T
TonyM.
Guest
Ardvarks!
You need not explain it further...it's in your heart. I think the challenge is in being mindful of it. I hope you take comfort in knowing that you made it for the passing of each of your two grandparents.:asian:Nalia said:
Nalia this is nicely put. I believe religion is in the way we live our lives each and every day. It is in how we treat people, in our actions - in what we say and what we do.
Dan I especially liked when you said, "Actually, its on everyone (to try and prove) who posts. Look at the thread title." It's the reason I posted. Scout is a young person searching and asking for us to share our personal beliefs if we believe in God and why we believe, and I think it's important to get back to that. I do however really understand the need to digress sometimes especially if you feel you are being challenged. :asian:flatlander said:
:asian:
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Perhaps, but he deserves just as much for everything he wrote.flatlander said:
I take great comfort in being there for my grandparents and for my mom who was with me both times.mj-hi-yah said:
To put a little lighter note on this serious thread, my Aunt told me she never wants me to come and visit her if she ever falls ill and ends up in the hospital. :idunno: why?
Apparently I am considered the family grim reaper. 
M
Melissa426
Guest
Your last post was good.flatlander said:
I did respond. (top of page 5)
Or are you wondering specificallly about Parmanjack?
He actually might be a man of his word and not come back and post any more on this topic, which is what he said, at the end of his last ramblings. I admire anyone who actually got thru all that stuff he wrote and took the time to respond logically. I couldn't bring myself to do it.
S
sma_book
Guest
Personally, I would like to make a distinction between faith and the trappings of religion. I think that religion is the expression of faith, and not an end in itself. I consider myself to be an agnostic. I started off Catholic and just got to the point where that organized religion, and most mainstream organized religions (at least in the US) just seemed so unfair and contradictory.
Thought #1: In my work as a program manager for a software company, I work with many different people. I see too many times where people can't quite agree on the details of what was said in a meeting they just attended, never mind a meeting that happened a week, month, or year ago. Thinking of the Bible, if I allow that the prophets were truly prophets (again for the sake of argument and making this point), I truly can't believe that these revelations have been faithfully transmitted throughout the millennia without some modifications, changes, and cultural interpretations by at least one transcriber. Earlier in this thread there was a comment as to which English translation of the Bible was 'right'. Heck, considering that the meaning of a sentence in English can be changed for lack of punctuation, I can only imagine what happened as religious text went through oral, written, and translated iterations.
Thought #2: The whole concept of one religion being right and everyone else being wrong disturbs me on so many levels. Although I really understand the desire to perceive the world in shades of black and white, doing so, especially with groups of people in terms of 'saved' vs. 'not saved', can lead to so much wrong. Think Nazis and Jews, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks vs. whites, women vs. men, gays vs. straights, 'us' and 'them'. Once people start thinking in 'us' vs. 'them' terms, it is too easy to start treating the 'thems' as inferior and to justify discrimination and worse actions. Extremism is dangerous, period.
I think Bill, Ted, and Rufus said it best: "Be excellent to each other."
(Go ahead, watch the Bill and Ted movies!)
Regards,
- Sheryl
Thought #1: In my work as a program manager for a software company, I work with many different people. I see too many times where people can't quite agree on the details of what was said in a meeting they just attended, never mind a meeting that happened a week, month, or year ago. Thinking of the Bible, if I allow that the prophets were truly prophets (again for the sake of argument and making this point), I truly can't believe that these revelations have been faithfully transmitted throughout the millennia without some modifications, changes, and cultural interpretations by at least one transcriber. Earlier in this thread there was a comment as to which English translation of the Bible was 'right'. Heck, considering that the meaning of a sentence in English can be changed for lack of punctuation, I can only imagine what happened as religious text went through oral, written, and translated iterations.
Thought #2: The whole concept of one religion being right and everyone else being wrong disturbs me on so many levels. Although I really understand the desire to perceive the world in shades of black and white, doing so, especially with groups of people in terms of 'saved' vs. 'not saved', can lead to so much wrong. Think Nazis and Jews, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks vs. whites, women vs. men, gays vs. straights, 'us' and 'them'. Once people start thinking in 'us' vs. 'them' terms, it is too easy to start treating the 'thems' as inferior and to justify discrimination and worse actions. Extremism is dangerous, period.
