For all those who believe in Christianity or Some form of it... by RiveR6213

I love my captain

Wow...
I must say that I am impressed. Even with the differeing viewpoints, everones posts are so coalm and respectful.
I avoided the thread for some time becaus, in my experience, religion threads aren't very pleasant places to be. Even after I checked it out though I refrained from commenting because all of these posts are so well thought out. My thoughts on the subject are not nearly so well organized but I rarely have anyone to discuss them with so that's not a huge surprise. Anyway, my thoughts are a little scattered andI really hope I don't sound trollish at any point but I just working out how to put some of this in words as I type it so please bear with me. Also, forgive me my horrible typing and spelling. Much as I love the written word, I can't seem to master it.

First off, I do not believe in the Abrahamic God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim). That is not to say that I deny the possibility of any kind of higher being, I just don't belive in this particular personification. Like many American folk, I was raised Christian (well. semi-christian) but I found that I just couldn't reconsile what was in my head and my heart with what I was finding at church and in the bible. So I started to look...and am still looking. I'm kind og building my own hodgpodge of personal beliefs. Hell, and evil for instance. Like most people, I beleive in evil, but I do not beleive in som external, ultimate evil that causes us to do bad things. So no devil, Temptation comes from within ourselves as does evil and if a hell exists it is a construct of humanity. That being said, I have a fairly strong morla compass and try to live my life as best I can and I don't think I will be going to whatever hell there may be. Hoever, I don't really care for the idea of heaven either. Eternity always seemed like it would get boring to me, especially an eternitly in the same setting. However nice and interesting it is at first, it would get old after a couple of centuries. That's why the idea of reincarnation is more appealing to me. You get to get new experiences from a new perspective. No time to get bored. If there is some kind of "heaven" I see it as more of a rest stop between lives kind of place.
Of course, the athiests could be right and we might just end when we die. I don't think that's such a scary idea though. If this is all we have than it makes every moment that much more precious and wonderful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I don't disagree with you that people have done a lot of horrendous things in the name of religion. But all the world's problems? Maybe you were being hyperbolic--do you seriously think that every single problem everywhere in the world is attributable to religion?

Yes

Wow...so then I have a few follow up questions:

1) How are China's human rights violations attributable to religion? Their government is atheist by policy.

2) How are natural evils, like disease or natural disasters attributable to religion?

3) Are all the world's problems attributable to a certain religion? Just to organized religion? To any form of spirituality?

4) How would you sugggest that someone like myself, a religious believer, take your assertion that all the world's problems are attributable to religion? That's got the potential to be more than a little offensive...

5) How is such a view compatible with religious tolerance? Or do you, with Richard Dawkins, affirm that religious believers should not be extended tolerance?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:36 PM

CONSTANCE

Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
Wow...
I must say that I am impressed. Even with the differeing viewpoints, everones posts are so coalm and respectful.
I avoided the thread for some time becaus, in my experience, religion threads aren't very pleasant places to be. Even after I checked it out though I refrained from commenting because all of these posts are so well thought out. My thoughts on the subject are not nearly so well organized but I rarely have anyone to discuss them with so that's not a huge surprise. Anyway, my thoughts are a little scattered andI really hope I don't sound trollish at any point but I just working out how to put some of this in words as I type it so please bear with me. Also, forgive me my horrible typing and spelling. Much as I love the written word, I can't seem to master it.

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

isn't it nice though? To be able to discuss these things in an orderly and civil manner? I'm so happy to be able to converse with these wonderful and intelligent people.

And raidok: If I ever find myself believing in some higher power I will stand for that too. I am a very proud person (one of my sins) but I'm not as proud that I cant admit to a change in beliefs. I'm not sure I will seek out faith. Faith being what it is it will come to me I think. I do not know what is holding me back from as you say accepting the freedom offered by Christ, except me being a very materialistic person (not in the I love things and stuff way, but the other kind) and frightfully independent. Those two combined makes it hard to believe in anything

Constance

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Only I would be dumb enough to go head to head about philosophy with a philosopher by trade.

But I'm a friendly philosopher!

Quote:
Hmmm. How does this apply to Schroedinger's cat? Is it really just our not knowing the outcome before we see it or is there actually a temporal ambiguity involved?

*sigh* Schrodinger's cat. The trouble with that damned cat is that it's nearly impossible to explain it or understand it unless you've got a background in theoretical physics (which I do not). As I understand it, it seems to turn on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, so we can't observe the experiment without affecting its outcome. Then you do the hokey pokey and stick in some theoretical physics and you say that until you open the box, the cat's neither alive nor dead, nor not-alive nor not-dead; its status is ambiguous until you open the box. I won't even pretend to be able to hang with the physics, but I can say this about the philosophy of the thing: I think we can understand the ambiguity as one of metaphysics or as one of epistemology.

If it's one of metaphysics, then I have to reject the idea that its ontological status is ambiguous. Something went into a box, something may or may not have happened. The cat may or may not be alive. But something happened. But to suggest that somehow our not being able to observe changed its ontological status is just silly (but that's just my non-physicist take on things).

Or we could take this as an epistemological question. Do we know whether the cat is alive or dead? How could we know? What conditions would be necessary for knowing? These are epistemological questions. And as far as the epistemological question goes, I think that there's really know good way to know whether the cat is alive or dead. If it's truly a 50/50 chance, then there's absolutely nothing that we can say that will be more justified than the alternative. So epistemic status of the question of whether the cat is alive or dead is utterly ambiguous and unresolvable unless we open the box. But the cat's ontological status is a different issue. Clear as mud?

Quote:
I can use logic (I can use logic), but my contention is that perhaps reality is not logical and therefore might best not be viewed as such.

Well, dang it. Once again we've confused two different senses of the word "logical."

There are several dictionary definitions of logical:
1a1) of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic
1a2) skilled in logic
1b) formally true or valid
2) capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion

You'll notice that all of these definitions have to do with adherence to the principles of logical thought. The universe doesn't think, so it can't be said to be logical. The trouble is that most people use the word logical to mean "unmysterious," "known to be factual," or "being in accordance with what is known." But none of these things have to do with the principles of logic.

So when I say that logic is one of the foundational principles of the universe, you have to understand that I'm not using the word in its vernacular sense. I'm using it to mean that those rules that govern proper thinking are encoded into the very fabric of the universe. If you want to argue about whether logical truths are necessary ones, we can certainly do that, but up to this point, we haven't even been arguing the same thing, because we're using different definitions of "logic" and "logical."

Quote:
All we know of reality is what we make of it in our own heads. I think you are real therefore you are real to me. Tomorrow I might realize my schizophrenia and stop posting messages to my favorite imaginary philosopher.

