21613, RE: how nice..|
Posted by BooDaah, Thu Sep-07-00 06:55 AM
>I guess these sort of debates
>can't ever really happen..
sure they can. but it's up to each who chooses to "debate" the topic to understand the pitfalls involved. simply, when discussing matters of faith or belief you're going to ultimately have to rely upon a basis for the discussion. for example, if a Christian believes that God exists and the person they are discussing with does not, then they will be arguing from two different spheres of understanding because there is not way to prove or disprove that issue. You either believe it or you don't. If neither is willing to give credence to the others viewpoint and resorts to rhetoric or personal attacks as their means of making a point the discussion will go downhill from there.
>that's what defines faith.
i agree. faith is belief put into action (you don't have faith in something you don't believe in). belief comes from an understanding of events/concepts. this understanding IS very personal, and that's why I, can't "convert" you or "save" anyone (and neither can nor anyone BUT God and you). all i can do is relate what i believe to be true based upon my experiences, teachings, and understanding and you do with that what you will.
>and it can't be discussed
>because part of the puzzle
>is to hear detractors with
>a view of them as
i agree. but the key is to discern whether a person is a detractor who disagrees, or someone who is just trying to "push buttons". one you deal with with kindness, the other you let rant and rave.
>but even a scientist is a
>priest of sorts.
i agree with this too. way back when i discussed how EVERYONE is a part of some religion (religion being defiined as a system of belief). to me what is called "science" is just another religion, because ultimately even the greatest scientist can't "prove anything" much less create something. this is why i look at the whole idea of "natural" as odd. because there are several different viewpoints as to what nature is anyway. ultimately you have to take someones word for it. but i digress...
>it's all in the
>interpretation, maybe illosopher just lacks
by his(?) own admission politeness and tact isn't a particular concern. but the part about the interpretation is VERY true. one has to study for themselves all the information (or as much as they can) and decide what to do from there. similarly, we can't go all buck if someone decides that they want to act differently based upon their interpretation.
>how do the more
>knowledgeable and self-reflective among you
>(christians) justify the weaknesses/corruptions in
>the doctrine to yourselves?
personally, i don't see weaknesses (show me if you do) and as far as the "corruptions" i go back to my original suggestion that you can't blame the faith for the way people bastardize and misuse it. i say study for yourself instead of running with someone else's interpretation. like i said before, don't be a sheep. I don't know of a religion where you are asked to follow blindly, and if I did I'd stay away from it because I wouldn't want to end up on the wrong end of a cup of kool-aid (bonus if you know what I'm referring to).
>it's the entire thing that's being
and THAT's what I'm disagreeing with. I asked him to show me where it's faulty and he came back (basically) with: "because the followers are foul" i said, "aren't people pretty much foul across the board?" and then i got nothing else.
now we're having an actual discussion with comments by you followed by comments by me (hopefully to the end of reaching some point of mutual understanding, even if it is agreeing to disagree.
i'm not speaking for Christainity per se, only for myself as a Christian. If you (or anyone) wants to hear what I gotta say then ask. Don't rant, ask. I'll answer you the best way I can. If that's not good enough then what can I do?
>from that in Christ's name,
>was it the same as
>he taught originally?
much of what has resulted (in the "name" of Christainity) has absolutely nothing to do with the universal teachings of Christ. I agree wholeheatedly. but one still has to look at those events in their context and not make the leap that Christianity is "bad" or that there is not such person as Christ or whatever. context is important. looking at the bad without looking at the good is just as foul as picking a part of the bible out to justify ones evil ways and ideas.
>people are people but power is
>power..it's said that the cross
>is one of the biggest
>brand logos in the world
>- so what's behind it.
not all christians, and not necessarily christ.
just because rev/deacon/father/pope so and so wears a cross or carries a bible doesn't make him anymore of a Christain than me putting a leaf in my pocket makes me a tree. you're right, the name of christ (again) has been used to justify greed and all manner of sin, but it says in the book (for those who take the time to study -- note i didn't just say read-- it), to compare the actions of the believer to the teachings to determine whether a believer is serving God or themself.
>and that's why this debate
>will/should reocurr, for as long
>as organised religion remains, and
>curious souls remain outside
i have no problem with asking/answering questions
or engaging in debate. arguement? i'll pass.
>I'm guessing the
>intention is to find out
>if you ever questioned yourselves/faiths
>and to share any thoughts.
if that was the question, it should have been asked that way. but look again and compare your quesion to ills statements and challenges. he had an axe to grind and didn't care who got hit in the process. THEN he started attacking folk personally, now please remember that I could care less a what he(?) calls me because he doesn't know me ornor has he tried to, but withing the context of the discussions that makes me think he just wanted to fight. mission accomplished i guess.
