Post by: TarpleyG on February 16, 2006, 09:53:57 AM
Greg
p.s. Don't turn this into a religion bashing session either. If you don't have something positive to say, beat it.
Post by: mtnbkr on February 16, 2006, 10:02:12 AM
It gets really weird when you see that going on at a private Christian university. I'm not particularly religious myself, but you gotta wonder why people who are that anti-religion would choose such a school.
Chris
Post by: Sindawe on February 16, 2006, 10:08:24 AM
1. Tech-heads tend to be very analytical and rational in nature, and spiritual matters are hard to quantify. "If it can't be measured, it don't exist." Shortsighted IMAO, since measuring gamma radiation was not possible in the 15th century, but it most assuredly DID exist. Science if the "religion" of our age.
2. Based on my exposure to "mainstream religions", a good chunk of the dogma involves surrendering to a higher power. Tech-heads have a tendency to be control freaks, and the idea of surrender to an unmeasurable "thingie" rubs 'em the wrong way.
3. Bashing "X" cause its the "In" thing to do 'prolly plays a part in it. Herd behavior sorta thing.
I've encountered the same sort of derision directed at my faith from time to time.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on February 16, 2006, 11:11:37 AM
My sis in law is a psych/drug counselor in upstate NY state. She recently went to a regional conference, where at dinner they sat in the typical 8-10 chair groups; a couple of elder statesmen in the field, 3-4 mid-level execs, and a couple of young turks at her table...
One of the elder statesmen starts ridiculing the 'ignorant, stone-age, moon-chasing Fundamentalists' and after about 5 minutes of this, she spoke up and said "George, I think it would be a grave miscalculation to assume that everyone at this table is a raging liberal." After the uncomfortable silence, the subject was changed.
One of the most interesting things I see is when my evangelistic friends get into debates with shrieking liberals, and they start using some of their own terminology on them.
"You seem to be incredibly intolerant of alternative beliefs..." (Dead silence...)
"So are you bigoted against those who embrace more esoteric spiritual paths!?!?" (dead silence...)
It's kind of fun to see them squirm.
Post by: griz on February 16, 2006, 12:19:11 PM
1. Your beliefs about religion should not be based on what is "cool" or what the majority believe.
2. Unless their beliefs are dangerous to others, you should not mock others for their beliefs.
Post by: crt360 on February 16, 2006, 12:26:41 PM
I will not bash anyone who wants to worship through organized religion. I may give you an earful if you start telling me some crap about how I'm going to hell if I don't praise my lord in the Baptist way or take as truth certain unproven things. I'm not a big fan of religious groups that expect their members to proselytize. Their effect is often negative and probably why some people think religion is not cool. I'm also perfectly comfortable in the presence of people who are not religious.
Post by: Nightfall on February 16, 2006, 12:36:11 PM
Quote
Most of them do not believe in God or anything else of higher being. Rather petty and arrogant if you ask me.
You ask people not to turn this into a religion bashing thread, but start it off by bashing atheists? Interesting.Quote
Everyday I see people bash Christians for being believers and they are thought of as kooks or something.
What exactly does this bashing entail? Deragatory insults? As for Christianity being out of style in certain circles ATM, there will always be those follow the herd and bleat when the others bleat. Ive met two kinds of atheists in my life; those who do it as a way to rebel, as a stylish statement, to join a certain clique, OR those who have dismissed the existence of certain higher beings based on logic and/or scientific reasoning.
Post by: Ron on February 16, 2006, 12:41:52 PM
Quote
OR those who have dismissed the existence of certain higher beings based on logic and/or scientific reasoning.
According to their opinion. Unless of course I missed where "science" proved there is no spiritual realm.
Post by: Tallpine on February 16, 2006, 12:53:25 PM
I used to be a "believer" and regular church-goer, and even a deacon for a while, but now I will never set foot in a church again because of the power&control abuse that I have both witnessed and suffered in multiple churches.
Post by: Strings on February 16, 2006, 01:30:34 PM
Post by: 280plus on February 16, 2006, 02:02:56 PM
Post by: cosine on February 16, 2006, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: GoRon
Quote from: Nightfall
OR those who have dismissed the existence of certain higher beings based on logic and/or scientific reasoning.
According to their opinion. Unless of course I missed where "science" proved there is no spiritual realm.Conversely, there are those people who have based their belief in the existance of a higher being on logic and/or reason. It can be done.
Now, about the question put forth in the first post of the thread...
