[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
Let's try not to butt into arguments unless we are actually going to contribute something relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I want really butting in... I just think that calling people "ignorant toads" is not a good way of conducting an argument sorry, things like that kinda bother me. (for the record I mostly agree with you)
I want really butting in... I just think that calling people "ignorant toads" is not a good way of conducting an argument sorry, things like that kinda bother me. (for the record I mostly agree with you)
I'm allowed to see an ignorant toad and say, "Hey look everyone, it's an ignorant toad!" That's called an observation. I do understand where you are coming from, but your original post would have been taken a little more seriously had you expressed your opinion on the topic as well.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
If I did, it was a mere oversight. Ask them again and I'll answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe it is worth my time to do so. Oversight or not, you did ignore them even after many times telling you that you had not answered them. And if you go back you will find that I have taken the time to go back and find the questions pointed out as unanswered or misrepresented and corrected them. Even with apologies sometimes. I don't expect the same from you. I just ask for it.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
I'm allowed to see an ignorant toad and say, "Hey look everyone, it's an ignorant toad!" That's called an observation. I do understand where you are coming from, but your original post would have been taken a little more seriously had you expressed your opinion on the topic as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, no. That is called name calling. You could however say, "look everyone, there is someone that I disagree with and consider ignorant." And that would be an observatoin. Not too fine a line there. Maybe a bit too fine for you though. You keep tripping over it on nearly every post.
Umm, no. That is called name calling. You could however say, "look everyone, there is someone that I disagree with and consider ignorant." And that would be an observatoin. Not too fine a line there. Maybe a bit too fine for you though. You keep tripping over it on nearly every post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
with this...
[quote]Not too fine a line there. Maybe a bit too fine for you though. You keep tripping over it on nearly every post.<hr></blockquote>
Stones...glass houses...judge not...you get the point?
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>I'll respond to this...
Stones...glass houses...judge not...you get the point?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me where that fits me... Evidence.
[edit] In fact, if you are claiming that my post you are quoting is that way I disagree. I am making the observation that you, in every post you make, always take the unneccesary extra step of calling names, poking fun, or berating me. I have given you examples before. I could give you quite a few off this page alone. Get the point?
[edit] In fact, if you are claiming that my post you are quoting is that way I disagree. I am making the observation that you, in every post you make, always take the unneccesary extra step of calling names, poking fun, or berating me. I have given you examples before. I could give you quite a few off this page alone. Get the point?
And I'm claiming that in your posts pointing out your objections, you speak down to me in a very condescending manner. Hey, guess what? It's right in this post.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>And I'm claiming that in your posts pointing out your objections, you speak down to me in a very condescending manner. Hey, guess what? It's right in this post.
Nice that you decided to remove your "you get the point" this time so that you could feel justified. Chalk one up to EiF.
I apologize if my use of the words "Get the point" hurt you in any way. However it was not the intention. It was more to draw attention to the fact that my posts are always misconstrued by you (as was this one) so that you can find any way to show how I have fallen somehow in your sight.
Let me ask a question of everyone else here. Not you EIF, I know what you think. (although I cannot and will not prevent you from posting)
Am I returning Exercise in Frivolity's words to him in an uncivil manner? Or better stated, am I sinking to name calling, character attacks and the like? Please be honest. If you feel I am, then please show me evidence of said behavior, I am trying very hard not to act in this way and will correct any further posts if so.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>Well, you've sure changed the topic of this thread. I hope you are proud of yourself. Why not get back to the original point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not changed the topic. Putting the thread in idle for a bit while I check myself. If I am out of line, I want to know. Surely you have no problem with that?
[quote]<strong>Why do you think your bible is so special when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of holy books on this planet?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Through reading the bible and putting its words into practice I have found it to be true. If it is true, then what it states, that there is only one word of God and it should not be added to is also true, thus precluding any other holy books. If you beleived another book was a valid holy text I would not go out of my way to berate you for it. I might, however debate you on points about it if I had any information about the text itself.
I am not perfect, nor will I ever be, but I am trying to use the teachings in the bible to make myself into a better person.
Through reading the bible and putting its words into practice I have found it to be true. If it is true, then what it states, that there is only one word of God and it should not be added to is also true, thus precluding any other holy books. If you beleived another book was a valid holy text I would not go out of my way to berate you for it. I might, however debate you on points about it if I had any information about the text itself.
I am not perfect, nor will I ever be, but I am trying to use the teachings in the bible to make myself into a better person.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Reading and practicing selected parts of it somehow is proof. Nope. I'll ask you again. There are hundreds of religions that all claim that their holy book is true--just like you claim yours is. What makes you think that you were one of the lucky ones who happened to be born into the correct religion? I guarantee you if you were the child of Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia, you'd be spouting the same nonsense--except you'd be quoting from the Koran instead of the christian bible.
