Post #166,972
8/1/04 2:09:41 PM
|
Alas, you are not wrong
Christianity in particular began as a religion for the screwed-over class, proclaiming this life as insignificant except for the importance of believing in Jesus.
But who'da thunk they enjoyed getting screwed over? Just to make sure they kept their minds on the glories of the next life the Christians filled in the Roman sewer system, closed the baths and lost the recipe for soap for 1000 years so they could wallow in filth, stench and disease.
And so it is to this day. Since the economic record clearly shows that farmers and low skilled workers prosper during Democratic administrations and suffer during Republican administration they all vote Republican to make sure they remain truly screwed.
"He who believeth in me shall have eternal life". I guess that's why practically every used car salesman in the country proclaims himself a Christian - cheap salvation regardless of sins.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #166,975
8/1/04 2:30:15 PM
|
LA Times: "Do the Math"
[link|http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kinsley1aug01,1,2283572.column?coll=la-util-op-ed|http://www.latimes.c...oll=la-util-op-ed]
The figures I'm using are from 43 years, 1960 through 2002. I didn't choose the years in order to skew the results; these are the years that were available for the categories I wanted to include.
The results are pretty interesting. Maybe presidents have little power over the economy. And we know that they must fight with Congress over the budget. Still, elections are based on the premise that who you vote for does matter. So let's at least entertain that assumption for a few minutes.
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year- 2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what? The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.
But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.
-drl
|
Post #166,978
8/1/04 3:02:22 PM
|
Bashing religion again
Same stuff, different day.... don't you all ever get bored of bashing Christians? ;)
Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
|
Post #166,980
8/1/04 3:23:18 PM
|
Re: Bashing religion again
We're bashing Baptists. Christian bashing in down the hall.
-drl
|
Post #166,982
8/1/04 3:30:24 PM
|
was not a bash at Christians
It was an honest answer to the question: Why do people vote against thier apparent interests?
My post was my best conclusion. If you have a better one, I'm prepared to listen.
I have absolutely nothing against people who behave according to their religious beliefs. I only get snarky when they feel that I must behave according to their religious beliefs.
|
Post #167,037
8/1/04 9:24:55 PM
|
I did wink, by the way in case no one noticed.
It was an honest answer to the question: Why do people vote against thier apparent interests? I was referring to Andrew's post, not yours, and his comments in particular, where he says: ************* Andrew said: Christianity in particular began as a religion for the screwed-over class, proclaiming this life as insignificant except for the importance of believing in Jesus. ************* I have a problem calling the pilgrims the "screwed-over class." I preferred to think of them as rebellious souls who chose to change the way they were forced to believe. Then his next sentence makes me cringe even more... ************** Andrew said: But who'da thunk they enjoyed getting screwed over? Just to make sure they kept their minds on the glories of the next life the Christians filled in the Roman sewer system, closed the baths and lost the recipe for soap for 1000 years so they could wallow in filth, stench and disease. ************** Okay, I really don't see why he has to claim Christians are DIRTY. Even if he means it in a non-literal manner and means it as their hearts or minds, it's still a generalization that I don't agree with. This to me, was the "bashing" part, it implies that we are in some way all bad or "unclean". It also bothers me that he implies we like to be screwed over. I think it's mostly that most Christians don't know what will and won't cause them to get screwed over. I voted for a president once, (not the last election, it was some years back), that I believed would benefit me and the first thing he did in office was something that royally screwed me over. So I don't see it as a conscious choice we make. Do you understand any better where I was coming from now? As for your post, I didn't read anything terribly upsetting or offensive in that to cause any response. It was strictly Andrew's post that prompted my response. :) I have absolutely nothing against people who behave according to their religious beliefs. I only get snarky when they feel that I must behave according to their religious beliefs. And you'll find that I'm not one who will try and ever make you do that. I just kinda get tired of hearing all Christians painted as this or that, when in truth we are all individuals with individual ways of believing and our own personal ways of worshipping, and I guess that's what I don't see any indication that the majority of IWT gets that. Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
|
Post #167,040
8/1/04 9:39:20 PM
|
Learn some bloody history, woman!
The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history.
As for the rest, Andrew (unlike you) knows basic history. Christianity was a religion that appealed strongly to slaves, and fact that Christian Europe did did not believe in bathing is a well-reported part of European history. If you continue to mistake simple fact for bashing, no wonder you don't know much history! (And you're unlikely to improve!)
The next time that Andrew launches into one of his rants, you'd be well-advised to ask what parts of it are speculation, and what parts are confirmed fact. It may save you some embarrassment.
Regards,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #167,065
8/1/04 11:05:34 PM
|
Re: Learn some bloody history, woman!
The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history. I've already explained numerous times I was seeing the beginning of "Christianity" i.e. the departure from the Church of England, as the U.S. version, not the Old Testament. I also explained why I viewed his post as "bashing" and why some parts of it still come across that way. It certainly can't be viewed as a positive post about Christianity. I was just pointing out I was a little tired of hearing all the negativity about religion. I know a lot of history, just never focused on religious history or political really. I focused on military history. Not every human being, even if they learned it ALL in school is expected to remember every fact in history, and that includes me. I observed something, I made a comment, we've resolved it, time to move along, nothing to see here. :) Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
|
Post #167,071
8/1/04 11:23:04 PM
|
Still no excuse
The fact that Andrew talked about thousand year period and Roman baths made it utterly clear that he was talking about a time period that is longer than US history, and he was talking about something that was nowhere near the New World. (Assuming, that is, that you have a rough idea where Rome is.)
If you knew any dates at all on the relevant events, this would have been abundantly clear to you.
But even if you were completely clueless as to what events Andrew was talking about, you could have asked! Not knowing something is unavoidable - as you say we are all in that position from time to time. But jumping down someone's throat because they stated facts you were unaware of is avoidable, and should be avoided.
How you avoid it is simple - if what that person says makes no sense to you, give them the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification. When people make stuff up, you can figure that out and call them on it later. When people are referring to stuff which you just didn't happen to know, you can find out more without causing this kind of problem for yourself.
So remember this for for next time: there was no excuse for your behaviour. When you don't know, ask before assuming the worst. Particularly if the person who is making comments (Andrew) happens to be someone who is known to know a lot of odd things.
Regards,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #167,073
8/1/04 11:25:48 PM
8/1/04 11:27:26 PM
|
I didn't jump down anyone's throat.
I made a semi-sarcastic comment, with a wink included, meaning I wasn't upset or anything.
If you choose to take it differently, that's your problem.
Edit: And I've already clarified and handled the mix-up with Andrew in the Religion Forum. I don't ask as much on here as I used to, because when I do it now, people tend to ridicule me for asking.
Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
Edited by Nightowl
Aug. 1, 2004, 11:27:26 PM EDT
|
Post #167,057
8/1/04 10:51:50 PM
|
One note
the filling in of the roman sewers, destroying the baths, and losing the recipe for soap for a thousand years all started and ended well before the pilgrims.
US christianity is not the beginning of that faith.
BTW- he was in fact being quite completely literal when he said, that: not metaphorical in any way. For many years, people who purposefully injured themselves were considered better people for it, and bathing was something that only pagans did, for which they burned.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #167,062
8/1/04 11:01:35 PM
|
Yes, I'm getting that now
I also realized I was confusing Christianity with religion, hence Drew pointing out that Christ wasn't even known then, so it couldn't have been. I get confused because they keep saying God/Christ/Spirit are all the same, yet different.
And yes, I was viewing the start of it, as U.S. Christianity, not new Testament Christianity, which was my second mistake.
No biggie. I just get a little tired of constantly hearing negative things about religion sometimes, just like you all get tired of Marlowe's rants, or De-Sitter's anti-women crusades.
Wasn't trying to create an uproar.
Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
|
Post #166,990
8/1/04 4:25:07 PM
|
So quoting the evidence of history is 'bashing'? (new thread)
Created as new thread #166989 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=166989|So quoting the evidence of history is 'bashing'?]
