The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Why are JUBbers so prejudiced against the religious/religion in general?

xbuzzerx said:
They are the same thing when there isn't a logical reason or statistical basis for your positive outlook. x2.
Click to expand...

I agree that in thinking positively can be related to or a part of faith but suggesting that faith is synonymous with just thinking positively is false. Having a positively outlook has actually been demonstrated to aid in recovering of diseases and illnesses so even if a patient with a terminal illness was told they had a one percent chance of survival, thinking positively would still have a benefit despite the odds. Positive thinking has also been linked to lower stress and better coping skills so thinking positive would be logical because it has been demonstrated to be beneficial no matter the odds.

It is possible to think positive and not be religious at all so to give credit to religion and belief in god with helping African-Americans overcome their hardships is misleading. It is also quite strange that African-Americans adopted the same religion, ignoring the parts about slavery of course, that was used to justify and in many ways responsible for continuation of slavery and their hardships in the first place. The positive benefits of religion, like community, being organized, and having a positive outlook are not exclusive to religion and can and are achieved through secular means. Religion had a huge role in the Civil Rights movement but it was the secular products that religion provided that lead to the success of the movement.

Faith or confidence in an outcome is not always positive either. If I had faith that thousands of poor children in third world countries will starve to death, would that be having a positive outlook?
 
I am hell bent on making those honey wheat rolls. But first, that
Sunbeam dough mixer on sale at Target.
 
bort138 said:
I agree that in thinking positively can be related to or a part of faith but suggesting that faith is synonymous with just thinking positively is false. Having a positively outlook has actually been demonstrated to aid in recovering of diseases and illnesses so even if a patient with a terminal illness was told they had a one percent chance of survival, thinking positively would still have a benefit despite the odds. Positive thinking has also been linked to lower stress and better coping skills so thinking positive would be logical because it has been demonstrated to be beneficial no matter the odds.
Click to expand...

As you yourself say, there's a positive effect. But the practice of deciding to believe one would recover from a serious illness certainly predates scientific studies showing that it does in fact have an actual positive effect. Even if it had absolutely 0 impact on the actual statistical likelihood of the physical ailment itself improving, the psychological effect would be important for quality of life.

It sounds like you acknowledge that though, so I'm not sure why it's hard to imagine the same principle being applied to one's life circumstances, even if that circumstance is not a physical disease, but equally something over which the individual has very little direct control.

It is possible to think positive and not be religious at all
Click to expand...

Of course it's possible to do so. Just like it's possible for a completely pessimistic hypochondriac to recover from cancer-- or a stoic, or a person with clinical depression. But I'm not entirely sure it's anything other than arrogant for anyone to say for someone else whether or not their decision to cope with things in a certain way with a positive goal in mind is invalid.

Faith or confidence in an outcome is not always positive either. If I had faith that thousands of poor children in third world countries will starve to death, would that be having a positive outlook?
Click to expand...

The Christian religion asked this exact same question hundreds of years ago and concluded that faith without good works was meaningless, iirc. Though I'm not a Christian theologian so I'm sure someone else can answer that better.
 
*People complain about thread they don't like / troll threads*

*Same people begin actively trolling said thread*

Good one guys.
 
bort138 said:
So it doesn't matter whether beliefs are true as long as they are comforting?
Click to expand...

In a crude sort of way, I think religion ought to be thought of as nothing less than the time we set aside to think about important things without regard to our current notions of evidence. Comfort is but one category wherein this might be true.

It helps that there's often some verisimilitude, sure.

But there are imperatives imposed on us by our human condition which supersede even the strictest need for precision.
 
xbuzzerx said:
*People complain about thread they don't like / troll threads*

*Same people begin actively trolling said thread*

Good one guys.
Click to expand...

A spoonful sugar makes the medicine go dowwwwn the medicine go dowwwwwn the medicine go dowwwwn.
 
Unfortunately unless you have the "On Topic" Prefix, nothing would really be enforced when it comes to derailing.
 
Dejavudoo said:
No one is arguing that religious wars and deaths didn't happen, but that many more were without religion.

Do the math.

And, don't forget the Spanish were after gold a lot more than converts.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The church got in on the act to convert the population as soon as it could. It does this wherever it went, first find out what the locals believed in, and then equate their pantheon with figures in christian saints, angels and all that other hoo ha, and persuade the locals to participate in the replacement of the indigenous culture with christianity. The Spanish bishop Diego da Landa in the mid-Sixteenth Century had all the maya gather up their written knowledge in codices etc and burnt the lot. That's why there's only less than half a dozen ones left.

The Christian missionaries and settlers in the US traded smallpox ridden blankets with American Indians, forceably removing their children for christian indoctrination etc. I don't know why you revisionists think religion is harmless. IF muslims invaded canada and forced your children to be indoctrinate and spread a biological toxin amongst your people you'd be outraged.
 
^
:eek: Those assertions in the first sentence of your second para!

The English Christians never killed Americans like the Tsarnaev brothers did and like Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj killed Americans.
 
pat grimshaw said:
^
:eek: Those assertions in the first sentence of your second para!

The English Christians never killed Americans like the Tsarnaev brothers did and like Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj killed Americans.
Click to expand...

Oh please. English christians are capable of doing a lot.

http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/norman/the-1190-massacre
The chronicler William of Newburgh described the rioters as York acting “without any scruple of Christian conscientiousness” in wiping out the Jewish community. And William was not the only chronicler to record these lamentable acts, as the Chronicles of the Abbey of Meaux in East Yorkshire, and Roger of Howden include accounts.

Anti-Semitic feeling was running high throughout western Europe in the twelfth century, stoked by the Christian fervour of the Crusades, that directed aggression against Jews across England, France and Germany, as well as against Muslims in the Holy Land. England’s new king Richard I was about to set off on Crusade himself. Rioting had spread throughout England since prominent Jews, including Benedict of York, had been denied entry to King Richard I’s coronation banquet in 1189. Benedict was the wealthiest Jew of York and he was mortally wounded in the rioting at Westminster.
Click to expand...
 
People kill and kiled in the name of religion, it's undeniable, but I think it stems from the human nature and not particularly from religions.

It's a shame it can be used by power hungry people to charm / turn into frenzy / manipulate / coerced others, and that since at least the priests of Thebes in Egypt. But that has nothing to do with what a religion is supposed to be. Another example is money, it should be used to establish fair trade between people, but a lot of human being use it for power.

It's futile, in my opinion, to blame a tool misused for a badly executed work.
 
oakpope said:
Is it acceptable on JUB to deliberately attempt to derail a thread by posting inane, pedestrian and irrelevant comments ?
Click to expand...

And how does mentioning pork derail a thread about wars, religious intolerance, faith and missionary zeal. You forget Kashrut and Halal; even now, at Muslim insistence, Subway in London is removing pork products from its stores. You forget the Pig War between Austria and Serbia and the Aroostoock War, commonly called the Pork and Beans War over the boundaries of the State of Maine vis-a-vis Canada.

You missed a belamoesque allusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top