In order to keep the post about Marco’s free from polemics (SiteAdmin please remove the remaining ones), but not to ignore the questions raised bellow, I suggest to talk about the religious debate here. I am indeed convinced that this debate is needed, as we’ve faced this issue several times, and that >25yo adults should be able to answer that simple question “what does ‘religiously neutral’ mean ?” without getting offending. Please prove me right ! :-)
Because, first of all, you should know that I am a very active opponent to censorship. I’ve always believed that discussion was a way to mutual understanding, while censorship was the social equivalent to family secrets: a hidden cancer that causes suffering. But I’ve asked Nir to remove the mentioned posts. Here is why.
To me, there are some more and less respectful ways to express oneself. This was actually my real first lesson I learned at Fine Art School. The teacher told us something like “you’ll need help and feedback from each other several times a day. But you need constructive one, even it’s negative. So, think about it. ‘it’s ugly’ doesn’t bring anything but anger or disappointment, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color is disturbing, but the shape has an obvious power you should keep’ is more respectful, constructive and helpful.
Considering religion now, there’s to me a huge difference between the two following sentences:
A) "I believe that Jesus is my savior" and
B) "Jesus is the Savior"
A expresses a personal believe, and I'm all fine with it, even if I think it's wrong. This only states a personal vision, and I respect most of them, as long as they don’t hurt any other person (call for genocide and other discriminations for instance)
B actually implicitly pretends to be The truth. The speaker assumes that he knows the truth better than anyone else, that non Christian are wrong and possibly aimed for hell. This, to my point of view, is egocentric, aggressive, provocative, proselyte and... not Christian in the deepest sense of the term, as I understand the core message of the bible to be unconditional love and respect of everyone, being Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or whatever else.
For all that, as Voltaire would say “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’d give my life to ensure that you’ve got the right to say it”. I do not mind reading people say “I’m going to church”, “I believe in Rael” or “I hope Elvis Presley is still alive”. But please refrain yourselves from saying “God is the only way to follow”, “If you don’t give money to Rael, you’re doomed” or “Elvis Presley is playing live tomorrow at Central Perk” if you want to avoid hurting other people’s feelings… or looking damn stupid ;-)
Hope it’s clearer now. Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation to this forum quality and atmosphere.
Global Forums > General > What does religiously neutral mean ?
Only members can see names and photos
What does religiously neutral mean ?
Jun 12, 2007 @ 14:17
The text you are quoting:
In order to keep the post about Marco’s free from polemics (SiteAdmin please remove the remaining ones), but not to ignore the questions raised bellow, I suggest to talk about the religious debate here. I am indeed convinced that this debate is needed, as we’ve faced this issue several times, and that >25yo adults should be able to answer that simple question “what does ‘religiously neutral’ mean ?” without getting offending. Please prove me right ! :-)
Because, first of all, you should know that I am a very active opponent to censorship. I’ve always believed that discussion was a way to mutual understanding, while censorship was the social equivalent to family secrets: a hidden cancer that causes suffering. But I’ve asked Nir to remove the mentioned posts. Here is why.
To me, there are some more and less respectful ways to express oneself. This was actually my real first lesson I learned at Fine Art School. The teacher told us something like “you’ll need help and feedback from each other several times a day. But you need constructive one, even it’s negative. So, think about it. ‘it’s ugly’ doesn’t bring anything but anger or disappointment, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color is disturbing, but the shape has an obvious power you should keep’ is more respectful, constructive and helpful.
Considering religion now, there’s to me a huge difference between the two following sentences:
A) "I believe that Jesus is my savior" and
B) "Jesus is the Savior"
A expresses a personal believe, and I'm all fine with it, even if I think it's wrong. This only states a personal vision, and I respect most of them, as long as they don’t hurt any other person (call for genocide and other discriminations for instance)
B actually implicitly pretends to be The truth. The speaker assumes that he knows the truth better than anyone else, that non Christian are wrong and possibly aimed for hell. This, to my point of view, is egocentric, aggressive, provocative, proselyte and... not Christian in the deepest sense of the term, as I understand the core message of the bible to be unconditional love and respect of everyone, being Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or whatever else.
For all that, as Voltaire would say “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’d give my life to ensure that you’ve got the right to say it”. I do not mind reading people say “I’m going to church”, “I believe in Rael” or “I hope Elvis Presley is still alive”. But please refrain yourselves from saying “God is the only way to follow”, “If you don’t give money to Rael, you’re doomed” or “Elvis Presley is playing live tomorrow at Central Perk” if you want to avoid hurting other people’s feelings… or looking damn stupid ;-)
Hope it’s clearer now. Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation to this forum quality and atmosphere.
HobbesJun 12, 2007 @ 14:17
Because, first of all, you should know that I am a very active opponent to censorship. I’ve always believed that discussion was a way to mutual understanding, while censorship was the social equivalent to family secrets: a hidden cancer that causes suffering. But I’ve asked Nir to remove the mentioned posts. Here is why.
To me, there are some more and less respectful ways to express oneself. This was actually my real first lesson I learned at Fine Art School. The teacher told us something like “you’ll need help and feedback from each other several times a day. But you need constructive one, even it’s negative. So, think about it. ‘it’s ugly’ doesn’t bring anything but anger or disappointment, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color is disturbing, but the shape has an obvious power you should keep’ is more respectful, constructive and helpful.
Considering religion now, there’s to me a huge difference between the two following sentences:
A) "I believe that Jesus is my savior" and
B) "Jesus is the Savior"
A expresses a personal believe, and I'm all fine with it, even if I think it's wrong. This only states a personal vision, and I respect most of them, as long as they don’t hurt any other person (call for genocide and other discriminations for instance)
B actually implicitly pretends to be The truth. The speaker assumes that he knows the truth better than anyone else, that non Christian are wrong and possibly aimed for hell. This, to my point of view, is egocentric, aggressive, provocative, proselyte and... not Christian in the deepest sense of the term, as I understand the core message of the bible to be unconditional love and respect of everyone, being Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or whatever else.
For all that, as Voltaire would say “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’d give my life to ensure that you’ve got the right to say it”. I do not mind reading people say “I’m going to church”, “I believe in Rael” or “I hope Elvis Presley is still alive”. But please refrain yourselves from saying “God is the only way to follow”, “If you don’t give money to Rael, you’re doomed” or “Elvis Presley is playing live tomorrow at Central Perk” if you want to avoid hurting other people’s feelings… or looking damn stupid ;-)
Hope it’s clearer now. Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation to this forum quality and atmosphere.
HobbesJun 12, 2007 @ 14:17
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 1
Jun 12, 2007 @ 18:10
- I totally agree with what Hobbes on "how these things should be said". I also didn't love to read something like "Jesus is the Truth", and yes, Sherry, I know that the fact you posted it means that it's what you think, but anyway, I really prefer to read a "I think that...".
- I'm not sure there is really an answer to the "what is it to be religious neutral", as the reasons leading someone to not believe in any god may range from "I just not care about all of this" to "I am sure none of this exist". There is also a big difference between being atheist or agnostic.
- I also think, but many won't agree, believe in something because it fills a "need". I don't believe in any god, but I also don't feel I lack something regarding spirituality, and that my life would be better if I thought "God", or whatever I would call it, would make have an influance on our lives. I also don't have the "proof" of the existence of any god, so I don't believe in it. However, I of course don't have any proof that there is no god, so can't deny it, and won't say to any religious believer that he's wrong, that he should stop thinking he should follow anything, etc
I'm myself baptised (catholic), and strictly by the blood I'm 50% catholic, 25% protestant, 25% jew. However, the only religion I feel I belong a little bit to is the jewish, but only for historical reasons (I won't go in a synagogue, believe in God or anything like that) because during WWII having a jew grand-father was "enough" for the nazis, that some people of my family died because of that, and that being 25% jew would have gave me a Israeli Passport if needed for some time (I think they changed that law).
Remy
(P.s.: I started writing that post a few hours ago and didn't had the opportunity to finish it at that time, so sorry if some of it don't fit with the previous posts. Also sorry for the english mistakes, there are prolly some of them ;) )
- I'm not sure there is really an answer to the "what is it to be religious neutral", as the reasons leading someone to not believe in any god may range from "I just not care about all of this" to "I am sure none of this exist". There is also a big difference between being atheist or agnostic.
- I also think, but many won't agree, believe in something because it fills a "need". I don't believe in any god, but I also don't feel I lack something regarding spirituality, and that my life would be better if I thought "God", or whatever I would call it, would make have an influance on our lives. I also don't have the "proof" of the existence of any god, so I don't believe in it. However, I of course don't have any proof that there is no god, so can't deny it, and won't say to any religious believer that he's wrong, that he should stop thinking he should follow anything, etc
I'm myself baptised (catholic), and strictly by the blood I'm 50% catholic, 25% protestant, 25% jew. However, the only religion I feel I belong a little bit to is the jewish, but only for historical reasons (I won't go in a synagogue, believe in God or anything like that) because during WWII having a jew grand-father was "enough" for the nazis, that some people of my family died because of that, and that being 25% jew would have gave me a Israeli Passport if needed for some time (I think they changed that law).
Remy
(P.s.: I started writing that post a few hours ago and didn't had the opportunity to finish it at that time, so sorry if some of it don't fit with the previous posts. Also sorry for the english mistakes, there are prolly some of them ;) )
The text you are quoting:
- I totally agree with what Hobbes on "how these things should be said". I also didn't love to read something like "Jesus is the Truth", and yes, Sherry, I know that the fact you posted it means that it's what you think, but anyway, I really prefer to read a "I think that...".
- I'm not sure there is really an answer to the "what is it to be religious neutral", as the reasons leading someone to not believe in any god may range from "I just not care about all of this" to "I am sure none of this exist". There is also a big difference between being atheist or agnostic.
- I also think, but many won't agree, believe in something because it fills a "need". I don't believe in any god, but I also don't feel I lack something regarding spirituality, and that my life would be better if I thought "God", or whatever I would call it, would make have an influance on our lives. I also don't have the "proof" of the existence of any god, so I don't believe in it. However, I of course don't have any proof that there is no god, so can't deny it, and won't say to any religious believer that he's wrong, that he should stop thinking he should follow anything, etc
I'm myself baptised (catholic), and strictly by the blood I'm 50% catholic, 25% protestant, 25% jew. However, the only religion I feel I belong a little bit to is the jewish, but only for historical reasons (I won't go in a synagogue, believe in God or anything like that) because during WWII having a jew grand-father was "enough" for the nazis, that some people of my family died because of that, and that being 25% jew would have gave me a Israeli Passport if needed for some time (I think they changed that law).
Remy
(P.s.: I started writing that post a few hours ago and didn't had the opportunity to finish it at that time, so sorry if some of it don't fit with the previous posts. Also sorry for the english mistakes, there are prolly some of them ;) )
RemyS, Jun 12, 2007 @ 18:10
- I'm not sure there is really an answer to the "what is it to be religious neutral", as the reasons leading someone to not believe in any god may range from "I just not care about all of this" to "I am sure none of this exist". There is also a big difference between being atheist or agnostic.
- I also think, but many won't agree, believe in something because it fills a "need". I don't believe in any god, but I also don't feel I lack something regarding spirituality, and that my life would be better if I thought "God", or whatever I would call it, would make have an influance on our lives. I also don't have the "proof" of the existence of any god, so I don't believe in it. However, I of course don't have any proof that there is no god, so can't deny it, and won't say to any religious believer that he's wrong, that he should stop thinking he should follow anything, etc
I'm myself baptised (catholic), and strictly by the blood I'm 50% catholic, 25% protestant, 25% jew. However, the only religion I feel I belong a little bit to is the jewish, but only for historical reasons (I won't go in a synagogue, believe in God or anything like that) because during WWII having a jew grand-father was "enough" for the nazis, that some people of my family died because of that, and that being 25% jew would have gave me a Israeli Passport if needed for some time (I think they changed that law).
Remy
(P.s.: I started writing that post a few hours ago and didn't had the opportunity to finish it at that time, so sorry if some of it don't fit with the previous posts. Also sorry for the english mistakes, there are prolly some of them ;) )
RemyS, Jun 12, 2007 @ 18:10
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 2
Jun 12, 2007 @ 19:22
"religion" = institution
"-ous" suffix = of descriptive nature/ belonging to certain state of mind/juncture
"religiously neutral" = oxymoron; is there such particular term/phrase?
i am 25% orthodox christian, 25% turkish sunni muslim, 25% farsi shi'a muslim, 25% jewish.
i don't think any "holy book", which humanity claims to embark upon in its collective spirituality, prescribes a faith employable and believable within the church/institution; to my, let it be poor, knowldege ... "holy scriptures" contain a liberal dogma from very onset, wherein it is implied that there be no curtain of separation in between god and human.
i mean, nor claim any argument hereafter, ... yet, your provocative intelligence has some constructive tunes Hobbes... let's hope we can discuss it whenever we see each other on any event... enough of me spoken here... ciao
"-ous" suffix = of descriptive nature/ belonging to certain state of mind/juncture
"religiously neutral" = oxymoron; is there such particular term/phrase?
i am 25% orthodox christian, 25% turkish sunni muslim, 25% farsi shi'a muslim, 25% jewish.
i don't think any "holy book", which humanity claims to embark upon in its collective spirituality, prescribes a faith employable and believable within the church/institution; to my, let it be poor, knowldege ... "holy scriptures" contain a liberal dogma from very onset, wherein it is implied that there be no curtain of separation in between god and human.
i mean, nor claim any argument hereafter, ... yet, your provocative intelligence has some constructive tunes Hobbes... let's hope we can discuss it whenever we see each other on any event... enough of me spoken here... ciao
The text you are quoting:
"religion" = institution
"-ous" suffix = of descriptive nature/ belonging to certain state of mind/juncture
"religiously neutral" = oxymoron; is there such particular term/phrase?
i am 25% orthodox christian, 25% turkish sunni muslim, 25% farsi shi'a muslim, 25% jewish.
i don't think any "holy book", which humanity claims to embark upon in its collective spirituality, prescribes a faith employable and believable within the church/institution; to my, let it be poor, knowldege ... "holy scriptures" contain a liberal dogma from very onset, wherein it is implied that there be no curtain of separation in between god and human.
i mean, nor claim any argument hereafter, ... yet, your provocative intelligence has some constructive tunes Hobbes... let's hope we can discuss it whenever we see each other on any event... enough of me spoken here... ciao
Good_One, Jun 12, 2007 @ 19:22
"-ous" suffix = of descriptive nature/ belonging to certain state of mind/juncture
"religiously neutral" = oxymoron; is there such particular term/phrase?
i am 25% orthodox christian, 25% turkish sunni muslim, 25% farsi shi'a muslim, 25% jewish.
i don't think any "holy book", which humanity claims to embark upon in its collective spirituality, prescribes a faith employable and believable within the church/institution; to my, let it be poor, knowldege ... "holy scriptures" contain a liberal dogma from very onset, wherein it is implied that there be no curtain of separation in between god and human.
i mean, nor claim any argument hereafter, ... yet, your provocative intelligence has some constructive tunes Hobbes... let's hope we can discuss it whenever we see each other on any event... enough of me spoken here... ciao
Good_One, Jun 12, 2007 @ 19:22
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 3
Jun 12, 2007 @ 20:37
We (we=the folks behind GoL) are not fighters for free speach, nor are we anti or pro religion, nor do we want to make any profound statements here.
We simply want to keep GoL foucsed on friendly people doing friendly things. And most times religion comes into discussion, because the topic is so personal, there's a high chance someone will get offended (even tho we're all adults).
So we ask a simple thing: pls help us not discuss religion on GoL. There are many other places for serious discussions on religion.
What think?
We simply want to keep GoL foucsed on friendly people doing friendly things. And most times religion comes into discussion, because the topic is so personal, there's a high chance someone will get offended (even tho we're all adults).
So we ask a simple thing: pls help us not discuss religion on GoL. There are many other places for serious discussions on religion.
What think?
The text you are quoting:
We (we=the folks behind GoL) are not fighters for free speach, nor are we anti or pro religion, nor do we want to make any profound statements here.
We simply want to keep GoL foucsed on friendly people doing friendly things. And most times religion comes into discussion, because the topic is so personal, there's a high chance someone will get offended (even tho we're all adults).
So we ask a simple thing: pls help us not discuss religion on GoL. There are many other places for serious discussions on religion.
What think?
Nir Ofek, Jun 12, 2007 @ 20:37
We simply want to keep GoL foucsed on friendly people doing friendly things. And most times religion comes into discussion, because the topic is so personal, there's a high chance someone will get offended (even tho we're all adults).
So we ask a simple thing: pls help us not discuss religion on GoL. There are many other places for serious discussions on religion.
What think?
Nir Ofek, Jun 12, 2007 @ 20:37
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 4
Jun 13, 2007 @ 10:43
Of course Nir, I understand you want to preserve this forum from any "bad fight", and to make sure nobody is shocked from what he/she reads.
However, I'm sure that most GoLers are intelligent enough to not post something that won't shock anyone, but also to read posts and understand they only express the ideas of the poster, who has the right to think more or less anything (if he write it in a correct manner obv).
As I said, I don't really care about religion myself, so I won't be frustrated if you close that discussion. But I don't really like censorship where I don't feel it's necessary, and I would have been interrested to read what other people think about that subject.
We've the rare opportunity there to have people from so many different places and cultures than we could learn a lot in such a discussion, so maybe it could be worth letting him go and see where it goes, and then if something nasty happen (I hope it won't and don't think so) to either close that or remove some posts.
Remy
However, I'm sure that most GoLers are intelligent enough to not post something that won't shock anyone, but also to read posts and understand they only express the ideas of the poster, who has the right to think more or less anything (if he write it in a correct manner obv).
As I said, I don't really care about religion myself, so I won't be frustrated if you close that discussion. But I don't really like censorship where I don't feel it's necessary, and I would have been interrested to read what other people think about that subject.
We've the rare opportunity there to have people from so many different places and cultures than we could learn a lot in such a discussion, so maybe it could be worth letting him go and see where it goes, and then if something nasty happen (I hope it won't and don't think so) to either close that or remove some posts.
Remy
The text you are quoting:
Of course Nir, I understand you want to preserve this forum from any "bad fight", and to make sure nobody is shocked from what he/she reads.
However, I'm sure that most GoLers are intelligent enough to not post something that won't shock anyone, but also to read posts and understand they only express the ideas of the poster, who has the right to think more or less anything (if he write it in a correct manner obv).
As I said, I don't really care about religion myself, so I won't be frustrated if you close that discussion. But I don't really like censorship where I don't feel it's necessary, and I would have been interrested to read what other people think about that subject.
We've the rare opportunity there to have people from so many different places and cultures than we could learn a lot in such a discussion, so maybe it could be worth letting him go and see where it goes, and then if something nasty happen (I hope it won't and don't think so) to either close that or remove some posts.
Remy
RemyS, Jun 13, 2007 @ 10:43
However, I'm sure that most GoLers are intelligent enough to not post something that won't shock anyone, but also to read posts and understand they only express the ideas of the poster, who has the right to think more or less anything (if he write it in a correct manner obv).
As I said, I don't really care about religion myself, so I won't be frustrated if you close that discussion. But I don't really like censorship where I don't feel it's necessary, and I would have been interrested to read what other people think about that subject.
We've the rare opportunity there to have people from so many different places and cultures than we could learn a lot in such a discussion, so maybe it could be worth letting him go and see where it goes, and then if something nasty happen (I hope it won't and don't think so) to either close that or remove some posts.
Remy
RemyS, Jun 13, 2007 @ 10:43
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 5
Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:30
Sorry Hobbes, but making a statement about God may create just as much of an impact on non-believers (or from a non-christian demonination) as it does for believers when someone starts talking about how God does NOT exist.
I'm gonna agree with Sarah on this one and say that if you're gonna remove posts that talk about believing in a God then you should remove posts from those who do not believe in a God. Likewise regarding posts that talk about Buddhism, Islam, etc... Mystacism, philosophy, vodoo, religion, call it whatever you want, just don't have an opinion on it.
I'm gonna agree with Sarah on this one and say that if you're gonna remove posts that talk about believing in a God then you should remove posts from those who do not believe in a God. Likewise regarding posts that talk about Buddhism, Islam, etc... Mystacism, philosophy, vodoo, religion, call it whatever you want, just don't have an opinion on it.
The text you are quoting:
Sorry Hobbes, but making a statement about God may create just as much of an impact on non-believers (or from a non-christian demonination) as it does for believers when someone starts talking about how God does NOT exist.
I'm gonna agree with Sarah on this one and say that if you're gonna remove posts that talk about believing in a God then you should remove posts from those who do not believe in a God. Likewise regarding posts that talk about Buddhism, Islam, etc... Mystacism, philosophy, vodoo, religion, call it whatever you want, just don't have an opinion on it.
nancy, Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:30
I'm gonna agree with Sarah on this one and say that if you're gonna remove posts that talk about believing in a God then you should remove posts from those who do not believe in a God. Likewise regarding posts that talk about Buddhism, Islam, etc... Mystacism, philosophy, vodoo, religion, call it whatever you want, just don't have an opinion on it.
nancy, Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:30
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 6
Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:54
absolut'ly agreed
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 7
Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:56
...perceptions, distortions count , too... let's put an end to this... talking about this in privacy is much better.. after all, noone can understand any1 better than a self...
The text you are quoting:
...perceptions, distortions count , too... let's put an end to this... talking about this in privacy is much better.. after all, noone can understand any1 better than a self...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:56
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:56
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 8
Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:58
becoming a GoL member doesn't employ an IQ test or anythng else of this sort ... so, some may be hurt in final analysis...
The text you are quoting:
becoming a GoL member doesn't employ an IQ test or anythng else of this sort ... so, some may be hurt in final analysis...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:58
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 11:58
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 9
Jun 13, 2007 @ 12:24
All,
It's real simple: let's pls just not bring up topics about religion in GoL.
It's just too sensetive and not what GoL for.
It's real simple: let's pls just not bring up topics about religion in GoL.
It's just too sensetive and not what GoL for.
The text you are quoting:
All,
It's real simple: let's pls just not bring up topics about religion in GoL.
It's just too sensetive and not what GoL for.
Nir Ofek, Jun 13, 2007 @ 12:24
It's real simple: let's pls just not bring up topics about religion in GoL.
It's just too sensetive and not what GoL for.
Nir Ofek, Jun 13, 2007 @ 12:24
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 10
Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:11
Hey Guys
I don't think anyone will have a problem with people discussing certain aspects of religion, or enlightning others about interesting things about different religions.
But, I really do not see the point of a "Discussion" that goes something like:
Member A - Jesus is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member B - No. Muhamad is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member C - You are both wrong. There is no God.
Member A - You dont know what you are talking about. You're going to Hell
Member D - I agree with member B...
People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years.
I really don't think this subject is going to be "solved" on the GoL forums.
And since discussions about religion tend to become sermons and personal arguments very quickly, we just want to avoid this altogether.
Any clearer now?
Oded
I don't think anyone will have a problem with people discussing certain aspects of religion, or enlightning others about interesting things about different religions.
But, I really do not see the point of a "Discussion" that goes something like:
Member A - Jesus is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member B - No. Muhamad is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member C - You are both wrong. There is no God.
Member A - You dont know what you are talking about. You're going to Hell
Member D - I agree with member B...
People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years.
I really don't think this subject is going to be "solved" on the GoL forums.
And since discussions about religion tend to become sermons and personal arguments very quickly, we just want to avoid this altogether.
Any clearer now?
Oded
The text you are quoting:
Hey Guys
I don't think anyone will have a problem with people discussing certain aspects of religion, or enlightning others about interesting things about different religions.
But, I really do not see the point of a "Discussion" that goes something like:
Member A - Jesus is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member B - No. Muhamad is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member C - You are both wrong. There is no God.
Member A - You dont know what you are talking about. You're going to Hell
Member D - I agree with member B...
People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years.
I really don't think this subject is going to be "solved" on the GoL forums.
And since discussions about religion tend to become sermons and personal arguments very quickly, we just want to avoid this altogether.
Any clearer now?
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:11
I don't think anyone will have a problem with people discussing certain aspects of religion, or enlightning others about interesting things about different religions.
But, I really do not see the point of a "Discussion" that goes something like:
Member A - Jesus is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member B - No. Muhamad is our savior and following him will lead us to heaven.
Member C - You are both wrong. There is no God.
Member A - You dont know what you are talking about. You're going to Hell
Member D - I agree with member B...
People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years.
I really don't think this subject is going to be "solved" on the GoL forums.
And since discussions about religion tend to become sermons and personal arguments very quickly, we just want to avoid this altogether.
Any clearer now?
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:11
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 11
Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:11
1) debate what exactly??
2) am not imposive in my words, am just saying that in "debating" (as u suggest or as u imply), whether u bring examples/yo vision/theories/etc, there will be a probability that some ppl may get hurt and that probability will increase geometrically
3) to believe or not to believe is a matter of privacy of thoughts & consience.... ppl can discuss this well in between each other tet-a-tet ... which i can do , but in a very limited circle of friends i know... who know me, whom i know... when we know each other's limits... And if here somebody says smnthg which some will take as "intolerant" or "unintelligent" or "conservative" or "way too super-liberal", the probability of censorship will rise. and so will the probability of resorting to humiliations/upbraining/dimishing/etc.
4) whether u or i want it or don't want it, many will end up citing "religion"s/"faiths"/"church"/"scriptures"....
5) u cannot control the limit of such "debate" here... and it is premature to claim that GoL community is way decently intelligent... many are wunderkids, but some maybe are just easy to get emotional...
6) i offered and invited Hobbes to speak on this eye-to-eye... why do it here?... what?...some of us will be attempting to prove yet some others who read more books or whose thoughts have passed a tough refinery or experience?... please read Nir's 1st comment again...
7) you may ignore my points and go ahead... u need no permission for that of course... if i want to shut some1 up, i do it other ways, unpublic... @ GoL, we dont employ such tactics... every1 is free to speak. what I did was I extended a suggestion to stop discussion... and i used my right to say/suggest so...
2) am not imposive in my words, am just saying that in "debating" (as u suggest or as u imply), whether u bring examples/yo vision/theories/etc, there will be a probability that some ppl may get hurt and that probability will increase geometrically
3) to believe or not to believe is a matter of privacy of thoughts & consience.... ppl can discuss this well in between each other tet-a-tet ... which i can do , but in a very limited circle of friends i know... who know me, whom i know... when we know each other's limits... And if here somebody says smnthg which some will take as "intolerant" or "unintelligent" or "conservative" or "way too super-liberal", the probability of censorship will rise. and so will the probability of resorting to humiliations/upbraining/dimishing/etc.
4) whether u or i want it or don't want it, many will end up citing "religion"s/"faiths"/"church"/"scriptures"....
5) u cannot control the limit of such "debate" here... and it is premature to claim that GoL community is way decently intelligent... many are wunderkids, but some maybe are just easy to get emotional...
6) i offered and invited Hobbes to speak on this eye-to-eye... why do it here?... what?...some of us will be attempting to prove yet some others who read more books or whose thoughts have passed a tough refinery or experience?... please read Nir's 1st comment again...
7) you may ignore my points and go ahead... u need no permission for that of course... if i want to shut some1 up, i do it other ways, unpublic... @ GoL, we dont employ such tactics... every1 is free to speak. what I did was I extended a suggestion to stop discussion... and i used my right to say/suggest so...
The text you are quoting:
1) debate what exactly??
2) am not imposive in my words, am just saying that in "debating" (as u suggest or as u imply), whether u bring examples/yo vision/theories/etc, there will be a probability that some ppl may get hurt and that probability will increase geometrically
3) to believe or not to believe is a matter of privacy of thoughts & consience.... ppl can discuss this well in between each other tet-a-tet ... which i can do , but in a very limited circle of friends i know... who know me, whom i know... when we know each other's limits... And if here somebody says smnthg which some will take as "intolerant" or "unintelligent" or "conservative" or "way too super-liberal", the probability of censorship will rise. and so will the probability of resorting to humiliations/upbraining/dimishing/etc.
4) whether u or i want it or don't want it, many will end up citing "religion"s/"faiths"/"church"/"scriptures"....
5) u cannot control the limit of such "debate" here... and it is premature to claim that GoL community is way decently intelligent... many are wunderkids, but some maybe are just easy to get emotional...
6) i offered and invited Hobbes to speak on this eye-to-eye... why do it here?... what?...some of us will be attempting to prove yet some others who read more books or whose thoughts have passed a tough refinery or experience?... please read Nir's 1st comment again...
7) you may ignore my points and go ahead... u need no permission for that of course... if i want to shut some1 up, i do it other ways, unpublic... @ GoL, we dont employ such tactics... every1 is free to speak. what I did was I extended a suggestion to stop discussion... and i used my right to say/suggest so...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:11
2) am not imposive in my words, am just saying that in "debating" (as u suggest or as u imply), whether u bring examples/yo vision/theories/etc, there will be a probability that some ppl may get hurt and that probability will increase geometrically
3) to believe or not to believe is a matter of privacy of thoughts & consience.... ppl can discuss this well in between each other tet-a-tet ... which i can do , but in a very limited circle of friends i know... who know me, whom i know... when we know each other's limits... And if here somebody says smnthg which some will take as "intolerant" or "unintelligent" or "conservative" or "way too super-liberal", the probability of censorship will rise. and so will the probability of resorting to humiliations/upbraining/dimishing/etc.
4) whether u or i want it or don't want it, many will end up citing "religion"s/"faiths"/"church"/"scriptures"....
5) u cannot control the limit of such "debate" here... and it is premature to claim that GoL community is way decently intelligent... many are wunderkids, but some maybe are just easy to get emotional...
6) i offered and invited Hobbes to speak on this eye-to-eye... why do it here?... what?...some of us will be attempting to prove yet some others who read more books or whose thoughts have passed a tough refinery or experience?... please read Nir's 1st comment again...
7) you may ignore my points and go ahead... u need no permission for that of course... if i want to shut some1 up, i do it other ways, unpublic... @ GoL, we dont employ such tactics... every1 is free to speak. what I did was I extended a suggestion to stop discussion... and i used my right to say/suggest so...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:11
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 12
Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:16
Nir, did you read the ten previous posts ? I find them very clever, respectfull and well written, especially Tinkie's one. All of them say more or less the same thing: we are from more than 50 differents countries and many different religions, or atheist. This is what makes us and GOL a unique and valuable place to understand each other better. Make the international Geneva even better.
It just requires some basic skills not to hurt anyone. Actually, just one: say "I believe that..." instead of "Truth is...".
For all that, I don't see any reason why religion should be banned as a topic. Or what are we going to bann later on ? Discussions about sex, alcohool, gay communities, politics, sexist jokes ? What if someone asks in the Where/how forum if there's any synagog in town, should we delete that post ? If someone asks for a halal butchery ? A non mixed swimming pool ? Invites others for a Xmas dinner at his place ? Organises a Easter bunny party ? You see my point.
It just requires some basic skills not to hurt anyone. Actually, just one: say "I believe that..." instead of "Truth is...".
For all that, I don't see any reason why religion should be banned as a topic. Or what are we going to bann later on ? Discussions about sex, alcohool, gay communities, politics, sexist jokes ? What if someone asks in the Where/how forum if there's any synagog in town, should we delete that post ? If someone asks for a halal butchery ? A non mixed swimming pool ? Invites others for a Xmas dinner at his place ? Organises a Easter bunny party ? You see my point.
The text you are quoting:
Nir, did you read the ten previous posts ? I find them very clever, respectfull and well written, especially Tinkie's one. All of them say more or less the same thing: we are from more than 50 differents countries and many different religions, or atheist. This is what makes us and GOL a unique and valuable place to understand each other better. Make the international Geneva even better.
It just requires some basic skills not to hurt anyone. Actually, just one: say "I believe that..." instead of "Truth is...".
For all that, I don't see any reason why religion should be banned as a topic. Or what are we going to bann later on ? Discussions about sex, alcohool, gay communities, politics, sexist jokes ? What if someone asks in the Where/how forum if there's any synagog in town, should we delete that post ? If someone asks for a halal butchery ? A non mixed swimming pool ? Invites others for a Xmas dinner at his place ? Organises a Easter bunny party ? You see my point.
Hobbes, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:16
It just requires some basic skills not to hurt anyone. Actually, just one: say "I believe that..." instead of "Truth is...".
For all that, I don't see any reason why religion should be banned as a topic. Or what are we going to bann later on ? Discussions about sex, alcohool, gay communities, politics, sexist jokes ? What if someone asks in the Where/how forum if there's any synagog in town, should we delete that post ? If someone asks for a halal butchery ? A non mixed swimming pool ? Invites others for a Xmas dinner at his place ? Organises a Easter bunny party ? You see my point.
Hobbes, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:16
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 13
Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:16
agreed & concurrent. thanx for summary bro
The text you are quoting:
agreed & concurrent. thanx for summary bro
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:16
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:16
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 14
Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:41
...on weather it was possible for men and women to understand each other or how to live happily together. We haven't found the answer either, but we still keep on talking about ONS, dating, mariage, having kids, etc. Shall we stop it also ?
I actually don't really mind avoiding religion. I'm not a proselyt, I'm not an anticlerical either. Religions are part of our lives and cultures as music is, at least. I would only feel it as a group failure to have to forbid it, that's it.
I actually don't really mind avoiding religion. I'm not a proselyt, I'm not an anticlerical either. Religions are part of our lives and cultures as music is, at least. I would only feel it as a group failure to have to forbid it, that's it.
The text you are quoting:
...on weather it was possible for men and women to understand each other or how to live happily together. We haven't found the answer either, but we still keep on talking about ONS, dating, mariage, having kids, etc. Shall we stop it also ?
I actually don't really mind avoiding religion. I'm not a proselyt, I'm not an anticlerical either. Religions are part of our lives and cultures as music is, at least. I would only feel it as a group failure to have to forbid it, that's it.
Hobbes, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:41
I actually don't really mind avoiding religion. I'm not a proselyt, I'm not an anticlerical either. Religions are part of our lives and cultures as music is, at least. I would only feel it as a group failure to have to forbid it, that's it.
Hobbes, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:41
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 15
Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:51
First, my question was not "shall we forbid all religious topic", but "what is religiously neutral" = "can we speak about religion, if we want to, without hurting anyone ? If so, how ?"