The key word in this, though is "know." You're right: all we know of reality is what we subjectively experience. But again, this is an epistemological claim, not a metaphysical one. There really is some thing real. And to the extent that our beliefs accurately map onto that reality, they are true. To the extent that they do not, they are false. But note that reality is what gives truth value to our beliefs. Our beliefs do not make or unmake what is, in fact real (that is, no amount of believing, "The sun is down" will make that be true if you are standing in broad daylight). And in this claim, you're talking epistemology, not metaphysics. It could turn out that there really is no philosopher making these assertions; I really could be imaginary. But what controls the truth value of your beliefs about me is the reality of me.

Quote:
I "know" that the infinite cannot be quantified, except by artifice, and so in the absence of logic, there is no paradox in denying the law of contradiction.

Better be careful here--not everyone believes that there is such a thing as the actually infinite. Some philosophers think that there are only potential infinites. If that's the case, then maybe logic is safe.
But I'm not a philosopher of mathematics so I can't really speak to the implications of the infinite for the rules of logic.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

Casaul - I said "Organized Religion". Not religious people. Organized Religions are instituions. Institutions full of hypocrites. I don't have much respect for the Catholic church, doesn't mean I hate Catholics (since I am one). If you can't see the difference then I am trully sorry.

eta: Believe it or not, my dislike of Organized religion stems from the teachings of Jesus himself.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Well there shall be no surprises for me. Hell is where I will go if there is a hell to go to and if there isn't anything to go to, and when we die, we're dead...I will be busy being dead to notice, therefore I won't be in a position to be disappointed or let down. Don't get me wrong. I don't relish the idea of going to a place where there is eternal suffering and pain for finite actions here in this dimension, but it seems that this is my lot. I say this because I know my nature, and that nature is evil, or at least selfishness in a petty sort of way. I am not one to be given a lot of power and not abuse it to make someone else suffer. I notice this as I conduct business with other people and other companies; I'm shrewd and a back-stabber when it gets right down to it. I am not one to be trusted, nor one you would care to turn your back on. If this isn't hell material I don't know what is.

And FutureMrsFillion, one doesn't have to be a Hitler to be evil. Sometimes ultimate evil comes in the form of some small, selfish act that cause pain and suffering to those around you in a manner that effects their course in life, which produces a result that is devastating in the long run. I am not Goose-stepping, in your face evil, but I am petty and evil enough to do damage to others; we all are when it gets right down to it.

Hell is where I am slated to go, and hell is what awaits, and there is nothing in this 'verse that can stop it.

*BTW, Causal, I didn't know you were such a deep thinker*

-River

You may be petty and selfish

But it you were REALLY evil, you wouldn't even think about it. You "worry" (and I use that term to mean thinking about it to a great extent) about being evil.

I am not saying you are Mother Teresa, but I am not seeing evil.

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

Casaul - I said "Organized Religion". Not religious people. Organized Religions are instituions. Institutions full of hypocrites. I don't have much respect for the Catholic church, doesn't mean I hate Catholics (since I am one). If you can't see the difference then I am trully sorry.

eta: Believe it or not, my dislike of Organized religion stems from the teachings of Jesus himself.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

Well, with all due respect, he's not saying, "Don't pray like the people who are in organized religion." He's saying, "Don't pray like the hypocrites." And you might say that they're just the same thing, but that can't be the case: I've know plenty of areligious hypocrites. You don't have to belong to a religion to be a hypocrite.

I guess what hurts is that you must think I'm an awful big fool for buying into an "organized religion." Because if, in fact, organized religion is responsible for every single problem in the world, I'm complicit. Because I give "organized religion" my time, money and effort.

Plus, you must think that "organized religion" is really, really powerful. Human history accounts for only about 0.001% of the total history of the earth. And there was animal pain and suffering long before humans came along with organized religion. And there were earthquakes and tsunamis and tornados long before organized religion. Am I to understand that organized religion was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs? Surely isn't somehow secretly responsible for plane crashes? Is organized religion to blame for miscarriages? How has organized religion played into global warming? Isn't industrialization and capitalism mostly to blame for that? Surely it can't be the case that every single bad thing that ever has happened and ever will happen is the fault of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Casual, you asked a question I answered it. I don't feel that it requires further discussion. By doing so it would mean one of 2 things - (a) I am uncertain about my beliefs and would therefore have to convince myself through my answers to you or (b) that I worried whether or not you approve or agree with my beliefs - since neither is the case, I am afraid that your follow-up questions will go unanswered.

FMF, I'm not sure I agree that answering my questions means those things. I asked the questions not to imply that you're uncertain of your beliefs or because I think you should worry about my approval. I asked those questions because I was hurt and offended by what you said, and I was hoping for some clarification. I like you, and I've enjoyed your contributions to the boards, but after what you said, I don't know how I'm going to be able to see you around the boards without simultaneously thinking that you have no respect for me and my faith, and that, furthermore, you're holding me responsible for all the problems in the world. I hope that you can understand how that would be very, VERY hurtful to me.

Casaul - I said "Organized Religion". Not religious people. Organized Religions are instituions. Institutions full of hypocrites. I don't have much respect for the Catholic church, doesn't mean I hate Catholics (since I am one). If you can't see the difference then I am trully sorry.

eta: Believe it or not, my dislike of Organized religion stems from the teachings of Jesus himself.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

I guess what hurts is that you must think I'm an awful big fool for buying into an "organized religion." Because if, in fact, organized religion is responsible for every single problem in the world, I'm complicit. Because I give "organized religion" my time, money and effort.

Plus, you must think that "organized religion" is really, really powerful. Human history accounts for only about 0.001% of the total history of the earth. And there was animal pain and suffering long before humans came along with organized religion. And there were earthquakes and tsunamis and tornados long before organized religion. Am I to understand that organized religion was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs? Surely isn't somehow secretly responsible for plane crashes? Is organized religion to blame for miscarriages? How has organized religion played into global warming? Isn't industrialization and capitalism mostly to blame for that? Surely it can't be the case that every single bad thing that ever has happened and ever will happen is the fault of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

Not so. You said that you believe that all the world's problems are directly attributable to religion. But how is religion to blame for natural disasters? Or accidents? Or how could you hold religion accountable for something like the Holocaust? Hitler wasn't religiously motivated to kill the Jews--he was motivated in equal parts by cock-eyed mythology and quasi-science. Obtuse? You claimed that every single problem is attributable to religion. But Stalin was an atheist. He didn't kill millions of his own countrymen in the name of religion, but in the name of his own personal power. Obtuse you say? I'd say that what is really the case is that I don't understand how you could attribute West Nile Virus or AIDS to religion. So if you think I'm being obtuse, maybe I just don't properly understand the word "all" or I don't understand the word "problem." I asked for clarification. I eagerly await a reply. But if you won't communicate, how else am I to understand what "all" and "problem" constitute?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:32 PM

http://homepages.roadrunner.com/wydraz/firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

