Since we've gotten told to stop talking generally about religion twice in the Homosexuality and Religion thread and were told that, if we want to talk generally about religion, we need to make a new thread, I have made a new thread.
Full disclosure: I am an agnostic atheist and anti-theist, but I'm very interested in theology and religion.
Mod Edit: All right, there are a couple of ground rules here:
- This is not a thread for mindless bashing of religion or of atheism/agnosticism etc. All view points are welcome here. Let's have a civil debate.
- Religion is a volatile subject. Please don't post here if you can't manage a civil discussion with viewpoints you disagree with. There will be no tolerance for people who can't keep the tone light hearted.
- There is no one true answer for this thread. Don't try to force out opposing voices.
edited 9th Feb '14 1:01:31 PM by Madrugada
Serving Crits
You should be glad the Nunnery thread was closed, then. 
edited 27th Feb '17 12:27:37 AM by pblades
"The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself." Albert Camus
Who Am I?
Bring EEEEET!
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
It's a bird.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That sounds reasonable enough.
I guess there's a bit of a gray area, but generally speaking I wouldn't call it "harm" if you're both consenting and fully aware of the risks.
Who Am I?
Eh, a little hot wax never hurt anybody.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
Hurting others isn't the same as harming others. The first one can be Safe, Sane, and Consensual, the second violates the safe part by definition. And if it fullfills the consensual part, it violates the sane part.
edited 27th Feb '17 1:16:22 PM by Antiteilchen
Serving Crits
![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
Kind of a one off thought, but:
Has anyone ever thought about how the bible has no modern canon? (I only know of Christianity so well, but if the same is true of other traditions, same question).
As a corollary, are there modern stories to be put in there? And who would you accept to make that decision?
edited 1st Mar '17 6:21:19 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
It'd likely depend on the religion, and how organized/hierarchical it is. Lots of world religions have holy texts, but they don't all define canonicity with equal rigor. Sometimes, "canon" might even be a misleading way of putting things. Some religions (Taoism, arguably) seem to treat its founding texts as holy or numinous, but not necessarily authoritative. At the other extreme, the Koran's unique nature is so essential to Islam that the idea of some potential text on a par with or modifying it isn't thinkable.
Now, where Christianity's concerned, an addition to canon would probably take nothing less than a fully ecumenical council, like the those of the 4th-8th centuries that helped establish current biblical canon. However, that was with a more/less unified Christian church, before the Great Schism and the Reformation; as things currently stand, such an ecumenical gathering seems nigh-impossible.
Moreover, the councils' definition of canon stuck so well because it was close to a fait accompli, based on the consistent examples of Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and (to some extent) Origen. It's hard to think of any universally acknowledged modern authorities whose judgment all denominations would view as quite so normative.
edited 1st Mar '17 8:44:29 AM by Jhimmibhob
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
Yeah, Christianity is too divided at this point to actually change its Holy Texts without drawing a lot of criticism from most denominations.
I myself think that divinely inspired texts are still being written, but I also believe anyone claiming divine inspiration should be looked upon with great skepticism.
If I had to add modern texts to the Bible, I'd probably include some of CS. Lewis's writings, and possibly Richard Wurmbrand's Tortured for Christ.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
Regarding harm and self-defense:
I'd argue there are examples of when it's alright to harm people even if they aren't a threat to you. The most obvious example would be the defense of other people and to some extent animals. The most compassionate action is not necessarily the most peaceful.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
Serving Crits
As appropriate amounts of forces can be subjective, is it better to restricts it to a minimum of go on a case-by-case basis?
Holding someone's arms is less painful than slugging someone in the face to hitting them with a stick, for example.
Personally, I don't knows if it is right to assign moral weight to preventing animal cruelties in the same scale as human harm.
"The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself." Albert Camus
The question itself seems more ethical/philosophical than specifically religious. (Though obviously, some religions' tenets have special implications for that question.)
Deranged X-Mas Figure
So this has been brought to my attention as of late, and I figure I might as well post it here: Mystic predicts World War III and death of Assad
No clue whether if this guy's the real or if he's just some crazy bullshitter, but given the state of these things these days, I really just don't know. On the one hand, if he's wrong, then he's wrong, but if he's right, then there really is a God and there is without a doubt life after death. I'm pretty skeptical of this myself, but there's still that lingering doubt in the back of my head of whether or not he's really right.
Doctor Who — Long Way Around: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/13536044/1/Doctor-Who-Long-Way-Around
Oh, bother.
Yes, and a bunch of people thought the world would end in 2012 because of the Mayan Calendar. Or that the world would end in 2000 because of the Y2K bug.
The article itself has people trying to make excuses for the world not ending on exactly May 13. They're giving themselves a time window between May 13 and October 13.
Bottom line: the guy's full of shit. Don't let a couple of lucky guesses fool you into thinking otherwise.
Disgusted, but not surprised
It's not quite as bad as the Mayan calendar because the prophecy of our lady FΓ‘tima is at least an actual, bonafide omen that has been a thing since 1917.
The Mayan calendar was a whole bunch of nothing that people misunderstood the Hell out of to create a nonsensical prophecy.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Was the prophecy of Our Lady of Fatima really bonafide though? It reflects a lot more on the political ideologies of the people living in the current political climate of then contemporary Portugal than it does actually tell us anything meaningful about the future
Oh, bother.
That event seemed less an omen and more an attempt to scare Russia into becoming Catholic.
See also: all the claims that gay marriage would destroy America or cause natural disasters.
edited 22nd Apr '17 9:42:57 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI mean we can debate all day long about the possible political ramifications of reasonings for the prophecies of FΓ‘tima but the point is it is a legitimate concept under the eyes of the Catholic Church and at least a considerable amount of the general Catholic population believes in it. It wasn't made up only for the specific purposes of this doomsday prophecy of the week like the Mayans was.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Oh, bother.
I wonder what Pope Francis will have to say about this. Assuming he even deems this is worth any attention.
ππ©π―ππ°π
π‘π
It's a bird.
If his prediction turns out to be true, it means... that he made an accurate prediction. How and why is still up for speculation.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
The law in the night
Speaking of predictions, Matt Groening surely knows something about the future, because he surely was onto something when Coming to Homerica aired in 2009.
Either life imitates art or Trump really thinks he is living in a fucking cartoon.
edited 22nd Apr '17 1:20:33 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
Sherrif John Brown always hated you.
edited 27th Feb '17 12:23:58 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.