Is It Just Me?

[Celsus]

The primary purpose of ExChristian.net is to "Encourage ExChristians". This forum is not established to provide a vehicle for endless trolling, spamming or posting by Christians or anyone else who refuses to address points in discussions, derail topical threads or require excessive "high maintenance" intervention of the moderation staff.

 

Until further notice, Amy Marie is on "moderator preview" status for derailing threads and failure to address posts in threads.

 

 

Bruce

[Eponymic]

The primary purpose of ExChristian.net is to "Encourage ExChristians". This forum is not established to provide a vehicle for endless trolling, spamming or posting by Christians or anyone else who refuses to address points in discussions, derail topical threads or require excessive "high maintenance" intervention of the moderation staff.

 

Until further notice, Amy Marie is on "moderator preview" status for derailing threads and failure to address posts in threads.

 

 

Bruce

 

To which Amy Marie would likely respond something like this:

 

"Bruce, why do you want to watch me all the time? You know that's kind of chivalrous of you to have such concern & high regard for me! Thanks so much."

[All Gods Fail]

I have only one thing to say:

 

Mother told me, yes, she told me I'd meet girls like you.

She also told me, "Stay away, you'll never know what you'll catch."

Well just the other day I heard of a soldier's falling off

some Indonesian junk that's going round.

 

Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird.

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away, ay, aaaaaaaay.

 

Father says, "Your mother's right, she's really up on things."

"Before we married, Mommy served in the WACS in the Philippines."

Now, I had heard the WACS recruited old maids for the war.

But mommy isn't one of those, I've known her all these years.

 

Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird.

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away, ay, aaaaaaaay.

 

Whatever happened to all this season's losers of the year?

Every time I got to thinking, where'd they disappear?

When I woke up, Mom and Dad are rolling on the couch.

Rolling numbers, rock and rollin, got my Kiss records out.

 

Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird.

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away, ay, aaaaaaaay.

 

Awaaaaaaay.

Awaaaaaaay.

 

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away.

(Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright)

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away.

(Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright)

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away.

(Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright)

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away.

(Bun E's alright, Tommy's alright, Robin's alright, Rick's alright)

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away.

(Were all alright, Were all alright, Were all alright, Were all alright!!!)

Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away.

(Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright)

 

[Dhampir]

Y'know, Ames, if the longer and more thoroughly you try to explain your position, and the people you are providing the explanation for still come to their original conclusion, guess what? It's probably NOT THEM.

 

By this point, they're most likely not assuming something is off about you because they don't understand where you're coming from, so much as they know exactly where you're coming from and think you're off because you're probably... umm... off.

[Celsus]

To which Amy Marie would likely respond something like this:

 

"Bruce, why do you want to watch me all the time? You know that's kind of chivalrous of you to have such concern & high regard for me! Thanks so much."

 

Eponymic, let me quote part of another song as a means of response.

 

Now we'er slipping into the twilight zone.

[Antlerman]

Excerpt from American Pie

Lyrics by Don Mclean

<snip>

For what it's worth Amy, I understand the point you were trying to make. However contextually the song was originally meant, art, poetry, and I'll add for your benefit "mythology" is in what it speaks to the listener. I believe I understand the point you were trying to make is that romanticism, idealism, mythology, belief, etc are the music to the spirit. When the music dies, so dies the spirit. As someone whose voice to his own soul is listening to music, creating it, and expressing it, it is a language that deifies logic and reason. I use both.

 

I think the point everyone here makes is that we can't slip into total fantasy and out of reality. The point that you recognize the importance to not abandon idealizing, romanticism, etc, would indicate to me you are not entirely so detached from reality.

 

I think Monsterfeets recognizes the incorporation of myth into reality, and articulates it the best I have heard to date. The greatest mystery to me has always been, how easy is if for those who believe in mythology to acknowledge it falls outside reality, without it loosing power for them? And conversly, how do those who are rational incorporate the non-rational beliefs into a rational mind without violating reason?

[Purple]

wait wait wait..... AmyMarie wants to be worshipped? All this time I would have had her pegged as sub too, dayum was my Domdar off. Yeah so this is pretty off topic anway soooooo anyone wanna play guess the fundies D/s role?? No? Oh well guess its back to wasting time on PaintShop for me. laters taters.

[white_raven23]

edit

[Eponymic]

Now we'er slipping into the twilight zone.

 

 

I've got something in my teeth. Will you get it out for me? That's fuckin' teamwork!

[white_raven23]

Maybe we should start a thread on the interpretation on American Pie.

 

Why?

 

Your interpretation of the bible doesn't even match what the bible says, and when it's pointed out to you....

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=11911

 

You don't respond. An error you deign not to acknowledge is still an error.

 

Since that is what you do, I see no point to a music interpretation discussion with you. Because there really won't be a discussion.

[Alice]

Thank you for this Antlerman!

 

You picked up what I was trying to say. I know what the song is really about.

 

Amy,

 

Did you pick up what Antlerman was saying? Are you picking up on what any of us are saying?

 

 

I think the point everyone here makes is that we can't slip into total fantasy and out of reality. The point that you recognize the importance to not abandon idealizing, romanticism, etc, would indicate to me you are not entirely so detached from reality."

 

Amy, I regard myself as a hopeless romantic. (Not sure I know what constitutes a 'true' romantic or not - sounds a bit like that whole 'true christian' debate ). I romanticise things nearly all the time. I'm always rewriting history and applying a little romantic sheen.

 

But I know that I do this and I try not to muddle it up with 'reality'. I certainly don't think we should discard the creative, but we need to know the difference between fact and fiction.

 

 

I spent years finding it hard to tell fact from fiction, as have many here. It's not hard for us to believe this. One day, maybe you'll be able to separate the fantasy from the reality. You won't have to throw away your creative side. Your imagination will stay intact and you'll still be a sucker for romance.

[Antlerman]

You picked up what I was trying to say. I know what the song is really about.

 

"Now come on Jack be nibble Jack be quick. Jack Flash sat on a candle stick." Who is Jack? Mick Jagger. Mclean is talking about the Rolling Stones song, "Jumpin Jack Flash."

 

Does this prove that I was a child of the 60's and the 70's?

 

Maybe we should start a thread on the interpretation on American Pie.

So if I am understanding, you are acknowledging the song is about something else, but the words had a meaning in it's poetry that could speak on many levels, not necessarily what the author meant by them, and that you were using the words to speak to a view that you have about how without music, without poetry, without idealism, the spirit is diminished? You know what the song is really about, but that's not how you were applying it?

 

This is how I took your using it, and what you are saying now.

 

Now here is my point for you to consider Amy, and you can answer if you wish (after you've thought about it, of course), do you see how that there is likewise NOT only one way to interpret the Bible? That it functions the same way as poetry, music, and art? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A LITERALIST WITH POETRY - IT KILLS IT! It is invalid to say an interpretation of poetry or music is wrong. It’s what the individual gets from it, and that fact that it can do that, makes it art. Sorry for the all caps, but that point is the heart of everything Amy.

 

I am really curious to know if you acknowledge that this is all the same thing.

 

One quote I would like to share and I can't recall who said it, "The best poetry is when your head is taken to the clouds, while your feet are on the ground"

[Lorena Rodriguez]

Antlerman,

 

I agree. There is not only one way to interpret the Bible. For example one can discover in meditating on the words iof Christ many levels of interpretation. However there are some absolutes that I as a Christian can't deny.

 

Oh, really? So it is up to "smart" individuals such as YOU to decide what is art in the Bible and what is absolute.

 

I highly recommend you travel a bit and find out how absolutes change from culture to culture, even from family to family. Personally, I refuse to follow absolutes set by primitive people who lived thousands of years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alice,

Hopefully, by His grace, I will never stop believing Jesus is a real, living Presence with me right now.

 

And why would you want to do that? Does it make you smarter, or more loving, or more compassionate, or happier?

 

I doubt it.

 

There is life after Jesus. I promise you it is better on the other side of the fense. But if blind you want to be, hey, who are we to stop you. Go ahead, waste your precious life.

[Antlerman]

Regarding what is art and what are absolutes in the Bible.

 

Let's look at the New Testament:

 

There are arguments on both sides cocerning the authenticity of the words, the existence of Jesus etc. Was He a real man, are these His teachings, what do I beleieve about them? It's a very personal decision. I am one who believes His claims as recorded in the the gospels. If we can't agree on that point perhaps we can talk about what we do agree with.