EDIT: random typos...
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
Right. Reading and practicing selected parts of it somehow is proof. Nope. I'll ask you again. There are hundreds of religions that all claim that their holy book is true--just like you claim yours is. What makes you think that you were one of the lucky ones who happened to be born into the correct religion? I guarantee you if you were the child of Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia, you'd be spouting the same nonsense--except you'd be quoting from the Koran instead of the christian bible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You asked me my opinion. you cannot give my opinion to me. There are more reasons, but I have no time right now. A bit busy.
You asked me my opinion. you cannot give my opinion to me. There are more reasons, but I have no time right now. A bit busy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your religion wrong and going to hell? Is that what you are saying? You are just damn lucky to be born into the correct religion? Is that what you are saying? Answer these four yes or no questions.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
So is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your religion wrong and going to hell? Is that what you are saying? You are just damn lucky to be born into the correct religion? Is that what you are saying? Answer these four yes or no questions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Until you answer my previous questions I am actually through answering yours. I have answered more questions from you than I had intended, and I have let you drag this out far enough. You are not interested in what I believe. You are just looking for ways to twist what I say so that I can better fit into your mould of what a christian is. If anyone else is interested in the answer I will answer it. Otherwise, good day sir.
Until you answer my previous questions I am actually through answering yours. I have answered more questions from you than I had intended, and I have let you drag this out far enough. You are not interested in what I believe. You are just looking for ways to twist what I say so that I can better fit into your mould of what a christian is. If anyone else is interested in the answer I will answer it. Otherwise, good day sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what you previous questions are that you feel I haven't answered. I'm not psychic. When I asked you to repost them, you decided not to. By deciding not to, you forfeit your right to trump any of my questions by saying I haven't answered yours. Now answer the following four yes or no questions:
1. So is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your religion wrong and going to hell?
2. Is that what you are saying?
3. You are just damn lucky to be born into the correct religion?
I didn't want to enter into this type of discussion again and I will not put much effort into elaborating my thoughts for pure lack of investment...
Last time I spoke with NoahJ in another thread, I had invested too much emotion in the topic that I knew was appropriately described with a "Warning" in the thread topic...
I believe that NoahJs religion states that all those who are unaware of the truth, when they die or the end of the world shows up... that they will be given a choice... they will be shown the "truth" and given the opportunity to choose then (I think thats the way it goes anyway)...
So which way are you better off? Not knowing and being given the truth in greater detail by God himself or arguing or fuzzy opinions of often abstract and out of context quotes from a two thousands year old translation of a translation...?
And if in the end we all get to understand, then why does anyone have to die permanently(Hell)??? I have often thought about those people in our history that have really bad life-lines...
Like Hitler... I mean imagine who Hitler was... I imagine that he was a person who was just as fallible as you and I are to having the wrong perception of the truth and not ever developing certain emotions as well as the rest of us... I have met people who still act as children think and act... Not all people are born with standards of understanding, If something goes wrong at an early age the personality of an individual can go all off track and a misconception or experience can have a domino effect on the development of a persons personality and you end up with a Hilter or Bundy, etc... I have met people who have the strangest thoughts wether its racism or weird ufo ideas, skinheads, etc... they are good people who just went wrong somewhere...
I had a really mean uncle and this guy was never nice... So I have to wonder why he was that way? Did something happen to him to mold him into certain ways of behavior... Was he a bad guy or a just a victim himself... Who is to blame for him being a bad guy? When he died I wondered what would happen to him in the context of the possible afterlife... does he deserve to spend eternity in hell? I also had an uncle who hung himself in jail because his wife left him and he developed a drug addiction, his kids were even brain washed into hating him, etc... does he deserve to spend eternity in hell because he couldn't handle the things happening in his life... does his moment of human weakness entitle him to unlimited pain and suffering?
Are damaged humans to blame for being damaged? These people I am sure had good parts among bad parts... I know alot of people who aren't that tightly wrapped... Does the inability/difficulty to accept or even consider deeper understandings of life negate the possibility of a good place in the afterlife... I remember watching a show on TLC about rapists and child molesters and there was this one really young guy in a cell that said he is really sorry for what he had done to those kids and says it was done to him as a kid and it just takes over sometimes... I guess its kind'a like when parents beat their kids, their kids will beat their kids and their kids will beat their kids, etc... it's a cycle of violence and people can become damaged early and life and have there lives be driven by experience that permeate there personalities thru-out their lives...
We all die with ignorant with limited resource of truth...
