12 Aug 14
Originally posted by JS357You should suggest it on the Site Ideas forum. I'd say people trying to police threads after reading a handful of posts they are not interested in are sometimes engaging in a certain kind of lack-of-etiquette themselves! 😛 😀
Proposed rule for forum etiquette: Once a thread has had only 2 participants for N posts, they should go to PMs. N to be decided. This would be called the "Get a room!" rule.
When it comes to "controversies within christianity", I think it is fascinating how militant and exclusive claims to be a TrueChristian™ are not only strutted between Christians, but are also strutted with ex-Christians in some kind of carried-over display of holier-than-thou assertiveness ~ EVEN to those who are NOT Christians any more! The emphasis placed on difference rather than commonality smacks of insecurity-shrouded-in-absolute-certainty.
12 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357No has been excluded here. If only two participants are participating then what's the problem?
Proposed rule for forum etiquette: Once a thread has had only 2 participants for N posts, they should go to PMs. N to be decided. This would be called the "Get a room!" rule.
I don't see you complaining if only two people participate for N number of posts at other forums. So why is it suddenly important for you to try shutting down a conversation pertaining to spirituality? This is the Spirituality Forum. This is the place where it is appropriate for people who want to talk about matters pertaining to spirituality to be able to talk about matters pertaining about spirituality.
Hellooooooo! Do you know where you are?
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeStruth! He's just teasing. That's why I teased him back. Lighten up.
I don't see you complaining if only two people participate for N number of posts in a row at other forums, so why is it important for you to try shutting down a conversation pertaining to spirituality?
12 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFLet me put it to you this way:
No I believed that I walked with God and had Jesus in my life and did not perceive it as an "ideology" at the time, but instead I perceived it to be the "truth". Being an ex-Christian now, I see Christian beliefs as an ideology.
If I end up in hell I'll know why.
If I end up in heaven I'll be greatly relieved.
If I die and that's the end of it then no harm no foul. I won't even be in a position to know if I was right or wrong about the afterlife. But where's the fun in being an atheist if you can't say "I told you so"?
If I die and some part of me still goes on and is aware of what is happening, then I know where I do not want to be for eternity.
It's really that simple.
I won't know for sure until it (physical death) happens, and if atheists are right I won't know anything at all. But one thing I know for certain now is that I have no faith in my ability to save myself. I can't afford to be wrong about eternity if there is an eternity. I'm not willing to take that chance, because eternity won't be like life seemingly dragging along... eternity is forever.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeUnlike you, I do not believe either of us is able to somehow will [or hope] eternal life into existence or make it a real thing that affects or changes real life in any way. As for whether an atheist would derive any "fun" from saying "I told you so" to you if your religionist certainties turn out to be mistaken, perhaps you should direct that comment at atheists rather than me.
Let me put it to you this way:
If I end up in hell I'll know why.
If I end up in heaven I'll be greatly relieved.
If I die and that's the end of it, then no harm no foul. I won't even be in a position to know if I was right or wrong about the afterlife. But where's the fun in being an atheist if you can't say "I told you so"?
But if I d ...[text shortened]... ing to take that chance. Eternity isn't like life seemingly dragging along. Eternity is forever.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI am not atheist for the fun of it. I am atheist because I prefer not to be delusional.
But where's the fun in being an atheist if you can't say "I told you so"?
You seem to have fallen for Pascals Wager the flaws of which are well known, yet you appear not to realize it. I can't say "I told you so!" until you bother to look up Pascals Wager and recognize your error, but I can say "you're delusional!". But no, its not fun, I would prefer there to be fewer delusional people on the earth.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by JS357Well JS, I am at a loss. I don't seem to be able to get a clear picture of what it is you're talking about.
Well to you and Suzianne, (telepathy comment) I don't think the direct revelation of God's truth that is spoken of here can be *like* anything else we encounter in our daily lives, after all, the more common a thing is, the more it would be within the ordinary course of nature. That's what the natural sciences study -- the regularities of our experience. The o ...[text shortened]... n having its own nature, and if some residents were motivated, they would become its scientists.
Your reply above was to a post I made in reply to a previous post you made in reply to a reply I made to another poster. I could post it all here, but why? I made clear statements, but it seems you've gone down a rabbit trail or two without really addressing the points I made.
At least that's how it appears to me. But then it's me after all, so who knows?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFSo we are hereby in the same black pot.
You should suggest it on the Site Ideas forum. I'd say people trying to police threads after reading a handful of posts they are not interested in are sometimes engaging in a certain kind of lack-of-etiquette themselves! 😛 😀
When it comes to "controversies within christianity", I think it is fascinating how militant and exclusive claims to be a TrueChristia ...[text shortened]... laced on difference rather than commonality smacks of insecurity-shrouded-in-absolute-certainty.
13 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAnd you all know what trouble you get into with pot....Calling the pot black means you gone and burned it, ruined a nice up coming evening🙂
There is a denomination that sees it as grey and therefore not the same. There is another that questions whether it's actually a pot at all and thinks of it as a vase. 😉
13 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI recognize what Pascals Wager means, but I did not fall for it. I came up with that same idea before learning of Pascals Wager, as I'm sure others have. It's not a difficult concept for anyone to imagine or understand. So why you believe I must have learned of Pascals Wager first is perhaps something you could give some thought to. You are just as capable of independent creative thinking as anyone else.
I am not atheist for the fun of it. I am atheist because I prefer not to be delusional.
You seem to have fallen for Pascals Wager the flaws of which are well known, yet you appear not to realize it. I can't say "I told you so!" until you bother to look up Pascals Wager and recognize your error, but I can say "you're delusional!". But no, its not fun, I would prefer there to be fewer delusional people on the earth.
Freedom to explore ideas, and not being bound to conventional thinking, can lead to or be the result of breaking free of knowing ONLY what you were taught. I don't know why atheists feel they must tell people what they are thinking and why they believe as they do. Attempting to control the conversation here (at the Spirituality Forum) is one thing, but for you to suggest I don't know my own mind as well as you do is arrogant and conceited.
13 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeYou misunderstood me. I am saying you have fallen for the concept of Pascals Wager whether you came up with it yourself, or got it from someone else. I am also saying that it is a well known fact that Pascals Wager has a number of serious flaws that you don't appear to have bothered to educate yourself on.
I recognize what Pascals Wager means, but I did not fall for it. I came up with that same idea before learning of Pascals Wager, as I'm sure others have. It's not a difficult concept for anyone to imagine or understand. So why you believe I must have learned of Pascals Wager first is perhaps something you could give some thought to. You are just as capable of independent creative thinking as anyone else.
Freedom to explore ideas, and not being bound to conventional thinking, can lead to or be the result of breaking free of knowing ONLY what you were taught.
There is nothing wrong with exploring ideas. But to promote ideas that are known to be flawed, can hardly described as sensible.
I don't know why atheists feel they must tell people what they are thinking and why they believe as they do.
I for one, did not. You told us why you think as you do and I commented on it.
Attempting to control the conversation here (at the Spirituality Forum) is one thing, but for you to suggest I don't know my own mind as well as you do is arrogant and conceited.
Where did I say anything to that effect?
13 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeChristianity in its many variants offers examples of conventional thinking. For many Christians I have known, their faith was something they were taught but they were unable to "break free" from it. This is probably how many of the controversies within Christianity are perpetuated. It could also be the result of Christians pushing back against what they see as conventional Christian thinking but without straying too far from conventional thinking of the Christian kind.
Freedom to explore ideas, and not being bound to conventional thinking, can lead to or be the result of breaking free of knowing ONLY what you were taught.