Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Nalytha]

10 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

We can just say "Superstitious Skydaddy Cults with no factually supportable claims". It saves so much time.
 

There is no "we." I would never, ever say that. 

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Atheism has it's own way of perceiving reality, and so I consider it a religion too.

An atheist used to attend my LGBT church. Apparently, he liked the preacher’s message. He even went up for communion- whatever the preacher said to him in those moments was strictly between them.

[Theresa Tennyson]

22 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

That's where we Atheists have an advantage, we don't have to decide who is part of Cult A or Cult B or Cult C.

 

And yet, that is exactly what you did.

[Klytyna]

6 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Ecumenicals would tend to believe there are different paths to an understanding of divinity. That any conception of "One True" anything has to be flexible enough to accommodate a diversity.

Which is why, when the 'diversity' they are trying to flexibly accommodate contains two or more mutually exclusive beliefs, Ecumenicalism, usually fails.

Because ultimately Ecumenicalism holds that there is a "One True" whatever thats common to all the Cults, if you just dig deep enough, that some how theres some amazing place where you discover that Cult A and Cult B are praying to the same thing even though they are completely different and mutually opposed.

It's just a Religious version of "wouldn't it be nice if the people of the world could all get along and hug". 

Which is why Ecumenicals get so pissy when you tell them not to hold their breath while they wait for that to happen, or dare to suggest that historically, the Religions not only don't hug each other, and won't hug each other, but deep down, don't WANT to get along.
 

[Klytyna]

20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Religions are just a way of perceiving reality.

Atheism has it's own way of perceiving reality, and so I consider it a religion too.

It's pretty insulting to think your religion is 'the way' while other people's perceptions of reality are delusional.

Religions are a way of perceiving reality?

I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetically sad. Can you give a single example of a "reality" that's been perceived? Some amazing factual, tangiable thing religions have discovered that we faithless can't perceive?

Some medical drug that only works if you lick a statue of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens on that most Holy of Days, Tuesday. An extra 10 miles to the gallon in your car's fuel consumption if you wear Muslim prayer beads and chant in Arabic.

Religions are more about perceiving the UNREAL than the real.

And for the record, Atheism is not a religion, its the lack of believe in deities, due to the total lack of any evidence to justify such belief.
 

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Ecumenicals get so pissy when you tell them not to hold their breath while they wait for that to happen, or dare to suggest that historically, the Religions not only don't hug each other, and won't hug each other, but deep down, don't WANT to get along.

I think you confuse ecumenicals with evangelicals. Your earlier statement about Ecumenicals believing there is a “one true” something is wrong also - except “ecumenical” usually implies Christian. Here, we are getting deeper. Inter-faith. More universal. NOT JUST CHRISTIAN. See, I have to use all caps because you don’t read very well. I assume you always write in bold because you think other people can’t read well.

  Even Wikipedia says “[some Christian churches are] strongly opposed to ecumenical (more accurately, interfaith) dialogue with non-Christian religions and with denominations it identifies as cults.”

  There, now you know somethin’. 

[Aethelwine]

28 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Which is why, when the 'diversity' they are trying to flexibly accommodate contains two or more mutually exclusive beliefs, Ecumenicalism, usually fails.

Because ultimately Ecumenicalism holds that there is a "One True" whatever thats common to all the Cults, if you just dig deep enough, that some how theres some amazing place where you discover that Cult A and Cult B are praying to the same thing even though they are completely different and mutually opposed.

It's just a Religious version of "wouldn't it be nice if the people of the world could all get along and hug". 

Which is why Ecumenicals get so pissy when you tell them not to hold their breath while they wait for that to happen, or dare to suggest that historically, the Religions not only don't hug each other, and won't hug each other, but deep down, don't WANT to get along.
 

What counts as a failure?

The Lutheran Pastor that had to apologise for participating in an interfaith prayer vigil after the Sandy Hook shootings?

http://news.yahoo.com/pastor-apologizes-role-prayer-vigil-connecticut-massacre-021918940.html

does that count as a failure because one religion of the many that attended brought the ire of their church down upon themselves?

