For a bloke who wears a dress......Follow

But that's precisely why I deny the divine and fail to comprehend it. DuuUUuh

Epic phail.

Which, for a Jophiel post, is rather alarming.

My heart... it breaks.

I don't see the discussion. The Bible says that Jesus was resurrected via the power of God. It really doesn't provide enough additional detail to develop any sort of interesting scientific analysis of the event. So either you believe in the Bible's account or you don't. Whichever reason you have for chosing whichever option is secondary to the fact that a scientifically based discussion of the event would be short and dull.

Thick cUnt

But that is your specific view of religion, whereas I can say, as a ***** person, involvement in lgbt friendly congregation and rainbow type churches has very little to do with repression and alot to do with people joining together in affirming their values and strengthening their community. Think about too, the role of liberation theology and the African American churches in the civil rights movement. Religion serves multiple functions and have everything to do with what is best and worst about humanity.

You tend to talk about powerful, politicized religious leaders as being something that is evidence of the effects of religion. All that is is the effects of few people being in control and that doesn't need a religious mechanism. Look at North Korea. Or Stalinist Russia. Realistically, it has to do more with a very human desire for power. The problem in the USA is that some people want to fuse a specific type of Christianity (largely very Protestant, evangelical churches) with right-wing politics and supply side economics. I believe in separation of church and state. I just think discounting religion entirely based on stuff like that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, rather you just need to encourage a more rigorous separation..

If religion is just an excuse for war, then it is certainly just an excuse for the kind of congregation you are talking about. Parts of the Bible preach warlike behaviour towards your neighbours (large portions of the old testament), but there is no part of the Bible which calls for homosexuality being embraced (tolerated, yes, but still considered sinful); in fact, levictus stands against it.

The problem with religion is not that it elevates leaders but the very nature of the tool. Religion is a blunt instrument, a chemical weapon which lingers around for ages after it was set off. You don't get people killing others in the name of Stalin now, do you? However, the Irish bickered amongst each other for decades over their differences. Moving on from cotnrol, religion shields itself against criticism brought on by obeying doctrine - it is sacred. You can't tell someone they're a @#%^ing idiot if their book told them to do it (or if they think it did), even if it's telling them to do really retarded things. Their right to decline people birth prevention at catholic hospitals, their right to bear weapons when others are not and so on, their right to air arguments based on nothing substantial and grind progress to a halt.

As for the end of your post, like I said, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are OKish in my book a secular society that ignores vast tracts of doctrine completely (this is not my society and most certainly not yours), but I see no reason to keep it around (if I had the choice - obviously I do not). People can meet and forge bonds without religion, just as they can war without it. I doubt people's ability to form bonds would be impaired, though I am still convinced the amount of warring would be cut down, for reasons given in paragraph two and my first post here.



You use weak jibes as a substitute for rebuttal. This is self evident, whereas your assertion about me is not. Try again, sparky.

Edited, Dec 28th 2008 10:37pm by Kavekk

Sometimes I am being partially facetious and partially serious. I suppose I do not translate well into text; people I know in real life do not have problems understanding me. Sometimes, though, like that time I "trolled" Smash a while back, there really is no way the blame can be placed on me.

You're going to have to insult me for a lot longer before I believe you're stupid enough not to be trolling me here.

Incidentally, why are you up at 4 am?

This is bias.

Anna is a stereotypical what exactly?

I wasn't saying she was stereotypical, just that I saw your "biased" accusation of her quote:



more as a "stereotypical" anti-religious view here on Allah.

(insert stereotypical alla femme islamic "trill" here)

But if you're pushing me, I'd say Anna's the typical middle age- bi sexual - Sommervillian - Gamer - Chic - Cosplay - Chick.

The base, admittedly, for said stereotype isn't exactly huge though.

And I was referring to you defining her view as "bias", disagreeing, and calling it a stereotype.