Agnostic Theist

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, damnthing said:

So why not move the discussion over to  -

http://ulc.net/forum/forum/153-earthnature-based-indigenous-religions/

where the conversation can be more broadly discussed while limiting it to poly/pan etc to the exclusion of monotheism. It would be an interesting discussion to follow along with (because I really have nothing to offer other to it)

 

 

Most of the threads there were started by me.  I was trying to start conversations.  They failed.

 

 

[damnthing]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Most of the threads there were started by me.  I was trying to start conversations.  They failed.

 

 

I meant as it was a more appropriate forum and any 'interference' could be removed

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, damnthing said:

I meant as it was a more appropriate forum and any 'interference' could be removed

 

 

I know.  I was trying to draw in the Pagan membership.  It didn't work.  I think I can see why.  Much of the activity on the board is arguing with Dan.  Even I lost interest, and I was doing a lot of it.

 

 

[Pete]

Yes, I miss our Pagan membership of the forum. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Yes, I miss our Pagan membership of the forum. 

 

 

We have consensus.  Arguing with Dan is bad for the board.     

[Pete]

On 21/01/2021 at 1:50 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I have different responses for that.

• The situation is different in Europe.  Look at what's happening in France and England.
• Muslims in America are a small minority now.  The demographics are shifting.
• Islam is a major power on the world stage.  There is no hiding from the rest of the world.  Not just the Middle East.  Africa and Asia.
• The Middle East.  Much of what is happening in the world, is a cold war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran -- and their proxies.  It's complicated.  Israel is part of what's going on -- and American Evangelicals are playing their own games.
• Relations between Pakistan and India are complicated and hot.  Pakistan hid Osama Bin Laden after 9/11.  

 

 

Most Muslims do not say they are muslims except for a small group and that is the same with interfaith conflict. It is the far right that causes all the conflict. Trumps claim about "no go" areas in Muslim areas is just another pack of lies. There are none. Most muslims are fast off the mark to protest any terrorist activities and offer help. The Sikhs and Muslims are helping feed children in poverty and the lorry drivers stuck trying to get to France. I say strongly Trump's assertions is just lies.

The mainstream muslims hate the terrorists and many have come to the UK to get away from them. They are still a minority and I have no fears about them. Just wish the far right would shut up and go away.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

57 minutes ago, Pete said:

Most Muslims do not say they are muslims except for a small group and that is the same with interfaith conflict. It is the far right that causes all the conflict. Trumps claim about "no go" areas in Muslim areas is just another pack of lies. There are none. Most muslims are fast off the mark to protest any terrorist activities and offer help. The Sikhs and Muslims are helping feed children in poverty and the lorry drivers stuck trying to get to France. I say strongly Trump's assertions is just lies.

The mainstream muslims hate the terrorists and many have come to the UK to get away from them. They are still a minority and I have no fears about them. Just wish the far right would shut up and go away.

 

 

That would be a great blessing.  I do mean blessing.

 

 

[damnthing]

The first time I saw a tv add for a certain pillow company I immediately knew the guy was a cryster. How? Because he had his shirt buttoned up to the top button but was wearing his plus sign on a chain outside his shirt. Why? To specifically let people he was a cryster.

 

There is/was absolutely no reason to announce that other than to just put it in people's faces. Turns out he (no surprise, really) is a uuge drumpf fan. And turns out (nice surprise) a number of companies will no longer carry his product because of his support for drumpf and the insurrection (and unsurprisingly) all of the conspiracy theories.

 

So yeah, having to make one's religious belief know when unnecessary AND unasked, is virtue signalling to the nth degree and a stunning display of self-righteouness. But then...isn't that always the way...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, damnthing said:

The first time I saw a tv add for a certain pillow company I immediately knew the guy was a cryster. How? Because he had his shirt buttoned up to the top button but was wearing his plus sign on a chain outside his shirt. Why? To specifically let people he was a cryster.

 

There is/was absolutely no reason to announce that other than to just put it in people's faces. Turns out he (no surprise, really) is a uuge drumpf fan. And turns out (nice surprise) a number of companies will no longer carry his product because of his support for drumpf and the insurrection (and unsurprisingly) all of the conspiracy theories.

 

So yeah, having to make one's religious belief know when unnecessary AND unasked, is virtue signalling to the nth degree and a stunning display of self-righteouness. But then...isn't that always the way...

 

 

Not always.  A lot of people, who are not religious in anyway, will wear a cross.  Some see it as a fashion accessory.  For instance -- Madonna.  Some wear it as a "good luck" thing.  Gang people sometimes wear the cross, to show their affiliation -- along with seemingly religious tattoos.  The cross also seems to be a fashion statement in modern, Atheist Japan.   It's a strange world.  So many wear the cross for nonreligious reasons.  I can't pretend any of it makes sense to me.

 

Of course, there are ostensibly religious people, who also wear the cross.  Some really huge crosses.  The kind that we can refer to as BFC.  I also don't get that mentality.  

 

I also have some friends, who are sincerely religious, who wear the cross because it is deeply meaningful to them.  There are some people like that.

 

As you noted, there are all the pricks, who engage in virtue signaling.

 

 

 

[damnthing]

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

 

 

Not always.  A lot of people, who are not religious in anyway, will wear a cross.  Some see it as a fashion accessory.  For instance -- Madonna.  Some wear it as a "good luck" thing.  Gang people sometimes wear the cross, to show their affiliation -- along with seemingly religious tattoos.  The cross also seems to be a fashion statement in modern, Atheist Japan.   It's a strange world.  So many wear the cross for nonreligious reasons.  I can't pretend any of it makes sense to me.

 

Of course, there are ostensibly religious people, who also wear the cross.  Some really huge crosses.  The kind that we can refer to as BFC.  I also don't get that mentality.  

 

I also have some friends, who are sincerely religious, who wear the cross because it is deeply meaningful to them.  There are some people like that.

 

As you noted, there are all the pricks, who engage in virtue signaling.

 

 

 

Yes but...I'm not talking about someone who wears a cross on a chain that maybe visible depending upon what the wearer is wearing, nor am I talking about nuns or priests or the like who wear a cross outside of their clothing as part of their uniform. Not even talking about a person who, as a result of some physical maneuvering has flipped their cross onto the outside of their shirt,etc. What I am talking about is someone who buttons his shirt up to to the top button with the cross intentionally 'isolated' from accidentally NOT being seen.

 

I get the yarmulke, it's part of a person's daily dress and will be visible, not to show off but because of their religious requirements. Wearing that cross outside of the shirt intentionally is no less than praying on the street, matthew 6:5

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, damnthing said:

Yes but...I'm not talking about someone who wears a cross on a chain that maybe visible depending upon what the wearer is wearing, nor am I talking about nuns or priests or the like who wear a cross outside of their clothing as part of their uniform. Not even talking about a person who, as a result of some physical maneuvering has flipped their cross onto the outside of their shirt,etc. What I am talking about is someone who buttons his shirt up to to the top button with the cross intentionally 'isolated' from accidentally NOT being seen.

 

I get the yarmulke, it's part of a person's daily dress and will be visible, not to show off but because of their religious requirements. Wearing that cross outside of the shirt intentionally is no less than praying on the street, matthew 6:5

 

 

I understand your point.  You were clear.  I'm only saying that there are other people who wear the cross, visibly, with diverse reasons.

 

[Cornelius]

3 hours ago, damnthing said:

Yes but...I'm not talking about someone who wears a cross on a chain that maybe visible depending upon what the wearer is wearing, nor am I talking about nuns or priests or the like who wear a cross outside of their clothing as part of their uniform. Not even talking about a person who, as a result of some physical maneuvering has flipped their cross onto the outside of their shirt,etc. What I am talking about is someone who buttons his shirt up to to the top button with the cross intentionally 'isolated' from accidentally NOT being seen.

 

I get the yarmulke, it's part of a person's daily dress and will be visible, not to show off but because of their religious requirements. Wearing that cross outside of the shirt intentionally is no less than praying on the street, matthew 6:5

So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? How about a baphomet? or just a regular necklace? I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away? Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants? Is it only the cross? what about a wiccan necklace?

 

I'm just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Cornelius

[damnthing]

40 minutes ago, Cornelius said:

So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? How about a baphomet? or just a regular necklace? I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away? Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants? Is it only the cross? what about a wiccan necklace?

 

I'm just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here.

Come at the question without the attitude and I'll be glad to clairify

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Cornelius said:

So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? How about a baphomet? or just a regular necklace? I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away? Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants? Is it only the cross? what about a wiccan necklace?

 

I'm just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here.

 

 

No new rules.  The world doesn't need a new Orthodoxy.          

 

[Cornelius]

7 hours ago, damnthing said:

Come at the question without the attitude and I'll be glad to clairify

The only attitude is the one you are projecting onto the text. Try reading it without attaching emotional motivation and just read the text as plain inquisitive questions. I even added in that I was "just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here" to demonstrate that I was simply seeking clarification.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Cornelius

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

35 minutes ago, Cornelius said:

The only attitude is the one you are projecting onto the text. Try reading it without attaching emotional motivation and just read the text as plain inquisitive questions. I even added in that I was "just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here" to demonstrate that I was simply seeking clarification.

