Celtic Heroes

The Official Forum for Celtic Heroes, the 3D MMORPG for iOS and Android Devices

Re: A discussion about religion

#1341
Vraelan wrote:
Solumbum wrote:
Basalt wrote:Oh my word this is a huge topic!

I refuse to get in on this as I won't talk about my religion over text. It is much easier face to face. I will say I am a Christian though.



I know right? It is much easier face to face. We could have done this whole thread in a few hours instead of a year

An argument face to face is usually an argument without facts and an argument without facts is pointless.

First off, I never said argue it, or even debate it. What I was trying to say, is that showing feelings and emotions about something, as well as receiving the correct feelings and emotions that are being emitted from the other person is extremely hard over text. When talking about something that can be as delicate as religion, I feel it is very important to get the correct emotions and feelings transmitted, especially when it is so very easy to offend someone else about their religions.

Re: A discussion about religion

#1342
^ This thread is an argument and by argument I mean the exchange of diverging or opposing views. Therefore, I presumed your comment was on topic with the implication that a face to face version of this discussion would be better. It was up to you to specify otherwise... (Sorry if this is too harsh)

Emotions and feelings are generally irrelevant in any discussion unless the topic actually reflects the emotions and feelings of a particular person/group. Otherwise, you need plain simple evidence that is not tied to bias (due to emotions and feelings).

Here is my opinion that still does not really require emotion and feelings to communicate:
I honestly do not think someone should take offence with any kind of evidence. If you do not like evidence, too bad. If you start picking what you look at, there will never be any advance. However, directly insulting someone by calling them stupid for believing in a religion or another idea is a reason to take offence.
Image

Re: A discussion about religion

#1343
Vraelan wrote:^ This thread is an argument and by argument I mean the exchange of diverging or opposing views. Therefore, I presumed your comment was on topic with the implication that a face to face version of this discussion would be better. It was up to you to specify otherwise... (Sorry if this is too harsh)

Emotions and feelings are generally irrelevant in any discussion unless the topic actually reflects the emotions and feelings of a particular person/group. Otherwise, you need plain simple evidence that is not tied to bias (due to emotions and feelings).

Here is my opinion that still does not really require emotion and feelings to communicate:
I honestly do not think someone should take offence with any kind of evidence. If you do not like evidence, too bad. If you start picking what you look at, there will never be any advance. However, directly insulting someone by calling them stupid for believing in a religion or another idea is a reason to take offence.

You are correct, I should have made myself more clear. Also, I never said you needed that to communicate. You can communicate easily with text. It is just my opinion that communication about this type of topic is better done face to face.

Re: A discussion about religion

#1346
Vraelan wrote:Most if not all of the founding fathers for the US were deists... I would imagine if they were anything more, the US would be a Christian nation right now.

Freedom of religion is the ability to practise whatever belief you want but out of the public. That basically applies to any belief, athiests and Christians. What plus3 is saying is that we should not make laws based on if god exists or not but rather what the direct impact will be on a nation no matter what.

So for abortion, we should not be thinking: 'Oh no, do it and we will sin' or 'Pfft, there is no god, let's do the opposite of whatever religion says.' We should actually consider the effect on our society seeing as how we can all agree that, free will or otherwise, is on its own.

America was founded by the rejected Protestants of Catholic Europe, because their beliefs were not allowed there at that time. To practice our beliefs in private would be absolutely the same thing. This also means we must break our beliefs by keeping the salvation of the world inside of ourselves instead of educating individuals with the message. Remember that freedom from religion or Christianity is not the same thing as freedom of religion or Christianity.
x*Warrior Tank*x
x*Arawn*x
x*BadaBing*x

Critical thinking greatly intrigues me.

Re: A discussion about religion

#1349
Aggra_Tetch wrote:
Vraelan wrote:Most if not all of the founding fathers for the US were deists... I would imagine if they were anything more, the US would be a Christian nation right now.

Freedom of religion is the ability to practise whatever belief you want but out of the public. That basically applies to any belief, athiests and Christians. What plus3 is saying is that we should not make laws based on if god exists or not but rather what the direct impact will be on a nation no matter what.

So for abortion, we should not be thinking: 'Oh no, do it and we will sin' or 'Pfft, there is no god, let's do the opposite of whatever religion says.' We should actually consider the effect on our society seeing as how we can all agree that, free will or otherwise, is on its own.

America was founded by the rejected Protestants of Catholic Europe, because their beliefs were not allowed there at that time. To practice our beliefs in private would be absolutely the same thing. This also means we must break our beliefs by keeping the salvation of the world inside of ourselves instead of educating individuals with the message. Remember that freedom from religion or Christianity is not the same thing as freedom of religion or Christianity.

Ok, let's put this into perspective...

Think of people who believe a person requires no clothes. That is a belief that they do not go about practising in public. However, they are allowed to gather in certain semi public areas such as nudist beaches, churches, dwellings, etc. The best part of this compromise is that naked or not, decisions are still made that do no reflect that decision and life goes on.

Compare practising a specific religion to nudism. You have the right to your own beliefs and practises in private. Private beaches, churches, schools. your own home, etc.

I hope that example was not too vulgar...
Image

Re: A discussion about religion

#1350
Aggra_Tetch wrote:America was founded by the rejected Protestants of Catholic Europe, because their beliefs were not allowed there at that time. To practice our beliefs in private would be absolutely the same thing. This also means we must break our beliefs by keeping the salvation of the world inside of ourselves instead of educating individuals with the message. Remember that freedom from religion or Christianity is not the same thing as freedom of religion or Christianity.



You continue to demonstrate that you have a very poor grasp of America's history.
-------------
Dersu of Herne
lvl 135+ Druid (Double Helix Build)
Clan Infection... of the Britannians family of clans.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests