Who's having an End of the World party?

[Delete]

I just recently heard about that.

I'm a Christian myself (Im not a super religious person, but it is my belief) and there is one thing I would like to point out, the world is not supposed to just end >_>

For all the Christians out there, there supposed to be a series of events before that happens. The moon will turn to blood, 3 days of darkness, etc. Also, no one knows when this is going to happen. Even the 2012 hoax is just people guessing. It'll happen when it happens.

Also, since most Christian people would know that, what type of religious group would be following this man I wonder?

[Blue-Hawk]

Notice how he still claims it's the 21'st? Same as the 2012 morons?

What is the fascination with the numbers 12 and 21 for humanity? 5/21/2011. 10/21/1011. 12/21/2012. Notice all the 1's and 2's in the dates?

[McLaughlin]

That's good, because my response to you was directed at your reply to Keilyn specifically. I don't know where you got the idea that I was replying to you thinking you were talking about Camping.

Admittedly I did a poor job of reading the first time.

There's a big difference between actively denying someone their beliefs, and simply not insulating their beliefs by checking your own speech. One is form of overt thought control on the religious, the other is a rejection of social pressures effecting thought control over those who disagree. Some, like Dick Dawkins, can take the latter to a rather douchy extreme... but it's still by no means an attempt to deny others their beliefs. Besides, given the context Keilyn provided, that quote is in response to someone else's assertion of their beliefs on her... and it's perfectly true, concise, and polite. That others get pissed off that someone doesn't believe the same things they do is not her fucking problem.

Keilyn started off by likening religious people to terrorists. It was an incredibly combative stance to take right from the get-go. He/she came back with a fairer point that everyone is free to their own interpretation of the Bible, but then implies that those who analyse it and choose to believe it anyway have interpreted it incorrectly. They then returned another with another snide comment in which they assert religious people are fools and idiots. Throughout the entire thread, no one ever challenged this very adversarial tone, so in the context of the thread it's completely uncalled for, and in the context of life, are we really going to play the "eye for an eye" game? In truth, Keilyn has been doing the exact same thing he/she (and everyone else, I imagine) hates having done to them; having their intelligence and beliefs insulted simply because they differ from someone else's.

As far as debating the definition of bigot; "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Throughout the entire thread Keilyn has been incredibly intolerant of any religious views. I'm not sure where all the talk of insulation of thought and thought control came from, please clarify for me if I've misunderstood the point of the above quotation.

You know the key difference between a religion and a cult, is that a cult seeks to insulate their members away from previous social and family ties so as to brainwash their new followers without challenge from outside belief systems. If you had a loved one flirting dangerously close to joining a religious cult (Like, say, Heaven's Gate, the Glory Barners, or Scientology) would you not speak up and try to talk them out of it? Would you accept and respect their crazy beliefs, even unto the point where it does harm to them, out of fear of not being a bigot?

Up to the point where it's clear my loved one is being taken advantage of, I see no reason why I should actively try to convince them their beliefs are wrong. For all the talk of cults above, I'd say there's a distinction to be made between religions and scams. If my loved one wants to believe that when they die their body will perpetually dance to Thriller, why should I challenge them? When someone tells my loved one they need to donate their life savings to ensure that their corpse does indeed do the Thriller dance, I'll talk them out of the scam, not the belief behind it.

Additionally, am I automatically a bigot if I attempt to sway their belief? I have no fear of being a bigot because I'm not intolerant of opinions and ideas that differ from my own. You can have a discussion about religion without running around screaming LOL CHRISTIANS/JEWS/MUSLIMS/WHATEVER ARE SO STUPID I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY BELIEVE ALL THAT GARBAGE, which is exactly what Keilyn has been doing the entire time.

[Akaimizu]

To tell the truth, this is what a lot of the internet does the entire time. Yeah, some people get surrounded in real life by people who happen act as jerks, however the internet is full of jerks reciprocating what they deal with locally on everybody else. Then a bunch of jerks repeating that stuff to be jerks. Those with religious beliefs are constantly attacked on a great majority of supposedly neutral forums, everywhere.

