Is my faith the correct faith? Are other faiths wrong?

[guillaumeb]

These questions were posed to me a few days ago. The questioner noted that, because I identify as a Christian, does that mean that I feel other faiths/beliefs are wrong or incorrect?

I said no. But I would like to amplify a bit.

Faith, to me, is the search for meaning, and often, the search for the Creator. The Creator has worn many names in the 8,000 years of relatively recent history, and probably many other names in the long centuries before that.

This search for meaning and the search for the Creator appears to have always accompanied humans. Indeed, even among those who identify as non-theists, a certain segment claim to believe in higher powers or spirits of some sort. I know that sounds contradictory, but read:

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. Indeed, 2% say they are “absolutely certain” about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist” but do not call themselves atheists. About three times as many Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (9%) as say they are atheists (3%).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

But to the actual questions that were posed, I have previously written about the belief of some Friends that in each human is a spark of the Creator. A belief that I share. So if I believe that in each of us is a spark of the Creator, our search and our beliefs, as varied as they are, reflect that commonality. It is that spark that inspires our search and our faith.

I am a Christian, but I would never say that any of my fellow humans are wrong in their faith, no matter what faith that is. I would say that they are following a different path. I would never say that my non-theistic fellow humans are wrong. I would say that they too are following a different path. Not better, not worse. Just different.

[3catwoman3]

1. I would say that makes you an atypical Christian.

In my late teens (1967-69), I identified, sort of, as a Christian. I liked what were said to be the teachings of Jesus, but I was never, ever, at ease with the expectation/demand to go out and do the "witness and convert thing." Never. I just could not make myself do it - it felt pushy and intrusive. I also couldn't reconcile myself to the idea that only Christians were going to be eligible, if you will, for an afterlife. Should someone who had never even had the chance to learn about Jesus be damned because they had not accepted him as their Lord and Savior? Didn't seen fair, loving or supportive of a supposedly supreme being to be so exclusive and petty. I didn't feel like a "good" Christian because I couldn't accept all of it, so I quit being one.

These days, I am a contented and questioning agnostic. I have found a comfortable philosophical niche in Unitarian Universalism.

I support your open-mindedness and wish there were more like you.

[guillaumeb]

3. I understand and identify with your experiences.

I occasionally participate in services at a UU facility in my area. They are a very interesting group.

[Sophia4]

32. I am also a Unitarian-Universalist. I agree with you and love your post.

Thanks.

I love to read the New Testament because Jesus taught moral concepts that are important to me.

I enjoy the Jefferson Bible and love the Enlightenment.

I think of God as energy that permeates us and our universe. I reject the idea that God has a human appearance. I think a lot of people see the paintings with "God" pictured as a human and become confused.

God, for me, is an energy that fills and created the entire universe and all that is. Einstein said that matter is energy. I believe that. And that energy is creative and is my concept of God.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this because we cannot really know. We are far too small and insignificant.

[marylandblue]

2. So would you say that Muslims who wish to kill or convert non-Muslims

are just followers of a different path?

[guillaumeb]

4. They are.

A violent path.

[marylandblue]

6. But there's nothing really wrong with it, right?

It's just a different path, no better or worse than a non-violent path?

[guillaumeb]

16. Ask them.

[marylandblue]

17. I am pretty sure they would kill a heathen like me

So it is safer to ask you. Also more informative, because I already know they think Allah wants them to kill infidels, but I wonder if you agree that their search for Allah should include killing non-believers and using women as sex slaves.

[guillaumeb]

18. I am a Christian.

Which tells you that I am a Christian.

It does not guarantee what my position on many issues will be.

Perhaps you should go to the Muslim group and ask this question of them.

[marylandblue]

29. I am not interested in their opinion

I am interested in yours.

[guillaumeb]

33. Why are you uninterested in their opinion about their faith?

[marylandblue]

43. They are not on DU

I am interested in what DU religion group members think about religion - their own religion and other religion. At the moment, I am specifically interested in the ramifications of your idea that we were all seekers on our own paths, each deciding for ourselves and no path better or worse than other. It appears to follow from this, that if my religious path involves killing and raping others, then it is a perfectly valid religious expression too.

I have asked Muslims this question and all the ones I spoke to condemned such acts of violence as un-Islamic and not part of legitimate religious behavior. There are probably some that think it's okay, but I haven't met any.

So what's your opinion of violence? Is violence a valid form of religious seeking, no better or worse than prayer or charity?

[guillaumeb]

48. Sorry for the apparent confusion.

I meant the Muslim group at DU.

