namelesstavern.net

this article just seems so bizarre to me on a few levels:

1) that churches and their leaders wouldn't quite be sure how they felt about the violence portrayed in HALO, i mean, it involves humans killing humans and can be life-like and graphic, doesn't seem like a hard decision, you are either ok with it or not... seems like a copout

2) that this story made it to the NY Times....

3) that churches are so depserate to get people in their doors that they feel like they have to lure people in rather than being somewhere peope want to go...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07 ... ?th&emc=th

I always wondered....

Why would the Creator of everything in existance be so petty as to demand humans worship Him/Her/It in a building every Sunday?

Ouchyfish wrote:I always wondered....

Why would the Creator of everything in existance be so petty as to demand humans worship Him/Her/It in a building every Sunday?

Actually God doesn't ask you to do this. The churches guilt you into doing this so they can get donation money.

Phlegm wrote:

Ouchyfish wrote:I always wondered....

Why would the Creator of everything in existance be so petty as to demand humans worship Him/Her/It in a building every Sunday?

Actually God doesn't ask you to do this. The churches guilt you into doing this so they can get donation money.

no, that's not really accurate

certain faiths believe that you can't commune directly with God. the only way you can effectively have your prayers heard, is by relaying them thru the clergy

It's a good thing that arbitrarily "elected" people in a faith don't differ from a normal person in any way, so effectively believing that is pretty stupid in my opinion.

What differentiates these people from your common man or woman? Exactly

Harrison wrote:It's a good thing that arbitrarily "elected" people in a faith don't differ from a normal person in any way, so effectively believing that is pretty stupid in my opinion.

What differentiates these people from your common man or woman? Exactly

the difference is that they've heard the calling, and god talks to them


i didn't say the religion made sense, just that's what they believe

It's like Carmike Cinemas saying you can't watch movies at home. If you do, your soul will be DAMNED FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!!!!

That is extremely innaccurate.

People don't need to be at church or go through a clergy to speak with God or have their prayers heard.

God DOES command his followers to be part of a church and to be active in it. It's not petty.

Markarado wrote:That is extremely innaccurate.

People don't need to be at church or go through a clergy to speak with God or have their prayers heard.

God DOES command his followers to be part of a church and to be active in it. It's not petty.

God told you this? Or just some religious person that had a stake in it?

Markarado wrote:That is extremely innaccurate.

People don't need to be at church or go through a clergy to speak with God or have their prayers heard.

talk to the catholics, they'll disagree with you

I disagree with them.

Markarado wrote:That is extremely innaccurate.

People don't need to be at church or go through a clergy to speak with God or have their prayers heard.

God DOES command his followers to be part of a church and to be active in it. It's not petty.

You say that like it's fact. Therein lies the controversy...

Markarado wrote:I disagree with them.

it doesn't matter if you disagree with them or not, cause you're a useless peopn

that's the thing about religion, man.

if it was so clearcut and factual, why on earth is there so much 'I disagree with what that religion says'

I mean more power to people who have faith in something, but honestly.. people are so strong in their convictions - if I hand you a piece of grass and it's green, no one is going to say 'no I'm sorry I disagree, thats shades of purple.' This is because it's clear cut and precise. Grass is green. There is no debate - this is a serious question now.. why is it that people of strong faith (and I mean no disrespect at all, I chose to get baptized when I was 13, I've since changed my beliefs) are so sure of their beliefs? What is it that gives the actual concrete proof (in your eyes, there is obviously no actual concrete proof) to continue to believe as you do?

the definition of faith is the substance of something hoped for or having not seen. they hope for it, they have faith in it. they have not seen it, they have faith in it. that's religion.

-Arlos

araby wrote:the definition of faith is the substance of something hoped for or having not seen. they hope for it, they have faith in it. they have not seen it, they have faith in it. that's religion.

I understand and respect that completely - the thing is, I've met more christians than not that believe that their way is the absolute right way and will look down their noses at others due to that belief. Having a belief is one thing and its great that people have faith in something - my question is to those who believe themselves better than non believers just based on mythical blind faith vs the non believers who are non believers based on facts. I dont believe either is better than the other, but I know at least 20 christians who believe that they are higher than the other.

Gypsiyee wrote:

araby wrote:the definition of faith is the substance of something hoped for or having not seen. they hope for it, they have faith in it. they have not seen it, they have faith in it. that's religion.

I understand and respect that completely - the thing is, I've met more christians than not that believe that their way is the absolute right way and will look down their noses at others due to that belief. Having a belief is one thing and its great that people have faith in something - my question is to those who believe themselves better than non believers just based on mythical blind faith vs the non believers who are non believers based on facts. I dont believe either is better than the other, but I know at least 20 christians who believe that they are higher than the other.

someone is always fucking it up for everybody

i think gyps is making a point that might be more accurately presented as a problem of how people interpret what it means to be a christ/buddha/muhommed/john smith follower

i interpret the majority of what goes on in churches and in peoples lives every day/week that call themselves "christians" is quite opposed to how Christ lived his life as shown in scripture....

if you are concerned with being a christ follower and actually lived like jesus from the scriptures, things would be very different....

i think the lives of buddha and christ in particular (i say those because those are the 2 i know the most about) were quite positive and worthy of being replicated on many levels, even if you didn't think they were worthy of being revered as gods/religious leaders/etc.

most of their followers are just plain normal run of the mill assholes who are often mroe worried about following certain traditions correctly than actually being something positive in the world.

reminds me of a comment by Ghandi, who said that the one group of people that had the most difficulty with non-violence was christians.....

that is completely insane and not shocking.

I think that the vast majority of folks that subscribe to a particular belief are not particularly great followers of that belief.

ie lots are do as I say, not as I do. or only follow the portions that are convenient


and to be clear, this isn't just a religious thing, but everyone who believes in anything is guilty of it to a certain extent

In a lot of professions it's suicide to be anything but Christian. Especially in the south.

Naethyn wrote:In a lot of professions it's suicide to be anything but Christian. Especially in the south.

they really need to get over this attitude, it's not very attractive.

unless of course you are inside the tiny bubble-sphere that is southern pesudo religous culture