‹ First  < 25 26 27
 
   
 

Is there a place for a Christian in Project Reason?

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3329
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
17 March 2015 16:48
 
NicLynn - 17 March 2015 03:32 PM
LadyJane - 17 March 2015 03:12 PM

Your passive aggressive approach became clear the moment you deliberately picked a fight out of nowhere.  That hardly comes from someone claiming to be “afraid.”  I can’t imagine what you were hoping to accomplish.  Without providing any evidence or citing any of my posts, to back up your point, you leave me nothing to defend.  All that’s left is the fact that you don’t seem to like me in general.  Argue what I have to say.  There’s no need for the character assassination.  That’s just lazy.

I think I cited my concerns pretty specifically, including two specific threads you started about me.

No, you didn’t actually.  You just said there were such threads.  You’ve provided nothing.

 
 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
17 March 2015 16:49
 

NO, THAT’S TOTALLY WRONG, WHATEVER THAT WAS THAT YOU SAID!!!  NOT ONLY THAT, I’M DEEPLY OFFENDED NO ONE WILL JOIN ME IN FOLLOWING THE THREAD TO IT’S LOGICAL CONCLUSION, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS ABSOLUTE SILLYNESS!!  THAT’S RIGHT YOU BUTTHEADS, IT’S TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT SILLYNESS, AND STOP PRETENDING THAT THE EMPEROR IS WEARING CLOSES OR THAT THIS MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL, IN FACT, WE SHOULD BE THANKFUL, I MEAN REALLY THANKFUL, THAT WE COULD BE THANKFUL IF WE WANTED TO, BUT WE DEFINITELY DON’T WANT TO BE, NOT NOW WITH THIS IMPORTANT PERSONAL FLAPDOODLE UNDERWAY, A MATTER WHICH SHOULD BE EXPLORED IN ALL IT’S FULLNESS UNTIL WE REACH THE LOGICAL FLAPDOODLISH CONCLUSION, WHICH CAN ONLY BE THAT TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND LONG RUN ON SENTENCES IS THE REASON THAT I’M SO VERY MAD AT ALL OF YOU FOR NOT DOING THE SAME AND MAKING ME TYPE THIS AT ALL, WHICH I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO DO EXACTLY AS I AM, WHICH IS WHY ALL OF THIS MUST STOP, I MEAN ACTUALLY STOP!!!

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
17 March 2015 17:08
 
Dennis Campbell - 17 March 2015 03:34 PM

The two of you have been altogether too civil.  Males are much more earthy and uncivilized.


True. I remember in my hometown, when guys got into it they would get together with a bunch of their friends and just go bash in the person’s mailbox while driving by in a truck. Male etiquette, ha ha.


Thoughtage, fyi, your name is breaking my iPad, which for whatever reason gets stuck on it every time and goes “no definition found!” with a pink highlighter. Perhaps it suspects you wish to transcend language…

 
 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
17 March 2015 17:12
 

In this video I provide a carefully reasoned response to all posts on this forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TQZBHszI4

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3329
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
18 March 2015 10:16
 
NicLynn - 17 March 2015 03:32 PM

I think I cited my concerns pretty specifically, including two specific threads you started about me.

LadyJane - 17 March 2015 03:12 PM

No, you didn’t actually.  You just said there were such threads.  You’ve provided nothing.

When memory deceives it doesn’t matter…we have the evidence.  Your reluctance to trot it out speaks volumes.  That’s okay…I will.

I started only one thread dedicated to you and slynn in response to observing the two of you habitually turn several threads into The Lynn Sisters Show no matter what the topic.  All I did was cut out the middle man.  That wasn’t to limit you to one thread.  That was to provide a specific place for your off-topic personal stuff in addition to all other threads.

Here’s the original post from the 8th of July 2013: (Enjoy!)

I thought it might be a good idea to dedicate a thread to saralynn and NicLynn. This way you can converse without ever having to worry about going off topic. You ARE the topic. Imagine yourselves sitting on a fence contemplating what it will feel like to enjoy grass some day.

