American Religious Teens and Risky Behavior

[MrsSallyBakura]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

That is probably, because most have had sex in truth ^_- (though on serious note, trust me, though sure there are those it worked for, I do know of those it didn't work for and think in our modern age, sex after marriage is something which is outdated, because we want more from our lives and so by default our marriages than before, plus getting married now, is lot more of personal choice, than in past, when it was more of a forced one and one which took at very early age to someone, who lot of time didn;t actually love, but needed to marry out of social needs)

Hmm, how didn't it work for them? Just curious.

And it's not like people have been engaging in premarital or extramarital sex only recently. Many people have been doing such a thing for quite some time. It's true that married culture has changed over the years but I don't think that sex itself has except that there's a greater fear of STDs and children.

Also, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Not the best kind, obviously, but it adds to discussion and gives someone something to think about. Maybe there's some official research on the issue.

[HolyShadow]

It seems that when a side is losing, then they try to discount what people say without presenting any proof to the table.

I provided evidence.

You have not, Fared.

Prove that a person having a lot of sex doesn't make them spent more time having sex than doing more constructive things, ergo increasing their experience in said constructive thing, ergo making them SMARTER.

[killshot]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

...

I masturbate about two to three times a day.

Holy Shit.

When I take a week off, my mind gets much clearer and I get much smarter.

Pretending that doesn't happen is nothing but bull.

Try it for yourself.

If I go more than a few days, I start having deviant thoughts during commercials that don't even have people in them. I sometimes need to masturbate just so I can concentrate. It must work differently for some people.

[HolyShadow]

 

(I can shoot off about 5 times a day if I have a whole day to work at it, and I can go for about 11 hours before I have to if I'm trying to hold back)

Yeah, there's a period of time that if you don't do it, then it makes you only think of it, but after about a week, you don't really have to. You just want to.

[Kanariya674]

This is such a hard question to reply to, because there are so many examples of exceptions to each opinion...

I find myself split here based on my personal experience. I see half the people I know find religion and stick with it, and others who say FU and go about their own way. Each side has its good and bad people.

I see kids who are completely restricted during their teenage years go wild once they are one step into freedom. They are so sheltered (whether it be because of religious rules or overprotective parents) that they lose it when they are finally on their own. I also see kids constantly living with it fall into the same pattern. This applies to those high and low on the social ladder.

Some upper class teenagers = completely restricted from risks. They want to rebel from the normalcy.
Lower class teenagers = surrounded by risks possibly on a daily basis. They give in to what's been surrounding them.

Both extremes are bad. Many choose not to be part of this pattern and end up being successful. Honestly, do what you think will make you feel safest yet satisfied at the same time. If you want to have sex, find a partner who you can see yourself compatible with for a while. Nowadays, one night stands are very dangerous (There's a risk to that, but the effect could be some incurable AIDS or genital herpes so I just see it as a death trap).

The more we are restricted, the more temptation we will have to see what lies on the other side. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not; it depends how you see yourself and how you react to the situations brought upon you. There's no definite answer to this...

[Aninamar]

It seems that when a side is losing, then they try to discount what people say without presenting any proof to the table.

Don't worry, we don't doubt that you're capable of "giving it a shot" three times a day. (Not me, at least). ;)

Prove that a person having a lot of sex doesn't make them spent more time having sex than doing more constructive things, ergo increasing their experience in said constructive thing, ergo making them SMARTER.

Well, you know, when *I* jerk off, I usually just spend about 2 minutes and simply wipe the stuff of my chest, instead of playing some weird autoerotic asphyxiations. This means that in order to do perfect passionate, creative things in my life, I have "only" 1438 minutes left per day. Assuming I am as horny as I am cold sexy, I lose 2 minutes x 3 JOT (Jerk Off Times), meaning I'm behind by... OMG, 6 minutes.

Think of all the card games I'd never play. :( Imagine if Jack Bauer had this kind of dilemma.

But seriously, Shining, this kind of thinking is flawed. I can claim just as well that I somehow play StarCraft 15% better just because of the full moon at night.

You know you really waste more time writing actual things on this awful forum than jerking off?

...well, unless when you jerk off, you feel so fucked up that you actually activate a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Kochiha]

Originally Posted by Spoofs3

That is only a servey of America though, I cannot comment on how Religion affects society in America but in Ireland it doesn't help at all :P
Over the last hundred years, right up to the 90's not only did it interfere with the youth, it interfered with Politics aswell.
Didn't help at all and in modern days religion is shrinking and other ways of stopping youth from doing bad things have been introduced (I involved myself in Parkour ^_^)

From what I remember, wasn't religion the primary cause of risky behavior in the north for about 30 years?
And the Troubles are just one example of what organized religion does to people, and this isn't just going to be one of my usual Christian-slamming sessions. Getting involved in organized religion is one of the primary ways to forfeit your morality as well as your own beliefs. Sure, Christianity is the worst of them because of how divided it is, but just take a look at what's going on in Iraq. It's just like the UVF and the IRA duking it out, except this time the division is across Islam and the United States armed forces are only there because they found themselves caught in the middle rather than going in to occupy a territorial interest. But it doesn't change the fact that it's two sects of the same religion fighting each other simply because the organized factors of their "beliefs" suddenly decided to lable each other as enemies. And then there's the cross-religion violence. Youths around the world are encouraged to take up arms in the name of their religion's beliefs (since they aren't going by their own) that declare that the organization that is another religion is evil and must be purged. Arab nations threatening to destroy Israel. Israeli forces getting itchy trigger fingers in anticipation of the next war to come around. Continued actions by the RIRA (I'm not sure if the CIRA is still around) and whatever Protestant groups are around up there. China's actions against Confucianists. Aum Shinrinko in Japan. Borderline treasonous activities taking place amongst members of the United Church of Christ in Illinois. Nations may have learned to stop fighting each other on the basis of religion, so why haven't religious organizations learned that, retrospectively, creed, dogma, and ritual mean absolutely nothing?
This isn't, however, to say that religion in and of itself is a bad thing, though. I'm a self-professed Buddhist (with Shinto influences), and I live my life accordingly. It's when one becomes a part of an organized religion (such as the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, or Shiite Islam) that all becomes lost. And from what I remember, church groups are merely extensions of organized religions, meaning that being a part of them teaches you how to disregard other beliefs and how to hate other people. Be as Christian as you want; just don't go to church.

[HolyShadow]

You know...

I've always found it strange how people forced others to believe in their religion for so long in other countries... America negates that and makes it so people can believe what they want.

I guess what I'm asking is...

How many holy wars has America had?

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Aninamar

Don't worry, we don't doubt that you're capable of "giving it a shot" three times a day. (Not me, at least). ;)



Well, you know, when *I* jerk off, I usually just spend about 2 minutes and simply wipe the stuff of my chest, instead of playing some weird autoerotic asphyxiations. This means that in order to do perfect passionate, creative things in my life, I have "only" 1438 minutes left per day. Assuming I am as horny as I am cold sexy, I lose 2 minutes x 3 JOT (Jerk Off Times), meaning I'm behind by... OMG, 6 minutes.

Think of all the card games I'd never play. :( Imagine if Jack Bauer had this kind of dilemma.

But seriously, Shining, this kind of thinking is flawed. I can claim just as well that I somehow play StarCraft 15% better just because of the full moon at night.

You know you really waste more time writing actual things on this awful forum than jerking off?

...well, unless when you jerk off, you feel so fucked up that you actually activate a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ah, so you can only last 2 minutes?

Wow, it'd be amazing if you could keep a mate for more than... well, 2 minutes.

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by MrsSallyBakura

Hmm, how didn't it work for them? Just curious.

And it's not like people have been engaging in premarital or extramarital sex only recently. Many people have been doing such a thing for quite some time. It's true that married culture has changed over the years but I don't think that sex itself has except that there's a greater fear of STDs and children.

Also, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Not the best kind, obviously, but it adds to discussion and gives someone something to think about. Maybe there's some official research on the issue.

Indeed, and it was not my intent to say haven't, however the idea of pre-marriage sex in western as norn is still modern day ideal (well sedo-modern anyway 60's+)

however, sally I wasn't discarding anecdotal evidence, in fact I was actually using it myself (however the situations are little private to go into too much detail over internet, but basically left them unhappy when finally came to fulfilling what thought would be a romantic act)

-However, there seems to be a BIG misconception on here, that STD's are new thing, this is very MUCH wrong and many have been around for very long time, Aids in humans is reportedly a newer problem, true, but most STD's are in fact very old and because of contraceptives...etc we are now safer from them than ever before

-As for how great sex is, well is overrated (ironically) and you will probably be ven more disappointed if save self for it, because did all that work only to find out, it wasn't what told it was lol (sorry, being purposely thericious to wind you up ^_^)

Holy this is NOT evidence, this is your opinion, based on nothing but your own placebo filled mind, I mean I personally think it has no effect and from my own mind this is true, but doesn't stop being opinion,

Now can we move on from this degrading and unneeded subject

-As for other point, notice how USA restricts lot of political ideals and forces them other nations and it has in its short history had more war than most other nations put together (take from this what you will,)

Originally Posted by Kochiha

From what I remember, wasn't religion the primary cause of risky behavior in the north for about 30 years?

is this from study or something, (sorry not sure what mean?)

Sure, Christianity is the worst of them because of how divided it is, but just take a look at what's going on in Iraq.

Ok I'm no fan of Christian idealogy or religion ether, but:-

1=To call anyone of them worse than others is kind of repugnant as just impossible to lump them all in one bin

2=If going to do it this way, don't just go for a Religion you know the lot about, Christians have their fair share of problems and troubles, but if going to go into it, I would say even their most extreme factions are far from what could be considered the "Worse" under any definition of the word

It's just like the UVF and the IRA duking it out, except this time the division is across Islam and the United States armed forces are only there because they found themselves caught in the middle rather than going in to occupy a territorial interest.

Ok, problems with this statement:-To be caught in the middle, implies:-

1=They weren't their by choice
2=They had no involvement within the troubles
3=They haven't gained anything from it

As for the UVF and IRA, well that to be fair was political problems under the mask of religion (and the ones who are truly fighting for religious causes are hard to be trusted as the norm, when some of them believe that RC is founding religion of Ireland (somehow))

But it doesn't change the fact that it's two sects of the same religion fighting each other simply because the organized factors of their "beliefs" suddenly decided to lable each other as enemies. And then there's the cross-religion violence. Youths around the world are encouraged to take up arms in the name of their religion's beliefs (since they aren't going by their own) that declare that the organization that is another religion is evil and must be purged. Arab nations threatening to destroy Israel. Israeli forces getting itchy trigger fingers in anticipation of the next war to come around.

well I to be fair, their is merit to this point, and this is reason I said we had to place this study in context and that it was too narrow/the risk it was on about was too undefined

and this is why in relation to USA, your point, holds a lot less water than in these countries you have said

However, there is another problem with your view, but go into it later

Continued actions by the RIRA (I'm not sure if the CIRA is still around) and whatever Protestant groups are around up there. China's actions against Confucianists.

Not to be condescending here, but maybe you should learn what Confucianism is first, it is not a Religion it is a theological ideology /doctrine (which maybe could be political ideal, but not religion) and part of its ideal was that "War is a Good Thing" (PS they damned the Mystic’s and this is why set up the legalists)

Now, if you had said the mystic’s or followers of "The Way" then yes, maybe you could make a point, however many of these were ether totelaurians or naturists, so their beliefs ether support complete control or no control at all, meaning war is natural by-product of their own ideology. This means rather fighting over intrepatation, they fight because it is part of the belief or will just happen because of lack of structure in way their way of living.

(However even this is too simplistic a view to truly make you understand my point or how it worked, but to go further into this, will take too long and be off topic, so I will say if want to understand this area better, read a "Tao Te Ching" translation (I recommend Lao Tzu's, as he helps explain it, as well as translates it and gives a brief history on its rise within china/basic ideology’s)

Nations may have learned to stop fighting each other on the basis of religion, so why haven't religious organizations learned that, retrospectively, creed, dogma, and ritual mean absolutely nothing?

Here, this other problem, i was on about earlier, to be fair, we have "rarely" front over religion, though has happened a lot, in the true grand construct of history, most of our wars were always about:-

1=Resources
2=Land
3=Political ideology (or how to run the world)

And religion was mostly a subplot or self-vindication within one of these, rather than actual cause of war

Case:-
Henry 8th, made Britain Protestant, but this was to regain British Sovereignty, not because he cared about religion par-say (he died a Catholic)

This isn't, however, to say that religion in and of itself is a bad thing, though. I'm a self-professed Buddhist (with Shinto influences), and I live my life accordingly. It's when one becomes a part of an organized religion (such as the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, or Shiite Islam) that all becomes lost. And from what I remember, church groups are merely extensions of organized religions, meaning that being a part of them teaches you how to disregard other beliefs and how to hate other people. Be as Christian as you want; just don't go to church.

Buddhism is an organized religion (with lot of restrictions) in fact, one of the 5 main religions, it just that it is lot less greedy and political than other religions and tech has no god

[OverMind]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

Ah, so you can only last 2 minutes?

Wow, it'd be amazing if you could keep a mate for more than... well, 2 minutes.

... You're not addressing his original point.

[Aninamar]

Originally Posted by OverMind

... You're not addressing his original point.

That's no problem, Ovie; he just didn't come around to it yet. :P

Hey, in fact...
Remember all those times where Edgeworth or Franziska pull out key evidence that's supposed to screw you royally up, and you wonderfully emerge out of it, and then use the said evidence to turn the trial on your side?

<Present:
Shining's Post>

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

It seems that when a side is losing, then they try to discount what people say without presenting any proof to the table.

[HolyShadow]

Well, my point to that was...

If you can only last two minutes, you aren't as desirable. If so, then you won't use time on a relationship, so using 2 minutes shouldn't be a problem at all.

Of course, if you look at it from the perspective of using 2 minutes to make a real difference, and those 2 minutes you'd never get back, that'd work too, but it would be weaker.

And then there's the whole aspect of using masturbation to relieve stress. You could lift weights to accomplish the same task.

[AllisonWalker]

You guys are way off topic now.

[Aninamar]

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I had to castrate myself to beat that pesky Terran who kept pwning me with a mech build. :/

If you can only last two minutes, you aren't as desirable. If so, then you won't use time on a relationship, so using 2 minutes shouldn't be a problem at all.

Haven't we already covered that sex is bad, clouds your reasoning, and should never make a foundation for a relationship? Therefore I don't see this as a problem. And I'm pretty much growth-stunted and I'd not like to talk about this.

Of course, if you look at it from the perspective of using 2 minutes to make a real difference, and those 2 minutes you'd never get back, that'd work too, but it would be weaker.

Err... those are two minutes. Two minutes in an entire 1440 minute day. You really think I'm going to lose more time wanking than, for example, writing this post? Fapping is more enjoyable anyway, gets rid of certain excess fluids, trains your wrist, helps you sleep and prompts you to do creative things (see Autoerotic Asphyxiation). Meanwhile on those forums I lose my eyesight, get more mad, my back is getting more and more hunched, I'm exposed to yaoi and the stupidity of certain posters... All the time I'm spending to show off my point and to pinpoint the weaknesses of your reasoning is wasted, and all this excess time I could spend by strobilating a polyp, beating the Nazi in the helmet... and actually having fun!

And then there's the whole aspect of using masturbation to relieve stress. You could lift weights to accomplish the same task.

Well, to relieve stress, you could also throw yourself off a 10-story building. It's actually pretty much the fastest way to relieve your stress! (Your body will be under some pressure after the rigor mortis, but that won't really bother you anymore...) But you don't have to if you don't like! You can go the hard way. See? That's what life is about: do whatever choices that you find pleasable. And this way I also get to keep a few spare bones, which is quite a perk in itself.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Aninamar

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I had to castrate myself to beat that pesky Terran who kept pwning me with a mech build. :/

Zerg player? Piece of cake.

Haven't we already covered that sex is bad, clouds your reasoning, and should never make a foundation for a relationship? Therefore I don't see this as a problem. And I'm pretty much growth-stunted and I'd not like to talk about this.

This isn't the logic you're likely to use. I tend to use my opponent's logic before finding holes in it. You're trying to do the same thing, but if you're willing to say this is true, then I guess I win.

Err... those are two minutes. Two minutes in an entire 1440 minute day. You really think I'm going to lose more time wanking than, for example, writing this post? Fapping is more enjoyable anyway, gets rid of certain excess fluids, trains your wrist, helps you sleep and prompts you to do creative things (see Autoerotic Asphyxiation). Meanwhile on those forums I lose my eyesight, get more mad, my back is getting more and more hunched, I'm exposed to yaoi and the stupidity of certain posters... All the time I'm spending to show off my point and to pinpoint the weaknesses of your reasoning is wasted, and all this excess time I could spend by strobilating a polyp, beating the Nazi in the helmet... and actually having fun!

1: That's why I said it was a weak argument.
2: If you're not having fun, then don't go onto this website.

Well, to relieve stress, you could also throw yourself off a 10-story building. It's actually pretty much the fastest way to relieve your stress! (Your body will be under some pressure after the rigor mortis, but that won't really bother you anymore...) But you don't have to if you don't like! You can go the hard way. See? That's what life is about: do whatever choices that you find pleasable. And this way I also get to keep a few spare bones, which is quite a perk in itself.

...

LOL

So you're a preferentialist?

[Aninamar]

Zerg player? Piece of cake.

Pfeh, sure. What rank are you? :P I remember helping you out with the friggin' campaign, you pesky youngster!

This isn't the logic you're likely to use. I tend to use my opponent's logic before finding holes in it. You're trying to do the same thing, but if you're willing to say this is true, then I guess I win.

But there's no point to win. What does the fact that I'm the quickest hand to the east of Germany have to do with the debate at hand or my future love life?

1: That's why I said it was a weak argument.

Erm, why?

2: If you're not having fun, then don't go onto this website.

I enjoy torturing myself. I also frequent Fanfiction.net.

...

LOL

So you're a preferentialist?

I'm assuming you're talking about this term in a pejorative sense.

Then yeah, I guess that when I have a choice of killing myself or shooting the load, I'd choose the latter, even though they both carry out the same goal (but with different side effects).

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Aninamar

Pfeh, sure. What rank are you? :P I remember helping you out with the friggin' campaign, you pesky youngster!

I meant that Zerg vs Terran is rather one-sided. Terran are stronger against protoss because they can remove shields from buildings. But against Zerg, they don't have much other than tanks.

But there's no point to win. What does the fact that I'm the quickest hand to the east of Germany have to do with the debate at hand or my future love life?

Well, you said that sex clouds your reasoning. Therefore, I have convinced you of my point and have won.

Erm, why?

You're the one who wrote out why. Don't make me reiterate it. It wasn't a strong argument. That's why it wasn't my main one, or even a side one. Just something to mention.

I enjoy torturing myself. I also frequent Fanfiction.net.

So you like yaoi fanfics involving Twilight vampires?

I'm assuming you're talking about this term in a pejorative sense.

Then yeah, I guess that when I have a choice of killing myself or shooting the load, I'd choose the latter, even though they both carry out the same effect (but with different side effects).

Nope, just asking.

[Aninamar]

I meant that Zerg vs Terran is rather one-sided. Terran are stronger against protoss because they can remove shields from buildings. But against Zerg, they don't have much other than tanks.

Please, stop, because seeing you write this kind of crap is breaking my heart.

The only thing that lets the Zerg survive the late game against Terran is Defilers. Because the Terran will have a crapload of Marines & Medics supported by Tanks and Science Vessels, so relying on pure Lurkerling won't cut it and you need the Hive tech for Defiler special abilities.
When the Terran goes mech, Zerg can't engage his army head-on, and he has to resort to drops and mass expansion most of the time to take advantage of the Terran's immobility.

And the fact that Terran has EMP doesn't tip the match in their favor. It's main use is to prevent the Arbiters from making a devastating Recall into your base, and of course to detect stuff.

Well, you said that sex clouds your reasoning. Therefore, I have convinced you of my point and have won.

No, I haven't said anything like that. I think you're lately having way too much sex to think like this.

You're the one who wrote out why. Don't make me reiterate it. It wasn't a strong argument. That's why it wasn't my main one, or even a side one. Just something to mention.

Oh, that would make sense.

So you like yaoi fanfics involving Twilight vampires?

Yes, while they rape the infant Renesmee and sing Chacarron Macarron.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Aninamar

Please, stop, because seeing you write this kind of crap is breaking my heart.

The only thing that lets the Zerg survive the late game against Terran is Defilers. Because the Terran will have a crapload of Marines & Medics supported by Tanks and Science Vessels, so relying on pure Lurkerling won't cut it and you need the Hive tech for Defiler special abilities.
When the Terran goes mech, Zerg can't engage his army head-on, and he has to resort to drops and mass expansion most of the time to take advantage of the Terran's immobility.

And the fact that Terran has EMP doesn't tip the match in their favor. It's main use is to prevent the Arbiters from making a devastating Recall into your base, and of course to detect stuff.

Sorta meant without Brood War, but sure.

No, I haven't said anything like that. I think you're lately having way too much sex to think like this.

Haven't we already covered that sex is bad, clouds your reasoning, and should never make a foundation for a relationship? Therefore I don't see this as a problem. And I'm pretty much growth-stunted and I'd not like to talk about this.

You JUST said this.

[Aninamar]

You JUST said this.

I'm using YOUR reasoning.
If sex isn't that important and definitely can be held back until marriage, you can just as easily have a healthy relationship without any sex. So I will worry about my "low uptime" until a long, long time later.

Sorta meant without Brood War, but sure.

Without Brood War Zerg don't have Lurkers, too.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Aninamar

I'm using YOUR reasoning.
If sex isn't that important and definitely can be held back until marriage, you can just as easily have a healthy relationship without any sex. So I will worry about my "low uptime" until a long, long time later.

It was a joke if you didn't notice. None of my jokes are getting through to you...

Without Brood War Zerg don't have Lurkers, too.

I was referring to the medics and you know it.

[Aninamar]

It was a joke if you didn't notice. None of my jokes are getting through to you...

Sure, because sarcasm is really easy to use through the internet...

I was referring to the medics and you know it.

If I was forced to play Terran without Brood War against a Zerg, I'd go mech.

[Kochiha]

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions...

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

is this from study or something, (sorry not sure what mean?)

The Troubles.

Ok I'm no fan of Christian idealogy or religion ether, but:-

1=To call anyone of them worse than others is kind of repugnant as just impossible to lump them all in one bin

2=If going to do it this way, don't just go for a Religion you know the lot about, Christians have their fair share of problems and troubles, but if going to go into it, I would say even their most extreme factions are far from what could be considered the "Worse" under any definition of the word

They're not the worst religion; they have the greatest problem of division.

Ok, problems with this statement:-To be caught in the middle, implies:-

1=They weren't their by choice
2=They had no involvement within the troubles
3=They haven't gained anything from it

As for the UVF and IRA, well that to be fair was political problems under the mask of religion (and the ones who are truly fighting for religious causes are hard to be trusted as the norm, when some of them believe that RC is founding religion of Ireland (somehow))

Perhaps this was a case of my being too vague in my rambling. What happened was that the US Army went into Iraq for the purpose of dethroning Saddam Hussein; they accomplished that and thus ended Gulf War II promptly. The sectarian conflicts erupted whilst they were in the process of rebuilding the country's armed forces and thus prompted them to stay longer. The sectarian conflicts within Iraq have more to do with the differences in Muslim beliefs, rather than a reaction to the presense of the Americans, who are actually quite popular over there contrary to what the media sells (and then categorizes Fox News as being slandered when they disagree).
Now in reference to the Troubles, I thought that was the other way around; religious problems under the guise of politics, especially when you consider just how deep-rooted the problem is. It kind of doesn't help that Ian Paisley was so inflammatory; the way he went on, you'd think that Northern Ireland was its own country.

Not to be condescending here, but maybe you should learn what Confucianism is first, it is not a Religion it is a theological ideology /doctrine (which maybe could be political ideal, but not religion) and part of its ideal was that "War is a Good Thing" (PS they damned the Mystic’s and this is why set up the legalists)

I know full well that Confucianism is no more a religion than Stoicism, but there are those that do indeed treat it as a religion and deify Confucious. I don't buy into it that much, of course, but it just goes to show you that there are extremists in everything.

Here, this other problem, i was on about earlier, to be fair, we have "rarely" front over religion, though has happened a lot, in the true grand construct of history, most of our wars were always about:-

1=Resources
2=Land
3=Political ideology (or how to run the world)

And religion was mostly a subplot or self-vindication within one of these, rather than actual cause of war

I was talking about now. We've had plenty of wars over plenty of issues (including one fought for the sole purpose of "teaching Russia a lesson"...and it still remains that all anybody got from the Crimean War was a neat little poem and the miné bullet), but nowadays most conflicts are religious or racial. Additionally, more religious wars have been fought throughout ancient and medieval history than the greater wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Case:-
Henry 8th, made Britain Protestant, but this was to regain British Sovereignty, not because he cared about religion par-say (he died a Catholic)

I thought it was so he could get divorced when the Pope wouldn't annul his marriage...

Buddhism is an organized religion (with lot of restrictions) in fact, one of the 5 main religions, it just that it is lot less greedy and political than other religions and tech has no god

Organized religion refers to following a specific practice of a certain religion. I can be Buddhist and not be a part of the Buddhist community, much as one can be Christian and not belong to any specific church. Unaffiliated is a good term for these kinds of people.

[Kochiha]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

You know...

I've always found it strange how people forced others to believe in their religion for so long in other countries... America negates that and makes it so people can believe what they want.

I guess what I'm asking is...

How many holy wars has America had?

They may not have been wars, but that's only because America kept its religious issues political. Take for example, the Scopes trial.

[AllisonWalker]

Henry the Eigth seperated from the Catholic Church so he could have completely control over his own Church(which was alot like the Catholic Church). Henry did not like answering to a Pope(major reason why he split, besides the divorce issue), so no, he didn't actually die a Catholic.

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Kochiha

They may not have been wars, but that's only because America kept its religious issues political. Take for example, the Scopes trial.

Not what I asked. America has never had a holy war.

This is a good thing, and people are free to hate religion all they want.

But personally, I find science a little scary... I like to think of people as animals... biological creatures, at the least. Mastery of science and technology just seems to be overstepping that a bit.

...Though, scary probably isn't the right word. It just doesn't sit too well with me to think what we'll be capable of in 100 years.

I use a computer, television, a car with a radio, and video games... and that's about it. It doesn't feel right to use cell phones, so I keep that to a minimum.

Is that odd?

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by Kochiha

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions...
The Troubles.

This is still really vague and not very helpful, but I'm going to surmise, that your basically saying its your opinion, which is fine, just make sure we know it is your opinion

They're not the worst religion; they have the greatest problem of division.

Well you used the word worse, but maybe was misunderstanding on my part, however even this is questionable, as if look back to their routs many of the religions (even world religions) are infact just offshoots of other religions and if look at look at many middle Asian religions, believe it or not, most are refractions in same way as Christianity, its just lot more defined and lot less known

Perhaps this was a case of my being too vague in my rambling. What happened was that the US Army went into Iraq for the purpose of dethroning Saddam Hussein; they accomplished that and thus ended Gulf War II promptly.

Well reasons for being their aside, this makes this part of war political (just a point)

The sectarian conflicts erupted whilst they were in the process of rebuilding the country's armed forces and thus prompted them to stay longer.

Did it never accore to you, that US removing Saddam, may have in fact been the reason these "conflicts" started up

-You know making a slight power vacuum, releasing prisoners, making selfs look like invaders, rather liberators

=Again, these were all political things, not religious (not saying, religion wasn't used as way to unit different groups, as that wouldn't be true, but---

1=US caused this as I said
2=These still come down to political ideology of land, resources and how to rule (though I will be fair to you and that there idea of rulership generally seems quite a fundermental one, this is my "opinion" again more self-vindication and it doesn't stop, their true aims being political)

The sectarian conflicts within Iraq have more to do with the differences in Muslim beliefs, rather than a reaction to the presense of the Americans, who are actually quite popular over there contrary to what the media sells (and then categorizes Fox News as being slandered when they disagree).