Second, I never said that we should remove posts that talk about believing in a God. I just recommended to use a proper formulation for it. Not "AC Roma is the best football team of all times and Manchester United player are nothing but stupid pigs", but "I love AC Roma and wish them to win the cup, which, I believe, they will do". Got my point ?
Third, if expression of believes would be forbiden, we should also stop discussion about homeopathy, Grinberg method, delete the city guide section, the books reviews and many more. As a matter of fact, we all rely on values and beliefs. Take them away, and the forum will be nothing but a boring CNN news prompter.
Second, I never said that we should remove posts that talk about believing in a God. I just recommended to use a proper formulation for it. Not "AC Roma is the best football team of all times and Manchester United player are nothing but stupid pigs", but "I love AC Roma and wish them to win the cup, which, I believe, they will do". Got my point ?
Third, if expression of believes would be forbiden, we should also stop discussion about homeopathy, Grinberg method, delete the city guide section, the books reviews and many more. As a matter of fact, we all rely on values and beliefs. Take them away, and the forum will be nothing but a boring CNN news prompter.
The text you are quoting:
First, my question was not "shall we forbid all religious topic", but "what is religiously neutral" = "can we speak about religion, if we want to, without hurting anyone ? If so, how ?"
Second, I never said that we should remove posts that talk about believing in a God. I just recommended to use a proper formulation for it. Not "AC Roma is the best football team of all times and Manchester United player are nothing but stupid pigs", but "I love AC Roma and wish them to win the cup, which, I believe, they will do". Got my point ?
Third, if expression of believes would be forbiden, we should also stop discussion about homeopathy, Grinberg method, delete the city guide section, the books reviews and many more. As a matter of fact, we all rely on values and beliefs. Take them away, and the forum will be nothing but a boring CNN news prompter.
Hobbes, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:51
Second, I never said that we should remove posts that talk about believing in a God. I just recommended to use a proper formulation for it. Not "AC Roma is the best football team of all times and Manchester United player are nothing but stupid pigs", but "I love AC Roma and wish them to win the cup, which, I believe, they will do". Got my point ?
Third, if expression of believes would be forbiden, we should also stop discussion about homeopathy, Grinberg method, delete the city guide section, the books reviews and many more. As a matter of fact, we all rely on values and beliefs. Take them away, and the forum will be nothing but a boring CNN news prompter.
Hobbes, Jun 13, 2007 @ 15:51
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 16
Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:01
go wolfman!
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 17
Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:05
This is the first thread in weeks I read completely, every post. I found it really interesting reading something different than jokes, birthday wishes and what everyone is doing on a boring monday at the office (although that's fun to read as well).
I personally liked tinkies post a lot, very well written.
Geneva is indeed special as it is so international. That's what makes it interesting, but can of course create difficulties understanding each other (more than just the language). I think we should all take advantage of this and learn something about other ways of thinking. And for me, this includes ideas about religion, just as well as about other "sensitive" topics (as cited by Hobbes).
And, do we really need to find any "solutions" on this forum? Or can we just discuss these topics, giving our own opinion and learning more about other people's opinions? Religion is part of our culture, wether we want it or not.
I agree it's a very sensitive topic. But then other topics are sensitive as well. That's what makes discussions interesting, that's what the world is all about. And in my opinion GoL is a small community that reflects this big world. That's why I like it so much.
Or do we just want an always friendly-smiley-happy community?
Your choice.
I personally liked tinkies post a lot, very well written.
Geneva is indeed special as it is so international. That's what makes it interesting, but can of course create difficulties understanding each other (more than just the language). I think we should all take advantage of this and learn something about other ways of thinking. And for me, this includes ideas about religion, just as well as about other "sensitive" topics (as cited by Hobbes).
And, do we really need to find any "solutions" on this forum? Or can we just discuss these topics, giving our own opinion and learning more about other people's opinions? Religion is part of our culture, wether we want it or not.
I agree it's a very sensitive topic. But then other topics are sensitive as well. That's what makes discussions interesting, that's what the world is all about. And in my opinion GoL is a small community that reflects this big world. That's why I like it so much.
Or do we just want an always friendly-smiley-happy community?
Your choice.
The text you are quoting:
This is the first thread in weeks I read completely, every post. I found it really interesting reading something different than jokes, birthday wishes and what everyone is doing on a boring monday at the office (although that's fun to read as well).
I personally liked tinkies post a lot, very well written.
Geneva is indeed special as it is so international. That's what makes it interesting, but can of course create difficulties understanding each other (more than just the language). I think we should all take advantage of this and learn something about other ways of thinking. And for me, this includes ideas about religion, just as well as about other "sensitive" topics (as cited by Hobbes).
And, do we really need to find any "solutions" on this forum? Or can we just discuss these topics, giving our own opinion and learning more about other people's opinions? Religion is part of our culture, wether we want it or not.
I agree it's a very sensitive topic. But then other topics are sensitive as well. That's what makes discussions interesting, that's what the world is all about. And in my opinion GoL is a small community that reflects this big world. That's why I like it so much.
Or do we just want an always friendly-smiley-happy community?
Your choice.
eva77, Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:05
I personally liked tinkies post a lot, very well written.
Geneva is indeed special as it is so international. That's what makes it interesting, but can of course create difficulties understanding each other (more than just the language). I think we should all take advantage of this and learn something about other ways of thinking. And for me, this includes ideas about religion, just as well as about other "sensitive" topics (as cited by Hobbes).
And, do we really need to find any "solutions" on this forum? Or can we just discuss these topics, giving our own opinion and learning more about other people's opinions? Religion is part of our culture, wether we want it or not.
I agree it's a very sensitive topic. But then other topics are sensitive as well. That's what makes discussions interesting, that's what the world is all about. And in my opinion GoL is a small community that reflects this big world. That's why I like it so much.
Or do we just want an always friendly-smiley-happy community?
Your choice.
eva77, Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:05
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 18
Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:52
Hey Sarah
I agree with you, that it's not the fact that someone neglected to write 'in my opinon' before a religious statement that ticks people off.
People post opinions about sports, news, restaurants... and no one ever jumps up and says You should have written that the post is your opinion in these cases.
Sadly though, when people write about religion, it seems to bring out the worst in others, and they look for reasons to argue.
That said, we are still left with the problem I mentioned, where posts about religion quickly tuen into personal feuds or pointless arguments.
If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.
Since this just seems impossible, we are trying to avoid it.
Oded
I agree with you, that it's not the fact that someone neglected to write 'in my opinon' before a religious statement that ticks people off.
People post opinions about sports, news, restaurants... and no one ever jumps up and says You should have written that the post is your opinion in these cases.
Sadly though, when people write about religion, it seems to bring out the worst in others, and they look for reasons to argue.
That said, we are still left with the problem I mentioned, where posts about religion quickly tuen into personal feuds or pointless arguments.
If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.
Since this just seems impossible, we are trying to avoid it.
Oded
The text you are quoting:
Hey Sarah
I agree with you, that it's not the fact that someone neglected to write 'in my opinon' before a religious statement that ticks people off.
People post opinions about sports, news, restaurants... and no one ever jumps up and says You should have written that the post is your opinion in these cases.
Sadly though, when people write about religion, it seems to bring out the worst in others, and they look for reasons to argue.
That said, we are still left with the problem I mentioned, where posts about religion quickly tuen into personal feuds or pointless arguments.
If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.
Since this just seems impossible, we are trying to avoid it.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:52
I agree with you, that it's not the fact that someone neglected to write 'in my opinon' before a religious statement that ticks people off.
People post opinions about sports, news, restaurants... and no one ever jumps up and says You should have written that the post is your opinion in these cases.
Sadly though, when people write about religion, it seems to bring out the worst in others, and they look for reasons to argue.
That said, we are still left with the problem I mentioned, where posts about religion quickly tuen into personal feuds or pointless arguments.
If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.
Since this just seems impossible, we are trying to avoid it.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 13, 2007 @ 17:52
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 19
Jun 13, 2007 @ 18:59
".. group failure to have to forbid it..." ?? -- man, you mean there are no fora, no single forum on i-net to discuss this? or is it particularly GoL that stands out as the unit/object of this discussion?... what's the final purpose this discussion will serve us? -- plz, any1 tell me... what good or what bad it will bring?... what is gonna B its result?...
The text you are quoting:
".. group failure to have to forbid it..." ?? -- man, you mean there are no fora, no single forum on i-net to discuss this? or is it particularly GoL that stands out as the unit/object of this discussion?... what's the final purpose this discussion will serve us? -- plz, any1 tell me... what good or what bad it will bring?... what is gonna B its result?...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 18:59
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 18:59
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 20
Jun 13, 2007 @ 19:13
man, let's just put this on vote here then... no1 shuts any1 else; it is just avoidance to turn the scrolls here into debating, which may foment some insulting ot the like... or at least, disappointment...
u didn't get my point, too - i am free to talk about this with whoever, but why here, why @ GoL? if u want to proceed to do it so, do it... i think yo intro was quite inclusive/provocative, and mayB u could just continue to write...
u didn't get my point, too - i am free to talk about this with whoever, but why here, why @ GoL? if u want to proceed to do it so, do it... i think yo intro was quite inclusive/provocative, and mayB u could just continue to write...
The text you are quoting:
man, let's just put this on vote here then... no1 shuts any1 else; it is just avoidance to turn the scrolls here into debating, which may foment some insulting ot the like... or at least, disappointment...
u didn't get my point, too - i am free to talk about this with whoever, but why here, why @ GoL? if u want to proceed to do it so, do it... i think yo intro was quite inclusive/provocative, and mayB u could just continue to write...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 19:13
u didn't get my point, too - i am free to talk about this with whoever, but why here, why @ GoL? if u want to proceed to do it so, do it... i think yo intro was quite inclusive/provocative, and mayB u could just continue to write...
Good_One, Jun 13, 2007 @ 19:13
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 21
Jun 13, 2007 @ 20:49
And will it necessarily be good or bad? Is it not the discussion itself that is the interesting point? Stimulating others to think and give their opinion?
The text you are quoting:
And will it necessarily be good or bad? Is it not the discussion itself that is the interesting point? Stimulating others to think and give their opinion?
eva77, Jun 13, 2007 @ 20:49
eva77, Jun 13, 2007 @ 20:49
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 22
Jun 14, 2007 @ 00:03
good point eva77, yet things/matters have to have results as much as possible -- so yes. on the other hand, yes, a creative flow of arguments/debating is also serving the expansion of periphery of critical thinking - so yes, again. but with topic to which siteAdmin and Nir attach a concern is worth thinking twice b4 embarking on a serious series of debating... let it be alone its "exchange of views" format, ... it already automatically implies to attempt to prove smthng... otherwise... what's the point?... to learn what each one of us feels/thinks/believes/cherishes?.. well, i am more than sure we could handle that curiosity flavor in real...i mean not on forum...because there is just nothing wrong with being prudent, cautious so as not to entail something which should not in frist place necessarily mean smthng wrong/bad/negative...it can be innocent in cause and intention, but... the point is more or less there is a chance to build a misperception. and the question was -- do we talk about this "neutral spirituality" not mentioning "religions" or "collective faith"?... is it possible to avoid this??? sorry for being so insistent :-))
The text you are quoting:
good point eva77, yet things/matters have to have results as much as possible -- so yes. on the other hand, yes, a creative flow of arguments/debating is also serving the expansion of periphery of critical thinking - so yes, again. but with topic to which siteAdmin and Nir attach a concern is worth thinking twice b4 embarking on a serious series of debating... let it be alone its "exchange of views" format, ... it already automatically implies to attempt to prove smthng... otherwise... what's the point?... to learn what each one of us feels/thinks/believes/cherishes?.. well, i am more than sure we could handle that curiosity flavor in real...i mean not on forum...because there is just nothing wrong with being prudent, cautious so as not to entail something which should not in frist place necessarily mean smthng wrong/bad/negative...it can be innocent in cause and intention, but... the point is more or less there is a chance to build a misperception. and the question was -- do we talk about this "neutral spirituality" not mentioning "religions" or "collective faith"?... is it possible to avoid this??? sorry for being so insistent :-))
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 00:03
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 00:03
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 23
Jun 14, 2007 @ 00:05
.."expressing their ideas in a very respectful way and it is very interesting"... -- exactly! when u express your ideas, i can control its flow, but where is a guarantee u can control a perception of the others?...
