What Religion?!

[BloodStaindRose]

what religion or faith do you practice?
i put a poll and know i could not list all the religions!
also what events do you celebrate
whats some of the stuff you practice with that religion?!

[crisaor]

Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

[AbdoRinbo]

It's Shake'n'bake.

[surf boy]

And I-I-I-I helped!

[Dyrwen]

I don't hold a religion. I barely even follow any other philosophies.

http://www.adherents.com
Check out all the different religions out there.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by crisaor
Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy.


Right, but in some places it is considered as religion, one of the established ones


I practice Christianity, in my onw way! I'm interested alot in philosophy, so I also follow the thingkings of few philosophers (like Soren Kiikergaad).

[Sindhu]

I "practice" Hinduism- technically at least. But I think a lot of Christian, Islamic and Buddhist Philosophy is mixed up with my personal concept of Hinduism. Events I celebrate- Hinduism has so many of those it would need an essay to explain them - just a few namesto tantalize- Onam, Shivarathri, Ekadashi, Holi, Vishu, Dussera, Thiruvathira, Mandala- I could go on for ages. But these are "events"- about concepts I'll need a more detailed post with more energy and time than I have right now- so next time!
Sindhu

[Isagel]

I´m an atheist. But I have deep respect for those who manage to have faith without judging anyone else.

Marx may have said that religion is opium for the masses, but he also said aid that religion is the heart in an heartless world.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by subterranean
Right, but in some places it is considered as religion, one of the established ones
That's because they merged it with their local religion, but buddhism still remains a philosophy in its purest form.

Originally posted by Isagel
Marx may have said that religion is opium for the masses, but he also said that religion is the heart in an heartless world.
Well, a lot of people are angry at that phrase, but I agree with it. Religion is not belief (not necessarily at least).

[azmuse]

I'm an Eckist - Eckankar. We sing Hu to bring us in tune with the light and sound of God. Among other things. And soul travel, dream travel...

[AbdoRinbo]

Trick or treat! Those are some wacky religious beliefs.

Isagel, crisaor, azmuse, Sindhu and friends . . . you've been fed sugary lies: there is no Heaven's chimney or razzle-berry waterfall.

[AbdoRinbo]

I'm sorry, I wish the world were a just and good place.

[AbdoRinbo]

But seriously, Eckankar? Is that some fùcking D&D bullshít?

[azmuse]

Well Abdo, i suppose if singing sacred words and getting insights through past life study and dreams, and looking to open your heart means b.s.
Yes
:)

[AbdoRinbo]

Remember, never take more than you can handle and always know your dealer.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by crisaor
That's because they merged it with their local religion, but buddhism still remains a philosophy in its purest form.

Literally, philosophy means love of wisdom. Hence, careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct.
Well, perhaps it is more appropriate to be called a belief instead of a religion

[subterranean]

Originally posted by azmuse
I'm an Eckist - Eckankar. We sing Hu to bring us in tune with the light and sound of God. Among other things. And soul travel, dream travel...

Does it have something to do with Johannes Eckhart?
(mystical apprehension of the divine through an inner spark -scintilla animae- of the soul)

[azmuse]

hmm. no; actually i never heard of him (can be quite obtuse on occasion)
Eck is the Holy Spirit, and Eckankar is the organized religion; it's been around for ages... we do believe that we are all Soul; that sounds similar.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Isagel, crisaor, azmuse, Sindhu and friends . . . you've been fed sugary lies: there is no Heaven's chimney or razzle-berry waterfall.
There is no chimney?? :confused: I knew about the waterfall, but... Oh, well, I hope some good souls build one in the future.

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Remember, never take more than you can handle and always know your dealer.
Actually, that's a pretty good advise, you know.


Originally posted by Subterranean
Literally, philosophy means love of wisdom. Hence, careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct.
Well, perhaps it is more appropriate to be called a belief instead of a religion.
That is correct. Buddhism never shows any real interest in otherwordly affairs, such as the destination of the soul after death, the worship of the god(s), or anything like that. It focuses on real life problems and how to overcome them, to achieve illumination and a permanent state of grace in life. That's why I consider it not to be a religion. To define it as a belief is acceptable. :)

[Sindhu]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Trick or treat! Those are some wacky religious beliefs.

Isagel, crisaor, azmuse, Sindhu and friends . . . you've been fed sugary lies: there is no Heaven's chimney or razzle-berry waterfall.
So who's arguing? I just happen to LIKE sugary lies!;)

[AbdoRinbo]

Hold out your bag and I'll give you one.

[Sindhu]

Hmm! Think I'm overloaded already!:)

[subterranean]

Originally posted by Sindhu
So who's arguing? I just happen to LIKE sugary lies!;)

Yeps, at least they're sweet
And sometimes i wonder that those peeps who claimed themselves never have those sugary lies do not happen are having their own sugary lies

[Stanislaw]

I am Catholic, but I like to learn about other faiths, I figure that if all the religions were combined, perhaps wourld understanding could be found... then again I might just be crazy.

[BloodStaindRose]

i agree with stanislaw!
i'm also Catholic but believe their is no right or wrong religion!
i have a strong faith in the Catholic church and feel right, there!
i do question some procedures in the church, though.

[surf boy]

If American Catholic priests are God's representatives, then . . . well, that means God ****s little boys . . . and He has a big ol' dick.

[fayefaye]

I don't think they are his reps.

[azmuse]

well... a lot of people think they are. and without an overhaul of the hypocrisy of things, they will continue to be able to get away with the same things they've been recorded doing for ages.

[fayefaye]

A lot of people are idiots. (oh my gosh. i can't believe I just said that. :p ) But, you know, you have to know when to think for yourself and when not to... I wouldn't listen to a child molester tell me how to live my life-who would? Of course-not all priests are like that- a lot aren't. The majority of people are good, corrupted by a few who mess up everyone's perceptions. Obviously those priests shouldn't get away with it.

[surf boy]

So I'm the only one who thinks that in the past year the Catholic Church has gotten a whole lot sexier?

[surf boy]

Maybe this gives an answer to all those grieving women who are holding on to their child's casket going, 'Lord God, why did you take him at such a young age? He was so innocent.'

