Get you head out of the sand. Or is it somewhere else? My guess it is somewhere else.
Thank you for proving my point about substance. But, let's revisit your original statements.
Abortion is the equivalent of murder. You really should think about that everyday. You choose not to think about and that makes you complicit in the killings.
THINKING about something does nothing. And, if as you say, "the issue is the law," thinking or failing to think has NEVER been a crime.
when was the last time you saw one person or a thousand motivate congress to do anything? congress is motivated by dollar signs, which just aint' coming from a church full of people on christmas day. at least not in the amounts necessary to motivate them.
THINKING about something does nothing. And, if as you say, "the issue is the law," thinking or failing to think has NEVER been a crime.
Didn't say not thinking was a crime I saiud not thinking about it is the same as being complicit in the killing. You can even think about it and be complicit in the killing if you keep your mouth shut. I doubt you have a problem with that, though.
I'm wondering if Jethro could go for one week without using insults to try and get his point across. It is pretty weak when one has to resort to insults to back his or her argument on a subject that has so many points that can be made or argued without trying to belittle the other debater.
I don't resort to insults to get myu point across I use them in addition to other methods including reason and logic. But when I find things that disgust me I like to make that crystal clear.
Most folks will accept a quote from any other book than that.
what i'm trying to figure out is why people won't accept quotes from it.
Because it is a work of fiction in a very many people's eyes. Most people don't accept quotes from fiction books as rules about how the world works, or how to live their lives...unless the book happens to agree with what they already believe, or it convinces them to change their beliefs.
(on edit: I missed about 60 posts, so I don't know if someone addressed this already)
Oooh, religion and politics, the twin killers of any social group. And here I was hoping to get an insight on Dal's psychic abilities so as to know how to shielf the Mock Hunt coin from them. Ah well.
But I will try and address Frosti's question. If you don't know what direction to send your children in, that's ok. You can find a million examples where the child doesn't follow that direction anyway once they're old enough to decide for themselves. So I wouldn't worry so much about making the correct choice. Instead what I would focus on is enabling your children to make informed choices of their own when the time is right. Most of the religious fanatics I have known got that way because of ignorance. They were never exposed to any other alternatives and often refuse to believe that anything other than what they were told can be true. So my advice is have your kids read the Bible and maybe go to Sunday School or some such thing. Christianity is still the most common demoninator in our society and would be a good base to start off on. But at the same time you may want to have them read history books and study other religions. If you really think about it, in many cases people's faith in God is actually a faith in two other things. 1. A faith in their parents, ministers, teachers possibly and any other adults they learn their religion from that these people know the truth and are relaying it to them. 2. A faith in oneself that you would know the truth when you see it. Not many people have an experience where they feel God has been genuinely revealed directly to them. Without that, your faith is really in the two things I mentioned. So if your children aren't fortunate enough to have an experience where the truth is revealed to them, they will have to rely on their knowledge of religion and their own judgement to achieve a spirituality. And as for spirituality itself, it can't really be forced. You can teach the details of the religion, but spirituality comes from within and sometimes in it's own time. Having them be educated about religion is the best thing you can do for them when and if that moment finds them.
Because it is a work of fiction in a very many people's eyes. Most people       don't accept quotes from fiction books as rules about how the world works, or        how to live their lives...unless the book happens to agree with what they        already believe, or it convinces them to change their beliefs.
That is an interesting point of view since historians and scientists have proven the exisance of most societies and cultures the Bible addresses. Is the Torah a book of fiction? Is the Koran? The Zen teachings and writings? What about the Kaabala? And Hindu Dharma & Philosophy?
I think a better way to put Lance's argument is that if someone doesn't believe in the Bible, quoting it as an authoritative source becomes a circular argument.
i.e. How do you know God exists?
The Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is true?
Because God wrote it.
So whether it's completely fiction, God's direct words, or somewhere in between doesn't matter. If the person you're talking to doesn't believe in it, there's little point in quoting from it to prove a point.
And scribe, the problem is that even if one considers the Bible to be an historical text, then it is an historical text with an agenda. It is not an objective teling of history, it is history from a very particular point of view. A biased point of view, in many ways. Written by verybiased people. Which isn't to say that their bias isn't justified, or appropriate, but just that it inevitably skews their telling of history.
And from what I know about the other texts you named, they are basically the same thing: a biased portrayal of history, geared toward persuading the reader of the righteousness of their prophet or god's point of view.
There can be no unbiased telling of history as it's written and told by people who by their very being see, read, interpret things from their own perspective. An event, witnessed by several people, will be retold from different perspectives. None of them wrong - but different from each person's unique perspective.
Frosti - What you want your kids to learn is up to you. The most important teachings are those of morality and integrity. If those are learned at a young age, they become part of what that person becomes and will stay with them for a lifetime.
How you get that information to your kids can take many different paths. Select the ones that you feel most comfortable.
history is always in the eye of the writer and of the reader for that matter. for instance, you never ever ever hear an account of a war from the loser's point of view.
Well, "history" itself is objective. Certain things happened at certain times in certain places, no matter how anyone tells it.
To the extent that any telling of history strays from the actual history that happened, it's fiction. To the extent that there is opinion or judgment on the objective facts, then the "history" is really a historical commentary. Not fiction, but not fact either.
I don't discount that the Bible could be an accurate telling of the tale, if you assume all the opinions and judgments in it to be the opinions of God (and therefore the truth). I just think that it is automatically suspect, because it wasn't written by God, it was written by people. And re-written repeatedly by people. And all those people inherently flavored whatever objective truth there was with their own agenda, opinion, ideal, etc.
Ask 20 car accident winesses to tell the story of what happened. You will get 20 different stories. Ask 20 people to describe Electo-farce 2000 and you will get 20 different retellings. In both cases, there is an objective truth to what happened, but in both cases, that exact truth will probably never be known, because in trying to know it one must rely on the the accounts of others.
With the car accident, the 20 stories would have lots of similarities. Bias would not play a big part, and only selective memory and priorities, and fears would interfere with the real truth.
With the election, the 20 stories would be very very different, because so many more personal factors have a stake in that story. There are so many factors at play that each person would only focus on select bits, and everything would be tainted by the person's POV on politics, the two parties, etc.
With the Bible, the very fate of humanity's goodness is at stake, and the story involved is basically "the history of the world from start to finish", which, to be told in a few thousand pages, must be very selective on what it focuses on. For those reasons and others, the likelihood that the writers of the Bible (and its subsequent editors) are writing something different than the objective truth becomes high.
Didn't mean to write a freakin' essay. That happens with me sometimes.
This is the little-known tale of how God came to give the Jews the Ten Commandments.
God first went to the Egyptians and asked them if they would like a commandment. "What's a commandment?" they asked. "Well, it's like, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," replied God. The Egyptians thought about it and then said, "No way. That would ruin our weekends."
So then God went to the Assyrians and asked them if they would like a commandment. They also asked, "What's a commandment?" "Well," said God, "it's like,THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, " The Assyrians immediately replied, "No way. That would ruin our economy."
So finally God went to the Jews and asked them if they wanted a commandment. They asked, "How much?" God said, "They're free." The Jews said, "Great! We'll take TEN!"
I don't discount that the Bible could be an accurate telling of the tale, if you assume all the opinions and judgments in it to be the opinions of God (and therefore the truth). I just think that it is automatically suspect, because it wasn't written by God, it was written by people. And re-written repeatedly by people. And all those people inherently flavored whatever objective truth there was with their own agenda, opinion, ideal, etc.
But then again one could believe that God inspired each of those people along the way and how could you prove otherwise?
Controversial Book???... authors that are Psychics and Mediums...
Scribe- I knew you meant the bible, isn't Jesus considered a psychic? no body ever gets my reference/jokes :( :)
I love historical reading and shows, the older the better! I just copied 400 pgs of Nag Hammadi and a few other misc writings, have only had time to scan through though.
Hi AW! As a writer I agree that "inspiration" can be divine. Somethings I can seriously say that "I" wrote, other things seem to come from "somewhere" else. Whether it be a universal consiousness, or a higher "self", or god, take your pick... somethings actually come in from another source. But Still it is translated through my mind and beliefs.
The Bible could have been dictated directly by god, but would still be flavored by each individuals interpretation.
Frosti- looks like you got alot of good advice, I think Allison and Terry said it best, but I'll throw in my experience...
My parents were raised Catholic, made to go to church and catholic school, and said they would never do that to their kids. We (brothers and I) were baptized Catholic, but that was it-they wanted us to choose our own religions. I went to church with my grandparents because I wanted to, I was curious; I went to different churches of different(Christian) faiths with friends because I wanted to and was curious; I've continued studying different types of religions into adulthood, finding the basic similarities of all religions(is there a religion that's all religions?) One of my brothers is a practicing catholic and his kids go to catholic school, the other is more into Eastern philosophies. The point is our parents gave us the tools and the option to Choose, and we all found our way.
Don't be afraid, keep searching for yourself and share with your kids what you learn. Just make sure you try to be supportive, even if you don't agree with the children going to church w/grandparents, if they want to go let them go and listen to what they have to say afterwards-good and bad- explain what you can, and let them know they have options.
The point is our parents gave us the tools and the option to Choose, and we all found our way.
Thanks everybody for your advice, it's greatly appreciated. I don't have any problem with them going to church. I guess I need to do some work for myself so I can help them as they grow and discover. You guys are gonna make me work for this, aren't you? ;-)
Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said. He said divorce was "spreading like a plague" through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the "evil". "Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce," the Pope said.
The Pope said Catholic lawyers should not even try to help non-Catholics obtain a divorce.
And he said judges should also try to prevent divorce, although he acknowledged that this would be more difficult, as they could not be "conscientious objectors" refusing to hear cases.
"Those working in civil law cases should avoid being personally involved in what could be understood as co-operating in divorce... they should look for effective measures to favour marriage, above all mediating conciliation," he said. It is thought to be the first time the Pope has urged lawyers to wash their hands of divorce.
What's wrong with stating divorce is wrong and that as a Catholic you should do everything in your power to prevent it?
I guess nothing's wrong with it. It's just interesting when your religion tells you not only how to live your personal life, but also starts to tell you how to do your job.
I guess that's one of the things I find distasteful about most religions. I'm fine with them telling me what to do, since I'm a member and have accepted their dogma. I don't like it when they tell me to tell other people what to do.
Get you head out of the sand. Or is it somewhere else? My guess it is somewhere else.
Thank you for proving my point about substance. But, let's revisit your original statements.
Abortion is the equivalent of murder. You really should think about that everyday. You choose not to think about and that makes you complicit in the killings.
THINKING about something does nothing. And, if as you say, "the issue is the law," thinking or failing to think has NEVER been a crime.
when was the last time you saw one person or a thousand motivate congress to do anything? congress is motivated by dollar signs, which just aint' coming from a church full of people on christmas day. at least not in the amounts necessary to motivate them.
THINKING about something does nothing. And, if as you say, "the issue is the law," thinking or failing to think has NEVER been a crime.
Didn't say not thinking was a crime I saiud not thinking about it is the same as being complicit in the killing. You can even think about it and be complicit in the killing if you keep your mouth shut. I doubt you have a problem with that, though.
I'm wondering if Jethro could go for one week without using insults to try and get his point across. It is pretty weak when one has to resort to insults to back his or her argument on a subject that has so many points that can be made or argued without trying to belittle the other debater.
I don't resort to insults to get myu point across I use them in addition to other methods including reason and logic. But when I find things that disgust me I like to make that crystal clear.
I use them in addition to other methods including reason and logic.
in addition to? ok.
Because it is a work of fiction in a very many people's eyes. Most people don't accept quotes from fiction books as rules about how the world works, or how to live their lives...unless the book happens to agree with what they already believe, or it convinces them to change their beliefs.
(on edit: I missed about 60 posts, so I don't know if someone addressed this already)
it's been addressed. thanks lance.
Oooh, religion and politics, the twin killers of any social group. And here I was hoping to get an insight on Dal's psychic abilities so as to know how to shielf the Mock Hunt coin from them. Ah well.
But I will try and address Frosti's question. If you don't know what direction to send your children in, that's ok. You can find a million examples where the child doesn't follow that direction anyway once they're old enough to decide for themselves. So I wouldn't worry so much about making the correct choice. Instead what I would focus on is enabling your children to make informed choices of their own when the time is right. Most of the religious fanatics I have known got that way because of ignorance. They were never exposed to any other alternatives and often refuse to believe that anything other than what they were told can be true. So my advice is have your kids read the Bible and maybe go to Sunday School or some such thing. Christianity is still the most common demoninator in our society and would be a good base to start off on. But at the same time you may want to have them read history books and study other religions. If you really think about it, in many cases people's faith in God is actually a faith in two other things. 1. A faith in their parents, ministers, teachers possibly and any other adults they learn their religion from that these people know the truth and are relaying it to them. 2. A faith in oneself that you would know the truth when you see it. Not many people have an experience where they feel God has been genuinely revealed directly to them. Without that, your faith is really in the two things I mentioned. So if your children aren't fortunate enough to have an experience where the truth is revealed to them, they will have to rely on their knowledge of religion and their own judgement to achieve a spirituality. And as for spirituality itself, it can't really be forced. You can teach the details of the religion, but spirituality comes from within and sometimes in it's own time. Having them be educated about religion is the best thing you can do for them when and if that moment finds them.
Lance:
Because it is a work of fiction in a very many people's eyes. Most people
      don't accept quotes from fiction books as rules about how the world works, or
       how to live their lives...unless the book happens to agree with what they
       already believe, or it convinces them to change their beliefs.
That is an interesting point of view since historians and scientists have proven the exisance of most societies and cultures the Bible addresses.
Is the Torah a book of fiction?
Is the Koran?
The Zen teachings and writings?
What about the Kaabala?
And Hindu Dharma & Philosophy?
Scribe,
I haven't read any of those books.
The same can be said for Oliver Stone's JFK .
I think a better way to put Lance's argument is that if someone doesn't believe in the Bible, quoting it as an authoritative source becomes a circular argument.
i.e. How do you know God exists?
The Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is true?
Because God wrote it.
So whether it's completely fiction, God's direct words, or somewhere in between doesn't matter. If the person you're talking to doesn't believe in it, there's little point in quoting from it to prove a point.
Actually I was only addressing the Bible as a historical document and putting aside the faith issue.
Dal,
 your going to have to post the papal doctrine you were referring to.I've spent waaaaaay too much time at the Vatican for one evening!
I would love to read and reply to it but can't find exactly what you were referring to.:)
Well said, Allison.
And scribe, the problem is that even if one considers the Bible to be an historical text, then it is an historical text with an agenda. It is not an objective teling of history, it is history from a very particular point of view. A biased point of view, in many ways. Written by verybiased people. Which isn't to say that their bias isn't justified, or appropriate, but just that it inevitably skews their telling of history.
And from what I know about the other texts you named, they are basically the same thing: a biased portrayal of history, geared toward persuading the reader of the righteousness of their prophet or god's point of view.
Is there such a thing as a completely objective telling of history?
Interesting discussion in here!
There can be no unbiased telling of history as it's written and told by people who by their very being see, read, interpret things from their own perspective. An event, witnessed by several people, will be retold from different perspectives. None of them wrong - but different from each person's unique perspective.
Frosti - What you want your kids to learn is up to you. The most important teachings are those of morality and integrity. If those are learned at a young age, they become part of what that person becomes and will stay with them for a lifetime.
How you get that information to your kids can take many different paths. Select the ones that you feel most comfortable.
not as long as its told by humans, thx.
