Religion

All other non-Clue/Cluedo discussion.

Moderators: Michael, BBP, Tum

What Religon are you?

Christian
9
53%
Muslim
0
No votes
Hindu
0
No votes
Jewish
2
12%
Buddist
0
No votes
Smidginic
1
6%
Morman(did I spell that right?)
0
No votes
None
4
24%
Other(mabye yours isnt on the list)
1
6%
 
Total votes: 17

PrinceAzure33
Diplomatically Immune
Posts: 5454
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:16 pm
Location: Lurking the mansion at night

Post by PrinceAzure33 » Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:39 pm

I'm reading Dan Brown's Angels and Demons before I'm going to read the Da Vinci code. So far it's very good, but there's alot of references to religions. It's gonna be a good read! :D
Oh, it's England. Croquet on the lawn, tea in silver teapots, sherry before dinner. One simply has to maintain one's standards!

Colonel Gray Poopond
Forensics Expert
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Colonel Gray Poopond » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:24 pm

Kristev wrote:A book of shadows? More Hollywood myth based upon reality. Most witches keep books of personal spells, yes. Including myself.
Really. I once read a book on wicca(Paganism, things like that), and it said that a book of shadows was a spell book passed from one person to another. Kind of like a useful hand me down.
All you need is love!

Guest

Post by Guest » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:34 pm

All Pagans are not witches.

Colonel Gray Poopond
Forensics Expert
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 6:55 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Colonel Gray Poopond » Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:04 pm

I never said that.
All you need is love!

User avatar
CluedoKid
Con Artiste
Posts: 17333
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:05 am

Post by CluedoKid » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:06 pm

Well the opinions who choose Christianity is overwhelming. I guess its a popular religion.

I stil will wonder why alwayspeacock is aganist Buddisim.
Image

User avatar
ClueBoy12
Informant
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:56 pm

Post by ClueBoy12 » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:10 pm

oh god, not this again
Image

User avatar
cluegirl104
"I NEED to watch the movie again!!"
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:32 am
Location: reading in the library

Post by cluegirl104 » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:44 pm

it is all about being open and accepting of others! :D :D
Oh Gravity, thou art a heartless b!tch

User avatar
CluedoKid
Con Artiste
Posts: 17333
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:05 am

Post by CluedoKid » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:49 pm

cluegirl104 wrote:it is all about being open and accepting of others! :D :D
exactly!! :D :D
Image

User avatar
Lord Caspen
Court Stenographer
Posts: 2537
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 8:50 pm

Strange

Post by Lord Caspen » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:50 pm

I'm curious why Agnostic and Atheistic aren't included? Also, what is Smidgism? And no, Mormon is not spelt correctly in the list. (Though I kind of like the way that it is spelt there ..."Now you must face me, infidel! -I- -am- MOR-MAN!")
It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit. -- Blithe Spirit, Noel Coward.

User avatar
cluegirl104
"I NEED to watch the movie again!!"
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:32 am
Location: reading in the library

Post by cluegirl104 » Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:04 pm

i supose that is why there is an other option,..there are just too many religions out there and not everyone knows about all of them!
Oh Gravity, thou art a heartless b!tch

User avatar
ClueBoy12
Informant
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:56 pm

Post by ClueBoy12 » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 pm

Cluedokid25 wrote:
cluegirl104 wrote:it is all about being open and accepting of others! :D :D
exactly!! :D :D
Yes, but I'm not the happiest to get back to this thread because sometimes everyone isn't open or accepting. Most of the negative posts have been deleted from this thread I believe...actually never mind, just checked and lots of Andrew posts are still in this thread....some members who've been here long enough know what I'm talking about
Image

User avatar
CluedoKid
Con Artiste
Posts: 17333
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:05 am

Post by CluedoKid » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:44 pm

I apparently missed that argument. Luckliy.


Although I am very curious on what people wrote.

Perhaps Clueboy if not much trouble you can fill me in via PM?

