I’d have to go back to read all of Liberal’s posts again to see if that’s how I read what he’s saying, too. But in any case, I do think that’s an unreasonable stance to take. On the other hand, I think you agree with me that tone and context are important, as well. There are ways to say things, and there are times & places to say them as well. Not everything is appropriate.
Why do you have to give up your right to say it? I think part of the problem here is context. As **Maureen **or **Sarahfeena **(I’m having trouble keeping up) indicated above, if you are saying it in a thread whose topic relies on the belief as a premise, then you give up your right to say it in that thread, because that would be backtracking and not playing fairly within the confines of the topic. If the topic is specifically belief or non-belief in god or God (depending upon your pov), then you don’t have to give up your right to indicate your non-belief, you just don’t have to be demeaning about it towards those you disagree with.
So? Then humbly apologize for offending him and ask him what he would find less offensive? And as for Liberal, I’d suggest he cut people some slack if he were truly bothered by that. In the grand scheme of things, IPU/FSM/etc. are far more degrading as alternative terms to G/god.
Are we grown-ups here or not? I’m more than a bit flabbergasted that people can’t find some kind of mutually respectful middle ground.
It’s just going too fast now; I do agree that if the context is a thread that relies on that premise it’s rude, as I’ve noted. But Liberal seems to be talking about any context at all.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. The laws of man are his. Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. If by that you mean what Mr. Phelps does, that is a whole different thread. If he believes that God want’s him to be hateful I don’t believe he converses with God in much the same way I don’t believe Mr. Falwell did. As a matter of fact, God has never spoken to me nor anyone I know. This is the business of prophets and I’ve never seen one of those either. I am just a simple man attempting to navigate my way through life with what I have been given with the grace of God to show me what is right even when the answer is not clearly apparent to me.
And he (I) didn’t. I’m not offended by the failure to capitalize a proper name; I’m merely surprised by it, especially on a message board of this calibre.
Are the deities of other religions “gods” or “Gods”?
Is that a whoosh?
Well, that’s fine…although no offense, if you go around doing that kind of thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if people are insulted anyway. The point isn’t that you think that the existance of ghosts is laughable nonsense, it’s that it’s rude to say so except perhaps in very specific circumstances.
My own deity is “a god”. It’s like the difference between something being a tad different, and a guy named Tad. Are you seriously saying this concept is new to you?
It was me, and you understood my point exactly. I also agree with the rest of what you say here. I’m reminded of a lesson that my mother taught me, which is that when you publicly insult someone, it tends to have the effect of lessening the respect people have for you, not the respect that they have for the target of your insult.
Well, to my mind the quality of respect is not accorded because I happen to agree with the beliefs at issue, but because I respect the persons who hold such beliefs - until such time, of course, that they forefit that respect through some act of illegality, hatred, or contempt for others.
Attempting to scam others also falls in the latter category.
As for what seperates out a religion from a scam or a cult - the difference is a combination of a number of factors, such as:
-
The antiquity of the belief in issue;
-
Whether the leadership believes in the program (or are out for cash or child-brides);
-
Whether they do good works in the community, or use cash from followers for the leaders’ child brides or whatever;
-
The content of the theology - ego-inflating self-helpery, following the leader no matter what, or a message of love and humbleness?
To my mind there is a difference between (say) Scientology and the Quakers. I believe in neither, and believe both are just as “untrue” (IMO God exists no more than Xenu), but the one is deserving of respect and the other is not.
Moreover, until I have reason not to, my general attitude is to accord others the respect I would wish them to accord me.
I’d say that it’s more like the difference between a guy, and a guy named Guy. 
-
To use the Catholic Church as an example, the middle history of the papacy is one of individuals who aspired to the position solely for the personal power and wealth that accompanied it. As the Master himself pointed out, there were several pontiffs who ascended to the Big Mitre by assassinating their predecessors. That would suggest that their belief in the program was nonexistent - after all, would you murder the Pope if you really believed you were going to hell?
-
Medieval Popes certainly possessed plenty of wealth, but I can’t speculate on what it was spent on.
-
The doctrine of Papal infallibility and the sale of indulgences would seem to give us a pretty clear indication of where the Church would fall as far as this criterion goes.
Does that mean the Roman Catholic Church is a cult?
Are you saying that it never occurred to you that others might think that you want the name of your deity to be capitalized to emphasize that your deity is much more than those other “gods”?
Actually, I think Czarcasm was more implying the difference between Smith, and his family: the Smiths.
Your mother is on to something. It usually results in derailing your point to begin with as well, now that the person you’re demeaning is focusing on that and not your argument.
I don’t know how many of you guys realize that there are some of us out there that try to follow these discussions without participating, and it’s exhausting and discouraging for us as well. It gets to the point where lurking is preferable than jumping into the fray regardless of whether we have something useful to add to the discussion. So, the only thing you’re really doing is not necessarily fighting ignorance but discouraging discussion. Seems kind of contrary to the stated goal here.
“Laughable nonsense” is your term, not mine. Or, are you saying that talking dogs are laughable nonsense?
How about if I say it this way : Inasmuch as there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of ghosts, is there any reason, in your mind, to afford their existence any more probability than any other thing for which there is absolutely no evidence?
Indeed, during the Middle Ages I’d say it was, and a particularly harmful one - one could also point to the Inquisition.
However, this has little to do with Catholics one meets in discussion nowadays, few of whom are likely to be Medieval Catholics.
No, what part do you find to be?
They’re still reading the same B/book and reciting the same prayers (though in the lingua rustica).
You can’t have it both ways. If the “antiquity of their beliefs” is a factor in determining that they aren’t a cult, it’s a factor in determining much - perhaps everything - else about their faith.