A question for the believers....

[cloudy]

I'd be glad to be an honorary retarded cannibal, Cloudy.

We've been known to adopt occasionally.

Okay, I'm thread-jacking, but it's getting too deep in here for even my hip-waders to handle.

 

[mismused]

Since The King James and NIV Bibles are all the Bibles I believe in then that is what I'm basing my beliefs on. Coming here and putting me down for what I believe but not posting any proof that I'm wrong or info about what you believe isn't having a discussion it's just harrasment.

========================

No, Sting, what's harrassment is you being so obstinate to the point of being obnoxious is what you personally believe, and making sure to let others know it is what you feel they should believe.

Let it go, baby.

Believe all you want about the King James and NIV you want, but don't expect everyone to believe as you do.

Whether you're right or wrong in your personal beliefs is not what I'm into here, just your "I'm right, and you better see it" attitude.

I've only put what I believe, as far as this thread goes, into my one initial post. Is that post wrong too?

mismused

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Joe, does your direct tying of the phrase mystery religions to cloudy's statement that her own belief was private ring a bell? Or the continued arguments of the not-faith that are mystery religions throughout the personal belief structure section of the de-(no let's be accurate)flaming row?

Now, in accordance to the ancient practice of Joeian debate techniques you will state that you were "stating a theoretical example" and I misinterpreted you with a hasty jump to inferences.

To that, I say...nothing. I clench my fists once or twice and get on with my day. This is an ex-thread by this point. All merit and real debate long since lost in the miamasa of attempted conversions and condemnations. So, adios suckers, you're on your own from here on out.

 

[stingray61]

The reason I won't discuss what I believe with you is because it's personal, and I don't discuss it with people who are obviously as close-minded as you are, if I discuss it at all. And, I don't have to back anything up, sweets, as I've said before, I could care less if you believe the same things I do or not. I'll leave all the preaching and the aiming for mass conversions to y'all.

If I were as close minded as you assume I am, then I wouldn't be asking you to explain your religion. It's just that no-one whos posted here has been able to show me I am wrong about my beliefs. If you could care less about me believing the same things you do then why do you care if any of the others believe the same things I do? No offence but you aren't making sense....hey I'm a poet and didn't know it. Wow I did it again just then. And again..man I must be a better poet than I thought I was. Does the fact that you keep calling me sweetie or sweets have anything to do with your trying to insult me without seeming to insult me?

Nope, not trying to stir up trouble, why do you think I am? Because I don't believe the same things you do? Because I'm a heathen that dares to question what you believe?

Being a heathen has nothing to do with why I think you're just stirring up trouble. Not answering about your religion or answering joes questions to you is why I think you're just stirring up trouble.

No mystery religion here, just something personal, that I won't argue about.

Not asking you to argue about it I just want to know about it so I can understand why you refuse to believe what the Bible says.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Joe, does your direct tying of the phrase mystery religions to cloudy's statement that her own belief was private ring a bell? Or the continued arguments of the not-faith that are mystery religions throughout the personal belief structure section of the de-(no let's be accurate)flaming row?

Now, in accordance to the ancient practice of Joeian debate techniques you will state that you were "stating a theoretical example" and I misinterpreted you with a hasty jump to inferences.

That's fairly accurate. You did jump to conclusions.

 

[cloudy]

Not asking you to argue about it I just want to know about it so I can understand why you refuse to believe what the Bible says.

I'm southern, we use endearments a lot, deal with it.

My beliefs are very, very private. The only reason I entered this discussion was not to stir up trouble, but to point out that sometimes, preaching has the opposite effect that you intend it to. English Lady gets it, why can't you? I won't discuss what I believe with you because I won't argue it, end of story. It's very personal, and it's a way of life to me, not just a religion. You want to discuss yours? Fine, but we'll leave mine out of it....as several here have already asked you to do.

Listen very carefully, because this will be the last time I say it: I don't care what you believe. My way is not to try to convert anyone, or convince them I'm right. I just wish you felt the same.

I do care, however, when some try to intimidate others into believing the same thing they do, or put someone else down for the simple reason that their religious beliefs differ.