Yeah, they're all up in Heaven servicing the priests and God.

[subterranean]

I'm no Catholic, but for me those people who are called priest, rev, father, master, guru..bla bla..are just there for practical reasons. I don't really need them in spiritual matters.

[surf boy]

They're 100% bonafide . . . which is fancy talk for 'sexified'.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by Stanislaw
I am Catholic, but I like to learn about other faiths, I figure that if all the religions were combined, perhaps wourld understanding could be found... then again I might just be crazy.

stan-quit thinking that the solution to the world's conflict is to get rid of our differences. If there was only one religion, for one thing the world would be more boring(and it's pretty boring already), and for another, it would detract a lot from culture. See, that's the problem. People use religion to justify wars, and in response, people begin to think it ACTUALLY IS religion's fault, which it is not. A lot of atheists tear apart religion as the cause of wars, when in reality most-nearly all-religions preach peace. It's total BULLS**** to use religions as some sort of casus belli. If there weren't religions, people would find some other equally fallacious justification for war, and people with no behavioural guide would probably spark more conflict.

surf boy-quit using the actions of the Catholic church to deride Christianity. Though your point about the hypocrisy and all round ludicrousness of it is valid. Obviously it's wrong that they do that, and I guess they won't receive any respect until they stop. But it's just the people who are screwed up, not necessarily the religion.

[surf boy]

Let's see which scenario sounds more plausible: human evolution or a talking snake and a tree?

[crisaor]

Um, the snake, the tree and all the rest is supposed to be symbolic, you know. You don't have to take it literally. As to humans descending from monkeys, well, if you want an ape to be your ancestor it's fine, I guess. I don't.
The evolution theory is full of holes, and I do mean full. The crucial link between human and ape is missing. My, what a coincidence! Also, Darwin's points are somewhat funny. Do you agree that an animal is smarter than other because it has two legs? C'mon. :rolleyes:

[serpico]

Talking snakes and trees . . . pfahaha! Oh, that's wacky.

Hehehe.

Yeah, the science of evolution is already light-years ahead of Christianity and Darwinism. Y'all need to keep up.

[Sindhu]

Originally posted by fayefaye
People use religion to justify wars, and in response, people begin to think it ACTUALLY IS religion's fault, which it is not. A lot of atheists tear apart religion as the cause of wars, when in reality most-nearly all-religions preach peace. It's total BULLS**** to use religions as some sort of casus belli. If there weren't religions, people would find some other equally fallacious justification for war, and people with no behavioural guide would probably spark more conflict.


Couldn't agree more faye- if people want to fight, they will fight and if they don't have reasons they will manufacture them. Religion happened to be lying conviniently to hand, but I think we can be fairly sure that human ingenuity would have discovered some other reason for conflict and self aggrandizement if religions weren't available- there's no point in blaming the tool- it's how you use it that matters!

[fayefaye]

Exactly, Sindhu. As for evolution, I wouldn't say it's necessarily WRONG, but it's pretty-very- far from being concrete. Genesis is, of course, symbolic.

[Abdul_Aziz]

Hey! The poll is all wrong. The world's second largest religion Islam is not available. For god's sake also put this option on the poll.

By the way I follow Islam. :)

[serpico]

Y'all can go suck a knuckle ****.

[Koa]

Originally posted by azmuse
I'm an Eckist - Eckankar. We sing Hu to bring us in tune with the light and sound of God. Among other things. And soul travel, dream travel...

Never heard of this. Is it like all those different groups of catholics or what? Just curious...

[azmuse]

No...actually I first "heard" about it in a dream. So when I tied in the dream I had in July '89 with an actual path, it was pretty exciting. We do dream study, past life study, and it's a religion all it's own - basically a path for people who want to experience divine love and the realization of it in this lifetime. And we believe everyone is Soul and that Soul exists because of God's love for it.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by serpico
Y'all can go suck a knuckle ****.

If that's an anti-Islamic statement, I'm really gonna have to kick serpico's *ss.

[Koa]

Originally posted by azmuse
No...actually I first "heard" about it in a dream. So when I tied in the dream I had in July '89 with an actual path, it was pretty exciting. We do dream study, past life study, and it's a religion all it's own - basically a path for people who want to experience divine love and the realization of it in this lifetime. And we believe everyone is Soul and that Soul exists because of God's love for it.

Iiiih... cute. Is it some kind of new-age stuff? ;) I'm curious about this thing, really dunno why (No you're not gonna convert me :D)

[azmuse]

Oh GOOD. Would hate myself for that :) My dream converted me, not a Person. (shudders at thought.)
No, it isn't new-age, though people have come to it from all walks of life, including that - oh! actually I studied new-age stuff (forgot) in late teens before hearing of it. 'Course, there was also a stint at Sunday school in my youth, and an interest in eastern religions. It's just a very simple path to God with a lot of adventure, and discipline to sit 20 minutes a day and sing hu, (am not, so do that before sleeping at night) - is ok if off-key !!! Oh, what else...it teaches self-responsibility.
I just like it because it brings so much love into my life, and appreciation for both the wonderful and yucchy facets.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by Abdul_Aziz
Hey! The poll is all wrong. The world's second largest religion Islam is not available. For god's sake also put this option on the poll.

By the way I follow Islam. :)


It's not wrong I guess, it's just uncomplete :)

I know some people who follow a belief cause they dreamed about it and they followed their dreams. I guess sometimes dream is indeed a reflection of someone's deepest desire (IMO)

[fayefaye]

I had a dream about the apocolyps once. it was really weird. And we all went up in a big hot air balloon.....

[subterranean]

Well perhaps you desired such balloon travel once upon a time in your past years..

[Koa]

I hardly ever remember what I dream.

[A poem test]

Those that have a dirty mouth
Have a shallow mind
They cause feelings to go south
Why don't they be kind?

[Adelheid]

Quoting Isagel: "I´m an atheist. But I have deep respect for those who manage to have faith without judging anyone else. "

Jesus said," Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."

Christians that are taught to not judge others, but to love them, even as Christ loved us.

[CarniFreak]

I am a Christian. Technically, I am a Southern Baptist but who needs a name really. That's not what Christianity is about.

