|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted April 22, 2004 04:44 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 21 Apr 2004
|
Ants are the first example of another species capable of mass destruction which came to my mind as well. Ants create complex colonies, destroy enviroments, make war, take slaves, build gardens, keep livestock...all sorts of stuff. Of course, ants cannot do those things on the same national/global scale as humans do because their use of tools is not at the same level as ours. Also, any one species of ant only performs a few of those large-scale functions -- leafcutter ants don't strip entire tracts of forest, army ants don't build gardens, and neither of those keep aphid "cows." So, ants are limited in scale, but they do many of the same social activities humans do.
There was a random fact in the college lunch bulletin a while ago: one out of every fifteen living creatures on the planet is an ant.
===
A strawman argument is when a debator misrepresents the opposing argument to make it weaker than it really is. An example would be attacking the above argument regarding ants by pointing out that a person is smarter than an ant, and therefore humans and ants are not equal. Since the actual argument doesn't claim humans and ants are equal, the attack just knocks off a fake "strawman," not the real opposing position.
That's how I meant "strawman" when I used it a couple pages back. Obviously, this example is for illustrative purposes only ('cuz the ant argument is right there in the same post), and not anticipating anyone's real objection to my comparison between people and ants. 
===
Inevitable Edit: Ah, Lews got to the definition first. His link is more in depth.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted May 07, 2004 01:48 AM |
|
|
arghftirhf **** #$&%fhg!!!!
Oh, man! It ruined several pages of excellent posts.
Now what?
We can probably continue the debate, if everyone remembers what was written. Just to remind you:
the debate about human/animal distinction reached an impasse,
bort had a quarrel with Consis,
and everyone started posting their religious beliefs. I've got mine and Lews's left on my PC, so I'll post repost them (i hope Lews, you don't mind that. you can copy that and repost yourself, and after that leave me to delete your post from my post.)
We're still waiting for Peacemaker's revelating post, and in the meanwhile we are amusing ourselves with the light debate about Invisible Pink Unicorns and why does Shadowcaster believes in God and not in IPU.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 01:58 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 6 May 2004
|
The missing religious views
Khaelo wrote: (I just noticed that I have your post too. repost it also if you want.)
wow, a whole post of unverified personal gnosis I can't force my mind to belief, either. If that were a possibility, I'd never have left Catholicism. It would have been a lot easier to stay with the established religion, with the god whom everyone else worshipped, rather than to go off alone with only my patron for company. But the Christ never responded the way my patron and his pantheon did (not a 'known' pantheon, btw), so off I went. It was a decision based on my personal experience. The wager and all the other logical arguments, I think, are just empirical icing on a cake that is fundamentally non- logical. Whether the cause is indoctrination or some miraculous event or a divine touch, the spark of belief is not intellectual. Of course, I have some doubts. If there is no smidgen of doubt, one isn't asking enough questions. But I have doubts about a lot of stuff that is perfectly real. For each cycle into uncertainty and fear, there is always the corresponding cycle back into faith and trust. In the end, my gods are true. My experience convinces me of that. The world around me convinces me of that. Am I looking to interpret my surroundings according to pre-concieved ideas? Of course. When things are severely discordant, I do adjust my worldview, but since said worldview was developed on what I see, it stays pretty much in line. It's a circular, self-reinforcing system. But that's what everyone does, religious or not. There's no escaping one's own mind. Incidentally, I associate my polytheism with the freedom to believe truth, not freedom to behave as I will. My patron (a death/water/mercy god) has not given laws or codes or anything of that nature. However, he has expectations of me. One of them is the responsibility to behave as best I can in harmony with his "spirit" (for lack of a better word), and not, say, that of a war god when I'm angry. He also tends to throw curveballs at me when he thinks I'm headed the wrong way. Because different gods can have conflicting interests and ethical codes and so on, I am sympathetic to the atheist forging a system of morality without divine guidance. I am also sympathetic to the theist facing the divine clue-by-four, though. That is why I will argue tooth and nail for gay rights on logical ground but won't touch the Biblical argument. If your god says "no," that's your issue, not mine, and I won't naysay it. (Just don't try to put it in the secular Constitution.  The soul is a created thing, the spiritual componant of our life. Death is the veil, the break between spirit and body. The fate of the soul after death isn't terribly important; I tend towards the school of 'you get what you expect' and the more mystical theories. Maybe there's divine justice enforced, but I really dunno. What we know for certain is this life, and ideological speculations of the afterlife tend to dampen the percieved need for relief of suffering here on earth. I think that pretty much covers my background, at least the basics. Hopefully, this novella will help people understand where I'm coming from. Dionysos scares me a bit. He's wild. I don't call on gods outside of my pantheon, but my soft spot in the ancient Greek system is for Hermes.
Asmodean: You sound like a "seeker" to me. ____________
Lews wrote:
Okay, as both Shadowcaster and Consis have asked me what my personal views are, Iīll try my best to write about it. I find this difficult to do in another language than my mother tongue, but I still hope that Iīll be able to express myself in a reasonable and understandable way. As a child, I was educated to be a protestant christian. Unlike most other kids of my age, I took my religion rather seriously. This has always been a constant trait of my character, that I did and do find metaphysical questions, regarding our existence and the world around us, to be interesting and worth thinking about. When I was at the age of 17 or 18, it was at school that I for the first time came to look at texts deviant from the christian indoctrination that I had received. What convinced me most were the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, an atheist philosopher who showed that conceptions of god are always projections of our own values and desires. Our being faulty is relieved with the idea of a faultless god, whom we can follow, which can serve us as an imaginary alpha animal. Our experience with injustice is relieved with the idea of a heavenly court. Our fear of death is relieved with the idea of an immortal soul. Man made god in his image. After thinking and struggling for some time, it became clear to me that I had to choose between faith and honesty. What is my view today? Strictly speaking, from a philosophical perspective, Iīm an agnostic. There may or may not be supernatural beings or forces existing - as the answer to this question is momentarily outside of our reach, I prefer to leave it open. In other words, I do not believe in any more or less specific metaphysical force, as long as thereīs no convincing argument or evidence in its favour. For this reason, my view can also correctly be labeled as "negative atheism". When I say that I leave the answer to said question open, this for example applies to pantheist or polytheist ideas, some of which I may find not at all plausible, but mostly in accordance with reason. On concepts that are both perfectly explainable by naturalistic means, and counter-rational, loaded with insurmountable logical problems, I take the liberty to positively dismiss them. And the christian god, among others, in my view is such a concept: Itīs lacking a consistent theodicy, and its "holy" book is full of contradictions, historical errors, myths and motives "stolen" from older pagan cults. Why donīt I just shut up and keep my thoughts and opinions for myself? One reason is that I want people, who (like me) have grown up in a christian monoculture, to become familar with other views, to learn to know other thoughts. Iīm happy about everyone, who after long processes of reflecting and questioning their education come to the conclusion that christianity is best for them. In my experience, though, these kind of believers present a very small minority. Another reason is, that I view many aspects of christian moral as being extemely archaic and harmful. I donīt want anyone, human or animal, to die painfully for my supposed "sins". I also do not think that threatening someone with eternal torture is a sign of love, in fact itīs the most horrible and evil thing that I can imagine. I do not think that slavery is good, that oppression against women, homosexuals, and anyone who holds deviating views is good, and I also think that people like Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush, who claim to fulfill the will of god, and by that arrogate unquestionable authority onto themselves, are dangerous for world peace, democratic structures and human rights. And last but not least, a controverse discussion with intelligent minds is the best way for me to question my views, find out where I am wrong, and maybe become a tiny little bit wiser as a result. Do my skeptic views make me unhappy? No. Quite the contrary, I permit myself to ask any question that comes to my mind, to think any thought, and while this may not be everyoneīs piece of cake, I find it to be very enrichening. The world is a much more interesting place since the day when I decided not to accept dogmatic answers anymore. Everyone who reads this can propably confirm that a personīs honesty is a trait that increases your respect for that person. I have also experienced that likewise, being more honest towards myself increased my own self-respect. Simply to accept a theory to be true, and suppress, ignore or rationalise doubts and arguments that speak against it, this (as I already said it in an above posting) would make me more unhappy than the most pessimistic possible result of my thinking could ever do. It would be like drowning my sorrows and problems in alcohol, instead of accepting them and making the best of my life as it is. Consis, you wrote: I would also like to make a promise. I promise not to criticize anyone's personal views if they should decide to enlighten us on their own unique system of beliefs. In fact, all I will say is 'Thankyou'. I simply want to hear from everyone's heart as opposed to their mind. Here we seem to have another misunderstanding. I welcome any criticism on my thoughts and ideas, as that gives me an opportunity to learn where my mistakes are. This is, provided the other person tries to understand what I am saying and thinking, and not just demolishes a strawman that is wearing a t-shirt which has "Lews" written on it.