I think Sindawe's answer to the question hits it on the head pretty well.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 16, 2006, 02:17:23 PM
Post by: Art Eatman on February 16, 2006, 03:02:58 PM
Don't believe me? Look at the numbers for credit card debt. Look at the success of TV ads with thier implicit "Gratification now!" and "You deserve..."
Hedonism and religion don't get along well together.
And, statists don't like the idea of a Higher Power. Government is supposed to be the highest power.
Art
Post by: crt360 on February 16, 2006, 04:45:54 PM
Quote
Hedonism and religion don't get along well together.
They might. Many religious people I know seem to use it (religion) as a balance to their Hedonism. I suspect this has always been the case. Religious participation cleanses the guilty conscience and allows people to continue to wallow uninhibited in their sinful ways. Those that practice religion to the point of enhanced self-discipline are usually called monks. Most people have just done the bare amount necessary to be saved. Some who think they need more saving might spend a little more time praying and offering.Quote
Don't believe me? Look at the numbers for credit card debt. Look at the success of TV ads with thier implicit "Gratification now!" and "You deserve..."
This is certainly present, but I think it is more the side-effect of "successful" capitalism. I'm certain that had millions of Americans been hammered with $5000-10,, 0% for 1 year, then fixed at 6.8% (but really goes to 27.99% because one of your payments was received a day late) offers daily, back in the 1920s, they'd have been in the same boat.I think one of the main factors is the openness and sheer volume of information easily available now. When I was a kid, I either believed what someone told me or I didn't. We had schools with skimpy government approved text books, little school libraries, and TVs that got a few stations. We read newspapers and magazines. There was no other place to learn about things you really were trying to learn about. Thinking back about it, I wonder how we all weren't dumber than dirt. What I'm getting at is kids now are inundated with information and choices from an early age that we couldn't even imagine back then. When I questioned things that my Sunday school teachers couldn't explain or told me I had to accept as the truth based on my faith in something that I had never seen, I either had to buy what the teacher was selling or discount it. From the churchs position, it was wrong to question it in the first place and not believing was even worse. I couldn't hop on the internet and instantly get hundreds of other opinions or explanations like we can now. The open availability of information has to some degree divided (but not conquered) religion by giving people the freedom to research the issues, learn more, and make better informed decisions.
I also feel similarly to Tallpine regarding the power and control issues of organized religion and I think that this is another big thing which turns many away from the church. Its like another government that you have to subject yourself to, with people, no better than yourself, in higher positions, making decisions that you are expected to support. Some churches are arguably much better than others in this matter, but all churches, by their very nature as gathering places for dozens to thousands of people who want to belong, are magnets for people who want to assert influence and control over others.
Post by: Standing Wolf on February 16, 2006, 05:21:38 PM
I figure she's probably just loafing like most cats.
Post by: Strings on February 16, 2006, 06:54:27 PM
Two of my friends are getting married: she's VERY pagan, he's somewhat Christian (from a VERY Christian family). As a gesture to his parents, the bride to be suggested that they get married in the groom to be's old church (where his parents still attend). The preacher made it abundantly clear that he wouldn't preform any such ceremony, heaping abuse on the Btb in the process. ALL she did was say that she wasn't of the same faith, and had no intentions of converting...
Things like this can easily result in religion being ridiculed...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 16, 2006, 07:00:43 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 17, 2006, 05:53:16 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
speaking of power and control issues, allow an anecdote...
Two of my friends are getting married: she's VERY pagan, he's somewhat Christian (from a VERY Christian family). As a gesture to his parents, the bride to be suggested that they get married in the groom to be's old church (where his parents still attend). The preacher made it abundantly clear that he wouldn't preform any such ceremony, heaping abuse on the Btb in the process. ALL she did was say that she wasn't of the same faith, and had no intentions of converting...
Things like this can easily result in religion being ridiculed...
It is always easy to ridicule people with standards.
Two of my friends are getting married: she's VERY pagan, he's somewhat Christian (from a VERY Christian family). As a gesture to his parents, the bride to be suggested that they get married in the groom to be's old church (where his parents still attend). The preacher made it abundantly clear that he wouldn't preform any such ceremony, heaping abuse on the Btb in the process. ALL she did was say that she wasn't of the same faith, and had no intentions of converting...
Things like this can easily result in religion being ridiculed...
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2006, 06:08:33 AM
I know that in similar circumstances I probably would refuse to perform such a ceremony, but I wouldn't ridicule or abuse the party with a different or nonexistant belief system than mine.
Post by: onions! on February 17, 2006, 06:43:14 AM
Post by: 280plus on February 17, 2006, 07:06:54 AM
Post by: onions! on February 17, 2006, 07:30:53 AM
Quote from: 280plus
By "gay" you mean light hearted and frivilous I presume...
