doc.fixit Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 LDV.......I find you fascinating, I wonder about the real you........that is, the person that lives and breathes and has opinions and beliefs......not the person that responds to others but the real essence of LDV. I realise that I am not too concise, have no facts and have not defined my terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 What a stupid post. You are being concise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 You don't like that. Maybe you should think about it some more. As said, read your own words. If you cannot see your own bias and bigotry on this thread that's fine by me. I was just surprised by it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 My own bias? Of course, I have a bias against Catholicism ( Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, New Age religion, Raelism, Scientology, etc.). I think they are false and believe this is easily demonstrated to most except to those who are credulous or indoctrinated heavily. And in some cases the religions are immoral. Catholicism is an example of an immoral belief system. And I am quite happy to explain why. I think the BNPs views are immoral. I think Leninism is immoral. Or what if we were talking about a new religion that you felt was objectionable because of what its doctrine stated? What if condoned wanton murder? If you called it out for its immorality, would that be hypocritical? If you don't like my take on religions because you accord them a degree of respect then that's fine. I disagree. But there is nothing hypocritical in my position and you have yet to demonstrate how there is. Now if you are equating the intolerance of the Catholic clergy to my hostility to Catholicism then I think you have become confused over what is this is all about. The Catholic clergy wish action to be taken to maintain a system whereby some people are denied the same rights as others by way of the State's laws on such things. That is an intolerance in respect of what could go on in other Churches. And when it comes to their intolerance of same-sex marriage in their church I would support them in maintaining their right to maintain it. My intolerance is where these religions impose on the lives of others outside of their Church. And these Catholic men want that. I am intolerant of what they propose because they have no business in such interference in the workings of the State and its law. That's it. I am not being intolerant in any other regard. If you think I am, you misunderstand the word and need to explain yourself. My hostility to religion does not constitute intolerance. Maybe you are getting confused by the fact that I not only disagreeing with their views but also think they are founded on nonsense. These are separate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yes, and I think the evidence that is used is very poor. I just that from my own standards, but also from the standards that such people would require were they to believe in unicorns or believe that Napoleon was visiting them regularly. Unicorns are (supposedly) things of this world, as was Napoleon - people see God as not of this world. The nature of proofs needs to take account of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 If the story is not to be taken literally then what significance is it to take through metaphor? I suggest that people had a Jungian folk memory of a time when humans lived as animals, hadno moral questions to wrestle with, had an easy life of it and didn't have to work hard to survive (a time before climate change turned the Sahara into a desert) - they then need to account for why things should have changed. The story of the Fall attempts to account for this in terms that people could understand. That was the personal revelation of Paul, but not the followers. I was not just referring to the NT - the OT contains numerous allusions to what were probably personal revelations. There are numerous references to Christians having revelation in the NT, Apochrypha and Gnostic texts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yes, and I think the evidence that is used is very poor. I just that from my own standards, but also from the standards that such people would require were they to believe in unicorns or believe that Napoleon was visiting them regularly. Unicorns are (supposedly) things of this world, as was Napoleon - people see God as not of this world. The nature of proofs needs to take account of this. I was actually referring to the specific type of unicorn that doesn't exist in our world per se. But does interfere and involves itself from time to time with visions of its form to people of pure hearts. If it makes you feel happier, we can substitute Apollo or Zeus for my special unicorn.And yes, the quality and forms of evidence need to be specific to the claim. Where very similar claims exist, very similar evidence should suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I suggest that people had a Jungian folk memory of a time when humans lived as animals, hadno moral questions to wrestle with, had an easy life of it and didn't have to work hard to survive (a time before climate change turned the Sahara into a desert) - they then need to account for why things should have changed. The story of the Fall attempts to account for this in terms that people could understand.That it not what Catholics take it to be, nor a huge number of Christians. Those who take up the metaphorical view, believe that man did wrong by this God. That's the nub of it. That's where the immorality lies. I was not just referring to the NT - the OT contains numerous allusions to what were probably personal revelations. There are numerous references to Christians having revelation in the NT, Apochrypha and Gnostic texts. What I was saying is that the believers do not come to believe on the basis of their own personal relevation. Most don't anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 LDV - I think this is the sort of thing which concerned Mans: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9161846/John-Sentamu-attacks-aggressive-atheism.html You (and no doubt Chinahand and others) may also be interested in this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9157029/Gay-marriage-is-not-a-human-right-according-to-European-ruling.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Food for thought for the liberally minded: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100146668/the-world-is-turning-conservative-so-liberals-are-eating-their-words/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 LDV - I think this is the sort of thing which concerned Mans: http://www.telegraph...ve-atheism.html Wouldn't seem to be, as he did not even imply that the issue with what I said was about removing Christianity from the public sphere.He seemed to have an issue with my hostility towards the Christian beliefs. Somehow having a a great dislike and disdain of Christianity makes me intolerant. I don't think what he said made much sense. Though I was trying to find out whether Manshimajin had some 'each to their own' mentality, where could believe absolutely anything they wanted and should have their beliefs accorded a high opinion by others. I don't hold to that view at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 'each to their own' mentality, where could believe absolutely anything they wanted and should have their beliefs accorded a high opinion by others. I don't hold to that view at all. People are free to believe whatever they want, irrespective of whether you, I or anyone else thinks they are beliefs worth holding. I think Mans was getting not at the idea that you should always have a high opinion of others beliefs but rather that you seemed intolerant of their right to hold the beliefs they do, whether you have a high opinion of them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think Mans was getting not at the idea that you should always have a high opinion of others beliefs but rather that you seemed intolerant of their right to hold the beliefs they do, whether you have a high opinion of them or not.And if this were the case, he should explain that this is the case and show me where I said this. But I really don't think you can assume what he said, as he explained his view so poorly. Though I wonder if the above is just to get a rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 [Though I wonder if the above is just to get a rise. No, LDV, I was not trying to take a rise out of you. I genuinely believe that Mans' thinking was along the lines I've stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Strange. It is just that I haven't said that people should not have the right to hold beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.