INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: odeon on May 02, 2015, 05:37:47 PM
-
I've just sat on my hands to avoid posting what I really think. Let me explain.
I'm not a religious person. I think this is it, it's the only chance we get and it doesn't really matter. There won't ever be a final judgment on anything, and instead all things will pass. I will die, you will die, everyone will. The planet will die, and that's it for us. There are others out there that will have experienced all this before us, and there will be those that will have to wait.
But none of it matters because there is no sentient being to compare us, nothing that separates one disaster from the other. This is it.
Yet, not everyone believes what I do. They think--they know, or at least they say they do--there is a supreme being, an all-powerful being able to decide who gets to continue and who doesn't, and they remain just as convinced as I am.
Some, like Hannah, post about it here, and I get this mad, mad urge to reply in kind. I'm good with words. I know what to say and what to write. I'm really, really quick that way. There's so much I can say, some of it most likely more than a little bit hurtful for no other reason than that I know how to. Words that hurt, words that divide. Words that can so very easily produce what I feel like doing.
Very often they come to me instantly, and I have to sit on my hands because I know deep inside that there's no point posting them because all that will happen is that they will hurt. Maybe hurt bad. And I don't actually want that.
But here is the thing: I think--and correct me if I'm wrong--these celebrations of a god also come instantly. They are a way to channel a feeling, output something instantly or very nearly so. Something like what I do when I react, only I don't have that initial feeling. So why shouldn't I post what I think? Why shouldn't I simply react?
I don't know the answer.
-
I should probably add that I don't mind if you have opinions very different from mine, or if you think I should burn in hell. I'm simply pondering why I feel why I should be the one to hold back.
-
I think that if someone says something, it ought to be taken in context of what it says. I think anything on here ought to be a public invitation to response and or backing or explaining itself.
If I said (I dunno) "Seems like God had a plan for you" in response for finally catching an even break in something after a lot of hard work, regardless of whether it came instantaneously to the sender or whether it was meant well, it can come across to someone who does not share the religious beliefs as pretty bloody insulting. It begs a reply. You ought not stifle that.
Myself? I would mention that there was no God, what plan? how would they know?, what about all my hard work? what would have resulted without the hard work? does God only show up incidentally after a lot of hard work and if so what would be the difference between him making up and not making me part of their plan?, what about all the times I slugged my guts out and got nowhere? what about any other time? If I am part of some preordained plan this what is the point of free-will? Sure I can put my feet up and it is all part of their plan.
Then no matter what the answer to any of these questions, I would ask, how do you know?
-
I've just sat on my hands to avoid posting what I really think. Let me explain.
I'm not a religious person. I think this is it, it's the only chance we get and it doesn't really matter. There won't ever be a final judgment on anything, and instead all things will pass. I will die, you will die, everyone will. The planet will die, and that's it for us. There are others out there that will have experienced all this before us, and there will be those that will have to wait.
But none of it matters because there is no sentient being to compare us, nothing that separates one disaster from the other. This is it.
Yet, not everyone believes what I do. They think--they know, or at least they say they do--there is a supreme being, an all-powerful being able to decide who gets to continue and who doesn't, and they remain just as convinced as I am.
Some, like Hannah, post about it here, and I get this mad, mad urge to reply in kind. I'm good with words. I know what to say and what to write. I'm really, really quick that way. There's so much I can say, some of it most likely more than a little bit hurtful for no other reason than that I know how to. Words that hurt, words that divide. Words that can so very easily produce what I feel like doing.
Very often they come to me instantly, and I have to sit on my hands because I know deep inside that there's no point posting them because all that will happen is that they will hurt. Maybe hurt bad. And I don't actually want that.
But here is the thing: I think--and correct me if I'm wrong--these celebrations of a god also come instantly. They are a way to channel a feeling, output something instantly or very nearly so. Something like what I do when I react, only I don't have that initial feeling. So why shouldn't I post what I think? Why shouldn't I simply react?
I don't know the answer.
I think the question is the wrong one. There is no "should".
It's not "So why shouldn't I post what I think? Why shouldn't I simply react?".
My guess is that it is about why you would not post what you think there, why you don't simply react.
Hannah posts about her faith with the same impulsiveness, all over the place in the same way she posted about self harming before she found her happiness in her faith. For me it is verbal diarrhoea most of the times.
You simply have not that unstoppable impulsiveness Hannah shows. Most of the members here are not that impulsive and compulsive in posting.
That you can lash out is clear. That you rarely do too. When you do, it has effect. You hold back, part of who you are.
Do I recognise the urge to fling something sharp in return? Yes, I do. Do I hold back, yes, I do. Is it about religious posts only that I hold back. No.
Would I be me if I did not hold back. No, I wouldn't.
-
I think that if someone says something, it ought to be taken in context of what it says. I think anything on here ought to be a public invitation to response and or backing or explaining itself.
If I said (I dunno) "Seems like God had a plan for you" in response for finally catching an even break in something after a lot of hard work, regardless of whether it came instantaneously to the sender or whether it was meant well, it can come across to someone who does not share the religious beliefs as pretty bloody insulting. It begs a reply. You ought not stifle that.
Myself? I would mention that there was no God, what plan? how would they know?, what about all my hard work? what would have resulted without the hard work? does God only show up incidentally after a lot of hard work and if so what would be the difference between him making up and not making me part of their plan?, what about all the times I slugged my guts out and got nowhere? what about any other time? If I am part of some preordained plan this what is the point of free-will? Sure I can put my feet up and it is all part of their plan.
Then no matter what the answer to any of these questions, I would ask, how do you know?
That's about what I would do if it was directly projected on my life too.
When someone wants me to tell about their faith or belief I react different though. I tell them I am not interested in doctrine, only in what it means for them, in their life, to believe. What makes it worth while for them?
-
I don't know the answer.
The answer for me is, yes, to the question of the thread title. Her response to a simple challenge was, I've just got to be me, but she refrained from calling anyone dear for an entire three months, absolutely not being her because of sensitivity toward some stupid troll tactic to see how she would respond. Actually am glad she's returned to addressing people as dear, because was beginning to feel a bit bad about that. The point was brought up at that time, of it being very curious, as to why other people here don't care to respond to some of the things said.
Though don't personally care for the third person approach. Hannah, sometimes I ignore you, due to thinking you're simply trolling the forum gushing so much about god, knowing those who share your views have no need to contribute, so it makes you appear to simply be trying to elicit negative responses from those who don't. Certainly those expressions would receive more positive response on a religious forum, or more trollish fun on an atheism forum; either way it's hard to conclude what might be the motive for expressing it here at all. Also sometimes ignore you, due to viewing you as somewhat mentally and emotionally weaker than myself, and am more likely to challenge people who I don't view as inferior. Otherwise, it makes me feel like a bully. If it's not trolling, then will be very bothered by my saying anything about it, if you stop gushing about god now that the topic's been brought up.
