New Religion forum rules - effective now.

[Freedom Onion]

I have mentioned before that I do not jump into discussions about curling (for example) to opine that curling is stupid, tedious, not a real sport and anybody who watches or plays it must be an idiot. And I have wondered why so many people feel constrained to jump into religious discussions with the same kind of opinions. Here I differ from Stephen in that I do not believe atheists and agnostics have anything to contribute to a debate on a doctrinal point, any more than I would have anything to contribute about curling to a curling thread save my dislike of it and my belief that it is not a sport.

I am sorry that you are feeling that way Kate. Genuine I am.

You raise a good point though perhaps when people start threads on skiing or baseball people should post negative things about those sports ad nauseum and remind them about how their focus should be on the middle east or masturbating.

I think that Stephen as a protestant minister comes from a different angle though. He probably has more interest in seeing them convert. My sense is that you just want atheists and agnostics to leave you alone.

Only when we are discussing doctrinal points -- for example, in the current thread about whether Jesus was or was not celibate (a hypothetical question at best), the atheists and agnostics have already jumped aboard to argue that He isn't even real. If they would refrain from doing this, I would be content. Perhaps the atheists and agnostics also feel constrained in the movies to point out loudly that Superman can't really fly and Doctor Who is an actor?

I agree that technically this is what they are doing by "jumping aboard," but your earlier posts painted the picture that they were being violent and obnoxious about it. That is your perspective; mine is that they are being entirely civil so far and not trying to sink the thread in anti-religion rhetoric. In fact it looks like a couple of folks who otherwise seem agnostic, atheist or indifferent are weighing in to discuss the subject on the merit of what is known via the Bible without actually making much claim as to their own stance - I'd say that's close to objective as one can be on the subject of religion.

I guess I just fail to see how you find fairness in saying that they shouldn't be able to speak up at all (by saying "I wish they wouldn't post), when by posting on this site you are fitting yourself among the Free Speech crowd. That means freedom for anyone to speak up on any subject no matter how well-reasoned or factually baseless their opinions may be.

In other words I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree that anything should be done about it.

To quote you and respond directly:

I do not believe atheists and agnostics have anything to contribute to a debate on a doctrinal point

I believe anyone who reads a piece of literature and analyzes the content for internal consistency and for insight into the author and the times the author lived in, can contribute as much as anyone else regardless of whether they believe the literature is truth or fiction.

I don't believe dragons and wizards are real, and yet I can hold a civil discourse on the nature of dragons and wizards based on the information available.

[Kate Shaw]

FreedomOnion, your example is not parallel -- if you don't believe the United States is real, would you feel you had anything to add while treating America as a hypothetical construct?

My point is that if we are discussing something that is in fact real, within the parameters of the subject, why would people who don't believe in the reality of what we are discussing feel they have anything to add?

[Freedom Onion]

FreedomOnion, your example is not parallel -- if you don't believe the United States is real, would you feel you had anything to add while treating America as a hypothetical construct?

My point is that if we are discussing something that is in fact real, within the parameters of the subject, why would people who don't believe in the reality of what we are discussing feel they have anything to add?

Quite simply... yes. Yes I (potentially) would have something to add, because as a reasoning human being I have been born with the ability to imagine and construct a hypothetical reality in my mind, and to then flesh out that reality. This practice is done frequently with regards to authors of fiction, screenplay writers, video game designers, role playing games, and childish games of pretend. Gedanken Experiment. But that is neither here nor there, it is obvious we disagree that such a thing is possible.

My point is this. The Bible says that A = A and B = B. Only faithful believers will take that to be true; the unfaithful will say it is not. However, one could suppose it is true for the sake of argument, and from that basis both sides agree - this is done all the time in philosophical and political debate, and is taught in Philosophy, Debate and Logic classes the world over. Belief in a circumstance need never enter an equation involving logic, only the agreement that both parties are talking apples to apples.

As the example with the thread about Jesus' celibacy; the question has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed in real life, the question is whether there is anything in the Bible that refers specifically to his celibacy. Again, the question can be answered by a non-believer who has access to a Bible and can find the relevent information. Does that add to the discussion? Yes. Did their non-belief change the facts? No. They are not necessarily asserting that they believe it, they are asserting that the book from which knowledge of Jesus is derived has or has not any evidence of that claim. Similarly, if all the knowledge about George Washington existed in one book, someone who didn't believe in George Washington could answer questions about him whether or not they believe he existed, based on the information presented in the book. I don't believe Gandalf existed, but I could answer all kinds of questions about him based on what Tolkien wrote in his books. I know that's a tired debate, I just am of the belief that wisdom can come from the most unlikely of places.

