This post has been edited by Jordan: 08 March 2008 - 08:40 PM
Day of Silence It's so GAY
#17
Posted 08 March 2008 - 09:25 PM
I do hate religion. However, I have no problem with Zen monks, Jains, or even most christians. I do take issue with people that adhere to the fundementals of any monotheistic doctrine because the core doctrines are incompatiable with modern society. They're hateful and prejudice towards certain groups claiming they have divine authority to do so.
I'm not a liberal since more often than not it's the liberal who attacks me for attacking religion. I'm also not anti-war everything. Many of our liberal minded friends seem to take exception with any form of international struggle.
I'd say I'm a contrarian or an independent.
This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 08 March 2008 - 09:25 PM
#18
Posted 08 March 2008 - 10:49 PM
And polytheistic religions adapt more readily?
Stop throwing in buzzwords.
And what the hell kind of liberals do you have in Canada that seem to be the opposite of liberals in the United States?
See, in America, that bloke going on about pullying and pink shirts is what we call a liberal.
People disagreeing with him (much like BigStupidSomethingSomething) are called conservatives, or sometimes more colorful things.
If we abolish drivers' licenses, the bad drivers will pick each other off eventually.
And a contrarian? Are they like that guy from the Monty Python Sketch? The Man Who Contradicts People?
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
![](http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q200/Bobbix/noooo.png)
nooooo
#20
Posted 09 March 2008 - 01:30 AM
You said you were againt the fundamentals of any monotheistic doctrine, implying polytheistic ones were okay.
The rest makes sense anyway, so I refuse to explain. Maybe they'd be easier to understand if you mentally seperate the different parts of the post that are obviously unrelated with extra leading.
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
![](http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q200/Bobbix/noooo.png)
nooooo
#21
Posted 09 March 2008 - 01:39 AM
so Orator took this to mean (and I did too) that you were making distinctions between a ) folks who follow religions liberal;ly and those who adhere strictly to the fundamentals; as well as b ) folks who follow monotheistic religions and those who follow religions of another sort (Orator suggests polythestic, but I suppose nontheistic religions might also be possible).
It sounds like you think that Zen or Jainism are nonthesitic religions. If you didn't suggest this, then yes, you were in that sentence cited above implying something about polytheism (even if it was your intention to say more about fundamentalism). Because otherwise, why mention monotheism? And blah blah blah.
The driver's license thing was a reply to another subject discussed in this very thread. Don't be pissy BSDF; read the whole thread before complaining about confusing responses.
Orator, in answer to the other question, Liberal is a political part in Canada, and a fairly conservative one at that. Similar to the way we refer to democracy without meaning the Democratic party, we refer to Liberals without necessarily meaning liberalism.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 12 March 2008 - 04:20 PM
#22
Posted 09 March 2008 - 01:53 AM
I sure hope he got at least that, he was the one that brought up the driver's license thing in the first place:
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
![](http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q200/Bobbix/noooo.png)
nooooo
#23
Posted 11 March 2008 - 04:12 PM
I used Jainsim as an example. The most fundamentally driven Jain would not resort to terrorism. The fundamentals of Jainism are reason as to why there is a lack of Jain terrorist in world. A rise in fundamentalism would endanger no one. The most observant Jains cover their faces with cloth so they don’t inhale small bugs. The end result of Jain fundamentalism, in any region, would see an increase in non-violence. The concept of subjugation and conversion does not apply to Jains. Zen Buddhism is on the same page in many regards. You could argue kamikaze pilots used Zen teachings in their attacks, but one would need to go out of their way to come to that conclusion. At its core, Zen Buddhism is relatively passive.
So to conclude, a liberal or fundamental follower of either Zen or Jainism is not endangering non-believers, creating geo-political turmoil, or cramming morality down any ones throats. I don’t consider these religions dangerous. Monotheistic religions are a different beast altogether which do all of the aforementioned. Fundamentalists are a serious hindrance to civilization. Liberals claim these radicals are a minority group because they feel the biblical texts are being misinterpreted. IE- it’s the human that’s evil not the religion, which is a load of shit. Liberal followers, unknowingly, act as a sort of shield between fundies and criticism. They safe guard the religion in the name of tolerance, yet these religions are anything but tolerant. Any one who maintains the Bible/Quran to be tolerant and peaceful have either not read them or are lying.
A great author once said--- Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But it takes religion to make Good people do bad things. I think that sums up my argument here. The core of the issue is not terrorism or geopolitical scandals or even poverty, it’s the religion.
#24
Posted 11 March 2008 - 05:24 PM
Also, Hinduism is monotheistic. Only people who don't really know or understand it think that it is polytheistic.
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 11 March 2008 - 05:26 PM
#25
Posted 12 March 2008 - 02:21 AM
"Say, there, do you have the time?"
"..."
"Excuse me, I asked you a question. Do you have the time?"
"..."
"Asshole. Do you have the fucking time?"
"..."
"You know what? Fuck you, faggot."
Nobody wins. This whole thing is a great example of people having absolutely no idea how to go about making a point, or standing up for a cause. I'm all for gay rights, but is this seriously the best they could come up with?
#27
Posted 12 March 2008 - 08:51 AM
Welcome to the Debate Club. Every time I look at a thread in here, it eventually spirals into an argument about something totally unrelated. That's why I rarely post here.
#29
Posted 12 March 2008 - 11:10 AM
As far as this Day of Silence is concerned, it's nonsense and counterproductive. It might be almost vaguely passable if they all wore T-shirts or something, but it's still dumb because they're complaining about a lack of voice by deliberately not speaking out. *facepalm*
#30
Posted 12 March 2008 - 01:35 PM
![tongue.gif](http://www.chefelf.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)