What ares said.
Then is all history fiction?
history is always in the eye of the writer and of the reader for that matter. for instance, you never ever ever hear an account of a war from the loser's point of view.
Well, "history" itself is objective. Certain things happened at certain times in certain places, no matter how anyone tells it.
To the extent that any telling of history strays from the actual history that happened, it's fiction. To the extent that there is opinion or judgment on the objective facts, then the "history" is really a historical commentary. Not fiction, but not fact either.
I don't discount that the Bible could be an accurate telling of the tale, if you assume all the opinions and judgments in it to be the opinions of God (and therefore the truth). I just think that it is automatically suspect, because it wasn't written by God, it was written by people. And re-written repeatedly by people. And all those people inherently flavored whatever objective truth there was with their own agenda, opinion, ideal, etc.
Ask 20 car accident winesses to tell the story of what happened. You will get 20 different stories. Ask 20 people to describe Electo-farce 2000 and you will get 20 different retellings. In both cases, there is an objective truth to what happened, but in both cases, that exact truth will probably never be known, because in trying to know it one must rely on the the accounts of others.
With the car accident, the 20 stories would have lots of similarities. Bias would not play a big part, and only selective memory and priorities, and fears would interfere with the real truth.
With the election, the 20 stories would be very very different, because so many more personal factors have a stake in that story. There are so many factors at play that each person would only focus on select bits, and everything would be tainted by the person's POV on politics, the two parties, etc.
With the Bible, the very fate of humanity's goodness is at stake, and the story involved is basically "the history of the world from start to finish", which, to be told in a few thousand pages, must be very selective on what it focuses on. For those reasons and others, the likelihood that the writers of the Bible (and its subsequent editors) are writing something different than the objective truth becomes high.
Didn't mean to write a freakin' essay. That happens with me sometimes.
This is the little-known tale of how God came to give the Jews the Ten Commandments.
God first went to the Egyptians and asked them if they would like a
commandment. "What's a commandment?" they asked. "Well, it's like,
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," replied God. The Egyptians thought
about it and then said, "No way. That would ruin our weekends."
So then God went to the Assyrians and asked them if they would like a
commandment. They also asked, "What's a commandment?" "Well," said God,
"it's like,THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, " The Assyrians immediately replied,
"No way. That would ruin our economy."
So finally God went to the Jews and asked them if they wanted a
commandment. They asked, "How much?" God said, "They're free."
The Jews said, "Great! We'll take TEN!"
LOL! That's Funny Ian!
Wow-looks like I missed all the fun today!
Where to start....
I don't discount that the Bible could be an accurate telling of the tale, if you assume all the opinions and judgments in it to be the opinions of God (and therefore the truth). I just think that it is automatically suspect, because it wasn't written by God, it was written by people. And re-written repeatedly by people. And all those people inherently flavored whatever objective truth there was with their own agenda, opinion, ideal, etc.
But then again one could believe that God inspired each of those people along the way and how could you prove otherwise?
Controversial Book???... authors that are Psychics and Mediums...
Scribe- I knew you meant the bible, isn't Jesus considered a psychic? no body ever gets my reference/jokes :( :)
I love historical reading and shows, the older the better! I just copied 400 pgs of Nag Hammadi and a few other misc writings, have only had time to scan through though.
Hi AW! As a writer I agree that "inspiration" can be divine. Somethings I can seriously say that "I" wrote, other things seem to come from "somewhere" else. Whether it be a universal consiousness, or a higher "self", or god, take your pick... somethings actually come in from another source. But Still it is translated through my mind and beliefs.
The Bible could have been dictated directly by god, but would still be flavored by each individuals interpretation.
Frosti- looks like you got alot of good advice, I think Allison and Terry said it best, but I'll throw in my experience...
