I will say to you what I said to Nani as well. Rephrasing a thought I have heard elsewhere: "There are good people who do good things. And there are bad people who do bad things. But in order to have an otherwise good person do bad things, you need religion".
This does not tally with my experience, the nearest counterexample being Panookah, who isn't religious but supports this act. It seems that it really doesn't take religion to make an otherwise good person do bad things. Incidentally, I am religious but deplore the incident. Can I please ask what you think of this?
People can have different perceptions of things and therefore different points of view and consequently different approaches to one and the same event or idea. Let's not judge anybody based on what they say but what they do.
Could you elaborate about your question - what I think about what. About your religiousness, about you deploring this incident, or about a non-religious person supporting that incident?
I personally do not agree 100% with that proverb, but I felt that I had to mention it.
I was primarily asking for your comment on the fact of a non-religious person supporting that incident, the example in this case being Panookah (unlike you he doesn't consider what the pastor did to be bad, and disapproves of criticism of the pastor), as it seemed to run counter to your quote. I would have also liked your thoughts on the fact of a religious person like me deploring the same incident, which would further weaken the case for a causal relationship between religion and fanaticism. However, since you clarified that you do not agree 100% with the proverb (but rather in a restricted sense), I think I get your general purport and wouldn't take issue with it.
A religious person like you deploring a bad and immoral incident only proves the first part of the proverb: "Good people do good things". =)
I sense a certain amount of irritation in you... maybe I am wrong but whenever Kol uses an untypically 'official' vocabulary and form of expression it usually betrays some sort of irritation in him, so I am assuming... Well, I can understand why this is a very sensitive topic for you...
No, I am not irritated at all =) I used the 'official' sounding vocabulary only because I didn't seem to have made myself clear the first time with exactly what I was asking for your thoughts on. Perhaps I overcompensated the second time, hope you understand it's a tough choice sometimes - between sounding officious and being unclear. You probably presumed that I am irritated because I am religious and can naturally be expected to be irritated when someone says something critical of religion. I assure you this is not the case - religious people do not as a rule get irritated when religion is criticized, and you don't have to worry about it being a sensitive topic for me. The "officiousness" is only to avoid misunderstanding. In fact if you look at my comments in the other threads in this post, you'll see that I never lost objectivity even when proving the provocative intent of the other person's comments directed at me, and my objections were never to frankness but to the surfeit of inconsistencies.
"There are good people who do good things. And there are bad people who do bad things. But in order to have an otherwise good person do bad things, you need religion".
Reply
Reply
Could you elaborate about your question - what I think about what. About your religiousness, about you deploring this incident, or about a non-religious person supporting that incident?
I personally do not agree 100% with that proverb, but I felt that I had to mention it.
Reply
Reply
I sense a certain amount of irritation in you... maybe I am wrong but whenever Kol uses an untypically 'official' vocabulary and form of expression it usually betrays some sort of irritation in him, so I am assuming... Well, I can understand why this is a very sensitive topic for you...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment