Elen1107

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree with that, although I have gotten use to using the word transcendent or Other for external/extrinsic and the word immanent for internal/intrinsic. 

I'm thinking that it would take me a while to get used to, or to even remember this kind of word usage. Do you yourself communicate in circles where this kind of word usage is common, and/or are there circles where this kind of word usage is common?

It's interesting, but I've got to say that it is totally and completely new to me.

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

Interesting question about kicking God out. I would say 'in a sense' yes. I think one could argue that the Prodigal Son 'kicked' the Father out of his life for a while, symbolized by leaving the Father and living his own life that was at odds with the life of the Father. However, in the story, the Father remains, always available, always waiting, always present. So, was the Father ever really out or simply waiting, for as long as it took, for his child to turn back?

Did the Prodigal Son kick the Father out of his life or his Father out of his life? . . . Though I do understand that there is a parallel here and that the story of the P Son was told as a parable. . . . I'm thinking that it was a parable for the "Kingdom of God", but I don't have chapter and verse memorized, so I could be wrong here.

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

So too, if God is Love then one can 'kick' God out by not loving. However, Love (or the choice to love) is always there for one to take up once again. On another note if God is the ground of being, the very possibility of everything and anything existing, then one cannot kick God out or separate themselves from being. But it seems that, in Christianity, we are called to embody God/Love, so we are brought back to the idea of not loving, not being love and thus rejecting (kicking out) God. 

I don't know if I myself think of God as the "ground of all being", even though this phrase is used by a number of eminent scholars and some authors that I myself really think highly of. I guess I could say that God is 'the ground of all energy' or 'the Source of all energy'. 

I've read, and I'm pretty sure more than once, that J. S. Spong translates the word 'Father' as it's used as pertaining to God in the bible, as 'Source' instead of 'Father'. He, I believe, says that it's a better and more accurate translation into our English and also that is how it is translated back into ancient Americ or Syriac Americ.

Where Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament,  "Call no one your 'father' for you have but one 'father' who is in heaven". . . I, myself find this to be a more clear translation also, saying, "Call no one your 'source' for you have but one 'source' who is in heaven" . . . . cause there are a lot of people who do call a lot of other people "father". . & even in the Christian tradition(s), even though it says not to...

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

However I do get, at least I think I do, that you or anyone can kick God out of their life for a time. And if one formerly believed, I get that it could, for some, be lonely, sad or even terrifying. And that it takes a degree of courage and determination to 'rediscover' God anew.

Do you think that one person, or group of people can "kick God" out of another person's or group of people's lives?

11 minutes ago, thormas said:

If you highlight a paragraph, sentence or just a word (as if you were going to copy it) a box will appear that has the words Quote Selection inside of it.

Ok, I can do that once 

13 minutes ago, thormas said:

that

But trying to do it with 2 different sentences is proving to be difficult.

14 minutes ago, thormas said:

Just click on that box and the section you highlighted will appear below (for the newest comment in the thread you are on) and you can comment on it. You can do this numerous times.

Ok,.. I got your second sentence from your last post to me,.. but I can't remember how I did it, or don't know what I actually did.

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

Just click on that box and the section you highlighted will appear below (for the newest comment in the thread you are on) and you can comment on it. You can do this numerous times.

Ok,... I did it again by highlighting the selection and then right clicking it and then left clicking the page and then the option to "Quote Selection" pops up again.

I don't know if this is the best way of doing things,.. but at least it looks like it's working.

Hope that you or people don't mind me using your last post to me right in the middle of this comment thread to try to figure this out. Sorries if this is disruptive or something.

On 3/3/2020 at 7:53 AM, thormas said:

 I agree on this also. Hopefully a more PC or 'post modern' understanding can help but, I suspect, the real 'trick' is to live the truth or to incarnate this Divine Truth, i.e. to incarnate Love in humanity.

How does one do this? 

I can understand that God "incarnates" these things in people/individuals,... but how do we "incarnate" these things in others, or even ourselves.

Perhaps we have different understandings of the word "incarnate".

I've never thought I could "incarnate" anything in anyone, including myself,. . . never mind Love into humanity.

I've also never thought I could be "God incarnate", or anything like that. . .  That maybe happened to one person and one person only. . . God can maybe "incarnate" somethings in me, like good spiritual feelings, or a love for humanity, or certain ideas or insights or something. . . . But I've never thought of myself "incarnating" anything  . . . . I guess maybe I can be open to God "incarnating" these things or certain things in me, and that maybe I even have "free will" or free choice as to whether I allow these "incarnations" or not. But from my understanding of the word, only God "incarnates".

Maybe we have different understandings of the word "incarnate", or I'm not educated enough or something about how the word is actually used.

On 3/3/2020 at 7:53 AM, thormas said:

This is well said. An older theistic take on God seems to focus on the extrinsic God but less theistic views see God not as 'out there' but immanent in creation or, even more interesting, we have our being in God. There is no 'outsider God.

 

I really thought about this question some 15 years back, and decided, for myself, that God is both internal and external, both intrinsic and extrinsic. . . Can one 'kick God out' of oneself entirely? I don't know,... and really, really wouldn't want to try it myself, in order to find out. 

Can one 'kick God out' of another person, in part or in entirety? . . . Sometimes I feel like this has rather, sort of, kind of, really, happened to me. And for a real period of my life too. .  . . . But through reading the writings and books of people like John Shelby Spong and even & including Bart Ehrman, I've found my way out of that real, and real negative, and real, real painful, darkness.

& I'm not going back ! 🙂 ! ! !

& No one can make me ! 🙂 ! ! !

Yup ! ! ! . . . It's not happening ! ! 

On 3/3/2020 at 7:31 AM, thormas said:

The good news is that there was one man who stopped the 'stoners' in their tracks and said "consider." So there was once a people or some people who were ready willing and able to pick up the stones but they were shown the error of their way and, hopefully, not just for this moment but, going forward from that moment and in similar moments, they carried that wisdom with them and the 'truth' continued to 'set them free.'

 

Is this the same "one man" who wrote in the sand,.. and the stoning offence was one that involved two people, not one, though only one was brought forward? . . . & all the "stoners", all walked away cause that "one man" really made them look at themselves, honestly and in totality?

52 minutes ago, Burl said:

Limey is a Brit.  I heard it started when The British navy started quartermastering limes to prevent scurvy.

I think you are right.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=what is a Limey &qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=what is a limey &sc=0-16&sk=&cvid=422341E9ACA8441BA9B16EBBB0F61AED

On 3/2/2020 at 11:02 PM, PaulS said:

I'm underlining my words so they aren't confused with my quotes from you. Still can't figure out how to divide up a quote box like you all experienced PC forum users do.

100% okay with me.  There are a lot of things I am not certain about!

Think it's great when a person can admit it when they are uncertain about things. . . . "The more you know, the more you know what you don't know" Aristotle . . . . This has definitely turned out to be true for me.

It sounds like you still think it is something outside of or away from one’s self, as though it’s not an attribute one already has as a part of their being.  It sounds like you consider it seperate from what and who we are and as though it needs to be ‘found’ or contacted.  So in that regard it still seems to me to be ‘out there’ as in not a part of who we already are.

I've addressed this concept/question some 15 or so years back. I came to believe, to the best of my understanding, that the Higher Spirit/God is both outside and all around one, as well as inside one's own spirit and being. Where you say it's "an attribute one already has as a part of their being. " I really like that idea or concept. I don't know if it's something that I have experienced, or maybe I was disconnected from it myself, but I really like and can appreciate the concept. For myself, it really felt like I had to find or "contact" the Higher Spirit, both inside myself and through my "insides" into the outer world.

Interestingly, indigenous Australians, probably historically the oldest and most isolated human culture, reports no slavery before European’s arrived on the scene.  I wonder if in their isolation from the rest of humankind some 50-90,000 years prior meant the thought of enslaving another human just never crossed their minds?  And yes, it wasn’t until 1833 that the English abolished slavery in their empire, 1848 for the French (they had abolished it long before but it had come back) and eventually the US in 1865.

I think that you're probably right here. I'm also wondering if the indigenous Australians really had anyone to enslave or exploit. Also sometimes slavery has be what was considered the right thing to do with captives of war. That certainly isn't the only reason why it has gone on, but it is a consideration.

i too believe slavery should be eternally held as wrong.  I’m just making the point that historically the majority of humankind throughout history seems to have thought it was right.  So my only point was that ‘truth’ as we determine it often reflects the societal and cultural situations we find ourselves in.

I wouldn't consider that, "truth" Maybe it's the 'reality' that people found themselves in so they thought of it as "truth", but in a Divine, Higher sense of the word, myself, I really don't think of it as "truth.

I agree, but again my point is just that such understandings are reflective of our cultural values.  Today we couldn’t imagine a man marrying a 13yr old girl, but historically nobody batted an eyelid.  So ‘truth’ was understood differently at different times, I would argue. 

I was a 13 year old girl once, and believe you me , this is NOT "truth". NO,... no way, no how, not never. . uh-uh.. . .NO.. . no

Respect and tolerance are two buzz words we use.  I don’t disagree with them, particularly if it is respect and tolerance of what I believe is right! . But if part of your identity was that you believed God wanted all infidels to be beheaded, then I wouldn’t be as keen to see you exercise your right to ‘be who you are’.  This is where I see understanding self as reflective of our cultural and societal influences.

But then one gets into having to respect the unrespectable and tolerate the intolerable, whether they are "buzz words" or cliché’s or not. What does one do with that/this!?!. . .  I'm not tolerant at all of 'beheading in the name of God' even if it's one's "religious" belief. . . & is that really a person's real, true self? . . . . I've cut my teeth on religious tolerance and freedom, but there are some real serious limits to it too!. . . How about religious cannibalism, or child sacrifice? ! ? ! There are people's who practiced this as part of "religion" just 1 generation ago.   It doesn't matter how big or small a particular "religious" group is, some stuff is just nuts. 

No problem.  Peace and goodwill.

By 'One Love ~ True Love' I also mean Lifelong as well as Eternal Love . .  . . (though I do think there are some real grounds for divorce and separations, (though in the Christian tradition, one doesn't need "grounds" for a separation, (though both parties can't "do anything" if they are  separated). . . . (& they are supposed to get back together or just remain separated,... forever . . .). . . 

Just now, thormas said:

I think it is slang for a Brit but not positive. Most of us and certainly most PCs probably don't agree with everything that is in John Wayne movies but they were products of their time and also reflect Wayne's self image of a man's man. Liberty Valance was also a favorite of mine, with the emphasis on Stewart.

 

I'm thinking that there were a few things in that clip that could be considered "Conduct not becoming an officer or a gentleman". . . . 

Love Jimmy Stewart! 

Do you know if 'Donavan's Reef' was set in the South Pacific or somewhere else? Interesting how divisions in one country can break out somewhere else, on the other side of the world, and even in times of war.

On 3/3/2020 at 7:39 AM, thormas said:

You are right, it was said in fun as I too love his movies, even the corny ones like Donovan's Reef.

I understand tired and burnt out. So if and when you ever want to discuss these points or others, I'll be here.

 

 

 

Found a clip from 'Donavan's Reef'. Don't know if I've seen this one, but it looks familiar. I'm trying to figure out what "limy" means,.. think it might be an American or English slang term for Irish, (limy = green ?). Don't know if it's a term that I've ever heard before, it rings no bells. Don't think I agree with all of the concepts expressed in this clip either 😞 .

Think I might be having one of those weeks,... and am responding to the simple and less complex ideas first . . . 🙂 . . . 

Have you seen 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance', with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart?

Thanks, I'll give it all a try.

Is there a 'How to use this site/forum page' or something like that? I've found things like I'm only allowed so many likes or what ever, (still don't know how many), so now I'm not knowing how to use them and wondering if I should save them for the comments that I really, really, really like and not just use them for a 'Thanks for the reply' or I just like it, or something like that.

Thanks

On 3/2/2020 at 9:23 PM, PaulS said:

I use the term as a representation of our existence and who/what we are involved with.  For me, community can range from a hermit living in the forest through to the community of the Universe.  Most usually I am thinking of community as family or close friends, local area, state, nation, and planet earth.  All different levels of community, but all community nonetheless.  So things that can harm others and our environment, whilst recognising there needs to be a balance, are what I say are harmful to our community.  And I don’t think the list is set in concrete but rather is fluid depending on where we are at in our development and evolution as that community.  I hope that answers you and that you aren’t asking for a specific list per se.

Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a Higher Power to put first.  Perhaps our 'best self' is as close as I can come to at this point (which simultaneously I believe is a personal judgement call). 

