The Original Messages of Religion

[Anomalocaris]

According to Christianity that is why Jesus died, for the sins (our sins) of humanity, so that humanity (we) could be saved. That is what CHRISTIANS believe, not what I believe. How you concluded that since I was describing what Christians believe makes me a Christian is beyond me.

What you believe is intelligent human adults are all worthless scum with neither judgement or perception, and deserve nothing better, and can hope for nothing better, than to become a christard.

[Chad32]

Moderation of Krokodil is ineffective and abstinence from it would be much better. Sin gives us a name to lump all immoral deeds in one name, that is why I like it.

The saying goes all good things in moderation. No one is saying you should do a certain amount of everything. No doctor is going to subscribe a certain amount of gasoline in your diet. We could say moderation in all that's good, and abstinence in all that's bad, but people have different views on what is good or bad.

Sin is clearly defined in the bible, the source of the word sin, as things that Yahweh disapproves of. Since many people disagree on things Yahweh approves and disapproves of, it's not accurate to say sin is things that are bad. Slavery, genocide, and raping unspoken for virgins is bad, despite Yahweh approving of it. Adults doing whatever they want as long as everyone involved consents is good, despite Yahweh disapproving of many things that we as free thinking beings might care to do.

[Ben Davis]

If I thought there was something suitable to supercede this I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now. In Buddhism, I believe the main objective of meditation is to clear your mind to be 'empty' in the head. I can't help but feel that doesn't produce very good improvement of oneself most of nonsecular meditation is based on buddhism which I don't quite agree with is the best approach to meditation.

I don't think you read my post as illustrated by the words in bold. We're talking about non-religious alternatives to prayer. Last time I checked, Buddhism was a religion as are 'non-secular' things. Do you acknowledge that there are existing, secular alternatives?

[Celestine]

If I thought there was something suitable to supercede this I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now. In Buddhism, I believe the main objective of meditation is to clear your mind to be 'empty' in the head. I can't help but feel that doesn't produce very good improvement of oneself most of nonsecular meditation is based on buddhism which I don't quite agree with is the best approach to meditation.

I don't think you read my post as illustrated by the words in bold. We're talking about non-religious alternatives to prayer. Last time I checked, Buddhism was a religion as are 'non-secular' things. Do you acknowledge that there are existing, secular alternatives?

Yes I acknowledge there are already some secular alternatives. And AGAIN if I thought they were any good, I wouldn't be trying to do what I am now.

In Buddhism, I believe the main objective of meditation is to clear your mind to be 'empty' in the head. I can't help but feel that doesn't produce very good improvement of oneself most of nonsecular meditation is based on buddhism which I don't quite agree with is the best approach to meditation.

-There we go....you have a position, you explained it.

Now, is "nonsecular meditation" actually based on buddhism? If it isn't, then when you offer your opinion on buddhism you aren't offering an opinion on "nonsecular meditation".

(would you be willing to stick to this with me for just a moment, going through step by step and making modifications -or not- until we reach a statement that we are comfortable with as having both the power to lead to the conclusion we hold, and being comprised of statements which can be agreed upon by our intended "victim" -lol- or otherwise argued to be accurate?)

I said most nonsecular meditation and while I admit I shouldn't have used the word most, it's just most from what I've seen (in fact all that I've seen really)

[Clueless Morgan]

First of all, Celestine, helpful hint on the walls of quoted text: put hide tags around it, or only include the relevant bit you're replying to. (Info on how to do this can be found on the same page as the site rules towards the bottom.)

Forum Guidelines

The following are guidelines intended for the smooth running of the forums and as such are not as strictly enforced as the above rules.

1. Quoting Large Posts.

Creating long posts is absolutely fine (as long as they are your own work), but when you are replying to one try to avoid the temptation to quote the whole thing. Instead, simply quote small sections that you are replying to, as otherwise it tends to make the thread quite difficult to read. An alternative might be to wrap up large sections using the hide tag, such as:

Code:

[hide]Large section of text[/hide]

On to the posts:

I have nothing to prove, no claims to defend, they are what they are.

You're original post, with relevant parts bolded (bolded sentences relate to each other) and italicized (not exactly related to the bolded assertion):

Reflection, Sacrifice, Charity, Abstinence! Endurance, Compassion, Courage, Wisdom! All wasted! The message lost, what a tragedy! Misplaced by fools replaced by scum!

Sin, Forgiveness! What wonderful concepts if only implemented correctly!

Recitation of these virtues what the world would have become! Wasted on the veneration of deities when the veneration should be of these virtues!

You know now what religion is, this deformed beast of Baal, but you know not what it hides in its ruin!

This is the treasure more valuable than ivory, more valuable than an earth filled with gold! Yet you would forsake it? I think not!

So... yeah, you're making claims that you are now required to defend:

1. That reflection, sacrifice, charity, abstinence, endurance, compassion, courage, and wisdom are ALL virtues.

2. That the sin/forgiveness paradigm is a wonderful concept.

I asked you to defend the abstinence part of your recitation of virtue back on page 3, post #28, if you don't recall, or the link I just provided doesn't work.

These are assertions that you have the responsibility to argue (YES, ARGUE!!) for.

I am not here to debate this, to be scrupulous until you feel satisfied, I am here to offer ideas.

So... if you're not here to debate or discuss the things you start threads about... what are you doing here? Trolling? Basking in your perceived superiority over the rest of us? What?

I am concerned that your being here isn't for an interest in unbiased dialogue but rather to promote a long held view you already had.

Moderation of Krokodil is ineffective and abstinence from it would be much better.

