100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Recovering from religious extremism - Religiosity | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
How can '... WHAT IS PERCEIVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR ONE...' which is a legitimate human experience, wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together. What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL. Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL. While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all. Eljay wrote earlier: God did not write the bible - it is "inspired of god". Men wrote the bible as they were moved by the Holy spirit. 'Inspired of god' and 'men moved by the holy spirit', is by no means true or 'THE TRUTH' as it seems to be implied above. It is strictly what 'some' hold as true for themselves through faith and a certain system of beliefs. In reality, those statements belongs to myths, religious doctrine and BELIEFS, and religious dogma. None of it has ever been validated, nor should it be!!! To keep insisting that 'INSPIRED OF GOD' has to be true, so that it can conveniently make 'THE WORD' of the bible infallibly 'THE WORD OF ALL WORDS, THE TRUTH OF ALL TRUTHS', is self-serving and grossly ILLEGITIMATE. Statements from Eljay's previous post: What is incorrect to assume from this - is that the bible is fallable, because men are fallable, for that contradicts the fact that the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God. So - therefore, the fallacy of men is trumped by the infallibility of God, because it defies logic to assume that an omnicient God would not know a mistake would be written by an author writing one of the books of scripture, and by his very nature - could not allow that to happen, so would inspire that author to only account that which He (God) wanted accounted. Illegitimate. Trickery!!! IMHO. You can't discuss faith as though it were fact! We'll end-up with 'creationists' operating on brain tumors with psalms and hymns! Some can't pretend a factual 'god', with infallible words, who inspired certain men to write a 'book', simply to satisfy their insatiable need for certainty!!! Stop confusing faith and fact. Leave faith in the 'personal faith' domain. Don't illegitimately carry it to the PUBLIC domain of fact and logic. Ultimately, simply don't take faith 'litterally', and everything will be fine and dandy!!! Sorry Voile - but you're the magician my friend. Let us point out what is fact here. What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writing - Dear Eljay, if you sincerely suggest that your comment above is 'FACT', I rest my case in the matter of confusing fact and faith. And you win the title of Master Prestigitator!!! The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front. YES! Right. Exactly. Bingo. On the nose. That IS the point I was making. I wasn't "suggesting" anything, just saying exactly what you just wrote. For 0,5 second straight, I thought you had an epiphany!!! And then my brain kick-in! You are suggesting that that the 'claims' within the writings of the book are facts : '... What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writings...'. I said: '... The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front...'. Claims are not facts, and 'writings' in a book, do not make 'claims' facts!!! All there is as 'fact', is a 'book' used by a lot of people to base their personal beliefs upon through personal faith. The beliefs are based on faith. The claims are based on faith. And 'one's' interpretation of the writings as the true word of one's god' is again based on faith. The claims are not facts!!! Through faith, YOU Eljay BELIEVE them to be true for YOU!!! And that is just you. When you imply that it is true period, that becomes an illegitimate statement: incorrectly derived, illogical. True for YOU: yes!!! Just plain true as you keep implying: NO!!! So, I'll send this message, close my eyes, and hope that you will have had a real epiphany when I open my eyes and read your reply. No Voile. I'm the one who admits that the "truth" of the bible is not fact because it lacks emperical proof. (Momentary senior moment if this is the wrong word.) Anyway - you get my point. WHICH by the way is "absolutely true" about an Evolutionary world view. This is how we know there are absolutes. We're both absolutely correct. Therefore, we are in full agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, faith, as it understood in the public domain, is a perfectly legitimate experience. What becomes illegitimate, is suggesting that YOUR faith is substantiated by fact, through 'claims' within 'writings', of a 'book' that is the source of your faith, which, even if it is your faith, it is still part of faith: beliefs unsubstantiated by proof!!! Voileazur...you are once again contradicting yourself ..if you claim that faith is in the public domain then that means that faith can be used anyway one choose to use it and therefore it would still constitute as being a legitimate human experience therefore if one wish to use faith to substantiate writings within a book to be fact and truth for all it would still constitute being an legitimate human experience for them and through them to all others that choose to believe faith can be applied to anything and everything ...so it's either constitute as being a legitimate human experience or it's a fake experience ... funches, If you wish to enter into a dialogue with others, you need to interrupt the monologue you are having with yourself. The DEFINITION of faith, its shared understanding, as the good old 'webster' among others, establishes, IS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. cool ...so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ...so now can you explain why the same doesn't apply to what's written in the old "bible" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. because a religion requires that it believers regard their religion to be the only truth or why would they seek ways to spread the word and a shared belief from another religion suggest that it's not the only truth and automatically blaspheme each other's God and automatically belittles each other's religion this is why "In The Beginning" the omniscient Mingle2 Gods used their omnipotency to create in 6 internet days different forums for different religions Well, for whatever its worth, regardless of whether I know the truth or not,, it doesnt stop me from listening to others,,,without feeling belittled and without being guilty of blaspheme if that was true then you wouldn't have complained about the thread's capacity to belittle others and if you truely wanted to know about Ghandi and whateverrrrrrrrrrrrr...there is always "Google" I didnt complain, quite the contrary, I inquired how we could have a discussion about religious beliefs without BELITTLING each other. Example: one person says ' I believe christ died for our sins and noone gets to see the Father but through the son' the next person says "I believe christ was not the son of God but the human son of Mary and Joseph and that he spoke wisely but did not save us from sin. ...so far noone is belittled,,,, the third person says " there is no proof Christ ever existed, those who believe in him must also believe in santa claus' DING DING DING,,, belittling anothers belief Msharmony...my point is perhaps you should leave what may constitutes "belittlement" to the Mingle2 moderator Gods.....because to do otherwise is to start a witch hunt and place yourself into the role of the Mingle2 Gods and that is blaspheme you are trying to enact what constitute belittlement by your own personal standards...if the Mingle2 Gods have not sent down a lightning bolt e-mail or post up someone's apse... then have faith in them my child |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also , i didnt imply it NEEDED a label , I asked what label might motivate people to come and share instead of belittle MsHarmony....that label would be "The Christian Singles Forum" I think that implies it is JUST for christians. What about those who follow Islam or Buddha or even Ghandi? A forum for people from all faiths to share information about their faith and what it entails would be interesting, I think. because a religion requires that it believers regard their religion to be the only truth or why would they seek ways to spread the word and a shared belief from another religion suggest that it's not the only truth and automatically blaspheme each other's God and automatically belittles each other's religion this is why "In The Beginning" the omniscient Mingle2 Gods used their omnipotency to create in 6 internet days different forums for different religions Well, for whatever its worth, regardless of whether I know the truth or not,, it doesnt stop me from listening to others,,,without feeling belittled and without being guilty of blaspheme if that was true then you wouldn't have complained about the thread's capacity to belittle others and if you truely wanted to know about Ghandi and whateverrrrrrrrrrrrr...there is always "Google" I didnt complain, quite the contrary, I inquired how we could have a discussion about religious beliefs without BELITTLING each other. Example: one person says ' I believe christ died for our sins and noone gets to see the Father but through the son' the next person says "I believe christ was not the son of God but the human son of Mary and Joseph and that he spoke wisely but did not save us from sin. ...so far noone is belittled,,,, the third person says " there is no proof Christ ever existed, those who believe in him must also believe in santa claus' DING DING DING,,, belittling anothers belief Msharmony...my point is perhaps you should leave what may constitutes "belittlement" to the Mingle2 moderator Gods.....because to do otherwise is to start a witch hunt and place yourself into the role of the Mingle2 Gods and that is blaspheme you are trying to enact what constitute belittlement by your own personal standards...if the Mingle2 Gods have not sent down a lightning bolt e-mail or post up someone's apse... then have faith in them my child As much respect as I have for the job the mingle admins have, I was able to determine belittling conversation before I joined and will be pretty capable of doing so after. I think most adults here also are aware of what belittling others is and the admins arent so strict as to not allow it, I think they mostly are concerned with personal attacks, threats, straying off topic,,etc,, I would hope we dont need other adults to moderate how to be civil or respectful to each other,,,,my inquiry was about just that ability that I have FAITH exists in all of us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 01/07/10 01:06 PM
|
|
So, faith, as it understood in the public domain, is a perfectly legitimate experience. What becomes illegitimate, is suggesting that YOUR faith is substantiated by fact, through 'claims' within 'writings', of a 'book' that is the source of your faith, which, even if it is your faith, it is still part of faith: beliefs unsubstantiated by proof!!! Voileazur...you are once again contradicting yourself ..if you claim that faith is in the public domain then that means that faith can be used anyway one choose to use it and therefore it would still constitute as being a legitimate human experience therefore if one wish to use faith to substantiate writings within a book to be fact and truth for all it would still constitute being an legitimate human experience for them and through them to all others that choose to believe faith can be applied to anything and everything ...so it's either constitute as being a legitimate human experience or it's a fake experience ... funches, If you wish to enter into a dialogue with others, you need to interrupt the monologue you are having with yourself. When you claim that I have contradicted myself AGAIN, failing to demonstrate a first contradiction, I would be happy to admit so this time around, but are still failing to bring up the infamous contradiction you accuse me of having committed. Once more, it is you whom are confusing, or again mistranslating what I wrote and what you read, or interpreted from your reading. Your are confusing 'experience of faith', and its 'definition' or 'meaning'. The experience of faith, very much part of the personal and even intimate domains, need not even be discussed, much less justified or proven to others, ... and neither can it be imposed on others (public domain)!!! I have only referred to the DEFINITION, or consensually agreed upon meaning of faith, which I shared in the post where I refer to the public accepted meaning of faith. The DEFINITION of faith, ... its shared understanding or 'official meaning', as the good old 'webster', among others, establishes, ... IS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Without an agreed upon common understanding of the words we use in our communications, no coherent exchanges could ever take place between any of us. So, by our general agreed upon definition of faith: not based on fact nor reason, faith is instrumental in representing what is 'personally' true for each one of us, but faith was never meant (no basis in faith) to represent THE (SAME) TRUTH FOR ALL OF US!!! And that last part is what protestant fundamentalists are transgressing permanently: their truth is the truth for all. It is the illegitimacy of discourse that I am pointing to here. And it is ultimately what this thread points to as a virus, ... that may have have found a cure!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, faith, as it understood in the public domain, is a perfectly legitimate experience. What becomes illegitimate, is suggesting that YOUR faith is substantiated by fact, through 'claims' within 'writings', of a 'book' that is the source of your faith, which, even if it is your faith, it is still part of faith: beliefs unsubstantiated by proof!!! Voileazur...you are once again contradicting yourself ..if you claim that faith is in the public domain then that means that faith can be used anyway one choose to use it and therefore it would still constitute as being a legitimate human experience therefore if one wish to use faith to substantiate writings within a book to be fact and truth for all it would still constitute being an legitimate human experience for them and through them to all others that choose to believe faith can be applied to anything and everything ...so it's either constitute as being a legitimate human experience or it's a fake experience ... funches, If you wish to enter into a dialogue with others, you need to interrupt the monologue you are having with yourself. The DEFINITION of faith, its shared understanding, as the good old 'webster' among others, establishes, IS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. cool ...so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ...so now can you explain why the same doesn't apply to what's written in the old "bible" Again funches, you'll have to tone down the monologue and read the words written on the posts: '...shared understanding...' (consensual agreement on meaning) DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO: '... the truth for all...' If you don't agree with the consensual meaning of faith, and I don't agree with the alternative meaning you propose, WE SIMPLY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A COHERENT OR CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE ON A GIVEN TOPIC. 'Disconnected', parallel monologues perhaps!!! But no possible dialogue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As much respect as I have for the job the mingle admins have, I was able to determine belittling conversation before I joined and will be pretty capable of doing so after. I think most adults here also are aware of what belittling others is and the admins arent so strict as to not allow it, I think they mostly are concerned with personal attacks, threats, straying off topic,,etc,, I would hope we dont need other adults to moderate how to be civil or respectful to each other,,,,my inquiry was about just that ability that I have FAITH exists in all of us MsHarmony.....then list the one or all those that you yourself feel is belittling others |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
funches
on
Thu 01/07/10 01:44 PM
|
|
cool ...so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ...so now can you explain why the same doesn't apply to what's written in the old "bible" Again funches, you'll have to tone down the monologue and read the words written on the posts: '...shared understanding...' (consensual agreement on meaning) DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO: '... the truth for all...' If you don't agree with the consensual meaning of faith, and I don't agree with the alternative meaning you propose, WE SIMPLY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A COHERENT OR CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE ON A GIVEN TOPIC. 'Disconnected', parallel monologues perhaps!!! But no possible dialogue. Voileazur....because you got caught in a hotspot don't blame a monologue take repsonsiblilty for what you posted.... it was you that pointed to old webster...so is old webster truth for all or not ... come on answer the question ...I can wait to read the answer.....this is so exciting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 01/07/10 02:11 PM
|
|