Is that it, Odeon. Don't want to feel like you're picking on poor sweet Hannah? Personally wanted to question an ex-cutter's motives in telling mdagli1 to cut off his fingers. Already know why I didn't do that.
-
The USA relatives of my ex talk almost in the same way as Hannah posts.
Thought it was an SDA USA trait. :asthing:I don't know the answer.
The answer for me is, yes, to the question of the thread title. Her response to a simple challenge was, I've just got to be me, but she refrained from calling anyone dear for an entire three months, absolutely not being her because of sensitivity toward some stupid troll tactic to see how she would respond. Actually am glad she's returned to addressing people as dear, because was beginning to feel a bit bad about that. The point was brought up at that time, of it being very curious, as to why other people here don't care to respond to some of the things said.
I answered similar to how I answered now, I think.
Now and then, I mildly poke Hannah, or tickle her. More because her posts are empty to me than that they are religious.
And, yes, Hannah, typing this sentence, I am wondering whether I can let those words be, that to me your posts are empty, not of any other importance as a VS post. And I do not give a shit about VS.
Faith does really and still dearly interest me though.
I'll let it stand. To me, the posts are empty, that is why I do not react on them. They are like all the words the uncles and aunts of my ex used, and I did not see how any of those words meant anything in their life. It's almost like twisted regular small-talk to me.
-
I'm not convinced about a divine figure, however I am convinced about the complexity of the human mind. So I'm not sure what is the nature of that thing that some people call a god, but I am convinced that for some of them, the structure of religion or at least their belief in their gods helps them.
I am completely convinced that if someone's belief in their god or their religion helps them in a good way, that their belief will not need to be outspoken. I experienced this in Florida. I have philosophical differences with Seventh Day Adventists, but the ones who ran the health food store I frequented were living examples of what a religion should do for a person.
Just so you know where I stand, I confess to some magical thinking, and it goes like this: I think the power of belief can affect events in the world on a small scale and depending on the number of people involved, in a large event. However, I don't know entirely how this works. That's about the size of it. I'm still experimenting. But also, I am a product of my Catholic upbringing and my fundamentalist christian indoctrination.
I'm not sure what you mean by celebrations of a god, but if they are what I think they are, they are not what most religion's founders meant to happen. These celebrations are the result of social conditioning, and likely do not represent any depth of feeling. They are more shortcuts than anything else. They are the result of an inability to communicate a genuine feeling. Like a swear word. I've uttered my own celebrations, and, as a result of social conditioning, sometimes still use the words in the same empty fashion.
Unfortunately, being perceived as a leader makes you sit on your hands at times.
But isn't this the place where you don't have to do that, where you can say what you want no matter who you are? I'm guessing that your reaction won't break any laws. If feelings are hurt, then either healing will occur (if the religion lives up to its claims) or people will go away. That's what this forum is about. Is celebration different from flaming? Do you sit on your hands when someone says fuck you?
Actually, I don't get it.
Your freedom to post your reaction is the reason this forum is here.
-
My views on it are...if it makes someone happy, if they feel it's a positive thing in their lives...that's fine, I'm happy for them.
Just don't try to sell it to me personally like a telemarketer pedaling life insurance.
I identify as "wiccan", I am not really (although my mother identified as such), my views are probably along the same line as yours...although I kind of hope this isn't "it", finite, the end. There are some places I would like to haunt :zoinks:, I believe that like energy, some trace of us lives on, whether I'm wrong or not will remain to be seen. Judgmental, supreme being not included.
I found out though that by having a "label" everyone interested in "saving my immortal soul" (including the inlaws and my SO) left me alone. Strangely enough I've found if you tell someone you don't believe, they become hell-bent to convert you, but if you tell them you believe in "something" they leave you be 9/10 times.
It has actually had some cool moments...my ex SIL (the JW) who was always a major bitch to me before the kingdom hall, now avoided pissing me off like the plague because she thought I was a satan worshipper, and the SO still believes to this day (even though I've told him he's nuts a million times) that I put a curse on him after he left for 2 years for someone else...kept both of them from bothering me. :autism:
I think religion is a bigger thing over here than it is in other countries, at least it seems to be, especially in some sections of the country.
-
Just so you know where I stand, I confess to some magical thinking, and it goes like this: I think the power of belief can affect events in the world on a small scale and depending on the number of people involved, in a large event. However, I don't know entirely how this works. That's about the size of it. I'm still experimenting. But also, I am a product of my Catholic upbringing and my fundamentalist christian indoctrination.
Law of intent, law of attraction, like attracts like....play with that a bit myself if that's what you mean. I've had some positive results, so I will continue to play.
-
I don'the feel the need to take concern or offense with someone's religious beliefs. I was raised Catholic, but realized that Judaism is the best faith for me sometime in my early thirties. I'm not offended if an obvious Baptist (black person) says "Have a blessed day." (Most blacks are Baptist here.)
I don't discuss religion, because it is something uniquely personal. People believe what they believe because they are comfortable, peaceful with that belief.
There has been a time or two when I considered commenting on a religious post, but I chose to respect the poster's opinion/belief and went on to the next post.
-
I think it sucks when people I like have decided to leave here (Loupgarou I'm thinking of you, wherever you are) because of the anti-spiritual sentiment. But now that I think about it I've never gone on a crusade against people here who have blasted spirituality, in the way that I have against people who have done other things I've found unethical.
I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.
I do know that I don't want to be predictable, and I reserve the right to go off on anyone I choose. I like it better when it's someone who presents a challenge.
-
I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.
That's an interesting statement. Hannah, have noticed a couple of instances where members have intellectually challenged you for statements made in political debate, and the response was to change the subject and start gushing about god, thus ending the intellectual debate with emotional statements which garnered no response at all. Now wondering if you might realize people are being sensitive toward it, and using it as a protective shield tactic when challenged.
-
Where is she, anyway. She ought to be in this thread.
-
Hannah's posting pattern has gaps of weeks ever since she is back.
-
I think it sucks when people I like have decided to leave here (Loupgarou I'm thinking of you, wherever you are) because of the anti-spiritual sentiment. But now that I think about it I've never gone on a crusade against people here who have blasted spirituality, in the way that I have against people who have done other things I've found unethical.
I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.
I do know that I don't want to be predictable, and I reserve the right to go off on anyone I choose. I like it better when it's someone who presents a challenge.
Yes, I miss her too.