I think Bill, Ted, and Rufus said it best: "Be excellent to each other."
(Go ahead, watch the Bill and Ted movies!)
Regards,
- Sheryl
heretic888
Senior Master
Sorry this took so long to reply to, guys, but I have been quite busy as of late. Now, to address the hilarity that is parmanjack's post(s)...
I guess "arrogance" is the fundamanetalist way of saying "a point of view I disagree with". Thanks for the personal attack, by the way. Be sure and break a few more rules on the code of conduct while you're at it.
I do find it ironic, however, that someone that emphatically claims everyone who believes differently than him is "wrong" has the temerity to call me "arrogant".
Nope. To say otherwise could also be to say that Jesus Christ was a myth and never existed. By the way, I never claimed all religions are "equal" --- only that they share a universal esoteric core.
Correction. You claim that he claimed the above. You actually have no proof that he said anything of the sort, or that he existed. What you do have is a heavily doctored, extremely old, politically charged document that cannot hardly pass as a historical text.
You may also want to re-evaluate your interpretation of the phrase in question ("I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No one cometh to the Father but by Me"). Both the Greek and the Aramaic versions of the text have a startingly different interpretation than the jingoistic fundamentalist take you have been handed down.
This, I'm afraid, is a lie. And a bad one, at that.
No, not all religions claim this "exlusivity". Hinduism most assuredly does not, as evidenced by the incredible diversities of religious paths under that tradition (ranging everywhere from Shaivism to Tantra to Yoga to Bhakti). Nor does Buddhism. Nor Taoism. Early Christianity didn't even contain such exclusivity, in contrast to the historically doctored perversion you hold to. Numerous strands of Islam most assuredly do not either (particularly Sufism).
Also, to correct a minor point, YHVH never actually denied the existence of other gods in the Bible (in fact, it is implicit that he accepts their existence). He simply demanded that his "people" worship him exclusively.
Uhhhh.... why not??
Ok, now this is just silly.
I never, ever claimed that "Christianity" (whatever you believe that may be) is in "agreement" with other religions. I simply cited the esoteric and mystical of the religion. I related the insights, claims, and experiences of the various saints, sages, prophets, and mystics of the Judeo-Christian tradition over the centures --- and then noted the similarities they have with those of other religions.
Not once did I make a claim for what the everyday "believer" or the political leaders of "Christianity" may say or believe. I honestly don't care about their take, to tell you the truth. Meister Eckhart and Clement of Alexandria interest me much more than Pat Robertson.
Also, beware any claim of the "true Biblically-based Christianity". Last time I checked, Christians disagree quite a lot (as evidenced by many of the less jingoistic Christians on this thread bashing your rather ill-conceived views). I would also be interested in learning which Bible you believe espouses "true Christianity" --- and, furthermore, which translations.
Yet again, why not??
Yeah, ok, Mr. Humble.
You cannot provide any "evidence" in the sense that I demand, which is according to the scientific method. But, I'm quite sure you've got your "prehistoric human" fossils and your "fragment of the ark" to show to everybody, too.
I was receptive at one point. Then I grew up. Part of that process of growing up was acknowledging the validity of different points of view. You might have to work on that sometime.
I was baptized (twice), I defended Christianity, I went to church every Sunday, I went to the summer church camps --- I did the whole nine yards. But, it didn't work for me. Go figure.
Last time I checked, I don't base my beliefs on "huminism". Or humanism, even.
I do still find it humorously ironic that someone who emphatically claims that everyone else but him is "wrong" turns around and calls my pluralistic view "close-minded". Humorous, indeed.
Also, if you are so against entering the debate --- why'd you post in the first place??
[qupte]SO while you may be able to "Brow Beat" a wonderful loving mother newly converted through her daughters deliverance, there are those of us who would quickly have you reduced to rattling of old and overused debate items ad-nauseum....[/quote]
You are aware that you're basically just assuming everything she related in her antecdote is true, correct?? I am not saying TigerWoman is lying, but you have absolutely no basis for believing anecdotal evidence like this --- and by no means does it constitute any of what we would pass as "proof".
Then you would lose your bet. Pascal would be proud.
Everything in the above quotation is completely wrong. Your knowledge of the scientific method (ever heard of a little discipline called psychology?) is clearly lacking.
