Occult causes 12 Year to Attempt Murder

[martybegan]

I'm not hostile to religion. I am just calling it like it is.

Umm, yeah, you just made a blanket statement about all religion when you said:

I dont think religion has anything to do with it as religion has fucked the world up and children can see the hypocrisy inherent in religion.

... and sorry, but that's pretty "hostile".

See an eye doctor.

You are correct. I should have been more specific. The Christian, Islamic, and Hindu religions have fucked up the world way more than helping it.

I really don't think so. Again, all you point out is the negative, without showing the positive, the keeping of knowledge, the structure provided, the moral compasses imparted onto people.

 

[martybegan]

I dont think religion has anything to do with it as religion has fucked the world up and children can see the hypocrisy inherent in religion. I'm talking about you as a parent making sure your child is learning the difference between right and wrong and treating others with dignity. You dont need a religion to tell you its wrong to kill another person. Parents have never been absolved of instilling morality. That is their primary job. What makes you think that is the case?

You follow the route typical of those hostile to religion, where you only look at the bad and ignore the good that organized religion has played in society. You also assume that just because YOU don't need the moral compass that an organized religion provides, that EVERYONE ELSE can function without it.

Some parents have absconded the role of morality teacher to the school system, just like they have absconded other teaching requirements. This is a role some school systems have been all too willing to take on, because it fits their progressive "it takes a village" mentality of rearing children. The problem is that with a few exceptions, i.e. religion, opposition to same sex relations, owning guns, other conservative views, progressives are unable to make substantive moral judgements, everything is relative morally.

I'm not hostile to religion. I am just calling it like it is. You dont need an invisible, unprovable, air spirit to teach morality to people. I am pointing out the bad because the bad is undeniably the largest gift religion has given us. Religion in its purest form has never been practiced by the masses. If it was then we would have no issues.

It does take a village to rear a socially responsible and aware child to adulthood. We are social animals so I dont see how you can possibly label that as a bad thing. I frequently correct and teach children I come into contact to. If their parents have an issue I tell them their children are not allowed over my house. Progressives make many substantive moral judgements. One is that killing another human over the occult is wrong.

That's being hostile to religion, and to the religious, all in one swoop. Stop denying it.

 

[Pennywise]

I would add in that we are turning into a society that seeks to remove the concepts of blame and remorse. That may tie into the godless concept you are talking about.

When everyone has an excuse about why they fucked up, or are fucked up, what message gets sent to kids?

The culture is truly sick. I don't really see it getting better. I think we continue to devolve until it becomes so perverse that people can no longer be satiated. Once it collapses the tide will turn, and a hundred years from now people will look back in horror at a society of no limit abortions, kids on prescription meds just for being kids, school shootings, pornography of the most vile sorts for anyone to see, and they will be disgusted and wonder how we allowed such debauchery to flourish.

You forgot to mention chimps and spider monkeys taking selfies.

My spider monkey, Kevin has no cell phone, but he does have an X-Box.

 

[Asclepias]

Umm, yeah, you just made a blanket statement about all religion when you said:



... and sorry, but that's pretty "hostile".

See an eye doctor.

You are correct. I should have been more specific. The Christian, Islamic, and Hindu religions have fucked up the world way more than helping it.

I really don't think so. Again, all you point out is the negative, without showing the positive, the keeping of knowledge, the structure provided, the moral compasses imparted onto people.

Knowledge was kept before those religions were established. Structure and moral compasses were also provided before those religions. Why are you claiming that those particular religions did that? Those 3 religions have done way more harm than good. The only religion I can think of that has been a plus is Buddhism.

 

[martybegan]

You are correct. I should have been more specific. The Christian, Islamic, and Hindu religions have fucked up the world way more than helping it.

I really don't think so. Again, all you point out is the negative, without showing the positive, the keeping of knowledge, the structure provided, the moral compasses imparted onto people.

Knowledge was kept before those religions were established. Structure and moral compasses were also provided before those religions. Why are you claiming that those particular religions did that? Those 3 religions have done way more harm than good. The only religion I can think of that has been a plus is Buddhism.

In your opinion. Those religions provided it in their areas during their time periods. You still ignore the good they did, be it simply providing a way of creating community, to the ability to change society for the better.

You are hostile to religion, deal with it.

 

[Asclepias]

I really don't think so. Again, all you point out is the negative, without showing the positive, the keeping of knowledge, the structure provided, the moral compasses imparted onto people.

Knowledge was kept before those religions were established. Structure and moral compasses were also provided before those religions. Why are you claiming that those particular religions did that? Those 3 religions have done way more harm than good. The only religion I can think of that has been a plus is Buddhism.

In your opinion. Those religions provided it in their areas during their time periods. You still ignore the good they did, be it simply providing a way of creating community, to the ability to change society for the better.

You are hostile to religion, deal with it.