I'm raised Calvinist, the European way. And I've seen what it can do for good, and for bad. It is part of me, and I will not let that go. I cherish what it gives me. A reference language to be able to express some of my spirituality.
Whether there is an afterlife or not is of no importance. The only thing I can act on and be in is here and now.
There's a fair bit of heathen in me too. (As one of my church-history teachers used to tell me specifically). Bits of ancient lore and habits are as much part of me as Calvinism is. There are some atheist Calvinists who are appealing for me.
Am I more sensitive about religion than about other things? There are some things I am not sensitive about at all, there are things I am sensitive about. Spirituality probably is part of things I am more sensitive about, because it is important to me.
But it depends on what it is.
What QV said, if someone expresses a greeting or blessing clearly coloured by their faith, it is not something to frown upon. It's part of who this person is, it's OK.
If someone tells me how he or she gets through life, because of faith, comfort or courage stemming from religion, I have no problems with it at all. Can be really interesting and beautiful.
If someone tells me what has been intended, and what is the reason why something is happening to me, or someone else, I will react. People able to identify divine punishment for other people will get my reaction.
If I find people I care about troubling themselves, and making their life harder by unhealthy religious pressure on top of their problems, I will react too. I will try to gently debunk their self-deprecating religious reason. Try to bend it, in what it should be; helpful, getting them through their life.
-
Hannah's posting pattern has gaps of weeks ever since she is back.
This is not about her, though. I like Hannah and I'm glad she has found a way to cope. One of her posts triggered mine, but this is about those triggers and what to do about them.
Py put it best:
I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.
-
Hannah's posting pattern has gaps of weeks ever since she is back.
This is not about her, though. I like Hannah and I'm glad she has found a way to cope. One of her posts triggered mine, but this is about those triggers and what to do about them.
Py put it best:
I think it's because I'm not sure either, how sensitive it's best to be towards religion.
In that case; if it has been brought up in a post by a member on I2, it should be OK to react on it, the way you would react on it the way you would react on other things.
It is getting annoying if there comes a whole train of bashing posts (in stead of critical or questioning posts). But that is not a pretty sight as a reaction on any subject to me. I am no fan of the ad hominem in lots of bashing stuff. Think that that is what happened around Loupgarou.
But reacting with what you think, why not?
-
Maybe because what I think is not always what I actually want to say. :-\
-
The way people can get really touched by poetry, humour, music, art and such, is similar to the way spirituality touches people. It has no "practical" function for procreation and the keeping alive of the species on this planet. But it is important.
It can touch people deeply. Doesn't mean you can't think the music someone is listening to is rubbish. Doesn't mean you can't tell someone to tone down a bit, if they push their music on you. And there are people who are not touched by music at all.
(Taking music as an example, because I have seen people fight over it, bashing fiercely, nearly getting physical, because of disapproving of taste in mutual music taste.)
-
Maybe because what I think is not always what I actually want to say. :-\
I think that you've got a point there.
-
Another consideration:
Would we walk on eggshells if the person spouting celebrations was a troll?
I realized somewhere along the way that I too engaged in an act of treading carefully in the presence of someone I perceived to be significantly impaired.
A client I was seeing for a crisis assessment badly wanted to be admitted to the hospital. He wasn't psychotic, just homeless and in want of a bed and breakfast. I told him that I wouldn't admit him and he punched a hole in the wall about three inches from my head. I shrugged and said, that's going to be a problem.
I pressed charges at the behest of my supervisor. The point is that even people who are mentally ill must abide by the rules of the community. So here is no different, I assume.
If someone is impaired they nonetheless have entered a place where people are allowed to react to things, to speak their mind. So do we hold back for people who have fewer cognitive resources? Only if you're me and it could come back to bite you in the butt as you're trying to convince the faculty somewhere that you've been politically correct for decades.
Why are we walking on eggshells?
We're being manipulated by someone who wants to use us to get what they didn't get as a child.
What will happen if we hurt the feelings of such a person?
In my profession they say a third get better, a third get worse and a third experience no effect at all.
On the other hand, such people, with assistance can become litigious, which, likely no coincidence, rhymes with religious.
OK, good night. When I start rhyming it's time to go to bed.
-
I think part of the issue around public outpourings of faith is that you lay yourself open to mockery or robust disagreement from those who do not share your convictions, compounded by the fact that some atheists (well, anti-theists) seem to feel obliged to harangue those who have spiritual beliefs as delusional cretins. Here in the UK most folk don't witter on and on about God, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, other than shiny eyed JWs and Mormons trying to spread the 'good news' - the national religion is agnosticism. It's much easier to be sensitive to each others deeply held beliefs if they aren't shoved in other people's faces. That's the risk you take, that others will find your views offensive.
I identify as a pagan. Generally I consider that to be my own concern, and don't really see why other people's faith is any of my business, unless they're making fucked up choices which affect other people, like campaigning against gay rights or mutilating their daughters' vaginas.
-
Would we walk on eggshells if the person spouting celebrations was a troll?
Who's to say it's not? Was very tempted to troll Hanna's 'god loves' thread with: god loves rape, war, dead babies, self-mutilation, murder, slavery, and so on, all with verses from the new testament for that extra flavor of dickery. Though what would be the point of such a response other than trollish dickery? Which brings the question of, what's the point of the thread other than trollish dickery? Maybe the point to bring about a good laugh to the author, which it did.
-
I keep forgetting that "heathen" and "pagan" have different connotations in English. In Dutch there is only one word for the two of them.
:asthing:
-
I tend to hold back if I feel the people are true believers and make no attempts to push their faith on me or condemn me for my beliefs or actions, I feel if it works for them great. A lot of people seem to find comfort in religion that I personally just don't understand. If they are preachy, condescending, or disrespectful to my beliefs that is another story.
-
I find it difficult to accept a faith that defines me as a sinner because I don't believe.
-
I find it difficult to accept a faith that defines me as a sinner because I don't believe.
Have defended believers here before, when they were attacked as not being intellectuals. Personally have no problem accepting other people's faith, or lack of, though find it difficult to accept viewpoints which come across as knowing either way. Strong atheist can really annoy me, equally as much as a believer who attempts to tell me what god wants. It's emotion presented as fact.
-
I don't know the answer.
The answer for me is, yes, to the question of the thread title. Her response to a simple challenge was, I've just got to be me, but she refrained from calling anyone dear for an entire three months, absolutely not being her because of sensitivity toward some stupid troll tactic to see how she would respond. Actually am glad she's returned to addressing people as dear, because was beginning to feel a bit bad about that. The point was brought up at that time, of it being very curious, as to why other people here don't care to respond to some of the things said.
