----- Original Message ----- From: "definitely what" <rone at ennui.org> > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > rone at ennui.org (definitely what) writes: > > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > > rone at ennui.org (definitely what) writes: > > > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > > > Looks like you're trying to construct a scenario where > > > *nothing* could *ever* be blamed on the religion itself. I > > > find that an unacceptable outcome -- there must be at least > > > a theoretical possibility. > > > Why, exactly, MUST there be such a theoretical possibility? > > *Defining* religion as inherently free of blame is crazy. > > Would you mind going into more detail? > No other group, philosophy, or construct is held to be inherently by > its nature free of blame for its actions. Should religion be? > > Hmm, i agree that religion shouldn't get a free ticket compared to the > others, but i don't agree that any other group, philosophy or > construct is held to be inherently free of blame for its actions. > Actions are committed by people, not ideologies. If it's not accountable for the misery commited in it's name, then it can't take credit for the good things commited in it's name. And I suppose that Christianity, Islam, and whatever the heck CtE worships are all beautiful ideas, but it's their manifestations that affect the world and it's their manifestations that build empires and slaughter children. But hey, if we want to start talking about the beauty of unmanifested ideas, then can we stop talking about Steve's books and start praising my ideas for books I've never written and don't really have the skill to do well? My ideas are much better than Mr Brust's. Actually, if he wanted to, I could tell him my ideas, then he could do the typing and produce my books for me. Heck, I'd even give him a co-author credit... his name would be a much smaller typeface than mine, of course...because they're based on my ideas.. which is the important thing, right? All that clever writing and characterization just get in the way. > So... i'll admit that maybe ideologies should be held accountable for > actions that are directly related to their own flaws. But after that, > it gets a bit nebulous. Well, in that case I'm not certain of what use this thread is. Some of the Christians in this thread can't even decide if the first half of their bible should be considered in discussion, and although Islam isn't strongly represented in this thread, from posts I've read, apparently the Islamic mainstream both condemns and encourages terrorism committed in the name of Islam. Of course, since religion is a very personal thing indeed, all of the half rembered and unformed and well remembered and well-developed ideas -- all of which are FERVENTLY believed by their owner -- are all equally valid. "Why, because i said so.", rone Exactly. P.S. In my experience, lapsed Catholic girls *rock* in bed. It's hell talking them out of their virginity though.