Cheers Mw, no worries, I;m not in the least frustrated cuz I'm just revealing my opinion and I don't mean to remove you from yours. I don't profess to be right, though my spiritual opinion "is fact". We certainly do have control over our circumstance. Some of us are made more from our pasts than others. Every step, thought and word we say/do is completely our choice and has by far the most influence in our circumstances. We drive our destiny completely, or it could be said, the more we live from our past the more they become our circumstances. We either think defensively (past) or offensively (future) so it's better in the same regards to be "for" something than "against" something.Machinesworking wrote:I offer no excuses. I don't suffer from a guilty conscience. I have never quite understood why some do? The only guilt I hold is that which is bestowed upon me by the outside world, and in that respect I agree with you. I choose not to be guilty.knotkranky wrote:What about you and me. What's our excuse?
I'm just not fond of absolute value judgments in regards to peoples moods etc. I don't believe that we fully create our circumstances, it's to me an excuse for the inequality of wealth and comfort levels you see between classes and nations.
In a leisure class society, owning your stress etc. is appropriate, but it makes no sense whatsoever when you put it in circumstances of life and death. It's a blaming of the victim to a degree in those circumstances, when for instance the concentration camp survivor in my opinion owes no explanation as to how they survived. None of us could fathom it, and have simply not had to feel that kind of subjugation, any implication of responsibility for their mood or behavior is beyond my comprehension.
As far as communication etc. between you and me, I hold no anger. You have a different view on life than I do, and if it angers or frustrates you that I disagree, then stop wording your opinion as fact. I'm not disagreeing with you to be contrary etc. I sincerely don't buy into the same belief system you do.
I'm entertained by this debate, and hold no grudges.
Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.
-
knotkranky
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
-
BoimB son of BoB
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:14 am
- Location: Brussels
-
NorthernMonkey
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:05 pm
- Location: UK
-
knotkranky
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
-
NorthernMonkey
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:05 pm
- Location: UK
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and white is black and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. While most leading theologians believe this argument to be a load of dingo's kidneys, that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from using it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and white is black and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. While most leading theologians believe this argument to be a load of dingo's kidneys, that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from using it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
..?
-
knotkranky
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
pilcrow wrote:Bull crap!knotkranky wrote:Ok, so, lets wrap this up then. I would say considering current events, the main religions barely have a leg to stand on.
Particularly the american version of our exported religion.
oh man, we're never gonna make it.
LOL
Ok, well don't you think the american version of Christianity is the less favorable of the bunch.
Euro and mid east christianity is more tolerant and steeped in it's origins. Evangelism is an american construct, no?
-
sweetjesus
- Posts: 8803
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
- Location: www.fridge.net.au
- Contact:
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
We have hit a point of agreement, KK--which doesn't bode well for hitting 100 pages. I'm with you, completely. Evangelical Christianity is an obnoxious, oddball variety. And yes, I believe you're right when you say it's an American construct--though I don't know for sure. I think TV played a big part in its rise. Those people seem to have about 75% of all cable channels.knotkranky wrote:pilcrow wrote:Bull crap!knotkranky wrote:Ok, so, lets wrap this up then. I would say considering current events, the main religions barely have a leg to stand on.
Particularly the american version of our exported religion.
oh man, we're never gonna make it.
LOL
Ok, well don't you think the american version of Christianity is the less favorable of the bunch.
Euro and mid east christianity is more tolerant and steeped in it's origins. Evangelism is an american construct, no?