>a q&a in this usually
>results in direction to passages/quotes
>or incidents/emotions we can't all
>relate to (though some of
>us truly try).
if you decide that you can't/won't relate before you even ask, then what's the point in asking?
>'there's the rub..' as shakespeare wrote,
>but do you have a
>sound basis with which to
if you've decided that anything i say is foolish before i open my mouth, how can/why should can i try. i think i do, and until you LISTEN to me you truly won't know. but agian, your question is a million miles from the original posts and the staements of th original poster.
>I just mean the reading materials
>and what we're given remains
>the same in every sense
>so how can it respond
>to life's organic nature..the way
>we relate to our own
>lives even has changed completely.
perhaps that is why it is called the "living word". the idea that the ideas/concepts therein are for another time is to deny actually looking at it. there is nothing new under the sun. te same stuff that happened in those stories/evennts happen today. that's like saying that your parents advice is null because the experiences are of a different era. you have to search through the antiquated words and get to what the point really is. truth is truth.
>shakespeare's unsolvable rub again..lemme just say
>here that it's not so
>much about christianity vs. othereligions.
then what is it? is it the validity of religion in general? is it your earlier question about justifying the actions of the supposedly devout in line with the teachings? is it about starting some mess? i see that is not your intent, but the ORIGINAL intent remains in question.
>in spiritual terms, yes - I
>believe that, you've got start
>somewhere but you've need to
then you need to realize that you're setting yourself up for a harer journey. example, you want to go on a trip from LA to NY. do you take a map or find your way on your own? if you DO take the map, do you rely on it without veryifying the ablity of the mapmaker? if the answer is no, then you're taking a risk. think of religion as a roadmap to wherever. you don't have to follow. you don't have to rely. no one is forcing you, ill or anyone else to believe anything. i just wonder if folks realize that believing in yourself and your experiences is just another religion? i tried to do things my way, only reliying on that which i could understand and "visualize". then i realized that (once agin) when you get down to it, you GOTTA take somones word for the foundational stuff -- where do we come from, what are things made of, what do you call that, etc. in my case, when i began to follow this path, things changed. i have peace and happiness beyond anything i've ever imagined. now if someone thinks that makes me stupid or foolish, then so be it. i'll continue to do my thing and pray that they can find what it'll take for them. selah.
>you're right..what bad actions DO reflect
>upon christians are those comitted
>to the faith itself, whenever,
but i can't undo someone else damage (nor am i called to). i'm called to do the best i can to follow the example set before me by Christ. not rev so and so, not nobody's pope. when i need to know what to do I take it to God to help me and have faith that he'll never forsake me even if i do the wrong thing. similarly as i walk this walk i beleive it is important to study and examine this thing that i say i believe, so theat whn question DO come I'll be able to say something better than what is trite and potentially confusing.
>I was born, baptised, raised and
>educated in it so I
>guess I was always wondering
>what I got for doing
when you say educated, what do you mean? you sat in a class while someone read it to you? both of us will agree that there is a difference between getting through a class and learning the material.
part of the thing is that you have to internally decide whether you think it's true or a bunch of crap. similarly, it NOT just about what you "got", but what you can give too. but that's a whole nother discussion.
>and there's a part of
>me that can't/won't find purchase,
>the part that says never
i really feel you. i'm the type who wants every question answered before I make my decision. if you can't explain it to me (and withstand my attempts to poke holes) then i'm not feeling you.
but one day (dead serious) i realized that no matter how many books you read, degrees you get, you'll never find the answer to everything based upon what my little mind can handle. this is where faith comes in. at some point you gotta just decide to believe it. example, i've never been to the moon. i've seen a light in the sky and believed that men have walked there and examined it. how do i know they aren't lying and that it really ISN"T just a big light in the sky? i had to decide to believe them. another example, my kindergarten teacher told me 1+1=2. why? ultimately because she said so. even after learnig set logic, descrete math and all that I still had to learn to accept the "given" as given.
Now, I look at mankind throughout history and his inability to do anything besides destroy himself and everything around. I know WE didn't create anything, so where did all this come from? was it all just a big "natural" accident? i don't think so, becaus the idea of evolution really does go against something which CAN be proven called entropy (the idea that "things fall apart" as opposed to together). everything decays, so how could things evolve into a better state? now i'm really going off on a tangent, but ultimately my point is that we all have to decide what to take as "given". I've made my choice, and everyone else will do the same. in the end sombody's gonna be wrong, and i don't think it's gonna be me.
>not nature's way.
i touched on this abouve, but what exacty IS nature's way anyway?
------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.