[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

If you chose to believe whatever you wish and create your own version of what and who "God" is then you can make it fit what ever you feel comfortable with. THAT is the same old road.

Again, not a historical fact or truth. Interpretation of ALL divinity, through time, was always the baliwick of the special, not the masses. Just because you can read and have a copy of a book, please honor the history of divine interpretation: A witchdoctor, priest(ess) or group of self-selected clergy has always told the masses who and what their god(s) are/were. Nobody, until very recently, has been able to make their own choice. By following the bible, you are self-selecting the old-school way, hence, my use of the phrase "same old road." To decide for one's self the nature of god is, in absolute fact, a whole new way and a whole new road.

[leelover]

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know, I choose this one, you choose that one, blah, blah blah...

And "you don't KNOW who wrote it and why" and "It wasn't always available to the masses", Whatever. Those are the same old issues.

It IS available now, WE can all read it, the truth and applicability of ALL the 10 comandments are relevant, whether you would like them to be or not. Like he said, it's like looking in a mirror. You can choose not to look, or say that the mirror is "not your bag, baby" but YOU still look the same.

[Sprint1050DA]

[quote=leelover;571603]I also don't think that anyone should be forced to read anything.


Unfortunately posting them in a prominent position in a public building can be seen as forcing people to read it.

[leelover]

[quote=Sprint1050DA;571611]

Originally Posted by leelover

I also don't think that anyone should be forced to read anything.


Unfortunately posting them in a prominent position in a public building can be seen as forcing people to read it.

I hear what you are saying and agree with your point.
And I agree also that there are a lot of socially detrimental things that would be posted if all religions had equal access to post their tenants on public buildings.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

tenants

tenets

[leelover]

yikes, Bear, calm down! No need to have a stroke!
I didn't mean to upset you so much! Part of my affliction, I guess...

I don't know if you realize this, but you can block posts from the Religious thread. It's not worth losing the use of part of your body to participate in these threads.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

yikes, Bear, calm down! No need to have a stroke!
I didn't mean to upset you so much! Part of my affliction, I guess...

I don't know if you realize this, but you can block posts from the Religious thread. It's not worth losing the use of part of your body to participate in these threads.

Naa. dude, it's OK. I don't really know what happens sometimes. My best friend calls it "the head-burn," where I am ready to fight to the death, ala Spock during the "pon far," for a particular point at a particular time. Sometimes those points are legit, sometimes they are really really stupid. But, it is all over now.

I have chosen each word below VERY CAREFULLY.

I have a profound disrespect for self-righteousnes, as you have I am sure come to realize. And, to me, in my opinion, the way I see it, how it affects me: when someone deigns to tell me what is "good" or "relevant" or "true" as it affects me or the general public beyond the sphere of the speaker, this is a violation of my personal mind-space, my intellectual and religious freedom, and is a social faux pas committed on the general population.

My position on the meta-issue here is not the typical "you believe what you want, I'll believe what I want..." I agree, although it is a very new thing in the realm of spiritual interpretation, it is, nonetheless, fairly uninteresting. Yo me, uninteresting means unable to be discussed objectively, or analyzed, or reasoned through. Uninteresting here, because the final "authority" is either "a personal opinion about god's word" on one side, or a "personal opinion about something other than god's word" on the other.

Equally uninteresting is anybody trying to proclaim they have knowledge of some profound universal truth; or, to have a person assert that any particular, specific, discrete, or dogmatic religious rules, laws, principles, stories, or allegories as "actual," "true," "fact," "proven," or "right" for anyone but them.

To personalize it:

Lee, you cannot tell me that the ten commandments are significant, relevant, applicable, true, or god's actual words, AND that they are applicable to anyone besides yourself (you can say they are such TO YOU, though). To say they are applicable to me, and to think or say that that is more than your opinion, to say that the applicability of them to me is "true" or "right" or "fact" is, in fact, offensive.

I love hearing about different peoples' spiritual beliefs. What I will not tolerate is a zero-sum approach to passive-aggressive or covert evangelism.



