« first day (1156 days earlier)      last day (4062 days later) » 

19:00
@JasperLoy I think the general ruling is yes. But there are cases where it's allowed.
Not a scholar to quote me on that by the way.
@Noah I think religion has made man stupid. Man is following rules blindly without thinking.
@JasperLoy That is an issue with man, not religion.
@Noah What cases?
Like noctural emissions?
See also: Advertising; politics; familial traditions.
It may be more accurate to say that religion abuses man's habit of following rules blindly without thinking.
@KitFox Some scholars say that if you are in a situation where if you don't master-bate, you may commit adultery, then its allowed.
19:02
It's masturbate. I told you once already.
I once felt guilty about masturbation. I was stupid.
So you can masturbate to avoid adultery?
That's hilarious.
Whatever. I am trying to corrupt the vocabulary.
@Noah It is hilarious that a religion should even bother to admit that such things exist, let alone actively contemplate them.
So this is what I want to say to the world: never feel guilty about masturbation.
19:04
@KitFox Well, generally it's prohibited.
I actually find it hard to believe that the Quran should explicitly mention a woman masturbating a man.
@Noah Unless you pretend that you are going to commit adultery all the time.
@Cerberus Why? Religious texts have all sorts of bizarrely specific rules. Current governmental texts also have all sorts of bizarrely specific rules.
@JasperLoy I could probably think of an example where guilt would be appropriate. ;)
It's like fizbin.
@KitFox No, it's not about thinking, but the real situation.
19:07
Right.
So you cannot say that whenever you need to masterbate you simply think that way and you would be good to go.
So as long as you're thinking about someone else when you do it, it's OK.
No.
Just not your spouse.
It's prohibited.
19:08
I am so glad I don't live by those rules. That's just too confusing.
To each their own.
@MrHen Yes, those are bizarre too. But rules concerning sex are even more bizarre, because, by contemplating sex, your soul is to some degree contaminated. So the "Saints" who come up with the rules must have harboured many impure thoughts.
@KitFox You are entitled to that.
@KitFox It' tricky. Unless you read the whole thing, it's difficult to understand the ruling.
@Cerberus Depending on the specific religious text, you are reading too much into it. The general gist is that actively pondering evil is an evil itself.
I don't think I am reading too much into it at all.
19:11
@Cerberus Why do you think that?
How can you read too much into God?
@skullpatrol Uh, there are too many examples of that and they are all dependent on the specific definition of God. :P
@skullpatrol It depends on how you perceive God.
But it is worth pointing out that there is a distinction between reading too much into a religious text and reading too much into God.
The word of God?
19:13
But the easiest example: You managing to get a good parking space probably has nothing to do with God.
@skullpatrol I don't understand the question.
Religious text is the word of God.
Not all of it.
I think most of religious text is the word of man.
For example in Christianity there are parts in the Bible that are stories narrated by religious people.
@skullpatrol Not every religious text and not in every religion. But isn't the distinction I made earlier still a valid distinction?
19:16
@MrHen Because I am not sure what your argument is.
@JasperLoy Literally, yes. :)
In Islam the Quran is the word of God. Ahadeeth are not.
@MrHen Why not? God may have caused you to find the parking space.
@Cerberus It wasn't an argument; it was merely a point.
Whatever you call it...
19:17
@Cerberus Hence my inclusive of "probably". :)
@Cerberus Rules about sex and impure thoughts revolve hinge on the debate of whether actively pondering evil is an evil itself.
Sex and religion seem to be hot topics in all SE chat rooms, lol.
"Impure thoughts" is a widely used term in Christianity, and also in other monotheistic religions, I believe.
Most of the nitty-gritty details spend untold amounts of time trying to exclude non-intentional evil from the rulings.
@Cerberus I was just using the term you used earlier. I think it is the correct term, too.
@KitFox how's your jsonp going?
The Bible and Quran are considered to be the word of god
19:20
@skullpatrol It's complicated. But yes.
@skullpatrol If God really cared, he would at least tell people which version is correct. But he doesn't.
@JasperLoy Most religious texts just claim that they are the correct version. ;)
Gotta love circular logic.
So he doesn't care
@MrHen Yeah, I am through with all religion now, except Buddhism.
@skullpatrol Well, Jasper's argument isn't actually valid.
19:21
@MattЭллен I moved on to something else.
@JasperLoy I find Buddhism kind of an interesting exception to a lot of the religious standards.
I shall, in turn, move on to the next ep of breaking bad
@MrHen I find it extremely compatible with everything else, including science.
It isn't really trying to accomplish the same thing at all.
19:22
@MattЭллен Now there's a discussion about religion going on in my chat room because I used the word wankers to describe some wankers.
@MattЭллен I shall, in turn, break wind. farts
@JasperLoy Most things are compatible if you are willing to squish them hard enough. :) Buddhism is a lot more flexible due to its view of the natural world.
@KitFox what a bunch of wankers
@JasperLoy That's really funny.
@MattЭллен I know.
@KitFox Oh, this is your fault, eh?
19:24
No it is mine because of the wiki links :(
@skullpatrol Ah. :)
@skullpatrol Is it?
!!wiki word of god
:"God's Word" and "God's word" redirect here. See below for other uses Word of God or God's Word may refer to: *Certain Religious texts *Logos as "divine word" ** in biblical creation, see Genesis creation narrative **in Christianity, see Jesus Christ the Logos *Revelation **Prophecy *Rhema as the spoken, active, or animated word to the heart *Divine language * Word of God (community), a charismatic community in Michigan * God's Word Translation (GW)
See I just can't stop, please ban me
19:27
No, no need to ban you.
