independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 15th Sep 2019 10:56am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > to the bible literalists...
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 04/29/06 4:01am

SpecialEd

avatar

Rhondab said:

you guys are killing me with this stuff.


Yes, this is the first time in Prince.Org P&R history I recall there being an equal number of outspoken and unapologetic naysayers comparable to the bible literalist mainstay. The evolution must be jarring. wink
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 04/29/06 4:09am

Rhondab

SpecialEd said:

Rhondab said:

you guys are killing me with this stuff.


Yes, this is the first time in Prince.Org P&R history I recall there being an equal number of outspoken and unapologetic naysayers comparable to the bible literalist mainstay. The evolution must be jarring. wink



rolleyes Actually, there's not may bible literalist in this forum if you actually read the forum. So give me a break. What's annoying is that any person saying they are a christian, religious, or whatever are not put into this category of being "unintelligent" or a "robot". This is what is killing me.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 04/29/06 4:24am

SpecialEd

avatar

Rhondab said:

SpecialEd said:



Yes, this is the first time in Prince.Org P&R history I recall there being an equal number of outspoken and unapologetic naysayers comparable to the bible literalist mainstay. The evolution must be jarring. wink



rolleyes Actually, there's not may bible literalist in this forum if you actually read the forum. So give me a break. What's annoying is that any person saying they are a christian, religious, or whatever are not put into this category of being "unintelligent" or a "robot". This is what is killing me.


Fair enough, remove "bible literalist" and replace with self-identified jehovahs witnesses and protestant christians. I don't think any other faiths are even visible on this website. The jehovahs witnesses only appearing circa Rainbow Children album of course...
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 04/29/06 5:07am

Rhondab

SpecialEd said:

Rhondab said:




rolleyes Actually, there's not may bible literalist in this forum if you actually read the forum. So give me a break. What's annoying is that any person saying they are a christian, religious, or whatever are not put into this category of being "unintelligent" or a "robot". This is what is killing me.


Fair enough, remove "bible literalist" and replace with self-identified jehovahs witnesses and protestant christians. I don't think any other faiths are even visible on this website. The jehovahs witnesses only appearing circa Rainbow Children album of course...



that's not true either. We've had many discussions about JWs way before Rainbow Children. I know Melody has had her share of 'discussions' with folks before Rainbow Children.

The Jw discussion is nothing knew in this forum. A few more may have joined the discussion but it didn't start with Rainbow Children.

But it goes again to the close mindedness. The fact that Jws and christians 'annoy' some of you, only says that some of you have limited thinking when it comes to those who believe in a faith.

I think my issue isn't with the topic but the insults that come with some of these discussions. We can discuss this without those we are biblical literalist being called idiots, unintelligent, etc.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 04/29/06 6:19am

SpecialEd

avatar

Rhondab said:

SpecialEd said:



Fair enough, remove "bible literalist" and replace with self-identified jehovahs witnesses and protestant christians. I don't think any other faiths are even visible on this website. The jehovahs witnesses only appearing circa Rainbow Children album of course...



that's not true either. We've had many discussions about JWs way before Rainbow Children. I know Melody has had her share of 'discussions' with folks before Rainbow Children.

The Jw discussion is nothing knew in this forum. A few more may have joined the discussion but it didn't start with Rainbow Children.

But it goes again to the close mindedness. The fact that Jws and christians 'annoy' some of you, only says that some of you have limited thinking when it comes to those who believe in a faith.

I think my issue isn't with the topic but the insults that come with some of these discussions. We can discuss this without those we are biblical literalist being called idiots, unintelligent, etc.


Maybe melody can correct me but I'm pretty sure she and others didn't become Prince fans until he converted to jw-ism. His lyrics were suddenly acceptable as one of the gang and so on spared the depravity and sin. I saw her say as much once. Sister and Head were never getting spun in kingdom halls.

Perhaps it's better to call biblical literalism idiotic and unintelligent rather than namecalling directly. It's fair enough criticising their ideology certainly.
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 04/29/06 9:19am

Thetan

SpecialEd said:

Rhondab said:




that's not true either. We've had many discussions about JWs way before Rainbow Children. I know Melody has had her share of 'discussions' with folks before Rainbow Children.

The Jw discussion is nothing knew in this forum. A few more may have joined the discussion but it didn't start with Rainbow Children.

But it goes again to the close mindedness. The fact that Jws and christians 'annoy' some of you, only says that some of you have limited thinking when it comes to those who believe in a faith.

I think my issue isn't with the topic but the insults that come with some of these discussions. We can discuss this without those we are biblical literalist being called idiots, unintelligent, etc.


Maybe melody can correct me but I'm pretty sure she and others didn't become Prince fans until he converted to jw-ism. His lyrics were suddenly acceptable as one of the gang and so on spared the depravity and sin. I saw her say as much once. Sister and Head were never getting spun in kingdom halls.

Perhaps it's better to call biblical literalism idiotic and unintelligent rather than namecalling directly. It's fair enough criticising their ideology certainly.


Most JW's here did not join the sites before Prince's interest and conversion was made public. That was from 1999 onward, when Prince began to talk about his Bible studies. Others continue to join. If Prince publicly left Jehovah's Witnesses most of these JW's would drop these sites like a hot cake. That is not biased just true. Ask most of these JW's when they became 'fans' and what Prince albums they own. That is not an attack on JW's but Princes conversion, not his music, is the primary reason for their interest.

It may not be pleasant to called Bible literalists unintelligent, but what if that is what they are? Why should I be pressured by the politically correct to call a duck anything but a duck? They have the freedom to believe as they do and try to impose their beliefs on everybody. I am free to conclude they are unintelligent on a public forum.

Would you not reasonably ascertain that a person who believed that Jonah was really in the belly of a fish for 3 days, that the Wife of Lot was truly turned into a pillar of salt, that Noah was able to get every single kind of animal life on his boat, that the reason we have rainbows is God promising not to bring another flood, that Moses really came down a mountain with stones inscribed by the very finger of God, that Homosexuals are really an abomination, that Adam and Eve truly existed and their eating of a piece of fruit plunged the ENTIRE race of mankind into sin, that God made the earth in 7 days, that man has only existed (by Bible calculations) between 5,000 and 6,000 years, was not unintelligent?

Can a person seriously believe in the absurdities above and more and be considered intelligent? Because the beliefs stated above are what he will accept if he is a Bible Literalist.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 04/29/06 9:38am

Rhondab

yes there were some newbies that came on board but Melody and a few others were here before Prince's big conversion.


and Thetan, you can conclude whatever you may like but I find it unnecessary to generalize a group of people. Its different if you've had a direct conversation with some on this site and THEIR comments seem unintelligent to you. As I've said, it seems those who feel they are so enlightened, are as closed minded as the ones they speak of.

God did say that he would use foolish things to confound the 'wise'.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 04/29/06 9:50am

Thetan

Rhondab said:

yes there were some newbies that came on board but Melody and a few others were here before Prince's big conversion.


and Thetan, you can conclude whatever you may like but I find it unnecessary to generalize a group of people. Its different if you've had a direct conversation with some on this site and THEIR comments seem unintelligent to you. As I've said, it seems those who feel they are so enlightened, are as closed minded as the ones they speak of.

God did say that he would use foolish things to confound the 'wise'.


I'm sorry to labour the point, but they might have been here before Prince's baptism, but they did not appear here until he was studying with JW's and his interest was made public.

I've been here under various names since 1998 and I know when they started to join. Sensualmelody has been here a long time yes, but she was not here before Prince's interest was made public.

You have jumped to the conclusion that I have not have direct conversation or experience with Bible Literalists. That is not true. I am speaking from personal experience.

However, if one has read the Bible and knows of the stories in it, and is aware that by nature bible literalists would take these accounts literally, is he not free to make comment without having had direct experience?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 04/29/06 12:50pm

Lammastide

avatar

SpecialEd said:

Rhondab said:




rolleyes Actually, there's not may bible literalist in this forum if you actually read the forum. So give me a break. What's annoying is that any person saying they are a christian, religious, or whatever are not put into this category of being "unintelligent" or a "robot". This is what is killing me.


Fair enough, remove "bible literalist" and replace with self-identified jehovahs witnesses and protestant christians. I don't think any other faiths are even visible on this website. The jehovahs witnesses only appearing circa Rainbow Children album of course...

hmmm Interesting. I identify as neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a Protestant Christian. shrug And I can immediately think of Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Asatru adherents, Jews, Muslims and, I think I even recall, one Hindu orger here... and I ain't even trying that hard.

