PDA

View Full Version : Religion In my little town. The battle has begun.



Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2004, 08:59 AM
Let me start with a little background history first.
I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptized, and later attended St. Johns parochial school in the Bonx. I was given my first Holy Communion there. Later I was an alter boy in that parish and then an alter boy at Our Lady of Mercy parish where I received my confirmation. At this time, believe it or not I wanted for a brief time to become a priest. A period of time before I realized I would have to renounce the pleasure of the female flesh.

Life goes on I attended church less and less frequently. Life just got in the way. A best friend died in a horrible accident when I was in my late 20's and my mom passed and my dear grandmother passed all in the later part of my 20's. I grew bitter to the church and my God in general.

My dad, who is an 7 day a week go to mass Catholic. Who at this time has been married for over 20 years to his second wife. Asks me if I can get him my mom, death certificate. Ya see he would love to marry his dear second wife in the Church. The Church he had been attending 7 days a week for over 20 years never recognized his marriage to the woman he loved more than life. I obliged and got him the death certificate and I attended the Church Wedding as his best man.

I met my wife. We decide to get married she is Lutheran and I am obviously at this time a laps Catholic. There is no way she is converting or taking pre caning classes to get married in the Catholic church. So we agree on getting married in her fathers garden with an Episcopal minister.

A couple of years pass and we have our Daughter Tess. I have begun to restore my faith, but this is a more me & God based faith, having less to do with organized religion. But old ceremonies die hard. We have to have Tess baptized.

Since our marriage was not in the Catholic church, we cannot have her baptized Catholic and frankly I wasn't sure I wanted to saddle her with that. So again to the Anglican we run. There is a wonderful old Episcopal church in Cold Spring, St. Mary in the Highlands. The perfect old New England stone church. We decide to see if we can have Tess Baptized there. A kind old priest does the honors and washes the devil off of her, making sure to get behind the ears, cause we all know that's were the devil likes to hide.

With Tess baptism came a renewed effort to start attending church regular.

At this time St. Mary's has a handful of parishioner, like 5 and most were very very old. Services were similar to Catholic but with a slight British spin in the verbiage.

Then about 3 years ago a new Father arrived after a long list of temporary priest came and went. But Father Shane stayed. He was young he had a young wife and a small boy about my daughters age. He was funny, he was smart and I liked him. I went to church more often. After 9/11 the following year Father Shane rang the bells in the vestry, one toll for each person that perished. I helped and it helped me cope, which is what church should do.

Flash forward to the week before last. Father Shane post an advertisement in the local paper telling people who are lost, like me and people who are divorced but in love, like my dad, and children from different religious backgrounds, like my daughter, that its safe to come to St. Mary's. You are welcomed was his message.

Now this is where the battle begins:
The local Catholic Priest has taken offense to Father Shane's welcoming position. He posted this letter in the local paper.
http://www.pcnr.com/news/2004/0407/Letters_To_Editor/051.html
Rev. Brian T. McSweene is a young man VERY VERY conservative Catholic. He is part of the new religious young conservatives. He is a nice enough guy but he represents the reason I left the church.

This week paper a parishioner from Parish of Our Lady of Loretto
wrote a letter politely admonishing Rev. McSweene. And another letter from Father Shane politely rebuking the Reverend.

This has caused a major stir in our little town.
On a side note Easter Service at St. Mary's was never better attended. As Father Shane read the liturgy with his new baby sitting on his lap and his wife reading the gospel. Young and old alike filling the pews. I love that he is married that his son Simon is in my daughter's kindergarten class. I love this guy I have a renewed sprit for the church - his church.

Larry P.
04-15-2004, 09:17 AM
Joe what is the problem. The Roman Catholic pastor is explaining the belief of the Catholic Church. If you and others of the community choose to pick a fight with his position so be it. Be Catholic ot not it is up to you but don't worry about what occurs in another Church. I personally believe that you are mistaken in many of your opinions about the Roman Catholic faith but it is your decision not mine to make.

I am sure that this is going to turn into another Catholic (RC) bashing thread. I am alway amazed how anti Catholic bigotry is the only acceptable type of bigotry left in this country.

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2004, 09:27 AM
Larry I hold no offense to what you think. This is a divisive issue. I do not wish to make it a RC bashing thread. The fact remains Father Shane never went on the attack with the local catholic church. He simply posted a welcoming message to all in the town. The Catholic Rev. took issue with it and was compelled to write the letter FIRST. The Rev. made it an issue when there was no issue to be made. Let the Rev. tend to his flock, I find it odd that he was compelled to admonish Father Shane. You should note that Father Shane was a R.C. Priest before becoming an Anglican and served in the Vatican.

Peter Kalshoven
04-15-2004, 09:28 AM
Joe, when I read your post, all I could think of was the Non Sequitur comic by Wiley Miller that fits this situation most. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it on the web, but the scene is God being interviewed on a talk show. His line is something like, "My greatest accomplishment? Well, that would have to be the sense of humor. You now, the irony is that those who claim to believe in me the most, have the least of it."

Enjoy your church, and love your family. It's only a fight if you want it to be. Frankly, I agree that the Catholic priest is stating the Catholic position. So, as long as your church likes where it is at, why should you care what another denomination thinks? (Of course, the question arises, why did the Catholic priest care so much about what your priest said, but life's too short to worry about stuff like that.)

Live, love, laugh.

Peace,
Pete

[ 04-15-2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Peter Kalshoven ]

brad9798
04-15-2004, 09:39 AM
Fr. Shane is not Wild Dingo ... is he??

That would explain the stir! ;)

Keith Wilson
04-15-2004, 09:42 AM
I am alway amazed how anti Catholic bigotry is the only acceptable type of bigotry left in this country. Nah. It's still socially acceptable to make fun of fat balding middle-aged white male engineers (coincidentally, yours truly ;) ).

And Joe, your Father Shane seems like a good man. Don't worry about the Catholic priest. He's entitled to his opinion; you're entitled to disagree. Ecumenicism has always mainly been a liberal idea; the conservatives haven't ever wanted much to do with it. Besides, it sure doesn't look to me like you're Catholic any more. It's not genetic, you know. ;)

[ 04-15-2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

cs
04-15-2004, 09:51 AM
Religion, another one of those dangerous topics that is best left alone, but since you brought it up I'll throw in a couple of pennies.

The attitude of he said she said is one of the reasons I quit attending church. And this looks like what you got going here. You have one who invites others and than another church retaliates and thus the battle begins.

Modern churchs are chock full of hypocrites. Thats not to say that everyone who attends church is a hyopocrite, because some really good people attend. At one time I was a regular church memeber. I wanted to be involved in church activities and had attended this one church for years before I went into the service. After getting off active duty I started to attend this church again.

When I left for active duty I was still a youth and when I returned I was a young adult. The whole time I attended church I was treated as an outsider, and it don't matter which church, they all treat me the same way. They see my tatoos and my pierced ear and just ignore me. Now they will shake my hand and greet me and welcome me to the church and ask for my money, but at church socials or events I would end up by myself with no one interested in spending time to get to know me.

And than there are the other issues which you don't see on Sunday morning, but if you see on Saturday night. Inside the church these folks will talk the talk, but outside the church they can be raciest or drunkards or even worse. They don't follow the teachings of the church, but they do put on a good front.

You don't have to believe me or you can deny it, but its the truth. Churchs have turned into a social gathering place and are not dedicated to the worshipping of God.

Please don't take offense by what I post, but this is what I have seen. I've been to many different churchs and see the same thing over and over again. I know what I believe in my heart, but don't feel that I have to put up with hypocrites that I have seen in the churchs.

Chad

Ian McColgin
04-15-2004, 09:57 AM
The good news is you don't always have to have the last word.

A young dynamic aggressive Roman Catholic priest may or may not attract new parishioners and retain old ones. If his conservative message reaches anyone, he'll do just fine. If he gets really shrill, he'll just drive his flock away.

Meanwhile Fr. Shane is clearly doing a great job. Let it speak for itself.

Besides that, there's nothing that drives the narrow-minded nuts faster than smiling sweetly and agreeing, "Ah you have a good point here. Let's now add . . . "

No, really, don't toy with them. It's not nice.

LeeG
04-15-2004, 09:58 AM
Joe,,as a died in the wool indifferent agnostic/reformed hedonist supporter of the deadly sin of sloth and gluttony I can't offer any feedback on the churches in question except to say it sounds like everything is good where you are. When my mom passed away I went to a support group that had meetings in a church that had a nice facility,,I don't know the kind,,had a cross in it..what struck me was hearing other folks stories,,and hearing my dads life story in a retired engineer/navy man with adult children, there were AA meetings going on in another part of the church that I avoided. When I left I looked at some of the architecture and smells of an old building and thought "wow,,so this is what church is about,,I sure am glad it's here"...walking outside i looked up and there was the shadow of the previous denominations sign behind the new one. The feeling I had was a quiet spirit in the stone, concrete and stucco of the building but it was the people there too. It's there either way.
Sounds like all is well in Cold Spring.

[ 04-15-2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-15-2004, 10:09 AM
This is a bit off Joe's point, but maybe it illustates it:

As I said in another thread, I'm a "paid up, card carrying", Episcopalian.

The Catholic position on baptism as stated in the letter that Joe links to seems to differs little from something that I was told, years ago.

My wife was raised in a Filipino (extreme) Protestant sect called the Igeslia ni Cristo. She decided that she would like to transfer to the Episcopal Church (I don't blame her - we can drink, we only go to one service a week and we don't tithe, but most important to her our priesthood is friendlier!) and we checked the position on baptism and confirmation with the Episcopal Church in Manila, who said that under a Concordat signed years ago they, the Iglesia ni Cristo and the Catholic Church would accept each others sacrament of baptism.