-Well, fact you defend Fox News, explains a lot (not meant to be as insulting as probably sounds, just making a point, however I do agree, you cannot trust news groups)

1=The US isn't popular there, maybe in the areas, they have improved, they are accepted (though still mistrust, more better us than them thing,) but outside these areas, there is still a great mistrust over them and I think the best example of why we could never truly be taken in by these countries is actually shown by Afghanistan V Pakistan

-Though, it may have taken many years for Pakistan to really get into action, they have now all but won their war against Treiban, when we after lot more action, death and work, are actually finding ourselves floundering, why? =because of 3 key points:-

1=We were two Quick to try and remove Trieban, when we move against them, there was still support for them among the poeple and so we instantly became seen as invaders and infedals. The Pakistanie's purposefully allowed the Trieban to show their own "colours" and once they knew the support for these groups was being lost from their own actions, they then acted (harsh way to do it, but worked lot better in long run)

2=Second, our aims are completely just (and take to long to go into the politics's) and these poeple know this and those against us, use it as way to create more mistrust. However because the Pakistanie government is sort of now seen as foe you know, and Trieban pulling power their is lessening, they lessen this

3=This is the most important one, we are seen as outsiders!!! The poeple of Pakistan were willing to get behind their army, despite its past actions, because they saw them as bothers and kinmans still, and so when they take land, so are seen as liberators and accepted into the community, while we are still seen as invaders and separted from the community. The poeple will activity help Pakistan soldiers, but ours receive no such help generally and in many cases find themselves undermined by these poeple, because we are not one of them

And we faced the same problems in a Iraq, and that is why even now, after everything we have done, the place is still so unstable

PS also the US placed Saddam in power in first place <___<
>___>

Now in reference to the Troubles, I thought that was the other way around; religious problems under the guise of politics, especially when you consider just how deep-rooted the problem is. It kind of doesn't help that Ian Paisley was so inflammatory; the way he went on, you'd think that Northern Ireland was its own country.

OK, I spent longer on last one, than I meant to and so running out of time here, but just say, that spoofs is better placed than me to answer questions on it, but most of it comes down to Britain messing up (by mistake this time overmind ) the whole thing, when handing part of county over

I know full well that Confucianism is no more a religion than Stoicism, but there are those that do indeed treat it as a religion and deify Confucious. I don't buy into it that much, of course, but it just goes to show you that there are extremists in everything.

Well:-

1=You just said Confucianism as a whole, if only on about a small sect of it, then you must say this.

2=If going to go with their intreputition, then you may as well agree that any extremist group can make anything a religion, even something like Football or Maxrism (thing which rejected religion)
=IN short they were not true Confucists, they were offshoot with new ideas and beliefs

3=They never had enough power to cause this kind of trouble, any war caused by Confucianism was done by the main shoot of it

I was talking about now. We've had plenty of wars over plenty of issues (including one fought for the sole purpose of "teaching Russia a lesson"...and it still remains that all anybody got from the Crimean War was a neat little poem and the miné bullet),

Again, not got time now, but will advise you to look this up (unless your being sarcastic)

but nowadays most conflicts are religious or racial. Additionally, more religious wars have been fought throughout ancient and medieval history than the greater wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Well if go on a world scale, then need to include Eastern Asian and Africa and then even less of them come down to religion, in fact, the only place where I would say you could even argue this, is middle Asian and even then, it is debatable

I thought it was so he could get divorced when the Pope wouldn't annul his marriage...

Again, not sure if being sarcastic or not, but do you really think that even if he was insane enough, he had kind of power to do change the whole of British rule and ideal, just to get a divorce?
=If so, you really don't understand how British politic's used to work o_0

PS he reinstated himself as catholic before he died Allison

Organized religion refers to following a specific practice of a certain religion. I can be Buddhist and not be a part of the Buddhist community, much as one can be Christian and not belong to any specific church. Unaffiliated is a good term for these kinds of people.

So then you still follow the ideals of major religion, just without making it offical (which means still follow a religion)

-My point here, isn't that religion is tool of war or hasn't started any wars (as is one it has) its that generally religion is ether excuse or tool for war, rather than cause itself and so if you removed religion, though I would dance for joy, I wouldn't expect all these wars to stop, as poeple will just find another excuse to fight them

-Secondly, though I do see where coming from with your first point, that religion causes risky behavior, I think it would be more apt to say extremist religion causes risky behavior, not general overall one

SR what does conversation with Amir have to do with anything

[Aninamar]

SR what does conversation with Amir have to do with anything

I WAS FROZEN TODAY!!!!!

[HolyShadow]

Well, teens have sex. I'm trying to say that allowing sex to consume you is bad, especially as a teen.

It's on topic, since several religions frown on sex in certain forms.