Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
the points who says are needed to be a religion?
The War on Christians Continues...
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
the points who says are needed to be a religion?
Your link. And your assertion, "Any set of beliefs that assert supernatural moral machinery and a unprovable hierarchy of reincarnation is a religion, even if a major figure is not a "god" per se."
You know, that inconvenient stuff.
Ahh.....I see now. I was wondering what this new movement was. Was it religious or political? I see now that it is indeed religious. My only question is will they call it "Obamaism?"
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I think it either is or is not a religion depending on how one defines religion. So it's dependant on the view of individual i guess. In that case, my sock is my god, my sock is my religion and you better respect that!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think it is more complicated then you want it to be so you try to fit the square peg into a round hole.
He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts...
It's okay.
I still think that (as I've said probably three times on this thread alone now), yes, to be equal if the zoo is public there shouldn't be Buddhist symbols in it. But an even better solution, (IMNSHO) would be inclusion rather than exclusion from the public arena. If one religion is allowed (should be) then all should be.
If Buddhists were more insane they'd be upset about the minimalizing of their beliefs into decorative good luck dolls. But they don't take themselves all that seriously...
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It would have to be an idol? It would have to be an idol to be objectionable to anyone. Is a cross an idol?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No. You're making it complicated.
Buddhism's a religion. it's taught in the religion department of colleges. It's often put in a list of world religions.
I am not. You keep insisting I "disagree" in some important fashion because I describe to you different beliefs in Buddhism.
I try to expand the conversation you insist it must be solely about your simplistic idea.
We already agreed on the one thing you keep insisting we disagree on:
Religious symbols, in the matter of equality, should be removed if the zoo is indeed supported by public funds.
(Of course, I do it with the addendum, that it is my opinion that the US would be better served with inclusionary practice rather than exclusionary).
Even in those places, if you actually take the classes, they will tell you that it is not always a religion because it does not always have those things you listed that make "religions".
You again attempt to make a square peg fit the round hole, and ignore your own definition of things to attempt to get somebody else to be "wrong" about something we agreed on. It's insane.
It is more than one thing.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Different beliefs in buddhism? It's still a religion.
Not in every case, according to your (provided earlier in the thread) definition and my religion and philosophies teacher in college.
You are deliberately being obtuse because you want to insist that I disagreed with you somewhere on whether the statues should be removed if the zoo was funded publicly.
Hint for the disingenuous: I didn't.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Insist you disagreed? I think you want to define it as "not a religion", to hide the anti-christian bias of our society.
You have the habit of trying to put beliefs onto me that do not exist in ways that are just plain stupid. Instead of reading what I say you just go off on weird tangents that are directly opposite of what I said earlier in the thread. Again, it is because you want to find disagreement so bad you are willing to ignore direct evidence to support your own inane decrees of how I think.
I want to include Christianity and other religions in the public sector rather than attempt to exclude all religions form the public sector because I want to support some sort of anti-religious (specifically Christian) societal norm? There is no other way to describe that inane assumption of my opinion other than just flat out stupid.
Total and complete rubbish. It's flat out illogical and directly shows you have not one comprehending brain cell in your head when you read a post from somebody you think you "know".