|
I think Crimson Jester is too used to this thread so such blasphemies don't provoke outrage anymore. ;-)Something to think uponWhat? No outrage that he referred to Christianity as a cult? :)
That's about right.
Also with the most stringent interpretation Christianity did in fact start as a Jewish cult.
My question, now that I think of this, is when does a group stop being a cult and start being a religion?
My question, now that I think of this, is when does a group stop being a cult and start being a religion?
Never. Cult is the word we use to describe the religion down the street.
Regarding depictions of the Prophet Mohammed: if it is disallowed to draw a picture of the Prophet, how does anyone know what he looked like? And how could my drawing give you anger?--it's my word against yours that I've even drawn a correct portrait.
Mohammed:
O -"Would you like some bacon?"+
^
And Jesus:
O -"I can see my house from up here!"
+
^
Sorry, forgot to do that a few days ago.
Not really your fault, but I want to pull out a particular turn of phrase that's irksome: "it is disallowed." No it's not. It's allowed. I allow it. Who am I? Someone with exactly as much legal authority as any set of religious rules deserves. I figure at worse, we cancel out. Religious rules are not universal proscriptions we are bound to abide by, not in any country with religious freedom. The most one could say is that it's disallowed for Muslims, but if we are not Muslims or are Muslims who do not agree with the prohibition, it's 100% allowed for us under any decent, equal, and free system of law. Only in a theocracy would it be disallowed.
Now that said, Christians pretty routinely get up in arms over depictions of Jesus of which they do not approve. It's really not that different. The Muslims just have an extra rule that there should be no depiction at all. If you've ever compared an old line Protestant church with a Catholic one, you can see that some species of Christianity have similar opinions. Should you tour Europe, it's not hard to find a church old enough to have been around before the Reformation. If you're in a traditionally Protestant country, look for the chisel marks. Compare with the Bamyan Buddhas. They used to kill people over this kind of thing in Christendom too.
So why do Muslims get all bent out of shape over people breaking their religious laws? Same reasons everyone else does. Are the rules a bit silly? Ill-considered? Absurd? Outright nonsensical even in their own terms? Completely out of step with any kind of modern values of free society? Sure they are, but you can say that about a lot of religious rules.
|
|
Never. Cult is the word we use to describe the religion down the street.
My question, now that I think of this, is when does a group stop being a cult and start being a religion?
I disagree, cult has very specific connotations.
One specific definition of cult is a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
While religion can be defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I know you do not see a difference but the rest of the world generally does. Where is the breaking point?
|
|
So why do Muslims get all bent out of shape over people breaking their religious laws? Same reasons everyone else does. Are the rules a bit silly? Ill-considered? Absurd? Outright nonsensical even in their own terms?...
Well you can (the general you, not samnell in specific) say that all you want. Does not change how some people feel about the subject however. Calling it silly just means an unwillingness to see things from their perspective.
I may not agree with them but I will not go out of my way to antagonize them. we may say it is free speech but sometimes it is more along the lines of kicking the dog with rabies.
One specific definition of cult is a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
I understand that, but every bit of that definition could be applied to a successful monastery or convent, though I suppose the charismatic leader is rather luck of the draw. Every religion is considered false by those who aren't adherents and is consequently heterodox. It would be a trivial exercise to find extremist doctrines and practices just about anywhere. These are fundamentally subjective criteria. (Unconventional to whom? What's a charismatic leader and what's just a good preacher?) That being the case, there's not much point to drawing the line at all since it still boils down to "that religion I dislike."
At best, a cult is simply a type of religion. Cults do not stop being cults and turn into religions. They were that all along. You seem to be admitting this in the quote above. I'm not sure how you square that with there being a line to draw at all, since we seem to agree on the facts.
Well you can (the general you, not samnell in specific) say that all you want. Does not change how some people feel about the subject however. Calling it silly just means an unwillingness to see things from their perspective.
