Why did you choose your particular religion?

[syrenn]

Trust me, pot and love will be far more fulfilling than booze and sex HG .

and how is that working out for you?

I always called it stoned and horny. But spin it any way you want to.

Pot allows your mind to wander.

Booze shuts down your brain.


Sex feels good but is mostly an empty experience.

Love is awsome and makes you feel centered and belonging to something.


Maybe you dont really understand what real love is.

OMG who knew that TM was a 60'stoner.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

There may not be a God in Buddhism, in fact, I know there's not.

That doesn't mean there's no God, however.

Why?

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I won't defend your right to be wrong. Especially with regards to unprovable matters that must be taken on faith.

I defend the right of people to be wrong, too.

And your "why" is nonsensical.

Why can't I ask why when you make a statement like "Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong"?

Someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

Why?

Why can't we agree to disagree about things neither of us can prove and boldly move towards legislating responsibility instead of morality?

Why?

 

[Truthmatters]

We've lived millions of years?

TM again proves her mental midgetdom.

Yes I did include our ancestors who became man.

I believe they were thinking beings also.

 

[masquerade]

I was baptized Catholic and raised in a house where religion was never discussed past comments such as ... "Get in the car, it's time for church." Or ... "Shut up and sit still right now or I'm going to kill you." ( said in church was Mass was taking place ) I followed the strict laws, attended Mass and CCD classes, until I was no longer living under the iron fist of my Irish Catholic dad.

Religion gave way to Spirituality. Years past.

I tried attending several Protestant services, but they were a tad too friendly for me. Having attended a church where no one spoke to anyone outside of "Peace be with you", I found it uncomfortable that the service was mostly an open forum. Terrified the minister would point me out, I never went back.

Dark times came.

At the start of this time, I was introduced to a book. You Can Heal Your Life by Louise Hay. I read it and something within me 'clicked'. A new path had been laid out in front of me. Scared of the unknown and with my faith in a Higher Power, I took those first steps to personal growth and self-healing. Through the power of positive thought and connecting with my Inner Voice, I am learning how to love myself and to create the life that I want. Louise is a Science of the Mind minister. She speaks about the Church of Religious Science in her books so I started looking into it. Now mind you, this is still new to me. The Church teaches how an individual can focus into the center of who he/she is now and achieve wholeness as a reality. It assists the individual in the healing of his/her own life from discord, fear, guilt and a sense of lack. It teaches the individual how to think, not what to think. I have not attended any services or workshops or the such. Mainly because I can't find a church close enough. But, I've been reading and I've found some great websites online. And of course, as someone of you know, I have my Daily Affirmations thread. Be sure to stop by if you're in need of some positive thought!

 

[Truthmatters]

and how is that working out for you?

I always called it stoned and horny. But spin it any way you want to.

Pot allows your mind to wander.

Booze shuts down your brain.


Sex feels good but is mostly an empty experience.

Love is awsome and makes you feel centered and belonging to something.


Maybe you dont really understand what real love is.

OMG who knew that TM was a 60'stoner.

Yes I like pot.

I think you would be surprized at how many people do.

It has been used by man for generations.

 

[AllieBaba]

I wasn't indoctrinated when I was a child. My mom was an atheist and still is. My dad was a lapsed Mormon.

My sister was also saved as an adult.

Her children were raised in the church...we're Baptists..one is an Episcopalian (!) and I don't know what her son is; he's a math major at Wheaton, though. I know his faith is strong. I don't think he attends church services outside of school, though.

My sons were both raised in the church. One has faith, one doesn't, and neither belong to a church.

So I know the fad is to pretend that Christians (and Republicans, for that matter) are retarded and indoctrinated, but from where I stand, that isn't true at all.

Likewise it isn't true that we aren't educated, or are stupid.

But that's okay. Keep the myth circulating, you're just proving the validity of the bible when you insist that Christians are stupid, indoctrinated, foolish. I guess that's what it takes to make people feel superior.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

What divides us the most in religion, IMO, is intolerance of other religions. The nature of God is that there is only one God. By necessity, we're all worshiping the same God, it is only the religion and practice that differs.

