RELIGION Discussion

[cometojames]

i dont think so, a guys/guls calm down, there shouldnt be a war over religions, i mean come on you only live onces, and think of what you are to accomplish by argueing your religion or beliefs. Nothing, so just except peoples believes and live instead of worrying or wanting other people to do what youi say

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Triz

Aw, man.

I have another question.


Back then, if you commit a sin, you can pay the church so God can forgive you. I forgot what it is called, but is it still going around?

Not sure about the payment element but it's a Catholic thing, I believe - when you committed a sin, you confessed to the priest and then had to carry out a penance of some kind - a punishment you inflict upon yourself. No offence to Catholics who still practice this element but it is entirely man-made and completely pointless as the God they serve can not only be addressed directly to confess sin but also pardons it and then forgets about it so you don't need to punish yourself. In fact, it is a sin and an affront to the salvation offered by Jesus' death to not forgive yourself for something you've done so there ya go...

I'm not sure when or why the whole penance thing came about but I'll bet it has something selfish attached to it...like the selling of religious icons in the Middle Ages. Just another way to make the rich bishops even richer and terrify the poor and ignorant into doing what they said...

[Father of Skorm]

the whole 'buyin out of sin' thing was quite a common occurrence in the middle ages. a lot of it was people going around offering to buy your sin. by which i mean u pay them, and they take ur sin. bad description, buy ur sin, huh? there was also a concept of doing this before you sinned, like if you knew you were going to sin sometime, or just i case, buying the 'transferral' of your sin before hand. one of the main characters in geoffrey chaucers 'travellers tales' (or some1/ sumthing like that) was 1 of these ppls.

[DJ D Mix]

Wow! Thanks guys. +REP

[Walker]

Originally Posted by Arseface

If we all thought that we wouldn't we having this discussion.

What do you mean, if we all thought that? I DON'T think you or everyone thinks that. I think that people shouldn't judge the piety of others. Which is what I was saying. Because you can't judge anyone's motivations without being them.

Originally Posted by Arseface

I wasn't just reffering to Buddhism. Things like Wicca and Neo Paganism aswell. I'm not saying that these religions are completely bogus, if you really believe it then go for your life, but they do tend to suck in people who only subscribe to be different or cool or whatever, and I hate that.

I agree, but even if they are bogus, I don't think anyone but the person who's following the religion can judge their own dedication and motivations. It might seem to you that someone's just following a religion to be different, but you have no way of knowing.

Originally Posted by Arseface

How is this any of your business? It's not, but we talk about it anyway. Again, if everyone only talked about things that were their own business, the world would be a much quieter place

Yes, we can discuss religion. That's fine. Accusing other people of not being serious about their religion is not fine. It might be true that they aren't serious, but it isn't anyone else's place to judge.

Originally Posted by Tsuyu

Yup, they all are. I'm sure you are aware of the Tibet/China situation? Pretty much the best example of how Buddhists, under no circumstances, will kill another being even if it means an enemy conquering their country. Compare it to the Palestine/Israelite conflict in the Middle East where suicide bombers and other means of extreme violence and killing is an everyday thing.

Yes, I do know (very little) of that situation. I also don't know of any KILLING by Buddhists, though I do remember reading something about throwing things and words and such fun things.

Originally Posted by Triz

Back then, if you commit a sin, you can pay the church so God can forgive you. I forgot what it is called, but is it still going around?

They were called indulgences, were one of the things that really ****ed Martin Luther off, and were eliminated by the Catholic church not too long after the Reformation.

[Arseface]

Originally Posted by Triz

Aw, man.

I have another question.


Back then, if you commit a sin, you can pay the church so God can forgive you. I forgot what it is called, but is it still going around?

Yeah. It's a bit of a cop out if you ask me. You could be the biggest badass in the world but still get into heaven by repenting.

Originally Posted by Walker

What do you mean, if we all thought that? I DON'T think you or everyone thinks that. I think that people shouldn't judge the piety of others. Which is what I was saying. Because you can't judge anyone's motivations without being them.

I was just going by what you were saying about her being pro gun and pro death penalty, and then we got started about her not really being a Buddhist and someone (I think it was Tsuyu. Not sure so correct me) who just picks a religion because it's cool. Or something... I sometimes remember things that didn't happen so I'm probably way off track.

Originally Posted by Walker

I agree, but even if they are bogus, I don't think anyone but the person who's following the religion can judge their own dedication and motivations. It might seem to you that someone's just following a religion to be different, but you have no way of knowing.

Thats why I didn't name names. I was saying that anyone who's doing that should be shot (or maybe something slightly less drastic). But you know what I mean

Originally Posted by Walker

Yes, we can discuss religion. That's fine. Accusing other people of not being serious about their religion is not fine. It might be true that they aren't serious, but it isn't anyone else's place to judge.

I'll judge what I want thankyouverymuch. Stop judging me for judging.

[Walker]

Sorry, but I'm all for judging. So long as you're not judging someone else's internal, private motivations. But whatever, let's drop it.

And yes, indulgences were bull****. But the redemption thing... that I still believe. We all sin, to one degree or another, we all need redemption.

Also, I just realized that I'm discussing this with Arseface the Aussie Atheist and Tsuyu the Swedish Satanist. Yay, alliteration!

[Tsuyu]

Again, I'm not saying "Stone the unfaithful!"... but the pacifist aspect is a big part of Buddhism... no matter if you're a hardcore Buddhist monk or just an everyday Buddhist....

The image of a Buddhist who is pro-death penalty and hunting just doesn't seem legit.

[Arseface]

Originally Posted by Walker

Also, I just realized that I'm discussing this with Arseface the Aussie Atheist and Tsuyu the Swedish Satanist. Yay, alliteration!

Argh, it's English class all over again.

[Walker]

Originally Posted by Tsuyu

Again, I'm not saying "Stone the unfaithful!"... but the pacifist aspect is a big part of Buddhism... no matter if you're a hardcore Buddhist monk or just an everyday Buddhist....

The image of a Buddhist who is pro-death penalty and hunting just doesn't seem legit.

When I commented to her (apparently she sits at my lunch table, too, who knew) she said something about there being two different kinds of Buddhism.

And are you SURE that pacifism is an aspect of Buddhism? I read some news article, I think about... somewhere currently undergoing violent political upheaveal, and it was Buddhist monks getting all un-pacifistic, throwing things and cursing and all. That's not violence as in "I'm going to kill you!" but it is violence as in "I'm going to beat the crap out of you!"

Originally Posted by Arseface

Argh, it's English class all over again.

So sorry.

[Tsuyu]

Oh no, there is a place for violence in Buddhism, but never ever killing. Shaolin Monks for example are known for their amazing feats within martial arts. You should always defend yourself with whatever means possible, such as subduing an attacker with a martial arts move.

However, didn't it start with her hunting and being pro-death penalty? There is a biiiig difference between violence, especially when it is only to be used in a non-lethal form of self-defense, and killing.

[Arseface]

SHAOLIN MONKS FTW!

[Walker]

Originally Posted by Tsuyu

Oh no, there is a place for violence in Buddhism, but never ever killing. Shaolin Monks for example are known for their amazing feats within martial arts. You should always defend yourself with whatever means possible, such as subduing an attacker with a martial arts move.

However, didn't it start with her hunting and being pro-death penalty? There is a biiiig difference between violence, especially when it is only to be used in a non-lethal form of self-defense, and killing.

[shrugs] Okay.