"Some have personal experiences with the plutocracy of some organized religions. That has caused them to turn away fro all religions. To me, such reasoning lies on the same lines as eating bad food, so one stops eating altogether because it might all be bad"

This argument seems to be saying that anyone turning away from all religions is somehow irrational, which does not seem to be justified from ordinary experience. If, for example, one repeatedly eats peanuts, and subsequently becomes ill, one stops eating peanuts until one sees a doctor and undergoes tests, but one doesn't stop eating.

Z

Welll put, Zarathustra!

It does seem easy to make assumptions, and perhaps even understandably so, depending on what one has been taught by some religious leaders regarding those who don't share their belief.

In fact, for many I feel the opposite is true - it's rational thinking that has led them (and I) to be who they now are.

If one is told an article in a newspaper or the content of a book is true, we have a choice. We can trust that it is true or we can question and research and come to our own conclusions. Does either method matter all that much if each person feels they are right? Nope. It only matters when we think the other person wrong and can't resist trying to make them believe we, and only we, are right.

Neither side is 'right' nor 'wrong' in what they choose to believe or not believe - surely if it's 'right' for them, it's right for them and honestly no one else's business as long as no harm is done to others?

Two things. First, lawyer and Christian are two words that don't go together. (Although lawyer and "Christian" do. )

And "In my congregation I have..."? Whatever happened to "our" and "we"? Humility? Hmmm...

Exactly. And this is something that no religionist can or will admit. For it undermines the illusionary authority that being "right" gives them.

Can't speak for MattV or CrazyDwarf but perhaps the reference re "my" was meant the same way we used to refer to "my junior high" etc?

It is fascinating that while some Christians are quite content to simply accept other religions are being 'right' for another person (even though they don't actually believe the same way) simply because at least the other person believes in God, others find it ever so much more difficult.

On a personal level, I've had a sister-in-law for the past 40 years (eep!) who never ceases despairing that I am sure to "burn in eternal Hell" one day - and unfortunately, never gives up trying (with the best of intentions) to convert me to her way of thinking and her belief. She means well, I know, but sometimes I wonder how receptive she would be if I spent 40 years trying to convince her that she was wrong and God didn't exist. Hmmm.

Some does In NO WAY equal anyone!


This argument says nothing of the sort.

Have to say I agree completely with 'Zarathustra' in this instance.
I have an open mind, and to me,this is not an Argument,'CrazyDwarf' Merely a difference of opinions.

Well, I've been warned off, so I won't be commenting on much of this anymore. They win again.

Religionists - 1

Sanity - 0

Hi 'MattV' All Members appreciate your thoughts and opinions on all subjects. I for one enjoy reading your Posts,except when antagonistic remarks are directed at Members,personally.

It's not What you say,but How you say it. All the Moderators are asking, is to keep your responses directed to the Members Posts,and not at the Members. These personal attacks,in no way makes for a happy atmosphere.

I concur.

I've been on many boards that encourage dialog on a variety of subjects, many of which may be controversial and invoke passionate responses. Nothing inherently wrong with that as long as the members can keep from making their responses personal attacks on an other member or members.

We expect people to "vent their thoughts" here. We expect passion in some of the responses. However, we insist on civility.

This statement, to be somewht on point, comes from someone who is mostly in agreement with the agnostic perspective, by the way.

Yes, controversy is often the 'heart' of many threads and no matter which side of the fence I may be one in any one thread, I always love to read other's opinions and often ever learn something - huge smile!

- - - -
PM to MattV ... you are not alone in occassionally slinging personal poof - most of us are guilty of it at least once, so please don't stop posting, merely all of us need to, as DSTM said, "not so much watch what we say but how we say it".

I noticed the other day that I was remiss in telling a bit about myself in the introductions. That shall soon be rectified.

I try my best to choose my words in such a way as to convey the meaning they would have if I were speaking. And I don't always succeed. Sardonic humor is the hardest. The "I, we" comment, for example, would have been delivered in a tone and with an expression that would make one pause, and then realize the humor in the exchange.

Chiding, sarcasm, wit, sardonicism - these are all things I grew up with. And, in print, sometimes a comment will be taken in a completely different way than what was meant.

Sorry.

I'll try to be more careful, but I can't make any guarantees.

(Smilies can help, some. But not always.)

I'm not sure that this is the correct thread to point this out,

but smilies are God's gift to the Internet.

"...but smilies are God's gift to the Internet."

Or the devil's. They are more like the contents of Pandora's box.
Zarathustra