Following Rules!

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Well, the question is simple. Do humans need to follow rules? If it were not for rules, what would be the consequences?, and if it were absolute freedom in the world, where would we be standing?

If we talk about 'Rules'. Are Rules that are created by nature, necessary to follow, and can we live happily without following Rules created by us?

[Zeugma 440]

The most simple, and probably the first rules that have existed should have been hierarchical rules imposed by survival issues, like those that exist among wolves.
"Join my clan and we'll protect you from predators", "United, we can defeat that mammoth" and so on...
Without any rule, there is no organization. We would have no society and mankind would probably never be what it currently is.

[Ephraim]

I believe the need for rules and order is inborn in all humans, and that our societies as a whole are a result of that tendency toward order. That said, we also have some tendencies towards chaos, so our societied never function perfectly. Rules, and the following of them, have allowed us to progress this far in our history. Some are natural, like many laws of Physics, Biology, and science in general, which we have learned and now benefit us by our following of them, or by knowing how to use them in context.

A lot of our rules have been created to keep our person and property safe, for example, murder and theft laws are an obvious example here. The rationale being "I agree not to kill you or touch your property if you agree to the same," and thus societies are born, when many people agree to the same rules and begin living together within certain boundaries.

So in short, I do believe rules have gotten us this far. Without them, we wouldn't be writing here on this forum - there would be no internet and no language, even.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Rules have caused conflicts between people who have power and they tend to change them for their use. Politicians manipulate 'Rules' just for the sake of politics. Is it true that Rules are the governing force behind power?

[TheDragonKnight]

if you mean that rules and therefor laws become accepted simply becasue "the guys in charge" said so id agree thats happening.

rules are nessicary, for our species as a whole to continue, from the most basic rules ever established for our survival like "dont piss off things with teeth bigger than your fingers" to the complex laws we have today.

i think we would not be nearly so advanced if we had grown in anarchy as a species

[Ephraim]

You're both right. Rules and laws have brought us to the point we are today, but of course rules can be manipulated for the good of "self". This is where politicians (the people in power) get their reputation from, they tend to do this all the time.

They also tend to make up "rules" for their own benefit. Come to think of it, we all do. Ever been in a game as a lid and had a friend suddenly make up a rule that "happens" to benefit them? Or was it you too? I know I've done it. :p

[TheDragonKnight]

oh aye, ive done that, heh its not cheating if you change the rules :P

[Ephraim]

Yes, I think we've all done that when we were kids (another argument that we need rules to follow).

[Lord Draud]

rules like religion is something made by men to control men, with out them our true selfs are revealed for good or ill and woe to the world if we where to be suddenly with out them

[TheDragonKnight]

no laws are made by men rules are universal, you need to breathe to live, thats a RULE, they dont control us they define us,

its is our limitations that define us and allow us to grow as a speices as we attempt to work together to overcome them. 200 years (or so) ago the ruke swas humans didnt fly, now we have used you streghts to overcome that limitation, rules define reality, without them there is not even chaos (which oddly enough has rules governing it as well).

[Lord Draud]

bah its not a rule that we breatrhh >.> its a addiction and withdraw is a killer, i was talking about don't kill other or don't steal, and its true humans can't fly they can make thingsthat fly and ride on them but that can't flap there arms and fly. any true chaos is with out order thus it is impossible for a human to even imagin it because there is order in our mind

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

I agree with Lord Draud. Breathing is not a RULE, its a fact and we cannot create rules by changing facts or by manipulating them.

[TheDragonKnight]

hmm i think your confusing the ways im using rules and laws here.

even though we speak of laws of physics i havent used itlike that i have been using laws SPECIFICLY for human legal codes where rules are the unquestionalbes taht you cannont change, sorry for confusion this generated.

taht makes breathing a rule, you MUST breathe (dont give me any bulshit about lame jokes or how you dont ahve to breathe its jsut a good idea, you have to breathe end of story, jsut like you have to eat.)

laws are things like dont killl other people, a rule is something that has immeadeate and usualy sever drawbacks for failing to follow it, humans must enforce laws on aeachother..

my eariler example of not pissing off something with teeth bigger then your fingers, to prehistoric man, that was a rule, cause if you DID piss something like that off it was likely to use you for its next meal. and at that time, it wasent something you questioned, it was simply not done. you didnt need to wait for the cops to come arrest you for breaing the law, you got the punisment dealt to you right away and more than liikely fataly.

there are no interveining steps, one action DIRECTLY causes the other. you breathe to live, its not like if you hold your breath somone will come along and have you hanged for breaking a law, you breath you live end of story.

be wise asses about the topic all you want it still doesnt change the facts.

[Mysterious Otter]

Rules are what keep us truly free. "No rules" is just another word for "anarchy" which is a counterproductive way to live. With anarchy there are no personal rights or freedoms; it's "every man for himself". Sure, some men might band together to protect themselves but then they are no longer operating without rules, are they? I appreciate rules and have no use for lawbreakers. Being older and wiser, I am not enamoured of anarchy like many young people (particularly young men) seem to be.There is a saying I like: "The freedom to swing your arms ends where the other guy's nose is." Those who can't see the wisdom in this simple saying are either grossly immature and/or completely selfish...two traits which are neither desirable or beneficial.

And now I'll stick my foot in it. Apparently, I come from a different perspective on rules than anyone who has posted here yet. I believe in a moral Authority who gave mankind rules to follow. These rules were not made by man, they were made for man and do not change over time or culture. They are eternally right and just. There are no extenuating circumstances, no "gray areas", and no different perspectives. Yes, there is such a thing as absolute right and absolute wrong. It's very comforting to me to know that the rules never change and makes them easier to follow than trying to keep up with the variable and capricious rules that man creates for himself. Such rules are generally based on feeling rather than justice.

However, if you don't believe in a Supreme Being then you are left with no choice but to live by man's rules instead of rules with some actual authority behind them. Other men certainly can and will change or take advantage of their rules without fear of justice because they have (in their own minds) recreated right and wrong to suit themselves...which is what some of you have been describing to try and explain why you think rules aren't necessarily a good thing. If all men accepted moral absolutes, there would always be recourse when wrong is done. As it stands in our culture today, if we're not playing the "blame game", we're trying to convince ourselves and others that anything goes and there's nothing "wrong" under the sun...only people who are misunderstood or misguided. Uh huh. There is a huge segment of society that would do anything rather than acknowledge moral absolutes and take responsibility for their own actions.

Human beings will always take the path of least resistance--it's our nature--and try to avoid personal responsibility for our own actions. Moral absolutes require that we follow one standard for behavior...and it does not allow for selfishness. Rules were given to man for the comfort and benefit of all. They were not created to hamper or confound him, just the opposite. A shame that most humans would prefer the slavery of catering to their own self-interest than follow the rules that keep them truly free.

On a side note, observe how in recent years as courtesy and manners are increasingly tossed aside as "artificial" and "stuffy" there has been a huge increase in lawsuits. Because self-control and adherence to moral absolutes has been deemed "dishonest" or "old fashioned" we now have a million new laws on the books to dictate and punish various behaviors--behaviors that were formerly dealt with privately and without involving the State. Talk about losing personal freedoms! Because people could not follow simple moral rules, responsibility for civil behavior has been removed from the individual and legislated. In other words, people are happily handing away their freedoms to the government in favor of restrictive laws because they didn't want to be courteous. Sad, but true.

I'll stop here for now. If anyone has read this far be aware that I have no interest in arguing my points. I do, however, welcome intelligent discussion and respectful debate. I know that my view is unpopular and may even invite some flames. Have at it, but don't expect me to respond to anyone who is rude or disrespectful.

[silverDistortioN]

interesting concept... that rules set us free. i would have to say i agree with it completely.

however, i disagree with the notion that morality is absolute and unchanging. to use the bible as an example... if the law of god is truly unchanging, then would it not be right to force non-christians into slavery? (check leviticus) and would it not be right to abstain from eating pork? (leviticus again) and would it not be right for women to be subservient to men? (check all over the place)

admittedly, i think these examples are a bit irrelevant; eating pork, for one, doesn't deal with morality, and the others could be attributed to the intervention of man (perhaps). but here's the kicker... if you believe that god's laws are truly unchanging, then what purpose would it serve to send down a... jesus-like figure? (if you'll notice, the new testament stresses love and mercy more than the old testament did.)

anyway... to move the conversation to a less religious ground...
over the years, i have come to find that justice and mercy are in direct opposition with each other; in order to show someone mercy, one must forgo showing him justice. (if the question of justice isn't applicable to the situation, then "mercy" in that case would simply be "common courtesy.") and for this reason, i find it not only inevitable that rules change... but necessary.

furthermore... robin hood. that is all!

[Mysterious Otter]

interesting concept... that rules set us free. i would have to say i agree with it completely.

however, i disagree with the notion that morality is absolute and unchanging. to use the bible as an example... if the law of god is truly unchanging, then would it not be right to force non-christians into slavery? (check leviticus) and would it not be right to abstain from eating pork? (leviticus again) and would it not be right for women to be subservient to men? (check all over the place)...


It's probably better not to turn this into a "religious" discussion but I'm sure we're all mature enough to engage in a discussion about absolute right and wrong and include Biblical references without anyone feeling threatened, hm?

Yes, there were laws given to people regarding slavery. Does God condone slavery? Not really, but He does know mankind and I think it was very wise of Him to give us rules regarding the treatment of slaves. Just because God made rules doesn't mean that all men follow them, therefore there is slavery, oppression, greed, etc...And if people had followed God's very simple instructions on how to live to begin with (remember that fruit tree incident in the Garden of Eden?) there would be no reason for any additional rules to govern "sinful" behaviors.

As for dietary laws...I imagine there were practical reasons why God made rules governing diet. Could be that food preservation at the time was not adequate to keep people from being sick. Could be that He just wanted to test the people's obedience. I can't speak for Him.

As for women being subservient to men...erm...care to quote some Scripture on that? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that women are to be anything less than a full partner with their husbands and dutiful to their fathers and brothers. Subservient? That's your word. Again, there were rules governing the different roles of the sexes...roles we've rebelled against and twisted and perverted.

The New Testament may seem to abolish everything in the Old Testament but this is not true. Jesus Himself said, "I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." When asked which was the greatest commandment He said, "Love the Lord your God with all your soul, mind, and strength. And love your neighbor as yourself. All of the commandments are summed up in these two." And He's right. You show love to your neighbor when you don't murder him, rob him, go after his wife, go after his property, and are content with what you have. Good rules even for any time and culture. And if people balk at the first part about loving God...it just shows how little they really want to follow the rest of it. If you can't acknowledge the absolute moral authority of God, then you surely aren't going to put much stock in His rules, are you? Again, those who cannot agree that there is a moral authority are generally looking for loopholes to allow their particular brand of law-breaking. ;)

As for your definition of justice and mercy...yes! But...that truly treads into religious ground which has nothing to do with the question at hand. We're talking about rules and the benefit of having them and following them.

Which leads us to a natural question: If the one who makes the laws is fallible, then how reliable or good are his laws? If mankind creates laws to apply only to specific times and cultures, then how valid are those laws? How can any culture declare that their laws are good if they don't apply to all people? For example, there are truly oppressive laws against women in many countries, laws that we don't subscribe to here. Those people believe their laws are good laws and yet...we don't. So, how authoritative are those laws? They simply aren't. Any law created by a human being is as fallible as the human being creating it. If you made a law tomorrow, no matter how good it sounded, I could just say, "Well, who does he think he is? Why should he be making laws that apply to me?" Then I ignore your laws and make my own. That's why it's necessary to have an absolute moral authority (in my case it is my omniscient, ominpotent, perfect God) that everyone can look to as having the RIGHT to create laws for others. God, by virtue of being God (and we're not), has that right. Can you think of any human who could claim to have the right to make laws for the rest of us--to declare himself, in essence, a moral authority?

[Ephraim]

I'm not very eloquent, so thank you, Otter, for saying everything I would like to say. No time to write more now, I just found out yesterday I'm not allowed to post from work. :search:

[TheDragonKnight]

ask and ye shall receive

genisis

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Thats a pretty clear indication of a subserviant role to me

i dont like your implication that i must be religous to have good morals (if thats not what your implying forgive me thats simply howi interperted it)

i also like the idea that the reules set us free, i had said that rules define us but that works even better :P

i also agree that we dont want or need to make this a purly religous debate (besides we all know those go on forever or untill sombody gets banned/leaves :D) though im sure you'll agree that the bible (espacily the older parts) treat women very badly, as little more than property in most cases.

as far as pork goes, chris rock said it best, "before there was freezers and saran wrap and shit a pork chop might kill ya!" one thing that i brought up in the gay marrige thread is that teh bible is written and translated by men, not the lord hismself, and as such is subject to the influences of the times (i mentioned in the other thread that a bible that doesnt translate to condeming gays, sells much less than one that does, so what version do you think gets published more?

teh same thought applies, things like acceptable treatment of women, or slaves, wass indicated at the times of the creation of the books.

We think that our laws, and rules, are better than somone elses so we impose them, i agree tahts pretty upity of us, im sure taht if the peopel in questions were so unhappy under therer laws and rules tehy'd have done something about it, i dont think any system could ever be ideal, all you can do is keep as amny people happu as you can, i also think that all our affirmitave action/miniority laws, do not help solve any of the problems either, making exceptions to rules can only enevitaly result in trouble (look at the english language, too many excecptions there)

use a collage example, (im pulling theses number out my ass, quote me on them only if you wish sto look as stupid as me :P) say only one in 5 studients in black the rest are white, are we seeing discrimination? well lets takea look at the applicants, if only one of every five applicants are black well that explains the lopsided ness doesnt it? thers no grand conspiricy here just the simple fact that less black people apply to harvard then white people do. we dont need these specific rules, tehy are falwed, and helps to illustrate that rules can be flawed.

however we are only human, just as in anything else we can only do our best, do what we think is best, and hope the people making the rules are doing wahts best for us and not them.

[Mysterious Otter]

ask and ye shall receive
genisis

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Thats a pretty clear indication of a subserviant role to me

While God is certainly pointing out that wives would be subject to their husbands, this was the result of disobedience and wasn't what God intended when he created man and woman and marriage. This is definitely a case of actions and consequences. And, using that verse, it's apparent that wives, as God created them, were equal partners with their husbands "in the beginning" before God's original plan was spoiled. But let me throw out some other verses that speak clearly about the role of men and women in marriage.

I won't quote the whole thing here but check out Proverbs 31 some time. It begins like this: "A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value..." And it ends like this: "...She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 'Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.' " This is not some woman suffering in forced servitude. This is a loving wife taking care of her family.

How about this rule for husbands from First Peter?

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect..."

Or maybe this one from Ephesians:

"...husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh...each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband..."

Sounds like a loving and mutually satisfactory relationship to me with neither partner having the upper hand. Had human beings obeyed the rules regarding marriage relationships, do you think we'd have the divorce rates or cynical attitudes toward marriage that we have today? Of course not. But husbands abused their position as head of household and treated their wives like slaves, and women did not willingly submit and serve their husbands, but rebelled. Is this the plan for marriage that God commanded? Nope. So, you can't point to the consequences of disobeying the rules and declare that the rules are bad. This goes for any rule, not just this one and not just biblically based rules.

Side note: "Wives submit to your husbands." The word "submission" means to yield or voluntarily defer authority. In other words, the wife trusts her husband to be the head of the household while she runs the everyday necessities of the household or "serves" him. I'm sure a lot of feminists would object to this arrangement but in any partnership there is usually one person designated as "boss" or the final word that others defer to. Marriage was meant to be no different, otherwise you end up with a "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" type situation. The husband provides for and protects the family; the wife runs the family affairs. In what way does this make the wife subservient?

In addition to commanding husbands to love their wives, the Bible also commands fathers not to exasperate their children. Many of you who are young and have a contentious relationship with your parents might be surprised at this. How often do you hear anyone mention this rule?

As for doubting the veracity of the Bible and attempting to dismiss it as something written, rewritten, and botched up by men...*shrugs*...you're not alone in that belief. It's a common argument used by those who don't want to accept moral absolutes, and I'm sure it seems like a logical way to dismiss God and His rules. After all, if the message is flawed then the whole idea of God must be flawed too. But I won't get into a debate about the veracity and credibility of the Bible. It really has no bearing on the discussion of whether rules are good thing, does it?

The question remains...is there is a moral authority mankind can turn to for rules to govern himself? If not, then how do we create rules for ourselves that are just and meaningful for all mankind? Can the definition of right and wrong change over time? If so, how can we know if we are changing them correctly?

[silverDistortioN]

well actually, i wouldn't mind religious debate at all... but i do think that there are some people whom it might make feel uncomfortable. and to be honest, that makes me feel a little uncomfortable myself.

i'll continue anyway...
*chops up the quote block*



And if people had followed God's very simple instructions on how to live to begin with (remember that fruit tree incident in the Garden of Eden?) there would be no reason for any additional rules to govern "sinful" behaviors.wow, i hadn't even thought of that... but *excellent* example of rules' susceptibility to change, Otter. ^.~



As for women being subservient to men...erm...care to quote some Scripture on that? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that women are to be anything less than a full partner with their husbands and dutiful to their fathers and brothers. Subservient? That's your word. Again, there were rules governing the different roles of the sexes...roles we've rebelled against and twisted and perverted.well, yes... it was my word. but in my opinion, it sums it up rather nicely:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
- Colossians 3:18

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands...
- 1 Peter 3:1

[Women] are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
- I Corinthians 14:34

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man...
- 1 Corinthians 11:3

Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church...
- Ephesians 5:22-23

edit: i'll concede this point in light of the last post.



As for your definition of justice and mercy...yes! But...that truly treads into religious ground which has nothing to do with the question at hand. We're talking about rules and the benefit of having them and following them.well, in a discussion of rules, i would say that justice and mercy are *quite* applicable. (although they do seem to have a great deal to do with christianity, but that shouldn't stop us from talking about it, should it? anyway...) what are rules be without enforcement? and along the same lines, what good would it be to have a heaven and hell when the bible offers such mercy and forgiveness of sins?

of course, i'm not saying i think mercy has no place in the world... i'm simply offering a justification as to why i think law should not be held as absolute. after all, it is man who enforces law, and, as you so nicely addressed, man is fundamentally flawed.

[Lord Draud]

man i make one little joke and i get a bad rep again, whom ever it was get a life and/or a sence of humour i was trying to make the thread not so heavy that we start fighting again like in the other one. TDK i read your post and for once you have my backing on all of it, and holy crap guys i feel small when reading your huge honking posts

[TheDragonKnight]

ahh otter :D i stand owned, i relent, you win on that one.

however im sorry if is eemed to be using that argument to throw away the teachings of the bible, i mearly meant than since it msut be imprefect (as any creation of man is) that instead of taking it literly and hashing words, we would be prehaps better off taking teh values and ideals expressed in The Book as opposed ot going for literal interpertaion/obedience of it.

Weather or not the book is accurate, or what the reality of god is (im quaker so im kinda odd on that) there are valuable lessons and values that can be learned from teh bible. weather you take these as absoultes for the mouth of god, or as simply good ideas or comment sense matters little as long as you are true to your self and your principals.

i think to some degree it is more important that a man stick by his morals, regardless of what they are then forcing one "correct" set on everyone who may or may not follow them. I would much rather dead with a man who had different morals then my self but who could be trusted to always follow them, then a man who had the same morals as me but could not be trusted to follow them.

[Mysterious Otter]

ahh otter :D i stand owned, i relent, you win on that one.

...i think to some degree it is more important that a man stick by his morals...
Heh...I wasn't trying to pwn anyone, just discussing! ;) There is nothing wrong with questioning things...even the veracity of the Bible...so no worries there.

Anyway, you say it is important for a man to stick by his morals. I agree...to an extent. It depend on "where" he got his morals from. Certainly, there are a bazillion hypocrites out there who claim to be honest men but, if the opportunity arises, more than happily behave in a dishonest manner...especially if there's something to gain for themselves. And yet, the most honest man in the world is worthless if what he believes to be right and wrong are...wrong! Again, your morals are only as good as the authority who gave them to you...and who is any man to create his own set of rules for how he behaves on earth. I know a lot of selfish people who do this already, and I bet you do too. They've basically said, "I don't like society's rules. I don't like codes of 'honor'. I think I should be able to do whatever I want, and what I want right now is to steal your car." They may even rationalize their theft by saying, "You have two cars and I have none therefore you must give me your car." (Hm...sounds like communism, but that's a debate for another time.) To him taking your car is not only fair, it's right! Are you okay with his set of moral rules? Now, unless you're just a benign person who has no need of your own possessions and is just waiting for people to take them, I don't imagine you'd be too thrilled if someone stole your car.

I know that's a ridiculous example but I only use it to back up the notion that individuals must be taught a moral standard. Each of us simply cannot make up our own rules as we go along...again, it would turn to anarchy as each person tries to carry out their own rights and wrongs in society. So, my question remains...where do we get our rules from? We have to have an authoritative and credible source for the rules even if you don't believe in absolutes. Who do we trust with such a task? ;)

Anyway, thank you for the discussion. Before I repeat myself too much, I'll end here *listens to sound of clapping hands*. Until next time then...

[silverDistortioN]

So, my question remains...where do we get our rules from? We have to have an authoritative and credible source for the rules even if you don't believe in absolutes. Who do we trust with such a task?sorry, i wanted to address these questions the other night, but i was half expecting another reply before mine and half wanting to go to sleep. >.>

anyway... i think rules come from collective "selfishness" passed down through time. people do not like to be robbed, so they form a band of people to protect each other from being robbed. and as a society grows, if its people do not agree (generally benefit) from the rules that have been set forth, socially pressure will continually build until these rules end up changing for the better. that is, if the band's leader decides it would be right to have the band's members give him half their belongings, then either the members would leave and form another band, or they would depose him as the leader.

of course, there's the small problem of corrupt societies forming corrupt governments. which i suppose is why we have war.

[TheDragonKnight]

hmm well i was hoping someone woudlnt pull out the extream case example, obviously i meant it only with in limits.

what silver says makes sence, ill jsut sit back and let him do all the work.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

I agree with Silver and Mysterious Otter, you make some interesting arguments as well. The rules are a common translation of our rights that we want for ourselves and the generations that will descend us and changing them has always been in the palms of the ones that have created them. However, not much changes in rules when you shift from one place to the other in the world.

One may ask, are Rules MEAN?I would say, no...to some extent. As Silver explained a while ago "of course, there's the small problem of corrupt societies forming corrupt governments. which i suppose is why we have war.", does this, in any way, tell us the MEANNESS of governments or societies forming Rules.

I should say, apart from all the discussion, that I merely never took rules seriously in my life and its not that I don't follow them but some of them simply make me kill the person who made them...believe me, its true.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

I've been thinking for a while that discussions that take place in this section of the board are mostly left alone after a set of time and nobody arrives at a conclusion or some agreed upon fact. Why is that?

[Lord Draud]

its because in teh end we all have opintons and most of us will debate and argue and not change our stance thus after we all get veiws and debate a bit we agree to leave it be

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

So what's the purpose of having this section?

[silverDistortioN]

what is the purpose of having any section.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

yeah, why not close it all and merge it into one single room where everybody speaks his own language and yaps about his own ideas...

[silverDistortioN]

we have one of those! it's called a chat room.

[Gimble]

I just read this thread, and I'm surpised Otter is using the same arguments I usually make (only in RL though, I suck at discussing things on forums :) ).

Very nicely worded, Otter. *adds a reputation reply thingy*

[Grey Fox]

Of course we need rules. Silly thread:)

Do you not tell your children to watch out for the cooker because it will burn you or tell them to watch out for traffic....you give them rules about where they can and cannot go etc etc the list is endless. A world without rules.....bah what a silly idea:)

[Mysterious Otter]

I just read this thread, and I'm surpised Otter is using the same arguments I usually make (only in RL though, I suck at discussing things on forums :) ).

Very nicely worded, Otter. *adds a reputation reply thingy*
:D Thank you!

*does a happy dance* I'm not alooooone!

[Firefly]

I strongly recommend the book The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels for anyone interested in questions such as these. In particular, there is a chapter titled "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" which explains why so many people accept the erroneous viewpoint that religion provides the only true absolute moral authority, and summarizes why this viewpoint can even be considered heretical. Here is a .pdf that shows a summary of this chapter. (http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/NQuinn/ENGR019_301Winter2002/RachelsChap4.pdf)

I am not interested in this this thread turning into a religious debate, so please note that I am not attacking religion in any way. I just want to present an alternative to the presumptuously irksome idea so popular in the West that morality absolutely depends upon religious dogma.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

I think people try to twist things and facts to match their own criteria and that is what I see happening around here. I never wanted this to be biased. I know Rules are important...bah who doesn't.

The question was to discuss on the importance of Rules, whether we need them or not? If someone tries to take it towards a flame war or religious matters then I'm sorry, this is not the place.

SilverDistortion
we have one of those! it's called a chat room.
Good...great place to speak in a croud.

Grey Fox
bah what a silly idea
yeah what a silly post! you don't need to tell us that...right!

Firefly, when did this thread start to become a religious discussion?

[Firefly]

Firefly, when did this thread start to become a religious discussion?
Hmm, I didn't say it did. I meant that I wasn't trying to provoke a religious debate. Some people were talking about religion, and I wasn't interested in that angle. Just wanted to share a bit of what I thought without ruffling anyone's feathers.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread. I'll keep an eye on it. :thumbup:

[Galthol]

This is just my view.
Children who are raised in a religous socity will continue to worship in that religion simply because that is what they have all ways known. I belive you should make a consious choice before you start saying "I am >insert religion<" You are just saying that because every one you know is said religion so it must be right. People just start raiseing children in a moral but not religous household and teach them to question the norm and allow them to pick thier own religion.

I just want to end this post thanking my Father in supporting me when I left the church and decided to follow the druids path.

[silverDistortioN]

Good...great place to speak in a croud.and i suppose you mean to imply that you're not speaking in a crowd right now?

i notice you seemed to have suddenly grown into this holier-than-thou attitude. to be honest, i find it annoying. you seem to be the only one concerned about some perceived degradation of this thread.

there's no reason to forbid religious discussion, especially on topics where religion plays such an important role.

[Geosgaeno]

I belive you should make a consious choice before you start saying "I am >insert religion<"
for some religions this is not allowed, most Catholics (like me although i dont bother what i am) are baptised into the Catholic faith at birth (child baptism) and therefore do not even get the chance to choose (like me)

anyway i wish i didnt belong to any religion, because i dont even go to church or anything.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Posted By: SilverDistortion
and i suppose you mean to imply that you're not speaking in a crowd right now?

you seem to be the only one concerned about some perceived degradation of this thread.

there's no reason to forbid religious discussion, especially on topics where religion plays such an important role.

I think we have some misunderstanding here, SilverDistortion. I don't really care about what people post around this forum or any other. If you feel that I am concerned about this forum being driven dead then I must say that you have misunderstood my statement. Religious discussion has always lead to a flame war as far as I've seen around many forums.

i notice you seemed to have suddenly grown into this holier-than-thou attitude. to be honest, i find it annoying.

You may be correct, to be honest, but I have not. I'm sorry to annoy anyone around here. You are a senior member of this community and I respect your opinion. The only reason, I forbid someone to start a Religious discussion around here, was because I saw Grey Fox's threads some while ago. I'm a Muslim truly and I hate the way people strike at the religion without any knowledge.

As you have continued to have a discussion with me about having a thread for discussion, you should notice your attitude as well. I thought it was rude of you to answer me bluntly when I was asking a very simple question.

Again, I'm sorry if I hurt someone or if I sounded "holier-than-thou" anywhere.

[BAMAToNE]

On the plus side, you do have a damn cool sig.

[silverDistortioN]

As you have continued to have a discussion with me about having a thread for discussion, you should notice your attitude as well. I thought it was rude of you to answer me bluntly when I was asking a very simple question.there's a subtle difference between what was implied and what was inferred. now, i'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here, but i didn't mean to be blunt until after you reacted to me being "blunt"... in that post where i said you were annoying me, that is.

if you'll go back and reread whatever post offended you, maybe you won't interpret it with whatever tone you invented. because i surely didn't invent it.

anyway, we've had a long history of peaceful religious discussion. we've only recently hit a rough spot, and religion wasn't the only issue at hand there. it would be a bit much to forbid discussion of each of those topics, so we went ahead and banned the offending members (including, but not limited to, Grey Fox). hopefully now there won't be such reason to restrict discussion like that.

[SeymourGuado]

Yes religion does lead to flame wars but thats because religions especially Islam from my experience cannot take any criticism.

History shows that Christians and especially Islam has a very bloody past, Islam TODAY is the cause of 90% of all conflict I believe that is the statistic.

It can be argued and argued but many muslims including Osama take the literal meaning of the Koran. If it isn't the literal meaning that is interpreted, Muslims should alter it to fit in with todays relevance like Christians have done.

Actually the new testament is pretty much ok, noone is going to murder/kidnap launch jihad on someone on the account of something Jesus said are they.

Thats my take on it but I won't be invlolved in further discussion. I have seen what happens especially with regards to the one or two that were banned. They made some valid points, they were too forceful and serious, people got upset, arguments broke out...its the same cycle I see everywhere. There are plenty of sites around where you can have the debate however you want and if you get upset or start flinging insults you are left alone but ridiculed or called a baby.

