VonNoble
-
Posts
1,392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by VonNoble
-
-
2 hours ago, Dan56 said:
The problem with some Christians is that they believe you do need their opinion to have a decent and moral life.. They are convinced that non-believers have no code to live by.. Whereby, atheist having no standard of ethics or a primary base of principles to establish morality, can't possibly maintain a distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. But I don't hold to that, because you don't need a fundamental rule that says "Don't commit murder or steal from others" to be morally upright. Religion does not replace, nor is it a substitute for commonsense.
Dan56,
I appreciate your being able to distinguish yourself from "some Christians".
The problem for non-Christians is the assumption that standards of ethics ....and base principles of established morality can ONLY be defined in terms of Christianity. Much of the moral world is not Christian... and still much of the world (the non-Christian part) is ALSO living morally and much if by alternative codes....not Christian codes but codes nonetheless. So the basic assumption that non-Christians are without standards is false. That is more than my opinion. It is a very large world with a very large population. The immoral behavior disdained and unacceptable crosses everyone's life - thankfully, in a small % of the overall population. The evildoers are from EVERY religion and also from those with no religion. No lock on dysfunction in any camp. It exists everywhere. Conversely so does decency...in every camp.
From my perspective it is far beyond commonsense that one does not do harm to others. It is a code of doing better than yesterday, learning from mistakes (by admitting them to oneself) and figuring out how in the heck to stop making the same ones over and over. Prayer works for some. Approaching it more practically works for others.
An example. My father was Catholic and thereby Christian. He was also an alcoholic. After a horrific accident he made a vow, in a church, with plenty of witnesses..... if God allowed my mother to live he would never take another drop of alcohol. He was a man of deep, deep faith and once he promised this to God - he lived up to it. For him - that worked.
However, I have siblings who have zero faith in anything (government, deities, themselves) ...and they too battle alcohol. To tell one of them to pray over it would not have helped them in the slightest. However, a more practical approach: Hey! Lets think about the fact your entire world outside of work involved hanging out at the bar with your bar friends. When you decide to stop drinking how are you going to fill those four hours a night? That was a more practical solution (and aided by rehab specialists that too worked.)
So the moral aspects of our choices can be intrinsic (because we see we are causing problems for ourselves and others) (or they tell us we are and we believe the person telling us) .....or because we feel we have "sinned" and need to seek forgiveness and amend. Two different roads ending in the same BETTER and more moral lifestyle .
Your recognition of two points of view is very much appreciated...it keeps learning possible.
My understanding of the origins of evolution are not aligned with yours - but I certainly can understand why you opt for the view you have - it is consistent with your life and that is important for peace for any of us in our own life. It is right for you because it works well for you.
von
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ULCneo said:
Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.
Knowing this attorney for more than a decade - I am reasonably sure - he is not likely to have overlooked or forgotten anything when discussing law. He is pretty dang sharp. That is just my opinion of him...but that opinion was forged and formed by seeing him in action for quire awhile.
von
-
3 hours ago, ULCneo said:
As I've said, before, there are certain expressions in Hebrew and Greek that don't translate well into English, because English is rather restricted in terms of expression.
As opposed to what ? I am curious to know.
I have always found English covers things nicely for me.
In my family, combined, we have speakers of at least eight languages between us.
Including one who speaks Hebrew and one who studied in Greece for years.
We also have a French speaker and a German speaker in the family. Half the family uses Spanish regularly.
It is all very unscientific but since all of them are native English speakers and all think English is just as expressive as any other language....I am wondering how you concluded otherwise? Just curious. You may be right. But coming from a bit of a linguistic oriented family I am asking for additional help. If you can indicate evidence that English is less expressive than Hebrew or Greek ...it will be a fun topic over the holidays. However i am not taking them on.... without some information to defend myself.
(I am not one of the gifted kids.....I am pretty well tapped out at three languages and I struggle in all of them.) I have credentials that say I am fine with them but in reality it is very difficult for me. Not so for my siblings....one of whom picks up languages faster than I make pocket change..... so I put credence in their opinions in things connected to language. Perhaps you can point me in the direction to research your assertion? Or re-claify if I misunderstood.
thx
von
-
4 hours ago, cuchulain said:
It's amazing how going to the source can do that sometimes.
Thanks for the support....
I KNOW the attorney and KNOW the attorney's credential.
I am very comfortable trusting that particular attorney.
von
-
5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
What happens when you get too many professional clergy? Simple truths become complicated -- then they stop being true.
I am finding myself nodding as I read this....
von
-
Just now, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I'm not a Buddhist. I wonder why this bothers me so much. It does.
I can relate. Several years ago when Clueless Git (who is a Buddhist) was posting - I was surprised to learn that there was any (as in history) violence connected with Buddhism. I had some ideal that the monks the world over were peace loving non-voilent entities. And that NONE worshipped the actual dude - Buddha - as anything but an guy with a useful approach to life. If quotes from Buddha about himself are to be believed - he was adamant that he was not a deity.
