| I'm Back! |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Logan ® 08/04/2002, 10:22:13 Author Profile Mail author |
Hello Everyone... So I've been around the world and back and as many of you know, have delved deeply into Mormonism and religion as a whole. I've done my time pondering the deep, philosophical questions of life and now I'm back -- all in one piece. =) I must say, though, that I miss the old days of innocence and believing in those pure, naive beliefs of youth. (I'm 27 now.) I miss the idea that Mormonism "could" be true. I miss that idea that Mormonism is unblemished and exists within that perfect, naive shell. (Fantasy has that alluring quality, you know?) It was mystical and magical -- and totally ridiculous. =) Anyway, here I am now thinking about going back to Church. I'm thinking about being LDS again and living that kind of life. Will I pay tithing? I heard that less than 50% of active, Church-going Mormons really do. Will I fulfill a calling and play the part 100%? I guess I'll have to figure those things out later on. But I really do miss reading the scriptures and getting that feeling inside that I had really discovered something. I miss reading LDS books and feeling "the spirit" and getting personal "revelation" and feeling an overall sense of supernatural excitement and wonder. I went to the Nauvoo Illinois Temple open house a few months ago and had a great time. I really enjoyed the company of good, Mormon people. There's something about that LDS culture that's so attractive. Anyway, I see it and I miss it. What is there that is so magical about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the pioneers, etc? What is it about the legends we assign to them and the mythical status we give them that is so enchanting? I miss that feeling, too. Recently, I've been meeting with a younger friend of mine who has just discovered Mormonism for himself. He has that same sense of innocent wonder right now -- and he's eagerly pursuing Mormonism with all the magic and faith he can muster. And it's beautiful. I really want it all to be "true" for him. My 20-year-old Mormon wife became inactive after we got married last year (in the Logan Utah Temple) and now she says Church is boring. She's probably right, but there's still something fun about it. When you go to Church and you believe you're there because it's the "true Church" and you love it, then it's fun. So here's the bottom line: Can a person know that the Mormon Church is bullshit and still "believe in it"? I wonder how many Mormons actually do. I bet there are tons. You see, I know that all religion is a man-made joke. I know that Joseph Smith was just a messed-up guy who started a Church. And yet, I miss the magic that I felt when I didn't know those things. So my question is, can a person ever get that magic back after they've lost it? Lovingly,
Modified by Logan at Sun, Aug 04, 2002, 11:19:05 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
The old magic Re: I'm Back! -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/04/2002, 11:07:55
Author Profile Mail author
I myself was simply relieved in leaving it all behind, as was my wife, and found the rest of the world much more interesting, all things considered, once I left the church orbit behind. Though I do remember (and miss in certain moods) the warm feeling of contact with something Deeply Meaningful in pouring through scripture, GA talks, the writings of the incomparably imaginative Joseph, Brigham, Orson and Parley, all deepened by the connection with the ongoing life of the LDS community.
As for whether you can get the old magic back: I doubt it, not thinking the way you do at least. You'd have to lose your sense of the gospel's outlandishness, all its bumptious noise, its self-righteousness and authoritarianism, for that to happen. But you might be able, sticking in the community, to absorb a little of the community's reflected glory, provided you don't bore your eminently sensible wife to death in the process.
Modified by Cal at Sun, Aug 04, 2002, 11:12:00
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Two Evils Re: The old magic -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Logan ®
08/04/2002, 12:15:22
Author Profile Mail author
I want to thank you, first and foremost, for your genuinely cool response. I admire you for your realism and down-to-earth sensibility. You seem to empathize with me somewhat, and offer advice which is sound and reasonable.
However, I, too, have gone out and experienced the rest of the world -- and I'm repulsed by it. Indeed it is the world which I am, in actuality, probably more offended by. Truthfully, I pretty much hate the world. I'm sickened by its immoral majority, its slime and filth -- and obviously that's one of the main, driving forces behind my recent sympathy for (and resurgence of interest in) the LDS Church. (How generic, I know!)
But seriously, I believe that there is just as much about the LDS Church to enjoy, love and appreciate as there is to detest. (And I'm sure you could offer the same argument for the world.) But if I CAN get past my doubts, my boredom, etc, etc, then how bad can the Church really be? Certainly not any worse than nothing.
I honestly believe that I am above the Church, with all its childishness and simplicity. I know Joseph Smith for who he was -- and it doesn't bother me anymore. My doubts, my boredom, my sense of the ridiculous, my moral revulsions and my impatience IN the Church would not outweigh the measure of those same feelings out in the real world.
The Church is cool if you don't take it all too seriously. And how many modern-day Mormons really do anymore? I would bet that at least 50% of them are pretty laid-back. We would be the "liberal Mormons" who have been down that road, who have read all those books and who have learned all of those things -- and yet have maintained some sort of fondness for it. We are those who have become desensitized to the doctrines and the silly beliefs -- and who can see past all of the trivial, human smallness in exchange for (and for the benefit of) the community.
Anyway, Cal, I do appreciate your interaction. And I feel good about everything. Maybe I AM one of those rare souls, I don't know. What I DO know is that I'm searching for long-term happiness. And if I keep all of humanity in perspective, than how can I not cut it some slack in regards to the Church?
I'm not going to give up just yet! =)
Lovingly,
Logan
Modified by Logan at Sun, Aug 04, 2002, 12:17:55
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Maybe you are one of those rare souls Re: Two Evils -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/04/2002, 14:05:19
Author Profile Mail author
At any rate, if you reassimilate, you will have to keep very quiet about what you think. The warm community of believers will make sure of that, with fearful nods to higher authorities who worry your own local authorities and fellow congregants, all of which will give the whole scene its special atmosphere. I imagine you already know that, but it deserves repeating.
And I'd bet that you're underestimating the wonders, strengths and possibilities of the vast world that's unaffected by Mormonism, even having travelled the world like you have.