Ah, I see. Being able to use the quote function apparentlye "proves" I am "arrogant".
It hasn't yet. And nothing you have said, between your hypocritical personal attacks, jingoistic claims for epistemological exclusivity, or mindless faith in the anecdotal accounts of people you have never met, would indicate it will.
By the way, what makes you think you know what my "religious beliefs" are in the first place??
Ok, this is even sillier.
One) I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an atheist. Sorry, no cigar.
Two) Preaching the choir, beau. I am well aware of the "religious" nature of atheism.
You don't belittle others, do you?? I think Random summed you up in one try.
Pascal's wager is a laughably flawed scenario. Don't try and boast it as some surefire logical proof.
An intriguing lie. The burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim for authority. Which, last time I checked, wasn't me.
When did I ever say there was no "God", or that I could "prove" it??
Advanced cognitive reason ontogenetically inherent (although not necessarily actualized) within a human organism. I reference Carol Giligan and Lawrence Kohlber's work on the developmental stages of human morality.
Pretty sure the Bible has something about lying, doesn't it??
Yep. And I'm the arrogant one....
*snicker* Laterz.
I guess "arrogance" is the fundamanetalist way of saying "a point of view I disagree with". Thanks for the personal attack, by the way. Be sure and break a few more rules on the code of conduct while you're at it.
I do find it ironic, however, that someone that emphatically claims everyone who believes differently than him is "wrong" has the temerity to call me "arrogant".
Nope. To say otherwise could also be to say that Jesus Christ was a myth and never existed. By the way, I never claimed all religions are "equal" --- only that they share a universal esoteric core.
Correction. You claim that he claimed the above. You actually have no proof that he said anything of the sort, or that he existed. What you do have is a heavily doctored, extremely old, politically charged document that cannot hardly pass as a historical text.
You may also want to re-evaluate your interpretation of the phrase in question ("I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No one cometh to the Father but by Me"). Both the Greek and the Aramaic versions of the text have a startingly different interpretation than the jingoistic fundamentalist take you have been handed down.
This, I'm afraid, is a lie. And a bad one, at that.
No, not all religions claim this "exlusivity". Hinduism most assuredly does not, as evidenced by the incredible diversities of religious paths under that tradition (ranging everywhere from Shaivism to Tantra to Yoga to Bhakti). Nor does Buddhism. Nor Taoism. Early Christianity didn't even contain such exclusivity, in contrast to the historically doctored perversion you hold to. Numerous strands of Islam most assuredly do not either (particularly Sufism).
Also, to correct a minor point, YHVH never actually denied the existence of other gods in the Bible (in fact, it is implicit that he accepts their existence). He simply demanded that his "people" worship him exclusively.
Uhhhh.... why not??
Ok, now this is just silly.
I never, ever claimed that "Christianity" (whatever you believe that may be) is in "agreement" with other religions. I simply cited the esoteric and mystical of the religion. I related the insights, claims, and experiences of the various saints, sages, prophets, and mystics of the Judeo-Christian tradition over the centures --- and then noted the similarities they have with those of other religions.
Not once did I make a claim for what the everyday "believer" or the political leaders of "Christianity" may say or believe. I honestly don't care about their take, to tell you the truth. Meister Eckhart and Clement of Alexandria interest me much more than Pat Robertson.
Also, beware any claim of the "true Biblically-based Christianity". Last time I checked, Christians disagree quite a lot (as evidenced by many of the less jingoistic Christians on this thread bashing your rather ill-conceived views). I would also be interested in learning which Bible you believe espouses "true Christianity" --- and, furthermore, which translations.
Yet again, why not??
Yeah, ok, Mr. Humble.
You cannot provide any "evidence" in the sense that I demand, which is according to the scientific method. But, I'm quite sure you've got your "prehistoric human" fossils and your "fragment of the ark" to show to everybody, too.
I was receptive at one point. Then I grew up. Part of that process of growing up was acknowledging the validity of different points of view. You might have to work on that sometime.
I was baptized (twice), I defended Christianity, I went to church every Sunday, I went to the summer church camps --- I did the whole nine yards. But, it didn't work for me. Go figure.
Last time I checked, I don't base my beliefs on "huminism". Or humanism, even.