I wrote:
Oh, thanks Lews for the quotes. They reveal very much of the "blasphemy" in the Bible.
I knew of the slave moral that Christian ethics stands for. How else would they hold their position for that long shoulder to shoulder with secular rulers in the Middle Ages? But I hadn't heard of any slavery justification by Jesus himself, and the quote you posted shows me that Jesus was more ctitical towards slavery than supportive, but the fact that he never called for change proofs enough.
Everything I say from now on will be overaboundant after all that Lews has said. But anyway, although it seems to me that we share the same view on religion, our paths to get there were rather different.
I was born and raised in a completely non-religious family. I'm not even baptised. Understandible enough since during the socialist times in ex-Yugoslavia, religion didn't play an important role in everyday life. And since my grandfather was a high-ranking officer in the Yugoslavian Army, his family (including my dad) was more or less atheist. My mother is also not religious. That is to say, that I wasn't tought anything about God, but we did (and still do) respect Orthodox Christian traditions, but mostly motivated from cultural reasons.
It was only recently that religion was rediscovered by some young people here. However, we don't have the "keepers of the moral" religious factions here, such as I see in the US. Even more, people very rarely allow religious codes to be reason for their actions (except the muslims, who have a more conservative approach to the issue. But, in islamic groups here, religion has over the years embeded in their cultural mentality, so it's hard to separate it.) Religious schools are unheard of. Same goes for teaching religion in schools (although the past conservative governments initiated an idea, but luckily nothing happened )
Living in this type of surrounding, free of dogmas and pressure, I grew up to be an atheist. I've never had any inner need to seek the divine or similar. After I started to get interested about religion and ethics, I learned a lot of stuff and realised that Christian ethics is a concept completely opposed to my beliefs.
I hold individual freedom as one of my highest priorities. I reject all moral codes and the concept of someone, be it divine or not, to tell you what to do. That is why I'll never accept a religion or beleif with established ethical codes. I detest it even more if that is supported by a threat of hell. Instead, I choose to live my life here and now, not after I die.
My philosophy is much closer to satanist than to Christian. I'm all in exploring the limits of my individual freedom. Indulgence over abstinence. Feeling over theory. Pleasure over self-restrain.
But I'm not a person who has never had spiritual experiences. I was interested in the area of magic and witchcraft (and still am), and although I see them as natural occuring phenomena (just yet out of the boundries of science), the spiritual dimension of these was more appealing for me (which I didn't believe in) and it was nessecay for performing such rituals. This fascination with the area of mysticism came with my interest in Satanistic ideas. This brought me to the point where I had to release myself of the inspiration, so I established a satanistic-wicca cult, with few of my friends. Partly it was just a desire to experiment, partly from fun, partly we did expect something serious to happen. It ended as it began, spontaneously and silently. Nobody knew.
Not to be understood wrong, this says nothing about my belief in divine. I don't believe in soul or afterlife or God. The faith calculator says I am 96,4% atheist, so there's only a tiny place for spiritual and divine stuff in my life. Even if there is, I don't think they are aware of what I'm doing now (or give a snow), nor do I think that they have any influence over me whatsoever. There may be some universal One, but why would I care? To me, it's the same thing with nature, reality, existance...
And sorry Consis, I will try to point out negative things in other people's believes. But, not with puurpose to change them, but to help them (ah, darn. Lews explained better why. scroll up.)
I have absolutely no problem if someone is happy, when they believe in something (whatever that is). What my problem is, if that something influences your behavior, and in most belief systems it does, more or less. In that case you sacrafice a piece of your freedom for spiritual guidance and support in difficult times (and I am on my own.). If someone thinks it's a fair trade, than good for him.
But I cannot delude myself to believe in something my mind matrix sees invalid.
And I don't want other people to delude themselves in hopes and promises of a utopian paradise after their death.