Speak of your beliefs with faith and reverence if you must. But don't try to say they applicable to anybody else. We left Britain and established part of this former-colony for that very reason; and I, for one, will not go back in time to those dark days.


I also will not block the religion threads, as they are fun, as long as everybody keeps the dogmatic bullshit, sanctimony, self-assuredness in their rightiousness, their self-righteousness, and any proclamations of universal-applicability of ANY religious stuff to themselves.

[leelover]

OK, I wasn't trying to tell you anything but that if one observes the world around them the ten commandments prove themselves to be valid.

That is my OPINION based on my experience. It is not infallible. Neither is yours, or that of the most well rounded philosopher dead or alive.
If you want to refute me then do so.
In my opinion you serve no good purpose to continue to focus on the protocol of argument rather than the substance of the discussion.
I respect your intelligence, education, and opinion, but you cripple yourself by your outbursts. It is very doubtful that we will agree on these subjects, that is why arguing about religion is usually pointless. Yes, it is frustrating, but it comes with the territory.

One thing that I am finding interesting is the intensity of antagonism that goes on. It seems that it is often more by the "non" religious (in the traditional sense) proponents. Could it be that all the violence that is attributed to religious zeal is actually just a human trait that is often wielded in the name of religion because passions run high?
Kind of like when twisted individuals use firearms for senseless violence, or more applicable here, when squids use liter bikes to perform dangerous and stupid stunts on public conveyances. Could it be that there is a natural tendency in the "heart" of man to do combat for the rightness of their beliefs that has nothing to do with their concept of "God"?
I'm just musing here, and I AM a retard.

[leelover]

Wow, ABear, you deleted your whole rant!
That was wise, in my opinion.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could do that in the rest of life?

[sinfuldragon]

You do realize of course that in your attempt to tell him what upsets you, you have also laid down ground rules for how he is to play while you are in the game. Everyone thinks that their belief is the right one, thats why they believe in it. For anyone to attack someone for how they discuss their belief, now thats disrespectful! "I love hearing about different peoples' spiritual beliefs. What I will not tolerate is a zero-sum approach to passive-aggressive or covert evangelism" What we are all forced to tolerate is other peoples opinions and how they express them. Perhaps the zero tolerance that you have is the same for them but in reverse. But hey, what do I know... just a dumb kid here.

Originally Posted by analogbear

Naa. dude, it's OK. I don't really know what happens sometimes. My best friend calls it "the head-burn," where I am ready to fight to the death, ala Spock during the "pon far," for a particular point at a particular time. Sometimes those points are legit, sometimes they are really really stupid. But, it is all over now.

I have chosen each word below VERY CAREFULLY.

I have a profound disrespect for self-righteousnes, as you have I am sure come to realize. And, to me, in my opinion, the way I see it, how it affects me: when someone deigns to tell me what is "good" or "relevant" or "true" as it affects me or the general public beyond the sphere of the speaker, this is a violation of my personal mind-space, my intellectual and religious freedom, and is a social faux pas committed on the general population.

My position on the meta-issue here is not the typical "you believe what you want, I'll believe what I want..." I agree, although it is a very new thing in the realm of spiritual interpretation, it is, nonetheless, fairly uninteresting. Yo me, uninteresting means unable to be discussed objectively, or analyzed, or reasoned through. Uninteresting here, because the final "authority" is either "a personal opinion about god's word" on one side, or a "personal opinion about something other than god's word" on the other.

Equally uninteresting is anybody trying to proclaim they have knowledge of some profound universal truth; or, to have a person assert that any particular, specific, discrete, or dogmatic religious rules, laws, principles, stories, or allegories as "actual," "true," "fact," "proven," or "right" for anyone but them.

To personalize it:

Lee, you cannot tell me that the ten commandments are significant, relevant, applicable, true, or god's actual words, AND that they are applicable to anyone besides yourself (you can say they are such TO YOU, though). To say they are applicable to me, and to think or say that that is more than your opinion, to say that the applicability of them to me is "true" or "right" or "fact" is, in fact, offensive.

I love hearing about different peoples' spiritual beliefs. What I will not tolerate is a zero-sum approach to passive-aggressive or covert evangelism.