I remember watching and episode of StarTrek Voyager where there was an alien man who escaped from his homeworld and fled to Voyager to seek protection, he was a cold-hearted murderer with a stone face and had killed many people... I believe he got injured somewhere in the story and the doctor of the ship noticed that there was an problem in his brain during a body scan that caused part of his brain that feels emotion to not get alot of blood so he repaired his brain and when the murderer woke up he couldn't stop crying and got very angry at the doctor for doing whatever he did, because he now felt so much guilt he wanted to die... He could feel things now that he couldn't have felt before...
I think of this and wonder about those individuals that do not have any physical problem with them but have more psychological/personality problems that prevent or make it extremely difficult to understand things like empathy and compassion... Is it better to destroy these people other than just fix(show them the truth) them if you were God? I mean if we All get to understand how things actually were after death, why would anybody need to die? Why would there even be a hell?
How could you deny the truth if shown by God himself? And if someone actually did refuse, Why did they refuse? It couldn't be for lack of understanding... if it was then it wouldn't be a fair judgment...
I myself remain in question of all that surrounds me... I will continue to diligently question the validity of the truths presented and often remind myself of a saying: "Question everything, Rule nothing out"...
If I die not having a good understanding of the "true path"... it wont be my fault, I will have asked many questions and remember that the world around me is not a perfect one, I like everybody else have many misconceptions and lack of true understandings...
I call myself a humanist because I will not claim any religion or religious school of thought as my own unless I can really feel its truths in my heart...
As of yet all of my experiences with religions and religious followers have left me with no confidence in any of them, I say I am a humanist because I do believe that we should care for each other... I will stick with that until such time as any religion inspires confidence in me...
[ fixed some errors, not a very good spellchecker ]
<strong>I believe that NoahJs religion states that all those who are unaware of the truth, when they die or the end of the world shows up... that they will be given a choice... they will be shown the "truth" and given the opportunity to choose then (I think thats the way it goes anyway)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have heard that said, but I cannot find biblical backing for it. This is what happened after Jesus died and descended to Sheol (not hell, but just the place of the dead). It does not go into great detail, but the basic gist is, he gave everyone a choice as to whether they accepted him or they rejected him as the messiah. Then based on that they all went to their final, final resting place. I am doubting that God will give everyone else the same luxury. Maybe those who have died without hearing the gospel will be given a chance to choose, but I believe if you hear the message, reject it and die, your choice is made.
[quote]<strong>So which way are you better off? Not knowing and being given the truth in greater detail by God himself or arguing or fuzzy opinions of often abstract and out of context quotes from a two thousands year old translation of a translation...?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bible gives you the plan, it is up to you to decide if it is worthwhile to follow it. I personally have found that as I follow the bibles teachings it has become more relevant and truthful in my life.
[quote]<strong>And if in the end we all get to understand, then why does anyone have to die permanently(Hell)??? I have often thought about those people in our history that have really bad life-lines... [lots of stories and examples deleted, if you need to see them, read above]</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said, I do not know how God will run it for sure. I do not go around telling everyone, "repent, you are going to hell otherwise!" But if they ask I will tell them the plan for salvation and what I believe will happen if they reject it. If htye fully understand what I am saying and choose to reject it because I could not sufficiently prove my case, then that failure is mine to some extent and theirs to some extent. Whether God sees that as not enough and give them another opportuinity when they die, I have not seen biblical backing for it. If you could show me the relevant passages that state this I will definately read them.
[quote]<strong>How could you deny the truth if shown by God himself? And if someone actually did refuse, Why did they refuse? It couldn't be for lack of understanding... if it was then it wouldn't be a fair judgment...</strong><hr></blockquote>
One word for you. Satan. He not only knew The Truth, he was the top angel working for Him. Yet he decided to rebel and lost his place in heaven. If a being who had lived there for who knows how long is capable of rejecting it, what makes you think that we humans are so much smarter?
[quote]<strong>I myself remain in question of all that surrounds me... I will continue to diligently question the validity of the truths presented and often remind myself of a saying: "Question everything, Rule nothing out"...
If I die not having a good understanding of the "true path"... it wont be my fault, I will have asked many questions and remember that the world around me is not a perfect one, I like everybody else have many misconceptions and lack of true understandings...
I call myself a humanist because I will not claim any religion or religious school of thought as my own unless I can really feel its truths in my heart...
As of yet all of my experiences with religions and religious followers have left me with no confidence in any of them, I say I am a humanist because I do believe that we should care for each other... I will stick with that until such time as any religion inspires confidence in me...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you find the truth you seek. I of course believe that to be what I am offering, but it is up to you to decide. Thank you for the long, reasoned post. It was a breath of fresh air.
ERligiouse thought is like the CHinese Finger Trap:
once you allow it to infect you it carries with it the reflex that tightens when you try to look beyond it:
if you pull your finger the trap tightens.