And



Please address what I asked about:
I'll stop assuming you're going to be honest enough to follow the previous link and reread my post, so from post #28 on page 3:

Abstinence doesn't mean refraining from just sex, it simply means to refrain from indulging in something, it could be smoking, alcohol, drugs, overeating, etc.

What about abstaining from charity? Would that be a virtue? What about abstaining from self-sacrifice? What about abstaining from playing with your kids? Or are you saying that abstinence is only a virtue when people abstain from things you don't value?

And why should you abstain from sex, or alcohol, or drugs, or overeating? Why not, instead, extol the virtue of moderation?

After all, alcohol has known positive health effects when used in moderation (it can help acidify urine for those afflicted with certain types of kidney stone), in addition to the known negative effects of overuse. Sex has known positive effects on mental health, physical health, and the health of relationships, as well as the known negatives effects of STD transmission. The psychologically negative effects associated with sex are just that: psychological. Overeating is perfectly fine when you do it infrequently (Thanksgiving dinner, Superbowl parties, pie eating contests, etc.) but, yes, is unhealthy if one persists in the activity regularly.

Why is abstinence (which, after all, means restraining oneself from doing or enjoying something) better than teaching people to have healthy attitudes about these activities or, when frequent indulgence is indeed harmful, advocate for moderation?

If you would like to talk about whether doing drugs is healthy or not, good for you or not, or dangerous or not, start another thread for it. In the meantime, address the questions I asked you in post #28.

Why abstain from sex, which you specifically listed:

Abstinence doesn't mean refraining from just sex

Having sex is not a vice. Having sex and can dangerous, and it can be healthy. Why abstain from it all together?

Why abstain from alcohol, which you specifically list?

it simply means to refrain from indulging in something, it could be smoking, alcohol, drugs, overeating, etc.

Alcohol has known positive health effects, as well as known negative health effects. Why completely abstain from it when moderation is a very reasonable approach to take with it?

Why abstain from drugs, which you specifically list?

it simply means to refrain from indulging in something, it could be smoking, alcohol, drugs, overeating, etc.

Not all drugs are dangerous. Not every drug user becomes addicted.

Why abstain from overeating, which you specifically list?

it simply means to refrain from indulging in something, it could be smoking, alcohol, drugs, overeating, etc.

Overeating is not always a conscious activity. Overeating on occasion is not, in itself, dangerous. Millions of American overeat every fourth Thursday of November with few ill effects other than a stomach ache and occasionally food poisoning, which you can get while eating in moderation!

Sin gives us a name to lump all immoral deeds in one name, that is why I like it.

Uh... how about "immoral deeds"?

I will never argue something that has a clear definition, as I generally do not argue definitions of a word

Because you don't understand the definitions...

Cheap shot: conceded.

If you wish to change the definition of a word there are people you should contact for that, not me.

I'm not changing the definitions of ANY words.

I invite you to visit the following websites, type in "Argument" and hit enter. In fact, I'll even do the work for you, here are the first six returns when you type "Argument" into Google, not even including the definition Google gives you:

Wikipedia: Argument
Merriam-Webster: Argument
Dictionary.com: Argument
University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill, The Writing Center: Argument
The Free Dictionary.com: Argument
Internet Dictionary of Philosophy: Argument

Need I go on? Can we put the rest the stupidity of saying we're not engaged in argumentation here?

We are.

Get over it.

[Celestine]

Need I go on? Can we put the rest the stupidity of saying we're not engaged in argumentation here?

We are.

Then allow me to put an end to that, even the only one seeking to argue is you.

[ShaMan]

Get over it.

I read the whole thing in your accent tag voice. You're a ninja for sure!

[Clueless Morgan]

Need I go on? Can we put the rest the stupidity of saying we're not engaged in argumentation here?

We are.

Then allow me to put an end to that, even the only one seeking to argue is you.

Oh, the endless equivocation... So much fail.

I think it's very sad that you won't defend the assertions in your original post. They are there. You are making them.

I also think it's sad that you don't realize that argumentation is a valid and important part of communication.

EDIT:
If you're here to learn, then learn:
https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain

Get over it.

I read the whole thing in your accent tag voice. You're a ninja for sure!

That reminds me, I need to delete those videos from youtube...

[Celestine]

Oh, the endless equivocation... So much fail.

I think it's very sad that you won't defend the assertions in your original post. They are there. You are making them.

I also think it's sad that you don't realize that argumentation is a valid and important part of communication.

EDIT:
If you're here to learn, then learn:
https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain

Perhaps you should go argue with a boulder, see if you can move it with your words. Then you shall understand the futility of arguing.

I should not have been so obscure with my first post but the excitement was flowing at the time, it is most likely my fault that you think I am asserting that virtues belong to religion. No I was saying that religion had originally helped broadcast them to an entire group of people, like an ancient form of radio.

You have shown no skill on how to ask questions, if you were unsure of what I was trying to say, you could have asked.

I still do not know why you want to engage in a fruitless, frivolous, time consuming ARGUMENT about what a virtue is. But I hope in the future you will focus on more important things than such tripe.

[The Grand Nudger]

-he argued

LOL, Celstine. Possessing an argument - is merely possessing a set of statements which can be shown to be valid and sound. That is, the statements appear to be accurate, and the manner in which you've arranged them will have the power to lead to the conclusion you've offered. It has nothing to do with "arguing" in the sense that you seem to be interpreting the word. Does that help you to understand why you've been getting so much flak?

If two people both have arguments (and we all think that we do, of course) that reach entirely contradictory conclusions, it behooves us to figure out why. People just letting things fall from their mouth without considering the strength of their statements, or the statements of others, will lead nowhere but a noisier world.

The sky is blue!
The sky is red!
The sky is black!

on and on, ad infinitum.