Could be rabbit,could be!:lol:
Post by: richyoung on February 17, 2006, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
speaking of power and control issues, allow an anecdote...
Two of my friends are getting married: she's VERY pagan, he's somewhat Christian (from a VERY Christian family). As a gesture to his parents, the bride to be suggested that they get married in the groom to be's old church (where his parents still attend). The preacher made it abundantly clear that he wouldn't preform any such ceremony, heaping abuse on the Btb in the process. ALL she did was say that she wasn't of the same faith, and had no intentions of converting...
Things like this can easily result in religion being ridiculed...
So the preacher is supposed to just bend over and sanction and bless something that's against his religion? Suppose she was Satanic, and they were getting married in HER church - would you expect hte head whatever to be just FINE with him, and his family and friends, wearing chrosses and praying to God IN THEIR CHURCH?Two of my friends are getting married: she's VERY pagan, he's somewhat Christian (from a VERY Christian family). As a gesture to his parents, the bride to be suggested that they get married in the groom to be's old church (where his parents still attend). The preacher made it abundantly clear that he wouldn't preform any such ceremony, heaping abuse on the Btb in the process. ALL she did was say that she wasn't of the same faith, and had no intentions of converting...
Things like this can easily result in religion being ridiculed...
Why should it be a black mark for a religion to stand up for its own beliefs? If it doesn't, its not much of a religion. If they just want a civil ceremony, they can get a justice of the peace. A church wedding is both a civil ceremony and a RELIGIOUS ceremony - if the head "blesser" in charge can't, in good conscience bless the union, what else do you expect?
Post by: richyoung on February 17, 2006, 07:46:37 AM
Quote from: cosine
Rabbi, I think the problem was that the preacher was "heaping abuse" on the bride to be, instead of just simply refusing to perform the ceremony. I understood that the abuse is what leads to religion being ridiculed, not the refusal to perform the ceremony.
I know that in similar circumstances I probably would refuse to perform such a ceremony, but I wouldn't ridicule or abuse the party with a different or nonexistant belief system than mine.
One person's proseltizing out of a sincere concern for the other's future is very often, in my experience, described as "heaping abuse", especially by those who in fact have little beleif or faith in what they claim to beleive in. Of course, if the bride involved REALLY believes in driads, wood nymphs water spirits, etc. as opposed to claiming to be pagan to be: 1. trendy, (who ever heard of caballa before Madonna hopped onto its band wagon?) or 2: irritate her parents and everyone else, I appologize....
I know that in similar circumstances I probably would refuse to perform such a ceremony, but I wouldn't ridicule or abuse the party with a different or nonexistant belief system than mine.
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2006, 09:03:15 AM
Quote from: richyoung
One person's proseltizing out of a sincere concern for the other's future is very often, in my experience, described as "heaping abuse", especially by those who in fact have little beleif or faith in what they claim to beleive in.
Okay, I never thought of it that way. (Probably becasue I have never had an experience like that.)
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 17, 2006, 09:35:31 AM
Quote
One person's proseltizing out of a sincere concern for the other's future is very often, in my experience, described as "heaping abuse", especially by those who in fact have little beleif or faith in what they claim to beleive in.
Rich, the problem is that there is a very fine line between "fervent concern for a person's spiritual future" and "outright harassment". And in general, "abuse" is defined not by the person accused of the abuse, but by the person feeling abused. Otherwise, most child-abuse cases would be a lot shorter. "Did you abuse your kid?" "Nope." >bang< "Case dismissed."If the preacher in question was making the woman feel abused, then he was making her feel abused. You can't point a finger from your armchair and say, "he wasn't really abusing her because I happen to agree with his point of view".
If he believes that it's wrong for a Christian to marry a Pagan in a Christian church (and, more specifically, in his church), that's his right and I don't think anyone rational could say otherwise. But there's no call to be rude about it.
Quote
(who ever heard of caballa before Madonna hopped onto its band wagon?)
No one, of course. Except for, oh, yes, lots and lots of people. Including me. So what if Madonna popularized something and a bunch of madonnawannabes followed in her footsteps. If she's found Jesus, and a bunch of people had followed her into Christ's Redemption, would you still be scoffing at it? -BP
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 09:44:44 AM
>So the preacher is supposed to just bend over and sanction and bless something that's against his religion? Suppose she was Satanic, and they were getting married in HER church - would you expect hte head whatever to be just FINE with him, and his family and friends, wearing chrosses and praying to God IN THEIR CHURCH?<
Don't know... don't hang out with Satanists. Those I've encountered would just shake their heads about it, they wouldn't get abusive...