I am a pacifist.

[marylandblue]

58. Sorry, I meant they are not on the DU Religion Group

And like I've said, I have already asked the question of Muslims. But I've never asked it of a Christian who would never say someone else's path is wrong. Muslim's are just an example. People of other faiths also use violence as a means of religious expression. Do you believe it is wrong to rape and murder as part of a religious path?

[guillaumeb]

81. I am a pacifist, which contains the answer.

I oppose all forms of violence.

[marylandblue]

90. It's fine you oppose it, but you can't say that God opposes it

or that there is anything objectively wrong with it. Can you?

[guillaumeb]

91. I cannot speak for the Creator.

Define objectively wrong without context. What is considered wrong varies by society.

[marylandblue]

93. in the context of modern society

You would never say it is wrong to fly planes into buildings? Indeed, since you can't speak for the Creator, but those who flew the planes said they could, it might actually be the most holy act of faith of the 21st Century.

[Sophia4]

42. I will answer. Anyone, Muslim or whatever, who has convinced him- or herself

that killing people of other beliefs or opinions or anyone at all for any reason cannot claim to be carrying out the will of any higher being.

And, since my concept of God is an energy force that created the universe including humans, a person who kills another is opposing the energy force that created that other and therefore is opposing God.

And yet, I realize, having been raised in farm country, that in order to survive, we humans do kill plants and animals. And I also realize that death is as much a part of life as is birth.

And I do believe that we humans are energy, energy in a human form, thus, when we die, our human energy does not disappear but transforms into some other form. Our energy survives. Our human form disintegrates.

But, at least on this earth and in the part of our universe that we know, killing other humans in my view is the great insult, the greatest insult to God. So be it. The greatest insult to God, the greatest denigration of His creation, of the creation of that Supreme Energy Force is killing a human which is, at least on this earth as far as we can tell, the most amazing of God's creation, that is the most amazing creation of the energy force I call God.

And my statement fits in with almost every religion in the world.

I don't know much about the Muslim religion although someone gave me a copy of the Koran many years ago. I was not impressed. And Mohammed killed people who disagreed with him about religion. I contrast that with what we are told of Jesus, and I think more of Jesus because he respected and loved God's creation, the creation of the ultimate energy that created the universe.

[marylandblue]

62. Well that's a good answer

Why do you think so many people get it wrong and end up doing bad things in the name of God?

[sprinkleeninow]

108. Convenience.They're strongly/gravely deceived. Doing the evil one's

bidding.

[trotsky]

71. Interesting.

"Anyone, Muslim or whatever, who has convinced him- or herself that killing people of other beliefs or opinions or anyone at all for any reason cannot claim to be carrying out the will of any higher being."

The Christian bible has multiple stories of Yahweh's chosen people engaging in the slaughter of entire rival tribes - violence that is condoned, or even outright ORDERED by their god. What do you make of those stories?

[TlalocW]

5. The problem with faith

Is that there is ultimately no belief you can't come to based on faith. It's not a pathway to knowledge or truth. Muslims have just as much faith as Hindus do about their beliefs as Christians do about theirs. And let's not ignore that a big part of the majority of people with a belief system is not a critical examination of different religions/beliefs, etc. but where they were born. Think about that - the criteria most responsible for believing in a religion is the same as what sports teams you'll most likely support.

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

23. The problem is that intolerance and violence are human characteristics.

Just as religion and nationalism are aspects of human society.

[marylandblue]

75. Nothing in TlalocW's post referred to intolerance or violence

But only the search for truth. And faith hampers the search for truth. If my faith says the earth is the center of the universe, then I am blinded tonthenproven fact that it is not.

[guillaumeb]

83. I explained the connection.

And agree with your conclusion. But truth in a faith sense is not the provable truth of the scientist.

[doc03]

7. According to my mother if you weren't a member of the Church of Christ you are

going to hell. To others if you weren't a catholic you were going to hell. According to a friend at work if didn't
go to the Assembly of God you were going to hell. So on and so on Didn't one of the so-called ten commandments
say "thou shalt not pass judgement on others" or something of that effect?

[guillaumeb]

24. If we are all going to hell, perhaps hell is heaven.

[sprinkleeninow]

39. 'Hell' is a state of being, not a physical/geographical place/location like your residential address

(.)
Ran outta subject line space.

[Mariana]

57. Many Christians do not agree.

I was taught that Hell is a real, physical place where the unsaved are tortured for eternity as punishment for their sins. The belief that Hell is a place is fairly popular among Christians in the US.