Not so. You said that you believe that all the world's problems are directly attributable to religion. But how is religion to blame for natural disasters? Or accidents? Or how could you hold religion accountable for something like the Holocaust? Hitler wasn't religiously motivated to kill the Jews--he was motivated in equal parts by cock-eyed mythology and quasi-science. Obtuse? You claimed that every single problem is attributable to religion. But Stalin was an atheist. He didn't kill millions of his own countrymen in the name of religion, but in the name of his own personal power. Obtuse you say? I'd say that what is really the case is that I don't understand how you could attribute West Nile Virus or AIDS to religion. So if you think I'm being obtuse, maybe I just don't properly understand the word "all" or I don't understand the word "problem." I asked for clarification. I eagerly await a reply. But if you won't communicate, how else am I to understand what "all" and "problem" constitute?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

And I have explained that I do not have to clarify what I believe to you. I have never asked you to clarify your religious beliefs - have I? You asked me a question and I answered it.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:41 PM

GREENFAERIE

RIVER6213, if you think you're going to Hell, well, I guess you are. No one here can stop you. But while you're there, alone and lonesome, think about leaving. No matter how bad you think you are, if you know you can be better, then you can, and maybe Hell is just a stopover for your next journey. Don't stay there too long. We'll miss you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
And I have explained that I do not have to clarify what I believe to you. I have never asked you to clarify your religious beliefs - have I? You asked me a question and I answered it.

Never said you had to. Just hoped you would because all this business is tremendously distressing to me. I expect an extremist like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to pile the blame on religion, but even they won't go so far as to fix the blame for natural evils on religion. "Organized religion" has only really been around for about 4,000 years. Did the human race not have problems before that? The upshot of all this is that I feel discriminated against, because I am, after all, a person belonging to an organized religion. How is what you're saying any different than blaming all your woes on some racial group? How could religion possibly be to blame for all the world's problems? What I hope is that you are not as extreme as you sound, because I have always enjoyed your presence on the boards. But you refuse to allay my fears by saying that there's even a single bad thing in this world that isn't the fault of organized religion. Much evil has been done in the name of religion to be sure. But not all evil. And if that's what you truly believe then I can't see how you could possibly have any respect for me or anyone else who believes in some one of your dreaded "organized religion."

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
And I have explained that I do not have to clarify what I believe to you. I have never asked you to clarify your religious beliefs - have I? You asked me a question and I answered it.

Never said you had to. Just hoped you would because all this business is tremendously distressing to me. I expect an extremist like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to pile the blame on religion, but even they won't go so far as to fix the blame for natural evils on religion. "Organized religion" has only really been around for about 4,000 years. Did the human race not have problems before that? The upshot of all this is that I feel discriminated against, because I am, after all, a person belonging to an organized religion. How is what you're saying any different than blaming all your woes on some racial group? How could religion possibly be to blame for all the world's problems? What I hope is that you are not as extreme as you sound, because I have always enjoyed your presence on the boards. But you refuse to allay my fears by saying that there's even a single bad thing in this world that isn't the fault of organized religion. Much evil has been done in the name of religion to be sure. But not all evil. And if that's what you truly believe then I can't see how you could possibly have any respect for me or anyone else who believes in some one of your dreaded "organized religion."

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

Ok, I have been attempting to ignore you, because this was a pleasant thread with everyone allowing everyone to have their beliefs. But you just won't let up. As usual, EVERYTHING is about you. So here ya go - ORGANIZED RELIGION - meaning an INSTITUTION - of all types are DIRECTLY repsonsible for - among others poverty, oppression, racism, bigotry, hate crimes, homophobia, slavery, murder, death, imprisonment, tortue, the unequal distribution of wealth, corruption, malfeasance, war, disease, inadequate education.......do I really need to go on?

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:

You may be petty and selfish

But if you were REALLY evil, you wouldn't even think about it. You "worry" (and I use that term to mean thinking about it to a great extent) about being evil.

I am not saying you are Mother Teresa, but I am not seeing evil.

What?!? You guys are still discussing stuff in this thread? I thought this thread would have died out fast, but I guess I was wrong, and FutureMrsFillion you appear to be weighing in here nicely I might add.

Anyway thanks for for your posts, but I and I alone know my fate. You are not seeing the evil in me because you only see what I write. You don't see the evil because you don't have to deal with me day after day in person, but if you did, you would be singing a different tune I can assure you of that, but thank you for attempting to see the good side of what you perceive as me. Also, I don't feel sad, nor bad about myself. Just because I'm evil doesn't make me a miserable person. Remember...I completed my revenge mission against humanity, so I'm doing good. I just know I'm going to hell and that's okay by me. Everyone sooner or later get what they deserve.

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:17 PM

FMF-

Well, I'm sorry that you have the impression that I think that everything always has to be about me. I didn't know you felt that way, and I wish that you'd told me that before, because I haven't had many complaints about me trying to make everything be about me. I'd be grateful if you'd IM me and let me know why you think that, because I certainly don't want to be accused of doing that again.

I want to let everyone have their own beliefs. The issue that I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand yours. That's clearly the case because you called me "obtuse" at one point. I was so clearly in the dark that an insult was warranted, apparently. The reason I kept pressing you was not because I think you're necessarily wrong, but because I didn't understand and I wanted--very badly--to understand. Because I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. It just didn't make any sense to me. I felt like I must not be understanding you clearly if I could consistently miss the point like that. I'm not accustomed to not being able to grasp the basics of a thing, even if I disagree with it. But I couldn't grasp what you were saying. That's why I pressed you--and not because I wanted to say that you were wrong.

It seems to be the case that what you are decrying isn't what I thought it was--hence the confusion on my part. In your last post you further refined what you were saying to "institutions of all types"--and that makes much more sense to me. I suppose that if you're using "organized religion" to mean "institutions of all types" then I think that there's a great deal of merit in what you say. Everytime a group of people get together to regulate things, power is imbalanced: a few people have more than others. And it seems like every time that's happened, horrible consequences have followed. Take the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet purges--all abuses perpetrated by institutions on the powerless (albeit for different ideological ends). I'm curious if you've done any thinking about what it is about institutional organization that makes this happen? Might there be a way to approach the problems that institutions try to solve in a way that won't create the problems of an institution?

