Jim’s off-topic comments

[Jim]

(edit) The title was originally “Jim’s out-of-character comments. Now this thread is to post comments about threads where I’m not allowed to post or where my comments might be off topic or out of character. (end edit)

I mean “out of character” (OOC) in the sense of roleplaying games, as being outside of the current story context. For example, talking about the Kardashians in a “Lord of the Rings” game. When I want to comment on some topic that’s being discussed, and I think that what I want to say might be out of character for the roleplaying games in that thread, I’ll say it here.

 

[Jim]

I’m responding to this:

Atheists you suck at being atheists.

The question is, what is the major problem with religion today? Currently the problem with religion that concerns me the most is religious beliefs diverting attention from a light that I see in some religions, and in science, and even repelling people away from it.

 

[usfan]

The question is, what is the major problem with religion today? Currently the problem with religion that concerns me the most is religious beliefs diverting attention from a light that I see in some religions, and in science, and even repelling people away from it.

Hasn't that been the problem with 'religion!' for all time?

Unless you are narrowly defining, as some do, 'religion! = Christianity!'

..most of the time, that is the subtle implication, not the general religious nature of man..

Religious bigotry is nothing new. And religious adherents of ALL faiths, including atheism, have dogmatists and intolerant bigots.. so what else is new, regarding the nature of man?

I refuse to accept, or enable, the phony narrative, that "Christianity is the cause of all evil in the world!" Human religious bigotry predates Christianity, and is common in all cultures, eras, and regions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I mean “out of character” (OOC) in the sense of roleplaying games, as being outside of the current story context. For example, talking about the Kardashians in a “Lord of the Rings” game. When I want to comment on some topic that’s being discussed, and I think that what I want to say might be out of character for the roleplaying games in that thread, I’ll say it here.

Oh, right. I remember now.

What you seem to mean then is that you reserve the right to decide on advance what you consider to be a valid take on the subject matter at hand, and what you consider to be worth of sumary disregard as "OOC".

I fear that I can't in good faith see that decision as wise, nor very defensable.

 

[Jim]

Hasn't that been the problem with 'religion!' for all time?

I don’t know. Maybe. It could be anything that people substitute in the place of the light, instead of following the light.

Unless you are narrowly defining, as some do, 'religion! = Christianity!'

I’m not. Also, it isn’t only religions. People do the same thing with science.

 

[usfan]

I’m not. Also, it isn’t only religions. People do the same thing with science.

..many just redefine their religious beliefs as 'science!' ..to take a 'more sciencey than thou!' stance. In reality, their beliefs are religio/philosophical.. same as everyones.

 

[Jim]

What you seem to mean then is that you reserve the right to decide on advance what you consider to be a valid take on the subject matter at hand, and what you consider to be worth of sumary disregard as "OOC".

That doesn’t look to me like what meant when I said that all the debating is roleplaying. Anyway, it was another one of my reckless generalizations. That’s it! That’s what I’ve been looking for, the next thing for me to work on, to help free the world from prejudices. I need to learn to stop making reckless generalizations, myself. Thanks!

 

[charlie sc]

concerns me the most is religious beliefs diverting attention from a light that I see in some religions

You and your light.

 

[Jim]

What you seem to mean then is that you reserve the right to decide on advance what you consider to be a valid take on the subject matter at hand, and what you consider to be worth of sumary disregard as "OOC".
That doesn’t look to me like what I meant when I said that all the debating is roleplaying. Also, what I said was a reckless generalization. I don’t follow all the debating, so how would I know? Besides, I didn’t ever consider all the debating I’ve seen, before I said that.

I might be roleplaying as much as anyone, maybe more. Another way of thinking about what this thread is for is that sometimes when I say what I want to say it only leads to frustration for me and others. This thread might be a way of avoiding that, or at least avoid derailing threads.

 

[LuisDantas]

Roleplaying happens to be a hobby of mine.

It has many functions, including emotional release. But it should not be confused with honest debate. It is definitely not ok to label someone else's argument as such unilaterally.

Come to think of it, is it even ok to invoke the word in order to protect one's own arguments? I don't think so, either. But it can be an useful exercise under certain conditions, I suppose.

 

[Jim]

It is definitely not ok to label someone else's argument as such unilaterally.

I retracted the “all.” All I’m saying now is that some of the debating looks like roleplaying to me, and that thinking of it that way might help avoid some grief for me and others. Also, that I need to practice moderation more, and not be so reckless in what I say.

 

[usfan]

Also, that I need to practice moderation more, and not be so reckless in what I say.

..words of wisdom for all of life..

 

[LuisDantas]

I retracted the “all.” All I’m saying now is that some of the debating looks like roleplaying to me, and that thinking of it that way might help avoid some grief for me and others. Also, that I need to practice moderation more, and not be so reckless in what I say.

That sure sounds fair.

I am sorry if I judged prematurely.