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #167,017
8/1/04 7:17:03 PM
|
Surely you jest, Owlet
[though that's a bit of a stretch for you, I'd think]
When a one or another has finally broken the code, discerned the Root-cause of most-all warz and pestilence on the planet.. related that to demonstrably *defective functioning within the wetware of a considerable mass of the now dominant and self-destructing species, currently engaged in intensifying its rush towards nuclear suicide --
Why, ever ? might a one become 'tired' of exploring this bizarre soap opera and guessing which New! atrocities shall next be 'blessed' by the priestly class ??
{sheesh, Owlet}
(Hey.. the Corp ate Laugh-In and Smothers Brothers, so we now have to create our cosmic mirth for ourselves. Who doesn't love to view a train wreck in slo-mo; then rewind. After all, it's their train, etc.)
Sic Transistors, Gloria
* defect: the regular and premeditated confusion of myth, allegory and metaphor for - actual events.
ch cha cha
|
Post #167,038
8/1/04 9:30:43 PM
|
Re: Surely you jest, Owlet
[though that's a bit of a stretch for you, I'd think] Yep. I don't jest often, but I was being slightly sarcastic and hence the wink in the post. When a one or another has finally broken the code, discerned the Root-cause of most-all warz and pestilence on the planet.. related that to demonstrably *defective functioning within the wetware of a considerable mass of the now dominant and self-destructing species, currently engaged in intensifying its rush towards nuclear suicide -- I understand that many feel that religion is the cause of many wars and other conflicts, and I am not arguing for or against that. I explained in my post above to Hnick why I had problem with Andrew's post. It paints us all as bad or unclean, and that is what I'm really tired of hearing. I was also not agreeing with the idea that we choose to be screwed over, as evidenced by another comment I made in that post. I think we are just not sure who or what will screw us over, when we vote, which is one of my biggest anxieties about voting. Why, ever ? might a one become 'tired' of exploring this bizarre soap opera and guessing which New! atrocities shall next be 'blessed' by the priestly class ?? Not tired of exploring it, Ashton. Tired of hearing how we are to blame, how we are the root cause, how we are the problem. It's so easy to blame it all on the Christians instead of looking deeper into the heart of the problems and finding other reasons and other things to change. You could annilihate all the Christians and I assure you, some group of people somewhere would come together and be for causes and issues and wind up being the next "reason" all the wars happen. It's not WHAT you believe or who you are, it's how you use those beliefs. :) Oh and by the way, I don't look at Train wrecks, or any other kind of wreck. :) Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
|
Post #166,996
8/1/04 5:13:42 PM
|
Is that true? Is it a recent phenomena?
Since the economic record clearly shows that farmers and low skilled workers prosper during Democratic administrations and suffer during Republican administration they all vote Republican to make sure they remain truly screwed. It sounds like you imply that a) farmers were always in the economic vise they are in now, and b) that they have consistently voted Republican. I know that a) is not true; I'd like to see data that proves that b) has some basis in reality - at least before the Reagan years and the unholy alliance between the Moral Majority and the Republican Party.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #167,014
8/1/04 6:40:30 PM
|
It might be a recent phenomen*ON* :-D
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #167,019
8/1/04 7:20:13 PM
|
OK - what's the plural of opus?__of 'Grand Prix'?---er :-\ufffd
|
Post #167,080
8/2/04 1:03:55 AM
|
*smile*
Fair enough. Question stands, though
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #167,021
8/1/04 7:21:44 PM
|
It explains swaggert et al
a lot of folks beleieve in redemption and forgiveness even knowing that a blackard will fall he is after all their blackard. I know of one assistant minister who was a realtor royally screwed the same person 3 times. After the first 2 times I hadda ask, he's fucked you repeatedly (not listing mls then providing a real lowball offer then selling at market 60 days later.) Oh no he wouldnt do anything like that, he's a Deacon.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #167,039
8/1/04 9:34:32 PM
8/1/04 9:35:58 PM
|
Well, I've learned
And the lesson I learned was not to trust anyone just because he/she claims to be a Christian or religious.
My ex-fiance was "religious" so to speak. He went to church the dutiful four times a year, and claimed to be a Christian. He cheated on me and screwed me over, and wasn't worth it.