I would see it as a success that religions come together nowadays so routinely. The Lutheran Church is one marginal exception.

Also you say "wouldn't it be nice if people of the world could all get along and hug" as if that is a bad thing. If we couldn't get along we would have no society at all.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Aethelwine

[Klytyna]

19 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think you confuse ecumenicals with evangelicals.

No, Evangelicals are the ones who tell you all brands of Skydaddyism are wrong except theres, and that you should join immediately, Ecumenicals are the ones who tell you that all brands of Skydaddyism are the same , deep deep down, because theres some universal something they all share and the differences are just silly misunderstandings we can resolve if we all hug and make up.

22 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Your earlier statement about Ecumenicals believing there is a “one true” something is wrong also

If ecumenicals didn't believe in some shared commonality between the different cults, so 'deep ultimate truth' or whatever, what would be the point in being an ecumenical, if theres no shared something, what is the point in trying to accommodate faiths that you 'knew' to be 'wrong', because they were different to your ''right' faith? Unless it was some cynical attempt at appeasment, you know, "these foreign devils pray the wrong way and are beyond saving but lets pretend we believe their gibberish has merit so they will like us".

27 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

except “ecumenical” usually implies Christian. Here, we are getting deeper. Inter-faith. More universal.

Ah, so now there is some attempt at 'universal', do make up your mind, it's hard to pin down exactly what you think there is in this universal ecumenical non-ecumenicalism that is in anyway worthy of anyone wasting time on it.

30 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Even Wikipedia says “[some Christian churches are] strongly opposed to ecumenical (more accurately, interfaith) dialogue with non-Christian religions and with denominations it identifies as cults.”

I commented that monotheistic cults tend to wards non-tolerance or other rival cults, you told me I was wrong, and now here you are quoting wikipedia, who apparently agree with me... And you think this is 'educating me' do you, telling me what I had already pointed out. I'd laugh but you're not very funny.

33 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I assume you always write in bold because you think other people can’t read well.

No, I do it because some overpaid undertalented web monkey decided it would be 'hella kewl' to make the forum use grey text on a pure white background, in a small and unpleasant font. But thank you for your pretentious pseudo intellectual Ass-umption.
 

[Klytyna]

22 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

you say "wouldn't it be nice if people of the world could all get along and hug" as if that is a bad thing. If we couldn't get along we would have no society at all.

No, I say it as if it's a thing that isn't going to magically happen just by hoping, and claiming that you sincerely believe the other persons radically opposed point of view has 'merit' when you know that their view is that your view has no merit at all.

There was a thread, on another forum, many years ago, where some Theist asked about mixed Theist/Atheist marriages, and what happens to the kids.

The Atheist hardliners like my self were pretty clear, "bad idea", "seldom works in practice", "i don't fraternise with the enemy", etc.,

The Theists, to a wo/man, all played the "hug your enemies lets all get along" card, at least on the surface. "Oh I would respect the atheists beliefs" etc. However it didn't take long for the reality to seep through, happy to marry an Atheist as long as the kids get brought up as Theists, respect the Atheists beliefs as long as they don't share them with the kids, and so on.

The trend was almost unanimous amongst the Theists, all hugs and respect and tolerance, providing the kids were brainwashed into the Theists cults from day one.

As long as there are people who will pick your pocket while hugging you, the world wont hug and get along.

35 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

The Lutheran Pastor that had to apologise for participating in an interfaith prayer vigil after the Sandy Hook shootings?

http://news.yahoo.com/pastor-apologizes-role-prayer-vigil-connecticut-massacre-021918940.html

does that count as a failure because one religion of the many that attended brought the ire of their church down upon themselves?

Yeah I'd count that as a failure, the pastor failed to lead their flock, which is supposed to be their job. More importantly, if they had been sincere about taking part, why apologise, if sincere about apologising, why take part.

If they had BELIEVED in an interfaith vigil, they'd have delivered a stinging sermon, not an apology. Like I said, an exercise in hollow appeasment. "Lets go kneel with the heathens to convince them we don't actually hate them as much as we do"

I tend towards the cynical, it seldom lets me down, question isn't how many different cults attended the vigil, it's how many would have attended if there hadn't been some big media event involved, some chance to 'show you care' on TV?
 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Klytyna said:

No, Evangelicals are the ones who tell you all brands of Skydaddyism are wrong except theres, and that you should join immediately, Ecumenicals are the ones who tell you that all brands of Skydaddyism are the same , deep deep down, because theres some universal something they all share and the differences are just silly misunderstandings we can resolve if we all hug and make up.

If ecumenicals didn't believe in some shared commonality between the different cults, so 'deep ultimate truth' or whatever, what would be the point in being an ecumenical, if theres no shared something, what is the point in trying to accommodate faiths that you 'knew' to be 'wrong', because they were different to your ''right' faith? Unless it was some cynical attempt at appeasment, you know, "these foreign devils pray the wrong way and are beyond saving but lets pretend we believe their gibberish has merit so they will like us".

Ah, so now there is some attempt at 'universal', do make up your mind, it's hard to pin down exactly what you think there is in this universal ecumenical non-ecumenicalism that is in anyway worthy of anyone wasting time on it.

I commented that monotheistic cults tend to wards non-tolerance or other rival cults, you told me I was wrong, and now here you are quoting wikipedia, who apparently agree with me... And you think this is 'educating me' do you, telling me what I had already pointed out. I'd laugh but you're not very funny.

No, I do it because some overpaid undertalented web monkey decided it would be 'hella kewl' to make the forum use grey text on a pure white background, in a small and unpleasant font. But thank you for your pretentious pseudo intellectual Ass-umption.
 

Once again you misconstrue everything. Even the Wikipedia quote. Well, I’ve got other stuff to do. Have fun in your misunderstandings! 

*Edit* Some people just don’t even try to understand.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Love Zhaoying

[Klytyna]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Have fun in your misunderstandings!

Oh I understand religions all too well, it's why I have refused to join any of them, all my life., and why I never will.
 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Klytyna said:

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Religions are just a way of perceiving reality.

Atheism has it's own way of perceiving reality, and so I consider it a religion too.

It's pretty insulting to think your religion is 'the way' while other people's perceptions of reality are delusional.

Religions are a way of perceiving reality?

I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetically sad. Can you give a single example of a "reality" that's been perceived? Some amazing factual, tangiable thing religions have discovered that we faithless can't perceive?

Some medical drug that only works if you lick a statue of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens on that most Holy of Days, Tuesday. An extra 10 miles to the gallon in your car's fuel consumption if you wear Muslim prayer beads and chant in Arabic.

Religions are more about perceiving the UNREAL than the real.

I said religions are a way of perceiving reality - their way of making sense of it - I did not say they perceived it in any way that could be objectively true. Big difference.

I think religions and movements start out as way to make sense of the world and one's place in it, and often have a spark in the beginning (a new way of seeing something, more alive, a better or more loving way that's beneficial to many), but unfortunately they become stale after time and decompose to habitual ways of being, patterns, & laws.
Unfortunately, Klytyna, I think that's what you're encountering -- especially on certain forums where people have no desire to seek truth, but instead their only motivation is to win an argument in an attempt to feel a surge of power.

I go more for the spirituality that involves Mysticism (the core or essence), and there are elements of Mysticism in most religions, accepted or rejected in varying degrees. I've learned various things from orienting myself in this way, but someone you're labeling as "faithless" can just as easily perceive these things because nobody is excluded from a journey of growth or evolution in consciousness.
It has nothing to do with 'gods' that are outside the Universe, and is more of an inward journey so that one sees oneself and the perceived outside world in a new way. One begins to see 'the big picture' -- it's more about personal evolution and connecting to society in a better, more loving way. Nobody cares how you conceptualize the Universe, whether this Universe is seen very personally as a particular person or saint, or whether it's seen as 'abstract light' BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY A CONCEPTUALIZATION, ONLY A SYMBOL to hold in one's mind as an anchor toward a new way of being -- the important part is to attempt to connect in a more expansive way with WHAT IS NOT YET SEEN OR KNOWN - what has not yet manifested in one's life.
Mysticism with its focus on love is just a way to tune into what is unknown and make it known to yourself, personally. You BECOME IT -- it is not an abstract conceptualization, it is a revelation, a new way of being in the world.

