VonNoble
-
Posts
1,392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by VonNoble
-
-
Whatever I have evolved into spiritually - it is a completely mishmash of many teachers over time.
And it is most definitely a work in progress (heavy emphasis on the word work in all that.)
The few things I have picked up..when laid end to end...in my mind (whirring most of the time like a blender)
....the pattern that emerges is; being selfish can actually be beneficial?
* When I tune out everything else - focusing only on my breath - my blood pressure does go down (it is all about me)
* When I give anything away - it is not necessarily noble or charitable - I have come to know that I will get that and more back.....it immediately lets me feel good so it is not always for others that we are "generous" (it sort of is its own reward)
* I cannot help anyone else if I don't take care of myself so I am learning to be selfish with my time
in order to do more - I keep a bit more for myself
* When I choose the moral high ground I have far less strife
(don't lie = clear conscience) (don't steal/cheat = no guilt)
It might be that the whole thing is incredibly simple.
We may have to forget what we were taught and observe what works. Maybe?
Anyone else out there seeing anything similar in your life? Is less more?
von
-
Certainly it is understandable why you would not choose to stay in that environment.
It is pretty tough to feel valued, relaxed or worth too much if you skew towards
100% responsibility and 0% authority.
So now for a practical question - and I fear the answer - how do kids who are getting
knocked around at home - get any help? I know I have seen line item budget info detailing
having school counselors and psychologists on the grade school payroll.....how does that
work? The teachers/principal refers them? And seriously what do you do with an out of
control kid.....it seems highly likely in the scenario described you might have to hold one
down to keep him from hurting himself or others - what is the protocol for these things?
Is it any wonder a whole bunch of "Johnny's" are having trouble learning to read?
von
-
On 10/5/2017 at 5:54 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
What powers do you imagine a teacher has, to enforce discipline or anything else? Shut it off? With what? My magic wand? Maybe you think I can sprinkle the little darlings with angel dust?
Not so little. I still remember the fifth grade boy who, in smiling playfulness, walked over and picked me up.
Perhaps not so much imagination as ignorance of reality.
Naturally my age is showing here.
Okay - now I will ask rather than assume....how is discipline handled in school?
von
-
In keeping with GregNJ.....I just interviewed a stage actor for a class project and he pointed to the very same concept. He has also done work in films and noted the difference as an actor between the two types of performance.
He noted with film acting - he does not need much rehearsal time. One big surprise to him was how much rehearsal was required for a stage production - he had to adjust his style EXPRESSLY because there are no "do overs" in a live performance. You have to be right the first time - every time.
Different topic but related: I recently saw the play Equivocation (by Bill Cain) ........I had read the script several times and really could not see any way that could EVER be produced as it was just too, too much everything (dialogue, concentric plots inside of plots...) My solution was to find some place (any place) performing that script and see if I was able to follow it at all as a live production.
I did. It was draining. Having read the script I was able to follow it. I noted that eventually everyone
around me "got it" more or less....but it is one vote for LIVE. This was intended to be viewed as a three or
four dimensional presentation. I don't think film would have been as effective.
von
-
6 hours ago, cuchulain said:
And I do not believe that those who hold beliefs of a religious nature fall into the category of unable to think.
I agree with you on this point. I agree that people who hold belief in a religious faith are quite
capable of thinking, of thinking for themselves, of choosing what is best for them. Just like
those holding no religious affiliation. The brain functions the same for all involved.
I suspect (maybe) the emotions flair up for anyone when confronted by statements that
whatever the choice made (to believe or not believe) is met: YOU ARE WRONG.
That hackles anyone probably, yes?
Those who believe protesting that non-believers "don't get it" ...and non-believers
implying those who choose to believe "are incapable of independent thought."
Those things might prove to be a correct conclusion for other reasons but certainly not
solely upon belief or lack of it.
Good point.
von
-
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:
Thanks... I'd confess to the notion that I am one dimensional in what I've chosen to believe, monotheism pretty much demands that, but I don't think it prevents a person from being a free thinker. Others might categorize it differently, but I think anyone is capable of considering various positions on any subject. Unfortunately, they are often labeled "closed-minded" for not yielding to another point of view.
...another two-way street conundrum....
von
-
8 hours ago, ULCneo said:
The problem is that if all you have is oral tradition, etc. Then what you have evolves over time in such a way that nobody consciously knows that it has evolved.