I'm making complete sense....everyone seems to get it but you.

 

[stingray61]

Jesus Christ (I apologize for the blaspheme but its neccesary), Joe, you must be the single most arrogant idiotic braindead intellectual on the planet. Are you really listening to half of what your saying or are you so wraped up in your Pascal's Wager superiority that it all escapes you?

Stop preening, you're naked, it's not silk clothes. Get over it. At least sting has the strength of her convictions, a well-meaning intention, and her sometimes moments of arrogance are accidental.


WOW and to think I thought that "sting" and "ray" were masculine enough in their context to assure I wouldn't be mistaken as a woman. Am I at least a beautiful woman luc? Do you want to make love to me? lol

Eckh, I was hoping to escape this thread with a smidgeon of dignity, but oh well.

And sting, cloudy believes that religion is personal, not public as do I. You wish to discuss your religion and that's cool. I have a modest background in it due to friendships and cloudy used to be a member. But that doesn't mean we have to discuss our beliefs in direct antithesis to said beliefs. Doing so is trying to make us destroy our own faiths, an act none here besides maybe Kass, Pure, or Joe has called you to do.

Please have respect for that.

I have respect for the fact that your beliefs are private. All I'm saying is don't say anything about mine and what I am saying if you aren't willing to step up to the plate and talk about yours. To do so says to me that either you don't have enough faith in your relgion to believe that it will stand up to scrutiny or you don't really have a religion. No offense intended either so please don't read that into this post.

 

[cloudy]

I have respect for the fact that your beliefs are private. All I'm saying is don't say anything about mine and what I am saying if you aren't willing to step up to the plate and talk about yours. To do so says to me that either you don't have enough faith in your relgion to believe that it will stand up to scrutiny or you don't really have a religion. No offense intended either so please don't read that into this post.

Sorry, I know you don't mean it that way, but that is very, very offensive to me. It says that you don't consider any way but yours. Don't put interpretations that your own beliefs give you onto anything I believe. You don't even come close to understanding anything about me at all.

Sheesh.

I'm out.

edited to add: don't say you respect anything about me, because you obviously don't respect anything.

 

[cloudy]

.

 

[stingray61]

FYI, Sting, many people belong to non-proselytizing or anti-proselytizing religions. I'm one of them. Cloudy, apparently, is another. Her desire to keep her faith to herself does not imply anything other than, at most, a distaste for arguing about it.

Not all faiths are (if you'll pardon the expression) hell-bent on converting everyone else and trying to argue everyone else into their religion. If you'll notice, I haven't told you to believe in my Gods. I wouldn't. I don't want you to. I want you to find the Divine in the way that's meaningful to you.

I haven't asked you to believe in mine either just asking that you understand it, really understand it at least as well as I do before you start knocking it.

I'd like it, sure, if you didn't say that God killed babies, because I think that's an insulting view to hold of God, but that's not trying to convert you to another religion. Many...heck, most Christians I know in real life don't believe God had a hand in the actions credited to him in the OT. (Old Testament)

I'd also like it if you'd let Cloudy practice her faith as she sees fit. She doesn't want to argue religion? Fine. She wants to point things out that she sees here? Fine. It's an open discussion that anyone can say anything they want about.

If we have to "agree to disagree" on this too, I guess we do, but I'm asking anyway.

 

[English Lady]

Is it possible to call a time out in a debate thread? *LOL*

Hold your horses everyone and lets just take a breath.

I think Joe is saying private faith is fine but if you're not willing to enlighten us on it then it's a little bit not on to be discussing what's wrong with the faith of people who are being very open with what they believe.

I can get that.

I can also get that faith is personal and youneedn't explain yourself if youdon't want to.

So maybe if we kinda leave it here, those who don't want to debate don't and don't need to explain why, why's or whats and the others carry on debatin' till their hearts content.

Ok? *L*

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

This is jumbled... needs straightening out. So, this is what we're saying:

Questioning one's own beliefs is good; and
Questioning others' beliefs is bad; but
Questioning [a Christian's] beliefs is still good; and
Questioning [someone's personal] beliefs is bad.

Is that about right?

edited: Didn't catch the buzzer.