I share your disdain for religious people that think they have the one true way and fight with everyone else who does not share their conceptualizations, and cause harm to others in the process.
But if you examine the mystical dimensions of all religions they speak of 'love' and changing oneself into a new person -- this is what lies underneath religion at its core, and not the forms people fight over.

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Oh I understand religions all too well, it's why I have refused to join any of them, all my life., and why I never will.
 

What I don’t understand is this:

1) I explained that SOME Hindus embrace other religions. I am saying it again now.

2) I explained that SOME Christians  (I used the word “ecumenical”) dialogue interfaith (between different Christian faiths) and with other non-Christian religions. I am saying it again now.

Yet: you steadfastly claim I am saying the opposite. How will you twist my words this time?

 

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Klytyna said:

No, I say it as if it's a thing that isn't going to magically happen just by hoping, and claiming that you sincerely believe the other persons radically opposed point of view has 'merit' when you know that their view is that your view has no merit at all.

There was a thread, on another forum, many years ago, where some Theist asked about mixed Theist/Atheist marriages, and what happens to the kids.

The Atheist hardliners like my self were pretty clear, "bad idea", "seldom works in practice", "i don't fraternise with the enemy", etc.,

The Theists, to a wo/man, all played the "hug your enemies lets all get along" card, at least on the surface. "Oh I would respect the atheists beliefs" etc. However it didn't take long for the reality to seep through, happy to marry an Atheist as long as the kids get brought up as Theists, respect the Atheists beliefs as long as they don't share them with the kids, and so on.

The trend was almost unanimous amongst the Theists, all hugs and respect and tolerance, providing the kids were brainwashed into the Theists cults from day one.

As long as there are people who will pick your pocket while hugging you, the world wont hug and get along.

Yeah I'd count that as a failure, the pastor failed to lead their flock, which is supposed to be their job. More importantly, if they had been sincere about taking part, why apologise, if sincere about apologising, why take part.

If they had BELIEVED in an interfaith vigil, they'd have delivered a stinging sermon, not an apology. Like I said, an exercise in hollow appeasment. "Lets go kneel with the heathens to convince them we don't actually hate them as much as we do"

I tend towards the cynical, it seldom lets me down, question isn't how many different cults attended the vigil, it's how many would have attended if there hadn't been some big media event involved, some chance to 'show you care' on TV?
 

1st section... without being there it is hard to comment or your experience, but rather than brainwashing into theism or to atheism the healthiest approach would be to share equally the parents perspectives and be open to encouraging them to look at other religions so they can form an opinion themselves. It may not be the case, but that may be all the theists were arguing.. and that is hardly brainwashing, in fact the opposite. A universalist view, which is after all what we have been talking about would be to do precisely that... give them the logical and philosophical tools to find their own paths.

2nd section... that is where we differ. You see the cup half empty by focusing on the Lutheran Priest that was the exception, rather than the cup half full (or more accurately not very far off being full) of the religions standing together in unity.  Sometimes cynicism is justified, it certainly protects you from disappointment if you set your expectations so low that they will be exceeded, but a cynical view is not an objective one... You focus on the exception rather than trend to form your opinion.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Aethelwine

[BilliJo Aldrin]

54 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Oh I understand religions all too well, it's why I have refused to join any of them, all my life., and why I never will.
 

I went to a christian church untill i was about 13. One day i was sitting listening to yet another boring story about the Jews and though, why am i listening to this, I'm not Jewish.

I never went back.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I go more for the spirituality that involves Mysticism (the core or essence), and there are elements of Mysticism in most religions, accepted or rejected in varying degrees. I've learned various things from orienting myself in this way, but someone you're labeling as "faithless" can just as easily perceive these things because nobody is excluded from a journey of growth or evolution in consciousness.