Also, I want to apologize for your perception that I've been mean or condescending or overly zealous in my pursuit of an answer. You said that you were upset because the thread had been going along nicely "with everyone allowed to have their beliefs" until I pressed you. I hope you can look back at the thread and understand that I'm not trying to change your beliefs--I'm trying to understand them. I'm very sorry indeed if that came off as mean or selfish, and I hope that you can forgive me for that. I don't want to make an enemy of you because, as I say, I've only enjoyed your presence on these boards to this point. And please, I hope you will take me up on my request to explain what it means that "As usual, everything is about you." I don't want to be tagged as trouble maker around here, and if this is your impression of me, I'd really like to know why, so I can address it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
FMF-

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that everything always has to be about me. I didn't know you felt that way, and I wish that you'd told me that before, because I haven't had many complaints about me trying to make everything be about me. I'd be grateful if you'd IM me and let me know why you think that, because I certainly don't want to be accused of doing that again.

I want to let everyone have their own beliefs. The issue that I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand yours. That's clearly the case because you called me "obtuse" at one point. I was so clearly in the dark that an insult was warranted, apparently. The reason I kept pressing you was not because I think you're necessarily wrong, but because I didn't understand and I wanted--very badly--to understand. Because I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. It just didn't make any sense to me. I felt like I must not be understanding you clearly if I could consistently miss the point like that. I'm not accustomed to not being able to grasp the basics of a thing, even if I disagree with it. But I couldn't grasp what you were saying. That's why I pressed you--and not because I wanted to say that you were wrong.

It seems to be the case that what you are decrying isn't what I thought it was--hence the confusion on my part. In your last post you further refined what you were saying to "institutions of all types"--and that makes much more sense to me. I suppose that if you're using "organized religion" to mean "institutions of all types" then I think that there's a great deal of merit in what you say. Everytime a group of people get together to regulate things, power is imbalanced: a few people have more than others. And it seems like every time that's happened, horrible consequences have followed. Take the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet purges--all abuses perpetrated by institutions on the powerless (albeit for different ideological ends). I'm curious if you've done any thinking about what it is about institutional organization that makes this happen? Might there be a way to approach the problems that institutions try to solve in a way that won't create the problems of an institution?

Also, I want to apologize for your perception that I've been mean or condescending or overly zealous in my pursuit of an answer. You said that you were upset because the thread had been going along nicely "with everyone allowed to have their beliefs" until I pressed you. I hope you can look back at the thread and understand that I'm not trying to change your beliefs--I'm trying to understand them. I'm very sorry indeed if that came off as mean or selfish, and I hope that you can forgive me for that. I don't want to make an enemy of you because, as I say, I've only enjoyed your presence on these boards to this point. And please, I hope you will take me up on my request to explain what it means that "As usual, everything is about you." I don't want to be tagged as trouble maker around here, and if this is your impression of me, I'd really like to know why, so I can address it.

institutions of all types of religion

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
institutions of all types of religion

But what about Stalin?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:22 PM

This is not looking good...

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GreenFaerie:
RIVER6213, if you think you're going to Hell, well, I guess you are. No one here can stop you. But while you're there, alone and lonesome, think about leaving. No matter how bad you think you are, if you know you can be better, then you can, and maybe Hell is just a stopover for your next journey. Don't stay there too long. We'll miss you.

http://homepages.roadrunner.com/wydraz/firefly

Thank you for that, but from what I've read hell is not a "stop over" People who go there stay there and complain about the lack of drinks forever...

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
institutions of all types of religion

Let me make a last stab at trying to understand you. I don't want to be upset with you, and I don't want to walk away from the thread feeling hurt and offended. I certainly don't want you to be upset, hurt or offended.

The whole issue for me boils down to this: I don't understand how it's possible for every problem of the human race to be attributable to religion. That's why I use the Stalin example. He visited untold suffering on the Soviet nation, but I can't see how there's a religious link in there. If you can help me understand where you see the religious link in there, I think it would help me understand where you're coming from. My project isn't to beat you in an argument--it's to understand what it means to you to say all problems are the fault of religion. I can't see how that could be, and I'm asking you to help me understand what you mean when you say that.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:44 PM

I love my captain

Casual and FMF. Please just let it go.
While I have enjoyed both of your posts here and elsewhere I'm not sure you are going to be able to resolve this on this thread. I know religion is a very personal subject for most folks but please don't let this wonderful and thoughtful thread go the way of most RWED threads. If you feel the need to continue your discussion, perhaps you should try e-mail or IM.

Respectfully, Kayna

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
Casual and FMF. Please just let it go.
It doesn't look like you are going to be able to resolve this on this thread and while I have enjoyed both of your posts here and elsewhere, now you just appear to be arguing with each other. I know religion is a very personal subject for most folks but please don't let this wonderful and thoughtful thread most RWED threads. If you feel the need to continue your discussion, perhaps you should try e-mail or IM.

Respectfully, Kayna

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

Preachin to the choir Kayna!

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:49 PM

I love my captain

Sorry. Accidental post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
Casual and FMF. Please just let it go.
While I have enjoyed both of your posts here and elsewhere I'm not sure you are going to be able to resolve this on this thread. I know religion is a very personal subject for most folks but please don't let this wonderful and thoughtful thread go the way of most RWED threads. If you feel the need to continue your discussion, perhaps you should try e-mail or IM.

Respectfully, Kayna

I just want to understand. That's all--to understand. Because I think that understanding someone--even if I disagree with them--is the best way to remain civil even in the face of disagreement. FMF has truly wounded me deeply. And I want to understand where she's coming from so that that doesn't get carried out of this thread into the rest of FFF.net. Is that such a bad thing?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Preachin to the choir Kayna!

I just want to understand!!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:54 PM

I love my captain

Of course, it's not a bad thing. That is why I suggested you could try and continue this discussion elsewhere. I get where you are coming from and I also understand FMFs view somewhat but it could take a while to get to the end of it and while I understand that you are not trying to argue, it can come across that way and turn people off of the thread. I don't mean to upset either of you further.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:55 PM

You guys it's just a topic. In the end it really means nothing, and is nothing more than words on a screen. Not worth getting into a conflict over.

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:10 PM

Well, with that I think the posts here in this thread is over. Good one everyone, and have a nice day.

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:28 PM

ZOID

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
You guys it's just a topic. In the end it really means nothing, and is nothing more than words on a screen. Not worth getting into a conflict over.

-River

You trip me out. In a good way.