 

[English Lady]

*LOL* great minds think alike Joe *L*

It's time to work out what's what.

 

[cloudy]

Joe, you can question my beliefs all you want, but it doesn't mean I'll answer.

Just as the beliefs are private, there is also a long tradition of not writing things like that down. It's mostly passed down orally. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

I would gladly discuss them with someone I felt was asking out of genuine curiousity, instead of a desire to run them down.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
Joe, you can question my beliefs all you want, but it doesn't mean I'll answer.

Just as the beliefs are private, there is also a long tradition of not writing things like that down. It's mostly passed down orally. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

I would gladly discuss them with someone I felt was asking out of genuine curiousity, instead of a desire to run them down.

I have genuine curiosity. I don't think curiosity gets more genuine than the academic variety.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I have respect for the fact that your beliefs are private. All I'm saying is don't say anything about mine and what I am saying if you aren't willing to step up to the plate and talk about yours. To do so says to me that either you don't have enough faith in your relgion to believe that it will stand up to scrutiny or you don't really have a religion. No offense intended either so please don't read that into this post.

Sorry. If it's an consolation, I was taken for a woman for the first couple of weeks I was on the AH. Still have some choice cuts stored somewhere from that whole thing.

And I assure you, you were a quite becoming lady in my misapprehension. I probably wouldn't have slept with you, but you'd nonetheless have turned the heads of many here.

As far as private religion, let me explain one thing. When I said that one of its tenents is privacy, I mean it. I have only told three people total any specifics about it and none of them know the full tenets. It would be a sacrilege that would require an amazing level of trust and bonding with you to share. And we do not share that. If my dead best friend who I revered didn't know all of it, you can't expect me as a moral Christian to do such an act for you. cloudy's is probably less dramatic, but similar in basic nature.

Would it stand to "rational debate"? Who knows? I doubt it would fare much worse than any other religion, but you'd have to accept that a great many of the proofs and revelations are related to personal experiences and trends and sights. Not to mention the problems born out of its utter unorthodoxy. Again, cloudy's position is probably similar but far less extreme.

That being said, we both have backgrounds where understanding Christian theology was a neccesity, thus we are both able to discuss Christian theology with a modicum of understanding.

Why if you expect us to accept a faith of prostelyzing, you would deny us the acceptance of a non-prostelyzing or anti-prostelyzing faith, I don't fully understand, but I recognize that this is mostly my failing.

If it is a simple reason for our inability to accept the Lord, I can at least speak for myself when I say I just don't believe in Him and I don't personally believe that the Bible is correct and accurate. Life and existence and personal discovery meant I found a different faith and I believe what I believe. And I mean really believe. Just as you couldn't switch a Maglite and go to not believing in God, I can't do the same for my beliefs. I know they are real.

But since this faith is personal, since it is unorthodox, and since I have an anti-desire to have anyone believe as I do, I mostly exist in discussion as a third-party sticking up for secular humanism, paganism, or Christianity where neccessary since those were and are the faiths of my friends.

-

 

[stingray61]

Haven't the Jewish people as a race always disagreed with the Bible?
--Considering that they wrote most of it, of course not. You're forgetting how much of the Bible is their scripture, aren't you?

Ok but do they disagree with The New Testament as well? And no I'm not forgetting I just haven't read Jewish scripture other than the Bible.

Isn't Judaism very different from Christianity?
--Yes. But when it comes to "disagreeing with the Bible" ... who do you think wrote Genesis, Jesus Christ himself, or a Jew?

Well my Bible says Moses wrote Genesis and i think he was Jewish.

I think human beings wrote down the words that were later assembled into the Bible, and most of those authors were Jewish.

Actually I think most were Jewish but as far as the New Testament is concerned they didn't ascribe to Judaism but to Christianity.

I just believe if you truly understand the Bible you will see that what I believe about it is correct.
--I believe I do understand the Bible, truly, and I believe that what you believe about it is wrong. So do lots of other Christians, including Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, and John Spong.

Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree again because I still think you don't truly understand the Bible enough to make some of the satements you've made but hey that's ok

I think I understand enough to believe it's the Word of God and infallible and the only true way to Heaven
--You're talking about Jesus here, right? The Word of God is Jesus. The Bible is a book, as a Christian friend of mine says regularly. Or do you really mean that without the Bible no one would get to heaven?

Ok I mis-phrased that I apologize. Christ is the only way to Heaven. The Bible is the Word of God as written down by men and The Holy Spirit. If you DON'T believe what it says you will not get you to Heaven. You must believe in what the Bible says (as far as being saved goes) and follow it in order to go to Heaven. At least that's what I believe.

I think this is Bibliolatry. This sounds like the Bible and your limited, finite, flawed, human understanding of it are higher than your God. I'm pointing it out so you can correct it, if I'm mistaken.

 

[cloudy]

I have genuine curiosity. I don't think curiosity gets more genuine than the academic variety.

PM me, then, with what you'd like to know, and I'll tell you what I can. There are some things I just can't discuss, as Luc says. And I won't discuss any of it publicly.

 

[Pure]

I think Joe, in his complex way, is simply saying he does not 'buy' the idea of 'private truths,' including those said to be in one's personal and private faith. IOW, it's nonsense to say, "For Osama, it's true that Mohammed performed miraculous healings --And this may or may not be true for, say, English Lady, or Cloudy."
Or to say "For English Lady it's true a virgin conceived and bore Jesus, but that's not true for Luc."

OTOH, Joe seems to call for others to defend or justify their 'metaphysic,' and thinks they aren't doing good job of it.
By 'metaphysic' he apparently means their religiously based views about reality.

Yet it's by no means clear that anyone could give solid, objective support for their metaphysic, Joe included. Hence it appears as simply a one upmanship exercize for him to say "Defend, prove, justify your metaphysic to me, or be called an unreasoning nudnik."

 

[stingray61]

========================

No, Sting, what's harrassment is you being so obstinate to the point of being obnoxious is what you personally believe, and making sure to let others know it is what you feel they should believe.

Let it go, baby.

Believe all you want about the King James and NIV you want, but don't expect everyone to believe as you do.

Whether you're right or wrong in your personal beliefs is not what I'm into here, just your "I'm right, and you better see it" attitude.

I've only put what I believe, as far as this thread goes, into my one initial post. Is that post wrong too?

mismused

Ahhhhh another one that hasn't read everything I've said. Can you please show me where I said anyone HAS to believe in what I believe in, or where I've said as you qoute "I'm right, and you better see it"?

I refuse to again explain why I am saying what I am saying. You obviously have no clue as to what I am saying so please go back and re-read what I've written, sloooowly this time, and perhaps then you will understand.

 

[cloudy]

Ahhhhh another one that hasn't read everything I've said. Can you please show me where I said anyone HAS to believe in what I believe in, or where I've said as you qoute "I'm right, and you better see it"?

I refuse to again explain why I am saying what I am saying. You obviously have no clue as to what I am saying so please go back and re-read what I've written, sloooowly this time, and perhaps then you will understand.

You're very young, aren't you?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
I think Joe, in his complex way, is simply saying he does not 'buy' the idea of 'private truths,' including those said to be in one's personal and private faith. IOW, it's nonsense to say, "For Osama, it's true that Mohammed performed miraculous healings --And this may or may not be true for, say, English Lady, or Cloudy."
Or to say "For English Lady it's true a virgin conceived and bore Jesus, but that's not true for Luc."

OTOH, Joe seems to call for others to defend or justify their 'metaphysic,' and thinks they aren't doing good job of it.
By 'metaphysic' he apparently means their religiously based views about reality.

Yet it's by no means clear that anyone could give solid, objective support for their metaphysic, Joe included. Hence it appears as simply a one upmanship exercize for him to say "Defend, prove, justify your metaphysic to me, or be called an unreasoning nudnik."

More like, if we're to attack a metaphysic... what are our alternatives, if any? And if we're to discuss problems with a metaphysic, in what other models are those things not problems?

Basically, if we're going to bring up the subject, why are we shying away from the questions that naturally follow from criticism and justification?

 

[stingray61]

I'm southern, we use endearments a lot, deal with it.