Yet, somehow - followers somewhere ignored the earliest writing and even the oral traditions and took it in a new direction. In a somewhat interesting side note - - - none of Shakespeare's plays that we have now were written by Shakespeare. Two men who were his contemporaries started interviewing all of the actors from Shakespeare's theater (seven years after Shakespeare's death) and they all collaborated with their various speaking parts as recalled by the actors.....and what we have now is their collection. The did use some scraps and bits of scripts and quartos that survived....but the plays as we know them - were not wholly recorded by Shakespeare. They, like many other things - were compiled after is death.
Too with Buddhism.....less than 100 years after his death...while followers trained by "the" Buddha were still alive and able - the records of Buddha's message started to be recorded.....and yet - even though it is clearly stated (as mentioned above) that Buddha was NOT a god ...fringe groups splinter off.
Buddha expressly did not WANT his teachings to be recorded. He believed the message should remain simple enough to remember by anyone one any where. Practical guy in that regard.
I dunno if any of that helps. Maybe not.
von
-
16 hours ago, ULCneo said:
I find that amusing. Someone has obviously been legally misinformed. Its amazing how many people don't know that Churches are NOT subject to the provisions of copyright law due to the separation clause.
I ran this by the attorney representing our church for the past ten years. He was amused too. He told me if there is every a copyright usage question re: the church to call him immediately as there are many instances where we would be required to seek permission before usage of copyrighted material.....then he reminded me free legal advise is worth the price. He has an excellent sense of humor - especially for an attorney. von
-
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know that things in the Buddhist world had degenerated that far.
In the vast majority of instances it is NOT AT ALL extreme...so you observations are largely valid. In the vast majority of instances it is as it has always been.
But you will notice in Myanmar for example - there is an increasing violent conflict between Buddhists and Muslims (some of it blamed on ethnicity, some blamed on nationalism, some blamed on religious intolerance)...and so it goes...which is a bit aside of the original point here...
some sects of Buddhism are exactly as mererdog explained it.
von
-
34 minutes ago, Dan56 said:
Yes, the choice is either Creationism or Accidentalism ... I personally find the complexity of all that exist to be an impossible accident. There can't be an explanation for a Big Bang unless it demonstrates a cause, and since none exist, we're back to square one "God". Here's a semi-interesting 6 minute clip; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZLzLVAUJiU
Thanks for sharing info. Information exchange is good.
I remain QUITE convinced evolution is not an accident. As noted the old understanding of the Big Bang might have had gaps that the current and credible research allows for plausible explanations and probably inching forward of proof. So we differ (again) on the conclusion of the evidence. You will hold (and should) to the explanation of God. I would not try an sway you. Your belief is working for you! You do not require MY opinion of things to have a decent and moral life.
I find it important to note - we agree in large part on the code by which we live. That allows for tolerance and respect.
I am okay with more than one right way to have a moral society.
von
-
16 minutes ago, mererdog said:
That is only true for some forms of Buddhism. There are Buddhists who consider Buddhas to be divine figures capable of answering prayers and getting people into an afterlife paradise. In that context, it would matter whether or not any specific Buddha existed.
I second that.
As a philosophical way to approach things I find Buddhism has much to offer. As a religion it is as splintered as any other. And for the sects you noted ....the point you make can launch incivility as fast as a match if you say otherwise.
von
-
9 hours ago, ULCneo said:
With translation, your always going to slightly gain or loose, by the nature of what translation is, where the languages don't exactly line up.
This bemuses me.
von
-
6 hours ago, Dan56 said:
Perhaps your looking for the sensational, when the evidence of creation is all around you, and in that sense, a tree itself is a miracle when you consider the million of things that had to happen for it to exist.
Dan56,
Again.... you post is helpful.
Thank you. From my belief your calm and pleasant willingness to discuss this validates you have read the book and got something out of what you read. Not only to support your growing faith but also it affects how you represent the sacred.
i have zero difficulty experiencing wonder in nature. Only , for me, it points to evolution that is still unfolding. None of proves that a Supreme Being was involved. In fact the most plausible explations for the Big Bang are just beginning to be be explored.
Of course- for a person of faith- none of this works as a reasonable answer... and I accept that.
Thank you for a gentle response that explains nicely the chasm. We have the same appreciation and sense of wonder....we merely attribute the origin to different sources.
It would seem one version takes place in a much longer time frame....converging proof from several areas of science pointing to probable connecting points and facts.
The other is an inspiring (to me) document... written by more than one author.... gathered & translated several more times....by several authors. It does not make it less valuable as a literary document full of excellent moral lessons!
It is woth reading. More than once. And we can sit in wonder under the same tree and appreciate the lessons. We can both improve for having read the book. We can part and live very similar lives by a very similar code of conduct. We really, for all external purposes would not be seen as very different.