Anyway, it follows that the overwhelming majority of religious orgers would identify as part of some Christian denomination -- Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and is especially the dominant faith in regions technologically engaged enough that the internet would be readily available! But P&R is not the ecstatic Southern Baptist revival meeting you try to make it seem.... And even if it were, so what? Would make this joint interesting, I think.
[Edited 4/29/06 13:09pm]
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 04/29/06 5:53pm

chiltonmusic

avatar

cborgman said:

if we are all the descendants of adamn and eve, and then again decendants of noah and his wife, how is it that there are different races of human?



Stop asking questions you already know the answers too!! Its boring and beneath you!! Come up with something a little more challanging and introspective!! Like the true meaning of Romeo and Juliet!!!

wink
THE CARDINAL HAS SPOKEN!!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 04/29/06 9:23pm

Housequake2K2

avatar

Thetan said:

I'm sorry to labour the point, but they might have been here before Prince's baptism, but they did not appear here until he was studying with JW's and his interest was made public.

Absolutely not true in my case. I have grew up as a JW, (baptized for 20+ years) and was an avid fan of Prince since I Wanna Be Your Lover came out. I lurked on Prince.org without an account for about 3 or 4 years before there was any knowledge of Prince becoming a JW. I didn't make myself known as a JW on the site until the discussions about Prince's conversion became heated.


I've been here under various names since 1998 and I know when they started to join. Sensualmelody has been here a long time yes, but she was not here before Prince's interest was made public.

Again, maybe you know when SM first logged onto P.org under that name, but have you stopped to think that she might've lurked on here before she ever made her account? You talk like you know exactly when a person decided to become a Prince fan, decided to become a JW, a Bible literalist, a cowtipper because you knew when a person first came on to this website? There are a number of JWs I know that have been Prince fans for decades, but never came to this site. The handle that do come to this site come and get accused of being fair-weather Prince fans cuz of Prince's becoming a JW is just a stereotype that is not based on facts, but because some want to come to the conclusion that we're only interested in his music post-JW conversion. I've got every single Prince CD in my possession and on my hard-drive for easy access. I spent most of my teenage years picking up every 12" that came out between album releases. I know SM has nearly all of Prince's official releases, and the JWs who frequent here have been collecting his music long before there was a Prince.org. So while you say you're 'sorry to labour the point,' I really don't think you are because like some who have accused Bible literalists as being unintelligent and non-thinking, you keep labouring the point because that's what you want to believe and continue with a sweeping generalization of JWs who frequent this site, which is a relatively small number.
[Edited 4/29/06 23:02pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 04/29/06 10:30pm

coolcat

Lammastide said:

SpecialEd said:



Fair enough, remove "bible literalist" and replace with self-identified jehovahs witnesses and protestant christians. I don't think any other faiths are even visible on this website. The jehovahs witnesses only appearing circa Rainbow Children album of course...

hmmm Interesting. I identify as neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a Protestant Christian. shrug And I can immediately think of Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Asatru adherents, Jews, Muslims and, I think I even recall, one Hindu orger here... and I ain't even trying that hard.



Even recall one hindu? confused This reminds me of a Simpsons episode:

Lovejoy: "everybody helped to rebuild your house Ned, whether he's Catholic, Jew or miscellanious."
Apu: "Hindu! There are 1 billion of us!"
Lovejoy: "that's super."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 04/30/06 5:01am

SpecialEd

avatar

Thetan said:

SpecialEd said:



Maybe melody can correct me but I'm pretty sure she and others didn't become Prince fans until he converted to jw-ism. His lyrics were suddenly acceptable as one of the gang and so on spared the depravity and sin. I saw her say as much once. Sister and Head were never getting spun in kingdom halls.

Perhaps it's better to call biblical literalism idiotic and unintelligent rather than namecalling directly. It's fair enough criticising their ideology certainly.


Most JW's here did not join the sites before Prince's interest and conversion was made public. That was from 1999 onward, when Prince began to talk about his Bible studies. Others continue to join. If Prince publicly left Jehovah's Witnesses most of these JW's would drop these sites like a hot cake. That is not biased just true. Ask most of these JW's when they became 'fans' and what Prince albums they own. That is not an attack on JW's but Princes conversion, not his music, is the primary reason for their interest.

It may not be pleasant to called Bible literalists unintelligent, but what if that is what they are? Why should I be pressured by the politically correct to call a duck anything but a duck? They have the freedom to believe as they do and try to impose their beliefs on everybody. I am free to conclude they are unintelligent on a public forum.

Would you not reasonably ascertain that a person who believed that Jonah was really in the belly of a fish for 3 days, that the Wife of Lot was truly turned into a pillar of salt, that Noah was able to get every single kind of animal life on his boat, that the reason we have rainbows is God promising not to bring another flood, that Moses really came down a mountain with stones inscribed by the very finger of God, that Homosexuals are really an abomination, that Adam and Eve truly existed and their eating of a piece of fruit plunged the ENTIRE race of mankind into sin, that God made the earth in 7 days, that man has only existed (by Bible calculations) between 5,000 and 6,000 years, was not unintelligent?

Can a person seriously believe in the absurdities above and more and be considered intelligent? Because the beliefs stated above are what he will accept if he is a Bible Literalist.


Yeah I tend to agree with all that. JWs aren't to blame for coming on board during Prince's JW years per se. First Prince had black/R&B radio fanbase then Little Red Corvette hit and fanbase changed, Purple Rain hit and it changed some more... natural that JWs would be interested by a new convert to their team. Websites of Prince fans open to copy their idol and be converted also maybe. Perfect ripe soil for missionary work. wink
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 04/30/06 5:03am

SpecialEd

avatar

coolcat said:

Lammastide said:


hmmm Interesting. I identify as neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a Protestant Christian. shrug And I can immediately think of Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Asatru adherents, Jews, Muslims and, I think I even recall, one Hindu orger here... and I ain't even trying that hard.



Even recall one hindu? confused This reminds me of a Simpsons episode:

Lovejoy: "everybody helped to rebuild your house Ned, whether he's Catholic, Jew or miscellanious."
Apu: "Hindu! There are 1 billion of us!"
Lovejoy: "that's super."


Yeah I talked of true visibility not whether a jew, a hindu and a muslim use this website. Fact is the P&R forum is taken near solely with JW and Henry VIII's protestant reformed church. Until recently that is, where we can now at last see some realists not letting religious rhetoric pass unchallenged.
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 04/30/06 6:37am

Rhondab

Lammastide said:

SpecialEd said:



Fair enough, remove "bible literalist" and replace with self-identified jehovahs witnesses and protestant christians. I don't think any other faiths are even visible on this website. The jehovahs witnesses only appearing circa Rainbow Children album of course...

hmmm Interesting. I identify as neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a Protestant Christian. shrug And I can immediately think of Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Asatru adherents, Jews, Muslims and, I think I even recall, one Hindu orger here... and I ain't even trying that hard.

Anyway, it follows that the overwhelming majority of religious orgers would identify as part of some Christian denomination -- Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and is especially the dominant faith in regions technologically engaged enough that the internet would be readily available! But P&R is not the ecstatic Southern Baptist revival meeting you try to make it seem.... And even if it were, so what? Would make this joint interesting, I think.
[Edited 4/29/06 13:09pm]



THANK YOU Lammie and Housequake....good grief. Furthermore, we've had always had these types of discussions. The issue I take is the tone of the discussions nowadays. The topic of bible literialism isn't new to P&R. The negative tone is new and its getting on my nerves.


As far as this topic is concerned. The bible isn't a book on the history of humanity. Its a book on the lineage of Jesus Christ and in my opinion. I believe that the so called missing pieces are just irrelevant to the teachings of Christ.

I do think Adam and Eve were the first but that doesn't mean they were God's only true creation.


i'm so sorry to labour the point smile.

I've always wondered why ppl have various account names. What'cha hiding?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 04/30/06 8:08am

Lammastide

avatar

SpecialEd said:

coolcat said:



Even recall one hindu? confused This reminds me of a Simpsons episode:

Lovejoy: "everybody helped to rebuild your house Ned, whether he's Catholic, Jew or miscellanious."
Apu: "Hindu! There are 1 billion of us!"
Lovejoy: "that's super."


Yeah I talked of true visibility not whether a jew, a hindu and a muslim use this website. Fact is the P&R forum is taken near solely with JW and Henry VIII's protestant reformed church. Until recently that is, where we can now at last see some realists not letting religious rhetoric pass unchallenged.