The text you are quoting:
.."expressing their ideas in a very respectful way and it is very interesting"... -- exactly! when u express your ideas, i can control its flow, but where is a guarantee u can control a perception of the others?...
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 00:05
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 00:05
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 24
Jun 14, 2007 @ 01:18
for a number of usually more down to earth things.
You know: meet friends, go to places, parties, find a flat, a good restaurant, dvds, etc.
Religion might be just out of reach for a forum where plp contribute in 10mins between 2 meetings or 2 tv shows, etc.
I mean seriously is not a dating site so it would be big fun to look for a god or godess around here :)))
B.
You know: meet friends, go to places, parties, find a flat, a good restaurant, dvds, etc.
Religion might be just out of reach for a forum where plp contribute in 10mins between 2 meetings or 2 tv shows, etc.
I mean seriously is not a dating site so it would be big fun to look for a god or godess around here :)))
B.
The text you are quoting:
for a number of usually more down to earth things.
You know: meet friends, go to places, parties, find a flat, a good restaurant, dvds, etc.
Religion might be just out of reach for a forum where plp contribute in 10mins between 2 meetings or 2 tv shows, etc.
I mean seriously is not a dating site so it would be big fun to look for a god or godess around here :)))
B.
brooster, Jun 14, 2007 @ 01:18
You know: meet friends, go to places, parties, find a flat, a good restaurant, dvds, etc.
Religion might be just out of reach for a forum where plp contribute in 10mins between 2 meetings or 2 tv shows, etc.
I mean seriously is not a dating site so it would be big fun to look for a god or godess around here :)))
B.
brooster, Jun 14, 2007 @ 01:18
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 25
Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:34
Nir and Oded – I have been thinking if there is a creative way to accommodate both sides - those who prefer restrictions for their own personal and different reasons and those who prefer and want to read a free-for-all.
Here is one such idea – openly state and inform GoL reader when they click on Forum tab that certain readers may find the forum to contain extreme views on religion / politics / philosophy / etc., some of which certain readers may find annoying, hurtful, insensitive, offensive, or proselyte; while others may find it profound, informative, sensitive, insightful or sincere. Once warned, the person has a choice to leave or continue.
I have posted my personal views on this subject in a separate thread in this forum. My views remain unchanged.
While you reflect on what to do, I add my voice of support to CDNSarah and Cuty who asked you to “also delete” the posts of Tinkie and others (for example, where Tinkie writes about The Art of Happiness). If Hobbes requested you to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; and since you agreed with that censorship, I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the few other posts that explicitly mention Dalai Lama.
It may help you if I expound my request. For context, let me benefit from this post started by Hobbes. I like a few things he writes above. For example, his art teacher gave him a good advice: help and feedback should be constructive, even it’s negative. ‘It’s ugly’ isn’t appropriate, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color isn’t okay, but the shape has an obvious power’ is appropriate.
I do not like several things Hobbes writes. He mentions being a very active opponent to censorship – I commend that. Yet, from the reasons and replies in this thread, I am not convinced and I do not understand why he had to request Nir to censor and delete the posts from Sherri, CDNSarah and others. Why shouldn’t people be able to voice their views such as “X is the savior” or “X is the only way.” Those are their personal views. It makes no difference to me, and many others, if someone says – “I believe that X is the only way” versus if they say or write “X is the only way.”
I agree with Sherri when she wrote – “It is obvious that it is her view. Seriously.”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t what Hobbes writes – “please refrain yourselves from saying "X is the only way".”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t censorship and deletion and excommunication and shutting others off.
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion is different. One appropriate response is compassionate acceptance of the other person in a respectful way – even if you disagree. Another appropriate response is to ask – what motivates or supports your beliefs? There are other appropriate responses.
I am not convinced that selective and discriminatory censorship was or is an appropriate response. No member is more equal than the other!!
Before I close, I hope Tinkie and others would consider the above arguments. Folks like Tinkie, others and I appear to have a lot in common and in agreement, than in disagreement or confusion. For all it is worth, I have attended and listened to Dalai Lama. My private library has many of his books. He has lot of beautiful ideas to contribute. I do not agree with all his views. Again for all it is worth, my only association with Church is my occasional attendance of soup kitchen – where I have cooked with others; and as one of the many helping out – helped feed hungry and homeless people, followed by cleaning up and sweeping the church. I do this for my own reasons, even though I do not agree with Church’s views on sex, its past unfair treatment of women in clergy and elsewhere, its actions with Galileo, inquisition, Calvinism, themes that led to the persecution of physicist Johannes Kepler, catholicism versus protestants, etc.
Nir – If you honored Hobbes’ request to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the posts that carry the simple and sincere personal words of some members on Dalai Lama. Or alternatively, please consider posting a statement of apology to Sherri, CDNSarah and others that GoL wrongly censored and deleted their posts based on an inappropriate request. As yet another alternative, Hobbes and you can share your insights with everyone as to why limited censorship is okay, and where that limit is?
Here is one such idea – openly state and inform GoL reader when they click on Forum tab that certain readers may find the forum to contain extreme views on religion / politics / philosophy / etc., some of which certain readers may find annoying, hurtful, insensitive, offensive, or proselyte; while others may find it profound, informative, sensitive, insightful or sincere. Once warned, the person has a choice to leave or continue.
I have posted my personal views on this subject in a separate thread in this forum. My views remain unchanged.
While you reflect on what to do, I add my voice of support to CDNSarah and Cuty who asked you to “also delete” the posts of Tinkie and others (for example, where Tinkie writes about The Art of Happiness). If Hobbes requested you to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; and since you agreed with that censorship, I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the few other posts that explicitly mention Dalai Lama.
It may help you if I expound my request. For context, let me benefit from this post started by Hobbes. I like a few things he writes above. For example, his art teacher gave him a good advice: help and feedback should be constructive, even it’s negative. ‘It’s ugly’ isn’t appropriate, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color isn’t okay, but the shape has an obvious power’ is appropriate.
I do not like several things Hobbes writes. He mentions being a very active opponent to censorship – I commend that. Yet, from the reasons and replies in this thread, I am not convinced and I do not understand why he had to request Nir to censor and delete the posts from Sherri, CDNSarah and others. Why shouldn’t people be able to voice their views such as “X is the savior” or “X is the only way.” Those are their personal views. It makes no difference to me, and many others, if someone says – “I believe that X is the only way” versus if they say or write “X is the only way.”
I agree with Sherri when she wrote – “It is obvious that it is her view. Seriously.”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t what Hobbes writes – “please refrain yourselves from saying "X is the only way".”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t censorship and deletion and excommunication and shutting others off.
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion is different. One appropriate response is compassionate acceptance of the other person in a respectful way – even if you disagree. Another appropriate response is to ask – what motivates or supports your beliefs? There are other appropriate responses.
I am not convinced that selective and discriminatory censorship was or is an appropriate response. No member is more equal than the other!!
Before I close, I hope Tinkie and others would consider the above arguments. Folks like Tinkie, others and I appear to have a lot in common and in agreement, than in disagreement or confusion. For all it is worth, I have attended and listened to Dalai Lama. My private library has many of his books. He has lot of beautiful ideas to contribute. I do not agree with all his views. Again for all it is worth, my only association with Church is my occasional attendance of soup kitchen – where I have cooked with others; and as one of the many helping out – helped feed hungry and homeless people, followed by cleaning up and sweeping the church. I do this for my own reasons, even though I do not agree with Church’s views on sex, its past unfair treatment of women in clergy and elsewhere, its actions with Galileo, inquisition, Calvinism, themes that led to the persecution of physicist Johannes Kepler, catholicism versus protestants, etc.
Nir – If you honored Hobbes’ request to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the posts that carry the simple and sincere personal words of some members on Dalai Lama. Or alternatively, please consider posting a statement of apology to Sherri, CDNSarah and others that GoL wrongly censored and deleted their posts based on an inappropriate request. As yet another alternative, Hobbes and you can share your insights with everyone as to why limited censorship is okay, and where that limit is?
The text you are quoting:
Nir and Oded – I have been thinking if there is a creative way to accommodate both sides - those who prefer restrictions for their own personal and different reasons and those who prefer and want to read a free-for-all.
Here is one such idea – openly state and inform GoL reader when they click on Forum tab that certain readers may find the forum to contain extreme views on religion / politics / philosophy / etc., some of which certain readers may find annoying, hurtful, insensitive, offensive, or proselyte; while others may find it profound, informative, sensitive, insightful or sincere. Once warned, the person has a choice to leave or continue.
I have posted my personal views on this subject in a separate thread in this forum. My views remain unchanged.
While you reflect on what to do, I add my voice of support to CDNSarah and Cuty who asked you to “also delete” the posts of Tinkie and others (for example, where Tinkie writes about The Art of Happiness). If Hobbes requested you to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; and since you agreed with that censorship, I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the few other posts that explicitly mention Dalai Lama.
It may help you if I expound my request. For context, let me benefit from this post started by Hobbes. I like a few things he writes above. For example, his art teacher gave him a good advice: help and feedback should be constructive, even it’s negative. ‘It’s ugly’ isn’t appropriate, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color isn’t okay, but the shape has an obvious power’ is appropriate.
I do not like several things Hobbes writes. He mentions being a very active opponent to censorship – I commend that. Yet, from the reasons and replies in this thread, I am not convinced and I do not understand why he had to request Nir to censor and delete the posts from Sherri, CDNSarah and others. Why shouldn’t people be able to voice their views such as “X is the savior” or “X is the only way.” Those are their personal views. It makes no difference to me, and many others, if someone says – “I believe that X is the only way” versus if they say or write “X is the only way.”
I agree with Sherri when she wrote – “It is obvious that it is her view. Seriously.”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t what Hobbes writes – “please refrain yourselves from saying "X is the only way".”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t censorship and deletion and excommunication and shutting others off.
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion is different. One appropriate response is compassionate acceptance of the other person in a respectful way – even if you disagree. Another appropriate response is to ask – what motivates or supports your beliefs? There are other appropriate responses.
I am not convinced that selective and discriminatory censorship was or is an appropriate response. No member is more equal than the other!!
Before I close, I hope Tinkie and others would consider the above arguments. Folks like Tinkie, others and I appear to have a lot in common and in agreement, than in disagreement or confusion. For all it is worth, I have attended and listened to Dalai Lama. My private library has many of his books. He has lot of beautiful ideas to contribute. I do not agree with all his views. Again for all it is worth, my only association with Church is my occasional attendance of soup kitchen – where I have cooked with others; and as one of the many helping out – helped feed hungry and homeless people, followed by cleaning up and sweeping the church. I do this for my own reasons, even though I do not agree with Church’s views on sex, its past unfair treatment of women in clergy and elsewhere, its actions with Galileo, inquisition, Calvinism, themes that led to the persecution of physicist Johannes Kepler, catholicism versus protestants, etc.