This may be related to the low profile the Episcopal church has always taken in the Philippines. Back in 1896 the first Episcopal Bishop to land in the new colony said that he did not want a "battle of the Altars" and would not proselytise Catholics. However, the hill tribes that the Catholic Church had not bothered with in the Spanish centuries were fair game, and to this day they are Episcopal! A section of the Catholic Church headed by Fr Aglipay rejected the authority of Rome because, during the Philipppine Revolution, the Church had sided with Spain. They formed the Iglesia Filipina Independente, remaining in other respects conventional Catholics, but in recent years they have merged with the Episcopals. Marcos was raised one, but converted to Rome to get elected.

So, in a rock solid Catholic country, the position seems more relaxed.

[ 04-15-2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]

Larry P.
04-15-2004, 10:24 AM
Joe without seeing the ad that Rev. Shane posted it is hard to tell what exactly the RC Priest was responding too but beyond that let me state a few things,

1. You could have had Tess baptized as a Catholic the godparents would need to be Roman Catholic.

2. The Church didn't "refuse" to recognise your fathers second marraige, they refuse to allow him to have two wives. They considered your mother to be his wife. Agree or not this is found inscripture there are ways to have marraiges anulled (sp).

3. Your choice of words "I didn't want Tess to be saddled with that" give an indication of at least an anti catholic framed of mind if not an overt bigotry.

Joe the Catholic priest was simply stated that an "open" Eucharistic service or sacrament is not a valid option for a Roman Catholic in the eyes of the Church. It is fine for a Catholic to attend services at churches of other faiths but it in no way satisfies one's Catholic obligations to attend mass or receive Catholic sacrements.

PC From what I remember ACB is right in that both Churches recognise the baptisms of the other.

Chris Coose
04-15-2004, 10:42 AM
Follow where the spirit and the light leads.

Sometimes religion and the messengers get in the way.

I like your spirit, your quest. A seeker inevitably gets taught. Leave the personalities behind and stick with the principles.

Bruce Hooke
04-15-2004, 10:44 AM
While the letter from Rev. McSweene is in a sense just stating the Catholic position he is, it seems to me, at the same time saying why he thinks the Episcopal Church is wrong in these matters. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it. As with most religious matters both sides probably end up depending to a large degree on somewhat circular reasoning. What I mean is that if you start with a certain set of beliefs then you end up with certain conclusions. These conclusions, to the believer, justify their beliefs. Someone with different beliefs reach different conclusions.

In some ways it seems like the Catholic priest is saying these are very serious matters so we need to be careful that only people who share our beliefs at a deep level are part of our church. The Episcopal priest is presumably (I haven't seen his letters) saying something to the effect of, better to be inclusive even if it means we bring in people whose beliefs diverge widely. Neither position is necessarily wrong, they just derive from different priorities in one's system of beliefs. My guess is that each priest will basically appeal to the kinds of people that are a good fit for their church, which is probably all for the good in the end.

If the two priests can keep things on a very polite level and if the readers can remember that the fact the someone else does not like what they believe does not make their own belief wrong, then there may be some value in the discussion. Otherwise, I think the best thing would probably be for each priest to quit the public discussion before it further divides the town.

For the record I should note that my extended family is largely a mix of Unitarians, Quakers, and liberal Episcopalians, and I have one cousin who is an ordained Episcopal priest. My opinions probably reflect that background...

NormMessinger
04-15-2004, 10:52 AM
Send them some snakes and let God deal with it. Speaking of Shane aka Wild Dingo, maybe he could send the snakes and make God's work easier.

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2004, 10:52 AM
1. You could have had Tess baptized as a Catholic the godparents would need to be Roman Catholic. One God parent is Jewish the other is Greek Orthodox, we chose the people NOT the religious affiliation.


2. The Church didn't "refuse" to recognise your fathers second marraige, they refuse to allow him to have two wives. They considered your mother to be his wife. Agree or not this is found inscripture there are ways to have marraiges anulled (sp). No, they 'REFUSED' my father a marriage in the church. My father did not want to drag my mother through an annulment proceeding. They were married less than 4 years. He was 'Married for 20 to his second wife ' the Catholic faith has no accountability for being young and stupid.


3. Your choice of words "I didn't want Tess to be saddled with that" give an indication of at least an anti catholic framed of mind if not an overt bigotry. Guilty as charged in regard to my frame of mind. Given the above saddling requirements to the R.C faith I feel I was justified in my not wanting my daughter to have to make that choice later in life.


Joe the Catholic priest was simply stated that an "open" Eucharistic service or sacrament is not a valid option for a Roman Catholic in the eyes of the Church. It is fine for a Catholic to attend services at churches of other faiths but it in no way satisfies one's Catholic obligations to attend mass or receive Catholic sacraments.
The flock of his church are so tempted with open Eucharistic service sacrament they needed a letter to the editor to prevent then from running over to St. Mary's and participating ?????? This is the crux of my problem with this whole thing. Why was the R.C Priest compelled to draft such a letter? Why the need to respond to Father Shane's open ad to the whole town. Father Shane was not signaling out one specific religious group in his address but rather the lost sheep without a home or a parish.

[ 04-15-2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

N. Scheuer
04-15-2004, 11:06 AM
So, Joe, are you asking for opinions, pro or con?

I am RC, too, and fortunate to have a Pastor who is not really a rebel, though we all know that his views and practices sometimes run across the grain in regard to what our conservative Bishop would prefer. So we count our blessings.

Another nearby Parish fired a gay Music Director who whould not "renounce - - - (whaterver)". Our Parish seems to welcome gay people.

Contrary to what the Pope might like, Catholic life in the USA seems to come in a lot of different colors and flavors.

Peace, Moby Nick

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2004, 11:21 AM
In the interest of fair and balanced I have taken the time to transpose Father Shane's response letter to the editor. The local paper has a subscription based fee for accessing news or letters in the current issue.

There is No Confusion

Dear Editor,

We, the Rector and Vestry of St Mary-in-the-Highlands Episcopal Church, would like to take this opportunity to merely reiterate our invitation to the community to our Open Communion and Open Baptism.

We, as a parish, remain convinced that what we are doing is the right - and Christian - thing to do. As Angelicans, we are delighted - and encourage diversity.

We believe in the power and the grace which comes from the Sacraments. We believe in the validity of our Holy Orders - that our bishops are also true successors of the original Apostles. We also believe that we, like all Christians, are part of the universal, Catholic, church. We are Catholics - just not Romans. We are obligated to follow the Gospel - but the Episcopal Church is not required to follow the jurisdiction of another denomination's catechism.

Above all, we believe we have been taught by Christ never to judge the "quality of a person's depth of faith, soul, or their conscience. Even if they have a weaker faith (and God alone can know such matters) we want to encourage that faith to continue to grow. St. Mary's will not shut the door on them because they are re-married, unmarried, divorced, or because they have made mistakes in their lives. Those who have been cut off need a parish too - a place that will continue to welcome them exactly as they are and encourage them to nourish their faith.

We believe, when given the rare opportunity, it is always better to err on the side of mercy. If we are going to make a mistake, let it be we welcomed too many people rather than we judged them.

Our sincerest hope is that our church will be full, but also that the Reform Synagogue and the Methodist, Baptist, Roman and Presbyterian churches - indeed, all places where God is worshiped - will be filled as well.

We are all trying to serve the same God - in that we should all be unified.

Father Shane Scott Hamblem
Rector & the Vestry of the Episcopal Church of St Mary-in-the-Highlands

Paul Pless
04-15-2004, 11:29 AM
We believe, when given the rare opportunity, it is always better to err on the side of mercy. If we are going to make a mistake, let it be we welcomed too many people rather than we judged them.
very well said

Paul Pless
04-15-2004, 11:32 AM
also,

I believe you describe a fairly normal timeline in your lifetime of growing up in faith, leaving the grace of God, and then returning to your belief in God as family becomes important to you.

Peace,

Paul

register101
04-15-2004, 11:40 AM
Get out the pen Rev. McSweenee, there is a new church in town and they have sent out an invite too....

web page (http://www.churchofspongebob.org/)

Like others, I too have moved from RC (my sister is even a nun) to the Episcopal Church for many reasons. I'm happy smile.gif

Wild Dingo
04-15-2004, 11:50 AM
Joe... having experienced much as Chad states and more {ex elder of the Carnarvon Baptist Church and theological student} I stand beside him on this.

One thing though if I can... Tess will grow into a beautiful happy and loving young woman with or without the church... if her parents family and friends show her love generosity kindness compassion love of her fellow man and the nature that surrounds her, laughter and all the other wonderous things in life and teach her right from wrong truth and living with integrity and humility... all regardless of religion leanings.

Best of it mate :cool:

And nope I aint no father Shane!! to irreverant for that caper! tongue.gif

Sam F
04-15-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by cs:
Religion, another one of those dangerous topics that is best left alone, but since you brought it up I'll throw in a couple of pennies.

The attitude of he said she said is one of the reasons I quit attending church…
Modern churches are chock full of hypocrites. I couldn’t agree more but that is precisely where one could expect to find hypocrites – in churches. I doubt that even a single hypocrite ever joined the Hells’ Angels. That sort of thing just comes with the territory (theologically speaking).