Right there you said that it is a personal decision. You are calling a “very personal decision” absolutes, and you in a sense are correct. Cleary from how you are stating this, you perceive these “truths” to be in the role of absolutes for you through “personal decision”. You adopt ones that fit you, that work for you, that serve as anchors, or touch stones for you. They are absolutes in your life.

 

BUT…. They are not absolutes, “absolutely”. They are not objective truths, they are personal truths. I reject absolutism, on a myriad of grounds – in any religion or philosophy, which is why I reject literalism or fundamentalism.

 

You are picking and choosing what is poetic versus historical truths based solely on personal preference. Yes, there are arguments on both sides, but it is heavily weighted against the lesser supported notions of literalism. But again, you have said you choose what to believe as absolutes, not based on evidence, but on “personal decision”.

 

This makes it no absolute truth whatsoever that all mankind can possibly be judged by. It operates solely in the role of absolutes for you in your belief system. There are many, many such truths in the world, all equally as valid as your own. No man will be judged by any God with some single absolute that no one has.

 

Your one statement almost sounds like you don't think I am a loving, compassionate or happy person. That would be unfair, don't you think, because you really don't me. Would I be more loving etc. without Jesus? The teachings of Christ encourage me to be that way towards others.

I guess I came to a place where just being true to myself made me open my heart to the world and others in ways that “obeying Christ” never did. The ultimate spiritual life I guess is if you’re full of love, you’ll act in love and not need a Bible. IMHO. That’s why I hate it when someone says they are doing something because Christ commands them to. Where the heart in that? Where’s genuine human love, or if you want to romanticize it, “God’s love” in that?

 

I’m not saying you don’t have love in your heart. I just want to make a clear distinction between “obeying” and genuine love.

[Lorena Rodriguez]

Let's look at the New Testament:

 

There are arguments on both sides cocerning the authenticity of the words, the existence of Jesus etc. Was He a real man, are these His teachings, what do I beleieve about them? It's a very personal decision. I am one who believes His claims as recorded in the the gospels. If we can't agree on that point perhaps we can talk about what we do agree with.

Well, I think the NT is authentic. Authentic literature not god-inspired words to live by.

 

Your one statement almost sounds like you don't think I am a loving, compassionate or happy person. That would be unfair, don't you think, because you really don't me. Would I be more loving etc. without Jesus? The teachings of Christ encourage me to be that way towards others.

 

Well, Ann Marie, I gess you are going to have to read my post again. You seem to have missed the MORE part of my statement. I said MORE compassionate, more loving.

 

Everybody can stand to be MORE loving and MORE compassionate, dear. But I guess like most christians, you believe you've reached perfection--which I am sure you haven't.

 

As for teachings of Jesus making you LOVING and COMPASSIONATE, I have to say that a big aspect of my deconversion was that

 

(1) The teachings were unable to make me as loving and as compassionate as I wanted to be. I was instead judgemental.

 

(2) Christians are some of the most rude, heartless people I know. If you don't fit in their little box of rules and regulations, they trample you as if there were no tomorrow.

 

(3) My non-christian friends were more loving and more compassionate than my then fellow christians.

 

So, Ann Marie, go somewhere else with your self-proclaimed holiness. It is not panning out with me.

[Dhampir]

Wouldn't you agree that sometimes it's really hard to love certain people that rub you the wrong way or forgive a person that has hurt you? Kinda like refraining from flipping someone the bird whose cut you off in traffic, the feelings may not be there when you choose to obey the commandment "love your enemies." Later your emotions may change toward the person but in the beginning you may just be honoring the commandment.

That's because love thy neighbor is horrible advise.

 

I meant enemy.

[Dhampir]

I'm sorry, I meant love thine enemy.

[duderonomy]

White Raven, you said;

 

 

'Let's say I go on in my life to cure cancer, find safer treatments for AIDS, and negotiate a lasting peace in the countries of the middle east.

 

'Then I die tragically in a car accident.

 

'Will artists hence really need to depict me in their work with a steering wheel imbedded in my sternum?'

 

Huh? They might, but you wouldn't be around to see it, so what's your point? If a steering wheel in your sternum was the price you had to pay for your cure of cancer, your safer treatment of Aids, and your solution to in the Middle East conflict, would you really be so concerned about the manner in which you were depicted by artists?

