World Events
Topic: What is a Christian to you?

#	Author	Message
241	SingleParkPassholder Wed 5/7/2008 5:20a	"For me to say I don't believe it, it's the same as any other fairy tale, is just a statement of fact, not an insult." And herein lies the rub. All along, many people, me included, have taken issue with the "fairy tale" characterization of religion. What we've tried to pound home is that it is one thing to say you disagree and don't believe any, most or some of it, but it is an entirely different thing to say "that's ridiculous and not a word of it is true. It's an utter fairy tale and nothing more. In fact, it's worse since what that story describes is complete fantasy like super long lived people and talking snakes and whatnot, where at least SOME fairy tales are plausible and have some basis in reality." For many, many people, it DOES have a basis in reality. It IS possible to see things differently than you, no matter what you say. As has been said ad nauseum, people's religious beliefs are very, very personal. For some, it doesn't get any more personal. When you've been asked over and over and over again to back off, to tone it done some (jonvn, anyone?) and the response it to pour it on even more or say "but that's what I truly believe", it is seen as a complete lack of respect for the other person's views and the person themselves, due to the personal nature of the issue. There's no censorship here, as you're still allowed to disagree and state your beliefs, but to use a crude analogy, calling religion fairy tales and the like is like saying to someone "I hate your f'n guts you #@$#%!" when "I hate you" still rather succinctly conveys your feelings. Still, for some reason, you just don't want to get that joke. So if you have been banned X, I'd venture this might be a reason why. While cmpaley and I don't agree on much, I can perfectly see why he might complain, if he has at all. What's disappointing is that you're smarter than this, but yet stubbornly press on wanting to have things exactly your way on this issue with no compromise whatsoever.
242	X-san Wed 5/7/2008 5:28a	***I don't call Mr X a fool (which, according to the Bible (Ps 14 and Ps 53), I could) yet he can, with impugnity, call what I believe a fairy tale.*** By the way, isn't this just sort of a backhanded way of calling me a fool? So be it, I suppose. You can think what you want. Funny thing is, I don't think there's anything *bad* about the bible. I think it's a very cool teaching tool, an excellent guide for morality, a wonderful work of literature. To consider almost anything in it though, particularly the ancient stuff, to be literal I think is extremely silly. Only a fool would believe that fairy tales about talking snakes and 900 year old people could possibly have some literal basis in reality.
243	SingleParkPassholder Wed 5/7/2008 5:32a	"Only a fool would believe that fairy tales about talking snakes and 900 year old people could possibly have some literal basis in reality." Ah, so if you think you've been the recipient of a "backhanded" insult, respond in kind, is that it? You just don't want to get it, apparently.
244	X-san Wed 5/7/2008 5:55a	***it is an entirely different thing to say "that's ridiculous and not a word of it is true. It's an utter fairy tale and nothing more. In fact, it's worse since what that story describes is complete fantasy like super long lived people and talking snakes and whatnot, where at least SOME fairy tales are plausible and have some basis in reality." For many, many people, it DOES have a basis in reality*** Why is that entirely different? Why must I respect the PC police on this matter? I honestly and truthfully believe that it is ridiculous and borderline insane to take this stuff seriously. I really do. And I don't care how many people think so, it does NOT have any basis in reality. It really does not. No moreso than pink unicorns or Harry Potter novels or Star Trek transporters. Why am I not allowed to say that? ***"Only a fool would believe that fairy tales about talking snakes and 900 year old people could possibly have some literal basis in reality." Ah, so if you think you've been the recipient of a "backhanded" insult, respond in kind, is that it? You just don't want to get it, apparently.*** I totally "get it". Why else would I respond in kind? ;) Besides, this is out of context. I had a great many positive comments on the bible as well. Look, I'll say this as succinctly and frankly as I can...this is what I believe to be the absolute and honest truth. Only an idiot would believe in 900 year old people and talking snakes, as a literal and possible thing. However, looking on it as a moral metaphor, it's entirely valid and contains a great deal of wisdom. Why is it not okay for me to say that? Wouldn't you call me an idiot, or at least delusional, if I told you I had the power to fly unassisted like Superman and vacation in the vacuum of space for fun? It's just as ridiculous and illogical, right?
245	SingleParkPassholder Wed 5/7/2008 6:14a	I can't say any more than I said in post 241. It's all about respect. Period. Apparently you choose another path.
246	X-san Wed 5/7/2008 6:27a	Exactly. I actually agree with you. I do NOT respect ridiculous beliefs. What's wrong with that? Why should I have to respect such things? Can you seriously give me a good answer to that? And along the same lines, should YOU be required to "respect" my beliefs in my ability to fly like Superman and live in the vacuum of space? Seriously. It is absolutely no more ridiculous than what everyone else is claiming here. Can you give me an answer? Personally, I think it all comes down to "don't screw with my religion". Don't you agree?
247	X-san Wed 5/7/2008 6:38a	By the way, I just have to reiterate that this entire line of discussion has stemmed from a poster saying without equivocation "The story of Adam and Eve is literally true". Why is it not okay to challenge that? Why is it not okay to say the whole statement is utterly ridiculous, on the very face of it? Why is it not okay to point to logic and all humanly known facts and say *that* is the very definition of a fairy tale (based on evolution, logic, the inability for snakes to speak, the impossibility of humanities' beginnings consisting of exactly one man and one woman, the impossibility of a person living for hundreds of years, the ridiculous assumption that these two people lived in some garden somewhere and were on speaking terms with some god, etc., etc., etc...)? Come ON now. I actually like and appreciate the fable of Adam and Eve. It's a good story. What the heck though? I'm supposed to accept that some guy claims, unequivocally, that it is literally true? Seriously. Give me a break.
248	Dabob2 Wed 5/7/2008 7:51a	<I'm supposed to accept that some guy claims, unequivocally, that it is literally true?< No, you're not supposed to accept it. You can disagree with it, and you do. I'm the guy who asked seriously if Catholics were required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I knew that my church does not; we view them as parable and not literally the first two people created instantly from which all future people came. I know that some evangelical churches believe in them literally. I didn't know about Catholicism on this question so I asked - I asked so I could learn something. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. And at a certain point, common manners come into effect. It's one thing to say "I don't believe that. It doesn't make sense to me. Here's why..." and another to say "I don't believe that. And you're an idiot if you do." Do you see the difference? One is respectful, and one is rude. And - importantly - you don't have to respect the belief to respect the person. I certainly don't respect Scientology, and think it's pretty obviously a scam dreamed up by some 20th century huckster... yet if I met a Scientologist I could still show him or her respect as a person. You can believe that person A's religion is a crock, and you can even believe that he's an idiot for believing it. But when you say so in the manner that you have - even though you have every right to believe it - you cross into the territory of being rude. Even if you think you're right. There's a woman at the office who wears what I consider a ridiculous amount of "bling." That's my opinion. I know other people in the office disagree because I've heard them compliment her on it. I think it looks ridiculous. I have every right to think so. But if I actually said to her "You know, you may believe all that looks good, but really it just makes you look like an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact. You look like an idiot..." that would be at the very least bad manners, wouldn't it? I have every right to have that opinion, but expressing it to her IN THAT WAY would constitute very bad manners. Expressing it to her in another way - something like "I've always felt that less is more when it comes to stuff like that - that's always been more attractive to me" - might not be. The tone is respectful (even if I don't really respect her style) and it's not essentially a personal attack. The message is the same, but the expression is not. And that's sort of what manners are.
249	X-san Wed 5/7/2008 8:02a	Here's the funny part (I'm talking funny "pathetic", not funny "funny" of course). Here on this very thread, we've seen a battle of the religions...in particular Mormon vs Catholic but I'm sure you could take those and plug in any particular religion of choice. In this battle, we've seen the devout members basically saying "I think your line of thinking is a load of ridiculous garbage". Let's examine some of the comments... "I think this is what we call blasphemy." "Keep calling yourselves Christian and you might just become a part of that awful hypocritical mess that is mainstream Christianity." "I don't accept the confusing Trinity concept." "My beliefs DO seem more logical to me." "However, cult or not, that has little to do with logic and a lot to do with other things, such as "forced" or "coerced" tithing, being forced out of the church and not able to attend services if you don't "do good" etc." Anyway, that's a random sampling of the comments that are, in some fashion, attempting to discredit one or the other religion. And yet I come along and say "I think it's all bunk", and I'm the villain? Funny how it's okay to say what you will as long as you believe in SOMETHING (mainstream), but if you don't believe any of it you are disrespectful. I think that believing in SOMETHING (mainstream) is a lot of the reason that the Mormons want to call themselves Christian. Because if they believe in something else (I do, for the record), if it's not a common theme for millions or billions of people it's not okay. It's interesting how Bush Sr. referred to atheists as a greater threat to America than Communists or terrorists...not even worthy of being citizens I believe he said. How DARE I, huh?
250	X-san Wed 5/7/2008 8:09a	***It's one thing to say "I don't believe that. It doesn't make sense to me. Here's why..." and another to say "I don't believe that. And you're an idiot if you do."*** What if you consider the belief to be idiotic? What then? If I told you the moon was made of marshmallows and cockroaches were the smartest, most spiritual beings on the planet, would you respectfully say "I understand how you feel"? Come ON. What is the point in showing respect for something you consider silly and ridiculous? And no, I'm not showing disrespect for the PERSON. I really am not. I consider Josh and CMPaley to be a couple of the coolest, smartest, and most interesting posters on LaughingPlace (and it's sad that the two of them will probably never see eye to eye because of their stubborn attention to useless dogma). I also think the stuff they believe in is utter and complete fantasy. Yes, I do feel it's idiotic to take such notions to such an extreme. I'm sorry, but I do feel that way. In a way, I feel like both of them are missing the boat in terms of living a complete life HERE ON EARTH rather than dedicating all their higher brain functions to trying to figure out some mystical magical being and what he might or might not want from us. It's a waste of time, frankly.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-317

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney's 2008 Thea awards, Disney's Imax and 3D announcements, Bolt walkarounds and the crew's favorite Animal Kingdom attractions plus reader mail, Brent's Corner, the Captain's Challenge, Stump the Crew and 50 words or less on the new Bond.

What's on
The Latest
LP Guide to Bolt updated
Bolt Across America Cross-Country Journey Culminates at Red Carpet Premiere of "Bolt" 16 week tour visits 32 cities, raising awareness for the movie and for the ASPCA
Beauty and the Beast to be released in 3D in 2010
Disney's New Five-Picture Deal With IMAX to Begin With 'A Christmas Carol'
Buffalo International Film Festival presents a film benefit celebrating Mickey's 80th birthday December 13th
Disney's Hawai'i Project Begins with Ground Blessing
The Lion King to perform as part of 2008 Royal Variety Performance and BBC Radio 2's Friday Night is Music Night
Walt Disney Imagineering Earns Four Thea Awards
Travel Industry Honors Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Jay Rasulo
The Walt Disney Company Grants $1.5 Million to Reforest Fire-Ravaged Areas in Southern California

Click here for The Latest