Its nice to be on them sites because no matter who gets offended noone cares, the debate lasts longer even though some turn to insults. Regardless I don't believe Rpgamers would be a good place for these types of discussion. It is just a site that wants to have fun and friendliness. Serious debates always turn ugly.

What I am saying is I believe serious discussion should not really be brought up on a site like this it should be left for a more serious site, for the reasons just outlined:)

Seifer Almasy

[Galthol]

for some religions this is not allowed, most Catholics (like me although i dont bother what i am) are baptised into the Catholic faith at birth (child baptism) and therefore do not even get the chance to choose (like me)

anyway i wish i didnt belong to any religion, because i dont even go to church or anything.
This is just what I am talking about. You don't go to church. You were baptized thats it. You do get to make a choice. You should not just sit back and say "I'm catholic because I was were baptized", get out there look around and make a concious desciion to choose a demonation/religion for yourself. I was baptized Catholic myself and I did not find out till about a year ago, after I had made a descison to swich faiths. You were raised thinking you had to be Cathloic. You don't YOU HAVE A CHOICE AND NO ONE SHOULD MAKE IT FOR YOU.

[silverDistortioN]

Yes religion does lead to flame wars but thats because religions especially Islam from my experience cannot take any criticism.

History shows that Christians and especially Islam has a very bloody past, Islam TODAY is the cause of 90% of all conflict I believe that is the statistic.

It can be argued and argued but many muslims including Osama take the literal meaning of the Koran. If it isn't the literal meaning that is interpreted, Muslims should alter it to fit in with todays relevance like Christians have done.

Actually the new testament is pretty much ok, noone is going to murder/kidnap launch jihad on someone on the account of something Jesus said are they.

Thats my take on it but I won't be invlolved in further discussion. I have seen what happens especially with regards to the one or two that were banned. They made some valid points, they were too forceful and serious, people got upset, arguments broke out...its the same cycle I see everywhere. There are plenty of sites around where you can have the debate however you want and if you get upset or start flinging insults you are left alone but ridiculed or called a baby.

Its nice to be on them sites because no matter who gets offended noone cares, the debate lasts longer even though some turn to insults. Regardless I don't believe Rpgamers would be a good place for these types of discussion. It is just a site that wants to have fun and friendliness. Serious debates always turn ugly.

What I am saying is I believe serious discussion should not really be brought up on a site like this it should be left for a more serious site, for the reasons just outlined:)

Seifer Almasyin the past, we have had discussion of religion that courteously remained outside the boundaries of attacking the validity of others' beliefs.

but in light of this post, i realize that some of us aren't willing to extend that sort of courtesy.

[SeymourGuado]

It is my opinion, people are free to debate against me and my beliefs if they wish but not here on rpgamers.

The point I was making was that having an opinion against someones religion causes problems and this is clearly not the place for this type of discussion. Therefore anyone who wishes to argue their point can do so with me on another forum.

I appologise if I was misunderstood. But religious discussions will naturally bring up criticism, thats why I stear clear of it on many forums. THis will be one of them:) :tophat:

Seifer Almasy

[Geosgaeno]

This is just what I am talking about. You don't go to church. You were baptized thats it. You do get to make a choice. You should not just sit back and say "I'm catholic because I was were baptized", get out there look around and make a concious desciion to choose a demonation/religion for yourself.
like ive said on numorous occasions, i dont care bout religion and that is why im not gonna bother getting off my arse, being Catholic doesnt stop me from doing things.

well enough on religion, i dont care what denomination i am.

[silverDistortioN]

there is certainly a line to be drawn, but i am 30% confident that people here won't cross it in a thread about *rules*. this isn't a religious debate thread. that thread was locked and will be sent to the trash zone as soon as we make one.

religion and rules are fundamentally intertwined. it is up to individual members whether or not to start a flame war about it, but if individual members do happen to want to cause problems, then they will have to face the consequences.

there is a subtle difference between discussing how someone's religion influenced law in the world and arguing whether someone's religion is a morally or socially unacceptable faith. it's up to you whether or not to cross the line. (but i highly recommend you don't.)

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

Posted By: SilverDistortion
now, i'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here, but i didn't mean to be blunt until after you reacted to me being "blunt"... in that post where i said you were annoying me, that is.I understand. I misinterpreted your reply.

Posted By: Bamatone
On the plus side, you do have a damn cool sig.
Thanks... :)