Me too! In fact, my Hindu guru talks about this EXACT THING!!

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

One day very very soon, whites will be in the minority in the US. And not through inter-breeding, either! And it will be interesting to see if the tables turn then, or not!

I bet your salivating over the prospect aren't you? 

Oh yes, now those evil whites will see what it is like.

 

 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I bet your salivating over the prospect aren't you? 

Oh yes, now those evil whites will see what it is like.

 

 

Nope, but it’s hella fun to see racists freak out about it.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But the argument they used in court was that they are an ARTIST and they cannot be forced to create their ART for someone against their principles. Redonkulous.

Next, Kentucky court Clerks will refuse to issue gay marriage licenses based on their religious beliefs! Art, I tell you! Art!!! ART!!!!

Well you see, if gay marriage is legal in Kentucky, the clerks are obliged to give out marriage licences to anyone qualified.

I personally believe the government should get out of the marriage licence business.

I would prefer to see Civil Union Licences. ANY two people that have a desire to enter into a relationship of mutual support would be eligible to apply.

Then after they get their licence they can go get married, or whatever, to formalize their commitment in a public ceremony.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

That's part of the education system, hon.  It's called "Pre-K".

Yes and in a "perfect" world, pre K wil start before the parents can have any sort of effect on their childrens attitudes, I'm thinking 18 months. 

Get em young and brainwash em right.... errr left

 

[Love Zhaoying]

29 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

2nd section... that is where we differ. You see the cup half empty by focusing on the Lutheran Priest that was the exception, rather than the cup half full (or more accurately not very far off being full) of the religions standing together in unity.  Sometimes cynicism is justified, it certainly protects you from disappointment if you set your expectations so low that they will be exceeded, but a cynical view is not an objective one... You focus on the exception rather than trend to form your opinion.

Well said!

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Have you heard of "allies"? I am not Transgered, but I go to Trans meetings because I am an "ally". 

My company allows men to go to the "Women's" Employee Resource Group meetings because they are "allies".

Same thing with the LGBT ERG, straight "allies" are allowed.

well then,  I guess the black women hadn't heard of allies, or maybe they just wanted you to butt out and let them have their meeting on their own

[Klytyna]

27 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

It may not be the case, but that may be all the theists were arguing.. and that is hardly brainwashing, in fact the opposite.

Wouldn't be nice if we all just hu... No Wait, that wasn't what they said at all.

There were posts, where people who openly and proudly described themselves as "tolerant theists" stated they would be happy to marry and raise a family with an Atheist, and then went on to talk about pre-nup agreements ensuring the kids would be raised as members of the Theist parents cult, with no 'atheist deprogramming' or exposure to religious falsehoods.

Their tolerance extended to allowing an Atheist to help them produce more mindless slaves of the Skydaddy's Chosen Representatives.

The most common suggestion amongst the slack atheists, tended along the lines of no input on religion from either side till the kids are 18 and can make up there own minds. The theists were universally against this, the best they offered was the 'shared experience battle of the ideologies" upbringing you propose. The one that invariably leads to "but daddy/mommy... Mommy/daddy said the invisible guy in the sky will kill me in my sleep if i don't grovel to him, which one of you is lying?"

Me... I was very firmly in the "do not fraternise with the enemy" camp
 

[Love Zhaoying]

The saddest part of this discussion is that closed-minded people want to tear down the beliefs of open-minded people. I don’t care what anyone believes, if it gives them happiness or confort then, great! Yet negativity reigns. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Love Zhaoying

[BilliJo Aldrin]

4 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

That is not a moral position, arguably a religious one... But unless he refuses to do wedding cakes for any other religions than the narrowly conceived mean minded version of Christianity he claims then he is also a hypocrite. As I understand it he has no problem making cakes for any other religions and for atheists. He is using religion as a fig leaf to excuse his illegal discriminatory hateful practices.

If he only made cakes for his church he might have an argument, but he doesn't 

Who is talking about religion? He believed gay marriage was wrong and refused to have any part of it by baking a cake.