What Religions Are Y'all Here At Thaivisa?

[Jingthing]

Oh god!!! Here you go again. You started an interesting thread & now you are going to kill it. Are you suicidal?

Geez McThing, get a grip!

Who killed it? I think you just did. Thanks a bunch. Carry on, in the interest of keeping this thread going I will refrain from posting on it anymore, if it does manage to stay open now. Have at it, boys!

Edited September 8, 2008 by Jingthing

[Bangyai]

Well....if I suddenly came over all religious ( which is unlikely ) I reckon being a gnostic could be a lot of fun if you were a paid up member of one of the wackier sects ! Free love, loads of sex and orgies, plenty of good food and drink, marriage discouraged , all this and more......hmmmm....I guess I've already been one without being formally informed of the fact.

[Maestro]

I am moving this from “General topics” to the forum “Farang Pub - fun, entertainment and Expat life”, where these types of polls belong.

--

Maestro

[OlRedEyes]

I think the real division in the world is between those who are convinced that the see and understand the ultimate reality of the universe and those who just admit that they don't have all the answers. In this division the atheist and the fundamental Muslim/Christian would have a lot in common.

There's a 3rd group, those that know they do not know the ultimate reality of the universe, admit they don't have all the answers, but have found nothing, zero, zilch to support the theory (in fact, found it laughable in it's idiocy) of a deity after years of observation and investigation, and in the end had to write it off as total rubbish. The time wasted investigating it in the first place is criminal, and wouldn't have occurred if they were not indoctrinated into this pie-in-the sky crap as a child.

Stop wasting so much human effort because of fear.

WWII, Brit. Cigar. Fear.

[PeaceBlondie]

Each person being unique, we each have an individual set of beliefs. You may try on a label, only to find the label does not fit. Atheist, Methodist, Mormon, etc. I spent the evening with two Americans who were-are Methodist and Catholic, but they attend a Mennonite church. They are straight and pacifist. I am gay and pacifist. We did not discuss sex, but discussed our families, food, Chiang Mai, Burma, refugees, Mexico, human rights work, etc. Things are too complex to be labeled.

[sassienie]

Oh god!!! Here you go again. You started an interesting thread & now you are going to kill it. Are you suicidal?

Geez McThing, get a grip!

Who killed it? I think you just did. Thanks a bunch. Carry on, in the interest of keeping this thread going I will refrain from posting on it anymore, if it does manage to stay open now. Have at it, boys!

Suddenly I have become religious and thank the Lord that JingyThingy isn’t going to post here anymore.

You see, there is a God and he’s merciful.

[orchidlady]

Long time, diehard, Atheist currently living in US--bombarded by right wing Christian extremists attempting to force their religious views upon the populous. Escaping next month to Thailand to try living for at least a year--find majority of Buddhists more tolerable--especially views toward animals.

[ourmaninbangers]

Agnostic.

In fact I wish that I did have a religion and am envious of those that do have faith, seeing is believing for me though.

there a great article about faith I read recently...

faith is like trust you cannot have without time passing, without some proof of questions being answered, most relgion are built on false trust

a promise for something better

my english makes me lack how to say propely

the christians say have faith-

but how to have unless there is trust, a history of trust..

have they done anythign to deserve?

no, i cannot see,

its all a bunch of mumbo jumbo

...it is true to say we cannot prove there is no God, and He seems in no hurry to assist His followers in any way

what we can say is that it all sound so nonsenical, does,nt add up at all, and nothing , not one single shred has , will ever be proven, and alot disproven...

they simply cannot answer alot of questions, and when faced with this say silly things like

" have faith"

" We have a specail relationship..."

" you do not understand.,...."

these lambs ask us to beleive this mad storys of a world created in a few days, adams/ eves, walking on water, wear things around the neck, jump up and down, etc, etc

and how many Gods are there? I,ve lost count, you,ve got this one, that one, he big, small, so much in-fighting..

in UK I saw a group which said- supporting gay christian vegitarians!

what a load of XXXXX! its hilarious,I simple cannot respect people who honestly belive this....but I kinda love for fun

why do people have this need to cling to such nonsense? is the realty really that scary?

[rott]

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

[DNPBC0]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.

Seems to sum it up for me.

[Jingthing]

Well, Thailand appears to be a magnet for atheists so you might enjoy this, I know I did:

[AlexLah]

Dear all,

To all of you non believers.

I fully inderstand your frustration and reasons why you do not think there is such thing s a higher entity.

It is as many say a lack of evidence of the existance of such entity, right?

If you cannot see,feel,smell,hear it for yourself it does not exist.

Well what if you follow me and you will be able to see this God, feel this God, smell and hear God?

Would that not be the greatest discovery in your life?

Also for the relgious outthere, you would get real lifetime answers to your questions.

And believe (in) me as you got to believe in something right?

No donations needed, no reading/study of some kind of holy book.

And you do not have to worship neither pray each day!

Just follow some basic concepts of life that is all that is being asked from you.

Sounds like an good deal no?

Let me know if you are interested.

[OxfordWill]

Personally I find it suspicious that anyone would need to follow some external entity in order to act morally. We do good because we know it to be good, not because God told us it is good. Indeed, given that god has absolute power, in theory he could say "Murder is always good". Would it then be the case that we felt no remorse were we to murder someone? I reckon most of us would still feel we had done something bad.

Dont need god, faith or religion to be a good person. Just half a brain.

[OlRedEyes]

That is one of religions biggest lies - 'You are inherently bad, therefore you must be saved'.

What utter drivel.

Just a lighthearted thought. Power corrupts. Absolute power? Maybe we should start wondering how corrupt these gods are. Would explain a lot.

Edited September 17, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[basjke]

As a European descent person living in Thailand, I find people, both Thai and foreign, assume I am a Christian. Now of course not all Thais are Buddhist and not all foreigners in Thailand are Christians. So what religion/non-religion do you follow? Apologies if your flavor is not on the list.

Have you recently changed your nationality as I read in many of your other posts that you call yourself American.

[rott]

That is one of religions biggest lies - 'You are inherently bad, therefore you must be saved'.

What utter drivel.

Just a lighthearted thought. Power corrupts. Absolute power? Maybe we should start wondering how corrupt these gods are. Would explain a lot.

Don't know about inherently bad, but definitely inherently imperfect.

I presume you are referring to a biblical quotation, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

An interesting lighthearted quote, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Frequently quoted, and largely forgotten that the writer was the English R.C. peer Lord Acton. Even more forgotten is that the target was the pope!

[garro]

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

This is the real problem I have with certain religions. The insistence that their particular brand of interpretation of a book is the correct one and that others are misguided. This is what leads to ignorant bigotry. If you believe in the Bible then you take on faith some fantastic claims which may sound quite absurd to many people. To then go and poo-poo others for making similar fantastic claims from the same book, but yet try to ridicule them is the sign of a very limited mind. Good luck to you.

[jumnien]

I'm not a Christian but it seems the Christian religion allows an extremely wide range of interpretations. That's one of their historical problems; no two denominations can seem to agree on anything. I guess that's true of all religions. I can't think of a religion that is monolithic in its worldwide belief structure.

[garro]

I'm not a Christian but it seems the Christian religion allows an extremely wide range of interpretations. That's one of their historical problems; no two denominations can seem to agree on anything. I guess that's true of all religions. I can't think of a religion that is monolithic in its worldwide belief structure.

The fact that people don't realize that it is all a matter of interpretation is very problematic. People are willing to die for these interpretations and more disgustingly kill for them. I think a big red flag should be that if your god hates the same people that you do then your religion is obviously flawed.

[jumnien]

I'm not a Christian but it seems the Christian religion allows an extremely wide range of interpretations. That's one of their historical problems; no two denominations can seem to agree on anything. I guess that's true of all religions. I can't think of a religion that is monolithic in its worldwide belief structure.

The fact that people don't realize that it is all a matter of interpretation is very problematic. People are willing to die for these interpretations and more disgustingly kill for them. I think a big red flag should be that if your god hates the same people that you do then your religion is obviously flawed.

Good idea! As an atheist, I find the phrase "we are all God's children" indispensible.

[StevieH]

i am a fundamentalist atheist. though i have never met a buddhist that i didn't like.

[rott]

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

This is the real problem I have with certain religions. The insistence that their particular brand of interpretation of a book is the correct one and that others are misguided. This is what leads to ignorant bigotry. If you believe in the Bible then you take on faith some fantastic claims which may sound quite absurd to many people. To then go and poo-poo others for making similar fantastic claims from the same book, but yet try to ridicule them is the sign of a very limited mind. Good luck to you.

Well hello again Garro, wondered how long it would take you to bite. Thank you for your good wishes, with my limited mind I obviously need all the good luck I can get.

However you do miss the point, I am ridiculing their claims not because they are a different interpretation of "the book", but because they are totally without foundation in the book. To revert to my habit of over-simplification, the above (and many others) are man-made inventions actually contradicted by the bible.

In case this has you puzzling, the "immaculate conception" does not refer to the virgin birth but to the unscriptural teaching that Mary was born free of sin. (The Bible states "all have sinned", and generally only mentions Mary in passing.)

Your criticism of me i.e. interpretations etc. would seem to sit very snugly with the R.C. church, would you apply your comments and withering tone to them? According to them they are the "one true church", and they and only they are competent to read and interpret the bible.

Good luck to you also, and I hope 3B or whoever behave themselves this afternoon.

[garro]

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

This is the real problem I have with certain religions. The insistence that their particular brand of interpretation of a book is the correct one and that others are misguided. This is what leads to ignorant bigotry. If you believe in the Bible then you take on faith some fantastic claims which may sound quite absurd to many people. To then go and poo-poo others for making similar fantastic claims from the same book, but yet try to ridicule them is the sign of a very limited mind. Good luck to you.

Well hello again Garro, wondered how long it would take you to bite. Thank you for your good wishes, with my limited mind I obviously need all the good luck I can get.

However you do miss the point, I am ridiculing their claims not because they are a different interpretation of "the book", but because they are totally without foundation in the book. To revert to my habit of over-simplification, the above (and many others) are man-made inventions actually contradicted by the bible.

In case this has you puzzling, the "immaculate conception" does not refer to the virgin birth but to the unscriptural teaching that Mary was born free of sin. (The Bible states "all have sinned", and generally only mentions Mary in passing.)

Your criticism of me i.e. interpretations etc. would seem to sit very snugly with the R.C. church, would you apply your comments and withering tone to them? According to them they are the "one true church", and they and only they are competent to read and interpret the bible.

Good luck to you also, and I hope 3B or whoever behave themselves this afternoon.

Thank you Rott, I would apply the same criticism and withering tone to any group who claimed to have a monopoly on truth. I would find it difficult to differentiate to between RC or other Christian groups as their main claims seem fairly similar. Of course, if you are a member of one particular group the differences might seem huge. I think though that it is silly when one Christian group calls another group as not proper Christians because they don't get the same interpretation from a book - even more so if that group identifys themselves as Christian.

I am an outsider looking in and at the end of the day Christianity doesn't really make much sense to me, but I do respect those who follow this religion. I have less respect for those who strive to sow discord through pedanticism.

For me the purpose of religion is to make people better humans. If a religion seperates them from their fellow man or fills them full of hate and anger then it would seem obvious to me that either their understanding of their religion is flawed or that their religion is a negative influence in the world. Of course, many will disagree with me and feel that I should burn in hel_l for saying such a thing.

[OxfordWill]

There are better ways to make people behave well. Religion is a very odd and convoluted attempt, if that is really why we have it (which I doubt).

[jumnien]

i am a fundamentalist atheist. though i have never met a buddhist that i didn't like.

You are either extremely tolerant or you need to get out more!

[rott]

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

This is the real problem I have with certain religions. The insistence that their particular brand of interpretation of a book is the correct one and that others are misguided. This is what leads to ignorant bigotry. If you believe in the Bible then you take on faith some fantastic claims which may sound quite absurd to many people. To then go and poo-poo others for making similar fantastic claims from the same book, but yet try to ridicule them is the sign of a very limited mind. Good luck to you.

Well hello again Garro, wondered how long it would take you to bite. Thank you for your good wishes, with my limited mind I obviously need all the good luck I can get.

However you do miss the point, I am ridiculing their claims not because they are a different interpretation of "the book", but because they are totally without foundation in the book. To revert to my habit of over-simplification, the above (and many others) are man-made inventions actually contradicted by the bible.

In case this has you puzzling, the "immaculate conception" does not refer to the virgin birth but to the unscriptural teaching that Mary was born free of sin. (The Bible states "all have sinned", and generally only mentions Mary in passing.)

Your criticism of me i.e. interpretations etc. would seem to sit very snugly with the R.C. church, would you apply your comments and withering tone to them? According to them they are the "one true church", and they and only they are competent to read and interpret the bible.

Good luck to you also, and I hope 3B or whoever behave themselves this afternoon.

Thank you Rott, I would apply the same criticism and withering tone to any group who claimed to have a monopoly on truth. I would find it difficult to differentiate to between RC or other Christian groups as their main claims seem fairly similar. Of course, if you are a member of one particular group the differences might seem huge. I think though that it is silly when one Christian group calls another group as not proper Christians because they don't get the same interpretation from a book - even more so if that group identifys themselves as Christian.

I am an outsider looking in and at the end of the day Christianity doesn't really make much sense to me, but I do respect those who follow this religion. I have less respect for those who strive to sow discord through pedanticism.

For me the purpose of religion is to make people better humans. If a religion seperates them from their fellow man or fills them full of hate and anger then it would seem obvious to me that either their understanding of their religion is flawed or that their religion is a negative influence in the world. Of course, many will disagree with me and feel that I should burn in hel_l for saying such a thing.

Hmm. where to start. Well if you don't know the difference between the RC and other churches why are you posting anyway, and you seem determined to ignore my basic point about the role of Scripture in Christianity.

"Monopoly on truth", I thought all groups (and many individuals) claimed that.

"Hate and anger", not from me chief, do you have a mirror handy?

You attempt to take the moral high ground with the phrase "ignorant bigotry", then admit to a major level of ignorance yourself, and display bigotry by being personally offensive to me because I don't share

your views.

"Negative influence"? dead right, but so has the internal combustion engine.

The thread asked about religion, I stated my beliefs, I have a strong academic objection to Roman Catholic doctrine, that's it.

But you may be right about me being pedantic, please ask 3B to tell you how to spell sepArate.

[garro]

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

This is the real problem I have with certain religions. The insistence that their particular brand of interpretation of a book is the correct one and that others are misguided. This is what leads to ignorant bigotry. If you believe in the Bible then you take on faith some fantastic claims which may sound quite absurd to many people. To then go and poo-poo others for making similar fantastic claims from the same book, but yet try to ridicule them is the sign of a very limited mind. Good luck to you.

Well hello again Garro, wondered how long it would take you to bite. Thank you for your good wishes, with my limited mind I obviously need all the good luck I can get.

However you do miss the point, I am ridiculing their claims not because they are a different interpretation of "the book", but because they are totally without foundation in the book. To revert to my habit of over-simplification, the above (and many others) are man-made inventions actually contradicted by the bible.

In case this has you puzzling, the "immaculate conception" does not refer to the virgin birth but to the unscriptural teaching that Mary was born free of sin. (The Bible states "all have sinned", and generally only mentions Mary in passing.)

Your criticism of me i.e. interpretations etc. would seem to sit very snugly with the R.C. church, would you apply your comments and withering tone to them? According to them they are the "one true church", and they and only they are competent to read and interpret the bible.

Good luck to you also, and I hope 3B or whoever behave themselves this afternoon.

Thank you Rott, I would apply the same criticism and withering tone to any group who claimed to have a monopoly on truth. I would find it difficult to differentiate to between RC or other Christian groups as their main claims seem fairly similar. Of course, if you are a member of one particular group the differences might seem huge. I think though that it is silly when one Christian group calls another group as not proper Christians because they don't get the same interpretation from a book - even more so if that group identifys themselves as Christian.

I am an outsider looking in and at the end of the day Christianity doesn't really make much sense to me, but I do respect those who follow this religion. I have less respect for those who strive to sow discord through pedanticism.

For me the purpose of religion is to make people better humans. If a religion seperates them from their fellow man or fills them full of hate and anger then it would seem obvious to me that either their understanding of their religion is flawed or that their religion is a negative influence in the world. Of course, many will disagree with me and feel that I should burn in hel_l for saying such a thing.

Hmm. where to start. Well if you don't know the difference between the RC and other churches why are you posting anyway, and you seem determined to ignore my basic point about the role of Scripture in Christianity.

"Monopoly on truth", I thought all groups (and many individuals) claimed that.

"Hate and anger", not from me chief, do you have a mirror handy?

You attempt to take the moral high ground with the phrase "ignorant bigotry", then admit to a major level of ignorance yourself, and display bigotry by being personally offensive to me because I don't share

your views.

"Negative influence"? dead right, but so has the internal combustion engine.

The thread asked about religion, I stated my beliefs, I have a strong academic objection to Roman Catholic doctrine, that's it.

But you may be right about me being pedantic, please ask 3B to tell you how to spell sepArate.

Well Rott, if it is your wish to critique my spelling,grammar, or punctuation further then please let me know as I am more than game to review your posts. As for your comments about 3B? I really don't know what you are getting at. I have never taught a 3B (I assume that this is a group of students).

As my posts have not been specifically directed at any tenets of a religious group there is no need for me to know all about the different beliefs each hold. If a poster makes a comment which obviously seems silly then I think that I should be allowed to comment on that.

You claimed that people who are RC are not Christian even though all that I have met would claim to be Christian. I do not need to know much about Christian theology to see that you are claiming that a lot of people are either liars or deluded. So to me your comments sound arrogant and ignorant, and I don't believe that this requires me to know much more about your personal belief system.

[Naam]

But you may be right about me being pedantic, please ask 3B to tell you how to spell sepArate.

from Thaivisa Forum i learned that are many ways to spell this word and many people seem to agree that Garro's version "seperate" is the correct one. personally i think the only correct spelling is "seprit".

[garro]

But you may be right about me being pedantic, please ask 3B to tell you how to spell sepArate.

from Thaivisa Forum i learned that are many ways to spell this word and many people seem to agree that Garro's version "seperate" is the correct one. personally i think the only correct spelling is "seprit".

I will put my hands up and admit that I did spell this word wrong. Oh the shame. It is easy to forget that some people will look for any means to bolster their argument - even if it does come across to me as a bit petty.

[jumnien]

Isn't spelling just a human construct like man-made religions? Who cares hou u spel stuf?