How can we save ourselves from the coming onslaught of Christian concentration camps?

[Monty]

I must admit that I am not at all surprised by your last juvenile stunt (post #220). I’ve mentioned it before on these boards and I’ll say it again: I have no respect for those who do not debate honestly.

[kanicbird]

@Monty

Then perhaps you shouldn’t have made posts #88 and #129 in this thread.

I admit that both of these were made with a God in mind.

I really have to think about how to apply faith vs. religion to ‘non-God’ religions - on ones like Budasm, which IIRC Budda would not answer if there is a God (I personally think he just didn’t want to reveal his source).

[Monty]

@kanicbird

I admit that both of these were made with a God in mind.

I really have to think about how to apply faith vs. religion to ‘non-God’ religions - on ones like Budasm, which IIRC Budda would not answer if there is a God (I personally think he just didn’t want to reveal his source).

Budasm? Would that be the religion where people must consume Budweiser every weekend?

Budda? Is that Bubba’s cousin?

I kid, I kid. Buddhism is usually considered (by many people) to be a philosophy, rather than a religion (faith). The Buddha was a man whose teachings are the basis of that philosophy.

[Polycarp]

@kanicbird

I admit that both of these were made with a God in mind.

I really have to think about how to apply faith vs. religion to ‘non-God’ religions - on ones like Budasm, which IIRC Budda would not answer if there is a God (I personally think he just didn’t want to reveal his source).

That last sentence is very telling as to what you actually think, too.

[Monty]

The Buddha did reveal his source. That’s pretty much the whole point of it. Let me know, kanicbird, if you don’t know what I mean.

[SteveG1]

@magellan01

I was simply echoing (ironically) a point that you had made in another thread:

If I had remembered that quote existed before I posted what you replied to, I would have simply referred you to it without the snarkiness. I just happened upon it by accident while reviewing the link Frank supplied.

Nice. But next time use the whole quote… Leaving out the last two thrids changes the meaning.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6602035&postcount=290

@SteveG1

The Founders can be made to seem violently anti-religious, if you carefully pick the right quotes. They can be made to look extremely devout by using the same trick. Cherry picking. What they were fully against was the idea of a State religion. They were against the sort of repression and persecutions that happened in Europe due to the State or King telling people what their religion (or lack of it) will be. It is entirely possible and likely that none of them cared what church you go to, or if you go to church.

[magellan01]

@SteveG1

Nice. But next time use the whole quote… Leaving out the last two thrids changes the meaning.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6602035&postcount=290

How?

My apologies if you intended the first part of your statement to be conditional and some how tied to what followed, but I didn’t read it that way. The portion I cited seemed to be a commentary on the use of quotes by the founders in general. I took what followed to be a statement of your position, one that didn’t suffer the shaky foundation that is laid by the use of quotes you admonished against in the first part.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Could you clarify? That first portion of your quote again:

@SteveG1

The Founders can be made to seem violently anti-religious, if you carefully pick the right quotes. They can be made to look extremely devout by using the same trick. Cherry picking.

Are you still of this opinion? If not, can you please explain the relationship between the two portions of your quote that I am evidently missing.

Again, if you think my quoting you only in part changed the meaning of what you intended byt the passage, my apologies. It certainly was not intentional.

[kanicbird]

@Monty

I kid, I kid. Buddhism is usually considered (by many people) to be a philosophy, rather than a religion (faith).

OK give me a religion w/o a god

The Buddha did reveal his source. That’s pretty much the whole point of it. Let me know, kanicbird, if you don’t know what I mean.

Actually I don’t, I was refereing to when the Buddha was asked if there was a God, and the Buddha wouldn’t speak, IIRC for days, refusing to answer. The last part about not wanting to reveal his source was a attpemt as humor, and not intended to disrespect Buddha.

@Polycarp

That last sentence is very telling as to what you actually think, too.

Yesterday when I posted what I did I was having a bit of a crisis going on, and didn’t word things as well as I would like, basically I have never had a reason to consider R. v F. for a religion w/o a god?