When I say that sometimes "we all need to put ourselves first in our lives" I think of things like your example - taking some time out for ourselves for rest and recuperation even though there are perhaps other people that could do with our unrelenting assistance.  That seems like a practical (and sensible) example of putting one's self ahead of others. 

A dramatic example might be feeding ourselves food rather than feeding it to another - as a result they die but we live.   There are children starving to death in other countries - do you think we are doing everything humanly possibly as individuals to correct this, or are we perhaps approaching it more from a balanced perspective and being prepared to assist in addressing it whilst not jeopardizing our own well-being entirely.  What I mean is that often we may put ourselves first simply from the practical perspective that if we were to try and be everything to everybody then perhaps there'd be nothing left of 'us'.  Does that make any sense?

Concerning your first paragraph; Do you think that hurting an individual is hurting the community?

Concerning your second paragraph, (requoted here): "Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a Higher Power to put first.  Perhaps our 'best self' is as close as I can come to at this point (which simultaneously I believe is a personal judgement call). " . . . . . . .  Myself, I wasn't sure there was any such thing as a "Higher Power" for several decades of my own adult life. What I had in it's place was 'higher principals", I guess in a way one could say that 'higher principals' or 'truths' were my "higher power". I eventually came to feel that there was a "higher power" involved in these higher principals or truths.  I myself also believe that these things also relate to and intertwine with what you call "our best self".

Concerning your third paragraph: (requoted again here):"When I say that sometimes "we all need to put ourselves first in our lives" I think of things like your example - taking some time out for ourselves for rest and recuperation even though there are perhaps other people that could do with our unrelenting assistance.  That seems like a practical (and sensible) example of putting one's self ahead of others. " . . . . . . . .  . I can understand and agree with much of what you are saying. Where you say, "...there are perhaps other people that could do with our unrelenting assistance." I've met these kinds of  people on a personal level, and it always seems to be a one way street with nothing given back in return. It can and has facilitated total and complete burn out for the person/people doing all the giving and giving of assistance. Perhaps this is a good topic for another thread.

Concerning your forth paragraph: (requoted again): "A dramatic example might be feeding ourselves food rather than feeding it to another - as a result they die but we live.   There are children starving to death in other countries - do you think we are doing everything humanly possibly as individuals to correct this, or are we perhaps approaching it more from a balanced perspective and being prepared to assist in addressing it whilst not jeopardizing our own well-being entirely.  What I mean is that often we may put ourselves first simply from the practical perspective that if we were to try and be everything to everybody then perhaps there'd be nothing left of 'us'.  Does that make any sense?" . . . . . . . . . Yeah, this does make sense and on more than one level. It reminds me of the "Give a person a fish and they eat for a day. Teach a person to fish and they eat for a lifetime", saying that has been going around for a while now. People who have, (something) are getting tired of giving and giving and giving and in a way, it only seems to make things worse. Together they create a kind of dependency that even seems to make things worse and even make the dependent party less able to do things and apply what are now more lost skills, on their own.  . . . I've recently viewed a number of articles and videos on things like 'The Greening of the Deserts" or near deserts; sustainable agriculture/'Permaculture' that doesn't deplete the soil; and things like the Netherlands being like the 2nd or 3rd largest food producer in the entire world, (the Netherlands is a pretty small/tiny country itself and does have a real and formidable winter, so in a way this really does say something). . . If you are interested I can share some of these links with you. . . . I've tried to share and make known some of these ideas to the people who could make use of them or who it seems could really use them, but I'm just one little person and with out a format or a forum that gets them noticed or paid attention to too much. . . I am 'giving' or donating my time (which I don't have that much of) to these things in a real way, but I don't actually know how much good I'm doing or if it's having any real effect. 

Can I ask how you divide the 'quote' option from another person's post into more than one 'quote block''? I've tried doing it, and it starts looking like I'm editing someone else's quote, so I stopped doing it. Thanks if you have the time to explain how one does that, (if not that's ok). Thanks.

Is there a way for a person to access their notification list after viewing them once?

I have a notification button on the top near right hand corner of my computer screen when I'm in this forum. When I have notifications it shows up as a red button with a number in it indicating the number of notifications I have. If the number is 3 or 6, I can only go to one of the notifications on this list. Once I have clicked on the red button once, the button goes away, and I can't just go to the next notification on the list when I am done reading and or replying to the first one.