>Why should it be a black mark for a religion to stand up for its own beliefs? If it doesn't, its not much of a religion. If they just want a civil ceremony, they can get a justice of the peace. A church wedding is both a civil ceremony and a RELIGIOUS ceremony - if the head "blesser" in charge can't, in good conscience bless the union, what else do you expect?<
How about some common damn courtesy? Or is it accpetable to treat "unbelievers" with scorn and abuse? The one quote I remember from the situation was "I can't do this: I won't join one of MY parishoners to an abomination!". A simple "I'm sorry, but I can't do this for you" would have been enough...
>One person's proseltizing out of a sincere concern for the other's future is very often, in my experience, described as "heaping abuse", especially by those who in fact have little beleif or faith in what they claim to beleive in. Of course, if the bride involved REALLY believes in driads, wood nymphs water spirits, etc. as opposed to claiming to be pagan to be: 1. trendy, (who ever heard of caballa before Madonna hopped onto its band wagon?) or 2: irritate her parents and everyone else, I appologize....<
Might I suggest submitting your appology? Calling someone an abomination is NOT "proseltizing out of a sincere concern for the other's future:... it's being incredibly rude, without any reason beyond religious bigotry. And yet it seems that, every time something like this gets mentioned, certain members jump up and defend the actions of the Christian. That's getting kinda old, folks. Can we show a little ACTUAL tolerance? Or did y'all miss the "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner" part of your own faith?
BTW: I had heard of (and read a touch about) caballa (and I'm pretty sure that's the wrong spelling) back in the mid 80's. So sorry to burst that bubble of yours...
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2006, 09:52:06 AM
There also is a fine line between actual abuse and something someone may think is abuse even though it isn't. Feeling that one has been abused may not be the same as actually being abused.
Now depending how poorly behaved the kid in the example is, he may feel that he is being abused even though he isn't.
Feeling abused means one is feeling abused. But that does not mean that one is actually being abused. So proseltizing out of one's concern for another's spiritual good without being cruel to the one being proseltized probably is not abuse, even if the one being proseltized is feeling abused because he doesn't agree with the topics being presented by the one doing the proseltizing.
Edit Hunter Rose got his post in while I was typing mine. I'll say that the preacher was pretty darn uncivil and rude and has some apologizing to do.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 17, 2006, 09:55:42 AM
While that is true, I refer you back to Hunter Rose's clarification, where the preacher in question called the Pagan woman an abomination, rather than simply poilitely declining to perform the ceremony. Calling someone an abomination simply because they believe differently that you do is abusive, in my opinion. If you feel otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree.
-BP
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2006, 09:57:19 AM
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 09:58:42 AM
We generally get to deal with being called "abominations" (sometimes worse), occassional threats, and a variety of other fun issues. And yet, we have some here thinking we choose our faith to "be trendy". Yeah... I like having people offer to use me as the centerpiece of their next bonfire in order to "be trendy"...
What's that old saw about "walking a mile in somene else's shoes"?
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 10:00:16 AM
I'm gonna have to do something abut another misconception here, it seems...
I'm a guy, folks! The word "Rose" in my handle does NOT signify a woman posting!
Post by: cosine on February 17, 2006, 10:00:44 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
see my last post, cosine. Generally speaking, if I say something is abusive, it's because it IS abusive...
I believe you. I was typing when you made your post. I edited my post. Quote from: Hunter Rose
*sigh*
I'm gonna have to do something abut another misconception here, it seems...
I'm a guy, folks! The word "Rose" in my handle does NOT signify a woman posting!
Oops, sorry... I always figured the "Rose" signified a woman... and was too blind to read your sig, doh...I'm gonna have to do something abut another misconception here, it seems...
I'm a guy, folks! The word "Rose" in my handle does NOT signify a woman posting!
We're all still friends, right?
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 10:01:56 AM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on February 17, 2006, 12:18:58 PM
Bwahahahahahhaahahahaaahhnhbahmmm hmmm hummm.
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 01:02:46 PM
Post by: Tallpine on February 17, 2006, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Or is it accpetable to treat "unbelievers" with scorn and abuse?
Unfortunately, that's pretty much the case in many churches. We used to have a mid-week BS (Bible Study) in our home and the topic often turned around to how awful certain "unbeliever" co-workers, neighbors, acquaintances were 
I always tried to stop this line of conversation and move onto something else, but it was pretty much a weekly rant with several people.I can't believe how long I let myself be caught up in all that garbage. It finally took some extraordinary abuse (false accusations, gossip, etc) for me to open my eyes and escape.
Like I said before: "live and let live" ... but ya'll ought to know how some folks get to where they are
Domination, manipulation, and backstabbing are definitely not "cool"
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on February 17, 2006, 01:26:10 PM
"These aren't the droids you're looking for" Obiwan Quixote
"Go on about your lives as if everything was perfectly normal." Hank Hill
Post by: Ron on February 17, 2006, 02:59:32 PM
If tolerance means I am not allowed to make judgments about someone elses belief system then I am intolerant.
Just because I think somebody is wrong or misguided does not give me license to mock or deride their beliefs.
When it comes to forum boards and stretching out into the mass media the only safe religion or faith to bash is Christianity.
It has reached the point where former enemies, evangelicals and Roman Catholics have made common ground. If you don't think that Christianity is under assault then you don't realize what deep anomosity was present historically between American protestants and Rome. For these two groups to find common ground and put up a fire wall against the forces of seculurism is a historic event that is going unreported in the mainstream media.
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 03:46:33 PM
Make judgements, yes. Make excuses for members of that faith being abusive to others? Nope... that's goin' over the line...
>Just because I think somebody is wrong or misguided does not give me license to mock or deride their beliefs.<
See above...
>When it comes to forum boards and stretching out into the mass media the only safe religion or faith to bash is Christianity.<
And, when I see your average "Christian bashing", I try to tone it down or stop it. Heck... one of the pagan boards I mod on, i've shut down threads when the 'Bashers start spouting...
>It has reached the point where former enemies, evangelicals and Roman Catholics have made common ground. If you don't think that Christianity is under assault then you don't realize what deep anomosity was present historically between American protestants and Rome. For these two groups to find common ground and put up a fire wall against the forces of seculurism is a historic event that is going unreported in the mainstream media.<
So, is that meant as an excuse for Christians to cut on other faiths, or for them to defend those who do so? "Well yes, that preist WS out of line. But Christianity is bashed in the MSM, so it's ok"?
Post by: bermbuster on February 17, 2006, 03:54:49 PM
Post by: Ron on February 17, 2006, 05:43:11 PM
Quote
As a general rule I try to treat EVERYONE as I would want to be treated.
HR,I make no apologies for anyone who isn't following "the golden rule" whether they call themselves Christians or not.
Pleasing God isn't that complicated in my eyes. I treat everyone of all faiths, nonfaiths, whatever the same.
I leave the righteous indignation to God, thats His department.
Post by: Strings on February 17, 2006, 10:11:57 PM
Post by: brimic on February 17, 2006, 10:50:33 PM
As far as prothelytizing (sp?) goes: God so loved the world that he sent his only son so that all that believe in him will have eternal life. There, I'm done. I also believe that God gave us free will so that we can take it or leave it, its not place to judge.
You can tell a lot more about a religeon of a person by the actions of that person than by their words.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on February 18, 2006, 06:13:48 AM
As a member of a Protestant, evangelical church, I'm a bit of a puzzle to lots of my fellow parishoners.
I have pretty deeply held concepts of the Creator, some of which are born out of contemplative Catholic mysticism (Thomas Merton, St. Francis, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, et al). These "let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me" ideas seem to offend the drum-beating evangelical crowd that populates churches in my area. The thought of letting my life and my actions speak of my faith (WITHOUT knocking on my next door neighbor's door at 8:00 on a Saturday morning to TELL them) is very confusing to them.
I also am inspired by the life and teachings of George Fox and the Quaker movement. Although it seems really fractious and divided today, the early concepts were all about having a personal experience with one's Creator, and not just following the motions of faded liturgy.
And finally, I really like the grandeur of the Harvard Divinity School Address, given by R.W. Emerson;
http://www.emersoncentral.com/divaddr.htm
...while much of it is beyond the bounds of what I embrace, it still points at the light to a bunch of intellectual giants who might be 98lb weaklings spiritually. At least, it made them think and search their own heart, beliefs, experience, and it does the same to me.
All that to say, you can't put God in a Box, and it frustrates those who try, when you point out that Box theology doesn't work.
Apologies to those who didn't want to know all this.
Post by: Art Eatman on February 18, 2006, 06:51:53 AM
crt360 said, "They might. Many religious people I know seem to use it (religion) as a balance to their Hedonism."
Yeah, fine; SOME. What I'm talking about is the modern preponderance of hedonism for a great many. They're not looking for balance. They don't want restraint. As usual, I'm talking about "many", not "all".