Ohhh, man, this is rich! falloffclapping How would we know the varied spiritual inclinations of orgers unless they were visible?! We don't exactly ask at the door.

I'm genuinely not even sure what you're talking about at this point. On the one hand, you marvel at some new shifting tide from unadultered Bible thumping to balanced secular and ecumenical rivalry. On the other hand, you're trying to argue that Bible thumpers have only recently all but taken over P&R with a surge in the JW presence. Huh? whofarted

The REAL fact of the matter is P&R has always welcomed (and had) a visible non-Christian presence. And even among self-described Christians there's a history of healthy, sometimes downright brutal, debate. What exactly would be the point of a singular Reformed congregation forum on a friggin' Prince fansite?! confuse

As has been suggested, people see the skewed formidibility they psychologically want/need. If fundamentalist Evangelicals (and I'm speaking as one who isn't) are more vocal on the org, it's merely because they are more vocal in the larger world. AND there's always been a present counterview. Where's the epiphany here?
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 04/30/06 8:22am

SpecialEd

avatar

Nothing confusing being said. Dancelot would spend time defending evolution but generally protestants and jws were left to listing bible verses what have you. Recently there are more voices checking the religious rhetoric. That is all.
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 04/30/06 8:27am

SpecialEd

avatar

Rhondab said:

I do think Adam and Eve were the first


And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 04/30/06 8:34am

Thetan

SpecialEd said:[quote]

Rhondab said:

I do think Adam and Eve were the first


And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.[/quote]

Ditto!
clapping
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 04/30/06 8:49am

Thetan

Rhondab said:

Lammastide said:


hmmm Interesting. I identify as neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a Protestant Christian. shrug And I can immediately think of Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Asatru adherents, Jews, Muslims and, I think I even recall, one Hindu orger here... and I ain't even trying that hard.

Anyway, it follows that the overwhelming majority of religious orgers would identify as part of some Christian denomination -- Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and is especially the dominant faith in regions technologically engaged enough that the internet would be readily available! But P&R is not the ecstatic Southern Baptist revival meeting you try to make it seem.... And even if it were, so what? Would make this joint interesting, I think.
[Edited 4/29/06 13:09pm]



THANK YOU Lammie and Housequake....good grief. Furthermore, we've had always had these types of discussions. The issue I take is the tone of the discussions nowadays. The topic of bible literialism isn't new to P&R. The negative tone is new and its getting on my nerves.


As far as this topic is concerned. The bible isn't a book on the history of humanity. Its a book on the lineage of Jesus Christ and in my opinion. I believe that the so called missing pieces are just irrelevant to the teachings of Christ.

I do think Adam and Eve were the first but that doesn't mean they were God's only true creation.


i'm so sorry to labour the point smile.

I've always wondered why ppl have various account names. What'cha hiding?


I've changed account names a few times because of various reasons; the first time because it had my christian name in it and I was on a 'privacy kick', the second because the name was related to a belief I no longer held and the third because I wanted a fresh start with a new mindset. Whatever identity someone posts under does not affect the validity or merit of their comments.

By calling Bible Literalists 'unintelligent' I was not suggesting that they were uneducated or lacked the capacity for intelligence, just that intelligence is not being used in this particular case. Religion can blind all sorts of common sense, logic and reason. This can be seen across every strata of society.
What I am stating is that a person who reads the Bible cannot sensibly be considered either educated or intelligent in this case.

If hypothetically, I gave a book of 10 stories to a cross section of Adults and the content of these stories was that the world was flat, the earth rested on the back of a camel and that the moon was made of a dairy product, and a percentage of these adults read these stories literally and believed them to be literally and factually true, could we really consider these adults intelligent?
Could these adults really be considered educated and reasonable enough to contribute to serious debates? To enter politics? To run entire countries?


It may sound like a generalization and perhaps it is, but the very contents of the Bible define that anyone reading it literally is either unintelligent, uneducated, misinformed or unreasonably blinded by faith.

I am not asserting that the Bible is mot an incredible library of accounts with massive social and historical impact. I am not stating that the Bible has no merit and value. But to read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation literally is to abandon all sense and reason.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 04/30/06 12:47pm

Rhondab

SpecialEd said:

Rhondab said:

I do think Adam and Eve were the first


And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.



