Do NOT practice Christianity in China.. - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

Not trying to stretch anything. Your premise is that a person should be imprisoned for presenting fiction as fact. There are plenty of other examples of the same thing that have nothing to do with religion.

Nope...not suggesting anyone be imprisoned...HOWEVER, IF a country has a law or rule against something who are these religions to assume they have the right to suggest or do otherwise? I have an issue with Religions pushing their brand on people without any fact or basis to do so.

Because I really don't think you have a problem with someone presenting fiction as fact. You've got a thing against religions. And that's cool. Just admit as much and move on.

Ive never hidden behind the fact I am a true blue Atheist, others have a problem with my choice. I do have issues with people lying....in any way shape or form.

Essentially. Just trying to view things from your side, that's all. Do you agree with prison terms for lying?

Not sure I follow what you mean by prison terms.

Nobody forces anyone to live by any moral code. It's suggested, but no one's got you at gun point, everyone there is there of their own free will. Laugh at that all you want, but I can guarantee you that I'm not religious just because I feel that I have to be. I don't feel guilted into anything. I'm religious because it makes sense to me. I could care less if that makes sense to you.

Of course the Mormans dont force anyone in its claws to live by its codes. Of course the Catholic church doesnt demand its people live by its codes. Of course the Islamic Nation doesnt want its people to adhere to its principles.
Free will is the ability to question the ideas of anything...including the religion you belong to.

Commented in bold italics

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Who the hell are the people in government to decide what individuals choose to believe within their own souls?

It's ludicrous to suggets its for ANY other reason than mass control...much like all other forms of oppression does.

Using your logic...who in the hell are the the people who run religions to decide what countries choose to allow? The soul is something religion has taught you to believe is part of their domain!

Cowperson · 03-02-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

Free will is the ability to question the ideas of anything...including the religion you belong to.

You're simply commenting on the precepts of something someone has decided to believe in. If that's their choice, so be it.

I'll simply repeat what I said in my first post:

I wouldn't question their right to worship even as I might be questioning what they worship.

Its fair to question whether organized religion is the biggest sham in history. I've done it lots myself in this space. I'm defending their right to organize and believe in that sham though.

Cowperson

V · 03-02-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Of course the Mormans dont force anyone in its claws to live by its codes. Of course the Catholic church doesnt demand its people live by its codes. Of course the Islamic Nation doesnt want its people to adhere to its principles.
Free will is the ability to question the ideas of anything...including the religion you belong to.

It's a little tough for me to comment on these religions, as I do have some serious issues with them but I will say that if a religion does not control the state, they have no power to force anyone, even their own members to live by a moral code. They may pressure you to, but they cannot force anyone to do anything. These are not mosquitos entangled in a spider's web.

Free will is the ability to question the ideas of anything...and no religion can stop you from doing so. Keep in mind my qualifier on this. As long as a religion does not control a state, it has no power to enforce anything. What's my church going to do if I walk out the front doors, never to show up again? There's nothing they can do.

transplant99 · 03-02-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

who in the hell are the the people who run religions to decide what countries choose to allow?

I do not understand at all what this means.

Quote:

The soul is something religion has taught you to believe is part of their domain!

Well since Im not religious, religion has taught me nothing at all about my soul. Its my choice...mine. Not a governments and not any organized group of any sort. However, for those that wish to believe their soul is part of their beliefs (IE religion) who the hell is anyone else to tell them otherwise??

V · 03-02-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

who in the hell are the people who run religions to decide what countries choose to allow?

You'll notice that two of the people arguing against the state controlling what people believe are not religious.

On what basis can you say that freedom of religion is a bad thing? Or at least that it shouldn't be an automatic right?

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You're simply commenting on the precepts of something someone has decided to believe in. If that's their choice, so be it.

I'll simply repeat what I said in my first post:

I wouldn't question their right to worship even as I might be questioning what they worship.

Its fair to question whether organized religion is the biggest sham in history. I've done it lots myself in this space. I'm defending their right to organize and believe in that sham though.

Cowperson

Choice within a countries laws....like it is the choice within Canada for Gays to marry. I may not agree with what or how China governs itself, but it is within its rights to create rules and laws.
I understand your viewpoint completely as we are close to the same dogma...with the exception of a few small points...minor details.
I personally could care less about a bunch of Christians, Mormans, Islamics or Mudpuckers having a big ole Kumbayah....but IF they feel they are above Politics then whats to stop them from getting involved in it later as they brain wash the masses?
If we can question it as a sham...then a government should surely have the right to determine it is just that.