You call me a numb skull in the math room and now you won't let them ban me? What kind of a pal are you?
@skullpatrol Nah, no worries. If you really want to stir up trouble you can always bring up standard ethical dilemmas. :)
@MrHen Masturbation ... abuses ... blindly ... I see what you did there.
@MετάEd :P
@MrHen Yes. If I am not careful I may end up as a zen Buddhist.
But I am being careful.
19:36
@MετάEd If you are you are not a complete Buddhist.
Buddhists don't communicate gods word do they?
@skullpatrol Traditional Buddhism doesn't really have "gods".
Although I'm under the impression that modern Buddhism inherited a bunch of stuff from... was it Hinduism?
!!wiki buddhism
Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one". According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering through the elimination of desire and ignorance by way of understanding and t...
Yeah, nontheistic means no god.
The distinction between nontheistic and atheistic is always weird.
hey @KitFox, alive / around?
19:41
Also, if you want to start another argument ask about the difference between atheist and agnostic.
@MrHen It is a mistake to use those two words to mean different things.
@ThomasW. Yes. Kind of.
Do you need me, or are you just saying hi?
So no god means no god's word @mrhen
@MrHen Let's not forget untheist and antitheist.
@Cerberus Well, that's why it is weird. The phrase "nontheistic religion" parses better than "atheistic religion."
19:44
Atheistic is broad enough: it means "non-God", so you can use it for anything.
@KitFox Yeah. Those atheists are kind of picky about their terms and seem to have as many schisms as theists. :P
Doesn't it mean "without God"?
A- is just a negative prefix.
The same as non-.
Or un-.
Unfortunately, jargon doesn't care about your rules. :)
It's also etymologically the same: the a- is a vocalisation of the nasal negation common to all Indo-European languages.
19:45
@MrHen Oh, don't tell him that.
Anti- god?
@KitFox Was about this which I saw no response to from ya
Just non-God.
@KitFox Not hugely important, but just following up on that to make sure it didn't get ignored
19:46
I also think it's questionable to talk about religion without the divine.
Eh, I wasn't able to find an answer to my self-question about Buddhism inheriting things. I must have it mixed up with something else. It's been a while since I studied all of this.
And theism is not about a specific kind of divine thing.
Pantheism is also theism, not atheism.
@Cerberus What? Why?
And so is hylozoism, arguably.
@MrHen I would include "divine" somewhere in the definition of religion.
@Cerberus But why?
19:48
Because religion means "connection with the divine"?
Religion is a notoriously hard term to define.
!!wiki religion
@Cerberus No it doesn't.
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adhere...
@MrHen Then what does it mean?
19:48
@Cerberus The wiki's first sentence is a good start.
That's its proper meaning, I would say.
An "order of existence" is extremely vague and unhelpful.
Like I said, religion is a notoriously difficult word to define. The actual purpose of the term is to describe a particular facet of human social behavior. If the behavior fits, it is a religion.
@ThomasW. Oh, I didn't get pinged, so I didn't see it.
@KitFox Then this can be considered the ping :)
I might accept "the supernatural", and I might accept a distinction between divine and supernatural, but...it's questionable.
19:50
@KitFox just making sure your bot isn't going rogue
@MrHen I would say those kinds of definitions are built on top of the "core" definition.
@Cerberus Again, Buddhism throws a monkey-wrench into most of the attempted definitions. Most religious studies experts consider Buddhism a religion but it doesn't really care about the divine.
If certain Catholics still perform rituals but do not believe in God at all any more, are they still religious? Perhaps. But they are certainly not typically religious, and it is also not the meaning of "religion proper".
@Cerberus I would disagree. The point of the term is anthropological. It is a useful topic of study; it is less useful as a topic of classification.
You can extend the meaning of any word.
19:51
@ThomasW. Do you know if that was after we updated her?
No, it was the day before.
@Cerberus "Typically" is assuming a heck of a lot about the definition of "religion", though.
@MrHen I believe most philosophers would consider it a philosophy of life or an ideology, but I'm not so sure about a religion. I'm also not familiar enough with Buddhism, but perhaps there are many implicit references to divine essences in it that are just not made explicit?
@MrHen I don't see why.
@Cerberus The only people I have encountered that don't want to call Buddhism a religion are ones who are taking a prescriptive approach to the term religion.
If it quacks like a religion and it walks like a religion then it is probably a religion.
Whether Buddhism is a religion or not does not matter, it is only a matter of definition.
19:54
Only?
@JasperLoy It matters in the sense that a lot of people like to make blanket descriptions of "religion" and "religious" things and then get fussy when you show them an exception.
Yes, it depends on how you define each of the terms.
@KitFox I don't keep tabs on your updates schedule, but @skullpatrol just stated it was the day before.
Yeah, I saw.
She should be fixed now then.
@Cerberus You don't see why, what?
19:56
@MrHen I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but many educated people are willing to not call it a religion but a philosophy of life. And I think that's a fair choice to make, although I'm not entirely opposed to calling it a religion.
Classification of religions is more or less futile other than to describe overarching themes (e.g. monotheism; pantheism)
> The point of the term is anthropological
I don't see why.
Religions all state that God can NOT be defined, and you say it is "only" a matter of definition? @jasper
The term is useful when studying human behavior.
The term is useful in many ways.
19:58
@Cerberus That's your point? It is useful in multiple ways?
@KitFox Awesome.
@skullpatrol There is a difference between defining "religion" and defining "god", yes?
@skullpatrol Some religions do.

« first day (1156 days earlier)      last day (4062 days later) »