Religion again

Here is an extract from a post in the "Taking Christ out of Christmas" thread in the JCC

It is about the birth of the one true savior, Jesus Christ.

Am I allowed to respeond that "Jesus is not the true saivor. As a matter of fact, he was a narcissist who should signs of dementia and could be likened to a cult leader. While he did preach tolerance, he also went out of his way to upset those in power and was selective with his grace. The cult surrounding Jesus was spawned by what seems to be an acid-induced hallucination in the desert by a sychophantic apostle and since then the world has been a worse place due to the wars, etc. spawned by the Christian superiority complex."

If yes, great, let's leave that thread. If not, please remind folks that religion to that extent should be kept out of the JCC.

 

*sigh*
Why can't everyone just be respectful of everyone else's beliefs? If you don't agree with someone, that's fine, but don't say something that will bait them into flaming.

Religion is a sensitive subject for many people.

 

I agree, but I don't come to the JC to read that Jesus is the true saivor. I believe just as strongly about what I have written above as he does that Jesus is the messiah. Why can only one view be posted?

 

What YodaJeff said.

Disagreeing is and should be fine. However, such a disagreement as you stated is probably better suited for the Senate. In the YJCC it all too easily would turn into a flame war.

I don't think that religion should be taken out of the YJCC, just toned down considerably. Relgion is an important part of some people's lives (hence the strong disagreement). Everyone should be free to state their beliefs (in an appropriate fashion) without fear of turning it into a flame war. If you're in doubt, tone it down or don't post at all.

 

Then statements like "Jesus is the saivor" should also be put in the Senate floor. Otherwise, you are implying that such statements are fact and/or healthy opinions while mine is controversial. Well, I think the statement "Jesus is the saivor" is one of the most contraversial statements ever made . . .

 

I actually agree with the fact that the statement "Jesus is the one true savior" should have been put in the Senate Floor. It's a little direct for the YJCC. Something like "Jesus is my one true savior" would have been less offensive to some.

However, just because the statement was made doesn't make it true nor the opinion of people in general. Take it at face value. Every single poster posts his or her opinion. Disagree, but think before you post about how other people will respond.

 

I agree with Ric Olie's Hairdresser. Statements of belief like that (Jesus is the savior...etc...) should be kept out of the JCC.

 

Well, as someone that doesnt believe in Jesus as the messiah, I can see where you are coming from.

But let it go....this sort of thing isnt a good fight.

Everyone should be respecting others religions...I think that this person stating their opinion that Jesus was the messiah isnt as insulting to a person that doesnt believe it, as a person telling a devout Christian that their messiah was a bunch of bad things, and the apostles were drugged up. That shows no respect for the person or the religion. Something the other person hasnt done.

There is no need to take that sort of thing so seriously...we dont need any sort of religion based fighting.

 

Well, I?d prefer to see ?Jesus is the savior? or ?Jesus is not the savior? rather than this talk of saivors. Jesus might very well be the saivor, I?m not going to argue about that. It?s just statements that he?s the savior that sets my teeth on edge.

However, my opinion on the matter (and I am not a YJCC moderator, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) is that you should not go into such a Christian thread with that message. However, you are free to create a new thread concerning your own beliefs.

 

To hell with this...

 

"Statements of belief have no place in the JCC"

Religion has no place in the JCC?
Nobody here but us atheists.

 

I agree that respect of religion is important. That is why I would never start a thread bad-mouthing Jesus or anyone else's beliefs. But I just think that if statements like "Jesus is the saivor" can be accepted, then opposing opinions must be tolerated. But any opposing opinion comes out sounding negative/offensive etc. That is why it is best to keep statements like that out of the main board.

I applaud the locking of the thread and encouraging the move to the Senate. I will shut up now and go back to writing stupid songs about hot chicks at Target.

 

Note that I said

IMO

 

To agree, albeit slightly, with ROH... I had always interpreted the rules for the YJCC/Senate distinction as:

YJCC: "Merry Christmas!" "Happy Chanukah!"
Senate: "Does Christ Have Any Bearing on Christmas?" "Is Chanukah Commercialized Beyond the 8 Holy Days?"

So, by that logic, the whole "Christ in Christmas" thread should be Senate-only, whereas jubilation over a holiday without mentioning religious significance would be YJCC-friendly. Or did I get it all wrong?