On the one hand, you talk about nuking all of humanity and completing your "revenge mission against humanity". On the other hand, you worry about Causal and FutureMrsFillion doing each other hurt over a simple matter of semantics...

That's just plain erratic, but in a way, very sweet.

So, I figure you are one (or more) of the following (in no particular order):
1. Not taking your meds as prescribed
2. Really a big softy, but who takes out her frustrations with the day-to-day by fantasizing online that she's an evil bitch
4. Actually an evil bitch, but just can't quite shake the instinct to care about others
12. Able to count much better than I.

In any case, you are very mysterious, in a Mata Hari sort of way; you never knew if she was going to belly-dance or poison everyone's drinks. So you've got that going for you...

Mesmerized-ly,

zoid

P.S.
To Causal:
Are you a successfully married man? How can you possibly be missing all of FMF's cues like this? When a woman says 'no', she means 'NO!'.

Your response makes perfect sense to me, but you must realize that by persisting in questioning her, you are pushing yourself on her in a way that feels like violation, to her.

There comes a time (or a million) when every married man comes up against his wife's steadfast refusal to 'make sense' to our satisfaction. The successfully married man knows when to drop the subject like a hunk o' molten lead and go outside and wash her car (because we are curs for not realizing this sooner). With any sort of luck -- and a proper demeanor of contrition -- she will eventually begin to talk to us again (hopefully, before we get a first-hand answer to the topic of this thread).

Sheesh! Some guys can be so obtuse!
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
You guys it's just a topic. In the end it really means nothing, and is nothing more than words on a screen. Not worth getting into a conflict over.

-River

You trip me out. In a good way.

On the one hand, you talk about nuking all of humanity and completing your "revenge mission against humanity". On the other hand, you worry about Causal and FutureMrsFillion doing each other hurt over a simple matter of semantics...

That's just plain erratic, but in a way, very sweet.

So, I figure you are one (or more) of the following (in no particular order):
1. Not taking your meds as prescribed
2. Really a big softy, but who takes out her frustrations with the day-to-day by fantasizing online that she's an evil bitch
4. Actually an evil bitch, but just can't quite shake the instinct to care about others
12. Able to count much better than I.

In any case, you are very mysterious, in a Mata Hari sort of way; you never knew if she was going to belly-dance or poison everyone's drinks. So you've got that going for you...

Mesmerized-ly,

zoid

Erratic?
Yes, I admit that I'm erratic, but It's better than being predictable would you not agree? And yes, I have gone off of my anti-depressants and bipolar medications. Is it that obvious? Also, I would not, or do not see myself as a "Big softy" in any way, shape or form, and yes I am a total, evil bitch, but since this is not a black and white universe even I have layers. Sure I want to nuke humanity into dust, but watching that handsome Casual, and that wonderful FutureMrsFillion go at it the way they were got too me on a personal level. They were also turning a thread that had been humming along quite well for two days into a fight ready to happen that would have tumbled it off into Troll Country, which in a strange way would have bothered me.

I can understand Causal's need to understand where FMF was coming from but she made it clear that for now at least she was not going to give up her hand. Causal's mistake was he attempted to push to get the information to the end. FMF drew a line in the sand and said "This far and no further" and Causal did not heed it. He does not come off as a bad guy in any way...he just seems to think a lot and is VERY opinionated about his thoughts and position, though I do think, and believe in this case he did have good intentions, it didn't produce the result that he was looking for, and it put FMF in a defensive position to justify her belief structure to him, which can seem to come off as an arrogant move and make anyone want to back off from the situation. Over all if allowed to continue would have ended this thread into Troll Country.

Anyhow. I do care about some things in this life even though I'm completely evil. Evil people need love too in case you haven't noticed. Just because I'm going to go to hell doesn't mean that I have lost the capacity to love or have compassion.

The whole Causal and FMF situation was really an empty affair with no winners and no losers. It was just an unfortunate misunderstanding, or that's how I see it, but what do I know?

Thank you for your observation and opinion.

P.S. BTW, the character "Xander" was able to stop Dark Willow from destroying the planet by telling her that he loved her and triggering off that spark of humanity within her. It would not have been the same if I had been all "Juiced up" with Dark magicks, and was dead set on destroying the world. There would have been no one to stop me; not one soul. There would have been no trusting soul that I knew that would show up and say "I love you so I'm going to die with you even though you are about to destroy the world"

I say this to you because I want you to get a clear picture of my mind set. Are we all on the same page now?

And with that said i believe that this thread has concluded itself, and once again thank you everyone for having participated in it.

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 18, 2007 10:01 PM

RAIDOK

Hello Constance, and I agree...this kind of discussion shouldn't ever be, and certainly doesn't have to be nasty on any level, and the obvious truth is that no one will even want to believe something when the person representing it doesn't practice what they preach, and certainly will not want to believe if something is forced on them, or compelled in any way. We all have an innate desire to learn the truth...and the Bible says if we seek God we will find Him. So, it is the questioning, the seeking that is most important. Please never stop.

I know that each person, if they will come to have faith in Christ, will do so when they are meant to, and it can be a completely different set of experiences or turn of events that lead a person there, but I do pray that one day you will come to believe Christ and what He did for the world, for you. It is never too late while you live and I pray you live a long and fruitful life.

Other than my prayers for you and any others who does not believe in Christ...I believe you are a sincere person, from what I have seen, and I only wish you the best that life has to offer.

Take Care and Be Safe!!
Until next time,

God Bless you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 4:03 AM

Sorry, everybody. This seems to be my fault, so before I bow out completely, I'll just say: I'm sorry.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:07 AM

LEADB

< decided it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. deleted. >

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:20 AM

CONSTANCE

Im not the one with the long answers and the most knowledge of these matters. I only know that the only thing I can call myself is an atheist, cause I dont believe in any deity of any kind. It is a belief, but im not shure I would call it a religion... And I didnt arrive at this by a leap of faith.. I have never believed in God, I have never belonged to a church (Im not christened or however you spell it), my parents werent religious. 6 years of saying the lords prayer everyday as a start of the school day, saying grace before lunch and haveing a rather good education when the bible and christianity was concerned did nothing to change that either. I have never felt the need to believe in something higher than myself, I have wanted too cause it seemed so comforting and interesting but no religion gave any ressonance in my heart or "soul" (we can debate the existense of the soul another time). I called myself an agnostic for several years because it seemed so boring and final to call one self an atheist.. but I had to face it in the end.. I dont believe in any god. That does not mean I never will.
But yes atheism is a belief. Noone can be sure. I only believe there is no god, I cant say that I know there is no god.

Constance

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:03 PM

I think that the only way to leave here with any kind of integrity left is to own up to my mistakes. Then, at least, I can have a clear conscience about the thing.