Well then call me closed minded then. It seems if anyone believes any part of the bible you and your buddies will deem them closed minded and incapable of thought. (shrug) It seems that I've been doing very well in this forum for years and never had anyone deem me closed minded even in relation to me being a "jesus freak". Ok, that made me giggle.

Its interesting you've assumed I've completely embraced creationism and rejected evolution completely in my comment. You jumped to an assumption without even asking an other questions. So who is closed minded? You'll even find scientist who believe in both creationism and evolution but that's another subject and like I said, I've been deemed close minded just by nature of being a christian AND believing the bible. shake

As i've said, those who deem themselves so open minded are so incredibly close minded many times themselves.

And I'll just end saying that I'll be unintelligent, close-minded, ignorant, lack logic, reason or what have you. But no one can take my experience away from me. I've EXPERIENCED God so its not blind faith.

I just find that with you and thetan, in all of your great wisdom not to be so wise.


Point taken "thetan" and the other people you've been. You're right, no matter the name, a valid statement is a valid statement. Just seems a little much to invest into a screen name on a prince site but then again I am closed minded lol

peace
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 04/30/06 4:49pm

Isel

Rhondab said:

SpecialEd said:



And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.



Well then call me closed minded then. It seems if anyone believes any part of the bible you and your buddies will deem them closed minded and incapable of thought. (shrug) It seems that I've been doing very well in this forum for years and never had anyone deem me closed minded even in relation to me being a "jesus freak". Ok, that made me giggle.

Its interesting you've assumed I've completely embraced creationism and rejected evolution completely in my comment. You jumped to an assumption without even asking an other questions. So who is closed minded? You'll even find scientist who believe in both creationism and evolution but that's another subject and like I said, I've been deemed close minded just by nature of being a christian AND believing the bible. shake

As i've said, those who deem themselves so open minded are so incredibly close minded many times themselves.

And I'll just end saying that I'll be unintelligent, close-minded, ignorant, lack logic, reason or what have you. But no one can take my experience away from me. I've EXPERIENCED God so its not blind faith.

I just find that with you and thetan, in all of your great wisdom not to be so wise.


Point taken "thetan" and the other people you've been. You're right, no matter the name, a valid statement is a valid statement. Just seems a little much to invest into a screen name on a prince site but then again I am closed minded lol

peace


Well, on another thread I was just called an irresponsible Christian(and through implication much worse) because I'm not a literalist: I'm a liberal. I don't agree with literal interpretation. It's as simple as that. I've been polite, but firm in my discussion. I haven't dismissed or demeaned anyone's views. But in return, I have been disrespected for my views. This is not the first time that has happened on this forum. I was once called a false prophet. I couldn't believe it. I was shocked. So there are worse things than being called close-minded or unintelligent.

For the record, I don't think anyone is close-minded. People have beliefs. Just because they disagree doesn't mean that they are close-minded. I don't think a literalist is unintelligent either. I don't even see the connection between intelligence and believing the Bible word for word. I can't even begin to elaborate except to say that faith is what it is.

Anyway, I just wish that we wouldn't personally attack each other. There is not reason for it, and it sort of reduces an a debate/discussion to its lowest level. It's like a person can't come up with anything better than to say, "You're the spawn of Satan." I'm exaggerating of course, but I guess that's just the way it is.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 04/30/06 5:10pm

Lammastide

avatar

Isel said:

Rhondab said:




Well then call me closed minded then. It seems if anyone believes any part of the bible you and your buddies will deem them closed minded and incapable of thought. (shrug) It seems that I've been doing very well in this forum for years and never had anyone deem me closed minded even in relation to me being a "jesus freak". Ok, that made me giggle.

Its interesting you've assumed I've completely embraced creationism and rejected evolution completely in my comment. You jumped to an assumption without even asking an other questions. So who is closed minded? You'll even find scientist who believe in both creationism and evolution but that's another subject and like I said, I've been deemed close minded just by nature of being a christian AND believing the bible. shake

As i've said, those who deem themselves so open minded are so incredibly close minded many times themselves.

And I'll just end saying that I'll be unintelligent, close-minded, ignorant, lack logic, reason or what have you. But no one can take my experience away from me. I've EXPERIENCED God so its not blind faith.

I just find that with you and thetan, in all of your great wisdom not to be so wise.