If a though assails your "belief" then that thought is a 'seducer' trying to poison you and as such is proof of the validity of the religion. its calssic memetology.
this kind of thought is the reason for the rapid spread of religions such as Christaianity and Islam: it is a thought system that carries with it its rewards and the ultimate danger of thinking other than according to its dictates: it developes a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic.
Also with all religions logic is that it is appropriat, and an expression of the thought itself, that one should strive to perpetuate that thought in the minds of oithers (proseletizing)
whereas, the kind of logic exemplified by Exercise may be seen as one where the logics of Colonizing logics such as religions is laid bare: these are really two different thought processes: one is trying to infect others with "the one true way" the other is trying to expose the logic which motivates the other and others like it without claiming an ultimate ground of truth except perhaps in the trust in reasonable critique.
<strong>ERligiouse thought is like the CHinese Finger Trap:
once you allow it to infect you it carries with it the reflex that tightens when you try to look beyond it:
if you pull your finger the trap tightens.
If a though assails your "belief" then that thought is a 'seducer' trying to poison you and as such is proof of the validity of the religion. its calssic memetology.
this kind of thought is the reason for the rapid spread of religions such as Christaianity and Islam: it is a thought system that carries with it its rewards and the ultimate danger of thinking other than according to its dictates: it developes a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic.
Also with all religions logic is that it is appropriat, and an expression of the thought itself, that one should strive to perpetuate that thought in the minds of oithers (proseletizing)
whereas, the kind of logic exemplified by Exercise may be seen as one where the logics of Colonizing logics such as religions is laid bare: these are really two different thought processes: one is trying to infect others with "the one true way" the other is trying to expose the logic which motivates the other and others like it without claiming an ultimate ground of truth except perhaps in the trust in reasonable critique.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>ERligiouse thought is like the CHinese Finger Trap:
once you allow it to infect you it carries with it the reflex that tightens when you try to look beyond it:
if you pull your finger the trap tightens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I don't agree with the word infect per se, very negative connotations there, but I think your logic works for the argument you are making.
[quote]<strong>If a though assails your "belief" then that thought is a 'seducer' trying to poison you and as such is proof of the validity of the religion. its calssic memetology.
this kind of thought is the reason for the rapid spread of religions such as Christaianity and Islam: it is a thought system that carries with it its rewards and the ultimate danger of thinking other than according to its dictates: it developes a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ok, with all the spelling errors here I am going to assume what some things are that you are saying. (memetology? ) You are laying out your argument well and not resorting to name calling, which is good. Makes it easier to read through and digest the actual thoughts behind the arguments.
It does say in the bible that we are to take all thoughts captive to make it obedient to Jesus Christ. Read 2 Corinthians 10:5 for the whole verse. So yes, we are to examine our thoughts and determine if they are in line with the will of God. However thoughts alone are not enough to condemn you to hell if that is what you are implying. Reading this verse in full context you find that taking the thoughts captive is part of becoming an effective christian, or to borrow from your model, an infectious christian. Read 3-6 for the full context and the whole chapter if you really want what is being said to be clear.
At the end of this portion you start to lose me though. "a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic" So is it logic, or is it anti-logic? It cannot be both. It is actually a logic that is counter-worldview. If your logic is based on a secular worldview then yes, the christian logic will run counter that. Fair enough?
[quote]<strong>Also with all religions logic is that it is appropriat, and an expression of the thought itself, that one should strive to perpetuate that thought in the minds of oithers (proseletizing)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. If I have something that is good for me, right now and eternally, I should share it with others.
[quote]<strong>whereas, the kind of logic exemplified by Exercise may be seen as one where the logics of Colonizing logics such as religions is laid bare: these are really two different thought processes: one is trying to infect others with "the one true way" the other is trying to expose the logic which motivates the other and others like it without claiming an ultimate ground of truth except perhaps in the trust in reasonable critique.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, you lost me at the very end. Boil this part down a notch. If you are saying that EiF is trying to expose the christian thought process and through that exposure show it for the phony that he believes it to be, then i agree. That is what he is doing. If not, please let me know what you are saying exactly.
I don't agree with the overall tome of this post, which seems to imply that religion is bad and a trap that cannot be escaped. But the logic used to describe it fits in many respects. However, the finger trap does not work all the way, as if you decide you are done and you pull away, the finger trap in this instance will simply let go. There is a point where God lets you go your own way, he will not force you to stay in the "trap" (your words).
