Impossible topic to discuss in this forum.

[Taiji]

So I've asked for this thread to be closed or deleted. Sorry for any disappointment.

[Jack04]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. By being offended, surely it is implied that I am not comfortable. Perhaps "justifiably offended" would be a better choice of words for it? ("Plan to be offended by" also seems a bit of a strange choice of words)

Anyway, I think anyone can justifiably be offended by any personal attack resulting from a belief. Whether it is the implication of eternal damnation, or that the individual is inferior. Personally, I find it very difficult to be offended by a belief, though I do reserve a special disgust for the concept of eternal damnation as punishment for a lack of belief. Obviously, there are more directly offensive beliefs, such as those of racial superiority, which I find offensive, though I am normally able to console myself with the understanding that such beliefs usually arise from a lack of understanding or education, more than any genuine hatred.

[Mortality]

I am offended when someone is preaching hate through the Bible, Koran, or any other religious material.

Why? Because I consider that offensive to that religion, not matter who is in it or which one. I may not be Christian or Catholic or Muslim, but I am offended when they are given bad names because of a few arses who can't keep their bloody mouth shut.

[In3x]

I am offended when someone is preaching hate through the Bible, Koran, or any other religious material.

Why? Because I consider that offensive to that religion, not matter who is in it or which one. I may not be Christian or Catholic or Muslim, but I am offended when they are given bad names because of a few arses who can't keep their bloody mouth shut.

I don't understand, if they are directly quoting the bible/koran/whatever then surely that is a bad reputation the religion gives itself.

[Col. Tartleton]

I don't understand, if they are directly quoting the bible/koran/whatever then surely that is a bad reputation the religion gives itself.

Yep that's the problem, the beliefs are the problem. If it weren't for their beliefs they'd probably be charming intelligent people. on the other hand some theists manage to be decent folk who pick and choose beliefs intelligently or use their brain to adapt evil ideas into less evil ones. By evil I mean abhorrent to the society they live in. Furthermore there are plenty of atheists who manage to be indecent probably myself among them, but oh well...

[mw2xboxplayer]

Yep that's the problem, the beliefs are the problem. If it weren't for their beliefs they'd probably be charming intelligent people.

One's religious beliefs do not constitute the level of their intelligence. How could you deduce such a notion with most of the world's greatest thinkers being theists? Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Plato and many others were theists; and yet they were some of the world's greatest minds. However, if one blindly follows a religion without coming to any logical conclusions of their own, or does not use reason to support their actions; then their devotion to theism may be linked to a lack of reasonable/intelligent thought.

Judging one's intelligence based upon their religious beliefs is illogical and fallacious.

[Taiji]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. By being offended, surely it is implied that I am not comfortable. Perhaps "justifiably offended" would be a better choice of words for it? ("Plan to be offended by" also seems a bit of a strange choice of words)

If you get upset, and you feel you should be upset, then you are comfortable (or confident if you prefer) about being upset. Thinking/emoting does not happen in isolation, feelings about feelings are often present.

And if you're unaware of the plans you have to get offended then you put yourself in a potentially difficult situation - Noone else is ever making your rules for you.

[The Dude]

To tell the honest truth, I am very rarely actively offended. Only when my character or integrity is brought into question, really. But when it comes to most things, people can say whatever they want. I just shrug. Taking offense to something also necessarily implies that the opposite person could've said or done something else. Most of the time, I do not think that this is the case.

[Jack04]

If you get upset, and you feel you should be upset, then you are comfortable (or confident if you prefer) about being upset. Thinking/emoting does not happen in isolation, feelings about feelings are often present.

If I get upset, then I am upset. I am comfortable with that. I am more querying what appears to be an unnecessary specification, I am not sure I can feel upset without feeling it is justified (however trivially).

Edit: In other words, could the question not simply be: "What beliefs offend you, and why?"

And if you're unaware of the plans you have to get offended then you put yourself in a potentially difficult situation - Noone else is ever making your rules for you.

It just seems an odd choice of words. I know what offends me, but I don't plan to be offended. Certain beliefs I find abhorrent for good reason, but I don't construct my opinions with the explicit desire to find those beliefs abhorrent, rather they are abhorrent because of my independently constructed opinions.

[Taiji]

If I get upset, then I am upset. I am comfortable with that. I am more querying what appears to be an unnecessary specification, I am not sure I can feel upset without feeling it is justified (however trivially).

Edit: In other words, could the question not simply be: "What beliefs offend you, and why?"

I don't want responses that blame someone else for the offence being taken.

It just seems an odd choice of words. I know what offends me, but I don't plan to be offended. Certain beliefs I find abhorrent for good reason, but I don't construct my opinions with the explicit desire to find those beliefs abhorrent, rather they are abhorrent because of my independently constructed opinions.

If you know how to offend yourself then you are aware of your planned response.

religion itself is offensive.

Please explain why you think so.

