# Looking For an Honest Man . . .



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity.

Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies.  Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic. 

So let’s try actually discussing a ‘Spiritual’ idea and see if the children and one-dimensional morons can keep up and perhaps make a thoughtful contribution without once again becoming embarrassed by their total ignorance and derailing the topic into singular extremism out of spiteful regret that they neglected to read anything other than soft-core magazines  . . .

I’d like to hear your thoughts on the topic of monuments.

Erecting a monument may or may not accurately reflect actual events, or even actual outcomes.  Yet, it seems that our heroes represent something larger than ourselves – the proud achievements of the man on the street?  Not so much, it seems, but more like nobility embodied – what we want to be, or idealize, more than what we as individuals actually are.  Monuments seem to serve as sacred symbols of all we hold dear, or lack ourselves, or aspire to – I mean, nobody ever built a monument to a drunk or an axe-murderer (with a few exceptions – Stalin, Hussein, Mao, and Amin spring to mind).  But in general, satan doesn’t get cathedrals.  

Does the Lincoln Memorial make Lincoln good?  Because he won?  Stalin got monuments the same way.  Would the people themselves, who erected the monuments, be any different, fundamentally, if the other side had won?  Do we, by our recognitions, assert that the qualities we assign to our leaders are our qualities as well?  

Monuments possess enormous narrative and symbolic power, and always have.  Yet, witness the frenzy of statue and image destruction that followed the fall of the Soviet Union.  Does this mean that the people are compelled to erect and ‘worship’ these symbolic works by their leaders, resenting them all along?  Could a similar, new political wind someday topple the Washington Monument in a frenzy of citizen resentment, who suddenly consider that monument nothing more than an outmoded symbol of an evil and oppressive past?  Why not?

And does this act of destroying the symbols of an ‘impure’ past somehow purify the present and the past?  I’d say no, not in the sense that it changes anything.  We remain the product of the past, or at least, we remain part of the process of creating its most recent episodes.  And if we can abandon our ideological monuments, from the Pyramids to the Parthenon to the Berlin Wall, with such alacrity, then just what compels us to erect them in the first place?

Certainly there is a feeling (a ‘spirituality,’ if you will) that contributes to the collective effort of erecting huge and terribly difficult and expensive monuments to the ideals and beliefs of any and every age, but why go to such extreme lengths?  In a spiritual sense, we are faced with a problem here of many parts, ranging from perception to selectivity, and from authenticity to belief;  coupled with a lack of universality – different peoples have chosen to memorialize different things, for different and often completely conflicting reasons.  

What do you make of this historical tendency to memorialize certain things, and not others which may be deemed equally worthy, in terms of a monument.  And what do you make of the equal tendency to abandon and/or destroy these monuments on just such a similar whim?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity.
> 
> Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies.  Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic.
> 
> ...



Very, very good question.  And although , you are going to be percieved as baiting by some because the of the subject "monument,--- most here could fight the reel if it were so. I however think you motivation for the question if genuine. I shall think on this and come back latter.

But quickly I think that monuments are not errected or destroyed at a "whim" as you say.

Perhaps you should give examples of monuments? Do you mean monuments as in the statue of Churchill, General Jackson or Evangeline? Or do you mean monuments such as the church buildings or Calvary Scuptures? Do you mean religions, denominations and doctrines perhaps?

This bit now: Winners and loosers get monuments and take them down and not because of "feelings" but because of logic and reason--but not all the time.


Although "The heart has reasons that reason does not know" monuments are not nessesarily there to manipulate people to idiology. Christianity for example is not there to manipulate people, but rather it is the opposite. Christianity is not rigid or fixed---as a functional entity it is very flexible, just as the human spirit is.... Christianity as a "monument" would be a hard thing to bring down--except by oppression.

Reason and our faculties of observations on the other hand are somewhat limited in fexability by the ware and tear of the life span(s). Monuments to science are only good as the next Newton, Dr. Oz., the hybird automobile.

Hard to beat Aristotle, Sugar Ray Robinson, canadians  and Claire Lynch according my reasoning and affections.LOL

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Q_0ryOwMCA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Q_0ryOwMCA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## Israel (Aug 25, 2010)

No translation


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 25, 2010)

*I FOUND ONE!!!!! oh no thats you.....*

(I can do this all day, so be careful quoting your Book at me – I’ve read the whole thing, in dozens of iterations, and have also read the ‘competing’ Books, which are equally nuts . . . ) 




The only Good News I can see is that the vast majority of the people on this planet think you folks are nuts, and the more I see of your tactics, beliefs, and rationalizations, I’m increasingly starting to think they might be right . . . 



“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

Sheesh. 



Sort of like taking a hooker to the opera around here, huh?





Diogenes said:


> Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity.
> 
> Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies.  Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic.
> 
> ...


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity.
> 
> Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies.  Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic.
> 
> ...


I found another one for ya, ill keep em comen buddy...

Iâ€™ll start â€“ (gaping innocently, and honestly aghast at this â€˜revelationâ€™) â€“ â€œOh my goodness, what does this horribly disturbing news imply concerning my personal relationship with the Lord My God?â€�


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> ....then just what compels us to erect them in the first place?...



They are erected due to the brevity of the attention span of the citizenry with regards to historical occurrences.  

It's quite simple actually.


----------



## christianhunter (Aug 25, 2010)

"Looking for an honest man","Seek and you shall find."


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 25, 2010)

> we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies. Spewing self-affirming venom...





If we remove the "verse-spewing" from this description, it looks remarkably like the man looking back from the mirror at you, doesn't it?

Perhaps a little self-reflection is in order, huh?



I'd use the ignore button, but you're just so dang entertaining, I can't bring myself to do it Dio.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 25, 2010)

Israel said:


> No translation



 Punc -tu-a-tion? FYI momument has a history in Dio's posts.


----------



## christianhunter (Aug 25, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> If we remove the "verse-spewing" from this description, it looks remarkably like the man looking back from the mirror at you, doesn't it?
> 
> Perhaps a little self-reflection is in order, huh?
> 
> ...



I did,hes not that entertaining.
I seldomly view his threads,this one caught my eye,so I hit the view button.Same old,same old.
BTW,I'm being honest.


----------



## thedeacon (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity.
> 
> Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies.  Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic.
> 
> ...



After reading this pile of cow paddies that you call a post I have decided that I have no interest in saying anything at all about what is posted.

I would however be willing to help you look for a good counseler for youself and anyone else that has to live in close contact with you.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 25, 2010)

> Monuments possess enormous narrative and symbolic power, and always have. Yet, witness the frenzy of statue and image destruction that followed the fall of the Soviet Union. Does this mean that the people are compelled to erect and ‘worship’ these symbolic works by their leaders, resenting them all along? Could a similar, new political wind someday topple the Washington Monument in a frenzy of citizen resentment, who suddenly consider that monument nothing more than an outmoded symbol of an evil and oppressive past? Why not?
> 
> And does this act of destroying the symbols of an ‘impure’ past somehow purify the present and the past? I’d say no, not in the sense that it changes anything. We remain the product of the past, or at least, we remain part of the process of creating its most recent episodes. And if we can abandon our ideological monuments, from the Pyramids to the Parthenon to the Berlin Wall, with such alacrity, then just what compels us to erect them in the first place?



Not a bad thought there, about monuments.  Just thinking a little but you have Confederate monuments all over the southeast, Oliver Cromwell (in London), and arguably Che Guevarra (in Cuba) as examples of tolerated monuments.  The Berlin Wall though doesn't qualify as a monument as much as it is an "in ya face" relic.  The pyramids are abandoned but what the heck else are you going to do with them besides charge admission to show them?  Sort of like the Ocmulgee mounds a bit, imo.  At any rate I don't see the Washington monument coming down at any time intentionally.  The logistics of such a thing would be brutal even if we were taken over by Russians, Muslims, telemarketers, etc and they wanted to do it.  

One thing I do find a little odd is the notion of a Henry Wirz monument in Andersonville.  What if there was a David Koresh monument in Waco?


----------



## FritzMichaels (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> "Looking for an honest man...



have you tried  Match.com?


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 25, 2010)

The discsussions of late have been quite a mess.
Some don't even realize how they are completing the stereotype.
But that is another thought for another day.

Monuments?  Without any tangible proof of an afterlife (outside of faith), nor any guarantees of a chance for "do overs" man has wanted to be remembered.
For something.
For anything.
I'd say tombstones are simple monuments.  Of course, some are quite the attraction compared to others.


----------



## Crubear (Aug 25, 2010)

Stalin had the statues erected to glorify himself.

The only "Statue" Lincoln ever saw was his effigy being burned.

In most cases a Monument is cause for us to reflect on an event and the people that event made great. 

Would you argue against G Washington (I know, of course you would), then how about the USS Arizona? The Iwo Jima memorial, and for that matter Arlington National Cemetary?

Great moments should be remembered, with reverence. Even if you don't believe in God, there is something inspiring about people who rose to an occaison and made a difference.


----------



## crackerdave (Aug 25, 2010)

Seems pretty simple to me - they're just reminders of something someone did,once upon a time.Not a big deal to me,unless it's a cross.


----------



## Madman (Aug 25, 2010)

Crubear said:


> Great moments should be remembered, with reverence. Even if you don't believe in God, there is something inspiring about people who rose to an occaison and made a difference.



4 So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one from each tribe, 5 and said to them, "Go over before the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, 6 to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do these stones mean?' 7 tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever." 

Joshua 4:4-7

Memorial / Monument documentation is always a plus.


----------



## crackerdave (Aug 25, 2010)

Madman said:


> 4 So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one from each tribe, 5 and said to them, "Go over before the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, 6 to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do these stones mean?' 7 tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever."
> 
> Joshua 4:4-7
> 
> Memorial / Monument documentation is always a plus.



Wonder if those stones are still there,and if so,whether anybody knows/cares why they're there?


----------



## Madman (Aug 25, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Wonder if those stones are still there,and if so,whether anybody knows/cares why they're there?



Don't know.  I didn't see them when I was there.  I have "stacks of stones" myself, rememberences of what the Creator of the universe has done for me, sure you do too.  

Peace

One of them is my avatar.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 25, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> have you tried Match.com?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

Gordon – characteristically thoughtful, while also characteristically obtuse – “ . . . monuments are not errected or destroyed at a "whim" . . . “   

Certainly not erected on a whim, given the unimaginable difficulty and expense of things such as Stonehenge, the Sphinx, the Pyramids, or the Temple of Artemis.  Yet, considering the investment made by ordinary citizens in such undertakings, one is forced to wonder – ‘What Changed?’  And why?  Certainly these monuments remain, but hugely diminished in significance and now viewed merely as curiosities.

Dawg –  “They are erected due to the brevity of the attention span of the citizenry with regards to historical occurrences.”  Here I think we have the beginning of a breakthrough insight . . .  Yet (again with the ‘yet’ thing, I know, but it is early in the discussion), one presumes that it is the leaders rather than the ordinary folks planning and organizing the constructions and observances, and the leaders depend for their livelihood on just that short attention span.  Preserving a memory would seem to work against their own self interest.

GT – “Transitional popularity, myopia, personal aggrandizement, and the reflexive herd mentality that drives action above reason.”   Well said.  It turns out to be an oddly complex problem, the more I consider it and the more angles I try to view it from.  That time might bring either clarity or distortion, or both, might well become the central organizing theme of the discussion.

Ham – “The pyramids are abandoned but what the heck else are you going to do with them besides charge admission to show them?”  Exactly.  But they have lost their power, as many others have, to represent the symbolism they originally held.  How can representational symbols be so very transitory in nature?  Even certain words have evolved in meaning and connotation, and I’m wondering if the nearly constant stream of such change throughout history speaks for itself?

WTM – “I'd say tombstones are simple monuments.”  Fair observation.  Modest though they are, simple gestures of remembrance are certainly fair game.  Perhaps we need to subdivide some categories to separate things like the Arc de Triomphe and the Cathedral at Chartres (living monuments), from Stonehenge and the Sphinx (abandoned monuments), as well as separating the truly heroic effort (e.g. a pyramid) from a modest remembrance (e.g. a tombstone).  A bit of clarification of categories might help prevent lumping things together into absolutes.

Crubear – “In most cases a Monument is cause for us to reflect on an event and the people that event made great.”  Agreed.  In most cases, as you observe.  Yet, the issue of selecting what is going to be memorialized and what is going to be passed over for such recognition remains a significant one.  How do we make such choices?

Cracker – “Seems pretty simple to me - they're just reminders of something someone did,once upon a time.”  Well, to some degree you are right.  Most of the lesser ‘monuments,’ like the statue of the long-forgotten fella on the horse standing on the town green falls into this category.  After a century or so, folks forget, and it devolves into a quaint relic of the past.  But something along the lines of the Statue of Liberty was a huge undertaking, meant to remind everyone, forever, of an intangible set of values, and for some reason it retains that narrative power even today.  What causes one symbol to endure, and another to erode?  And is there any way of predicting which will be which?

Israel, Rednek, CH, Huntinfool, deacon, Fritz, farmasis --  Thank you for playing – you are dismissed from class for the remainder of the session, and are free to return to the monkey bars . . .


----------



## Israel (Aug 26, 2010)

Originally posted by Israel:
"No Translation."

Not really at all. I can only surmise a moderator saw fit to delete what was originally posted and instead post what would appear as my words.

Admittedly what was posted may not have made sense to some, or many. That's not my concern, or responsibility, just as what I am writing may make sense to some, or not.

Diogenes opens this thread:


"Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity"

This is called bait. 
It appeals to the one who is willing to submit to Diogenes appraisal of things. 
Already Diogenes is framing not only the conversation...but going on to do something far more devious.
(Some might even say "OOOh, maybe I am one that Diogenes thinks is thoughtful..."
Now, I realize that this could be a presumptuous assertion, which is why "might" is the operative word.)

Nevertheless the presentation is about as ham fisted as tossing a two pound sinker in front of a tailing bonefish. 

If one follows the bait to the line and the line back to the caster, this is also spewed:

"Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies. Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic. 

So let’s try actually discussing a ‘Spiritual’ idea and see if the children and one-dimensional morons can keep up and perhaps make a thoughtful contribution without once again becoming embarrassed by their total ignorance and derailing the topic into singular extremism out of spiteful regret that they neglected to read anything other than soft-core magazines . . ."

Now, Dio may make a handy tool for dealing with some that you may have wanted to dismiss of your own self. 

What he does with impunity, you may have feared to broach. The matter is, you really don't know who he's talking about...and it may well be that you've surrendered far more by engaging him and relegating to him the position of judgment over some (many?) who may be your brethren.

I mean, what could be vile about an appeal to "my" intellect?
What am I willing to swallow (such broad condemnation)  in my hope to be counted among the reasonable? 
After all, Diogenes has established himself is a man who may be able to Google what a "Higgs Boson" is, and gee, I've never even heard of that. (Understand now, if he can Google it, or developed the very original concept of it is of no consequence to me)

So, since some easily tolerate vague others of the forum being described as "one dimensional morons" I am reminded of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians.
You tolerate some who would slap you in the face. 

My original post before being mangled by a moderator into "no translation" was a response which would certainly put me in the group of morons of which Diogenes originally referred. Diogenes transparent ruse of divide and conquer, appeal and ridicule, reward and abuse...by taking to himself title of judge and jury was just a little too easy to see.

So, since the moderator has determined he has the right and authority to say what does and does not make sense to him (tongues require an interpreter, perhaps mindless gibberish does not), I would simply assert that if you do not understand the intent and substance of Dioegene's first post in this thread, what harm would there be if everything else that followed was written in Sanskrit?

As to being dismissed, I find I am in welcome company. But it's really not for anyone here to dismiss any others. (Moderator, if that statement caused a little bit of hackle to raise, you are not fit to be a moderator, if you understand it, you are blessed, and frankly, you are what you are and none of us can change ourselves.)


----------



## thedeacon (Aug 26, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Gordon – characteristically thoughtful, while also characteristically obtuse – “ . . . monuments are not errected or destroyed at a "whim" . . . “
> 
> Certainly not erected on a whim, given the unimaginable difficulty and expense of things such as Stonehenge, the Sphinx, the Pyramids, or the Temple of Artemis.  Yet, considering the investment made by ordinary citizens in such undertakings, one is forced to wonder – ‘What Changed?’  And why?  Certainly these monuments remain, but hugely diminished in significance and now viewed merely as curiosities.
> 
> ...





Sometimes the monkey bars are not so bad, at least the company is good, I would like to meet those guys anyway.  Hi Guys, Maybe we should call ourselves,

"The Monkey Bar Mob"


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 26, 2010)

The book of Proverbs is just full of wisdom, isn't it?




> The vexation of a fool is known at once,
> but the prudent ignores an insult.





> How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
> How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
> and fools hate knowledge?





> In everything the prudent acts with knowledge,
> but a fool flaunts his folly.





> Leave the presence of a fool,
> for there you do not meet words of knowledge.




I'm especially impressed with this one and I think it's quite appropriate...



> Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
> when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 26, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Ham – “The pyramids are abandoned but what the heck else are you going to do with them besides charge admission to show them?”  Exactly.  But they have lost their power, as many others have, to represent the symbolism they originally held.  How can representational symbols be so very transitory in nature?  Even certain words have evolved in meaning and connotation, and I’m wondering if the nearly constant stream of such change throughout history speaks for itself?


Different reasons for each, I suppose.  

Pyramids were built to accommodate the delusions of grandeur of the rulers that had them built.  They had armies of slaves, so why not?  Egyptians that followed whatever religion compelled them to build them were, I suppose, wiped out by Moors, Goths, Turks (I don't know, whatever) and there they sit.  

Che is actually still revered in Cuba and is considered St. Che in Bolivia.  I mentioned it as "tolerated" in Cuba but I take it more as a propaganda device by Castro: "See, I love him.  Surely you don't believe the lie that I wanted him dead?"







Confederate monuments are in the US, obviously.  Enemy forces.  Freedom of speech, local governments, and local sentiment make this possible I suppose.  I've always considered it an odd juxtaposition.  

Oliver Cromwell....overthrowing the crown, disbanding the monarchy, committing genocide in Ireland.  There's a statue of him right outside of some major historical building in London.  I don't understand it really.  I guess he's regarded by other influence he created.  John Wilkes Booth statue right outside of the Lincoln Memorial, anyone?


----------



## crackerdave (Aug 26, 2010)

Israel-
Thanks for clarifying what happened to your post - I wondered what "No translation" was all about.
Sadly,Christians are censored here and there is no recourse but to leave the forum,as many have done. The unbelievers reign,it sometimes seems.Not for long, though! Jesus Christ will have the final say.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 26, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Sadly,Christians are censored here and there is no recourse but to leave the forum,as many have done. The unbelievers reign,it sometimes seems.



Huh?

The rules are pretty clear, and they apply to everyone regardless of what they believe.
If anything, the newest two "believers" are causing the most strife and are openly harming the discussions.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 26, 2010)

What's funny is that some really think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss monuments and the like.

That's what's entertaining about this thread to me.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> What's funny is that some really think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss monuments and the like.



It's not?

Yes, some will continue to prove Diogenes has identified them correctly simply with their responses.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 26, 2010)

> Yes, some will continue to prove Diogenes has identified them correctly simply with their responses.



So....which am I?


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 26, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> So....which am I?



How you choose to respond is completely up to you.

I know you to be a man with a good education, a strong faith, a good mind, a wealth of hands on experience and a great participant in the discussions we have participated in together.

Using Biblical references might be just the thing in communicating your thoughts on this subject.  That's fine by me.

I'm not completely sure, but it seems there are some new participants here who are really where Dio has his sights set.  
I don't think they were ever on you.  
Mine sure are not.  Never have been.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 26, 2010)

My biblical references in this thread may be construed as insulting.  They are intended as a reminder to the believers and nothing else.

The Bible is offensive to those who do not believe.  There is nothing I can do about that.  I suppose my response to a feeling of insult might be that often the truth gives the harshest sting.

I can tolerate differing viewpoints all day long.  There is no way we will all agree on everything (or anything for that matter).  There are some here who intend every post  as insult and guise it with debate.  That I have a hard time tolerating.  So call me intolerant in some instances....I'm guilty.

This fool will take the Bible's advice and be silent now so that I may be considered wise by the one whose opinion matters most.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 26, 2010)

Nothing wrong with a monument, folks like to remember and honor things and people for the good they represented.

And Dio, before you spew off calling folks of the 5th grade level names, you might want to back track and edit some of your own post


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 26, 2010)

*Amen to that one...*



Spotlite said:


> Nothing wrong with a monument, folks like to remember and honor things and people for the good they represented.
> 
> 
> YOU NAILED HIS HIDE TO THE SHED>>>
> And Dio, before you spew off calling folks of the 5th grade level names, you might want to back track and edit some of your own post


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 26, 2010)

*Here is my educated contribution to your mass of confusion*

Hey DIO, DUO,  or what ever your name is?

I finally got a hold of a monkey who could help me translate your thread. And he told me that it looks like the same thread his cousin wrote a while back. His cousin is from the baphoon family, and by the way and his name is earl. He said you should remember him from your younger days when you guys worked together at the funny farm.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 26, 2010)

REDNEKSAVAGE said:


> Hey DIO, DUO,  or what ever your name is?
> 
> I finally got a hold of a monkey who could help me translate your thread. And he told me that it looks like the same thread his cousin wrote a while back. His cousin is from the baphoon family, and by the way and his name is earl. He said you should remember him from your younger days when you guys worked together at the funny farm.




Might want to check your attitude against what you profess my friend.  I learn that lesson every day and I encourage you to do the same.

This does not represent Christ to the world in any way....done in jest or not.


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 26, 2010)

*Hello*

Sometimes you have to stand for what you believe in. Maybe you should try it sometime. 
We are not the worlds doormat...




Huntinfool said:


> Might want to check your attitude against what you profess my friend.  I learn that lesson every day and I encourage you to do the same.
> 
> This does not represent Christ to the world in any way....done in jest or not.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 26, 2010)

REDNEKSAVAGE said:


> Sometimes you have to stand for what you believe in. Maybe you should try it sometime.
> We are not the worlds doormat...



Check my posts in here my friend...I have no problem standing for what I believe in.

What did Christ say to do when someone strikes your cheek?  Hit 'em back harder?


----------



## creation's_cause (Aug 26, 2010)

When I read Dio's original post, it made me feel like flying a monument to him that is located directly between my pointing finger and my ring finger....but, for the sake of all here and my testimony I did not errect it at all....guess I still have a ways to go with my thought life.....I am working on it now!!


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 26, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> When I read Dio's original post, it made me feel like flying a monument to him that is located directly between my pointing finger and my ring finger....but, for the sake of all here and my testimony I did not errect it at all....guess I still have a ways to go with my thought life.....I am working on it now!!



That was you FIRST thought?

Wow.  It's a discussion.  On the Internet.


----------



## earl (Aug 26, 2010)

creation's_cause said:


> When I read Dio's original post, it made me feel like flying a monument to him that is located directly between my pointing finger and my ring finger....but, for the sake of all here and my testimony I did not errect it at all....guess I still have a ways to go with my thought life.....I am working on it now!!





From your ''lips'' to God's ear
Old saying


----------



## Israel (Aug 26, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> That was you FIRST thought?
> 
> Wow.  It's a discussion.  On the Internet.




Perhaps Creation's, like Huntinfool see what the original post really is about, and indeed are not naive enough to believe it's "just a discussion about monuments".
The original post is an attempt at being very craftily and cleverly constructed but just too painfully transparent to some on here.
Don't say you are "looking for an honest man" when you've already decided you will be the final arbiter of whom you believe speaks the truth.
Actually, with Creation's Cause's admission, he may well be a good example of an honest man. But I also see others.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> Don't say you are "looking for an honest man" when you've already decided you will be the final arbiter of whom you believe speaks the truth.



Israel, doesn't everyone do just that?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 26, 2010)

Ham – “John Wilkes Booth statue right outside of the Lincoln Memorial, anyone?”  Again – exactly.  What makes things like a memorial to Cromwell tolerable to some folks, when we watched the citizens of Iraq destroying, wholesale and gleefully, all images of Saddam?  There is some sort of dynamic of mass psychology at work here, which in some cases results merely in benign neglect but in others devolves into mass hysteria and mob rule.  If we could get to the bottom of this phenomenon, and be able to sort out the root causes of just which becomes which, and why, quite a lot of nonsense could be averted.

Unfortunately, I don’t see anything else worth the bandwidth at the moment, so I guess the discussion is between you and me now Ham . . . 

The rest seem to be finding demons behind every bush again, as is their wont, and are burning them in advance, perhaps to illuminate their own purity.  Certainly not to light a path to the local library . . . 

But thanks guys.  Your bickering defines you quite adequately.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 26, 2010)

Actually, Spotlight made  a decent observation: “Nothing wrong with a monument, folks like to remember and honor things and people for the good they represented.”  True.  I don’t condemn the existence of monuments (at least yet), but wonder why some endure and others are abandoned.  Why are some achievements noteworthy, and others ignored?  And what changes?  Why do some monuments, presumably erected to honor the ‘great,’ end up destroyed in a sudden sea-change of citizen opinion?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 26, 2010)

Dio. Dont know why some are and some are not. Im sure politics, economics and community support play a major role in that.


----------



## earl (Aug 26, 2010)

4 So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one from each tribe, 5 and said to them, "Go over before the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, 6 to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do these stones mean?' 7 tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever." 


How could something that important be lost ?


----------



## farmasis (Aug 26, 2010)

Israel said:


> As to being dismissed, I find I am in welcome company. But it's really not for anyone here to dismiss any others. (Moderator, if that statement caused a little bit of hackle to raise, you are not fit to be a moderator, if you understand it, you are blessed, and frankly, you are what you are and none of us can change ourselves.)


 
He can 'dismiss' me all he wants. All I did was find humor in a post, and that was funny.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 26, 2010)

Nice save there Spotlight.  Saved me four paragraphs . . . Welcome to the discussion.

“Im sure politics, economics and community support play a major role in that. “   Indeed.  This is what makes the idea so fascinating to me – It seems like, the more I delve into the idea, the more aspects arise.  Quite a broad cross-section of human complexity is wrapped up in what we choose to observe, and what we choose to ignore, as well as what has endured and what has been left behind.  

Perhaps that is why I chose to rather provocatively mention the Washington Monument – more an abstract political symbol than a strictly representational one – but also quite expensive to have built, and even more expensive to maintain . . . Somewhere in the many examples there is contained the abstraction of the ‘Spirit’ of the monument itself, and I feel that if we can capture that thought – just what it is that constitutes the collective ‘spirit’ of a population, as opposed to purely personal interpretations --  much will have been achieved. 

Earl – Directly on point.  One must presume that, at some point in the collective progress of those who originally observed those stones for what they were meant to represent, either apathy took over, or someone failed to properly translate the importance of them to future generations, or a war of conquest took place (Jerusalem – literally the ‘City of Peace’ – has been burned to the ground and rebuilt so many times that even some historians disagree on how many), or folks just moved on . . . or something.  Clearly something changed.  Dramatically.  Is this a case-by-case sort of thing, or is the fact that the landscape is fairly littered with abandoned monuments an indicator of something more fundamental about humanity?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 26, 2010)

REDNEKSAVAGE said:


> Sometimes you have to stand for what you believe in. Maybe you should try it sometime.
> We are not the worlds doormat...



We can be diplomatic and classy here.  Or not. The choice lies with each individual.  I disagree with Huntinfool frequently but at least it's civil.  Usually.  

But he does stand for what he believes in on this forum, I will have to correct you on that.  Take a look around.  Your approach is well, entertaining.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 26, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Dio. Dont know why some are and some are not. Im sure politics, economics and community support play a major role in that.



You don't know how right you are.

Lenin statue in 1956 Budapest, Hungary: 






Lenin statue in present day Seattle:





Not sure about this one, just thought it was great.  Apparently, when taken, he was revered enough to still be standing, but not so revered people couldn't have fun with him:


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 27, 2010)

That last picture there might say more than a few hundred volumes of expounding on content, context, perspective, and the zeitgeist – that is a tremendous photo.  Thank you.  

Hey, did they make the basket?


----------



## gtparts (Aug 27, 2010)

Gosh, where to start???

Israel -  I saw the bait, but I have made it a personal policy to ignore the rants and rages of ALL on this forum. Likewise, I have come to understand what is merry wit and what is venomous sarcasm. Dio's style is well developed sarcasm and far removed from merry wit. While the tone of the OP is hard and harsh, I have come to expect that of Dio and chose to ignore it for the sake of what I took as a genuinely interesting inquiry. I hope in answering as I did, I haven't offended my fellow 5th grade friends, for as a whole, my personal preference  is the group singled out for dismissal. It is a much better fit for me. In recognition, I will delete my earlier post.

earl - That which is built on sand is subject to the unsure shifts of wind and water. The possession of land in that part of the world has always been transitory, a fleeting handful of dust and clay (grasped by more dust and clay, as we all are). The real issue is not what happened to the altar, but rather what have successive generations done with the knowledge concerning that which was memorialized. 

Dio - you can keep any gratuitous remarks about honest men for someone other than me. I was candid and brief (something that eludes me often). I have given honest testimony as to what  having a personal relationship with my living Lord "looks like". I am much better for that relationship and am certain you would be also. But, you are offensive in the extreme when you post of such colossal ignorance when you characterize God as a rapist, Mary as a victim, and Joseph as being cuckolded. Your inability to grasp the meaning and significance of the story is either grossly appalling or you think making little of it is upsetting to the Christians. If mere sarcasm is your tool of offense ( and it often is), then you should know that the word derives from the Greek _sarkasmos_ meaning  to bite ones lips in rage or cut or pierce the skin.
It is intended to invite ridicule or contempt, to convey scorn or insult. I accept your ridicule and contempt and just consider the source. As for scorn or insult, I am an adopted child of the God of heaven, the Lord of the universe. I have true worth in His eyes, so you will pardon me if I don't get upset over what you or any other detractors might say.


----------



## Israel (Aug 27, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Gosh, where to start???
> 
> Israel -  I saw the bait, but I have made it a personal policy to ignore the rants and rages of ALL on this forum. Likewise, I have come to understand what is merry wit and what is venomous sarcasm. Dio's style is well developed sarcasm and far removed from merry wit. While the tone of the OP is hard and harsh, I have come to expect that of Dio and chose to ignore it for the sake of what I took as a genuinely interesting inquiry. I hope in answering as I did, I haven't offended my fellow 5th grade friends, for as a whole, my personal preference  is the group singled out for dismissal. It is a much better fit for me. In recognition, I will delete my earlier post.
> 
> ...



Bless you brother.
I know you as one not at all moved by the opinion of men.
If I was unclear or painting with too broad a brush, forgive me.
I believe you couldn't care less about getting "good marks" from Diogenes for performing well.
And perhaps my comments at all about that were out of line. 
I believe (as Huntinfool had said) that this thread had nothing to do with monuments, but has proved itself to be who will submit to Diogenes inclusion and approbation or be shamed by his sarcasm and opprobrium. 
It may just be in his looking for "an honest man" he may have found more than a few who have found Him.


----------



## earl (Aug 27, 2010)

gt , I assumed , yes that's the word, that what you posed was the logical conclusion to the question I asked. But thanks for the extension.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 27, 2010)

I am not sure why people encourage him by giving him attention.


----------



## apoint (Aug 27, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> We can be diplomatic and classy here.  Or not. The choice lies with each individual.  I disagree with Huntinfool frequently but at least it's civil.  Usually.
> 
> But he does stand for what he believes in on this forum, I will have to correct you on that.  Take a look around.  Your approach is well, entertaining.



 You say dip lo matic and classy. or not. Id say not civil from the get go.  Sorry I dont have a bible verse for it.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Aug 27, 2010)

apoint said:


> You say dip lo matic and classy. or not. Id say not civil from the get go.  Sorry I dont have a bible verse for it.



You lost me.  Sorry.


----------



## apoint (Aug 27, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You lost me.  Sorry.



 Dont worry its not a shot at you. I was just borrowing your words to make a statment about the orig post.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 28, 2010)

All this in the midst of planning a Mosque at Ground Zero.

I believe this "monument" is, and has been for centuries a monument of victory for Islam.  They repeatedly build mosques on victorious battle sites.

Diogenes has you bickering among yourselves while the monument of the downfall of freedom itself is planned and funded by our own federal gooberment.

We need to get it together folks.

Let Diogenes' jab unknowingly open your eyes.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 28, 2010)

Gordon â€“ characteristically thoughtful, while also characteristically obtuse â€“ â€œ . . . monuments are not errected or destroyed at a "whim" . . . â€œ 


That's what the neighbours said about Noah.

And I see that my prophecy has come true..."Very, very good question. And although , you are going to be percieved as baiting ...." and that you are dis·in·gen·u·ousâ€‚in your question although I think you question is sincere.

 Your question: Why do some monuments, presumably erected to honor the â€˜great,â€™ end up destroyed in a sudden sea-change of citizen opinion? 

 Answer: Monuments that continue to inspire the human spirit remain, those that don't go to the scrap yard...(Obtuse?)


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 29, 2010)

GT: “I saw the bait, but I have made it a personal policy to ignore the rants and rages of ALL on this forum.”

Sir, I do not remember addressing you personally, so the invitation to “keep any gratuitous remarks about honest men for someone other than me” was hardly invited.  Similarly, if you have made it a personal policy to ignore, then it appears that your adherence to that ‘policy’ is less than genuine.

“I am an adopted child of the God of heaven, the Lord of the universe.”  Good for you.  If that entails believing everything that your preachers read to you, without question, then please also leave me off your own guest list – We are speaking here of something entirely different than your own illusions.  I didn’t much ask about what gets you upset or does not, and couldn’t much be bothered by the difference in any event. Address the topic at hand, or please find something else to do.

Israel: “It may just be in his looking for "an honest man" he may have found more than a few who have found Him.”  Wow.  Does paranoia have limits?  Sir, not everything said and done in this world of ours is a conspiracy against you personally.  Honest.  Psychology 101 suggests that if one is seeking demons, one will find them.  As many here demonstrate.  Again, I politely suggest that if you have nothing useful to add to the discussion at hand, then it might be best to absent yourself.  And if you, or anyone else,  feels ‘baited’ by the topic, perhaps that reveals much more about yourselves than you may wish to face.  But, again, that remains your problem alone.

Ted BSR: “Diogenes has you bickering among yourselves while the monument of the downfall of freedom itself is planned and funded by our own federal gooberment.”   Um? You have to be kidding.  Overstatement is one thing, but c’mon – ‘the downfall of freedom’????  Yikes!  Are you sure? Relax.  Freedom is a bit larger and more tolerant than to find a ‘downfall’ in something that petty.  

Gordon – ‘obtuse’ was the best word I could reach for – your thoughts are always on point, but your style of expression often takes a bit of head scratching, and a moment or two to reflect, at least for me.  Yet, if you ever change, we’ll end up hunting down the imposter.  We can’t do much about the terribly insecure folks, who see anything less than total agreement as a threat to them personally, but pointing out to them that that sort of thing is exactly the problem the whole world faces tends to fall on deaf ears.  Increasingly I tend to think that the problem there is not yours or mine, but theirs alone.

To your point – monuments that continue to inspire the human spirit (and we must, here, pause – to consider the ’spiritual’ and the ever-changing nature of same), do indeed remain.  Why?

More importantly – how many examples of those that continue to inspire (living monuments) remain?  Contrasted against those that have been so easily abandoned?  Does this contrast speak to a changing social dynamic, and the fickle nature of humans, or does it speak more to the enduring value of certain ideals and the transitory nature of others?  

Given the size and value and commitment that was made to many of the ‘monuments,’  it seems clear that the thought alone was not enough to determine the value, long-term, and, conversely, that the ‘value’ placed on the monument itself was not wholly collective, else the endurance of the work would have been guaranteed.

What changes?  And what does not?


----------



## Israel (Aug 29, 2010)

Pro 26:4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 
Pro 26:5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. 

The best any man is able to do is prove the truth.
 Diogenes, here, you prove it well.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> GT: “I saw the bait, but I have made it a personal policy to ignore the rants and rages of ALL on this forum.”
> 
> Sir, I do not remember addressing you personally, so the invitation to “keep any gratuitous remarks about honest men for someone other than me” was hardly invited.  Similarly, if you have made it a personal policy to ignore, then it appears that your adherence to that ‘policy’ is less than genuine.
> 
> ...



 Grasshopper, to my mind you have many questions.

First this quote: "We can’t do much about the terribly insecure folks, who see anything less than total agreement as a threat to them personally, but pointing out to them that that sort of thing is exactly the problem the whole world faces tends to fall on deaf ears. Increasingly I tend to think that the problem there is not yours or mine, but theirs' alone."

There are others. Idiology and Might is Right are others. Monuments to idiologies that are percieved to be oppressive end up as land fill.  Also, Joshua's "rock piles" were probably strewn about and carted off when the invading Babylonians (Iraqi's) were looking for weapons of mass destruction. It would be safe to say that this rock pile now is ALL of the Holy Land for the religious Jews or if y'all have overcome the Law---Saint Peter is it for the Christians.(LOL)

 Quote: "or does it speak more to the enduring value of certain ideals and the transitory nature of others?"

Take litterature for example. Why do some works stand as important, or in a way as monuments? Why does Craventes' Don Quihote still stand today as a great work, or  a monument even, especially that it was written during the days of the  Spanish Empire?

The monuments to George Washington for example would probably be revered in the South if the South had gained its independence from the Union... back in the american dark days--unlike what happened to the Lenin momument in a Soviet satalite as shown by the picts in this tread.

The Lincoln Monument is important because Lincoln in adversity furthur defined what America was about. Winston Churchill Monuments through out the world are important because they inspire tenacity, the will to do what is right and the will to fight and "never surrender" against tyrany.

The General Jackson Monument is important because the General did great things militarily in part because of who he was spiritually... He was an excentric that with relatively few men could roll up a whole army to thier original lines by taking them on-- at the flanks, something like a boxer's  to the liver punch.

 Now it is time for a question to you. Do you know if the  christian fundamentalist have a monument somewhere? The Bible and Jesus don't count. Spurgeon perhaps. Are they the insecure folk with a problem you talk about?

It seems to me that what you are saying is that religion, its values have come and gone and are repeated or are a constant, for simply being part and parcel of the human condition? For christians however, religions and values are a progressions of the human condition...ministered to by the Holy Spirit. From being raised from dry bones, to erecting monuments and alters from random stones, and then onto Saint Peter the Holy Spirit is progessively nurturing the human spirit--for the good. ( Bet you thought progress was a motif of the industrial revolution, eh? LOL)


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 29, 2010)

Israel said:


> Pro 26:4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
> Pro 26:5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
> 
> The best any man is able to do is prove the truth.
> Diogenes, here, you prove it well.



It is my view that on their death beds fools and the esteemed  and wise are to be treated equally.


----------



## Israel (Aug 29, 2010)

Compassion is never out of place.

And you have always been  friendly to the biggest fool I know.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 29, 2010)

Israel said:


> Compassion is never out of place.
> 
> And you have always been  friendly to the biggest fool I know.



Can you really call someone a fool for doubting the existence something that is not demonstrable, makes little sense and is contrary to every measurable method of observation?

At the end of the day, what any of us are left with is a truism that some guy realized and wrote down in your Holy Book (I paraphrase):  "If you are wrong and have been lied to, then you are to be most pitied".  I agree.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 29, 2010)

ambush80, I get the feeling Israel was "tongue in cheek" referring to himself, placing gordon 2 in a good light.


----------



## Israel (Aug 29, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Can you really call someone a fool for doubting the existence something that is not demonstrable, makes little sense and is contrary to every measurable method of observation?
> 
> At the end of the day, what any of us are left with is a truism that some guy realized and wrote down in your Holy Book (I paraphrase):  "If you are wrong and have been lied to, then you are to be most pitied".  I agree.




I also agree. 
Which is one reason I so love God's allowing for Paul's boldness and assertion.
How can you not call fool a fool when every moment he lives by something he cannot see, something he cannot touch, something he cannot demonstrate, but then says "I only live by what is scientifically provable"

Really?
Each of you lives entirely according to this principle and rule?
Not moved by anything unprovable "scientifically".


No man has seen his own spirit...or would you have it that you are just a bunch of chemical exchanges, electrical impulses and the like? Are you only a bit of self animated (whatever that may mean) dirt?

OK, since there has been so much arrogant and incontinent talk of dismissing others (which began in the very first post, long before I enlisted or others have had to bear the sophomoric self aggrandizing tripe that is spewed)...then consider this.

Since "spiritual" implies everything that is beyond the natural, that is that the assumption of spiritual discussions are a priori beyond the merely physical, what are those doing here that demand their right to not only speak, be heard, and then conduct themselves in such a manner as to insult, denigrate and ridicule?

You may think I quoted Proverbs as a response to unbelief. Hardly. The foolishness is the awkward, transparent, and painful braying of the original post. 
Of course, the subsequent head patting and silly instructions of dismissal were all expected. 

So, like you, I agree with Paul. 
For whatever reason, however, you do not agree with Diogenes. In fact, you are at strong disagreement with him. Where you claim to have pity for those whom you consider may be deceived, he has ad hominems.
For if the truth were that we liked playing on monkey bars, that we are truly possessed of IQ's in the 51-70 range (not that I care about that, anymore than hair color)...then I would have to say Diogenes is indeed a wise man to know so well what he only apprehends from a few alphabetic manipulations by others.
But, if that is not the truth of the matter, that monkey bars for morons are only epithets, then he surely shows a singular lack of the thing in which you claim to be in accord, pity.
Who here, then, is the liar?
Specifically while claiming to seek "an honest man"?
Who here claims their rights while on a spiritual forum, throws their bloated psyche around as though bullying from the very place of denying the spiritual, is that place of contradiction from where they will both accept and dismiss?

That does not mean one cannot be a useful tool. Or even be changed. Everything is grist for the mill. Whether one ends up as wheat or chaff is not in my hands nor according to my will.

I live by all that is totally contradictory to nature.
I live by One who not only promises the survival of the weakest...but life.
One who gives to the least deserving.
One who exalts his word above his name.
(While all here below use their words to try and gain a name)

I admit I do not live in perfect accord at every moment with all I have seen of Him.
(But also what I have seen of Him tells me that He's got that well covered)

So, who is the man who lives entirely by his total devotion to the scientifically demonstrable? 
And what is he doing with that bouquet of roses for his wife?


----------



## gtparts (Aug 29, 2010)

Israel said:


> I also agree.
> Which is one reason I so love God's allowing for Paul's boldness and assertion.
> How can you not call fool a fool when every moment he lives by something he cannot see, something he cannot touch, something he cannot demonstrate, but then says "I only live by what is scientifically provable"
> 
> ...



Indeed, my brother!

Strip away all that is not scientific, provable, overtly demonstrable and what does one have?

Devoid of every emotion as the unprovable child of "I feel this or I feel that.", one is left with no true medium of expression. Is the smile a sign of benign intent, friendship, or deceit? Does it mask the fear of weakness or conceal the strength and will to conquer, kill, or devour?

Deadness comes in many forms. It is certainly the end of some. Some would have it be the end of all. Some walk in death daily, while others search that their soul may be satisfied. Many have "held the key", yet few have entered in for the sake of preserving the personal desire to serve self. Some walk in newness of life, having cast off the grave clothes of what once was.

All are fools of a sort......those who trust all and surrender all to the God who alone has the power to give it back and more...... and those who will to not trust and cling to all that they are and have though they cannot breathe life into any of it.

Like Paul, I neither deserve nor expect pity for having been a trusting fool, for my eyes and heart are set, my conviction is the assurance of a God that loves me beyond my ability to comprehend. Should it turn out that my faith is misplaced, then my eternal celestial dirt nap will be the match of everyone who has ever drawn breath. What have I lost but that which every man has or will surrender? To the one who would pity me, I say, "Look to your own pity."

To the untrusting fool, whether I am right or wrong is of no real concern, for his final estate can only be as rewarding as he thinks it to be. 
To believe that there is no hope, yet persist in the struggle of life is a folly, a lunacy, that I will not accept for myself. 

Life matters and has meaning because there is purpose. When everything is refined to its very essence, it is all for the pleasure and praise of the God of Abraham, Joseph , and Jacob, the Alpha and Omega, the bright Morning Star. If one misses that one thing, he has missed everything!


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 29, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Indeed, my brother!
> 
> Strip away all that is not scientific, provable, overtly demonstrable and what does one have?
> 
> ...



 Quote:"Strip away all that is not scientific, provable, overtly demonstrable and what does one have?"

The philosophy of the scientific mind would most likely retort, "It is called conditioning which is in fact provable."

The problems with the scientific mind set here from a spiritual or the christian perspective is that the scientifics take themselves as the horses pulling the spiritual carts while christians know that the truth and precepts of God are the horses, they are the carts (vessels) and science is one of many things in the carts.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 30, 2010)

Q.E.D.  

Scary, ain't it?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 30, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Q.E.D.
> 
> Scary, ain't it?



No not really. We are all quite comfortable in our collectives.

For me The Good News pierces through it all--I have five acres in the christian kingdom now. The best fortalizer is for my boots to work it--which I don't do enough.

This is a precept from my land: Timothy 1;7, For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but of power and of love and of calm and well-ballanced mind and discipline and self-control.

I quote this, ( I am not a usual verse quoter) to show you that like with the scientific method...the pupose of christians and their kingdom is not without discipline, although I must grant that as it is with science and its medicines--we both have our snake oil salesmans.


----------



## Madman (Aug 30, 2010)

earl said:


> 4 So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one from each tribe, 5 and said to them, "Go over before the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, 6 to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do these stones mean?' 7 tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever."
> 
> 
> How could something that important be lost ?



Who said it was lost?


----------



## earl (Aug 30, 2010)

Aren't they ?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 30, 2010)

What seems to be the problem here?  Are the zealots so much the fierce guard dogs that even such a simple topic must only be discussed on their own terms?  Or are they such fierce bigots that only those they personally approve of are allowed to speak at all?  Or, more likely, are they a bit uncomfortable with the topic, since they know quite well what their particular book has to say, and they have violated that particular bit of the strictures since birth – 

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exodus 34:13
But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
Numbers 33:52
Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
Deuteronomy 5:8
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deuteronomy 9:12
And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.
Deuteronomy 27:15
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
1 Samuel 15:12
So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.”       
2 Samuel 18:18
Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and set up a pillar for himself, which is in the King’s Valley. For he said, “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.” He called the pillar after his own name. And to this day it is called Absalom’s Monument.
Matthew 23:29
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous . . . 

Now look, fellas – I’m terribly sorry that y’all claim to be strict adherents to this book, while putting little plastic Jesus statues on your dashboards, contributing your money to the erection of Crystal Cathedrals, carving giant images of a man getting executed, and equally honoring everything from statues of R.E. Lee to the flag and back again.

 I realize that your book tells you not to, but heck, its only an ancient book, and y’all seem quite adept at deciding that what it says is not, actually, what it says, and coming up with ways to do whatever you want to do while explaining that the book told you so.  This one ought to be easy for folks who can claim to be one in the ‘spirit’ with the ‘lord’ while openly advocating the active murder of about 900 million people.  

So how about going back and finding yet another rationalization for your open and unashamed hypocrisy while the rest of us get on with the discussion?  

We were trying, oddly enough, to speak of something other than your monumental egos for a change – preferring to try to understand the monuments to ego, rather than the monumental ego itself.  

Gordon – “It seems to me that what you are saying is that religion, its values have come and gone and are repeated or are a constant, for simply being part and parcel of the human condition? “

Sir, I said nothing at all about religion.  I speak of monuments, genuine works made by men, not the fictional notions of men.


----------



## Israel (Aug 31, 2010)

Talk about monuments, here's one to mercy and forbearance:

Rom 9:20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 
Rom 9:21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 
Rom 9:22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 
Rom 9:23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 
Rom 9:24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 31, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> What seems to be the problem here?  Are the zealots so much the fierce guard dogs that even such a simple topic must only be discussed on their own terms?  Or are they such fierce bigots that only those they personally approve of are allowed to speak at all?  Or, more likely, are they a bit uncomfortable with the topic, since they know quite well what their particular book has to say, and they have violated that particular bit of the strictures since birth –
> 
> Exodus 20:4
> Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> ...



What the verses indicate here is firstly that you are trying to set the hook. LOL You were baiting?

The verses speak to hypocracy and of taking care of number one in the name of  rightiousness...

Interestingly some muslims to some degree would use your points against the production of images and art as the west knows it.

I would suggest that there is a ocean of difference between who the verses are addressed to and what the purpose of the verses are. For example in my view what Jesus talks about concerns where people sin in the open and what the prophet talks about is where people sin in secret. Two different events. 

For christians there is no contradiction here as you seem to think and therefore no hypocracy as you accuse. The statue of General Lee and Pres. Lincoln are in the open and the funerals of the rich and famous are not always the most attended by the saints. ( However I will grant that some funerals for the rich or the clergy have have three or more ministers attending--while the ordinary folk do with one.

All of your preconcieved notions about momuments here are for not in my view. Simply you do not understand  man's efforts to achieve justice--first with the law and then with grace.

I am facinated that you would make jams of christian fruit but include the leaves, branches, trunks and roots which you seem fond to grind and lump...in your mason jar.

PS. I find it very interesting how selective you are in what you speak to... I hope you are objective in your study and not distracted by legions of prejudices and not loose your tenure as a scientific minded individual. It seems to me your question here is loaded. There is nothing wrong with the question but if it is used to ridicule those who adhere to the faith, what purpose do you achieve? Does it fatten your ego?

Peace bros.


----------



## Israel (Aug 31, 2010)

Diogenes is just as adept at using scripture out of context to make a point as any of us.

He quoted this and left it there:
Matthew 23:29
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous . . . 


Although Jesus' decried the adorning of the monuments, it was not for its own sake, for as the scriptures that follow, show:


30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 

 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 

 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 

 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the ****ation of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- 

His condemnation was not for the simple adorning, but that they still identified with their fathers that killed the prophets, showing they were yet of the seed of the "propheticidal stiff necked and rebellious" generation.

They claimed their righteousness through their ancestry; not seeing that trying to stand in that righteousness linked them to the doings of unrighteousness. 
No man, Jew or Gentile has anything natural in which to glory...all go back to Adam and his fall.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 31, 2010)

Israel said:


> Diogenes is just as adept at using scripture out of context to make a point as any of us.
> 
> He quoted this and left it there:
> Matthew 23:29
> ...



You are correct Isreal. However, something in me loves goats---they are like Paul's gentiles. And, I don't judge books by covers.. does't this guy remind of the likeness of General Longstreet or that yankee general (Sherman?) that burned Georgia? 

The giant in Jack in the Bean Stock was unrulely ( an ogre) simply because he wasn't doing according to his gifts...I think....if I remember grade three...he was really a chef all along! My references: School or Saseme Street.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7EingwTA4YA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7EingwTA4YA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## Israel (Aug 31, 2010)

gordon 2 said:


> You are correct Isreal. However, something in me loves goats---they are like Paul's gentiles. And, I don't judge books by covers.. does't this guy remind of the likeness of General Longstreet or that yankee general (Sherman?) that burned Georgia?
> 
> The giant in Jack in the Bean Stock was unrulely ( an ogre) simply because he wasn't doing according to his gifts...I think....if I remember grade three...he was really a chef all along! My references: School or Saseme Street.
> 
> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7EingwTA4YA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7EingwTA4YA?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>




brother, I hope you don't think I believe we can "write anyone off..."
If Jesus cares to disguise himself in this flesh, who would I be to dismis his appearing in ANYONE else?
If I speak frankly, even brusquely, it is not because I have discounted that person...sometimes I simply meet them on the Rugby field if they care not for tea.
No, Jesus may actually have me looking at Diogenes behind as we form up to enter the Kingdom.
Would to God.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 1, 2010)

Gentlemen, if I may?

The topic at hand has nothing at all to do with this Jesus of yours.  So far as I’m concerned this fella never said a single word, and going on and on about what ‘Jesus said’ is so much nonsense.  The fella himself never wrote a single word – not one.  Words attributed to him were not written down by any of the various ‘followers’ for a couple of hundred years, at the earliest.  This sort of thing is tantamount to you ‘quoting’ your Great-great-great-great grandfather, verbatim, then arguing about the subtle meanings and nuances of his sage utterings . . . Not a single person who wrote down any of this stuff was alive when any of it was allegedly said.  Hearsay, four to ten generations removed (depending on who you think is the better historian), will hardly be admissible in even the most generous court of inquiry . . .

Further, once again, if the topic itself makes you feel somehow ‘baited,’ then that reveals only a paranoia and an obvious discomfort with your own thoughts.  If it makes you uncomfortable that you can sit inside a monument of your own construction, contemplating and praying to a ‘graven image’ of your own construction, while proclaiming aloud that you reject those things in the name of the same fella you say told you to worship and honor them as symbols  – well – take that home and wonder just who deceived you, and into just what.  Again, that is between you and yourself.  It is hardly a problem that the rest of us need to hear about, incessantly and loudly.  

Not everything that qualifies as spiritual is about you, your narrow views, your internal conflicts and contradictions, and the lies you were told and swallowed hook-line-and-sinker as children and never looked back to question as adults.  Honestly – most of the time you sound like you are giving little more than endless explanations of why the boogeyman is still living under your bed.  Your fears are your own – not ours.  Please quit trying to project them onto everyone else as though they are some sort of fact.  It is nonsensical, and tiresome.

The actual ‘Day of Judgment’ is the day that a society of men decide to turn their backs on the monuments, symbols, and dogmas of their ancestors and move forwards.  That has happened repeatedly, I notice, and the landscape is littered with the relics of the abandoned ‘belief’ that spawned the various works in the first place.  What is missing is a sense of permanency, which speaks more to the fickle nature of men and their ever-changing ‘beliefs’ than to anything else.  

Truth, it appears, is rather elusive (in the ‘spiritual’ sense), and changes with the wind.

Human history, I’m afraid, is still a work in progress, and remains much larger and much more dynamic than a few little stories can adequately contain.  We were all born into this work-in-progress, and will exit without ever knowing how the story ends.  In this sense, the monument offends.  The monumental itself offends, suggesting a heroic conclusion or heralding a poetic ‘New Beginning,’ -- but not for you.  You, personally, had nothing at all to do with the ‘monumental’ act, and will not be around to enjoy the implications of the ‘New.’  On an individual level, every monument represents nothing more than the transitory nature of ourselves as individuals, and if I have to be transitory, merely a footnote even to my own memory of myself, I don’t see how I can be expected to endure all of this congratulatory hysteria that I know darned well will be abandoned, overgrown with weeds, forgotten, or torn down not very long after I’m also forgotten.  

I look around, at the actual truth, and often find myself asking – what is smoke made of?  And where does it go?

Issues of power, and the intangibility of it, fairly pour out of monuments on any scale.  There is a term that artists use – ‘The Powerful Nakedness of the Model’ – that applies here – it means largely that we find what we seek, and it is entirely our own thoughts that drive such interpretations.  We shield our children, and often ourselves, from images we deem ‘pornographic,’ while parading those same children (and ourselves) through art museums fairly littered with images of human nudity and call it culturally enriching.  The difference, perhaps, is not only that of the power of the artist to capture a ‘spiritual’ representation, but also of the juxtaposition to our own shame.  What difference is there, really, between viewing the Statue of David and viewing an actual nude male standing on the street-corner?  Faith?

Not so much, because faiths change with disturbing regularity.  Even color is not a constant, changing with the light.  All relationships between things are just a matter of one’s point of view.  Even history, the ultimate study of the chaos that has been civilization, has become less a record of events than something that must be taken on faith.  So many different ‘histories’ of the same events exist that it is maddening to try to sort them out – it ends up not being something that exists, or existed, but rather something we must believe in.  The victors get to write the accounts – right?  

So, doubt is a good thing.  Arcesilaus once said that, “Nothing is true, not even that.”  

I couldn’t agree more.  Belief is such a weighty business, rife with doubt and troublesome rationalizations, but doubt is extremely liberating.  If you believe in nothing at all, then everything becomes possible.  Perhaps even necessary.


----------



## Israel (Sep 1, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> So, doubt is a good thing.  Arcesilaus once said that,_ “Nothing is true, not even that.”
> 
> I couldn’t agree more. _ Belief is such a weighty business, rife with doubt and troublesome rationalizations, but doubt is extremely liberating.  If you believe in nothing at all, then everything becomes possible.  Perhaps even necessary.




Thanks for playing.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 1, 2010)

Israel said:


> Thanks for playing.





I guess the reel had a rant in it. No fish today.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 1, 2010)

Dio, you paint a dreary picture. If what has gone before is doubtful and what is perceived now is changeable with the shifting of the light or wind, is there anything, any one we can rely upon? If you have no anchor, no true and certain reference point, does anything have meaning? 

I think that I see your "smoke", but what is it made of and where does it go? And, even, who cares? When there is no other, Jesus does.

One who has been in a most advantageous position has already given attention to the question. Take a stroll through Ecclesiastes and when you find that someone has already "walked your path", you may also find the truth that everything is intimately connected to God. God is the one unchanging anchor point. All else is smoke. 

Here is one for you.

I have in my possession two memorial cards from funeral homes. One is a remembrance of a 16 year old youth who had leukemia. The other, a 58 year old woman who had breast and, eventually, lung cancer. Whether they were meaningless "smoke" in life or not is a matter of perspective, I guess. I am quite sure that to family and friends they were and are much more. I say "are" because, as your question indicates, when you no longer see smoke, it has gone somewhere. Where?

When matter and energy are organized in a sentient being, it most often finds expression in a personality, recognizable and unique. What is it that binds matter to energy to be the personality that we know as Diogenes? How is it that the assemblage has emotion, has senses, and has memory? Where does the capacity for abstract thought come from? Is it inherent in matter? Is it somehow contained in energy?

We are more than lumps of clay, bags of water, or carbon units. We are more than smoke because we were created to be more than smoke. It would be true if no one else ever existed but you. 

Why do you really struggle so mightily against God? Is it really more plausible that you are a cosmic accident, a freak of random happenings in a cold and barren universe?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 1, 2010)

> Arcesilaus once said that, “Nothing is true, not even that.”
> 
> I couldn’t agree more.



I had heard of "the blind leading the blind". It only makes sense that there are also "the blind following the blind".


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2010)

Pseudo philosophers are of great interest to me.  They sit beside their Asherah Pole, stroking their beards, usually colored grey to give themselves distinction, pontificating on the great questions of mankind.  Waiting on an intellectual waif to give them accolades for some great insight they have revealed, when in reality they are only struggling with the great conflict that is whirling in their own mind.  

Jean Paul Sartre comes to mind.  What a grand following he had in his existential thought. (“Thinking themselves wise, they became fools”.)    His idea that “evil does not exist” was so very cerebral until he was confronted with war, what a conflicted soul he became, his students walked away as though he were no more than a magician whose cards had fallen from his sleeves.  

No matter how intelligent it sounds the remark that “nothing is true” is ridiculous.  It plays well in the halls of counterfeit academia but quickly disperses in the smoke of the cannabis and the morning light reveals the evening to have been nothing more than an exercise in mental aerobics.  The waifs retire to their beds feeling enlightened and the professor to his study. The only question he has is, in his inconsistency does he reach for    his pipe or for his revolver.

For all who live in the world reality must set in at sometime.  Schaeffer gives an account of a meeting he was having with a group of students one evening when one proclaimed “there is no such thing as evil”, an astute attendee fetched the pot of boiling water that was being heated to make tea and held it above the head of the first student.  To which Schaeffer reports, “He walked out into the night”.  When the curtain is removed and the light of truth shines in the pseudo intellectuals will always “walk out into the night”.  


To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32


What a pathetic lot whose minds are subject to nothing but the world.


*"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. But, to one without faith, no explanation is possible."
		Thomas Aquinas*


----------



## Inthegarge (Sep 1, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Ham – “John Wilkes Booth statue right outside of the Lincoln Memorial, anyone?”  Again – exactly.  What makes things like a memorial to Cromwell tolerable to some folks, when we watched the citizens of Iraq destroying, wholesale and gleefully, all images of Saddam?  There is some sort of dynamic of mass psychology at work here, which in some cases results merely in benign neglect but in others devolves into mass hysteria and mob rule.  If we could get to the bottom of this phenomenon, and be able to sort out the root causes of just which becomes which, and why, quite a lot of nonsense could be averted.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don’t see anything else worth the bandwidth at the moment, so I guess the discussion is between you and me now Ham . . .
> 
> ...



Let's see, simply put  "Pot, Kettle ".....

" Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it ".. Monuments are, quite simply, an attempt to not forget past mistakes................RW


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> For all who live in the world reality must set in at sometime.  Schaeffer gives an account of a meeting he was having with a group of students one evening when one proclaimed “there is no such thing as evil”, an astute attendee fetched the pot of boiling water that was being heated to make tea and held it above the head of the first student.  To which Schaeffer reports, “He walked out into the night”.  When the curtain is removed and the light of truth shines in the pseudo intellectuals will always “walk out into the night”.



"The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." 
Joseph Conrad


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness."
> Joseph Conrad



Agreed.  The heart of man is evil, I believe the Bible said that before Joseph Conrad.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 1, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> What seems to be the problem here?  Are the zealots so much the fierce guard dogs that even such a simple topic must only be discussed on their own terms?  Or are they such fierce bigots that only those they personally approve of are allowed to speak at all?  Or, more likely, are they a bit uncomfortable with the topic, since they know quite well what their particular book has to say, and they have violated that particular bit of the strictures since birth –
> 
> Exodus 20:4
> Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> ...


I find it funny that you for the most part are the only one throwing out scripture concerning monuments in a thread that you did not want scripture "spewed" in

And I would question my own self if I spoke those words underscored


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> Agreed.  The heart of man is evil, I believe the Bible said that before Joseph Conrad.



That's not an opinion ever held by Conrad.

There is as much potential in any human to do "good" as there is the potential to do "evil."
Remember, the two words are defined subjectively.


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> That's not an opinion ever held by Conrad.
> 
> There is as much potential in any human to do "good" as there is the potential to do "evil."
> Remember, the two words are defined subjectively.



This is a major point on which the believer and the non-believer will disagree. In our post modern society man likes to believe he is the arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil, etc. but he is not.

In the pre-modern world an umpire calls the pitch a strike because it “was” within the limits of the strike zone.

In a modern world an umpire calls a pitch a strike because he “thinks” it was in the strike zone.

In a post modern world the umpire called it strike, therefore it was.

When man defines good and evil it is subjective, when God defines good and evil there is a plumb line hence it is objective.  

The mere statement that there is good and evil presupposes an arbiter.  I call him God, the post-modernist calls him, "self".


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> This is a major point on which the believer and the non-believer will disagree. In our post modern society man likes to believe he is the arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil, etc. but he is not.



Individuals bear the ultimate responsiblity for their own actions and choices.  Period.


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Individuals bear the ultimate responsiblity for their own actions and choices.  Period.



Yes they do and we will all be held accountable one day,  only God can define right and wrong.

Glad we agree.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> Yes they do and we will all be held accountable one day,  only God can define right and wrong.
> 
> Glad we agree.



You hold on to a religious based concept believing that accountability only exists in an afterlife.

I simply prefer for that accountability to be right here and now.

Do good things, have larger monuments erected in your honor.
Do bad things, have smaller monuments erected over your grave.

Man has shown great improvements in identifying and clearly describing "good" and "bad" so it can be easily understood.  

Man has shown no improvement in identifying and clearly describing "GOD" at all.
Man continues to rely on the written words of other men.


----------



## crackerdave (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> You hold on to a religious based concept believing that accountability only exists in an afterlife.
> 
> I simply prefer for that accountability to be right here and now.
> 
> ...



Believe me - accountability _is_  in the here and now AND in the afterlife,at least for me.

It's amazing to me that people like Diogenes can so easily and consistently cause dissension and doubt. I've had him on my ignore list for a long time,but it doesn't do much good when everybody that responds to his garbage quotes his posts. I guess the only logical solution for me is to stay out of this forum completely,as so many others now do.


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> You hold on to a religious based concept believing that accountability only exists in an afterlife.



Presumptuous of you to claim you know my religious beliefs.  I have never stated any such thing, however you have stated that you are the arbiter of good and evil.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> Presumptuous of you to claim you know my religious beliefs.  I have never stated any such thing, however you have stated that you are the arbiter of good and evil.



You have been quite clear about your religious beliefs here.
I thought you would take my simple recognition of your faith and beliefs as a compliment.  It was not intended as an insult, just an observation.

I do consider myself adept in determining good and evil.  Much better in fact than when I was much younger and less interested in such.
I seek to continue to improve as long as there is breath in me.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Believe me - accountability _is_  in the here and now AND in the afterlife,at least for me.
> 
> It's amazing to me that people like Diogenes can so easily and consistently cause dissension and doubt. I've had him on my ignore list for a long time,but it doesn't do much good when everybody that responds to his garbage quotes his posts. I guess the only logical solution for me is to stay out of this forum completely,as so many others now do.



One person, regardless of name, can not be the face of all  investigation, doubt or questioning.  Each person has to seek their own answers.   Whenever one finds what they need they should be satisfied that one opposing or differing viewpoint can not shake them.


----------



## Madman (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Man has shown great improvements in identifying and clearly describing "good" and "bad" so it can be easily understood.



There is a list we could go down. 

1) Build bigger bombs/kill more people.
2) Take away their means of defense so we can slaughter them like cattle.
3)........

The 20th century was the bloodiest century in history because of the non-christians.  I don't belong to the "word of faith movement". Just because WTM says it does not make it so.  History, that falls into the catagory of truth, shows otherwise.

Lets look at the non-Christian world and see just how well they are doing.     The only reason the world has any concept of good and evil is because it is filtered by 2000 years of Christianity.  

To make the statement that man is good, one would have to have lived in a box.  I've been to many places and seen to many things to believe that.  When left to his own devises man is selfish and wicked.

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Isaiah 64:6

"The heart cannot exalt what the mind rejects." Uknown

P.S. I never considered a misrepresentation as a compliment.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Madman said:


> There is a list we could go down.
> 
> 1) Build bigger bombs/kill more people.
> 2) Take away their means of defense so we can slaughter them like cattle.
> ...



It's a shame when one only sees but doom and gloom in humanity, and rejects anything accomplished as being a positive for mankind.

"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."
    Frederich Nietzsche


----------



## Israel (Sep 1, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> It's a shame when one only sees but doom and gloom in humanity, and rejects anything accomplished as being a positive for mankind.
> 
> "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."
> Frederich Nietzsche



You may have noticed, but if you haven't, I'm not one for anity, or isms or the like. That's neither here nor there. I'm really not sent to represent anyone but a person.
My faults in that are many and frequent.
But if you are going to quote Nietzche as a condemnation of people presumably upon whom Christ has had an influence...are we likewise free to attribute to Nietzche any depredations by those upon whom he may have well had an influence?
I would say there has only been one man whose heart was full of light...and he was sent precisely because men stumble in the darkness of their own desires.
That God is true (with complete allusion to what is recently claimed as being totally absent in creation) is not negated by the actions of men.
That we do not fully apprehend him is not at all his fault, but the good news is that neither does he hold that against us.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 1, 2010)

Okay, so I’m going to take all of the above nonsensical and purely self-serving garlic to mean – “No, you may not talk about anything other than our precious Jesus, because we will continually change the subject back to Jesus and simply shout down anyone else through endless and nauseating repetition.”  Similar to a spoiled child who wants a new toy, and won’t take No for an answer.

If that is going to be the case, then I’m afraid that we’ll have to ask you Jesus-freaks to do better than simply contend that you hold the only actually valid perspective that exists not only on the planet but actually in the entire universe.  Please place tangible, actual, genuine proof on the table.  Now.

Not words from a ‘Holy’ book.  Not delusional and ancient ‘accounts.’  Not incredible and apocryphal stories of ‘miracles.’  Not passionate descriptions of your ‘Faith.’  Not your ‘Deep Feelings’ on the subject.  And certainly not stories that Mommy and Daddy told you.  Concrete proof.  

Demonstrate, through direct and properly employed scientific standards, duplicable by anyone by dint of the rigor of the method, that this God of yours is real.  Quit monkeying around in your tiny little bully pulpits, screaming and shouting and condemning and hating, thumping everyone over the heads with your fiery sermons of the moment, and step up to the task you have set for yourself – prove it.

Put your God on the table.  Tonight.

If y’all are so very, very certain that you alone are right – to the point of allowing no other discussion – then demonstrating your certain Truth ought to be a walk in the park – just call on this God with whom you have such a close personal relationship, and ask Him to stop by for a spell.  Nothing formal – just a little, intimate, Q & A session.  

If you cannot do that, then please do us the favor of growing up enough to realize it.  You sound like a bunch of idiots, even amongst yourselves – “My God can beat up Your God!”  “Cannot!”  “Can too!”  Sheesh.  Boys – it is time to quit annoying the snot out of everyone by turning every topic whatsoever only to yourself and only to your ‘beliefs,’ and put your God in the playground for real, and let the fight actually begin.  Produce this God for us, or knock off the childish nonsense.  

We all know what you ‘believe.’  It is simply that we do not care.  The rest of the world left you zealots behind generations ago, and you ought to be happy that we still tolerate you enough to still allow tax-exemptions for nutjobs.  If not for preferential tax treatment you fools would be back to gathering around bon-fires, joining hands and chanting at the moon.  Give us a break, huh?  The ‘Power’ of your ‘belief’ is little more than the power to bully and inspire fear, and you might notice that church attendance, contributions, membership, and even the ability to attract ‘clergy’ is at an all-time low – and falling steadily.  Folks like you are the reason why.  You refuse to progress as individuals, and cling to the ankles of progress at every turn in an attempt to drag it down to your own level of superstitious fear, acting less as the ‘conscience’ you so arrogantly wish to provide than as an anchor that must be shed.  We stopped burning witches quite a while back, but it seems like some of you either never noticed or seem to somehow disapprove.  

The ‘Truth,’ I’m afraid, is that you don’t have any truth.  And everyone, including yourselves, knows that.  You can no more prove your beliefs than any similar nutball could  prove a similarly irrational belief that the planet Jupiter is actually a cleverly disguised alien Death Star.  Nobody at all is responsible for ‘disproving’ the irrational – it is up to you to prove your position.  So do it.  Now.  Tonight. 

If you cannot, then we’ll have to conclude the obvious – you really are little more than a pack of loud, annoying, ankle-biting Chihuahuas clamoring for attention.

(Psst – the grown-ups are trying to talk – go to your rooms and find something to play with . . . )


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 1, 2010)

Israel said:


> But if you are going to quote Nietzche as a condemnation of people presumably upon whom Christ has had an influence...are we likewise free to attribute to Nietzche any depredations by those upon whom he may have well had an influence?



Of course!

The discussion would be quite flat without the give and take!  All is fair.


Whew!  Diogenes!  Let me at least put on the bulletproof vest and load my 12 gauge before the rounds start bouncing off the hood and windshield!


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 1, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Okay, so I’m going to take all of the above nonsensical and purely self-serving garlic to mean – “No, you may not talk about anything other than our precious Jesus, because we will continually change the subject back to Jesus and simply shout down anyone else through endless and nauseating repetition.”  Similar to a spoiled child who wants a new toy, and won’t take No for an answer.
> 
> If that is going to be the case, then I’m afraid that we’ll have to ask you Jesus-freaks to do better than simply contend that you hold the only actually valid perspective that exists not only on the planet but actually in the entire universe.  Please place tangible, actual, genuine proof on the table.  Now.
> 
> ...



one can only wonder why the mods continue to allow you to belittle the posters of this forum. If you dont like what folks have to say in the spiritual forum, LEAVE. Take your serious thread to the on topic forum


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 1, 2010)

“one can only wonder why the mods continue to allow you to belittle the posters of this forum. If you dont like what folks have to say in the spiritual forum, LEAVE. Take your serious thread to the on topic forum.”

Sir, one also wonders why they allow the ‘belittling’ of any and all by the few true believers.  If they do not like the fact that they are a small minority in this world, perhaps the option of LEAVING is also open to them.  Shouting down all thoughts with a singular chorus is harassment, not discussion.  

And as to my ‘serious thread,’ does this imply that the believers are not ‘serious’?  That, I would certainly agree with.  But one can hardly contend that the abstract thoughts accompanying the effort of erecting monuments is anything other than ‘Spiritual’ in nature, and if the actually spiritual is too serious a topic for you in the Spiritual forum, then perhaps your definitions are being drawn a bit too narrowly.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 1, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “one can only wonder why the mods continue to allow you to belittle the posters of this forum. If you dont like what folks have to say in the spiritual forum, LEAVE. Take your serious thread to the on topic forum.”
> 
> Sir, one also wonders why they allow the ‘belittling’ of any and all by the few true believers.  If they do not like the fact that they are a small minority in this world, perhaps the option of LEAVING is also open to them.  Shouting down all thoughts with a singular chorus is harassment, not discussion.
> 
> And as to my ‘serious thread,’ does this imply that the believers are not ‘serious’?  That, I would certainly agree with.  But one can hardly contend that the abstract thoughts accompanying the effort of erecting monuments is anything other than ‘Spiritual’ in nature, and if the actually spiritual is too serious a topic for you in the Spiritual forum, then perhaps your definitions are being drawn a bit too narrowly.



Your loster than a ball in high weeds. 

I will say this;
When threads turn into calling folks 5th graders, idiots, allowing the nutjobs for tax exemptions, about 90% of your post......................get my drift? They degrade the posters you are referring to and it degrades the forum. If all your here for is to belittle and downgrade and name call the posters of this forum for their beliefs, your trolling. 


And as far as believers being serious, or the spiritual aspects of a monument.  Im not wasting my time on you. You can conclude how-ever you wish on that.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 2, 2010)

Interesting perspective . . . .

Yet, in this thread alone, I have faced this, from your sincere and enlightened believers, who mean no harm, but seek only the Grace and Benevolence of being Saved, as you say:

“I did,hes not that entertaining.”
“I seldomly view his threads,this one caught my eye,so I hit the view button.Same old,same old.”
“After reading this pile of cow paddies that you call a post I have decided that I have no interest in saying anything at all about what is posted.”
“I would however be willing to help you look for a good counseler for youself and anyone else that has to live in close contact with you.”
“This is called bait. 
It appeals to the one who is willing to submit to Diogenes appraisal of things. 
Already Diogenes is framing not only the conversation...but going on to do something far more devious.”
“Nevertheless the presentation is about as ham fisted as tossing a two pound sinker in front of a tailing bonefish.”
“If one follows the bait to the line and the line back to the caster, this is also spewed:”
“ . . . and it may well be that you've surrendered far more by engaging him and relegating to him the position of judgment over some (many?) who may be your brethren.”
“Diogenes transparent ruse of divide and conquer, appeal and ridicule, reward and abuse...by taking to himself title of judge and jury was just a little too easy to see.”
“The unbelievers reign,it sometimes seems.Not for long, though! Jesus Christ will have the final say.”
“What's funny is that some really think that the purpose of this thread is to discuss monuments and the like.”
“And Dio, before you spew off calling folks of the 5th grade level names, you might want to back track and edit some of your own post”
“I finally got a hold of a monkey who could help me translate your thread. And he told me that it looks like the same thread his cousin wrote a while back. His cousin is from the baphoon family, and by the way and his name is earl. He said you should remember him from your younger days when you guys worked together at the funny farm. “
“When I read Dio's original post, it made me feel like flying a monument to him that is located directly between my pointing finger and my ring finger....but, for the sake of all here and my testimony I did not errect it at all....”

And that is just from page one. I could easily go on . . . Now, aside from the misspellings, the lack of even the rudiments of grammar, and the obviously mean-spirited personal attacks those sort of statements represent, do you mean, genuinely, to accuse ME of degrading THEM?  They degrade themselves, by presenting a closed-minded playground-bullying approach to an adult discussion that cannot be better characterized by any description OTHER than 5th-Grade level.  

Do you consider this sort of uninformed insult festival, on the part of your compadres, to be rational argument and thoughtful discussion?  Do any of the above statements, and those that ensued, hold even the veneer of the requisite seriousness one might expect of thoughtful adults?  

Then THIS: “If all your here for is to belittle and downgrade and name call the posters of this forum for their beliefs, your trolling. “  ?????   

You must be kidding.  Accepting, or even hearing thoughts other than their own seems to be impossible for a very few here, and they ‘troll’ incessantly, mining any and all threads that might wish to have an actual topical discussion and stopping them dead with a mindless barrage of invective, accusation, insult, name-calling, and tidal waves of off-topic Bible quotations that have nothing at all to do with the discussion.  

Also from page one --  And starting with Joshua 4;  “I am reminded of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians;” “The book of Proverbs is just full of wisdom, isn't it?

Quote:
The vexation of a fool is known at once,
but the prudent ignores an insult. 
Quote:
How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge? 
Quote:
In everything the prudent acts with knowledge,
but a fool flaunts his folly. 
Quote:
Leave the presence of a fool,
for there you do not meet words of knowledge. 

I'm especially impressed with this one and I think it's quite appropriate...
Quote:
Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. 
   ;  “4 So Joshua called together the twelve men he had appointed from the Israelites, one from each tribe, 5 and said to them, "Go over before the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, 6 to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do these stones mean?' 7 tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever."

What any of that might have had to do with the OP, perhaps only you can discern . . .  Every bit of the ‘commentary’ from the personally authored words to the Bible quotes were meant to ridicule, to distract, to derail the topic to only what the spoiled children wanted to stamp their feet about, to focus attention on themselves and only themselves, and to discredit and defame the topic and the author – namely, me.

“You can conclude how-ever you wish on that.”

Believe me, I have.  Unfortunately, you’ll notice that this thread enjoys close to 1,400 views, while only 107 replies.

So when you say aloud – “Im not wasting my time on you.” Well . . . not only does it appear that you already have, but I’d obviously not be the only person who would be pleased if you took that to heart . . .


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 2, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Okay folks – some of you try to bring actual thoughts, educated insights, a sense of perspective, and a genuine exchange of ideas to this forum, and many of us who may not have necessarily attained wisdom have at least discarded stupidity.
> 
> Yet time and again, in fact constantly and unrelentingly, we find ourselves unable to actually discuss even the most mundane topic without being assailed and shouted down by verse-spewing, spiteful, and often outright hostile elements displaying the education of fifth-graders, the maturity and thoughtfulness of a rioting mob, and the gloating ‘In Yer Face’ attitude of playground bullies.  Spewing self-affirming venom and page upon page of unprocessed quotations from an unread and misunderstood book is not a discussion of a topic.
> 
> So let’s try actually discussing a ‘Spiritual’ idea and see if the children and one-dimensional morons can keep up and perhaps make a thoughtful contribution without once again becoming embarrassed by their total ignorance and derailing the topic into singular extremism out of spiteful regret that they neglected to read anything other than soft-core magazines  . . .





Diogenes said:


> Gordon – characteristically thoughtful, while also characteristically obtuse – “ . . . monuments are not errected or destroyed at a "whim" . . . “
> 
> Certainly not erected on a whim, given the unimaginable difficulty and expense of things such as Stonehenge, the Sphinx, the Pyramids, or the Temple of Artemis.  Yet, considering the investment made by ordinary citizens in such undertakings, one is forced to wonder – ‘What Changed?’  And why?  Certainly these monuments remain, but hugely diminished in significance and now viewed merely as curiosities.
> 
> ...





Diogenes said:


> What seems to be the problem here?  Are the zealots so much the fierce guard dogs that even such a simple topic must only be discussed on their own terms?  Or are they such fierce bigots that only those they personally approve of are allowed to speak at all?  Or, more likely, are they a bit uncomfortable with the topic, since they know quite well what their particular book has to say, and they have violated that particular bit of the strictures since birth –
> 
> Exodus 20:4
> Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> ...





Diogenes said:


> Gentlemen, if I may?
> 
> The topic at hand has nothing at all to do with this Jesus of yours.  So far as I’m concerned this fella never said a single word, and going on and on about what ‘Jesus said’ is so much nonsense.  The fella himself never wrote a single word – not one.  Words attributed to him were not written down by any of the various ‘followers’ for a couple of hundred years, at the earliest.  This sort of thing is tantamount to you ‘quoting’ your Great-great-great-great grandfather, verbatim, then arguing about the subtle meanings and nuances of his sage utterings . . . Not a single person who wrote down any of this stuff was alive when any of it was allegedly said.  Hearsay, four to ten generations removed (depending on who you think is the better historian), will hardly be admissible in even the most generous court of inquiry . . .
> 
> ...





Diogenes said:


> Okay, so I’m going to take all of the above nonsensical and purely self-serving garlic to mean – “No, you may not talk about anything other than our precious Jesus, because we will continually change the subject back to Jesus and simply shout down anyone else through endless and nauseating repetition.”  Similar to a spoiled child who wants a new toy, and won’t take No for an answer.
> 
> If that is going to be the case, then I’m afraid that we’ll have to ask you Jesus-freaks to do better than simply contend that you hold the only actually valid perspective that exists not only on the planet but actually in the entire universe.  Please place tangible, actual, genuine proof on the table.  Now.
> 
> ...





Diogenes said:


> _*degrade themselves, by presenting a closed-minded playground-bullying approach that cannot be better characterized by any description OTHER than 5th-Grade level.  *_
> 
> _*Do any of the above statements, and those that ensued, hold even the veneer of the requisite seriousness one might expect of thoughtful adults?  *_


Read your post and let us know, i think we tend to agree.

And just food for thought, if you come to a spiritual forum and ask questions, spiritual folks tend to back their beliefs up with scripture, so get used to that. Now carry on with your little spoiled child got to have it my way or no way 5th grade childish degrading trolling.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 2, 2010)

Perhaps the 1400+ views is a reflection of how some regard the OP.

The psychology of raising or tearing down monuments.... or even retaining them is more cultural than spiritual. Personally, the discussion of monuments is not why I frequent the SDS forum. That being said, I am curious about the individuals who post here, so I probably account for several dozen of those "views" just to "see" what is being offered up. It is far more about the people than the subject matter. Then again, it may be that many peek in and move on because, for them, the subject matter holds no interest at all. 

Whatever the reason for "spectating", I suspect that 1400+ represents some sort of monument, as it were.

My observation concerning rants (i.e., posts such as #104 & #109) is this: The longer and "louder" one protests, the more likely it is that flecks of spittle and salivary foam are accumulating on the monitor and at the corners of the mouth of the poster. People who devote so much time, in both energy and thought, showing their unlovely, bare backsides  on this forum (and, I should add, this applies to any who post here) have destroyed  any currency they might have had for influencing  anyone to their position.

As much as I have written off of your posts, you have done yourself much more damage by the way you present yourself.

Dale Carnegie, you ain't.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 3, 2010)

I thought you had decided to spare your precious time there Spotlight, and not waste it on a wretch like me?  ‘Spiritual’ folks, in reality, tend to back up their thoughts with something akin to their own thoughts, if they have any.

If they do not, which seems typical, they tend to fall back on vague ancient writings that even they do not understand and wield them like a Sacred club, trying mightily to silence disagreement through the force of an ‘authority’ that does not actually exist, but in the place of whom they presume to speak.  Nice try, but they even contradict themselves in the attempt, let alone the ‘God’ they claim to represent.

GT states: “Dale Carnegie, you ain't.”  You are spot on there, Sir.  Nor do I try.  If making friends requires thinking exactly and only as they do then those ‘friends’ are not worth making.  I tend to prefer the company of folks who can disagree in a civil manner, without painting those who differ as their automatic enemy and marking them as witches that need to be stamped out.  Perhaps there is a mirror in your own home.

As yet, nobody has offered to prove themselves by demonstrating their “Truth” beyond doubt.  

Do you really think that trying to ignore the question, or either shoot or discredit the questioner, will make the question less valid?

My position stands unshaken – if you want folks to believe in your own ‘Spirit’ without a single question, then put your ‘Truth’ front and center.  If you cannot, then let us be, huh?


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 3, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> As yet, nobody has offered to prove themselves by demonstrating their “Truth” beyond doubt.
> 
> 
> My position stands unshaken – if you want folks to believe in your own ‘Spirit’ without a single question, then put your ‘Truth’ front and center.  If you cannot, then let us be, huh?


Who do you think you are? "Prove" to you    Really 

See this is what you can not comprehend, we do not have to "prove" anything to you or the "us" you refer to. All we have to do is tell you about Jesus, the rest is between you and him

But in reality, this is not what this thread is about anyway, its an open door for an insecure little person to cowardly attack what he does not believe in simply because the scientific theory he bases his only trust in, still can  not disprove the deity of God, instead of just manning up and simply saying, I dont believe the existence and stepping away from the soap box Your scientific facts are still just a "theory" of a scientist, at best.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 5, 2010)

“Who do you think you are?”

Do you actually, genuinely, want me to take up that last post there Spotlight?

Stand back for a moment, take a deep breath, and relax a bit.

I don’t remember ever interrupting any of your threads with presumptive accusations concerning your ‘ulterior motives’ that I automatically presumed to be insulting to me, and then preventing the discussion by focusing the entire attention only on my views through simple and repeated shouting harassment.  Are your doubts really that delicate?    

Having nothing to add to a rather innocuous topic usually means saying nothing – not jumping in and shouting down and spouting invective concerning the personal character of the speaker – any terribly insecure child can do that, but, really?  

So I’ll make a huge leap here, and I’ll guess that, just like everyone else, you also have no proof, but only more and more thundering invective.  I’m very sorry for that, but it really isn’t my fault.  I’m not the one who made you folks so terribly and loudly defensive about your own doubts, to the point that y’all seem unable to allow any discussion to occur unless your own personal views are the sole topic.

Similarly, I’m not responsible for having taken innocent children and led them down that road of ultimate doubt and infinite guilt for things they never did and can never know, largely because the things they are taught are and have always been fictitious and controlling fear-based superstitious nonsense.  Then telling them, after brain-washing them with such things, that they can be SAVED from the things I accused them of, if only they do only as I say.  Somebody else did crap that to y’all from the day you were born – not me.  

Honest.  So I think you might be angry with the wrong fella.

I just tried to open a dialogue about something that is actually ‘spiritual’ – meaning intangible – that did not have one or another Ghostly but Genuine  Spirit Being at the center of it – and the results were predictable.  I was almost immediately jumped by the earthly representatives of the only one Truth on Earth, who tried to drag me off into a dark alley and cut my throat by any rhetorical means necessary.  Gosh.  Who could have known that so many of you were so unsure of yourselves, and so mean-spirited about it?  

I actually tried to keep a genuine discussion on track, by asking the single-minded Jesus freaks to keep themselves in hand, and show a bit of respect for a topic that did not revolve only around them and their ‘Verses,’ but which was at the same time an abstract that was more based on feelings than scientific fact – Spiritual, in other words -- but they refused to allow such a thing, and decided to do what they usually do – gang up to shout down and personally denigrate anyone who would dare do anything other than bow down before them and hew only to their own singular and exclusive thoughts about their own unknowns. 

Having been derailed by the paranoid, fearful, and ignorant, and realizing that the topic itself was then unsavable, because they made it so, as is the usual tactic of the bully-pulpit morons hereabouts, I simply asked them to put their money where their mouths are --  Prove yourselves.  That ought not be too much to ask of those who are so sure of themselves that they will not allow a single thought to stray from a focus on only themselves (and, forgive me, but it does somewhat remind me of when my own children behaved similarly at age two and three).   

“See this is what you can not comprehend, we do not have to "prove" anything to you or the "us" you refer to.”  

See, this is what you can not comprehend – yes you do. 

I do not hold the position that I am in sole possession of the TRUTH.  You do.

I started a topic about the monuments that humans build.  It was derailed immediately into a paranoid set of accusations and insults against me personally and a set of Jesus assertions created out of thin air.    So, I asked, quite reasonably -- just what is this TRUTH that allows no discussion of anything other than your claim to sole possession of same?  Can you prove it?  That is rather a rough bit of ground to occupy, having taken on the personal responsibility for that knowledge.  

I make no such claim.  

I merely ask.  You assert.  Your assertion of the possession of this TRUTH does, in fact, place the responsibility upon you and you alone, to demonstrate that the platform you occupy and so vehemently defend is actually defensible.  One cannot state over and over and over again, to the point of disallowing any other thought, that YOU hold the TRUTH without incurring a responsibility for demonstrating that truth to be the whole and entire body of what needs to be known.  

Nobody else here makes any such claims.  Only a few loud, odd, and suspiciously zealous folks claim to know everything about the unknown, and threaten everyone else with eternal perdition, (laughably), or at the very least the eternal burden of their childish screaming and foot-stamping, if they fail to agree.  

So, yes.  You do have to prove it.  Because the chances of anyone at all in the modern world taking YOUR word for it, given the tactics, logic, and ‘educated’ argument employed, hover somewhere around zero.

 Again, that is not my fault.  You can vilify me, personally, all day long, but it changes nothing, and provides no proof.  Attempting to discredit one’s critics does not create a factual position, as might have been demonstrated time and again in the history that it appears hardly anyone bothered to learn.

“But in reality, this is not what this thread is about anyway,” well, yeah, it wasn’t about your odd beliefs or your hatred of me personally at all, it was about something entirely different . . . 

“ . . . still can not disprove the deity of God . . . “ – I just went through that  . . . See, I, personally, do not believe that there is any God whatsoever – yours, or anyone else’s.  So I’m not in any way bound to prove, disprove, or in any way worry over the problem.  You see, for me, there is no problem other than you various ‘believing’ folks projecting your thoughts onto all of the world, and demanding the obedience and similar ‘belief’ of everyone else  . . . sound familiar?  

Don’t you folks fight against that sort of thing?  Or is that selective too?

And sir?  Again, I address thoughts and theories and hate mobs of the like-mined following a doctrine rather than thinking for themselves, and I’ll not remember characterizing any single individual as, “an insecure little person,” or as being personally, “cowardly.”  Your attacks in that regard are purely personal, and are unwarranted.

That is uncalled for, regardless of the tactics of the mob mentality.

Demonstrate your truth, beyond even your own doubts, or become thoughtful.

Who, indeed, do you think you are?


----------



## crackerdave (Sep 5, 2010)

Your arrogance is astounding. Your "education" is sadly lacking.

Why do you waste so much time,thought and energy here? No one is going to be changed for the better by any of the garbage you post,no matter how eloquently you post it.

Perhaps you have not noticed - and perhaps,neither have the moderators - that this is no longer a place for debate. I have no idea what your purpose here is,but if you want to be King of the Hill and have the last word in every discussion,perhaps you'd have more fun somewhere else. There are many other forums for people like you - this happens to be an outdoor forum with many Christian people on it. You obviously have no interest whatsoever in any of the other sub-forums here,and have used this one to display your arrogance and disdain for Christians. Why this has been allowed for so long,I have no idea.Satan has his place here,too,I suppose. It is,after all, a "spiritual" forum,not a "Christian" forum. BUT - it is first and foremost a family-friendly OUTDOORS forum. You don't belong here,in my opinion.You serve Satan and no other,besides yourself.

Is that honest enough for ya,bubba?


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 5, 2010)

Well Dio, let me give you a little clue, we can read you like a book. Your first couple of paragraphs in your post was nothing but insulting vomit, and you claim you want to discuss something serious???

And I dont have to prove anything, thats not my problem if they dont believe. I dont have a problem with you or anyone else not believing, so why do you have a problem with me believing??? Again, its only my place to tell you about it. Its your place to believe or not believe, you made your choice, so whats the problem. You continually provoke and down rate, are you really sure you that your stable in your choice?

Im not on an atheist or a non belivers forum puking up post attacking their beliefs, level of learning etc, so who is the insecure one that is really doubting their stance????

And who am I, you wouldnt believe me if I told you.........


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 5, 2010)

All he is asking is what proof do you use, as an individual, to support up your beliefs.  If you don't care to share that, then this topic is not for you.  Simple.

For me, if I had proof enough to take such a stance of belief I'd really want to share that.  With everyone.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 5, 2010)

Dio, you want honesty..... and WTM45, you seem to want an honest account, also. 

I offer both of you this account: I was blind, but now, I see. And not I only, but tens of thousands make the same testimony every day and millions since the day of our Lord, Jesus, the Christ when He opened the eyes of a beggar, as recorded in the 9th chapter of John.

You both have heard and yet you do not believe. Is there hope for anyone who hears the truth  and rejects the gift of redemption God has made available without cost to that one, through the sacrifice of His Son? 

Holy Scripture tells us that the more times a man rejects the truth, the more difficult it becomes for him to accept it, even if he understands his deep need for redemption. 

You have been given all the faith and proof one needs to believe, yet you will not.


----------



## earl (Sep 5, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> All he is asking is what proof do you use, as an individual, to support up your beliefs.  If you don't care to share that, then this topic is not for you.  Simple.
> 
> For me, if I had proof enough to take such a stance of belief I'd really want to share that.  With everyone.





If they were truly honest men they would say that they have no proof. It is simply what they believe.
Prior to death there is no absolute proof. After death it is academic.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 5, 2010)

WT the only proof dio has that God doesn't exist is his non belief. There is no physical proof for faith.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 5, 2010)

earl said:


> If they were truly honest men they would say that they have no proof. It is simply what they believe.
> Prior to death there is no absolute proof. After death it is academic.


If you and dio were truly honest men you would admit that you have no proof as well. 
It is simply you don't believe. Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## earl (Sep 5, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> If you and dio were truly honest men you would admit that you have no proof as well.
> It is simply you don't believe. Pot calling the kettle black.





And there is the difference . I have absolutely no proof that your God does not exist and have no difficulty saying it.


----------



## Israel (Sep 5, 2010)

There is more appropriated in denying Christ than simply, God does not exist.
You will say, "my heart is good, or can be, and I can make of it what I will."
The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy.
Deny if you will. That is your God given liberty.
But when what you thought was light is revealed as darkness, when you thought was love is revealed as nothing more than self interest, we will not laugh...but we also will not mourn.
God's will be done.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 5, 2010)

earl said:


> And there is the difference . I have absolutely no proof that your God does not exist and have no difficulty saying it.



And this is exactly what we have been trying to say to you and Dio as well, we do not have the absolute physical "proof" to lay out on the table, other than our faith. Its real to us. 

Of course theres a number of things we as a Christian can see to prove it, but without faith to believe it, its a moot discussion between a believer and a non believer that is not willing to believe.


----------



## earl (Sep 5, 2010)

Of course theres a number of things we as a Christian can see to prove it, but without faith to believe it, its a moot discussion between a believer and a non believer that is not willing to believe. 



You had an honest statement and then you went and put a qualifier on it. There's another difference . I don't need one. I can just say ''I don't know''.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 5, 2010)

God created Adam and Eve and gave them freewill and King James so protestants might read it and believe it. That is proof enough for me. It worked.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 5, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Dio, you want honesty..... and WTM45, you seem to want an honest account, also.
> 
> I offer both of you this account: I was blind, but now, I see. And not I only, but tens of thousands make the same testimony every day and millions since the day of our Lord, Jesus, the Christ when He opened the eyes of a beggar, as recorded in the 9th chapter of John.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that, GT.

That's why I never say what others believe and feel is not real, at least to them.
I just personally don't know.  It ain't there.  Spent much time looking and seeking the "truth" too.
It's not because I have not asked.  I still ask.

And, if that day of judgement were to ever come, I have a LOT of questions to ask of any deity that is ready to pass that judgement.  I think that would be quite fair.

Call me Job.  I've been waiting for the whirlwind.
It has not shown itself.


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 5, 2010)

earl said:


> Of course theres a number of things we as a Christian can see to prove it, but without faith to believe it, its a moot discussion between a believer and a non believer that is not willing to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> You had an honest statement and then you went and put a qualifier on it. There's another difference . I don't need one. I can just say ''I don't know''.



not "needing" anything for the purpose of stating my position. but sometimes folks take words and twist and mangle them into something else, a little clarification doesnt hurt.....................it may save a cow trail or two.......


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 6, 2010)

Seems like God is workin' on Diogenes, don't it?


----------



## Israel (Sep 6, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Seems like God is workin' on Diogenes, don't it?



Yes. 
God is judged of no man.
I trust he is working on, if not in, all of us.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 6, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Seems like God is workin' on Diogenes, don't it?



What leads you to believe that?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 6, 2010)

Who could write so much in this forum and ask so many questions without his heart seeking?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 6, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Thank you for that, GT.
> 
> That's why I never say what others believe and feel is not real, at least to them.
> I just personally don't know.  It ain't there.  Spent much time looking and seeking the "truth" too.
> ...



You have only to look to Job's whirlwind and the testimony of Job. Everybody apparently does not get their own whirlwind, but many have shared their own experience...... sometimes a whirlwind.... sometimes a still small voice. One man's coincidence or freak accident may be another person's miracle. I truly believe you have everything you need now. Perhaps one day your heart will override your head, you'll turn loose of self, and you will free fall  into His loving hands. I pray that for you as often as I log on this forum.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 7, 2010)

Amazing.  

One minute this God is described as a wholly and indisputably factual entity, described in exacting detail including a human/godlet offspring and even a third, named incarnation, and comes complete with an extensive set of direct quotations.

The next minute all bets are off on these factual descriptions and directly attributed quotations, and the whole ball of wax becomes something one must simply  ‘believe’ and accept on ‘faith,’ because there is nothing at all factual about it.

And both of these positions are apparently occupied by the same people at the same time.  

AND, despite this belief peacefully coexisting in the same mind with the lack of belief, or perhaps because of it – nobody else is given the opportunity to discuss anything else without being unrelentingly assailed by these ‘truths’ (which might not be true, really, since we have to take them on faith), and the ‘fact’ of the quotations (which, again, might not really be, unless you believe that they are . . . ).

Astounding.  No wonder you fellas are so crabby all the time – that sort of confusion has got to prevent one from sleeping at night . . .


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 7, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Amazing.
> 
> One minute this God is described as a wholly and indisputably factual entity, described in exacting detail including a human/godlet offspring and even a third, named incarnation, and comes complete with an extensive set of direct quotations.
> 
> ...



OK, you got us. Happy?


----------



## apoint (Sep 7, 2010)

earl said:


> And there is the difference . I have absolutely no proof that your God does not exist and have no difficulty saying it.



 I have no problem saying there is plenty of proof of God.
  The Bible has 700 prophecies fore told 100s of years in advance that has come true. Many secular historians write about the same story's that are in the bible.  Jesus life ,death and resurrection was all fore told 100s of years in advance. Jesus life was so many miracle's that they all could not be wrote down. Jesus life was recorded by secular historians in many books. Everything written in the Bible has come true. Every town and place mentioned in the Bible is still here and found by secular scientist..
  Must I go on?   If Jesus was standing in front of you, you would not believe HIM either. Because your stiff necked and only believe in yourself which is pittyfull......