Oh and I agree that Christians are taught to not judge others.(Even though it is mostly Christians that do. I include myself in saying this. I often find myself judging people I haven't even talked to. I am ashamed of it, and I hope that I may put a stop to my judgemental attitude.)

[Scheherazade]

First time I notices this thread... Looking at options, I wonder... Some of the listed are braches of the same religion;like Catholicism and Protestanism... but some of the major ones are missing. Whoever has prepared the list either did not do their homework well or was biased.

[Sitaram]

It is quite understandable if many people are totally unaware of the VAST differences just between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (many books have been written on this topic alone and I could probably give a talk lasting 2 hours just from memory alone)... There are VAST differences between Evangelical and Baptist and Lutheran and Calvinist... To give a simple example.... five different protestant denominations worked for 10 or more years to agree upon a uniting of the 5 to share clergy, share communion... and in the end.... one of the five dropped out,... could not agree on a common ground...

Different aside.... the Theravadin female monks died out some centuries ago, and when women wanted once again to be theravadin buddhist nuns, there was no living lineage to give ordination.... (and a male monk may not do it).... the Mahayana groups NEVER lost the continuity of lineage,... and offered to give ordination to the Theravadin, so they might start up the lineage again, but the Theravadin rejected it because of dogmatic,doctrinal differences.....


Different aside... the Souther Baptists split from the Northern Baptists in a dispute over whether it was ok for a pastor to own slaves

I suppose I was motivate to dash this off, to demonstrate how there can be such wide differences between one "Christian" group and another, so vast and wide a difference as to render it rather meaningless for one to say "I am a Christian" unless they specify what SORT of Christian.

I once met a Protestant minister, and I asked him the nature of his belief, and he laughed and said, "Well I should HOPE I believe what is in the Gospels." SO I laughed and said, "BUT the Pope, and the president of the Mormans, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Jehovas Witnesses, and a host of others ALL claim to believe EXACTLY what is in bible

[Scheherazade]

They are all Christians and follow Bible and Christ, dont they?

[Sitaram]

Scherazade.... nothing could be further from the truth than the common misconception that all Christians are alike.... though it is a very popular misconception..... the wildest extreme (and obviously extreme) are those Christians who handle poisonous snakes as part of their worship practice... all based on one verse from the Book of Acts which says of the Apostles, "and if you handle a poisonous serpent it will not harm you..." so... they took that verse quite literally....

=================
Different example

A Protestant will come up to a Catholic and say "are you saved?" and certain very knowledgable catholics (knowledgable in their catholic theology) will answer that "Catholics are not saved but REDEEMED."

=================
Third example

Someone like Charles Stanley, a very respectable television mininistry leader, has a doctrined called "The Eternal Security of Salvation" which basically says that once you accept Jesus into your live as your personal savior...(which is basically an emotional moment of lip service for some people) why then YOUR SALVATION IS GUARANTEED and nothing whatsoever can take away your guarantee to heavenly paradise, EVEN IF YOU SHOULD THEN LATER ON RENOUNCE CHRIST AND BECOME A SERIAL KILLER or something equally heinous.... Now many OTHER Protestant denominations denounce Stanley's teaching as something that is in error and is harmful to people.....

======================
There are Protestant denominations, as well as all Roman Catholics and all Eastern Orthodox, who firmly believe that Jesus Christ IS God,.... that God literally became a flesh and blood human being....

But there are Protestant denominations who are unwilling to say that Jesus is God.... they will only say that he is "SON of God" but they believe that only God the Father is the one God.....

==========================
There are Christian denominations which believe that baptism with water is ESSENTIAL for salvation.... and there are others who do not thing it is essential to be baptized....

==================

There are Christian denominations who not only deny that Roman Catholics are even Christian, but also firmly believe that the Pope is the AntiChrist proclaimed in the Book of Revelation....

For example, Seventh Day Adventists publish books which insinuate that the Pope is the Antichrist....

[frozenlight]

i'm supposed to be orthodox by baptism (by the, way, this option is unavailable too, although many protestant cults are), but i really don't identify with orthodoxism... or with christiatianity... or with any religion. i sometimes wish i could believe without a doubt in something, but i just can't. i think good and evil are inside us, and it's only up to us to decide which to follow. all those church rituals don't really impress me... just the fact that so many people gather together and, for a few moments, are one mind, one soul. or at least that's the way it's supposed to be. i've noticed that more and more people turn to religion only in their darkest times, just because it's their last resort, not because they really believe. and, of course, there are the ones who go to church all the time and are so good christians or whatever, thinking that bragging about their faith will be of some good

there are some lyrics in jesus christ superstar which are quite representative. i'm talking about simon zealotes's words when jesus enters jerusalem:

christ you know i love you,
did you see i waved?
i believe in you and god,
so tell me that i'm saved!

[Usurper]

Scherazade.... nothing could be further from the truth than the common misconception that all Christians are alike.... though it is a very popular misconception.....

(i apologise beforehand for my English; it's not my first language.
Hope it isn't that hard to understand)
I agree with you; there are many differences between Christians.
However, I'm not so sure how strong you take that point to be. Is it
so strong that we'd probably find more in common between
a random Christian and a Muslim than between two random christians?
That is, indeed, a strong claim. But I think we can find a common ground to define "Christian" so that it isn't
an equivocal term.
For example, though not universal, the belief that Jesus is God made
man to save us from our sins can pick out most christians. Also, the new commandments of love are probably quite a novelty for a world that
followed the Tallion Law, so I think that also could be a very special feature. I'm just saying what comes to my head. There
are probably much better features that could help us pick out, say, 90% of people that call themselves christians (and rule out
others) and I would consider that to
be the sign of some unity. I don't think either one should try to group
every one that says he's christian under some rule. If someone says he worships Chocolate IceCreams as a central part of his religion and he calls himself christian,
you'd probably rule him out.

[Amra]

Weird that Islam is not on the list.... Anyways, I am muslim, for those who had doubts... :D ;)

[Stanislaw]

There is a distinct difference between the christian groups, however, it would perhaps to say christianity, since all christian religions did derive from the same source. I think this list would be more apropriate in listing all the major classifications of religions, because in its current state it has broad and narrow topics.

[faith]

Why are so many differnt variations of christianity included? There are variations of most of the other religions too. Anyway. I would have prefered to say that I practise christianity insetead of protestantism. I mean catholisism, protestantism, baptsim, metodism... in the end they are all the same thing and none of them is the right variant of christianity. All the fights about the faith are so stupid.

And as for practise. When do I practise religion? Never really. I go to church on christmas if I'm made to. Of course I celebrate Christmas and Easter and such, but Christmas is more santa claus stuff than Jesus was born, and Easter is more easter eggs and rabbits than Jesus died.

[Stanislaw]

well practice, ie bellieve in, follow, pray to the god of...

[frozenlight]

...and Easter is more easter eggs and rabbits than Jesus died.

well, actually, it's not about "jesus died... oh, no...", but about "jesus resurrected! yippeee!" :rolleyes:
why, in my country, for 40 days after easter you're supposed to greet by saying "cristos a-nviat" (which means "jesus has resurrected") and answer "adevarat a-nviat" ("it's true, he has resurrected"). nice way pf showing your faith... sure makes you a good christian, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[Miss Darcy]

I go to church on christmas if I'm made to. Of course I celebrate Christmas and Easter and such, but Christmas is more santa claus stuff than Jesus was born, and Easter is more easter eggs and rabbits than Jesus died.

I go to church only if they have a concert on which I am either in or interested in, or if it's got historical value (that's certainly never happened to me here in Australia). :D I celebrate Christmas and Easter too, but not as Christian holidays. In Europe, Easter coincides with spring, which makes it kind of a celebration of new life (and for me and other non-religious people, nothing more than that). It's a little ironic here in Australia as Easter is on just in Autumn when things generally are dying off instead of being born. And as to Christmas...*looks a little indignant* it's not the day Christ was born on, it's the day I was born on! (I find very little possibility in the assumption that Christ was born on that particular day, indeed if he was born at all. There is no evidence, or if there is it's horridly vague.)

But yeah, here Easter is generally celebrated as Easter Bunny and Easter (chocolate) Eggs, and Christmas is all about Santa Claus and giving and receiving. The religious aspect of these holidays has long died off except for devout Christians.

What you say is really interesting, FrozenLight that is Melting. :D Very interesting...to see different customs around the world. What's Christmas about in Romania?

Anyway, must fly... *flaps her wings and rises to the sky...*

;)

Darcy

[Stanislaw]

well you are both partially correct. Easter celibrates Jesus's death for our sins, and the conquering of death by his resurection. This act was to replace the broken link between man and God.


well, actually, it's not about "jesus died... oh, no...", but about "jesus resurrected! yippeee!" :rolleyes:
why, in my country, for 40 days after easter you're supposed to greet by saying "cristos a-nviat" (which means "jesus has resurrected") and answer "adevarat a-nviat" ("it's true, he has resurrected"). nice way pf showing your faith... sure makes you a good christian, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[classic_reader]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But many times our church is referred to as "Mormon". I celebrate Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

angela

[Bandini]

Say what you like about Mormons - they always have a nice crease in their trousers. Apart from those that live in the desert and marry several underage girls. I'm sure that they are not representative.

[classic_reader]

Say what you like about Mormons - they always have a nice crease in their trousers. Apart from those that live in the desert and marry several underage girls. I'm sure that they are not representative.

Those in the desert....don't be decieved...it's not the same church!

angela

[Assyra]

actually i am disappointed because there is no "muslim" choice. anyway, i am a muslim, but not too religious...

[mono]

actually i am disappointed because there is no "muslim" choice. anyway, i am a muslim, but not too religious...
Try this poll instead, as it has more diverse choices:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3347&page=1&pp=15
Welcome to the forum, Assyra! :)

[Assyra]

Thanks mono ;)

[Luaseuda]

This is the world's fastest growing religion. At least according to my findings.
Why not add to your poll? See the difference for yourself. I am sure it's not a variant of Islam.

[Beaumains]

I'm Roman Catholic, but at one time I was a Baptist. I got fed up with the doctrine and I changed. I'm open to other religions as well though; I've studied Buddhism, Islam, and Hindu.

[Maxos]

Why didn't you study Physics, instead?

[Beaumains]

I have studied physics to some extent; why do you ask?

[Dyrwen]

Seems like he was implying that one would study physics for the same reasons one studies religions, which is pretty far off base.

In the universe physics gives you the "how it works" with evidence, philosophy/religion gives you the "why it works this way" without evidence. Though for the analytical in some, the how is enough of a reason to undermine a need for a why. That's pretty much why I'd imagine studying the two types would be off base in terms of relationships.

[Maxos]

Religion is no longer a sensible way to "read" reality.
After Galileo and Newton, the notion of cause has ceased to exist.
Mithology is no longer a way to rationalize the World.
God is no longer necessary to approach the Universe.
And, I must confess, Man was probably happier with mithology and no science, but you CANNOT go back (Romanticism firstly recognised that, M.me de Stael, Schlegel, and also Leopardi).
We CANNOT restore ancient age, we CANNOT be "classical" any longer.
Our art is no longer "ingenuous", it is "sentimental" (Again Schlegel's words)
This, philosophically said.

Sociologically speaking: nowadays religion is a well-tested way to control the masses (Think of Bush's crusades).
This want of something telling you what is "right" (senseless word) and what is "wrong" (senseless word) is functional to keeping modern society together, you are victims of this logic, hence my suggesting you to avoid time-wasting with Religion. Try to escpe the net, prove intellectually autonomous.
But be sure that once you have abandoned religion you won't feel happier.
This is life, today.

[Beaumains]

I respect the right you have to your opinion Maxos; I will not even say that you are wrong. As Bertrand Russel once said, I would not die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. I will admit that my feelings about the existence of God could be misplaced. But, in my most humble opinion, I do not feel that to be true.

At the moment I have to go, but I will be glad to elaborate at a later time.

[Maxos]

And so will I, to discuss and show and deny and admit and get angry and be satisfied.

(anyway notice that I have not said that God does not exist)

Thank you for not having ignored my words, as it usually happens.

