respect, dignity and grace

[Dan56]

45 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

When you say bigoted things, you're a bigot.  Stop hiding behind Scripture.

 

I'm afraid I'll need a quote of those bigoted things I allegedly said? Because I don't agree with the opinions or actions of some people who don't happen to be of my race or religion, doesn't make me a bigot.. That's like saying that if I condemn Hitler, I'm not a bigot because I'm also of some German descent, but if I condemn the actions of Osama bin Laden, I'm a bigot because I'm not a Muslim . Evil is evil, it doesn't matter what race, religion, or gender is committing it.

 

Christ called those people murderers, and not long after they were screaming for the crucifixion of an innocent man. So was Jesus a bigot, or was he simply telling the truth? Imo, if you choose the former, your logic is flawed and irrational. 

[RevTom]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

When you say bigoted things, you're a bigot.  Stop hiding behind Scripture.

I do not believe Dan is being a bigot when using Jew in the context given. When used as a slander, then of course name calling someone is bigoted, but when addressing a people in their own words, referring to scripture, it is not being slanderous nor bigoted. Should we strike the words from the Bible?

Edited September 6, 2017 by RevTom
typo

[VonNoble]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its my belief that God forgives those who repent, and He expects us to do likewise; "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him" (Luke 17:3). So your assertion that "God chooses forgiveness - always" does not ring true for me. I don't think God forgives non-'believers  or the unrepentant, but is quick to forgive the repentant believer. When the malefactor crucified with Christ said that he (the thief) deserved his punishment, Jesus did not disagree with him. Our deeds have consequences, that's why there's a heaven and a hell, God's reward and God's wrath.   jmo

 

Certainly the only disagreement here is between our view, of God's protocol. 

(well in my case there is the issue of God's existence but I am setting that aside

for this thread.)      You have always afforded me respect as i do to you. 

 

Perhaps it is merely our own filter and experience in life guiding us to conclude as we do. 

There is no need for us to reach a consensus.

  Your beliefs keep you walking with God to the best of your ability.

  Mine keep me working to do and be better as well. 

 

To me it is all good.   I understand I am not "forgiven" in your point of view.  I am okay with that. 

I am also not saved.   I am okay with that too.

 I respect you cared enough to make sure I was aware of the consequences.

  I "get" that is part of your duties as a Christian.  

 

I am not taking offense and appreciate you lived up to your calling. 

I hope you did not take offense either. 

 

It is my opinion that God (if there is one) would offer love in degrees we cannot imagine.

God would expect us to do and care for one another no matter how limited our understanding.

And that God would certainly want me to respect your views and allow you to live in accordance

with your understanding.   There is room to agree to disagree .....without being ugly. 

 

I fully believe that neither of us represents evil.   We have that in common. 

 

Thanks for sharing things faithfully and honestly. 

 

von

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

The New Testament is a collection of documents, put together by people with political agenda.  Said agenda resulted in 2,000 years of persecution, which culminated in the Holocaust.  Culminated may be the wrong word, since the same documents are still spreading their poison.

 

This is about the time when someone insists that Jesus, his mother and the Apostles, were all Jewish, so Christian Scripture can't be antisemitic.  This is also the time, when I'm told that the monsters who persecuted my ancestors were not true Christians.  Generally about now, there is a challenge to show, from Scripture, that following the example of Christ is a bad thing.     

 

This leaves me with what?  Arguing against the plausibility of the trial -- the same way I argue against the plausibility of Noah's flood?  And a thousand other red herrings?  It doesn't make a difference.  It never makes a difference.  The past lives on.

 

I'm done with arguing the details and I'm done with kissing up.  People who spout bigotry, find that quoting Scripture is a wonderful hiding place.  

 

Before I forget to mention it, my concerns do not stop with antisemitism.  I'm also mindful of all the people who have been murdered, because they were accused of being witches.  Not the same thing as being witches.  Still going on in Christian Ghana.  Or the people who were murdered or otherwise persecuted for the crime of being homosexual.  Another on-going horror.

