23 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettYou are absolutely right, Rwingett. I take virtue as something which can be debated and discussed
What if your religion called for female circumcision for driving people to virtue? It's all well and fine to say you're for the promotion of virtue, but the difficulty is defining what virtue is exactly. The problem with religion is that their particular version of virtue becomes codified and inflexible (it is, after all, the word of god). So we are left with religions upholding clearly barbaric practices as being necessary for virtue.
utterly apart from religion; that is, you who have no religious leanings can discuss virtue with me,
Mr Theist.
And, a particular religion espouses a concept of 'virtue' which is demonstrably non-virtuous
(such as female circumcision), then we can conclude that that religion is not representing 'the word
of God.'
Yes, religions are often places were sheep-like people follow whatever they are told, but there are
a lot of places where that happens, too. And I lament with you that this is a great tragedy and a
great threat to the virtue which we both respect and espouse (in our different ways).
A religion which ignores fundamental scientific insights is a false one, for religion is not science. A
religion which rests on logical fallacies is a false one, for religions ought to be the pursuit of Truth.
Believe me, I share your distaste for religion, and I am sure that we have both suffered at the hands
of people imposing a non-virtuous religious stance down our throats, either on a personal or political
level.
However, I am merely expressing what I think religion should be: the pursuit of truth for the
sake of understanding and obtaining virtue in an effort to let it inform your life and, consequently
inspire people to do likewise. A religion based on barbarism fails to do so, in which case it is false.
Nemesio
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are assuming that Jesus only surrounded himself with men. But let's go with that a second...if a male surrounding himself with mostly men is the criterion for determining a man's sexuality, then all men who play on chess sites are gay, all men who work in male-dominated workplaces are gay, all men in the military are gay, all men in team sports are gay -- geez, no wonder I can't get a date! There are barely any straight men on the planet!
You don't think it's open to interpretation then?
I mean, he did surround himself with the disciples...all of whom were men....
Coincidence?
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBecause Tolkien himself would have been appalled. He wasn't trying to start a new religion. He was a Christian and a linguist; and he just needed a backdrop to put all the cool-sounding words he had thought up in.
Why not base the religion in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings then? If the veracity of the source cannot be trusted that surely undermines the entire edifice.
30 Nov 06
Originally posted by reader1107That and most men don't like hairy women.
You are assuming that Jesus only surrounded himself with men. But let's go with that a second...if a male surrounding himself with mostly men is the criterion for determining a man's sexuality, then all men who play on chess sites are gay, all men who work in male-dominated workplaces are gay, all men in the military are gay, all men in team sports are gay -- geez, no wonder I can't get a date! There are barely any straight men on the planet!
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by spruce112358You think Jesus would be any less appalled by some of the things people do in the name of religion?
Because Tolkien himself would have been appalled. He wasn't trying to start a new religion. He was a Christian and a linguist; and he just needed a backdrop to put all the cool-sounding words he had thought up in.