Or perhaps it is good that it is allowed to evolve.....
von
-
Jonathan H.B. Lobl,
I have been remiss in not noting this earlier.
I appreciate greatly you have made yourself available to Pete.
That is the best of ULC - and I am grateful to you.
von
-
On 10/4/2017 at 4:12 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I picked up an interesting line recently. "An assertion that can be made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
.gif ":thumbu:")
-
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:
My initial post simply suggested that we are all 'free thinkers'. I did not invoke Jesus or any book in my comment, so I fail to see how my opinion was choosing to irk people off. The response to my post is what beclouded the issue, denigrated my belief, and condemned the idea that I could have an independent thought. So I didn't muddle the discussion, I just responded to those who did. Trust me, I don't need to mention Jesus or the bible to irk Jonathan or Pete off, I'm fully aware of their complete hatred towards Christians. Understanding is a 2-way street, and so is respect. Read my post on page 5 of this thread, and then read the nasty responses. How does that approach foster understanding? My beliefs were made a topic, but it wasn't me who initially brought them up for discussion. I was fully aware of the topic prior to posting an opinion, and my post was not directed at Pete or a response to anyone else, nor was it about religion per se.
Hello Dan56,
THANK YOU for keeping the dialogue open. We have a long history of helping each other through the confusion.
I appreciate that you have always offered respect to my non-belief in the past - and have publicly thanked you for that courtesy.
It is both irksome and confusing however, especially knowing your background - that you would come to any discussion (EVER) between a non-believer and a believer using a bible quote, invoking the name of God or Christ because you are more aware than most that these things have no place on the bridge of understanding in the world of a non-believer. I did hold you to a higher standard because I felt you would better understand the impact of doing such a thing.
When anyone (not you specifically) comes towards me toting a Bible the very positioning of it implies I don't already know it (and frankly know it a darn sight better than many of them). It feels as if the real message is: "me and God are here to tell you this cuz you obviously need tellin' sort of thing." That may not be your intent when people do that - however, that is the irksome to non-believers. The assumption that we do not know what you are about to say. Additionally, when a reference book (that we do not share in common) is used - it removes the thoughts presented away from "free thinking" and towards indoctrinated regurgitation on the sliding scale of how we (all) present our thoughts. I can tell you why I am for or against the Second Amendment to the Constitution without quoting it. The quoting part is rarely necessary and is a waste of space and time most of the time.
In a posting where I noted honestly that I had worked for years - in a heavily Christian area ...to help women who were abused.....and the abuse happened at more than one church, by more than one pastor....your response was defending Christianity and yourself. ( As in you don't condone it) I already knew that. That was not news. I rather resented that you would think me capable of concluding that about you. So it seemed to be a purposeful attempt to obfuscate the conversation. If that was not the case - than I apologize for adding to the confusion.
It seemed, to me, you were ignoring the victims. I know you would not condone it or do it or ever say a thing other than it is wrong. It seemed to me however by making the emphasis on Christianity you missed the boat. It was never about you, me or the defense of Christianity. I even interjected "bowling league" into my discussion to point out it doesn't matter the label so don't defend the label.....it is about the victim. And sensitivity. If someone in this Forum is hurting because the bowling league of XYZ faith hurt them I would suggest it is as simple as this: 1) the victim does not need to hear from anyone in XYZ bowling league - for any reason at this time 2) XYZ bowlling league people who did not perpetrate the hurtful action should not defend the league to anyone.....the first and foremost concern should always be the victim. The survivor deserves the attention - not the perpetrator (and the innocent members of the posse.) . All that can be sorted out by those who are helping the healing.
When I am standing in the middle of the bridge to meet you half way and see what together we can do to foster healing we do so, as we have in the past as equals who care. I have plenty of baggage from decades of fake Christians trying to bash me. I have suffered plenty of unwarranted attacks from fake Christ-followers and I have yet to lump them into a group I hate or dislike. I am tired of wave after wave of them viciously condemning me solely on the fact I am adamant in my acceptance of others (all others) as my equal. It is exhaustive but I will always stand on the bridge. I believe that the message of their God expects you to do no less. In my case, it is a standard I choose for myself. Either way, the important thing is we be willing to listen and learn from one another respecting the moral fiber shared. ..
von
-
Dan56,Please help me to understand the following:" I would definitely disagree with that. "They" aren't my example. Even Jesus repeatedly warned about such characters (Matthew 7:15). Its kind of like saying that its alright to condemn all moderate Muslims because they can't speak independently of the radical ones."
