I meant sin in any form. How were you meaning it?
"sin" as i understand it is a totally theological concept having nothing to do with ethics. The really sad thing for me is that it appears that "sin" has nul to relate to human interactions which totally negates the beatitudes of the supposed jesus.
Intrepid wrote:I meant sin in any form. How were you meaning it?
The context of your first post seemed to refer to definition 2b in your second post. So that was the meaning I was responding to.
Are you telling me that when you wrote "we are all sinners" that you were not meaning that in a religious way, and thus bundling us all in with your religion (which was what I was objecting to)?
timberlandko wrote:Some folks are given to judging anything other than "Oh, me, too! Me too!" to be derision - and to reacting accordingly.
I'm not usually one of those people, and I'm still reacting that way in this particular thread.
Thomas wrote:timberlandko wrote:Some folks are given to judging anything other than "Oh, me, too! Me too!" to be derision - and to reacting accordingly.
I'm not usually one of those people, and I'm still reacting that way in this particular thread.
Its that old subjective/objective, emotion/reason dichotomy thing - sorta gets in the way sometimes, don't it?
timberlandko wrote:Some folks are given to judging anything other than "Oh, me, too! Me too!" to be derision - and to reacting accordingly.
timber - your contribution to this thread can be summarized by two short items. 1)your showing up to deliver this opinion on spiritual experience - "There's no such thing".
2) Your defense of your very obviously negative tone.
I could respect it if you just logged in to the thread every two or three posts and wrote "this is all so stupid and below me!", instead of acting as if you have some philosophical reason for your mess.
timberlandko wrote:Its that old subjective/objective, emotion/reason dichotomy thing - sorta gets in the way sometimes, don't it?
No, you're actually just being rude. Not rude enough to quash your Free Speech rights. It's not that your "words create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent" (
Schenk v. US) Not TOS-violating-rude, either -- I'm not asking that you ban yourself. But objectively rude nevertheless. I'm sorry you can't see that.
snood wrote:timberlandko wrote:Some folks are given to judging anything other than "Oh, me, too! Me too!" to be derision - and to reacting accordingly.
timber - your contribution to this thread can be summarized by two short items. 1)your showing up to deliver this opinion on spiritual experience - "There's no such thing".
2) Your defense of your very obviously negative tone.
I could respect it if you just logged in to the thread every two or three posts and wrote "this is all so stupid and below me!", instead of acting as if you have some philosophical reason for your mess.
I submit, snood that it is you who has chosen to make an issue of this, and I submit you mischaracterize that which occasions your displeasure. I submit I have presented point of view other than that endorsed by you, and that I have done so - and continue to do so - civilly and with appropriate respect for you and your persuasion. I have not derided or ridiculed you or anyone else, nor directly have I derided or ridiculed the proposition you set forth; I have but said there is no evidence to support any such proposition and that I am unconvinced of any aspect of the supernatural. I specifically have
NOT[/i] said "There's no such thing", I specifically have not said "this is all so stupid and below me" ; I have said there is no evidence for that thing, and have indicated tha I m skeptical, t, and why. Your persistent focus on this particular digression, and the manner in which you prosecute your objection serves your position not at all. If anyone may be said to be taking action to derail his discussion, it would not be me.
timberlandko wrote:snood wrote:timberlandko wrote:Some folks are given to judging anything other than "Oh, me, too! Me too!" to be derision - and to reacting accordingly.
timber - your contribution to this thread can be summarized by two short items. 1)your showing up to deliver this opinion on spiritual experience - "There's no such thing".
2) Your defense of your very obviously negative tone.
I could respect it if you just logged in to the thread every two or three posts and wrote "this is all so stupid and below me!", instead of acting as if you have some philosophical reason for your mess.
I submit, snood that it is you who has chosen to make an issue of this, and I submit you mischaracterize that which occasions your displeasure. I submit I have presented point of view other than that endorsed by you, and that I have done so - and continue to do so - civilly and with appropriate respect for you and your persuasion. I have not derided or ridiculed you or anyone else, nor directly have I derided or ridiculed the proposition you set forth; I have but said there is no evidence to support any such proposition and that I am unconvinced of any aspect of the supernatural. I specifically have
NOT[/i] said "There's no such thing", I specifically have not said "this is all so stupid and below me" ; I have said there is no evidence for that thing, and have indicated tha I m skeptical, t, and why. Your persistent focus on this particular digression, and the manner in which you prosecute your objection serves your position not at all. If anyone may be said to be taking action to derail his discussion, it would not be me.
