The religious right or left? - Page 7

Chewbacca · 10-28-2003, 02:58 AM

Hey Cerek,

I beleive in and practice 'faith healing' as well. Sorry my way is not particularly Christian-based. Regardless, the discernable results are indeed quite awe-inspiring. Thanks for sharing! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick · 10-28-2003, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Constancy:

1 a : steadfastness of mind under duress : FORTITUDE b : FIDELITY, LOYALTY
2 : a state of being constant or unchanging

Consistency:

1 a archaic : condition of adhering together : firmness of material substance b : firmness of constitution or character : PERSISTENCY
2 : degree of firmness, density, viscosity, or resistance to movement or separation of constituent particles
3 a : agreement or harmony of parts or features to one another or a whole : CORRESPONDENCE; specifically : ability to be asserted together without contradiction b : harmony of conduct or practice with profession

Measure:

1 a : to choose or control with cautious restraint : REGULATE b : to regulate by a standard : GOVERN
2 : to allot or apportion in measured amounts
3 : to lay off by making measurements
4 : to ascertain the measurements of
5 : to estimate or appraise by a criterion
6 archaic : to travel over : TRAVERSE
7 : to serve as a means of measuring
intransitive senses
1 : to take or make a measurement
2 : to have a specified measurement

Without a source work how do you measure your beliefs against those that allegedly predate the bible? How in fact, do you prove that those beliefs even existed. Prelitterate society left no written record. Considering people dispute the authenticity of the most verified human work, how am I to simply accept oral records as truth, let alone displaying any sort of similarity or connection with times before, or since?

Without a source work, how do you allow for a measurement of your own actions against an independent barometer? How can you claim to any similarity with religions of the past if no works exist?

Without a source work, are you not relying totally on your own experiences of this life, rather than the accumulated knowledge of those before you? How then, if relying on the here and now, can you make a claim to predating the bible?

If the bible is a sourcework you are using, why are you denigrating it, and why are you deviating from it's central assertions? Are you choosing to believe some sections and not others?

If you are choosing to believe some sections and not others, are you not amalgamating some of what the bible says, with beliefs from outside the bible?

If you are amalgamating, why is this description insulting to you?

Finally, I constantly CONSTANTLY hear online words of derision, ridicule and scorn for
1. My church
2. My faith
3. My God
4. My sourcework
5. My life reason.

I am often accused of responding harshly or oversensitively.

Yet what are you here doing? You talk of one's own medicine being hard to swallow, but I'm afraid it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Yorick · 10-28-2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Hey Cerek,

I beleive in and practice 'faith healing' as well. Sorry my way is not particularly Christian-based. Regardless, the discernable results are indeed quite awe-inspiring. Thanks for sharing! [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's awesome. I'd love to hear what happened.

Faceman · 10-28-2003, 04:31 AM

oh,
I was leaving the discussion because i saw it going [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] and back to the "contradictions in the bible" discussion but sultan has made some points that really pepped it up again. So:
1.) Yorick, double post (probably an unnecessary hint, when I'm finished writing you'll most likely have deleted it
2.) Yorick, thanks for making the offtopic-topic, I will join there soon and I guess it will take sibjectivity off of this thread

3.) sultan, the historical value of biblical scripture derives from

comparing the scriptures with each other: If an older manuscript is almost exactly like a newer one this means that either the text was highly valued OR that there has to be some truth in it. Myths tend to change heavily with time (rumors do even faster).
comparing it with other ancient works: the flood mentioned by Cerek is element of Roman, Greek, Germanic and many other mythological texts. This implies that there actually has been a Great flood. Personally I doubt that it literally covered the world but rather think that there was a world-wide set of floods due to a climate change.
comparing it with other historical works: which is or example what made it possible to date Jesus' birth and found our time-system. There's an incredible book (only know the German title) "Ein Mensch namens Jesus" (A human named Jesus) by Gerald Messadie which does exactly that and tries to explain the whole new testament scientifically (i.e. offers scientific explanation for the virgin birth, the wonders,...). I really recommend it

Yet the bible is not a source of history only, but contrary to other history books has an intended lesson to learn from and can be viewed as much more for people who want to.
4.) Yorick, while I understand that you got a bit defensive sultan is right in that he didn't contest the point but simply asked for more thourough information so he can contest the whole issue (not only based on the one point he had no possibility of certain knowing if true or false and therefore couldn't contest)
5.) Chewbacca and Yorick: I have learned much from you in discussions in the past and you both got a lot of smart things to say. But - no offense intended - after a while you get into bickering. Come on guys, this is beyond you (and hopegully the off-topic topic will pick that up and take it out of this thread)
6.) Chewbacca, I guess I'm stnading at the same point of view as you with the "scientific explanation of faith healing" (if not correct me) and would like to elaborate: I think that because a lot of illnesses are at least partly psychosomatic a change of faith (not used as a religious term solely here) can have a very positive effect on your recovery. Surviving of cancer for example is more common with people who believe in their survival than with people who basicaly give up. I myself believe in the strenghth of my immune system and tend to recover quickly from (fortunately rather small) illnesses, never sunk into it and (thank god) have never been comitted to a hospital. This may be a conicidence (because I can still rely on the strenghth of my youth) but I do not view it as such and thus get along a cough without getting bronchitis or asthma (at least I think so).
-------
I probably haven't addressed everything I wanted to and everything I have addressed I probably didn't as thoroughly as I wanted to, but I'm just getting beck into the discussion and will elaborate later on.

Chewbacca · 10-28-2003, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Faceman:
6.) Chewbacca, I guess I'm stnading at the same point of view as you with the "scientific explanation of faith healing" (if not correct me) and would like to elaborate: I think that because a lot of illnesses are at least partly psychosomatic a change of faith (not used as a religious term solely here) can have a very positive effect on your recovery. Surviving of cancer for example is more common with people who believe in their survival than with people who basicaly give up. I myself believe in the strenghth of my immune system and tend to recover quickly from (fortunately rather small) illnesses, never sunk into it and (thank god) have never been comitted to a hospital. This may be a conicidence (because I can still rely on the strenghth of my youth) but I do not view it as such and thus get along a cough without getting bronchitis or asthma (at least I think so).

Well, yes Faceman, I agree with your "scientific explanation of faith healing" in the sense that thinking healthy contributes to becoming and being healthy.

There is also a mystical/psycic side to what I was refering to as well that includes various techniques.

Creative visualization is probably a more accessible and easier technique to describe becasue at its core it is exactly what the term implies: Using the imagination to visualize being/becoming in a healthy state of mind/body. This isn't just mere idle daydreaming, but more like a conscious emotionally engaged focused meditation. I can reccomend some excellent books on this topic if your curiosity is peaked.

One of the more basic uses of CV is to overcome fears. One particular visualization involves imagining a personal fear as a big black ugly blob. Bravely reachout in your 'minds eye' and stick your hand deep into your fear. Get a firm grip and yank your fear inside out, turning it from black, to light blue, green, pink, or a color that is soothing and calming to you. When you have finally turned your fear inside out, picture its new beautiful form flying away to sink into your consciousness, to reside where fear once did. This is using CV to create personal psycological transformation. I can only say from personal expirience that this particular visualization technique is amazing.

This same technique can be applied to cancer as well, some well documented cases involve using visualization to "see" cancer cells being destroyed and replaced with vibrant healthy cells in a suffers body. The most potent form of this kind of healing is done by the sufferer of the disease themself, though anyone is capable of doing it on the behalf of someone.

Why and how does creative visualization supposedly work? Well thats whole discussion in and of itself, but it falls under the same principle that an optimistic mindset lends to having health and recovery.

