 sj |
||
|
||
God still with me 2008
|
|
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Ebbie Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:09 PM Homosexuality, imo, is a non-issue, biblical or otherwise. My guess is that the Bible speaks just as disapprovingly and perhaps as frequently, of 'gossip and false witness'. And gossip hurts a lot more people, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:01 PM OK, be that way (wry smile). I mean, you can quibble about "hate" and not answer the issue if you want to, but that is specious, I think the word is. Let's rephrase: Person A believes homosexuality is a sin and a bad thing. (I'm not going to go into how awful it is that Christianity makes *everybody* into a sinner. Let's pretend this person isn't Christian necessarily, thinks well of other people, but not of gays because their god(s) say(s) it's a bad thing.) Meanwhile, Person B believes homosexuality is gross and a bad thing. Same issue (repeating from above): It appears to me, from the tone of both this and the God Is thread, as if one has to respect person A's bigotry but not person B's, since A is exercising their religious freedom, and B is just prejudiced. Would you say that both A and B are intolerable and unrespectable bigots? Or, would you claim that because Person A's negative view of homosexuality is faith-based, it should be respected, and they are immune from being bigots on the issue of homosexuality - while at the same time agreeing that Person B is bigoted against gays? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bill D Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:37 PM I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Georgiansilver Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:33 PM From a Christian point of view..we are commanded to love everyone whatever their persuasion or beliefs...but not to accept the sin. I am not homophobic but I cannot accept a man lying with another man as he would a woman as it is scripturally not acceptable. Hate... Mrrzy is a strong word..I hate no-one but I hate sin. Hopefully that might answer your question. Can I also say that my Faith is not 'blind' to me...only to some non-Christians. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bill D Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:32 PM Mrrzy..You will soon hear from Christians saying they DO NOT 'hate' the person, but only the actions. And in that, they are correct....at least in the case of homosexuality. Neither A nor B needs to DO anything they find sinful OR disgusting. Perhaps some other example? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM OK, let me ask y'all this: Let's say person A hates gays because they think that homosexuality is a sin. Let's say person B hates gays because they think that homosexuality is disgusting. It appears to me, from the tone of both this and the God Is thread, as if one has to respect person A's bigotry but not person B's, since A is exercising their religious freedom, and B is just prejudiced. First, is that y'all's understanding? I'm asking both theists and atheists who are posting here. If so, am I the only one to find that distinction frightening? I believe that both A and B are intolerable and unrespectable bigots, and that just because one person's opinion is faith-based does NOT protect them from that negative opinion of them. I think that is the best illustration of why I don't respect "blind" faith that I've come up with yet, actually. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Georgiansilver Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:05 PM Because someone believes in God does not necessarily mean He exists....because someone does not believe in God does not mean He does not exist...MMMMMM. I recognise God as being an integral part of my existence....without Him I struggled through life and upset/hurt/damaged a lot of people both mentally and physically. Before becoming a Christian at the tender age of 43yrs I was thought of as a thug. I was a drinker/fighter/womaniser/swearer/gambler and most of my so called friends were my friends only because it was better to be on my good side than my bad. Someone once said of me that I was the most balanced man they had ever met...I had a chip on both shoulders!!!! That hurt at the time but did not change my attitudes. Becoming a Christian did! When people say they have a relationship with Jesus/God/Holy Spirit, they are met with an aggressive attitude from many who don't believe. Do they actually believe that Christians...and I talk of true Christians, born of water and the Spirit...born again believers who try...with the help of the Holy Spirit...to live a good Christian life by following the path and words of Jesus, are living a lie?. There can never be a level of understanding on this thread as there is a definitive rift between believers and non-believers. We all have an opinion of some sort but at least let's be tolerant of each other and accept each other for who we are...whether Christian or non-Christian. Best wishes, Mike. PS. There are some non-Christians on this thread who I admire for their tolerance...even understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:35 PM Ted: I understand what you are saying. Some thoughts: Here's the deal. Begin insulting, and stand into the danger of being insulted in kind. That's a general certainty. To post a thread stating "there are no gods whatsoever" is stupid, but not personally insulting. Well, I guess, if you took your religious beliefs quite seriously, you could be insulted. To post a thread stating "I am heir to the Truth of the One God" is equally stupid, from some points of view, and, actually a little more insulting in that it lays claim to a Grand Truth rather than merely an interim opinion -- a Grand Truth some of us don't hold to, and therefore