cuchulain

I personally feel the line must be drawn internally. All we can be is the best us we are capable of as often as possible. As I said in another topic, I have failed my own ideals on numerous occasions. I try to do better. Each of us is a unique individual. Each of us has different upbringing, different DNA, different world views, and sometimes those conflict in ways we cannot see online, as Brother Kaman said. But sometimes the fault is not within, sometimes it's the person we are communicating with who failed. The tricky part of online, to me, is mood. I have different moods dependent upon what is happening in my life, and sometimes I post in a whimsical mood. I can take everything with a grain of salt, laugh it off, and come back with a quip. Sometimes there are things happening in my life that frustrate me to no end, and shouldn't. It's one of my failings, personally, that I filter things I encounter through my current mood. I really try to correct this, and sometimes fail. Maybe the person you were interacting with had something similar happen? Or perhaps you were doing something similar? I don't know. There are so many circumstances we cannot see online, cannot feel personally, cannot connect with...it makes it difficult at times to know what to say and what not to, especially if you are the type of person who second guesses yourself like I am. Lately I have simply been trying to be myself, my ideal self. It's something that took me a while to decipher, what with all the options available to me. I researched religion and philosophy as a child through my entire adult life. It's just something that's always interested me, but more than that, it's something that I have always felt could provide answers in my life. The last few months(time is relative, I often lose track of months), I have been examining more from a personal stance instead of what has been written by others. Something I have found is that a person has to internalize with their own observations, their own understandings, and commune with themselves, so to speak. Find what really rings true about life, people and how it all interacts. My conclusion has been to begin developing my own standards of living and interacting. I would like to think this has made me a more consistent person, but I know that I occasionally still fail. There are times when those I highly respect say something and I am simply in the wrong mood to hear it the way they intended it, and take offense. I control my own responses, but my reactions are another thing entirely, another thing to work on in life As I said in another topic, there are those I have no respect at all for on this forum, and those that I have a high level of respect for. I have been in the past the type of person who takes things to heart, and who is a little bit gullible. It's been hard for me to learn to think for myself, rather than borrowing the ideas of others for myself, if you can understand that or relate. I have been a person who takes things overboard in the extreme, too. When I have decided on something to support, I get behind it 110%, sometimes to the detriment of logic. Like I said, lately I have been working on that. For what it's worth, mererdog, you are one of the people on here that I highly respect. There have been misunderstandings in the past between us, things that I have definitely taken wrong at the wrong time, but that's my fault. Like I said, I have a hard time filtering things through the emotion at times, and react instead of responding. But I have always found your ability to question anything respectfully to be amazing. It is something I had to grow into seeing properly, I guess. This is getting long...sorry. Stoicism teaches to be yourself, and control yourself, and that's about all you can really do. Control of others, how they take you, is not possible. Oh, we can strive to be courteous, but I think there are always those who won't consider that for whatever reason. To paraphrase Amber, I agree that if you have good intentions, that's the best we can hope for.

All things have a basis to them...that does not mean all things retain that same basis in their evolution, nor that they have the entirety of that basis within them. Learning means changing.

I believe that says it better than I was attempting, thank you.

That's true. Maybe they think they are right to try to change my mind, and I can accept that. I can still find fault with it, however, since it is my determination that they should not forcefully try to convince me. I don't mind when someone tries to explain their understanding and even try to convince me...but when the point comes where they have clearly failed, and they continually do so...it strikes me as harassment rather than enlightenment. Maybe I shouldn't say I find fault with someone insisting I am wrong so much as finding fault with someone trying to coerce or force me to believe the way they do? But...if they truly believe man to be a flawed creature, they should be willing to accept that they are flawed and so could be wrong as well, meaning what they think of as right is suspect. And if they think they are right in trying to convince me I am wrong, that too is suspect. Or I could just play it by ear and circumstance, with some emotion added in