Point taken "thetan" and the other people you've been. You're right, no matter the name, a valid statement is a valid statement. Just seems a little much to invest into a screen name on a prince site but then again I am closed minded lol

peace


Well, on another thread I was just called an irresponsible Christian(and through implication much worse) because I'm not a literalist: I'm a liberal. I don't agree with literal interpretation. It's as simple as that. I've been polite, but firm in my discussion. I haven't dismissed or demeaned anyone's views. But in return, I have been disrespected for my views. This is not the first time that has happened on this forum. I was once called a false prophet. I couldn't believe it. I was shocked. So there are worse things than being called close-minded or unintelligent.

For the record, I don't think anyone is close-minded. People have beliefs. Just because they disagree doesn't mean that they are close-minded. I don't think a literalist is unintelligent either. I don't even see the connection between intelligence and believing the Bible word for word. I can't even begin to elaborate except to say that faith is what it is.

Anyway, I just wish that we wouldn't personally attack each other. There is not reason for it, and it sort of reduces an a debate/discussion to its lowest level. It's like a person can't come up with anything better than to say, "You're the spawn of Satan." I'm exaggerating of course, but I guess that's just the way it is.

I've been there too, and I see the insults as a badge of honor, anymore.

I agree whole-heartedly with what you say here. Stay strong. We were told long ago this sort of thing would happen. hug
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 04/30/06 6:12pm

NorthernLad

Rhondab said:

SpecialEd said:



And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.



Well then call me closed minded then. It seems if anyone believes any part of the bible you and your buddies will deem them closed minded and incapable of thought. (shrug) It seems that I've been doing very well in this forum for years and never had anyone deem me closed minded even in relation to me being a "jesus freak". Ok, that made me giggle.

Its interesting you've assumed I've completely embraced creationism and rejected evolution completely in my comment. You jumped to an assumption without even asking an other questions. So who is closed minded? You'll even find scientist who believe in both creationism and evolution but that's another subject and like I said, I've been deemed close minded just by nature of being a christian AND believing the bible. shake

As i've said, those who deem themselves so open minded are so incredibly close minded many times themselves.

And I'll just end saying that I'll be unintelligent, close-minded, ignorant, lack logic, reason or what have you. But no one can take my experience away from me. I've EXPERIENCED God so its not blind faith.

I just find that with you and thetan, in all of your great wisdom not to be so wise.


Point taken "thetan" and the other people you've been. You're right, no matter the name, a valid statement is a valid statement. Just seems a little much to invest into a screen name on a prince site but then again I am closed minded lol

peace



Perhaps the change in attitude, Rhonda, is a reflection of the GROWING FRUSTRATION with adherents to one particular religion who - more and more and more - seem to think that they have the ability to rewrite the constitution and everyone else's lives according to the tenets of their own religion.

Maybe what we are seeing is a symptom that folks are finally fighting back a little and are not about to sit idly by and watch the nation turn into a theocracy?

Not that being a little more blunt on an internet message board is "fighting back"... but it IS showing some frustration, I think.

At least, that is the case with me.

I have been on this forum for several years (under a different name), and never really felt the urget to visit P&R until recently. Why? Because the far right is getting more and more and more brazen in their power grab and their continuous efforts to push their religion down the throats of EVERYONE, and their continual use of hatred and fear - all in the name of a religion that is supposed to be about "love - to achieve their political agenda.

Sooooo..... yeah. Frustration is bound to be caused by that.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 04/30/06 8:56pm

Housequake2K2

avatar

Thetan said:[quote]

SpecialEd said:

Rhondab said:

I do think Adam and Eve were the first


And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.[/quote]

Ditto!
clapping


How do you know what RhondaB has and hasn't researched? Again, you are jumping to conclusions about one individual's choice of belief system like they haven't done any research on anything else. So who is being 'open-minded' when you are drawing conclusions about someone you don't know? Choice of believing one thing vs. another is part of anyone's decision-making process. Assuming you know exactly how an individual came to a conclusion is not productive to healthy discussion.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 04/30/06 10:56pm

NoTime2Hate

SensualMelody said:


I believe ["God"] made a "kind" and that these reproduced after their "kind".
Humans are a "kind". The differences are varieties within the species. An easy thing for God to accomplish....a built-in ability.
Who knows anyway the "race" of Adam and/or Eve?
Could one have been of the Caucasion persuasion spiced with other characteristics?, and the other of the Negroid persuasion with other charateristics that we have come to call "ethnic"?
Racial differences represent variety among humans accentuated by divisions; and these were then categorized are designated by man.


