Sufficiency of Scripture

[RabbiO]

And here I've been concerned that I might appear too brusque. Sheesh!

 

Now I'm going to have redo my response. Thanks guys.

 

(The spotlight follows the rabbi as he slowly exits stage right, all the while muttering under his breath.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, RabbiO said:

And here I've been concerned that I might appear too brusque. Sheesh!

 

Now I'm going to have redo my response. Thanks guys.

 

(The spotlight follows the rabbi as he slowly exits stage right, all the while muttering under his breath.)

 

Just so.  Most of us want to be kind.  It's a strong impulse to be nice.  To be gentle.  Most of the time, this is a good thing.  Sometimes, kindness is taken for weakness.  Then we need something different.  

[Geordon]

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

We still need tact and civility.  Rudeness tends to come off as disgusting.  Sometimes, I need to be blunt.  

 

 

Granted and agreed.  Tact and civility are sorely missing in modern America.  I'm not sure about the rest of the world, since I don't have much interaction with other countries' citizens.  Rudeness is gross.  However, being blunt is not (necessarily) the same as being rude.

 

As my sainted mother often says, "You can disagree without being disagreeable."  I'd like to add that sometimes you need to be very blunt and plain to help someone who wants to understand.  That's not rudeness.

[Geordon]

On 4/13/2018 at 3:25 PM, RabbiO said:

Mindful of my role as a member of this community and mindful of my responsibility as a mentor I have been wrestling with the right words to use to respond to the OP - words that would reach the OP and would not be seen as hurtful and uncharitable. I'm not sure those words exist, but the path these threads have been following demand I say something.

 

Shabbat is approaching and, again, there is the expectation that I will be in the synagogue for services, so again I ask your indulgence until the end of the Sabbath.

 

L'shalom.

 

Shalom, rabbi!

 

There are times when someone is too entrenched in their own point of view to consider that there are other ways to see things.  I, too, see my role as something of a mentor in general terms, and try to use what Buddhist call upaya or "skillful means" in order to advise people or offer them a different way to think about things, since I see that is the best way to  meet them where they are, rather than where I am.

 

Sometimes, though, there are people who refuse to accept the possibility that their way is not the only way.  My beloved wife has said for decades that "God is the ultimate marketing genius" in that she views all peaceful religious practice to be leading to the same end, be it Christian Heaven, Islamic Jannah or the Jewish Shamayim.  As a Buddhist, I'm not sure that entering Nirvana is quite  equivalent, but it is similar in concept.

 

Also, speaking from a Buddhist perspective, it is not uncommon for great discomfort being necessary for growth and change.  Speaking as an emergency manager, I see a lot of "Terror Management Theory" (I know, I generally dislike using Wikipedia as a reference, but in this case, it is an excellent jumping off point) being a significant part of some interfaith dialogue, particularly among conservatives of whatever branch.

[mererdog]

On 4/14/2018 at 1:37 PM, cuchulain said:

And again...I ask.  Since there seems to be some indication that I am attacking miechek...please point out where!!!!!!  If not...quit saying so.

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.

Edited April 16, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Geordon said:

Sometimes, though, there are people who refuse to accept the possibility that their way is not the only way. .

What if they are right? What if it would be more accurate to say that others refuse to accept the possibility that this one way is the only way?

Edited April 16, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

What if they are right? What if it would be more accurate to say that others refuse to accept the possibility that this one way is the only way?

 

         

 

Seriously?  "What if they are right?"  This time, your intellectual purity has gone over the cliff.  I know that you're trying to be reasonable and even handed.   This isn't it.  

 

If someone truly believes that his religion is right -- and all the rest of us are wrong -- not simply incorrect, but WRONG -- then what the blank is he doing here?  Besides being a thorn in everyone's flesh?  We are not here for the express purpose of being preached at -- by someone who is here for one purpose only.  To preach at us.  That is not fellowship.  That is not mutual learning.  That is not discussion.  That is only irritating, and we are under no obligation to endure it.  Even less are we obliged, to be respectful.  

 

 

 

[mererdog]

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

If someone truly believes that his religion is right -- and all the rest of us are wrong -- not simply incorrect, but WRONG -- then what the blank is he doing here? 

The ULC accepts all without question of faith. There is no litmus test to belong. His beliefs do not disqualify him.