I do still find it humorously ironic that someone who emphatically claims that everyone else but him is "wrong" turns around and calls my pluralistic view "close-minded". Humorous, indeed.
Also, if you are so against entering the debate --- why'd you post in the first place??
[qupte]SO while you may be able to "Brow Beat" a wonderful loving mother newly converted through her daughters deliverance, there are those of us who would quickly have you reduced to rattling of old and overused debate items ad-nauseum....[/quote]
You are aware that you're basically just assuming everything she related in her antecdote is true, correct?? I am not saying TigerWoman is lying, but you have absolutely no basis for believing anecdotal evidence like this --- and by no means does it constitute any of what we would pass as "proof".
Then you would lose your bet. Pascal would be proud.
Everything in the above quotation is completely wrong. Your knowledge of the scientific method (ever heard of a little discipline called psychology?) is clearly lacking.
Ah, I see. Being able to use the quote function apparentlye "proves" I am "arrogant".
It hasn't yet. And nothing you have said, between your hypocritical personal attacks, jingoistic claims for epistemological exclusivity, or mindless faith in the anecdotal accounts of people you have never met, would indicate it will.
By the way, what makes you think you know what my "religious beliefs" are in the first place??
Ok, this is even sillier.
One) I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an atheist. Sorry, no cigar.
Two) Preaching the choir, beau. I am well aware of the "religious" nature of atheism.
You don't belittle others, do you?? I think Random summed you up in one try.
Pascal's wager is a laughably flawed scenario. Don't try and boast it as some surefire logical proof.
An intriguing lie. The burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim for authority. Which, last time I checked, wasn't me.
When did I ever say there was no "God", or that I could "prove" it??
Advanced cognitive reason ontogenetically inherent (although not necessarily actualized) within a human organism. I reference Carol Giligan and Lawrence Kohlber's work on the developmental stages of human morality.
Pretty sure the Bible has something about lying, doesn't it??
Yep. And I'm the arrogant one....
*snicker* Laterz.
OP
OP
Scout_379
Guest
you know... I think he really did stop reading this thread! hope it wasn't too much trouble to build that response heretic!
I do feel I have gained something, but I can't place it just yet. One thought for me is that we all should find our own path, our own proof.
a little o this a little o that...very cool story btw!mj-hi-yah said:
I do feel I have gained something, but I can't place it just yet. One thought for me is that we all should find our own path, our own proof.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Well, if we take the old addage: "seeing is believing," I think a lot of us have seen something...
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
Um, and this meant what?MisterMike said:
M
MisterMike
Guest
Oh, hi RandomPhantom700,
Thanks for asking. It meant a lot of people have their own reasons to beleive what they do, and they do not have to prove them to the likes of heretics or athiests, etc.
Thanks for asking. It meant a lot of people have their own reasons to beleive what they do, and they do not have to prove them to the likes of heretics or athiests, etc.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
I see. I thought by "I think alot of us have seen something", you meant that we all have seen proof of God, or something similar.
Whether you have to prove it depends on the forum. If you're trying to decide your own beliefs, then no, no proof to others is necessary. But if you're trying to establish a universal truth for everyone, that's something entirely different.
Whether you have to prove it depends on the forum. If you're trying to decide your own beliefs, then no, no proof to others is necessary. But if you're trying to establish a universal truth for everyone, that's something entirely different.
M
MisterMike
Guest
Oh, no, just some
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Mike, is it possible for someone to have a reason to believe what they do, and then choose not to believe?MisterMike said:
Or is it possible for someone to believe, without having a reason?
As I am the odd man out in a discussion of 'Higher Power' (despite Alcoholics Anonymous), I certainly have never asked anyone for proof for or against the existance of such. Nor have I offered any. When claims of such evidence are made, however, I will ask to be exposed to it.
I think FAITH is the thing that makes it a higher power ... and by definition 'Faith' and 'Proof' are mutually exclusive. It seems some in the religious community have difficulty with this axiom.
Mike
M
MisterMike
Guest
michaeledward said:
I don't see why not. But I may be missing where you are going with it.
I may have reason to see a red car, but if I choose not to believe it's there men with nets are coming for me.
I guess where I was going is proof for some may not fit what others call scientific.
