Most here attack or defend. Are there any that just seek God.

[Runewolf1973]

Most here attack or defend. Are there any that just seek God.
It is possible that preach could have been added to the above but I thought it unnecessary.
In my journey through forums of this type, I have seen many defend their various positions with varied skill and seen debates go nowhere. I did see one person of the hundreds of whom I track actually change his mind on an issue.
If none of us come here to have our mind changed then why bother?
It occurred to me that perhaps, the underlying motivation of all here, in this tower of babble, where all listen but none hear, that we were all questioning our own thinking and that we were all searching for a new God. Or at best here, a Name to follow.
It calls the question, Are any here looking for God?

Regards
DL

Attack or defend? It is just another duality that also exists in nature. It is part of the balance of what "God" is.

 

[Greatest I am]

Attack or defend? It is just another duality that also exists in nature. It is part of the balance of what "God" is.

Ok.

Are you here for attack, defence or seek.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So if I'm understanding you correctly you think this is an "I'm right, your wrong" issue, where you think you're right and that I am mistaken in my views? Personally I don't care if you think that way, though I don't understand why it has to be an "I'm right, your wrong" deal. when you get down to the nitty gritty, my disagreement with you is mainly semantics. I don't like the use of labels, particularly the labels good and evil because they imply absolutes. When you see things as absolute you really are only to see one side of the issue and when you only see one side of the issue you can't have a complete understanding of what's going on. Many wars could have been prevented and lives saved if people avoided labeling and demonizing. I look down on genocide just as much as you do. I view it as something that causes a great deal of harm and should be stopped. But I don't label it or those who commit it evil because by doing so it forces me to look at both sides of the issue, and I have found that often you can't truly stop a bully unless you understand why he's a bully in the first place. I just feel that if we spent less time labeling and more time trying to understand we could prevent a lot of heart ache in this world.

It seems that you have written yourself into a box.
You say that to understand something you have to look at both sides of an issue. This is true.
Then you say that you will not label because that forces you to look at both sides. By not labeling then, you do not need to look at both sides.
This means that you will never understand the issue because you will no label it.
???????????
What am I misunderstanding.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

For once I agree with you, except for the comment about love being "cheap", but then I'm not really sure why you would call it such, is it simply because its easier to obtain than respect? In which case I can see your point, but you also have to work just as hard if not harder to keep it, IMO. Maybe you could clarify why think of love as "cheap".

In the last 20 years or so, people love there cats and hats and suitcases. To use the same word for God is an insult.

God is real but does not want or need love. Genesis asks us to think of His as the word. To me this is asking to view Him through His philosophy and laws of life.

I respect books on law and philosophy. I don't use the word love. These, as God, are to be judged, not loved. If you start from a position of love then can you judge fairly? I don't think so.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

So if I'm understanding you correctly you think this is an "I'm right, your wrong" issue, where you think you're right and that I am mistaken in my views? quote]

If the Bible tells us not to add or take away anything from it, it sort of means that it is laid out to be read in a linear way to grasp all of it. Like learning math it is progressive and the language has to be understood by the student and both the teacher and the student must recognize the terms of reference.

IE. I used the term, men of good heart, once with a potential debater. He returned asking what I meant with the term good heart. As you know this could mean many forms of action under a label that I thought all could understand enough to continue the discourse. Being rather short with fools, I asked him to think about his request and indicated that if I had to define the term for him then any discourse would be pointless. I told him that if he could get past having to define terms such as this then we could continue. He did not return. It is said that at the end of philosophy the only thing left to discuss would be the definition of words and this is true I think. To have to do it at the beginning of discourse means to me that no good discourse can ensue. Some weird term may indeed need explanation but when I am not understood when saying men of good heart then my patience, of which I have little, disappears.

Regards
DL

 

[ChristineES]

GIA, do you remember the tsunami a few years ago? Do you believe that the tsunami was genocide? Do you believe that all natural disasters are genocide?
Since as long as religion as existed, people seemed to always believe that natural disasters were punishment from God. I don't believe that.

I read a book once about a young girl who was raped and became pregnant. She started to believe that she was being punished by God. I knew that thinking that the thought of her being punished were in error- because God would not cause someone to rape someone for any kind of punishment. I went farther and remembered that natural disasters were not punishment either.

Lastly, God knows men's hearts when we don't.

 

[MoonWater]

It seems that you have written yourself into a box.
You say that to understand something you have to look at both sides of an issue. This is true.
Then you say that you will not label because that forces you to look at both sides. By not labeling then, you do not need to look at both sides.
This means that you will never understand the issue because you will no label it.
???????????
What am I misunderstanding.

Regards
DL

No, By NOT labeling I AM forced to look at both sides of the issue. To label something gives someone discourse to write it off then and there without exploring further as the label implies an absolute. "that's all there is to it" is basically what one is saying when they apply labels and because of this many do not feel the need to delve further. Avoiding labels, avoiding absolutes, allows me to keep an open-mind, to look at all sides of the issue/person/action and hopefully come to a better understanding as a result. The reason I extend it to actions as well as people is because connecting the two is far too easy in our minds. If one labels an action as evil then it makes it all that much easier to write off those who commit such an act as evil too. For instance, before the witch burnings, priests labeled magic as evil, it later came to follow that, by extension, if magic is evil then those who practice magic must be evil too. That gave the priests permission, in their minds, to write off all magic-users as evil, demons, or followers of Satan, and thus they needed to be destroyed. They never bothered trying to understand what magic really was in the first place or why people practiced it. They simply labeled something and from there it spread like wildfire allowing them to justify a form of genocide themselves. That's why I avoid labeling genocide or any other act with such devastating consequences as evil, because doing so could easily lead me to write off those who commit genocide as evil and then seek to simply destroy them. But we won't stop genocide simply by killing or imprisoning everyone who commits it anymore then we can stop abortion by relegating it to back alleys and sending those who manage to survive off to prison. We need to understand why people commit genocide, why people feel the need to get an abortion. Understanding why a bully bullies is the only way not only to stop him from bullying but to prevent other bullies from coming about. "why are bullies so mean" says one, "because they are bullies." says another. Wrong, a bully is not a bully just because he is a bully. Something caused him to be a bully, whether it be bad parents, low self-esteem, whatever, something brought it about. Do you see how labels can act as roadblocks? You won't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. Genocide, abortion, rape, murder, bullying, are all symptoms, not diseases, and the only way to get rid of these symptoms is to cure the disease.

 

[MoonWater]

In the last 20 years or so, people love there cats and hats and suitcases. To use the same word for God is an insult.

God is real but does not want or need love. Genesis asks us to think of His as the word. To me this is asking to view Him through His philosophy and laws of life.

I respect books on law and philosophy. I don't use the word love. These, as God, are to be judged, not loved. If you start from a position of love then can you judge fairly? I don't think so.

Regards
DL

Ah, I get you. Yeah I can certainly see how love could be considered cheap considering how we throw it around these days. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MoonWater]

So if I'm understanding you correctly you think this is an "I'm right, your wrong" issue, where you think you're right and that I am mistaken in my views? quote]

If the Bible tells us not to add or take away anything from it, it sort of means that it is laid out to be read in a linear way to grasp all of it. Like learning math it is progressive and the language has to be understood by the student and both the teacher and the student must recognize the terms of reference.

IE. I used the term, men of good heart, once with a potential debater. He returned asking what I meant with the term good heart. As you know this could mean many forms of action under a label that I thought all could understand enough to continue the discourse. Being rather short with fools, I asked him to think about his request and indicated that if I had to define the term for him then any discourse would be pointless. I told him that if he could get past having to define terms such as this then we could continue. He did not return. It is said that at the end of philosophy the only thing left to discuss would be the definition of words and this is true I think. To have to do it at the beginning of discourse means to me that no good discourse can ensue. Some weird term may indeed need explanation but when I am not understood when saying men of good heart then my patience, of which I have little, disappears.

Regards
DL

Except his question was very valid as everyone is going to have a different definition of what exactly a "good heart" comprises. A christian will have a different idea from a satanist, and both of them will likely have different ideas than a pagan who will all be different from a Confucianists perspective, who will all likely be different from an atheists perspective etc. etc. Some may be more alike then others but there will always be differences, whether big or small, depending on the person. The only way a meaningful debate can continue is if one side understands completely what the other side means when they use the words and phrases they do and vice versa, understanding must go both ways. He had every right to ask for clarification on what you meant by "good heart" as no doubt he would have different ideas from you and he would need to know where you are coming from in order to debate with you. Other wise both of you would be working from different definitions and that would just lead to confusion. Ironically you have just shown one of the reasons why I also try to avoid labeling things or people as "good" too. When it comes to a debate especially in philosophy and religion, the definitions of words and phrases will vary from person to person. you can't just consider someone else a fool because they don't know where you're coming from. When you did that you fell into another label trap. "he doesn't understand what I'm talking about so he must be a fool." "Why doesn't he understand what you are talking about?" "Because he's a fool." You labeled him a fool and that gave you permission to simply write him off and not delve any deeper. If instead you had taken the time to explain your position, explian what you think comprises a good heart, then you could have had a very meaningful debate with him and discovered that maybe he wasn't so foolish after all. But your labeling allowed you to write him off, and as a result you missed that opportunity.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ok.

Are you here for attack, defence or seek.

Regards
DL

Well, if someone attacks my belief, I will defend it. Probably goes vice-versa. I am here to help others see the balance.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, By NOT labeling I AM forced to look at both sides of the issue. To label something gives someone discourse to write it off then and there without exploring further as the label implies an absolute. "that's all there is to it" is basically what one is saying when they apply labels and because of this many do not feel the need to delve further. Avoiding labels, avoiding absolutes, allows me to keep an open-mind, to look at all sides of the issue/person/action and hopefully come to a better understanding as a result. The reason I extend it to actions as well as people is because connecting the two is far too easy in our minds. If one labels an action as evil then it makes it all that much easier to write off those who commit such an act as evil too. For instance, before the witch burnings, priests labeled magic as evil, it later came to follow that, by extension, if magic is evil then those who practice magic must be evil too. That gave the priests permission, in their minds, to write off all magic-users as evil, demons, or followers of Satan, and thus they needed to be destroyed. They never bothered trying to understand what magic really was in the first place or why people practiced it. They simply labeled something and from there it spread like wildfire allowing them to justify a form of genocide themselves. That's why I avoid labeling genocide or any other act with such devastating consequences as evil, because doing so could easily lead me to write off those who commit genocide as evil and then seek to simply destroy them. But we won't stop genocide simply by killing or imprisoning everyone who commits it anymore then we can stop abortion by relegating it to back alleys and sending those who manage to survive off to prison. We need to understand why people commit genocide, why people feel the need to get an abortion. Understanding why a bully bullies is the only way not only to stop him from bullying but to prevent other bullies from coming about. "why are bullies so mean" says one, "because they are bullies." says another. Wrong, a bully is not a bully just because he is a bully. Something caused him to be a bully, whether it be bad parents, low self-esteem, whatever, something brought it about. Do you see how labels can act as roadblocks? You won't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. Genocide, abortion, rape, murder, bullying, are all symptoms, not diseases, and the only way to get rid of these symptoms is to cure the disease.

That makes sense. There should be no labels. Even though we are all different, we are all the same. ALL is ONE.

 

[MoonWater]

That makes sense. There should be no labels. Even though we are all different, we are all the same. ALL is ONE.

exactly. Nice to know I make sense to somebody around here

 

[Greatest I am]

GIA, do you remember the tsunami a few years ago? Do you believe that the tsunami was genocide? Do you believe that all natural disasters are genocide?
Since as long as religion as existed, people seemed to always believe that natural disasters were punishment from God. I don't believe that.

I read a book once about a young girl who was raped and became pregnant. She started to believe that she was being punished by God. I knew that thinking that the thought of her being punished were in error- because God would not cause someone to rape someone for any kind of punishment. I went farther and remembered that natural disasters were not punishment either.

Lastly, God knows men's hearts when we don't.

God does not control anything on this earth.

Christians believe that even innocent babies are sinners. This is why baptism was invented. The Church likes to have it's flock feel guilty at all times so that the cash keeps coming in so that these evil people can buy their way into heaven.

Regards
DL

 

[challupa]

God does not control anything on this earth.

Christians believe that even innocent babies are sinners. This is why baptism was invented. The Church likes to have it's flock feel guilty at all times so that the cash keeps coming in so that these evil people can buy their way into heaven.

Regards
DL

I have never understood how we have fallen for that belief that babies are born sinners!! It is just so incredibly wrong in my opinion. The original meaning of sin meant missing the target as it was an archery term. It wasn't associated with evil or being fallen. I see these teachings dangerous to the health of society. We tend to live down to expectations. There can't be a more lower expectation that being branded as a sinner as soon as you are born!

 

[Greatest I am]

No, By NOT labeling I AM forced to look at both sides of the issue. To label something gives someone discourse to write it off then and there without exploring further as the label implies an absolute. "that's all there is to it" is basically what one is saying when they apply labels and because of this many do not feel the need to delve further. Avoiding labels, avoiding absolutes, allows me to keep an open-mind, to look at all sides of the issue/person/action and hopefully come to a better understanding as a result. The reason I extend it to actions as well as people is because connecting the two is far too easy in our minds. If one labels an action as evil then it makes it all that much easier to write off those who commit such an act as evil too. For instance, before the witch burnings, priests labeled magic as evil, it later came to follow that, by extension, if magic is evil then those who practice magic must be evil too. That gave the priests permission, in their minds, to write off all magic-users as evil, demons, or followers of Satan, and thus they needed to be destroyed. They never bothered trying to understand what magic really was in the first place or why people practiced it. They simply labeled something and from there it spread like wildfire allowing them to justify a form of genocide themselves. That's why I avoid labeling genocide or any other act with such devastating consequences as evil, because doing so could easily lead me to write off those who commit genocide as evil and then seek to simply destroy them. But we won't stop genocide simply by killing or imprisoning everyone who commits it anymore then we can stop abortion by relegating it to back alleys and sending those who manage to survive off to prison. We need to understand why people commit genocide, why people feel the need to get an abortion. Understanding why a bully bullies is the only way not only to stop him from bullying but to prevent other bullies from coming about. "why are bullies so mean" says one, "because they are bullies." says another. Wrong, a bully is not a bully just because he is a bully. Something caused him to be a bully, whether it be bad parents, low self-esteem, whatever, something brought it about. Do you see how labels can act as roadblocks? You won't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. Genocide, abortion, rape, murder, bullying, are all symptoms, not diseases, and the only way to get rid of these symptoms is to cure the disease.