You and I were having a dialogue that has now come to a stand still.
You position yourself as having been, at one time, a person who did not believe in God. I assumed that meant as you transitioned over the bridge to a place that works better for you - that you would have retained some understanding towards other non-believers. If you do retain any understanding of your previous situation you are choosing to irk people for reasons unknown to me.
I see no possible beneficial outcome in doing so. If you are in doubt because you do not remember what it was like when you were a non-believer - please allow me to refresh that in your mind. When you were a non-believer would YOU have been able to understand what is the purpose of interjecting God into our conversation? If you were once an atheist as you claim - please help me to understand WHAT is the purpose of that? Why must God be invoked to make your free thinking point. It appears to be at best a paradox. It was between you and me up to that point. Not me, you and Jesus. Not me, you, Jesus and a book you believe is sacred (and I am guessing here that means you are right.... because it is sacred to you?) How does that approach foster understanding? I am seriously asking.
It very much seems like an attempt to becloud the discussion. There is no moral high ground to be gained as we do not share any common ground in regards to the book....or Jesus. So how does that advance understanding? Or afford respect?
How is that relevant or helpful in any discussion between a believer and a non-believer?
Thank you
von
-
4 hours ago, LeopardBoy said:
I can understand doing that. When I meet someone new and a friendship begins to develop, I try to work in the topic of my own homosexuality in a tactful way to gauge their response to it. It doesn’t mean that my bringing up the subject early is a statement that it’s the most important part about me, but that I want to get that out of the way before I develop an emotional attachment to someone. I’ve lost longtime friends when they found out I’m gay. Because years of friendship and emotional connection can be erased by that one truth about myself. Especially with male friends. Suddenly every display of affection is retroactively viewed as me “making a pass” and even a simple compliment becomes seen as a flirtation. It just gets awkward and painful for everyone.
Thanks for the posting. I can see your point. It was good of you to share it.
I guess to some extent any of us would do that on a social level when looking at future relationships.
Personal relationships aside - I guess i am thinking of social conventions in public gatherings.
Example: If i went to a town hall gathering. I think I would give my opinion about zoning
or whatever - without mentioning which political party I was affiliated with...for most people I am
thinking they would make the point about zoning based on what is relevant to the topic of zoning.
The point I obviously did not make well - (thx for helping me to clarify) - at times we point out things
to protect ourselves, or set the stage.....when perhaps we no longer need to do so.
My brother-in-law was really, really proud he fulfilled a life long dream of going to Australia for three months.
By golly for ten years he was still milking it for milage in every conversation possible. I have a sister that
tells everyone she has three kids. Why that is relevant - I have no idea but I have heard her mention often
"she is the mother of three"...and people nod as if that means anything.
I can appreciate that sometimes you run into people who are ignorant and behave inappropriately.
I am pretty sure they are the same ones who are ridiculous when interacting with the rest of us
too - - they just find other things to be ignorant about with us. I can fully "get" shielding yourself
from them by clearing the air right from the start. There is NO DOUBT that saves you some wear
and tear. One of those rules I keep seeing in engineering offices is don't cross the bridge before
you get to it.
It might be THEM and their issue that needs to adjust - not you.
Maybe you are just really, really nice and very, very considerate. (That is a good thing.)
Then again - I am not sure I would work too hard to try and redirect my-brother-in-law....or those
like him. I think everyone can see him for what he is...and most people are kind to him. I would
put money on the fact when you tell him you are gay - his only noticeable reaction would be
to speak louder .....
von
-
I wonder - if a kid is mean....again....are they just born with
angry little temperaments? Or do they pick that up along the way?
Like an older sibling harasses them and they start fighting back
early to get their share of the food or whatever?
To the extent a kid IS TAUGHT awful stuff - what recourse is
there? Can a kid be taken away because the parents are just
hateful people? It seems that would hamper them forever in
life so isn't that some kind of abuse?
Seriously - is there a venue to remove a kid even when it is
not physical.
I once was assigned to represent our company on the Board of a
Child Abuse Council for the local city. I had to resign. After two
meetings I resigned. So I don't know what the law can do or not
do - I simply could not wrap my mind around any of it.
von
-
5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I have not observed kindness or love to be innate to children. Children can be mean. Children will tear the wings off a fly and then laugh at it. Children think the Three Stooges are funny. Children enjoy seeing people fall on the ice and not be able to stand.