I don't buy anyone hiding behind the religious cloak anymore, not even George Bush, not any politician, no one. Show me who and how you are before I'll trust you, that's my motto.
Nightowl >8#
P.S. Scott, if this is out of hand and should go to religion, let me know.
EDIT: Never mind, I see that Andrew did already. :)
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
Edited by Nightowl
Aug. 1, 2004, 09:35:58 PM EDT
|
Post #167,066
8/1/04 11:09:03 PM
|
This phrase makes you a maverick
I don't buy anyone hiding behind the religious cloak anymore, not even George Bush, not any politician, no one. Show me who and how you are before I'll trust you, that's my motto. Because you see, some 90+% of self-described Evangelicals and some large number of not-quite so-Fundy others: deem it exactly enough for him to incorporate into frequent stumbling utterances, I Believe ___ [and btw, God Tells Me how to run the world next] - and that's enough for him just 'to say', for these to ignore all else about GWB performance, ever. And enough for me to see these as the perfectly-clear, self-ID'd enemies of our or any: NOT-a-Theocracy State. In a close election - such ones as these, Matter. Visible Enemies of "The Open Society" - therefore my enemies too, both viscerally and practically. I see such folk no differently than I see the 19 airplane driving Yuppie-Arabs with Exactly the same agenda: 'Believe' as I Do - or die. It may well come to "the barricades" right here in River City .. if our sucky karma continues unabated. (So you see that there's nothing here personally directed at you & yours.. or all those other sane folk who flock into their various worship-houses on Sunday, yet retain some comprehension of *why* they May Not Make Me join them, under any circumstances whatsoever.) HTH, Ashton
|
Post #167,067
8/1/04 11:12:33 PM
|
Yay, someone gets it!
That's all I wanted IWT to understand, that not all religious people are identically believing, blindly following sheep who trust every "religious" word out of someone's mouth.
Thanks Ashton, I feel so much better now.
Nightowl >8#
Note to self: Find new signature soon.
|
Post #167,069
8/1/04 11:20:33 PM
|
What you've learned
Sweetheart:
Everything you've read in the Old and New Testaments is bogus, including the words "and" and "the." You're an ignorant dupe. The Lord Jesus ain't gonna save your soul no matter how hard you pray. Get over it. Live your deluded life, die and rot, 'cause that's all that's ever going to happen to you. Sorry to be the one to break the news.
grumpily,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #167,082
8/2/04 1:14:24 AM
|
Well, yes, that is grumpy
And just as unproven as any other religion.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #167,089
8/2/04 4:36:43 AM
8/2/04 4:47:42 AM
|
I can prove The Truth
Although the moon is smaller than the Earth, it is farther away.
(It's always merely a matter of Which 'Beliefs' you're willing to band together for, to kill all the Deniers about. Any old century Any old Truth will serve sanctimonious Righteousness and cha cha cha)
I, [link|http://www.setileague.org/editor/brunoalt.htm| Giordano], secure in the Certain knowledge that My President takes his CinC Orders from Gawd. I Know where the Buck Stops, now. (Screw the anointment [oil] - it's all about Myrrh.)
Let us prey.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.
Paul Valery, 1895
Edited by Ashton
Aug. 2, 2004, 04:47:42 AM EDT
|
Post #167,090
8/2/04 5:32:31 AM
|
unproven?
And can you prove that the fairies do not tango and tapdance on the toadstools under a shower of silver pixie dust on the summer solstice? Absent such proof shall I perforce believe in the dancing sprites?
(Incidentally, a distraction during the composition of the abusive post caused me to to omit the step of directing that teaspoonful of venom to the Flame Forum as originally intended.)
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #167,093
8/2/04 6:07:34 AM
|
Absence of evidence means nothing.
While fairies have not been observed dancing on toadstools, this does not mean that we can logically state that they do not do so.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like (for now...); however, it is likely to be unproductive to bring to bear the scientific method on something that is inherently unscientific.
Andrew's comment is perfectly correct.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #167,096
8/2/04 6:34:29 AM
|
Evidence..?___of the by-definition ineffable? Ummm
|
Post #167,098
8/2/04 6:37:33 AM
|
Re: Absence of evidence means nothing.
Yes, but rather deeper than you suspect - he means that passionate disbelief is nevertheless a belief.
-drl
|
Post #167,099
8/2/04 6:42:27 AM
|
You shouldn't try to read my mind.
I know *exactly* what Andrew meant.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #167,101
8/2/04 6:46:59 AM
8/2/04 6:49:18 AM
|
Yes it does.
It means whackos who believe in silly shit like fairies, unicorns, easter bunnies -- or gods! -- should shut the fuck up until they HAVE some.
Why the fuck SHOULD such obviously deluded in-duh-viduals be accorded the same intellectual(*) respect as fully sane people?!?
(*): NB, I'm not talking about the general human respect I have for all people. I'm certainly NOT saying that, for example, toddlers, seniles, or the retarded should be denied (to borrow a famous Yank phrasing (but derived from J. S. Mill) of it) "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", any more than the rest of us; I am ONLY saying that what people who insist on believing in fairy tales *say and think* should be taken no more seriously than what, for example, toddlers, seniles, or the retarded say and think. By believing in fairy tales, they're placing themselves in the same general category.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
Edited by CRConrad
Aug. 2, 2004, 06:49:18 AM EDT
|
Post #167,119
8/2/04 10:43:29 AM
|
obviously you havnt stopped for a drink at the blue moon
evidence that fairies dance with toads.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #167,128
8/2/04 11:31:40 AM
|
Best post in this thread! Thanx, box!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #167,126
8/2/04 11:02:53 AM
|
Why is that in every debate about religion and atheism
we end up with driving desire to lock somebody up? It used to be the riligious who acted on that desire. I dare say, they got it out of their system for now. Atheists' turn?
--
"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."
-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
|
Post #167,138
8/2/04 12:57:36 PM
|
Strict atheism is also a religion.
-drl
|
Post #167,142
8/2/04 1:20:46 PM
|
For small values of religion. :)
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #167,223
8/3/04 1:56:10 AM
|
To be quite honest
religion is one of those "hot topics" that causes a lot of debate. What one person or group believes may be different from what another person or group believes.
If you would like to view it on a psychological level, using me for an example, I think I can explain it a bit better.
My belief in something greater than myself, God for instance, helps me cope better psychologically with life's issues. I get all upset and anxious, my blood pressure goes up, and I get sick, then I pray to that higher power to help me, and somehow by doing this, psychologically it helps me feel better, my blood pressure lowers, and I am no longer upset or anxious. Now perhaps this is more like a tool that I use to help me psychologically deal with my problems. Some would consider me insane for believing in a God, perhaps some would call me superstitious. Yet an observer cannot deny the benefits that believing in God gives me. My beliefs give my life meaning, and I have something to use to counter suicidal thoughts. I think "No if I kill myself, I'll end up in Hell. I'd better seek help fast before I totally lose control." because I also believe in a Heaven and Hell. I believe that my sins will be forgiven and that I will end up in Heaven, because of this I have no fear over death and I am not afraid of dying. I can honestly say that if I didn't have my faith, I would have most likely killed myself for real, because life to me would not have a meaning and with there not being a God, there would not be a Hell. So in this way and others, my religion benefits me. Even if I am 100% wrong and there is no God, you cannot deny the psychological effects my beliefs have on me. Believing in God also helps me cope with the loss of a loved one or friend, or a disaster, or some other bad event in my life.
I do not try to convert those who do not want to be converted, but I do feel that I have a freedom to express my beliefs just like anyone else has for their beliefs. I feel that putting down someone's beliefs and making fun of them for their beliefs is morally wrong. In a diverse world, we should respect other people's rights to believe what they want, even if we do not believe the same things that they do. For example, I sometimes visit Thai Buddhist Monks, I also went to Thailand and met some of the more powerful monks. I have had interesting conversations with them, and I learned how to meditate from them. I may not believe in their religion, but I refuse to put them down or make fun of their religion.
I hope this makes sense somehow, it is late and I am tired. I just wanted to get my two cents worth in.
"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