Speak of your beliefs with faith and reverence if you must. But don't try to say they applicable to anybody else. We left Britain and established part of this former-colony for that very reason; and I, for one, will not go back in time to those dark days.


I also will not block the religion threads, as they are fun, as long as everybody keeps the dogmatic bullshit, sanctimony, self-assuredness in their rightiousness, their self-righteousness, and any proclamations of universal-applicability of ANY religious stuff to themselves.

[leelover]

FWIW, Sinful, you got a Retard in your corner!

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by leelover

FWIW, Sinful, you got a Retard in your corner!

Probably should have waiting to post that, I'm sure I'm about to get a brand new one ripped!

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

FWIW, Sinful, you got a Retard in your corner!

You said it.

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

You do realize of course that in your attempt to tell him what upsets you, you have also laid down ground rules for how he is to play while you are in the game. Everyone thinks that their belief is the right one, thats why they believe in it. For anyone to attack someone for how they discuss their belief, now thats disrespectful! "I love hearing about different peoples' spiritual beliefs. What I will not tolerate is a zero-sum approach to passive-aggressive or covert evangelism" What we are all forced to tolerate is other peoples opinions and how they express them. Perhaps the zero tolerance that you have is the same for them but in reverse. But hey, what do I know... just a dumb kid here.

I see how you might gather that from a cursory look at my words, but look deeper. I am absolutely NOT saying they shouldn't discuss what they believe, nor I am I dictating, in any zero-sum fashion how they should discuss it. What I am railing against is the projection of those beliefs onto other people. Sin, you might have missed an earlier/different post about being right religiously making necessary a differing view being wrong. If X is right, Y must be wrong, if Y believes something different. Therefore, if X wishes to believe he is right, that is cool. But to SAY he is right, because that really means everyone who doesn't believe it is wrong, is offensive. "I believe" should be the watch-phrase, not "this is the truth." We fought a war for religious freedom, NI fought for years, and remember what I said: Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM someone else's religion. Don't project it onto me, by telling me it applies to me, and I won't project mine onto you and tell you you are coming back as a paramecium.

I see in this forum no real discussion of religion. There are three types here, generally. First, there are those like me, who either hide their ball(me), or are athiests('phobe) or agnostic to the extreme(sin), and some of those folks are reasoning thinkers willing to discuss discrete beliefs (i.e.: whether it is a good thing to take communion, or do Jesus' objective teachings suffer if he was not a deity, or why did afghan hounds represent all of dogdom in the allegory of Noah's Ark). I would include here too the reform Jews, moderate followers of Islam, etc.

Then there are the born-again christian fundamentalists, with whom reasoned debate is impossible because, to fail to accept without question even the most ridiculous minutae of their beliefs, is to either call their faith into question -an unforgivable offense- or to condemn the non-believer to hell.

The final group I see here are the more moderate christians, mormons, and more orthodox Jews and Muslims, for whom the relationship with god is both intensely personal, and full of study. Although many of these folks might, as lee does, claim to speak a truth applicable to and for everyone, they do this with a certain scholarly dedication, following a legitimate program of study within their own religion. For these folks, pointing out inconsistencies, illuminating some historical fact, and drawing some cross-cultural and cross-religious parallels allows for a deeper sharing of the mutual beliefs, without the dogmatic "I believe," "I am right," and "because god says so," bullshit of some of the other people. My daddy taught me to be wary of anyone selling a bill of goods, and no bill of goods is more suspicious and potentially spurious than salvation, the bible, and any other organized religion. This place (the dot org) is my recreation, my sanctuary. Let's talk about discrete beliefs without either one of us self-righteously trying to project our faith or mythology on others.

[sinfuldragon]

You are right I did miss that part. If someone outright said that the other was wrong for not believing the same as they then I agree 100% and can understand why you removed your "venting" because I too would have acted out and flown off the handle if someone boldly (or even implied) that I was wrong because I thought differently.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

You are right I did miss that part. If someone outright said that the other was wrong for not believing the same as they then I agree 100% and can understand why you removed your "venting" because I too would have acted out and flown off the handle if someone boldly (or even implied) that I was wrong because I thought differently.

