You are correct

Post #319,506 by crazy 1/4/10 11:20:13 AM Reply	You are correct I don't. But it doesn't matter. Your access to her was controlled by your willingness to make a public commitment. Did you really mean it, or were you bullshitting? No matter how wonderful she is, and how close you are, and even if she DOES adore you over her God, you were willing to accept less. And you indoctrinated your children to provide the next generation of supplicants. They won.
Post #319,508 by beepster 1/4/10 11:44:45 AM Reply	No, they didn't You are making grandiose assumptions based on your own view of reality. I would say his willingness to do that would be a good sign to her of his devotion, especially if she knew (which I'm sure she did) that it wasn't really "his thing". You seem to have a problem with anyone thinking/believing/having faith that there is more than themselves and that this belief compromises their ability to devote themselves to another member of the species completelyu... There's plenty of delusion to go around in this thread. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #319,512 by crazy 1/4/10 12:19:36 PM Reply	Close, but no cigar I have issue with people following any authority blindly. Especially when the authority is based on something that can't be demonstrated. This would be all organized religions that don't allow for questioning of orders. And it is really keyed off when there is a central individual that is annointed, he gets to talk to God, and then relay the message. That's the ultimate red flag. Of course, it doesn't help when you review the history of those individuals, how some of them killed to get there, and how the organization evolved. So either you believe that all of those individuals were simply the right one for the moment, chosen by God, and no matter what they did, or, you start to pick and choose which ones REALLY are talking to god. If you feel that option 1 is correct, and that they were chosen and talking to God, then I gotta tell you: Your god is insane and doesn't deserve the followers. And he/it certainly should be opposed in matters that affect public life. If you feel that option 2 is correct, then, you are mouthing the words, but you don't believe. Faith is all or nothing.
Post #319,514 by drook 1/4/10 12:35:14 PM Reply	Option 3 You believe the basic premise, and that for the most part the people in charge are doing the best they can. But you recognize that every now and then something/somebody slips through the cracks. That doesn't invalidate your belief, it just reaffirms the fallibility of humanity. Sort of like a contract, where invalidation of one portion of the contract does not invalidate remaining portions. Of course as a believer, you get to decide which events are human failings and which are examples of God's plan. Non-believers don't get to question it like that. The fact that the "God's plan" vs. "human failings" decision tends to line up with the preconceptions of the individual believer is a coincidence. -- Drew
Post #319,517 by crazy 1/4/10 1:03:55 PM Reply	We seem to have a definition problem http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/BELIEVE And in the case of religion, this rises to the level of faith. http://www.merriam-w.../dictionary/FAITH So, do you agree so far or have I missed something? If so, then we move on to: "the basic premise". Since I don't claim to be able to differentiate between items within "the basic premise", I take that to mean the "We believe" prayer that ends most Catholic services. Kind of all or nothing, expressing your faith and devotion, with specific words. Someone I'd term a true believer will agree with EVERYTHING stated in that prayer. Someone I'd consider a partial believer might take issue with occasional items. And poof, that mean a no believer, since I'm pretty sure lying to god while prarying to god it pretty high on your list of sins. Or maybe not. So I guess it isn't that sinful to lie to god. Or not as dangerous as you've been led to believe. Either way, option 3 seems pretty self delusional.
Post #319,518 by boxley 1/4/10 1:24:26 PM Reply	Re: We seem to have a definition problem yes we do have a definition problem. Religion and the practice thereof is personal as well as organized so cannot be defined externally by a non believer. I dont believe a bath in the ganges is a requirement to personal salvation but some folks do. Now if you want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the answer is 12
Post #319,519 by crazy 1/4/10 1:29:20 PM Reply	No, the answer is 42 And you didn't like what I said and started an agument with me, not the other way around. I merely described my experience and my interpretation.
Post #319,522 by boxley 1/4/10 2:03:47 PM Reply	sorry about that wasnt trying to argue, just seemed that you were taking it too personal. The answer is 12 42 would be too crowded for cool moves
Post #319,524 by crazy 1/4/10 2:47:13 PM Reply	No crowding The mice see to that. The head is really a multidimensional portal. And I ALWAYS will take personal threats to my freedom, however indirect.