Though don't personally care for the third person approach. Hannah, sometimes I ignore you, due to thinking you're simply trolling the forum gushing so much about god, knowing those who share your views have no need to contribute, so it makes you appear to simply be trying to elicit negative responses from those who don't. Certainly those expressions would receive more positive response on a religious forum, or more trollish fun on an atheism forum; either way it's hard to conclude what might be the motive for expressing it here at all. Also sometimes ignore you, due to viewing you as somewhat mentally and emotionally weaker than myself, and am more likely to challenge people who I don't view as inferior. Otherwise, it makes me feel like a bully. If it's not trolling, then will be very bothered by my saying anything about it, if you stop gushing about god now that the topic's been brought up.
Is that it, Odeon. Don't want to feel like you're picking on poor sweet Hannah? Personally wanted to question an ex-cutter's motives in telling mdagli1 to cut off his fingers. Already know why I didn't do that.
that was my assumption of the thread being a 'joke' I'll take that post down, in hindsight it was eh me not thinking about what I was saying before I hit the post button. more in a min.
-
that was my assumption of the thread being a 'joke' I'll take that post down, in hindsight it was eh me not thinking about what I was saying before I hit the post button. more in a min.
Your candor is appreciated. Wasn't certain if correct in calling you a god troll in that thread; just a hunch. See no need to take it down, though. The bible quote game is one of my favorites, when it's clear it's a game, and am willing to play whenever you are.
-
wow, a lot has been said sense I've been away...
To Jack the thread about God Loves was actually a blog post that from now on I'll be mindful to keep on my blog, it in no way was meant to be pushy or rude...it was something that I actually sat down and through for and about for a long while before posting...also Jack you make good points and allow any poster to 'think outside the box' and I appreciate that about you, and other members here...
To Oden: I in no way see you as any thing else then a great admin, don't feel the need to sit on your hands, I've come across many whom are not of any faith on the ASD spectrum...
To all: Well I am attempting to think before I post, good rule of thumb, why do I post here and about the content that I do? well I honestly haven't found a more honest group of people period that actually keep myself in check. The 'gushing posts' are just because I think and post what I think, and have been thinking about how that might affect others which this thread is a great reminder of...
on a lighter note, it's also a great place to let my hair down, and you all crack me up :lol1: and I love the individual people that are on another PC somewhere that in rich this forum as a whole...I'm a lot tougher then you all think, I don't take offence to much anything...a lot more easy going and I like sharing that fact with others, as well as how to put it...'I like you guys so much that I sit too close' metaphorically speaking (it's what I did when I was a kid and liked someone, sat really close to them) kid was all like uhh who's this weirdo? :asthing:
Don't feel the need to walk on egg shells please by all means be yourselves :-*
-
Jack is thinking about the parakeet.
-
Well, Hannah, several things...
It's "odeon", not "oden", even though in this context the latter would have made sense. The name is a reference to my home cinema.
I'm glad you don't consider yourself to be sensitive. This thread didn't happen solely because of your threads involving make-believe in the clouds, even though one of your posts triggered it. It's a reaction to what I perceive as egg shells sometimes surrounding the whole subject, something to be minded if you don't necessarily want to break them all but would like to engage in a bit more than a polite discussion.
Please don't remove posts. There is no need to.
-
a miss spell :yarly:
-
Well, Hannah, several things...
It's "odeon", not "oden", even though in this context the latter would have made sense. The name is a reference to my home cinema.
I'm glad you don't consider yourself to be sensitive. This thread didn't happen solely because of your threads involving make-believe in the clouds, even though one of your posts triggered it. It's a reaction to what I perceive as egg shells sometimes surrounding the whole subject, something to be minded if you don't necessarily want to break them all but would like to engage in a bit more than a polite discussion.
Please don't remove posts. There is no need to.
Odin better? :green:
-
I (in general- much less here than IRL) often find myself holding back from even disclosing my atheism, let alone discussing it, largely because I don't see it as productive. I'm not going to talk any religious people out of being religious, and I don't want to anyway. And, unfortunately, experience had taught me that religious people do often try to convert you if they know you aren't "a believer" or however they identify. Especially with certain brands of protestantism (ex. "born again," evangelical, etc) a very strong culture of, essentially, pushiness.
For me, it's annoying and unwanted when someone pushes religion on me, even to tell me god loves me or I am in their prayers or whatever, but I know it is usually well-meant, so I try to take it as that: a (religiously) spazzy well-wish. That's how I've been perceiving Hannah. Some of her persona is probably a front, a fair bit of it is her own version of spazziness, but I do think she's primarily trying to be nice and trying to be liked, and religion is her thing. Not my cup of tea but if it makes her happy, that's great, and as far as I can see she's not hurting anyone.
-
Most people here aren't religious. Most treat religion with a kind of "as long as they keep it to themselves" attitude.
-
I think it's rather simple. Jesus-freaks are welcome to write whatever they want about their beliefs, and the damned-sinners are equally welcome to respond with whatever they want about their beliefs. Nobody is "right", and nobody is "wrong" for believing differently. I haven't been around in a while, so I'm not really familiar with all the background here, but I think what Odeon is getting at is the double standard that applies where it's not PC for a disbeliever to disagree with a believer, especially if that person has displayed sensitivities in the past. I'll be the first to admit that I trolled the 'keet pretty hard, but it wasn't because of his beliefs. It was because he was a twat. His beliefs were just his soft underbelly waiting for a swift kick with sharp boots.
I would never engage in the kind of conversation they would, where I thought I could talk someone over to "my side", but if they start that discussion I feel within my right to poke a little fun at them. They get something out of their end, why shouldn't I get something out of mine?
I disagree with any double standard. This isn't a damn support-forum.
-
I don't get why religion that involves a god or gods is so often treated differently than other practices. Another definition: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group. Doesn't this definition make trolling, or child pornography a religion? The problem is that when enforcement takes place, it's usually against the "unbeliever."
We have some kind of social conditioning that makes us think it's bad to step on religion even if its absurd, so long as there is a socially approved god concerned. On a television program I saw a man argue that pedophelia was his religion. They still kicked him out of the country.
For me this kind of thing is a matter of safety. I'd rather not incur the wrath of someone who wants to kill me so I do step carefully. I also step carefully if the person seems impaired - dangerous for many reasons. On the other hand, if they come pushing things at me and won't go away, I'm likely just to use logic to shut them up. I've found that the more simplistic the attempt, the more likely it is that 1) I won't be able to have an intelligent conversation, and 2) I'll have a much easier time asking questions that leave them scratching their heads while I make my getaway.
However I too agree about the double standard, because that's what it is. In the U.S. there are abundant examples of it. Many religious beliefs are backed by law and by social policing. I don't know about other countries, but maybe that's what makes us walk on eggshells?