There are no "black" or "white" people. Just people. Race is a social construction used to support the class system. What we in America refer to as "black" or "white" or "brown" or "yellow" is about the geographical origin of your ancestors, parents, grandparents, great grandparents... There are no "races" of people.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 05/01/06 3:42am

Thetan

Rhondab said:

SpecialEd said:



And that will always be problematic to anyone who has had the opportunity to learn about evolution and humans not being sacred or divine compared to any other lifeform. Any mention of "adam and eve" just becomes comedic.

As I said early you have swallowed the story of one book, claimed the religion "christian" yet then want to be seen as open-minded source in debates. It can never fly that way.



Well then call me closed minded then. It seems if anyone believes any part of the bible you and your buddies will deem them closed minded and incapable of thought. (shrug) It seems that I've been doing very well in this forum for years and never had anyone deem me closed minded even in relation to me being a "jesus freak". Ok, that made me giggle.

Its interesting you've assumed I've completely embraced creationism and rejected evolution completely in my comment. You jumped to an assumption without even asking an other questions. So who is closed minded? You'll even find scientist who believe in both creationism and evolution but that's another subject and like I said, I've been deemed close minded just by nature of being a christian AND believing the bible. shake

As i've said, those who deem themselves so open minded are so incredibly close minded many times themselves.

And I'll just end saying that I'll be unintelligent, close-minded, ignorant, lack logic, reason or what have you. But no one can take my experience away from me. I've EXPERIENCED God so its not blind faith.

I just find that with you and thetan, in all of your great wisdom not to be so wise.


Point taken "thetan" and the other people you've been. You're right, no matter the name, a valid statement is a valid statement. Just seems a little much to invest into a screen name on a prince site but then again I am closed minded lol

peace


I never stated that one could not experience God and be convinced of this. I did not state that believing in the Bible was 'unintelligent', I said reading it all literally was.

I have had spiritual experiences and for the record I am a reader of the Bible. I think you are misunderstanding me. It is not faith or belief I am questioning, but the reading of the Bible in a literal way.

I mean no disrespect to you. This is a debate and I am debating.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 05/01/06 9:24am

SensualMelody

NoTime2Hate said:

SensualMelody said:


I believe ["God"] made a "kind" and that these reproduced after their "kind".
Humans are a "kind". The differences are varieties within the species. An easy thing for God to accomplish....a built-in ability.
Who knows anyway the "race" of Adam and/or Eve?
Could one have been of the Caucasion persuasion spiced with other characteristics?, and the other of the Negroid persuasion with other charateristics that we have come to call "ethnic"?
Racial differences represent variety among humans accentuated by divisions; and these were then categorized are designated by man.


There are no "black" or "white" people. Just people. Race is a social construction used to support the class system. What we in America refer to as "black" or "white" or "brown" or "yellow" is about the geographical origin of your ancestors, parents, grandparents, great grandparents... There are no "races" of people.

I agree with this. The IDs are man made. Humans are humans. We have variations in appearances as do people even within any given so-called "race".
So...how's everybody doing? smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 05/01/06 9:37am

NorthernLad

SensualMelody said:

NoTime2Hate said:



There are no "black" or "white" people. Just people. Race is a social construction used to support the class system. What we in America refer to as "black" or "white" or "brown" or "yellow" is about the geographical origin of your ancestors, parents, grandparents, great grandparents... There are no "races" of people.

I agree with this. The IDs are man made. Humans are humans. We have variations in appearances as do people even within any given so-called "race".



There are other physiological differences than simple appearance, though - correct? I seem to remember reading stats about how different races are more susceptible to different types of diseases and conditions - wouldn't that indicate more differances than simply skin color?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 05/01/06 9:39am

byronic

avatar

NorthernLad said:

SensualMelody said:


I agree with this. The IDs are man made. Humans are humans. We have variations in appearances as do people even within any given so-called "race".



There are other physiological differences than simple appearance, though - correct? I seem to remember reading stats about how different races are more susceptible to different types of diseases and conditions - wouldn't that indicate more differances than simply skin color?

there are also differences in bone density, but all of the differences are just environmental adaptations
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > to the bible literalists...