Art: "Don't believe me? Look at the numbers for credit card debt. Look at the success of TV ads with thier implicit "Gratification now!" and "You deserve..."
crt360: "This is certainly present, but I think it is more the side-effect of "successful" capitalism. I'm certain that had millions of Americans been hammered with $5000-10,, 0% for 1 year, then fixed at 6.8% (but really goes to 27.99% because one of your payments was received a day late) offers daily, back in the 1920s, they'd have been in the same boat."
Yeah, but I'm talking about today. Look at your following statement about available information. If these people USE the available information, they wouldn't get themselves into "hedonistic pickles".
crt360: "I think one of the main factors is the openness and sheer volume of information easily available now. When I was a kid, I either believed what someone told me or I didn't. We had schools with skimpy government approved text books, little school libraries, and TVs that got a few stations. We read newspapers and magazines. There was no other place to learn about things you really were trying to learn about. Thinking back about it, I wonder how we all weren't dumber than dirt."
Well, I graduated from high school in 1951. I learned enough to be independently not-broke by the time I was 45 years sold, back in 1979. For that matter, were the Founding Fathers dumber than dirt?
Information does not create wisdom, nor does great intelligence.crt360: "I also feel similarly to Tallpine regarding the power and control issues of organized religion and I think that this is another big thing which turns many away from the church. Its like another government that you have to subject yourself to, with people, no better than yourself, in higher positions, making decisions that you are expected to support. Some churches are arguably much better than others in this matter, but all churches, by their very nature as gathering places for dozens to thousands of people who want to belong, are magnets for people who want to assert influence and control over others."
True, but that's a people-behavior function. Not all preachers are that way. Not all sects are that way. Face it, you're always gonna find somebody that likes having power over others, whether governmental hired hands or church-biggies. Most of the preachers I've ever known are pretty much live and let live types. Their basic deal is that if you want a good life, believe in your religion and behave accordingly. If A, then B.
A good preacher tries to interpret, not give orders.
, Art
Post by: matis on February 18, 2006, 09:24:36 AM
"Information does not create wisdom, nor does great intelligence."
Some good thoughts in this thread.
But the quote above seems to me to clear away the "expertise" we are now so much at the mercy of -- and opens the way back to the bible wisdom that undergirds and supports Western civilization.
matis
Post by: gunsmith on February 18, 2006, 08:47:24 PM
Post by: cosine on February 18, 2006, 09:15:07 PM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on February 19, 2006, 08:28:09 AM
Quote from: gunsmith
I was raised Catholic and I find church to be real boring and I remember the nuns of my childhood allways slapping me and hitting me with rulers and stuff. I can't remember what I was doing wrong, but I think I wasn't deserving of that kind of treatment. It's really messed me up religious wise, I wan't to go to this Christian church here in Reno (really good looking gals & conservative too) but I can't convert and I don't enjoy the church of my upbringing, I see the Christians fellowship and wish I could take part...sigh...whats a guy to do?
Go, but don't convert. Meet folks. Have coffee, talk, and worship in your own way. That's a lot of what I do.
You can't correct every errant belief that others have, but you can enjoy their company.
They may think the same about you!
Post by: crt360 on February 20, 2006, 02:47:34 PM
Quote
Art: "Don't believe me? Look at the numbers for credit card debt. Look at the success of TV ads with thier implicit "Gratification now!" and "You deserve..."
crt360: "This is certainly present, but I think it is more the side-effect of "successful" capitalism. I'm certain that had millions of Americans been hammered with $5000-10,, 0% for 1 year, then fixed at 6.8% (but really goes to 27.99% because one of your payments was received a day late) offers daily, back in the 1920s, they'd have been in the same boat."
Art: Yeah, but I'm talking about today. Look at your following statement about available information. If these people USE the available information, they wouldn't get themselves into "hedonistic pickles".
True, now that its happened to enough people. But before it became the topic of news, many were abused with interest rates that would be considered usurious and illegal if collected by any other type of business. An exception was created specifically for credit card companies that very few people knew about or should have expected.crt360: "This is certainly present, but I think it is more the side-effect of "successful" capitalism. I'm certain that had millions of Americans been hammered with $5000-10,, 0% for 1 year, then fixed at 6.8% (but really goes to 27.99% because one of your payments was received a day late) offers daily, back in the 1920s, they'd have been in the same boat."
Art: Yeah, but I'm talking about today. Look at your following statement about available information. If these people USE the available information, they wouldn't get themselves into "hedonistic pickles".
Quote
crt360: "I think one of the main factors is the openness and sheer volume of information easily available now. When I was a kid, I either believed what someone told me or I didn't. We had schools with skimpy government approved text books, little school libraries, and TVs that got a few stations. We read newspapers and magazines. There was no other place to learn about things you really were trying to learn about. Thinking back about it, I wonder how we all weren't dumber than dirt."
Art: Well, I graduated from high school in 1951. I learned enough to be independently not-broke by the time I was 45 years sold, back in 1979. For that matter, were the Founding Fathers dumber than dirt? Information does not create wisdom, nor does great intelligence.
That was part of a larger reference to the lack of shared religious information and I was half-joking about being dumber than dirt. Art: Well, I graduated from high school in 1951. I learned enough to be independently not-broke by the time I was 45 years sold, back in 1979. For that matter, were the Founding Fathers dumber than dirt?
Information does not create wisdom, nor does great intelligence. Art, Ive read enough of your posts to respect and envy your undertakings and success. Its true that wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and information are not necessary for getting by. Ive known some people that were very short on those things, but quite successful financially. They keep my profession busy.While information may not create wisdom, wisdom cannot be gained without it.
Quote
Art: True, but that's a people-behavior function. Not all preachers are that way. Not all sects are that way. Face it, you're always gonna find somebody that likes having power over others, whether governmental hired hands or church-biggies. Most of the preachers I've ever known are pretty much live and let live types. Their basic deal is that if you want a good life, believe in your religion and behave accordingly. If A, then B.
A good preacher tries to interpret, not give orders.
I agree. I wasnt particularly dogging on preachers. Ive known quite a few small town preachers that were great guys and had no desire to gain more power or control people. It's pretty easy to spot the bad ones. On a small scale, Im thinking more about congregation and church council members; the ones who bicker over whether the preacher is right for our church or not; the ones who fire the preacher that everyone else likes because his sermons arent monotonous enough. Not to mention the churchladies who think we need to a pitch in for new $20,000 stained glass to outdo the church down the street. On a larger scale, Im talking about the really high-ups who decide which direction the church as a whole will go, what political positions they will take, which people they will not accept in their congregation or ministry, etc. It has been my observation (correct or not) that this was one of the functions of the church from the very beginning - controlling the masses, by telling them what to believe - and I'm afraid there was a little more order-giving and a little less interpreting than we'd like to think.
A good preacher tries to interpret, not give orders.
Post by: Strings on February 22, 2006, 06:15:11 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 22, 2006, 06:21:04 PM
I've known the holier than whoever, and lemme tell you, they have really crappy taste when it comes to design...
Post by: M14rick on February 23, 2006, 03:20:29 AM
I put cigarettes down cold turkey while my younger daghter was in the hospital being treated for periocarditis. She had her twelfth birthday there. I had decided previously that I was on the last pack of regular Camels. and would quit when they were gone. I mention the hospital only because I hear so many people say" I tried to quit, but then this or that happened and I couldn't put them down." Some One helped me, I went from at least a pack a day to zip without hypnosis, patch, gum or whatever.
I have suffered from depression for as long as I remember, now I know what it is. I used alcohol to treat for a long time, until 1998 when I wrecked my patrol car and "resigned". I haven't touched a drop since that night. Again, no twelve step, antabuse, or whatnot. I had to have a Divine Being looking out for me.
I say grace most meals, even when we eat out, and talk with the Lord throughout the day. But I don't attend Church. I used to, and was on the board, and Sunday School superintendent for a few years. I feel that the organised Churches are too much into politics. Some even contribute to anti gun causes.
This is just my feeling......
Post by: Tallpine on February 23, 2006, 05:29:18 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I think the problem is the perception that such controlling people are the norm in such churches. Not the case, really, ...
I guess I must have gone to all the wrong churches, then - because I would say that the power and control game is the norm
Post by: Strings on February 23, 2006, 05:45:25 PM
Guess we have different experiences. no biggie...
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on February 24, 2006, 06:31:49 AM
I share your disdain for the "church politics" game, and while I do attend regularly, I really struggle with it.
There was once a cartoon, I think it was Pogo, that said "I LOVE humanity. It's PEOPLE I can't stand!" :LOL:
Similarly, I struggle with the same feelings about -church synagogue coven ashram- whatever you want to call it.
People should be genuine. Authentic. When it becomes a power play (as it did when the Church leaders became the power structure in the medieval period), then there are conflicting agendas competing for the benefits...personal enlightenment vs. control of the masses vs. wealth vs. spiritual purity vs. building one's own 'cult of personality' vs....whatever the individual agenda priority happens to be.
