mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

[Guest guest]

-

>Maybe dogma creates the tumour you are talking about. Can`t there

>religion free from dogma?

Well, dogma is pretty much definitionally required by religion, I

think. If there's no dogma, there's nothing to have faith in.

> Anyway, you seem to have to choose - either

>gap or tumour.

Well, no, my analogy was meant to suggest that there's not necessarily a

gap without religion, but that religion might create space for itself, as a

tumor does.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> -

>

> >Maybe dogma creates the tumour you are talking about. Can`t there

> >religion free from dogma?

>

> Well, dogma is pretty much definitionally required by religion, I

> think. If there's no dogma, there's nothing to have faith in.

>

hmmm - I think that people can be religious without adhering to dogma. But I

think that generally the 'cancerous' element of religion is when people try to

foist it on others. I think that it takes a lot of gall to post Christian stuff

to a public list like this, and when people are so public about this stuff, I

doubt that they are truly religious.

[Guest guest]

-

>Isn`t talking about religion like trying to cross quicksand?

Yeah, so I don't suppose there's any real point in continuing.

>Well my personal feeling is that without religion there is a gap,

>which is large or small according to the individual, but you can

>always choose to ignore it.

For me, gaps are caused by a lack of friends and loved ones, not by my

unbelief in a supreme being which wants a lot of my time and money and

which insists I believe all sorts of bizarre things.

-

[Guest guest]

--------- Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

> straight...)

>

>

> Gene-

>

> >hmmm - I think that people can be religious without adhering to dogma.

> But

> >I think that generally the 'cancerous' element of religion is when people

> >try to foist it on others. I think that it takes a lot of gall to post

> >Christian stuff to a public list like this, and when people are so public

> >about this stuff, I doubt that they are truly religious.

>

> Gall? I think that depends entirely on the tone and content.

Exactly.

[Guest guest]

Gene wrote: Good for you. If you post unsolicited how your relationship

with some divine being makes your food taste better, then I'd label you a

religious fanatic, and I'd say that your comments are pretty obnoxious. If

you do it in context, as above, that's fine.

Me: That sounds like a perfectly reasonable rule to give yourself.

Gene wrote: If you do the former in a public place, then you invite comments

from other people.

Me: Of course. If you make *any* public statement (including responses to

other comments) you invite comments from other people. That's the nature of

public discourse. Everyone is free to call others' comments obnoxious. You

have defined the conditions under which you will do so and the rest of us

will respond to your actions according to our own ideas of appropriate

behavior. And just like (in this case, or whoever) must find her own

way to respond to your comment, you will have to do the same for the

reactions your comment engenders. For instance, if you were to actually

call me a religious fanatic simply because I forget to include a bunch of

YMMV, IMO, etc, I'd probably call you a poopie pants.

YR

[Guest guest]

-

>All of these

>people, Christian, Pagan, Buddhist, Atheist, Whatever, would be doing the

>same thing: insisting that their beliefs about the spiritual are more

>correct than my own.

It amuses me sometimes how cultural relativism, which got its foothold here

in the US as a defect in certain secular leftist circles, has now all but

taken over.

That said, I don't begrudge people their religious beliefs as long as they

don't try to interfere with other people's lives.

-

[Guest guest]

For instance, if you were to actually

> call me a religious fanatic simply because I forget to include a bunch of

> YMMV, IMO, etc, I'd probably call you a poopie pants.

>

> YR

Oh no, not that...

[Guest guest]

Oh jeez, off the top of my head I can't think of any single thing that

Pagans agree upon. It's a serious question whether the category actually

holds any meaning at all. Broadly speaking, Paganism usually has something

to do with reclaiming, reconstructing, or reconnecting with those

theological ideas, practices and deity forms that The Church (the

preReformation political body, not to be confused with Christianity)

actively worked to supress. In practice this endeavor leads to all sorts of

things that do not fall easily under a single rubric. I use the term mainly

to indicate the direction in which my spirituality lies in relation to the

Big Three monotheisms, not as a reaction, but simply as a way to orient the

discussion. The label really doesn't say much about my personal practice at

all.

YR

mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

:

This one and your previous post - both very interesting. I wonder if

there are noticeable differences between Pagans. For instance, one

Pagan may believe in the existence of an immortal soul, whereas

another won't believe it, and a third one may be indifferent to it.

Do you all Pagans hold the same beliefs (however strange it is to

talk about beliefs in terms of Paganism)?

José

[Guest guest]

The Catholic (meaning universal) Church was founded on a small cross section

of beliefs that originally came under the umbrella term " Christianity. "

Before the Church consolidated its power around the time of the Niocene

Creed (Late Antiquity, 4th and 5th centuries AD) there were several

Christian sects all killing each other over which end of the boiled egg to

eat from (that's a reference to Gulliver's Travels by othan Swift, a

forrunner of Jon .) There were also quite of number of Gnostic

Christians whose ideas were remarkably different the Apostolics. After the

Reformation, (15th, 16th centuries) there was more than one form of

Christianity coexisting in Europe as Protestantism took hold.

In between, there was only one legal, recognized form of Christianity This

entity existed as a political force as much as, if not more than, a force in

the spiritual lives of individuals. A lot of the structure of the Church

was developed around the enforcement of belief and the suppression of

heresy.

Christianity is comprised of all those traditions practiced by people who

self-label as Christian. There are certainly groups, churches (little c)

and individuals who call themselves Christian who might not be considered

Christian by other Christians. There can be vast differences among

Christians on all sorts of theological issues because there is no longer any

central authority for the whole group.

So if our conversation is limited to the Middle Ages, we really don't need

to make a distinction between the actions of the Church and the official

beliefs of individual Christians. But if we are talking about other time

periods, we really don't want to assume that all Christians believe or act a

certain way. Not all modern Christians are evangelical for example.

For a good definition of Heathenism, check out; www.religioustolerance.com

but basically Heathenism is a modern practice based on a development of what

we know of pre-Christian pagan practice from Northern Europe.

YR

mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

straight...)

>

>

>

>

> :

>

> This one and your previous post - both very interesting. I wonder

if

> there are noticeable differences between Pagans. For instance, one

> Pagan may believe in the existence of an immortal soul, whereas

> another won't believe it, and a third one may be indifferent to

it.

> Do you all Pagans hold the same beliefs (however strange it is to

> talk about beliefs in terms of Paganism)?

>

> José

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >Maybe dogma creates the tumour you are talking about. Can`t there

> >religion free from dogma?

i believe there can...i know there can. it's a relationship...it's

all based on relationship.

>

> Well, dogma is pretty much definitionally required by religion, I

> think. If there's no dogma, there's nothing to have faith in.

i'm sure you didn't meant to say that we should be having faith in

dogma...but i think that's just where the problem lies. dogma

ultimately becomes THE THING and replaces God...this happened with

the pharisees, and this is going on right now in many churches.

that's why there's so many of them...they all have different 'dogma'.

i could talk more about this...but i won't right now.

i base what i say more on experience than anything else, being a

Christian for 30 years. i'm certainly not the arbitor or the

expert...it's just what i've learned in 30 years. and the longer i

live the more i believe it.

laura

>

[Guest guest]

You insult, repeatedly, but in a different way, and you do it in a particularly

irritating way, which is to SHOUT. I can't even read it. It's hard on my eyes.

If you were more secure in your beliefs you would be so hurt and need to shout

them.

>

> >

> >

> > mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

> straight...)

> >

> >

> > " but what i don't understand is...look, people have all kinds of

> > conversations here i take no interest in, so i skip them. why do we

> > make you so MAD? why not just ignore us and move on? this is what

> i

> > don't understand. we are happy just to be left alone...but you

> don't

> > seem to want to leave us alone. "

> >

> > Because you are posting publicly to this list, and it annoys me.

>

> SOOOO....ANYTIME SOMEONE ANNOYS YOU BY SOMETHING THEY SAY...YOU THINK

> IT'S OKAY TO INSULT THEM? I'M ASKING AN HONEST QUESTION HERE. WHY

> NOT JUST IGNORE THEM? I READ STUFF HERE THAT ANNOYS ME TOO, BUT I

> DON'T EXPRESS MY IRRITATIONS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYONE,

> AGITATE ANYONE, ANNOY ANYONE, OR MAKE THEM ANGRY. BECAUSE THAT'S

> WHAT IT DOES.

>

> DO YOU ENJOY DOING THIS TO PEOPLE? OR DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT YOU DO

> THIS? AGAIN, HONEST QUESTIONS.

>

> You are

> > entitled to your beliefs, and in fact, I have a healthy respect for

> people

> > who are truly religion. But, personally, I think that when you are

> so free

> > to post this stuff, repeatedly on a nutrition list, that you talk

> the talk,

> > but you don't walk the walk.

>

> AND WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THAT, GENE? I MEAN HONESTLY? IT RINGS OF

> INSINCERITY TO YOU? WHY WOULD I WRITE ANYTHING UNLESS I BELIEVED IT

> OR FELT IT? WHY DO YOU JUST DISMISS AS IF YOU THINK WE ARE MORONS OR

> SOMETHING? WHY ARE WE HERE ON THIS LIST? TO LEARN AND SHARE. TO

> SOME OF US, GOD IS PART OF THAT. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA; I

> THOUGHT WE HAD FREE SPEECH.

>

> SO YOU DISAGREE. SO JUST DISAGREE THEN AND KEEP IT TO YOURSELF IF

> YOU'RE GOING TO INSULT.

>

> I probably respond for the same reason that you

> > respond to me - you feel it needs saying.

> >

> > True I could ignore it, but you're posting it publicly, and so i am

> offering

> > my opinion. I find it obnoxious.

>

> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AND YOU DON'T WANT TO

> UNDERSTAND. YOU PREFER TO DISMISS. YOU DON'T TOLERATE...

> >

> > " we tend to talk about that which we love, and if someone loves God,

> > at some point it will come up in conversation. "

> >

> > No.

>

> NO? HOW CAN YOU SAY NO? I'M TELLING YOU WHY AND YOU ARE SAYING NO.

>

> Not necessarily. There are situations where you restrain yourself.

>

> YES OF COURSE. ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S PART OF LIFE, PART OF BEING A

> HUMAN BEING.

>

> If

> > you're at a job, for instance, unless your job explicitly involves

> religion,

> > you probably shouldn't bring it up.

>

> UNLESS YOU'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE. THEN, IF IT COMES

> UP, IT COMES UP.

>

> People aren't interested.

>

> UNLESS YOU'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION. LAURA AND I WERE OBVIOUSLY

> INTERESTED IN WHAT WE WERE SAYING TO EACH OTHER. AND THERE ARE OTHER

> CHRISTIANS WHO POST HERE AND READ POSTS.

>

> If you teach

> > children, you better damn well not bring it up.

>

> IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT UP. IF IT'S A

> CATHOLIC SCHOOL YOU BETTER BRING IT UP.

>

> And if I see you posting

> > this gratuitous father/god nonsense here,

>

> GRATUITOUS TO YOU...MEANINGFUL, NO, CRUCIAL TO ME. MY OWN FATHER WAS

> NOT GRATUITOUS. NEITHER IS MY HEAVENLY FATHER.

>

> I'll comment on it, because, after

> > all I'm the anti-christ.