are cast in the role of being less than enlightened and incapable of seeing what is right in front of us. Maybe not exactly insulting but certain untactful. I've been trying to get my wits around why this sometimes produces such a raising of hackles, and I think part of the reason is that monotheism asserts the universality of a single, incomparable bit of information (in the person of the Deity). Regardless of which all-powerful Deity, the same attribute holds -- it is a single "thing" which governs the whole of existence. Most people who practice thinking are aware that to assess or evaluate anything, you have to begin by comparing it to something else. This means that even space itself must have some datum against which to compare it, or there would be no way to get a view of it that had any meaning. Meaning, generally, comes from these comparisons, no matter on what scale. So a certain cognitive dissonance, to put it mildly, is set up when assertions are made about the attributes of Infinite Godhood. By its nature, it offers no datum of comparabel magnitude with which it (or S/He) can be understood; therefore it comes across as incomprehensible. By extension, it is at least a little agrravatin' to have these precepts being communicated at one with vehemence and great importance attached to them, at the same time as they seem (on their own terms) incomprehensible as intended. It leaves the listener feeling a bit dulled, stupid or lambasted. OR even stupid. And no one wants to feel stupid, especially if they have demonstrated good intelligence in other areas. The very title of this thread, from the view of someone who has not, himself, postulated a referent for the word God, is an example of this. I do not write this to be hard on anyone. I am trying to get my arms around why this eternal brouhaha keeps surfacing. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Stringsinger Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM Not sure where this thread is going but it's beginning to sound like a sermon. Georgiansilver I can assure you that your god is not mine. My beliefs have little relevance to the nature of this conversation which is emerging as more of a diatribe. I suspect a kind of religious intolerance in the guise of asking everyone to believe the way you do. I see a defensiveness creeping into Mudcat on the part of those theists who are protecting their turf and the non-believers like me who feel that my views should not be dismissed. This may be a futile effort. There is no real discussion here but a plethora of adamant opinions which serve little enlightenment. Keep in going if you must but my view is that what I have read here doesn't amount to much. When someone decides to pray for me, I assume that they are being patronizing and consider themselves more worthy of looking down on what they deem is a "poor sinner". It's this sanctimony that spawns a reaction. At the same time, people ought to be able to express their views with the caveat that they may be challenged at any time. Your god is not with me in 2008 or any time. If you wish to discuss this furthur, I'm happy to oblige but I will make my position very clear. If that steps on your religious toes, to use a religious term "amen" or "so be it". Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: GUEST,Pseudolus at Work Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:11 PM This thread embodies the problem with Mudcat. I used to post a LOT and over time I have stopped or at least slowed way down. I come by often enough but I am seldom tempted to get into a discussion. And this is why. Let me start this by saying that EVERYTHING that follows can have the phrase "In my opinion..." in front of it rather than typing it over and over... People have been allowed to rant and rave about every subject under, around and over the sun but when Slag comes in here, without any false advertising to get anyone into this thread, and lays out there his opinions and beliefs, he is attacked. this is typical here. He is told that his opinions leave no room for discussion. How much room is there for discussion when we are told that it's ok if we want to believe in our imaginary friend? The problem is that with many of you, it's not enough to simply disagree, the poster in question has to be berated, his or her God called an imaginary friend and that their beliefs are akin to mental illness! I do believe in a God that is a loving God and that He is everyone's God whether they believe in Him or not. I do believe that the key to Heaven is through Jesus Christ and I believe that I am a better husband, father, brother and friend than I was before I accepted that belief. I believe that it is wrong to judge people's intelligence because their beliefs are different from yours but that happens here on Mudcat and it happens all the time. I have been hanging around here for a long time. I have gotten comfort from many of you when I was in need. When my sons were in the NICU because they were both under three pounds I came here and found kind words from kind people. I get that same comfort from prayer. To some of you, that makes me crazy. OK, so I'm crazy...but to be honest, I think that says a lot more about you than it does me. Because you see, I believe that it makes us different, simply with different opinions and beliefs, you have decided that I am flawed in some way. Not all of you, but clearly there are many. This site has gone from a place I regularly visited and contributed to, to a place that I visit when I want to see if anyone's posted any good jokes to the latest joke thread. And that's sad for me, because I used to love this place. Don't get me wrong, it's not just the religious thing, it doesn't take a discussion of religion to bring out the ugliness of the comments, judgements and accusations. As was stated before me, it even happens in the music discussions. So that's my opinion...for what it's worth, Frank |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: M.Ted Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM Amos, You don't get it. I've been quite clear that both sides have been over the top. I don't take issue with what anyone believes, or even what their right to express it. It's all about how they say it. If there had been a thread that said, "Atheists are garbage", I would have come charging in defense of their right to be at Mudcat without being insulted. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Georgiansilver Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM the leveller...either you misread my post or chose to ignore the crux of it. You know, the bit about Christians telling their children about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit etc. The children...in my experience are not told they have to to believe in God...they make the choice that everyone has if they want it when in full possession of what we believe to be the truth. In fact a lot of children from Christian backgrounds move away from Christianity for various reasons but many of them come back to it. You state:->>>>>>>>Sounds pretty much the same as telling them they have to believe in god - only with presents/money/chocolate. All they get with religion is guilt and paranoia.<<<<<<< . How many Christian children do you personally know with guilt and paranoia or who only believe because of presents/money/chocolate? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:01 PM I think both sides of this discussion have been a bit pointy, Ted. The rationalists, or whatedver you call them, have the adevantage of empiricism on their side, and along with that they have a trained attitude of perpetual doubt. Whatever it is that you and Slag have experienced (assuming it is even the same thing, which it may well not be) has the advantage of personal conviction and clarity, a kind of certainty that often is ill-fitted for empirical dialogue and debate. My believe then, is that it would have been wiser not to start this second branch just to rebut the "Still No..." thread, no matter how compelling the urge. Because it is compelling in a totally different language, not suited to rebut the hard-nosed empricists. It really is a different sand-box, so to speak, or a radically different system of phenomenology. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: GUEST,PMB Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:57 AM If that's so, did Slag transgress by giving in to the sudden urge to Bear Witness for 2008 in a forum about folk music? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: M.Ted Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:51 AM Mrzzy, You can ask me any questions you want about playing the guitar, or chord progressions to songs, or about music theory, and such things. I will be happy to answer them to the best of my ability, and even to do a little research or calculating, if need be. As to this thread, and this issue, I feel that it's tone has been inappropriate from the beginning. I think that you, and others, have behaved badly, and I have asked you, and others, to stop, because I felt that the ill feelings were spilling out into the broader forum. You made the following statement: "Even insulting you by saying Belief in Jesus is Stupid isn't violence. That's the whole point of talking about stuff, arguing about stuff even shouting at each other about stuff - it isn't hitting people." My response to that is simply that verbal abuse is a form of violence, too. If the verbal abuse concerns the religious beliefs of an individual, or are directed at an individual because they are a member of a religious group, that violence can rise to the level of a hate crime. I am not suggesting this to accuse you, or anyone else who has participated in this thread of a hate crime. I bring it up to show you what the stakes are when the passions rise in a discussion on this subject. I think that this thread, and threads like it, hurt Mudcat, because they strain relationships between people who share music on-line, as well as in sessions, folk clubs, and a lot of other situations. I also think that the harm far outweighs any good that they might do. You may not believe me, but that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: theleveller Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:48 AM "Believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny is much more logical??????? only because people choose to decieve their children into believing in them..." Sounds pretty much the same as telling them they have to believe in god - only with presents/money/chocolate. All they get with religion is guilt and paranoia. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Georgiansilver Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM theleveller you suggest:- In reply to Amos:- >>>>>I agree. Believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny is much more logical - at least they get something demonstrable to reinforce the belief. The sad thing is that they grow out of these beliefs whilst belief in an almighty deity can continue into adult life - surely a case of stunted mental development.<<<<< Believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny is much more logical??????? only because people choose to decieve their children into believing in them...not logical at all just plain and simple untruth and demonstrably reinforced by those deceptive parents and other adults. At least those Christians who teach their children the Gospels and the reason for Jesus coming are believers themselves that it is the truth. My belief in the almighty deity came at 43 yrs of age...not as some continuation into adult life but I believe that stunted development belongs to people who do not understand something.....not to those who have grown with a belief in something/someone which cannot be disproved. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 08 - 10:09 AM Why on earth would they forbid a librarian to read books to children? A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:57 AM 1. Mrrzy, I agree completely with you, blind faith IS dangerous. It is used by some to manipulate and lead people into doing horrendous things. Evidence Jones town, Aryanism, Kamikaze and radical Islam among others. But foolish faith? Wherein lies YOUR faith? Or do you have any? The first evidence of susceptibility is denial. I guess you could say I have no faith. I certainly don't believe that anything supernatural exists or is real. What I think is foolish is clinging (blindly) to faith AND denying the reality of what is really demonstrated. I guess foolish, in this case, was a polite (?) term for Blind. I do believe things, and hope for things, but I wouldn't say I have "faith" in anything, since that would require believing in the absence of evidence. For example, I believe in Australia, even though I have never experienced it. But I don't have FAITH in Australia. Mrzzy trots out buzz words like "homophobic", "sexist" and "racist", why? Has she proved that I am these things or does she just want to taint me by their juxtaposition? Or is it easier to attack your known evils? I was not saying that anybody in particular, and certainly not you, Slag, IS racist/sexist/bigoted. I used those of examples of things people believe which not tolerated by me, not respected by me, and which I really think should not be tolerated by anybody. What I mean is, if it's OK not to respect someone for holding bigoted beliefs, why isn't it OK not to respect someone for holding demonstrably stupid beliefs, like that evolution of the human race is not a fact? I am also going to comment on a question to Amos: You do violence, verbally, not to just myself but many millions of believers who may worship under differing chapel names but all under the name of Jesus Christ. Saying we don't agree with you is NOT doing violence. It is talking. Saying things you don't like is not doing violence. Even insulting you by saying Belief in Jesus is Stupid isn't violence. That's the whole point of talking about stuff, arguing about stuff even shouting at each other about stuff - it isn't hitting people. And I would like M.Ted to answer my earlier questions, please. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bob Pacquin Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:11 AM "3. Requiring children to try to communicate to, and pretend to communicate to, an entity whose location they cannot know and from whom they receive no answers." Old Bob just spoke with a neighborhood Mom who says that their school librarian is no longer allowed to read stories--it's electronic now--can't help but think that this is the same thing-- |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM I do not think the Still No Gods threads were a good idea, Slag, and I apologize for the discomfort they caused, even though I did not start them. However, there is a difference between saying "I disagree, and I maintain my own faith for my own reasons", versus invoking and naming all the attributes of you personal set of divinities in Capitals, and calling out their infinite qualities, invoking their sacred Books, and so on, just as though you were discussing members of the government or the NFL. The difference in between respecting the neutrality of the commons, or not. Religion is a private matter even according to Jesus Christ. I don't think trumpeting for it or against it is consistent with a mutual respect for the commons and the mutual efforts of survival, and that includes making a public dramatization out of it. Whatever religion does or doesn't do in the unmapped spaces of the individual heart, that's where it lives and belongs. It has no business in the commons and betrays its own best nature when it gets injected there.. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: theleveller Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:52 AM From Amos: "3. Requiring children to try to communicate to, and pretend to communicate to, an entity whose location they cannot know and from whom they receive no answers." I agree. Believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny is much more logical - at least they get something demonstrable to reinforce the belief. The sad thing is that they grow out of these beliefs whilst belief in an almighty deity can continue into adult life - surely a case of stunted mental development. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mr Happy Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:55 AM ......indeed, fight the good fight with all thy might, onward christian soldiers! |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: GUEST,PMB Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:18 AM Still no answer Slag: You claimed that there is a god that: (1) Creates people with full knowledge of their fate (2) Decides whether or not to give them the grace to save them (4) Gives them no other means by which their own efforts can save them (3) Condemns the ones he didn't decide to save to torture Why is such a god good? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:39 PM I do violence by suggesting you don't have the right to tell others what their metaphysics should be? That's a twist. I suggest f there is any violence done, it is the intellectual violence of, among others: 1. Forcing an innocent person to belief in his innate guilt. 2. Forcing someone to look for "forgiveness" for guilt which was place don him only by the acts of others, and requiring he turn to a source which he has not personally experienced and may very well not experience and has no reason to consider as the appropriate authority except because he is tyold so by others. 