-
I'll be the first to admit that I trolled the 'keet pretty hard, but it wasn't because of his beliefs.
Was just thinking about him because he didn't come here trolling with religion, or bringing it up at all, but some members still tried to spark that contention with him; not sure if that was you too.
engage in a bit more than a polite discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up, Odeon.
-
I'll be the first to admit that I trolled the 'keet pretty hard, but it wasn't because of his beliefs.
Was just thinking about him because he didn't come here trolling with religion, or bringing it up at all, but some members still tried to spark that contention with him; not sure if that was you too.
engage in a bit more than a polite discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up, Odeon.
Yes, I attacked him on religion. But I was provoked by his homophobic preaching on that other site I was moderating at the time.
-
I'll be the first to admit that I trolled the 'keet pretty hard, but it wasn't because of his beliefs.
Was just thinking about him because he didn't come here trolling with religion, or bringing it up at all, but some members still tried to spark that contention with him; not sure if that was you too.
engage in a bit more than a polite discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up, Odeon.
Yes, I attacked him on religion. But I was provoked by his homophobic preaching on that other site I was moderating at the time.
Wasn't talking about you. Trying to be subtle and you're ruining it. :laugh: Odeon thinks the eggshells surround the subject, not the person.
-
I'm sensitive. Hold me. Hold me tight. :(
-
I'm sensitive. Hold me. Hold me tight. :(
Awwwwwwww.
:hug:
-
Well, Hannah, several things...
It's "odeon", not "oden", even though in this context the latter would have made sense. The name is a reference to my home cinema.
I'm glad you don't consider yourself to be sensitive. This thread didn't happen solely because of your threads involving make-believe in the clouds, even though one of your posts triggered it. It's a reaction to what I perceive as egg shells sometimes surrounding the whole subject, something to be minded if you don't necessarily want to break them all but would like to engage in a bit more than a polite discussion.
Please don't remove posts. There is no need to.
Odin better? :green:
>:(
-
Don't leave, Hannah.
-
Already?
*sigh*
-
I doubt she'd leave because of this, tbh. She shouldn't.
-
No, she should not leave, because she is a strong woman, she achieved lots, and she is a good addition to this place.
-
:agreed:
-
na I'm still around...I take breaks from the net for my sanity if you get me... :yarly:
-
Whaddyamean sanity?
-
Whaddyamean sanity?
it's good to take a break from the media and by that I mean all of it...it's why I take breaks so I don't go cray :GA:
-
This is where I can stay sane. :M
-
This is where I can stay sane. :M
I agree, we all have our own ways of doing so... :yarly:
-
I think you'll burn in hell.
Just kidding lol...Odeon is too kind for "hell"...unless its the cool hell. :P
The truth is- no one knows what happens when we die...or if we can experience anything. Right now I am wondering if we are constantly dying, stepping into parallel universes every time a moment passes...that in another dimension I am dead, and still other people are dead, and others who are dead here are alive there, and everything plays out in infinite combinations, with infinite possibilities.
Life ain't about knowing...if anything, thats what the Bible teaches- not to pick from the tree of knowledge right? That just expresses a truth in so many words, that we can't be certain about many things, and we can't live our lives as if we are...because if we do, we risk missing something important.
We are born and then we begin making many relationships...first with our guardians, then with playmates, then with booty calls, then with in-laws, then with kids, maybe... anyways, we are constantly making relationships...expanding like the universe...and those are based on respect, love, appreciation, compassion...and based on need and interdependence...and then we die leaving behind our dna or our emotional impression on something.
Our lives are together...and so if you have something to contribute, as far as I am concerned, you are my brother, and I would be glad to hear whatever you say.
What do I believe? Beliefs are changing...the only thing that doesn't change is what is important. if there is such a changeless thing, i don't care how people call it, express it, understand it, explore it...its all good in the family.
-
I know that beliefs should build folks up...should key word...for me it's personal and something that is based on love...it's helped me and I wish others could exercise their faith the same way for their betterment, but everyone has free will...it's not the faith's that are to blame it's the folks that pervert the meaning of the faith xyz...
-
Actually, SG, what the Bible teaches is some pretty nasty stuff. The latter part tried to soften the message somewhat but all in all, I am destined to burn if the book is to be believed, and so are most others.
But I don't mind because I think it's just a book and an inconsistent one at that, and what we do matters now.
-
Actually, SG, what the Bible teaches is some pretty nasty stuff. The latter part tried to soften the message somewhat but all in all, I am destined to burn if the book is to be believed, and so are most others.
But I don't mind because I think it's just a book and an inconsistent one at that, and what we do matters now.
I haven't actually read the bible.
Just bits n pieces. I read it like I read the Iliad...some really nice parts, some parts I look at and think "dagg".
Definitely not to be read by anyone who takes things literally.
-
Actually, SG, what the Bible teaches is some pretty nasty stuff. The latter part tried to soften the message somewhat but all in all, I am destined to burn if the book is to be believed, and so are most others.
But I don't mind because I think it's just a book and an inconsistent one at that, and what we do matters now.
Blasphemer :zoinks:
-
Actually, SG, what the Bible teaches is some pretty nasty stuff. The latter part tried to soften the message somewhat but all in all, I am destined to burn if the book is to be believed, and so are most others.
But I don't mind because I think it's just a book and an inconsistent one at that, and what we do matters now.
I haven't actually read the bible.
Just bits n pieces. I read it like I read the Iliad...some really nice parts, some parts I look at and think "dagg".
Definitely not to be read by anyone who takes things literally.
If one takes it literally or not, there's no escaping the most basic fundamental teaching. One must accept Christ as their only salvation and ask him for forgiveness in order to gain entry into heaven.
-
Actually, SG, what the Bible teaches is some pretty nasty stuff. The latter part tried to soften the message somewhat but all in all, I am destined to burn if the book is to be believed, and so are most others.
But I don't mind because I think it's just a book and an inconsistent one at that, and what we do matters now.
I haven't actually read the bible.
Just bits n pieces. I read it like I read the Iliad...some really nice parts, some parts I look at and think "dagg".
Definitely not to be read by anyone who takes things literally.
If one takes it literally or not, there's no escaping the most basic fundamental teaching. One must accept Christ as their only salvation and ask him for forgiveness in order to gain entry into heaven.
Even that can be circumvented. :P
God, and human made in god's image makes sense to me. As long as it is also the other way around.
The way a group of people has their deity tells what they see in humanity. Nothing human strange to the divine. From love to wrath, it is all there.
Theology and anthropology are closely linked.
-
Even that can be circumvented. :P
How so?