Don’t worry, I (sort of) have my own thread too. It’s more of a stack of handwritten pages piled on the floor of all the stuff I write and never post. It’s waaay too sarcastic, although, if there’s ever a Roast:I’m all set.
I will leave you with this:‘cause:I probably won’t be back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc

- See more at: http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/26632/#sthash.AI16cgpG.dpuf

I can only guess the other one you have in mind is the To Ignore Or Not To Ignore thread which was a legitimate query about the use of that function prompted by several annoying posters.  The fact that you took it personally suggests you recognize your own disruptive behaviour to some extent.

This was the original post from the 5th of February 2014:  (Please indicate where it’s about you exactly.)

...That is the question.

I have contemplated using the ignore function over the past few months, reluctantly, and wonder what it means and how it works. I have not yet utilized this option mainly due to the fact that it represents everything I despise and it remains my intent to preserve the privilege, we all share, of freedom of speech. The conduct demonstrated by the veteran patrons at this forum has been invaluable as an example of how to maintain a reasonable attitude with a little objectivity and a lot of patience. This works extremely well when posters are thoughtful when crafting their posts, remaining aware of the many people reading those posts, and showing the proper courtesy. It is common practice, with critical thinkers, to examine what they are reading and make sense of it no matter how nonsensical it may appear to be. Like a puzzle. You are looking for that little kernel of greatness. The take away. Something. Anything. You struggle to find it and when it doesn’t appear the disappointment takes hold.

When you put someone on ignore does that exclude any posts submitted by that individual? If that individual starts a thread is the entire thread omitted or does it continue, as usual, consisting only of the contributions of the other posters? Is the protocol to inform the poster you are putting them on ignore?

I am considering this, as disheartening as it is, primarily due to the fact that I enjoy the flow of conversation that occurs when everyone gets a chance to share and explore ideas. Where topics move forward, without derailment, understanding is reached and there is ample opportunity to learn and discover things collectively in a way we may not accomplish alone. Entertaining, fun and equal.

Please advise. Many thanks.

- See more at: http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/27980/#sthash.YzNj7p4D.dpuf

 
 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
18 March 2015 12:07
 

Thanks right NicLynn, I’m with LadyJane, it’s been proven beyond all doubt that you are a creepy criminal mastermind nefarious bastard cynical conspirator consummate bad actor dictatorial scoundrel torturer of small animals and the primary source of all evil in the universe,  and that the only suitable punishment is to pummel you with an endless series of accusatory posts full of quoted paragraphs from long ago until you relent from your heretical apostasy and convert to the one true way, which is whatever the fuck we say it is on any particular day!

It’s about time that we finally got to the bottom of this outrageous scandal and fought the war to end all wars which will result in utopia on Earth once everyone is dead and free hugs for everybody….

Except that YOU stand in the way of all that is right and just, just and right, and Justin Beaver too! 

So yeah, you bet I’m MAD AS HELL and if I ever figure out why, let me tell you right now buddy, you’ll be the first to know about it! 

WELL!  I’m glad we got that straightened out.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3329
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
18 March 2015 14:32
 

What do we do with old stories we wrote?
Or hearing a tune where we hit the wrong note?
Relaying a story that happened one day
Should not invite fingers pointing our way
Easy for those of you right standing still
Yet claiming we’re acting without the free will
Through all the judgment and empty dismays
Why should we think we can have it both ways?
Who shall decide then how we should be?
Look through your eye and the I says it’s me!
Is there a way to be truthful yet kind?
Is there not something we’d wish to rewind?
Suddenly silenced as one starts to sing
Everyone’s chasing the same golden ring
Sometimes we say things others deem crass
Sometimes we stumble and fall on our ass
Let’s not pretend we’ve not all been there
Coming or going…it’s all up in the air
Hushing the voices we’re wanting to quell
Destroys the production of stories to tell…

 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
18 March 2015 22:10
 

Thought:

Hannah:
When people saw on TV the violence against innocents on the Edmund Pettus bridge (Selma,AL), they did not react in shock because the church or synagogue told them to.  It was a human, a humane, reaction.

Yes, it was a humane reaction.  Taught to the culture as a whole mostly by 1,000 years of Catholic dominance of this culture.  1,000 years.  Write it down please.