[Antlerman]

Wouldn't you agree that sometimes it's really hard to love certain people that rub you the wrong way or forgive a person that has hurt you? Kinda like refraining from flipping someone the bird whose cut you off in traffic, the feelings may not be there when you choose to obey the commandment "love your enemies." Later your emotions may change toward the person but in the beginning you may just be honoring the commandment.

We were originally talking about the how the painting evoked responses of gender inequalities, which led to a brief explanation by me on my thoughts how you are responding to the evolution of values within our culture and over-compensating by reaching way back to romanticized days when women were treated with “codes of conduct” by men of “valor”; which led to making the point how that romanticism and poetry are vehicles for the spirit; which then led to how the Bible functions exactly the same way; which led to how you acknowledge that as true, except for those things which are absolutes in it, those things which are solely determined by a personal decision alone; which led to my pointing out that those absolutes are clearly not universal absolutes then, but instead serve to function in the role of absolutes, as touch-stones for the individual alone, thus negating these “truths” as anything to others can be judged by; which led to how people can love and find compassion just fine in their own ways that don’t require believing in God and how that those who love by obeying commandments to love are not loving genuinely; which led to this response now. Whew…

 

Granted this is the Lion’s Den and associative, free-form conversations have been allowed to occur here according to the rules of it historically, and I find value in that as it covers a lot of ground. But nonetheless, I’m going to try to somehow tie this all back together.

 

I’m going to disagree with the idea that you should first act on the commandment to love your enemies and then later your emotions follow. I abhor acting insincerity. I swear that is probably the number one reason why I left Christianity. If you do not feel love, to act like you do is false and greatly dishonors and devalues the ideal of the definition of love itself. I would say not say that, “love your enemies” is a commandment. I hate the word “commandment” – it’s so…. dictatorial in the context of something that is supposed to be a marriage. Wouldn’t it be healthier to call it at its strongest an admonition? I would prefer to call it a philosophical principle.

 

That principle is about the individual assuming a mindset that in constructive, as opposed to destructive. To hate accomplishes nothing but destruction. It eats the person doing it from the inside out, and it brings nothing but misery to the world it touches. Assuming attitudes of forgiveness, of tolerance, of making a sincere effort to understand and seek reconciliation and peace, makes the individual stronger and more effective in his actions, avoids destruction and misery and works towards peace in the world where everyone is benefited. Hatred is the ultimate selfish attitude. Hatred is anti life.

 

Now here’s my point, I would say we can demand that someone should “obey” is the rules of society to do no harm, but to command someone to love is ridiculous. To advise or even admonish them to assume a philosophical outlook on an individual level is an individual choice. People adopt philosophies that work for them out of personal (no matter who the guru, I might add). You cannot command people to love. Personally, if God existed, I would expect he would know better that this. This is another reason why the threat of hell is so absurd to me and utterly inconsistent with the idea of a loving God. “You have a freewill choice, love me and die eternally!” Yuk.

 

Anyway to make that promised attempt bring this all together: Social norms in regard to gender equality; romantic idealisms; the function of poetry; the subjectivity of individual truths and lack of object absolutes; sincerity in acts of love; hmm…. Let me think….. Yes, that’s it. We’re all humans doing the best we can all on our own trying to figure out how to be happy in our lives as individuals and how to all get along together? The sharing and discussion of ideas mold and shape the world we participate in where we come together in embracing commonly agreed upon values which we can then uphold together as the ideals for us to live by, and admonish every one of us to avoid attitudes and actions which work against it, such as assuming one persons ideas are absolutes for others. No peace will ever come through that. That’s my personal admonition.

 

We only have each other and we better get to work to figure it out without wasting our time waiting for it do float down from the skies, while meanwhile we eat each other alive. It's a human society. It's humans that make it good and humans that make it bad, it will be humans that figure it out. No easy answers, just hard work.

[Lorena Rodriguez]

 

So you dodn't believe the way I do but do you need to attack me personally?

 

Amy Marie,

 

You did accuse me of calling you unloving and non-compassionate. I consider that a personal attack. Also, your self-righteous attitude reminds me of my horrible days in church. So your statements are highly irritating.

