Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:56:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Terry Prosper writes:
> You are entitle to your opinion, but it's not a load of carp. School
> community groups, social gatherings or extracuricular activities are
> necessary to the good devellopment of a child. Sports, Plaing games, having
> fun, learning Life's lessons, it's all necassary too.
Exactly.
> But religion IS NOT.
And how so? Religion serves several of the same merits
as the aforementioned activities, including social
interaction, faith in one's self and morality, which,
outside of the church and its parables, might prove
difficult to instill. Then again, sports groups and
history class could fill that gap a bit. Still, it
isn't the same.
> Therefore, since it involved so many limitations and deep thinking about
> philosophy, children should be able to choose for themselves what they want
> on their lives. They cannot choose that at early ages, but when they are
> older, they can.
Of course, at a later age, by all means they should
be granted the trust to discern for themselves what
they wish to believe in. I never had a problem with that.
> Religion is a load of Crap. Any religion.
I beg to differ, Terry, since religion has proven
centric into organizing society through the utilization
of morals, goodwill and kindness. Perhaps now, religion
might not prove as important, but heritage and
tradition help keep society up and running. We can't
be so antiseptic of a society to renounce that past.
That to me, would be a nightmare.
> It's not politics. You don't bring your child at the bar, right? Why?
> Because it's not suitable for a child. I believe church is not suitable
> either. Many families, godd and respectable families, live without
> religion. They don't need it and neither do you. If you want it in your
> life, why should your offsprings, as you call them, be forced to believe in
> the same stories you do?
Church is far different than attending a bar, sinc
eht alcohol, smoke and crowded atmosphere would be
innappropriate for anyone younger than the legal age.
The church in several facets of society, serves as the
centric beacon to the family structure. When you
divide the children from their families, this disrupts
the structure and sends the system out of whack...
> They shouldn't. It's not politics. It's respect for their intellectual
> integrity.
Well, let them decide at a competent age, then. But
until then, they should follow through. If they want
to be vocal objectors, by all means, they can go
ahead.
> Conspiracy? Hahaha! C'mon, pal, don't be stupid! I'm only saying what I
> think about religion. It's not meant to start a conspiracy to transform
> your children into anything more than decent human beings who are free from
> the religious crap.
Oh, here we go again, Terry. 'We must be free from religion!
Yay! Let's see some pigs fly!' Not in my lifetime is such a
revolution going to happen. So long as society is organized,
the church will always exist...you can turn you cheek to it
all you want, but the shadow will still face you.
Who's to say religious people aren't decent human beings?
> Religion doesn't contribute more to family structure more than a good
> education. If you need a big book and a priest to have the respect from
> your child, then it's a pity for you. Parenting with or without religion
> shouldn't dependon the religion itself, but on mutual respect, which
> religion, I'm sorry to say, has only in opne way... You shall respect your
> parents, but where is it written in that best-seller that parents have to
> respect their child?
Well, respect goes in two ways. If the child remains obedient
and follows directions, such at attending services, getting
good grades and socializing, then by all means, the parent
family relationship would be a lot better. With education,
the family is divided for the time being, whilst with religion,
the family converges.
> Force religion on a child is not a right. As parent you can't decide for
> your child. When you decide to have a child, you chose to create a life,
> not to control it. The life you have created is free to decide what's best
> for him, in respect of the family. Do you say yuou consider your child
> chossing another religion or no religion as a lack of respect for you?
No, it does'nt equate to a lack of respect, per se, but
it would go against my wishes. That's not to say I would
hate my child for dissenting (I would respect that),
bit I would have to question it nonetheless. If I were
to get a decent explanation, I'd let him/ her off the
hook for them to decide which faith to adhere.
> It's not Evil. It's simply improper to the good development of the child.
> As I said earlier, church and religion does nothing more than a good
> education for the children. The only purpose of religion is to control your
> values. If you are a good parent, you don't need religion to teach your kid
> what is right and what is wrong.
No, right and wrong can be shown by something called
conscience. Religion in part, serves to reinforce this
conscience to capacitate for moral decisions. That's
not to say education can't serve the same, but I'd got
for an equal basis in both.
> In fact, it's best not to teach them what the bible says! This book is
> sick! I'd rather make them read books like Foundation (Isaac Asimov) or A
> better World (Aldous Huxley). They are also fictionnal, like the Bible, but
> at least, they have good social values, they don't propose we live in
> constant remorse of the mistakes we make in our lives.
But do they propose making amends for such error, or
are we forever destined to 'repent' for such sins? I
feel forgiveness is a key role in religion.
(that opene up another debate entirely, and I don't
fell like trodding through that field)
> God gives a rock... what a load of crap! Hey, Newsflash: God doesn't
> exist! Religion on the other hand does exist and it gives you the
> impression that you belong to something greater than society. If you are
> happy in that belief, then by all means, keep the faith, but don't start on
> God... If he existed, don't you think he would have done something to save
> those people's lives on Sept. 11? And what about the millions of children
> that die of hunger all over the world?
Oh, and you're saying God is supposed to magically
appear before all the starving, the wounded, and
whisk them away to a better life, a utopia? Nonsense!
Men possess ambition, and this serves both as the
sustenance and poison for humanity. It's god's gift
of choice, but it serves as the double edged sword.
Either you can wield it for a piuos cause, or you
can go against the system and kill. The nest you
can do is wield ambition to heal the wounded and
uphold justice. That might be a difficult task, though...
> If he does exist, then he's either incompetent or an a$$hole. In either
> case, it's useless to pray him.
Didn't Suzanne ask to stop Swearing? That's not the
most effective way to convey your point.
Go ahead and think God's incompetent...we're forever
divided in that respect, so no use proving anything.
<snip>
Seriously, I'm getting tired right now. I've
been up all night writing off emails and the like.
> Many christians suicide too. Did God guided them toward suicide?
As I said with ambition, it's all free choice.
> Are you calling non-christians satanists because they
> don't believe in your >god?
Of course not...god's simply ambiguous. He can be
interpreted in so many ways, and I respect that.
Even for buddhists of polytheists, that's a respectable
and noble cause. I find it a fine prospect to
place fidelity in a higher and (pious) power.
> Satanists are a cult.
A veracious statement from Terry at last.
> Religion has a way of excusing everything. It was God's plan. That's a
> great way to say : Hey, It's not my fault if you all got burned by my
> incompetence, it was God's will!
> So this is what you tell your children whan they tell you they don't believe
> in your god? That they are stupid?
No...I'd just look at them with a pained expression. I
ascribed you to an idiot judging from your blunt 'rub
it in my face' debating style. Of course, I'm pretty
ambitious as well, so I have my deal of side criticism.
> Hahaha! So you believe in that story too! Nest you'll tell me God created
> Adam, then Eve, then the apple, the snake, the flood and the Arch, etc?
> Might as well set cookies and milk on a table on Dec. 24th...
Nah...I'm not that credulous. In fact, I'm rather
selective in which stories I take belief in. Am I
automatically inclined to believe every story in
the bible just because they're inherent? Of course
not...I have my share of doubts as well...
> So what? Ghadi didn't even believe in the same religion you do! And do you
> know that Einstein, probably the greatest mind, believed in God so much that
> he intentionnally omitted a factor that proves the inexistence of God in his
> Relativity theory? "God doesn't roll dices" he said. Well, guess what,
> they proved he was right in the first place, "God" does roll dices. No grat
> scientist believes in God. Because they are intelligent and they do not
> fear life without it. They are enlightened. I am too.
Again, it all boild down to faith. I happen to know quite
a few eminent and articulate peoplw whom happentp place
much fidelity within god. So you claim Einstein wasn't
enlightened? Fine with me...
> Oh, that was sooooo easy. Sheesh! I tolerate believers. My parents are
> god-worshipers, like you and many others. By your constant remarks,
> wouldn't you say you are the intolerant one? You called me idiot because i
> expressed a different opinion that yours... Thumbs up for you! You are
> soooo great. My hero! I love you! God loves you! You are going to heaven
> and I, the Evil atheist, am going to hell. You happy?
Slow down there, Terry...you didn't need to bother
going beyond the first line...I think we all get it
now.
I'm not saying you're going to hell for not believing...
and I'm not going to state I'm going to heaven.
> Evidence??? EVIDENCE????? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Show me one, only one, solid
> evidence (you know what solid means, don't you?) that your god exists. Only
> one! I dare you!
Can you prove his nonexistence? Check mate there.
I believe it all lies within fidelity. There's absolutely
no manner in which one can prove god's existence or
nonexistence, since interpretations can differ so greatly.
So, men are eternally divided on that issue, and
the prognosis of seeing it resolved is ludicrous.
> Hahaha! That was a great joke. I'm still LOL !
Don't choke on your excitement, Terry. Seriously, now.
> Look, pal, if you are friends with John Neal, fine, go talk about killing
> Muslims with him. I prefer non-violence, like MLK, Gandhi, "or even Jesus"
> :-)
What the?! Man, you really are something...
> Conservative?
> You mean anti-evolution,
> anti-feminism
good stuff there, Terry. Seriously, why would waste their
time trying to politicallt replace ship names from 'she'
to 'it'? It's maritime tradition!
> Christians only world? Sorry, I have too much respect for
> human species to be conservative and deny my peers the rights
> they have to be free and to choose for themselves, wheter they
> are women, jews, arabs, muslims, blacks, whites, etc.
So,my conservative nature also attributed such
labels as being a zealot, racist and mysognist?
I think it's truely great that society has racial
diversity, and for the record, I don't hate jews,
even thoughtheir religion may differ from mine.
I'm not an apathetic bastard, I dont advocate
mass killing.
But I do hate your stereotypes for the conservative
crowd. We're not all warmongers or authoritarians...
for my part, I'm rather moderate.
> Why Thak you very much, Mr. Tolerance!
Whatever, Terry.
> > <<_Matt Hein_>>
> > Fellow christian enthusiast
>
>
> This post has been one long big insult to me. I would be offended if I had
> any respect for you, and I probably did respect you as a Fellow LEGO
> Enthusiast before, but now that I've read it, I'm not sure I can respect
> you.
I'm happy for you, Terry. Go ahead and hate me all you want.
I really couldn't earn your respect anyway, since we
differ so greatly. If it's 'maturity' you're looking
for, you're probably ascribing it to either those
in agreement, or those with weak arguments. I'm just
immersed in fervor.
> I have responded with harsh words, but it was only to strike back at
> you.
like the serpent. The venom didn't sting...
<snip>
> The way I see it, believers are afraid of the consequences of living without
> a greater power that rates our lives so we are punished or not afetr life.
> Smart people accept that others can live without prayers, faith and all that
> stuff. If you want that in your life, I repeat myself, I have no problem
> with that. The problem I have is to force the religion on children and to
> try to force it on others, as Matt just did with me.
I tried to force you to believe in god? Did I at any moment,
distribute christian propaganda or belief packages? Of course
not...I may have been harsh, but that was an initial reaction.
I admit it, I'll fight for anything I believe until I die.
At school, on the field or online...I'm just that convicted.
> Terry
> Fello LEGO Atheist Enthusiast.
Heh, a witty retort. Commendments on a job well done.
> Peace and Love.
Have a long life.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