My parents were raised Catholic, made to go to church and catholic school, and said they would never do that to their kids. We (brothers and I) were baptized Catholic, but that was it-they wanted us to choose our own religions. I went to church with my grandparents because I wanted to, I was curious; I went to different churches of different(Christian) faiths with friends because I wanted to and was curious; I've continued studying different types of
religions into adulthood, finding the basic similarities of all religions(is there a religion that's all religions?) One of my brothers is a practicing catholic and his kids go to catholic school, the other is more into Eastern philosophies. The point is our parents gave us the tools and the option to Choose, and we all found our way.
Don't be afraid, keep searching for yourself and share with your kids what you learn. Just make sure you try to be supportive, even if you don't agree with the children going to church w/grandparents, if they want to go let them go and listen to what they have to say afterwards-good and bad- explain what you can, and let them know they have options.
(is there a religion that's all religions?)
Life! ;)
The point is our parents gave us the tools and the option to Choose, and we all found our way.
Thanks everybody for your advice, it's greatly appreciated. I don't have any problem with them going to church. I guess I need to do some work for myself so I can help them as they grow and discover. You guys are gonna make me work for this, aren't you? ;-)
yes we are, frosti.
yes we are, frosti.
Los Bastardos!
that ingrate! he comes in here, asks for advice, and complains about the advice we give him!
just kidding, frosti! lol!
You guys are gonna make me work for this, aren't you? ;-)
Looks like you're going to have to go on your own spiritual quest, too. :)
Looks like you're going to have to go on your own spiritual quest, too. :)
Where's that talking coyote that sounds like Johnny Cash?
Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said.
He said divorce was "spreading like a plague" through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the "evil".
"Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce," the Pope said.
The Pope said Catholic lawyers should not even try to help non-Catholics obtain a divorce.
And he said judges should also try to prevent divorce, although he acknowledged that this would be more difficult, as they could not be "conscientious objectors" refusing to hear cases.
"Those working in civil law cases should avoid being personally involved in what could be understood as co-operating in divorce... they should look for effective measures to favour marriage, above all mediating conciliation," he said.
It is thought to be the first time the Pope has urged lawyers to wash their hands of divorce.
Lawyers and some politicians reacted with anger.
Hmmm, interesting! But, do people even listen to the pope any more? And, more importantly, should they??
But, do people even listen to the pope any more?
I think Catholics have to. He is the leader of the Church and establishes the doctrine/rules that they're supposed to live by.
Or even worse, promote it.
What's wrong with stating divorce is wrong and that as a Catholic you should do everything in your power to prevent it?
I guess nothing's wrong with it. It's just interesting when your religion tells you not only how to live your personal life, but also starts to tell you how to do your job.
It's just interesting when your religion tells you not only how to live your personal life, but also starts to tell you how to do your job.
Isn't your job a large part of your life? Although my job is not my life, I can't separate one from the other.
I couldn't sell crack on Saturday and go to Church on Sunday and rationalize it with "It's my job and has nothing to do with my personal life".
I guess that's one of the things I find distasteful about most religions. I'm fine with them telling me what to do, since I'm a member and have accepted their dogma. I don't like it when they tell me to tell other people what to do.
???
What's wrong with stating divorce is wrong and that as a Catholic you should do everything in your power to prevent it?
Oh, maybe a trivial little canon called "separation of church and state." after all, it's also apparently wrong for judges to grant divorces, too.
oh, but its only the lawyers and the courts who are directly involved with that divorce, dal.
i'd imagine, dal, that if it were up to the pope, church and state in this country wouldn't be separated.
oh, but its only the lawyers and the courts who are directly involved with that divorce, dal.
The Pope didn't say "directly involved." He said they "should avoid being personally involved in what could be understood as co-operating in divorce."
.....and even "cooperating " with the divorce process is wrong, as the Pope said, then wouldn't it also be wrong for:
You'd have to ask the Pope on that one but, these people are not directly involved in the divorce.
I must add that even the Catholic Church allows divorce in some circumstances.
Oh, maybe a trivial little canon called "separation of church and state." after all, it's also apparently wrong for judges to grant divorces, too.
Separation of Church & State has nothing to do with a Church taking a moral stance on an issue.