cool ...so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ...so now can you explain why the same doesn't apply to what's written in the old "bible" Again funches, you'll have to tone down the monologue and read the words written on the posts: '...shared understanding...' (consensual agreement on meaning) DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO: '... the truth for all...' If you don't agree with the consensual meaning of faith, and I don't agree with the alternative meaning you propose, WE SIMPLY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A COHERENT OR CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE ON A GIVEN TOPIC. 'Disconnected', parallel monologues perhaps!!! But no possible dialogue. Voileazur....because you got caught in a hotspot don't blame a monologue take repsonsiblilty for what you posted.... it was you that pointed to old webster...so is old webster truth for all or not ... come on answer the question ...I can wait to read the answer.....this is so exciting funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!! Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer What part of: '...shared understanding...' (consensual agreement on meaning) DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO: '... the truth for all...' ... do you not understand??? Caught in a hotspot?!?!? Sounds like a clear case of projection. As for your redundant questions, which I take the time to address because I find you sympathetic, they would be totally avoidable if it weren't for your bad habit of misreading, and mistranslating other people's words and intent. If there is an underlying issue you care to settle with me, spit it out, get it over with, stop beating around the bush, and let's move on. You are making an embarrassment of yourself, ... and I won't tolerate seeing you tarnishing your good repute so. Such a fine lad you are! (No sarcasm intended) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!! Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer Voileazur....the question about old webster wasn't answered because in the last post you tried to hide behind what was written in old webster to give a sort of absolution as to what faith was... again here is the question so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 01/07/10 03:06 PM
|
|
funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!! Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer Voileazur....the question about old webster wasn't answered because in the last post you tried to hide behind what was written in old webster to give a sort of absolution as to what faith was... again here is the question so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ... N O ! '...shared understanding...' , consensual agreement on meaning, is what can be found in the old Webster. It's called a dictionary, and belongs to the category of reference books. It provides references. It is used in referencing. For what you are looking for: '... THE truth for all...', there is no reference, no source, no book, no 'god', no 'one', etc., that has ever provided 'proof', 'facts', or any other form of certainty that there even might be such a thing as 'THE truth for all'!!! To insist in seeking '... The truth for all...' is the ultimate delusional trek!!! And that statement is NOT meant to imply in any way shape or form, that it is 'the truth for all', but certainly what is true for me!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!! Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer Voileazur....the question about old webster wasn't answered because in the last post you tried to hide behind what was written in old webster to give a sort of absolution as to what faith was... again here is the question so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ... N O ! then don't quote from it as if it is |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 01/07/10 03:26 PM
|
|
funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!! Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer Voileazur....the question about old webster wasn't answered because in the last post you tried to hide behind what was written in old webster to give a sort of absolution as to what faith was... again here is the question so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ... N O ! then don't quote from it as if it is You're now just GOOFIN' AROUND!!! Turning in circles of your own making, looking for a way out!!! I NEVER presented a definition as the truth!!! What kind of unfounded and absurd claim is that?!?!? Stop the 'GOOFIN' and fess up. You shuffle words around, take liberties in altering the sense and meaning of simple sentences, and rant on with your internal monologues!!! Other than your personal fabulations, show me where I have written that a definition in the Webster is the truth for all!!! Consensual meaning and understanding of a word ... ... WILL NEVER BE A PRETENSE IMPLYING 'THE TRUTH FOR ALL' !!! If you don't agree with the Webster definition of 'faith' I provided, just provide an alternative definition. If it is founded, and we both agree with it, this insipid exchange will have found a happy ending. If you don't have an alternative definition (no belief, no religion, no holy book, and no 'truth for all' required), then just move on to the your next preferred battle. You've cooked the life out of this one a long time ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Thu 01/07/10 04:05 PM
|
|
funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!! Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer Voileazur....the question about old webster wasn't answered because in the last post you tried to hide behind what was written in old webster to give a sort of absolution as to what faith was... again here is the question so you are saying that what's written in old "webster" is truth for all ... N O ! then don't quote from it as if it is You're now just GOOFIN' AROUND!!! Turning in circles of your own making, looking for a way out!!! I NEVER presented a definition as the truth!!! What kind of unfounded and absurd claim is that?!?!? Stop the 'GOOFIN' and fess up. You shuffle words around, take liberties in altering the sense and meaning of simple sentences, and rant on with your internal monologues!!! Other than your personal fabulations, show me where I have written that a definition in the Webster is the truth for all!!! Consensual meaning and understanding of a word ... ... WILL NEVER BE A PRETENSE IMPLYING 'THE TRUTH FOR ALL' !!! If you don't agree with the Webster definition of 'faith' I provided, just provide an alternative definition. If it is founded, and we both agree with it, this insipid exchange will have found a happy ending. If you don't have an alternative definition (no belief, no religion, no holy book, and no 'truth for all' required), then just move on to the your next preferred battle. You've cooked the life out of this one a long time ago. lol don't pay no mind to funches. No intelligent conversation or anything of any importance ever comes from him, he just comes in here and raises hell and trys to get people angry with him so they will start throwing a fuss out of aggrivation so they'll get in trouble rather then him. Go look at any of his post's expecially in this thread, they are nothing but denying there is a God and says it always in an aggrivating way to get on your nerves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example: one person says ' I believe christ died for our sins and noone gets to see the Father but through the son' the next person says "I believe christ was not the son of God but the human son of Mary and Joseph and that he spoke wisely but did not save us from sin. ...so far noone is belittled,,,, the third person says " there is no proof Christ ever existed, those who believe in him must also believe in santa claus' DING DING DING,,, belittling anothers belief I'm responding to your words as written - perhaps you are referring to a comment which I would find belittling if I saw it in context. Taking your words without context, though, as written....the idea that that is 'belittling' is your perception. To me, that person might simply be being straightforward in their opinion - and while I disagree with the phrase "must also", the basic idea that these beliefs might be comparable seems reasonable to me. Should we be discouraged from expressing such comparisons because someone else might be offended, in their own sensitivity? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example: one person says ' I believe christ died for our sins and noone gets to see the Father but through the son' the next person says "I believe christ was not the son of God but the human son of Mary and Joseph and that he spoke wisely but did not save us from sin. ...so far noone is belittled,,,, the third person says " there is no proof Christ ever existed, those who believe in him must also believe in santa claus' DING DING DING,,, belittling anothers belief I'm responding to your words as written - perhaps you are referring to a comment which I would find belittling if I saw it in context. Taking your words without context, though, as written....the idea that that is 'belittling' is your perception. To me, that person might simply be being straightforward in their opinion - and while I disagree with the phrase "must also", the basic idea that these beliefs might be comparable seems reasonable to me. Should we be discouraged from expressing such comparisons because someone else might be offended, in their own sensitivity? we should be discouraged from personal attacks on specific beliefs IF our purpose is just to share our own,,yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we should be discouraged from personal attacks on specific beliefs IF our purpose is just to share our own,,yes Who decides what is a personal attack? Should we be discouraged from saying anything which might be considered a personal attack by someone? Suppose someone were to say: "Believing in God makes as much sense to me as believing in Santa Clause". Some might consider that a personal attack. I do not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we should be discouraged from personal attacks on specific beliefs IF our purpose is just to share our own,,yes Who decides what is a personal attack? Should we be discouraged from saying anything which might be considered a personal attack by someone? Suppose someone were to say: "Believing in God makes as much sense to me as believing in Santa Clause". Some might consider that a personal attack. I do not. puting aside whether it is an attack, it has little to do with sharing what one DOES believe in regards to their own faith I think it is akin to kindergarten show and tell,, one kid brings a turtle , the other brings a dog,,,,if the kid with the dog says, I think my dog is cooler than a turtle,,,its a comment that has little to do with sharing the dog,,, I understand the philisophical depth of a discussion about what is offensive to whom, but I still have faith that adults have a basic understanding of what it means to talk about oneself and to talk about someone else,, similar with talking about ones faith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, are you saying that if our purpose is just to share out own beliefs, we should draw a line a stop at the point where sharing or own beliefs has more to do with sharing our beliefs about other's beliefs? Am I getting this right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, are you saying that if our purpose is just to share out own beliefs, we should draw a line a stop at the point where sharing or own beliefs has more to do with sharing our beliefs about other's beliefs? Am I getting this right? No, I was suggesting an interest in starting ONE thread with that purpose and asking about what title might draw people to do that (share their beliefs without attacks). |
|
|
|
|
