Sconnor Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Sconnor, I find it interesting that you have no problem with the concept of if God exists, he can show himself to you, and yet you dont find it acceptable at all that other people have this experience. Huh. If god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can share with me his character and will by telling me exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian asshole, that makes insane, unsubstantiated, interpretive god/jesus claims First and foremost -- notice what, precisely, is being said in the context of my paragraph: Although I say "if god exists, he can show himself to me" -- it is not the crux of the paragraph; It is NOT about his existence per se. It's about what deluded religionst say about god -- as if they know his will and character when they do NOT. The crux of the paragraph is about ALL the religious assholes (muslims, catholics, JWs, moromons, universalists, etc.) who tell me that they know the will and character of god but the curious thing is -- they ALL have their own, separate, idiosyncratic and contradictory interpretation of god's will and character. That's because the ONLY way they think they "know" god is through their own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture. These assholes do NOT know god. So to cut through the bullshit, I'll wait for god to tell me what he wants for me, exactly, so I don't have to rely on the spurious, unsubstantiated, contradictory bullshit that relgionist spew about god. Furthermore, what "god experience" is the valid one? Because there are people who "experience" god -- who are told by god to kill their children. Sheriff: Texas woman says God told her to kill sons http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/CNN_Texas_woman_says_God_told_her_to_kill_sons_13MAY03.aspx According to your logic this experience is proof that god exists -- right? Additionally, consider the insane cult leader -- David Koresh -- of the Branch Davidians: he also made the extraordinary claim that he knew god, spoke to god, experienced god and that god was working through his life. Again according to your screwy logic -- this is "proof" that god exists. There are so many more examples -- how is one supposed to validate these "god experiences"? What would be the method one would use to authenticate these experiences? Do you just pick and choose the ones that make you feel good? The cold hard fact of the matter is, you have NO real way of verifying if a "god experiences" is true. The point is: "god experiences" come in many varieties and often contradict one another, so I've concluded god experiences are unreliable. You do realize people have "experiences" that they are Napoleon? Using your loopy logic these experiences are proof that Napoleon exists. Can you see how your thinking is warped? People who claim to have experienced god and relgionist who claim to know god solely from their idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture are specious and wholly unreliable. --S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace: A disposition to kindness and compassion; "the victor's grace in treating the vanquished" A deserved compassion, is not an act of compassion. Worthy for grace, is not an act of grace. Grace, compassion, love is not about the object of it, but about the subjects apprehension, or lack, of it. Grace, compassion, love, are all about the heart of the giver. You lack a grasp of these End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta Hate is not taught in that passage. Spiritual consequences are. I'm surprised you are surprised. Dehumanizing language rouses hate in humans. That passage is full of dehumanizing language. I seem to be a very surprising person to you on many counts! I'm glad I can offer you that gift. Broadening awareness in the individual of human variety in the world is good for the human collective. Phanta The hate comes from within humanity. It is the fault of the person doing the hating not the person speaking the truth. Blame shifting is disingenuous. Speaking the truth about consequences can arose compassion also. People are responsible for their actions. Not telling people the consequences of their actions is wrong. Luk 19:41 (41) And as He[Jesus] drew near, He beheld the city and wept over it, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace is pretty much having the wisdom to "know" when it is appropriate to have mercy/understanding for another person...from identification with that person through the same trials or sin/wrongdoing to others. End I have tried to have grace for you. The very fact that I am using the word "grace" is part of the proof, because some part of me doesn't even want to use it. It's a church word, and comes dangerously close to condescension in my opinion. i.e. "I don't like you at all, but I'm going to be patient and kind with you until you see the error of your ways." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Christ was not raised by natural means. There is no physical law that says if we do such and such a body will rise from the dead. It was a supernatural event. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. The supernatural is under the control of a free willed agent. We don't see people raised from the dead because those supernatural beings who would can not and those that can (God) do so at their will. What a bunch of unsupported assertions that violate everything that is known about reality. Christ was not "raised" at all, because dead people stay dead. There is no physical law that has anything to do with bodies rising from the dead at all - ever. It was a natural event in that Jesus is dead. "The supernatural is detectable but not predictable" is bullshit, and you know it. The supernatural does not exist, and is therefore not under the control of any agent at all. "We don't see people raised from the dead" is a true statement. The rest of your last sentence doesn't make sense. Well, none of what you write makes sense because you believe in fantasy. How many "supernatural beings" do you believe in anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace: A disposition to kindness and compassion; "the victor's grace in treating the vanquished" A deserved compassion, is not an act of compassion. Worthy for grace, is not an act of grace. Grace, compassion, love is not about the object of it, but about the subjects apprehension, or lack, of it. Grace, compassion, love, are all about the heart of the giver. You lack a grasp of these End. Fuck you. You have no clue about the grace I show to others. You were absent during the part of the Love of Jesus thread where we finally found common ground with each other, a truly rejoiceful moment....me and Sandy...Rev. Words like "you rock End!". And I think she later said that it was because I tried so hard to reach her understanding. I even had a prominent atheist PM me and say that I shouldn't have relinquished my position as far as I did in order to achieve understanding. And then, in walks fathead again...that would be you...with your profession of how, if I understood better, like you, that I could get past the symbology that is the Bible. You are a wandering baffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 "The supernatural is detectable but not predictable" is bullshit, and you know it. Maybe he doesn't know it Shyone. But if we can detect it then we should be able to reason about it. And if we can reason about it then we should be able to make predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace is pretty much having the wisdom to "know" when it is appropriate to have mercy/understanding for another person...from identification with that person through the same trials or sin/wrongdoing to others. End I have tried to have grace for you. The very fact that I am using the word "grace" is part of the proof, because some part of me doesn't even want to use it. It's a church word, and comes dangerously close to condescension in my opinion. i.e. "I don't like you at all, but I'm going to be patient and kind with you until you see the error of your ways." It's not supposed to be condescension....it is love for the other person that brings it forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace: A disposition to kindness and compassion; "the victor's grace in treating the vanquished" A deserved compassion, is not an act of compassion. Worthy for grace, is not an act of grace. Grace, compassion, love is not about the object of it, but about the subjects apprehension, or lack, of it. Grace, compassion, love, are all about the heart of the giver. You lack a grasp of these End. What I hear from End is that he doesn't feel that he is the object of grace and compassion from people here. He feels that some people speak it here but don't practice it. Am I hearing you right, End? I think, AM, that grace and compassion are not about the worthiness of the object of them, but that they arise within the person of the giver. I think this is what you are saying. Yes? They do have a profound effect on the object, though. Grace and compassion arise from the subject, but can have a profound effect on both subject and object. I feel different about love...most types, anyway. Love, in my experience, is synergistic. Perhaps this is an area in which I have yet to mature. I recognize that I operate with a scarcity mentality in regards to love. Hm. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 "The supernatural is detectable but not predictable" is bullshit, and you know it. Maybe he doesn't know it Shyone. But if we can detect it then we should be able to reason about it. And if we can reason about it then we should be able to make predictions. Your reasoning is sound, but the "reasoning" behind the claim is not. It isn't a description as much as a dodge. It is an excuse for why we never see the tooth fairy, or why if you stay up all night listening for hooves on the roof, they never seem to come. The "detectable" part gives excuses for why there used to be miracles - dead people walking, voices from the sky, water turning into wine on command and all that. The "unpredictable" part just excuses why dead people don't walk, there are no voices from the sky, and water really can't turn into wine on command. IOW, there is nothing detectable now. At all. It's ironically quite predictable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 It's not supposed to be condescension....it is love for the other person that brings it forward. Well I don't know that I love you End, but I do like you. I like how you are (usually) kind. I even like when your kindness slips and you say "fuck you" to A-man. I like your curiosity. I like your (usual) predisposition to humility. I think you have many admirable qualities. But I don't generally approve of Christianity, and