 

None of it is going to go away with a clinical discussion about mythology, or a linguistic analysis of what was truly stated in Scripture.  In the end, none of the excuses matter.   And no.  It is too late to censor Scripture.  The harm is already done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

Jonathan H.B. Lobl,

 

You have noted several times that you are a work in progress AS ARE WE ALL.

It is good to state your beliefs and understanding clearly and firmly. 

You demonstrate courage and I applaud that. 

 

To put a fine point on it (I am trying to be brief) - respecting that others do not

see things as I do is not the same thing of agreeing with them.

 

Perhaps all of us hide behind stuff.

Scriptures are hardly the only "authority item" people hide behind.

 

 Perhaps each of us takes a turn living boldly.

 Perhaps there are moments that we have done all we can and there is

just no satisfaction in our efforts.   The good news is we live to do better 

(read that as do better rather than do battle) .....another day.   

 

Self worth demands we speak our truth.

It does not demand others agree.

 

When we disagree - how we disagree defines US (not them) 

Offering respect seems the best way forward to me. 

 

There are a great many people with whom I disagree. 

There are almost none that I do not respect.   I often learn the most from those

who do NOT agree with me.  When I work to see their point - to understand 

what motivates their statements  - rarely do I see uncaring dunderheads.

 

Mostly there is a REASON they are saying what they are saying. 

If I work to "get" their reason - I can begin to appreciate the why of it all. 

It very often will NOT alter my point of view.  But it improves my 

understanding of how to proceed in the discussion if the goal is for

both of us to reach the middle of the bridge.  We need not go any 

farther.  Each of arriving at the middle is a victory for both of us. 

 

Thanks for hanging in there with us.    I am glad you did and do. 

 

von 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, RevTom said:

I do not believe Dan is being a bigot when using Jew in the context given. When used as a slander, then of course name calling someone is bigoted, but when addressing a people in their own words, referring to scripture, it is not being slanderous nor bigoted. Should we strike the words from the Bible?

 

God can judge his heart.  All I have is his words.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

Jonathan H.B. Lobl,

 

You have noted several times that you are a work in progress AS ARE WE ALL.

It is good to state your beliefs and understanding clearly and firmly. 

You demonstrate courage and I applaud that. 

 

1.  To put a fine point on it (I am trying to be brief) - respecting that others do not

see things as I do is not the same thing of agreeing with them.

 

Perhaps all of us hide behind stuff.

Scriptures are hardly the only "authority item" people hide behind.

 

 Perhaps each of us takes a turn living boldly.

 Perhaps there are moments that we have done all we can and there is

just no satisfaction in our efforts.   The good news is we live to do better 

(read that as do better rather than do battle) .....another day.   

 

Self worth demands we speak our truth.

It does not demand others agree.

 

2.  When we disagree - how we disagree defines US (not them) 

Offering respect seems the best way forward to me. 

 

There are a great many people with whom I disagree. 

There are almost none that I do not respect.   I often learn the most from those

who do NOT agree with me.  When I work to see their point - to understand 

what motivates their statements  - rarely do I see uncaring dunderheads.

 

Mostly there is a REASON they are saying what they are saying. 

If I work to "get" their reason - I can begin to appreciate the why of it all. 

It very often will NOT alter my point of view.  But it improves my 

understanding of how to proceed in the discussion  3.   if the goal is for

both of us to reach the middle of the bridge.  We need not go any 

farther.  Each of arriving at the middle is a victory for both of us. 

 

Thanks for hanging in there with us.    I am glad you did and do. 

 

von 

 

1.  I think you are trying to do too much with one word.  "Respect."  

 

I respect you.

 

I tolerate Dan.

 

I endure Scripture.

 

2.  You are an idealist.  I like that about you.  I don't agree with your conclusions.

 

Understand the basic positions of a Fundamentalist.  Not just Christian.  Any Fundamentalist.

 

A.  He's right.

 

B.  You need correcting.

 

That leaves small room for mutual respect.  You might respect him.  He will never respect you.  That leaves appeasement.

 

3.  You think the Fundamentalist wants to meet us in the middle of the bridge?  He owns the bridge.  It's his job to correct us.  There is nothing mutual going on.  

