Originally posted by watchitburn
I like it.
It sounds reasonable to me, and it would explain why it is almost impossible to have an objective conversation with religious people.
Or democrats and republicans for that matter.
anymore nightmares about poopy diapered toddlers lately....LOL.
Kidding,.... you know I can't help myself
I would like to offer my understanding as to having conversations with "religious" people. Personally, I don't think religion is necessary for faith,
nor do I believe that someone who may be religious is necessarily a person of faith. Men are great deceivers, first and foremost of themselves,
therefore determining someone who is simply going through the motions of religion versus someone who is actually endeavoring to work out their
personal faith, can be dubious, at best.
So how to tell them apart, if, in fact, you care to do so? You will know them by their fruit. Which is not necessarily to state that if you witness
them doing wrong, they should immediately be labeled rotten-fruited hypocrites, for we all do wrong at some point in time. But rather, what are they
producing with their life and in their actions? There is no place for hate or selfishness in the Christian faith, and judgment is reserved for Christ
alone. Having said that, there are specific tenets of right and wrong in the Christian faith and whomever makes the personal decision to follow said
faith must necessarily abide by them. We all have our demons to battle, and to truly love our neighbor, means to have compassion and mercy upon them
while remaining true to the tenets of the faith. Snarky and smartass comments notwithstanding,....*cough*cough*guilty*cough*....ahem.....
One of the mysteries of the Gospel message, is that as you grow in it, you will ultimately find that you also begin to grow in discernment and
understanding. What may once have seemed backwards and inane, becomes an epiphany of Truth. This is addressed in the Gospel several times by Jesus,
Himself, however I will not torture you by digressing to reference them all for the purpose of this reply, but have no problem doing so in any
subsequent replies, should you wish.
Anyhoo, once you begin to wander into the streets of "epiphanies of Truth" you necessarily find yourself in the subjective neighborhood of philosophy
and metaphysics, which encompasses all faith-based religion. Thus, any effort towards objectivity becomes subjective and contingent upon faith. And
faith, by its very nature, which is the belief, trust and confidence in something in which proof or evidence is moot, can be considered the
unequivocal opposite of objectivity.
Therefore, that is why, for some, it may seem impossible to have a conversation with a person of religion, or of faith, or both, which is entirely
objective and not influenced by emotions or personal belief. However, that is not to say that a person of faith is incapable of having a denotatively
objective conversation. It is to say that the objectivity of the conversation is simply relative to the participants-- those of faith to whom no
explanation is necessary, and those of no faith in which no explanation is possible.
And as far as Democrats and Republicans, any objective conversation with either is cyclical and a colossal waste of time since they are both wings of
the same bird.
Can ya' dig it?
reply to post by jiggerj
Hope this isn't considered to stray too far off topic and you find it somewhat relative to your OP.
Good, thought provoking thread, IMO. S&F
edit on 3-1-2013 by stupid girl because: possesive preposition