I'm having to write down, by hand, all the notifications in these lists and then navigate the web-forum until I can find the topics and subtopic threads that I am getting notifications from, and then scroll down on that topic thread until I find the comment or reply that caused the notification(s).

What do other people do?... and is there a way to access the list of notifications once the little red button has been clicked once and then disappears from the computer screen?

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "one needs to fine-tune and hone one's sense of truth".  Personally I don't think there is some supernatural truth 'out there' somewhere that we are able to tap into, but rather we live and breath on this earth at this point in time and we find truths that fit for us that may otherwise not in a different time or different culture. 

As a very basic example, once upon a time genuine people who thought they were in touch with their God believed stoning people to death or keeping others in slavery was the right thing to do, the truth.  Generally speaking, we don't consider that a truth in today's day and age.  So for me, truth is something a little less hard and fast and a little more subtle and changing depending on where we are at in our existence.

We think it is easy to discern truths such as not committing murder, not raping, not hurting others (unless justified) etc.  But to me, these seem pretty clear because they go to supporting or not harming, our 'community'.  I think where it gets a lot trickier is when people start discerning certain truths say about sexuality or morals (or dare I say religious beliefs) - that's when discerning the truth can indeed be impacted by societal and cultural acceptance, and also by personal experiences.  So one's personal discernment may not necessarily be truth, in my opinion.

I'm happy with whatever works for the individual, but draw the line where for me I consider such 'truths' to be harmful to my community.  After all, that's where I exist.

I think we disagree on a few points,... I hope that's ok and that it's all with a good and positive spirt.

Where I wouldn't say "some supernatural truth 'out there' somewhere", I would say that I believe there is some kind of Divine and Spiritual truth(s) that we can make 'contact' with. I wouldn't say it's so much "out there", as something we can make contact with through our souls and spirts, consciousness and intuition,.. and minds.

Something that I've realized just recently is that slavery has existed on all continents, among just about all peoples,.. and since before even written history. . . I'm like wow! . . . It wasn't until like the American Civil War that slavery became shunned and despised and outlawed globally and internationally. There are even a few countries that have just outlawed it recently, since even the 1960's and 1980's, Saudi Arabia and Yemen being two of these countries. I've even read that it still exists in one North West African country, (the name of which I can't remember right now, but one can Google it) though in this country it is illegal and is denied and kept underground. . .  . . . I do believe however, that slavery is Divinely and Eternally wrong, hideous and horrendous, no matter what is said in any so called "religious" texts by any "religion" whatsoever. . . So I do believe there is a real "Divine and Everlasting Truth" here and that it's about time that we humans figured this out.

Concerning what you said about "sexual morals". I certainly don't believe that we should, or that governments should legislate people's private lives. To me that is just ridiculous and ludicrous. I think that people need to pretty much judge and decide for themselves what is right and wrong and what they should and shouldn't be doing and what works for them. There are some considerations however, like children and what happens to and with them, and things like STDs and Aids, and also things like are various types of birth control really safe both in terms of for the person taking or using them and in terms of creating an infant. There is of course the consideration of consent too. By consent I mean, physical consent (no force or violence), age of consent, religious or mind-state consent, and economic consent,... and there are probably a few other considerations that one could list here also in terms of consent, gross intimidation for instance. These things I think are wrong and Divinely wrong, and have always been so,... people just need to figure this out also.

For myself, I believe in "One Love ~ True Love". And to me there is something Divine and Spiritual about this also,... but it's not because of some kind of divine truth or outer morals or something,... It's because this is who I really am, this is part of my identity,... and I have a right to be this way, just as other people have a right to do things their way and be who they are. And this should be respected both ways and to the core and bottom of who we really are. 

BTW, "One Love ~ True Love" is not something that is expressed in any religious texts that I know of,. . . They all give us a bunch of other yadder-yadder on the subject,.. a lot of which doesn't sit right with me at all and I for one am going to respect my right to do things in a way that I think and feel is right and best for myself. . . . (btw I also think that "One Love ~ True Love" is Eternal Love,.. in case that isn't clear from the phrase).

Thanks for Reading all this.

8 hours ago, thormas said:

John Wayne can do no wrong! 