Empathy for the suffering of others has to be developed over time.
I don't know how much bias is natural to children. Racial, gender or anything else. It's the whole Nature vs. Nurture argument. I am clear that adults, have false expectations, of kindness and love when dealing with children.
Why are classroom bullies, so much a part of childhood?
Actually I am sort of taken aback. I have not been around little kids much.
I think they are kind of foreign little creatures to me.
I never know what to expect from them. I don't understand them.
They seem pretty willing to have fun almost always.
And I find I can bribe most of them with ice cream.
That's pretty much what I know.
I have no clue how classroom bullies exist.
Then again- if I ran up against one - I put up a fight (not always successfully)
as a kid. That lesson taught me to go toe to toe with them QUICK in life later
on.
I had four or five pair of glasses busted in as many months as a kid.
I never started the fight....but I never hid from one either.
I never threw the first punch. But I had a green light after someone hit
me to bang them back hard. My father said that was the only
way to stop them. I believed him in that regard for awhile.
My mother insisted that out thinking them was better. I guess that makes me
a switch hitter (pun intended) with bullies. Punch or bob and weave...or sidestep
...or make them laugh if possible - whatever one seemed most effective.
As far as in the classroom - you caught me by surprise. I sort of thought teachers
were trained to watch for that nonsense and shut it off. OBVIOUSLY I have not
been IN a classroom or school for a very long time.
von
-
5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I see that you are still trying to be reasonable. You over look the obvious. Everybody else has religion. Dan has God and Christ.
Okay....you made me laugh
von
-
6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:
I would like to invite you (all) to watch my favourite scene from Dr. Quantum: "Flatland" (how to explain the third dimension to a two-dimensional being). It basically explains how I feel (like Dot) better than a whole bunch of my words would:
I did watch it - and found it very entertaining on more than one level. Thanks von
-
Pondering a thought...
isn't the effort by strangers to
help victims in Las Vegas... tearing up their clothing to make temp bandages....
....driving water in their own vehicle ...
water puchased by their own wallet ....
... should that not be counted as tithe?
should not the local church note that they gave that aid some way so they get credit?
von
-
2 hours ago, Dan56 said:
When I say that I'm put-off by religion, I simply mean that I oppose Catholicism, Pentecostalism, etc.. I simply agree and believe with what Christ taught, and that doesn't need defending.. I don't know why that angers you?
Pete is articulate and needs no help from me... and I think wisely walked away.
I will address this only for myself.
i have long believed Jesus would not approve of many churches carrying his name. They are not anywhere close to the message if Jesus.
Many people are hurt horribly by trust given to authority and they leave feeling betrayed. (I am not referring to Pete or myself)... but it is real and damaging ( and not unique to Christianity)
your premise that the message of Christ
needs no defense doesn't go too far with the multitudes who have lived thru atrocities brought upon them by the good bringers of Christ's message.
i served on the Board of a batted womens shelter for years... there were plenty of horrors inflicted in Christs name by clergy for example including ....their need to submit to the beatings... the rape within the confines of marriage as they had " no right" to deny their husband.... or to take the beatings cuz the deserved them.
You may not agree with one of those things.... however IS it that difficult to understand why your love of Christ might cause them a little angst?
You can say whatever you like but their experience with the representatives of Christ are going to face lots of distrust
talk is cheap
... I never get why people with labels do not see they will be viewed in terms of the least of their brothers... by people hurt lots of times in lots of ways ....As a Christian you are part of them and not speaking independently.... it defines your life decisions... your values
it might be be helpful to just accept that they were hurt and start there... you will always be judged by the other ....by THEIR understanding of your label
ONE Of MY " gay" friends ( only for quick reference I would never use that qualifier in real life) railed about people's response to him being gay.... I can't help but wonder why he felt the need to stick that into the mix.... he might NOT need to put that out there as the most important part of getting to know about him... then gripe because he got all the baggage that comes with that
Hope it helps in some way
von
-
28 minutes ago, mererdog said:
Think about humor.
You don't make a decision to find things funny, you simply react to things, finding some things to be funny. Those reactions are largely shaped by your prior experiences, on a level well below the conscious- and also by the hormones that shape your mood. This is why we often laugh when we don't want to, or even when doing so is inconvenient or even dangerous. Belief seems to be very similar.
