can I ask what brought you to your conclusions about jesus? Not trying to debate just wondering bro........

 

so its more of a stance against God interfering in the lives of humans?

 

I am of the opinion that any being powerful and complex enough to have created this universe would not be that interested in whether a bunch of hairless apes who can barely get into orbit believe in His existence or not. We're just not that important in the scheme of things.

 

well done Shane, I will watch your thread with interest brother.

 

Nice intro Darkoak. It'll be interesting to read other opinions.
DD

 

I am not a religious person, and subsequently don't believe in god or any higher power. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist just that as far as I am concerned it doesn't. However, that does not mean that I don't have morals or ethics, and other such values that guide my life (as some people I have encountered seem to think otherwise). It just means that I'm me.

 

I don't pretend to have any idea how or whether God thinks. I don't even know if the Creator is an individual being, a force of nature, or, more likely, something we couldn't even understand and don't know how to even ask the right questions about.

 

Nice idea for a thread. Will be interesting to read.

 

I wouldn't use the word, "got", from my moral compass, I would say influenced by. I would also say that 80s sitcoms have about the same influence on my moral compass as does the Bible. Which I am saying in truth and not a joke. It took me years to finally get it through my head that women enjoyed sex, something they are shown not to enjoy and need to be tricked into by a lot of 80s sitcoms.

"Good" parts or "hardcore stuff" are subjective towards the person. A lot of people, well techincally all people do even if they claim it is from the bible, create their own moral compass and are influenced by many things that they have throughout their lives. It is easy to theorize that if someone never read the bible or ever had any exposure to christianity and wanted to live in a society would think that not murdering maybe a good idea.

 

I was raised by two people who are quite agnostic, although they spent most their youth going to Zen temples which made them very much admirers of Sakiamuni Buddha and the Bodhidarma (to this day the only religious figure that has a spot, a shrine even, at my parents' is Buddha) but we lived in Catholic Mexico, and I received a Catholic education at a Marist school. I have never been a fan of the Catholic church but have now adopted it a bit as a important part of my roots and my education.

However I have come to discover that I am mainly a humanist. To me nothing in life is more important than a human beings life (which is why I find it so disconcerting why people react with so much anger to Michael Vick fighting some dogs, but could care less when someone shoots down another person) and I believe that morals should be founded on the basis of that. So there is where it gets complicated, because as far as I am concerned no one should take a human life unless absolutely threatened, no one should attack another human being unless absolutely threatened and no one should mistreat a person unless absolutely threatened.

But I choose to believe that all that is intrinsically true. I don't need a parental figure (God) or a threat of punishment to make me live my life by those precepts. I think that is self evident. I also (and this might seem a bit annoying on my part) sort of feel that choosing to do good in reaction to the fright that is caused by the presence of a higher being is the wrong reason to do so.

There are other moral compasses by which I live my life. That don't mesh either with my buddhist or my catholic upbringing. I love the catholic idea of forgivenes... I hate that it has to be a priest who gives it to you. I love Buddhist idea of respect to living things... I dislike how that applies to animals (being that I like eating them... y'know... and some sports involving them... mainly bullfighting and ****fighting)

I will admit I like having a magical figure there to nudge me along (call it god or a saing or a virgin or a bodhisattva or whatever) but I realize it doesn't exist (or if it does it certainly does'nt care if the dolphins win or lose or whether I can return the next ping pong serve or whether I get or not the job). To me that is like having a lucky penny, or a bunny leg or soemthing like that. It is a crutch I enjoy because it makes me feel calmer about things that ultimately are my responsability.

 

I live my life by two rules:

1. Treat people the way you want to be treated.
2. Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

That pretty much covers every scenario. I don't follow those rules for fear of punishment from God or damnation in hell, etc., I do it because the only part of any situation I can control is myself, and whether the situation ends up good or bad, I know, at least I did what I could to ensure a positive result. That way I can sleep at night.

Q:
For the record, it is possible to rectify the eating of animals with respecting them. It is not possible, however, with fighting them for enjoyment. Also, it is a bit silly to assume, that people upset about Vick, don't care when people are killed. It was a big story, but if he had been doing the same thing to people, he'd be even more hated. There's no need to torture any living thing, which is what he did.

 

I do not agree. I do think that is possible.

Plus a lot of people wished Vick to be killed the same way the dogs were killed.

 

We were meant to eat meat. We are omnivores. Giraffes don't eat zebras. It is possible to kill animals humanely. Training dogs to fight each other to such a degree requires them to be tortured. That isn't right. Maybe you don't know what goes into dog fighting. Its one thing when people fight, they can choose to do so, but torturing an animal then forcing it to fight is inexcusable.

And? What does that have to do with the point?

 

That is just your opinion

 

What part? We're omnivores? Dog fighting training involves torture? People can choose to fight? Giraffe's don't eat zebras? What exactly was opinion?

