Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Chanology?
E. Spaceman:
--- Quote from: ruyi on 11 Feb 2008, 22:14 ---err, sorry to not let it die, but i just wanted to clarify something i said.
i actually did not mean that it was because of its youth that it's more deserving of criticism, though that is what other posters interpreted.
what i meant was simply that it hasn't had the time to grow to the point where believers can exist apart from the institution. thus, for example, one can criticize the vatican without criticizing all self-identified christians. christianity has been around for a couple thousand years, so there's been a lot of splits and whatnot, and it's not uncommon to find people who would call themselves believers yet don't regularly go to church or identify with the prominent church members. a lot of these people are not harmful.
by pointing out the youth of the CoS, i'm simply allowing for the possibility that some time in the distant future, if the believers are indeed genuinely convinced, there may exist believers outside of the institution. at the moment, however, that's simply not the case, due to what khar pointed out. but whatever, if its claims are genuinely compelling, people will start to believe it (or perhaps a modified version of it) in the future. it might die out too, but i'm just saying.
--- End quote ---
That would be mostly false though. In most religions (I am too lazy to think of one where it isn't the case but there probably is), churches are formed after the religion itself. Some dude (or group of dudes) get some silly ideas and get other people to follow them. Sometime after ther founder dies, some followers decide it is pretty good business and forms the church. In Scientology, some dude really needed some cash so he made up a church.
tommydski:
As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.
E. Spaceman:
That is usually something the actual church imposes though, not one of the main tenets of the leader.
As far as the 4chan protests go, I think that they are not particularly bad, I do believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want, but I also reserve the right to mock and ridicule them as I see fit.
Patrick:
--- Quote from: tommydski on 13 Feb 2008, 10:48 ---As opposed to the Semitic Religions whereby all men everywhere needed an excuse to subjugate women.
--- End quote ---
Pssssh, who needs an excuse.
I should probably not be wearing my "Women: You can't beat 'em" shirt right now, somebody might take me seriously.
psyne:
I'm opposed to pretty much all organized religion so as long as their attacks are confined to the establishment and not the beliefs (which as far as I've seen they've done pretty well) I'm for it. I'm agnostic/atheist but I'm fine with other's beliefs, whatever makes them happy. But churches seem to lend themselves to corruption, extortion, inflicting guilt on members, excessive power, etc. I think they're bad for both members of the religion and non-parishioners who are affected by their influence in the government and community.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version