REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Trumby tells governors to classify houses of worship as essential. States rights?
- Thread starter hal9000
- Start date
As a non-believer the way I would put it is in terms of utility rather than "fact" or "truth". Independent of what God may require of us, I think religious observance ALSO serves some very real and legitimate needs that at least some people have. One way to say it would be that these practices serve the people as opposed to the people serving these practices. As the needs of the people change the religious observance has - in some instances - also changed. Adapted, even.
None of which touches on what is or isn't actually true about the nature of God and the universe or what it takes to live in harmony with God. I'm only referring to the other additional functions religious adherence serves.
If you are among the faithful and you attend services, surely you've seen people who are there for other reasons besides what is/isn't true. And even if they're not there for the *right* reason, isn't there some virtue for at least being there and making whatever efforts they're making? Even if it's just a transitional stage in their progression. Isn't obedience even in the face of uncertainty also considered a virtue in the church?
please, all you religious folks, go to church. love your neighbors. hug your neighbors. get in a small room with them. ride up and down in elevators, to the top and back, singing loudly praises to the lord! Belt out the hymns and sing, sing, sing!
Or you can go to a bar, suck face with a herpes-infested whooore, and talk sht about how stupid are religious folk. Whatever it takes to reconcile your hatred of them with your advocacy of tolerance and cultural diversity.
Or, you can do both. Sin on Saturday and Worship on Sunday.
It depends what your definition of "True" is.
A lot the the stuff the dummies here think are true, I wish I thought were true.
It's would lower the resource cost of self regulation.
Which the nervous system love love loves!
So I don't know nothing.
We just duck dove under huge wave. Lots of dudes snapped their leashes and lost their boards.
Only to look outside and see a bigger set wave on the horizon.
Start paddling loosers.
Maybe, but only if it favored one sect over another, like if mosques were forced to remain closed while churches stayed open
I think you would do okay doing AA.
Good AA is about social engagement and positive social priming.
I, on the other hand . . . .
We could get lucky and this could work out ok for us.
Or we could be about to learn a very hard lesson.
Who thinks they definitely know the answer?
That's not a
I'm pretty concerned that a "Christian" would post something like this because it's identical to the Islamic view of lesser jihad, not Christianity. Jesus and the apostles didn't take up arms to worship. All of them were martyred except for John who was stuck on an island in the middle of the Mediterrannean. IOW, which Bible is this guy reading? Has he read Romans 13?
(I should probably stop calling Governor Newsom "Governor Patrick Bateman")
There are definitely times to take up arms against a government such as when it's killing its own people, but this isn't one of those times. I'm obviously concerned about loss of liberties, but guys like that are an example of why we're losing them.
That's really similar to Pontius Pilate's cynical question, "What is truth?" (John 18:38). The irony is that the opening chapter of John says,
A government that denies religious freedom is a government that WILL eventually have an uprising against it
Darryl is not calling for this, or even saying its the right thing to do, it is simply a historical fact and has been for eons. If you listened to him, you'd know that he actually would disagree with uprising because of religion. This is one of those times where someone is conflating a statement of fact as an endorsement of that fact. It happens to me all the time
It has nothing to do with Christianity or even monotheism.
I doubt very much that Ghandi liked our Christ who claimed to be the Son of God (the Word made flesh) and who said, "No one can come to the Father except by me." In fact, Hindus think Christianity is another intolerant religion.
Ghandi was smart to hold "Christians" to their own standards as a means of resistance, but doing so wouldn't have worked against the Mughals who oppressed the Hindus before. He's also being rather ungrateful to the Christian missionaries who established schools, hospitals, a unified written language, and launched the Subcontinent into the modern world. No good deed goes unpunished.
I don't think Ghandi is viewed as highly in India as he is viewed here.