Burl

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Do you think you might need to revisit this, Burl?

-No war with Russia (because Russia help him win elections)

-North Korea ignoring disarmament and relations as low as they'v ever been.  I reckon that Nobel might be out of Trump's reach at this stage.

-As for the Mideast, indeed Trump abandoned Syria to their fortunes but you'd have to say minimal improvement (perhaps enhanced problems now) in Iraq & Iran.

All media is propaganda, but no one with knowledge speaks during an active military campaign.

Justification is not a declaration of righteousness.  Any declaration is a work of man and not the grace of God.  Luther wrote on this as one of his three arguments against the anabaptist heresey.

5 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am not sure how we could tackle it either. 

But as you are almost certainly on board with, many aspects of our anecdotal life are illusory … eg free will. So my recommendation is to add one more thing to our skeptic's list.  

Start by googling psychology of belief.

I don’t know.  Those killed were professional warriors who profited off the deaths of others and accepted the costs so the ‘murder’ charge is hyperbole. 
The propaganda screech-o-meters are blasting away, so it’s too soon for me to have an opinion.

16 hours ago, PaulS said:

I went on a once in a lifetime vacation a couple of years ago - Never again!

🤣  Good one!  How are you dealing with the fires.

20 minutes ago, FireDragon76 said:

Messianics in my experience are generally preaching a fundamentalist evangelicalism, not appreciably different from the sort of thing I've already come to reject, just packaged with Judaica.

 

My experience is “Jews for Jesus” types can be like that, but the Messianic firmly deny the divinity of Jesus and their OT viewpoint is different.

But whatever.  Just a suggestion.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

That is like me saying I would rely on a theologian.

Why would anyone rely on a theologian regarding sensory psychology?  I lectured at Tulane on sensory psychology and I would not rely on myself.  The entire field is a tangle of incredibly different, intricate and detailed explorations.

My resolution is to take a once in a lifetime vacation.  Considering Cairo, Kyoto, London or Florence

I would not rely too heavily on an adjunct sports psychology instructor.

1 hour ago, FireDragon76 said:

I finally came to the realization a few months ago that I'm done with my church (conservative ELCA congregation).  I do not agree with evangelicalism approach to spirituality anymore, even in a relatively tolerant, quasi-mainline form.  There's too much potential toxic religious ideas there.

So, I'm not sure what I do now... if I consider myself Buddhist or just become a religious none.  It's a new thing for me.   I accept the conclusions, more or less, of the Jesus Seminar, especially Marcus Borg's views on the subject.  I'm not a pure skeptic, but I am a pragmatist and since I don't have a realist view of God, I would need a really good reason to remain identified as a Christian.

I suppose my worldview is Jungian, something closer to that.  I'm not a materialist, nor am I inclined towards scientism.  I just don't accept the dogmatism and anti-intellectualism that's part and parcel with evangelicalism.

Theology is good for getting around things that are barriers to faith but you are never going to find a church that is a perfect fit.  Look for a good bible study.  Messianic jews have some great ones.

Merry Christmas everyone!

https://www.boredpanda.com/jesus-christ-funny-autocorrect/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Don't forget the 1 in 6000 chance of a nickel landing on its edge - it's not as simple as only heads or tails.

You remind me of a man . . . 

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

To the point.........   Opposites are an illusion. They are created by people and not what they seem to be.  However useful opposites seem to be in organizing ourselves or simplifying our life, they simply do not exist except as arbitrary points on a continuum  in our mind. I have used hot and cold as an example because it seems to me the easiest to understand but it is applicable to good and evil, right and wrong,  pleasure and pain, love and hate, beautiful and ugly, rich and poor, success and failure..... and even life and death.   My original point was/is that overcoming or transcending the polarity of opposites we have created  goes a long way toward establishing a peaceful, forgiving and harmonious life here on earth and even on this forum. 😄

Flip a coin.  Heads or tails?

4 hours ago, thormas said:

First, this is information I was saving for my best selling autobiography ;+}..........however, I had already written out a response on the site - but then I looked at your full question again. You want to know if I speak from the experience you endorse or if this is just an academic argument but that suggests if it is the latter then it might not be considered as worthy or insightful as one who has such experience – even if that very experience is questionable. However, if one has had only true, personal relationships with another or other human beings, that too is experience and one can speak from that reality. 

As an aside, most of us haven’t murdered but, given our experience of not murdering, we can make a value judgment on murder – actually many/most human being make such value judgments in their lives. So, I disagree with this premise and therefore I have decided to not answer as you would have me. I will simply say I have experience and leave it at that without further characterization.

I will say, and I ‘blame’ this on my Irish heritage, that unlike many of my best friends who married in their early 20s soon after graduating from college, I didn't marry until I was in my 30s. Therefore, I continued to ‘date’ a good deal in the ensuing decade. What I will say is what I said in response to another questions: the experience is that ‘this’ particular woman captivated me and I wanted to spend time with her. I assumed, as with friendship, that there would be strings, I didn’t want it to be over – rather I wanted to know ‘her’- this particular woman, first and foremost, as person (which seemed to be the natural, almost the built-in response) not as an object to be used and forgotten. Hell, why would I want that when I was captivated and fascinated by her?