Originally posted by cs:
The whole time I attended church I was treated as an outsider, and it don't matter which church, they all treat me the same way. They see my tatoos and my pierced ear and just ignore me. Now they will shake my hand and greet me and welcome me to the church and ask for my money, but at church socials or events I would end up by myself with no one interested in spending time to get to know me. Here we leave the theological and shift to the social. Chad make no mistake about it, you are not alone in receiving the cold shoulder in church. There are various reasons for this – some of them may be cultural recognizition symbols. I know a fellow named George who attends a local Baptist Church. This church is conservative in both the political and cultural senses. George lead a somewhat irregular life in the merchant marine – so his arms are covered in tattoos. (Not that you’d ever see them because he always, no matter the weather, wears long-sleeved shirts that cover them.)
His strategy was to make that feature inconspicuous so that people would get to know him well and avoid a snap judgment. These good Baptists have accepted him fairly well (I hear) but he still avoids challenging their sensibilities by keeping those tattoos covered. Unfortunately that first impression is much too important. George is a genial fellow and generally likable no matter what. He dealt with this disadvantage very effectively but his is a simple case. In many instances a bad first impression can be fiendishly subtle and difficult to pin down. It may be a matter of accent or mannerism that is quite unconscious in the person exhibiting it.


Originally posted by cs:
You don't have to believe me or you can deny it, but its the truth. Churchs have turned into a social gathering place and are not dedicated to the worshipping of God.

Please don't take offense by what I post, but this is what I have seen. I've been to many different churchs and see the same thing over and over again. I know what I believe in my heart, but don't feel that I have to put up with hypocrites that I have seen in the churchs.

Chad No offense at all taken. What you said is obviously true. I do however think a small clarification – if that’s the right word - in order. You’ve got two things working more or less at cross purposes here. If –and I agree with you – the function of a church is to worship God then perhaps the concern about the social aspect should become a secondary consideration. I think some of the effects you observe are results of emphasizing the social aspect of church going. In other words they’ve put the cart before the horse. A sincere and well understood worship of God will certainly produce social fruits but those fruits cut off from their source invariably fester.
I think that Rev. Brian T. McSweeney was referring to just this effect when he said:


Christianity is not a club one joins; it is a seriously challenging and transforming way of life. Those who make little of that do Him a great disservice.

Sam F
04-15-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Wild Dingo:
... Tess will grow into a beautiful happy and loving young woman with or without the church... if her parents family and friends show her love generosity kindness compassion love of her fellow man and the nature that surrounds her, laughter and all the other wonderous things in life and teach her right from wrong, truth and living with integrity and humility... all regardless of religion leanings.
Hummm... looks like a religious position if I ever saw one. How do you arrive at that "all regardless of religion leanings"? (Btw, I added the comma. I hope that's what you intended rather than "...right from wrong truth". ;) )

imported_Conrad
04-15-2004, 02:22 PM
Why don't you move on from the past, let the Catholics fight their battles, and find a church that promotes and cherishes a personal relationship with God/Christ... instead of the Church? You don't need the Catholic church to hook you up with God, and in fact, in the opinion of many it justs gets in the way as a poor intermediary. Try a Four Square, or one of the many flavors of Episcopalian church- you'll have far less guilt, more biblically based happiness, and a richer life.

Just because daddy drove a Ford doesn't mean it has to be the car for you....

Sam F
04-15-2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Conrad:
Why don't you move on from the past, …- you'll have far less guilt, more biblically based happiness, and a richer life.

Just because daddy drove a Ford doesn't mean it has to be the car for you....Just cause daddy was a Christian doesn't mean much either. Why not make up your own religion as several here have/are doing? Now that really saves all sorts of doctrinal difficulties!

And more "biblically based"? Care to expound on that? How can one have "many flavors of Episcopalian church"? That’s only one church mind you - and have them all based on the same book? Given the gigantic diversity of Protestant sects all of whom claim to be Bible based has now passed 30,000 flavors and counting, what does Biblically based mean? :confused:

And that ain’t even touching the “happiness” question!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-15-2004, 03:04 PM
Well, in my experience there are two main flavours of Episcopal:

a) Anglo-Catholic, aka "high" or "bells and smells"

b) Evangelical, aka "low" or "happy clappy"

and there are gradations on this spectrum too, from extreme High, rather beyond the post-Vatican 2 Roman church, to extreme Low, speaking in tongues and what have you.

There is a subset of the medium high group, which I personally favour, which likes the 1662 Prayer Book, (but such churches are sadly scarce) and another subset of the upper-middle that feels more kinship with the Eastern Orthodox than with the Roman. Rowan Williams for instance has written a book on the use of icons.

The point is that liturgically there is an immense difference but theologically there is not much. Communion in both kinds, the Sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, predestination, justification by faith, the importance of the Word, are common territory.

imported_Conrad
04-15-2004, 03:20 PM
Thanks Andrew for your explanation.

Sam, I don't know a single happy and well adjusted Catholic- I do know a lot who have confused and unhappy memories of their childhood church experiences, carried into adulthood. A broad generalization, I admit- but the truth for my personal experience.

The idea of religion, to me, is to form a personal relationship with God, not the institution that purports to represent him. There are a lot of biblically based churches that do a better job of teaching the essentials of the bible than the Catholic church, IMHO.

I have an older brother who is totally caught up in church politics/administration, and the latest "goings on" at the local and national levels. But, IMHO, he doesn't do a very good job of filling his own and other's lives with the message of Christ. I think those who get the most out of their spiritual lives are the ones who remain focused on the main issues, not the delivery mechanism. In my opinion, Catholicism is all about the messenger, not the message.

This whole thread supports my premise- the Catholic church would rather argue about what is right or wrong than work to bring more people into a growing relationship with God. While they bicker, people are driven away, and rightly so, by the hypocrisy and off-message debate.

There's a reason Billy Grahme is so respected- he keeps it simple, and on message for all.

[ 04-15-2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Conrad ]

Sam F
04-15-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
The point is that liturgically there is an immense difference but theologically there is not much.Bishop Akinola may give you a bit of an argument on that score - not my bailiwick of course - but he has declared the Anglican Church to be in a state of "impaired communion" and that the ordination of homosexual bishops is a satanic attack on God's church. I could be wrong but that sounds an awful like a theological difference! ;)

BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3236613.stm)

Sam F
04-15-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Conrad:

Sam, I don't know a single happy and well adjusted Catholic- .Not so! You know me don’t you? :D :D

But seriously… if one is taught something at variance with what the world teaches – and sings – and prints – and puts in movies - a bit of unhappiness must necessarily result.
Being happy and well-adjusted to the world is not really something Christians should aspire to, is it?


Originally posted by Conrad:

I do know a lot who have confused and unhappy memories of their childhood church experiences, carried into adulthood. A broad generalization, I admit- but the truth for my personal experience. A very broad generalization indeed. Having grown up among as religiously varied a bunch as perhaps can only be found in America, I’d say that confused and unhappy memories of childhood in general and churches in particular are ubiquitous.


Originally posted by Conrad:

The idea of religion, to me, is to form a personal relationship with God, not the institution that purports to represent him. There are a lot of biblically based churches that do a better job of teaching the essentials of the bible than the Catholic church, IMHO. I think you may have missed something about Catholic doctrine, but never mind that for the moment…
Given the depth of ignorance I’ve seen from American “cradle” Catholics I’ve met, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job of educating its young people with the possible exception of the US public schools – which is a very hard act to beat.
But you say “a lot of biblically based churches”. How can there be a lot of churches based on the bible? I mean if you took a Yamaha motorcycle manual how could you have thousands of different ways to replace piston rings? I don’t understand how such a thing is possible.
Quite frankly I see some core Protestant doctrines (if I can make that bold characterization of so diverse a group) that are quite un-Biblical.


Originally posted by Conrad:

This whole thread supports my premise- the Catholic church would rather argue about what is right or wrong than work to bring more people into a growing relationship with God. While they bicker, people are driven away, and rightly so, by the hypocrisy and off-message debate.
No doubt there’s something in that. The Church’s internal divisions have always been its greatest weakness. This was true from practically the very beginning, however I fail to see how further subdividing and yet more sub-sub-sub-dividing has helped matters at all. Protestants are famous for Church swapping. It is no very unusual thing to go from Methodist to Presbyterian to Baptist and back. Of course I know of a few who have stuck it out where they started but the are by no means the norm.
Just curious… are you in the same church you started in? (You know I’m not! ;) )


Originally posted by Conrad:

There's a reason Billy Grahme is so respected- he keeps it simple, and on message for all. Brother Bill is a very effective preacher but his Crusades (Oops! Can I still use that word? :eek: ) have always suffered from a lack of follow through. People often left the stadium, got back in their cars and that was the end of the experience.
And unfortunately there is no proof that the mind of God is particularly simple. It’s not that I’m complaining… I wish things were simple! But they aren’t.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-15-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
The point is that liturgically there is an immense difference but theologically there is not much.Bishop Akinola may give you a bit of an argument on that score - not my bailiwick of course - but he has declared the Anglican Church to be in a state of "impaired communion" and that the ordination of homosexual bishops is a satanic attack on God's church. I could be wrong but that sounds an awful like a theological difference! ;)

BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3236613.stm)</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I think I have to agree, we do have a bit of a problem at the moment, there. But, compared to really earth-shattering stuff like filioque, it is not a terminal issue. We can probably paper over the cracks; it is an issue on the level of "should the clergy be married" in your Communion, to which the answer appears to be "No, unless they have recently joined us from the Anglican communion, in which case it does not matter!"

Alan D. Hyde
04-15-2004, 04:59 PM
To quote Andrew:

"There is a subset of the medium high group, which I personally favour, which likes the 1662 Prayer Book, (but such churches are sadly scarce)... "

Which book, people, is a landmark in British literature only slightly less important than is the King James version of the Holy Bible, or the Works of Shakespeare... Great language, in the service of great ends: now that's hard to beat.

Alan

Memphis Mike
04-15-2004, 05:47 PM
Joe, do what works for you and forget about the rest. The important thing is your own personal relationship with your God.

Sam F
04-15-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:

Yes, I think I have to agree, we do have a bit of a problem at the moment, there. But, compared to really earth-shattering stuff like filioque, it is not a terminal issue. We can probably paper over the cracks; Bishop Akinola has said he was "appalled" that Episcopal leaders ignored "the heartfelt plea of the communion" not to go through with the consecration. He said Robinson's elevation demonstrates that parts of the Episcopal Church "consider that their cultural-based agenda is of far greater importance than obedience to the word of God."

Considering Akinola’s position on the front line with Islam and that people are joining his church in what amounts to a flood while people are steadily leaving western Anglican’s “cultural based” faith, he’d be crazy to abandon this stand. No, I don’t think this one’s going to get finessed away.


Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
[b]
… it is an issue on the level of "should the clergy be married" in your Communion, to which the answer appears to be "No, unless they have recently joined us from the Anglican communion, in which case it does not matter!" Actually celibate clergy is a discipline of the Latin Rite not necessarily of other rites (Maronite etc.) in communion with Rome. Priestly celibacy has many practical benefits and is unlikely to be given up, but its practice isn’t universal. That’s why it’s perfectly OK to bring married Anglican priests into the fold.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-15-2004, 06:08 PM
I doubt that even a single hypocrite ever joined the Hells’ Angels. You'd be wrong again Sam. ;)

QUOTE] In many instances a bad first impression can be fiendishly subtle and difficult to pin down. It may be a matter of accent or mannerism that is quite unconscious in the person exhibiting it.

[/QUOTE]

This may be appropriate or expected behaviour in an exclusive country club that practices prejudicial behaviour on an ongoing basis, but what possible moral basis does it have in a church?


Hummm... looks like a religious position if I ever saw one. No, it's a SPIRITUAL position. ;) Thank God it has little to do with religion tongue.gif


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Conrad:

Sam, I don't know a single happy and well adjusted Catholic- .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so! You know me don’t you?
Like the man said............. ;)

[ 04-15-2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Nicholas Carey
04-15-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
To quote Andrew:

"There is a subset of the medium high group, which I personally favour, which likes the 1662 Prayer Book, (but such churches are sadly scarce)... "

Which book, people, is a landmark in British literature only slightly less important than is the King James version of the Holy Bible, or the Works of Shakespeare... Great language, in the service of great ends: now that's hard to beat.

AlanAvailable online, courtesy of a [very dedicated] person here in Seattle, at http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/index.html

B_B
04-15-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
I love this guy I have a renewed sprit for the church - his church.Nah, dude, the reason you feel at home is that for the first time you have a place of worship which is YOUR church.

Leon m
04-15-2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
[Why not make up your own religion as several here have/are doing? Now that really saves all sorts of doctrinal difficulties!

Why not, the Christians did it when they ripped
off the story of Mythras ...You know the Pagan
god that predated Christ. Funny how that story
is identicle to the story of Christ in oh so
many details . The last supper ,the crusifiction,
the resurection,salvation ,the afterlife....
If you think those were original Christian
ideas...Better read up on some Pagan history. ;)

Sam F
04-16-2004, 09:20 AM
I’ve tried to clean up the attributions… really Peter that was a mess. You can do better.


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I doubt that even a single hypocrite ever joined the Hells’ Angels. You'd be wrong again Sam. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I’m sure there have been and are police undercover agents who have infiltrated the Hell’s Angels but that hardly counts as hypocrisy. Please explain how a hypocrite would be attracted to such an organization and how he would function in it. Would it work like this?: “I cringe at the thought of violence and criminality but for social reasons I have joined the Hell's Angels. I don’t believe in beating people up but to fit in I do so. I just go through the motions… take that! and this! and how about a kick? Oooof! But my heart isn’t in it – really." :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In many instances a bad first impression can be fiendishly subtle and difficult to pin down. It may be a matter of accent or mannerism that is quite unconscious in the person exhibiting it.
This may be appropriate or expected behaviour in an exclusive country club that practices prejudicial behaviour on an ongoing basis, but what possible moral basis does it have in a church? </font>[/QUOTE]You missed the distinction I was making – too bad since it was my entire point. Which is… what do you expect from a church? A social experience or do you want to worship God? If you want sociability you must fit in with the mores of the group. Failure to do so will result in rejection. Period.
If on the other hand you want to worship God then the social aspect becomes less important and whether one receives social affirmation more or less irrelevant. Sure it’s nice to have but it is not the raison d’etre behind going to church. If one wanted only social interaction, a bowling league would serve better.

That was explicit in these previous statements:

Here we leave the theological and shift to the social.”
And
“You’ve got two things working more or less at cross purposes here. If –and I agree with you – the function of a church is to worship God then perhaps the concern about the social aspect should become a secondary consideration. I think some of the effects you observe are results of emphasizing the social aspect of church going.This was further emphasized by the quote from Rev. Brian T. McSweeney:


“Christianity is not a club one joins; it is a seriously challenging and transforming way of life. Those who make little of that do Him a great disservice.I added the italics this time. Do you get it now?


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Hummm... looks like a religious position if I ever saw one. No, it's a SPIRITUAL position. ;) Thank God it has little to do with religion tongue.gif
</font>[/QUOTE]SPIRITUAL
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial. 2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul. 3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific. 4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred. 5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Oh please Peter, do try to use words correctly. Surely you aren’t trying to do a Humpty Dumpty impersonation are you?

“`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'” :D

http://www.sundials.org/about/humptyg.gif

Edited to add Sir John Tenniel's illustration - Couldn't resist! ;)

[ 04-16-2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
I’ve tried to clean up the attributions… really Peter that was a mess. You can do better.
.....
Oh please Peter, do try to use words correctly. Surely you aren’t trying to do a Humpty Dumpty impersonation are you?

“`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'” :D :D :D SAM THIS IS YOUR FIRST WARNING
IF YOU CONTINUE TO ACT SMUG I WILL EDIT YOU OUT OF MY THREAD.. YA FOLLA

You can continue to argue your side but in the spirit of this thread please remain Christian in your tone. Smugness is not a virtue. Besides it makes you look a bit like an a$$, and I think you are above that :D

My thread my rules :D

Keith Wilson
04-16-2004, 09:48 AM
Can some of you good people who understand these things explain why "filioque" is important? After a little research, it seems (to an outsider) like one of those tiny nitpicking doctrinal disputes that I thought would have been obsolete by about the 6th century. :confused: OTOH, to a Unitarian . . . Well, at least they're not fighting about it with guns.

Off on a tangent again . . . . smile.gif

Sam F
04-16-2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):

SAM THIS IS YOUR FIRST WARNING
IF YOU CONTINUE TO ACT SMUG I WILL EDIT YOU OUT OF MY THREAD.. YA FOLLA

You can continue to argue your side but in the spirit of this thread please remain Christian in your tone. Smugness is not a virtue. Besides it makes you look a bit like an a$$, and I think you are above that :D

My thread my rules :D Well you know Peter needs to be kept on a tight leash or he runs wild… voice of experience you know. :D :D

“In the spirit of this thread"? I must say I just love what you’ve done with your double standard! ;)
Rude and dogmatic statements like: “You'd be wrong again Sam.” from Peter and "I didn't want Tess to be saddled with that" from you are perfectly OK but I can’t reply with out being ”smug.”

So edit away Joe! But I must ask, is that typical of your faith’s tolerance and welcoming acceptance of differing views and is the "My thread my rules", “Christian in tone”?

Sam F
04-16-2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Can some of you good people who understand these things explain why "filioque" is important? Keith, I saw your post with the link to filioque yesterday but now it's gone. Did the website have a hiccup?

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 10:15 AM
Dude - just accept the fact OVER and OVER and OVER you are SMUG, man

I'm trying to be cool with you but you NEVER accept any fault, allways passing the blame on the OTHER guys. Just take a moment and think about it WHY would I be saying this if there was NO basis in it.

DUDE face the facts your SMUG. Try to over come it a bit. Trust me your arguments are sound you have YOUR point of veiw and you can get your point across without the Smugness.

Just stop arguing over it. Its not a flattering side to you and I have come to apreciate your perspective and ability to present your case. Just loose the Smugness and you will sound better.

Now why do I have this sinking feeling that everything I just typed will end up in a Sam F quote and he will never just say ya know what Joe ya got a point there Ill try to be less smug. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: Your faith seems to have no tolerance for ANYTHING other than what you say.

[ 04-16-2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Ian McColgin
04-16-2004, 10:32 AM
Joe, one reason for editing Sam's stuff might be that he is converting people away from the Roman Catholic church. Personlly, I'd let him carry out the task. The readers here are pretty smart and the voice of reason does not have the have the temporally last word.

Jack Heinlen
04-16-2004, 10:33 AM
I've not read this thread in detail(the head game, the theological certainty, bore me), but it seems to me the only problem Jesus' accolytes have is the 'exclusivity clause'.

I'm coming to believe that Jesus really was special, not just another leader and firebrand of that time. But what he exhorts us to is not exclusivity. Rather, anyone can move mountains.

[ 04-16-2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

Keith Wilson
04-16-2004, 11:02 AM
Keith, I saw your post with the link to filioque yesterday but now it's gone. Did the website have a hiccup? Sam, I deleted it because I found a bunch of other sites with different perspectives (Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Ukranian Orthodox, etc.) and I started to get confused. I didn't want to leave the link to only one side of what may be a serious controversy, and I didn't have time to look into it further.

