It seems that virtually everything we discuss that causes the most
discourse is in direct relationship to the Bible. I have posted a
completely new thread "Why do we need a book" relating to this topic.

Basically the point is, if God were something strictly taught by word
of mouth, NOW THINK, if you have an open mind. If there had NEVER been
a singe common book, how do you think religion would have played out in
the world?

If the only basis for God had been word of mouth, what would have
survived and how far reaching would the effect have been?

Is is not enough to have a faith that extends to an almigthy,
omnipresent creator whose will was that we coexist in peace. What if
the only lessons, by word of mouth, that made it this far in history,
were the words of the ten commandments as given by God?

To discuss this further you are all invided to the other thread.

JeanC,

'Chose your battles!!!'
Old Sun-Tzu principle. Don't let 'falsely perceived personal attacks'
distort your judgement of the facts!!!

When I met you on this other discussion post, you were participating in
very much the same style as you show in this post, same intensity, same
'stick-to-ittiveness'. You did'nt have a 'personnified' target in that
other post, and so, you weren't unnecessarily tangled with diffending
'your honor', as it may.

What I had found remarkable, and I had commented compellingly in your
favor on that post, was that you had taken the 'high ground' of the
debate, and were standing for, and arguing for the 'Human Dignity' side
of the coin, while everyone else it seemed were primitively missing
your point, and kept arguing for instinctive gratification. Your
comments and observations were 'dead-on' purpose with the 'topic' of the
post, and lead to a rich debate on a question that could otherwise have
been 'banal'.

You had 'chosen your battle' (human dignity), whether you knew it or
not. You had chosen a value which stood on much higher grounds than
simple 'personnal gratification'.

It is clear TO ME, the dynamics of your participation here are
completely different.
Again from my view point, in this post, your have chosen to feel
personnally insulted, where no personnal insults were made or intended,
and have chosen to embark on a 'CRUSADE' to 'defend your honor', and
possibly (who knows) to defend the honor of ALL religious PEOPLE (not
targeted and definitely not insulted: no need to defend anyone).

And while it is not a crime to provide interesting 'entertainment' on
these posts by turning the discussions into a personnal 'catfights',
these catfights have a way of 'high-jacking' the posts from their
original purpose and intent.

In this case, and always IMO JeanC, you have chosen to attack someone
whom has responded pertinentely and intelligently to the question of the
post, and have turned the whole thing into a totally impertinent crusade
based on FALSE PERCEPTIONS, PROFOUNDLY RE-ARCHITECTURED INTERPRETATIONS,
and an INEXISTENT SENSE OF BEING ATTACKED OR OFFENDED, where
'absolutely' no attack nor offense were made.

As I see it, the source of the derailment can be extremely complex, or
extremely simple.
If we disregard the facts (what people actually wrote, and difform what
people clearly say and intend, and if we do not take stock of the fact
that we might be reacting to something totally different than the
subject at hand, it can be very complex, and totally confusing.

If on the other hand, we stick to facts, and refrain from stubbornly
misinterpreting people's intent and purpose, things can be simple and
most constructive.

So let's look at those facts:

'MikeM' (the host) raised the following question on the topic of '...
angry reactions to religions'. Here's what he asked:

"... So, for the record, why are many of you so angry at religions?
Whats the reason for the real pissed off'd-ness of many theads?
Seriously, let loose, whats it all about? [Feel free to email me
directly if you'd like MikeMonana@Hotmail.com ]"

That is an authentic invitation, (with open-mindedness on Mike's part)
whom seeks to really hear the nature, or the source of the anger against
religions. From such an invitation, I doubt Mike expected respondants to
paint a non-critical or non-aggessive picture of 'organised religions'.
And that should go for the rest of us, if we are to stick to the debate
at hand.

You can't ask someone to be 'honest' and 'candid' (let lose) about his
anger towards something, and when he does express his anger, accuse him
of being offensive and insulting for speaking angrily at the specific
thing that you asked him to speak of. That is the simple essence of what
has taken shape through the position you have chosen to espouse and
defend JeanC.

'Abra' has addressed the topic 'head-on', stating the nature of his
anger towards 'RELIGIONS' from his very first thread.

Here are some of his first words from 'page 1':

"… For example, I am extremely bitter toward all forms of Christianity
and even closely related religions like Judaism and Islam. My
bitterness toward these religious dogmas has absolutely nothing to do
with anyone who believes in these religions on a personal level.
However these religions breed ignorance. That’s a well-established
historical fact. These religions have pitted many people against
intellectual inquiry throughout the ages. And so I despise these
religions for their negative affect on the human intellectual spirit."

It couldn't be stated any more clearly. Mike asks to 'let lose, and
speak of the nature of people anger towards 'religions', 'abra' answers
most rigorously on the specific question asked: ,'
"... I am extremely bitter toward all forms of Christianity and even
closely related religions like Judaism and Islam."

He goes further to point out that when he speaks of religions,
"... it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone who believes in these
religions on a personal level."

You have gone to great lenghts to 'misinterpret' and 'difform' the
spririt and the intent of these original words. You have done so right
through to one of your latest thread on page 6 , where you
opportunistically chose one part of 'abra's' opening statement, which
you use out of context to support your 'distorted' position, and yet
conveniently chose to 'OMIT' the preceeding paragraph which gives full
context to 'abra's' dead-on answer to the topic.

To keep 'inventing' life battles which only serve to defend one's honor,
is not only trivial, it is keeping one and all involved from being
present and conscious to 'what is really going on'!!! Cervantes and
Spinoza have both beeen great teachers on this illusive and
self-destructive quest.

So JeanC, I'd like to hear your 'non-personal' (objective) views on
this topic, since your personal viewpoint is abundantly clear, and just
as abundantly 'off-topic'. (you can't go on accusing someone of being
'on-topic', that casts you in the 'off-topic' box.)

P.S.: Please JeanC, don't confuse the 'straight' format of this piece
with a personal attack. I don't invest this kind of time and energy in
thinking and writing my thoughts to pursue personnal attacks. I would
be genuinely interested in your objective viewpoint, capable of
integrating 'abra's' viewpoint.

Sorry,

I forgot my point!

The religious 'crusade in the name of god', and its ensuing need to
argue to death (exterminate) any non-belief', and non-believers, as
depicted by JeanC's insistence to turn this legitimate post into a
personal fight to win at all cost, it seems ('crusade'),
... is precisely what angers so-called non-religious people.

Thanks, that is exactly the point. I'm spiritual but non-religious, I
don't need a religion or a church, what is wrong with that?

Oooohwheee, people are getting "het up" over this topic.

I thought this was just an interesting topic, not a chance to
make personal attacks!!

Anyhoo. What you were saying earlier, I think I have a better grasp on
it. I still disagree, but I understand it !

See, while I know the Church as an institution (comprised of
individuals) perpetrated horrible crimes against logic and
forward-thinking, I still don't think that you can blame the RELIGION. I
mean, anyone who has read the bible can see that these were not just
crimes against thought, but "sins" as defined by it's, well, gospel.

And as for religion leading people away from God by telling people what
to do...

You can look at religion as "telling you what to do", or you can look at
it the way I think MOST Christians look at it as. It's kinda like God is
your daddy, so he tells you right from wrong, raises you, but
ultimately, its your choice to live your life how you want to. There are
always consequences for your actions, and chances are, dad's right about
what they are. Heck, he even wrote it down for you (so what if he had
your older brother do it, what- he's going to disobey dad? Besides your
older brother did a really good job writing down what your dad wanted to
say. It's lasted a really long time...)

You have your ways, habits, and methodologies of being "religious", and
Christians and others have theirs. It's a set of rules/guidelines that
have been developed over time- and neither group (yours included) has
the definitive argument, because it still comes down to a matter of
faith; because when you don't "need to prove" something, or can't
conclusively prove something and still believe it anyway- well that's
what they call taking it on faith !