Sorry to be so wordy about the subject, I am just trying to understand your position and apply my own.

[Kate Shaw]

I apprediate the chance to discuss the subject; thanks for being so rational about it.

[Charles J. White]

For many of us, religion "rules" went right out the window (or IN the window depending on your point of view) on 09-11-01.

I agree 100%. We have these discussions over BBQ parties while food is on the grill and most of my friends and co-workers tend to agree. On Tuesday Septembet 11 2001 was a time that made us all understand how dangerous religion can be in the hands of those who truely believe at all cost.

[WestViking]

For many of us, religion "rules" went right out the window (or IN the window depending on your point of view) on 09-11-01.

I agree 100%. We have these discussions over BBQ parties while food is on the grill and most of my friends and co-workers tend to agree. On Tuesday Septembet 11 2001 was a time that made us all understand how dangerous religion can be in the hands of those who truely believe at all cost.

I am somewhat puzzled - considering your comments, why are you posting to a religious forum?

[Charles J. White]

For many of us, religion "rules" went right out the window (or IN the window depending on your point of view) on 09-11-01.

I agree 100%. We have these discussions over BBQ parties while food is on the grill and most of my friends and co-workers tend to agree. On Tuesday Septembet 11 2001 was a time that made us all understand how dangerous religion can be in the hands of those who truely believe at all cost.

I am somewhat puzzled - considering your comments, why are you posting to a religious forum?

What need not be religious to have something to say about a particular religion or a particular subject that the religious deem important. I'm not a morman but I'm still allowed to have an opinion on people having multiple wives for example.

[Hailey]

I agree that technically this is what they are doing by "jumping aboard," but your earlier posts painted the picture that they were being violent and obnoxious about it.

I think that she suggested obnoxious - I never saw violent intentions conveyed.

I guess I just fail to see how you find fairness in saying that they shouldn't be able to speak up at all (by saying "I wish they wouldn't post), when by posting on this site you are fitting yourself among the Free Speech crowd. That means freedom for anyone to speak up on any subject no matter how well-reasoned or factually baseless their opinions may be.

Wishing that people would be respectful and trying to make it a rule that they can't speak is different.

[Kate Shaw]

This discussion is going in circles, so I will merely conclude by asking that when discussing a religion in which you do not believe or a deity who is not your own, do try not to turn the thread into a big argument as to whether religion is to blame for everything that ever went wrong in the world and/or whether there is a God.

We who are discussing religion believe that religion is a force for good and that God exists. Just could you try to respect that? I promise not to intrude on your atheist self-congratulation and try to convert you. How would that be?

[Edward Kennedy]

Religion is NOT a guarantee of righteousness the same way that being a lefturd is NOT a guarantee of being a human. The meanest people I ever met are in religions and attend churches. My youngest garnd daughter was asked if she wanted to go to visit "Mary" and she right away had a frown on her 3 year old visage and said, Mary mean". Interesting, from a 3 year old. "Out of the mouths of babes...

[WestViking]

For anyone who has the notion that our Religious Forums are a place where you can go to slag religions, religious views and generally tell everyone what a horrible scourge religions are, I refer you to the first post on this thread:

Free Dominion's Relgion forum has a long history of embarrassing this site. Every so often, opposing groups of Catholics and Protestants dig in their heels and turn that forum into eBelfast. At one point it got so bad that we removed the Religion forum from the Active Topics list altogether.

This current war is getting out of hand, and it is going to stop.

Here are the new rules for the Religion forum.

If someone starts a thread in the religion forum, it will be assumed that they are not doing so because they want people with the opposing view to jump on them and criticize their religion. It is within their rights to have a thread about praying a rosary or celebrating Passover, or speaking in tongues, and to share their thoughts with likeminded people without being jumped on.

That is not to say that there can be no debate in the religion forum, but it is up to the thread initiator to invite others to debate him/her in the initial post if they want to have a theological discussion.

If someone starts a thread inviting others to participate in prayer or worship that you don't agree with, start your own thread to debate the issue, don't hijack the thread of the person who genuinely wants to have a religious discussion with likeminded individuals.

These are the rules that they use at Free Republic and it seems to work well for them. We will give it a try and see if we can make it work here.

If the religious people on FD continue to dishonour God by throwing crap all over each other in public, we will shut down the Religion forum. I honestly believe that God would rather have us do that than have to watch what is taking place in there.

That is all.

If you truly dislike religion and want to so tell the world, find a suitable forum in which to do so. It is not available at Free Dominion.

[Edward Kennedy]

Post moved to: http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=160971