E.g., a huge portion of Mormonism's strengths, when compared to "the world," piggyback on US prosperity. Think of the hordes of Mormon missionaries who go to the "Thirld World" and lament the squalor they've been sent to ameliorate. (I was one of them. I think I helped ameliorate a bit of the world-squalor through my missionary work.)
And then think of an ex-Mormon traveller surveying the world's possibilities and comparing them to what the Church has to offer.
Well, the rest of the world would of course suck compared to life in a church piggybacking on US prosperity. American evangelicals who wander the world are also struck by how the world outside their experience is so much more squalid than what they've left at home. Thoroughgoing ex-evangelicals feel the pull of home too once they experience "the world" outside their window. So would any American, I guess, including your good old ACLU liberal skeptic. Imagine an ex-Mormon, an ex-evangelical and a civil libertarian skeptic trying to tell anyone what community they should stick with. I'm somewhere in this mix, and I guess you know better than I how you figure into it all.
But, speaking in the spirit of Levi Peterson (have you heard of him?), I think staying home with a sense of humor and seriousness could be truly meaningful and interesting, even a labor of love. Though the question of one's wife or future children's interests could make staying in the fold a really problematic option.
Modified by Cal at Sun, Aug 04, 2002, 15:28:32
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
My buddy is back! Re: I'm Back! -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
08/04/2002, 15:32:09
Author Profile Mail author
I think I understand your revulsion toward the way things go out there... As a travelling opera singer, I know what you mean... That is why in the good old days I would say to people like AHF(I think it was him) that I preferred you in the Temple than elsewhere...
Now I too have re-thought alot of things... and I too am active in Church... I go for my kids and wife. I want the little ones to experience the religious because I think it is part of who we are as humans and as a family. In the future they will choose and I will share my feelings more in depth, but I don't wish to deprive them of the possibility to experience the powerful uplifting experiences implicit in religion. I think it will help them learn love and compassion better if they have somewhat of a pedagogical tool like religion to help them identify the natural inner qualities religion has appropriated as a monopoly. I still haven't figured out how to do it on my own... though that is probably due to my weakness more than anything.
Between me and you, when you go to Church you can't help but feel that much is about the community of the people... That kind of stifles the spiritual side unless you are looking for opportunities to serve...
The magic is really in your home man. Religions have self proclaimed a sort of patent or copyright to human gifts and have made it appear as though they are the one's bestowing them.
In reality, that magic is inside you. Church can help you nourish it at times... but the best thing you could do is serve your wife and family... Look for the magic through application in the home... I am sure that in our field as entertainers we have plenty of reasons to give extra care to our family!
Lotzaluv
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
so when do you stop lying? Re: I'm Back! -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
08/04/2002, 15:50:51
Author Profile Mail author
If you lie to yourself, your family, and your Mormon friends enough, you just might be able to get some of that majic back. But I think that it's not just a question of "can" you do it, but "should" you.
Hey, I've spent most of my life making decisions based on nothing more then what I think will make me happy, so I'd be a hypocrite to get too preachy here, just throwing it out.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Pleasure, comfort, and delusion Re: I'm Back! -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/04/2002, 19:43:36
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Comfort and Delusion Re: I'm Back! -- Logan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/04/2002, 19:48:10
Author Profile Mail author
Sometime around 3 am one of these clear, warm August nights (before or after the upcoming Perseids, to avoid distraction), I recommend that you take a blanket and a thermos jug of coffee (it sounds as if you may have to re-acquire a taste for decaffeinated!) and drive out far from city lights. Find a nice, open location and recline on your blanket to take in the deep, dark sky. Calmly allow your eyes to adapt to the darkness, and take in all the glory and wondrous beauty of the stars!
If you are anything at all like me (and we have both seen elements of each other's personality in the other), their brilliant, raw, eye-piercing beauty -- coupled with (among other thoughts) one's own scientifically informed understanding of what stars really are, the philosophical profundity of what even their mere existence and remoteness tells us, and contemplation of the pivotal and dramatic role they played in the history of our own existence -- you, like me, will at one point or another be moved to tears of awe, wonder, and sublime understanding.
Logan, my knowledge of the true nature of stars enormously increased the depth and profundity of my pleasure of that experience!
For untold millennia upon millennia, our distant ancestors watched with mixed emotions at those same stars, but their experiences were very different from our own. For most of them, the sky was the abode of capricious deities, objects of cringing religious worship, a foundation for foolish theologies and malignant religious cultural practices, and not uncommonly a source of fear, apprehension, and unease. Astronomical events could divert the path of civilizations across an entire hemisphere. The stars were deeply mysterious and laden with superstitious, religious significance, and as a result, the stars were thought to be immensely powerful and thus more than worthy of deification and worship, particularly as they were thought to powerfully influence both individual and human destiny -- just as today's Gods are imagined to do.What you are apparently so emotionally enamored of -- even if somewhat wistfully -- is essentially equivalent to returning to the world of your ancestors' superstitious, religious worship of distant balls of fusing hydrogen gas!
I doubt I have to tell you, John, even given your somewhat sheltered life of an artist, that ignorance is not bliss. Absolutely nothing is lost -- not beauty, nor wonder, nor awe -- when we abandon false or unjustified ideas and beliefs and give their former place to genuine knowledge or even just doubt. (See Richard Dawkins' marvelous book dedicated to examining that very concept, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder) In fact, so very much is gained! My sense of wonder and awe was dramatically increased when I learned the truth about stars! I would feel sorrow and extreme pity for someone who -- having once bravely abandoned false beliefs and valiantly retired their religious faith by means of great intellectual and social courage, a genuine desire for truth, and that "youngest of virtues", self-honesty -- then went and willfully condemned themselves to an abject, Sisyphean return to their former milieu of self-deception and ignorance! Especially for the reasons you bring out: The desire for the alluring but finally base pleasure of escaping from truth and reality and surrendering to the pleasures of warm, blind, irrational faith and the self-flattering comfort of the company of other such self-delusory hedonists!
Religion, if not the opium of the people, is certainly at least the equivalent of a child's pacifier or warm, comfy "blankey". It's unseemly to carry such things into adulthood!
That is not to say that some degree of physical and emotional comfort isn't of significant psychological value for people or should be avoided, of course. Buddha, for example, certainly made a strong case for moderation in that regard. But to take pleasure in the lowly comfort of surrendering one's broader responsibilities and hiding away from reality by enmeshing oneself in an isolated atmosphere of thinly veiled superstition, preposterous empirical claims, false and/or unwarranted beliefs, and a pervasive fear of honesty and truth is terribly ignominious!
- - -
But I am not in the least unsympathetic to your very natural and very human yearning to relive or recapture those experiences -- made golden by the passage of time -- which once brought you such warm feelings and the easy, comfortable satisfaction of belonging. Renewing an occasional romance with one's past is part of what makes life so richly complex, at once ecstatic, melancholy, painful, and inspiring. Nostalgia for one's childhood -- chronological or emotional or intellectual -- can often be more alluring than a favorite sweet.
But I invite you to consider the words of 1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.In closing, I genuinely wish to share with you, John -- at an intimately personal and human level -- excerpts of a particularly apropos portion of Nietzsche's exuberant and passionate affirmation of life and honesty, Thus Spoke ZarathustraOf the AfterworldsmenONCE Zarathustra too cast his deluded fancy beyond mankind, like all afterworldsmen. Then the world seemed to me the work of a suffering and tormented God.Then the world seemed to me the dream and fiction of a God; coloured vapour before the eyes of a discontented God. Good and evil and joy and sorrow and I and You -- I thought them coloured vapour before the creator's eyes. The creator wanted to look away from himself, so he created the world.
It is intoxicating joy for the sufferer to look away from his suffering and to forget himself. Intoxicating joy and self-forgetting -- that is what I once thought the world.
This world, the eternally imperfect, the eternal and imperfect image of a contradiction -- an intoxicating joy to its imperfect creator -- that is what I once thought the world.
Thus I too once cast my deluded fancy beyond mankind, like all afterworldsmen. Beyond mankind in reality?
Ah, brothers, this God which I created was human work and human madness, like all gods!
He was human, and only a poor piece of man and Ego: this phantom came to me from my own fire and ashes, that is the truth I It did not come to me from the `beyond´!
What happened, my brothers? I, the sufferer, overcame myself, I carried my own ashes to the mountains, I made for myself a brighter flame. And behold! the phantom fled from me!
Now to me, the convalescent, it would be suffering and torment to believe in such phantoms: it would be suffering to me now and humiliation. Thus I speak to the afterworldsmen.
It was suffering and impotence -- that created all afterworlds; and that brief madness of happiness that only the greatest sufferer experiences.
Weariness, which wants to reach the ultimate with a single leap, with a death-leap, a poor ignorant weariness, which no longer wants even to want: that created all gods and afterworlds.
Believe me, my brothers! It was the body that despaired of the body -- that touched the ultimate walls with the fingers of its deluded spirit.
Believe me, my brothers! It was the body that despaired of the earth -- that heard the belly of being speak to it.
And then it wanted to get its head through the ultimate walls -- and not its head only -- over into the `other world´.
But that `other world´, that inhuman, dehumanized world which is a heavenly Nothing, is well hidden from men; and the belly of being does not speak to man, except as man...
It was the sick and dying who despised the body and the earth and invented the things of heaven and the redeeming drops of blood: but even these sweet and dismal poisons they took from the body and the earth!
They wanted to escape from their misery and the stars were too far for them. Then they sighed: `Oh if only there were heavenly paths by which to creep into another existence and into happiness!´ - then they contrived for themselves their secret ways and their draughts of blood!
Now they thought themselves transported from their bodies and from this earth, these ingrates. Yet to what do they owe the convulsion and joy of their transport? To their bodies and to this earth.
Zarathustra is gentle with the sick. Truly, he is not angry at their manner of consolation and ingratitude. May they become convalescents and overcomers and make for themselves a higher body!
Neither is Zarathustra angry with the convalescent if he glances tenderly at his illusions and creeps at midnight around the grave of his God: but even his tears still speak to me of sickness and a sick body.
There have always been many sickly people among those who invent fables and long for God: they have a raging hate for the enlightened man and for that youngest of virtues which is called honesty.
They are always looking back to dark ages: then, indeed, illusion and faith were a different question; raving of the reason was likeness to God, and doubt was sin.
I know these Godlike people all too well: they want to be believed in, and doubt to be sin. I also know all too well what it is they themselves most firmly believe in.
Truly not in afterworlds and redeeming drops of blood: they believe most firmly in the body, and their own body is for them their thing-in-itself.
But it is a sickly thing to them: and they would dearly like to get out of their skins. That is why they hearken to preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds.
Listen rather, my brothers, to the voice of the healthy body: this is a purer voice and a more honest one.
Purer and more honest of speech is the healthy body, perfect and square-built: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth.
Thus spoke Zarathustra.Sympathetically and sincerely,
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A response Re: Comfort and Delusion -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/04/2002, 23:33:50
Author Profile Mail author
I woke up at the ungodly hour of 6 am this Sunday morning and I came to look at this board and read your deeply empathetic post to Logan. And while I will not stay here to engage in any sort of debate, since I cannot afford to be drawn in, I want to offer my own response for your words invoked something in me.
I am fortunate in that I have the opportunity to view the night sky every night of my life now from the deck of my house. It has become somewhat of a ritual for me to star gaze every night before I go to sleep. The elevation and absence of artificial lighting allows for unobstructed and clear views. Out my back door the Big Dipper "hangs" so low as if it would at any moment, scoop up the earth below it and looking over head one can easily see stars and planets. When night vision is achieved the Milky Way itself comes into focus. It is an awesome and breath taking sight.
I know what stars are made of, how they are formed and I know that the stars that meet my eyes are illusions. Science tells me that what I see with my human eyes have long since burned away and much of what I see is the reflection of what has been. But I still look at it as if it were real because it appears real to me and it is so beautiful that it takes me away.
I am well acquainted with the ecosystem below. I know something about the animals, the birds, the insects, the forest, and if you were here I could name all the wildflowers and tell you how all of these things are interdependent. And why the drought has reduced the wildflowers to almost none and so there are few humming birds or butterflies this year.
Take the trees. The ponderosa pines serve as canopy to cool, shade and emit oxygen. Lord only knows we need oxygen at this altitude! The understory below mulches, provides for soil retention and feeds and houses a community of small things I cannot see with my eyes. Wood peckers, chickadees, nuthatches and stellar jays (darn things, they're scavengers just like crows and sea gulls) use the trees for habitat. And then there are the squirrels. These are Abert squirrels. The Abert squirrels,so far as I know, only exist in ponderosa pine forests. They use the swags to build their dreys, dreys that can hold up under heavy snows and high winds. They eat the pine nuts and throw their left overs to the ground. In winter, the snows bend the tall pines and branches break off. When spring comes you can tip over the fallen branches and see a multitude of creatures at work using the log for food and shelter. What remains of the log becomes soil content thanks to earthworms. The particles they excrete nourish the pine seeds that fell the year before and new trees begin to grow.
When I look at all of these things and the interplay between them, it speaks to me of purpose. It suggests intent, it suggests a plan for them. I believe there is a reason for the trees, the animals and such, and I believe there is a reason for me.
That purpose and that reason are the foundation of my "theology". It is not fear of death, it is a desire to find my living purpose in this world. The woodpeckers (who can't tell my house from the trees until they realize that the cedar siding holds no nourishment) have a place and a purpose. They are designed for a specific occupation and one that contributes to their own health and the health of other living things. One that cooperates with and contributes to the world they inhabit.
I believe I am the same and was intended to DO the same. Not to bang my head against something that doesn't feed me, but to find out what DOES feed me and contributes to the health of the rest and to learn to tell the difference. That I was created for a purpose, designed with specialized abilities, some gifts and some talents but beyond those, I have the same needs as the rest of my species.
I do not think of myself as a "religious" person. But I do think of myself as a spiritual being. I do not think that your philosophical/scientific base is so far removed from my spirituality for they both allow us to view the world with a sense of awe and lead us to search out ways to grasp the profundity of what we know can never be fully grasped. Yet the search remains ongoing and so it shall ever be with men and women.
I am not fully at home in a religious community of believers. I can only take so much of the sanctimony I sometimes see in other humans, the looking down of their noses at others, the need to feel "more" by thinking of others as "less". And when I've had a belly full of it--I retreat and run for cover. I'm in retreat mode right now and have been so for a year, inspite of the fact that some would like to see me take my place (again) as a cog in the wheel of what I think is the machinery of their organization. It is not my organization and so I rebel and retreat from it for I cannot be like them. I sometimes feel I have to leave church to recover my own soul. For them, the attachment to the organization gives them identity (and sometimes status and power) but it swallows mine up and so I leave.
When I retreat I go back into my own world, I observe the natural world and go back into my own head and try to remember who I am. I reflect on my purpose and whether or not it remains the same. And if it remains the same, whether or not I'm fully pursuing it. I take inventory of myself, of my work, my character and my relationships. I'm not out to change the world, I'm out to change me.
I don't know what they are doing to my God, but they have made Him/It into something human. I could be doing that myself, I don't know. They think he needs the best sound system, and the best "house" and they argue amongst themselves because they can't agree on where to place the steps,or the configuration of the design, or what builder to use. And half of them are trying to figure out ways to guilt money out of the other half whom they are offending and so some leave and are labeled (perhaps) lacking faith. Does God care what the light fixtures look like? Do the birds fight over sound systems? For me to find God, I need to get away from people--and their machinery, their insecurity and they're ego's.
I think that believers are parts of a whole and that it does us more good to get away from our man made world, our man made religion and our man made God and look at what is around us. To look at the natural home we live in, consider the interdependency and purposes we see, and consider our place in it. When I do that, I see God.
I get easily offended when people label me in a certain way and automatically attach a set of characteristics to who and what they think I am based on one piece of information that I believe in God. Board persona's aside Marty, my "theology" is written here and I think you are familiar enough to know this is the real me talking.
I do not think it unseemly to look for purpose in my life, to look inward and to try to smooth out the rough places, to try to take a critical look at who I am and to try to develop as a person in order to fulfill a purpose. Or to see with my own eyes the way that people inflict pain on others and want to stop it by wanting to be something different, by speaking against the hate or holding myself out to people that others push away.
All of these things, this striving inside of me stems from my belief in God. And the belief that there is a reason I'm here and not to take it so lightly and to try to make my steps count for something and to make my human touch go easy on someone else, and to let my human mind realize I'm not above anyone else or my human heart to boldly love people. My belief is what drives me and I don't think the journey is without merit.
Sometimes I think you give believers a raw deal. Not all of us are caught up in the organization and treadmill of services and meetings and look down their noses at the rest of humanity and marketing God. There are people like me who will tell you the crummy things she's done and what she has wasted and not proud of, who don't broadcast it before a congregation but will tell someone like you privately and quietly and earnestly where all the ugly things are and not cover it up for the sake of a good impression. I am not better or no less than the next person. And in light of the waste, I look for purpose.
I am just someone who knows that belief gives me direction and raises my own bar and without it, I HAVE no bar. But that's just me. I spent two hours writing this down with a pen in my hand and hope that some part of it helps to explain that not all believers are caught up in the "ethnocentricity" of religion. Some infact, find that organized religion sucks the very soul out of themselves, like me.
Your South,
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Aug 05, 2002, 00:06:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Context no numbers Re: A response -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/05/2002, 03:07:34
Author Profile Mail author
I tried to fall back to sleep after I posted the above and couldn't. I kept thinking about the quote you used from Paul and running it over and over and thinking "But now we see through a glass darkly" and somewhere inbetween sleep and awake I realized what was bothering me. You didn't quote the verse in context. I've dug up an NIV (which is your preference) from one of my kids and would like to quote it the way I read scripture, without the verse breaks and numbers. I know you've read this several times before and seen it on everything from wall plaques to who knows what, but please read it again the way I've written it for I think it ties in perfectly to the general thought of my first post. The verses leading up to this portion deal with the body of believers and the interdependcy of spiritual gifts in carrying out the will of God. Beginning at 12:31
And now, I will show you the most excellent way. If I speak in tongues of men and of angels but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is PATIENT, love is KIND. It DOES NOT ENVY, it DOES NOT BOAST, it is NOT PROUD. It is NOT RUDE, it is NOT SELF SEEKING, it is NOT EASILY ANGERED, it KEEPS NO RECORD OF WRONGS. Love does NOT DELIGHT IN EVIL, but REJOICES WITH THE TRUTH. It always PROTECTS, always TRUSTS, always HOPES, always PERSERVERES. Love NEVER FAILS. But where there are prophecies, they will cease. where there are tongues, they will be stilled, where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child. I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, THEN we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, THEN I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And these three things remain: faith, hope and love. But the GREATEST of these is LOVE.
What this says to me Martin, is that the will of God is for us (humans)to love eachother with all of the characteristics listed. The chapter isn't about irrational belief, it is about the WISDOM of love behind what we do. Not going through the motions of belief, but developing the emotion that drives the belief. That's my take at least. And now as I go through my day should anyone ask me why I have dark circles under my eyes, I'll tell them "out of context scripture quotes"!
Vicki
p.s. Now, I'm really going! ;) or not!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Using a hydrogen bomb to kill flies! Re: Context no numbers -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/05/2002, 17:56:09
Author Profile Mail author
Good grief, Vicki, have you never seen anyone quote Shakespeare (for but one example) as a linguistic device in an entirely unrelated context for the words alone??
It's a shame you didn't dedicate such great efforts trying to understand the passages from Nietzsche...
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Tolerance in a narrow theology Re: A response -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
08/05/2002, 03:47:54
Author Profile Mail author
So you only look down your nose at those religious folk who seem to be zealously dedicated to their organizations?
While I may be personally inclined to find God in an impressive sound system, I certainly can appreciate your setiments and Martin's sentiments about the outdoors. This is really one of the few things I miss about Utah--going up into the mountains and sleeping under the stars.
But if this is all of your God's handiwork, then maybe we ought to give a little more credit to those who are zealously going to meetings and distancing themselves from "the world". Whether they are working for their salvation, or trying to maintain their salvation, or trying to figure out whether or not they are in fact saved, one thing is clear. They all take God very seriously, prostrating themselves before his mighty throne with "fear and trembling"! They love God, but at the same time are rightfully fearful of his severe judgemets.
It's posts like these that really make me wonder if you are Christian--and that is in part a compliment. Maybe you are a misplaced Buddhist, or perhaps you'd fit in better with the New Age crowd?
Really, it's great that You, I, Martin, and Logan could maybe all get together and escape from our materialistic lifestyles for a few moments to appreciate the beauty of creation in a way that those who are caught up in organized religion or maybe just American pop culture can't.
But isn't all of this tolerance and breaking of cultural barriers merely an illusion in its own right?
Do you believe the Bible when it declares that the way is strait and the gate narrow? Do you believe the Bible when it says that those who don't believe in Jesus Christ will suffer horrifically in hell for ETERNITY? What do a few nice bonding moments with Martin in this short earthly life really mean when we all know that he is doomed to suffer God's undying wrath for ETERNITY?
I don't want to misrepresent your beliefs, but as a Christian who believes in salvation, your bound to ultimately reconcile all your compassion with an intolerant god. Maybe you think God will let Martin into heaven, or others who are your friends or that you feel are tolerant. Maybe you don't have an opinion, or don't feel it's your place to judge who God lets into heaven. But to believe in salvation, you are forced to believe in damnation. And if you take the Bible seriously, you know that damnation awaits the vast majority of the human race.
The point is, those who you condemn for their fanatical adheredance to soul sucking organized religions are far more consisistent in their Christian beliefs then you are. If the stakes include eternity in Hell, then we should be grateful for those who DO market their God zealously--day in day out knocking on doors trying to let the rest of us know that we are really, really screwed if we continue to ignore the Bible. A narrow defininition of salvation requires a narrow lifestyle. The fanatics are merely the ones taking their narrow beliefs seriously--and they are most rightfully elitest. The problem is, your liberal tendencies and noble desires to find mutual respect with those who believe differently is entirely incompatible with heaven, hell, and salvation based on faith in Christ.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Buddhist? Me? Re: Tolerance in a narrow theology -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/05/2002, 05:51:24
Author Profile Mail author
I don't think I would make it as a Buddhist and most definitely NOT a New Ager! There was nothing in my post critical of hardworking Christians who endeavor to minister to people. The criticism enters when the machinery itself becomes the focus of ministry and the endeavor shifts away from God's will to self will. When pretense overrides humility.
My views on salvation with regards to the use of spiritual gifts and the drawing of Father God are entirely Biblical and the very foundation of evangelism. According to scripture, I don't need to "knock on doors". God is already doing the knocking...all I need to do is make myself available to those around me each day. What is your "take" on the process of salvation?
