GameBanshee Forums

I have no problem with people beleiving whatever they beleive in, the problem i have is forceable removal of ones right to beleive their religion or philosiphy, in the UK they have removed the UCB (united Christian Broadcast) they didn't give a valid reason and they still continue - amid a daily newspapers argument against it's removal - to deny people access to it.

There is a lot of religious crap that goes on in schools, a person is taught 7 or 8 different religous views and instead of basing their life on one philisophical message and contributing to that message with their hearts they just become dissulusioned with the whole lot and end up beleving nothing ( ). I think the ambigousity of so many religions causes major problems and contradictions, but hten if it was all explained to us, would we beleive it anyway?

Edit: I have deleted the last paragraph, as it could be construed as offensive. I hope that all of you understand that I am very cautious when it comes to religious debates and that there is a line of respect that we shouldn't cross.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Flagg ]

BTW i never mean to be offensive, my irreverence can sometimes be slightly mis-judged, i am yet to become a political animal, so i say what is in my heart and mind, again an apology to anyone who read and was offended.

The one thing bad that I can see in almost all religions is that it's core doesn't change much in relation to the times we live in.Right until now,there are some of us who still practise things that may seem relevant and essential at the time a particular religion gained prominence,yet doesn't really apply anymore in these modern times.

Brink, I think this gets back to Minerva's point in deciding whether Buddhism (or any particular "defined religion," for that matter) is a religion or a philosophy. Pure Buddhism isn't interested in teaching followers how to live The Good Life; therefore. It doesn't need to adapt to newer social conditions when it has never commented upon social conditions. As much can be said for Taoism, and, to a lesser extent, for the mystical religious offshoots of modern Western monotheistic religions like Sufiism or Kaballism.

What about Celtic Religions and the early religions of many countries.

I for one, am a devout Jesuit Catholic and don't believe that religious freedom should be tolerated.

What about Celtic Religions and the early religions of many countries.

As far as I can tell, there was no effort made to proselytize these religions. When Caesar wrote his Memoirs, he simply referred to the gods of different people he encountered in an offhand way, saying they were local versions of Roman gods he knew. Various religious leaders might have had their own ideas about spreading the word, but if so, they did it strictly on a local basis. I can't say I've encountered any indication of people trying to spread the worship of Isis, Osiris, Athene, Zeus Melagrius, etc.

In fact, when the Christians first showed up in Rome, contemporary reports (Livy, I think) seem to be, well, astonished. The Romans were amazed that these foreigners felt they had to riot and destroy the temples of other gods. It seems to have genuinely caught the locals out, as though they never encountered such behavior before.

That's not to say the gods of early historic Europe were necessarily all alike, but under different names. I mean, a solar Roman deity such as Mithras could become very popular in ancient Britain, given the movement of Roman soldiers (who worshipped him--Plutarch, Life of Pompey), but a solar deity in ancient Mesopotamia (whose name escapes me at the moment--I hope he doesn't mind) could be a largely negative force, connected with the destruction caused by the desert sun.

But by and large, it looks like military conquest was free of religious triumphalism, and people were allowed to worship their own mysteries that whispered of unique roads leading to an oddly similar goal. Extremely civilized, yes?

Originally posted by FoulDwimmerlaik:
<STRONG>I for one, am a devout Jesuit Catholic and don't believe that religious freedom should be tolerated.</STRONG>

Very cute, troll boy. You should have picked another order, though. The jesuits have a reputation for tolerance.

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>Very cute, troll boy. You should have picked another order, though. The jesuits have a reputation for tolerance.</STRONG>

Fourstar: I went to Jesuit Catholic gradeschool and high-school. I am very familiar with the order. Our goal: Total assimilation of both hemispheres. All other religions banished. All sinners and unbelievers killed and cast into hell. There is only one true way. ReffuS rO TnepeR!

New question:

I am wondering how all of you think about what makes each of us an individual... err.. no that is not really what I mean.

we all turn out a certain way. I am wondering whether this because it is basically decided in our genes or are we formed by our environment?

In case of the environment, how is it possible that two brothers raised in the same way turn out to be completely different?

So are we born with a blank slate or are we born with a blueprint to our character?

Very cute, troll boy. You should have picked another order, though. The jesuits have a reputation for tolerance.

Yeehah! Waverly jumps, he scores!

I am very familiar with the order. Our goal: Total assimilation of both hemispheres. All other religions banished. All sinners and unbelievers killed and cast into hell. There is only one true way. ReffuS rO TnepeR!

This is the Jesuits we're talking about, right? Not telemarketers?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>This is the Jesuits we're talking about, right? Not telemarketers?</STRONG>

I'm not sure anymore... they all blend together...

Originally posted by FoulDwimmerlaik:
<STRONG>
I'm not sure anymore... they all blend together...</STRONG>

LOL The Jehova's Witnesses remind me of one of those radio program: Be the 106th caller and you and 144K of your friends can win backstage passes and rockin' party with Paul and the Apostles.

Ooops. Did that sound intolerant? I must be Jesuit...

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>Ooops. Did that sound intolerant? I must be Jesuit...</STRONG>

Good, than you *may* be saved I don't have to go to the Hall of Shame for "leaving permanently" yesterday, do I? For god's sake (d'ow!, blasphemy), I wasn't *exactly* the first to do that...I blame you and Weasel...

You should have seen my in-box the first time I 'left forever'. At least people have been desensitized by now I blame Flagg for going over the top with my 'Goodbye cruel world' email.

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>You should have seen my in-box the first time I 'left forever'. At least people have been desensitized by now I blame Flagg for going over the top with my 'Goodbye cruel world' email.</STRONG>

...I was so shocked and couldn't even think about sending you an email. I was thinking to leave at the time, you know. (though I had other reasons as well)

Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>I was thinking to leave at the time, you know. (though I had other reasons as well such as Drakon) </STRONG>

I understand. I think others have felt the same way, though I think he's a nice guy.

Originally posted by FoulDwimmerlaik:
<STRONG>
I understand. I think others have felt the same way, though I think he's a nice guy.</STRONG>

Who is?

Re-read my quote of you.

@Foul: ROFLMAO