OT: Something worrying - Page 2

El_Phil · #1 January 21st, 2006, 01:42 PM

That explains a random fact I recently found out: The Anglican church in Japan is called the "Japanese Holy Catholic Church" despite, obviously, being nothing to do with any flavour of Catholicism. Now I know why. Cheers Ed!

JAFisher44 · #2 January 22nd, 2006, 12:04 AM

Narf, only the rights of people living in Italy will be effected by this. And only then, in the unlikely event that this guy wins.

El_Phil said:

Quote:

If someone says something to you which causes you to give them money and it then emerges they were lying you have legal recourse to get that money back. Unless it's a religion in which case it's gone forever, which I do have a problem with.

The problem with this is that religion never really promises anything concrete. For example, everyone was on the edge of their seat waiting for the end in 1999, then again in 2000 when they realised that was the real end of the milenium. But nothing happened. So, does everyone decide that its all bunk? No, of course not. All christians know that the end is coming "someday" but there is no concrete answer as to when. Even in the bible it says that God does not measure time as man does. So, as long as it hasn't happened, it's "coming."

The major problem with this is that it will never emerge that a religion was lying. Even if the end hasnt come by the year 200,000 it will still be "coming" and there will prolly still be christians waiting for it.

Atrocities · #3 January 22nd, 2006, 12:40 AM

Hunpecked · #4 January 22nd, 2006, 10:51 PM

Having just committed the sin of feeding a troll, I seek to atone by contributing something to the (off-topic) topic.

In his original post, Narf included a lot of "I have the right to...", "the atheist has a right to...", and "he doesn't have a right to...". While that might be true in the country of "CHEESE!" where he lives, that's not necessarily true all over the world. We may all have "natural" rights or "moral" rights, but in practice the only rights we have are those our fellow humans allow us. It's easy to forget that the "rights" currently enjoyed by Narf and his fellow CHEESErs were likely gained by a combination of physical and political force over a period of centuries, and are still subject to those forces today.

In that context, the dispute in Italy is just another skirmish in the ongoing politics of religion. If enough Italians believe in religion, or at least in religious tolerance, then this will be just a tempest in a teapot. If not, then the balance will shift a bit in the favor of the anti-religionists, for now, and the process will continue.

Strategia_In_Ultima · #5 January 23rd, 2006, 05:19 AM

But honestly, do you think site admins check every single post a mod makes? And when's the last time a site admin posted here?

Fyron · #6 January 23rd, 2006, 05:21 AM

A better question is, when's the last time a site admin needed to post here?

Raging Deadstar · #7 January 23rd, 2006, 07:11 AM

To be perfectly honest I think everyone may be overreacting a little too much. Atrocities post was trollish but after reading it I ended up laughing because I wondered if he was trying to live up to his name.

But it's escalated pretty quickly, starhawk's post wasn't exactly cool-headed, understandably yes but look at it now. I log on this morning to find 24 replies, normally reserved for the 'heated' political threads.

Sure Atrocities is a Moderator but do we really have to go through the 'hang the moderator' lynch mob? I've come to expect that kind of straight shooting, honest opinion from him over the years.

Let's be honest, He would have said it without being a moderator! But I guess cries of "revolution! Guillotine!" to those in power isn't limited to my french neighbours

(No criticism intended, it's an admirable quality)

It wasn't exactly the most polite opinion ever viewed. It was harsh. But take a moment out, lean back and just wonder if there's a group of people you've felt that about, a topic you might over-react on or an opinion you may have phrased badly. I know I have, on this forum as well.

I guess my point is it was a bad comment and not exactly the best to say in polite company but to 'lose all respect for him' is a little too much.

So bringing the topic around!
Religion? Do you believe it should be mostly a personal belief or mostly an institutionalised one? (i.e. church)

Fyron · #8 January 23rd, 2006, 07:30 AM

He did say that he was trying to provoke reactions... But yeah, probably time to let it slither into the abyss.

NullAshton · #9 January 23rd, 2006, 09:19 AM

I agree with Narf, that someone's religion shouldn't be forced on someone, and that someone shouldn't be forced to favor one over the other. Organized religions are good if they want to be organized like that, but not nessecary. And I think that harming other people should be out of a religion's reach.

kerensky · #10 January 23rd, 2006, 04:42 PM

As i have said to others in the past, even though I am a Christian I do not have a religion. What I really have is a faith based on my beliefs. Trully the word reilion and religious goes out to describe the religious zealots that can be found all over the world, ex. the middle east.