Many people strengthen their own faith simply by attacking the faith of others.

Those are the ones who are truly lost....the ones whose "faith" is nothing more than a facade for their fears.

You're right, but.....

Religions that attempt to legislate morality NEED to be attacked.

In discussion of course, not in the streets.

It's moral to not brutalize people and kill them...so should that not be legislated?

It's moral to not steal...should we refrain from making laws that protect people from theft and burglary?

We legislate morality all the time.

Brutalizing and killing - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Stealing, theft and burglary - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Legislate punishment for bad behavior and leave the "why" boys will be boys to their mommas and their wives.

It'd be too expensive a way to govern to try to make everybody meet my loose moral standards, let alone the cost of ridding the streets of everyone who meets the criteria for 'criminal' set by some folks.

 

[AVG-JOE]

We legislate morality all the time.

How's that working out?

U.S. Prison Population Tops 2 Million

 

[AVG-JOE]

I wasn't indoctrinated when I was a child. My mom was an atheist and still is. My dad was a lapsed Mormon.

My sister was also saved as an adult.

Her children were raised in the church...we're Baptists..one is an Episcopalian (!) and I don't know what her son is; he's a math major at Wheaton, though. I know his faith is strong. I don't think he attends church services outside of school, though.

My sons were both raised in the church. One has faith, one doesn't, and neither belong to a church.

So I know the fad is to pretend that Christians (and Republicans, for that matter) are retarded and indoctrinated, but from where I stand, that isn't true at all.

Likewise it isn't true that we aren't educated, or are stupid.

But that's okay. Keep the myth circulating, you're just proving the validity of the bible when you insist that Christians are stupid, indoctrinated, foolish. I guess that's what it takes to make people feel superior.....

I don't think Christians are stupid at all. I relied on a faith in Jesus for a number of years and became pretty familiar with the movement and its Books. There are times when I miss my relationship with Jesus. Faith in something rocks.

My only beef comes with direct, professional lobbying for legislation based on morality instead of responsibility. I have the same beef with all clubs and organizations centered around a belief set who're lobbying for rules we all have to live by.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Why?

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I won't defend your right to be wrong. Especially with regards to unprovable matters that must be taken on faith.

I defend the right of people to be wrong, too.

And your "why" is nonsensical.

Why can't I ask why when you make a statement like "Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong"?

Someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

Why?

Why can't we agree to disagree about things neither of us can prove and boldly move towards legislating responsibility instead of morality?

Why?

One of the things I so love about Buddhism is that apparent opposites can both be 'right' and that in Buddhism opposites are resolved.

For example, in religion we have opposing views, eternalism and nihilism. In Buddhism, we refer to four extreme views to be avoided, eternalism, nihilism, both eternalism and nihilism, neither nihilism nor eternalism.

The truth is considered to be none of these four extremes.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're right, but.....

Religions that attempt to legislate morality NEED to be attacked.

In discussion of course, not in the streets.

It's moral to not brutalize people and kill them...so should that not be legislated?

It's moral to not steal...should we refrain from making laws that protect people from theft and burglary?

We legislate morality all the time.

Brutalizing and killing - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Stealing, theft and burglary - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Legislate punishment for bad behavior and leave the "why" boys will be boys to their mommas and their wives.

It'd be too expensive a way to govern to try to make everybody meet my loose moral standards, let alone the cost of ridding the streets of everyone who meets the criteria for 'criminal' set by some folks.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as morality?

Lol.

You should enroll in a critical thinking class. Really.

Until you do, I'll help you out with a list of logical fallacies:

University of Phoenix Material
Master List of Logical Fallacies
.....
23. RED HERRING.
This fallacy introduces an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a diversionary tactic. It takes people off the issue at hand; it is beside the point. Example: Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all of the math and drawing skills that engineers require.
...
25. STRAW MAN.
This fallacy occurs when we misrepresent an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack, usually by distorting his or her views to ridiculous extremes. This can also take the form of attacking only weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring strong ones. Example: Those who favor gun-control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of the criminals.