[warofwrath]

Let's see which scenario sounds more plausible: human evolution or a talking snake and a tree?
Its not a matter of plausibility or possibility (both events did occur in the distant past, not immediate future) but a question of faith. Both Darwinism and Christianity require faith and both have basic conclusions about humankind's place in the universe.

Your derision is easily brushed off, by any bible-believing christian, with the scriptural maxim "with God all things are possible"

But, to each his own. Every atheist can only stay one till death.

[Beaumains]

Religion is no longer a sensible way to "read" reality.
After Galileo and Newton, the notion of cause has ceased to exist.
Mithology is no longer a way to rationalize the World.
God is no longer necessary to approach the Universe.
And, I must confess, Man was probably happier with mithology and no science, but you CANNOT go back (Romanticism firstly recognised that, M.me de Stael, Schlegel, and also Leopardi).
We CANNOT restore ancient age, we CANNOT be "classical" any longer.
Our art is no longer "ingenuous", it is "sentimental" (Again Schlegel's words)
This, philosophically said.

Sociologically speaking: nowadays religion is a well-tested way to control the masses (Think of Bush's crusades).
This want of something telling you what is "right" (senseless word) and what is "wrong" (senseless word) is functional to keeping modern society together, you are victims of this logic, hence my suggesting you to avoid time-wasting with Religion. Try to escpe the net, prove intellectually autonomous.
But be sure that once you have abandoned religion you won't feel happier.
This is life, today.

First I must ask: WHY is religion an unacceptable way in which to view reality? Is it not possible for science and God to go hand-in-hand? Secondly, though Bush has used religion to great effect, that does not mean that religion is necessarily used to control the masses in all cases (Bush doesn't control the world). Right and wrong (in my opinion) do exist. It is wrong to kill a man, it is wrong to steal. I do not see why simple truths such as this must not be simply because of modern society.

I consider myself an intellectually autonomous person; I don't believe things without a reason. I have found it within me to believe in religion and God, but I respect your right to differ.

[Miss Darcy]

Both Darwinism and Christianity require faith and both have basic conclusions about humankind's place in the universe.

I'm sorry, but Darwinism does not require faith, for it consists of material evidence. Christianity differs from Darwinism because its only ground for belief is in one book full of contradictions, mistakes, and immorality. I can make references if you wish. True, the Bible has its points, but putting faith in a book that was written thousands of years ago and therefore contains a view of the world that is thousands of years old is a risky business.


Every atheist can only stay one till death.

True. After death one is not an atheist. After death one is not really anything. After death I assume one is simply at one with the universe...but who knows what is after death?

What is typical of us humans is to suppose that we are extremely important. We, each of us, are constricted to our own view of the world, to our own thoughts and feelings, actions, etc. We tend to forget that there are other views, equally real to our own. I don't mean to say that we're all egocentric, only that we're swept into our own perspective. Therefore, after death, who says there needs be an afterlife for each individual? Is it not better to suppose that after death, there is simply birth, simply altogether new life, new people, new individuals? For in all truth if everyone went to heaven it would soon be pretty crowded.

Matter is recycled - and perhaps the spirit, soul, mind, or whichever name you prefer is too...?

Darcy.

[Maxos]

I agree with Miss Darcy,

Beaumains, give me some time and I'll answer.

[goldpython]

re: God is no longer necessar to approach the universe

Within the last couple years I've read that many physicists are rethinking that stance in light of the best mathematical models' prediction that, yes, indeed, the universe did, in fact, just pop into existance. They can't explain how without an outside force.

re: Darwinism requires no faith

Perhaps Darwin's precise line of reasoning doesn't, but most people, including myself, have never read Darwin's work, don't really know what it is, and confuse it with variations that are more modern. Even at that, I find it quite a leap of faith to believe that all of the contents of the universe came into being without any outside motivator.

[Beaumains]

I'm sorry, but Darwinism does not require faith, for it consists of material evidence. Christianity differs from Darwinism because its only ground for belief is in one book full of contradictions, mistakes, and immorality. I can make references if you wish. True, the Bible has its points, but putting faith in a book that was written thousands of years ago and therefore contains a view of the world that is thousands of years old is a risky business.

True. After death one is not an atheist. After death one is not really anything. After death I assume one is simply at one with the universe...but who knows what is after death?

What is typical of us humans is to suppose that we are extremely important. We, each of us, are constricted to our own view of the world, to our own thoughts and feelings, actions, etc. We tend to forget that there are other views, equally real to our own. I don't mean to say that we're all egocentric, only that we're swept into our own perspective. Therefore, after death, who says there needs be an afterlife for each individual? Is it not better to suppose that after death, there is simply birth, simply altogether new life, new people, new individuals? For in all truth if everyone went to heaven it would soon be pretty crowded.

Matter is recycled - and perhaps the spirit, soul, mind, or whichever name you prefer is too...?



I agree with you completely. To put faith in a book which is full of contradictions and blatant mistakes would be of the greatest folly, but one can still be a Christian through morale code and belief in God. I for one do not go by the Bible for my history and the creation of the world and all of that. I believe God created the world and it has evolved into what we have today. Now that I my own feelings cleared up, which will hopefully prevent future misunderstandings, allow me to continue. Now we both agree that the Bible is flawed, yes? So would you also agree that Darwin's philosophy itself was flawed and has changed over time? It seems to me risky business to put faith (or whatever else have you) in something that is no more stable than the beliefs of theists. Darwinism has evidence, BUT there are many areas that Darwinism doesn't explain by itself. THAT is why I belive a divine influence played a part in the creation of our world.

[Miss Darcy]

Within the last couple years I've read that many physicists are rethinking that stance in light of the best mathematical models' prediction that, yes, indeed, the universe did, in fact, just pop into existance. They can't explain how without an outside force.

We could talk for millions of years about this, and still never get anywhere...but to put it as simply as possible, yes, of course theories change. Theories change to accommodate the latest evidence; what is put down in science is subject to change. We learn more and more - and though perhaps we may never find the TOE (Theory of Everything), as some scientists hope - our theories, limited as they may be, are slowly coming closer and closer to the truth. On the other hand, the Bible - with all respect - will always remain the same. Of course, there are different interpretations...but people don't rewrite the Bible as they discover new religious ideas.

BTW, welcome to the Forum! :D

The Universe did not just "pop" into existence, indeed no. Because "pop" is a verb and implies time...remember, with the Big Bang, time and space (spacetime) were born (still a verb, but it's hard to speak English without involving them ;)), and there is no point in asking what happened before then, because there was no "before." The Universe has always been here, ever since time and space existed. And there is no use questioning what "happened" before time, because, there was nothing - no thing. No matter, no time, nothing. Do you follow me? It's very difficult to grasp entirely for anyone, and just as difficult to explain...

After all, time is a very strange concept. Through science we know that time and space work together - for example, the time it takes light to travel a specific distance is measured in "light years". (One light year = approx. 9.46053 x 1012 km.) Time is elastic and can be warped by gravity...time depends on the observer...for example, no two people have exactly the same "time." The closer they are in terms of distance, the more similar their times are.

I don't think it requires an "outside force" to make things happen. Things occur naturally. Things work together, interplay. For example, does it require an outside force to make it rain? A force outside matter would be ridiculous, surely the rain "happens" just because it's a natural phenomenon and, given the correct conditions, it has to happen? The only force required for the making of rain is a natural one; I am inclined to think that it is the same with the universe.


Perhaps Darwin's precise line of reasoning doesn't, but most people, including myself, have never read Darwin's work, don't really know what it is, and confuse it with variations that are more modern. Even at that, I find it quite a leap of faith to believe that all of the contents of the universe came into being without any outside motivator.

I feel Darwinism is sometimes misunderstanded as "belief in The Origin of the Species versus belief in The Bible". This idea is quite ludicrous to me. Darwinism does not imply explicit belief in every word in Darwin's "The Origin of the Species", in fact one is not required to have even read the book to be a Darwinist. Darwinism, as with everything scientific (except the speed of light - and yet even that can be warped by very strong gravity) changes through time. Darwinism, basically, is the theory of evolution.

Evolution is stable. Theories are not. Theories are flexible - but the facts remain the same.


Now we both agree that the Bible is flawed, yes? So would you also agree that Darwin's philosophy itself was flawed and has changed over time?

*Looks upwards* I should say so! :D

Of course Darwin didn't get it all right first up. He was, after all, the pioneer of evolution. It's incredible to think that one man can change the whole of scientific - and indeed, any - thinking with one (rather thick) volume. For a man of his times he was remarkably creative and, to me, quite amazing.

Though as you say, the book has its flaws, he still got the general idea - of natural selection, of evolution. Considring no one was there before him it was an immense achievement. Theory of evolution has...well, evolved ;)...over time, and is still changing as we make new discoveries. But the basic idea remains the same: things evolve. Living things change with time, develop new adaptations, and are all subject to natural selection. Darwin laid down the fundamentals - we are now building on them and perfecting them.


Darwinism has evidence, BUT there are many areas that Darwinism doesn't explain by itself. THAT is why I belive a divine influence played a part in the creation of our world.

Darwinism explains evolution, natural selection, etc...it was never meant to explain, for example, why we are here. For questions like this, I think, we must look into ourselves. People find different answers.

Beaumains, I'm glad you agree that the Bible is...not exactly perfect...one finds few Christians who will acknowledge that. Do you still believe in Adam and Eve and the biblical Jesus etc. or do you believe something altogether different? Is your god like the biblical one or is it more a sense of fate, or some kind of force? I'm intrigued...personally I see no need for a creator, like Maxos, but that doesn't make me any less curious about other peoples' ideas on that score.

Must go now. Apologise if that was a little bit on the long side...

Darcy.

[goldpython]

[[Thanks for the welcome. Fun topic. I'll try my best to remain civil and respectful on this, a sometimes contentious one.]]

re: I don't think it requires an "outside force" to make things happen.

That's just it. "Thinking" but not knowing. It can't be proven that there was no outside motivation. That's what makes it faith.

re: Evolution is stable

Prove it. If it can't be proven, then it's faith.

Science doesn't explain everything. No belief system does. Belief in any system that has this shortcoming is, by definition, faith. See the definition below from webster's online. I have as much faith in science as anyone else, but I do recoginze it as faith if the reasoning is pursued far enough.

There's no shame in faith. At some point, we all believe something foundational that becomes axiomatic and cannot be proven.

((
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
))

[Dyrwen]

Evolution isn't built on faith or belief. It's built on acceptance of the facts presented. You don't have to believe in gravity either, but that doesn't mean it isn't working and is quite stable as well. When it comes to the origin of life on Earth, evolution doesn't explain that, so it isn't a concern as some have already mentioned. You might need faith there, if you don't like long drawn out explanations with fossil evidences, but when it comes to evolution itself; it is quite stable.

[goldpython]

In fact, it is. Here's how:

It's built on the scientific principle of experimentation and observation. And that principle built on a model of the universe that is predictable, that is, that I can repeat experiments and verify my results.

The key question is this: What reason do I have to suppose that the future will resemble the past?

Science answers that by saying "because it always has" by verifying results of experiments.

But that begs the question.

Up until now, the future has resembled the past, and that makes science a very good model of the world, but there's no proof that it always will.

And that, right there, is faith. It is a belief in something that is not provable.

The logical extension of this is that nothing is provable in and of itself. And that's correct. Thus the wrestling with the issues from time immemorial.

That's why all of our lives, no matter how anyone slices it, are lives of one sort of faith or another.

[Dyrwen]

I'm willing to take that as true, seeing as the future is unknowable. Although as far as probability is concerned, there's no reason to believe it would ever change from what we've already understood occurs all the time.

I think my main problem is just that: It's easy to have faith in the little things like this, but that doesn't mean it's time to go taking God on faith, too. People try to make a relationship of faith in our everyday lives to the faith of the religious too often, I think. Just because I can have "faith" that the future will not change, doesn't mean I automatically have enough willpower to go believing in God on faith, too. Following the probable is what I do and until there's some probable reason for gods' existence/s there's little reason delve into that particular branch of faith.

[goldpython]

I agree on the difficulty of faith and religion that you describe.

By way of background, I was raised as a Christian and educated as an engineer. I tend to cling to science and things that make "sense" to me more than my religion. Many things in Christianity I struggle with. Some I don't. Certainly being indoctrinated as a child plays a large part. Renouncing my Christian faith is something I simply won't do. At the same time, I don't talk much about my views with other Christians, because I seem to be at odds with them too much and I don't really want to ruffle other peoples feathers over it. It's a private thing for me. Something I usually am willing to address, though, is the acknowledgement of a Creator.

Darcy's comments above about time being plastic, etc., notwithstanding, the best theories to date concerning the Big Bang indicate that it just happened all by itself. As I mentioned above, many physicists are themselves quite troubled about their theories on this point. They're troubled because they cannot come up with any kind of explanation for the Big Bang except that some entity made it occur.

That's basically my view. It makes no sense (to me anyway) from the scientific point of view that the matter/energy involved caused itself to engage in the Big Bang. Whoever made it happen, I'm willing to call God.

Having said that, the rest of my faith, I don't even try to debate. I know it's faith, and since there's no proof, there's no sensible debate on it. I'm not selling it anyway.

I offer the above only as an explanation of how I, someone who's scientifically oriented, can reconcile faith in a creator with science.

[Dyrwen]

Whatever works for you. I spent a good deal of time grasping exactly how the Big Bang creates itself without need for a creator by understanding time and the odd equations and states involved at the time, so it makes enough sense to me to not need a creator. Although being told what my theory is probably confuses most too much to take it in as sensible evidence to the explanation of the big bang, whereas to me, I've run over it so many times it makes a lot of sense to me.

Personally it just makes more probable sense to me for the universe to have always been and 'created' itself in a way, than for something else to have existed before the universe (which might as well have 'always been' as well) to drop by and create it. Just simplification of the ways things work, really, and that's what tends to make the concept work best to me. To most though, I can see how a deistic mannerism can seem more simplistic than long-winded explanation with a well alligned theory.

[Beaumains]

Beaumains, I'm glad you agree that the Bible is...not exactly perfect...one finds few Christians who will acknowledge that. Do you still believe in Adam and Eve and the biblical Jesus etc. or do you believe something altogether different? Is your god like the biblical one or is it more a sense of fate, or some kind of force? I'm intrigued...personally I see no need for a creator, like Maxos, but that doesn't make me any less curious about other peoples' ideas on that score.

Must go now. Apologise if that was a little bit on the long side...

Darcy.

Heh, my philosophy is very..."unique", but as to my god, He is to an extent both Biblical and a "force". I see God as the creator and the sustainer of life and that he ultimately controls all things (both good and bad). I do not follow a great deal of the Bible moral tenants, but I am against violence and am all for the bettering of my fellow man. At the same time, I keep my religious philosophy "seperate" from my political, so I could be said to be amoral as well. It's rather complicated, yes? :lol:

[Pendragon]

I myself have been called everything from a religious bigot (which I trust that the Atheists on this forum can attest I am not!) to a hypocrite (which I trust I am not either!) because I am The Great Questioner, to whom Faith in God came by Frost's The Road Less Traveled By (and that has made all the difference!), allowing me to also accept a form of Evolution, quite a lot of philosophy, and always willing to listen to the other man's POV without being judgemental. Phew, I almost began to imitate a favorite author, Mark Twain, with that run-on sentence! To abhor violence and better your fellow man, Miss Darcy, kinda like "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", no? A good piece of advice for living for anyone. Or as The Silver Surfer once put it: "Violence born of violence can but breed new violence until all is destroyed." Yeah, I know. I'm strange. But I'm happy with how I believe and who I am.

[Lady19thC]

I was brought up Anglican (Episcopalian) and converted to the Catholic Church, in my twenties. I am somewhere in between, but haven't attended Church in years. I would like to go back, even if it is just for the big holidays, but not sure which one I would attend. Thus, I keep putting it off, and off, and off!

My feeling is be good, be nice, be kind, be charitable. The rest is red tape.

[dejosc]

how come you didnt put atheism although none of the above is almost it more people are members of this group than any of the others.

[dejosc]

Also i am completely against religion as i have seen that all it does is feed of the weak by making them scared, you do not need to do that to people for example in medieval times the church would take a huge amount of farmers crop and sell it for huge amounts of money, they did this by saying the farmer would go to hell if he did not, that in my eyes is criminal they are just very organized gangsters, making people fear forr their lives also gods are just laughable in my opinion it is all just a figment of some guys imagination who then told other people and some believed him and then others till it got to the point where it was scary to not believe for people would kill you.

[djtru]

Buddhism deals with the soul, and reincarnation, it was only called a philosiphy because the Chinese people wanted to continue practicing it when the Communists arrived. I am a Presbyterian (that's Protestant Christian), although I don't think it really matters what denomination you are. I think Marx's comment arose from bitterness surrounding his own lack of belief in anything. And furthermore, I think it is a little bit arrogant to consider that man is his own master (atheism). We are nowhere near perfect, so why should we have control over anything? And I think that's where Buddhists and Hindus go wrong (meaning no disrespect), I don't think man is now, or ever can be perfect or enlightened in and of his own power.

[djtru]

I think Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong (no disrespect, though, I think any religion is much better than none, and I realize that most people think I'm wrong), but I think that man can never become perfect or enlightened of his own power. I think it is only through Jesus that we can be saved. Jesus was sent to Earth to be the final sacrifice for man kind, but that we still must claim the gift of forgiveness to be saved.

[dejosc]

why should man not be his own master it is not showing he is all powerful he is just his own master not the master of everything, for in my opinion maths is the master of everything as all in the universe can be traced back with guess what maths not some god who is all powerful but oh no lets all humans suffer creates disease, hurricanes, earthquakes,volcanos but no he is enlightened and dont say thats punishment as he is 'all-fogiving' to oh dear looks like its a bastard of a god to me or maybe hejust likes killing people???

[dejosc]

why would he kill a man to prove a point couldnt he of just used his almighty voice to say i am god listen tot his dude jesus???