Yeah southerners also use endearments to put people down without trying to sound like that's what they're doing, I know I've been to the south several times. but if you meant them as true endearments or just habits of speech then that's ok with me.

My beliefs are very, very private. The only reason I entered this discussion was not to stir up trouble, but to point out that sometimes, preaching has the opposite effect that you intend it to. English Lady gets it, why can't you? I won't discuss what I believe with you because I won't argue it, end of story. It's very personal, and it's a way of life to me, not just a religion. You want to discuss yours? Fine, but we'll leave mine out of it....as several here have already asked you to do.

Sorry but I think if you're going to get into this discussion at all you should at least be willing to share your beliefs. You can and apparently are going to continue to leave your beliefs out of it and that's ok by me just don't argue mine unless your willing to put yours up to the same interrogation. Refusing to do so is hypocritical IMO

Listen very carefully, because this will be the last time I say it: I don't care what you believe. My way is not to try to convert anyone, or convince them I'm right. I just wish you felt the same.


Now sweetie you please listen very carefully, because this will be the last time I say it as well: I don't care what you believe either because I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince them I'm right. I'm trying to get them to understand the Bible as I do before they go knocking it. If they did that, they wouldn't need me or anyone else to convert them or convince them of anything because Jesus, and God, and The Bible do that just fine all by themselves. It's because they don't truly understand it that they disagree with it.

I do care, however, when some try to intimidate others into believing the same thing they do, or put someone else down for the simple reason that their religious beliefs differ.

Hmmmm if I'm not mistaken me thinks putting me down because I don't believe in what you and the others do is the same thing you are accusing me of doing, which by the way I have NOT done.

I'm making complete sense....everyone seems to get it but you.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

*LOL* great minds think alike Joe *L*

It's time to work out what's what.

Here's what's what. The statement of a public worldview is a statement unto the world that I believe such. It is bad form to attack it mercilously, but one is allowed a defense if it is attempted to push on one's own belief. Unfortunately since many beliefs state that the existence of another worldview is an affront to one's own belief, the bad form barrier is often regretably crossed much earlier than prosetlyzing.

I personally find this distasteful, which is why I withdrew when a personal affront led to me making some rude affronts to other's faiths. I apologized since I crossed the bad form barrier.

Now, it is extremely bad form to ask someone to break the tenets of their faith. Asking a Christian to deny the Lord is unconscienable. Asking an Orthodox Jew to eat cheesy pork is unconscienable. Asking someone who repeatedly states that a major tenet of their religion is its privacy, is its personal nature, is its anti-prosetylzing to share it publically cause otherwise it isn't a real faith and we mostly want to rip it apart and prove it wrong is unconscienable.

Those are things you just don't do. I thought Kass was actually pushing it on this front with some of her posts to sting and I'm remiss that I didn't mention it earlier.

It's not a Christian thing. A stated Pagan viewpoint would have a similar trend. Dissection and attempted refutation by enemies (Joe), protection by friends (snp), and statements by participants (Kass). It would have its own breaks of bad form that characterize any theological debate and thus it would be.

Now in utopialand sure we would all respect each other's viewpoints 100% and never trod on toes. Still, just because we don't exist there doesn't mean we have to be unconscienable.

In my religion for example, I never told the full tenets to my greatest friend who I admired as much as Christians admire Jesus (minus worship). There are only 3 people I told any of it to (dead friend, current male best friend, current female best friend). A strict tenet is how it's personal and a belief that all religions at their source should be foremost personal. Considering all this, I have told you more than you deserve about my own faith, more than would be acceptable under my faith. For this you will disparage me, say I have no faith, act confused.

And still you wonder why we will not break fundamental tenets for you?

Are you truly so callous?

Are you truly so cruel?

 

[stingray61]

Sorry, I know you don't mean it that way, but that is very, very offensive to me. It says that you don't consider any way but yours. Don't put interpretations that your own beliefs give you onto anything I believe. You don't even come close to understanding anything about me at all.

Sheesh.

I'm out.

edited to add: don't say you respect anything about me, because you obviously don't respect anything.

Well I certainly can't respect someone that has to hide their beliefs but has no problem berating someone for theirs.