Brother Kaman
-
Posts
2,427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Brother Kaman
-
-
1 hour ago, mererdog said:
Offense is an emotional response, not a rational response. As such, it doesn't have to make sense to be real. In fact, it is extremely common for people to be upset by something while believing they shouldn't be upset by it- to believe they shouldn't care what someone says, while simultaneously caring what that someone says.
That disconnect tends to increase the person's emotional response, because they not only respond negatively to what was said, but also to feeling forced into having this negative response they dont think they should have. It can be a bit of a feedback loop. You've never experienced this?
Now I have mixed emotions about that.
-
I don't think Christians quite understand that someone had to torture and kill Jesus. If Jesus died for thier sins, peacefully in his sleep at 86 years of age, it just wouldn't be the same. If I were a Christian I would say kudos to who ever may have done it in order to provide the Christians with a messiah. That said, lets give credit where credit is due and quit blaming the innocent.
-
8 hours ago, VonNoble said:
Hopefully, YOUR beliefs - which are due to receive RESPECT AND FAIRNESS as all others....will be
able to pass without anyone needing to try and dissuade you of them.
I am wondering....if you are correct....is it possible that the differing points of view start in childhood?
Seriously. I am wondering. For example - you emerged early feeling it was OKAY to try other things.
Rev. Calli felt compelled not too try other things initially.
I was ENCOURAGED to go forth and try it all.
is part of the view of seeing it "as a gift" versus - the results of a long journey NECESSARY to find THE BEST
match......could that be a fulcrum.
Those who see it as a choice - - - come from a point a view that colors their point of view?
Like Jews staying (initially) in six or whatever number of denominations of Judaism?
Or Christians bouncing back and forth largely within the confines of Christianity? (Either they stay in that general
area - - -or they leave all religion - then bounce back to Christianity once again? )
....that is NOT any sort of condemnation - but a curiosity.
You know - - - - "go with what you know" - - - - stay somewhat close to your comfort zone?
It would make sense to do that.
People only seem to "cross over" to alternatives like Easter, native, New Age or whatever AFTER experimenting in the fields closest
to home for a good long while. Maybe.
I am sure there are some who would say NO! That is not true because I (they) did it differently - -but I am sort of thinking
most stay close to their base. Try it for awhile. Leave it as young adults maybe? - go back to something similar to what they knew as kids.
Maybe it far more difficult to REALLY throw it all out and start fresh.....completely FRESH....to find an answer?
And in that process.....you rule out nothing...nothing is wrong or sinful or bad - until YOU YOURSELF invest the time to
opt in or out of things based on truth. NOT persuasiveness, not rhetoric, not great socialization skills....but TRUTH.
That might be an enormous investiture of time. LOTS of work. TONS of work. Maybe the criteria for finally finding
something that works is as varied as people? Wiping out the basics foisted on you as a kid and heading out to allow
any answer (including coming full circle) - maybe that is not necessary for some...and the only way for others.
SURELY doing that would deepen existing beliefs tremendously as they would be forged and tested. When I lived
in PA...I seem to remember one of the sects (Amish or Mennonite) (one of those types) used to encourage the young
people to go out in the world and see what is out there BEFORE committing to an adult life as part of the sect.
I don't know of too many other religions that ENCOURAGE exploration. My one sibling who decided to follow my father
into the world of Catholicism ......said she was taught it was a sin to question the churches teachings. So maybe these
growing pains begin early? MY FATHER NEVER told us that - but she learned that in Catholic classes.
I have no idea where I am going with this - - - My mind has been wondering and wandering for days.
i am quite certain my current "beliefs" did evolve because of my discarding things that didn't work for me.
So in that regard there were choices made. But I sort of feel that process left me where I am without
choosing it. It is is more a recognition of the big pile of stuff that didn't work over there. So I am here
because of that. I didn't CHOOSE it as an outcome - - - but i recognize for now - it is my location.
When we were in our team assignment in Philosophy class - - our group of eight was told to gather in a circle and
go around the group picking a label connected to our spiritual beliefs. My first response was WHY?
Why do I have to choose a label? None of them feels like a very good fit.
A Supreme Being was not forced into my world as a child. So maybe that has influenced my view. Self reliance was pushed far more than Supreme Being-ness at home.
Maybe all of that is part of the disconnect on this one.
Still working on it...
von
We often do not choose our outcomes but we make many of the choices that lead us to those outcomes. We are also subject to the choices of other's such as Rev. Calli's childhood experience with the choices of his priest.
-
4 hours ago, RabbiO said:
After all these years who would have thought I'd have to say this, but apparently some people have missed all the clues.
Putting aside all the posts in which I have identified myself as both a Jew and a seminary trained rabbi and putting aside all the posts In which I discussed Jewish points of view and putting aside all the posts in which I have discussed variances between the Hebrew of the Jewish scriptures - which some refer to as the Old Testament,- and how they are translated into English, there remain these - my member name, RabbiO, which happens to be what some of the kids call me; the Hebrew under my member name; my avatar which shows Krusty the Clown standing next to his father the rabbi.... you know, the fellow wearing the kippah and tallit and standing before an open Torah scroll.