3. Requiring children to try to communicate to, and pretend to communicate to, an entity whose location they cannot know and from whom they receive no answers. 4. Insisting to all those outside the circle of your faith that you are in touch with the Source of the Whole Universe and they are not, unless they come over and line up with your fellow adherents, submit to the interpretative powers of wrinkled old men with dubious sexual habits, and walk and talk their way through bizarre rituals of no inherent merit. This is just a list of a few items off the top of my head, and I would offer that they constitute intellectual violence next to which my rastiness is a walk in the park. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bob Pacquin Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:16 PM Well, Slag, Old Bob didn't mean to imply that you'd set a trap for anyone. He admires you for your pluckiness. "They" are the professional evangelists who single out the gawky kids in the room, and scream in their face, "Have you accepted JEEZUS as your personal savior?" and when they gasp in embarassment, go on to scream,"You hesitate, and in that instant, betray SATAN AT WORK." and proceed to make an "example" out of every gesture and sputtered response. And it's nothing personal, they've just puttin' on the style. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Slag Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:49 PM OK, shortly, by the numbers. 1. Mrrzy, I agree completely with you, blind faith IS dangerous. It is used by some to manipulate and lead people into doing horrendous things. Evidence Jones town, Aryanism, Kamikaze and radical Islam among others. But foolish faith? Wherein lies YOUR faith? Or do you have any? The first evidence of susceptibility is denial. 2.PMB, England adopted "rational religion"? You don't explain what that means. Does it mean that England dictates what you are to believe and that makes it better or right or correct? A transcendent religion may not base its ultimate reality in a purely rational system of thought but does that mean it is "irrational"? Why not super-rational? Isn't it bigoted to condemn what you may not understand? And yes, a lot of evil has been perpetrated under the name of God and Christ and Buddha and Mohammad, etc. This says something about the nature of certain men and mankind in general. It also says something about ignorance and prejudice. You make the fallacy of attributing what may be true of the part to the whole. Isn't it true that misinformed or half-informed people can be led to run amok regardless of the chants' name(s)? 3. Amos, did I invent Christianity? Was I taking dope when I had an encounter with Christ? Were you there? Straw man. And don't you at least see a historical context for Christianity and a history of Christian thought? You do violence, verbally, not to just myself but many millions of believers who may worship under differing chapel names but all under the name of Jesus Christ. 4. Bob cautions Mrrzy to not fall into the trap THEY'VE set for you? I have become a "THEY"? Is not this too, prejudice? Fallacy of the hasty generalization. Ridicule is your only weapon? Not reason? Not education? Not honest examination? 5. And Joe, the forces of fundamentalism? Don't you mean to use a capital "F"? Fundament, foundations, fundamentals, basic structures upon which to erect something? Virtually everything in this world has a foundation or it does not stand. It will not last. Christianity has been around for almost 2000 years and its well-spring, Judaism another 1500 years at least and most probably a lot longer. Yes, I believe in certain fundamental principles and percepts upon which I base my beliefs. You find this frightening or is it just the label for all your boogeymen? Some of you are very adept at trotting out your straw men and your preconceived ideas or just plain fallacious thinking and attacking the same. It lowers the level of discussion or eliminates it altogether. It begins to sound to me like magpies sitting on a wire squawking: a lot of noise but no substance. Mrzzy trots out buzz words like "homophobic", "sexist" and "racist", why? Has she proved that I am these things or does she (I assume you are a "she") just want to taint me by their juxtaposition? Or is it easier to attack your known evils? And one more and one last time I want to ask Amos why, pal, it is alright that a thread in the public forum, "There are no gods, not even Jesus Christ" and "Still no Gods in 2008" is fine and dandy but to counter the same is somehow offensive? That my beliefs are better left home? You all demonstrate the lie that you believe in equality and that you are fair and just. Utter hypocrisy. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bob Pacquin Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:47 PM Your point is not a bad one--and maybe the Unhappy/accepting people are the ones who are really on the line. But Mrrzy, it seems like on one hand, your big issue is the evolution/creation thing, and on the other, you are hesitant to lay it out on the table. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:05 PM People may think this odd, but one reason I sent my kids to Catholic school was that I believe the Catholic schools are usually less influenced by the forces of religious fundamentalism. In a Catholic school, teachers can usually teach evolution and comparative religion without arousing the ire of parents. But at a Catholic school meeting this week, I heard a parent complain about her eighth-grade child being required to do a paper on Buddhism, since the mother considered this a thread to the child's Catholic faith. I certainly hope the school doesn't give in to that complaint. The forces of fundamentalism are frightening. -Joe, strangely drawn to alliteration- |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:49 PM Sure, but where does unhappy/accepting or happy/judgmental fall? And if it were just me, I would agree with you, to a certain extent. However, the harm being done by fanatics *of any demonstrably-false belief system* has become intolerable, and what some Christians, in particular, are doing to the American school system, which is already lousy enough, should be beyond belief. It is certainly beyond acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bob Pacquin Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM Dear, Dear, Sweet Mrrzy, Beware!! You're falling into a trap that they've set for you. Old Bob has grown up among the the worst of them, and they like nothing better than to be ridiculed by folks like us. It gives them an opening to start pumping out rhetoric, for one thing, but more important, it gives them a chance to give a knowing nod to the gathered multitudes and say, "You see? I told you that Satan was out there. Now write out a big check, so I can really lay into him with both hands." And the money rolls in. One thing to remember is that these "Evangelicals" are great at arguementation and masters of logic and rhetoric--they've got long, reasoned, and logically consistant statements about everything. They may not convince you or me of anything, but even when they debate with us, they aren't really talking to us, they are selling to the multitudes. And for those of you our there who are "believers", even though Old Bob may not agree with you, he respects you, and loves you a lot. He is just telling you that some of these Bible-thumping stump Evangelists are trying to separate you from whatever they can by scaring you away from the rest of humanity, then shaking you down when they've got you alone. And before you go off, Mrrzy, Old Bob knows you've got one last question--and the answer is, "Live right, and show people that you're happy, and you can beat them." Folks prefer happy and accepting to contentious and judgemental. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM I agree, Bob Pacquin, but ridicule may be our only weapon. I don't laugh at the things they DO that are so dangerous, just at THEM. Hope that makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bob Pacquin Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM Since there are some that refer to this jovial correspondent as "Bob, the Atheist", you know where my sympathies lie. But there are a couple point you young folks have missed. Mrrzy, you say you laugh at the "foolish faithful". Well, it is good to laugh at at human folly of any sort (as long as you chuckle at your own follies, as well). But when one laughs at the dangerous ones, one often fail to take them seriously. Huckabee's name may be funny, but the power and money behind him isn't. It's the "true believer" that's the real threat here, no matter what the cause. The cause can be religion, politics, science, pseudoscience, or traditional folk music. The gleam in the eyes and the derranged laugh is the same. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: GUEST,PMB Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM We're pretty lucky here in the UK; we don't suffer from evangelicals a lot, since the Church of England adopted rational religion two hundred and fifty years ago. It's sad for Slag; he really believes what he's saying, and one of the requirements is that he's got to "bear witness". Like many other emotionally convinced people, he can't tell real conviction fromn a bad dose of bellyache, and hasn't the courage to consider that there's a possibility that he could be mistaken. It would be nice if we could have a conversation with him; I've asked him why he thinks an arbitrary and capricious God is good, but he hasn't come up with an answer yet. He can't of course; Calvinists tried half a millennium ago and failed. And no, I don't hate God and I'm not angry with him, any more than I'm angry with the monster under the bed. I find it sad when religion leads to the blank refusal to entertain rationality, not because I want everyone to be converted to something, but because it's dangerous. The Aztecs who tore the hearts out of thousands of living victims were only doing what they truly believed their religion demanded of them. The Carthaginians who sacrificed their firstborn children; the iconoclasts who destroyed religious works of art in old Byzantium; the Inquisitors who racked suspects to save their souls; the Moslems who killed themselves to destroy the enemies of God; all were, according to their own beliefs, doing good. In which context I see our current stupid trump of an Archbishop of Canterbury has called for sharia law to be introduced to Britain. Idiot, but he has a seat in the House of Lords by right of his job. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:06 AM Slag: God bless you for your devoutness and your transcendant experiences. The point where your te4stimony becomes condescending is very distinct, and it is the point in your rhetoric where you shift from your own uplifting to referring to the substance of that experience as though it were universal, and binding on others. If you had gone on an acid trip and discovered the PErfect Truth that all human hearts are flowers, say blue ones, and tha this insight was the key to the universe, no-one here (I think) would get mad at you for saying what you had perceived. But when you began to cite Universal FLower Law as the guidelines that others should follwo, and began writing the Holy Book of Heart Flowers as dictated by the Infinite Pansy, why you'd begin to step across the boundary into others' universes. You'd be evaluating for others. The fact that you believe your God is universal does not really justify using language in dialogue which directly or indirectly requires others to adjust their views to yours; but when you inject terms which by their very definition imply global claims, mandated by divinity, this is what you are doing. Your relationship with God is your business, pal. But I think it is ill-advised to imply that it is in some way superior (as a world view)or binidng on others. And like it or not, that is what your language seems to do even if you do not think it does. At least, that's my take on it. I wish you all the luck in the world developing your own relationship with Jesus and God. I would request, though, that when you come out here to the commons, that you leave that vocabulary at your own house. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM Thanks, Joe, for not closing the thead. This fight is, to those of us fighting it, critically important. Let people think we're silly - that's fine, after all, most atheists think believers are silly. But many of us also know that *blind* faith is also very, very dangerous. And many, many of us think that the time for "respecting" dangerous ideas is past - this includes speaking up when you hear remarks that are racist / sexist / homophobic or promoting other cruelties and bigotries explicitly permitted if not deliberately encouraged by Scripture / disbelieving of demonstratable reality when such demonstrations conflict with their personal faith / and so on. The reason we laugh at these foolish faithful, which is NOT everybody with faith so untwist your knickers, you others, is that the effects of such foolishness are so very, very tragic. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:13 PM I guess I have to say I'm tired of all this. I believe in God, and that belief brings a depth to my life that I wouldn't have otherwise. Other people don't believe in God, and a forced belief would make them shallow. All of these words that have been fired back and forth end up saying the same thing:
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Slag Date: 06 Feb 08 - 06:25 PM Sanctimony? Feigned righteousness? Self-righteousness masquerading as true piety? Where have I claimed my own righteousness? Edicts? If there are edicts they are the ones from Scripture. I didn't invent Christianity. Authority? Only the authority of the Scriptures. What we know of Christ, we know from the Scripture and that is why I recognize the Bible as authoritative. Misquote? Show me where I have misquoted. Context? The context is there for anyone to see, that is, unless you would like me to cut and paste large portions of the Testaments to this thread. And If you want I can give you the Biblia Hebraica text, the Septuagint, the Hellenic with all the historic textual variants, if you like. Nor am I trying to proselytize anyone. However, if I were, there is scriptural imperative to do so (Jn 20:21, Lk 24:47, Mk 16:15, Mt. 28:19,20. among others). I firmly and absolutely believe in the right of every person to follow their own conscience. You are only responsible for the light you may have. I have stated that I believe in the case put forth for the deity of Jesus Christ and I believe that His teachings are true. There are many points where some people may disagree with regards to any single passage or even doctrinal teachings in Scripture. Each case must stand on its own merits. Denominationalism attests to this truth. Rather, I am speaking in basic terms to the most basic truths claimed in the Bible. Before I met Jesus I had read the Bible. I could tie Christians up in knots about the Bible. I was a real smart aleck among other things. I didn't know the Author. But when I surrendered my life to Jesus I got a whole new light on the subject. It was no longer the words of men. It was the Word of God. I knew the truth because I now knew the Truth ( not a tautology ). He and the truth He bears witness to was impressed upon my mind and heart. This may be grounds for a discussion on epistemology but I know what I know. If I began talking about someone you knew personally, quoting them and giving opinions about them though I had never met them or maybe asserting that they really didn't exist, you might think " Oh boy. Do I have this guy!" And you'd be right. Well, I'm telling you about someone I have met. I am not trying to sandbag you or best you in an argument. It is really not an argument. It is a statement of faith. I now have a personal relationship with Jesus. Anyone can have this relationship. In the Bible is an open invitation to any and all. It is not an exclusive club. Whosoever means just that. Anyone. I am not righteous. I stand in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I did nothing to deserve God's favor. If anything, I deserved just the opposite. I don't really know why God loves us. He does. It's His nature. But He is also a righteous God and He has established His law. Jesus said "I came not to destroy the Law but to establish it". I would love to digress here. So many directions, but time and space do not allow. I am attempting to set forth some of the basic facts as given in Scripture. These basic things are quite clear and are available to anyone who wants to read what the book has to say. Again, the Book of John is a good place to begin. I do not claim to know everything but the things I know, I know. Other things I take on faith because I know Him and trust Him. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: GUEST,sinky Date: 06 Feb 08 - 03:37 PM god is santa for grown ups,your on your own dear friends |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:24 PM LOL, WesleyS! Yes, indeed it is funny when the creationists decry the "theory" of evolution, as I assume you are being satirical (satyrical?) about! And thank you, katquiet! |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:40 PM Ok, ok. I knew I should have stayed out of this. I apologize for getting rasty again. I think there is a big difference between testimony and sanctimony and the latter really makes me mad. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: katlaughing Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM Wesley, it's a matter of rhetoric. I think, after some particularly ugly fights around here on the healing threads, etc., most of us started posting our beliefs with a caveat., i.e. in my opinion or, may your god etc. so that we weren't seen to be pushy about our beliefs and so that most folks would not feel as though they were being attacked for not agreeing to same. Heck, even some self-described aethists started posting to the "good thoughts needed" threads and we worked it out. This isn't just happening in the god/no god threads. The ugliness about beliefs/opinions is rampant throughout Mudcat, sadly, even in the music threads. This will not change as long as folks continue to post edicts such as Slag has done. Everyone please take a deep breath and cool off a little, okay? luvyakat |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Wesley S Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM Amos - I can see you have waaaaaaay more invested in this than I do. I just don't want to see people told what opinions they can and can not express. And I've seen enough of that here. If it means that much to you - you can have it. Demonstrate away. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM Aw, sweet Jaysus, Wes. Yes, it is so totally different. Do we need to go around the whole damn loop again? Demonstrable fact does not constitute enforcing beliefs because it is TESTABLE. I do not enforce atheism on Slag; he does not enforce theism on me. Sheeshe. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Wesley S Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM And what y'all are doing is so totally different? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Amos Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM Wesley: The point is not that anyone cares about Slags personal beliefs. The point is that this is an open forum for all comers, and some of us do not care to be handed dictatorial decrees about the nature of Universe based on one zealous point of view, because it smacks of spiritual fascism and absolutism. SO while he is free tos ay what he believes, he is not being encouraged to assert those beliefs as facts binding on those who do not so subscribe. A |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Wesley S Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:31 PM Yes - Slag and I believe different things. If you get 1,000 people together you're going to find they have 1,000 different opinions too. So who cares? Those opinions will go away as soon as the computer gets turned off. I think it's great that you, Slag and I all get to voice our opinions. What I don't want to see is folks trying to supress those opinions - even the ones I disagree with. As I said - who cares? I have no idea but it wouldn't suprise me to hear that Slag lives hundreds or even thousands of miles away from you. So why care about his { or my } opinion. My opinion has NO influence on your day to day life. None - Zip. Now if I showed up at your front door some Sunday morning and dragged you by the short hairs to the church of my choice then I could see why you would have something to object to. Unless Slag comes and takes all of the school books out of your childs classroom that teach evolution - who gives a flip? Do you see what I'm getting at? |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Bill D Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:35 PM I dunno, Wesley S., when I say this is not a good place for preaching, I am being inspired by such interesting items as your statement, " I don't believe in hell - I don't think God gives up on us. That's ascribing human traits to God - and I don't think that works." Yet Slag clearly does believe in Hell...and he has more history and shared belief for his view than you do for yours! Now...why isn't he right? Why do you get to just *shrug* and dis-believe in Hell? This is why discussion is one thing, but flat statements couched in absolute, flowery language like Slag just used is quite another. He is simply stating that both you & I are wrong....me, more than you obviously...but wrong, nevertheless. What good can such language do in a forum like this? It is meant for situations where a group OF believers is gathered, as in a conservative church where everyone accepts the preacher's word, and the preacher is simply reminding the congregation, in graphic detail, of what they all have agreed to. Saying I can "choose not to open" a thread like this is true, of course, but trivially true, since it is like the proverbial "red flag in front of a bull" ...someone is GOING to respond. There is no reason for religious 'witnessing' except to challenge others to look at and ultimately, accept, your viwepoint. If someone wants religious support and to share the fervor & intensity of their religious beliefs, there are many places, both RT & virtual to find this. WYSIWYG often notes places for 'prayer chains' and other Christian help....but has refrained from DOING the praying here in the threads....and I have no problem with that! Simply...it is one thing to make it clear that one is a believer in a particular faith...and quite another to explicitly assert that all those who do not agree are damned. THAT is just begging for reaction. |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Wesley S Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM Praise the Lord. 100 !! |
|
Subject: RE: God still with me 2008 From: Wesley S Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM Theory ??? And here I thought you only dealt in empirical evidence :}:}:} |
| Share Thread: |