 

[Montrovant]

Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

There may not be a God in Buddhism, in fact, I know there's not.

That doesn't mean there's no God, however.

I don't know if this is what Avg Joe was thinking, but I, too, am going to ask, why? In my case, the question is really why do you assume anyone is right?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

There may not be a God in Buddhism, in fact, I know there's not.

That doesn't mean there's no God, however.

I don't know if this is what Avg Joe was thinking, but I, too, am going to ask, why? In my case, the question is really why do you assume anyone is right?

It's called black and white thinking. In black and white thinking there is one right and one wrong.

Black and white thinkers can't entertain the thought that what is right for you may not be right for me. It's my way or the highway.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I defend the right of people to be wrong, too.

And your "why" is nonsensical.

Why can't I ask why when you make a statement like "Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong"?

Someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

Why?

Why can't we agree to disagree about things neither of us can prove and boldly move towards legislating responsibility instead of morality?

Why?

One of the things I so love about Buddhism is that apparent opposites can both be 'right' and that in Buddhism opposites are resolved.

For example, in religion we have opposing views, eternalism and nihilism. In Buddhism, we refer to four extreme views to be avoided, eternalism, nihilism, both eternalism and nihilism, neither nihilism nor eternalism.

The truth is considered to be none of these four extremes.

I'd like there to be a continuation to my existence past death, but I'm living this life like it's my only shot and I trust I'll be judged accordingly if it matters when I get there.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's moral to not brutalize people and kill them...so should that not be legislated?

It's moral to not steal...should we refrain from making laws that protect people from theft and burglary?

We legislate morality all the time.

Brutalizing and killing - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Stealing, theft and burglary - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Legislate punishment for bad behavior and leave the "why" boys will be boys to their mommas and their wives.

It'd be too expensive a way to govern to try to make everybody meet my loose moral standards, let alone the cost of ridding the streets of everyone who meets the criteria for 'criminal' set by some folks.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as morality?

Lol.

You should enroll in a critical thinking class. Really.

Quite the contrary, Allie. I'm saying that the world is jam packed with morality. Yours, mine, his & hers to be exact.

Morality is the expression of ones belief set and beliefs are like nipples - everybody has a set and no two sets are exactly alike. That's why we should legislate responsibility instead.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Still, in the end someone will be right and someone will be wrong.

There may not be a God in Buddhism, in fact, I know there's not.

That doesn't mean there's no God, however.

I don't know if this is what Avg Joe was thinking, but I, too, am going to ask, why? In my case, the question is really why do you assume anyone is right?

Not among the why's I was pondering at that moment, but a valid one. Kudos.

 

[AllieBaba]

Brutalizing and killing - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Stealing, theft and burglary - Bad behavior or moral choice?

Legislate punishment for bad behavior and leave the "why" boys will be boys to their mommas and their wives.

It'd be too expensive a way to govern to try to make everybody meet my loose moral standards, let alone the cost of ridding the streets of everyone who meets the criteria for 'criminal' set by some folks.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as morality?

Lol.

You should enroll in a critical thinking class. Really.

Quite the contrary, Allie. I'm saying that the world is jam packed with morality. Yours, mine, his & hers to be exact.

Morality is the expression of ones belief set and beliefs are like nipples - everybody has a set and no two sets are exactly alike. That's why we should legislate responsibility instead.

Except that's not what you said. You objected to legislating morality.

So now you're for legislating RESPONSIBLY instead.

Ok.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Are you saying that there's no such thing as morality?

Lol.

You should enroll in a critical thinking class. Really.

Quite the contrary, Allie. I'm saying that the world is jam packed with morality. Yours, mine, his & hers to be exact.

Morality is the expression of ones belief set and beliefs are like nipples - everybody has a set and no two sets are exactly alike. That's why we should legislate responsibility instead.

Except that's not what you said. You objected to legislating morality.

So now you're for legislating RESPONSIBLY instead.

Ok.

It's what I've been saying all along: Legislate Responsibility, not Morality - morality is to subjective and personal.