FMF, I was wrong to pursue you with questions--to badger you with them, in fact--when it was clear that you didn't want to talk about it. My motives in doing so are entirely immaterial; I should just have accepted that you didn't want to discuss it and left it at that. I was pushy, and not very sensitive to your desires, and for that I am deeply sorry. I don't know how you're feeling in the aftermath of all this, but I do hope that you can find the grace to forgive my insensitivity.

To the rest of the folks on this thread, I'm sorry that I let things go downhill so very badly. I feel pretty awful about wrecking what was otherwise a pretty nice discussion. Again, motives are entirely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that I let my desire to understand overwhelm my desire to keep the tone of the discussion at a manageable level. I feel terrible for having done so, and I hope that I can receive the grace of forgiveness for it.

--Caleb

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kayna:
Wow...
I must say that I am impressed. Even with the differeing viewpoints, everones posts are so coalm and respectful.
I avoided the thread for some time becaus, in my experience, religion threads aren't very pleasant places to be. Even after I checked it out though I refrained from commenting because all of these posts are so well thought out. My thoughts on the subject are not nearly so well organized but I rarely have anyone to discuss them with so that's not a huge surprise. Anyway, my thoughts are a little scattered andI really hope I don't sound trollish at any point but I just working out how to put some of this in words as I type it so please bear with me. Also, forgive me my horrible typing and spelling. Much as I love the written word, I can't seem to master it.

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

isn't it nice though? To be able to discuss these things in an orderly and civil manner? I'm so happy to be able to converse with these wonderful and intelligent people.

And raidok: If I ever find myself believing in some higher power I will stand for that too. I am a very proud person (one of my sins) but I'm not as proud that I cant admit to a change in beliefs. I'm not sure I will seek out faith. Faith being what it is it will come to me I think. I do not know what is holding me back from as you say accepting the freedom offered by Christ, except me being a very materialistic person (not in the I love things and stuff way, but the other kind) and frightfully independent. Those two combined makes it hard to believe in anything

Constance

I wouldn't actually call myself religious, nor do I consider myself a Christian. I think you can believe some aspects of a religion without actually believing in that religion. I'm not certain when I picked up all the Heaven and Hell stuff, but it seems to feel right based on how I see humanity as a whole and it's collective behaviors, plus my own contribution to this half-way house of a place we like to call Earth. The whole idea of Heaven and Hell seems about right, though I can't prove any of it.

The whole idea of the Christian God and his son who is God at the same time plus them both being this holy spirit is a little confusing, but there is no way that I can accept that this God has my best interest in mind. Taking a nice look at this world, and I can easily see that if there is a god, he's out taking lunch and forgot to come back. I don't believe that this Christian God watches over his creations and protects them at all. There may be a God because this is a big universe, but I suspect if there is one that God creates things and then move on. Perhaps Earth is just another toy lost under the bed?

Whenever the subject of Christianity comes up people are quick to say that you have "choices" as the foundation of their argument, and the second saying I hear over and over again is that you have to have "faith." The latter is the one that gets thrown around a lot when someone asks a very difficult to answer question of the Christian, and when the Christian can't answer it they say "You must have faith!"

I started this thread to see what people had to say regarding Heaven and Hell. To answer the question one didn't need to believe in the Christian religion. It was more of a IF YOU DID believe in the idea of heaven and hell, which one would you end up in based on your actions, behaviors, world views, or acts of mercy, kindness, or cruelty that you have demonstrated in your life? This wasn't a topic for debating ideological, or theological theories and ideas. It simply was a "Where do you think you are going based on the Judeo-Christian religion?"

Its amazing how we can sometimes take a simple question and transform it into an ego match. don't get me wrong. I myself have been guilty of just this sort of thing in the past so I am not passing judgment on anyone.

Any way. I have this 5 alarm hangover and I want to go out and eat, but I'm too lazy to get up. I spent almost all night playing online chess with this smart-assed, creepoid in Texas who beat me at 4 games out of 6. I guess the lesson to this story is never play chess while you are drunk.

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think that the only way to leave here with any kind of integrity left is to own up to my mistakes. Then, at least, I can have a clear conscience about the thing.

FMF, I was wrong to pursue you with questions--to badger you with them, in fact--when it was clear that you didn't want to talk about it. My motives in doing so are entirely immaterial; I should just have accepted that you didn't want to discuss it and left it at that. I was pushy, and not very sensitive to your desires, and for that I am deeply sorry. I don't know how you're feeling in the aftermath of all this, but I do hope that you can find the grace to forgive my insensitivity.

To the rest of the folks on this thread, I'm sorry that I let things go downhill so very badly. I feel pretty awful about wrecking what was otherwise a pretty nice discussion. Again, motives are entirely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that I let my desire to understand overwhelm my desire to keep the tone of the discussion at a manageable level. I feel terrible for having done so, and I hope that I can receive the grace of forgiveness for it.

--Caleb

________________________________________________________________________

Causal,

You and MrsFutureFillion didn't wreck the thread or take the interest out of this thread; the thread itself is not wrecked. When I was thanking everyone for joining the thread that was for my own benefit. It meant that I was going to move on to either make another thread, or chat it up in someone else's subject thread.

FutureMrsFillion and yourself did nothing wrong but have a disagreement on certain points. Like none of us are guilty that??? I think this thread was winding down anyway because everyone said what they felt they needed to say. If people feel they need to say more in this thread they will, so save your guilt and remorse for something better like if you accidentally run over your next door neighbors cat with your car.

With that I am going to go out.

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:29 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Anyway, what fun talking about this without the yelling and screaming. Pure genius to put this in General Discussions instead of RWED.

We're actually just waiting for the admins to finally move this thread to RWED so that we can have a crack at it.

I wonder what's taking them so long...

EDIT: But having read on I see you brought a bit of RWED-flavour into this thread without our help.

EDIT #2:

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
Any way. I have this 5 alarm hangover and I want to go out and eat, but I'm too lazy to get up. I spent almost all night playing online chess with this smart-assed, creepoid in Texas who beat me at 4 games out of 6. I guess the lesson to this story is never play chess while you are drunk.

That sounds like a typical night in my life.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:02 PM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think that the only way to leave here with any kind of integrity left is to own up to my mistakes. Then, at least, I can have a clear conscience about the thing.

FMF, I was wrong to pursue you with questions--to badger you with them, in fact--when it was clear that you didn't want to talk about it. My motives in doing so are entirely immaterial; I should just have accepted that you didn't want to discuss it and left it at that. I was pushy, and not very sensitive to your desires, and for that I am deeply sorry. I don't know how you're feeling in the aftermath of all this, but I do hope that you can find the grace to forgive my insensitivity.

To the rest of the folks on this thread, I'm sorry that I let things go downhill so very badly. I feel pretty awful about wrecking what was otherwise a pretty nice discussion. Again, motives are entirely immaterial. The fact of the matter is that I let my desire to understand overwhelm my desire to keep the tone of the discussion at a manageable level. I feel terrible for having done so, and I hope that I can receive the grace of forgiveness for it.

--Caleb

I think you're probably being a lot too hard on yourself than is warranted, Causal. You are too intellectual to believe that any transgression on your part requires such a degree of self-deprecation.

Did you rock the boat a little? Sure. FMF made a seemingly irrational generalization. I'm pretty sure she knew that when she made it - she's a pretty smart femme herself. If I had to make a call on where you went wrong (because, you know, this is all up to me, right? /sarcasm) it was that you baited her in response. You called her out and expected her to back down.

In response (again, in my ever-so-valuable opinion) your challenge made her obstinate because it seemed like you were being a jerk (and it would kinda come off that way), and she replied to your "you can't really believe this indefensible position, can you?" with a "yes". I'm quite sure she knew that this flew in the face of your beloved logic, and in being intentionally difficult, I think that she's just as guilty as you are so far as these transgressions go. (Still, my pretentious opinion). And down the rabbit hole we went.

What actually bothered me more than the ill-natured debate, however, were the people calling Causal to task for what he did and leaving FMF alone. Yes, Causal misstepped, but she knew what she was doing before she posted her reply as well. FMF has a very strong will and what I think she may agree is a bit of a sharp temper. Don't get me wrong, I like Causal and FMF great in almost all cases, but I don't think FMF is willing to suffer foolishness gladly.

Zoid in particular, I think I'm most disappointed with your reply to Causal. You are (in my opinion) one of the most intelligent, well-spoken, and considerate members of this community, and that says a lot about you. I don't think, however, that it benefits anyone if a man just quietly acquiesces to the will of his wife or any other woman just because she wants to put her foot down. It's one thing to concede an argument that you know you aren't going to win or that it doesn't help anything to fight, but it's something else entirely to simply give a woman her way because she's being strong-willed. Women are not stupid or weak by nature, although some may be willing to use the perception to their advantage. Certainly they don't suffer any notable disadvantage to men in the strengths of their minds, and in most studies women outperform men in many areas as a norm. To assert such is a disservice to women in a way that borders on misogyny, which is not something that I'm willing to believe about you, Zoid.

Overly opinionatedly,

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:07 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

To the rest of the folks on this thread, I'm sorry

My mother taught me that even if one doesn't necessarily agree that an apology is needed, if one is offered in good faith, and it is sincere; it is best to accept it.

Your apology is accepted, Causal. Thanks.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 6:00 PM

*Sigh*

I guess I should take care when I choose a topic to discuss...

-River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:55 PM

ZOID

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
...Zoid in particular, I think I'm most disappointed with your reply to Causal. You are (in my opinion) one of the most intelligent, well-spoken, and considerate members of this community, and that says a lot about you. I don't think, however, that it benefits anyone if a man just quietly acquiesces to the will of his wife or any other woman just because she wants to put her foot down. It's one thing to concede an argument that you know you aren't going to win or that it doesn't help anything to fight, but it's something else entirely to simply give a woman her way because she's being strong-willed. Women are not stupid or weak by nature, although some may be willing to use the perception to their advantage. Certainly they don't suffer any notable disadvantage to men in the strengths of their minds, and in most studies women outperform men in many areas as a norm. To assert such is a disservice to women in a way that borders on misogyny, which is not something that I'm willing to believe about you, Zoid.

Overly opinionatedly,

Amiton.

I'm being called out! Awesome! And accused of misogyny to boot! Why not just misanthropy in general?

Dude. I was really just poking fun at Causal for having gotten himself into such a pickle. I didn't attach smiley faces or any of that, because I felt I'd made enough obvious attempts at humor to make them unnecessary (even if no one found my a-list material particularly funny). Now tell me you've never found yourself at loggerheads with a member of the opposite sex, in which their motivations seem unreasonable, and I'll tell you that you haven't been around many persons of the opposite sex.

If you find that misogynistic, well, I'll just elevate the charges against me to misanthropy by saying that I have also found myself at loggerheads with other men, in which their motivations seem unreasonable, too. Sometimes, folks don't see eye-to-eye and things can get a little heated.

But -- and you can call this woman-hating if you like -- I was raised to never bully a female. Even if I wasn't intending to bully a female (and I believe I made it clear enough in that post that I felt Causal was innocent of intent), sometimes we males can cross a line with our insistence that feels to a woman like violence: Like the big, strong, physically imposing man-ape is backing them into a corner. Even if it's only a corner of will.

Many women in our culture, believe it or not, have had bad experiences with overly pushy males, and it colors their reactions. I was raised old-fashioned, I'll readily admit it and take no shame. I was taught not to frighten women, not to make them fearful that they were in danger of being physically, mentally or emotionally abused; if any females are within my range of sensation, they need never fear abuse by me or any other male.

If that makes me a bad person or a woman-hater, well, I guess I'm just gonna have to live with that, cuz I ain't about to change it...

As far as your "if a man just quietly acquiesces to the will of his wife or any other woman just because she wants to put her foot down" comment, I don't have the slightest idea how you ever came up with that angle. On the contrary, my wife and I get into some quite vigorous debates (before I quietly acquiesce).

Seriously though, I win my share of arguments with my beloved wife; she wins her share as well. But sometimes -- as I thought I had clearly stated in my unfunny-joking way to Causal -- in the course of the argument I get too forceful. All I may be doing is asking Kayley to more fully explain a point she's trying to make...but...I miss the not terribly subtle clues that she is getting quieter and suddenly answering me in sentences of three words or less...

In short, I'm not misogynistic. I'm chivalrous: I protect women, children and the weak; I fight for justice; I strive to be a peacemaker. Some people believe that chivalry and misogyny are the same thing, that it's male arrogance in either case.

That's their opinion and they are welcome to it. I respectfully disagree with them.

Explicatively,

zoid

P.S.
If you'd only accused me of male chauvinism, rather than misogyny, I'd probably not even have responded. I don't consider myself a chauvinist either, but at least I could understand being slightly mislabeled thus. But freakin' misogyny!?! That's a word that comes out of people's mouths entirely too readily these days. I value words too highly to let that charge just slide on by. If anything, I'm a 'gynophile'.

_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:24 AM

Of course, this raises the interesting question of whether equal in value, dignity and ability means that the sexes should be acted towards and responded to in the same sorts of ways...

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:25 AM

ZOID

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Of course, this raises the interesting question of whether equal in value, dignity and ability means that the sexes should be acted towards and responded to in the same sorts of ways...

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

As a partial answer, I'd go toe-to-toe with any guy, their choice of pens or swords (as I like to say). But I'd never get in the face of a female. Disagree with her, yes; but keep my distance while doing so. Others may differ with my philosophy...

Here's a true story that sorta sums things up, for me:
I was standing in the checkout line at my 'neighborhood' Wal-Mart. Suddenly, the guy in front of me started raising his voice toward the female cashier, disputing the price of some item he was purchasing. She tried to reasonably explain to him that she was acting in accordance with the rules of her job, and would be happy to call a manager over to explain it to him in further detail.

The male customer grew more insistent that she rectify the situation to his liking, and started leaning over the counter towards her, and called her a "stupid bitch", while she leaned as far away from him as the little cubicle would allow.

At that point, by reflex alone, I came out from behind my cart and headed toward the man, saying "Hey, motherf***ker! Get your ass away from that woman!" He immediately stopped, quietly finished his transaction and left. As I stepped up to the cashier she said "Thanks, that was scary". She was still visibly shaken, but gave me a big still-frightened smile.

I didn't feel good about what had happened. So, I just smiled weakly and said that I was sorry for my behavior, for the other guy's behavior, and for the foul language. I finished my purchase and left.

Regardless how you slice it, there is a line that must not be crossed. That guy was waaay over the line.

I refuse to believe that this makes me a misogynist. Still, testosterone is a horrible drug.

v/r,
-zed
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:56 AM

AMITON

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
...Zoid in particular, I think I'm most disappointed with your reply to Causal. You are (in my opinion) one of the most intelligent, well-spoken, and considerate members of this community, and that says a lot about you. I don't think, however, that it benefits anyone if a man just quietly acquiesces to the will of his wife or any other woman just because she wants to put her foot down. It's one thing to concede an argument that you know you aren't going to win or that it doesn't help anything to fight, but it's something else entirely to simply give a woman her way because she's being strong-willed. Women are not stupid or weak by nature, although some may be willing to use the perception to their advantage. Certainly they don't suffer any notable disadvantage to men in the strengths of their minds, and in most studies women outperform men in many areas as a norm. To assert such is a disservice to women in a way that borders on misogyny, which is not something that I'm willing to believe about you, Zoid.

Overly opinionatedly,

Amiton.

I'm being called out! Awesome! And accused of misogyny to boot! Why not just misanthropy in general?

Dude. I was really just poking fun at Causal for having gotten himself into such a pickle. I didn't attach smiley faces or any of that, because I felt I'd made enough obvious attempts at humor to make them unnecessary (even if no one found my a-list material particularly funny). Now tell me you've never found yourself at loggerheads with a member of the opposite sex, in which their motivations seem unreasonable, and I'll tell you that you haven't been around many persons of the opposite sex.

If you find that misogynistic, well, I'll just elevate the charges against me to misanthropy by saying that I have also found myself at loggerheads with other men, in which their motivations seem unreasonable, too. Sometimes, folks don't see eye-to-eye and things can get a little heated.

But -- and you can call this woman-hating if you like -- I was raised to never bully a female. Even if I wasn't intending to bully a female (and I believe I made it clear enough in that post that I felt Causal was innocent of intent), sometimes we males can cross a line with our insistence that feels to a woman like violence: Like the big, strong, physically imposing man-ape is backing them into a corner. Even if it's only a corner of will.

Many women in our culture, believe it or not, have had bad experiences with overly pushy males, and it colors their reactions. I was raised old-fashioned, I'll readily admit it and take no shame. I was taught not to frighten women, not to make them fearful that they were in danger of being physically, mentally or emotionally abused; if any females are within my range of sensation, they need never fear abuse by me or any other male.

If that makes me a bad person or a woman-hater, well, I guess I'm just gonna have to live with that, cuz I ain't about to change it...

As far as your "if a man just quietly acquiesces to the will of his wife or any other woman just because she wants to put her foot down" comment, I don't have the slightest idea how you ever came up with that angle. On the contrary, my wife and I get into some quite vigorous debates (before I quietly acquiesce).

Seriously though, I win my share of arguments with my beloved wife; she wins her share as well. But sometimes -- as I thought I had clearly stated in my unfunny-joking way to Causal -- in the course of the argument I get too forceful. All I may be doing is asking Kayley to more fully explain a point she's trying to make...but...I miss the not terribly subtle clues that she is getting quieter and suddenly answering me in sentences of three words or less...

In short, I'm not misogynistic. I'm chivalrous: I protect women, children and the weak; I fight for justice; I strive to be a peacemaker. Some people believe that chivalry and misogyny are the same thing, that it's male arrogance in either case.

That's their opinion and they are welcome to it. I respectfully disagree with them.

Explicatively,

zoid

P.S.
If you'd only accused me of male chauvinism, rather than misogyny, I'd probably not even have responded. I don't consider myself a chauvinist either, but at least I could understand being slightly mislabeled thus. But freakin' misogyny!?! That's a word that comes out of people's mouths entirely too readily these days. I value words too highly to let that charge just slide on by. If anything, I'm a 'gynophile'.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

Zoid,
I think we may have exchanged nerve touchings (eww. That sounds nasty). You stated that your post that I referenced was meant in jest, and I think I knew that when I read it, but the behavior you described (or at least that I projected into your post) is one of those in our culture that I'm a bit sensitive to. Too often I see men around me just bow and tell their wives (and it is most commonly married men) "Yes dear." And that feels like they're being patronizing, and that's just being mean in a passive way to me. Like I said, you just caught one of those freak quirks in my brain and I'm kinda sorry I called you out. I was sorta shocked to read those words in one of your posts and I had a "WTF?" moment. I'm sorry.

I do know, or at least suspected, that you aren't a misogynist or someone who even approaches one. I knew that a long time ago as a result of several of the posts I've read from you in the last couple of years. The comment,to me, has strong misogynistic undertones. Small difference, I guess, and probably not any consolation at all.

It may not seem like it at the moment, but you're someone that I have a lot of respect for, Zoid. Perhaps more than any other person on this forum. And in form true to yourself, you gave the clarification that I wanted to see (because this is still all about me and what I want, right?). Thanks for that (and I'm sorry I pushed your misogyny button...can I claim ignorance?).

Of course, I'm not sure I made things any better with this post.

Out of line Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:03 AM