-
If one takes it literally or not, there's no escaping the most basic fundamental teaching. One must accept Christ as their only salvation and ask him for forgiveness in order to gain entry into heaven.
Even that can be circumvented. :P
I'll elaborate a bit.
There is this explanation. People strive to do good; and find that things go amiss anyway, no matter how hard they try. Bad luck, accidents, unforeseen reactions on actions. So, there are people ending with a sense of guilt. Guilt that can't be atoned for, that can't be undone by making up for what went wrong. This guilt can paralyse people, because of the fear of fucking up again.
That is where forgiveness enters; to make starting again, with renewed courage, possible.
Forgiveness as the psychological, and sociological tool. Consolation, and encouraging.
-
Even that can be circumvented. :P
How so?
The percentage of atheist people in the main church of my country is pretty high. Also among ministers (and yes, they are open about that). So, they found ways to circumvent that.
It is mainly found in people over 40 though, the newer generation is more influenced by the emotional belief systems influenced by USA evangelical movements. The church is growing more literal here, I think.
-
Was talking about the holy bible in reference to Odeon's statement about his destiny if the bible is to be believed, and he's correct. Faith and salvation in Christ is the key point and most fundamental teaching of Christianity. Not aware of any way of circumventing that. If there are atheist out there, who believe they're going to a Christian heaven which they don't believe exist, by circumventing faith in Christ in order to get there, then that's very funny.
-
Was talking about the holy bible in reference to Odeon's statement about his destiny if the bible is to be believed, and he's correct. Faith and salvation in Christ is the key point and most fundamental teaching of Christianity. Not aware of any way of circumventing that. If there are atheist out there, who believe they're going to a Christian heaven which they don't believe exist, by circumventing faith in Christ in order to get there, then that's very funny.
It is then not believing in a Christian heaven or Christian salvation. But about using the community and the spiritual language.
Not that different from the older Calvinistic teachings, where nothing you do on earth can make you earn afterlife, so the only thing you can focus on is life here and now. Lutherans in teaching also focus on the life here and now. And that is a strong trend in Western European protestantism. Complete with work ethic, not to earn a place in heaven, but as a way of thanksgiving.
But, as I said, the influences from USA evangelicalism is growing fast. Religion is more and more changing into emotion mongering. With some weird fears now and then. And with it, for me the spiritual bit is not visible anymore. Where I can see that in the atheist version of Calvinism.
-
Have always liked the Calvinists, as they believe in a pre-determined ending with a sovereign deity, so yes no reason for them in actually trying to do anything to achieve an end. Though there's a few branches of Christianity which believe in a similar way, believing they are among the pre-determined chosen, though that belief doesn't come at the expense, exception, or circumvention of faith and salvation through Christ. It's just a different interpretation of the same fundamental teaching, with the difference being determinism vs free will.
-
On sin and forgiveness, from the Iliad...
Achilles was angry at Agamemnon and threatening to leave the war, but Phoenix has this to say:
"Now, therefore, I say battle with your pride and beat it; cherish not your anger for ever; the might and majesty of heaven are more than ours, but even heaven may be appeased; and if a man has sinned he prays the gods, and reconciles them to himself by his piteous cries and by frankincense, with drink-offerings and the savour of burnt sacrifice. For prayers are as daughters to great Jove; halt, wrinkled, with eyes askance, they follow in the footsteps of sin, who, being fierce and fleet of foot, leaves them far behind him, and ever baneful to mankind outstrips them even to the ends of the world; but nevertheless the prayers come hobbling and healing after. If a man has pity upon these daughters of Jove when they draw near him, they will bless him and hear him too when he is praying; but if he deny them and will not listen to them, they go to Jove the son of Saturn and pray that he may presently fall into sin- to his ruing bitterly hereafter. Therefore, Achilles, give these daughters of Jove due reverence, and bow before them as all good men will bow. Were not the son of Atreus offering you gifts and promising others later- if he were still furious and implacable- I am not he that would bid you throw off your anger and help the Achaeans, no matter how great their need; but he is giving much now, and more hereafter; he has sent his captains to urge his suit, and has chosen those who of all the Argives are most acceptable to you; make not then their words and their coming to be of none effect. Your anger has been righteous so far. We have heard in song how heroes of old time quarrelled when they were roused to fury, but still they could be won by gifts, and fair words could soothe them. "
(in book 9)
I really like the illustration of prayers and sin both being the daughters of Jove, and prayers always running after sin...but then if opportunities for prayers are ignored, the idea that your punishment will be to be more and more driven to sin...i feel it speaks to something profound about the human experience of doing right and doing unjustly...and how being continually unjust is in and of itself a punishment.... and it also speaks to a perspective common in west africa and apparently in the medditteranean, that we don't consider how god will be based on our actions, but that when we see how god is, it should be a guiding principle for us. if god can be humbled, if the sun can rely on something, then why not us? how can our pride or anger be bigger than a gods? if god can bend, then how much easier should it be for us to bend? etc...
-
that was well thought out SG, thanks for the input I enjoyed it...
For myself it is about a 180 degree turn as in change, for me my faith has been the anchor by which I have grown...The God that I know isn't pushy but when sought out is there...
Putting myself in a place to become better regardless of my faith, putting the work into staying well has given a lot of folks hope...
for example in bible study recently I gave my testimony and a mom came up crying to me 'Your story has given me hope' and at the end of the day it isn't about me...it's about helping others along the way...
You'd be surprised how common cutting is everywhere (hardly anyone talks about in it church) so if my story offers hope then I am truly joyful...
I'm not impressed with me if that makes sense, and as I've spoken with others they don't care how healed I am, but if I was broken enough to relate to them as to offer them some hope that yes you can become well when you choose to be...
-
Actually, SG, what the Bible teaches is some pretty nasty stuff. The latter part tried to soften the message somewhat but all in all, I am destined to burn if the book is to be believed, and so are most others.
But I don't mind because I think it's just a book and an inconsistent one at that, and what we do matters now.
Blasphemer :zoinks:
I know. :zoinks:
-
Was talking about the holy bible in reference to Odeon's statement about his destiny if the bible is to be believed, and he's correct. Faith and salvation in Christ is the key point and most fundamental teaching of Christianity. Not aware of any way of circumventing that. If there are atheist out there, who believe they're going to a Christian heaven which they don't believe exist, by circumventing faith in Christ in order to get there, then that's very funny.
Sneaking my way in would be hilarious if it turned out I was wrong.
I could simply pretend I was looking for the loo. I mean, would they rather risk that someone peed at the gates?
-
Was talking about the holy bible in reference to Odeon's statement about his destiny if the bible is to be believed, and he's correct. Faith and salvation in Christ is the key point and most fundamental teaching of Christianity. Not aware of any way of circumventing that. If there are atheist out there, who believe they're going to a Christian heaven which they don't believe exist, by circumventing faith in Christ in order to get there, then that's very funny.
