worse when you describe it like that.





But you said yourself you guessed at what bits were true and which weren't.
That's not how guidebooks work. You don't even know for sure what the "essence" of it is



"love your neighbour as yourself" - you clearly don't.

It sounds "worse" to you, because, as you have repeatedly shown, you have no concept of what the idea is. Anything beyond a car manual that spells out where to insert the oil is flummoxing to you.

A guidebook is an approximate analogy. Of course it's not a car manual or a list of where to find the cheapest hotel. It is a guide to life, written by humans, to try to make sense of something beyond human understanding, for themselves and others. Life is a bit more complicated than changing the oil in an engine.

And I "clearly don't" love my neighbour as myself because...

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

It sounds "worse" to you, because, as you have repeatedly shown, you have no concept of what the idea is. Anything beyond a car manual that spells out where to insert the oil is flummoxing to you.

A guidebook is an approximate analogy. Of course it's not a car manual or a list of where to find the cheapest hotel. It is a guide to life, written by humans, to try to make sense of something beyond human understanding, for themselves and others. Life is a bit more complicated than changing the oil in an engine....

A guide to life full of parts that are irrelevant/untrue and no indication as to which parts are true.

katydid wrote: »

And I "clearly don't" love my neighbour as myself because...

This was in relation to a woman who had been stabbed by an ex-partner

Oh, I didn't know that it was ok on Christmas day to stop thinking SF members
are scum...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93572142&postcount=1015

I know dozens of better people. I don't know anyone who supports terrorism, or
hero worships a child abuse enabler. But then I mix with decent people.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93572131&postcount=1013

Going on that tirade its safe to assume that you don't regard "Judge not, that ye be not judged." and all that as being true either.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

A guide to life full of parts that are irrelevant/untrue and no indication as to which parts are true.



This was in relation to a woman who had been stabbed by an ex-partner


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93572142&postcount=1015


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93572131&postcount=1013

Going on that tirade its safe to assume that you don't regard "Judge not, that ye be not judged." and all that as being true either.

I don't love my neighbour because I despise terrorists and terrorist supporters. Ok.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I don't love my neighbour because I despise terrorists and terrorist supporters. Ok.

Sorry, maybe I'm getting it wrong. I trust you use the King James?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-22/

There's no footnote saying "*the following exceptions apply..". The same with the "Judge not...." passage.

Did these just not feel right when you were picking what parts to believe and what to ignore?

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Sorry, maybe I'm getting it wrong. I trust you use the King James?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-22/

There's no footnote saying "*the following exceptions apply..". The same with the "Judge not...." passage.

Did these just not feel right when you were picking what parts to believe and what to ignore?

So, I'm not a perfect Christian. I despise those who have no value in human life. Sue me

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

So, I'm not a perfect Christian. I despise those who have no value in human life. Sue me

So you do reject "love thy neighbour" and "judge not...". Grand. You must prefer the old testament. None of that touchy feely stuff - eye for an eye and all that.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

So, I'm not a perfect Christian. I despise those who have no value in human life. Sue me

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

Are people who follow this any better or worse Christians than you? They believe husbands must spank their wives, and use bible scripture to explain why.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

The Bible is clearly intended, despite the disparity of its material, to be a coherent outline of a particular understanding of the divine, and a guide and inspiration to those who wish to explore it and believe the essence of what it says.

I'm fascinated by this - have you ever read the bible? Even just parts of it?

Did you, for example, notice how the image of the deity changes as time passes? In the OT, the one deity of many, then the savage desert deity; then in the NT, the deity that's split into three, then the deity that wants people to love him?

I agree with you though that there certainly are lots of people out there who, as you say, "wish to believe the essence of what it says" -- apparently without having much interest in reading it properly.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

So you do reject "love thy neighbour" and "judge not...". Grand. You must prefer the old testament. None of that touchy feely stuff - eye for an eye and all that.

I don't reject it. I just don't always manage to live up to it. It's called being human.

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

Are people who follow this any better or worse Christians than you? They believe husbands must spank their wives, and use bible scripture to explain why.

How can I judge them?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

I'm fascinated by this - have you ever read the bible? Even just parts of it?

Did you, for example, notice how the image of the deity changes as time passes? In the OT, the one deity of many, then the savage desert deity; then in the NT, the deity that's split into three, then the deity that wants people to love him?

I agree with you though that there certainly are lots of people out there who, as you say, "wish to believe the essence of what it says" -- apparently without having much interest in reading it properly.

I'm glad you've been reading what I've written and taken it in somewhat. You've summarised very well what I've tried to explain about the growing understanding of the divine, from the primitive god of tribal shepherds to the complex triune god of the New Testament and the developing theology of the early church.

Why would you assume I hadn't read the Bible?

robindch

katydid wrote: »

I'm glad you've been reading what I've written and taken it in somewhat.

Ten out of ten! In all my years in and around A+A, I can't think of a single poster who can volte face from one direction to opposite with the speed and sheer chutzpah you do. Your performance is brilliant, and so apparently effortless that I submit it may be a minor art form.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I don't reject it. I just don't always manage to live up to it. It's called being human.

But you're completely unrepentant. That's not failure, that's outright on-going rejection.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

But you're completely unrepentant. That's not failure, that's outright on-going rejection.

How do YOU know whether or not I'm unrepentant?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Ten out of ten! In all my years in and around A+A, I can't think of a single poster who can volte face from one direction to opposite with the speed and sheer chutzpah you do. Your performance is brilliant, and so apparently effortless that I submit it may be a minor art form.

But you DID reiterate what I had already said, and while doing so implied it was something you had introduced to the debate for the first time. Assuming you weren't deliberately being dishonest, I took it that you had unconsciously read and absorbed what I had said.

Given that you were agreeing with yourself the other day, you seem in general to be a bit confused.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

How do YOU know whether or not I'm unrepentant?

It's fairly obvious by your posts.