 

 

The view is so much better, when I'm not on my knees, begging for the respect that will never be granted.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

30 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

1.  I think you are trying to do too much with one word.  "Respect."  

 

I respect you.

 

 

First, thanks for extending respect to me.

In kind - I'll try and format my response in respect to you.

 

1.  a)   You may be right.   I lean towards inclusiveness.

     b) I respect you.  I respect Dan.  For different reasons.

     c) I respect my own understanding  of the Scriptures

 

2.  It is perfectly fine with me that you draw other conclusions

      a) I learn from you which helps me 

      b) I have often (past) shared your view of fundamentalism (any flavor) so I fully appreciate where you are coming from

       c) it is not an acquiesce or appeasement issue in my view - there is always more than one right way 

       d) I do not know it all, never have and never will - therefore I am compelled to listen

 

3.   A fundamentalist owns only his side of the bridge.   

      a)   he can charge tolls from his side

      b)  my side is open and free

      c) no one including me, needs to walk onto that bridge

       d)   each of us can remain more insulated and isolated - it is a choice

       e) my willingness to stand and hear him out - is a testament to my belief and my character 

 

At some point in my life after trying other ways - reasonable has proved (for me) to be the best 

option.     

 

You are making me ponder deeply and I appreciate that you have provided that motivation.

 

von

      

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

A cautionary Buddhist tale.

 

A young Buddhist monk was making his way through a snow covered wood.  It was very cold.  As the young monk was making his way through the woods, he heard a voice.

 

"I'm dying.  Please.  Have compassion.  Save me."

 

The monk looked about and saw a snake, dying from the cold.

 

"Save me" said the snake.  "Bring me into your robe, before the cold kills me."

 

"I can't do that" said the monk.  "You will surely bite me.  Then I will die from your poison."

 

"Why would I bite You?" asked the snake.  "Then we will both die."

 

This reasoning appealed to the monk's idealistic nature.  He placed the freezing snake inside his robe.  The snake promptly bit him.  As the monk lay dying, he asked -- "Why did you bite me?  Now we will both perish".

 

"I couldn't help myself" said the snake.  "It's my nature."  

 

[Dan56]

56 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Understand the basic positions of a Fundamentalist.  Not just Christian.  Any Fundamentalist.

 

A.  He's right.

 

B.  You need correcting.

 

That leaves small room for mutual respect.  You might respect him.  He will never respect you.  That leaves appeasement.

 

3.  You think the Fundamentalist wants to meet us in the middle of the bridge?  He owns the bridge.  It's his job to correct us.  There is nothing mutual going on.  

 

 

You've always seemed super sensitive to the Christian fundamentalist point of view, but you should not feel persecuted when you hear it.. Of course I think I'm right, that's why I believe as I do, but  I feel no obligation to 'correct' others, nor do I expect agreement or appeasement.. I write what I think and believe,  and it usually doesn't afford me the opportunity to mutually agree with others, not without compromising what I've personally chosen to believe. I do respect everyone's opinion, no matter how crazy or opposite it might be from mine, that's what ULC is all about.

[FredClaus]

Respect is earned. I don't feel that people are entitled to my respect. If you felt that way that would mean that they could treat me like a dog and I HAVE to respect them. Nope sorry, that isn't happening. If you want respect you need to show respect. 

 

 

[VonNoble]

49 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

A cautionary Buddhist tale.

 

This reasoning appealed to the monk's idealistic nature.  He placed the freezing snake inside his robe.  The snake promptly bit him.  As the monk lay dying, he asked -- "Why did you bite me?  Now we will both perish".

 

"I couldn't help myself" said the snake.  "It's my nature."  

 

 

Oh thank heavens we picked a Buddhist story! 

 

The story does not end on a death knell...it is but the beginning of the rest of the story. 

The lessons gleaned could easily support many points of view. 

 

Thx

 

von

[VonNoble]

29 minutes ago, FredClaus said:

Respect is earned. I don't feel that people are entitled to my respect. If you felt that way that would mean that they could treat me like a dog and I HAVE to respect them. Nope sorry, that isn't happening. If you want respect you need to show respect. 

 

 

 

in that scenario doesn't one of the two people have to show it first?