 

This is a dangerous and ugly road you have turned down. I have been told on more than one occasion that atheists and agnostics have no place here, because this is a religious forum and we have no religion. It was implied several times that we must only be here to cause trouble- because "why else?"

 

This is not an attempt to be even-handed. When we don't insist that our enemies are treated morally, we eventually find that our friends are treated immorally. Call it karma. call it the Golden Rule. Call it priming the enviroment to produce a predictable result. Whatever. Wheels spin and pendulums swing, and what is bad for the goose will be bad for the gander.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

47 minutes ago, mererdog said:

The ULC accepts all without question of faith. There is no litmus test to belong. His beliefs do not disqualify him.

 

This is a dangerous and ugly road you have turned down. I have been told on more than one occasion that atheists and agnostics have no place here, because this is a religious forum and we have no religion. It was implied several times that we must only be here to cause trouble- because "why else?"

 

This is not an attempt to be even-handed. When we don't insist that our enemies are treated morally, we eventually find that our friends are treated immorally. Call it karma. call it the Golden Rule. Call it priming the enviroment to produce a predictable result. Whatever. Wheels spin and pendulums swing, and what is bad for the goose will be bad for the gander.

 

 

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

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 11:24 AM, mererdog said:

And yet... Isn't that what you are doing here? You seem to be pushing your view onto him. You don't seem to be allowing that his way is valid.

You mention Do Only That Which Is Right? From ulc.net- Every person has the natural right (and the responsibility) to peacefully determine what is right. We are advocates of religious freedom.

The true test of religious freedom is whether we allow others the freedom to do things we find distasteful. The true test of religious tolerance is whether we can tolerate being told we are wrong.

This works both ways.  You fail to include mieshek in your evaluation of how we are behaving, and he is equally a part of this.  He pushes his way on us, with no regard that HE might be wrong...and WE might be right.

[cuchulain]

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

Sometimes the advice you gave about mieshek applies to a specific moderator on this forum, whom we are not allowed to put on our ignore list.  It's a failing of mine that I continue to respond to this individual, who talks in circles with the best of preachers and often points out the errors of others' logic...and then decries those others for pointing out someone else's logical failings.  Hypocrisy is annoying to me, and it's one of my triggers, so I often find myself compelled to respond.  He used to be on my ignore list...then he just popped off one day and now the site won't let me put him back  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Sometimes the advice you gave about mieshek applies to a specific moderator on this forum, whom we are not allowed to put on our ignore list.  It's a failing of mine that I continue to respond to this individual, who talks in circles with the best of preachers and often points out the errors of others' logic...and then decries those others for pointing out someone else's logical failings.  Hypocrisy is annoying to me, and it's one of my triggers, so I often find myself compelled to respond.  He used to be on my ignore list...then he just popped off one day and now the site won't let me put him back  

 

I understand.  I have been watching the exchanges.   Breath deeply and calm yourself.  The world is not yet perfect.    Life goes on.     

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

The ULC accepts all without question of faith. There is no litmus test to belong. His beliefs do not disqualify him.

 

This is a dangerous and ugly road you have turned down. I have been told on more than one occasion that atheists and agnostics have no place here, because this is a religious forum and we have no religion. It was implied several times that we must only be here to cause trouble- because "why else?"

 

This is not an attempt to be even-handed. When we don't insist that our enemies are treated morally, we eventually find that our friends are treated immorally. Call it karma. call it the Golden Rule. Call it priming the enviroment to produce a predictable result. Whatever. Wheels spin and pendulums swing, and what is bad for the goose will be bad for the gander.

 

If people are complaining to you -- perhaps we should shine some Sunlight on matters, with it's own thread?  I'm not shy about Agnostic rights.

 

 

 

 

[Brother Kaman]

I do not understand why one must engage with another on the forum that they find irritating, rude or otherwise upsetting.  whether or not the other can or cannot be blocked. Is it a need to be seen by others on the forum as being right or more thoughtful or is it a need to get the last word? When someone on the forum takes a conversation further than I wish to go, be it stupidity or rudeness or anything else that may upset me, I quit responding to that conversation. We all have the power to disengage or not respond in the first place. No buttons necessary. 

