Sufficiency of Scripture

[Dan56]

On 4/16/2018 at 3:50 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

not simply incorrect, but WRONG --

 

Not being a smart-aleck, but what's the difference? I mean, if a person is incorrect, aren't they wrong? And if a person is wrong, how can they be correct?

 

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

Atheists and Agnostics don't threaten everyone with Eternal Damnation.

 

I'm relatively certain, that's only because they don't believe in eternal damnation .. Some Atheist do mock others for believing in fairy tales, and that's not much better... Just saying, the pendulum often swings both ways.

 

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 we are not allowed to put on our ignore list.

 

There's an ignore option? I'm surprised I'm not on everyone's ignore list by now

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Not being a smart-aleck, but what's the difference? I mean, if a person is incorrect, aren't they wrong? And if a person is wrong, how can they be correct?

 

 

I'm relatively certain, that's only because they don't believe in eternal damnation .. Some Atheist do mock others for believing in fairy tales, and that's not much better... Just saying, the pendulum often swings both ways.

 

 

There's an ignore option? I'm surprised I'm not on everyone's ignore list by now

 

Yes.  It does.  I have often said so.     

 

Be patient.     

[mererdog]

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

If I walk into a church and piss on the walls -- the congregation will not respond by pissing on the walls. 

And yet, if someone comes into a forum and immediately starts insulting everyone, it is common for everyone to start insulting them. We start with one or two posts that are abusive, and suddenly we have twelve. We start with one person breaking the rules, and suddenly we have five. We go from 5% of new content being about one guy's grudges, to 90% of new content being about that guy's grudges.

 

And all that extra content is hosted on servers paid for by someone who specifically said he doesn't want to pay to store that kind of content. It gets uploaded and downloaded across bandwidth paid for by someone who specifically said he doesn't want the bandwidth he pays for to be used for that stuff. 

[mererdog]

21 hours ago, cuchulain said:

so then apply that to your responses to us..

I do. Every time.

[mererdog]

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

  When people walk in with false assumptions, about the church that hey have entered -- and begin preaching at us -- it is the job of the moderators to inform them that they are behaving badly. 

They would not be behaving badly simply because they came in and preached at us. That would be a false assumption on your part. 

 

Note that your words here could easily be considered preaching. You have a point of view, and you are expressing it in strident black and white terms, leaving no room for argument or disagreement. You are making it clear that you consider your way to be the only right way, and that you consider any other way to not only be incorrect but wrong.

I assume this is simply because you care. I assume you think it matters what decisions we make about this subject, so you want us to get it right. Am I wrong?

Edited April 18, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

And yet, if someone comes into a forum and immediately starts insulting everyone, it is common for everyone to start insulting them. We start with one or two posts that are abusive, and suddenly we have twelve. We start with one person breaking the rules, and suddenly we have five. We go from 5% of new content being about one guy's grudges, to 90% of new content being about that guy's grudges.

 

And all that extra content is hosted on servers paid for by someone who specifically said he doesn't want to pay to store that kind of content. It gets uploaded and downloaded across bandwidth paid for by someone who specifically said he doesn't want the bandwidth he pays for to be used for that stuff. 

 

By all means.  Let management step up and protect the membership.  When this happens, nobody else needs to get into it.  Then we have peace.  Peace is good.  Peace needs to be enforced.  When someone comes in and pees on the wall, or pees on the members, they should not feel welcome.  If management will not protect the members, the members will get tired of being abused and wander off.  I think this is a real danger and I hope that management steps up.  

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

They would not be behaving badly simply because they came in and preached at us. That would be a false assumption on your part. 

 

Note that your words here could easily be considered preaching. You have a point of view, and you are expressing it in strident black and white terms, leaving no room for argument or disagreement. You are making it clear that you consider your way to be the only right way, and that you consider any other way to not only be incorrect but wrong.

I assume this is simply because you care. I assume you think it matters what decisions we make about this subject, so you want us to get it right. Am I wrong?

 

Are you serious?  That comes close to defining bad behavior.  

 

 

You find me strident?  Because I expect visitors to be house broken?   Are we supposed to supply we we pads?  

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

This thread is going off in a different direction.  The new direction is the subject of Preaching.  Since I identify both as Agnostic and as Atheist, I feel a need to define those terms -- expressly as I use them -- regarding preaching.  I am not laying down usage terms for anybody else.  This is how I use them.

 

Atheist:  The term is simple.  It means "I don't believe."  I am not preaching at anybody else.  I don't care what anybody else believes.  I don't believe.  That's all that it means.

 

Agnostic:  The term is simple.  It means "I don't know."  I don't care what anybody else thinks that  they know.  I don't know.  That is all that means.

 

So we are clear.  I'm stating my own positons.  That is all I'm dong.  I have nothing to sell. I am not trying to change anyone else. 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mieshec]

I dont believe in church......i dont believe in organized religion......i piss on church walls ALL the time....and I always feel unwelcome.....just like you feel like im pissing down your leg.....it dosnt bother me.....its my age.....i need to start wearing Depends.....because.....when i got to go.......i got to go

[cuchulain]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 12:04 PM, mererdog said:

Point out where I said so? If the shoe does not fit...

