Anti-trolling, Fantasy Style

[Fire Daemon]

It is not the religion that selects the morals to be told to society but instead the law. Why is the fact that murder is illegal but not gluttony. Why does the law not inforce the need to love thy neighbour but does arrest thieves. It seems that the law does choose what morals to enforce otherwise worshipping "false" idols would be a criminal offense.

The punishment for gluttony is obesity, the law does not need to enforce the morals of a religion, they are warnings in themselves.

The punishment for not loving thy neighbor is that your neighbor will not love you, and as such a beneficial partnership never grows.

Why does a religion abhor false idols? because they may hold values that a society would be better without, and the law does do this, by declaring a sufficiently dangerous set of morals (religion) as a cult.

Think, dear demon, think, my trollish might is beginning to overwhelm you...

*the black mass of cold response overwhelms fire demon, his ignorance of implication proving to be his demise...*

Ignorance, oh no that is where you are wrong. I did not say that gluttony is a positive moral, I claimed that the law does not condem it.

Gluttony is a moral condemed by the church. Why are so man people fat? The church must not be communicating its morals effectively. (Please read back to the question). I claim that people no longer take heed of the morals imposed by the church and instead listen to those placed by that law.

It is a known fact that many Christians in America support the war in Iraq. This is a direct afront to god as war and murder is a mortal sin. I beleive that this means that the church does not support the moral that war is bad even though the bible claims that war is wrong. Therefore religion cannot support the morals that it its self have put in place. Therefore religion cannot transmit its own morals and is therefore not effective at transmitting
values.

It appears that christianity no longer supports the morals imposed by the bible. How could you think that it is good at impossing its own morals if it does not know what they are?

You lost sight of the debate question Joe.

 

[Fire Daemon]

we are arguing fire, we are arguing relevance, not effectiveness.

I open that religion in a society is a naturally occurring and highly effective method of transmitting positive values and morals to the people of said society.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

I have claimed that religion was originally a way to control the masses and you appear to agree. Therefore it is not naturaly occuring.

I have proven a lack of effectivness of morals imposed by religion (christianity as I know little of other religions). It seems like you have not understod my posts. I claimed that gluttony a sin in christianity is not followed through by the churches and the followers. I have therefore proven that the morals are not being transmitted effectively. I have disporven you, yet you still say that I am wrong. :EDIT: I realise that you say that glttony is in its self a moral but I am claiming that the church does not teach this. The church does not say don't be fat cos it sucks, it says be fat, don't be fat, whatever, we don't care, god rocks! :EDIT:

Did you make a question I have yet seen? I am starting to get a little bit confused because you appear to be taking apart in a differant argument to me but you are the one that made the original question. I answered that question but you are determined that I have failed in answering another question I know nothing about.

We are debating the relevance of religion in society, I made the smart move of leting you open and have tripped you on that. I beleive it is now my turn to open with something. Or would you like me to go on and further disprove your opening

 

[Fire Daemon]

OOC: I'm off. I must admit this is fun. Ponder what I have said.

 

[Easykill]

I declare Almightyjoe the victor! On to the next point!

[Yeah, I only read the last post.]

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Indeed. Bring in the poor spelling/grammar.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

OOC: I'd propose a sexism battle but I think we'd get locked for duplicate thread.

Mshcherbatskaya wearily slips out of her +10 Armor of Not Taking Any Shit. Of course, underneath she wears a chastity belt and a mask to conceal her hideous visage. Crawling into her bed of nails, she sinks into an uneasy slumber.

 

[Fire Daemon]

It appears that I have been mistaken. I thought we have been arguing the effectivness of the imposing of morals but christianity. Instead of just arguing the relevance of christianity I thought we would argue about differant points that can then allow us to lead up to make a conclusion.

For example, with your oppening you said that religion is an effective way of transferring morals. I tried to disprove this by claiming that the morals are not being completely followed and that it was something apart from religion imposing the morals of society.

I then planned on making more points myself that would further lead to disproving the statement that religion is relevant. However it seems like you are just arguing the revelance of religion while I am arguing the effectivness of religion. The reason for this is

I open that religion in a society is a naturally occurring and highly effective method of transmitting positive values and morals to the people of said society.

If you wish for me tho argue the revelance of religion (I hate jumping on the main topic and would rather destroy its roots) then I shall.

If religion stopped existing then we would find little change. It is still illegal to kill a fellow man. It is still illegal to steal. These two things are condemed by many religions and the law. Now if all religion stopped then it would still be illegal to steal or kill. Most of the things that religions let slip by (gluttony, bad smell etc) is also let slip by the law.

As you have claimed that christianity (as with many religions) is a way of conrtolling the masses then I shall work on that. If religion was created as a mean of controlling the masses but the masses are no longer controlled by religion, instead are controlled by the law then I propose that Christianity (and many religions) no longer holds any relevance to society.

Its like getting hired to do a job and then getting replaced.

You could argue that religion teachs morals to society that the law cannot inforce. (helping the poor for example). However not all religions teach the same morals and many moarals taught be some religions contradict morals taught be the same religion. Therefore I see that all religions cannot agree on good morals for society and therefore do not know what good morals are. Therefore the morals are not relevant to society.

Do net be confused. For we are talking about all religions that compete and argue with each other. If the world was united in a single religion then it would be very relevant however the world is not united so religion is not relevant.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Do net be confused. For we are talking about all religions that compete and argue with each other. If the world was united in a single religion then it would be very relevant however the world is not united so religion is not relevant.

i did spend quite some time proving that this competition allows the evolution of even stronger religions.

As for the rest of the post...

I think this has strayed into the realms of opinion, in my mind religion is still going strong on the promotion of morals factor, whereas the penal system is a bureaucratic slog of poor organization and overly-rigid crime/punishment doctrines.

I don't think religion has been replaced, society has imposed law as the ruling party because there are so many religions, and indeed atheists that it needs a supreme party to enforce the core values that everyone agrees on, it is a religion that governs deeper morals, values and ethics and lifestyle that leads to a persons choice of a religion (or indeed, the passing up on all religions, a practice that i think has stemmed from religions slow uptake on new technologies and sciences that people wanted to embrace)

The media are extremely focused on the failings of religion, because it interests people. in their minds religion is still an institution that can be trusted, and when that trust is betrayed it is shocking.
The media also rarely does a story if a local branch of a church has been performing admirably and as such the only opinion presented to outsiders is that of a corrupt system.
I would say that your assertions are circumstantial at best, opinionated most likely, and ignorant at worst.

I have never seen a news story detailing the failing of a church and I have only respect for religion which is why this debate is a real cock slap.

Religion was relevant. It was religion that created morals in societies. Societies whithout religion where barbaric, killing, stealing, torture all common place. It was religion that through a use of fear, hope and wonder was able to turn mankind from the brink of its self destruction to brighter prospects. Religion was very relevant if not the most relevant factor in society but I don't think it still is.

Religion in eyes is just a thing that is there. A lingering memory of past times. It is something that provides help and hope. It does helps people. But if religion tomorrow did stop existing then nothing would really change. But if the law stopped existing then the world would be plunged in anarchy. So in my opinion this makes the law relevant. But because I can't see anything that would change if religion stopped existing.

But we have both lead different lives, live in different areas (most likely) and have different memories. Because of this we and everyone else on this forum have different opinions of this topic and I don't think we can come to any conclusion.