[cuchulain]

43 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

I do not understand why one must engage with another on the forum that they find irritating, rude or otherwise upsetting.  whether or not the other can or cannot be blocked. Is it a need to be seen by others on the forum as being right or more thoughtful or is it a need to get the last word? When someone on the forum takes a conversation further than I wish to go, be it stupidity or rudeness or anything else that may upset me, I quit responding to that conversation. We all have the power to disengage or not respond in the first place. No buttons necessary. 

It's just one of my failings that I work on.  It isn't a need to be right, or get the last word in.  I see something posted directed towards me, and I don't want people to think I agree with that sentiment.  

 

But either way, it's a failing.  And I work on it.  Sometimes I succeed and others I fail.

[mererdog]

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

 

If people are complaining to you -- perhaps we should shine some Sunlight on matters, with it's own thread? 

Its one of those things that gets brought up by someone new every year or two. They come to a church forum with a set of expectations. They are expecting to be "preaching to the choir." They expect easy agreement.  When they face challenges and disagreements, they try to make them go away- to make the forum fit their expectation of "church." 

Sometimes, it has been Christians who dont think non-Christians belong. Sometimes, it has been non-Christians trying to run off the Christians. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You fail to include mieshek in your evaluation of how we are behaving, and he is equally a part of this.

When we respond to things, our responses come from within, not from without. We have the ability to moderate those responses. To do this requires owning them. We have to say "I choose how I respond. I may not choose my emotions, but I can choose how and when I express them." This means we have to avoid blaming our responses on others. We can't say "I did it because he made me mad."

Imagine your child is driving and has an auto accident. Imagine it is ruled that both drivers are equally at fault. How much time would you spend talking to your child about what the other driver did wrong? Wouldnt you focus on what your child did wrong, to help them learn how not to repeat the mistake? Doesn't it make sense that we would want to focus on our own part in things, rather than on the actions of others?

The forum is open to the public. People will come in and they will piss on the walls. It will happen. If everyone responds by peeing on the walls in kind, it just makes the place smell that much worse  

Edited April 17, 2018 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

57 minutes ago, mererdog said:

When we respond to things, our responses come from within, not from without. We have the ability to moderate those responses. To do this requires owning them. We have to say "I choose how I respond. I may not choose my emotions, but I can choose how and when I express them." This means we have to avoid blaming our responses on others. We can't say "I did it because he made me mad."

Imagine your child is driving and has an auto accident. Imagine it is ruled that both drivers are equally at fault. How much time would you spend talking to your child about what the other driver did wrong? Wouldnt you focus on what your child did wrong, to help them learn how not to repeat the mistake? Doesn't it make sense that we would want to focus on our own part in things, rather than on the actions of others?

The forum is open to the public. People will come in and they will piss on the walls. It will happen. If everyone responds by peeing on the walls in kind, it just makes the place smell that much worse  

so then apply that to your responses to us...nevermind. waste of time.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

Its one of those things that gets brought up by someone new every year or two. They come to a church forum with a set of expectations. They are expecting to be "preaching to the choir." They expect easy agreement.  When they face challenges and disagreements, they try to make them go away- to make the forum fit their expectation of "church." 

Sometimes, it has been Christians who dont think non-Christians belong. Sometimes, it has been non-Christians trying to run off the Christians. 

 

When the church has a physical "brick and mortar" presence -- nobody thinks that they can simply walk in and preach at the congregation.  We are an Interfaith Church.  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.  If the moderators shirk that responsibility -- the task falls to the congregation.  That's us -- to tell them that they are behaving badly -- that they need to correct their bad behavior or get out.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

When we respond to things, our responses come from within, not from without. We have the ability to moderate those responses. To do this requires owning them. We have to say "I choose how I respond. I may not choose my emotions, but I can choose how and when I express them." This means we have to avoid blaming our responses on others. We can't say "I did it because he made me mad."

Imagine your child is driving and has an auto accident. Imagine it is ruled that both drivers are equally at fault. How much time would you spend talking to your child about what the other driver did wrong? Wouldnt you focus on what your child did wrong, to help them learn how not to repeat the mistake? Doesn't it make sense that we would want to focus on our own part in things, rather than on the actions of others?

The forum is open to the public. People will come in and they will piss on the walls. It will happen. If everyone responds by peeing on the walls in kind, it just makes the place smell that much worse  

 

That is some seriously faulty reasoning.  If I walk into a church and piss on the walls -- the congregation will not respond by pissing on the walls.  It is more likely, that I will be made to feel unwelcome.