Life Forward Anchor 1

[Ceka Cianci]

3 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

Well, y'know, god kinda messed up when he made me and people like me.

This is what he insists should be done to me:

And in case the translation is disputed, here are all the other translations. They all read pretty much the same: "(practicing) gay (and bisexual) men should be killed". It's fine if we adore other men from afar and restrain ourselves into monk-like celibacy, but we're not allowed to do anything about it. And as for Love the sinner, hate the sin, I'm sorry but that's downright patronising.

So forgive me if I don't feel like I'm a child of god when god's rules state that I should be killed.

As to this:

Now that I do agree with. But I don't need someone else - be it a religious figurehead or an organisation - to tell me that I should be kind and compassionate, and to treat others as I would have them treat me. My 'value' and my 'mattering' comes in the form of how others will remember me. If they can utter "That Skell Dagger, he was a decent bloke" when I'm gone, that's all I could ask for.

 

Seriously,anyone throwing Leviticus in your face..Tell them to go back to Sunday school and pay attention this time..

Edited July 24, 2017 by Ceka Cianci

[Rhonda Huntress]

6 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I honestly do not see that most posts prior to this fit that description.

I nuked my first responses.

[Madelaine McMasters]

14 hours ago, JoeDex said:

Anchor Number 1
You are a child of God.

 

11 hours ago, JoeDex said:

Religion is a system and what I have stated is not a religion.

 

re·li·gion

rəˈlijən/

noun

noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More sect, church, cult, denomination "the freedom to practice their own religion"

   • a particular system of faith and worship.

     plural noun: religions

     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

     "consumerism is the new religion"

As I stated in an earlier post, it is not possible for me to share some of your beliefs. One reason for this is that I find self contradiction abhorrent, even though (and particularly when) I catch myself doing it now and then.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters

[Klytyna]

10 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Seriously,anyone throwing Leviticus in your face..

I usually point out to such people that Leviticus proves the Old Testament supports evolutionary theory...

Locusts are described as having 4 legs, and kosher, thus fit for hebrews to eat, but modern locusts have 6 legs, therefore obviously, the locusts evolved two extra legs to avoid being eaten by hungry hebrews...  

This invariably induces such fits of rage in Leviticus quoting religious bigots that they are incapable of coherent speech long enough for rational people to walk away.
 

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

I usually point out to such people that Leviticus proves the Old Testament supports evolutionary theory...

Locusts are described as having 4 legs, and kosher, thus fit for hebrews to eat, but modern locusts have 6 legs, therefore obviously, the locusts evolved two extra legs to avoid being eaten by hungry hebrews...  

This invariably induces such fits of rage in Leviticus quoting religious bigots that they are incapable of coherent speech long enough for rational people to walk away.
 

I like when they get to telling me I'm gonna burn for eternity in hell..

It just makes me want to run them through Genesis again so they  can grasp that it's just not possible without that second bite.. hehehehe

 

I think there is a lot of people listening to preachers manipulating the books ,more than there are people reading the books themselves..

 

[Klytyna]

3 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I think there is a lot of people listening to preachers manipulating the books ,more than there are people reading the books themselves..

That was essentially the point of the whole 'protest-ant' movement in the 15th and 16th centuries.

It largely grew out of a problem in the 11th & 12th centuries with Lordly tax accounts. Germanic Nobles got sick of the only person on their estates able to do the books and work out their tak payments being an employee of the organisation they payed tax to...

So, they started sending their sons off to learn reading and writing and arithmetic, with no intention of said sons becoming clergy. This led to even 'poor knights', mere junior garrison officers, learning to read, and gave us such early medieval literary classics as Wolfram von Essenbach's "Parzifal" (which was apparently 'published' on a chapter by chapter basis, and passed around from person to person and garrison to garrison, and duplicated on a 'samisdat' basis, and didn't actually end up with all the chapters in one place as an actual book until about two years after it was written).

Trade didnt help either, the Museum of London estimates that in the late 15th century, 80% of London Merchants were literate in two languages, 60% in three, and 40% in four or more, because it was easier to do business with people you could talk to, and whose invoices & orders you could read.

Of course, once people don't need the Priest to tell them what the holy books say, and can get a copy of said holy book themselves thanks to this new fangled printing stuff, then the power of the men in fancy robes and funny hats to bamboozle their way to big dinners for no work, suffers dreadfully.

Cue the various European Wars of Religion
 

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

I nuked my first responses.

Yeah, it looked like the times were showing that you did so before Phil's comment about rudeness and such.  

[LittleMe Jewell]

29 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

 

Of course, once people don't need the Priest to tell them what the holy books say, and can get a copy of said holy book themselves thanks to this new fangled printing stuff, then the power of the men in fancy robes and funny hats to bamboozle their way to big dinners for no work, suffers dreadfully.

 

Though far too many folks would still rather have the so called holier than thou men in fancy robes tell them not only what the book says but also what it means and therefore how they must live their life and judge others.

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

Because our preference does not matter.to the OP.

It doesn't matter what matters to the OP. I suggested substituting your preference, reading it again, and seeing if you thought the particular message was good. E.g. You are a child of existance, you have value, and you do matter. Good or no good?

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I honestly do not see that most posts prior to this fit that description.  There was disagreement with the OP, but the majority (not all) posts were not extremely rude about it - at least, not IMO.

I didn't say that anyone was rude. The words I used about the posts were 'unkind' and 'harsh'. Maybe some posts were rude, I don't know, but I do know that that word hadn't entered my head.

[Phil Deakins]

14 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Yeah, it looked like the times were showing that you did so before Phil's comment about rudeness and such.  

Yep, I saw that Rhonda had nuked her posts before I had a chance to read them.

I'll say it again, since you seem to have a firm hold on something that was never true, and still isn't true. I did not use the word 'rude' of any post or person in this thread. I used the words 'unkind' and 'harsh'. They are very different. I have no idea where you got the idea of 'rude' from, but it wasn't from my posts.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Tari Landar]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I didn't say that anyone was rude. The words I used about the posts were 'unkind' and 'harsh'. Maybe some posts were rude, I don't know, but I do know that that word hadn't entered my head.

So what was actually harsh or unkind then?  I mean, the OP DID open up the floor for discussion on the matter, which people then discussed. I still can't find anythign harsh or unkind, though. Admittedly, I was awoken by someone ringing my doorbell at 7am (it's not 11:30-ish am) after I'd gone to bed just shortly after 6am, waking me up..just to invite me to their kingdom, after which I was unable(and still am) to get back to sleep...so, my view may be skewed....I still don't see harsh or unkind, though. I see different perspectives. 

I think everyone's interpretation can certainly lead us to believe people are both of those things. Whether or not they actually were, however, is a different story. 

[LittleMe Jewell]

9 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I didn't say that anyone was rude. The words I used about the posts were 'unkind' and 'harsh'. Maybe some posts were rude, I don't know, but I do know that that word hadn't entered my head.

 

6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I'll say it again, since you seem to have a firm hold on something that was never true, and still isn't true. I did not use the word 'rude' of any post or person in this thread. I used the words 'unkind' and 'harsh'. They are very different. I have no idea where you got the idea of 'rude' from, but it wasn't from my posts.

True, you never used the word 'rude'.  However, 'harsh' is a synonym of 'rude', so I interpreted it as such.

[Phil Deakins]

28 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

So what was actually harsh or unkind then?

When I read the post before I wrote mine, why whole tenor struck me as being unkind and harsh. For instance, you started you post with "I wonder if you realize that you don't get to determine whether or not anyone has the ability to reject or not reject what it is you say.", which struck me that way.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

True, you never used the word 'rude'.  However, 'harsh' is a synonym of 'rude', so I interpreted it as such.

Then you were mistaken, Lil. The meanings of 'harsh' and 'rude' are not even similar.

[Tari Landar]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

When I read the post before I wrote mine, why whole tenot struck me as being unkind and harsh. For instance, you started you post with "I wonder if you realize that you don't get to determine whether or not anyone has the ability to reject or not reject what it is you say.", which struck me that way.

S it was your interpretation, not the existence of rudeness...like I said

I wonder loads of things, that doesn't mean I'm rude, nor that my words are such.

Reading the remainder of the words helps a LOT with context. 

[Phil Deakins]

For what I hope is the last time - I did not say that anyone was rude. So please stop saying that I did.

Y'know, many years ago, there was a thread in which I wrote "many, perhaps most" and you would not believe the number of people who insisted that the word 'many' actually meant 'majority'. It seemed like the whole forum insisted on it. Not only that, but they also insisted that I'd actually meant 'majority', even though I'd written 'many, perhaps most', obviously meaning ' maybe the majority. It went on for page after page after page - a very long thread, with what seemed like the whole of the forum abandoning their native language to join in.

One person in this thread misunderstood what I'd written. She probably forgot when she was writing her post. Now you are taking it from her. Don't do it, or we could end up with another very long thread in which I am misrepresented and you are simply wrong

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

16 hours ago, JoeDex said:

in order for you to add value to the world you have to know that you have value. Your being alive is valuable and your purpose is to add to the value of others. This can be accomplished in as many ways as you can imagine. Likewise, there are those that try and take value from others. 

You have value and you matter.

I really like the idea of living in a world where everyone understands that they matter and where the guiding principle is too help each other.

I really like the recognition that there are many ways to do this.

Can we talk about this too?

How do you add value to the lives of others? Do you truly value yourself?

[Tari Landar]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

For what I hope is the last time - I did not say that anyone was rude. So please stop saying that I did.

Y'know, many years ago, there was a thread in which I wrote "many, perhaps most" and you would not believe the number of people who insisted that the word 'many' actually meant 'majority'. It seemed like the whole forum insisted on it. Not only that, but they also insisted that I'd actually meant 'majority', even though I'd written 'many, perhaps most', obviously meaning ' maybe the majority. It went on for page after page after page - a very long thread, with what seemed like the whole of the forum abandoning their native language.

One person in this thread misunderstood what I'd written. She probably forgot when she was writing her post. Now you are taking it from her. Don't do it, or we could end up with another very long thread in which I am misrepresented and you are simply wrong

 

You still misinterpreted what I said and took it as being unkind and harsh.

I have no qualms with saying I should have not used the word rudeness. I should have replaced it with harshness or unkindness. I wont' go back and edit it, kinda makes no sense to now..but that is what I meant, and I failed to say what I meant.  See...human

I still say context matters and the remainder of my words make the line you automatically assumed was harsh or unkind, the exact opposite. There's nothing wrong with wondering whether or not someone realizes something, or saying it, especially when one offers an explanation.

And don't tell me what I can and cannot post, that actually IS rude.  

[Pamela Galli]

2 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

This thread is the perfect example of why anything touching on religion or politics should not be discussed in general forums.

Amen. 

[Phil Deakins]

54 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

How do you add value to the lives of others?

My opinion: There are any number of ways in which to add value to others, most of which don't involve knowing who the others are. For instance, scientific researchers do what they do, and often their results filter through to be beneficial to all. It isn't necessary to know who it benefits, or even if what they do will end up being of benefit to others. Most people of working age are employed. What they do is of benefit to their empoyers, which in turn is of benefit to the suppliers and their families, and so on and so on. In other words, a person's normal living often benefits others as a side product. I've no idea what the OP means though.

Then there are the hands-on ways, such as helping out at various places, and so on.

And then there are other ways, such 'Liking' a post in this forum, which causes the recipient to appreciate it and feel just that teeny bit better because of it - a benefit.

All benefits are of value, of course.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

13 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

You still misinterpreted what I said and took it as being unkind and harsh.

I did. I addressed that by saying that the whole of posts before mine struck me as being unkind and harsh. They struck me as a flock descending on something they don't like, and pecking at it. It's something that has often happened in these forums, and that's the impression I got.

13 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

And don't tell me what I can and cannot post, that actually IS rude.  

I didn't try to tell anyone what to post and what not to post. I merely pointed out that the posts so far had been unkind, which is what they looked like to me. I saw a flock decending. Then I asked why. I made no attempt at saying what can and cannot be posted. So you were mistaken, Tari.

And you are right. It would be rude of me to tell you what you can and cannot post. Happily, I didn't do that

Edited July 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[LittleMe Jewell]

24 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Then you were mistaken, Lil. The meanings of 'harsh' and 'rude' are not even similar.

Since the two words are synonyms, they are similar in certain usages.  

Rather than responding as above, which (to me) comes across as harsh and argumentative, I probably would have simply said something along the lines of "While they may be synonyms in some contexts, my usage was not such', and left it at that.

[Tari Landar]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I didn't try to tell anyone what to post and what not to post. I merely pointed out that the posts so far had been unkind, which is what they looked like to me. I saw a flock decending. Then I asked why. I made no attempt at saying what can and cannot be posted. So you were mistaken, Tari.

And you are right. It would have been rude of me to tell you what you can and cannot post. Happily, I didn't do that.

Well that's a crock of *****, you said precisely that...shall I quote it? ...

19 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Now you are taking it from her. Don't do it, or we could end up with another very long thread in which I am misrepresented and you are simply wrong

 

Not my words..yours, bolding is mine though, lol

[Luna Bliss]

Blender is feeling very appealing right now

Edited July 24, 2017 by Luna Bliss