Comments
<strong>
Let's try not to butt into arguments unless we are actually going to contribute something relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I want really butting in... I just think that calling people "ignorant toads" is not a good way of conducting an argument
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: RyanTheGreat ]</p>
<strong>
I want really butting in... I just think that calling people "ignorant toads" is not a good way of conducting an argument
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: RyanTheGreat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm allowed to see an ignorant toad and say, "Hey look everyone, it's an ignorant toad!" That's called an observation. I do understand where you are coming from, but your original post would have been taken a little more seriously had you expressed your opinion on the topic as well.
<strong>
If I did, it was a mere oversight. Ask them again and I'll answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe it is worth my time to do so. Oversight or not, you did ignore them even after many times telling you that you had not answered them. And if you go back you will find that I have taken the time to go back and find the questions pointed out as unanswered or misrepresented and corrected them. Even with apologies sometimes. I don't expect the same from you. I just ask for it.
<strong>
I'm allowed to see an ignorant toad and say, "Hey look everyone, it's an ignorant toad!" That's called an observation. I do understand where you are coming from, but your original post would have been taken a little more seriously had you expressed your opinion on the topic as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, no. That is called name calling. You could however say, "look everyone, there is someone that I disagree with and consider ignorant." And that would be an observatoin. Not too fine a line there. Maybe a bit too fine for you though. You keep tripping over it on nearly every post.
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>
Umm, no. That is called name calling. You could however say, "look everyone, there is someone that I disagree with and consider ignorant." And that would be an observatoin. Not too fine a line there. Maybe a bit too fine for you though. You keep tripping over it on nearly every post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
with this...
[quote]Not too fine a line there. Maybe a bit too fine for you though. You keep tripping over it on nearly every post.<hr></blockquote>
Stones...glass houses...judge not...you get the point?
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>I'll respond to this...
Stones...glass houses...judge not...you get the point?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me where that fits me... Evidence.
[edit] In fact, if you are claiming that my post you are quoting is that way I disagree. I am making the observation that you, in every post you make, always take the unneccesary extra step of calling names, poking fun, or berating me. I have given you examples before. I could give you quite a few off this page alone. Get the point?
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>
Show me where that fits me... Evidence.
[edit] In fact, if you are claiming that my post you are quoting is that way I disagree. I am making the observation that you, in every post you make, always take the unneccesary extra step of calling names, poking fun, or berating me. I have given you examples before. I could give you quite a few off this page alone. Get the point?
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I'm claiming that in your posts pointing out your objections, you speak down to me in a very condescending manner. Hey, guess what? It's right in this post.
[quote]Get the point?<hr></blockquote>
Yup, that's really necessary.
Stones...glass houses...judge not...
<strong>And I'm claiming that in your posts pointing out your objections, you speak down to me in a very condescending manner. Hey, guess what? It's right in this post.
Yup, that's really necessary.
Stones...glass houses...judge not...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice that you decided to remove your "you get the point" this time so that you could feel justified. Chalk one up to EiF.
I apologize if my use of the words "Get the point" hurt you in any way. However it was not the intention. It was more to draw attention to the fact that my posts are always misconstrued by you (as was this one) so that you can find any way to show how I have fallen somehow in your sight.
Let me ask a question of everyone else here. Not you EIF, I know what you think. (although I cannot and will not prevent you from posting)
Am I returning Exercise in Frivolity's words to him in an uncivil manner? Or better stated, am I sinking to name calling, character attacks and the like? Please be honest. If you feel I am, then please show me evidence of said behavior, I am trying very hard not to act in this way and will correct any further posts if so.
Why do you think your bible is so special when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of holy books on this planet?
<strong>Well, you've sure changed the topic of this thread. I hope you are proud of yourself. Why not get back to the original point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not changed the topic. Putting the thread in idle for a bit while I check myself. If I am out of line, I want to know. Surely you have no problem with that?
[quote]<strong>Why do you think your bible is so special when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of holy books on this planet?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Through reading the bible and putting its words into practice I have found it to be true. If it is true, then what it states, that there is only one word of God and it should not be added to is also true, thus precluding any other holy books. If you beleived another book was a valid holy text I would not go out of my way to berate you for it. I might, however debate you on points about it if I had any information about the text itself.
I am not perfect, nor will I ever be, but I am trying to use the teachings in the bible to make myself into a better person.
<strong>
Through reading the bible and putting its words into practice I have found it to be true. If it is true, then what it states, that there is only one word of God and it should not be added to is also true, thus precluding any other holy books. If you beleived another book was a valid holy text I would not go out of my way to berate you for it. I might, however debate you on points about it if I had any information about the text itself.
I am not perfect, nor will I ever be, but I am trying to use the teachings in the bible to make myself into a better person.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. Reading and practicing selected parts of it somehow is proof. Nope. I'll ask you again. There are hundreds of religions that all claim that their holy book is true--just like you claim yours is. What makes you think that you were one of the lucky ones who happened to be born into the correct religion? I guarantee you if you were the child of Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia, you'd be spouting the same nonsense--except you'd be quoting from the Koran instead of the christian bible.
