God & godless alike.... choose respect first ?

[VonNoble]

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

 

We are entering dangerous ground here.  My response is going to offend people.  That is sad.  Still, you did ask and I wish to be honest with my response.  No doubt, meredog will wish to call me on how I have responded to Dan, when I reacted badly to his statement on Agnostics.  Dan may also wish to respond with similar observations.  I expect it.  

 

I regard faith as something to be outgrown.  Like Santa.  Like an invisible friend.

 

When we are young children, it is common to have an invisible friend.  In a five year old this is cute.  In an adult -- not so much.  For an adult, God is that invisible friend.  What is even sadder is when that same adult has an invisible enemy.  That would be the Devil.  Most young children do not ask strangers to talk to their invisible friend -- or fear their invisible enemy.  The Evangelicals do.

 

Young children are trained by their parents and by society to believe in Santa.  What do we know about Santa?  He's an old man with a beard, who flies around the sky, in the company of magic flying creatures.  It sounds a lot like God and his angels.

 

What else do we know about Santa?  We know by singing his songs as children.

 

"He's making a list -- checking it twice -- he always knows who's naughty or nice ................"

 

"He knows when you are sleeping.  He knows when you're awake.  He knows when you've been bad or good............"

 

What does this give us?  The old man in the sky is watching everything we do.  He knows when we are sleeping and when we are active.  He keeps lists of the good and the bad.  He rewards the good and punishes the bad.  God in miniature.  Children outgrow Santa.  God lingers on in the adult mind.

 

No.  Faith is not a gift.  It is a developmental problem.  IMO.

 

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

[VonNoble]

13 hours ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that there is any good answer.  In standard Wesleyan Theology, we believe in a concept called prevenient  Grace.  To simplify the concept, it is a view that God works on each of us to give us a longing to be in a relationship with God, much as we very often long to be in a close relationship with others, be it parents, friends, lovers, etc.  It is something that is ingrained in the very fabric of our being.  The thing is, this can be a very subtle feeling in a person.  It's like a very small, fragile seed in that it doesn't grow unless it is nurtured.  It's not always recognizable for what it really is, in that people will often interpret that longing as a desire for something else entirely, and spend their lives trying to fill that need in other ways.  Sex, power, drugs, money, people will pursue these things believing that the longing they feel will be satisfied by using or obtaining these things, but yet they still feel empty or lost.  

 

Without the background to understand the nature of this longing for God, you cannot choose, as you don't know how to even begin to understand what you are longing for.  Even if you had grown up or in later years been exposed to people of faith, even if you had been thoroughly indoctrinated in a faith system, it is so very easy to misinterpret that longing for something to fill that need in your soul as a desire for something else.  

 

But still, for many of us, be it luck, or a gift of some special insight from God, when we are confronted with the choice, God on one hand, of the things of this world on the other, we choose faith, as that is where we find real happiness and soul satisfaction.  

 

So perhaps, it is a little of both.  It is God's offer to us, but up to us to recognize the offer and accept or reject as we see fit. 

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

 

I appreciate your candor.  It sounds like there is no definitive answer. 

You were able to make an adaptation (appreciation) of a relationship with a personal God - - - largely because you 

understood that concept as an option since infancy - maybe?

 

For someone not raised understanding quite that way - the leap to joining that understanding may be far harder than it 

appears (and as mererdog) noted - not a viable option - - - or not an option that one just easily chooses - there is a bunch of groundwork that would need to happen to lay a foundation before that is even possible ....perhaps....

 

It is helpful to sort of winnow out the more extreme views to find that the disconnect is certainly more than choices of words.   Then again - it may be more understandable than the start of the thread...so the contributions of all points of view may be building a partial bridge.  Maybe

 

 

Thanks again for your input. 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour 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

 

 

 

Before starting on a journey -- either literal or spiritual -- it is good to ask basic questions.    Where am I going?  Why am I going?  What am I looking for?  What do I want to do when I get there?