Not quite. It can mean I've done that and concluded it's still all quite silly.
|
So why do Muslims get all bent out of shape over people breaking their religious laws? Same reasons everyone else does. Are the rules a bit silly? Ill-considered? Absurd? Outright nonsensical even in their own terms?...Well you can (the general you, not samnell in specific) say that all you want. Does not change how some people feel about the subject however. Calling it silly just means an unwillingness to see things from their perspective.
I may not agree with them but I will not go out of my way to antagonize them. we may say it is free speech but sometimes it is more along the lines of kicking the dog with rabies.
But why would anyone, in this day and age, want to kill me for drawing, literally, a stickman labeled 'the Prophet'?
And when I say 'disallowed' I mean by those who recognize the proscription, of course. I'm asking the question a little sarcastically, but I'd love to hear a cogent response from the community that would place a death mark on my head for the supposed offense.
I'd also like to understand the logical connection between a prohibition on depictions of the Prophet in order to discourage idolatry and the uproar over depictions that very patently have nothing to do with--or the potential to cause-- idolatry.
I may not agree with them but I will not go out of my way to antagonize them.
The thing is, as near as I can tell, EVERYTHING antagonizes them except for total submission. Give 'em an inch and they take a mile.
Say that now we bow down to their "no cartoons!" demands, so as not to offend them (the airers of South Park have already done so). It doesn't stop there; Muslims are also demanding that we stop serving alcohol and/or pork at places where they're employed, because that offends them, too, and a lot worse than cartoons (Muslim employees have already sued over alcohol and pork, and I expect the instances to get broader and more all-inclusive as we embolden them to continue). And when they demand that all women everwhere wear the hijab, because it offends them to see women on TV without it -- well, we don't want to antagonize them, after all. Put on a headscarf, Madonna, because we can't afford to risk you being put to death, and, after all, it's not nice to offend religious people. And having accomplished all that, then maybe they'll insist that we adopt Sharia law, because other legal systems offend them.
At some point, we need to put our foot down and say, "Hey, you know what? If this offends you, too f*~&ing bad. Suck it up and live with it, because we're a free people, not subject to your authority, no matter how hard you want to push it." When people are being threatened with death over cartoons, we're way, way, long way past the point where anything can be gained by appeasement.
I tell you what, let's turn it around 180 degrees and see if people still think it's OK. We've all heard about efforts in France to ban the burqua in public there. Let's go a step further, a la the cartoon controversy. Let's loudly proclaim that wearing the burqua, anywhere in the world, offends Westerners. In fact, it offends us so badly that we will issue Fatwa on anyone who does so.
Would it be reasonable, under these circumstances, for the Muslim world to immediately abandon it, in order to avoid offending us? After all:
1. Cartoons drawn voluntarily by non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries offend Muslims. We should make sure they are off-limits, to avoid giving offense.
2. Burquas worn voluntarily by Muslims in Muslim countires offend non-Muslims. They should make sure they are off-limits, to avoid giving offense.
Before the inevitable loose and incorrect "strawman" claims begin flying about, here's the thing:
You might claim, "But the entire purpose of the cartoons was to be offensive," and think you have a point. In resonse, however, I can just as easily claim that the purpose of wearing a burqua is to offend me, or that the purpose of charging money for oil is to offend me, or anything else, because -- and this is the crux of the thing -- there exists absolutely no objective standard for discerning when it's "reasonable" to be offended or not. ANYONE can choose to be offended by ANYTHING. The only means of sorting it amicably is to treat legal, nonharmful activities performed by someone else to be none of your business. Barring that, a situation of either tyranny or violent conflict inevitably results, maybe not immediately, but with a fair degree of certainty.
Mohammed:
O -"Would you like some bacon?"
+
^And Jesus:
O -"I can see my house from up here!"
+
^Sorry, forgot to do that a few days ago.