Just that everybody seems to look at themselves, think they have it bad, and expect the junk not to stink as much the other way around. When that is far from the truth. I would believe both sides would belive it's better to treat others the way you'd want to be treated. Look, the buttheads that shout the loudest will always hit the airwaves, be the people who annoy you, etc. Once people realize that it just people doing that, not indicative of any specific beliefs other than them trying to shout how better they are than someone else; perhaps those debates will cool down, at least outside of the political center that's (no matter how you view it) full of hot air.

[Gunslinger-08]

You can have a discussion about religion without running around screaming LOL CHRISTIANS/JEWS/MUSLIMS/WHATEVER ARE SO STUPID I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY BELIEVE ALL THAT GARBAGE, which is exactly what Keilyn has been doing the entire time.

I'm glad someone else pointed it out...


Anywhoo, I do get a kick out of the whole "just kidding, guys!" attitude that our dear prophet has adopted since the rapture didn't happen on Saturday...

[Jehosaphaty]

this could, potentially, be the source of the matter.

it's the ears.

[Randomness]

I just recently heard about that.

I'm a Christian myself (Im not a super religious person, but it is my belief) and there is one thing I would like to point out, the world is not supposed to just end >_>

For all the Christians out there, there supposed to be a series of events before that happens. The moon will turn to blood, 3 days of darkness, etc. Also, no one knows when this is going to happen. Even the 2012 hoax is just people guessing. It'll happen when it happens.

Also, since most Christian people would know that, what type of religious group would be following this man I wonder?

Revelations is not prophetic.

[Sinue_v2]

Keilyn started off by likening religious people to terrorists. It was an incredibly combative stance to take right from the get-go.

This is going back a bit further into the thread than my original scope of response, but ok. I don't think it's my duty or obligation to defend Keilyn overall behavior on this... but as someone who understands where she is coming from, there are a few points I'd like to address. I agree that the likening to Religious believers (in general) to Terrorists is stretching the definition of the word to it's limits. Then again, Terrorism is a bit like Fascism in that it doesn't really have a singular legal or universally agreed upon definition. Whereas Fascism is often used as a synonymn for "Bully", "Terrorism" is similarly used as a blanket term for those who use threats (like hell) to inspire fear and insecurity in others so as to push their own agendas.

Albeit, this is a weak stance, since you cannot instill the fear of hell in those who don't believe it exists.

He/she came back with a fairer point that everyone is free to their own interpretation of the Bible

Fun Fact: Actually, you don't... depending on denomination. The first man to translate the Bible into English, William Tyndale, was burned at the stake for having the audacity to think that every man should be able to read the bible in their native tounge. Even in colonial America where puritanical movements away from a central church authority was the core of the movement, "dissenters" like Anne Hutchinson were seen as threats to community cohesion and were persecuted.

but then implies that those who analyse it and choose to believe it anyway have interpreted it incorrectly. They then returned another with another snide comment in which they assert religious people are fools and idiots.

... just like every fractured denomination in disagreement out there? Just like we are doing with Harold Camping and his "foolish and idiotic" interpretation? While I wouldn't go so far as to say those who believe (in general) are fools and idiots, I definitely don't think they're evaluating the situation rationally. And I think a lot of foolish and idiotic shit goes on in this world which is substantiated by religious belief.

"If you can get people to believe in absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities" ~ Voltaire

Throughout the entire thread, no one ever challenged this very adversarial tone, so in the context of the thread it's completely uncalled for, and in the context of life, are we really going to play the "eye for an eye" game?

At it's core (and this might get the thread shut, though I hope not) this entire thread is about mocking other people's religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of anyone who posts on PSO-World, I don't think, but there it is. So I don't blame her for using this thread as a place to vent frustration, and by seeing her post history, she's not one to inject her criticisms where they are not appropriate. I am by far more guilty of this behavior than she.

I'm not sure where all the talk of insulation of thought and thought control came from, please clarify for me if I've misunderstood the point of the above quotation.

