God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

Years before I weighed-in on this topic, members (quoted in my prior post) have politicized this. It's just as disruptive as various socio-political topics such as gun-control, abortion, gay rights, other highly partisan issues, etc, etc.

Those other topics go into Fred's House of Politics - they get out of hand, and there are always a few members that like Daniel, "are on a mission" and can't let go of it.

The effect is exactly the same.

To be consistent, threads like this should go into Fred's House of Politics or Fred's House of Politics should be abolished.

Good luck attempting to say threads like this are any different than socio-political thread that go into Fred's House of Politics.

 

Difference being, politics is real, religion is simply fiction, truth.

 

Politics is truth?

:rofl:

 

So, what's the problem? I've given my interpretation, you've given yours. It's all good.

And different Christian sects, all believing in the Bible, and some believing in a literal reading of it, still have differing interpretations. So even when a Bible-believing Christian gives an interpretation, it's still just an opinion.

The term "misinterpretation" is just a way to denigrate interpretations other than your own, just as the word "heresy," which means "wrong belief" is just a way the church denigrates beliefs other than its own.

I think the problem here is that religion cannot stand up to scrutiny. Most religions, including all mainstream ones, and pretty much any religion that goes beyond "I believe in a creator but have no idea what that creator is like or what she/he/it wants..." contain so many logical fallacies and contradictions that they are nonsense. Therefore they can only defend themselves by either killing their opponents, or silencing them by creating social norms where discussing religion is taboo.

Thus we see the call to banish discussion of religion to the politics forum.

There are lots of topics on Prius Chat that do not interest me. I just don't read them. There are a few topics that make me angry. I stay away from them for the most part. This is a very active board and there's no way I can read everything posted, so I don't.

But there are a few religious folks who, rather than choosing which topics to participate in, want to ban topics they find upsetting. Well, hey, if you want to believe in things that make no sense and that cannot stand the scrutiny of discussion, you have every right to believe them. But you do not have the right to shut other people up about them. You can participate in the discussion, or you can ignore the discussion, but you cannot ban the discussion. Live with it.

 

Actually, one of those calls was mine. Far from being meant to silence anyone, the intent was to remove the rancourous issue from the main forums and leave the rest of the site in peace. Posters in general have proven incapable of discussing politics in a calm and rational manner, and the same seems to hold true for religion.

But, I understand the logistical problems of trying to moderate every statement of belief, and I appreciate the inevitable howls of censorship that would result from banning any and all mention of a deity. I could be proven wrong, but I don't envision a Fred's House Of The Holy And Unholy being built anytime soon.

So, here we are. We'll just have to live with each other. Maybe we can all learn something, and maybe we can't. We'll see.

 

we will see...op2:

 

Doesn't change the fact that religion has always and will always be a fiction story.

 

That was an honest and fair reply.

It's possible religion could be discussed in a calm manner, and has in many places, but not here.

Here it's no different in effect and intent than the partisan firefights that are sent to Fred's House of Politics...sad and funny at the same time hearing from those pretending this topic is any different than abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, issues with definite religious elements. Amazing how people bent on discussing religion caught injecting politics into it attempt to make sense of their logical fallacy it's somehow different than topics sent to Fred's House of Politics.

Lurkers outnumber active members - for every one like me there are many others seeing the absurd justifications for religion threads are not like a partisan thread.

 

Fred's House of Swiss Pancakes? (Like the cheese, they're holy. )

 

... Or, Fred's House of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

Maybe "Fred's Houses of the Holies"

And make it opt in like FHOPol...

 

Pretty simple, once we figure out if God exists or not, then the forum determines what kind of Prius (s)he drives (or not).

 

lol... not long.

 

That's even more unlikely then a mass agreement on what kind of car would Jesus drive Personally, for that question, I think it should be which Prius would Jesus drive (and it relates to Prius too!)?

 

What Would Jesus Drive? I don't think he'd drive at all - it's not environmentally responsible. He'd walk. Or maybe ride a bicycle.

 

Didn't he ride an nice person into Jerusalem?

 

He rode a grass guzzler.

 

Then maybe an electric car...and promote bio-gas power!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html