It's either because I'm sick or because it's early in the morning (for me, being a night owl it's always early until about noon) but I didn't realize those were supposed to be stickmen until I got down to Andrew's post.
Sam gets a +1 for making me snicker though.
At some point, we need to put our foot down and say, "Hey, you know what? If this offends you, too f~*~ing bad. Suck it up and live with it, because we're a free people, not subject to your authority, no matter how hard you want to push it." When people are being threatened with death over cartoons, we're way, way, long way past the point where anything can be gained by appeasement.
+1
This has honestly been a major problem and curiosity of mine. Due to my own personal morality on top of my religion, I see a lot of things that offend me on a practically hourly basis, daily at the very least; however because it offends me for a moral/religious reason the general response I've always gotten is "sucks to be you" and you know what, I'm fine with that. I've got enough spine to live with it.
Which is why when anyone else complains similarly "Waaaaaaaaah take X Y and Z away they OFFEND ME" I want to slap them around with a frozen tuna and say "Grow a spine! Getting offended once in a while won't kill you. Heck, might be good for you."
But this sort of thing somehow manages to irk me even more - because while my religious leanings tend to get snubbed with a "You're Christian, no one cares about your opinions", meanwhile people are falling all over themselves to make sure Muslims aren't offended. And I'm wondering, "why the different response?"
But this sort of thing somehow manages to irk me even more - because while my religious leanings tend to get snubbed with a "You're Christian, no one cares about your opinions", meanwhile people are falling all over themselves to make sure Muslims aren't offended. And I'm wondering, "why the different response?"
Yup. But it's twice as bad when you're an atheist, and the president of the United States says that maybe you shouldn't even be considered a citizen, and the Muslims still want to kill you, too. People wonder why atheists are starting to get uppity now? Why they're "strident" and "militant"?
|
But this sort of thing somehow manages to irk me even more - because while my religious leanings tend to get snubbed with a "You're Christian, no one cares about your opinions", meanwhile people are falling all over themselves to make sure Muslims aren't offended. And I'm wondering, "why the different response?"Yup. But it's twice as bad when you're an atheist, and the president of the United States says that maybe you shouldn't even be considered a citizen. People wonder why atheists are starting to get uppity now? Why they're "strident" and "militant"?
Try being an atheist and a homosexual. Then you're just asking for it.
But this sort of thing somehow manages to irk me even more - because while my religious leanings tend to get snubbed with a "You're Christian, no one cares about your opinions", meanwhile people are falling all over themselves to make sure Muslims aren't offended. And I'm wondering, "why the different response?"Yup. But it's twice as bad when you're an atheist, and the president of the United States says that maybe you shouldn't even be considered a citizen, and the Muslims still want to kill you, too. People wonder why atheists are starting to get uppity now? Why they're "strident" and "militant"?
Things like this are why despite growing up in a heavily-Republican area and being fairly conservative politically I still registered Independent.
Try being an atheist and a homosexual. Then your just asking for it.
And those people that mix up "your" and "you're." How offensive they are! FATWA to them!
Things like this are why despite growing up in a heavily-Republican area and being fairly conservative politically I still registered Independent.
I was actually registered Republican, until they basically told me I wasn't welcome.
OMG I JUST BROKE 1000 POSTS ........ I need a life ......
|
|
OMG I JUST BROKE 1000 POSTS ........ I need a life ......Only 1,000? Bah, that's nothing! Go check out Heathansson's count.
I'm pretty sure heathansson doesn't really exist he's like one of those semi- intelligent computer viruses developed by the government and leaked onto the net. Of course it's broke and half stupid and lost all function cause all it does now is post incessantly on this messageboard. :)
|
|
I'm pretty sure heathansson doesn't really exist he's like one of those semi- intelligent computer viruses developed by the government and leaked onto the net. Of course it's broke and half stupid and lost all function cause all it does now is post incessantly on this messageboard. :)OMG I JUST BROKE 1000 POSTS ........ I need a life ......Only 1,000? Bah, that's nothing! Go check out Heathansson's count.