[Lorena Rodriguez]

 

"Your one statement almost sounds like you don't think I am a loving, compassionate or happy person."

 

I said that you ALMOST sound like... You SEEM to come at me ready to fight and always on the defense. I think I asked you if I was correct in thinking this. I also said maybe we can find some common ground. If you don't want to do that then I won't bother you.

 

Why are you saying that I have a self righteous attitude?

 

 

You are trying to find common ground with me? How brave of you. I must give you that. How can you find common ground with a person who believed for years the stuff you believe and one day woke up from the dream? The odds are null.

 

Why do I seem to be on the defensive?

I spent 18 F* years listening to the stuff you parrot constantly: I love Jesus, Jesus loves me, there are absolutes, the bible here, the bible there. I heard it all already, yet you come here to repeat the same stuff constantly as if we haven't heard it before. The stuff is nauseating. It truly pushes all of my buttons.

 

Your self-righteous attitude?

Well, it isn't personal toward you. Being self-righteous is a christian trait. You, christians, express a lot of absolute assertions as though they were truths. With you people everything is final. That's what I call self-righteousness. The idea that because you have jesus, you have all the truth.

[Guest Big Mac]

Alice,

 

Yes I do recognize what everyone is saying:

 

If only I would give up this romantic fantasy of a non-existent Christ and live in the real world with out Him. I could still be a romantic, an artist and a poet. Just seperate the facts from the fiction. Paint your Jesus any way you want but understand He isn't real.

 

Hopefully, by His grace, I will never stop believing Jesus is a real, living Presence with me right now.

 

 

[NotBlinded]

Anyway to make that promised attempt bring this all together: Social norms in regard to gender equality; romantic idealisms; the function of poetry; the subjectivity of individual truths and lack of object absolutes; sincerity in acts of love; hmm…. Let me think….. Yes, that’s it. We’re all humans doing the best we can all on our own trying to figure out how to be happy in our lives as individuals and how to all get along together? The sharing and discussion of ideas mold and shape the world we participate in where we come together in embracing commonly agreed upon values which we can then uphold together as the ideals for us to live by, and admonish every one of us to avoid attitudes and actions which work against it, such as assuming one persons ideas are absolutes for others. No peace will ever come through that. That’s my personal admonition.

 

We only have each other and we better get to work to figure it out without wasting our time waiting for it do float down from the skies, while meanwhile we eat each other alive. It's a human society. It's humans that make it good and humans that make it bad, it will be humans that figure it out. No easy answers, just hard work.

Antlerman,

 

I hope you don't mind, but what you said here is exactly, IMO, what will happen if you "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love your enemy". It isn't a commandment as we understand the word commandment today, but a side-effect of understanding the 'commandment'. As you referenced above, "We're all humans"...this is an acknowledgement that basically we are all the same. We are all trying to do the best we can. This is what is meant by the "as yourself" in the 'commandment'. And, if you acknowledge that your enemy is also doing this, then love, or at least understanding and/or forgiveness, will flow naturally to them. It is a by-product of understanding...not a product of forced actions.

 

The literalist will always destroy the intent of a teaching. One just can't go out and force themselves to love anyone that comes along. It is a deeper connection...a connection at the core of humanity itself, that allows one to recognize what you have just said. And, from this, the commandment is fulfilled...naturally! The literalist will always fail because they don't understand the heart of the so-called commandment. From understanding comes results.

 

I think commandment was used because of the society these people lived in. Now days, I think it would be better to say...words of wisdom.

[roknrolr]

 

Asimov, guys are also a part of the Bride of Christ.

 

 

So, if guys are part of the Bride of Christ, that makes it a homosexual relationship, doesn't it? So if it's okay, for guys to have a homosexual relationship with Jesus, why can't they have a homosexual relationship with anyone else? Guys can be married to Jesus, but not to any other guy? I'm so very confused, please straighten me out.

[sithprincess]

Not just that but if you're going to show jesus you might as well show him like he most likely would have been (other than mythical that is):

 

 

mwc

 

 

Place a picture of that in your house and the number of happy agnostics/atheists would soar!

 

 

 

Tried to check this thread out before, but couldn't for some reason, and just now getting around to it. This really made me laugh:) Just imagine THIS above the baptismal in your church! Or depicted in stained glass in a cathedral. Oh my.....