History of religion

[Ripsnort]

I find no harm in telling a catholic joke or two, a monty python skit about religion...stand up comedians doing a skit on religion.  But my personal experience is that those that continue to dwell on anti-religous topcis and persons, and attack it from any angle in order to justify their non-beliefs have serious issues. But thats just my experience.  I lead a pretty normal life without church, and this is just from what I've seen both on the internet and in the persons I've encountered in life.  I have very high respect for those who attend church consistently, devote their life to helping others,  don't like tele-evangilists, and keep religion "to themselves" in open conversations. From my life experiences meeting these people, they are very strong people emotionally and psychologically.

[lazs2]

I do not belong to any organized religion.  I have nothing against religion until it trys to ditate to me... in this respect, I hate socialism a lot more than organized religion.   silat and his socialism is much more of a threat to me livingt my life than any religion that could prosper in the U.S. under our constitution.

Just as I know that allmost all the evil that is done in this country is done by liberal socialists and fascists...I  believe that much of the good that is done is done by organized religions... the secular charities and socialist programs are rife with greed and ineficiency...  I will not willingly give to any of them..

the religious based ones are much better... Even habitat for humanity started out with a core of christians... salvation army...  children international...

What do secular groups give us?  have you hung around a planned parenthood or welfare office lately?   The gloom and hoplesness is overpowering.... what is secular socialism offering other than soothing the concience of limosine liberals?  

lazs

[Saintaw]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
blah blah...

Oh yeah... let's not forget your statement on C6 that whoever wasn't raising children was a terrorist. You're so full of it, it's actualy overflowing...

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Saintaw
Oh yeah... let's not forget your statement on C6 that whoever wasn't raising children was a terrorist. You're so full of it, it's actualy overflowing...

Not quite sure what that means? Surely you can do better than that, Saw?

[Suave]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives.  They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.

But don't let that get in the way of your back-slapping thread, boys.

How do you know which religion is being "slammed"? Must be that objectivity that your self actualization has leant you.

Ripsnort doesn't know what self-actualization means. If he did, he would understand that being able to observe unemotionally (objective) and express disdain for irrational and illogical behavior, aka stupid, is part of being a self-actualized person.

Lets examine Maslows definition of self-actualization and see just how compatable it is with religious dogmatic indoctriniation.

They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
I guess if you think it's fact and reality that moses parted the red sea, or jesus walked on water. Then this first rule doesn't exclude you. Of course if you base your beliefe system on faith and not reason.. well sorry.

They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
Well I guess letting go of the controlls of your aircraft to pray falls in this catagory.

They are creative
As long as it's not blasphemous

They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
ok

They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Sure, as long as you don't appreciate it too much, or with the same sex, or in groups, or before your married, or dance, or drink, or eat bacon, or use contraceptives...

Yes for the religous life is a gift. But it's mostly just a waiting and a trial period. Because life is not nearly as good as death is going to be!

They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority
Ooooh man. I don't think I need to say anything here.

They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.
Haha! Can you say infadel, or lefty, or heathan, or faithfull suspension of objective reason.

Seagoons verbose rationalization is immenent.

[lazs2]

suave.... how is any of that inconsistent with spirituality or... even most organized religions?

I would point out that your examples would all be in direct opposition of the worlds most dangerous religion..... socialism.  

liberal socialism is the worlds most insane and dangerous religion with the moslem religion a close second.

lazs

[Westy]

I'm an equal opportunity mocker rgardless if the subject is Fox news, country-western songs, Peta, lawyers, sports figures, cat/rottweiller owners, politicians, olympic figure skating, rappers, online game players or religions.  

 But when it comes to religions my take is they're good for the weak minded as they need that "support" for some reason or another. Al well and fine till they start dictatinc how I should think or live. IMO all of em are snakes of different colors.  
 And just because one snake is aggressive right now while another is docile doesn't mean people should become complacemet with the "gentle" one - especially given the "gentle" snakes recent history of being murderously hostile also.

[lazs2]

lets examine liberal socialism with suaves guidelines shall we?

"They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.

LOL... liberal socialists embracing facts?  watching them ignore facts and realities on any subject they oppose like the simple on of gun control is enlightening... facts allways come second (or not at all) to liberals over "feelings"

They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.

Well.... yeah... if an organized march to shout down other peoples ideas is considered "spontaneous"

They are creative
 
especially with the truth... they do have some good comedians tho.

They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.

They don't want to solve problems so much as increase their power and/or sooth their concience... solving the problem is not the key... appearing to care is.

They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.

Sure... so long as the people agree with them otherwise they are branded as rednecks and facists and neo whatevers... Closeness to other people?  LOL  big cities (the liberal socialist haven) is the hive of these socialists and while physicaly close... there is no human contact.  liberal socialist hate people but love humanity.



They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority

you are kidding?  liberal morality is based on what feels good for them and what they can control in others.

They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.


can you say cracker or redneck or fascist or neocon?

The most dangerous religion is liberal socialism.

lazs

[Westy]

That a humourus topic like this can make a bozo like Ripsnort post so hypocritically makes it al lthat more funny.

[Ripsnort]

Works both ways, Suave. Lets examine Maslows definition of self-actualization and see just how compatable it is with non-religious dogmatic indoctriniation.

They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
You won't find religion-slammers (as they're now know through this thread) embracing much of anything except THEIR ideology. Selfishness is a common trait. A reality of the world is...religion exists. They can't stand that others serve a higher being, since religion slammers serve no one but themselves.

They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
Spontaneous, that's correct...more like knee-jerk reaction to anyone that is religious.


They are creative
Yes, I suppose they devise new ways of justifying their actions while belittling others because they believe in a Savior or a God.


They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
Ha! Yeah. Problem solvers.  "You have a problem, you believe in God" That solves problems doesn't it?


They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Closeness?  How much more alienation can you get than saying others religious beliefs are "made up 2000 years ago" ?  Sure, religion-slammers appreciate life, as long as they make sure that church-goers suffer through redicule.

They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority
Morality, sure, however superiority complex is what most religioun-slammers have. Certainly external of authority, why that would mean a religion-slammer would actually have to be responsible for his own actions!!

They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.
Heh, yeah. Religion-slammers are objective. "You believe in the invisible man and your stupid!"  Thats how "objective" they are.

Suave's  verbose rationalization is immenent, agreed. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Westy
"These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives."

Coming from you that is absolutely priceless.

Originally posted by Westy
That a humourus topic like this can make a bozo like Ripsnort post so hypocritically makes it al lthat more funny.

Come on Westy! You're falling! I've heard better from Weazel!  Give it your best..come on, try harder!  It's almost like you were trying to make a point in the debate, but I swear its nothing more than just personal attacks on the posters. Good try at making a point!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Silat
I think this about covers it....................

Almost forgot...

IN

[Suave]

I'm glad that ripsnort didn't change his avatar before denouncing religion slammers.

And yes I agree with lazs that political fanatacism is religion too and is not compatable with Maslows definition of self-actualization.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Suave
I'm glad that ripsnort didn't change his avatar before denouncing religion slammers.

And yes I agree with lazs that political fanatacism is religion too and is not compatable with Maslows definition of self-actualization.

Do you just pretend to have a reading disability or just play that way for the sake of your own arguement?

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives.  They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.

But don't let that get in the way of your back-slapping thread, boys.

[Suave]

Yeah I like how you objectively discerned that the cartoon was in no means addressing radical violence inherent to organized religions. Which is remarkably perceptive of you considering that the cartoon depicts radical violence on behalf of religion. You quite astutely saw through this deception and revealed it for what it is. A direct mockery of religion's peacefull attributes.