I’ve really been bugged by this statement about Catholics, but not sure how to put it into words.  I’m not much of a historian, which is part of the problem.  I’m wondering if you are Catholic because I believe you’re claiming too much credit for the Church.

Of course, there is nothing specifically regarding voting rights in the Bible.  There are glimmerings of talk of equality, but mostly in how God views people re their salvation.  Dictatorships are accepted, slavery is accepted, and prejudice is accepted.  This last, in particular, is in the guise of God’s displeasure against groups outside his faithful, such as the many enemies of the Jews in the Old Testament, or people who reject the gospel in the New Testament.  This is why people in power could use passages in the Bible to justify slavery.

I think that the concept of equal rights emerged from Protestantism and the Enlightenment.  The nascent ideals of equality present in earliest Christian communities seemed to have been subsumed for centuries under the Catholic realities…but you may educate me if I am wrong.

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
18 March 2015 23:01
 

I’ve really been bugged by this statement about Catholics, but not sure how to put it into words.  I’m not much of a historian, which is part of the problem.

Ok, take your time, no hurry.

I’m wondering if you are Catholic because I believe you’re claiming too much credit for the Church.

I was raised Catholic in a very casual way, and converted to surfing 50 years ago, which my parents had no problem with. 

I have no relationship with Catholic beliefs these days, but I come from endless generations of Catholics, and so I tend to think like a Catholic, about the kinds of things Catholics tend to think about.  As example, my relentless participation here, very Catholic.

Of course, there is nothing specifically regarding voting rights in the Bible.  There are glimmerings of talk of equality, but mostly in how God views people re their salvation.  Dictatorships are accepted, slavery is accepted, and prejudice is accepted.  This last, in particular, is in the guise of God’s displeasure against groups outside his faithful, such as the many enemies of the Jews in the Old Testament, or people who reject the gospel in the New Testament.  This is why people in power could use passages in the Bible to justify slavery.

There are of course many things in the Bible.  It’s surely not my intention to promote or defend them all.

I’m not even interested in giving the Catholic Church credit.  I’m just pointing to the historical fact that the Church dominated western culture to an incredible degree for a very long time, for the better and the worse.

I agree not all the influences were helpful.  As just one example off the top of my head, sex.  We’re still struggling to get past the Church’s negative obsessions with that topic.

I agree there are tons of crap contained within Catholicism and Christianity in general.  But that doesn’t stop me from seeing that billions of people are still talking about an obscure Palestinian carpenter 2,000 years after his death. 

I’m not interested in that person so much, but the message he sold like no one has done before or since.  That message of the value of love in the human experience has resonated very strongly in western culture, and it forms the foundation of much of what we consider positive about our culture today.

I think that the concept of equal rights emerged from Protestantism and the Enlightenment.

But where did that concept come from?  It didn’t just pop magically in to existence from nothing.  What happened directly before Protestantism and the Enlightenment?  A thousand years of Catholic cultural dominance. 

The nascent ideals of equality present in earliest Christian communities seemed to have been subsumed for centuries under the Catholic realities…but you may educate me if I am wrong.

I would only educate you to not equate the official Catholic Church policy and officials as being “the Catholic Church”.  They are instead a part of the Catholic Church, a very small but influential part. 

While the Popes were ordering the Crusades and other such barbaric nonsense, there were many thousands of humble unknown parish priests teaching the message of love to their flocks.  That’s the Catholic Church too, then, and now as well.

All that said, I will repeat for you my sincere belief that Catholics are children of the Jews.  While the Catholic Church has been more influential in western culture, it’s worth remembering that Jesus wasn’t Catholic, and the word “Catholic” appears nowhere in the Bible.

Jesus was a Jew. 

So if we are to trace the historical roots of positive values and developments like the civil rights movement, that’s where it may begin in western culture, with your people.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
18 March 2015 23:37
 

I’m not trying to take credit for the Jews.  (I haven’t been a practicing Jew for decades.)  And there are significant differences in how Christians and Jews see reality and justify morality.