Saying something is evil does not mean that the study of the reasons for it end.

Think of your 6 yr old who hears on TV that some new genocidal maniac has been called evil by an announcer. He say to you, daddy is genocide evil, what will you answer a 6 yrs old who does not know what self esteem or the other psychological term adults use.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

It seems that this is an interesting and divers bunch.

Thanks for all of the above to date.

Regards
DL

 

[MoonWater]

Saying something is evil does not mean that the study of the reasons for it end.

it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, no, but it all to often turns out that way. For too many people the label becomes the reason behind why the person does what got him labeled that in the first place. Hence you have the following scenario: "why is that bully so mean.?" "Because he is a bully." It doesn't mean one MUST stop there but all too often people do. I myself have done so and as a result I'd just as soon avoid the temptation by avoiding such labels.

Think of your 6 yr old who hears on TV that some new genocidal maniac has been called evil by an announcer. He say to you, daddy is genocide evil, what will you answer a 6 yrs old who does not know what self esteem or the other psychological term adults use.

Regards
DL

Well first off I'd wonder where they heard about the concept of evil in the first place as it certainly would not have been from me. Then I would explain to him what genocide is and how it hurts a lot of people and as such tell him that I am against and greatly disapprove of it. But I would not call it evil. I would not label it because labels imply absolutes, and nothing is absolute, we must always be willing to look at all sides of the issue. Labeling, in my experience, often prevents us from doing that.

 

[challupa]

it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, no, but it all to often turns out that way. For too many people the label becomes the reason behind why the person does what got him labeled that in the first place. Hence you have the following scenario: "why is that bully so mean.?" "Because he is a bully." It doesn't mean one MUST stop there but all too often people do. I myself have done so and as a result I'd just as soon avoid the temptation by avoiding such labels.


Well first off I'd wonder where they heard about the concept of evil in the first place as it certainly would not have been from me. Then I would explain to him what genocide is and how it hurts a lot of people and as such tell him that I am against and greatly disapprove of it. But I would not call it evil. I would not label it because labels imply absolutes, and nothing is absolute, we must always be willing to look at all sides of the issue. Labeling, in my experience, often prevents us from doing that.

Yes and labels are usually incomplete. I worked in forensics and for awhile in a halfway house for federal inmates. I learned that even those people who committed some of the most ugly crimes, had a very humane side to them. It's just that when we label someone, we don't tend to look any further because we don't think it's worth our time. I found it was well worth the time. Many told me their life stories and trust me, after hearing what they had to say, you could not just see them as a criminal. The whole person is always so much more than the label imo.

 

[Greatest I am]

it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, no, but it all to often turns out that way. For too many people the label becomes the reason behind why the person does what got him labeled that in the first place. Hence you have the following scenario: "why is that bully so mean.?" "Because he is a bully." It doesn't mean one MUST stop there but all too often people do. I myself have done so and as a result I'd just as soon avoid the temptation by avoiding such labels.



Well first off I'd wonder where they heard about the concept of evil in the first place as it certainly would not have been from me. Then I would explain to him what genocide is and how it hurts a lot of people and as such tell him that I am against and greatly disapprove of it. But I would not call it evil. I would not label it because labels imply absolutes, and nothing is absolute, we must always be willing to look at all sides of the issue. Labeling, in my experience, often prevents us from doing that.

Anecdotal information and experience is important but does not apply to any but yourself. We are all individual. If your 6yr old then goes to school and does not agree with his peers as to the evil of genocide then non agreement on a universally accepted concept will bring pain. If none of us wear labels then we are all in Babble.
We are all tribal. We all seek our own.

Regards
DL

 

[Riverwolf]

Anecdotal information and experience is important but does not apply to any but yourself. We are all individual. If your 6yr old then goes to school and does not agree with his peers as to the evil of genocide then non agreement on a universally accepted concept will bring pain. If none of us wear labels then we are all in Babble.
We are all tribal. We all seek our own.

Regards
DL

And is there something wrong with that?