This is the "un-thought-about-by-the-religious" corrolary to being "right" or thinking you know "the truth." Because there can only be one actual right or actual truth (because to most of them there is really only one god--I would deal with pagans, hindi, sihks, or other polythiestic-followers differently), to arrogantly claim any pattern of belief is the actual and undeniable truth, causes all others to be wrong. When I look at this, or most other issues, I try to look at them from all possible perspectives, not just as one of the faithful or one of the heretical with any particular bias. Because I know about the exclusionary corrolary, and I take it into consideration before I write or speak, I cannot prejudice myself against, or have bias for, any particular path. By necessity, they must all be objectively wrong to eachother, and subjectively right to the believers of each. This presents an intellectual inconsistency that, among others, requires a certain amount of humility by the faithful who wish to converse about religion.

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by analogbear

This is the "un-thought-about-by-the-religious" corrolary to being "right" or thinking you know "the truth." Because there can only be one actual right or actual truth (because to most of them there is really only one god--I would deal with pagans, hindi, sihks, or other polythiestic-followers differently), to arrogantly claim any pattern of belief is the actual and undeniable truth, causes all others to be wrong. When I look at this, or most other issues, I try to look at them from all possible perspectives, not just as one of the faithful or one of the heretical with any particular bias. Because I know about the exclusionary corrolary, and I take it into consideration before I write or speak, I cannot prejudice myself against, or have bias for, any particular path. By necessity, they must all be objectively wrong to eachother, and subjectively right to the believers of each. This presents an intellectual inconsistency that, among others, requires a certain amount of humility by the faithful who wish to converse about religion.

I know that by simply taking the stand of lets say christianity the believer thinks that I am wrong, I can not however fault them for that. I have to simply let them believe and wait to see if they themselves will come out and try to tell me that I am wrong and then in the same breath tell me that I need to keep an open mind and listen to what they have to say. That really is my personal favorite you might as well stand up say I don't have to listen to you and I won't but I expect you to listen to what I have to say.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

I know that by simply taking the stand of lets say christianity the believer thinks that I am wrong, I can not however fault them for that. I have to simply let them believe and wait to see if they themselves will come out and try to tell me that I am wrong and then in the same breath tell me that I need to keep an open mind and listen to what they have to say. That really is my personal favorite you might as well stand up say I don't have to listen to you and I won't but I expect you to listen to what I have to say.

F-them. I refuse to wait, because it is an insult. I don't care if they believe everyone but them is wrong, that's fine; it is when they proclaim their beliefs APPLY to non-believers that the issue crosses the line for me. That is self-righteousness, and the same driving principle that terrorists use to justfy their actions.

I also love the argument tactic of identifying your opponent's inconsistencies. Even better is letting your opponent make their argument, and then using their own premises to discount their conclusions. However, because what we are talking about here is irrational -the emotional world of faith- the rules of reason and logic CAN'T apply. Only certain basic rules of form and limitation of certainty can apply.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I also love the argument

Now there is a true statement!

If you do wish to discuss varying beliefs (as I do), then I would think you would have adressed what I stated in the post that set you off, rather than using the same old "don't project your beliefs on me" line, albeit with an abundance of words.
If you think I am wrong then refute ME, don't try to label and classify ME.
What I believe is the result (ironically enough) of using YOUR tactic of not accepting anything particular belief system as true, and searching on my own.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Actually they can be distilled further into "treat others as you wish to be treated".

Sure, that's cool, but no mention of the supernatural is necessary for that.

Originally Posted by leelover

You still can't refute the value of living by the message of them.

Again, all are cool except the exclusionary ones about the Judeo-Christian form of monotheistic-divinity.

Originally Posted by leelover

They are all important, you just don't see the value.

I see the value (of the exclusionary ones) to someone who accepts the judeo-christian model for god. To them, the 10 cmdmts are a single, unified guideline. As such, they (or it) is worthy of great repect.

Originally Posted by leelover

If you chose to believe whatever you wish and create your own version of what and who "God" is then you can make it fit what ever you feel comfortable with. THAT is the same old road. Can't live according to rules that are meant to help you achieve the best you can, then just make up new ones that fit your comfort zone.
And deny any true deity, then you are not really responsible.

You still fundamentally misstate the historical truth of coming to god on your own, and modern interpretation. Read a couple of history of religion books, and then we can discuss the issue. I am not trying to be a dick about it, you just are ignorant of the histircal issue.

How can you claim, as those of faith always seem to do, that your "faith" or your personal mythology is some kind of universal truth? I find it interesting that you (the impersonal, "faithful" you, not the you you...Don't want that fight again) will rely on science for math, money, keeping yourself planted on the earth, putting a man on the moon, keeping (more personally for you) a motorcycle uproght with its gyroscopic-stability principles, etc, but when it comes to the need for real-estate and tax-exempt status, discouraging intellectual and scientific discovery, increasing population problems and encouraging the spread of disease, and prominsing to deliver in the after-life (which fankly, are the only modern purposes for any organized religion) all of that stuff is taken on mere faith, despite tons of contrary evidence. Now I have no problem with taking stuff on faith. I, as I have said numerous times, only have a problem with a person believing his or her faith is ACTUALLY, REALLY, DEFINITIVELY, RIGHT or TRUE. Whether or not you accept the exclusionary principle, it, just like gravity, is there. You (impersonal religious persons from all faiths) ALL CAN NOT be right. So, stop claiming you are.

Originally Posted by leelover

Now there is a true statement!

If you do wish to discuss varying beliefs (as I do), then I would think you would have adressed what I stated in the post that set you off, rather than using the same old "don't project your beliefs on me" line, albeit with an abundance of words.
If you think I am wrong then refute ME, don't try to label and classify ME.
What I believe is the result (ironically enough) of using YOUR tactic of not accepting anything particular belief system as true, and searching on my own.

You never used my method, as you admit to not having studied any other eligions or history with sufficient rigor...

Again, cool. I see no need to refute any of your beliefs, but for the exclusionary stuff. That is where you and I differ, in that I can absolutely accept as GOOD, USEful, and principled the rest of the 10 cmdmnts, but you seem to require their divine origin and supernatural content to grant them the same status as I do without it; and, more pointedly, you fail to recognize the exclusionary effect of that acceptance.

[leelover]

How about we talk about what we believe without all the classifying stuff that you constantly want to get caught up in AB?
I can't deal with the round and round circular discussion that never goes any where, regarding how I came to believe what I believe.
I approached my belief system in the way you described, there will never be enough rigorous study to truly understand spiritual things.
I do think I am right, or I would change my opinion. I am sorry that that automatically puts someone in the wrong from my view point. I am open to discussing everyones' beliefs. I may not be correct, I have never claimed to be. But rather that in my experiance, these beliefs prove themselves relevant. And I will live according to them the best I am able.
And here is something to go along with that.
You say that the commandments regarding behavior are good and useful, but not those about the authourity of God. I think that if you don't believe they come from the ultimate authority then you feel free to adapt them to YOUR standards.
I am not trying to thrust my interpretation on anyone, but I would like to discuss it.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

How about we talk about what we believe without all the classifying stuff that you constantly want to get caught up in AB?
I can't deal with the round and round circular discussion that never goes any where, regarding how I came to believe what I believe.
I approached my belief system in the way you described, there will never be enough rigorous study to truly understand spiritual things.

If you say so, now, but it does contradict what you have said before. Anyway, believe what you want, but please respect my beliefs enough to not arrogantly tell me that the first few commandments apply to me. Keep that projection of your mythology to yourself.

Originally Posted by leelover

I do think I am right, or I would change my opinion...I may not be correct, I have never claimed to be.

I'm sorry, are you stoned or just stupid here? The word "contradiction" comes to mind. Also, you can believe, without thinking you are necessarily right. That is the true essence of faith...Believing what you do when you know there can really be no right or truth because of proof or justification problems. The rest is just sanctimony.

Originally Posted by leelover

And here is something to go along with that.
You say that the commandments regarding behavior are g