 

I'd like to think we can discuss just about anything on the boards. Among the items we promote is tolerance and an open-mind to all opinions and viewpoints. The only thing I can say I really see wrong with all of this is that a thread that is primarily a serious, religious discussion is not one for the JCC. If anything, it's a deeper topic suitable for the Senate.

 

*shrug*

Here's my take on all of this.

If you would like to debate religion, you know where to go: The Senate. If you'd like to post something on a semi religious note or about the history or just to say you're thankful, there isn't much of a problem to it.

Threads that want to discuss a certain aspect or just say they're thankful for something are allowed. Going into them and derailing them is trolling. *shrug*

This is supposed to be a happy time of the year. Let's all be respectful of each other's opinions. The thread (in my eyes) was about how the image of Christ was taken out of Christmas (and seeing how it is Christmas...).

Going into a thread about that and posting "Jesus is not the true saivor. As a matter of fact, he was a narcissist who should signs of dementia and could be likened to a cult leader. While he did preach tolerance, he also went out of his way to upset those in power and was selective with his grace. The cult surrounding Jesus was spawned by what seems to be an acid-induced hallucination in the desert by a sychophantic apostle and since then the world has been a worse place due to the wars, etc. spawned by the Christian superiority complex" is off topic. I see your point, but the thread itself was about taking the image of Christ out of Christmas, a holiday that was supposed to be about Jesus Christ.

Again, if you want to discuss religion and this matter in depth, the Senate is the place to go. But knocking a thread off topic by stating your opinions of Jesus and not explaining how it relates to how Christ's name has vanished from Christmas isn't sticking to the topic at hand.

So, I don't see a problem with the thread... It's just pointing out something that someone has noticed.

That's the way I see it, at least.

 

The problem, Ric, is that what you plan to say is controversial. No, I don't mean I disagree with it in the slightest, but let's face it, in the current world, and view that slightly opposes Jesus is considered controversial. So, unfortunately, it is controversial, even if we don't like that it is.
_jOBO

 

I'd like to think we can discuss just about anything on the boards. Among the items we promote is tolerance and an open-mind to all opinions and viewpoints. The only thing I can say I really see wrong with all of this is that a thread that is primarily a serious, religious discussion is not one for the JCC. If anything, it's a deeper topic suitable for the Senate.

I'd agree with that statement 100% EXCEPT with the case of religion, if only because one person's post of absolute fact based upon their religion (e.g. some religious figure being the savior) would be knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane to someone else and THEIR religion.

Clearly any topic of that nature can be discussed in the Senate according to curent rules, but outside of the Senate is where the logic chain begins to breakdown...

It's a sticky wicket and I'm not sure there's one really good resolution here. Just maybe if the Administration said something firm in advance it might stem off problems? (or a majority of problems?)

 

Fine. I entered the thread (see my posts) not to flame, troll etc. but to say that I think taking Christ out of the SECULAR part (ie the TV specials, the Macy's decorations, etc.) of Christmas is a good thing in a multicultural society. I have no view on what they do inside the home/church etc. though I can see his point that the secularalism may have blinded some Christians to the true meaning of Christmas. Good point and good idea for a thread. But by replying to my response that Jesus is the savior, well, that is turning a social discussion into either a religious debate (is Jesus the saivor or not?) or a prostelyzing thread (Jesus is the savior period). I did not object to the thread itself, I just wanted to point out that when threads turn to saying things like that, I should be be able to reply in kind.

 

Jobo: That we?re even having this discussion implies that saying ?Jesus is the Savior? is controversial as well.

 

I think saying something good or enlighting about your religion or belief is better than bad-mouthing other religions. Religion is a sensitive issue and in most cases an attack on one's religion is cosidered a personal attack.

 

I think saying something good or enlighting about your religion or belief is better than bad-mouthing other religions. Religion is a sensitive issue and in most cases an attack on one's religion is cosidered a personal attack.

But to say that Jesus is the savior is to deny that he is only a prophet, and not even the greatest of the prophets. As everyone should know, the prophet Mohammed is the most perfect of all Allah?s prophets, and even he was not the son of Allah. Jesus is certainly as favored in the eyes of Allah as Moses and Abraham were before him, but he is not the son of Allah, and he is not the savior.








Note: I?m not really Islamic. I?m just trying to make a point.

 

You're welcome to believe that.

 

I think DarthSapient answered this topic succinctly.