[mw2xboxplayer]

I'm offended when people use religious excuses to harm other individuals; or commit hypocritical actions that go against their beliefs.

It discredits both themselves and the group/religion the are a part of.

[Eofor]

I'm offended when I'm told that because some deity says so, we should just accept that abortion or murder or whatever issue you can imagine is or isn't acceptable. Because, to me, that's just an excuse not to think, and even worse it just confines us humans to being children at the whim of a deity rather than being in charge of our own existence.

[(s)AINT]

religion itself is offensive.

[O.Chrysostomos]

I find idiocy, any form of inhibition upon freedom and blind subservience highly offensive but no belief offends me, provided it be based on reason and doesn't contradict my other "offensible notions". Thus I'd find Islam or nazism or stalinism offensive but not Christianity or Buddhism.

[Diamat]

I am offended by the American channel Fox News...

[Taiji]

It seems many people are very good at explaining quickly a rule they have, and I appreciate every response.

But included in the OP is a request for the purpose of the rule.

And so:

I find idiocy, any form of inhibition upon freedom and blind subservience highly offensive but no belief offends me, provided it be based on reason and doesn't contradict my other "offensible notions". Thus I'd find Islam or nazism or stalinism offensive but not Christianity or Buddhism.

Please explain why you take offence from that.

I am offended by the American channel Fox News...

Please explain why you take offence from that.

I'm also offended that they think the devil is the bad guy when he consistently told the truth. God lied to Adam and Eve and told them the fruit of knowledge would kill them and the devil told them it would not. The devil was honest and God was a liar. That's the first goddamn chapter... the whole book goes downhill from there.

The father of lies is surely Adonai. The entire bible is suspect.

I'm basically just offended by people not reading their holy books with their mind.

Please explain why you take offence from that.

I only feel offended by mediocre morals. The kind of people who want everyone to be tolerant and accepting of everything because somehow that's ''the human thing to do'' and at the same time refuse to give others the chance of expressing their concerns about it because it could ''hurt someone else's feelings''.

Please explain why you take offence from that.

I'm offended by the idea that Athests are inherently immoral.

Please explain why you take offence from that.

-----

I think that describing rules to others can help a great deal to improve our relating to one another, it may even seal agreements with others that they'll keep the rule themselves.

So please, if only to humour me, attempt to describe why you think your rule is worth observing.

And, for what you've given already, thanks everyone

[Claudius Gothicus]

Please explain why you take offence from that.

Because I don't like mediocre people trying to impose their mental mediocrity on everyone else's ethical beliefs.

Also, they give Western Morals a terrible name.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm also offended that they think the devil is the bad guy when he consistently told the truth. God lied to Adam and Eve and told them the fruit of knowledge would kill them and the devil told them it would not. The devil was honest and God was a liar. That's the first goddamn chapter... the whole book goes downhill from there.

The father of lies is surely Adonai. The entire bible is suspect.

I'm basically just offended by people not reading their holy books with their mind.

[basics]

" I'm also offended that they think the devil is the bad guy when he consistently told the truth. God lied to Adam and Eve and told them the fruit of knowledge would kill them and the devil told them it would not. The devil was honest and God was a liar. That's the first goddamn chapter... the whole book goes downhill from there. "

Col. Tartleton,

When making an argument it is important that the argument you make is sound and yours is not. God told them that if they ate or touched the fruit they would surely die and this from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent told them they wouldn't die inferring more or less what you are now but both of you know perfectly well that they and their offspring did/do die. Why even in your beloved evolution all things die. At least through God we know why.

Look to the garden itself and see how comfortable the pair were as long as they did what God asked, but as soon as they didn't, being persuaded otherwise by your friend, they discovered something that they had no knowledge of before. They discovered a word that they had never known before and all that it entails. And when God put the curse on them they also discovered they were more evil than good and so were cast out.

Aye, cast out and separated from God all on the sayso of ole Nick and you say that he tells the truth. When God came to this planet one of the things He did say, yet is probably never thought much of, is that Satan is the father of all lies and since you think he is the greatest could that be because you are a son? But then to discover who is indeed the greatest one only has to read of their confrontation and what was said in that.

If you are this and if you are that, knowing full well who Jesus was, ole Satan fluffed his lines and left with the words of Jesus ringing in his ears. " Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that cometh out of His mouth." And where do we find these words? Why from the book of Genesis on. Of course if you prefer to follow that which you are bound to and serve the above, even if told to you face to face with an angel of God, you still couldn't believe it.

It is written that man prefers the lies and how can he not since he is bound in them by inherent sin and ruled over by this invisible being, who it is written only holds his power by God's authority. I mean why follow the minnion when the Higher is much more safe? It wasn't Satan who made men or created the universe, even himself so don't you find it odd that in all conflicts between the boss and his employees it is always him or her who wants to replace the boss that stirs up any others?

[Helm]

if told to you face to face with an angel of God, you still couldn't believe it.

Ah but how would he know it was an angel of God and not something else pretending to be an angel of God?