I like the example you gave and agree that the fine tuning is a life long process. Irenaeus who lived 200 years before Augustine would agree with you. He did not envision a perfect humanity that fell from grace but believed there were two stages to creation. In the first stage, we are born (evolve) as intelligent beings capable of moral and spiritual growth (what he calls the 'image' of God) and in the next (present) stage, we are being changed (changing ourselves) from these human creatures into Children of God/The Spirit (what he calls the 'likeness' of God). 

One of my favorite authors, Nikos Kazantzakis in 'The Temptation of Christ' uses the image of man transforming the clay (the mud) of humanity into divinity.

 

Perhaps this is what Jesus did: his death on the cross was the final moment of transformation in which his humanity expressed (became) divinity (selfless, self-giving love). And the resurrection, however one might understand it, is the experience/ the declaration that such a life cannot be held by death. As Irenaeus said "God had become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Or simply, Divinity (Love) in humanity so that humanity might become Divinity (children of God).

One thing that has always intrigued me is the realization that such fine tuning (such transformation), for most of us, is not accomplished before we die. 

 

Concerning your first sentence: "John Wayne can do no wrong!" . 🙂 . I don't think I, myself would say this about any person, cept probably JC. . . No person, no priest, no prophet, no pope, no parent, no partner, etc. . 🙂. . . I'm figuring you meant this in just, so I'm kind of lol 🙂 . . . Aren't his movies great though!

You make some interesting and to myself, rather complex points in your other sentences and paragraphs. It might be good to get back to them, though for myself, perhaps one at a time. Right now I'm pretty tired and burnt out, and have to stick with the simple stuff for a while.

I will say one thing however, I do believe that we/people can or have the potential to evolve beyond death,.. and that JC did, and is, (evolved beyond death that is).

I'd like to say that I really do agree with everything else that's in the '8 Points' in a good and positive way,... It's just those two words.

Thanks

20 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Ellen,

I don't think that point 4 being inclusive means to be yoked together. There are actions that are unacceptable to us that are perpetrated by others and it seems to me that wisdom dictates we should have compassion for them and are not to hate them , yet neither are we to allow their choices to go without consequences. For example, If a person i know is a compulsive liar i forgive them and hold no ill will against them but at the same time i would choose not to be close friends with them and take whatever communication there my be from them with a grain of salt.  Behavior always speaks louder than words and we are admonished to love and forgive and be as innocent as doves but wise as serpents in our dealings with others. Mat 10:16

 Inclusive means "containing (a specified element) as part of a whole".  We accept and include all people as part of the whole without malice or prejudice against them excluding none yet we still choose not to yoke (join together) ourselves to those who would harm us or others.

Joseph

There's a lot of stuff in Christianity about "forgiveness". There's also a good deal about "repentance" and making amends and "paying back the last penny". & also about "confession" and apologizing. Where exactly "forgiveness" and these four other things balance and equal out is a deep and another question. It depends on which verses one reads in the NT and what is fair and upright in the long run. 

These are perhaps ideas for another thread.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Personally, I don't interpret 'inclusion' as meaning we have to accept other people's harmful actions and behaviors.  We can include them in our community, if they are willing to be included, but their inclusion also includes responsibilities on their part.  We can accept a person without the need to necessarily tolerate their actions or behavior, particularly where such is harmful to the community.  'Inclusion' to me doesn't mean we don't take action against another's harmful actions or poor behaviour.

As for selfless love - I agree with you.  The Point itself doesn't bother me too much as I regard it more as something to aim for, but I don't read it as something that MUST be adhered too/achieved.  'Selfless love' is one of those aspirations, but sometimes I think we all we need to put ourselves first in our lives.

Concerning your first paragraph, what do you consider to be "harmful to the community"?

I think that I, myself disagree with your statement that "we all need to put ourselves first in our lives". Being I Christian I've kind of decided to go with putting God/The Great Spirit/ Higher Power etc. first and my GOOD neighbor and myself 2nd and as equals, (with an emphasis here on the word 'good'). I will however, after a hard or heavy day of doing stuff, I do put my feet up and have a cup of tea and just take care of and focus a bit on myself for a while.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Good points.

There is, I believe, a distinction in inclusion of the person and accepting their actions. I know the two meld together many times but, for example, with bullies it seems that they were bullied also or they might suffer from low self-esteem or they have an addiction or perhaps they are just 'screwed up.'  So is the act of bullying freely chosen or are they 'in bondage' to some real degree?  The Christian, I believe, is called to express (and be) love/agape/compassionate concern for the other, including the bully but that doesn't mean that she can't speak against the actions of the bully or confront the bully or perhaps even stand against the bully as a person who is harming others - while also being able and willing to welcome them back once they change their actions.

As an aside, I too know people who are 'better people' than some Christians and I also know Christians who are also among the best that the world has to offer. However I always though it was not the one who said "Lord, Lord (or who followed a certain religion or philosophy) but the one who does the will of the Father" and that will is to love  (in the Christian belief). 

As for selfless I haven't really though too much on the difference between Paul and Jesus since both, for me, speak of going out from self on behalf of the other (be they equal or better in the moment). 

Concerning your first paragraph, what first comes to mind for me is; maybe it depends on how big the bully is and if they are bigger than you. There are some things that a person simply cannot handle and cope with. The word 'bigotry' means or is about 'who's the biggest'. Somepeople are just wired or conditioned or geared up this way. I've also wondered if it's something that comes from our prehumen past. Other primates do this sort of thing and are about 'who's the biggest' and the alpha male and female kind of stuff. Myself, I pretty much believe in evolution into Christ, & perhaps even with a bit of reincarnation mixed in. I'm not saying other people have to see things this way, it's just the best I can figure with the info I've got. I don't believe that people had to know that the earth was round in order to be "saved". Like wise I don't think that they/we have to know exactly how we were "created". Myself, I feel like I need to be "saved" from my primordial or prehumen or evolutionary mixed-up-ness, rather than some kind of "original sin". [ I've encountered a few other people that think this way too, one of whom is John Shelby Spong, who says, "We are still evolving".]

Concerning your second paragraph, what I mean or meant to say about "better people" is not that some people are "better" than others per-say, but that some people 'act' better than other people. Whether they are actually "better" or not is another kind of question.

All this being said, I don't think you can ask people to deal with the un-deal-with-able or tolerate the intolerable, even as Christians. Somethings are just plain out of a person's league and out of their ability to cope with or handle.

So maybe I'm nit-picking or something a bit similar here, but two words in the 8 points have made me uncomfortable and caused me to question. The first word is in point 4:

"4. Know that the way we behave towards one another and Earth is the fullest expression of what we believe, therefore we vow to walk as Jesus might have walked in this world with radical compassion, inclusion, and bravery to confront and positively change the injustices we experience as well as those we see others experiencing;"

The word is "inclusion". From the New Testament we get Paul saying, "Don't be yoked to unbelievers." I don't have a problem with "unbelievers" per-say, and have even found many non-believers to be better "Christians", and better people, than many Christians are. However, there are certain people/persons that I do have trouble being "yoked" to. Among them are; child-abusers, bullies, terrorists/intimidators, and a slew of other stuff and categories along these kinds of lines.

The other word is in point 8:

8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love on this journey toward a personally authentic and meaningful faith.

The word here is "selfless". I've tried this, and have done this for decades and more. It didn't work out or work for me at all. From the writings of Paul in the New Testament we get, "Always hold others as better than yourself". . . . However, also in the New Testament, we have Jesus quoted as saying, "Love your good neighbor as equal to yourself". . .  . . The difference here is between "better than yourself" and "equal to yourself". . . . Since I've changed my thinking and perspective on this, things have gone a good pace better for me. . . Also if I'm going to choose between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus, where they differ, I think I almost if not always choose those of Jesus, as far as this/these things are concerned.

Thanks for reading. Any comments or questions are welcome. Thanks

Concerning a number of people's comments on this thread; They have inspired me to think of this movie. There's a piece of dialog at 47:50 - 48:00 that goes like this:

Angel: "There's nothing we're not allowed to do. It's just that we don't believe in doing what we know is wrong."

Badman (John Wayne): "Well that makes it pretty much each fella's own guess."

Angel: "But each fellow know inside."

I find that one needs to fine-tune and hone one's sense of truth and of what is right and wrong, (at least I do/have), and then maintain and keep up with this "fine-tuning" and discernment. 

A person needs to put the "Truth" first, no matter what one has to win, lose or draw with/on. . . That is if one really wants to find the "Truth" and be aware of what the best things to think or do are.