In the spirit of insistence, is it a virtue to insist on being correct, or that someone else is wrong? I believe it falls to the individual to decide for themselves. Consistency is nice, but to the point of blinding oneself to the possibility of being wrong? I understand myself well enough to know that I am a flawed creature. Most Christians will heartily agree with that simple sentiment, I believe. But will they look into the mirror while doing so? Will those of any religion acknowledge that they are flawed? It seems to me to be a tenet of Christianity, that humans are flawed creatures. With this understanding, why is it so hard for some to admit they may be wrong? If you know yourself to be flawed, then you should be able to see that the possibility exists, yes? And so, the insistence of correctness, or in another's wrongness, becomes a matter of pride, does it not? And is not pride one of the deadly sins? From this particular Atheists perspective, I fully acknowledge I may be wrong. I know I am not perfect, though I certainly try to live the virtuous life as i see it. This is a tenet of the ULC, "do that which is right". Recently there was a post about that in the pulpit...but it leaves off the other portion of that tenet, "only you can determine what is right." As such, I cannot find fault in someone else determining that they are absolutely right, since that is their determination. I can find fault with someone insisting I am wrong, since only I can determine what is right. I do not gain my virtues from the mouth of a preacher, I do not subscribe to the tenets of one particular philosophy or faith, or pick my morals and virtues from a book. I take them from multiple sources, and rarely(if ever), are they a novel idea that I myself devised. But, they are ideas that I have tested internally and found to be worthy within myself. Is the best way to for me lead others to the virtuous life, then, to berate their current virtues? Is it to play word games with debates and arguments, redefining words at a whim, insisting that they are wrong? Is it even necessary for me to lead others to what I consider a virtuous life? No...resoundingly no, for me. I see no need to berate anyone for their "wrong" answer. Each of us has the responsibility which cannot be abrogated to determine what is right and what is wrong. For some, this means reading from the bible, it means studying what the letters and commentators have to say about that book and the message contained within. For others it is the will of Allah, it may be the words of a preacher on a pulpit, or perhaps it's the philosophy of some sci fi account, maybe stranger in a strange land or star trek or star wars or thomas covenant the unbeliever...and that is their choice, not mine. If they feel a need to berate me for being "Wrong", then so be it. I am not harmed by mere words, arrogant though they may sound to my ears. There is no force within those words. There is no substance to a person insisting I am wrong(and conversely that they are right, whether they utter that or not). My emotions, they want there to be a heaven, a God, they want an afterlife. They also at times want me to be able to go back and do things differently, to be a better person in the past. I do not see any of these things happening. I have no mandate from heaven. I have a mandate of conscience. It is the voice within me, coupled with what I reason about the world I see around me. I like to learn all the time, but I have found that I learn virtually nothing from conversations with Christians. The same as Islamists, or other extremists. I learn nothing from pagans, at least about virtue. I learn what they believe to be virtue, all of them. But that is not my belief. Some things may line up, some may be identical, some are not there at all. All this leads me to state simply that my virtue is not insistent upon being right or that others are wrong. Or as pagans may phrase it, harm none and do what you will.

I can certainly appreciate the "very often" part of that myself. I would like to think I have grown beyond such reactions, but we both know that isn't the case. Still, I think the attempt counts for something.

That's true, it would depend upon a person's goals. If my goal were to be a virtuous person, for instance?

Is it wrong to insist you are right about something if you firmly believe yourself to be correct? What about insisting someone else is wrong about something when you know they are wrong? There have been many instances on the board lately of people claiming to be right, without acknowledging the possibility of being wrong. Also, of people claiming others are wrong without acknowledging they could be right. These claims have come up usually under the heading of spirituality, which is debatable. There are no solid proofs, yet still there is the insistence of rightness or wrongness. To a point, it irritates me(and clearly others), but I can also understand the approach. There have been times when I have observed that myself and others have waffled back and forth between beliefs, and speaking for myself it is mostly because I harbor inside an almost brainwashed approach to the idea that I could be wrong, or they could be right. I feel like I have been raised to be politically correct enough to give credence to what others say, even when I know they are wrong(or when I know I am right). Waffling back and forth, it seems very counterproductive. Maybe it's the best path? Maybe it is understandable to want to question your beliefs and the beliefs of others, to change position when new evidence is presented. But maybe it is a virtue to hold the course, as well. After all, how many times has anyone else seen the science behind why certain food is bad for you, only to see the science behind why it is good for you come out years later? Just thought I would ask for others thoughts on the subject in an attempt to solidify my own position. Thanks

No, no...sounds like your diplomacy is spot on!

So then is it possible to find redemption AFTER physical life has ended? If so, then the deathbed confession thing is kind of not necessary. If not...then isn't it already decided?

It's hard for me to see how someone takes the bible literally when they keep interjecting all the allegory they believe in...

So then it stands to reason that all the dead the world over have yet to be judged? They are just waiting in some limbo till judgement? I don't think I can get behind that interpretation, but I understand where you are coming from with it at least.

Not always, DL. I mean, I think it's wrong to go into a bar and drink until you can't. But I don't go picking a fight at the biker club my brother is a member of by telling them how wrong they are, you know? Now, test all things, I can get behind that. To a point, of course. Moderation in all things? That applies here, I believe. If I test everything constantly as I get new information, I don't have much time for living.