Obviously, the relationships didn't always work out, although most lasted a couple/few years and I remain great friends with most of these girls today - all except the one I left to date my wife – but I did first break up with her. And I knew whether or not they smelled well before sex – if you spend the time you get to know this kind of stuff :+}

Maybe it was because I was one of 3 boys in my family but when I ‘discovered’ girls, that was it: who wanted just a taste (no pun intended) when you could be with her day after day, week after week, for months, for years. I liked the strings,  I wanted to pull them (no pun intended) and see who this person was, I liked the mystery and the discovery of the other, I wanted time with her, I wanted her in my life. I guess I just actually dated more than you :+} because I didn't have time for one night stands, I already had more than that offered. Actually, now that I think of it, what were you doing that you had or needed all these 'no strings attached, its's over' experiences? Some of us were busy with girls that we actually knew and cared about in real relationships :+}

My hope - what I recommend for my kid, for all people, male and female, gay and straight, young and old - is that they will be captivated by the person, that they will value the other enough to want the strings because we all come with them and it makes us who we are. (No strings suggest you simply don’t want to or care enough for the other to truly engage.) And I don't want this just at the end of the journey when it is time to 'settle down' I want this to be the journey, I want the individual's journey to be engagements of persons fully as a person. And finally as a parting note and speaking as a guy to other guys (and perhaps lesbians): my god guys, we're talking about a woman - who has not been captivated, who would not opt for being captivated, who would not take the time to pull the strings to know the person who captivates you, who doesn't want this for themselves, who doesn't want this for others, who doesn't care enough to actually and really engage who that person, that woman is? This is the demand and the offer inherent in person and it is to be met as person. There is not, should not be thingness in person, unless we allow it in the other and in ourselves.

 

There are business transactions, there are exchanges of services in life - but I never thought of my friends in those terms, I never thought of and still refuse to think of a woman in those terms and I try to be on guard that I never think of any others in those terms. Even when I was in business and there were actual transactions, I still approached the other as person. Even in actual business tranactions there are strings as there are with friends, parents, kids and the little redheaded girl when she is all grown up  - but strings are the price of admission to friendship, to love and in human interaction that sees the other as person, perhaps even (including the ones who smell) as a kid of God.

Best thing I have read all week.

19 hours ago, PaulS said:

Your memory might be failing you a little Burl - I have never posted anything about going to church with my wife (I know this because she's never been to church) and I have never posted that I was involved with the Methodist church (but maybe you are confused because the Church of Christ I was involved with has a similar history to Methodism - both having come from the same Protestant Christianity backgrounds).  I have moved somewhat from believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher - I still think he has something to offer but where I sit currently, I'm not convinced there is anything 'spiritual' at all, other than the sense of community many (i.e. a lot of) of us exist in.

Christmas for me is a time to catch up with family and friends, exchange gifts, eat well, socialise, relax and have some fun.  It's a time to suspend the normal way of life for a few days and reconnect with my closest 'community'.  I think they used to call it Saturnalia until Christianity rose to dominance and claimed that date for its own celebration.  Either way, the cultural drive to have a time out for reconnecting is still there for all - christian or not.

It’s been a while.  Guess I misremembered.  Merry Christmas!

I remember when Paul posted often about being involved with the Methodist church with his wife and believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher.  It’s been a long time and I don’t hear that anymore.

What are you doing for Christmas, Paul?

4 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, you are making that proclamation.  I am saying there is no evil or righteousness, just different judgments based on one's cultural view of the world.  Call it sin or call it actualization - it's all just judgement.

No.  Sin is a fact.  Sometimes it is hard to identify, but typically easy for anyone with common sense.

And absolutely not self-actualization.

17 hours ago, PaulS said:

How do you believe it is a sin?

Not just simple sin, but sinning with a high hand.  You are proclaiming evil as righteousness.

Sin is unrighteousness.  Never mentioned by Abraham Maslow in his outdated 1950’s psychology and unrelated to sin and righteousness.

There are lots of definitions of righteousness, but that definition must come from an external source.  

There is entirely too much fatuous imagination in this thread.  Righteousness and is an asymptote, but remains real.  Thinking sin does not exist because it offends your imagination is magical thinking.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

You're giving sin the bird?

Pointer finger.  Your post is a sin.

On 11/30/2019 at 11:15 PM, PaulS said:

It's the word 'sin' to me and it's religious connotations that I see as nonsense.  I think it's time to dispense with that word because of its baggage.  To try and turn the term into something else, seems just a game to me.  Better to boot it altogether.  Sin, as taught by Christianity in general, is an outdated concept.  We know better.

That there are consequences for thoughts and behaviors, is inarguable to me.  That we can feel guilt and self condemnation I also agree with.  That it is only ourselves who can make us feel this way is fair, but there can be a lot of pressure in society and from family to feel that way as well.

Sin👆🏻

37 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Don't be like that Burl, I am trying to have a genuine discussion with you.

If you think Christians only rarely allow religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs to be involved in this pragmatism about choosing how charitable to be, then what do you think drives their desire to be charitable?

Are you only charitable because of weather conditions or because you happen to be in a good mood some days, or as a Christian does your understanding of God play a part in your charity choices?

It’s not a conversation.  It is a series of questions and I have lost interest.