I agree religion can be a vehicle to instill morality.  Yet you admit that both bad and good messages are relayed generation to generation through religion.  So I’m thinking that threads of human goodness and badness runs through cultures, and this imbues religions with ethos, as much as vice versa.  Religion is a way of codifying a particular set of moral strictures.  But religion morphs along with culture, and the best or worst of human behaviors come out of it (e.g. the Catholic gender discrimination issues, as well as denunciation of homosexuality, etc.). 

To me, it seems like a chicken and egg situation.  Would no one know to be kind, to follow a golden rule, if not for our religious training?  Or is that a function of our motor neurons and our natural propensity to feel compassion and love?

Furthermore, I do not equate “Christian” with Catholic, just as I don’t equate caring small-town priests with the papacy and that hierarchy.  So is thanks really due to Catholicism or to Jesus’s teachings?  I don’t see them as the synonymous.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2760
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
19 March 2015 02:06
 

the bible nicked its morals of Greek philosophers and older texts of law, such as the Code of Hammurabi. The core concept is reciprocity, which means limit punishment (eye for and eye, not more) and extending good will when in doubt (treat others like you want to be treated yourself)  the Golden Rule.
Kant improved the rule with his Categorical Imperative, with no basis whatsoever in religion.

These rules are strictly necessary wherever humans live together in large numbers and depend on each other’s work. Societies that lack them can not grow beyond tribal stage, at least not for a significant time. Adhering to moral standards becomes a social evolution trait that allows for ever more humans to cooperate and therefore create art, culture, science and technology.

Now, where you get these morals from is like the question of what kind of food you eat: it depends on where you grow up. If your parents took you to from time to time to Burger King, that’s what you think a burger should be like - someone else might adhere to the rival faith of McDonalds. Others might worship the Cult of Subways. It doesn’t matter, as long as they all provide us with sustenance.
But it is obvious that some of them do a better job at it than others, and none of them are necessary: you can just have a home-cook meal. But they are very convenient dispensers of morality, since they are safe: we don’t (and shouldn’t) question the morals they serve, because they seem to be compatible with our society, or at least used to be. But we are now seeing more and more how religion-based morals hold us back from uniting the world even further, from global cooperation. Therefore we have to go back to just the core rules, without any artificial flavors added.

 
 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
19 March 2015 09:34
 

I’m not trying to take credit for the Jews.

I know you aren’t, that was my point. 

I agree religion can be a vehicle to instill morality.  Yet you admit that both bad and good messages are relayed generation to generation through religion.

Agreed.

So I’m thinking that threads of human goodness and badness runs through cultures, and this imbues religions with ethos, as much as vice versa.

Sure, I can buy that, the conversation runs in both directions.

My point is that only that religion has long been the social structure most intently focused on selling the positive values.  More true in the past than today, but the past is a very long time, a great weight of influence which none of us can simply step completely out of by act of will.

I learned this in part by exploring the Catholic web.  For 50 years I thought I had left being Catholic far behind.  I wasn’t in rebellion, I just never gave it a thought.

In exploring the Catholic web, it began to dawn on me that I am Catholic in ways that are so much a part of my genetic heritage that I don’t have the power to edit the influence. 

The beliefs about God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost (whoever the fuck that is) were easy to let go of.  No problem there.

But not my interest in such topics, or the way I approach them.  I don’t mind being stuck with these interests, but I am stuck, it’s beyond choice.  It’s not a hobby I can just set aside and exchange for another.  In my case, Catholic DNA.

And then I spent some time on a Jewish forum.  And it hit me, wow, I’m Jewish too, that’s what Catholics really are.  No, not on the surface, but at a more fundamental level.  You should have seen me arguing with everybody on the Jewish site, I fit right in immediately, as if I’d been living there my entire life.  grin

Religion is a way of codifying a particular set of moral strictures.

Yes, codifying, and marketing.  To me that’s a difference between Catholicism and Judaism.  The Catholics have better marketing, a compelling tragic hero story that everybody can relate to etc.

But religion morphs along with culture, and the best or worst of human behaviors come out of it (e.g. the Catholic gender discrimination issues, as well as denunciation of homosexuality, etc.).

