|
|
Post by goz on Mar 1, 2018 23:31:26 GMT
This is an interesting article I found when researching a claim that Cash made about religious people being more likely to be a conscientious objector in a court room than atheists, when the possible outcome was the death penalty for a defendant. If you extrapolate that, I think this article is interesting. www.ppu.org.uk/nomorewar/a_objecting/london/why_object.htmlConclusions: |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 2, 2018 0:02:29 GMT
It's prudent to not read too much into the reasons. From the article concerning Catholics and more streamline religions:: So they were stuck based on their religion being ok with wars in the past (Cue a Crusades reference...). I would be a conscientious objector for political reasons since my denomination does not forbid joining the military which by extension means being ok with killing other people. However, the true reason would totally be that I'm not interesting in killing people based on the pacifist message Christianity teaches in the Bible. If that didn't work and I couldn't make it to the border in time, I would be in prison.  So it's not that the political people were non-religious, it more likely a lot of them were members of a Church which was totally fine with war. Not that any of this matters unless ois proud to just be affiliated with atheists. The actions of others has nothing to do with the actions of the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 2, 2018 14:45:45 GMT
I would be a conscientious objector for political reasons since my denomination does not... "My denomination"? When someone says "my denomination", that means that they BELONG to a denomination. So, have you changed your status from NOT being a Jehovah's Witness to BEING a Jehovah's Witness?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 2, 2018 14:50:51 GMT
I would be a conscientious objector for political reasons since my denomination does not... "My denomination"? When someone says "my denomination", that means that they BELONG to a denomination. So, have you changed your status from NOT being a Jehovah's Witness to BEING a Jehovah's Witness?
denomination = Jehovah's Witness? Jehovah's Witnesses would probably disagree with that. What do you think i should say? Is this better? JW's would have a good chance of being conscientious objectors based on religion because they are famous/infamous for being neutral. It's one of the reasons they are banned in Russia. Si it doesn't really make sense for me to say I'm a conscientious objector for political reasons if I were one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Would you like me to direct you to some of their literature?  |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 2, 2018 15:11:33 GMT
"My denomination"? When someone says "my denomination", that means that they BELONG to a denomination. So, have you changed your status from NOT being a Jehovah's Witness to BEING a Jehovah's Witness?
Is this better? Saying "my church" means that you BELONG to a church, so it has the same import as saying "my denomination". All your dancing around here can only mean that you have NOT changed your status (if you had become a JW, you'd have simply answered "Yes"). So, the next time someone asks you, "Are you a JW?", I expect you'll just give them your usual simple "No". But if they phrase it, "Is Jehovah's Witnesses your denomination?", does this mean you'll now say "Yes"?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 2, 2018 15:18:47 GMT
Saying "my church" means that you BELONG to a church, so it has the same import as saying "my denomination". All your dancing around here can only mean that you have NOT changed your status (if you had become a JW, you'd have simply answered "Yes"). So, the next time someone asks you, "Are you a JW?", I expect you'll just give them your usual simple "No". But if they phrase it, "Is Jehovah's Witnesses your denomination?", does this mean you'll now say "Yes"?
I never said I didn't belong to a church. I didn't dance around anything since I didn't think my sentence was some kind of weird hidden message. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 2, 2018 15:29:56 GMT
Saying "my church" means that you BELONG to a church, so it has the same import as saying "my denomination". All your dancing around here can only mean that you have NOT changed your status (if you had become a JW, you'd have simply answered "Yes"). So, the next time someone asks you, "Are you a JW?", I expect you'll just give them your usual simple "No". But if they phrase it, "Is Jehovah's Witnesses your denomination?", does this mean you'll now say "Yes"?
I never said I didn't belong to a church. I didn't dance around anything since I didn't think my sentence was some kind of weird hidden message. Dancing, still. All right, then. Tell you what. The next time somebody on this board asks you, "Are you a Jehovah's Witness?", just answer, "No, I am not a Jehovah's Witness, but I belong to their church". It'll, no doubt, confuse the hell out of them, but it will satisfy YOUR IDEA of an honest answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 2, 2018 15:35:27 GMT
I never said I didn't belong to a church. I didn't dance around anything since I didn't think my sentence was some kind of weird hidden message. Dancing, still. All right, then. Tell you what. The next time somebody on this board asks you, "Are you a Jehovah's Witness?", just answer, "No, I am not a Jehovah's Witness, but I belong to their church". It'll, no doubt, confuse the hell out of them, but it will satisfy YOUR IDEA of an honest answer.
I still don't even understand what you are saying or implying, so I guess we will leave it at that. I guess the only way for you to win an argument against me is to talk gibberish? |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 2, 2018 15:57:18 GMT
with so much energy being directed towards perfecting war, co's are one little speed bump on the road to a diversified portfolio the likes of which republicans have never seen.
the dividends being generated are just this side of obscene.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 2, 2018 19:29:16 GMT
This is an interesting article I found when researching a claim that Cash made about religious people being more likely to be a conscientious objector in a court room than atheists, when the possible outcome was the death penalty for a defendant. The war on literacy continues. I never made any such claim. You're a liar and an imbecile. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 2, 2018 20:30:50 GMT
This is an interesting article I found when researching a claim that Cash made about religious people being more likely to be a conscientious objector in a court room than atheists, when the possible outcome was the death penalty for a defendant. The war on literacy continues. I never made any such claim. You're a liar and an imbecile. ad hominem and ad hominem You never actually refute anything with cogent logic based arguments. You never start threads, you never discuss rationally, nor add anything to the board other than ad hominem, ad hominem. You have a high opinion of yourself yet you never actually say anything relevant, just put others down. Frankly you are not worth my time. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 2, 2018 21:02:04 GMT
The war on literacy continues. I never made any such claim. You're a liar and an imbecile. ad hominem and ad hominem You never actually refute anything with cogent logic based arguments. You never start threads, you never discuss rationally, nor add anything to the board other than ad hominem, ad hominem. You have a high opinion of yourself yet you never actually say anything relevant, just put others down. Frankly you are not worth my time. That's a very relevant reply to yet another post pointing out that fact that you are demonstrably illiterate because you claim others have said things they haven't said. If you want to try to deflect from having your own lack of intelligence and integrity noted, go ahead, I'll laugh. |
|