Nir – If you honored Hobbes’ request to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the posts that carry the simple and sincere personal words of some members on Dalai Lama. Or alternatively, please consider posting a statement of apology to Sherri, CDNSarah and others that GoL wrongly censored and deleted their posts based on an inappropriate request. As yet another alternative, Hobbes and you can share your insights with everyone as to why limited censorship is okay, and where that limit is?
colorado, Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:34
Here is one such idea – openly state and inform GoL reader when they click on Forum tab that certain readers may find the forum to contain extreme views on religion / politics / philosophy / etc., some of which certain readers may find annoying, hurtful, insensitive, offensive, or proselyte; while others may find it profound, informative, sensitive, insightful or sincere. Once warned, the person has a choice to leave or continue.
I have posted my personal views on this subject in a separate thread in this forum. My views remain unchanged.
While you reflect on what to do, I add my voice of support to CDNSarah and Cuty who asked you to “also delete” the posts of Tinkie and others (for example, where Tinkie writes about The Art of Happiness). If Hobbes requested you to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; and since you agreed with that censorship, I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the few other posts that explicitly mention Dalai Lama.
It may help you if I expound my request. For context, let me benefit from this post started by Hobbes. I like a few things he writes above. For example, his art teacher gave him a good advice: help and feedback should be constructive, even it’s negative. ‘It’s ugly’ isn’t appropriate, while ‘I don’t like it, the mix of color isn’t okay, but the shape has an obvious power’ is appropriate.
I do not like several things Hobbes writes. He mentions being a very active opponent to censorship – I commend that. Yet, from the reasons and replies in this thread, I am not convinced and I do not understand why he had to request Nir to censor and delete the posts from Sherri, CDNSarah and others. Why shouldn’t people be able to voice their views such as “X is the savior” or “X is the only way.” Those are their personal views. It makes no difference to me, and many others, if someone says – “I believe that X is the only way” versus if they say or write “X is the only way.”
I agree with Sherri when she wrote – “It is obvious that it is her view. Seriously.”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t what Hobbes writes – “please refrain yourselves from saying "X is the only way".”
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion isn’t censorship and deletion and excommunication and shutting others off.
I feel that, if we want a healthy debate in private or wherever, the appropriate response to such discussion is different. One appropriate response is compassionate acceptance of the other person in a respectful way – even if you disagree. Another appropriate response is to ask – what motivates or supports your beliefs? There are other appropriate responses.
I am not convinced that selective and discriminatory censorship was or is an appropriate response. No member is more equal than the other!!
Before I close, I hope Tinkie and others would consider the above arguments. Folks like Tinkie, others and I appear to have a lot in common and in agreement, than in disagreement or confusion. For all it is worth, I have attended and listened to Dalai Lama. My private library has many of his books. He has lot of beautiful ideas to contribute. I do not agree with all his views. Again for all it is worth, my only association with Church is my occasional attendance of soup kitchen – where I have cooked with others; and as one of the many helping out – helped feed hungry and homeless people, followed by cleaning up and sweeping the church. I do this for my own reasons, even though I do not agree with Church’s views on sex, its past unfair treatment of women in clergy and elsewhere, its actions with Galileo, inquisition, Calvinism, themes that led to the persecution of physicist Johannes Kepler, catholicism versus protestants, etc.
Nir – If you honored Hobbes’ request to censor and delete posts of Sherri, CDNSarah and others which carried their simple and sincere personal words from their faith; I add my voice of support to the pending requests of fellow members who asked you to “also delete” the posts that carry the simple and sincere personal words of some members on Dalai Lama. Or alternatively, please consider posting a statement of apology to Sherri, CDNSarah and others that GoL wrongly censored and deleted their posts based on an inappropriate request. As yet another alternative, Hobbes and you can share your insights with everyone as to why limited censorship is okay, and where that limit is?
colorado, Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:34
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 26
Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:42
Hi again Tinkie.
I think we're quite a long way from banning all subjects and closing down the forums.
I don't want to get swept up by the drama here, so Ill stick to explaining some of the missunderstandings.
1. "Man, Do you really think that people on this forum write things down for the pleasure of arguing?"
For the most part, no.
But I think that religion is a very loaded subject, which people feel very strongly about.
Subsequently, I think that posts about religion evoke alot of emotions, and people who would not mind a post about a restaurant, a car, a club, a movie... feel compleled to object and find fault with posts about religion.
I think that if you browse through the forums, or even just browse through this thread, you will see that people rarely find it necessary to start a post with "in my opinin..."
Yet, you don't see people attacking them for this unless the post in question has to do with religion.
The people that complain about religious posts and ask me to delete them are the same people who complain about censorship when I comply, and delete the post.
I'd like to think they are not doing this out of spite, but because the subject is loaded.
2. "Have you read all the posts Oded? you say : 'If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.'
That is what this thread is doing!!!!! Everyone is expressing their ideas in a very respectful way and it is very interesting"
The majority of the people contributing to this thread are not expressing their ideas about religion here. They are expressing their ideas about whether or not religion should be discussed on the forums.
This may seem to be the same thing, but it's actualy very different.
With that said, I still don't like the idea of making some subjects taboo, and I do think that discussions about religion can be interesting, educational and necessary.
If we see that discussions about religion progress in a civil and cooperative manner, we will not delete them just because they include religion.
But, if past experience is a good indication for future discussions, then Im afraid that posts about religion will evoke some improper replies, and we will be ahving this discussion again very soon.
Oded
I think we're quite a long way from banning all subjects and closing down the forums.
I don't want to get swept up by the drama here, so Ill stick to explaining some of the missunderstandings.
1. "Man, Do you really think that people on this forum write things down for the pleasure of arguing?"
For the most part, no.
But I think that religion is a very loaded subject, which people feel very strongly about.
Subsequently, I think that posts about religion evoke alot of emotions, and people who would not mind a post about a restaurant, a car, a club, a movie... feel compleled to object and find fault with posts about religion.
I think that if you browse through the forums, or even just browse through this thread, you will see that people rarely find it necessary to start a post with "in my opinin..."
Yet, you don't see people attacking them for this unless the post in question has to do with religion.
The people that complain about religious posts and ask me to delete them are the same people who complain about censorship when I comply, and delete the post.
I'd like to think they are not doing this out of spite, but because the subject is loaded.
2. "Have you read all the posts Oded? you say : 'If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.'
That is what this thread is doing!!!!! Everyone is expressing their ideas in a very respectful way and it is very interesting"
The majority of the people contributing to this thread are not expressing their ideas about religion here. They are expressing their ideas about whether or not religion should be discussed on the forums.
This may seem to be the same thing, but it's actualy very different.
With that said, I still don't like the idea of making some subjects taboo, and I do think that discussions about religion can be interesting, educational and necessary.
If we see that discussions about religion progress in a civil and cooperative manner, we will not delete them just because they include religion.
But, if past experience is a good indication for future discussions, then Im afraid that posts about religion will evoke some improper replies, and we will be ahving this discussion again very soon.
Oded
The text you are quoting:
Hi again Tinkie.
I think we're quite a long way from banning all subjects and closing down the forums.
I don't want to get swept up by the drama here, so Ill stick to explaining some of the missunderstandings.
1. "Man, Do you really think that people on this forum write things down for the pleasure of arguing?"
For the most part, no.
But I think that religion is a very loaded subject, which people feel very strongly about.
Subsequently, I think that posts about religion evoke alot of emotions, and people who would not mind a post about a restaurant, a car, a club, a movie... feel compleled to object and find fault with posts about religion.
I think that if you browse through the forums, or even just browse through this thread, you will see that people rarely find it necessary to start a post with "in my opinin..."
Yet, you don't see people attacking them for this unless the post in question has to do with religion.
The people that complain about religious posts and ask me to delete them are the same people who complain about censorship when I comply, and delete the post.
I'd like to think they are not doing this out of spite, but because the subject is loaded.
2. "Have you read all the posts Oded? you say : 'If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.'
That is what this thread is doing!!!!! Everyone is expressing their ideas in a very respectful way and it is very interesting"
The majority of the people contributing to this thread are not expressing their ideas about religion here. They are expressing their ideas about whether or not religion should be discussed on the forums.
This may seem to be the same thing, but it's actualy very different.
With that said, I still don't like the idea of making some subjects taboo, and I do think that discussions about religion can be interesting, educational and necessary.
If we see that discussions about religion progress in a civil and cooperative manner, we will not delete them just because they include religion.
But, if past experience is a good indication for future discussions, then Im afraid that posts about religion will evoke some improper replies, and we will be ahving this discussion again very soon.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:42
I think we're quite a long way from banning all subjects and closing down the forums.
I don't want to get swept up by the drama here, so Ill stick to explaining some of the missunderstandings.
1. "Man, Do you really think that people on this forum write things down for the pleasure of arguing?"
For the most part, no.
But I think that religion is a very loaded subject, which people feel very strongly about.
Subsequently, I think that posts about religion evoke alot of emotions, and people who would not mind a post about a restaurant, a car, a club, a movie... feel compleled to object and find fault with posts about religion.
I think that if you browse through the forums, or even just browse through this thread, you will see that people rarely find it necessary to start a post with "in my opinin..."
Yet, you don't see people attacking them for this unless the post in question has to do with religion.
The people that complain about religious posts and ask me to delete them are the same people who complain about censorship when I comply, and delete the post.
I'd like to think they are not doing this out of spite, but because the subject is loaded.
2. "Have you read all the posts Oded? you say : 'If people were able to discuss religion sanely and civily, we would have no problem with it.'
That is what this thread is doing!!!!! Everyone is expressing their ideas in a very respectful way and it is very interesting"
The majority of the people contributing to this thread are not expressing their ideas about religion here. They are expressing their ideas about whether or not religion should be discussed on the forums.
This may seem to be the same thing, but it's actualy very different.
With that said, I still don't like the idea of making some subjects taboo, and I do think that discussions about religion can be interesting, educational and necessary.
If we see that discussions about religion progress in a civil and cooperative manner, we will not delete them just because they include religion.
But, if past experience is a good indication for future discussions, then Im afraid that posts about religion will evoke some improper replies, and we will be ahving this discussion again very soon.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:42
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 27
Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:54
Hi Colorado.
I think your post is extremely well written and takles most of the issues in a very elegent manner.
I'd like to take this opportunity to appologize to CDN Sarah and to Sherri for deleting their posts.
I think that in this case, we took the easy way out, and deleted the posts rather than get into a long and drawn out discussion which we thought would end up offending more people than it helps.
We're human too, and sometimes we just don't have the time or energy to argue with people, so we make concessions.
I think the correct way to state our policy is that Threads, posts and discussions which mock a person, or his/her beleifs and opinions will not be tolerated regardless of whether these posts deal with religion, sex, books, politics or other.
Since religion has proven to be a problematic subject, we thought we could avoid all of the above by banning it from the forums and sticking to lighter subjects.
Assuming that future discussions abut religion will not digress into "shouting matches" between people who are convinvced that they have seen the light (Beleivers and/or non-beleivers) then they will not be deleted.
And again, my appologies to Sarah and Sherri.
Oded
I think your post is extremely well written and takles most of the issues in a very elegent manner.
I'd like to take this opportunity to appologize to CDN Sarah and to Sherri for deleting their posts.
I think that in this case, we took the easy way out, and deleted the posts rather than get into a long and drawn out discussion which we thought would end up offending more people than it helps.
We're human too, and sometimes we just don't have the time or energy to argue with people, so we make concessions.
I think the correct way to state our policy is that Threads, posts and discussions which mock a person, or his/her beleifs and opinions will not be tolerated regardless of whether these posts deal with religion, sex, books, politics or other.