Okay, I guess maybe time will tell. I "focused" on you, because you draw attention to yourself by showing up over and over to voice your "skepticism". How many times to you have to say you doubt it?
I will try to "focus" on the subject of the thread, which I would have done in the first place. I'm dropping this exchange, and after you've had the last word on it, I'd appreciate it if you dropped it, as well.
It would be interesting to find out how many people are intimidated by some of the comments here... intimidated to the point of being afraid to share experiences they consider spiritual, for fear of being shot down by the more vocal skeptics.
Only the strong survive, right?
On the other hand, some people live to argue, hour after hour, day after day, it goes on for years...
Whatever floats your time-wasting boat.
I also wonder how many people who are skeptical keep silent because they don't want to be subjected to Snood's aggression and personal attacks? It seems there is more than one way to float a time-wasting boat . . .
I didn't post because I didn't want my story to used as fodder for outrage, should it be challenged or disagreed with by others, as it could have been, and possibly should have been. In fact, I'm not sure if it was a spiritual awakening, or a religious experience, though I admittedly struggle with the thought of either, now.
Still, it was of the warm hug variety and I would have gladly shared it with any here who have been accused of trolling. I had no fear of timber and/or others in this thread. I'm surprised at the vehemence displayed, decrying their discussion.
One of my routes home from work takes me by a seniors' residence. They have a signboard out front and occasionally post bits of wisdom from their residents. Not that long ago I read, "What you see depends largely on what you're looking for."
That often seems about right, to me.
Quote:
Joeblow wrote:I didn't post because I didn't want my story to used as fodder for outrage, should it be challenged or disagreed with by others, as it could have been, and possibly should have been. In fact, I'm not sure if it was a spiritual awakening, or a religious experience, though I admittedly struggle with the thought of either, now.
Still, it was of the warm hug variety and I would have gladly shared it with any here who have been accused of trolling. I had no fear of timber and/or others in this thread. I'm surprised at the vehemence displayed, decrying their discussion.
Is that a contradiction, or am I just not comprehending what you're trying to say? You "didn't post" because of "fodder for outrage," but you "would have shared it."
Also, I haven't displayed vehemence, nor have I mentioned anyone by name. It was a general observation about the "ambience." I have no stake in these discussions.
I heard privately from a few people who have been reading these topics but are reluctant to post their own experiences.
rosborne979 wrote:Intrepid wrote:I meant sin in any form. How were you meaning it?
The context of your first post seemed to refer to definition 2b in your second post. So that was the meaning I was responding to.
Are you telling me that when you wrote "we are all sinners" that you were not meaning that in a religious way, and thus bundling us all in with your religion (which was what I was objecting to)?
I wasn't intending to bundle. To clarify... I didn't specifically use the word in a singularly theological way. I consider the word to mean anything that is not only against God, but against moral and ethical teachings which most people, regardless of religious thought or affiliation, generally adhere to. What I impose on myself, I do not expect everybody to understand or accept.
Hi Syn - No contradiction - I would have shared it with timber or any of the others who were accused of trolling etc. I wasn't afraid of being ridiculed or mocked by them.
I was disinterested in what I viewed as the unnecessary fall-out... ire...chastisement... outrage, because of dissenting opinions. I didn't post for that reason.
Your posts were not particularly vehement (though they do suggest that you believe people were afraid to post their views because of vocal skeptics etc.), but I thought there were a number by others, that were. They surprised me.
I didn't receive any pm's from anyone, and spoke only for myself.
dyslexia wrote:Setanta wrote:I also wonder how many people who are skeptical keep silent because they don't want to be subjected to Snood's aggression and personal attacks? It seems there is more than one way to float a time-wasting boat . . .
or his obnoxious PM's
Let's be open here dyslexia - what PM are you talking about?
Joeblow wrote:Hi Syn - No contradiction - I would have shared it with timber or any of the others who were accused of trolling etc. I wasn't afraid of being ridiculed or mocked by them.
I was disinterested in what I viewed as the unnecessary fall-out... ire...chastisement... outrage, because of dissenting opinions. I didn't post for that reason.
Your posts were not particularly vehement (though they do suggest that you believe people were afraid to post their views because of vocal skeptics etc.), but I thought there were a number by others, that were. They surprised me.
I didn't receive any pm's from anyone, and spoke only for myself.
OK. I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Surely a topic titled "Did you have a Spiritual Awakening?" is for those that have such experiences to share them moments, not to be criticized by people who haven't. Only a thought.