EDIT: random typos...
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>
Right. Reading and practicing selected parts of it somehow is proof. Nope. I'll ask you again. There are hundreds of religions that all claim that their holy book is true--just like you claim yours is. What makes you think that you were one of the lucky ones who happened to be born into the correct religion? I guarantee you if you were the child of Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia, you'd be spouting the same nonsense--except you'd be quoting from the Koran instead of the christian bible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You asked me my opinion. you cannot give my opinion to me. There are more reasons, but I have no time right now. A bit busy.
<strong>
You asked me my opinion. you cannot give my opinion to me. There are more reasons, but I have no time right now. A bit busy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your religion wrong and going to hell? Is that what you are saying? You are just damn lucky to be born into the correct religion? Is that what you are saying? Answer these four yes or no questions.
<strong>
So is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your religion wrong and going to hell? Is that what you are saying? You are just damn lucky to be born into the correct religion? Is that what you are saying? Answer these four yes or no questions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Until you answer my previous questions I am actually through answering yours. I have answered more questions from you than I had intended, and I have let you drag this out far enough. You are not interested in what I believe. You are just looking for ways to twist what I say so that I can better fit into your mould of what a christian is. If anyone else is interested in the answer I will answer it. Otherwise, good day sir.
<strong>
Until you answer my previous questions I am actually through answering yours. I have answered more questions from you than I had intended, and I have let you drag this out far enough. You are not interested in what I believe. You are just looking for ways to twist what I say so that I can better fit into your mould of what a christian is. If anyone else is interested in the answer I will answer it. Otherwise, good day sir.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what you previous questions are that you feel I haven't answered. I'm not psychic. When I asked you to repost them, you decided not to. By deciding not to, you forfeit your right to trump any of my questions by saying I haven't answered yours. Now answer the following four yes or no questions:
1. So is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to your religion wrong and going to hell?
2. Is that what you are saying?
3. You are just damn lucky to be born into the correct religion?
4. Is that what you are saying?
I didn't want to enter into this type of discussion again and I will not put much effort into elaborating my thoughts for pure lack of investment...
Last time I spoke with NoahJ in another thread, I had invested too much emotion in the topic that I knew was appropriately described with a "Warning" in the thread topic...
I believe that NoahJs religion states that all those who are unaware of the truth, when they die or the end of the world shows up... that they will be given a choice... they will be shown the "truth" and given the opportunity to choose then (I think thats the way it goes anyway)...
So which way are you better off? Not knowing and being given the truth in greater detail by God himself or arguing or fuzzy opinions of often abstract and out of context quotes from a two thousands year old translation of a translation...?
And if in the end we all get to understand, then why does anyone have to die permanently(Hell)??? I have often thought about those people in our history that have really bad life-lines...
Like Hitler... I mean imagine who Hitler was... I imagine that he was a person who was just as fallible as you and I are to having the wrong perception of the truth and not ever developing certain emotions as well as the rest of us... I have met people who still act as children think and act... Not all people are born with standards of understanding, If something goes wrong at an early age the personality of an individual can go all off track and a misconception or experience can have a domino effect on the development of a persons personality and you end up with a Hilter or Bundy, etc... I have met people who have the strangest thoughts wether its racism or weird ufo ideas, skinheads, etc... they are good people who just went wrong somewhere...
I had a really mean uncle and this guy was never nice... So I have to wonder why he was that way? Did something happen to him to mold him into certain ways of behavior... Was he a bad guy or a just a victim himself... Who is to blame for him being a bad guy? When he died I wondered what would happen to him in the context of the possible afterlife... does he deserve to spend eternity in hell? I also had an uncle who hung himself in jail because his wife left him and he developed a drug addiction, his kids were even brain washed into hating him, etc... does he deserve to spend eternity in hell because he couldn't handle the things happening in his life... does his moment of human weakness entitle him to unlimited pain and suffering?
Are damaged humans to blame for being damaged? These people I am sure had good parts among bad parts... I know alot of people who aren't that tightly wrapped... Does the inability/difficulty to accept or even consider deeper understandings of life negate the possibility of a good place in the afterlife... I remember watching a show on TLC about rapists and child molesters and there was this one really young guy in a cell that said he is really sorry for what he had done to those kids and says it was done to him as a kid and it just takes over sometimes... I guess its kind'a like when parents beat their kids, their kids will beat their kids and their kids will beat their kids, etc... it's a cycle of violence and people can become damaged early and life and have there lives be driven by experience that permeate there personalities thru-out their lives...
