# Let's see what kind of feedback this...



## gtparts (Sep 3, 2012)

generates.

http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209?src=soc_fcbks

On a personal level, this goes a long way to expressing my feelings and faith.

What's your take?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 3, 2012)

Religion killed Jesus.   I'm not a fan of religion.  

James 1:27 states what religion should be....

Bandy


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Sep 3, 2012)

Lawfully armed citizens could prevent each of these masacures of innocent unarmed victims. You hear of this in Israel, and it's because their citizens are almost all armed.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 4, 2012)

gtparts said:


> generates.
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209?src=soc_fcbks
> 
> ...



1: Assumption that we are 'sick'.  I don't buy it and further more, it's a psychologically unhealthy way to view yourself.  I am fully capable of patience, kindness, joy, love and peace without believing in god.

2:  The Bible is really just 'whack'.  If only it didn't say such goofy things; the Heaven and He11 stuff included.

3.  Assumption of a soul.  Show it to me.



Michael F. Gray said:


> Lawfully armed citizens could prevent each of these masacures of innocent unarmed victims. You hear of this in Israel, and it's because their citizens are almost all armed.



Would Jesus carry a Soviet AK or a good ole American AR?


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 4, 2012)

I think the guy has a point alot of people are turned away from christianity by the way some behave, others (like me) becuase most of it doesn't make much sense.

OP you should reflect on what the author says, you don't always come across with attitude he suggests.  You remember this:



> Originally Posted by gtparts
> "A wink is as good as a nod, to a blind horse."
> 
> Without definition, metaphorical psycho-babble must remain, by nature, ambiguously worthless.
> ...





> Guess I'll just bow out of this thread. I can't find anything of a spiritual nature to study, discuss, or debate.
> 
> Perhaps woody's needs a Poetry and Prose Forum.



This was your response to something that had personal spiritual meaning for me. You claim spiritual exclusivity, which I find a joke.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 4, 2012)

As a matter of fact go look at  the venemous nature of the christians in that thread:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=538089&highlight=

Its exactly the kind of attitude that turns people off, and you were quite guilty GT.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> As a matter of fact go look at  the venemous nature of the christians in that thread:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=538089&highlight=
> 
> Its exactly the kind of attitude that turns people off, and you were quite guilty GT.



Really?  I've never seen gt write anything "venomous", and that thread is no exception.  What are you talking about?


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 4, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Really?  I've never seen gt write anything "venomous", and that thread is no exception.  What are you talking about?



O.k maybe venomous was a little to much word, but never the less, the piece was attacked by the "believers" and that you cannot deny.  They certainly did not show the attitude the author in the OP was talking about. They were outwardly sharp in their criticism, and gt is not innocent by any means.  See the quote above.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> ... the piece was attacked by the "believers" and that you cannot deny.



Actually, I can.  I'm just not seeing the attack.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 4, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Actually, I can.  I'm just not seeing the attack.



Then you are blind. Did you not read GT quote above? He called my post  garbly-goop. I know he deleted it from the thread to cover his tracks but it is still there in my post that I quoted him.  How about refraining from making statement if you dont find anything redeeming?

You can deny all you want but the attitude displayed in that thread is the reason I can't stand some christians.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Then you are blind.



... or maybe you just have exceedingly thin skin.  The "abuse" you got in that thread is nothing to what the Christians get in this forum.




TheBishop said:


> How about refraining from making statement if you dont find anything redeeming?



I'm sure that's why I did not comment.  I really did not know what to make of your post.  (For the record, a lot of the posts by some of the believers leave me scratching my head.)




TheBishop said:


> You can deny all you want but the attitude displayed in that thread is the reason I can't stand some christians.



I just go back to my previous "thin skin" comment.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 4, 2012)

gtparts said:


> generates.
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209?src=soc_fcbks
> 
> ...



Oh I liked it a lot.
I'm always amazed that I spend a lot of time apologizing for other Christians.  Honestly, some Christians actions and words are horrendous.  And obviously, they would disagree with me.

I came across an old posts of Israel's tonight that said this:  

"Believers don't worship God in hope of reward...they worship God because they have been translated to a place where that's the only thing they see, the only reasonable thing to do."

It is not about heaven and - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.  Never was so much about either.

In Christ, we've found the greatest treasure that's ever existed.  It's too great to bury.  It should be shared.  

But it's the real religion of Christianity that should be shared......  The doing good and being good to all people.
Not the lunacy of an empty casket and the latest fear factor attempt.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> As a matter of fact go look at  the venemous nature of the christians in that thread:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=538089&highlight=
> 
> Its exactly the kind of attitude that turns people off, and you were quite guilty GT.



I didn't even remember the thread you've mentioned here.
I went back and read it tonight.  I particularly like all the comments from page 2 of it.  Everyone had some good thoughts concerning the differences in light and darkness of light.
There's a great gulf that separates the thinking of one who believes in God, and one who adamantly believes God cannot exist.

We will never see eye to eye.  We can discuss our differences, but we cannot discuss why one does not understand the other.  We're a million miles apart.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 6, 2012)

I deleted my post to the thread you mention because you seemed to be upset that I found the OP to be ambiguous at best and confusing at the least.

 Just because I took exception to the prose doesn't constitute a personal attack on you. No one critiques from an objective point of view. It is always quite subjective, based on ones own unique perspective. You put it out there and I commented. You need not apologize for putting it out there and I feel no need to apologize for commenting. 

Btw, I think that DWTS, Dr. Phil, Glee, Judge Judy, and many other shows are a waste of airtime. I sincerely hope they aren't ticked at me for "speaking my mind". I doubt if they know or care, much less take it personally.

This thread is far less about me (heavens, it isn't about me at all), but about the article. Whatever your response to the article is, feel free to comment. I didn't write it,... no skin off my nose.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 6, 2012)

gtparts said:


> I deleted my post to the thread you mention because you seemed to be upset that I found the OP to be ambiguous at best and confusing at the least.
> 
> Just because I took exception to the prose doesn't constitute a personal attack on you. No one critiques from an objective point of view. It is always quite subjective, based on ones own unique perspective. You put it out there and I commented. You need not apologize for putting it out there and I feel no need to apologize for commenting.
> 
> ...



Yeagh that is not at all how you approached it.  Your critisim wasn't of the peice itself, nor the style or how it was written.  Your critism stemmed from the fact that it was not something YOU considered spiritual.  That much was obvious. If you found it confusing you could have asked for clarification like others but you didn't you chose to mock it instead. 

I can handle criticism just fine. Mockery just becuase someone believes they have exclusivity to spirituality is another story all together. 

As for the piece I think the author is on to something, you should take notes.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh that is not at all how you approached it.  Your critisim wasn't of the peice itself, nor the style or how it was written.  Your critism stemmed from the fact that it was not something YOU considered spiritual.  That much was obvious. If you found it confusing you could have asked for clarification like others but you didn't you chose to mock it instead.
> 
> I can handle criticism just fine. Mockery just becuase someone believes they have exclusivity to spirituality is another story all together.
> 
> As for the piece I think the author is on to something, you should take notes.



Think what you will.  

"Your critism (sp) stemmed from the fact that it was not something YOU considered spiritual." 

In this, you are correct. I didn't regard it as spiritual then or now. That is because anything that leaves out God, the Father of all Truth (light), is, to my way of thinking, pseudo-spiritual. I see no gray area here. My impressions and voiced opinion is that pseudo-spirituality is none at all. There are many activities that can be spiritual, but they are not necessarily so. Eventually, it all comes down to motive. I have no idea what motivated you to write the OP nor what purpose it could serve. I can only accept that either I am too dull witted and the matter is far over my head or that, perhaps, I pretty much nailed it. I have an opinion on that, too..... as I am sure you do.


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 6, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Think what you will.
> 
> "Your critism (sp) stemmed from the fact that it was not something YOU considered spiritual."
> 
> In this, you are correct. I didn't regard it as spiritual then or now. That is because anything that leaves out God, the Father of all Truth (light), is, to my way of thinking, pseudo-spiritual. I see no gray area here. My impressions and voiced opinion is that pseudo-spirituality is none at all. There are many activities that can be spiritual, but they are not necessarily so. Eventually, it all comes down to motive. I have no idea what motivated you to write the OP nor what purpose it could serve. I can only accept that either I am too dull witted and the matter is far over my head or that, perhaps, I pretty much nailed it. I have an opinion on that, too..... as I am sure you do.



your to far in the dark to be enlightened by some nicely  written work


----------



## gtparts (Sep 7, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> your (sp) to (sp) far in the dark to be enlightened by some nicely  written work




Nicely written work?
Do you mean the linked article in my thread or the prose of Bish that he references?

While I may not agree with Bish, may not find his prose interesting or spiritual, I defend his right to say or write how he feels without being subjected to personal attacks. I would appreciate the same consideration.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 12, 2012)

I thought it was a great article....if you haven't you ought to post it in one the forums the believers hang out in and get their feedback as well


----------

