Welcome to the Nexus Merry Prankster! It's clear your a very thoughtful individual and I'm looking forward to seeing more of your posts around the Nexus.

@SWIMfriend, I must say it looks very much to me that you're speaking from the exact same position of ignorant prejudice that you claim to criticize. There's a vast amount of historical research available based on archaeology that presents a completely different picture than what you're suggesting. Believing a canonical Bible exists, or should exist, for Christians as a whole, as opposed to delimited by a specific time-frame/culture/denomination, as well as not being aware of the Gospel of Thomas, part of one of the most publicized archaeological finds of the 20th century, makes it very hard to take anything you say on this topic seriously.

Sorry. We were talking about the BIBLE, and that it didn't contain what I said it contained, and then you bring up... something ELSE??



The only "picture" I presented of the bible was that it was filled with brutality and primitive ideas from a primitive culture. Nothing was "ignored" in coming to that conclusion (even if I didn't discuss NON-canonical texts). It's a simple, observable fact.

This is ABSOLUTELY not the place for extended bible debunking (which comes VERY close to "conspiracy theory" type discussion). But you are aware, for example (talking about archaeology) that Israeli archaeologists have invested an EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT in looking for evidence to support the story of "the exodus," and have found NOTHING--strongly supporting the rather surprising idea that the story is apocryphal. That's surprising because it would be natural to believe that biblical stories at least RELATED to historical happenings and contexts--and I certainly never said anything contrary to that.

And you too with non-canonical texts? My comments were in reference to the BIBLE, but they shouldn't be taken seriously because...they didn't reference OTHER texts?

I can see I've hit a nerve. Sorry. But this really is NOT the place to discuss it--and I'm the LAST PERSON interested in discussing it, I'm sorry to add.

SWIMfriend, I think you're getting very hung up on very small issues. I understand and agree with nearly all of your points, but I do not agree with the way that you've gone about presenting them. After saying that you needed to bow out of the discussion, you've proceeded to browbeat MerryPrankster about minutiae that I thought he addressed comprehensibly in his first few posts.

I understand what you mean about the dissonance in identifying as Christian while inventing one's own religion by picking and choosing the good tenable bits from the Bible and mixing it liberally with original thoughts... but your objection is basically one of terminology. You think that people should only identify as Christian if they ascribe to literal non-selective interpretations of the bible. The people who pick and choose while still identifying as Christian generally do so as a reference to the cultural context in which their spirituality arose. Even if it departs drastically from established Christian traditions or biblical literalism, it is still subjectively experienced as an adaptation of Christian origin.

And a personal aside: I very much prefer people to reject the unhealthy and vindictive aspects present in their sacred texts and embrace healthy and encompassing attitudes whether they come from sacred texts or elsewhere... whether these people identify with a religious label is generally a matter of little consequence so long as their attitudes are healthy. It's clear that we all (MerryPrankster included) disdain the poisonous influences that religions can exert.


At any rate, welcome to the Nexus MerryPrankster

I think that statement opens a huge can of worms, actually.

One problem that invariably comes up relates to the No True Scotsman type of mindset: 1) You never really know WHAT THEY MEAN when somebody says "I'm a...," and 2) They seem to love to take affront that a listener isn't instantly tuned in to their particular brand--because, after all, it's the only true and sensible version.

IOW, one really has to wonder, when someone announces their membership in a religion, just what they ARE up to; EXACTLY what version of the religion they subscribe to; and what POSSIBLE interest it could have to someone else (unless they're a member themselves, when both can indulge in the special handshake).

Isn't it strange when someone announces IN ADVANCE that they plan on discussing a topic using the language/concepts of a religion? Sorry, but in my experience those who give advance warning that they plan to couch their discussion in religious terms--but will not be, by golly PROSELYTIZING--in fact have plans to do just that (although, I'll grant them, they sometimes don't seem to realize their actual intentions themselves).

you know swimfriend ive tried real hard to keep this a discussion and not an argument. i have no idea what your getting so bothered about but maybe you should check yourself for a second. your a smart fella and i enjoy your ideas and posts very often but man you can come off as stubborn as they come and i dont recall the last time you met someone in the middle by simply respectfully acknowledging their point of view whether you agree or not.

on a lighter note.....44 reply to an intro essay!!!! MerryPrankester sorry to have gotten this carried away with a debate on your time. welcome to one aspect of the nexus lol!!

Perhaps we can examine this notion in relation to yourself... In this thread you have, without prompting, identified yourself as an atheist. Just what WERE you up to? EXACTLY what sort of atheism do you subscribe to (as you know, it's a slippery term with many possible definitions). And what POSSIBLE interest could it have to someone else?

Might we not imagine that MerryPrankster's reasons were analogous to your own?

Now come on. Let's be reasonable.

1) I said jesus said x,y, and z in the bible
2) You said you never read of jesus saying such things
3) I said "here's where he said them."
4) You said "Well, I read something else, and he didn't say them there."

I don't really understand why you attempted to include me in that kind of...discussion. And I certainly don't understand how such an interchange earns me the characterization of "being bothered about" something. To me, it seems like I've made some clear statements, which have bothered OTHERS (and I'm sorry about that). But people are often bothered when their religious ideas are questioned, no? Isn't that a rather well-known phenomenon?

I would prefer to discuss things when people DON'T become "bothered," but it's not easy, apparently.