I guess that's why, despite my entire life in the Protestant church, I am influenced much by contemplative Catholic concepts like "let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me". It's a "from the inside out" thing, instead of what you do that people see (look at HER-- that dress must have cost a thousand dollars...well, I saw HIM going into the Dew Drop Inn last Thursday for Happy Hour!). Screw 'em, what they think. Maybe that's why I am not asked to serve on Deacon committees and such, I probably exude the "I don't DO bureaucracy" aura. Most in my church still show up in suits and dresses. I dress nice, clean, but the same I do the other six days each week: Polos & khakis, no tie. I get a little bit of perverse pleasure in "keeping 'em guessing" and being unable to pigeonhole/stereotype me, but that's my own shortcoming/complexity/issue for the shrink's couch.
God is spirit, and those who would worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
I don't see anything about personal agendas in that statement.
Post by: RealGun on February 25, 2006, 04:01:21 AM
Quote from: TarpleyG
Since when did being a religious/spritual person become not cool?
When they started bringing religion based issues to nonlocal politics and government. Brethren who become very shrill in voicing their views tend to give religion in general a bad rap.
Post by: Tallpine on February 25, 2006, 04:54:32 AM
Post by: Ron on February 25, 2006, 05:41:15 AM
Quote
My observation is that all of the criticisms of the established religion (Sadduces & Pharisees) made by Jesus in the gospels is true of christian churches today sad
And all the criticisms of those without faith that Jesus made are true also There is nothing new under the sun.
I suspect when judgement day comes we won't get the oportunity to deflect blame on to the established religions of the day. We will get a chance to give account of ourselves and it will not make a difference what our opinion is of the church down the street.
Post by: Tallpine on February 25, 2006, 06:46:55 AM
Quote from: GoRon
Quote
My observation is that all of the criticisms of the established religion (Sadduces & Pharisees) made by Jesus in the gospels is true of christian churches today sad
And all the criticisms of those without faith that Jesus made are true also There is nothing new under the sun.
I suspect when judgement day comes we won't get the oportunity to deflect blame on to the established religions of the day. We will get a chance to give account of ourselves and it will not make a difference what our opinion is of the church down the street.
If there is a judgement day, I just hope I will be forgiven for all the misguided things I have taken part in under the influence of churches
Post by: Ron on February 25, 2006, 07:46:54 AM
Quote
More of the same ... you have no idea what faith I may or may not have.
If there is a judgement day, I just hope I will be forgiven for all the misguided things I have taken part in under the influence of churches wink
Don't mistake my point.If there is a judgement day, I just hope I will be forgiven for all the misguided things I have taken part in under the influence of churches wink
The point I was trying to illustrate is that ultimately it is between you and the Creator.
While I also no longer attend church I haven't "thrown out the baby with the bath water".
Using the weakness and evilness of church going folk to try and discredit God is a losing proposition IMHO.
Blaming organized religion for turning you off of reaching for God is like a child blaming his playment for bad behavior they both participated in.
In the day of reckoning I would hope I take responsibilty for my actions and not sound like a petulant child making excuses for my self absorption.
Post by: Tallpine on February 25, 2006, 10:30:56 AM
I simply answered the initial question, followed by some more detailed explanation and comments.
That was followed by some veiled or not so veiled personal attacks on me, which pretty much bears out my original statements.
Whatever god I believe in is big enough not to need anyone defending him/her
In the interest of peace and harmony, I'll be quiet now...
Post by: Ron on February 25, 2006, 11:35:36 AM
Quote
This thread is deterioating, and I don't want to contribute to that ... sad
I simply answered the initial question, followed by some more detailed explanation and comments.
That was followed by some veiled or not so veiled personal attacks on me, which pretty much bears out my original statements.
Whatever god I believe in is big enough not to need anyone defending him/her wink
In the interest of peace and harmony, I'll be quiet now...
By me?I simply answered the initial question, followed by some more detailed explanation and comments.
That was followed by some veiled or not so veiled personal attacks on me, which pretty much bears out my original statements.
Whatever god I believe in is big enough not to need anyone defending him/her wink
In the interest of peace and harmony, I'll be quiet now...
There were no attacks intended vieled or otherwise.
Just observations of my experience, seeing as that is all I have knowledge of, obviously I don't know you or what has gone down in your life.
Sorry you felt things were deteriating, seems to me we probably share more in common when it comes to religious organizitions than you realize.
I just don't hold the religious to higher standards than I hold anyone else. If you do your bound to be dissapointed.
Post by: Strings on February 26, 2006, 08:43:05 PM
*DINGDINGDING* We have a winnah!
That's REALLY the biggest joke with the whole "my god's better than your god!" arguement...