Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 02-06-2003, 11:14 AM

Rad

Oh I say these things quite calmly Buffman. And let me calmly say I don't think you are worth arguing with, mainly because you keep asking the same simplistic, rhetorical and pedantic questions which I've answered a several times.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions just as I am entitled to continue to ask you for answers concerning many of those opinions. However, simply claiming that you have answered my questions doesn't make it so...any more than your claims about the supernatural make them so. It is not my intent to embarrass you, but rather, to find the most accurate, verifiable, answers available about your opinions/statements. Unfortunately, I have found many of your so-called answers to be less than comprehensive or accurate. Most sincere folks are grateful to discover that they are not in possession of the most accurate knowledge available. What a shame that accurate knowledge is so offensive to you.

He was not murdering them, which is my interpretation of the commandment

How sad that you are unable to admit that you had confused me with someone else when you dashed-off that response and thus miss an opportunity to explain why you have chosen to interpret the words of that Commandment in the manner you have.

You post attacks on my integrity and make assertions about what I said 3 months ago with no evidence, quotes or examples. You consistently misrepresent me and you come across as incredibly patronizing and snooty.

I post my observations and my opinions derived from those observations. The fact that my opinions are often based on cumulative observations merely indicates a pattern of your posting behavior. If you believe my opinions to be in error, then you can easily counter them by providing the verifiable evidence that they are wrong. Lacking that factually accurate evidence, I have no reason to believe that my observations and opinions are anything other than what I have claimed them to be. When you allege that I do not provide you with verifiable evidence, quotes and examples, I can only wonder if you are aware of which of your Master's Commandments you are breaking with that propaganda drumbeat claim?

Did I not just provide you Sgt. York's statements from his own diary? Have I not always attempted to provide you, and the readership, with the most accurate original source materials I can locate? I will readily admit that I have offered my own "interpretations" where there is a paucity of original source documentary evidence...but not without identifying my remarks as my opinions and not fact.

So if you get any more responses from me, they will greatly resemble your own.

Would that it were truly so! (That's humor! You do have some don't you?)

Or we can just stop responding to one another. It's totally up to you.

I attempt to provide the most accurate, verifiable, information I can find. I am not always successful. When I am not, I am thrilled and grateful when others can. I am not thrilled by or grateful for erroneous information being posted. I attempt to formulate my views and opinions based on fact, not fiction. As long as others seek to do the same, they will hear little outcry from me. Perhaps you hear from me more often than others do because you have elected to follow a contrary path. That is your responsibility and choice alone. Please refrain from denigrating others who are unwilling to follow where you attempt to lead.

Dr Rick · 02-06-2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Radorth posted this strawman:
The greatest myth in history is that we can make the world better by excercising the human will, which is exactly what you believe. IMO that is the most incredibly self-righteous, ignorant and presumptious myth ever proffered around here.

Quote:

...though he presumptuosly boasted on another thread:I'm presently working on a unique idea for eliminating rail crossing deaths and derailments.

Such an idea, if it works, would make the world a better place, and would come about through Radorth's human will.

Rick

Sabine Grant · 02-06-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buffman
Sabine,

Thank you. I do appreciate your efforts to find a harmonious accommodation between the True Believer and the Unbeliever. I also appreciate that you have adopted a belief system that works best for you. However, do you not see the inconsistencies within that belief system? You are picking and choosing the items to fit your personal wants and desires. Perhaps you are exposing why there are so many Religious Sects and Denominations in the world. Humans are attracted to those beliefs which seemingly work best for them in order to give purpose, meaning and direction to their lives in a seemingly random natural universe. Some humans have chosen to create a supernatural universe in which nothing is random. Obviously that has great appeal to the majority of humans who merely embellish that universe with different names, curtains, drapes, rugs, and other paraphernalia/images from out of their own cultures and histories to help them understand and explain the unknown.

Your question attributes to my thoughts the definition of sin as presented by a biblicaly convicted christian. I hope you can differenciate that my thoughts on the topic of sin do not fit that attribution.

I have from the moment of your first post. However, I have also challenged you to examine the supernatural portion of your belief system applying it to a critical analysis process. I honestly do realize just how difficult this is for any person who has been conditioned by a faith belief system ...as are so many of those claiming to be Christians that post to these forums. Yet just look at the diversity of Christian opinions you read here. Who is to decide which is more accurate than another? How are they to arrive at that decision?

I believe that your most important point is exposing just how inconsistent is a faith belief in Christianity. Therefore, it is vital that each person claiming such a belief explain the nature of what that belief means to them before a non-believer is adversely influenced simply by the label.

I know.. what I present is very simplistic. It can be that simple. And have nothing to do with religious morality or non religious morality. Nothing to do with being a God believing individual or a non believing individual. Just a personal choice. Each time.

Do you not see how that statement helps to define the non-believers approach to the world? Aren't you saying that we do not require supernatural guidance/intervention in order to lead positive and productive lives? If so, I most heartily agree! However, I fear that your views would not be welcome in a goodly number of other Christian denominations.

Hello Buffman... sorry it took so long to reply. A couple of busy days and evenings. Yes I am saying that goodness is not limited or restricted to a God believing individual. I think the choice to lead positive and productive lives has to do with the capacity to balance the " good " and " bad" in our natures.
I do realize that my views are non conventional. And I have been "sent to hell" many times by other christians. Here is where I am in my faith Buffman: I belong to no denominations, I use my faith to focus on what I need to modify in my attitudes and actions. I gave up the need to control other peoples'thoughts when I finaly immerged from the mud of fundamentalism. I have my own personal faith, what fits me best. I agree with you that christians do tend to choose what fits them best. A person who has a need to control will lean to fundamentalistic doctrines. What a " deal" to use the shield of " God said so" to dictate to others how to live their lives. To control masses. To justify any action.
In reality , it is about focusing on growing. Changing oneself rather than changing others. For me faith is effective to go thru that process. It may not be needed to someone else.
Another unconventional part of my faith is the concept of "hell". For me it is eternal separation from God... worse than a lake of fire. It is the oblivion. The absence of a state of consciousness.
I do not have a problem with the non believer's approach of religion... I have a problem only when that approach is about convincing a believer that his faith is worthless.
The same way I have a problem with the christian who claims to detain the "absolute truth". I have met only few christians who IMO applied to their own lives what we call " Christlikeness". Most including myself have a long way to go.

Sabine Grant · 02-06-2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Helen, I clearly made a distinction because you missed it the first tme, or I wasn't clear. Then I made it again, more clearly, and you are still wanting to speak in generalities. It's like asking me if I think all birds fly south for the winter when I've already said some do not.

Ok. SOME Christians are forgiving and SOME aren't. It depends on whether they understand Roman's, why rightoeousness must be imputed to them, whether the believe they are saved by grace or works, whether they feel saved one day and lost the next, their legalistic tendencies...

And with Christians who've heard a Gospel unpolluted by religious people, and legalists, yes it is my experience.

Rad

Hello Rad... I am not sure if the actual transformation for an individual from being resentful to forgiving has to do with "understanding" the book of Romans. There is something mechanical about intellectualizing our relationship with God.I have come to realize that a child at times has better means to forgive than a literate christian who studied the doctrine of Grace. Is not that your experience too? and if yes... why Rad?

02-06-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
There is something mechanical about intellectualizing our relationship with God.I have come to realize that a child at times has better means to forgive than a literate christian who studied the doctrine of Grace. Is not that your experience too? and if yes... why Rad?

How sweet of you to say that {{{{Sabine}}}}. Would it not follow that Christians should burn their own bibles before it tears them apart with unforgiveness?

Radorth · 02-06-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

There is something mechanical about intellectualizing our relationship with God.I have come to realize that a child at times has better means to forgive than a literate christian who studied the doctrine of Grace. Is not that your experience too? and if yes... why Rad?

That's true. And of course when I say "understands" Romans, I mean on a deep level, that is s/he knows in his or her heart that salvation is purely an act of grace, that s/he is as lost as anyone without this unmerited favor. To know that in hearts, we understand Romans, by definition I suppose. But your point is well taken.

I would comment that some people consider Paul a harsh person. Not so IMO. Via him we know without doubt that anyone can be saved. Via him alone we know that righteousness is imputed where there was none. His revelation is bulwark against unforgiving, ungracious legalists and self righteousness.

Rad

Joseph Backs · 02-06-2003, 08:28 PM

Such an idea, if it works, would make the world a better place, and would come about through Radorth's human will.

No, Dr. Rick, you are wrong there. Radorth isn't "human" is he?
More like a Caricature, I thought.

J.B.

Joseph Backs · 02-06-2003, 08:31 PM

I would comment that some people consider Paul a harsh person. Not so IMO. Via him we know without doubt that anyone can be saved.

Uh, NO ... I always thought Paul was the "cute" one!??

J.B.

Radorth · 02-06-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

...though he presumptuosly boasted on another thread:I'm presently working on a unique idea for eliminating rail crossing deaths and derailments.