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

 

Oh thank heavens we picked a Buddhist story! 

 

The story does not end on a death knell...it is but the beginning of the rest of the story. 

The lessons gleaned could easily support many points of view. 

 

Thx

 

von

 

 

There is a similar American Indian story.  Scorpion wants to ride on Frog's back, to cross a river.  Frog is afraid that Scorpion will sting him.  Scorpion persuades Frog.  Halfway across, Scorpion does sting Frog and they both die.  It was Scorpion's nature.  

 

Ideas get around.  Or people discover the same truth in parallel.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FredClaus]

You have me there Von. I guess they do. 

[RevBogovac]

4 hours ago, FredClaus said:

Respect is earned. I don't feel that people are entitled to my respect. If you felt that way that would mean that they could treat me like a dog and I HAVE to respect them. Nope sorry, that isn't happening. If you want respect you need to show respect. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

in that scenario doesn't one of the two people have to show it first?

 

von

 

Yup Von, that's basically my stance on it too; everybody starts with me respecting them, but they can sure (as #€££) lose it...

[mererdog]

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It's the productive part that I'm not getting

And the personal pronouns. I spoke to my feelings, my motives, and my tactics. I intentionally avoided any version of "we should."

[Rev. Calli]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:15 PM, Dan56 said:

 

I'd have to agree with Jonathan, there comes a point when some people are not entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.. Respect is earned by our deeds, and if a persons purpose becomes detrimental to everyone around them, we would be foolish to respect them. Not everyone is a child of God either, Jesus told the   Pharisees and Jews; "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). 

Greetings to you my brother,

 

I believe I would have to disagree with you.  Respect is due to all people.  We are all children of God.  Now respecting someone doesn't mean you agree with their actions, or that you even give approval.  Not does it mean that people should not be held accountable for their actions.  But it does mean that even when by their actions someone is subjected to correction and punishment, it must be done in a way that respects their fundamental humanity.

 

Some years ago I read a book titled "The New Centurions" by Joseph Waumbaugh.   In it, one of his main characters, a police officer in LA nearing retirement, talked about his ideas for the prison system.  He believed that prisons should be very agreeable places, in fact, and I believe this to be a verbatim quote "we should supply them with all the booze, drugs and broads they want, just as long as we keep them locked up where they can't hurt anyone else."  I actually kind of agree with that.  People who have proved they cannot live in free society should be restrained, but their imprisonment should be as kind and agreeable as we can make it, because they are never getting out.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, Rev. Calli said:

He believed that prisons should be very agreeable places, in fact, and I believe this to be a verbatim quote "we should supply them with all the booze, drugs and broads they want, just as long as we keep them locked up where they can't hurt anyone else."  I actually kind of agree with that.  People who have proved they cannot live in free society should be restrained, but their imprisonment should be as kind and agreeable as we can make it, because they are never getting out.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

If prison was like that, people wouldn't want to get out.. In fact, some would commit crimes just to get in  

The threat of doing hard time ought to be a deterrent for committing crimes, not an incentive.. I can't imagine providing a serial rapist all the broads he wants while he's in jail, or a drug addict all the drugs he wants.. Imagine how the victims of these criminals would feel when prisons provide their assailants with a sort of utopia.

Making the punishment easy, even enjoyable, would sent the crime rates sky-rocketing.. jmo

[RevBogovac]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

If prison was like that, people wouldn't want to get out.. In fact, some would commit crimes just to get in  

The threat of doing hard time ought to be a deterrent for committing crimes, not an incentive.. I can't imagine providing a serial rapist all the broads he wants while he's in jail, or a drug addict all the drugs he wants.. Imagine how the victims of these criminals would feel when prisons provide their assailants with a sort of utopia.

Making the punishment easy, even enjoyable, would sent the crime rates sky-rocketing.. jmo

 

You obviously haven't spent time in prison... Dutch and Danish prisons are - more or less - like that (I'd suggest you watch Moore's 'Where to Invade Next' to see him interview a murderer wielding a 10"+ kitchen knife while cooking dinner in his "prison home") and "our" crime rates seem to show exactly the opposite of what you're saying... just saying.