Check this out:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged. Older age groups are less likely to favor acceptance. But even among Catholics ages 65 and older, 57% say that homosexuality should be accepted.

Point being, Catholicism is not just what the folks in Rome say it is.  Speaking of which….

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

The Roman Catholic Church signaled a more accepting stance toward gay people in a report bishops released during the Vatican’s synod on the family this week. While reaffirming the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage, the report said that “homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community” and asked if the church is capable of “welcoming these people.”

To me, it seems like a chicken and egg situation.  Would no one know to be kind, to follow a golden rule, if not for our religious training?  Or is that a function of our motor neurons and our natural propensity to feel compassion and love?

I think you are right in the sense that if we didn’t have this built-in capacity for kindness, nobody would have recognized the value of what Jesus was saying.  He didn’t invent love out of nothing.  I see it more as him saying,  “Here’s this part of you that’s cool, let’s bring it to the surface and focus on it.”

Furthermore, I do not equate “Christian” with Catholic, just as I don’t equate caring small-town priests with the papacy and that hierarchy.  So is thanks really due to Catholicism or to Jesus’s teachings?  I don’t see them as the synonymous.

I agree that the Catholic hierarchy has long been corrupt, and remains so to some degree today.  I’m not trying to persuade anybody to accept them as a religious authority. 

I’m just saying, whatever we might think about the machinery of that particular organization, it was that organization that played a pivotal role in the history of morality in western culture.  I’m simply recognizing that contribution, without joining or selling those who made it.

Thanks for the exchange!

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
20 March 2015 23:11
 

Thought:
I think you are right in the sense that if we didn’t have this built-in capacity for kindness, nobody would have recognized the value of what Jesus was saying.  He didn’t invent love out of nothing.  I see it more as him saying,  “Here’s this part of you that’s cool, let’s bring it to the surface and focus on it.”

Hannah:
Furthermore, I do not equate “Christian” with Catholic, just as I don’t equate caring small-town priests with the papacy and that hierarchy.  So is thanks really due to Catholicism or to Jesus’s teachings?  I don’t see them as the synonymous.

I agree that the Catholic hierarchy has long been corrupt, and remains so to some degree today.  I’m not trying to persuade anybody to accept them as a religious authority.

I’m just saying, whatever we might think about the machinery of that particular organization, it was that organization that played a pivotal role in the history of morality in western culture.  I’m simply recognizing that contribution, without joining or selling those who made it.

I’m still thinking on all this.

Jesus spoke against homosexuality.  (At least that is how he is quoted.)  And this was handed down as canon.  For 2000 years, homosexuality was relegated to being an “abomination.”  Laws reflected this cruel prejudice. 

My question to you then, is how did modern societies come around to accepting homosexuality in this day and age?  Certainly not from Catholicism.  Not from Jesus.  Even now, the Pope cannot claim that it is sanctioned—only that homosexuals might have “gifts and qualities” valuable to the church.  Yet the majority of common Catholics accept homosexuality.  So where did this lay acceptance come from?  From common human decency.  From people getting to know homosexual neighbors personally as well as famous people through the media.  The church is following, not leading.

 
Thoughtage
 
Avatar
 
 
Thoughtage
Total Posts:  522
Joined  13-01-2015
 
 
 
21 March 2015 07:46
 

The church is following, not leading.

Again, it’s going to be helpful to be more precise about what the Church is.  It’s not just that tiny fraction of Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions.

Here’s an opinion I found with a quick Google search.  I am not a Biblical scholar so I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy.  Members should feel free to challenge the following of course.

If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.

In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

All that said, I’m really not arguing with you that the Church is often a follower and not a leader, which is perhaps why I left the Church a long time ago.

The Catholic Church is a very big and very old phenomena.  Like any enterprise of that scale, it contains all that is good and bad about human beings.  If we took any billion people on Earth, we would find both saints and psychopaths contained within.

FYI, here’s a Catholic blog edited by folks who are both ardent Catholics, and ardent gay activists.  In fact, within my own family we have a very gay man, who attends mass every day. 

http://theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com/

There’s a lot of stuff going on out there.

 
‹ First  < 25 26 27