There is nothing remotely "liberal" in the concept of sacrificial love. It is COMMANDED to believers by the words of Christ himself:
Matthew 22:36-40
Master, which IS the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second IS like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets."
As you can see Fer, there is no stipulation to love only believing neighbors. Should I lock myself up in my church and avoid association with non-believers? Did Christ? Did he fight over a church building? Did he need a sound system and a film screen to preach to the 5,000? Did he care if his kid got the main part in a church production? Did he guilt money out of people? Where WAS his church? Did he go AFTER people or did they COME to him? You tell me...and when you're done with that Fer...tell me, according to the scriptures...what did Christ openly disdain?
Jersey Girl
p.s. you slept under the stars in Utah? Aren't there any coyotes up there?
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, Aug 05, 2002, 07:24:18
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Buddhist? Me? Re: Buddhist? Me? -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: fer-de-lance ®
08/06/2002, 01:22:15
Author Profile Mail author
The mechanics of the salvation process are irrelevant to my contention with christianity. As long as God is willing to send a single individual to a horrifying hell for ETERNITY, let alone the majority of the human race, then God himself is niether tolerant nor loving.
Your right that the Bible commands us to love. The problem is that God isn't a very good role model. In fact, he rarely if ever lifts a finger to do anything even rometely nice or even civil.
I've always looked at Jesus as sort of reformer. A guy who had little tolerance for the hypocrits as you say, that tried to put a bit of humanity into the law, and sure, I respect that. The problem is that all the love, healing the sick, even dying on the cross amounts to no more then "straightening deck chairs on the titanic" when you consider that vast majority of humans that are doomed to hell for eternity.
But even the Jews who were hypocrits, who built a hedge around the law, they were indeed consistent and behaving rationally in context with their history.
Jehova destroys other nations for having, "other gods". He destroys Jews for not taking their destruction to the end of every last living creature. He destroys children for poking fun at a prophet. He destroys when the ark is touched. He makes it clear that the destruction and captivity of the Israel is always because of their own wickedness--which usually amounts to absorbing the culture of their captors.
So the Northern Kingdom is gone and Judah lives at the mercy of Rome. My God, we'd build a hedge around the law and lock ourselves in the closet too! The law as a "schoolmaster" taught the Jews to be fanatics, and given the frailties of human nature, hypocrisy is inevitable.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Purpose, like God, is a purely human invention Re: A response -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/05/2002, 17:33:48
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for the lovely imagery in your post. Nicely done.
- - -
I'm slightly puzzled why you gave it the title of "A response", since it didn't seem to respond directly to my post to any significant extent, which was about why I contend Logan should hesitate and reconsider returning to an LDS environment (or other religious environment), even as the "Mormon agnostic" he opaquely describes himself as being. But I will happily reply to the points you raise in any case...
You write: "When I look at all of these things and the interplay between them, it speaks to me of purpose."
In truth, it merely presents the illusion of purpose! What you see is a combination of the uncreated order of uncreated natural law and uncreated natural evolution, which virtually by definition will appear to the myopic person in the facade of "purpose".
You go on to say: "That purpose and that reason are the foundation of my 'theology'. It is not fear of death, it is a desire to find my living purpose in this world."
First, since the "purpose" you imagine isn't actually there, the foundation of your "theology" is nothing but your own imagination. As Nietzsche's Zarathustra put it:
Thus I too once cast my deluded fancy beyond mankind, like all afterworldsmen. Beyond mankind in reality?And contrary to your disclaimer about death, when any of us considers our "purpose", whether we are immediately cognizant of it or not, the impetus of our seeking is the knowledge and fear/apprehension of death, lest our lives and deaths seem to us to be entirely nihilistic and meaningless.Ah, brothers, this God which I created was human work and human madness, like all gods! ... It did not come to me from the `beyond´!
As for your claim that your 'theology' is based on a "desire to find [your] living purpose in this world", there is nothing for you to find! You, like everyone else, must CREATE a purpose or value for your own existence!
Man first implanted values into things to maintain himself -- he created the meaning of things, a human meaning! Therefore he calls himself: `Man´, that is: the evaluator.You continue: "They are designed for a specific occupation and one that contributes to their own health and the health of other living things. One that cooperates with and contributes to the world they inhabit."Evaluation is creation: hear it, you creative men! Valuating is itself the value and jewel of all valued things.
Only through evaluation is there value: and without evaluation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, you creative men!
Your vision is getting even worse! There is nothing more important to life than death. Life is constant conflict and struggle, even human life (although we are seldom aware of it). Cooperation among living things is very common, yet it is actually but a strategy in the larger war. And the fact that some species live off the waste of others is but another testament to the power of naturalistic evolution.
As I have remarked to you in the distant past, you have the typical quasi-nature-lover's Pollyanna tendency to almost exclusively see only the deceptively pleasant aspects of what is actually the seething conflict of the natural world. We all need better eyes than that if we are to see the truth as it is.
You add: "That I was created for a purpose, designed with specialized abilities, some gifts and some talents but beyond those, I have the same needs as the rest of my species."
If you were "designed", you were designed by a clumsy and pathetically inept amateur! Whatever you think your designer may have been, if it existed at all, it was ignorant, blind, and stupid (at least in the sense its obvious "design" flaws or inferior "design" work utterly escaped its notice). If there was a designer, there can be NO DOUBT that it favored beetles and octopi over we obvious kludges!
You write: "I do not think of myself as a 'religious' person."
That's an indication that you haven't contemplated the question with sufficient rigor, or even consulted a dictionary.
re·li·gious adj.But I heartily congratulate you on your laudable decision to refuse to be a part of your formal church's "organizational machinery".1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
You continue: "When I retreat I go back into my own world, I observe the natural world and go back into my own head and try to remember who I am. I reflect on my purpose and whether or not it remains the same."
That's great! Just try to understand that your purpose is your self-created purpose; it does not come from God or anything divine or supernatural -- nothing beyond your own human imagination. But that's plenty good enough! At least as long as you recall that it is a purely human conception and decision and has nothing to do with any putative deity.
You then write: "I don't know what they are doing to my God, but they have made Him/It into something human."
NO!! They are making something purely human into God!
Ah, brothers, this God which I created was human work and human madness, like all gods!You then write: "I think that believers are parts of a whole and that it does us more good to get away from our man made world, our man made religion and our man made God and look at what is around us. To look at the natural home we live in, consider the interdependency and purposes we see, and consider our place in it. When I do that, I see God."He was human, and only a poor piece of man and Ego: this phantom came to me from my own fire and ashes, that is the truth! It did not come to me from the `beyond´!
The "purposes" you see are pure illusion. When you "see" those illusions, you "see" your illusory "God"! Your God is an INVENTED God!
You then proclaim: "I do not think it unseemly to look for purpose in my life, to look inward and to try to smooth out the rough places, to try to take a critical look at who I am and to try to develop as a person in order to fulfill a purpose."
I never said it was. I said it is emotionally and intellectually immature to seek, ascribe, or validate one's purpose (which can only ever be a purely human creation) by reference to the juvenile idea of an invisible SuperDaddy named God!
Which you then go on to do when you write: "All of these things, this striving inside of me stems from my belief in God... My belief is what drives me and I don't think the journey is without merit."
The truth is, Vicki, that your striving stems from your false belief in God! Your journey would be of merit even if -- (I say especially if) -- it were not motivated by your elaborate "God" mythology.
You then complain: "Sometimes I think you give believers a raw deal. Not all of us are caught up in the organization and treadmill of services and meetings and look down their noses at the rest of humanity and marketing God."
That's just nonsense, Vicki. It is the belief in a God or a deity or the supernatial that earns my antipathy! Belonging to a congregation or organization of like-minded self-deceivers only makes it still more objectionable.
In your final paragraph, you write: "I am just someone who knows that belief gives me direction and raises my own bar and without it, I HAVE no bar."
What that tells me is that, if not for your God fantasy, you would be unable to create any meaning, value, or purpose for your existence! I find that extremely sad, Vicki. I really do!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Choices Re: Purpose, like God, is a purely human invention -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/06/2002, 07:47:54
Author Profile Mail author
You're welcome for the imagery, I just write what comes to me the way it comes. I am severely limited in my ability to participate here just now though I might be able to drop in on weekends. I will take time only for this much...I titled my post "A response" because it WAS a response to your description of stargazing and what struck me most is how two people can react to the same sight in nearly identical ways yet from entirely different perspectives. And that is why I wrote as I did. To offer a believing perspective.
And now, I'd like to leave you with a commentary which is actually a subdued rant in disguise. There are many aspects of disbelief that I find "sad" though I rarely voice them here. I accept that people choose or are led to differing paths and I'm almost always willing to hear the other guy out. I've been here going on 2 years now and who knows why? Perhaps it's just become a habit and I often find it like reading a novel that never ends. What I find curious is this. I've been labeled in various and often conflicting ways by people reading the same identical posts I've made. For example, I've been called a fundamentalist and a liberal, courageous and evasive, close minded and open minded, dogmatic by non-believers and blasphemous by believers. On this very thread Fer has read the same words that you have and now decides I'm a "Buddhist" probably because he is not as familiar with scripture as he might like to think. And there are some strange words in his post regarding you which I don't fully understand the implications of. And here, you've called me a "pollyanna" because I offered some thoughts with regards to nature observation. Interesting how people can read the same words and come up with differing interpretations.
If nothing else, I am one of very few believers even left on this board and one of the very few over the period I've been posting who is willing to put my cards on the table and lay them out for all to see and read. All I can say is that what you see here is not nearly the whole of who I am and it's a good thing I'm not, by nature, an approval seeking person. I would however, very much like to say what's on my mind and share my views without the childish name calling and naive labeling that ensues. Judging the whole of a person by the posts displayed here can be in no way considered forthright or honest. At the very best, it is naieve to do so. The very fact that posters here can read the same words and interpret them differently tells me that they place their own "value" on my words.
I suspect that if I am able to post cordially and respectfully to most of the adults here, they are capable of doing the same. Bottom line, is I'm rather sick of it and I should like to see some civility here and not have to open a post and read inciteful little jabs. If skepticism and intellectual rigor require one to be caustic then I would like no part in it. When you use the kinds of style or tactics or methods or verbiage or whatever you wish to call them in an effort to make your point or undermine the person or the ideas of the person you dialogue with in the name of the "unvarnished truth" you are, in my mind, no different in demeanor than Glen.
There are diverse paths, diverse thoughts and ideas and who is to say which is the more viable? Do you consider yourself in a position to judge this? Do you know for a fact there is no afterlife? Do you know for a fact that there is no God? You can't say you "know" such things anymore than I can. The difference between us (at least on this thread) is that one of us can hear the expressions of the other without insulting the other person, and the other of us cannot. There really is a human being on the other side of the screen.
V
Modified by Jersey Girl at Tue, Aug 06, 2002, 07:49:35
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Having your illusions exposed is usually painful Re: Choices -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/06/2002, 08:19:32
Author Profile Mail author
It is only natural that you not enjoy the experience.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The naivete is what's annoying Re: Having your illusions exposed is usually painful -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/06/2002, 08:31:36
Author Profile Mail author
V
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Something else is annoying Re: The naivete is what's annoying -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK1 ®
08/06/2002, 09:12:49
Author Profile Mail author
Do you not think I see both sides Martin? Of course I do. You haven't, nor have you ever, presented unbelieving concepts to me with which I was unfamiliar. I'm off to a board meeting, so it begins...see you around.The pattern here is a repeat. To specific analysis of your words in the previous post, Martin gave specific and focused analysis. Your above response is a non-response to any of the particulars which were addressed. It is much like your responses to the Noah’s Ark exchange.