>

> GEE, THAT'S A RELIEF. BUT I STILL THINK YOU LEARN TO LET PEOPLE

> ALONE, LET PEOPLE BE AND NOT INSULT THEM, RILE THEM UP, ANNOY THEM,

> HURT THEM AND IRRITATE THEM. IF YOU'RE STILL YOUNG, WHICH I PRESUME

> YOU ARE, YOU WILL LEARN IT OR YOU WILL HAVE NO FRIENDS, EITHER THAT

> OR YOU WILL ALIENATE PEOPLE LEFT AND RIGHT.

>

> Seems totally inconsistent with me having a

> > tremendous respect for spirituality, doesn't it? Well, I think that

> you're

> > being very disrespectful to the entire notion by repeatedly posting

> your

> > particular views about it here, whether it is relevant or not.

>

> I'M RESPONDING TO *****YOU*****. I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO SEE THAT

> YOU ARE VERY HURTFUL. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T CARE........I AM ONLY

> RESPONDING TO YOUR INSULTS. OBVIOUSLY A MISTAKE. IN REAL LIFE I

> KEEP MY LIFE TO MYSELF UNLESS I GET IN A CONVERSATION WITH

> SOMEONE...AND THEN WE TALK. LIKE FRIENDS. I'M VERY QUIET ABOUT MY

> FAITH UNLESS I'M ASKED, OR I GUESS, UNLESS I'M INSULTED AND WANT TO

> DEFEND MYSELF. OBVIOUSLY A BIG MISTAKE ON MY PART. GENE, YOU DON'T

> KNOW ME, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO I AM AND WHAT I'M LIKE AND YET YOU ARE

> JUDGING ME LIKE I'M SOME KIND OF MONSTER.

>

> That's not my

> > idea of spirituality.

>

> I SINCERELY DOUBT YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF SPIRITUALITY THAT IS BASED ON

> ANYTHING THAT'S TRULY SPIRITUAL... BECAUSE TRUE SPIRITUALITY IS BASED

> ON LOVE AND FROM WHAT I CAN SEE FROM HERE, I JUST DON'T SEE ANY LOVE

> AT ALL IN YOU. YOU HATE, YOU INSULT, YOU AGITATE. IT'S VERY

> UPSETTING. I DON'T SEE ANY CARING OR COMPASSION OR UNDERSTANDING IN

> YOUR 'VOICE'.

>

>

> > " but i totally agree with you...faith can't be foisted. it must be

> > desired. it's like trying to get someone to try octopus. if

> someone

> > wants to try it, they will. it someone is adamantly opposed to

> > trying it...trying to get them to try octopus is just going to

> really

> > tick them off. "

> >

> > So, stop trying to get people to try the goddam octopus!

>

> I DON'T SEE IT AS TRYING...I SEE IT AS RESPONDING TO YOUR INSULTS AND

> TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW...SINCE YOU ARE SO

> INSISTENT ON EXPLAINING YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW BUT DON'T WANT TO HEAR

> ANYONE'S THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS.

>

> BASICALLY YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION...BUT I'M NOT. THAT'S

> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

> >

> > " but the person trying to foist the octopus does so because he LOVES

> > eating octopus and wants to share his joy and wants the other person

> > to experience the joy of eating octopus. "

> >

> > This is getting rather silly.

>

> IT'S ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS. AND MEAN SPIRITED ON YOUR PART.

>

> I love octopus, but I don't want yours.

>

> THANKS, GENE, FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSULT. I'VE GOT QUITE A COLLECTION

> HERE NOW.

>

> YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY BECAUSE YOU WON'T LISTEN TO A

> WORD I'M SAYING AND THAT'S OKAY.

>

> THIS IS SUCH A POINTLESS CONVERSATION...ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING

> REACHED HERE.

>

> AND SO THERE IS NO POINT FOR ME TO RESPOND TO ANY MORE OF YOUR

> POSTS. UNLESS ONE OF THEM BEGINS 'I'M SORRY'...BUT I KNOW THAT WILL

> NEVER HAPPEN.

>

> I WAS AN ATHEIST FOR MANY YEARS SO I UNDERSTAND THE HATRED YOU HAVE

> FOR CHRISTIANS BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE STUPID AT ONE POINT TOO.

> BUT I WAS WRONG. AND YOU ARE TOO. AND SOME DAY YOU WILL REALIZE

> THIS.

>

> laura

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive

> with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> >You insult, repeatedly, but in a different way, and you do it in a

> >particularly irritating way, which is to SHOUT. I can't even read it. It's

> >hard on my eyes. If you were more secure in your beliefs you would be so

> >hurt and need to shout them.

>

> And you think your backquoting of entire messages including headers and

> footers ISN'T annoying?

>

>

>

> -

Do I make my point by accidentally including these things? No. Sorry if it

annoys you. I'll stop posting, asshole.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Do I make my point by accidentally including these things? No. Sorry if it

>annoys you. I'll stop posting, asshole.

I'll wager it annoys most if not all list members, and I can't see how a

persistent negligence equals " accidentally including " way too much

text. It's simply common courtesy to prune messages adequately, and if you

feel the need to call me names when I ask once again that you take a couple

extra seconds to prune waste text, it only reflects poorly on you.

-

[Guest guest]

Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

straight...)

" Gene-

>Do I make my point by accidentally including these things? No. Sorry if it

>annoys you. I'll stop posting, asshole.

I'll wager it annoys most if not all list members, and I can't see how a

persistent negligence equals " accidentally including " way too much

text. It's simply common courtesy to prune messages adequately, and if you

feel the need to call me names when I ask once again that you take a couple

extra seconds to prune waste text, it only reflects poorly on you.

- "

First of all, I try to remember to do it. This is the only list (and I'm on

quite a few) which requires such diligence.

As for courtesy, I don't think that forgetting to do something that you try

to remember to do is exactly discourteous. IN any case, I do apologize for

doing, and, I will try to remember.

The point was that you implied that I was a hypocrite, by calling attention

to my forgetfulness when I told someone else that they were being annoying.

My further point was that there was a difference between her doing this

deliberately, and me forgetting to trim my posts some of the time. But you

choose not to pay attention to that distinction either, as if I never made

it.

So, yeah - I was pissed at the way you did that. You obviously agreed with

my point about the capitalization because your post about it followed

immediately. But you did want to, in your role as the list moderator, call

me out for being a hypocrite. So, you have every right to do so, and I

reiterate my name calling. Bye.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>First of all, I try to remember to do it. This is the only list (and I'm on

>quite a few) which requires such diligence.

OK, fair enough on the first point, though since your posts are often among

the most egregiously badly formatted and overly stuffed, I admit that

seemed hard to believe. As to the second point, I wonder what lists you're

on, because of the ones I frequent, this is the worst of them all for

cluttered junk-filled overly-backquoted messages, and people regularly

complain.

>As for courtesy, I don't think that forgetting to do something that you try

>to remember to do is exactly discourteous. IN any case, I do apologize for

>doing, and, I will try to remember.

OK, fair enough.

>The point was that you implied that I was a hypocrite, by calling attention

>to my forgetfulness when I told someone else that they were being annoying.

>My further point was that there was a difference between her doing this

>deliberately, and me forgetting to trim my posts some of the time. But you

>choose not to pay attention to that distinction either, as if I never made

>it.

That's a legitimate distinction, but since I've personally asked you on

several occasions to trim your posts, I concluded that you were just

skipping it because you didn't want to bother. You say I'm wrong, so fine,

I accept that I'm wrong and I'm sorry that I came to that conclusion.

>So, yeah - I was pissed at the way you did that. You obviously agreed with

>my point about the capitalization because your post about it followed

>immediately. But you did want to, in your role as the list moderator, call

>me out for being a hypocrite. So, you have every right to do so, and I

>reiterate my name calling. Bye.

I'm sorry you have such a bad temper.

-

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote,

" I'm sorry you have such a bad temper. "

Apology accepted.