Before those religions there were civilizations with religions that provided all of that. You are naive to think otherwise. Its not my opinion its factual history.

 

[martybegan]

Knowledge was kept before those religions were established. Structure and moral compasses were also provided before those religions. Why are you claiming that those particular religions did that? Those 3 religions have done way more harm than good. The only religion I can think of that has been a plus is Buddhism.

In your opinion. Those religions provided it in their areas during their time periods. You still ignore the good they did, be it simply providing a way of creating community, to the ability to change society for the better.

You are hostile to religion, deal with it.

Before those religions there were civilizations with religions that provided all of that. You are naive to think otherwise. Its not my opinion its factual history.

And those religions had bad parts as well as good parts as well. And they developed into the religions we have today. Whatever your rationale is, you are hostile to religion, again deal with it.

 

[LockeJaw]

Not that I completely disagree with you on this...But if if there is no "air spirit" & no consequence in the after life for the wrongs we commit ...then why even have morals period?If we are just here by random chance, why should I care about man made morals?

I dont think religion has anything to do with it as religion has fucked the world up and children can see the hypocrisy inherent in religion. I'm talking about you as a parent making sure your child is learning the difference between right and wrong and treating others with dignity. You dont need a religion to tell you its wrong to kill another person. Parents have never been absolved of instilling morality. That is their primary job. What makes you think that is the case?

You follow the route typical of those hostile to religion, where you only look at the bad and ignore the good that organized religion has played in society. You also assume that just because YOU don't need the moral compass that an organized religion provides, that EVERYONE ELSE can function without it.

Some parents have absconded the role of morality teacher to the school system, just like they have absconded other teaching requirements. This is a role some school systems have been all too willing to take on, because it fits their progressive "it takes a village" mentality of rearing children. The problem is that with a few exceptions, i.e. religion, opposition to same sex relations, owning guns, other conservative views, progressives are unable to make substantive moral judgements, everything is relative morally.

I'm not hostile to religion. I am just calling it like it is. You dont need an invisible, unprovable, air spirit to teach morality to people. I am pointing out the bad because the bad is undeniably the largest gift religion has given us. Religion in its purest form has never been practiced by the masses. If it was then we would have no issues.

It does take a village to rear a socially responsible and aware child to adulthood. We are social animals so I dont see how you can possibly label that as a bad thing. I frequently correct and teach children I come into contact to. If their parents have an issue I tell them their children are not allowed over my house. Progressives make many substantive moral judgements. One is that killing another human over the occult is wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

In your opinion. Those religions provided it in their areas during their time periods. You still ignore the good they did, be it simply providing a way of creating community, to the ability to change society for the better.

You are hostile to religion, deal with it.

Before those religions there were civilizations with religions that provided all of that. You are naive to think otherwise. Its not my opinion its factual history.

And those religions had bad parts as well as good parts as well. And they developed into the religions we have today. Whatever your rationale is, you are hostile to religion, again deal with it.

What were the bad parts of those religions? If I was hostile to all religions then I would not think Buddhism was a pretty good one. You need to deal with that.

 

[Asclepias]

Not that I completely disagree with you on this...But if if there is no "air spirit" & no consequence in the after life for the wrongs we commit ...then why even have morals period?If we are just here by random chance, why should I care about man made morals?

You follow the route typical of those hostile to religion, where you only look at the bad and ignore the good that organized religion has played in society. You also assume that just because YOU don't need the moral compass that an organized religion provides, that EVERYONE ELSE can function without it.

Some parents have absconded the role of morality teacher to the school system, just like they have absconded other teaching requirements. This is a role some school systems have been all too willing to take on, because it fits their progressive "it takes a village" mentality of rearing children. The problem is that with a few exceptions, i.e. religion, opposition to same sex relations, owning guns, other conservative views, progressives are unable to make substantive moral judgements, everything is relative morally.

I'm not hostile to religion. I am just calling it like it is. You dont need an invisible, unprovable, air spirit to teach morality to people. I am pointing out the bad because the bad is undeniably the largest gift religion has given us. Religion in its purest form has never been practiced by the masses. If it was then we would have no issues.

It does take a village to rear a socially responsible and aware child to adulthood. We are social animals so I dont see how you can possibly label that as a bad thing. I frequently correct and teach children I come into contact to. If their parents have an issue I tell them their children are not allowed over my house. Progressives make many substantive moral judgements. One is that killing another human over the occult is wrong.

You should care about morals because it makes life better for all people. Of course thats only if you believe in civilization. You know something is wrong when the only thing that is keeping you from doing "evil" is the prospect of living in a arid, extremely hot climate after you are dead.

 

[September]

Parents should really understand what their children are looking at on the internet. Here we have 2 12yr girls luring another girl into the woods so they can kill her attempting to measure up to a fictional character on a website. What kind of culture are the parents teaching these kids?

12-year-old Wisconsin girl stabbed 19 times; friends arrested - CNN.com

Dude! This is fucking awesome!

 

[martybegan]

Before those religions there were civilizations with religions that provided all of that. You are naive to think otherwise. Its not my opinion its factual history.

And those religions had bad parts as well as good parts as well. And they developed into the religions we have today. Whatever your rationale is, you are hostile to religion, again deal with it.

What were the bad parts of those religions? If I was hostile to all religions then I would not think Buddhism was a pretty good one. You need to deal with that.

Because like most progressives, you have a soft spot for it. Some Buddhists immolate themselves as a form of protest. You don't see that as a bad thing?

 

[September]

Some Buddhists immolate themselves as a form of protest. You don't see that as a bad thing?

Hell no. Many of those Buddhists that self immolate themselves sit there without screaming or saying a word, while their body is burning to death. That takes some extreme willpower...

 

[Asclepias]

And those religions had bad parts as well as good parts as well. And they developed into the religions we have today. Whatever your rationale is, you are hostile to religion, again deal with it.

What were the bad parts of those religions? If I was hostile to all religions then I would not think Buddhism was a pretty good one. You need to deal with that.

Because like most progressives, you have a soft spot for it. Some Buddhists immolate themselves as a form of protest. You don't see that as a bad thing?

No I dont see that as a bad thing. They are doing it to themselves not other people. You should try a little harder to prove the religions I listed have done something good that no other religions have done.

 

[LockeJaw]

Asclepias, that stance just begs more questions...It's not very well thought out at all. So who gets to decide what is moral & "civilized"? And what gives them the authority to enforce them? Because today, the mainstream idea is that morals are subjective...we all get to define what is and is not moral for ourselves. If the entire world became atheistic today, how would we stop civilization from falling apart & people just doing as their morals dictate? If we are just random occurences, there is no right or wrong. Killing someone to further your goals can be completely justified, that person has just as much right to live as to be killed by you..is that not right?

 

[martybegan]

What were the bad parts of those religions? If I was hostile to all religions then I would not think Buddhism was a pretty good one. You need to deal with that.

Because like most progressives, you have a soft spot for it. Some Buddhists immolate themselves as a form of protest. You don't see that as a bad thing?

No I dont see that as a bad thing. They are doing it to themselves not other people. You should try a little harder to prove the religions I listed have done something good that no other religions have done.

You are the one setting the standard that the religions have to do some "good that others have not done." Your original statements do not make that distinction, which implies goal-post moving on your part.

And your ignoring the fact that Buddhism is OK in some sects with self immolation leads to further evidence of goal-post moving.

 

[Asclepias]

Look at this. Even Buddhist let go of the principles of their religion and do stupid crap in the name of religion.

Extremist Buddhist Monks Target Religious Minorities | TIME.com

 

[Asclepias]

Asclepias, that stance just begs more questions...It's not very well thought out at all. So who gets to decide what is moral & "civilized"? And what gives them the authority to enforce them? Because today, the mainstream idea is that morals are subjective...we all get to define what is and is not moral for ourselves. If the entire world became atheistic today, how would we stop civilization from falling apart & people just doing as their morals dictate? If we are just random occurences, there is no right or wrong. Killing someone to further your goals can be completely justified, that person has just as much right to live as to be killed by you..is that not right?

The society you live in decides what is moral or civilized. You don't need any authority to determine killing someone is not a good thing. You simply ask yourself if you would want it done to you. Everyone works towards making that perfect place a goal. It doesn't just happen instantly. Using an air spirit as the final authority eventually is going to be proven as false or at the very least easy to cast doubt upon. The question is what are you going to do now that the gig is up? If you want people to buy in to becoming part of a civilized society you cant have one hundred different versions of that air spirit with millions of different rules on how to conduct oneself. What you need is a consensus of the entire population to respect some basic rules of humanity.

 

[Asclepias]

Because like most progressives, you have a soft spot for it. Some Buddhists immolate themselves as a form of protest. You don't see that as a bad thing?

No I dont see that as a bad thing. They are doing it to themselves not other people. You should try a little harder to prove the religions I listed have done something good that no other religions have done.

You are the one setting the standard that the religions have to do some "good that others have not done." Your original statements do not make that distinction, which implies goal-post moving on your part.

And your ignoring the fact that Buddhism is OK in some sects with self immolation leads to further evidence of goal-post moving.

Thats correct. I am setting the standard. That was my whole point. What is the use of religion if it does not do good? You still havent told me what good Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism has done that other religions have not done. As a matter of fact a religion needs to do minimal to zero bad and all good. I didnt ignore the fact that some Buddhist self immolate. I said they are only harming themselves. How is that harming someone else?

 

[shart_attack]

The blind leading the witless.

Says a poster who has never so much as once made me LOL.