 

 

I think I can clarify things here -- at the risk of my putting words into Damnthing's mouth.

 

It is not the pendant which Damnthing is reacting too.  It is the attitude behind the pendant, which in effect is weaponizing the pendant.  We are talking about Mr. Lindell's use of his cross pendant.

 

Consider a parallel example.  President Trump has a group of peaceful protesters gassed by the military.  Why?  For a photo op.  So that he can hold up a Bible in front of a church.  The Bible itself is not an issue here.  It is only being used as a prop.  In like manner, the church is being used as a prop.

 

It is President Trump's attitude that people found disturbing.  He has weaponized both the Bible and the church.  We don't need rules about who can hold up a Bible.  We don't need rules about being photographed, with a church in the background.  Yet in this example, both Bible and church were used for "virtue signaling".

 

Using this example, we can see that asking questions about holding up other books -- Koran, Torah scroll, Book of Mormon, etc. -- has nothing at all to do with the original concern that Damnthing was expressing -- which is about using religious things for cultural or political aggression.

 

I hope that helps.  If I got it all wrong, I apologize.  

 

[damnthing]

11 hours ago, Cornelius said:

So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? How about a baphomet? or just a regular necklace? I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away? Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants? Is it only the cross? what about a wiccan necklace?

 

I'm just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here.

"So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? "

Did not say or suggest that...at all

"I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away?"

It's neither appropriate nor inappropriate, wearing a cross, any religious symbol, was not my point.

"Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants?"

Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context.

"Is it only the cross?

It is indeed, in this particular case. It's a bout a person who is shilling his product (which, while another discussion altogether, is perfectly acceptable), but wearing his cross as he does on his tv ads is done for one reason only, to signify HIS religious position. Note any recent pictures of him in Washington or elsewhere, not a sign of the cross (pun intended). His use of the cross was a signal, it was indeed a prop, a way to let people know where he stands on major issues in the hopes that they will 'support' him by buying his product. If you have read anything about him you'll know that his business practices defy his supposed x tian principles.

 

As this is the first time 'we' have chatted I'll chalk up both our comments as simple not being able to read the other's intent clearly due to unfamiliarity and chat-room sound deadening.

 

And Jonathan's take was dead accurate of my intent and probably much more clearly stated than I could/would have. But then he's more practiced in the art of both philosophy and nuance. I tend to be more direct, think sledge hammer whether necessary or not.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, damnthing said:

"So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? "

Did not say or suggest that...at all

"I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away?"

It's neither appropriate nor inappropriate, wearing a cross, any religious symbol, was not my point.

"Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants?"

Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context.

"Is it only the cross?

It is indeed, in this particular case. It's a bout a person who is shilling his product (which, while another discussion altogether, is perfectly acceptable), but wearing his cross as he does on his tv ads is done for one reason only, to signify HIS religious position. Note any recent pictures of him in Washington or elsewhere, not a sign of the cross (pun intended). His use of the cross was a signal, it was indeed a prop, a way to let people know where he stands on major issues in the hopes that they will 'support' him by buying his product. If you have read anything about him you'll know that his business practices defy his supposed x tian principles.

 

As this is the first time 'we' have chatted I'll chalk up both our comments as simple not being able to read the other's intent clearly due to unfamiliarity and chat-room sound deadening.

 

And Jonathan's take was dead accurate of my intent and probably much more clearly stated than I could/would have. But then he's more practiced in the art of both philosophy and nuance. I tend to be more direct, think sledge hammer whether necessary or not.

 

 

     

 

Thank you.  I was not always the class act that I am now.  As they say in the old country -- "Good judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgement."

 

While I'm waxing philosophic, I have a thought for you, that a Satanic Humanist might enjoy.  "Be grateful for your enemies.  They will show you truths about yourself, that your friends never would."

 

 

 

[damnthing]

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

 

 

     

 

Thank you.  I was not always the class act that I am now.  As they say in the old country -- "Good judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgement."

 

While I'm waxing philosophic, I have a thought for you, that a Satanic Humanist might enjoy.  "Be grateful for your enemies.  They will show you truths about yourself, that your friends never would."

 

 

 

Some of the friends I have...might as well be my enemies instead

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 minutes ago, damnthing said:

Some of the friends I have...might as well be my enemies instead

 

 

You can do better.  There are worse things than being alone.  Having bad friends is one of them.