Excuses, excuses

[LightofTruth]

I cannot "agree" to love. Nobody can.

One might sign a marriage contract, "love and cherish"
etc. Great. But it will not cause love to exist.

All you can do is to break it off when or if love is not
there.

The closest one can come to this "love agreement "
that you speak of would be in a traditional Chinese
marriage, which is arranged, and has nothing to do
with love.

If one is fortunate, and is faithful and good, love
will likely grow over time.

people decide to get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their days with each other. The contract does not cause that to happen. That happened before the contract.The contract is just the formal agreement, witnessed and signed.

 

[sojourner]

I basically agree with almost all of this. But the big problem I have is that this is not, at all, what The Bible says. The first few commandments of 10 have nothing to do with "your fellow creatures." They have everything to do with God - who seems to like to make everything about Himself. Unfortunately for "God" - human morality systems are concerned SOLELY with the treatment of our fellow creatures. NOT with the "treatment of God." And this is as it should be. Don't you see? God's prescriptions for morality that Christian theists always tout as "the best" are completely wacko. 10 commandments set forth as a cornerstone for morality... and 3 of them aren't even about morality

OK. But look at it this way. You’ve obviously got some picture/caricature of “God” in mind. Don’t you realize that, despite what the fundies say, “God” is a fluid concept? What if we perceive “God” as existence, itself? Or as humanity as a community? Or as the “force of love?” Giving our due diligence to honest existence, to the human family, to right relationship is important, no? Do you not realize just how esoteric and mystical the biblical texts are? Are you really going to just take the fundies’ word for it? Srrsly??

When we speak of God, we include our fellow people, because all are one within the life that we call “God.”

Says you. And what is your word on this worth? What is any Christian's word on this worth? Once again, none of you have your stories straight. How is anyone to trust any of it? I, personally, can't. Your words on this topic mean nothing. Just fluff and opinion. There is nothing backing them

You asked me the question. All I can do is answer from my own perspective. Remember: spirituality is all about perspective. If you want to play in the spiritual sandbox, them’s the rules. That’s what “works for me,” although I honestly don’t think about it a whole lot. I’ve got enough to do to manage the damage in this world, let alone think about my immortal soul. I actually just try to do my best and trust in life.

Well it sure is the religion's problem. And The Bible has A LOT to do with it.

You’re right about the first sentence, for sure. The second? Depends on how much the person/group is into bibliolatry.

How about we take this back to the subject matter and ask instead: "What do you think happens when you don't love God?" And I will answer that question. NOTHING HAPPENS

You said you agreed with my first statement. Loving others is loving God. At least that’s what makes sense to me, based on material like the Beattitudes.

And I think the exact same of your posts. Where does that leave us, I wonder?

It leaves us, O Best Beloved, in a grand position to listen to each other and maybe learn something new.

Only when talking religion - because it is such an obvious train wreck. I do get angry - because it confounds me to no end that there are people who can believe in this stuff. The problems and logical failings and moral misgivings are SO APPARENT, and yet people deny it left and right and up and down, and like to think it's all rather "wise" of them to do so. It's horrific is what it is - a mar on the face of humanity

I get that — I do. I do a lot of head scratching in that area too.

But, you know, humanity is a rather deep well. Respectfully, I think you’re skipping rocks off the surface. (Granted, that’s what many of these folks show you: surface only.). There’s so much more to human spirituality than Joel Osteen.

I'll continue to try and point people in the direction of reality, thanks - and the beauty and wonder that reside within it. Do you honestly think I care if I am considered "one of the big boys?" Do you? Think again.

Great! So long as you do that while showing love and respect, you’re doing what the big boys do.

 

[sojourner]

But... but... but... light refraction.

See how it looks? Don't I seem super-smart to you now?

Funny.

 

[sojourner]

Just a hint-as soon as someone resorts to
"angry / bitter" we know their argument is bankrupt.

Of course, that was already evident in the string
of rhetorical questions, another obvious "tell".

1) The questions weren’t rhetorical. They were posted to make the poster think about what he’d said.
2) Look at the posts. They come off as angry and bitter. It’s an observation, not an argument. He even admitted that he’s angry and embittered.
The argument’s not bankrupt, and the poster admitted it.

Your loss.

 

[Audie]

people decide to get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their days with each other. The contract does not cause that to happen. That happened before the contract.The contract is just the formal agreement, witnessed and signed.

A rather indirect response, but I trust you do
get that idea that one cannot "agree" to love,
Love does not happen that way.

Yes, no?

As for why people marry, sure, romantic love
does occur, and sometimes it lasts. For
the majority of people on earth now and in the
past, that luxury has not been available.

People get married for many reasons, love
being a minority stake holder.

As I said, love may develop and it may not,
same as for soldiers, who may come to trust,
or not, and to love as brothers, or not.

Now, do you agree that you cannot get love
by commanding it, no more than you can love
by deciding / agreeing to?

 

[Audie]

1) The questions weren’t rhetorical. They were posted to make the poster think about what he’d said.
2) Look at the posts. They come off as angry and bitter. It’s an observation, not an argument. He even admitted that he’s angry and embittered.
The argument’s not bankrupt, and the poster admitted it.

Your loss.

Your second sentence is a direct contradiction of
the first.

A rhetorical question is a question someone asks without expecting an answer

Perhaps you need to review what a rhetorical
question is, and how it is used.

How something "comes off"to you and what is so
are not necessarily the same thing. See Noahs ark, for
that one.

Only when talking religion - because it is such an obvious train wreck. I do get angry -

We all get angry some times. You said "bitter" too, and
then followed that with a falsehood, that he had admitted
to being embittered.

Rhetorical questions, contradictory statements, and
falsehoods are signs of a bankrupt argument.

 

[sojourner]

I can tell you why its there... because human morality has made gigantic strides since that utter crap was written. Things like telling people their babies should be bashed into rocks were probably commonplace - so it is a recording of the normal, everyday activities of "God's Chosen People."

Now... isn't it really, really weird how the world has fallen into such massive amounts of sin and reprobated-ness? If only we could go back to the times when we were innocently telling people that it would be great if someone would come along and bash their babies against rocks. Man... I miss the good old days, you know?

Ok. I counter that with Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the Holocaust, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Boston, 9/11, “the Wall,” Donald Trump, disco and leisure suits. Show me where the “gigantic strides are?”

Yes! Those cultures were barbaric, compared to our current standards. But we show the same barbarity in our own ways. Why not include an honest picture of humanity? The Bible is replete with “How It Ought To Be,” but it also shows us “Where We Are Now.” When you look in the mirror, do you want to see what you want to see, or do you want to see what you really look like?

They killed babies. We do too. And we always seem to justify it somehow. That’s the ugly reality of the human condition that we must face up to! But... loving our neighbors, showing kindness, practicing mercy, being honest, showing generosity and hospitality — these are things that also show who we are — and they’re things to which we aspire, as well. We gotta work through the crap to get to the good stuff. And we don’t do that by ignoring the crap. It’s included in the biblical record in order to make us deal with it.

 

[sojourner]

What I said stands despite your attempt to get out of it.

What you said is incorrect, despite your attempt to validate it.

 

[sojourner]

Your second sentence is a direct contradiction of
the first.

A rhetorical question is a question someone asks without expecting an answer

Perhaps you need to review what a rhetorical
question is, and how it is used.

You’re mistaken. I did expect an answer. Unfortunately for you, I received one.
Perhaps you need to review your reading comprehension.

 

[Audie]

What you said is incorrect, despite your attempt to validate it.

Please note that I followed up with
a rather precise demonstration that it is correct.

 

[Audie]

You’re mistaken. I did expect an answer. Unfortunately for you, I received one.
Perhaps you need to review your reading comprehension.

MY reading comprehension is not the problem here.
You somehow did not understand what a rhetorical question is,
and failed to notice that your second sentence was, as I said, an obvious direct contradiction to the first?

That is a bit of a rhetorical question actually, as I have
very low expectation that you will prove able to actually
respond to it.

On to other errors-you asked these quesitons

Are you ever kind to someone? Do you ever lift up the downtrodden? Do you ever return kindness for unkindness? Do you bring light and love and beauty to your world? do you respect your fellow creatures

You DID NOT receive an answer to those questions
which is one falsehood; and if you claim that you really-really
expected an answer, that is another.

Denying that they are rhetorical is yet another.

There is no sin in using rhetorical questions, why
run it like a vampire fleeing sunlight?

 

[sojourner]

Please note that I followed up with
a rather precise demonstration that it is correct.

No, you didn’t. You’re still incorrect.

 

[Cooky]

If the Biblical god character exists and is as evil as that book depicts as being , why do some believers make excuses for its disgusting behaviour?

How dare you...

How dare you not capitalize the "G" in God.

 

[sojourner]

I basically agree with almost all of this. But the big problem I have is that this is not, at all, what The Bible says. The first few commandments of 10 have nothing to do with "your fellow creatures." They have everything to do with God - who seems to like to make everything about Himself. Unfortunately for "God" - human morality systems are concerned SOLELY with the treatment of our fellow creatures. NOT with the "treatment of God." And this is as it should be. Don't you see? God's prescriptions for morality that Christian theists always tout as "the best" are completely wacko. 10 commandments set forth as a cornerstone for morality... and 3 of them aren't even about morality.

You DID NOT receive an answer to these questions
which is one falsehood; and if you claim that you really-really
expected an answer, that is another.

See the long quotation above. I did receive an answer. The quote is the answer. He agrees, and follows that with an explanation and a caveat.

Denying that they are rhetorical is yet another

Thinking that they are rhetorical and stating such is a falsehood on your part.

There is no sin using rhetorical questions, why
run it like a vampire fleeing sunlight?

Just a hint-as soon as someone resorts to
"angry / bitter" we know their argument is bankrupt.

Of course, that was already evident in the string
of rhetorical questions

You indicate with the above statement that it is a sin in the world of argument.
Another falsehood on your part.

Stop derailing the thread. Is this poor attempt to pick at the edges of an argument the best you got?

 

[Cooky]

Is this poor attempt to pick at the edges of an argument the best you got?

It's all she has. Yes.

...Sad, I know.

 

[LightofTruth]

A rather indirect response, but I trust you do
get that idea that one cannot "agree" to love,
Love does not happen that way.

Yes, no?

As for why people marry, sure, romantic love
does occur, and sometimes it lasts. For
the majority of people on earth now and in the
past, that luxury has not been available.

People get married for many reasons, love
being a minority stake holder.

As I said, love may develop and it may not,
same as for soldiers, who may come to trust,
or not, and to love as brothers, or not.

Now, do you agree that you cannot get love
by commanding it, no more than you can love
by deciding / agreeing to?

The marriage contract disagrees with you in that people do not "agree" to love.
All one needs to do is look at the words of the vows. They say that you promise to LOVE the other person. That means you AGREE to love them. It does not mean that the contract causes the love but that the person agrees to love the other until death.
In God's covenant with His people, they AGREED to the terms of it. One of which was to love God.

 

[JJ50]

How dare you...

How dare you not capitalize the "G" in God.

If it is as evil as the Bible indicates it is, I will always use a small 'g'.

 

[Cooky]

If it is as evil as the Bible indicates it is, I will always use a small 'g'.

Shameful..!

 

[Audie]

See the long quotation above. I did receive an answer. The quote is the answer. He agrees, and follows that with an explanation and a caveat.


Thinking that they are rhetorical and stating such is a falsehood on your part.




You indicate with the above statement that it is a sin in the world of argument.
Another falsehood on your part.

Stop derailing the thread. Is this poor attempt to pick at the edges of an argument the best you got?

Nah, never mind, you've fully demonstrated that
you, as a typical creo, are entirely incapable of admitting
to the tiniest error.

No sane person would attempt larger issues with
someone who cant even handle a small and irrelevant
one.

 

[Audie]

If it is as evil as the Bible indicates it is, I will always use a small 'g'.

I will go with "since it is nonexistent".