Ian or Andrew or somebody has mentioned it a couple of times, and I just wondered what it was all about.

And Joe is being characteristically blunt, but he has a point. We've discussed this before, however.

[ 04-16-2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Sam F
04-16-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Dude - just accept the fact OVER and OVER and OVER you are SMUG, man
Joe it is not that I think I’m faultless… that’s got to be one of the funniest things I’ve read in ages… I will admit to getting a bit testy when attacked by someone who has misunderstood or perhaps not even read what he’s in a tizzy about.
But in these discussions I habitually refer to facts behind my positions and can document them. If I can’t support a position I keep my fingers off the keyboard. (What a concept!) In fact I’ll go further and say that in almost all cases if I can’t support a position I don’t have it at all. This amounts to an entirely different approach from the usual quarrelsome stuff found here. Hopefully I’ve added some useful content here and there but there’s no traction to be had about personal failings in that approach, nor should there be. That’s precisely why I take the approach I do – to keep as much personality out of it as possible.

Perhaps understandably, when faced with facts and historical documentation, the usual response has been to personalize the discussion and make it about me (or someone else) as a person rather than try to refute what ever point was being made. It’s a handy tactic – in a quarrel – but of no use whatsoever in a real argument (in the sense of the word: “A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood”). That’s the crux of the matter. You want to quarrel and I want to argue… and never the twain shall meet.

And Joe, the word you want is “stubborn’ or even “pig headed” :eek: , not “smug”.
Here’s what SMUG means: ADJECTIVE:
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent
Synonyms:
complacent, conceited, egoistic, egotistical, hoity-toity, holier-than-thou, hot stuff, hotshot, priggish, self-contented, self-righteous, self-satisfied, snobbish, stuck up, stuffy, superior, vainglorious
Concept:
personality quality[/QB][/QUOTE]

I suspect that there is some projection going on in this mischaracterization
You know (or should know) that projection comes from within not from the characteristics of the person who acts as a screen. This (or any) forum which consists of text only is a fertile breeding ground for what I call the blank screen effect. No one can see the twinkle in the eye when a mischievous barb gets posted or hear the guffaws at a counter response when it lands home even when at the expense of the poster. Thus it is fairly common for a writing style to be misinterpreted on the basis of the reader's own preconceptions and prejudices. What you view as smug is just in this case for the most part someone else’s warped sense of humor.

For further clarification please examine some of the synonyms for Smug:
Complacent: “Contented to a fault; self-satisfied and unconcerned.” Need I remind you that someone who is “contented to a fault” typically cannot be depended upon to lift a finger to support an argument? He’s much more likely to indolently proclaim: “I still do not agree.”
Conceited: ...”Holding or characterized by an unduly high opinion of oneself; vain.”
High school dropouts are typically conceited especially those from Mississippi which as everyone knows is one of America’s most fashionable locales. Right?
Egoistic: “One devoted to one's own interests and advancement”. In the advancement of one’s own interests is it usual to take unpopular positions? Not likely.
Vainglorious: “Characterized by or exhibiting excessive vanity; boastful.”
That’s the sort of thing that describes someone who talks like this: “I got the stones to do whatever it takes”… which I never do.
I could go on but I think the point is clear.

Sam F
04-16-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

And Joe is being characteristically blunt, but he has a point. We've discussed this before, however.Well you aren't the only one confused on that issue and I don't blame you for dropping the link. ;)

The term I'd have used is obtuse. :D
And the double standard remains in force in this thread as in several others. If people persist in playing hardball they shouldn't whine if they get thumped on a rebound. It's most unbecoming... You'd think someone would finally figure that out.
Sorry, but this Christian isn't inclined to be a doormat.

Keith Wilson
04-16-2004, 11:50 AM
Sam what I think strikes some people as "smug" (and I agree that "pig-headed" is a much better description ;) ;) ) is that when you present an argument, generally with carefully-researched supporting evidence, you sometimes add a considerable amount of editorial commentary telling the other person that he or she is wrong, or ignorant, or confused. This is sometimes true, but almost never helpful. People will be more likely to listen respectfully to what you say if you wouldn't tell them they're ignorant or confused but just do your bit to change that state. You'll have a much better chance of changing people's minds if you don't tell them they're wrong, but just present arguments and evidence that may convince them. I would never want you to be a doormat; that wouldn't be interesting at all.

You're right that the internet is a difficult medium that way; the non-verbal clues that show one's intent or emotions are absent (smilies are a very poor substitute), and it's easy to come across much more harshly than one intends. An example: Someone you know slightly comes up to you in a bar, whacks you on the shoulder, and says "What the hell are you doing here, you old bastard?" One's reaction will be completely different if he's grinning broadly and is obviously glad to see you, than if he looks very angry. Here we only have the words. I try, not always sucessfully by any means, to keep my language much more moderate than in normal conversation.

Nice pun on obtuse, BTW.

[ 04-16-2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Leon m
04-16-2004, 11:54 AM
What is sad ,is that good religious descussion
gets derailed into threads about Sam's behavior.

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Leon m:
What is sad ,is that good religious descussion
gets derailed into threads about Sam's behavior.Maybe if he wouldnt be so Smug ( yup , Smug ) we wouldn't have to.

SMUG:
ADJECTIVE:
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent
Synonyms:

complacent, conceited, egoistic, egotistical, hoity-toity, holier-than-thou, hot stuff, hotshot, priggish, self-contented, self-righteous, self-satisfied, snobbish, stuck up, stuffy, superior, vainglorious

Concept:
personality quality

Yup Smug sounds about perfect to me. We disagree again.

And did I tell you

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):

Now why do I have this sinking feeling that everything I just typed will end up in a Sam F quote and he will never just say ya know what Joe ya got a point there Ill try to be less smug. :rolleyes:
.I wish I could have bet money on that one ;)

Leon m
04-16-2004, 01:02 PM
The bottom line here is,every body wants to know
the answers behind the "big mystery".The story
has been told by many different culters through
out the ages, using different mythology.There
is a truth that lies in the souls' of all men/women.
Find the thing that speaks to that truth...and to
heck with what others think.

[ 04-16-2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

Sam F
04-16-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):


Yup Smug sounds about perfect to me. We disagree again.
Didn't you recognize where those brief quotes I used as examples of smugness came from Joe?
The Projection hypothesis is looking more likely all the time. :(
But I will acknowledge Pig Headed if you prefer to use that insult. I'm most certainly guilty of that. :D

[ 04-16-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

Sam F
04-16-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Leon m:

Why not, the Christians did it when they ripped
off the story of Mythras ...You know the Pagan
god that predated Christ. Funny how that story
is identicle to the story of Christ in oh so
many details . The last supper ,the crusifiction,
the resurection,salvation ,the afterlife....
If you think those were original Christian
ideas...Better read up on some Pagan history. ;) Rest assured Leon, I've read more Pagan history than anyone has any conceivable need of… And sorry but you and I have already been there and done that. Did you forget your own Peter Cotontail thread? (http://media5.hypernet.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=009331&p=)

imported_Conrad
04-16-2004, 01:43 PM
I like "pig-headed"- you can use it on me too Joe, if it seems appropriate! :D

Leon m
04-16-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
Originally posted by Sam F:
The religion of Mithras has some parallels but… let’s just say that slaughtering bulls has never played much of a part in Christianity.

[/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes but the last supper and the resurrection
wich belonged to the religion of Mithras long
before Christ have played a LARGE part in
Christianity .

Yep I remember...It was fun lets do it again
some time :D

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 01:50 PM
Yea, Yea, Yea Sam I got your psycobable the first time :rolleyes: I'm not nearly as characteristically blunt in my thinking as I am in my writing. The Projection hypothesis :rolleyes: is yet another lame attempt to Skirt the issue and not accept ANY blame for your Smugness.

I'm about done with this and Keith has presented the argument better than me as usual anyway (reread it ) . But trust me Sam, you may think your not Smug but a LOT of people agree with me and I don't see anyone agreeing with you. Its one of those things where if it looks like a duck moments.

Have at it I'm done your far too smug for me to continue this.

Leon m
04-16-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
[QUOTE]Did you forget your own Peter Cotontail thread? (http://media5.hypernet.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=009331&p=)Sam

I just reread that thread...You were pretty civil
...What happened ? Trouble at home,the office,the
Catholic church dieing out :confused:

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 02:15 PM
Donn, do you agree with Sam or just fundamentally disagree with me ? :D ;)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 02:17 PM
This does get a little tiresome, but here we go.


I’m sure there have been and are police undercover agents who have infiltrated the Hell’s Angels but that hardly counts as hypocrisy. Please explain how a hypocrite would be attracted to such an organization and how he would function in it. Would it work like this?: “I cringe at the thought of violence and criminality but for social reasons I have joined the Hell's Angels. I don’t believe in beating people up but to fit in I do so. I just go through the motions… take that! and this! and how about a kick? Oooof! But my heart isn’t in it – really."

Having had direct experience with organized bike groups, I can tell that many of the members don't see their behaviour as criminal or unfair. They believe their lifestyle to be a just one, and a lot of the time blame other people for the bike gangs violent reactions to certain issues. Your imagined scenario is somewhat correct at times.


If you want sociability you must fit in with the mores of the group. Failure to do so will result in rejection. Period.
I think someone's failure to fit in might result in a difficulty to practice the original intention of the visit. What do you think? Perhaps the various "rules" of the catholic church have driven people away from going to church. Could it be?


SPIRITUAL
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial. 2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul. 3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific. 4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred. 5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Thank you for the refresher on the word Sam. Your refresher would be that a word may be used to reflect one or all of the meanings outlined. In my case I did not intend it to reflect religion, and made that fairly clear to most readers.

imported_Conrad
04-16-2004, 02:18 PM
I agree with Sam- and every once in a Blue Moon with,....um,,,,, yeah,...... Joe.

Just curious, Joe- do you find Camcleat smug, or is it only a conservative disease?

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 02:26 PM
I'm not familiar with a forum member by the name of Camcleat :confused: But I would not care what political persuasion a formite was, I call them the way I see them. And yea like in real life people generally overlook bad qualities in people they like.

[ 04-16-2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 02:29 PM
Well that post was hard to predict. :D (Donn's)

Joe, I think the questions you raise are good ones, and I also, from what I know of you, will find the best possible way to present these issues to Tess.

Smugness comes from the tragic delusion that your point of view is the right one, to the exclusion of most others. I find myself knowing less and less for sure as I grow older. For me, it's a sign of intellectual maturity. I don't necessarily enjoy not being ridgid, but this world needs less ridgidity, and more compromise. Only my opinion of course, but Joe and I see eye to eye on a number of issues ;)

[ 04-16-2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 02:32 PM
Thanks Pete - And I like you too ;)

Sam F
04-16-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

People will be more likely to listen respectfully to what you say if you wouldn't tell them they're ignorant or confused but just do your bit to change that state. You'll have a much petter chance of changing people's minds if you don't tell them they're wrong, but just present arguments and evidence that may convince them.
Let me relate an example from Stephen Jay Gould (of all people!)
Some years ago I heard him speak at Bridgewater College in western VA. The topic was quite naturally Evolution. He spoke eloquently on the subject as one would expect. Afterwards there was a question and answer period and just as naturally for a Brethren affiliated college in a religiously conservative area, there were some challenging questions – mostly from Fundamentalists (the real sort). One fellow stood up to ask a question and before he finished Gould lit into him with a detailed refutation of the Fundamentalist position. The questioner interrupted Gould and said: “Wait a minute! How do you know I’m a Fundamentalist? I haven’t even finished my question!” Gould said: “Of course you’re a Fundamentalist. No one else would wear a suit and tie to a meeting like this.” The man sheepishly acknowledged that was correct. Gould went on to finish his critique and then took the next question.
The questioner is without a doubt today still a fundamentalist, but Gould’s response was eye opening… when you’ve been at something long enough you get to know all the signs of a particular position – the buzz words, turns of phrase and the symbols that invariably characterize an ironclad viewpoint. In a case like this forum with a more limited pool of suspects the certainty of what a particular position is becomes very nearly a sure thing.

As you and I have discussed before, the chance of convincing the average person approaches zero. We might argue about whether it’s 1% or 3% but the practical chance is still very small.
I have demonstrated in this thread an example from one year ago where a participant not only didn’t have his views changed but evidently didn’t even remember the discussion – a sure sign of either inattention or an invincible point of view. So perhaps we can dispense with the assumption that I’d view changing someone’s mind as an achievable goal. I don’t.

My personal opinion is that people, myself included, are sheep (and excellent biblical image!) and they will go along with the herd unless they suffer a crisis of some kind – call it a trauma if you like - that forces them to change. It is not my place to administer a trauma nor would I if I could, but there’s no harm in a wee sting of reality now and then. If Joe for instance accuses me of smugness despite the fact that he himself exhibits that trait to a remarkable degree, it is no very great disaster to make him at least dimly aware of that possibility.

One thing you’ve consistently not addressed is the double standard I’ve observed as prevalent in threads of this kind. Perhaps you are justified in holding me to a higher standard than some of the participants here – I frankly don’t see how I have failed to achieve that standard – It's not the least bit difficult to do.

That leaves the fact that sometimes my comments are an affront to someone’s sensibilities. That’s true enough but here’s where the double standard comes in again… Can you not see that the posts that I reply to are an affront to mine? That occasionally they are deeply insulting? It should therefore come as no surprise that when treated with civility I can be as mild as a lamb. But as I said, if people want to play hard ball they shouldn’t complain if they get thumped from time to time. If they don’t want to have that experience then perhaps they should be a little less biased and propagandistic in their posts. And I’d take your protestations a bit more seriously if they were more even handed. But never mind I may even understand why you can’t do so…

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 03:00 PM
My personal opinion is that people, myself included, are sheep (and excellent biblical image!) and they will go along with the herd unless they suffer a crisis of some kind – call it a trauma if you like - that forces them to change. It is not my place to administer a trauma nor would I if I could, but there’s no harm in a wee sting of reality now and then Whose reality Sam? Yours? Mine? or the real deal...I keep searching for the real truth, which is not self evident despite the many people out there who seem convinced they have found it. ;)

What trauma have you suffered? Will you testify?

Sam F
04-16-2004, 03:19 PM
First thanks for the orderly attributions. It helps a lot!


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
This does get a little tiresome, but here we go.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ...Would it work like this?: “I cringe at the thought of violence and criminality but for social reasons I have joined the Hell's Angels. I don’t believe in beating people up but to fit in I do so. I just go through the motions… take that! and this! and how about a kick? Oooof! But my heart isn’t in it – really."

Having had direct experience with organized bike groups, I can tell that many of the members don't see their behaviour as criminal or unfair. They believe their lifestyle to be a just one, and a lot of the time blame other people for the bike gangs violent reactions to certain issues. Your imagined scenario is somewhat correct at times. </font>[/QUOTE]Don’t they have the Hell’s Angels in Canada? If not you’re lucky!
AFAIK it has been a criminal organization from its beginning.

It's not the CBC but close (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3292405.stm)

I rode motorcycles for years myself and even repaired them professionally for a while.
Want to discuss the relative merits of the lovely old Fontana ventilated drum brakes vs. double disks?
Hint: The secret is in the un-sprung to sprung weight ratio. :D

So it should be obvious that I never thought nor intended to say that all motorcyclists or their organizations are criminal! But come to think of it how many motorcyclists would be hypocritical about their love of biking: “Like I really hate to ride... but I do so anyway.” Have you ever met a motorcyclist who didn’t like to ride? I mean… I guess it’s possible but seriously nuts! :confused:


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If you want sociability you must fit in with the mores of the group. Failure to do so will result in rejection. Period.
I think someone's failure to fit in might result in a difficulty to practice the original intention of the visit. What do you think? Perhaps the various "rules" of the catholic church have driven people away from going to church. Could it be? </font>[/QUOTE]It sure could be! If a Satanist wandered into a Catholic Church he should feel decidedly unwelcome in a religious not just a social sense. If a faith – any faith - means anything at all it must alienate at least some people by its very nature. Just as a motorcycle club just might make a nervous Nellie a bit more – well – nervous.


SPIRITUALUh… to a former atheist I can’t imagine Spirituality having nothing to do with religion.
What sort of spirits were you talking about? Dryads?

[ 04-16-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

Sam F
04-16-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Whose reality Sam? Yours? Mine? or the real deal...I keep searching for the real truth, which is not self evident despite the many people out there who seem convinced they have found it. ;)

What trauma have you suffered? Will you testify?Come now Peter some aspects of reality are eminently self-evident. You know better than to step off a cliff as well as I do.

And have I suffered a trauma or two? You bet I have! Will I tell you about it? Absolutely not!

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
I agree with Sam. :D We usualy Don't agree :D
http://www.mtcnet.net/~bierly/blscare.jpg

http://www.mtcnet.net/~bierly/blidiot.htm

http://www.mtcnet.net/~bierly/popgrl2.jpg :D :D :D : D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 04:00 PM
So it should be obvious that I never thought nor intended to say that all motorcyclists or their organizations are criminal Actually, before the Angels in Ontario there were the Satan's Choice, and then the Outlaws were the big rival of the Angels. They shot it out about 14 years ago. The Angels won. I was referring to bike gangs with colors etc. Anyway, lots of hypocrites in the Angels too I'm sure.


Come now Peter some aspects of reality are eminently self-evident. I'm not going to get in a long drawn out discussion about perceptions of reality, but I don't agree with you on this one either. Falling on the cliff is a consequence of a choice. Whether you believe the consequence is your perception of reality. Anyway....zzzz


If a Satanist wandered into a Catholic Church he should feel decidedly unwelcome in a religious not just a social sense. I was thinking more of a catholic who practiced birth control that walked into a catholic church. ;) Or a woman who wanted to be a priest. Or a couple who practiced premarital sex. Or Or Or


Uh… to a former atheist I can’t imagine Spirituality having nothing to do with religion
OHHHHHHHH a born again... NOW I understand :D

Sam F
04-16-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

Anyway, lots of hypocrites in the Angels too I'm sure. Please explain. Hypocrisy is “1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness.”
How does one be a false Hell’s Angel? By selling narcotics but believing it’s wrong?
I’ve asked how such a thing could be possible and still don’t understand it.
I mean evil certainly has its bad qualities but surely hypocrisy isn’t one of them! Is it?
Hypothetical scenarios, no matter how improbable, are OK.


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If a Satanist wandered into a Catholic Church he should feel decidedly unwelcome in a religious not just a social sense. I was thinking more of a catholic who practiced birth control that walked into a catholic church. ;) Or a woman who wanted to be a priest. Or a couple who practiced premarital sex. Or Or Or</font>[/QUOTE]Or or or a murderer or a thief or a drug dealer (No! Not a pharmacist!), or a wife beater, or.... What’s your point? That unrepentant sinners don’t feel welcome in church? That maybe the Church should loosen its principles and allow thieves access to the collection basket? Or should the Church make murderers feel welcome despite its doctrine against such actions? Didn’t we already see what happened when the Church was too lax in its handling of sinners within? Do we really have to make matters worse? And … wouldn’t that be professing a belief or virtue but not in fact holding it; in other words being hypocritical? Is that what you want? I’m really at a loss to explain what you’re getting at here.