To be fair, I think most of those posts constitute:
MINE!
And that alone. If you want your count up, do that!
Only 1,000? Bah, that's nothing! Go check out Heathansson's count.
Or mine, for that matter.
Or mine.
Newb!
Try being an atheist and a homosexual. Then you're just asking for it.
Yeah, but you get to be smugly superior and have fashion sense!
Why they're "strident" and "militant"?We're militant too? Why was I not informed?
*Grabs an AK*
We're apocalyptic too.
Yeah, but you get to be smugly superior and have fashion sense!
Yeah, just like Darth Vader!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but you get to be smugly superior and have fashion sense!Yeah, just like Darth Vader!
If I could choke people to death just by pointing at them, I don't think I could resist the impulse. It would just plain be too easy. Get cut off in traffic on the way home from the local bookstore and before you realize you flipped 'em the bird, the grandma in an SUV with a cellphone grafted to her skull is crumpled up on the pedals.
...not that I'm speaking from experience, of course. I doubt she was old enough to be a grandmother. Looked mid-30s, tops.
Get cut off in traffic on the way home from the local bookstore and before you realize you flipped 'em the bird, the grandma in an SUV with a cellphone grafted to her skull is crumpled up on the pedals.
Why I keep asking my wife for a rocket launcher for my birthday. Can't do the telekinetic strangle thing yet, but a rocket launcher makes a prettier 'splosion anyway.
|
|
Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder. In fact I will be going through the brain depository dissecting a few brains taking pictures and tissue samples, along with gland measurements. I will be sending off the tissue samples to a geneticist I am collaborating with. And at the end ofmy studies my ultimate goal is to have unraveled a few more strands of human DNA and understand what they do (in this case making some predisposed to a psychological condition). That part alone is not what offends people. Th ultimate goal and application of my research is what offends people, if we can identify these strands of DNA possibly in the future we can eliminate them from a unborn fetus so we would eliminate the genetic possibility of developing the disorder. In fact my research would be part of much larger research into possible eugenics, and the slow elimination of genetic disease from people, through genetic manipulation. So I am talking eugenics, in fact I'm talking eugenics to the point of only eliminating disorder and disease, kinda like a vaccine, yet still people think I would be playing god. I personally think every parent if they knew we could eliminate all possibility of genetic disease would have it done. What are your thoughts?
yet still people think I would be playing god. What are your thoughts?
|
|
Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder. In fact I will be going through the brain depository dissecting a few brains taking pictures and tissue samples, along with gland measurements. I will be sending off the tissue samples to a geneticist I am collaborating with. And at the end ofmy studies my ultimate goal is to have unraveled a few more strands of human DNA and understand what they do (in this case making some predisposed to a psychological condition). That part alone is not what offends people. Th ultimate goal and application of my research is what offends people, if we can identify these strands of DNA possibly in the future we can eliminate them from a unborn fetus so we would eliminate the genetic possibility of developing the disorder. In fact my research would be part of much larger research into possible eugenics, and the slow elimination of genetic disease from people, through genetic manipulation. So I am talking eugenics, in fact I'm talking eugenics to the point of only eliminating disorder and disease, kinda like a vaccine, yet still people think I would be playing god. I personally think every parent if they knew we could eliminate all possibility of genetic disease would have it done. What are your thoughts?
I think the good Lord gave us these brains for a reason. I hope you do well with your research. I feel it is much more akin to a vaccine then to "playing G~d" as it were. Yes there is always the chance we can "go to far", however if we never try we will never know that line is.
Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder...
Not to derail, but a singular disorder or disorders in general?
|
|
Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder...Not to derail, but a singular disorder or disorders in general?
I'm currently looking at depression and scizophrenia which seem to have strong familial bonds, as in it travels through parent and siblings. I'm hoping to find genetic evidence of these 2 particular disorders. Also very little research is done in what I plan to do, almost none. So I'm reseanobly excited, because if it's a success it could spark a lot of future projects in the exact same area.