Since religion has proven to be a problematic subject, we thought we could avoid all of the above by banning it from the forums and sticking to lighter subjects.
Assuming that future discussions abut religion will not digress into "shouting matches" between people who are convinvced that they have seen the light (Beleivers and/or non-beleivers) then they will not be deleted.
And again, my appologies to Sarah and Sherri.
Oded
The text you are quoting:
Hi Colorado.
I think your post is extremely well written and takles most of the issues in a very elegent manner.
I'd like to take this opportunity to appologize to CDN Sarah and to Sherri for deleting their posts.
I think that in this case, we took the easy way out, and deleted the posts rather than get into a long and drawn out discussion which we thought would end up offending more people than it helps.
We're human too, and sometimes we just don't have the time or energy to argue with people, so we make concessions.
I think the correct way to state our policy is that Threads, posts and discussions which mock a person, or his/her beleifs and opinions will not be tolerated regardless of whether these posts deal with religion, sex, books, politics or other.
Since religion has proven to be a problematic subject, we thought we could avoid all of the above by banning it from the forums and sticking to lighter subjects.
Assuming that future discussions abut religion will not digress into "shouting matches" between people who are convinvced that they have seen the light (Beleivers and/or non-beleivers) then they will not be deleted.
And again, my appologies to Sarah and Sherri.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:54
I think your post is extremely well written and takles most of the issues in a very elegent manner.
I'd like to take this opportunity to appologize to CDN Sarah and to Sherri for deleting their posts.
I think that in this case, we took the easy way out, and deleted the posts rather than get into a long and drawn out discussion which we thought would end up offending more people than it helps.
We're human too, and sometimes we just don't have the time or energy to argue with people, so we make concessions.
I think the correct way to state our policy is that Threads, posts and discussions which mock a person, or his/her beleifs and opinions will not be tolerated regardless of whether these posts deal with religion, sex, books, politics or other.
Since religion has proven to be a problematic subject, we thought we could avoid all of the above by banning it from the forums and sticking to lighter subjects.
Assuming that future discussions abut religion will not digress into "shouting matches" between people who are convinvced that they have seen the light (Beleivers and/or non-beleivers) then they will not be deleted.
And again, my appologies to Sarah and Sherri.
Oded
SiteAdmin Oded, Jun 14, 2007 @ 17:54
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 28
Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:11
yTinkie, "you cant control the way people will see you or understand what you are saying..." and then "...but it s not a reason good enough to stop doing things!" are cancelling each other ... depends on a topic and a community... if u can't control the way ppl understand/perceive of things, sometimes it is just appropriate to remain in/maintain silence. if u continue doing things in such a juncture, then u risk facing misunderstanding. it is simple.
The text you are quoting:
yTinkie, "you cant control the way people will see you or understand what you are saying..." and then "...but it s not a reason good enough to stop doing things!" are cancelling each other ... depends on a topic and a community... if u can't control the way ppl understand/perceive of things, sometimes it is just appropriate to remain in/maintain silence. if u continue doing things in such a juncture, then u risk facing misunderstanding. it is simple.
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:11
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:11
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 29
Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:16
some ppl just can't help, but argue/insult/... indirectly imply negation... come on, u just can't exclude that... u cant control masses... 1/100 of the masses.... for me personally, if there is a risk to hurt/insult (though unintentionally) at least 1 person here over this discussion, I would better not do that...would just stop... otherwise.. and I am more than sure some ppl's posts here would get to the point where I will feel impelled to say smthng contra or ... i will just feel insulted... u have to know all GoL members to be so sure to do things u think "should" be done...
The text you are quoting:
some ppl just can't help, but argue/insult/... indirectly imply negation... come on, u just can't exclude that... u cant control masses... 1/100 of the masses.... for me personally, if there is a risk to hurt/insult (though unintentionally) at least 1 person here over this discussion, I would better not do that...would just stop... otherwise.. and I am more than sure some ppl's posts here would get to the point where I will feel impelled to say smthng contra or ... i will just feel insulted... u have to know all GoL members to be so sure to do things u think "should" be done...
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:16
Good_One, Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:16
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 30
Jun 14, 2007 @ 18:17
good luck then with it :-))
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 31
Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:08
Colorado,
Thank you for your very interesting and valuable feedback. I do agree with most of what you said. I do agree that being against censorship and ask for a message to be removed is somehow illogical. I also agree that acceptance of the other person in a respectful way is better than censorship. But, as a matter of fact, I felt that Sherri’s post wasn't respectful. Here is why:
- first, it’s a question of context. The post was using Marco’s name, Then, some respect was, to my opinion, needed (see LNA_ post). I was actually expecting nothing but “those are my feelings” posts without any further replies from other members. CNDSarah’s post was fine by me. She expressed personal feelings and her believe, which is all fine. But Sherri’s answer to it sounded far more like “yeah, you’re right sister, those stupid atheist didn’t get the meaning of life” than “that’s my personal way to react to Marco’s death” to me. I felt that she was using someone’s death to do proselytism, which made me very sad and angry at the same time.
- second, this was not the first proselyte message that had been posted on the forum. People had been explained politely that some members might be offended by such “personal opinions” expressed as “general truth”. Seeing nothing but exactly the same kind of message in the above mentioned context appeared to me as a lack of respect for GOLers sensitivities. Starting a forecasted banter where one should refrain to.
- third, “why a forecasted banter?” you might ask. Someone raised the point that we would certainly not feel so offended to read the same things about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus than Jesus Christ. True. I admit. But why may that be? Maybe it’s because no one invaded countries, killed thousands of children, raped as many women, forced people to convert themselves or crashed airplanes into cities in the name of the Easter Bunny ? Religious believes can be a very personal, deep, peacfull and intimate feeling. But it can also be or claimed as a component of many past and present horrors. One should be very carefull always to mention which side of the coin we are refering to.
For all that, I don’t think that SiteAdmin “honored” my request to censor and delete Sherri’s post. I think he wisely REMOVED a debate that would end up offending more people FROM WHERE IT STARTED. I don’t think any humanist, Buddhist or Raelian posts should be deleted to make things even, because, so far, no one felt hurt by any of them.
I even agree with you that the religious topic should not been forbidden. I don’t really mind people saying “Elvis Presley’s alive”, “Halla’s the Savior” or even "your life would probably be better if you belived in God", as long as they don’t hurt, injure or refuse the right of speech to anyone else in the process.
To me, Sherri’s post was just not the right one at the right place at the right time. I hope she’ll have understood it by now. I hope this will also definitively and clearly explain my actions.
Thank you for your very interesting and valuable feedback. I do agree with most of what you said. I do agree that being against censorship and ask for a message to be removed is somehow illogical. I also agree that acceptance of the other person in a respectful way is better than censorship. But, as a matter of fact, I felt that Sherri’s post wasn't respectful. Here is why:
- first, it’s a question of context. The post was using Marco’s name, Then, some respect was, to my opinion, needed (see LNA_ post). I was actually expecting nothing but “those are my feelings” posts without any further replies from other members. CNDSarah’s post was fine by me. She expressed personal feelings and her believe, which is all fine. But Sherri’s answer to it sounded far more like “yeah, you’re right sister, those stupid atheist didn’t get the meaning of life” than “that’s my personal way to react to Marco’s death” to me. I felt that she was using someone’s death to do proselytism, which made me very sad and angry at the same time.
- second, this was not the first proselyte message that had been posted on the forum. People had been explained politely that some members might be offended by such “personal opinions” expressed as “general truth”. Seeing nothing but exactly the same kind of message in the above mentioned context appeared to me as a lack of respect for GOLers sensitivities. Starting a forecasted banter where one should refrain to.
- third, “why a forecasted banter?” you might ask. Someone raised the point that we would certainly not feel so offended to read the same things about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus than Jesus Christ. True. I admit. But why may that be? Maybe it’s because no one invaded countries, killed thousands of children, raped as many women, forced people to convert themselves or crashed airplanes into cities in the name of the Easter Bunny ? Religious believes can be a very personal, deep, peacfull and intimate feeling. But it can also be or claimed as a component of many past and present horrors. One should be very carefull always to mention which side of the coin we are refering to.
For all that, I don’t think that SiteAdmin “honored” my request to censor and delete Sherri’s post. I think he wisely REMOVED a debate that would end up offending more people FROM WHERE IT STARTED. I don’t think any humanist, Buddhist or Raelian posts should be deleted to make things even, because, so far, no one felt hurt by any of them.
I even agree with you that the religious topic should not been forbidden. I don’t really mind people saying “Elvis Presley’s alive”, “Halla’s the Savior” or even "your life would probably be better if you belived in God", as long as they don’t hurt, injure or refuse the right of speech to anyone else in the process.
To me, Sherri’s post was just not the right one at the right place at the right time. I hope she’ll have understood it by now. I hope this will also definitively and clearly explain my actions.
The text you are quoting:
Colorado,
Thank you for your very interesting and valuable feedback. I do agree with most of what you said. I do agree that being against censorship and ask for a message to be removed is somehow illogical. I also agree that acceptance of the other person in a respectful way is better than censorship. But, as a matter of fact, I felt that Sherri’s post wasn't respectful. Here is why:
- first, it’s a question of context. The post was using Marco’s name, Then, some respect was, to my opinion, needed (see LNA_ post). I was actually expecting nothing but “those are my feelings” posts without any further replies from other members. CNDSarah’s post was fine by me. She expressed personal feelings and her believe, which is all fine. But Sherri’s answer to it sounded far more like “yeah, you’re right sister, those stupid atheist didn’t get the meaning of life” than “that’s my personal way to react to Marco’s death” to me. I felt that she was using someone’s death to do proselytism, which made me very sad and angry at the same time.
- second, this was not the first proselyte message that had been posted on the forum. People had been explained politely that some members might be offended by such “personal opinions” expressed as “general truth”. Seeing nothing but exactly the same kind of message in the above mentioned context appeared to me as a lack of respect for GOLers sensitivities. Starting a forecasted banter where one should refrain to.
- third, “why a forecasted banter?” you might ask. Someone raised the point that we would certainly not feel so offended to read the same things about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus than Jesus Christ. True. I admit. But why may that be? Maybe it’s because no one invaded countries, killed thousands of children, raped as many women, forced people to convert themselves or crashed airplanes into cities in the name of the Easter Bunny ? Religious believes can be a very personal, deep, peacfull and intimate feeling. But it can also be or claimed as a component of many past and present horrors. One should be very carefull always to mention which side of the coin we are refering to.
For all that, I don’t think that SiteAdmin “honored” my request to censor and delete Sherri’s post. I think he wisely REMOVED a debate that would end up offending more people FROM WHERE IT STARTED. I don’t think any humanist, Buddhist or Raelian posts should be deleted to make things even, because, so far, no one felt hurt by any of them.
I even agree with you that the religious topic should not been forbidden. I don’t really mind people saying “Elvis Presley’s alive”, “Halla’s the Savior” or even "your life would probably be better if you belived in God", as long as they don’t hurt, injure or refuse the right of speech to anyone else in the process.
To me, Sherri’s post was just not the right one at the right place at the right time. I hope she’ll have understood it by now. I hope this will also definitively and clearly explain my actions.
Hobbes, Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:08
Thank you for your very interesting and valuable feedback. I do agree with most of what you said. I do agree that being against censorship and ask for a message to be removed is somehow illogical. I also agree that acceptance of the other person in a respectful way is better than censorship. But, as a matter of fact, I felt that Sherri’s post wasn't respectful. Here is why:
- first, it’s a question of context. The post was using Marco’s name, Then, some respect was, to my opinion, needed (see LNA_ post). I was actually expecting nothing but “those are my feelings” posts without any further replies from other members. CNDSarah’s post was fine by me. She expressed personal feelings and her believe, which is all fine. But Sherri’s answer to it sounded far more like “yeah, you’re right sister, those stupid atheist didn’t get the meaning of life” than “that’s my personal way to react to Marco’s death” to me. I felt that she was using someone’s death to do proselytism, which made me very sad and angry at the same time.