Living for an illusion is a failed life, imho. If someone after going through all the options and a deep internal assesment, still chooses that option (for unkown reasons to me), than I've got nothing more to say. All I want is to offer other people the options. They live their own lives for illusions, they will die their own deaths... for illusions.
he he he. sorry you two for using your posts to make mine look bigger and wiser.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 02:42 AM |
|
|
Thanx for trying to revive this post....I was kinda pissed when i saw that so many pages was gone 
I hope it will live again.......i will try to give you my more detailed "belife" later.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 04:01 AM |
|
|
Well, presumably every one remembers the post I made in which I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the small bowl of chocolate pudding that I left out on my table for a few days is, in fact, the almighty. Since everybody remembers how they all agreed that it was an airtight proof, I don't need to repost it. However, the offer to try to get the almighty bowl of pudding to answer your prayers still stands. As we discussed earlier, just IM me your credit card number, name as it appears on your credit card, billing address, authorization number and expiration date and your prayers will be answered in 6-8 weeks.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 07, 2004 08:50 AM |
|
|
Well..
 Yep, I'm offended. Nuff said? Ok we're moving on. Glad we were able to straighten that out.
And something about how I think Bort is a quality poster. Ok then.
bjorn190 and I agreed on something like world peace. Yeah that sounds good. Make love not war.
And I was reading Shadowcasters posts.
Khaelo was converting me to paganism.
Peacemaker is defending bort somewhere in there.
Something about God.
Are we all caught up?
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 05:52 PM |
|
|
ROFL 
That was great Consis. But you forgot about the evil axis part -- you know, me bort and Gootch.
Real shame about that cause I was really proud of it.
EDIT
OMG (pun intended) -- we've lost the whole dialogue about medievil arguments from logic!!!! (What a relief when it comes to my ten-thousand-word posts) -- and the difference between ants and people! -- and -- and --
-- And the George story! Oh, Nooooo!
-- Wait! Wait! Maybe it's a sign? (NOW I'm not KIDDING...) Maybe we all got a little too carried away there for a while and it's all better lost?
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 06:44 PM |
|
|
Sure it is
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 18, 2004 01:05 AM |
|
|
Well, Peacemaker, are you or are you not going to send that post you promised? I'm sure many of us are eagerly waiting for it, so I thought if you had writen something before the crash happened, you might finish it and post it. Be sure that we all want to read it. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2004 03:11 PM |
|
|
Quite a few interesting points made in this thread.
First of all I like to call myself an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. Meaning I would need God, or any other deity to hit me literally in the head, before I would start believing in them.
Regarding Concis post about what makes humans human. Well its not that difficult to imagine a different planet, where you have 6 legged entities with the capacity for self-reflection mercy etc. Would you define those as humans?
My point is simply regarding the 98% DNA compatibility between a Gorilla and a Man, is a very weak argument to base that humans are something special on.
Especially because the newest research regarding gorillas actually points to group behaviour that is equivalent to what we would call moral actions, and a form of self-reflection. That in my opinion is very intriguing and might cause a fundamental change in us humans perspective on animals. I know, I myself made a distinction between animals and humans in that paragraph. But could this distinction not merely stem from our cultural upbringing?
Well, the second thing i stumbled upon in this thread, was the argument that many leading physicist actually believe in a god, or perhaps even in God.
Hawkings name was mentioned, aswell as the fact that he was invited to a seminar with the Pope regarding the fact that the Pope wanted the time before the Big-Bang to be the churchs area of expertice.
Actually Stephen Hawking in "A brief history of time" opens up for the posibility that the Universe wasnt created in a Big-bang, and therefore the Universe wasnt "created" as we understand the concept of creation.
I dont remember his exact quote, but it was something along the line, that the Pope probably wouldnt have welcomed him, if he had listened to a lecture Stephen Hawking held the day before he met the Pope.
Both Feynman in "The character of Physical laws" and Weinberg in "Dreams of a final theory" purports a view that any Christian wouldnt be able to accept.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 04, 2004 05:20 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 4 Jun 2004
|
I Beg Your Pardon....
Excuse me but I said not a single thing about gorillas, the less than 2% difference in D.N.A., or whatever else you are insinuating that I said.
Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. If you find it amusing to fabricate such things then by all means knock yourself out, but don't lie about what I said, and try reading what I actually wrote as opposed to what you think I wrote.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2004 06:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Excuse me but I said not a single thing about gorillas, the less than 2% difference in D.N.A., or whatever else youare insinuating that I said.
Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. If you find it amusing to fabrucate such things then by all means knock yourself out, but don't lie about what I said, and try reading what I actually wrote as opposed to what you think I wrote.
Im very sorry about that. Didnt intend to insinuate anything, I might have mixed up after reading all 9 pages.
So offcourse an apology is at its place.
And hereby you get one from me.