Also, again, what does "people wanting the same thing to happen to Vick, that he did to the dogs", have to do with anything?

 

those are all justifications for an opinion. It is a possiblity for people to have respect of animals and have them fight. It isn't an open and shut case. Also it is possible for people to have no respect to animals when they eat them and it really isn't that much different than fighting them. Some people think torture is torture. If you torture animals just to eat them seems to be much more accepted since it is natural. However it is not natural for animals to fight each other.

It has to do with what quelonio was talking about.

 

Ok, first of all, fighting animals, isn't the bad part of it. Its the "training" that is torture. Maybe you don't know what exactly goes into training dogs to fight. They do not just take two dogs and put them in a pit and they automatically fight. There's beatings, baitings, starvation, and other traumas that must be done to the dogs before they're willing to fight like that. It is in fact torture, by every definition of the word. That is not an opinion. As far as eating animals, many are in fact tortured, but, I was talking about the ones that are humanely slaughtered. Which is absolutely possible. You may call it murder, but its not torture.

I understand it was in reference to what Q was saying, but how did it add or detract from what he was saying?

 

It was the way people reacted with such anger.

I do know what exactly goes into training these dogs to fight.

again, it is all opinion as to which one is worse. Some will see it as the same, some will see both equally as horrible, some will see one worse than the other. That is the nature of opinions. You act like it is a fact that everyone should see as different.

 

In what way is this training not torture. Who would agree that it isn't? There are people who are ok with it, but it cannot be denied that it is torture.

 

what does that have to do with anything? If the people are ok with it, why do they care if you call it torture.

Just like calling eating animals murder. It is killing them. It is murder. I am fine with it. Call it anything you want. Call it brutally murdering them so I can eat their flesh and laugh at their souls as they cry in hell. Doesn't change my mind about eating animals.

 

I said dog fighting is wrong because it is torturing living things. You said that was an opinion. I said it was ok to eat animals. Said it all along. You're acting like I said something different. Not sure why you're going off the deep end, but whatever.

This all started because you said you can participate in dog fighting and still respect animals. I said that isn't true, because the training is torture. You can not torture something you respect, especially if you're torturing them merely for enjoyment. So, apparently, you're saying it is ok to torture an animal, for fighting. Why? Is it ok to torture anything weaker than you?

 

At the very least, a bull has a chance to win in the ring. Which isn't saying much, but is pretty funny when it happens.

 

you like stating opinions as facts. What you wrote are opinions, they are not facts.

Saying you cannot torture something and respect it, is not a fact, it is an opinion. You can torture and respect it.

No, I am saying that you are stating opinions and not facts. Look at your statement below. It more proves the original point.

 

How? How is it that what I'm saying is an opinion, and what you're saying is a fact? You cannot torture something you respect, because part of respect, includes not wishing harm. If you truly respected something, you wouldn't be able to inflict that kind of damage on it for something as minimal as entertainment.

Now, if you want to make the asinine case that people can torture others in time of war and still respect that person, fine. However, that is a matter of life and death, and the stakes are different. But, if you're going to torture something solely for the purpose of a couple of minutes of entertainment, then no you don't respect it. If you did, their well being would be more important than the those couple of minutes of pleasure. To say otherwise, is to simply be trying to win an argument.

I seriously doubt, anyone, who wasn't involved with these "sports" would agree with you.

 

Ok, in an attempt to end this off-topic back and forth......from an outsiders perspecitve may I simply say:

It's your opinion for the, at least but not limited to, two scenarios you yourself use against your stance.

1) Folks can respect each other as adversaries and still harm each other...what you label torture vs. respect in your eyes doesnt 100% match up with their actions in their eyes. Is that hard to understand?

2) Many - and it only has to be one/some and not all - people in these "Sports" involving animals (Bull fighting, ****fighting, Dog fighting, Horse racing, Greyhound racing, etc) for centuries have respected their animal participants and yet train them in their eyes - in your eyes torture them - to become successful. The difference between train in their eyes and torture in your eyes again is your opinion. And while it should be obvious, but seems to need to be pointed out in this situation, these same people also are of the opinion that animals are here for their entertainment and not equal to humans on the food chain, etc. Therefore they can train them, respect them, and yes, seek entertainment from their fighting for success/victory even it that leads to their ultimate and sometimes expected death.

So to move this thread back onto the topic at hand, accept the fact that your opinion and your view of Torture vs. Respect does not match up with all persons view of Torture vs. Respect. That is what makes your statements more opinion than fact simply because humans involved think their actions are just and normal vs. your opinion that they are unjust and equate to torture.

P.S. my personal opinion may or may not match yours 100% of the time regarding this same discussion over animal treatment, but its still just opinins and not facts when it concerns what another thinks with opposing view or mindset. (That's what Dol-Fan Dupree was pointing out)