If you don't feel like it, then it okay. :wink:
Image

User avatar
ClueBoy12
Informant
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:56 pm

Post by ClueBoy12 » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:53 pm

I don't even remember like half of it, I try to block out unpleasent things.
Image

User avatar
CluedoKid
Con Artiste
Posts: 17333
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:05 am

Post by CluedoKid » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:06 pm

ClueBoy12 wrote:I don't even remember like half of it, I try to block out unpleasent things.
I know. :wink:
Image

Kristev
Crime Writer
Posts: 2520
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Idaho

Post by Kristev » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:16 am

Lock this thread, please.

User avatar
CluedoKid
Con Artiste
Posts: 17333
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:05 am

Post by CluedoKid » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:17 am

Why?? I feel we should have a right to voice an opinion on religion. I don't think it should be locked just cuse one person doesnt like it.


As long as we arnt attacking each other there is no reason for this to be locked. :!:
Image

User avatar
cluegirl104
"I NEED to watch the movie again!!"
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:32 am
Location: reading in the library

Post by cluegirl104 » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:05 am

if people are offended it is something that should be done with,...this is,..after all a touchy subject!
Oh Gravity, thou art a heartless b!tch

User avatar
Lord Caspen
Court Stenographer
Posts: 2537
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 8:50 pm

Subject

Post by Lord Caspen » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:26 am

The request to lock this thread prompts me to a line of thought directly related to but not directly indicated by the topic heading ... Tolerance vs. Freedom.

In light of the Danish cartoon affair I have had several interesting talks with a friend about the nature of freedom, and my friend has posited that freedom is bogus, because no one can ever be free of the consequences of their actions. I have had to concur that nothing happens in a vacuum, and I have begun to wonder if freedom of speech isn't, in fact, an especially reprehensible lie.

I don't like the hurt that a person might suffer because his faith comes under fire -- especially when he is in the minority. I can't say I've been there, because when I had a faith, mine was not in the minority; yet I've had other, typically political, beliefs that have been in the minority and yes, it hurt very much to think I was the only person who could see the wisdom in them.

Yet, would it really have been right for the people who argued against me to just shut up? After all, I acted first by espousing the beliefs, and they merely responded honestly and fairly.

I don't understand why merely having a position, albeit religious, means that other people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it, even if that discussion should pain passersby. There are far too many kinds of activities or speech which might conceivably hurt a person's feelings for there to be a general rule (or law) against all of them.

What makes religion so special that it should be singled out for protection? What's the sense in protecting somebody's feelings of religion if we aren't also going to hold as sacroscant their freedom to express those feelings?
It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit. -- Blithe Spirit, Noel Coward.

User avatar
Michael
Mastermind
Posts: 6130
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 11:46 pm
Location: NYC & Atlanta

Post by Michael » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:31 am

Amen!
How do you know what kind of pictures they are if you're such a lay-dee?

User avatar
CluedoKid
Con Artiste
Posts: 17333
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:05 am

Re: Subject

Post by CluedoKid » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:20 pm

Lord Caspen wrote:The request to lock this thread prompts me to a line of thought directly related to but not directly indicated by the topic heading ... Tolerance vs. Freedom.

In light of the Danish cartoon affair I have had several interesting talks with a friend about the nature of freedom, and my friend has posited that freedom is bogus, because no one can ever be free of the consequences of their actions. I have had to concur that nothing happens in a vacuum, and I have begun to wonder if freedom of speech isn't, in fact, an especially reprehensible lie.

I don't like the hurt that a person might suffer because his faith comes under fire -- especially when he is in the minority. I can't say I've been there, because when I had a faith, mine was not in the minority; yet I've had other, typically political, beliefs that have been in the minority and yes, it hurt very much to think I was the only person who could see the wisdom in them.

Yet, would it really have been right for the people who argued against me to just shut up? After all, I acted first by espousing the beliefs, and they merely responded honestly and fairly.

I don't understand why merely having a position, albeit religious, means that other people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it, even if that discussion should pain passersby. There are far too many kinds of activities or speech which might conceivably hurt a person's feelings for there to be a general rule (or law) against all of them.

What makes religion so special that it should be singled out for protection? What's the sense in protecting somebody's feelings of religion if we aren't also going to hold as sacroscant their freedom to express those feelings?
Thank you! :)
Image

Post Reply