Sneaking my way in would be hilarious if it turned out I was wrong.
I could simply pretend I was looking for the loo. I mean, would they rather risk that someone peed at the gates?
The transcendental loo? :laugh: Have always figured if the bible is true, then am among the pre-determined to be left behind. Don't think it's possible for anyone to choose to believe or disbelieve something. That's simply not the way belief works. Hence my appreciation for the Calvinists.
-
I believe in free will in that I believe in randomness. I certainly don't believe in fate if applied to the Bible. That would mean that the whole bloody book was pointless even if true.
-
^OTOH, that would also be hilarious. A huge cosmic joke. I'd love it if the Bible had enough truth in it to lure people in to try their utmost, to be good and to be kind, to help those in need, to turn the other cheek. All that.
Only to be met by "sorry, you're not on the list." :rofl:
-
Odeon- what are your favourite Nordic tales and stories?
-
Odeon- what are your favourite Nordic tales and stories?
oh that is a good question... :yarly:
-
My views on christianity were changed forever after reading "The Great Cosmic Mother" Back when I was in grad school I was having these things put in my hands by feminists. The part about the goddess religion had no appeal but I was struck by the perspective on the evolution of judeo-christian organized religion.
Back then I was dependent on protestant ideology and reading that book cut me loose with nothing to replace it. Eastern religion made for a better fit so my "bibles' are the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching.
Why should I not hate my neighbor?
I don't know what the Iliad says.
The bible essentially says that god won't like my behavior if I hate my neighbor.
The I Ching has a much more compelling rationale:
"Hatred is a form of subjective involvement by which you are bound to the hated object."
Forgive, and forget.
Works for me.
I like the C.S. Lewis version of heaven. You get in if you did good.
-
Why should I not hate my neighbor?
There's very rare few things in the bible which one cannot find a equal and opposite contradictory teaching. Christianity also teaches one should place Christ first above all, even if that mean hating everyone including one's own self. Screw the neighbor. Sometimes Christians are criticized for cherry picking the bible; have done it myself, but really, what more can they do with such a conflicting manual? Brings me back to liking the Calvinists, as they see the bible simply isn't meant to be understood by everyone. There's something admirable in that level of snobbery. :laugh:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ~Luke 14:26
-
My views on christianity were changed forever after reading "The Great Cosmic Mother" Back when I was in grad school I was having these things put in my hands by feminists. The part about the goddess religion had no appeal but I was struck by the perspective on the evolution of judeo-christian organized religion.
Back then I was dependent on protestant ideology and reading that book cut me loose with nothing to replace it. Eastern religion made for a better fit so my "bibles' are the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching.
Why should I not hate my neighbor?
I don't know what the Iliad says.
The bible essentially says that god won't like my behavior if I hate my neighbor.
The I Ching has a much more compelling rationale:
"Hatred is a form of subjective involvement by which you are bound to the hated object."
Forgive, and forget.
Works for me.
I like the C.S. Lewis version of heaven. You get in if you did good.
Feminist theology, and other liberation theologies did provide a completely different look at the bible and the value it had. They had a great impact. That and the need to be more independent, and entitled to take science serious led to thorough thinking through about the authority and literal meaning of the bible. And later on to a thorough thinking through on how to deal with dogmatic history. Denying a history is impossible, it shapes persons and communities. But not denying it is something completely different than fully embracing it and saying it is all part of the truth.
When it comes to that, the Christian community is divided in two. The literal ones, and the ones taking it as part of their history, and with a critical outlook on both history and scripture. (And there is the bulk not wanting to think things like this through, of course.)
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a similar thing is happening now in Islam. Slowly and carefully, but real critical and historical thinking is happening she says.
-
Have always liked the Calvinists, as they believe in a pre-determined ending with a sovereign deity, so yes no reason for them in actually trying to do anything to achieve an end. Though there's a few branches of Christianity which believe in a similar way, believing they are among the pre-determined chosen, though that belief doesn't come at the expense, exception, or circumvention of faith and salvation through Christ. It's just a different interpretation of the same fundamental teaching, with the difference being determinism vs free will.
Calvin was a strict thinker in yes and no.
Luther came with the thought that there was no way to work up your way to heaven. (He wasn't the first, but it is core of his protesting against the Catholic church of his time)
Calvin took it a step further, if there were people chosen to go to heaven, there had to be people rejected too. Strict legal thinking, either completely by Calvin himself, or influenced by one of his peers.
Some say that later in life Calvin regretted having it put so sharp.
Lots of dogma is worded in extreme words, because they were made during times of conflict.
Anathematization did not happen just like that. But, once on paper, it did not stop to be.
It's like letting to and fro shouting from an argument be the language in a book of law.
-
Odeon- what are your favourite Nordic tales and stories?
The Kalevala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala)
-
Have always liked the Calvinists, as they believe in a pre-determined ending with a sovereign deity, so yes no reason for them in actually trying to do anything to achieve an end. Though there's a few branches of Christianity which believe in a similar way, believing they are among the pre-determined chosen, though that belief doesn't come at the expense, exception, or circumvention of faith and salvation through Christ. It's just a different interpretation of the same fundamental teaching, with the difference being determinism vs free will.
Calvin was a strict thinker in yes and no.
Luther came with the thought that there was no way to work up your way to heaven. (He wasn't the first, but it is core of his protesting against the Catholic church of his time)
Calvin took it a step further, if there were people chosen to go to heaven, there had to be people rejected too. Strict legal thinking, either completely by Calvin himself, or influenced by one of his peers.
Some say that later in life Calvin regretted having it put so sharp.
Lots of dogma is worded in extreme words, because they were made during times of conflict.
Anathematization did not happen just like that. But, once on paper, it did not stop to be.
It's like letting to and fro shouting from an argument be the language in a book of law.
The bible actually supports that belief structure though, of a sovereign deity with a pre-determined ending. It's not like someone pulled it out of their butt. :laugh: It's actually more confusing to face people who claim the bible teaches free will and faith as a matter of choice, because have personally never seen it does teach that at all.
-
My views on christianity were changed forever after reading "The Great Cosmic Mother" Back when I was in grad school I was having these things put in my hands by feminists. The part about the goddess religion had no appeal but I was struck by the perspective on the evolution of judeo-christian organized religion.
Back then I was dependent on protestant ideology and reading that book cut me loose with nothing to replace it. Eastern religion made for a better fit so my "bibles' are the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching.
Why should I not hate my neighbor?
I don't know what the Iliad says.