[djtru]

Ok, dejosc, the church was very flawed in the Middle Ages, which was before the Reformation. Secondly, the message of Christianity is not of fear, but hope. Almost everyone understands that he's not perfect, right? Most of us do very bad things every once in a while. First the bad news, all your sins deserve death. Good news... all you have to do to be saved and to have eternal life is to accept Christ, and to repent of your sin. The Bible and gospels are constantly misinterpreted to people. I think everyone realizes that there is something missing in their lives that would make them happy. That is God. Cheesy as that song is, "There's a God-shaped hole/ In all of us"

[dejosc]

nope i think i am perfectly happy i follow instincts which if im honest are food sleep and most importantly sex as in my opinion the meaning of life is to continue life, the reason people feel empty as they most often dont use their instincts and god is a way of explaining everything even if hes proved wrong almost every time nope no that was just a mistake or the scientists are wrong boo hoo.

[djtru]

Oh yeah, by the way, death is necessary. Death is A GIFT!!!! WE ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, WE CAN ONLY BE HAPPY IN HEAVEN!!!!!!! DEATH IS A RELEASE FROM THE STRUGGLE ON EARTH. And why doesn't God just use his voice? God doesn't want to force people to love him, THAT IS NOT LOVE!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS FORCEFUL INVASION!!!!!! And Jesus came right out and said it, He constantly said He was the Son of God, and that the only way to redemption is through Him. And God didn't kill Jesus to "prove a point," He sent him to REDEEM MANKIND. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE GOSPEL? John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." THAT IS WHY JESUS WAS SENT. And by the way, atheism is not the largest belief. THAT WOULD BE CHRISTIANITY/CATHOLOCISM.

[djtru]

You can't possibly believe that science is completely unflawed? And God has never been proven wrong. Have you heard of the God gene? It shows that religious belief is in fact a part of human biological makeup, and CHANGES IF YOU EVER CHANGE BELIEF. IT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED. AND YOU'RE NOT HAPPY, IF YOU WERE, AND THOUGHT LIFE WAS ONLY FOR CONTINUING LIFE, YOU WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT HOW "THERE'S A DEAD PERSON IN EACH OF US," AND YOU WOULDN'T BE GETTING INTO THIS ARGUMENT. IF YOU WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH "FOOD, SLEEP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY SEX," YOU WOULDN'T BOTHER ARGUING THE POINT. By the way, let me ask you a question. Do you think Jesus was a bad person?

[dejosc]

firstly i didnt say it was the largest belief i said it was larger than most of the ones on their :). next how can you love anything that all you can say for sure is some crazy guy once said 'i am the son of god' hmm yes ill believe you mate youund very trustworthy. if you get past that by quoting the bible which is one my most hated mannerisms in the world cause it means you cant say it yourself you then are saying that we should love a figment of our imagination well yes thats not mental dillusion if ever i saw it. And then is not some guy coming and saying that i am the only way to redeem yourself so believe in god or hell cast you into hell isnt forced love then you are one deluded person!!!

[djtru]

If you think that Jesus was not a bad person, consider the following. He continuously said He was the Son of God. That means a.) He was a liar, and not a good person at all. b.) He was insane, and nothing he said was to be considered true. c.) He was telling the truth. Consider also, that all His teachings have been said by the great philosiphers, which means that Christian values are inherent in the human makeup.

[djtru]

We are not told to love God to avoid Hell, but because He is perfect and good, and loving. And no, atheism is not larger than Christianity/Catholocism, and if quoting the Bible is saying that you don't have words of your own, why quote Terry Pratchett? And if you'd like to address the public and say, "Jesus Christ was an insane man who had nothing legitimate to say," I'm pretty sure you'd see quite an interesting reaction. And when you earlier said that the church took farmers' crops, okay, no. On manors, you know where nobility lived, one tenth of the product was donated to the priest, who had no other form of income. And man since the beginning of time has had belief in greater things than in himself. Are you saying that man since the dawn of time has been a complete moron?

[djtru]

If you don't believe in God, you probably believe in the Big Bang, right? Let me ask you how you think the original matter got there. SOMETHING HAS TO BE ETERNAL. SOMETHING HAS TO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

[dejosc]

hmm first i quoted that from a book. i could put that all humans are evil and if i quoted it it means ITS NOT MY OPINION, to copy you with the capitals. religous belief in fact isnt a gene its just that we dont know so much we need something to explain-god because we need proof of what happens but now science is beginning to prove god wrong people are starting to get less sure and become guess what atheists. also im on this site beause we created a society of these main points why do people beome rich for power why do they want to become powerful so they get women/men. and finally to your question i think he was a person not exactly a bad person im sure he did a lot of bad things. but maybe he was mad. maybe his parents had made him believe in gods maybe there was another guy before him who planted things in his mind so he went out and deluded himself into thinking he was the son of god because his mother had had a dream about an angel!!!

[dejosc]

/And no, atheism is not larger than Christianity/Catholocism

[djtru]

And not just Christians believe that Christ was good, some Buddhists believe He was someone who could teach others to become enlightened, the Jews believe that there will eventually be a Messiah, just not Him, and the Muslims believe that he was one of the greater prophets. And if you refuse to listen, I am wasting my time speaking. "For the light has walked among the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." You are throwing at me a two-year old's version of the gospel, and refuse to truly listen. I would suggest reading C.S. Lewis, or other comparable writers for a better description of the true Christian faith than what I was able to supply. Goodbye, and Vaya, Con Dios.

[dejosc]

the universe has always been there humans cant believe that things didnt have to start, they have to think of beginnings

[djtru]

In closing, you said it was "larger than all the others," which covered Catholocism, Protestant and Baptist.

[dejosc]

you are saying im not listening you have ignored all ive said and your replies have been 'no god is real here is what i say' oh wait you said the same thing everytime

[dejosc]

yes but i didnt mean to i was typing very fat at that point in time

[dejosc]

/Are you saying that man since the dawn of time has been a complete moron?

and to answer that yes we always have been and proably always be ignorant of many things also i dont use quotes to prove points i make my own decisions

[Scheherazade]

Unfortunately, this thread will be closed now.

For future reference, please remember not to resort to personal attacks, name calling, caps in your posts.

Many thanks to all those who have shared their opinions on the subject in a civilized manner and I am sorry for the inconvenience.