mo' nads

1.) Fuck you, to all who deny your God-given, logical nature's, in acquiesence to irrational, religious dogmata.

2.) Fuck you, to all who would presume to tell me that my actions are "sinful" because they aren't in compliance to a midieval translation of a fairytale.

3.) Fuck you, to all who condemn people of other faiths simply because their beliefs differ from yours.

4.) Fuck you, to all religions that wear the mask of "Godly Love" to cover the ugly face of elitism.

5.) Fuck you, to all who know the truth, but speak it not!

Blessings,
mo'

Y.B

[Dr. Dre] Em, is that you? [/Dr. Dre]

mo' nads

* beat-boxin' *

PoodleLovinPessimist

Don't hold back, mo. Tell us how you really feel!

Family Man

I'm personally not convinced that was all that constructive.

DaMan121

Lay down a phat Dre beat and you have a club hit! We need something to counter the latest fad of christian hip-hop...

mo' nads

Family Man writes: Yeah, the op is geared more towards ventilation than constructionism, but bear with me. After all, it's still early. What I'm attemping to construct is a framework from my own ideas on acceptable religious dogmas, and perhaps, through such construction, find the school of religious thought most compatible to my brand of pantheism. To that end, I've drawn up the following blueprint.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Intellectual honesty must not be comprimised.
-Having recognized subjective valuation at the core of ethics,
I won't adhere to a set of prearranged moral laws
(other than the fundamental maxim of moral relativism).
-I won't hold to any dogma with the following premise/conclusion
at its core.-My religion is correct. Therefore, all other religions
are incorrect.
-I refuse to believe that salvation (whatever that means) is
contingent upon any belief, and thus reserved for the
"select few" fortunate enough to share my beliefs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So erm, any suggestions?

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

So, given that
would it not follow that

-salvation (whatever that means) might be contingent upon some belief, and possibly reserved for the "select few" fortunate enough to share someone's beliefs.
-Intellectual honesty can (or possibly, should) sometimes be comprimised.
-Having recognized subjective valuation at the core of ethics, I won't adhere to a set of prearranged moral laws ( not even moral relativism, because it might not be fundamental ).

mo' nads

mo' : Sure, but then, monkeys might fly out of my butt. So what?
mo' : Hey, if that works for others, more power to 'em!
mo' : I didn't suggest that moral relativism is somehow "fundamental". I simply stated that my singular adherence in regards to "moral law" would be to the "fundamental maxim of moral relativism". That maxim can be stated thus; I believe that everyone is entitled to her or his own ethical beliefs. >That is not a claim to an objective moral standard.

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

As long as your dogma is not 'all dogma is allways totally bad'!

For example accepting 'everyone is entitled to her or his own ethical beliefs.' as dogma. Would be a bad idea. I would say that nobody is entitled to the ethical belief that my life is worthless because I will roast in hell for eternity anyway.