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

You'll notice that two of the people arguing against the state controlling what people believe are not religious.

On what basis can you say that freedom of religion is a bad thing? Or at least that it shouldn't be an automatic right?

The ABSOLUTE moment you can prove to me it is a "right".

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

I do not understand at all what this means.

Well since Im not religious, religion has taught me nothing at all about my soul. Its my choice...mine. Not a governments and not any organized group of any sort. However, for those that wish to believe their soul is part of their beliefs (IE religion) who the hell is anyone else to tell them otherwise??

Of course you may not be religious....and I have inside info anyways

...but your mom and dad may have been....someone as you were growing up certainly espoused the idea as it has with the VAST majority of us. That seeping of familial idealogy makes its way into all of our subconscious. The soul is the domain of the church...If you dont believe me do a little questionairre amongst your friends....ask them what the soul is and what it represents.

Cube Inmate · 03-02-2006, 03:06 PM

Again, some of this debate sounds like people are arguing that human rights are being violated by preventing Christian worship...well there's no such violation going on here, because...

...there's no such thing as "human rights," beyond those which people are capable of ensuring for themselves. He who has the biggest stick gets to decide what's a "right" and what isn't. Evidently that's the communist government in this case. Don't like it? Find a bigger stick.

^^
Yeah, like Cheese kind of said.

troutman · 03-02-2006, 04:11 PM

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 18.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Clarkey · 03-02-2006, 04:15 PM

Cheesy, why are advocating mind control by the state?

That doesn't seem very 'free thinking' of you.

Actually it doesn't suprise me, most of your arguements are poorly formed like this one.

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Cheesy, why are advocating mind control by the state?

That doesn't seem very 'free thinking' of you.

Actually it doesn't suprise me, most of your arguements are poorly formed like this one.

Mind control? LOL...nice try Clarkey.
Nice drive by...head on back to school now.
Oh...anytime you actually have an idea...write it down...it may sift right out.

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 18.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Damn it trout...whyd you bring that Lawyer stuff into it?
Now we have to get into a discussion on Basic Human Rights and the U.N.
Ugh...I think I have enough on my plate right now...Ill leave that one to you!

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 05:27 PM

so now we have Canada's High Court approving Sikh students rights to carry daggers into classrooms.

Daggers in the classroom

In its decision, the court noted that Sikh orthodoxy requires the wearing of the daggers, known as kirpans, even though they are banned from airplanes and some courtrooms.

So we have to protect the judges by banning them from courtrooms, and passengers on airlines....yet we allow them in our schools where poor judgement could be used in a schoolyard fight?

Hack&Lube · 03-02-2006, 05:39 PM

If you really think about it, this is closer to the Christian Church's first Century roots where they had to meet in secret and were persecuted by the Romans and fed to lions and burned alive, etc.

About the Kirpan thing - it'll go out the window and back to being banned once somebody get hurt with one of those things.

FireFly · 03-02-2006, 05:46 PM

What's odd is that in a state where the seperation of church and state was absolutely enforced, you get the most dissent and the highest practising of religion. In a state where the church and state were not separated, you have a very low number of citizens who practise.

Cheese · 03-02-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

What's odd is that in a state where the seperation of church and state was absolutely enforced, you get the most dissent and the highest practising of religion. In a state where the church and state were not separated, you have a very low number of citizens who practise.

One hopes for freedom through a divine entity....the other understands the hope as false.

Patek23 · 03-02-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

Wrong only in the minds of those who practise.

So if I kill someone I should be able to get away with it because murder is wrong only the mind of those that dont practise?

RougeUnderoos · 03-02-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

so now we have Canada's High Court approving Sikh students rights to carry daggers into classrooms.

Daggers in the classroom

In its decision, the court noted that Sikh orthodoxy requires the wearing of the daggers, known as kirpans, even though they are banned from airplanes and some courtrooms.

So we have to protect the judges by banning them from courtrooms, and passengers on airlines....yet we allow them in our schools where poor judgement could be used in a schoolyard fight?

I may not agree with what or how Canada governs itself, but it is within its rights to create rules and laws.