I'm currently looking at depression and schizophrenia which seem to have strong familial bonds, as in it travels through parent and siblings. I'm hoping to find genetic evidence of these 2 particular disorders. Also very little research is done in what I plan to do, almost none. So I'm reasonably excited, because if it's a success it could spark a lot of future projects in the exact same area.Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder...Not to derail, but a singular disorder or disorders in general?
Hmmm, I think what some people may object to is there certainly seems to be a link (only anecdotal as far as I know) between certain types of intelligence/creativity and a propensity for depression (or other mental disorders). "Vaccinating" against depression may also reduce or remove predispositions in those embryos for those types of intelligence/creativity.
Also, if parents can vaccinate an embryo to reduce or remove any predispositions for certain traits, what prevents them for vaccinating to prevent other conditions... homosexuality, transsexuality/transgenderism, disobedience, left-handedness, brown eyes, kinky hair, etc (once those predispositions are linked to certain bits of the human genome)?
In fact my research would be part of much larger research into possible eugenics, and the slow elimination of genetic disease from people, through genetic manipulation. So I am talking eugenics, in fact I'm talking eugenics to the point of only eliminating disorder and disease, kinda like a vaccine, yet still people think I would be playing god. I personally think every parent if they knew we could eliminate all possibility of genetic disease would have it done. What are your thoughts?
Sounds fine to me. The ancestors of the same cranks that'll scream about you playing God were doing the same thing when Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. Any time human ingenuity threatens to free us from some arbitrary malignancy of nature, one can expect the diehard misanthropes to come up and stand in the way because ultimately they think gratuitous suffering is good and ameliorating it is what's truly evil.
|
|
Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder. In fact I will be going through the brain depository dissecting a few brains taking pictures and tissue samples, along with gland measurements. I will be sending off the tissue samples to a geneticist I am collaborating with. And at the end ofmy studies my ultimate goal is to have unraveled a few more strands of human DNA and understand what they do (in this case making some predisposed to a psychological condition). That part alone is not what offends people. Th ultimate goal and application of my research is what offends people, if we can identify these strands of DNA possibly in the future we can eliminate them from a unborn fetus so we would eliminate the genetic possibility of developing the disorder. In fact my research would be part of much larger research into possible eugenics, and the slow elimination of genetic disease from people, through genetic manipulation. So I am talking eugenics, in fact I'm talking eugenics to the point of only eliminating disorder and disease, kinda like a vaccine, yet still people think I would be playing god. I personally think every parent if they knew we could eliminate all possibility of genetic disease would have it done. What are your thoughts?
Jurgen Habermas wrote a book called The Future of Human Nature about applications of eugenics that I found pretty interesting. He divides it into two categories: negative eugenics (in this case negative refers to removing disease and disorder) and positive eugenics (which would add improvements to mankind). He comes to the conclusion that negative eugenics is alright, but that positive eugenics will lead to many more problems than it will solve and should be avoided.
It's short, a little tough to read, but his conclusions jive with mine for the most part. I'd take a look if I were you.
|
|
In fact my research would be part of much larger research into possible eugenics, and the slow elimination of genetic disease from people, through genetic manipulation. So I am talking eugenics, in fact I'm talking eugenics to the point of only eliminating disorder and disease, kinda like a vaccine, yet still people think I would be playing god. I personally think every parent if they knew we could eliminate all possibility of genetic disease would have it done. What are your thoughts?Sounds fine to me. The ancestors of the same cranks that'll scream about you playing God were doing the same thing when Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. Any time human ingenuity threatens to free us from some arbitrary malignancy of nature, one can expect the diehard misanthropes to come up and stand in the way because ultimately they think gratuitous suffering is good and ameliorating it is what's truly evil.
Thats the first time I have ever heard of someone saying that a person was playing God in that sort of situation. Have any references about someone saying it about Ben Franklin?
Thats the first time I have ever heard of someone saying that a person was playing God in that sort of situation. Have any references about someone saying it about Ben Franklin?
The clergy turned a disapproving eye on Franklin's great invention, the lightning rod. Who was he to disturb the instruments of divine wrath? Even Jean-Antoine Nollet, one of France's foremost lightning researchers, warned that it was "as impious to ward off Heaven's lightnings as for a child to ward off the chastening rod of its father."
In Switzerland, France, and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was
ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods
from many homes, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific
institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist de Saussure had erected a rod on his house in
Geneva in 1771, which had caused so much anxiety to his neighbors that he feared
a riot. In 1780-1784 a lawsuit about lightning rods gave Monsieur de St. Omer the
right to have a lightning rod on top of his house, despite the religious objections of
his neighbors, and this victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, a
young Monsieur Robespierre.In America, Reverend Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church, blamed
Franklin and his invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts
earthquake of 1755. In Prince's sermon on the topic he expressed the opinion that
the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "iron points invented by
the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He went on to argue that "in Boston more are erected
than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully
shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God!”
It was common opinion even among the most learned of theologians that God was the author of earthquakes, lightning, storm, rain, sickness, health, and of course life itself. We've made good progress cutting him out of all those businesses, though. He must be shy these days.
|
|
I'm currently looking at depression and schizophrenia which seem to have strong familial bonds, as in it travels through parent and siblings. I'm hoping to find genetic evidence of these 2 particular disorders. Also very little research is done in what I plan to do, almost none. So I'm reasonably excited, because if it's a success it could spark a lot of future projects in the exact same area.Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder...Not to derail, but a singular disorder or disorders in general?Hmmm, I think what some people may object to is there certainly seems to be a link (only anecdotal as far as I know) between certain types of intelligence/creativity and a propensity for depression (or other mental disorders). "Vaccinating" against depression may also reduce or remove predispositions in those embryos for those types of intelligence/creativity.
Also, if parents can vaccinate an embryo to reduce or remove any predispositions for certain traits, what prevents them for vaccinating to prevent other conditions... homosexuality, transsexuality/transgenderism, disobedience, left-handedness, brown eyes, kinky hair, etc (once those predispositions are linked to certain bits of the human genome)?
Well thats the thing I hope to identify the disorder, and thats as far as my research will lead on my PHD. Thats more than enough for a PHD thesis, and the long 4-5 year process it will take me to achieve said goal. The point is we don't know what removing a gene or DNA sequence will do entirely. We have an idead since many genes work in sequence to each other, you likely won't be able to remove "faulty" gene without replacing it with a "healthier" version. But I am not a geneticist, that kind of research is a bit beyond my experience, and I'd have to leave it for more qualified men. my research will hardly be groundbreaking enough to effect human society in any major measurable way. But I do hope it's that little step in the right direction.
|
|
quoting...
And
In America, Reverend Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church, blamed
Franklin and his invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts
earthquake of 1755. In Prince's sermon on the topic he expressed the opinion that
the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "iron points invented by
the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He went on to argue that "in Boston more are erected
than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully
shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God!”
Perhaps it's just erections that cause earthquakes... not those made of iron or those caused by scantily clad women. Therefore, viagra causes earthquakes.
|
|
Perhaps it's just erections that cause earthquakes... not those made of iron or those caused by scantily clad women. Therefore, viagra causes earthquakes.quoting...
And
In America, Reverend Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church, blamed
Franklin and his invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts
earthquake of 1755. In Prince's sermon on the topic he expressed the opinion that
the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "iron points invented by
the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He went on to argue that "in Boston more are erected
than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully
shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God!”
*facepalm*
Perhaps it's just erections that cause earthquakes... not those made of iron or those caused by scantily clad women. Therefore, viagra causes earthquakes.
See also Boobquake.