 

It simplifies things.  It is not helpful to look for directions until you know where you want to end up.  Of course when you get there, you can look around and decide it's not what you had in mind, and look someplace else.

 

Maybe you are already where you want to be.  Maybe there is no place to go, because you're already there.

 

[Brother Kaman]

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.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 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

 

This statement is filled with unintended irony.  You did not say "God".  You said "Supreme Being".  Again, we see the invisible assumptions come into play.  For you, God conflates with Supreme Being.  With so few words, you have said so much about the God that you don't believe in -- and you never noticed.  This is the power of letting others choose your vocabulary for you.

 

 

[VonNoble]

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

 

 

 

Before starting on a journey -- either literal or spiritual -- it is good to ask basic questions.    Where am I going?  Why am I going?  What am I looking for?  What do I want to do when I get there?

 

It simplifies things.  It is not helpful to look for directions until you know where you want to end up.  Of course when you get there, you can look around and decide it's not what you had in mind, and look someplace else.

 

Maybe you are already where you want to be.  Maybe there is no place to go, because you're already there.

 

  I pretty much always figured I was where I am suppose to be...

 

....moving towards peace and away from turmoil.... which is not always a straight line.... and often a slow and thoughtful journey.....learning from so many many teachers....I am grateful for all of them

 von

[VonNoble]

3 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

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.

Very good thoughts to add at this juncture.

Thank you

von

[VonNoble]

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

 

This statement is filled with unintended irony.  You did not say "God".  You said "Supreme Being".  Again, we see the invisible assumptions come into play.  For you, God conflates with Supreme Being.  With so few words, you have said so much about the God that you don't believe in -- and you never noticed.  This is the power of letting others choose your vocabulary for you.

 

 

Well I appreciate the help.   I don’t remember using the term Supreme Being in general....until this Philosophy class.   It has slipped in largely because it is a common use in class I expect

 

I think in the use above...my frame of mind has sort of been stuck on the Supreme part of “being” .... and sorting through the concept of the Supreme often displaying what seems decidedly to be human frailties and sometimes pettiness...... thx for continuing to pitch in....

 

Way back when....it seemed simple way back then ....when I moved out of mom and dad’s....go out in the world and see what is out there.... the Eastern point  of view seemed far less confrontational/combative...

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

27 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Well I appreciate the help.   I don’t remember using the term Supreme Being in general....until this Philosophy class.   It has slipped in largely because it is a common use in class I expect

 

I think in the use above...my frame of mind has sort of been stuck on the Supreme part of “being” .... and sorting through the concept of the Supreme often displaying what seems decidedly to be human frailties and sometimes pettiness...... thx for continuing to pitch in....

 

Way back when....it seemed simple way back then ....when I moved out of mom and dad’s....go out in the world and see what is out there.... the Eastern point  of view seemed far less confrontational/combative...

 

von

 

 

Our words structure our thoughts.  Sometimes, our choice of words betrays what our thinking really is.  

[VonNoble]

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

 

 

Our words structure our thoughts.  Sometimes, our choice of words betrays what our thinking really is.  

Perhaps there is a difference?   In class the prof uses the words Supreme Being and God..... alternately or interchangeably..... is there a difference?  

 

I also wondered why the two words are in caps..... it seems they would work to discuss a room full of diverse beliefs in “ not caps” - I didn’t ask in class.    It didn’t bother me.... so much as I am curious if there is a grammatical reason.    

 

Shortly we move over on to Ethics so the delve into Metaphysics will move off the front burner.

von

[mererdog]

33 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

I also wondered why the two words are in caps..... it seems they would work to discuss a room full of diverse beliefs in “ not caps” - I didn’t ask in class.  

Supreme Being is a proper noun (and capitalized) when it refers to a singular thing. It gets confusing in common comparative religious use, because while the many different religions have many Supreme Beings, each is a singular thing within the context of its specifc religion.

[mererdog]

On 3/24/2018 at 11:46 PM, Dan56 said:

If a Muslim told me that Allah spits out Christians, it wouldn't bother me at all, because I don't believe Allah exist in the first place.