Unless some third part jumps in and says one of us ( for our belief or lack of it) one of us needs to have our head lopped off or get the heck out of the country and forfeit all we have worked for....or accept a lesser position in society...until that dunderhead gets control.... life is good and we both enjoy having way more than enough. And the right to share ideas freely
von
-
13 hours ago, ULCneo said:
and your point is what, exactly? Because you apparently don't have a point with that total mess.
-
Hmmmm...I was just thinking much as I learn a bit from each interaction.... this likely true for kids? ( I am guessing there)....I frightened myself when I thought about what I see and here in a typical day, because I adults ought not push these images and words and negativity with such force on children.... maybe the enemie of the future is of our own making?
von
-
1
-
-
This might qualify as the dumbest question I have asked (lets not put that to a vote)
however, I just got to wondering about Halloween and stupidity.
Is this about the worst time of year for Wiccans to put out verbal stupid fires around them?
Does it get exhaustive? Or is just something you ignore? Or you just don't hear anything
about "witches" etc. that irks you about now?
von
-
On 10/23/2017 at 2:15 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
They walked away from me. All of them. Just lucky, I guess.
ya know....I have found that to be VERY true.....good for you for
seeing it for what it is....
von
-
3 hours ago, cuchulain said:
She's good. Everything went well, I suppose it's a fairly common surgery.
.gif ":thumbu:")
-
1 hour ago, cuchulain said:
We were thrown out of his house one week after my daughter had brain surgery and two weeks before Christmas.
I didn't talk to him again.
Again.....for your own sanity - sometimes it is smarter (and in this case way better) to get away from the most toxic members of our families.
I cannot begin to fully appreciate the horror of all of this. I am sorry it happened. No matter the circumstance. I am sorry. BTW, how is your daughter today?
von
-
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Interesting perspective. When I was 21, my parents divorced. It had been a miserable marriage and a wretched divorce. I sided with my mother. My father's extended family -- my loving family -- exiled me.
Screw them all. It's better to be alone, than to be with them.
6 hours ago, VonNoble said:For your own sanity sometimes it is smarter to just walk away from the most toxic members.
-
4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Isn't this how families stay together, without flying apart? You let things go -- and move on.
... perhaps as there is truth in that..
But also not
Some members of my family have not spoken for years at a time. Some if my in-laws are still not speaking. Over our 45 year marriage both of us have served as peacemaker and negotiator to family enemies. Often a condition of ever coming to the table to discuss it is a demand from someone that they hear an apology
For your own sanity sometimes it is smarter to just walk away from the most toxic members. But sadly too, years are lost over a simple misunderstanding. Getting either side to listen can be next to impossible with a simple I am sorry as the key to fixing it.
Sadly it it has happened that family members die sure the are right.... and die alone because of the need to be right
von
-
On 9/22/2017 at 5:13 PM, Songster said:
The more I this about this subject, the more I think that forgiving oneself may be the hardest to do....
Especially when one has "reasoned" his way into committing an act that would be regretted by any individual capable of honest self-analysis....
Like you, I gave this some additional thought.
If we need forgiveness from another - it would make our happiness dependent on getting it, maybe.
It seems like it is possible to choose our own reaction to things - so maybe if we can forgive ourselves (as you note: not the easiest thing to accomplish) but if we can and do....maybe seeking forgiveness is not all that important.
hmmmmm...is it possible to make amends without seeking forgiveness, I wonder?
von
-
Pastor Dave,
Thank you....I totally enjoyed it.
von
-
On 10/19/2017 at 3:52 PM, ULCneo said:
You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.
On 10/20/2017 at 8:37 AM, VonNoble said:We learn from what is said (and how it is said) - what is omitted, what is repeated like a broken record, who rises to the occasion, who never apologizes....
von
-
Another reason for live performance to inch ahead....interaction with the audience! I jUst attended a theater performance for children. No film could have revved up the kids like the actors just prior to the opening curtain. Using fast action, quickly learned little songs and stand-up-sit-down, dance-in-place, clap-like-me, stomp-like-me...games the children loved the show before the thrill of seeing live theater even began. I've never seen that happen to warm kids up at a Disney film
Kids of all ages (me included) were smiling the whole 55 minutes of the production. What a treat for the kids. And an even bigger treat for those who were allowed to see it through their eyes....
von
About this time of year (fall) ......stupid question....
in Earth/Nature-Based & Indigenous Religions
Posted
cuchulain and Brother Kamen,
I too am always surprised by how many people are "in love with the traditions" and are clueless re: the origin of those traditions. For that matter I likely am as well as I just enjoy some stuff without looking into the origins. But the Christmas bunch of stuff is particularly and solidly rooted in NOT Christian origins. Thanks for those reminders - very timely as I see Christmas decorations up all over the stores.
von