At a certain point in a DIALOG (not a monologue), it's only fair to be forthcoming about one's position. There's nothing to be made of that, other than my wish to be honest and forthcoming.

Precisely, but don't you think that one may also wish to be honest and forthcoming when introducing oneself? Or should new members not disclose any details about the nature of their perspective and worldview?

That's what strikes me as so strange about your approach in this thread. I read the introductory post as being motivated by a desire to be forthcoming, while you seem to be insinuating that MerryPrankster is a sort of snake in the grass.

this is part of what i am talking about. its obvious to anyone who is reading this thread that you carefully hand select a sentence or 2 that you feel you can prove your rightness while not even touching the multiple other paragraphs of points made by others. anyone can do that. great, you can google up some passages to prove your point.
...your clearer bothered by many things people are saying so dont act surprised when you get called on it. im fucking done this is stupid. now im bothered.

to me its responses to the OP like yours that give people the impression that were dicks. ever think about that. this guy simply was telling us about himself and you chime in correcting his feelings and suggesting he not use words that offend you! no oine else here was offended btw.

Right. I think that encapsulates the entire discussion.

It was my take, that if someone gives ADVANCED NOTICE that they plan on discussing UPCOMING ISSUES from a particular point of view, then that person is likely here for the PURPOSE of promoting that point of view (as opposed to involving themselves in the business of the Nexus).

Now I certainly may be WRONG about that (there is some evidence that I AM, and some little hint that maybe I'm NOT); and I thought it might be worth putting a SPOTLIGHT on the issue and topic, while in the nursery. As it happens now, the person was promoted to full membership within HOURS of the original post--so it's in fact rather late for a "vetting," and the entire thing turned into a general "conspiracy theory" type thread about christianity.

Sorry about pressing buttons; but I DO take seriously what people SAY, which sometimes means an extended struggle to determine just EXACTLY WHAT IT IS they are saying.

olympus mon,

Sorry for the difficulties. I don't think this needs to put us at odds.

I personally enjoy (and find illumination in) a polemical style of thought and discussion. I like to push HEAVILY at ideas, to see what might spurt out. I know that a lot of people take that as confrontational, when it's my urge to confront IDEAS--and only PEOPLE insofar as getting them to further support those ideas.

But I will admit outright that I don't like a LOT of what I've seen organized religion do to the world; and I'll admit to perhaps being HYPER-vigilant about it intruding into my life (interestingly, I had Jehovah's Witness knockers at my door right in the middle of this discussion!).

I'll try to avoid kicking people in the shins for a bit

nice!

no worries swimy my freind. i appreciate your reply and i dont hold forum grudges. i learn from each one of these discussions. we're still pal's

man, MerryPrankster, your intro essay really sparked quite the ... discussion

I wonder in general why these discussions get so heated. At least to me this discussion does feel heated, and while I understand that people have different views on the topic, it doesn't seem necessary to me that it gets emotional, defensive, or intolerant. I think somewhere in the first few posts some kind of problem in the communication occurred...

To me MerryPranksters intro read kind of like "I grew up in an english speaking country, so I will speak to you in english." where english was replaced with 'christian symbols' or whatever. Sure this is worth a discussion, but I don't understand the need to convince anyone of the evils of religion, even if they are there. Trying to convince anyone of anything is always a messy business especially if done by force rather than by guidance or emergence.

Furthermore I don't see this discussion going anywhere anymore; has everyone said what they needed to say?

I have to refer to my first post in this thread in which I philosophised about the different intentions behind communication. I wonder, in these heated discussions, do we remain aware of what it is we want to achieve by being part of this communication? Or are we just reacting to stimuli?
Or - are we achieving what we intended to achieve by engaging in this discussion? Is this in any way helping anyone? Is it good for anyone or thing? Could it potentially be in any way positive for the inter-subjective space or the individuals participating? And if so, is it positive for all or just for some?

Sure a little friction now and then is good for any system and it's often integral for communication/debates/discussions... but at some point I believe it serves no purpose any more. Developing an understanding of when to proceed, how to proceed and when to stop in a discussion like this, where it should be about expanding our horizons, learning, and evolving, is something we should all look into perhaps. Personally I hope the discussion ends here for now.

love to you all
Enoon

Ahh!! Closure. Sounds good!

Love and Peace to all

I agree with this. Church has become nothing more than a pile of man-made traditions perpetuated to either make the congregation feel better about themselves, or to control them. I will say again: I do not call myself a "Christian". I identify with a few of the beliefs I feel are worth saving, but the majority of it is not. If you have a problem with that; by all means go for it. But don't get in my face about it. I've come to terms with the can of worms that religion is, I don't need someone telling me how religion is wrong. I've experienced it firsthand. I KNOW.

And SWIMfriend, I said several times that I am not preachy. I have taken pains to explain my beliefs in a way that applies to me personally, not everyone. If you read my posts a little more clearly, you'd see this. I'm not here to preach and convert anybody, that should be obvious.

But, I've had enough of religion discussion. I don't bring up my personal beliefs because it always devolves into a christian bashing session. I've seen better than many the hypocrisy, so I'm really not hearing anything new. This wasn't what this thread was about, it was an introduction thread that has been way sidetracked. I've been promoted so this thread has served its purpose. Let's all just agree to disagree and let this thread get moved down to the bottom in the natural progression of things.



Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!

Peace