Agents Of Irony
Originally posted by junglejake
First off, Majic, I do hope you see the irony in your own post in saying I'm being vain thinking I'm right, but the reality is you're right and
therefore my religion should be insulted.
As I plainly said, the insults I consider well-deserved are not for a religion, but for vanity posing as “righteousness”. I consider the products
of such deception to be false idols.
There is a difference, though it may not be obvious to some.
“Anyone who offends your ego is doing you a favor.”
-- Me
Wrong Is Right
As for me claiming to be right, I recommend reading my posts more attentively. Here's what I said about that very subject:
Originally posted by Majic
Unlike those who insist that they have the power to determine truth by declaration, I accept the possibility that I can be wrong. In fact, I depend on
it. Everything I say or post should be considered in light of this.
Ironic indeed that you should accuse me of the opposite, especially when I habitually make a point of saying this in so many different ways.
Perhaps you're complaining about someone else in this discussion who more closely fits your description?
The Question Of Shoe Size
Since there seems to be some confusion about it, here's what I actually said:
Originally posted by Majic
If the shoe fits, eat it. The “slams” listed above are only slams if they are based in truth, otherwise they are meaningless.
Far too many Christians hold up their vanity as “righteousness” and condemn others for failing to worship their false idols -- delusive icons
fashioned from specious declarations of their own unfounded certainty.
Hence the ridicule, since it is well-deserved.
If this doesn't apply to you, then you have no need to worry about it -- except perhaps to warn others away from it.
If it
does apply to you, awareness of this fact can help you grow.
I was referring to the “Christians” you were talking about, not you specifically, but if the shoe fits...
You may want to consider why
you think that description applies to you.
I never said it did.
Mr. Wrong
Originally posted by junglejake
I especially liked this comment: "Our opinions are for us to choose, not for others to dictate. " Unless the other is you?
I know I can be wrong, say so almost to the point of absurdity and remind others to remember that.
Why, despite my extraordinary efforts to make this clear, is this concept so difficult to grasp?
Meanwhile, if you can be more specific about where I am dictating opinions rather than making false insinuations to that effect, it would help me to
correct my errors in addition to helping advance a more honest discussion.
You can be assured I would be grateful for that!
Mistaking my expression of my own opinions as some sort of dictation of what the opinions of others should be is indeed ironic, but not in the way you
are implying. As it turns out, that is precisely what I am opposed to, as I have made painstakingly clear here and elsewhere.
Why the impulse to misrepresent what I'm saying and argue against that, rather than consider what I am actually saying?
Answering that question honestly can lead to new understanding.
Refusing to do so leads further into darkness and deceit.
Imagine The Possibilities
Originally posted by junglejake
Second, What other possibilities are there? I stated that either Christianity is right or wrong. I also stated that there is either a God or there
isn't. Three options. Christians are right and there is a God, Christians are wrong and there is a God, or Christians are wrong and there is no God.
There's something else?
Yes. In particular, the possibility that Christians are
partially right, that they have their own god (which they call “God”), but that
their god is not supreme (and must therefore suffer the indignity of competing with other gods) and that there are also many other gods.
As best I can tell, that is the case.
But I could be wrong.
The Gospel According To...
Originally posted by junglejake
Third, I would hope that people reading my posts don't think of them as gospel truth, as well. I, by no means, am an authority in Biblical studies,
nor am I the Pope speaking on behalf of God infallibly when I post on this website. I express my opinion and interpretations. Often I've been wrong
or have changed my mind on issues due to debates here on ATS. As of yet, though, someone calling me names for doing something they do in the very post
where they call me names hasn't convinced me I'm wrong yet. Maybe you'll be the exception to that rule, but I highly doubt it.
I can only be the exception to such a rule if it applies. How does it apply here?
Specifically, where have I called you names? Where is the hypocrisy in my case?
If you can point it out, I'll be grateful. If not, then I'm not the one guilty of hypocrisy.
Why the desperate need to erect strawmen and knock them down instead of discussing what I'm actually saying?
Why so much fear?
False Gods
Originally posted by junglejake
Fourth, Your interpretation of Exodus 20:3 may or may not be right, and I suspect, through the rest of scripture, that it is not right. Throughout
scripture it talks of people making false idols and Gods out of things, from a golden calf to worshipping the law instead of God. God is also called
the
true God, which would indicate that others are false Gods. You could claim that Exodus 20:3 proves that television is, in fact, a God, but
the rest of the Bible indicates that anything that you worship and focus on more that God would be the false god you're "having".
My interpretation of Exodus 20:3 most certainly could be wrong, as well as my interpretation of the many, many other references to other gods in the
Bible.
If so, however, I'm still left with statements attributed to “God” which make no sense.
Perhaps the “god of this world” would understand such fallacy, but I don't have any use for it.
I expect honesty, consistency and compassion in a god. Any god unable to offer these things should take a number and get in line, because most gods
don't.
In fact, such dishonest and inconsistent gods could accurately be considered “false gods”.
They invariably take offense to the truth, and -- like their servants -- become “wrathful” and abusive when confronted by it.
That is the way demons behave: stamping their feet with bluster and menace to inspire fear like an evil stepmother, rather than radiating love and
compassion as a true parent does for a cherished child.
That's how I evaluate gods. Demonic gods radiate fear and demand obedience enforced through threat of suffering, while angelic gods radiate love and
respect free will with nothing asked for in return.
Which best describes your god?
You may know a tree by the fruit it bears.
Speaking Of Me...
Originally posted by junglejake
Finally, if there's no God, and humanity is going to be doomed, what possible effect will your actions have on eternity? What is your goal in life,
and why?
Every single spirit has an effect on the events of the universe in some measure or another. As for “eternity”, the definition tends to become
murky with the passage of time.
What effect I will have on “eternity” is unknown to me, and I am comfortable with that.
My goal in life is to develop into the person I wish to become.
Why? Because that is all I will be able to take with me when I die -- with one important exception.
I will also be able to carry with me the love of others, because that is something death cannot destroy.
Therefore, I see these things as my most important goals, and all others secondary at best.
Turning The Crank
Is it illness alone, or perhaps something more?
“Crankiness” can also herald the shaking off of that which binds us.
I recommend cultivating that.