Maelakin · 10-28-2003, 10:17 AM

Yorick,

Even though someone else already touched on this subject, I’m going to repeat it so that you understand my motivations. I will admit that many of my posts were targeting you specifically. The reason is that you were promoting discussion, but every time you would enter a discussion that had some conduit to your faith you would preach.

I can completely understand that your faith-based opinions hold much sway in your life, and that they are major determining factors in decisions you make. However, when you start to put your faith forward as universal truth, in a multi-cultural discussion, you no longer are open to discussing any topic.

Many times you have stated that I was “incorrect” because my views differed from yours. I was not incorrect and that was the point I was trying to make. You cannot use your faith as a basis for fact, because if that were the case there wouldn’t be discrepancies in religion, everyone would have the same faith. Facts have the universal ability to bring everyone together on the same page. Religion cannot do this, and as we all know religion many times is the precursor to intolerance of others.

I’ll be honest and say that I am unsure of your actual views pertaining to this issue. I can say that if you truly believe that your religion is fact, then the original offense you took from my signature would have applied and been offensive in nature to you. In this context, discussion with a person who thinks they already know all the facts cannot be open to discussion. Instead, they resort to preaching and browbeating in an attempt to sway the other people.

You can take my previous posts as an attempt to sway you, however, if you look carefully at them you will see I have always had one simple goal in mind. I wanted you to realize that your beliefs do not apply to everyone, and I wanted you to realize that your beliefs were nothing more than your opinions. Instead of preaching to the masses and trying to make us conform to your worldview, state your opinion, even if it is religious in orientation, but do not “correct” others because your views differ from theirs. Discuss the merits of each statement, but also realize that each person has an opinion that is valid. You cannot change the validity of an opinion; they all are valid.

I have no problem with a religious viewpoint being stated, but I do have a problem when someone has the gall to tell me I am incorrect because I do not have faith in the same religious system as he or she. To me, this just proves an oppressive nature of a religious group.

pritchke · 10-28-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
Without a source work how do you measure your beliefs against those that allegedly predate the bible? How in fact, do you prove that those beliefs even existed. Prelitterate society left no written record. Considering people dispute the authenticity of the most verified human work, how am I to simply accept oral records as truth, let alone displaying any sort of similarity or connection with times before, or since?

Without a source work, how do you allow for a measurement of your own actions against an independent barometer? How can you claim to any similarity with religions of the past if no works exist?

It is called Faith, you as a Christian should understand that more than anyone. Just because something is written does not mean it is true just has 100% of the bible can not be proven with 'hard concrete fact'. Buildings, landscapes, are the most easily proven. Even today's authors use actual buildings in novels it doesn't make the characters real. While there is evidence to suggest Noah's ark existed and I believe it did. How was he going to get two of every living thing in the world on the boat. Look how large the world is, quite an impossible task for one man. Did the entire world flood or just a small portion. Maybe God had an undocumented plan for animals in North America? I also believe Dinosaurs existed on the planet before man, although there is no documentation or written works for this. It does not say God wiped them out and started over so what did he do. Do you have the right to judge another man's beliefs and faith? I thought only God was allowed to do that. The bible ask us as many questions as provides answers to them, and with helping people with everyday life it does a very good job at that as man as changed very little, they are still barbarians except now they wear suits and carry briefcases instead of a staff. I don't think God would want to give us answers to everything some things we have to discover on our own. I have seen a laying on hands ceremony before and only 1 in 10 actually worked. Do you know why God did not heal the other 9? I don't but I would not question their faith, as that is Gods place to judge not mine. Maybe he did heal them but decided there hearts needed healing more. It is not my place or yours to judge Chewies faith, you can state what you believe and not judge or say that Chewie is wrong, you came off a little self righteous to me when you stated "Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability." This type of thing turns people away from Jesus and God, and many evangelical Christians use harsh in your face tactics that turn people further away than convert. The message that Jesus wanted to give was one of comfort and love. Not you are wrong and will be damned to hell. That message was that "he love's us", despite our short comings, or the black hole that we have stumbled in. The message is not that we are wrong or we are holding the wrong ideas or beliefs because those things are not for us mortals to decide. Even someone who has never picked up the bible could have recieved this message from God as he speaks through our hearts not through texts, scriptures, or rituals.

[ 10-28-2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

pritchke · 10-28-2003, 11:22 AM

What Maelakin said above.

[ 10-28-2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

10-28-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Hey Cerek,

I beleive in and practice 'faith healing' as well. Sorry my way is not particularly Christian-based. Regardless, the discernable results are indeed quite awe-inspiring. Thanks for sharing! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmmm. Chewbacca, may I ask what method do you use please? Just wondering because back in my earlier years, I was introduced to Reiki, another form of hands on healing. Fascinating history of Reiki and the weekend class had helped changed my life.

Maelakin · 10-28-2003, 01:53 PM

Pritchke,

I believe there is an underlying theme to your post above that many people forget in their quest to convert others. The theme is tolerance and guidance. The old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.” Very much applies to the mentality I possess.

Hitting me on the head and telling me I am wrong does not promote the philosophical thinking required for a person to come to a conclusion concerning his or her faith. Conversion does not happen when a party is not willing. Each person has to make it his or her own personal choice, and they are only going to do so on their own terms.

Anyways, I wish more people could approach the concept of religion in the same manner. It promotes discussion and understanding.

10-28-2003, 02:58 AM	#61
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 52 Posts: 5,373	Hey Cerek, I beleive in and practice 'faith healing' as well. Sorry my way is not particularly Christian-based. Regardless, the discernable results are indeed quite awe-inspiring. Thanks for sharing! [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

10-28-2003, 04:31 AM	#64
Faceman Hathor Join Date: February 18, 2002 Location: Vienna Age: 43 Posts: 2,248	oh, I was leaving the discussion because i saw it going [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] and back to the "contradictions in the bible" discussion but sultan has made some points that really pepped it up again. So: 1.) Yorick, double post (probably an unnecessary hint, when I'm finished writing you'll most likely have deleted it 2.) Yorick, thanks for making the offtopic-topic, I will join there soon and I guess it will take sibjectivity off of this thread 3.) sultan, the historical value of biblical scripture derives from comparing the scriptures with each other: If an older manuscript is almost exactly like a newer one this means that either the text was highly valued OR that there has to be some truth in it. Myths tend to change heavily with time (rumors do even faster). comparing it with other ancient works: the flood mentioned by Cerek is element of Roman, Greek, Germanic and many other mythological texts. This implies that there actually has been a Great flood. Personally I doubt that it literally covered the world but rather think that there was a world-wide set of floods due to a climate change. comparing it with other historical works: which is or example what made it possible to date Jesus' birth and found our time-system. There's an incredible book (only know the German title) "Ein Mensch namens Jesus" (A human named Jesus) by Gerald Messadie which does exactly that and tries to explain the whole new testament scientifically (i.e. offers scientific explanation for the virgin birth, the wonders,...). I really recommend it Yet the bible is not a source of history only, but contrary to other history books has an intended lesson to learn from and can be viewed as much more for people who want to. 4.) Yorick, while I understand that you got a bit defensive sultan is right in that he didn't contest the point but simply asked for more thourough information so he can contest the whole issue (not only based on the one point he had no possibility of certain knowing if true or false and therefore couldn't contest) 5.) Chewbacca and Yorick: I have learned much from you in discussions in the past and you both got a lot of smart things to say. But - no offense intended - after a while you get into bickering. Come on guys, this is beyond you (and hopegully the off-topic topic will pick that up and take it out of this thread) 6.) Chewbacca, I guess I'm stnading at the same point of view as you with the "scientific explanation of faith healing" (if not correct me) and would like to elaborate: I think that because a lot of illnesses are at least partly psychosomatic a change of faith (not used as a religious term solely here) can have a very positive effect on your recovery. Surviving of cancer for example is more common with people who believe in their survival than with people who basicaly give up. I myself believe in the strenghth of my immune system and tend to recover quickly from (fortunately rather small) illnesses, never sunk into it and (thank god) have never been comitted to a hospital. This may be a conicidence (because I can still rely on the strenghth of my youth) but I do not view it as such and thus get along a cough without getting bronchitis or asthma (at least I think so). ------- I probably haven't addressed everything I wanted to and everything I have addressed I probably didn't as thoroughly as I wanted to, but I'm just getting beck into the discussion and will elaborate later on. __________________ \"I am forever spellbound by the frailty of life\"<br /><br /> Faceman

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Religious Outkasts	The Hierophant	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	12	05-20-2004 10:03 AM
So much for religious tolerance	Rokenn	General Discussion	43	08-12-2003 12:57 AM
help!!! religious advice	RevRuby	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	2	11-07-2002 01:10 PM
Religious posts--let's take a break for a bit	Ziroc	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	47	07-05-2002 01:47 PM
anti-religious extremist gone too far??	AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	103	07-02-2002 06:23 AM

10-28-2003, 10:17 AM	#66
Maelakin Drow Warrior Join Date: September 16, 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Age: 48 Posts: 257	Yorick, Even though someone else already touched on this subject, I’m going to repeat it so that you understand my motivations. I will admit that many of my posts were targeting you specifically. The reason is that you were promoting discussion, but every time you would enter a discussion that had some conduit to your faith you would preach. I can completely understand that your faith-based opinions hold much sway in your life, and that they are major determining factors in decisions you make. However, when you start to put your faith forward as universal truth, in a multi-cultural discussion, you no longer are open to discussing any topic. Many times you have stated that I was “incorrect” because my views differed from yours. I was not incorrect and that was the point I was trying to make. You cannot use your faith as a basis for fact, because if that were the case there wouldn’t be discrepancies in religion, everyone would have the same faith. Facts have the universal ability to bring everyone together on the same page. Religion cannot do this, and as we all know religion many times is the precursor to intolerance of others. I’ll be honest and say that I am unsure of your actual views pertaining to this issue. I can say that if you truly believe that your religion is fact, then the original offense you took from my signature would have applied and been offensive in nature to you. In this context, discussion with a person who thinks they already know all the facts cannot be open to discussion. Instead, they resort to preaching and browbeating in an attempt to sway the other people. You can take my previous posts as an attempt to sway you, however, if you look carefully at them you will see I have always had one simple goal in mind. I wanted you to realize that your beliefs do not apply to everyone, and I wanted you to realize that your beliefs were nothing more than your opinions. Instead of preaching to the masses and trying to make us conform to your worldview, state your opinion, even if it is religious in orientation, but do not “correct” others because your views differ from theirs. Discuss the merits of each statement, but also realize that each person has an opinion that is valid. You cannot change the validity of an opinion; they all are valid. I have no problem with a religious viewpoint being stated, but I do have a problem when someone has the gall to tell me I am incorrect because I do not have faith in the same religious system as he or she. To me, this just proves an oppressive nature of a religious group.

10-28-2003, 11:22 AM	#68
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 50 Posts: 3,491	What Maelakin said above. [ 10-28-2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

10-28-2003, 01:53 PM	#70
Maelakin Drow Warrior Join Date: September 16, 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Age: 48 Posts: 257	Pritchke, I believe there is an underlying theme to your post above that many people forget in their quest to convert others. The theme is tolerance and guidance. The old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.” Very much applies to the mentality I possess. Hitting me on the head and telling me I am wrong does not promote the philosophical thinking required for a person to come to a conclusion concerning his or her faith. Conversion does not happen when a party is not willing. Each person has to make it his or her own personal choice, and they are only going to do so on their own terms. Anyways, I wish more people could approach the concept of religion in the same manner. It promotes discussion and understanding.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)