And don't forget, Dan has said that spiritual death is the result of sin. Oblivion. So, God has clearly done this to those who rejected all the teachings before now, right?

How, ultimately, do you decide the golden rule should be your guide? How do you test such? I am not trying to be antagonistic, so I will try to get to my point without walking along apace. Ultimately, the test of all things lies with internal reasoning upon the externally observed. That is my belief, anyway. I observe something, I reason using all the experience and genetics within to determine the major criteria of that something I observed(what is it, does it matter, how does it behave, how does it fit with my life or against it, so forth). Any words in the bible, if they are tested, must resonate within naturally if they are true. But...realization of experience varying from person to person, you must understand that not all people will attach the same understanding and meaning to things that you do. Logic serves emotion, in other words. My logic serves my feelings. If I feel that Christianity as it stands is an evil organized religion, then my observations will prove such. If I feel that Christianity as it stands is the best hope of humanity, then equally...my observations will prove such. (I have the darndest feeling that Brother Kaman will be shaking his head up and down at this one ). In part, our own intuition and experience and make up determine how we observe the world we live in. As such, the best test you can answerably give anything in the bible is, "Does it feel right?" For me, the answer is a resounding no. For others, such as Ex Nihilo and Dan, the answer is a resounding Hallelujah. For the masochist, getting slapped in the face is kind of nice, you know? Golden rule should definitely be overridden by common sense at that point. Yep, the majority of society deems slapping people in the face for no good reason to be wrong, and so it is. No matter that you are treating them how you want to be treated. Just my thoughts.

Therein lies the problem. If it is possible to have ANY flawed interpretation of the book, then it becomes possible that YOUR interpretation may be the flawed one. I do appreciate the idea of testing your ideas. But how do you test the ideas in the bible that you hold to?

I thought spiritual death was the result of sin, and so many have suffered spiritual death because they were not followers? This is something you have said before anyway.

I find it amazing how often you quote the bible to point out it's God's evil...yet then turn around and quote the bible for why you do so. If some of the source is evil, the entirety should be suspect, shouldn't it?

Proud of my interpretation of the bible, certainly. Not necessarily proud that I foisted that representation onto others.

if god were eternal and constant, why no more burning bushes or big stone tablets? when he changed, was he not perfect before or after the change? if he wrote knowledge of himself on our hearts, all the hullabaloo was unnecessary in the beginning, wasn't it?

Should it be an absolute right if it puts another person in jeopardy? Take the hypothetical of a little girl raised by church parents that believe if God wants her to live he will heal her. And she dies. Should the parents be held accountable for negligence, or does the first amendment trump that?

We had a pretty regular member for a while who was flat out calling other members stupid. He got warned for that. So far as most discussions go here, as long as you question the belief, ask about specific points, and try to be respectful, I think you'll do fine. There is nothing wrong with calling on someone in a debate to reconsider their position, especially if you have evidence why such should be reconsidered. As in all discussions, some people get offended by the very idea that they should be questioned. I remember one in particular, Child of God. He made some bold claims about being an emissary of God, and God giving him an inside scoop and such. Specifically, he talked to Angels. Not those exact words...but I paraphrase. I told him that if he could get one of those angels to tell him the exact bible phrase I wrote down randomly, that I would consider his position. Frustrated him something fierce. Then you have members who seem to take almost any kind of abuse thrown their way with good grace. I haven't seen them around lately, which isn't uncommon. Members pop up for a while, then take a break from the headaches we all cause each other, then come back. The rules of service are pretty fair, though. No personal attacks. That's fairly simple. Just don't name call, or tell people they have no brain, or something like that. I can say, for example, that I personally find Christianity abhorrent and a complete waste of resources. That's an example, and not necessarily true, by the way, but I can say that. So long as I don't tell someone they are abhorrent and a complete waste of resources.

one difference though. the property and stones were originally private owned whereas the ten commandments issues seem to be always public first.

i understand that. from my perspective, i am skeptical of "supernatural" claims, for lack of a better word. i'm not Christian because i've not seen good evidence for god. same with the afterlife claim. i want to see a study of out of body experiences where they put a piece of paper on a cabinet with 4 random numbers and ask people with the claim to recite the digits, just to see the stats. but that would offend the believers, if the evidence came against them. low cost study that could be done easily too.

It seems secular to me as well. The issue arose in that a lot of local Christian groups are raising a big stink about it because the ideas the guide stones espouse resemble the Satanic commandments, and are demanding their removal.