 

[Jim]

I saw some debating about Trinity doctrine, and I decided to post my thoughts about it.

Sometimes when the Bible says “God,” it’s really talking about Jesus. Sometimes when it says “God,” it’s really talking about the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus says and does things that only God can do. At the same time, there are passages that seem to be saying that there is only one God. Another complication is that God and Jesus talk to each other, and about each other and the Holy Spirit. Trinity theories are ways of trying to deny that there is any contradiction.

In order for the Trinity doctrine of Christian churches to have any possibility of being true, the words “is,” “distinct,” “person,” and “essence” can not mean what they do in everyday language. For example, the “is” is not commutative. I don’t think that anyone knows or cares what those words actually do mean, in that context. That’s part of what makes it a mystery.

I’ve seen some people who believe in the Trinity doctrine saying that whenever any Christians try to explain it, they fall into one heresy or another.

 

[Jim]

I’ll post some thoughts here about the debating. I’m writing this post for myself, but I’m doing it in the forum because it might interest some other people.

Some of it looks to me like people using words for other purposes besides trying to understand themselves and the world around them, trying to explain what they’re thinking, and trying to understand what other people are thinking. Some of it looks disabling and poisonous to me. I have some ideas that I’ve been practicing and promoting to help detoxify the discussions, but I won’t be discussing that here.

I’ll be focusing on trying to understand what people might be thinking, and helping them understand what I’m thinking if they want to.

As I understand it, some of the debating is about some people believing that some God exists or is real, or that some parts of the Bible describe things that really happened, and some other people denouncing those beliefs. Just now I had a thought that there might be a link between people’s attachment to believing that their God exists or is real, and using that belief to excuse and camouflage unloving attitudes and behavior towards others. That might apply to everything that people think they know, from science or from their scriptures.

I don’t think that anyone thinks that it’s always wrong to believe what some other people are telling us, so that can be ignored as a reason for not believing that some God exists or is real. Then maybe what the debate is really about is what to believe and not to believe, in what our sources tell us.

Another reason that I’ve seen for people saying that they believe in God is because some things happen that they interpret as their God doing them.

Above all, I want to practice and promote a kind of love that I think is needed, and call attention to a light that I see in science and some religions, behind clouds of beliefs hiding it from people and repelling them away from it.

 

[Jim]

I’ve changed my mind about the harmfulness of believing in God. I think now that there might be an association between wanting to believe that God exists or is real, and unloving attitudes and behavior towards others. I think the same thing applies to everything that people think they know, from science or from their scriptures. Sometimes people wanting to think that they know something, might be associated with unloving attitudes and behavior towards others. Even so, I don’t see that as a reason for denouncing the beliefs and debating about. I still that what is needed is to practice and promote better attitudes and behavior, and better ways of satisfying psychological and social needs. Also, helping with ways for people to see the light.

 

[Jim]

Some of the debating looks to me like denouncing what people are not saying, and debating with them about it.

 

[Jim]

I want to stay focused on practicing and promoting the kinds of love that I think the world needs, and on helping with ways for people to see the light that I see in science and in some religions. There are some other things that I might want to do at the same time, like trying to help clear away some cobwebs in communication. For that purpose I might use this thread to talk to myself, to try to clarify my own thinking.

I want to try to look past the clouds of smoke and dust of people denouncing and depreciating each other, and using words for purposes other than communication, to see what the disagreements might be, and what reasons there might be for thinking one way or another.

One disagreement is about whether God exists or is real. One reason for thinking that might be that some scriptures talk about God as if he exists or is real. That leads to questions about reasons for believing what a person thinks the Bible says. That leads to questions about reasons for believing what some other people say about what the Bible says.

Another reason for thinking that God exists or is real is because it seems like a good explanation for what happens in a person’s life.

 

[Jim]

I’m posting here partly to help me think about how to see though all the smoke and dust of people using words for other purposes besides communicating information and ideas. Part of that is using them for virtue signaling and for stigmatizing people. Some examples are “racism,” “science,” “evidence,” “diversity” and “tolerance.” I won’t try to list all the examples or analyze all the ways that people use words, But when I see examples, I might post them here.

Most of all I want to try to focus on trying to see what people are thinking the way they see and to help them do the same with me if they want to; and helping to relay the light from behind the clouds; and practicing and promoting the kinds of love that I think are needed.

 

[Audie]

(edit) The title was originally “Jim’s out-of-character comments. Now this thread is to post comments about threads where I’m not allowed to post or where my comments might be off topic or out of character. (end edit)

I mean “out of character” (OOC) in the sense of roleplaying games, as being outside of the current story context. For example, talking about the Kardashians in a “Lord of the Rings” game. When I want to comment on some topic that’s being discussed, and I think that what I want to say might be out of character for the roleplaying games in that thread, I’ll say it here.

Why does Jim refer to itself in the third person.