Having followed your posts over many months, I suspect that indeed you have been presented concepts with which you are “unfamiliar.”
Your rejoinder here is predictable and in character with your posts that are a non-response to exegesis.
Your comment: "I do not think of myself as a 'religious' person" is the antithesis of virtually all your posts here. On the contrary, you portray yourself not only as a religious person but as a person with superior religious views over those with whom you disagree.
You comment: "I don't know what they are doing to my God, but they have made Him/It into something human."
In what way is that statement non-religious? It IS a religious statement by one who has defended religion and religious views. To declare: : "I do not think of myself as a 'religious' person" in the context of all your statements on this forum is disingenuous, Vicki.
How many times have you declared yourself to be “a believer” on this board? Just what DO you think of yourself “as”?
A self-contradicting is this statement: "I am just someone who knows that belief gives me direction and raises my own bar and without it, I HAVE no bar."
That “belief” is religious and classifies you as a “religious person.”
Your whimsical inconsistency is diminishing. Why do you choose to make yourself look this way?
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
diminishing? Re: Re: Something else is annoying -- JAK1 Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
08/06/2002, 10:01:56
Author Profile Mail author
...self honesty perhaps?...an inability to completely reconcile an inner belief with it's external manifestations?
I had no difficulty in understanding what Vicky was trying to communicate (I think)...the sense of wonder and awe that seems nearly universal when we humans are faced with the majesty of the world around us. How we choose to interpret that feeling and whether we are satisfied with the feeling alone or need to attribute it to something outside of ourselves is unique to each of us.
"I do not think of myself as a 'religious' person"
Perhaps Vicky does not see herself as a dogmatic person in regards to her beliefs and was using the term "religious" in that sense.
Your rejoinder here is predictable and in character with your posts that are a non-response to exegesis.
What in Samhain gave you the impression that the "response" in question was an attempt at analytical thought that may have invoked "exegesis". It was pure stream of consciousness feeling and I highly doubt was posted for the purpose of analysis of consistency. Sheesh!
This might be a good time for you to contemplate the wonder and beauty of the "heavens", JAK. Just because you may know the what, why, and how of something shouldn't diminish your joy and wonder.
regards,
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: diminishing? Re: diminishing? -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK1 ®
08/06/2002, 10:43:18
Author Profile Mail author
Your last paragraph is a view with which I quite agree. The inconsistency of view and misrepresentation of point of view is the point of issue. Your “perhaps” conjecture may be the case, but it is a guess. The inconsistency in her statement is in the words themselves.
You characterized: It was pure stream of consciousness feeling and I highly doubt was posted for the purpose of analysis of consistency.
You may be correct, though guessing on “purpose” seems speculation. Regardless of its purpose, it is replete with inconsistency. It appeared to be “an attempt at analytical thought.” In any case, I certainly can join in “the sense of wonder and awe.”
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
pointless argument Re: Re: diminishing? -- JAK1 Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
08/06/2002, 11:46:15
Author Profile Mail author
I disagree, but neither one of us is qualified to judge in this case. Let's wait and see what the author asserts.
In my current state of mind a rip-snorting thunderstorm, or maybe even something more impressive would be ideal to inspire me with wonder and awe. Not a good attitude for discussions.
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Peace Re: pointless argument -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK1 ®
08/06/2002, 12:01:57
Author Profile Mail author
We have had much heat and humidity in the mid-west. Would that do it? :-) Few thunderstorms though.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Peace Re: Re: Peace -- JAK1 Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
08/06/2002, 12:13:42
Author Profile Mail author
;-)
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Here it is rdl Re: diminishing? -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/06/2002, 14:04:46
Author Profile Mail author
It is just as I said in my post to Martin above. I read his description of stargazing. I was struck by the fact that two people ( he and I ) could experience the same reaction to the expanse and beauty of the night sky while at the same time coming from two very different perspectives. I wrote my post to offer contrast to his perspective. Note: do not go stream of consciousness on this board for chances are better than even that someone will reach down into your stream grab a rock and try to sink you with it.
Honestly rdl, I suspect that the endless analysis, judgemental rhetoric, name calling and labeling here have just reached saturation point with me. There is a time to analyze and a time to just look up at the sky and drink in the beauty of it. A time to examine your life and a time to just live it. A time 2Think until your brains fall out and a time to just let yourself feel. A time to pick apart the words of another and a time to just sit back and appreciate the intent behind them. I really need to go now!
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Tue, Aug 06, 2002, 14:10:49
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sheesh! You posted it as "A Response"!! Re: Here it is rdl -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/06/2002, 14:40:05
Author Profile Mail author
What the hell made you think your words were inviolate or exempt from criticism in return??? How hypocritical and self-righteous of you!
You still need to work on your self-honesty...
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Whose naivete?? Re: The naivete is what's annoying -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/06/2002, 09:57:24
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yours Re: Whose naivete?? -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/06/2002, 14:06:04
Author Profile Mail author
V
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're the Bible believer! Re: Yours -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/06/2002, 14:31:47
Author Profile Mail author
Last I knew, absolute truth was in the box with the ambiguity...
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Not so naive 2think Re: You're the Bible believer! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/06/2002, 14:52:04
Author Profile Mail author
V
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What nonsense Re: Not so naive 2think -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/06/2002, 15:08:41
Author Profile Mail author
I read where you told rdl you had allegedly "reached saturation point" and needed to take a break, but as you've done before, you keep saying that but somehow you never actually do it...
Please enjoy your rest. Go ahead and shut down your computer. Good night. You can reply to this and any further posts I make in response to your posts some other day.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yes, I agree Re: What nonsense -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
08/09/2002, 13:26:56