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?

[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.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

Perhaps there is a difference?   In class the prof uses the words Supreme Being and God..... alternately or interchangeably..... is there a difference?  

 

I also wondered why the two words are in caps..... it seems they would work to discuss a room full of diverse beliefs in “ not caps” - I didn’t ask in class.    It didn’t bother me.... so much as I am curious if there is a grammatical reason.    

 

Shortly we move over on to Ethics so the delve into Metaphysics will move off the front burner.

von

 

Ideas vary:  Nature; The Universe; One; Unity behind Existence; Ocean of Life; Mystery, Foundation of our Being; The Force: Nature's God (Spinoza of Amsterdam) ; Singularity --- not everything is anthropomorphic.  In Buddhism there is "Bodhi Mind" -- a mental field from which everything rises.  Not God as such.  A mind field.  Depending on inclination and belief, you could say "Supreme Being".  If you do chose those words, you are saying more than you might wish.  Or showing that you have not thought deeply about the matter in a disciplined manner.  In other words, invisible assumptions.  

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours 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?

 

Thank you for understanding.  You really nailed this one.       

[Dan56]

15 hours 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.

You've never experienced this?

 

No, I don't believe I've ever been offended by an unreal or irrational comment.. I guess I just don't get emotional or care about something that I perceive to be untrue.. If I did take a nonsensical statement to heart, that would make me as irrational as the person making the comment.

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

that would make me as irrational as

Humans are irrational creatures.

We love. We hate. We have faith in things unseen.

We don't restrict ourselves to what is reasonable. We look beyond what is and see what should be.

We climb mountains purely for the sake of climbing mountains. We help people who deserve no help and we hurt people who deserve no blame. 

We cling to hope when all is already lost. We cling to fear when we are at our safest. 

This irrational tendency is not something to be scorned. It is an integral part of the human condition. It is a defining quality of who we are. When we are at our greatest, it is right there, shining brightly, pushing us forward.

Edited March 26, 2018 by mererdog

[VonNoble]

On 3/25/2018 at 7:07 AM, mererdog said:

Supreme Being is a proper noun (and capitalized) when it refers to a singular thing. It gets confusing in common comparative religious use, because while the many different religions have many Supreme Beings, each is a singular thing within the context of its specifc religion.

Just to make sure I have this ( thx 4 quick refresher course)

 

When  I am referring to a spiritual being of a specific religion (as in a deity or title or name) it goes on caps.

 

If we are making a generic point about an entity ....such as....a god figure often has this or that trait.... I am okay to not caps?

 

von

[VonNoble]

On 3/25/2018 at 9:27 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Ideas vary:  Nature; The Universe; One; Unity behind Existence; Ocean of Life; Mystery, Foundation of our Being; The Force: Nature's God (Spinoza of Amsterdam) ; Singularity --- not everything is anthropomorphic.  In Buddhism there is "Bodhi Mind" -- a mental field from which everything rises.  Not God as such.  A mind field.  Depending on inclination and belief, you could say "Supreme Being".  If you do chose those words, you are saying more than you might wish.  Or showing that you have not thought deeply about the matter in a disciplined manner.  In other words, invisible assumptions.  

 

 

 

Believe it or not....I gave this some time to sink in

 

So..... I am wondering if the terminology chosen is more lax ....perhaps because God/Supreme Being is not relative to me?

 

Or perhaps ..... it is more critical than I realized till now..... because it matters to the listener?   Therefore I am obliged to reduce confusion....maybe

 

I avoid this topic often because it’s a bit like Loch Ness monster theories (or so it seems).....I am okay with Nessie being real... but fully expect it is not.

 

Run this invisible assumptions by me one more time.... please AND THANK YOU!

von

 

 

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

When  I am referring to a spiritual being of a specific religion (as in a deity or title or name) it goes on caps.

A spiritual being of a specific religion would not always be a proper noun. Shinto has yōkai, as an example. While specific to Shinto, they are not a singular thing within Shinto (note the "they").