quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
The common denominator is the common value and dignity of a person, any person, tho I heartily disagree with what they say. I can still accept you as a person and treat you accordingly.

I agree with 100% of what you say here (and I didn't even have to count the words). This is one of the main tenets of the Unitarians.

Basically, it's the Golden Rule: if you show everyone the respect they deserve as a person, then you're doing to them as you would want done to you.

That's really all we need to get along. So I accept you and treat you with the dignity you deserve. The fact that our ideologies are light-years apart has nothing to do with anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:

That's really all we need to get along. So I accept you and treat you with the dignity you deserve. The fact that our ideologies are light-years apart has nothing to do with anything.

Dougster, ideologies can have a lot to do with it.

As to why am I here?
Just because I have been a reader of Ray Bradbury for years and truly affected by his works, does not mean I worship the ground he walks on. Some people find him a god of sorts. They hang onto his every word. I draw a line. If not, I'm a nincompoop of sorts. Any reader that gives worship service to any actor, politician, boss, or writer, needs his head examined. Really. I'm talking about psychological consultation. I've seen people go totally over the edge because their idealistic idol has cracks and they can't deal with it because they've taken it so personally.

I love much of Bradbury's writings. I'm not here to poke every flaw he has. But dealing with some of them would be intelligent.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
there is no reason to look any further for the solution to happiness ON THIS PLANET.

"Was there ever any doubt?"

Patrask, I think you're missing part of the point. You're assuming that one should look only for one's OWN happiness. The universe can be used to inspire and propagate; going forth into the universe is anything but contrary to most religions.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:

Religion, all of them, are holding us back because they tell us that the answers are predetermined, are known to the members of each group, and there is no reason to look any further for the solution to happiness ON THIS PLANET. .

____________
Phil ~ Well, instead of you going to the stars, when the God that created you and everything else comes here for a lifetime instead, it's time to at least consider his visit for a few minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXsiWoyjw60

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Just because I have been a reader of Ray Bradbury for years and truly affected by his works, does not mean I worship the ground he walks on.

I understand, but I don't believe anyone here worships the ground he walks on.

Ask the Bishop:

Q: I am curious about your thoughts on the intersection of Humanism with the teachings of Jesus. I consider myself a Christian, yet my spiritual path was altered by a brilliant Jewish Humanist rabbi who, in one of his Yom Kippur sermons, said something to the effect that if there is a "loving God," how could the Holocaust have happened? If there is a God of good, either "God" is impotent or callously arbitrary or else there is a co-equal God of evil.

You've spoken and written much about your feelings of the nature of "God." There may be no point in pursuing that again. Many of the teachings of Jesus, however, seem to me to be seriously humanistic in "philosophy." I've read the Wikipedia articles on Humanism (they go on and on) among other writings. I'm not suggesting that Jesus would be a Humanist (with a capital "H") by definition.

My point is that my "reading" on the notion of "eternal life" as a Jesus teaching, (on which so very much of the Christian Church's dogma and distortion is based) is that if we love our enemies (we don't make war) and our neighbors (we feed them and keep them healthy) then we will not kill or starve, nor medically ignore our fellow humans. In short, our care of our fellow humans will perpetuate the species — human life will continue vs. our exterminating ourselves either by choice or neglect, e.g. eternal life." An extension of that is humanity caring for our bio-system, our environment. The Church says it loves God's creation yet continues to be a loathsome laggard rather than a leader in environmental matters.

Stripping from Jesus' teachings the hocus-pocus of an intervening deity, I read about a humanist (lower case "H"). Your thoughts and feelings?

A: You raise a significant number of issues that need to be separated before I can respond to your questions and concerns.

First, humanism is not incompatible with the message of Jesus. Behind all our supernatural theology, there is the affirmation that in the humanity of Jesus, God is engaged.

Second, in his teaching he emphasizes that all religious rules are for the benefit of humanity or they are without value. The Sabbath was made for the enrichment of human life; he said, human life was not meant to be bound by the religious rules.

Third, Jesus teaching about the way to follow him was dedicated to humanity. You serve Christ when you feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked and visit the sick and those in prison.

Fourth, when John's gospel sums up the purpose of Jesus' life, it is that "they might have life and have it abundantly."

The way to experience the divine, I am convinced, is through the human. Transcendence is met in the midst of life. Eternity is engaged in the realm of the temporal. It is therefore a Christian imperative to live in the service of others even though that principle has been violated many times by institutional religion.

I cannot make that case fully in the format of the question and answer part of a column. It is far too complex. Let me simply state my conclusion. The way to eternity is to live fully now. The way to God is to love wastefully now. The way to engage the holy is to affirm being now.

I have no great confidence in the eternity of the human species. I do have confidence in the timeless power of love to transform the finite into the wonder of infinity. My next book is on this subject. In its 200-plus pages I hope to address your concerns more fully. It is now scheduled for a fall 2009 publication.

Thanks for writing.

– John Shelby Spong

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
patrask, I agree with less than 8% percent of what you say. And you, I am sure, agree with less than that with what I have to say.
And so there are different political beliefs, agendas, different societies. And the list is endless.

Somewhere along the way, you try to find a common denominator. The common denominator is the common value and dignity of a person, any person, tho I heartily disagree with what they say. I can still accept you as a person and treat you accordingly.

Thank you, I feel the same about anyone who is not of my beliefs. The right to one's opinion is defensible to the end, until it starts to overlap and impact another's beliefs, through law for instance.

In Science there is a principle known as Occam's Razor:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

In essence, it states that two compeating explanations can be separated by chosing the simpler, less conplicated, of the two. For this reason, I use the Golden Rule as the one principle that I know is proven and logical to provide good behavior between people. Any other conditions only serve to complicate the intercourse - discussion - and therefore lead to unnecessary confusion, and distrust. Strong feelings of the correctness of a religious belief will result in the same behavior. It is likely more beneficial to use Occam's Razor and limit our discussion of the rules to only those that are the minimum set necessary to cooperate and live in peace with each other.

You said intercourse.

The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

quote:

I'm not here to poke every flaw he has.

That still doesn't sound like much of a fan to me.


Maybe the "flaws" are your perceptions and judgments and presuppositions, and have nothing to do with him. It's more like every flaw you imagine than it is every flaw "he has". (Your judgment.) Betcha many others don't believe "he has" these "flaws" you are creating in your mind.

quote:

Originally posted by dragonfly:

quote:

I'm not here to poke every flaw he has.

That still doesn't sound like much of a fan to me.


Maybe the "flaws" are your perceptions and judgments and presuppositions, and have nothing to do with him. It's more like every flaw you imagine than it is every flaw "he has". (Your judgment.) Betcha many others don't believe "he has" these "flaws" you are creating in your mind.

I wish I could say you were right. People like you are in for a big disappointment.

Quote of the Day?

"We shall get our reward for denying ourselves here, and you are in for a very nasty surprise, and I shall finally get to gloat when you get yours, bwwaaaahhhhh ha ha hahaha...."

- Paraphrase of uncounted Christians posting online in comment boards everywhere

Elm Tree
Stupid quote. Quote from teenagers from hell, it sounds.

It is, admittedly, strongly worded. But it is genuinely a paraphrase of your post just preceding it. And from over here, you do look like much more a condemner of R.B., and not a fan.

Your condemnation style probably wins converts; after all, it won you!

quote:

Originally posted by Elm Tree:
It is, admittedly, strongly worded. But it is genuinely a paraphrase of your post just preceding it. And from over here, you do look like much more a condemner of R.B., and not a fan.

Your condemnation style probably wins converts; after all, it won you!

You jump to conclusions, Sir.

Phil Knox was implying that Dragonfly would be in for a disappointment when he realized that idolizing a person --making them appear to have no flaws or shortcomings and to always be correct-- will lead only to disappointment, because such a view can never be true. He wasn't saying Dragonfly would burn in any type of "Hell".

I wonder what a Rorschach test would make you scream out, with your presuppositions and shoulder-chips!