----------



## earl (Sep 7, 2010)

Please , Trot out your scriptural prophesies and their factual fulfillment and I will be more than happy to shoot them down one at a time. 
Please do go on. If Jesus was standing in front of me I would ask him the same questions I ask on here and more to boot .
The Bible is so ambiguous that it can and is interpreted all over the map. If it weren't ,you and the Catholics wouldn't have any thing to disagree on. 
So bring on your facts and proof. This ain't my first rodeo .


----------



## JOHNNY GREYWOLF (Sep 7, 2010)

what does all this have to do with the original point Dio was making??


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 7, 2010)

Israel said:


> There is more appropriated in denying Christ than simply, God does not exist.
> You will say, "my heart is good, or can be, and I can make of it what I will."
> The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy.
> Deny if you will. That is your God given liberty.
> ...




I'll wait to see for myself what happens after "But when...."


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 7, 2010)

“what does all this have to do with the original point Dio was making??”

Nothing whatsoever, Johnny, and that is exactly why they do it.

Somebody other then themselves is talking, and they can’t tolerate such things, so they try to shout everyone else down with nonsense such as this:

“The Bible has 700 prophecies fore told 100s of years in advance that has come true.”  

And then, after doing so, pretend to be genuinely SHOCKED and OFFENDED on a DEEPLY PERSONAL LEVEL when we take them up on it!

(Watch . . .)

Etymologically, a prophet (from the Greek ‘prophetes’) is someone who speaks for someone else.  As such I tend to take prophets about as seriously as I take press releases from the government.  So a prophet, in the context quoted above, is a self-proclaimed spokesperson for an invisible being that presumably controls the universe.  But, the ‘Bible’ is not a person, and we are told that it contains the words of this being himself (or herself, or itself), and so, by definition cannot make prophesies.  Promises perhaps, similarly fictional and undemonstrated, but geez, at least use the right words in the mystical lecturing, huh?

To borrow a favorite line, “Prophecy buffs tend to be either neurotically absorbed with their own salvation or morbidly fascinated by the prospect of impending catastrophe.  Or Both.  A death wish on the one hand, a desperate, unrealistic hope for some kind of supernatural rescue operation on the other.”

One cannot help but worry about folks who not only predict the future, but also for whom the future promises to be real in ways that the present is not, and who pretend to know this with such clarity and passion.

(I now return you to your regularly scheduled chanting and foot-stamping session . . . )


----------



## hummerpoo (Sep 7, 2010)

Having read the first four sentences of this thread, counted sixteen pejoratives, and found no subject introduced, I think I'll just go back to my soft-core mags.


----------



## apoint (Sep 7, 2010)

.

(I now return you to your regularly scheduled chanting and foot-stamping session . . . )[/QUOTE said:
			
		

>


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 7, 2010)

“Perhaps one day your heart will override your head, you'll turn loose of self, and you will free fall into His loving hands. I pray that for you as often as I log on this forum.”

How nice.  Now I understand -- any attempt at expressing a thought other than those of the zealous believers is only shouted down and drowned out due to their concern for your soul.  Now that right there is truly and genuinely altruistic!  Not rude and self-serving in any way!  Who knew?  Hear that WTM?  They’ve given you everything you need now!  Rejoice!

Personally, I’ve always considered prayer to be a sort of metaphysical panhandling, and I’ve found that prayer makes a lousy shark-repellant.

For myself, I’m quite happy living in a confused world.  Rather than tilt at ghosts and try to reduce the chaos, or worse become a victim of it, I tend to embrace it as a comrade in this journey through life.  It is just part of the game, and often the most amusing and enjoyable part.

Yet, it seems wise to remain on the run from what Robbins calls the ‘Killer B’s.’  Believe.  Belong. Behave.  As well, it seems wise to avoid their sisters in crime: boundaries; barbarism; bureaucracy; bullets; bloodlust; and betrayal – all outgrowths of the original triumvirate.  (We could return to the ‘Killer M’s,’ of which Monuments represent only the very tip of the iceberg, but you fellas need to get to bed early, it seems, else your attention span wanders.)

I prefer a rather more nomadic ‘spirituality,’ if you will – one where doubts are not sins but virtues, and where one need not apply absolute adjectives and final authoritative descriptions to things that possess no such qualities.

I prefer to avoid the ‘great pathetic lunatic insecurity that drives men to various illusions of certainty and permanence.’  Mainly I avoid such derangement because one can readily see the irony – it is precisely the permanence and certainty of death that scares them witless, and causes them to create these ‘ideals’ and illusions in the first place, and it is precisely the insecurity that drives them to try to compel a herd-like agreement.

No thanks.  I make a much better wolf than I do a sheep.

Besides, if all this putative heaven of everyone’s imagining has to offer is an eternity of being stuck with endless cosmic throngs of the sorts of ‘believers’ one encounters around here, as well as pipe organs, Bingo, polyester suits, twin beds, Minnie Mouse, the 700 Club, horseshoes, bad toupees, worse sermons, and square dances, then I’d just as soon pass.  You guys went and gave this Lucifer of your imagining all of the good stuff.

 I suspect that psychology, and certainly religion and government, has overlooked one small detail – a person’s happiness is tightly related to their unencumbrance.  Perhaps the point of the dictatorial command to Believe, Belong, and Behave has nothing to do with their happiness, and is only to do with your own quests for power over your fellow men, but I for one beg to differ.  My happiness means quite a bit to me, and I won’t allow it to be press-ganged into the sole service of your own idealism quite so blithely.

I can prove that I’m quite happy for being unencumbered by your nonsense.  Can you prove that embracing your nonsense will make me happier?  

Not in the future that only you seem able to predict.  (The one you describe seems rather dour, prim, and unhappy anyway.)  In the present.  

How is the repression, oppression, and restriction being preached designed to create or present, here and now, a better reality than the one I currently enjoy?  (And spare me the ‘Elation of the Gift of the Spirit Within, Which Shall Glorify Your Soul’ crap.  That is for you zealous believers, and has no appeal whatsoever – if it did the world, and even your own ‘Brethren’ would not be walking away from organized religion in droves.)  

Convince me that my life would be better with your dogma than without it.  For that matter, convince yourselves . . .


----------



## Spotlite (Sep 7, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “Perhaps one day your heart will override your head, you'll turn loose of self, and you will free fall into His loving hands. I pray that for you as often as I log on this forum.”
> 
> How nice.  Now I understand -- any attempt at expressing a thought other than those of the zealous believers is only shouted down and drowned out due to their concern for your soul.  Now that right there is truly and genuinely altruistic!  Not rude and self-serving in any way!  Who knew?  Hear that WTM?  They’ve given you everything you need now!  Rejoice!
> 
> ...


For starters,
you wouldnt have to type so much trying to prove your happy the way you are now.............


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 7, 2010)

Thanks for the nickel psych analysis, but actually, I rather enjoy the typing, Spotlight --  it helps me keep up my spelling and punctuation skills . . .


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 7, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> How nice.  Now I understand -- any attempt at expressing a thought other than those of the zealous believers is only shouted down and drowned out due to their concern for your soul.  Now that right there is truly and genuinely altruistic!  Not rude and self-serving in any way!  Who knew?  Hear that WTM?  They’ve given you everything you need now!  Rejoice!



The inference of me being only interested in "self" is a bit painful, but all in all I see it as harmless.

It does reflect a sense of exclusivity and superiority that permeates most religious belief systems.

I do have everything I need.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Sep 7, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Perhaps one day your heart will override your head, you'll turn loose of self, and you will free fall  into His loving hands. I pray that for you as often as I log on this forum.



Are you serious?  Lose logic, reason, and science to start acting on faith and superstition?

Were I one to pray, I would pray that would never happen.  But then I wouldn't be praying in the first place with such a mindset.  I'd ask you to pray this doesn't happen, but I don't believe that would do any good.  Use that time to do something fun.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 7, 2010)

There sure do seem to be a lot of folks who do not believe in God and have it all figured out, are completely happy and secure in their beliefs.. but have nothing better to do than spend all of their time here..in a spiritual forum...quite funny to me. Maybe we need a non-spiritual forum?

But, I am easily amused. Carry on.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 8, 2010)

farmasis said:


> There sure do seem to be a lot of folks who do not believe in God and have it all figured out, are completely happy and secure in their beliefs.. but have nothing better to do than spend all of their time here..in a spiritual forum...quite funny to me. Maybe we need a non-spiritual forum?
> 
> But, I am easily amused. Carry on.



Not a 'non-spiritual' but an 'unspiritual' forum.
There all the atheist could tell jokes about the dumb Christians without fouling up the spiritual forum.

Actually, all this could stop in 10 minutes.
Why do people who know what's going on respond anyway?


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 8, 2010)

“Why do people who know what's going on respond anyway?”

Y’know – that has long been my question as well -  if Christianity is fact, then it is science, and history, and is completely outside of the realm of the ‘spiritual.’  

Spirituality is for things that are open to doubt, and since you folks maintain that your beliefs are not open to any doubt whatsoever, then they must not be spiritual in any fashion . . . 

So what are y’all doing hanging around in a ‘Spiritual’ forum?


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 8, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “Why do people who know what's going on respond anyway?”
> 
> Y’know – that has long been my question as well -  if Christianity is fact, then it is science, and history, and is completely outside of the realm of the ‘spiritual.’
> 
> ...



I think that you are mixing up words and meanings. Science is as to Christianity. No one doubts science or it's dicipline. No one doubts Christianity as a fact and a dicipline.

Both have healthy doubt within. One is involved in the realm of the spiritual (natural and spiritual man) and the natural world, the other with the natural world only.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Sep 8, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Actually, all this could stop in 10 minutes.
> Why do people who know what's going on respond anyway?



You are of course referring to the "believers" responding to the "nonbeliever's" thread topic, right?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 8, 2010)

gordon 2 said:


> I think that you are mixing up words and meanings. Science is as to Christianity. No one doubts science or it's dicipline. No one doubts Christianity as a fact and a dicipline.
> 
> Both have healthy doubt within. One is involved in the realm of the spiritual (natural and spiritual man) and the natural world, the other with the natural world only.



From a scientist and a Christian, that was well put.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 8, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> You are of course referring to the "believers" responding to the "nonbeliever's" thread topic, right?



Not necessarily.
I was referring to the originator of this particular thread.
It's impossible to have a two way discussion with him.
It's an utter waste of time for a believer to get into a conversation with him.
At least this believer.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Sep 8, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> It's an utter waste of time for a believer to get into a conversation with him.



I wouldn't take it personally.  He's good people.


----------



## Israel (Sep 8, 2010)

I think that's maybe where believers and others part ways...the believer knows there is nothing about himself that is good, and has entered the blissful rest of trying to find it.
Others are still preoccupied with coming up with something of self that will recommend them.
I am a total loss. Except that God loves me, and has decided to let me know that through Christ.
Truly, the eye is turned from futility to eternity.


----------



## ronpasley (Sep 9, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I wouldn't take it personally.  He's good people.



What makes him good, Ham?


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 9, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I wouldn't take it personally.  He's good people.




It isn't a personal issue for me.
But a while back I realized that there were conversations to be had on this forum.  So why should I get into a discussion with a 'stop sign'.


----------



## Crubear (Sep 9, 2010)

How about we take this another way?

Who, or what (off the top of your head) has a monument erected from 500 years ago? How about 1000?

You don't know because you don't care. No monument lasts as a recognizable memorial past one or two generations. After that it's usually a rest for pigeons and/or a note in history.

There are a few exceptions, but for some reason mentioning a cross raised in Jerusalem 2000 years ago upsets a few people.


----------



## earl (Sep 9, 2010)

Crubear said:


> How about we take this another way?
> 
> Who, or what (off the top of your head) has a monument erected from 500 years ago? How about 1000?
> 
> ...





I don't suppose any of those stone pointy things in Egypt qualify . Or the Coliseums? How bout that fence in China?The Heathen buildings in South America ? The ground drawings that can only be seen from the air ? 
Don't seem to recall pigeons being a problem either .


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 10, 2010)

Now, now, earl . . . at least SOMEBODY got off the personal soapbox long enough to quit vilifying anyone who would dare speak to a spirituality that is actually abstract, and tried to address the topic, finally . . . 

Crubear – I suppose that is exactly what I was asking.

How is it that things like Stonehenge and the pyramids have somehow lost their power over people’s hearts and minds?  What happened?  

Or have they actually lost that power?  We no longer actively ‘worship’ such symbols, at least as they were originally intended, but we still respect their value as monuments, and actively preserve them.

“You don't know because you don't care. No monument lasts as a recognizable memorial past one or two generations. “

Well, actually I do know, and I do care quite a bit, and you are quite wrong – I’m pretty sure that the Statue of Liberty and the Arc de Triomphe have lasted more than one or two generations, and are still respected for what they originally represented.  Similarly, we preserve such things as the Colosseum and the Parthenon as historic artifacts, while losing their meanings, at the same time that Machu Picchu and all of Mecca remain holy shrines from far ancient history.

I apologize for the distractions and selfish disruptions offered by those who refuse to talk about anything other than themselves and their own singular explanation for all things, but thank you for trying to get this back on track, in an odd way – 

Certainly monuments erected by men endure for more than a generation or two – else everything from Chartres Cathedral to Ellis Island would have been converted into fast-food franchises by now.  Our attention span, fortunately, has not become quite THAT fragile, nor has our culture of immediate gratification become quite so all-consuming that we have completely rejected the past as something that is just so much irrelevance.  

Why?  

We regularly tear down old churches and recycle the stones to other uses.  We bulldoze the ruins of abandoned cities and build on top of them.  Our museums are filled with bits and parts of ancient monuments that our forbears dismantled without a second thought, and scattered about in the name of their own thoughts and in the name of progress.  Our history books (the few honest ones) provide little more than the chronicles of human conquest -- one group ascending over another – each dismantling the monuments of the last and erecting their own.  

Who is right?


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 10, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Who is right?



No need to be.

Only the "need" to be "remembered."  It is very much a part of that same human "need" to live forever or to be eternal.  "God-like" even.


----------