The idea being that if everyone who disagreed with anyone else just kept their criticisms and opinions to themselves, then there would be no chance for anyone to change their minds or re-evaluate their positions, because they would censored from conflicting information and views out of fear of "offending" a second party. However, given the high percentage of Christian beliefs (at least here in America), there is this illusion of being right and in consensus by majority. Dissenting views from that majority are often seen as bigotry, whereas the highly offensive rhetoric and bigotry of the majority are overlooked as the status-quo. It literally doesn't even enter the consciousness of many people when they say it, but yet Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, and other free thinkers are supposed to constantly be on guard to watch their speech out of fear of being a bigot and offending the majority?

That's called a double standard, and I for one would like to see it ended. Bigotry? Excuse me for being blunt here, but you have very little room to calling out the bigot label on someone who's venting frustration while living in a country where Atheists are the time and time again polled as the most feared and hated minority in America. Where there are still states in the union where Atheists cannot legally hold elected office. Where, within the memory of many users here, then President George Bush Sr. stood before a large audience in Chicago and stated that he didn't think Atheists should even be considered citizens.

People need to speak up and make their voices and frustrations heard, regardless of whether or not it offends others. It would be preferable if it was done in a civil manner, but no apologies should be offered for having dissenting view.

Up to the point where it's clear my loved one is being taken advantage of, I see no reason why I should actively try to convince them their beliefs are wrong.

And you don't think we view individuals and society at large as being taken advantage of by irrational and (often) fraudulent religious beliefs and schemes? Whether it be the burning of libraries setting us back 1,000 years of technological advancement in the ancient world, or the dangers of Dominion theologies in stalling advancement on sustainable global resource use and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?

For all the talk of cults above, I'd say there's a distinction to be made between religions and scams. If my loved one wants to believe that when they die their body will perpetually dance to Thriller, why should I challenge them? When someone tells my loved one they need to donate their life savings to ensure that their corpse does indeed do the Thriller dance, I'll talk them out of the scam, not the belief behind it.

Religion is rarely so benign, at least in the western tradition. What if your loved one had Cancer or some other deadly disease and earnestly believed the Thriller dance could cure them of cancer, and that proper medical attention was a sin against the Great Zombie in Red? That if they should die, that it is the Great Zombie's will and you should respect his decision. It's not all about money you know. What if there was a large group of believers in the Thriller Dance in your community, and they pushed for the passing of laws and policies to inject their mystical rhythmic necromancy doctrines into biology class and onto your children?

You can have a discussion about religion without running around screaming LOL CHRISTIANS/JEWS/MUSLIMS/WHATEVER ARE SO STUPID I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY BELIEVE ALL THAT GARBAGE, which is exactly what Keilyn has been doing the entire time.

Keilyn does lack tact in the matter, though I understand the sentiment. Apparently, you've never had Psalms 14:1 (The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good) thrown at you repeatedly. There's quite a few passages with a similar tone, and they come up in discussion far ~FAR~ more often than you might think... even from normally non-bigoted and empathetic people. The only difference is that Keilyn saying it makes her accountable for her own words. A Christian saying that has a defense mechanism built in to pass it off as "Oh, I'm not saying it... God is. Hate the Sin not the Sinner!" It's a loosely veiled diffusion of responsibility at worst, and an ignorant apologetic at best.

And personally, I don't understand why religious folk should get upset at their views being called irrational. Belief in the supernatural is, by necessity, a suspension of rational thought. As a Deist (I do believe in God, though I think yours is a counterfeit of human invention), I value reason as a tool by which to separate what is from what isn't. It's been abundantly clear to me for some time that reason cannot validate the existence of a god. Therefore, my belief is irrational. I don't consider this, however, to be a mark of shame or a fault until I let my irrational beliefs cloud my rational evaluation of the world around me. This is something intrinsic to religious belief wherein it contains doctrines and scriptures.

[str898mustang]

never seen a thread go from short posts to epIC TL.DR posts