Post #319,523 by drook 1/4/10 2:10:52 PM Reply	"Delusional" works The other way to put it is that anyone who questions that "We believe" thing is not a "good Catholic". The organization dictates an all-or-nothing acceptance of what it teaches. "Good Catholics" reconcile the fact that "the Church" has at times changed its mind or done bad things with the explanation I gave: Those were cases of human fallibility, not an indictment of "the Church". When "the Church" does something good, it's evidence of God's will working through true believers. When "the Church" does something bad, it's cases of imperfect humans refusing to follow God's will. When "the Church" decides that something that was true before is no longer true, or vice-versa, it's evidence that the previous "truth" was based on imperfect understanding of God's revealed wisdom. In all of that, feel free to replace "good" with "things I agree with" and "bad" with "things I disagree with" to get the practical reality of how most Catholics live. People don't generally do things they don't want to, nor refrain from from things they do want, just because the Church tells them to. See divorce, premarital sex, and birth control for the easy examples. -- Drew
Post #319,530 by static 1/4/10 5:20:21 PM Reply	+5, Insightful. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,531 by drook 1/4/10 5:28:23 PM Reply	Do you think protestants are different? I know Catholics better, having been raised that way. But most of what I said applies to most religions, in my opinion. I agree with your point above about Catholics and ritual, but most "believers" of any flavor seem all too willing to disregard inconvenient pieces of the scripture they claim to believe in, and to disavow any supposed fellow believer who isn't practicing the "right" way. -- Drew
Post #319,534 by static 1/4/10 6:06:48 PM Reply	Yes and no. The short answer is that Evangelical Protestants would say they're not so tied to ritual, but when they are, they hide it better both from themselves and from others. They would probably not see that arguments over when in the service that communion is held is much different. I've seen a church lose a lot of people because of huge frictions over the teaching: it could be argued that some people were trying to disavow their own pastor but the methods employed were indirect and thus unpleasant for many. :-/ A lot of people attending any sort of church would match your description. Those steeped in organisation, process and ritual would tend to emphasise the Do The Right Things At The Right Time approach that you see in Catholics. AFAIK, High Anglicans do the nearly the same things and I'm sure most Orthodox churches would be in a similar mold. Even JWs and Mormons would be similar. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #319,535 by crazy 1/4/10 6:34:33 PM Reply	Rent 9 http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=wcKD7Wh14Xs "Sometimes fear is the appropriate response" The guy saying it is their token religious dictator wannabe. But not really.
Post #319,610 by mhuber 1/6/10 3:22:15 AM Reply	The Credo is in the middle not the end of the service. "Credo" is just "I believe" in Latin. I've been thinking about that bit lately, in light of the fact that I am both a Catholic and a radical fundamentalist Agnosticist. Not really hard, actually. "I believe" all this stuff, and I am aware that, like everybody else, I am probably wrong. I recite the credo sincerely, but with humility. ----------------- RFA: I know for a fact that not only don't I know, I know you don't know even if you think you do, your certainty offends God whether He, She, It, or They exist or not, and the fact that you and I don't know must be a guiding principle of government and I'm willing to kick ass to make that happen.
Post #319,612 by crazy 1/6/10 6:42:55 AM 1/6/10 6:45:58 AM Reply	Seems to be common "I believe" all this stuff, and I am aware that, like everybody else, I am probably wrong. You quote the believe so you can redefine it at will, and then state that you feel strongly (probably > 50%, right? > 80%? >90%?) that you're wrong. Hell of an internal inconsistency you live with. Is it stable (which means you probably live in a state of unease), or are you always receiving more information (pro or con) that might sway you one way or the other, and if so, did you ever lean strongly in one direction or the other, and almost abandon the split viewpoint? Doesn't baby chick imprint syndrome suck? Did you offer up any kids to it? Edited by crazy Jan. 6, 2010, 06:45:58 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,613 by crazy 1/6/10 6:57:42 AM Reply	I just stumbled onto this http://www.dilbert.c....strip.sunday.gif This seems to be the general attitude. When someone tells you something that seems insane and expects you to act on it, you resist, you argue your point. If that person is an authority (parent, religious leader (appt by your parent), boss, cop, etc) you shut up and if possible act on it, since the hassle to resist isn't worth it (usually). And sometimes, the craziest shit ends up being true, which knocks your foundation out and you have to rethink the world around you.