 

The Pulpit is not meant to be the only place people can preach. This is a forum for ministers. Preaching is to be expected in basically all areas of the forum. Attempting to push all preachy topics into the Pulpit would have the effect of stifling all conversations started by people who have a preachy style of communication, and by those whose beliefs are more concrete in nature.

i am not attempting to push to pullpit.  i am quoting amulet, an administrator, from the topic 'forum area movement and maintenance', post 3..."since descriptions for each forum have been updated, please be sure you are posting your topics in the correct area.".  it was important enough of a statement that amulet reiterated this exact piece at the bottom of that post.

 

maybe the case is that i see it as a truth that we should follow administration tips such as this, and you see it differently and are pushing your view on me.  i will keep making what i view as polite recommendations as i see fit.  call it pushy if it helps your point, but really it looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

[Dan56]

On 4/18/2018 at 11:25 AM, mererdog said:

They would not be behaving badly simply because they came in and preached at us. That would be a false assumption on your part. 

 

Note that your words here could easily be considered preaching. You have a point of view, and you are expressing it in strident black and white terms, leaving no room for argument or disagreement. You are making it clear that you consider your way to be the only right way, and that you consider any other way to not only be incorrect but wrong.

I assume this is simply because you care. I assume you think it matters what decisions we make about this subject, so you want us to get it right. Am I wrong?

 

No, your absolutely right... This is a diversified forum where people are adamant about what they do and don't believe. Nothing wrong with a Christian posting about what they believe. Why anyone would feel insulted by it is beyond my comprehension. If a Christian believes non-believers will go to hell, why in the world would that bother someone who doesn't even believe in hell? Its no different than an Atheist telling a Christian they aren't going to heaven because there isn't any heaven and the book they believe in is nothing more than made-up fables. The preaching goes both directions, slamming what you don't believe is no different than promoting what you do believe. Nothing should be construed as threatening or an attack, especially on a board consisting of multiple beliefs.

 

The trick is to articulate what we believe without force-feeding  it onto others.. I suppose the answer to the original thread title is that scriptures are sufficient to those who believe them, but woefully inadequate to those who don't.

 

 

[Rev. Calli]

Greetings to you all my brothers and sisters,

 

First I must apologize for not being more active here on the board lately.  With this being my busy season at work and my other interests, I haven't had as much time as I would like to monitor things that take place here.  

 

That being said, I think it needs to be said, somewhat forcefully, that everyone here is at very different places in their faith journeys, and in their ability to express themselves in a way that is respectful of other peoples beliefs.  People here should be able to share their faith and/or their viewpoints with others, without feeling the need to beat each other up over these very personal and subjective issues.  If you don't like what someone is saying here, you don't have to take it as a personal challenge or attempt to get others to come over to your way of thinking.  

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you all my brothers and sisters,

 

First I must apologize for not being more active here on the board lately.  With this being my busy season at work and my other interests, I haven't had as much time as I would like to monitor things that take place here.  

 

That being said, I think it needs to be said, somewhat forcefully, that everyone here is at very different places in their faith journeys, and in their ability to express themselves in a way that is respectful of other peoples beliefs.  People here should be able to share their faith and/or their viewpoints with others, without feeling the need to beat each other up over these very personal and subjective issues.  If you don't like what someone is saying here, you don't have to take it as a personal challenge or attempt to get others to come over to your way of thinking.  

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome back.  I have come to value you as a voice of reason.  If you think that I have become unreasonable, I am prepared to reconsider.  Your constructive criticism is welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mererdog]

On 4/19/2018 at 11:01 AM, cuchulain said:

i am not attempting to push to pullpit.

I am not accusing you of anything. I am not attacking you. I am not calling you pushy. I am not your enemy.

 

I disagree with the premise that if a post seems to be preaching it belongs in the Pulpit. I think the topic categories leave a lot more leeway than that. I think, further, that enforcement of such a rule would have a disproportionate negative impact on members of specific religious traditions.  

[mererdog]

On 4/18/2018 at 12:43 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Are you serious?  That comes close to defining bad behavior.  

By definition, bad behavior is a matter of opinion. Bad anything is a matter of opinion, because bad is not an objective, measurable standard- just an emotional response. This is why what qualifies as bad manners is culturally dependant. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

By definition, bad behavior is a matter of opinion. Bad anything is a matter of opinion, because bad is not an objective, measurable standard- just an emotional response. This is why what qualifies as bad manners is culturally dependant. 

 

There are very few -- if any -- behaviors which meet the standard of "objective and measurable".  Such a standard is unreasonable.  Bad behavior does have cultural norms.  Walking into a church -- or this forum -- and pissing on the walls is bad behavior.

 

I stand by my statement.  Preaching at the unwilling -- insisting that they are wrong and need correcting -- is bad behavior.  At minimum, for an Interfaith Church -- it is a shocking breech of decorum.  It is rude.  It is bad behavior.   Your unreasonable and arbitrary standards change nothing.