The bible essentially says that god won't like my behavior if I hate my neighbor.
The I Ching has a much more compelling rationale:
"Hatred is a form of subjective involvement by which you are bound to the hated object."
Forgive, and forget.
Works for me.
I like the C.S. Lewis version of heaven. You get in if you did good.
According to Meng Zi, its just bad kingship.
-
I do stand for clear right and wrong, but on the other hand you can call me everything under the sun for having standards and it won't matter because I don't measure my worth by the world and what they say but by what God says about me.
I've lost friends over the standards I live by (not just talk about) and it's fine by me, their loss...Without God's grace, I'm nothing I am standing, living breathing because of the great love of a creator that just rocks my socks off...
The things that are not understood via the old testament for example, God picking the younger siblings over the older ones? I kind of get a laugh out of that one. God asking not for burnt offerings no really if you read His Heart it is for the hearts of people, for lives devoted to Him...
It's man that messed things up, we had it all in the garden it was a bit like heavenly welfare if you will...they didn't know what they had until it was lost...Haven't looked at it this way until recently and actually asking God (yea He does answer and sometimes the answers are a laugh)
What is the price of sin? death. (spiritual death and physical) OK. Check it...
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father of the son. The righteousness of the one in right standing (they choose to make the choices to remain in right standing to the best of their ability) and the wickedness upon the wicked one. If the wicked man turns from all his sins and accepts My statutes and does what is lawful and right in my sight he shall surely live, and shall not die.
Yet the house of Israel says, the way of the Lord is not fair. O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? Therefore I will judge you oh house of Isreal, every one acording to his ways," say the Lord your God.
Here is God's heart: Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit. (as in choose to do the right thing people)
For why should you die, oh house of Israel? (yea uh why isn't it better to turn and live?) "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies." says the Lord your God. Therefore turn and live!" Ezekiel 18:20-23:30-32
Pretty obvious what God's intent was, God didn't want robotic love from humans He wanted (and still wants) actual choice of 'Hey God, I've messed up take these broken pieces because it's all I have but I'm trusting you to lead and guide me.' In the case of many through out the entire Bible from the Old to the New and still to this day, those that are sons and daughters of the Most High those that don't just profess to be but actually live it, you can sense it when you are around them something different.
To those that choose to live the higher standard by Grace now under the New Covenant it is by Grace God's Grace that I stand and by no other. It's only by His Extravagant Love that while I was still in sin, pretty much giving God the middle finger (why lie to you guys, God or myself?) When I was cutting my skin open and not giving a crap about how it tore my family apart looking for acceptance in the wrong places and wondering why I wasn't 'accepted' when I already have been by God...
In short playing in the enemies sand box of outright evil and not playing in God's and wondering why the heck I was so filthy with the enemy's lies...(duh Hannah)
Now I make no bones about being in love with God getting dirty for Him, as in rolling up sleeves to assist others because I want to, there is joy in the journey and in the work I do everything as unto God! There is a reason it's called a peace that passes understanding, it's because it is... :thumbup:
I'm justified by the faith I have in who Jesus is was and is forever as do those that walk in the faith of God...
The substance of the things I hope for (In my minds eye I see them and know them to be true as I speak the truth daily) for example when I was fighting to overcome cutting it was hard as hell...quiet literately...so my hope of by God by the Grace He has damn it! I'm going to stop this nonsense the substance was the end result of now that then I was striving and struggling for...
So faith is the substance of something hoped for and the evidence of things not seen...Again not seeing the end result but believing it anyways 200 percent (you know our autie gumption, that hell or high water 'ness' we have once we get a bit between our teeth) Clinging onto the garments of God like my life depended on it (because it did)
That is the best way I can describe the faith I have and the Jesus I serve willingly, I've been even mocked by some in other churches but it's not about the buildings or the people in them...I have my home in God I'm steady in the One who is the rock of my salvation...I'm liberated from the opinions and stances of others, because they don't pin me down...God's perfect Love drowns all that out as I choose to tune into God and what is on His heart and am deaf to ridicule of others...
I do share with others God's love when they ask and when I feel lead or the subject comes up...it says to use digression in many areas of the Bible, and I do...Yet there are times when it's obvious where the line is if that makes sense which side do I stand on...The side of God's Truth Justice and Mercy Period...I love what God loves and hate what He hates...I run to God and away from the world, but I'm in the world shining the Light of God's love for people out to others so that just walking by something different is sensed, this is what is meant by being in the world but not of it...
Hope this helps clarify...love ya'll :thumbup:
-
The fact of the matter is that according to your book, I will burn. How that makes the old guy kind and forgiving, I don't know. If he loves us, then why not simply say so once this life is over? Why make our time here a test?
Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't buy it at all.
But here's an Oxford scientist offering a different view (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351347). What do you think? Will she burn, too?
-
The fact of the matter is that according to your book, I will burn. How that makes the old guy kind and forgiving, I don't know. If he loves us, then why not simply say so once this life is over? Why make our time here a test?
Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't buy it at all.
But here's an Oxford scientist offering a different view (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351347). What do you think? Will she burn, too?
Nah. They will capture her and treat her to a spiritually therapeutic manipulation after which she undoubtedly will accept her own malignant psychotiuc self obsession as her lord and savior.
Alice Walker: "It is fatal to love a god who does not love you."
That makes more logical sense to me than the other dogma.
-
Sure, they'll do it here but she'll burn in the afterlife. :zoinks:
-
The fact of the matter is that according to your book, I will burn. How that makes the old guy kind and forgiving, I don't know. If he loves us, then why not simply say so once this life is over? Why make our time here a test?
Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't buy it at all.
But here's an Oxford scientist offering a different view (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351347). What do you think? Will she burn, too?
Nah. They will capture her and treat her to a spiritually therapeutic manipulation after which she undoubtedly will accept her own malignant psychotiuc self obsession as her lord and savior.
Alice Walker: "It is fatal to love a god who does not love you."
That makes more logical sense to me than the other dogma.
Was just thinking about Alice Walker. Wonder when she will be all in the spotlights again. She was a hype, a needed one, about thirty years ago. Think it is about time her work resurfaces on the book shelves.
-
She is still around?
-
She is still around?
Just googled her. Looks like the last public attention she got was after disinheriting her daughter, for becoming pregnant, because motherhood is slavery. Sounds like nasty business.
-
And that's why she had a daughter in the first place? :-\
-
And that's why she had a daughter in the first place? :-\
Apparently she stopped caring for her daughter as a mother the moment the kid was 13. Don't know if it ever was a wanted pregnancy or not. When her daughter became pregnant, she seems to have strongly disagreed.
People can be so weird and strange in a painful way, also people who made things of beauty and importance.
-
So true.