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uh… to a former atheist I can’t imagine Spirituality having nothing to do with religion
OHHHHHHHH a born again... NOW I understand :D
</font>[/QUOTE]A nice dodge Peter but you haven’t explained what you meant by Spiritual in a non-religious sense. Help me out here! I still don't understand. :confused:

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 05:01 PM
That maybe the Church should loosen its principles and allow thieves access to the collection basket? Or should the Church make murderers feel welcome despite its doctrine against such actions? Didn’t we already see what happened when the Church was too lax in its handling of sinners within? I was only talking about Women priests and birth control, but perhaps it's all the same language to the Catholic church. :D

As to the hypocrisy of the bikers, I can testify to it first hand. People who had all the fine family values for their kids, but didn't apply that value to other people children or families. I know you don't understand it Sam, but that possibility had already occured to me. ;)

cs
04-16-2004, 05:07 PM
Why does religion resort to war? Take for example the title of this thread "...The battle has begun."

A church is supposed to be full of people who "turn the other check." Full of folks how leave judgement up to the Lord and to those who "do unto others."

The idea of fighting each other (even be it with words) to make them beleive the way you do smells of hypocrosy.

Chad

Sam F
04-16-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That maybe the Church should loosen its principles and allow thieves access to the collection basket? Or should the Church make murderers feel welcome despite its doctrine against such actions? Didn’t we already see what happened when the Church was too lax in its handling of sinners within? I was only talking about Women priests and birth control, but perhaps it's all the same language to the Catholic church. :D </font>[/QUOTE]And premarital sex… did you forget that? and I happen to remember a few other things connected with sex that you approve of as well. So which of those will you include in your scenario?
FWIW wanting to be a priest is no sin. It may be crazy but not a sin.


Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
As to the hypocrisy of the bikers, I can testify to it first hand. People who had all the fine family values for their kids, but didn't apply that value to other people children or families. I know you don't understand it Sam, but that possibility had already occured to me. ;)
Peter, I specifically named the Hell’s Angels. You could a well use the Mafia as an example. How can they be hypocritical?

Keith Wilson
04-16-2004, 05:25 PM
As you and I have discussed before, the chance of convincing the average person approaches zero. And I disagreed with you then as well, Sam. A person’s thoughts and beliefs are very complex things. I seriously doubt I will “convince” anyone, in the sense of completely reversing position on an issue – Donn won’t vote for Kerry, you won’t join the Unitarian church, Meerkat won’t think the invasion of Iraq might have been a good thing. However, I do think I can sometimes influence people’s ideas through respectful discussion, perhaps convince then to consider other facts or points of view, or at least have them understand better why I think the way I do. Perhaps I’m too optimistic, but on this point I prefer to err in that direction.

I may be trying to hold you to a higher standard than some. If so, take it as a compliment.

Leon m
04-16-2004, 06:00 PM
I agree with SpongeBob Squarepants.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 06:12 PM
And premarital sex… did you forget that? and I happen to remember a few other things connected with sex that you approve of as well. So which of those will you include in your scenario?
FWIW wanting to be a priest is no sin. It may be crazy but not a sin.
Why is the idea of a woman wanting to be a priest crazy?

Yes I do approve of premarital sex.As for abortion, and a host of other sexual practices that people choose to engage in, even if I don't agree with it myself, I beleive in the right to choose.

I know the Catholic church has never been big on rights ;)

Spiritual beliefs? Something similiar to a philosophy without the dogma of organized christianity. Lacota's with a Christ perhaps. smile.gif

[ 04-16-2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-16-2004, 06:14 PM
Peter, I specifically named the Hell’s Angels I suppose since I have intimate knowledge of another similiar organized crime based bike gang that it probably doesn't count. :rolleyes:

One of the problems with you Sam, is that you speak in broad generalizations, and then want specifics from someone else. I also find you smug, but wanting in real substance in your arguments. Oh well, it's your life. smile.gif

Sam F
04-17-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Peter, I specifically named the Hell’s Angels One of the problems with you Sam, is that you speak in broad generalizations, and then want specifics from someone else.</font>[/QUOTE]Peter in what way is naming a specific organization (i.e. the Hell's Angels) a "broad generalization"?
I continually try to tie things to concrete examples while you slip off in to airy fairy land and then criticize me for generalizing? You’ve pitched camp in a swamp surrounded by hills and think it defensible! :D :D

Sam F
04-17-2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

I may be trying to hold you to a higher standard than some. If so, take it as a compliment.No thanks. I'll decline the compliment. There is a term for people who keep double moral books. You don't have to tell me what it is... just search your soul and tell yourself. :(

stan v
04-17-2004, 09:13 AM
I agree with Sam.

True Love
04-17-2004, 09:52 AM
I'm with Sam, too. Why has this become a Catholic bashing thread? And when it comes to arrogance and smugness, Joe, you have always been first in line -- and bragged about it.

Leon m
04-17-2004, 10:04 AM
Oh yeah...Oh yeah...Well Joe can beat Sam up...
so there! tongue.gif

Osborne Russel
04-17-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
You missed the distinction I was making – too bad since it was my entire point. Which is… what do you expect from a church? A social experience or do you want to worship God? If you want sociability you must fit in with the mores of the group. Failure to do so will result in rejection. Period.
Yes, but doesn't this mean that going to church at all, even the best of them, as opposed to some solitary form of worship, you are placing yourself in danger of having your spirituality at least diluted, or colored, if not captured outright, by the fear of this rejection?

Osborne Russel
04-17-2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:


Being happy and well-adjusted to the world is not really something Christians should aspire to, is it?


The short answer is yes, but I'd rather make it a new thread, if you're interested.

Sam F
04-17-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by cs:
Why does religion resort to war?
The idea of fighting each other (even be it with words) to make them beleive the way you do smells of hypocrosy.
ChadChad you've hit on a profound question. The answer might take a lifetime to work out but consider a moral dilemma:
Say for the sake of argument that you are a sincere believing Christian and you've studied Christ's teachings extensively - as you should. You also realize that those teachings aren’t simple in either their implications or application.
One day while walking down the street you see a person being mugged. So following Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan you go to his assistance but the mugger hits you in the face. Do you turn the other cheek or fight? If you fight – why?
The answer might point the way to an explanation of why Christians don't always turn the other cheek and why it is an oversimplification to assume that being Christian only means being a pacifist. Christianity also means loving your enemy and love, if viewed realistically, can be a fearsome thing.

Sam F
04-17-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
Originally posted by Sam F:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Being happy and well-adjusted to the world is not really something Christians should aspire to, is it?


The short answer is yes, but I'd rather make it a new thread, if you're interested.</font>[/QUOTE]The answer is no. A thousand times NO! If you are happy with this world you've missed the point and missed the boat. But by all means start your own thread...

I think even Conrad might agree with that. ;)

Joe (SoCal)
04-17-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Conrad:
I agree with Sam- Just curious, Joe- do you find Camcleat smug, or is it only a conservative disease?
Originally posted by Donn:
I agree with Sam. :D
Originally posted by stan v:
I agree with Sam.
Originally posted by True Love:
I'm with Sam, too. Why has this become a Catholic bashing thread? And when it comes to arrogance and smugness, Joe, you have always been first in line -- and bragged about it.Ya know Conrad, you were correct it obviously IS only a conservative disease. Let me be the first to humbly admit you were rite and I was wrong. ;)

Joe (SoCal)
04-17-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Leon m:
Oh yeah...Oh yeah...Well Joe can beat Sam up...
so there! tongue.gif Hmmm I would propose a friendly sparing match with wager proceeds going to St. Mary's :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-17-2004, 12:12 PM
Peter in what way is naming a specific organization (i.e. the Hell's Angels) a "broad generalization"?
I named a virtually identical bike gang with similiar philosphies, who engage in the same criminal activities as the Angels. In fact, the same people who were Outlaws are now Angels. Based on the definitions you posted above, there are hypocrites in this organization. Thank you for your interest.

The fact that True and Stan agree with you relieves me greatly. As I've said before, I always examine other peoples points of view fairly carefully. With these two people endorsing you, I feel quite confident about my position. smile.gif

[ 04-17-2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

cs
04-17-2004, 03:28 PM
Sam, your right nothing is that simple. What I'm refering to though is the act of violance to force others to beleive what you do. An extreme example would be the crusades. Another example would be the terrosist that attack us. They use a peace seeking religion as an excuse to kill inocents.

It disturbs me that people use their religion as an excuse to hurt others.

Chad

Sam F
04-17-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by cs:
An extreme example would be the crusades...
"When people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts. I do not say it in mere hostility to the religion of Mahomet; I am fully conscious of many values and virtues in it; but certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded." G.K. Chesterton

Osborne Russel
04-19-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
If you are happy with this world you've missed the point and missed the boat. I think even Conrad might agree with that. ;) What point, what boat?

Sam F
04-19-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
If you are happy with this world you've missed the point and missed the boat. I think even Conrad might agree with that. ;) What point, what boat?</font>[/QUOTE]Christ’s kingdom is, by his own testimony, not of this world. Not realizing that will make you as the saying goes, miss the boat… not that there isn’t another nautical option available. There’s always the short ride on Charon’s ferry. Just make sure to bring a coin to pay your fare.