- second, this was not the first proselyte message that had been posted on the forum. People had been explained politely that some members might be offended by such “personal opinions” expressed as “general truth”. Seeing nothing but exactly the same kind of message in the above mentioned context appeared to me as a lack of respect for GOLers sensitivities. Starting a forecasted banter where one should refrain to.
- third, “why a forecasted banter?” you might ask. Someone raised the point that we would certainly not feel so offended to read the same things about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus than Jesus Christ. True. I admit. But why may that be? Maybe it’s because no one invaded countries, killed thousands of children, raped as many women, forced people to convert themselves or crashed airplanes into cities in the name of the Easter Bunny ? Religious believes can be a very personal, deep, peacfull and intimate feeling. But it can also be or claimed as a component of many past and present horrors. One should be very carefull always to mention which side of the coin we are refering to.
For all that, I don’t think that SiteAdmin “honored” my request to censor and delete Sherri’s post. I think he wisely REMOVED a debate that would end up offending more people FROM WHERE IT STARTED. I don’t think any humanist, Buddhist or Raelian posts should be deleted to make things even, because, so far, no one felt hurt by any of them.
I even agree with you that the religious topic should not been forbidden. I don’t really mind people saying “Elvis Presley’s alive”, “Halla’s the Savior” or even "your life would probably be better if you belived in God", as long as they don’t hurt, injure or refuse the right of speech to anyone else in the process.
To me, Sherri’s post was just not the right one at the right place at the right time. I hope she’ll have understood it by now. I hope this will also definitively and clearly explain my actions.
Hobbes, Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:08
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 32
Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:19
- "Yours is the only dissertation I have BOTHERED to read lately"... do you think that it's an "elegant" thing to say to people (GoodOne, Tinkie, Justine, Nir, SiteAdmin) who've also spent a significant amount of time trying to bring something valuable to the community. To go further than "censor religious topics". Thus, being less intolerant and make a step in your direction ?
- how can you assume that everyone but Colorado is intolerant, while you haven't even BOTHERED to read the reason why we've asked your message to be deleted ?
- don't you think that you might, also, have made a mistake ? That some poeple would appreciate to read your appologies, or at least something like "I'll try to express my feelings a bit more clearly in the future" ?
Answers are yours.
- how can you assume that everyone but Colorado is intolerant, while you haven't even BOTHERED to read the reason why we've asked your message to be deleted ?
- don't you think that you might, also, have made a mistake ? That some poeple would appreciate to read your appologies, or at least something like "I'll try to express my feelings a bit more clearly in the future" ?
Answers are yours.
The text you are quoting:
- "Yours is the only dissertation I have BOTHERED to read lately"... do you think that it's an "elegant" thing to say to people (GoodOne, Tinkie, Justine, Nir, SiteAdmin) who've also spent a significant amount of time trying to bring something valuable to the community. To go further than "censor religious topics". Thus, being less intolerant and make a step in your direction ?
- how can you assume that everyone but Colorado is intolerant, while you haven't even BOTHERED to read the reason why we've asked your message to be deleted ?
- don't you think that you might, also, have made a mistake ? That some poeple would appreciate to read your appologies, or at least something like "I'll try to express my feelings a bit more clearly in the future" ?
Answers are yours.
Hobbes, Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:19
- how can you assume that everyone but Colorado is intolerant, while you haven't even BOTHERED to read the reason why we've asked your message to be deleted ?
- don't you think that you might, also, have made a mistake ? That some poeple would appreciate to read your appologies, or at least something like "I'll try to express my feelings a bit more clearly in the future" ?
Answers are yours.
Hobbes, Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:19
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 33
Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:22
And thanks for trusting your members ability to talk as adults.
The text you are quoting:
And thanks for trusting your members ability to talk as adults.
Hobbes, Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:22
Hobbes, Jun 14, 2007 @ 21:22
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 34
Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:02
I wish I had your balance of heart and head!!
I was sad and really!! really did not understand why? on an adult forum, anyone would take offense to a heart-felt response from Sherri and CNDSarah?? Whatever anyone believes in or does not blieve in...surely the intention is not to offend anyone...just to share a part of who they are.
And for me...whatever the faith...belief that helps an individual navigate their life..then how can that be a negative and offensive? Shouldn't we just be happy that they have found something that works for them?
I was sad and really!! really did not understand why? on an adult forum, anyone would take offense to a heart-felt response from Sherri and CNDSarah?? Whatever anyone believes in or does not blieve in...surely the intention is not to offend anyone...just to share a part of who they are.
And for me...whatever the faith...belief that helps an individual navigate their life..then how can that be a negative and offensive? Shouldn't we just be happy that they have found something that works for them?
The text you are quoting:
I wish I had your balance of heart and head!!
I was sad and really!! really did not understand why? on an adult forum, anyone would take offense to a heart-felt response from Sherri and CNDSarah?? Whatever anyone believes in or does not blieve in...surely the intention is not to offend anyone...just to share a part of who they are.
And for me...whatever the faith...belief that helps an individual navigate their life..then how can that be a negative and offensive? Shouldn't we just be happy that they have found something that works for them?
kitcat, Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:02
I was sad and really!! really did not understand why? on an adult forum, anyone would take offense to a heart-felt response from Sherri and CNDSarah?? Whatever anyone believes in or does not blieve in...surely the intention is not to offend anyone...just to share a part of who they are.
And for me...whatever the faith...belief that helps an individual navigate their life..then how can that be a negative and offensive? Shouldn't we just be happy that they have found something that works for them?
kitcat, Jun 15, 2007 @ 04:02
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 35
Jun 15, 2007 @ 15:50
if u cant control the consequences of your own saying, if u cant take on this responsibility, u cant find this so obsessive in me... besides, i dont mean to control per se. i mean to be responsible for not only speaking out/about, but also accepting a probability that whatever u can say may spir a negative reaction, a misperception... and that, in that case, won't u be shunning respobsibility & relaying it to the other side's incapability of understandign what u mean?... take this example evolving between us ..already... u stick to yo principle, i stick to mine... the more u argue yo point, the more i feel dettached... i can assume responsibility for discussion of such topic [spirituality/religion], but tet-a-tet ... not here @ GOL... that's been my central argument here... i 'd like to refer u back to my initial post. & plz, refrain from juxtaposing "control" with "responsibility" in yo future communication. i don't intend to have argument with u, though it is civil, electronic, of not even any intangible/tabgible result. i can pretend to be inclining to where my artistic zeal can take me in this discussion..., but only if that's a format which Hobbes mentioned once (arts school stuff). if u 'r serious enough about this, u gotta target the result... u gotta see the result... otherwise, if u just want to stimulate critical thinking, creative design, or unordinary off-box approach [scholastic/persuasive/explanatory/etc], u gotta assume minimal responsibilities. sorry to have been perhaps not that clear or exhaustive. but plz, don't take my words for I mean u re' not responsible.
The text you are quoting:
if u cant control the consequences of your own saying, if u cant take on this responsibility, u cant find this so obsessive in me... besides, i dont mean to control per se. i mean to be responsible for not only speaking out/about, but also accepting a probability that whatever u can say may spir a negative reaction, a misperception... and that, in that case, won't u be shunning respobsibility & relaying it to the other side's incapability of understandign what u mean?... take this example evolving between us ..already... u stick to yo principle, i stick to mine... the more u argue yo point, the more i feel dettached... i can assume responsibility for discussion of such topic [spirituality/religion], but tet-a-tet ... not here @ GOL... that's been my central argument here... i 'd like to refer u back to my initial post. & plz, refrain from juxtaposing "control" with "responsibility" in yo future communication. i don't intend to have argument with u, though it is civil, electronic, of not even any intangible/tabgible result. i can pretend to be inclining to where my artistic zeal can take me in this discussion..., but only if that's a format which Hobbes mentioned once (arts school stuff). if u 'r serious enough about this, u gotta target the result... u gotta see the result... otherwise, if u just want to stimulate critical thinking, creative design, or unordinary off-box approach [scholastic/persuasive/explanatory/etc], u gotta assume minimal responsibilities. sorry to have been perhaps not that clear or exhaustive. but plz, don't take my words for I mean u re' not responsible.
Good_One, Jun 15, 2007 @ 15:50
Good_One, Jun 15, 2007 @ 15:50
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 36
Jun 15, 2007 @ 16:04
well-balanced, well comprehensive. personally, i wouldn't mayB mind having a lively intelligently evolving debate here at GOL, but when i think i and my caliber and emotions are not alone in their appearance & delivery, i can't assume too much of what i cannot hold at later stages... thanks for yo input.
The text you are quoting:
well-balanced, well comprehensive. personally, i wouldn't mayB mind having a lively intelligently evolving debate here at GOL, but when i think i and my caliber and emotions are not alone in their appearance & delivery, i can't assume too much of what i cannot hold at later stages... thanks for yo input.
Good_One, Jun 15, 2007 @ 16:04
Good_One, Jun 15, 2007 @ 16:04
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 37
Jun 15, 2007 @ 22:34
not only Mr. Colorado's profile has heightened... have you noticed how Colorado and Site Admin both posted their long pre-written responses at the exact same time? intersting.. :)
and yes.. reading all these looooong GOL postings is driving me to insomniac status. anyone up for starting "GOLer's Anonymous"??
and yes.. reading all these looooong GOL postings is driving me to insomniac status. anyone up for starting "GOLer's Anonymous"??
The text you are quoting:
not only Mr. Colorado's profile has heightened... have you noticed how Colorado and Site Admin both posted their long pre-written responses at the exact same time? intersting.. :)
and yes.. reading all these looooong GOL postings is driving me to insomniac status. anyone up for starting "GOLer's Anonymous"??
YouMeCo, Jun 15, 2007 @ 22:34
and yes.. reading all these looooong GOL postings is driving me to insomniac status. anyone up for starting "GOLer's Anonymous"??
YouMeCo, Jun 15, 2007 @ 22:34
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 38
Jun 18, 2007 @ 17:22
exactly, not a gol topic. (nt)
The text you are quoting:
exactly, not a gol topic. (nt)
Mister_Sark, Jun 18, 2007 @ 17:22
Mister_Sark, Jun 18, 2007 @ 17:22
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: What does religiously neutral mean ?
Post 39
Jun 20, 2007 @ 23:28
and talk about funnier things?
Indeed there are plenty of opportunities and place to talk about religion ( though I keep thinking beliefs are personnals and as it is not rationnal it is difficult to debate in a non -emotionnal way )
I love GOL for the spirit it has :)
Indeed there are plenty of opportunities and place to talk about religion ( though I keep thinking beliefs are personnals and as it is not rationnal it is difficult to debate in a non -emotionnal way )
I love GOL for the spirit it has :)
The text you are quoting:
and talk about funnier things?
Indeed there are plenty of opportunities and place to talk about religion ( though I keep thinking beliefs are personnals and as it is not rationnal it is difficult to debate in a non -emotionnal way )
I love GOL for the spirit it has :)
Zohra, Jun 20, 2007 @ 23:28
Indeed there are plenty of opportunities and place to talk about religion ( though I keep thinking beliefs are personnals and as it is not rationnal it is difficult to debate in a non -emotionnal way )
I love GOL for the spirit it has :)
Zohra, Jun 20, 2007 @ 23:28
Your Reply:
