Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord In Vain

[BrassFusion]

BF, you are going to have to show me the conversation in question. I have always stated that I am not a Christian but I do believe that God exists. I have also stated that I will sometimes refer to myself as a Christian in a conversation because it's easyer than trying to explain my whole belief system to someone or some group that can't or won't accept and/or understand it.

What Faith am I? I don't know what it would be called, but thank you for asking. I went to a Missionary Church until I was 12. 4 times a week. Sunday morning service, Sunday evening service and twice a week after school for 2 hours for Bible school. My parents did not go with me. My Father was a Budhist and my Mother was Wiccan. They let me find my own Faith. Then the fuckers got divorced and my world fell apart. I lost my Faith in God and most of humanity. 8 years later God found me. I experianced a miracle. It changed my views on God completly. By then I had read a large number of books on the nature of the universe. Astro physics, quantum physics and books on religion from all over the world. I had to find some way to make everything I had read fit with what I had recently learned about God. it took a few years to reconsile things... but I have a good view of the Universe and I like it.

So you don't follow the teachings of Christ, or believe that God sent his only begotten son to earth to bear the burden of your sins. If that's true, I'd say you're a monotheist. It's nice and non-specific.

[Steven]

If I were to sum up what I believe to be PH's argument here (and correct me if I am wrong):

He has an issue with a belief system whos followers believe that they are right and that everything else is wrong (I am overgeneralizing). And then when asked, cannot provide any type of logical reasoning as to why they believe you are wrong, and take offense to you even asking the question.

Did I get the gist of it?

And from the other perspective...

Why would a person with a strong belief that happens to believe you are wrong be a problem, as long as they keep there beliefs away from you. People can believe that you are wrong all they want and have the right to, as long as they don't hurt anyone...

And is that the gist of the other argument?

Good Job homeboy. your good with the gift of gist.....

[Paper Hearts]

Why would a person with a strong belief that happens to believe you are wrong be a problem, as long as they keep there beliefs away from you. People can believe that you are wrong all they want and have the right to, as long as they don't hurt anyone...

If someone of different thinking respects your beliefs enough to express to you in some way that they consider you an equal, perhaps you shouldn't challenge that person by contending the regard they have bestowed you, if you don't like your religion questioned, in turn. The words "persuasion" and "truth" or "belief" and "incontestable" are not such curious concepts of vocabulary that anyone should experience this trouble with proper usage. Or is it acceptable to cram people's throats with Christianity and challenge any non Christian thinking you encounter, then, in essence crying they're persecuting me whenever someone takes issue? Well, as for me, it's what I like; I seek to prove religion rather than to stop and accept something no one has any real comprehension of. I can assure you that I certainly welcome challenge in this area, and I also consider that a mark of a more ideal and robust mind. It is the very spirit that drives me, to question. I have a custom of hospitality towards dissenting against devotion to things which one has no grasp of; if someone doesn't want to experience that hospitality, then they should really find the correct style of speaking with me.

I realize that people of different creeds, when together, are somewhat incompatible in conversations on existensialism; it's not a great joy of mine to insure that some people of faith make that same awareness a responsibility of theirs, as well.

[torn asunder]

something to ponder...

my truth, your truth, their truth - we can all be right, in our own lives. "the truth" is entirely relative.

and honestly, why are people being so argumentative in this thread? we each believe our own truths, and those may not be true for others - why is that a problem!?

[kellygrrrrrl]

There is one thing that just cannot be explained....

and to me, it seems key......

faith

Faith in the written word, the Bible. Pick One. A few even. Regardless of everything you know, scientifically, historically, politically, of all that is bad, your life, your choices, what you have been taught etc,....

And thats just about it really.

Have you ever read that book? Man, it's crazy...jam packed full of all sorts of stuff that just makes so much sense.....sensible sense....to me....

A wise Jedi once said, "you have to Un-leeaaarrrnn...."

???????

[Steven]

If someone of different thinking respects your beliefs enough to express to you in some way that they consider you an equal, perhaps you shouldn't challenge that person by contending the regard they have bestowed you, if you don't like your religion questioned, in turn. The words "persuasion" and "truth" or "belief" and "incontestable" are not such curious concepts of vocabulary that anyone should experience this trouble with proper usage. Or is it acceptable to cram people's throats with Christianity and challenge any non Christian thinking you encounter, then, in essence crying they're persecuting me whenever someone takes issue? Well, as for me, it's what I like; I seek to prove religion rather than to stop and accept something no one has any real comprehension of. I can assure you that I certainly welcome challenge in this area, and I also consider that a mark of a more ideal and robust mind. It is the very spirit that drives me, to question. I have a custom of hospitality towards dissenting against devotion to things which one has no grasp of; if someone doesn't want to experience that hospitality, then they should really find the correct style of speaking with me.

I realize that people of different creeds, when together, are somewhat incompatible in conversations on existensialism; it's not a great joy of mine to insure that some people of faith make that same awareness a responsibility of theirs, as well.

there is the slightest chance my friend that you are failing to comprehend what some may be able to easily comprehend, within their own experience. The challenges you say you welcome you really do not welcome. because your expecting someone to debate you and or use examples that must first satisfy your own ideals. They must first speak your language. They must step UP.....to your level. But I dont see any fruitful results of this. I dont walk away feelign educated, uplifted, enlightened, edified, anything. I just walk away thinking "oh yeah, Paper Hearts says i'm a clueless moron who does not know his God again"

and then I have a sandwich and go to sleep. Usually, peanut butter.

And when you get right to it, really there shold be no actual "challenge" to any of this....that sort of language/attitude leads back to the conquering issue I earlier directed toward you. It leads me to beleive that you are perhaps seeking a more robust mind that you can assert yourself before. As if this robustness you seek is really jsut a vehicle for your own means. You dont sound like your looking for a peer. Or a mentoree. You sound like yoru looking for a nice dumb ass, eating a peanut butter sandwich. this seems to be important to you. Throughout this post you then insist on a specific 'style" of address. It comes across as a demand, yet your not in a position to demand anything of anyone.

And because I simply dont recognize the power behind the demand, I cannot yeild to you. And if I cannot recognize that which you seem to demand of me as Joe Peanut Butter Eating Clueless Christian then you continue to interact in a taunting manner, which leads us back to this dynamic of your not being recognized nearly enough for your robust mind, which feeds the fire because yoru surrounded by morons, and so on.

I think you are not satisfied with any of this. You sound this way at least.

Your also not a victim...not in this online community your not. Nobody has ever crammed anything down your throat in here, you are the Mighty Paper Hearts. Your throat is like steel. Even if it was not like steel when I search for your oppressors I still ahve a very hard time finding any evidence of them anywhere here on DGN. And for the record let it be shown that Paper Hearts is indeed my equal.

Maybe Paperhearts - what you need to do - is start hitting up Christian websites and threads. Take the challenge to more fruitful territory. Release some of us from our bonds. After all a guy like me especially, desperately needs enlightenment and direction and wisdom and fortitude and general robustness of skull tissue, in fact I may even have some potential if I can just be reached.....somebody break this oppresive yoke before I waste my life and influence no one and connect at nothing.

[Steven]

accidental double doo dah (double post)

[Steven]

There is one thing that just cannot be explained....

and to me, it seems key......

faith

Faith in the written word, the Bible. Pick One. A few even. Regardless of everything you know, scientifically, historically, politically, of all that is bad, your life, your choices, what you have been taught etc,....

And thats just about it really.

Have you ever read that book? Man, it's crazy...jam packed full of all sorts of stuff that just makes so much sense.....sensible sense....to me....

A wise Jedi once said, "you have to Un-leeaaarrrnn...."

???????

I dig this girl.

[Paper Hearts]

Come on. I don't have a problem with individual persuasions or faiths, my problem is with people claiming they believe in an absolute and undeniable truth. As someone raised Catholic, I'm quite sure that "God" does not require that of "his" people. "God" only requires one to believe and have devotion. And (please note) "God" also considers it inherently evil to lie.

But, if people would rather go about things in an uncivilized way, if it really is the nature of the religious to claim knowledge where there actually is none, then (in all fairness), it is also the nature of an agnostic to question. Challenge my agnosticism and I'll gladly question your faith. I consider investigation of the subject good and beneficial.

If instead, people would like to be realistic with one another and respectful, perhaps we'll have a chance to explore our similarities instead of our differences.

[Paper Hearts]

there is the slightest chance my friend that you are failing to comprehend what some may be able to easily comprehend, within their own experience. The challenges you say you welcome you really do not welcome. because your expecting someone to debate you and or use examples that must first satisfy your own ideals. They must first speak your language. They must step UP.....to your level. But I dont see any fruitful results of this. I dont walk away feelign educated, uplifted, enlightened, edified, anything. I just walk away thinking "oh yeah, Paper Hearts says i'm a clueless moron who does not know his God again"

and then I have a sandwich and go to sleep. Usually, peanut butter.

And when you get right to it, really there shold be no actual "challenge" to any of this....that sort of language/attitude leads back to the conquering issue I earlier directed toward you. It leads me to beleive that you are perhaps seeking a more robust mind that you can assert yourself before. As if this robustness you seek is really jsut a vehicle for your own means. You dont sound like your looking for a peer. Or a mentoree. You sound like yoru looking for a nice dumb ass, eating a peanut butter sandwich. this seems to be important to you. Throughout this post you then insist on a specific 'style" of address. It comes across as a demand, yet your not in a position to demand anything of anyone.

And because I simply dont recognize the power behind the demand, I cannot yeild to you. And if I cannot recognize that which you seem to demand of me as Joe Peanut Butter Eating Clueless Christian then you continue to interact in a taunting manner, which leads us back to this dynamic of your not being recognized nearly enough for your robust mind, which feeds the fire because yoru surrounded by morons, and so on.

I think you are not satisfied with any of this. You sound this way at least.

Your also not a victim...not in this online community your not. Nobody has ever crammed anything down your throat in here, you are the Mighty Paper Hearts. Your throat is like steel. Even if it was not like steel when I search for your oppressors I still ahve a very hard time finding any evidence of them anywhere here on DGN. And for the record let it be shown that Paper Hearts is indeed my equal.

Maybe Paperhearts - what you need to do - is start hitting up Christian websites and threads. Take the challenge to more fruitful territory. Release some of us from our bonds. After all a guy like me especially, desperately needs enlightenment and direction and wisdom and fortitude and general robustness of skull tissue, in fact I may even have some potential if I can just be reached.....somebody break this oppresive yoke before I waste my life and influence no one and connect at nothing.

Steven, I like you, man. You crack me up. "The Mighty Paper Hearts". I laughed really hard at that.

I did not intend for my last response to Phee to be derogatory towards you; I actually consider you to be of a more ideal mind because you do challenge. You are quite an existensialist, and I dig that.

I have no desire to "hit up" God's websites. But I do like peanut butter and jelly sanwhiches.

[Steven]

Paper: Come on. I don't have a problem with individual persuasions or faiths, my problem is with people claiming they believe in an absolute and undeniable truth. As someone raised Catholic, I'm quite sure that "God" does not require that of "his" people. "God" only requires one to believe and have devotion. And (please note) "God" also considers it inherently evil to lie.

Steven: I'm failing to understand whats under your skin here within DGN. Those who beleive in an absolute and undeniable truth (me) do not affect your life. Nobody is pursuing you. There is no one to repel.

Paper: But, if people would rather go about things in an uncivilized way, if it really is the nature of the religious to claim knowledge where there actually is none, then (in all fairness), it is also the nature of an agnostic to question. Challenge my agnosticism and I'll gladly question your faith. I consider investigation of the subject good and beneficial.

Steven: Its also the nature of oa beleiver, to beleive...and to even decalre that beleif Paper. Perhaps you can allow for the nature of others as they allow for the nature of yours. I do all the time. here is my only "challenge" to you thus far Paper: go back and read how you address people. Specifically - go back and read posts between the two of us. Watch your tone with me, versus my tone with you. Watch the build up unfold. Find my actual "challenge" to your agnosticism, and my own anger at having my faith questioned. Find where that questioning of my faith has actually disturbed me. I'm working with what you just gave me here.

Paper: If instead, people would like to be realistic with one another and respectful, perhaps we'll have a chance to explore our similarities instead of our differences.

Steven: Respect .... have I been respectful of you? Realistic: does this mean that I must first adhere to your acceptable logic before we can explore our differences? Here is why i ask this, because I've been exploring differences with other people here on DGN for some time now.

[Steven]

Steven, I like you, man. You crack me up. "The Mighty Paper Hearts". I laughed really hard at that.

I did not intend for my last response to Phee to be derogatory towards you; I actually consider you to be of a more ideal mind because you do challenge. You are quite an existensialist, and I dig that.

I have no desire to "hit up" God's websites. But I do like peanut butter and jelly sanwhiches.

I dont even know what existensialism means. but thanks. and I like you too. just trying to keep it real Bud.

incidenly I lied. In general, I put peanut butter and jelly in a tortilla.

[Paper Hearts]

I dont even know what existensialism means. but thanks. and I like you too. just trying to keep it real Bud.

incidenly I lied. In general, I put peanut butter and jelly in a tortilla.

I don't know if this is a normal course of conversation or not, I'm sure some will argue with us, but I sincerely miss Sonaran tacos and going to Baja' for tortas. Maybe we can some day sit down at a mesa together and have a foodfight.

Post Script:

(Merriam-Webster)

Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism

Pronunciation: -'ten(t)-sh&-"li-z&m

Function: noun

: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.

Edit III: (It's not a philosophy that you fit exaclty, but maybe you're a bit of an existensialist in some aspect of spirit, is what I'm suggesting that I see. You're not formaly religious, I perceive; you make a fairly concentrated effort to have a personal dissection of doctrine in order for a more meaningful interpretation and application of it, and you are philisophical in that, that you challenge typical/conservative precepts of creed. Albeit, maybe you somtimes challenge other people influenced by existensialism, as well. And yes, I would throw food at you.)

Edit: (Okay, so that's not the Oxford definition; let me see if I can find something better.) Edit II:(No, I couldn't get an Oxford definition for existensialist, on line, but Merriam-Webster isn't too bad.)

[Steven]

I don't know if this is a normal course of conversation or not, I'm sure some will argue with us, but I sincerely miss Sonaran tacos and going to Baja' for tortas. Maybe we can some day sit down at a mesa together and have a foodfight.

Post Script:

(Merriam-Webster)

Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism

Pronunciation: -'ten(t)-sh&-"li-z&m

Function: noun

: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.

Edit III: (It's not a philosophy that you fit exaclty, but maybe you're a bit of an existensialist in some aspect of spirit, is what I'm suggesting that I see. You're not formaly religious, I perceive; you make a fairly concentrated effort to have a personal dissection of doctrine in order for a more meaningful interpretation and application of it, and you are philisophical in that, that you challenge typical/conservative precepts of creed. Albeit, maybe you somtimes challenge other people influenced by existensialism, as well. And yes, I would throw food at you.)

Edit: (Okay, so that's not the Oxford definition; let me see if I can find something better.) Edit II:(No, I couldn't get an Oxford definition for existensialist, on line, but Merriam-Webster isn't too bad.)

cool.

I'll have to give al of this a great deal of thought.

thanks.

and I miss tortas too.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

While sometimes some of your language might sound like it, Steve your not an existentialist heh.

Existentialism is "subjective truth" meaning... whatever you think the truth is or what you decide is the truth is the truth. If i've read any of your posts properly you believe in objective truth or absolute truth.. that is, in this case, there is a proper moral code that is independent of man's opinion. Not "whatever i decide".

Theism (using it broadly to mean any "religious/spiritual" code independent of man's opinion) and Existentialism(man is the judge of all things) are usually incompatible.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

So you don't follow the teachings of Christ, or believe that God sent his only begotten son to earth to bear the burden of your sins. If that's true, I'd say you're a monotheist. It's nice and non-specific.

All the big three major religions are monotheist. That is "there is only one god". Monotheism doesnt nessisalry say anything about ehtics. Just defines the number of gods or the "unity" of god.

[BrassFusion]

All the big three major religions are monotheist. That is "there is only one god". Monotheism doesnt nessisalry say anything about ehtics. Just defines the number of gods or the "unity" of god.

I know. but who says you have to specify ethics when you label yourself? heck, I know a lot of "christians" who have some SCREWED UP ETHICS, boy howdy, and a lot of them who are real chill and seem to go more for the parts about "loving" everybody.

[phee]

Heck... most Muslims would consider Catholocism Polytheistic because of the holy trinity

[BrassFusion]

Heck... most Muslims would consider Catholocism Polytheistic because of the holy trinity

personally, i kinda do as well, because of the trinity and the saints and the virgin mary. but what does it matter what i think? they're no more or less "right" about everything than any other christians, in my opinion.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

fine, I might be wrong. I allow for that possibility too. Which is why I ask people prove that to me. Isn't that fair enough?

Its fair if thats all it is, a request.

Some people just are not particularly interested in doing so. At least not in the context of what they see perhaps as an uphill battle. That does not mean it is them being "rude" or "inflammatory".

Sometimes they might feel like they already stated their case. The other person didn't buy it, and they don't really have the energy/inclination to find a new explanation or respond within the rules that the other person is looking for.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I know. but who says you have to specify ethics when you label yourself? heck, I know a lot of "christians" who have some SCREWED UP ETHICS, boy howdy, and a lot of them who are real chill and seem to go more for the parts about "loving" everybody.

It was stated in the context of ethics. Not "how many gods do you believe in". Thus i responded as such. The general discussion is about ethics/morals/nature of existence/god all though this topic.

If you meant to jump out of that conversation and come up with a easy, nonthreatening way to describe somone that is generally "christian" in their ethics but not what most would consider a tradtional christian, i misunderstood.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Heck... most Muslims would consider Catholocism Polytheistic because of the holy trinity

The Trinity is still a "unity" of god. (the saints are not considered part of god directly, they are "angels")

Muslims believe in angels as well, and also consider themselves monotheists.

Such minor points are not of much use to any but us freaks that study such things though.

It's generally accepted that "the big three" (including catholics within christianity) are Monotheist religions. The vast majority of christians believe in the trinity , but would certianly not say that there is more than one god. The term "Trinitarian" and "Unitarian" come into play here. That is god is "3 aspects" or "one aspect" but still just a single entity.

The only "big" christian sect that i know of that is old-school unitarian (against the triune nature of god) is J. Witnesses but even they describe christianity in general as "monotheistic".

Often the phrase "monotheistic religions" is used to describe the big 3 , its a widely accepted concept that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are understood as being "single god" religions.

Although the "big three" is a misnomer, religious jews are very small in number. They just get a lot of press. (off topic)

[BrassFusion]

It was stated in the context of ethics. Not "how many gods do you believe in". Thus i responded as such. The general discussion is about ethics/morals/nature of existence/god all though this topic.

If you meant to jump out of that conversation and come up with a easy, nonthreatening way to describe somone that is generally "christian" in their ethics but not what most would consider a tradtional christian, i misunderstood.

Well, no, I meant he could call himself a "monotheist" if he believes in one god but doesn't follow christianity, judaism, or islam in particular. It's accurate and not really specific, but it does the job.

But as far as I know, there is no single "monotheistic" code of ethics. There are people who believe that the one god they worship sees them as a holy warrior who must cleanse the world of the taint of nonbelievers. That doesn't seem like a popular opinion, except in the more extreme sects of christianity and islam. You can't know whether someone will try to kill, convert, or hug you just by a general label for what they believe.

So to conclude, in the way you're sposda when you're writing real good essays, I'll paraphrase my thesis. The label of one's belief, be it common, as in a major religion, or unique to onesself, does not usually describe one's moral character. Even when it does, as you can assume a Muslim would follow the five pillars or a Christian the ten commandments, every person is going to have their idiosyncracies that will "override" some religious moral commandments and enforce ones that aren't actually required.

[phee]

Well, no, I meant he could call himself a "monotheist" if he believes in one god but doesn't follow christianity, judaism, or islam in particular. It's accurate and not really specific, but it does the job.

But as far as I know, there is no single "monotheistic" code of ethics. There are people who believe that the one god they worship sees them as a holy warrior who must cleanse the world of the taint of nonbelievers. That doesn't seem like a popular opinion, except in the more extreme sects of christianity and islam. You can't know whether someone will try to kill, convert, or hug you just by a general label for what they believe.

So to conclude, in the way you're sposda when you're writing real good essays, I'll paraphrase my thesis. The label of one's belief, be it common, as in a major religion, or unique to onesself, does not usually describe one's moral character. Even when it does, as you can assume a Muslim would follow the five pillars or a Christian the ten commandments, every person is going to have their idiosyncracies that will "override" some religious moral commandments and enforce ones that aren't actually required.

Good post

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Well, no, I meant he could call himself a "monotheist" if he believes in one god but doesn't follow christianity, judaism, or islam in particular. It's accurate and not really specific, but it does the job.

But as far as I know, there is no single "monotheistic" code of ethics. There are people who believe that the one god they worship sees them as a holy warrior who must cleanse the world of the taint of nonbelievers. That doesn't seem like a popular opinion, except in the more extreme sects of christianity and islam. You can't know whether someone will try to kill, convert, or hug you just by a general label for what they believe.

So to conclude, in the way you're sposda when you're writing real good essays, I'll paraphrase my thesis. The label of one's belief, be it common, as in a major religion, or unique to onesself, does not usually describe one's moral character. Even when it does, as you can assume a Muslim would follow the five pillars or a Christian the ten commandments, every person is going to have their idiosyncracies that will "override" some religious moral commandments and enforce ones that aren't actually required.

When someone asks "what religion are you?" or "what do you believe in?" they expect at least some sort of language that gives them at least a general idea of what you believe ethically/cosmologicly. "Christian" would give them some idea. "Muslim" would as well. "Athiest" also. In gaf's case maybe "Non-Denominational christan" might work. "your religion" i think is very definetaly an ethical question.

Thats what its about, your moral/ethical outlook on the universe.

Sort of like asking:

"What politics do you belive in?"

"I'm an american" wouldn't be a useful response. Or at least i personally wouldnt feel it was particularly useful. "Im a democrat." or "I'm a republican" or "Im a >something descrptive