Keith Wilson
04-19-2004, 10:18 AM
There is a term for people who keep double moral books. You don't have to tell me what it is... Sam, you misunderstand. Because I don't have infinite time and energy to post on the WBF, and because I'd really rather discuss ideas than lecture people on their behavior, I try to only do that rarely, and when I think it might do some good.

[ 04-19-2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

Jack Heinlen
04-19-2004, 10:27 AM
"The Kingdom of God is spread upon the earth, but men do not see it."

Thomas (with, I might add, just as good provenance as any in common usage).

It's just possible, in my better moments, that opposition is reconcilable.

Sam F
04-19-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

Sam, you misunderstand. Perhaps so... I don't have unlimited time or memory either but the memory is good enough to know when the same characters are trying to beguile me (or themselves) - again. So when I reply in what may seem a (relatively) harsh manner it may because I've been over that same territory with that same suspect over and over and over... :rolleyes: It's something to keep in mind.

Jack Heinlen
04-19-2004, 10:55 AM
Maybe both you and Keith need to relax your heads a bit, and let the Christ enter through the sternums. I could be wrong, I'm wrong as soon as I open my eyes most days.

If it isn't a joyful thing, spreading a peace and understanding which helps people approach and love one another, then it isn't religion but idolatry.

Joe (SoCal)
04-19-2004, 11:07 AM
Went to church yesterday, nice time. Sam is still wrong even though he wants the last word :D

[ 04-19-2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Osborne Russel
04-19-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
If you are happy with this world you've missed the point and missed the boat. I think even Conrad might agree with that. ;) What point, what boat?</font>[/QUOTE]Christ’s kingdom is, by his own testimony, not of this world. Not realizing that will make you as the saying goes, miss the boat… </font>[/QUOTE]How does the superiority of the next world become a reason not to be happy with this one?

Sam F
04-20-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Osborne Russel:

How does the superiority of the next world become a reason not to be happy with this one?That's like saying a Lexus is better than love.

No matter how great the car, you still have to deal with the lunatics in traffic, pot holes, gasoline cost and other inevitable irritants of driving. The world is like that. Barring the fulfillment of utopian fantasy, the world will stay hopelessly flawed. (The historical track record of utopian fantasies is not one that would lead anyone toward exuberant optimism, so I'm not willing to bet much on next one to come down the pike.) As in the car example, one should still work for better traffic law enforcement (for the lunatics), better roads and better fuel economy just a Christians should work to bring the kingdom to fulfillment knowing that it can’t be done by human effort alone and the results will be necessarily less than perfect.
If you’re happy with this world you’re either not paying attention or have very very low standards.

Osborne Russel
04-20-2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
Barring the fulfillment of utopian fantasy, the world will stay hopelessly flawed. Well, if you mean the human "world", I agree; but to me "the world" also means the planet, nature, whatever you want to call it, the non-human part. Is that part flawed as well?

Sam F
04-20-2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
Well, if you mean the human "world", I agree; but to me "the world" also means the planet, nature, whatever you want to call it, the non-human part. Is that part flawed as well?That's what I mean; the human world. The "natural" world works pretty well in a strictly utilitarian sense so “flawed” isn’t really an appropriate term. But nature really is red in tooth and claw. Combined with the occasional earthquake, tornado and rare asteroid strike I wouldn't exactly call all of it fun.

PatCox
05-10-2004, 10:00 PM
Not everything in the world is beautiful and good, but appreciating and enjoying what is, is to me a form of worship. Taking the time to be mindful, to appreciate and enjoy, those great gifts that god bestows, gifts like a soft summer rain on the water or a rainbow or an autumn forest, ablaze with color or a newborn lamb staggering to its feet, taking the time to appreciate these gifts with full awareness that their beauty is a reflection of God's presence, is to me the highest form of worship. Its not a denial of the fact that the Kingdom is a higher and better place, its just an appreciation and thankfulness for the glimpses we get while we are here. Besides, he did say the kingdom is here now, everywhere, for those who can see it.

Meerkat
05-11-2004, 01:21 AM
Naturally, Sam, you can prove the existance of this next world and that it's not a fantasy created by Religion, Inc. to manipulate and control the credulous faithful?

The world is as flawed as one chooses to see it and one lives in the world one creates.

[ 05-11-2004, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

stan v
05-11-2004, 07:22 AM
I could live in a tin can: The world is as flawed as one chooses to see it and one lives in the world one creates.

We want no part of the world you've created....we know how flawed you think it is.

adampet
05-11-2004, 01:58 PM
With a Reggae beat..

"well they tell me of a pie up in the sky,
waiting for me when I die."
Jimmy Cliff

.. And of course

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!
Preacherman, don't tell me,
Heaven is under the earth.
I know you don't know
What life is really worth.
It's not all that glitters is gold;
'Alf the story has never been told:
So now you see the light, eh!
Stand up for your rights. Come on!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!
Most people think,
Great God will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights. Jah!
Get up, stand up! (Jah, Jah!)
Stand up for your rights! (Oh-hoo!)
Get up, stand up! (Get up, stand up!)
Don't give up the fight! (Life is your right!)
Get up, stand up! (So we can't give up the fight!)
Stand up for your rights! (Lord, Lord!)
Get up, stand up! (Keep on struggling on!)
Don't give up the fight! (Yeah!)
We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game -
Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, Lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (What you gonna do?),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (Yeah, yeah, yeah!)
So you better:
Get up, stand up! (In the morning! Git it up!)
Stand up for your rights! (Stand up for our rights!)
Get up, stand up!
Don't give up the fight! (Don't give it up, don't give it up!)
Get up, stand up! (Get up, stand up!)
Stand up for your rights! (Get up, stand up!)
Get up, stand up! ( ... )
Don't give up the fight! (Get up, stand up!)
Get up, stand up! ( ... )
Stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up!
Don't give up the fight! /fadeout

Bob Marley

I'm with them. This life is the one we have, let's make it the best we have.

For Keith,
I heard a good description of Unitarianism the other day, sorry I can't give it proper attribution.

" most religions try to put people into heaven, unitarians try to put heaven into people"

Meerkat
05-12-2004, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
We want no part of the world you've created....we know how flawed you think it is.The world is perfect stan and so are you: one of the world's perfect asses.

stan v
05-12-2004, 05:58 AM
Of course, on some matters you no doubt have more experience than I. I've been told that I do in fact, have the perfect a**. This from the ladies (female, ladies). That's not one of your turn on's? :eek:

Wild Dingo
05-12-2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
If you’re happy with this world you’re either not paying attention or have very very low standards.Sam mate! what an interesting statement... I mean happy with this world? Of course one can be happy with this world and have a) been paying attention and b) have high standards at least as high as your own my friend.

Being happy with this world we live in and on is to see beauty where others cant to enjoy what nature provides without seeing "progress" being able to see beauty goodness and yes death and cruelty abounding in the natural world is but a part of being happy with the world... being happy with this world is seeing people for who they are and sharing who you are with them to smile laugh touch and be with others to share a time with people is to be happy with this world... All that we are is wrapt within what we are humans animals living a set amount of time on this place we are beholding to all we come in contact with to share a part of ourselves and to share it willingly... being happy with this world is to acknowledge and accept that there is good and bad evil and kindness in this world

Sure theres meatheads pinheads and cruelty everywhere theres swindlers crooks and integrity defunct souls within the world just as there is goodness and kindness... what is it the chinese say? Ying and Yang everything has both good and bad in them nature and man it is up to us to recognize that and accept that... when we do accept that we can then see that indeed the world is a very fine place to live

Religion is a funny thing really... that man seems unable to accept that what is one mans interpretation of events stories poems songs and odes from antiquity may in fact not be the right interpretation... seems to me that many are dogmatic and fixated to such an extreme that they can accept none but their own version and unless one accepts that version they are bound for hell and damnation... it is really sad that people cannot believe in a higher power... call if god if you must.. and not have to have the trapings and bs that goes with formalised religion...

I surrendered if you will my christianity when I could no longer accept the falsness lies interpretations and lack of protection for children that the bible has within its covers... I surrendered any invocation to that religion when none could understand or accept that a pediphile is not mentioned in that book nor could I accept the constant thread of "you must have fogiveness toward them"... that and watching leaders of various churches in several places here in all their piosness wear their wealth as a badge in front of parishoners who had nothing... to me there was a dirth of wisdom a lack of "christianity" charity love and giving from within that band of people... sad lonely and insecure people

Someone once said one of the great truths regarding religion and churches... "religion would be a great thing if we could just get rid of the people" because people are judgemental fools for the most part when it comes to religious belief ooh christians say they arent but by god they are!

It doesnt worry me one iota for I have seen heaven and heaven is in this world just as hell is also right here... so what is in the afterworld? no one bar no one knows or can know untill the time of our passing we are simply hedging our bets... I often well not that often actually but anyway I think about the afterlife and wonder whats to come when this one is done but then I ask why worry about what none can know? it will happen when it happens until then live a good kind loving life full of love laughter sharing and care for what really matters christian jew philistine or shufti buhddist baptist athiest or whatever it is the now and how you live it and interact with those you share it with that matters beyond that not a wit matters.

Thanks for the prayer Bruce... appreciate it no worries :cool:

Joe (SoCal)
05-20-2004, 03:20 PM
This Just in :D

http://www.pcnr.com/news/2004/0512/General_Stories/051p1_lg.jpg

My daughter Tess is in the above photo in front on the left with her arms folded in front of her.

Full story in the local paper
http://www.pcnr.com/news/2004/0512/General_Stories/051. html (http://www.pcnr.com/news/2004/0512/General_Stories/051.html)

[ 05-20-2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]