that is not likely to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta Hate is not taught in that passage. Spiritual consequences are. I'm surprised you are surprised. Dehumanizing language rouses hate in humans. That passage is full of dehumanizing language. I seem to be a very surprising person to you on many counts! I'm glad I can offer you that gift. Broadening awareness in the individual of human variety in the world is good for the human collective. Phanta The hate comes from within humanity. It is the fault of the person doing the hating not the person speaking the truth. Blame shifting is disingenuous. Speaking the truth about consequences can arose compassion also. People are responsible for their actions. Not telling people the consequences of their actions is wrong. Luk 19:41 (41) And as He[Jesus] drew near, He beheld the city and wept over it, The watchman (and the reader) is encouraged to see other people as beasts, animals, etc. This is dehumanizating language. Dehumanization inherently stirs dissociation from other people and can even lead to hate toward other people. Dehumanizing language supports enslavement, genocide, and other forced suppression of the Other because it contributes to seeing the Other as not human, as less than. Whatever the intent of the author, that is a very common end of such writing. If the author is not meaning to inspire dissociation, if author does not mean to further divide people, then the author writes from a place of deep ignorance of human nature. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace is pretty much having the wisdom to "know" when it is appropriate to have mercy/understanding for another person...from identification with that person through the same trials or sin/wrongdoing to others. End I have tried to have grace for you. The very fact that I am using the word "grace" is part of the proof, because some part of me doesn't even want to use it. It's a church word, and comes dangerously close to condescension in my opinion. i.e. "I don't like you at all, but I'm going to be patient and kind with you until you see the error of your ways." "Until he sees the error of his ways" is condescending and doesn't have anything to do with grace or compassion. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 "Until he sees the error of his ways" is condescending and doesn't have anything to do with grace or compassion. My question... Is End doing this with us? Is he loving us as wayward children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta Hate is not taught in that passage. Spiritual consequences are. I'm surprised you are surprised. Dehumanizing language rouses hate in humans. That passage is full of dehumanizing language. I seem to be a very surprising person to you on many counts! I'm glad I can offer you that gift. Broadening awareness in the individual of human variety in the world is good for the human collective. Phanta The hate comes from within humanity. It is the fault of the person doing the hating not the person speaking the truth. Blame shifting is disingenuous. Speaking the truth about consequences can arose compassion also. People are responsible for their actions. Not telling people the consequences of their actions is wrong. Luk 19:41 (41) And as He[Jesus] drew near, He beheld the city and wept over it, The watchman (and the reader) is encouraged to see other people as beasts, animals, etc. This is dehumanizating language. Dehumanization inherently stirs dissociation from other people and can even lead to hate toward other people. Dehumanizing language supports enslavement, genocide, and other forced suppression of the Other because it contributes to seeing the Other as not human, as less than. Whatever the intent of the author, that is a very common end of such writing. If the author is not meaning to inspire dissociation, if author does not mean to further divide people, then the author writes from a place of deep ignorance of human nature. Phanta You just restated your blame shifting, and ignored who has real culpability for hate. It is silly on its face. Telling someone they are wrong and will suffer consequences is the right thing to do. Not the bad thing to do. Not to tell someone of the consequences of their actions is immoral. Not to warn others of those who do wrong is immoral. Isa 5:20 (20) Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I even like when your kindness slips and you say "fuck you" to A-man. Interesting how that slippage coincided with the reading of the dehumanizing 2Pet 2 passage. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 "Until he sees the error of his ways" is condescending and doesn't have anything to do with grace or compassion. My question... Is End doing this with us? Is he loving us as wayward children? Who goes first, Legion? Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 "Until he sees the error of his ways" is condescending and doesn't have anything to do with grace or compassion. My question... Is End doing this with us? Is he loving us as wayward children? Who goes first, Legion? I'm not sure that I understand the question Phanta. I don't see End as a child, except when I think of how his father treated him. I see him as a generally good man, who clings to a dying religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta Hate is not taught in that passage. Spiritual consequences are. I'm surprised you are surprised. Dehumanizing language rouses hate in humans. That passage is full of dehumanizing language. I seem to be a very surprising person to you on many counts! I'm glad I can offer you that gift. Broadening awareness in the individual of human variety in the world is good for the human collective. Phanta The hate comes from within humanity. It is the fault of the person doing the hating not the person speaking the truth. Blame shifting is disingenuous. Speaking the truth about consequences can arose compassion also. People are responsible for their actions. Not telling people the consequences of their actions is wrong. Luk 19:41 (41) And as He[Jesus] drew near, He beheld the city and wept over it, The watchman (and the reader) is encouraged to see other people as beasts, animals, etc. This is dehumanizating language. Dehumanization inherently stirs dissociation from other people and can even lead to hate toward other people. Dehumanizing language supports enslavement, genocide, and other forced suppression of the Other because it contributes to seeing the Other as not human, as less than. Whatever the intent of the author, that is a very common end of such writing. If the author is not meaning to inspire dissociation, if author does not mean to further divide people, then the author writes from a place of deep ignorance of human nature. Phanta You just restated your blame shifting, and ignored who has real culpability for hate. It is silly on its face. Telling someone they are wrong and will suffer consequences is the right thing to do. Not the bad thing to do. Not to tell someone of the consequences of their actions is immoral. Not to warn others of those who do wrong is immoral. This passage calls people wrong and dehumanizes them at the same time. My issue is not with criticizing their behavior, it's with the act of dehumanization. You can call people wrong and say they will suffer consequences without painting them as inhuman-- as beasts, animals etc. Read: another lesser species. I am saying that the act of painting people so clearly as INHUMAN has serious consequences because of the kind of behaviors dehumanization inspires --hateful behavior!-- in those who remain full members of the human species. What is especially frightening is that this passage links these former humans--now animals-- so closely with being cut down by a sword. Wow! Scary stuff. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Grace: A disposition to kindness and compassion; "the victor's grace in treating the vanquished" A deserved compassion, is not an act of compassion. Worthy for grace, is not an act of grace. Grace, compassion, love is not about the object of it, but about the subjects apprehension, or lack, of it. Grace, compassion, love, are all about the heart of the giver. You lack a grasp of these End. Fuck you. You have no clue about the grace I show to others. You were absent during the part of the Love of Jesus thread where we finally found common ground with each other, a truly rejoiceful moment....me and Sandy...Rev. Words like "you rock End!". And I think she later said that it was because I tried so hard to reach her understanding. I even had a prominent atheist PM me and say that I shouldn't have relinquished my position as far as I did in order to achieve understanding. And then, in walks fathead again...that would be you...with your profession of how, if I understood better, like you, that I could get past the symbology that is the Bible. You are a wandering baffoon. Well so much for grace. You damned me as a false prophet using your sacred text as a weapon of your ego. To me, if there is a definition of sin and blasphemy, you did it. Then you talk about Grace and Compassion as being something that is deserved, to be earned and not a state of being to be freely offered through you as a result of a spiritual heart. I challenge you on that, and rightly state you in fact are demonstrating a lack of it, to which you respond saying "Fuck you", and then calling me a "Buffoon". This does not demonstrate an error of judgment on my part. Rather a confirmation of it. I could have said Fuck You! to using the Bible against me and judging me a false prophet, as though you understood things well enough to make that damnation of me personally - which you most definitely do not as is clearly demonstrated by you never accurately stating what I actually believe, think, and feel. You fail. You fail to comprehend, and then pass judgment like a true religionist, replacing dogma for Grace, for Love, for Compassion, for Spirit. You condemn yourself. My personal feelings are that you perceive someone like me far more a threat to your idols than any skeptic ever could. It's easy to rebuff someone who denies your beliefs. It's another thing to take someone like me treading into your temple of sacred idols. That's how I took your flinging Bible judgments at me like it were dog shit. Its about you. It's about your shortcomings and your poor reactions to it. You started out embracing Spirit, but now you sound more like an idol worshiper who has fallen from grace. Take responsibility. It's your first sacred duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 You just restated your blame shifting, and ignored who has real culpability for hate. It is silly on its face. Telling someone they are wrong and will suffer consequences is the right thing to do. Not the bad thing to do. Not to tell someone of the consequences of their actions is immoral. Not to warn others of those who do wrong is immoral. This passage calls people wrong and dehumanizes them at the same time. My issue is not with criticizing their behavior, it's with the act of dehumanization. You can call people wrong and say they will suffer consequences without painting them as inhuman-- as beasts, animals etc. Read: another lesser species. I am saying that the act of painting people so clearly as INHUMAN has serious consequences because of the kind of behaviors dehumanization inspires --hateful behavior!