We don't seem to be wired to believe certain ways, our beliefs just seem to be more or less beyond our control. Something that happens to us rather than something we do. We "become convinced" rather than "deciding to be convinced." If this is true, it means it is as patently unfair to fault someone for a bad belief as it is to fault someone for having a broken leg. It also means that avoiding bad beliefs is reason to feel fortunate, not reason to brag.
EXCELLENT... totally new-to-me concept.... but amazingly rich... clears up more than a couple of issues I have pondered over for years ... btw.... REALLY good explanation
Since I am currently enrolled at the university..and obviously did not get anywhere near these concepts my last two stints in college...would this fall into
psychology ( I am lining up my course load for next semester) ( I am enjoying taking courses completely new to me)
I am dazzled with this concept
thx
von
-
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I'm going to have to take this topic in small bites. The topic is too complex to be expansive.
If we want to know what children are being taught -- we have to listen to what comes out of the mouths of children. This is much more than formal education. But clearly, instruction was taking place.
I used to have a circle of Hasidic friends. In one household, there were two young boys. Brothers. When they wanted to be mean to each other -- the worst, most hurtful thing they could come up with was -- "You're a goy!".
Okay! Now this is what I was getting at...to a lesser extent.
So if a child is being TAUGHT thusly - is it safe for me to assume that
NATURALLY a child does not arrive without bias.
Is that much right (thanks for going slow on this one) - By nature
children to do not focus on differences in people, skin types etc?
That is learned?
Does hate or conversely - kindness - come naturally to kids?
Is it a temperament they are born with or a skill set they learn?
(maybe it is some other option - and I am clueless)
von
-
7 minutes ago, Pete said:
I remember Richard Bandler being told by a group of scientists that personality and behavour was fixed by the age of 5. Richard pulled out a gun and pointed it at the scientists and ask would this change your behaviour. The point is many beliefs are held but changed when stress, trauma or cognative dissonance forces them to adapt and behaviour is reassessed and choices are made.
First a great laugh - as I DID NOT see the gun coming in that discussion.
Thanks for that.
Second - this entire idea that "how church makes us feel" sort of (I may not be getting this but if I am) it sure as
heck clears up (or starts to clear) up quite a bit of cloudiness in understanding all this.
von
-
18 minutes ago, mererdog said:
Why? Is it your experience that you can pick and choose what to believe? In my experience, it simply does not work that way- and the science seems to back up my experience.
All the empirical evidence I have seen suggests that anyone claiming they chose to believe something is simply wrong. It further suggests that anyone who claims to be able to know whether or not they can be swayed by evidence is also wrong. The reason is simple: belief does not seem to be produced by a conscious, rational process, but rather by a subconscious process that is largely emotionally-driven.
This is VERY interesting.
So are you saying ( I have a decent command of the language but sometimes new ideas
get stuck running thru my brain) - are we sort of wired to be believe as we do?
(or since it might be emotional and or subconscious ...maybe HOTwired is a better choice
of words)
THAT is a big newsflash to my brain.
von
-
34 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:
So it's just "easy", "safe", "clear" et cetera... The world still "thinks" in labels. we can be all "above that" and all, but in the end, that's how it still works... we all use "labels". I'm open to shedding them, certainly... but they're not gone yet.
And as you say: improve the world, start with yourself! (Or, as Mahatma Gandhi said it: “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”)
Bravo! I agree (with Mahatma)....and better understand the penchant use of labels
in discussing religion a bit better. It makes sense. I can also better understand
why you chose a hybrid label....considering your reasoning that is a good choice
Thx.
von
-
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Education takes so many forms. Formal childhood education is one piece of a whole. Does the group teach Universal equality? Or do the people with the wrong beliefs go to Hell Fire? Do the people mix freely with others? Or is there cultural isolation? Is there a sense of being persecuted by others? How much time is spent on formal church prayer? How complex is church culture? Are they afraid of outsiders?
I'm no Sociologist. Or Anthropologist. A serious examination of childhood training is not a simple mater.
Thanks for joining in on this one as you have far more of a background on this
than I ever will. IS THERE a line in the sand when experts would see something
as indoctrination?
I am thinking of cult kids - who never have a chance to know "normal or healthy" by
way of growing up. Surely there is some criteria for determining when such things
cross over a line into abuse? Or maybe not - I just assume there is an imaginary
line in the sand.
von
Agnostics, Atheists, Brights, Free Thinkers
in Freethought, Secularism, No Religion
Posted
Welcome back.gif ":thumbu:")