You have no way of knowing it was either presumptious or boasting, and you have no idea what my motives are in general. I said it as a direct and appropriate response.

Fenton, that was close, although I hesitate to say anything until I hear your point. You are making it a little too general.

Quote:

Such an idea, if it works, would make the world a better place, and would come about through Radorth's human will.

I excercise my will yes. But a will that could well be more selfishly ambitious, more afraid of making a mistake, more entangled with worldly cares, hindered by more obsessions, without the constraints and freedoms a Christian enjoys.

Rad

Joseph Backs · 02-06-2003, 08:56 PM

I excercise my will yes. But a will that could well be more selfishly ambitious, more afraid of making a mistake, more entangled with worldly cares, hindered by more obsessions, without the constraints and freedoms a Christian enjoys.

What? I didn't realize Christians enjoyed anything really. They don't seem to come across many points in the game of conveying meaning of any sort.

(Side-note: The quote in bold above makes no sense).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2003, 11:14 AM	#371
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Rad Oh I say these things quite calmly Buffman. And let me calmly say I don't think you are worth arguing with, mainly because you keep asking the same simplistic, rhetorical and pedantic questions which I've answered a several times. You are certainly entitled to your opinions just as I am entitled to continue to ask you for answers concerning many of those opinions. However, simply claiming that you have answered my questions doesn't make it so...any more than your claims about the supernatural make them so. It is not my intent to embarrass you, but rather, to find the most accurate, verifiable, answers available about your opinions/statements. Unfortunately, I have found many of your so-called answers to be less than comprehensive or accurate. Most sincere folks are grateful to discover that they are not in possession of the most accurate knowledge available. What a shame that accurate knowledge is so offensive to you. He was not murdering them, which is my interpretation of the commandment How sad that you are unable to admit that you had confused me with someone else when you dashed-off that response and thus miss an opportunity to explain why you have chosen to interpret the words of that Commandment in the manner you have. You post attacks on my integrity and make assertions about what I said 3 months ago with no evidence, quotes or examples. You consistently misrepresent me and you come across as incredibly patronizing and snooty. I post my observations and my opinions derived from those observations. The fact that my opinions are often based on cumulative observations merely indicates a pattern of your posting behavior. If you believe my opinions to be in error, then you can easily counter them by providing the verifiable evidence that they are wrong. Lacking that factually accurate evidence, I have no reason to believe that my observations and opinions are anything other than what I have claimed them to be. When you allege that I do not provide you with verifiable evidence, quotes and examples, I can only wonder if you are aware of which of your Master's Commandments you are breaking with that propaganda drumbeat claim? Did I not just provide you Sgt. York's statements from his own diary? Have I not always attempted to provide you, and the readership, with the most accurate original source materials I can locate? I will readily admit that I have offered my own "interpretations" where there is a paucity of original source documentary evidence...but not without identifying my remarks as my opinions and not fact. So if you get any more responses from me, they will greatly resemble your own. Would that it were truly so! (That's humor! You do have some don't you?) Or we can just stop responding to one another. It's totally up to you. I attempt to provide the most accurate, verifiable, information I can find. I am not always successful. When I am not, I am thrilled and grateful when others can. I am not thrilled by or grateful for erroneous information being posted. I attempt to formulate my views and opinions based on fact, not fiction. As long as others seek to do the same, they will hear little outcry from me. Perhaps you hear from me more often than others do because you have elected to follow a contrary path. That is your responsibility and choice alone. Please refrain from denigrating others who are unwilling to follow where you attempt to lead.

02-06-2003, 08:28 PM	#377
Joseph Backs Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 32	Such an idea, if it works, would make the world a better place, and would come about through Radorth's human will. No, Dr. Rick, you are wrong there. Radorth isn't "human" is he? More like a Caricature, I thought. J.B.

02-06-2003, 08:31 PM	#378
Joseph Backs Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 32	I would comment that some people consider Paul a harsh person. Not so IMO. Via him we know without doubt that anyone can be saved. Uh, NO ... I always thought Paul was the "cute" one!?? J.B.

02-06-2003, 08:56 PM	#380
Joseph Backs Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 32	I excercise my will yes. But a will that could well be more selfishly ambitious, more afraid of making a mistake, more entangled with worldly cares, hindered by more obsessions, without the constraints and freedoms a Christian enjoys. What? I didn't realize Christians enjoyed anything really. They don't seem to come across many points in the game of conveying meaning of any sort. (Side-note: The quote in bold above makes no sense).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.