-- in those who remain full members of the human species. What is especially frightening is that this passage links these former humans--now animals-- so closely with being cut down by a sword. Wow! Scary stuff. Phanta Let me get this straight. You then agree that it is our moral obligation to tell people about the consequences of their actions, and to warn others about the consequences of following in their path. Correct? You also agree that in any circumstances a person committing hateful acts is culpable for their own actions? It is the language being used in the warning that you are concerned with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 "Until he sees the error of his ways" is condescending and doesn't have anything to do with grace or compassion. My question... Is End doing this with us? Is he loving us as wayward children? Who goes first, Legion? I'm not sure that I understand the question Phanta. I don't see End as a child, except when I think of how his father treated him. I see him as a generally good man, who clings to a dying religion. I took your question, "Is End doing this with us?" as a tit for tat, i.e. "I'm not going to show him grace and relinquish my need to change him because he doesn't show me grace and does not relinquish his need to change me." Hence my question, in full now for clarity, "Who shows grace and relinquishes the need to change the other first?" There is my thought process. I may have misread your position. I did make an assumptions. Feel free to set me straight, of course. My answer to if End does this is, taken as a plain question, is no, I don't think he does. It's been my experience that he can't (edited: from "can"--sorry) let go of the need to direct change in me--and End, feel free to set me straight if I have you wrong here on that--I do not ever feel as though I am the recipient of true grace or compassion. This is the root of the divide between End and me. For me, the divide arises from the ever present feeling of his need to change me a certain way. It underlies our every interaction. In fact, I feel it with most Christians, partly because it's a thing people tend to do. Unfortunately, because the Bible charges them earnestly to pursue this broken path, it leaves me with an expectation of it from all of them, and so little hope for much real connection. There are a few exceptions in my life, and indeed, they do not ever try to direct change in me. They also had to work to gain my trust against my ingrained expectation from repeated experiences built up over the years with their fellows in faith. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Let me get this straight. You then agree that it is our moral obligation to tell people about the consequences of their actions, and to warn others about the consequences of following in their path. Correct? You also agree that in any circumstances a person committing hateful acts is culpable for their own actions? Almost. What is true is that I was not addressing either of these topics--1) moral obligation to warn or 2) culpability for actions-- in my posts. I think you are beginning to understand that my posts have nothing to do with either of these topics. I'd like to affirm that this is true and leave it at that. It is the language being used in the warning that you are concerned with? Correct. Now I feel like we are communicating. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 "I'm not going to show him grace and relinquish my need to change him because he doesn't show me grace and does not relinquish his need to change me." Hence my question, in full now for clarity, "Who shows grace and relinquishes the need to change the other first?" Oh no, I feel no need to try and change End's mind. If he wants to cling to a dying religion that's his prerogative. For me, the divide arises from the ever present feeling of his need to change me a certain way. It underlies our every interaction. In fact, I feel it with most Christians, partly because it's a thing people tend to do. Unfortunately, because the Bible charges them earnestly to pursue this broken path, it leaves me with an expectation of it from all of them, and so little hope for much real connection. There are a few exceptions in my life, and indeed, they do not ever try to direct change in me. They also had to work to gain my trust against my ingrained expectation from repeated experiences built up over the years with their fellows in faith. See, this is it. This is near to where I was hoping this thread would go. As I told one of my friends once... The fundamental flaw of humanity, as I see it, is that we are quick to try and control, but slow to try and understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Phanta, I think you'll get a kick from reading how sexist the Bible is: http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts