The religious right or left?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: In general, Religion is one of those topics that can raise people's ire faster than any other I know, possibly including politics. If we want to keep it open as a potential discussion issue on IW, we need to keep the discussion civil and respectful. When people start feeling irritable and angry or frustrated with anyone else or the topic at large, it's time to take a break.

Know you now why Miss Manners says that religion and politics are not topics for polite conversation

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Yorick, I realize all to well you are fired up and full of zest for your topic but it may be a bit overpowering for some of the people here and I'd like to ask you to ease up just a little bit. Take a break, please and then come back and re-read some of what has been posted, before you post again on this thread.

Actually we all had already taken a break and this thread has already been resting for about two days and just started again today.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Yorick, I realize all to well you are fired up and full of zest for your topic but it may be a bit overpowering for some of the people here and I'd like to ask you to ease up just a little bit. Take a break, please and then come back and re-read some of what has been posted, before you post again on this thread. In general, Religion is one of those topics that can raise people's ire faster than any other I know, possibly including politics. If we want to keep it open as a potential discussion issue on IW, we need to keep the discussion civil and respectful. When people start feeling irritable and angry or frustrated with anyone else or the topic at large, it's time to take a break.

Cloudy, if you'll notice there is a three day break in my posts where I actually did do that.

Religion can be touchy, yes, but it should be noted I am debating IDEAS not people. The mantra for discussion is "debate the idea, not the person". I have not said:
Panthesists are stupid.
Pantheists do not think for themselves.
Pantheists are arrogant.
Pantheists are heartless self centred people.

I have not made generalised comments of derision about the people. I have made comments about IDEAS. I have explored those ideas. Even the much maligned "having a wank" is applied to ME, if I apply MY WORLDVIEW into a pantheistic context.

Christianity and more commonly CHRISTIANS on this forum is attacked consistently. Whenever another worldview gets some flak people cry foul.

It is impossible to debate an idea properly without either saying the other person is wrong, and therefore risk offending them.There is however a line between attacking a person, and attacking an idea they hold.

If you enter a discussion about religion, you have to be aware that people will suggest you are wrong, and people will argue against your ideas. As long as they do not insult you personally, suggest you are a moron, sheep, or whatever, all should be expected.

Debates about religion can be immensely enjoyable. I have said exactly the same thing to pantheist friends of mine, and we have laughed about it. If a person is offended by a challenge to an idea, they CHOOSE to be offended. Or they can choose to take it on board and explore the weaknesses of an idea, and strengthen it through the debate. Or change it as the case may be.

If you believe the universe is God exploring himself, there are certain logical consequences of that thought, just as if you believe God created everything, there are certain consequences to that thought.

If I had jumped up in arms the first time someone explained a logical consequence of my beliefs like "Oh, you believe God created everything? Then he must have created evil"

Oh the offense!!!

No

Not at all. I looked and explored the consequence and came to the greater realisation that negative is necessary to have positive. That for love to exist, free will must exist, and that it must include the opposites of attraction and love - rejection and fear.

So while I rejected the conclusion "God created evil" I accepted the assertion "God created the possibility and potential for evil, when he created "good"" Just as in creating life, he created death if that life will at some point end. Death is actually necessary to have a concept of life. An alternate state of existence must exist to give knowledge of a situation, or the situation simply "IS" and remains uncomprehended.

I was 18 or so, and heard a record by Roger Waters "Amused to death". An anti-God song called "What God wants". It led to an open challenge of what I believed, and to what I believe is now greater understanding, and greater awe for the genius, courage and love my God has and is.

So... in explaining a logical consequence of pantheism, I am simply offering some challenges a pantheist can use for enlightenment, either within their existing worldview, or without. The worldview "Panentheism", is one such result.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I would like to debating you concerning what the meaning of the word "is" is. You first. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oddly, it's not too far from the Christian "I am." It's existence as an essence, at least in this context.

For more mundane worldly contexts of what "is" means, see Testimony by William J. Clinton.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: [qb] It seems there are double standards amongst Wookies.

Prove it please. While you are at it, prove I have preconceptions about Christians. [/QUOTE]I was referring to you remaining silent when Pikachu made derisive and incorrect assertions about Jesus. The "preconceptions" refers to your remarks about my motives in the last few threads. You are reading between the lines if you are commenting on my motives.

Its plain that you constistently belittle other worldviews while at the same time putting yours up on a pedalstal. Im fed up with it.

That is the nature of debate and discussion. What is the alternative? Everyone sit around and say "oh yes, we're all right...why are we discussing again?" All we have on this forum are words. I enjoy a robust exploration of ideas, as long as the PERSON is not attacked.

I would rather have a ban on religious discussion on IW than put up with it anymore, as much as I enjoy exchanging ideas with people who aren't out to attack other people's philosophical stance just to push their own as better.

So you would apply a personal preference globally? Rather than stay out of threads and discussions you are fed up with, you would seek to limit others freedoms to engage in such discussion?

I use comparative assessment. As such, my worldview is "most correct" because of the comparisons with others. There is much I do not know and understand. There are elements of my worldview that challenge me. However, COMPARED TO the other options, the other choices, the other perspectives, I have found mine correct.

Because I reached the conclusions of correctness based on exploring the alternatives, why should I be BARRED from disclosing my experience?

I could be like Pikachu "Hi guys these are my beliefs..." but my beliefs include assertions of incorrectness about paths I explored.

My scientific process was to test oppostite outcomes. In science you don't just test the right path, you also test other paths to be sure the same result is not reached.

That is what I have done with faith and theology.

I should finally add, I could not disagree more with a banning on religious discussion. I would have a hard time visiting here if that were the case. But perhaps that's what some would prefer? Yorick disappears?

The solution is easy Chewbacca. Just don't enter the discussions, then you only see what you want to see. I do it all the time. I don't argue for banning Cloudys Cafe or roleplaying threads because I don't enjoy them or am fed up with them. I leave others to talk in a way they enjoy, and pursue discussions I enjoy.

[Timber Loftis]

What is the alternative? Everyone sit around and say "oh yes, we're all right...why are we discussing again?"

I think you hit the nail on the head, Yorick. And, I think it's the problem folks may be having. Frankly, I have never seen you be wrong about anything. Which makes it seem like this is exactly the kind of discussion one enters with you.

Now, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong about this, as can be expected, but I just thought I'd point it out to you.

My scientific process was to test oppostite outcomes. In science you don't just test the right path, you also test other paths to be sure the same result is not reached. That is what I have done with faith and theology.

This may be part of the problem. It appears to me (perhaps incorrectly) that you think you may have already tested all paths with your faith. Meaning, perhaps, you think you are at a point now where you are simply right. I know you've been a teacher -- in religion no less -- so isn't it possible you go into "teacher mode" and wind up telling us why we're all wrong instead of being a dynamic participant in the discussion?

Just some thoughts, no offense intended.

[ 11-05-2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oddly, it's not too far from the Christian "I am." It's existence as an essence, at least in this context.

Oh, we have nothing to debate then as the "I Am" analogy makes pefect sense to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And you obviously saw the humor I was driving for at the expense of WJC as well.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Ok- I see that tempers and or sheer frustration are showing up here. I would like to see this thread sit for a few days and let those who want to continue to participate in it have a breather. A general reminder: If anyone feels angry at other members or their posts, the best solution is to step away and take a break before you consider posting again. Pm your concerns to the other person if needs be. Chewie, if you are feeling 'fed up' it may be a good idea for you to just ignore such posts for a while. No sense letting them get you more worked up, right?

Thanks Cloudy, I apologize for A. not self moderating when disrespectful words caused frustration and B. not taking my issue privately to a moderator for consideration and feedback.

[Chewbacca]

by Yorick: I was referring to you remaining silent when Pikachu made derisive and incorrect assertions about Jesus. The "preconceptions" refers to your remarks about my motives in the last few threads. You are reading between the lines if you are commenting on my motives.

I wasn't silent, I actually mentioned that it would be prudent to check out the source offered with that person's opinion in order to make an informed reply. And whether or not those assertions about Jesus are incorrect or not is a matter of interpretation. You may think your interpretation is correct and he may think his interpretation is correct and we have a draw.

My opinion about your motives stands, I do not retract it one bit. I simply regret the angry emotion by which I expressed it.


This is great, Yorick is allowed to get his panties all in a wad if someone has a differing and/or potentially disrespectful opinion about Jesus, the bible and/or Christianity and its all just fine, but if someone else gets their panties in a wad because of Yorick's differing and/or potentially disrespectful opinion about their beliefs it is just all right and if you don't like it, stay out of the debate. Pffft.

I will be around and ready to discredit your negative and incorrect opinions about non-christian beleifs, Yorick. I wont get mad anymore, but I will get mental.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: by Yorick: I was referring to you remaining silent when Pikachu made derisive and incorrect assertions about Jesus. The "preconceptions" refers to your remarks about my motives in the last few threads. You are reading between the lines if you are commenting on my motives.

I wasn't silent, I actually mentioned that it would be prudent to check out the source offered with that person's opinion in order to make an informed reply. And whether or not those assertions about Jesus are incorrect or not is a matter of interpretation. You may think your interpretation is correct and he may think his interpretation is correct and we have a draw.

My opinion about your motives stands, I do not retract it one bit. I simply regret the angry emotion by which I expressed it.


This is great, Yorick is allowed to get his panties all in a wad if someone has a differing and/or potentially disrespectful opinion about Jesus, the bible and/or Christianity and its all just fine, but if someone else gets their panties in a wad because of Yorick's differing and/or potentially disrespectful opinion about their beliefs it is just all right and if you don't like it, stay out of the debate. Pffft.

I will be around and ready to discredit your negative and incorrect opinions about non-christian beleifs, Yorick. I wont get mad anymore, but I will get mental. [/QUOTE]Chewbacca, the difference is I am not advocating banning religious discussions because my panties are in a wad. I get in there and present accurate representations of the beliefs attacked. You on the other hand have left key points unanswered and chose instead to advocate banning these discussions altogether.