[ For myself, I find this a good movie, even if it's a bit old-fashioned, with a good number of moral quips and even insights in it. In the next line in the dialog, John Wayne/The Badman says, "Well there's a lot of gents I wouldn't want to give that much leeway to." . . . perhaps they haven't "fine-tuned" their discernment that much yet . . . ]

Thanks for reading

I didn't mean to start a totally new topic on  The Technician's welcoming post-thread.

I got the capital 'T's mixed up and thought I was writing to The Technician instead of Thormas, and that The Technician was opening up his welcoming post-thread to this/these ideas.

Sorry about that.

9 minutes ago, thormas said:

I think this is a great insight: sometimes such judgement is essential in the case of not only child abuse as you have shown but, for example, with bullying. We might not know why one abuses a child or why one is a bully - but we can definitely say, "No!" such actions are wrong.

I agree with you. Bullying can be some pretty sick and awful stuff. One needs to say No! and have no tolerance.

Figuring out why they are that way and if one or someone can help them comes afterwards,... that's if one can handle dealing with it at all.

Concerning the New Testament on this subject all that comes to mind for me right now is that "a husband must have the proper understanding if his wife is not the same size or stature" . . . and "never be harsh with her", (the first quote is from 1st Peter, 3-7 and the second is from Colossians 3, 19).

I'm thinking that this should pertain to all people and that size and stature DOES matter, no matter what the gender, age, ethnicity or what-ever and other differences people might have. 

Myself I don't like organized fighting or wrestling, (and probably wouldn't have much to say about it if it was illegalize or something). But at least there people are categorized in terms of weight and training and ability, and it's a person's choice as to whether they agree to a physical fight.

I'm thinking that there have got to be other quotes from the bible pertaining to this, but none of them comes to mind right now. There is "Turn the other cheek", … but what does one do if someone then does slam a person multiple times in "the other cheek"?  . . < If you have an answer to that one, Please let me know . . . . 

On 2/27/2020 at 10:20 AM, TheTechnician said:

 I mean, truly, my role is not to judge others or their actions, that is God's job. What are your thoughts on this? 

Hi, Welcome to the group. I'm not a new member, but I haven't posted in this forum for like five years, until like 2-3 days ago. Hope you can find some exchanges that are worthwhile to you.

Concerning your quote and question: I don't think we can throw out our "judgement" completely with regards to people or other people. I've rather recently met two people who turned out to be child abusers,... one of them in church. Both were rather, and very much unrepentant and both had their children taken away from them.

It really wasn't much a matter of "judgement" on my part, I just couldn't handle it, and I am no longer their friends. However I have been wondering if some kind of 'judgement' or something might be in order here. I don't think we can throw out our 'good judgement' when it comes to somethings or somepeople's attitudes and or actions.

Sorry for making my welcoming post to you with such negative subject matter included, but your question brought this to mind, and it has been on my mind a good deal recently.

Hope things go well for you, and Welcome again.

12 hours ago, thormas said:

It always seemed to me that the 8 Points present an ethic and a belief (of sorts). 

However, I understand why you, why many of us, don't like "to be told what to do or how to think." However I never thought we were only using our own thinking and discernment: when we hear (or read) another we are oftentimes at least being open to their thinking and 'trying it on' to see if it 'fits' -  if it might also work for us. 

Yeah, but even when "'trying it on' to see if it 'fits'" one is using their own discernment, discretion and thinking, (and or the discernment and discretion/thinking that the Higher Spirit/God gives/offers them).

Even when taking an idea from another source or person, we are taking responsibility for taking on that/those ideas. Or at least hopefully we are (to the best of our abilities).

Also one can use their own thinking and discernment before "trying it on", and just think about it/something/an idea or set of ideas, and decide and come to a determination that way.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think that is what all religions are trying to achieve to a large degree.  Many people feel there is something else and the various religious beliefs, including those who are 'spiritual but not religious', do seem to be attempts to try and understand that.  Of course we have seen most of the different understandings claiming to be the 'right' one, which is what I like about PC - it isn't 'telling' you what you need, it is inviting you to simply relax and enjoy the trip.

Yeah, I don't like to be told what to do or how to think, & don't like telling other people in the same way either. People should be using their own thinking, discretion and discernment.

I do like to be able to state where I myself am at from time to time and what really works for me, without it being taken as telling others what to think. It's nice to find people with similar understandings or outlooks on things, but where that's not happening we need to be ok with our differences,... as long as no one is hurting, or discriminating, or defaming, etc. other persons/people.