Post #319,665 by mhuber 1/7/10 1:06:38 AM Reply	Internal consisency is for well-engineered systems I'm using a brain optimized for maximum reproductive potential. Currently running on a blend of hydrocarbons that includes some long chain molecules that don't enhance its effectiveness. The inconsistency is stable at this point, it took some fluctuations to get there. It does not make me uneasy. I deeply love my almost certainly wrong faith. Not the official version, the real community and tradition. Consider Dante's section of hell reserved for Popes. How many religions have something like that? We pretty much assume out leaders are damned. With our current Pope, is there any doubt? Aquinas, wrote volume after volume of theology, the core of the Catholic system. And then one day he told his colleagues theology is bullshit and retired. Then there is Mr. God Himself. Questionable birth in a freakin' barn, short career as a heretical rabbi, offed by a Roman governor in the boonies, then Rome turns into the center of His cult and is now just a city in an otherwise has-been country. For a guy who wants to be right and make sense, this is a real bad religion. Me, I know I'm almost certainly wrong. You want me to go through the cognitive work of changing that baby chick imprint so I can be wrong a different way? I'm not wired to be right, and this faith is gloriously wrong! Yes, I did sacrifice children to it. I wasn't going to, but then I heard the REM song and realized I had almost denied them the experience of losing their religion, almost didn't give them that to rebel against. One almost died a Jehovah's Witless, but we worked that out on her deathbed. One takes Catholicism seriously for now but I think she takes her zombie-fighting training more seriously and she has my sense of surrealism, the other two have rejected it from a position of knowing what they are rejecting. I raised them Catholic but I raised them questioning more. And odd way more.
Post #319,677 by crazy 1/7/10 10:49:23 AM Reply	I deeply admire you
Post #319,839 by Ashton 1/10/10 4:05:14 PM Reply	Aquinas has company.. In another metaphysician's attempt to script a saner model of the Universe -- one demanding that acolytes Test By Experiment-on-Self each tenet, or don't bother to play: The intellectually-centered cohost of one G. I. Gurdjieff was named P. D. Ouspensky (Russians both.) G. always described himself (being er, 'moving-centered') as, "I am a teacher of dance." There are some Interesting algorithms within this arcane opera (how many knew that the plural of 'opus' IS 'opera'?) The enneagram for one; then, a theory of 'body types' wherein bipeds are much like breeds of dogs (though the planets were used as labels, in the event.) Nomenclature is always trivial, if you know there's a thoughtful [referent] behind each. one. So their efforts and repeated observations had produced certain +5 Insightful additions to the lore re the exasperating self-delusional homo-sap [-erectus too ... as often as can be contrived.], while safely remaining free of the burden of staffing YAN new religion cha cha cha. Thus free of burdening future generations with cathedral building and supporting millions of priests forever on the dole -- while telling you how to run your sex life (and how much to tithe for the priests' appetites re young boys + the sacramental wine which aids in the seductions.) As O. lay dying, yet forcing self to get up and walk around -- despite every instinctive urge to do nothing of the kind! -- (it appears that) his epiphany arrived. He announced to the 'students', "I am abandoning the System." QED It's ALL a Play; the Bard knew that more surely than all the didacts and other Authoritarian breeds (frequently these ranters are 'saturn-mars' body types and their performance with microphone or at a dais -- is as predictable as that: your cocker spaniel Will fetch that stick whenever you throw it.) You do the work to Know Thyself -- or go through the entire Play as a marionette == 'plaything', so it seems. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy, Doctor, I finally won out over it. -- James Stewart (Elwood Dowd) in Harvey.

Welcome to IWETHEY!