We all die with ignorant with limited resource of truth...
I remember watching and episode of StarTrek Voyager where there was an alien man who escaped from his homeworld and fled to Voyager to seek protection, he was a cold-hearted murderer with a stone face and had killed many people... I believe he got injured somewhere in the story and the doctor of the ship noticed that there was an problem in his brain during a body scan that caused part of his brain that feels emotion to not get alot of blood so he repaired his brain and when the murderer woke up he couldn't stop crying and got very angry at the doctor for doing whatever he did, because he now felt so much guilt he wanted to die... He could feel things now that he couldn't have felt before...
I think of this and wonder about those individuals that do not have any physical problem with them but have more psychological/personality problems that prevent or make it extremely difficult to understand things like empathy and compassion... Is it better to destroy these people other than just fix(show them the truth) them if you were God? I mean if we All get to understand how things actually were after death, why would anybody need to die? Why would there even be a hell?
How could you deny the truth if shown by God himself? And if someone actually did refuse, Why did they refuse? It couldn't be for lack of understanding... if it was then it wouldn't be a fair judgment...
I myself remain in question of all that surrounds me... I will continue to diligently question the validity of the truths presented and often remind myself of a saying: "Question everything, Rule nothing out"...
If I die not having a good understanding of the "true path"... it wont be my fault, I will have asked many questions and remember that the world around me is not a perfect one, I like everybody else have many misconceptions and lack of true understandings...
I call myself a humanist because I will not claim any religion or religious school of thought as my own unless I can really feel its truths in my heart...
As of yet all of my experiences with religions and religious followers have left me with no confidence in any of them, I say I am a humanist because I do believe that we should care for each other... I will stick with that until such time as any religion inspires confidence in me...
[ fixed some errors, not a very good spellchecker
------------------------------------
© FERRO 2001-2002
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
<strong>I believe that NoahJs religion states that all those who are unaware of the truth, when they die or the end of the world shows up... that they will be given a choice... they will be shown the "truth" and given the opportunity to choose then (I think thats the way it goes anyway)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have heard that said, but I cannot find biblical backing for it. This is what happened after Jesus died and descended to Sheol (not hell, but just the place of the dead). It does not go into great detail, but the basic gist is, he gave everyone a choice as to whether they accepted him or they rejected him as the messiah. Then based on that they all went to their final, final resting place. I am doubting that God will give everyone else the same luxury. Maybe those who have died without hearing the gospel will be given a chance to choose, but I believe if you hear the message, reject it and die, your choice is made.
[quote]<strong>So which way are you better off? Not knowing and being given the truth in greater detail by God himself or arguing or fuzzy opinions of often abstract and out of context quotes from a two thousands year old translation of a translation...?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bible gives you the plan, it is up to you to decide if it is worthwhile to follow it. I personally have found that as I follow the bibles teachings it has become more relevant and truthful in my life.
[quote]<strong>And if in the end we all get to understand, then why does anyone have to die permanently(Hell)??? I have often thought about those people in our history that have really bad life-lines... [lots of stories and examples deleted, if you need to see them, read above]</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said, I do not know how God will run it for sure. I do not go around telling everyone, "repent, you are going to hell otherwise!" But if they ask I will tell them the plan for salvation and what I believe will happen if they reject it. If htye fully understand what I am saying and choose to reject it because I could not sufficiently prove my case, then that failure is mine to some extent and theirs to some extent. Whether God sees that as not enough and give them another opportuinity when they die, I have not seen biblical backing for it. If you could show me the relevant passages that state this I will definately read them.
[quote]<strong>How could you deny the truth if shown by God himself? And if someone actually did refuse, Why did they refuse? It couldn't be for lack of understanding... if it was then it wouldn't be a fair judgment...</strong><hr></blockquote>
One word for you. Satan. He not only knew The Truth, he was the top angel working for Him. Yet he decided to rebel and lost his place in heaven. If a being who had lived there for who knows how long is capable of rejecting it, what makes you think that we humans are so much smarter?
[quote]<strong>I myself remain in question of all that surrounds me... I will continue to diligently question the validity of the truths presented and often remind myself of a saying: "Question everything, Rule nothing out"...
If I die not having a good understanding of the "true path"... it wont be my fault, I will have asked many questions and remember that the world around me is not a perfect one, I like everybody else have many misconceptions and lack of true understandings...
I call myself a humanist because I will not claim any religion or religious school of thought as my own unless I can really feel its truths in my heart...
As of yet all of my experiences with religions and religious followers have left me with no confidence in any of them, I say I am a humanist because I do believe that we should care for each other... I will stick with that until such time as any religion inspires confidence in me...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you find the truth you seek. I of course believe that to be what I am offering, but it is up to you to decide. Thank you for the long, reasoned post. It was a breath of fresh air.
once you allow it to infect you it carries with it the reflex that tightens when you try to look beyond it:
if you pull your finger the trap tightens.
If a though assails your "belief" then that thought is a 'seducer' trying to poison you and as such is proof of the validity of the religion. its calssic memetology.
this kind of thought is the reason for the rapid spread of religions such as Christaianity and Islam: it is a thought system that carries with it its rewards and the ultimate danger of thinking other than according to its dictates: it developes a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic.
Also with all religions logic is that it is appropriat, and an expression of the thought itself, that one should strive to perpetuate that thought in the minds of oithers (proseletizing)
whereas, the kind of logic exemplified by Exercise may be seen as one where the logics of Colonizing logics such as religions is laid bare: these are really two different thought processes: one is trying to infect others with "the one true way" the other is trying to expose the logic which motivates the other and others like it without claiming an ultimate ground of truth except perhaps in the trust in reasonable critique.
<strong>ERligiouse thought is like the CHinese Finger Trap:
once you allow it to infect you it carries with it the reflex that tightens when you try to look beyond it:
if you pull your finger the trap tightens.
If a though assails your "belief" then that thought is a 'seducer' trying to poison you and as such is proof of the validity of the religion. its calssic memetology.
this kind of thought is the reason for the rapid spread of religions such as Christaianity and Islam: it is a thought system that carries with it its rewards and the ultimate danger of thinking other than according to its dictates: it developes a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic.
Also with all religions logic is that it is appropriat, and an expression of the thought itself, that one should strive to perpetuate that thought in the minds of oithers (proseletizing)
whereas, the kind of logic exemplified by Exercise may be seen as one where the logics of Colonizing logics such as religions is laid bare: these are really two different thought processes: one is trying to infect others with "the one true way" the other is trying to expose the logic which motivates the other and others like it without claiming an ultimate ground of truth except perhaps in the trust in reasonable critique.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And let us say, Amen.
<strong>ERligiouse thought is like the CHinese Finger Trap:
once you allow it to infect you it carries with it the reflex that tightens when you try to look beyond it:
if you pull your finger the trap tightens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I don't agree with the word infect per se, very negative connotations there, but I think your logic works for the argument you are making.
[quote]<strong>If a though assails your "belief" then that thought is a 'seducer' trying to poison you and as such is proof of the validity of the religion. its calssic memetology.
this kind of thought is the reason for the rapid spread of religions such as Christaianity and Islam: it is a thought system that carries with it its rewards and the ultimate danger of thinking other than according to its dictates: it developes a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Ok, with all the spelling errors here I am going to assume what some things are that you are saying. (memetology?
It does say in the bible that we are to take all thoughts captive to make it obedient to Jesus Christ. Read 2 Corinthians 10:5 for the whole verse. So yes, we are to examine our thoughts and determine if they are in line with the will of God. However thoughts alone are not enough to condemn you to hell if that is what you are implying. Reading this verse in full context you find that taking the thoughts captive is part of becoming an effective christian, or to borrow from your model, an infectious christian. Read 3-6 for the full context and the whole chapter if you really want what is being said to be clear.
At the end of this portion you start to lose me though. "a logic that is counter to logic because logic itself (or even rational thought) becomes suspect as the possible "traps" of the "evil" that is describes within its logic" So is it logic, or is it anti-logic? It cannot be both. It is actually a logic that is counter-worldview. If your logic is based on a secular worldview then yes, the christian logic will run counter that. Fair enough?
[quote]<strong>Also with all religions logic is that it is appropriat, and an expression of the thought itself, that one should strive to perpetuate that thought in the minds of oithers (proseletizing)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. If I have something that is good for me, right now and eternally, I should share it with others.
[quote]<strong>whereas, the kind of logic exemplified by Exercise may be seen as one where the logics of Colonizing logics such as religions is laid bare: these are really two different thought processes: one is trying to infect others with "the one true way" the other is trying to expose the logic which motivates the other and others like it without claiming an ultimate ground of truth except perhaps in the trust in reasonable critique.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, you lost me at the very end. Boil this part down a notch. If you are saying that EiF is trying to expose the christian thought process and through that exposure show it for the phony that he believes it to be, then i agree. That is what he is doing. If not, please let me know what you are saying exactly.
I don't agree with the overall tome of this post, which seems to imply that religion is bad and a trap that cannot be escaped. But the logic used to describe it fits in many respects. However, the finger trap does not work all the way, as if you decide you are done and you pull away, the finger trap in this instance will simply let go. There is a point where God lets you go your own way, he will not force you to stay in the "trap" (your words).