I am not a Catholic nor am I any other type of rChristian. I am not a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Satanist, Muslim. I respect those who walk those and other paths, but those are not the paths that I travel on.
So once again, for the record, I am a Jew and a rabbi.
L'shalom.
Only a simpleton could believe otherwise, RabbiO.
-
I am having a dickens of a time with my posts today. Please forgive me.
-
I am having a dickens of a time with my posts today. Please forgive me.
-
I am having a dickens of a time with my posts today. Please forgive me.
-
Yes. Running into a burning building without thinking of the consequences, leaping into the river to save the child, covering the hand grenade with your body are not instinctual responses. If they were instinctual, they would be shared by all of the same individuals of the specie with a only a few exceptions. There are but a few of us that would do such things. Fight, flight or freeze are all choices be they conscious or sub (un)conscious choices.
1 hour ago, VonNoble said:Hmmm... can that happen?
von
-
Yes. Running into a burning building without thinking of the consequences, leaping into the river to save the child, covering the hand grenade with your body are not instinctual responses. If they were instinctual, they would be shared by all of the same individuals of the specie with a only a few exceptions. There are but a few of us that would do such things. Fight, flight or freeze are all choices be they conscious or sub (un)conscious choices.
-
Yes. Running into a burning building without thinking of the consequences, leaping into the river to save the child, covering the hand grenade with your body are not instinctual responses. If they were instinctual, they would be shared by all of the same individuals of the specie with a only a few exceptions. There are but a few of us that would do such things. Fight, flight or freeze are all choices be they conscious or sub (un)conscious choices.
-
Yes. Running into a burning building without thinking of the consequences, leaping into the river to save the child, covering the hand grenade with your body are not instinctual responses. If they were instinctual, they would be shared by all of the same individuals of the specie with a only a few exceptions.
-
Conscious choices, unconscious choices, choices driven by chemical imbalances or choices made by the mentally ill are none the less choices.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:
VonNoble and Brother Kamen,
It sounds like your mothers were saints compared to my mom. My mother would likely have waited for them to get close enough to reach and stuck them with her switchblade that she always carried in her purse.
Momma always kept her pistol in her dresser drawer but would still get in anyone's face if the circumstances warranted. And you are right, she was a saint.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, VonNoble said:
Interesting.
One time when I was a small child...we were in a restaurant when two men came in and indicated they had weapons (never seen)(presumed to be handguns) in their jacket pockets.
Our family was sitting in a curved booth at the far end of the restaurant with mom on one end of the very large booth & dad on the other. It was rare for us to get to eat anywhere but home - so 1) we were on our best behavior 2) we were so engrossed if the big platter of French fries (another rare treat) that none of us kids even knew what was happening till it was over. We were NOT traumatized...we never missed a French fry
While the incident was in progress the woman in the next booth leaned over and told my mom to “ put her diamond ring in her shoe” to avoid having to give it to the thieves presumed to want such thing in a minute or two.
There was no robbery. The would-be theived got spooked and ran out without getting anything and everyone went back to eating. We kids never stopped
When told to hide her diamond my mother had replied. “No.”
After the fact the lady next to us walked around the table to question my mom....and mom explained....1) look at this table....I invest in the future...look at this herd of kids-there is no money for diamonds 2) if I did have a diamond I would have given it freely to them
Mom’s reasoning is they might well be desperate ( we always had enough...JUST BARELY enough...sometimes we were hungry but never got long)... and material things should never matter enough to cause harm (she was big on letting go of things always) ....and lastly she said allowing a person to wear the label of “thief” would follow not just this person but the next three generations to follow...so no ring is worth that ripple.
I have nothing to add other than my mom was rather unique with her teachable moments.
von
We were poor when I was a child. I will not go into the details of how poor but if we were in a restaurant (we never did) my momma would have given them anything they asked for but would have died to keep them from stealing it from her or us. Matter of principle she would have said. She always said principles are worth dying for and that was one of hers.
-
1
-
-
On 3/16/2018 at 7:00 AM, mererdog said:
There is a simple experiment you can do.
Pick something that you have a belief about, but that is unimportant to your life. Something like "George Washington was the first president of the US" or "There are windmills in the Netherlands" or "My great-grandfather was born in a schoolhouse."
Now try to not believe it. Try to believe it isn't true.
If belief is a choice, there is no risk, because you can simply wait a week and then choose to believe it again.
If belief is not a choice, there is also no risk, because you will fail to change the belief.
An underlying truth about assumptions about faith being a choice is that they are the moral justification for punishing and rewarding people based on their faith- they are what make people feel good about engaging in religious discrimination. Which is not to say that everyone who believes faith is a choice will engage in religious discrimination. Necessary but not sufficient, dig?