Regards
Defreni
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted June 05, 2004 06:29 AM |
|
|
And only the invisible pink unicorn knows how mixed up you would get after reading those other lost 10 pages
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 05:27 AM |
|
|
A little email I recieved today, I enjoyed it.
Keep this moving, it speaks for itself.
Samuel Thompson wrote: "I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not
going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December."
I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my
high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered
because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the
entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and
asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans
going home from the game. "But it's a Christian prayer," some will
argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on
Christian principles. And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our
very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than
200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a
Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim
prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone
pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in
Rome...
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the
collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too
much, bring a Walkman or a pair of earplugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit
the concession stand. Call your lawyer. Unfortunately, one or two will
make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot
do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake
the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our
courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught
us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells
us just to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their
lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well...just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long... it's time we let that
one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vast majority
don't care what they want...it is time the majority rules!
It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray, you don't have to say
the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend
services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your
right... but by golly you are no longer going to take our rights away. we are fighting back...and we WILL WIN! After all, the God you have
the right to denounce is on our side!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him...
God bless America, despite all her faults, still the greatest nation of
all...
God bless our servicemen who are fighting to protect our right to pray
and worship God...
May 2004 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as
the foundation of our families and institutions.
Keep looking up... In God WE Trust.
If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not, delete it!!
And the funny thing is, it's true. The majority does not rule in the US anymore. Democracy is a joke these days. 
____________
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 02:00 PM |
|
|
And who tried to stop him from praying on a football match?
____________
Truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And the funny thing is, it's true. The majority does not rule in the US anymore. Democracy is a joke these days.
Yeah, like that time that Bush got fewer votes but still was appointed president.
Funny that you didn't complain about that.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 03:33 PM |
|
|
One would presume that if we are to allow a christian prayer before a game that we should also permit a Muslim prayer (for example) if there is sufficient numbers of muslims in the audience.... I don't see why they can't have 3 minutes or whatever where everyone can say their own thing in silence and peace. Everyone's happy then.
On Bort's remarks, the wheel turns does it not Wolfman?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 05:51 PM |
|
|
Wolf --
I have missed you these past weeks. Hope all is well.
On your post -- just three words:
Inherit The Wind
(Far be it for me to leave anything at three words)
The new assignment for the summer:
Everyone please google and briefly study up on the phenomenon of "backlash" (This would be particularly instructinve in conjunction with reading "Inherit The Wind.")
The problem here is, in comparison with the countries mentioned, the United States is founded on the principles of individual secular freedom. The language of the First Amendment, if I recall correctly, is expounded tremendously by Hamilton and Jefferson in the Federalist Papers. (Also good to google) This guy's article would have Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave, which I have just returned from visiting.
PH is right. If we want the First Amendment to mean anything, then we cannot be sanctioning a single religion. Freedom from religious oppression (being forced to live in a society which sanctions one religion over others) is a cornerstone concept in the Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, a non-specific moment of silence before any event would be a perfect time for athiests to go to the toilet. It might divvy up the lines a bit, and does not force anyone do be present in the process of a religion-specific event -- it merely gives those who wish to join in a communal moment the opportunity to do so, despite what religion they might subscribe to. If atheists (and individuals of other religions than the Christian one) did not walk around feeling constantly bombarded with Christian-specific materials and thoughts and expressions and symbols, then we might not be so intimidated by the thought of a "moment of silence" that gives everyone a chance to choose to join in and express their own ways internally, or to choose not to do so. (Hence the backlash issue).
It's a pity we have all become so polarized over a thing such as prayer.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 07:29 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 2 Jul 2004
|
I Was Raised Doing That
I grew up in Texas. I played football from my 6th grade elementary year to my graduating highschool year. I've played so many games that I couldn't possibly remember the exact number but I do remember before every game, during half-times, and after every win the team would pray(christian). Most of the time the coach would initiate the prayer but many times a player would too.
It never really bothered me. I wasn't offended and I wasn't inspired. I simply felt that the game meant a lot to the whole team. As such, I would kneel with them in a group prayer and bow my head as they did. I didn't particularly pray with them or believe what they believed but I went along with it every time.
What else to say....I don't really know. It simply isn't an issue for me.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
killa_bee
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2004 03:35 AM |
|
|
I wonder if the guy that took the Pledge of Allegiance to the Supreme Court because of the "One nation under God" controversy is actually posting in here.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