I have chosen to believe that George Washington was the first U.S. President because I have chosen what is was taught in school and what has been written in the history books. That does not mean that I will continue to believe that if new evidence s b old arrive to suggest it is not true (historians have uncovered evidence that George Washington's real name was Igor Smith and changed his name to avoid prosecution in Maryland.) I will believe there are wind mills in the Netherlands much for the same reasons as I have never been to the Netherlands to witness the wind mills myself. As far as my grandfather is concerned, I cannot believe nor disbelieve he was born in a school house as there are no existing records (if I am to believe the record keepers) regarding the specific details of his birth. I choose to believe what I do and can choose to disbelieve it as easily. Was that the experiment?
-
Momma always used to say, "There are good and bad in all people." It doesn't matter one's religion, nationality or color. My experiences has have proven that to be true.
-
Humor also takes some of the sting out of being alive.
-
Humor may well be the most important thing that keeps me sane and relatively non violent. As the saying goes, "There is no evidence that life should be taken seriously."
-
5 minutes ago, VonNoble said:
Actually it seems you are correct. Most people cannot read a book while dreaming - apparently it affects the right side of your brain...you also cannot count on your fingers (for some reason they are missing a digit or two or are somehow deformed) and you do not actually speak...in your dream your language skills are messed up - - - - you communicate in the dream just fine as if you were talking but you don't "hear" yourself talk. It is more some sort of telepathy. I am glad you brought it up - it was interesting.
Of course research indicates this is not 100% conclusive as nothing ever is - but it is VERY widely true.
thx
von
I have dreamed that I was cursing or loudly shouting actual words at people and my wife has told me that I was loudly moaning or "wooooooing" in my sleep.
-
On 3/8/2018 at 5:29 PM, mererdog said:
The majority of photos of Earth from the moon aren't disc shaped. They are truncated by shadow. And the curvature of the shadow is exactly what you would expect if you were looking at a ball that was only partially lit.
Still, it isn't just about perceived shape. It isn't about one piece of evidence, or one type of evidence. It is when looking at all the evidence as a whole that find the truth. In the picture highlighted in this article, you can clearly make out the northern edge of Africa. If the Earth is flat, where is the US?
The US is on the other side of the plate.
-
1 hour ago, mererdog said:
I have more to go on than how it looks to me. I have the words of those who have circumnavigated the globe. I have the work of scientists and cartographers who have measured the circumference of the globe. I have photos taken from the moon.
Your photo taken from the moon shows the earth to be shaped similar to a plate. Maybe a flat plate.
-
51 minutes ago, mererdog said:
It is a fairly bad definition. Still, at no point did I say the child was putting its hand in the fire. Perhaps the fire was moving towards the child. Slapping the hand simply triggers the reflexive draw-back that prevents the burn.
The moral principle at work is the notion that preventing harm is justification for causing hurt. Similar to the justification for enduring the discomfort caused by exercise.
Hurt could be defined as harm. Harm the child to prevent harm to the child?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, VonNoble said:
I am SURE you are correct!
.gif ":thumbu:")
Plenty of quick fire opinions in this class.
Yes...thanks.... I agree the 2nd round will be less intense to prepare. I am assuming we -get to pick - which of the remaining two we tackle second. Either way -competent note taking in round one will make the construct in round two easier.
i am sort of looking at this in terms that the exercise is learning to craft a solid argument more than explains my personal beliefs....
Several of the students are in this class as pre-law requirement so if we focus on the construction (more than the faith) (or lack of it) we might master craftsmanship in some small way.
Then again this is my first time thru it so maybe you are suppose to get more passionate & invested with the rightness of your belief.
i have not yet found a reason why God existing (or not) mattered to me. So I think all the fuss to prove it disprove is largely wasted energy (but it does make for a good and emotionally charged practice session)
After following this topic on other threads I guess atheist is as close an approximation as I can get in these three choices. I agree we cannot know, so that allows for either of the “A” options .... I am going to try to do both and see if one is more comfortable than the other while drafting this.
von
I get ya. Whatever your belief or disbelief or doubt is moot but it would be easier argued from a position you are familiar with.
-
I would think that you would first argue your own position. If you believe in a G/god, then argue for such a G/god. If you don't believe there is a G/god, then argue that. If you don't know then choose that position. Later, you will have heard the arguments against your position and will be better equipped to take on one of the other positions? Best to start with what you think you know. There will be many who will try to let you know that you are wrong.
Sufficiency of Scripture
in Philosophy & Theory
Posted
I do not understand why one must engage with another on the forum that they find irritating, rude or otherwise upsetting. whether or not the other can or cannot be blocked. Is it a need to be seen by others on the forum as being right or more thoughtful or is it a need to get the last word? When someone on the forum takes a conversation further than I wish to go, be it stupidity or rudeness or anything else that may upset me, I quit responding to that conversation. We all have the power to disengage or not respond in the first place. No buttons necessary.