[sprinkleeninow]

67. That right there....

Oral Tradition is nixed by many denominational 'sects'. That causes grievous ideas and conclusions about the Faith.

Hell is a pretty popular place in many 'christian' circles in the US.

I'm sorry not sorry, but this is Western 'christian theology'.

[marylandblue]

77. Hell as a place is a Catholic tradition

Did the Eastern tradition always have a different view from the Western tradition?

[sprinkleeninow]

89. I hold that this hell is a state of the soul that is separated or will be from God, but that it is

fully aware of Him and His 'Burning' Divine Love, and so, this is the hellish state the soul finds itself in.

Eastern Orthodoxy is not 'clinical' or a set of powerpoints to follow to achieve salvation.

The path is called 'theosis'--becoming like God, not becoming God.

Orthodoxy says: " We were saved, we are being saved, we will be saved." Not: "Once saved, always saved."

Much western theology has an issue with that one. That's a burr in their saddle among others.

[TwistOneUp]

50. No, but

One of the passages in most versions of the bible states, "thou shall not work on the sabbath". One of the ten commandments states, "remember the sabbath and keep it holy".

Three questions come to mind at this time. Give me ten minutes and I'll have another 30 questions.

1) Exactly which day(s) is/are the "sabbath"? Muslims say friday, my peeps say fri eve - sat eve, xtians say sunday. Who is right, if anyone?

2) What does "keep it holy" mean?

3) Why are there versions of god's word?

[sprinkleeninow]

109. Hoo boy. My housekeeper is running late. (Me!🤣)

I can only speak for this as I know.

The Jewish Shabbat, Sabbath, is Saturday.

When Christ resurrected on the third day, Sunday became the New Sabbath.

Sunday became the 'first day' of the new week, and in Eastern Orthodox theology, the 'eighth day'. Which translates into the eschaton. The eschatological experience to come.

There's an 'eighth day' coming.

[Mariana]

112. I want to thank you for answering questions about your religion

honestly and clearly. Well, as clearly as you can, anyway - some of the jargon is a bit confusing to me, but that's not your fault. I'm much better versed in Evangelical Protestant concepts and figures of speech.

[sprinkleeninow]

113. I am appreciative of your words.

I should say the Orthodox Faith has embraced 'me' for decades now, but I learn a revelation continually.

I've read much literature over the years by theologians, monastics, etc. Some of it is 'heavy'. It's understandable by your spirit, but I then cannot repeat it word for word. Just the minimum that has the most impact, if you will.

What is appealing about the Faith I attempt to continue in is, I feel has a richness to it,
a mystical richness.

Thanks again for your words. 💝

[edhopper]

8. I would say most if not all Christian churches

believe and preach that the ONLY way to get salvation is through Jesus. That is their faith.
If your faith says Jesus was just a man and not divine than you don't accept Jesus.
Whichnof those faiths are right. Only throuh Jesus, or no Jesus?

If you don't address the billions of believers whose faiths tell them something very specific about God, then you aren't discussing how faith is in this world.

[guillaumeb]

25. Faith is a personal thing.

One can make some generalizations, but that is all.

My feeling is that we all find our own path.

[edhopper]

40. Not asking about you.

We are talking about faith of believers. And if you can't discuss the faith of the majority of believers, then you are not really defending faith. You are only defending what you believe.

[guillaumeb]

41. I am presenting the huge range of faith.

The good and the bad. And my own views as well.

[edhopper]

44. And yet

you are not answering my question about the incapability of beliefs.

How can we trust anyone's faith when so many believe things that makes others wrong.

If you can't get past, they all believe in "something", and respond to actual beliefs, you are not really defending what faith is.

Is Satan real? Because I know many people whose faith tell them he absolutely is, not some "there is evil" but an actual entity as the bible describes.

[guillaumeb]

49. I am talking here about the terms correct or incorrect as they apply to faith.

We all find a path.

[edhopper]

59. Well then

your definition of faith is different from the 80% of the population that also say they have faith.

You know, the 80% you always throw out to give validity to a God.


Let me know when you want to talk about how faith is for most of the world.

[guillaumeb]

82. Faith is common to most of the world.

But the totality of faith is probably unique to each believer.

[edhopper]

85. So to you faith is faith

faith in your vague, unknowable "creator" who might or might not be present is the same as faith in demonic possession, astrology, psychics, lethal enforcement of Sharia Law, etc....

[guillaumeb]

86. Faith is basically defined as belief in the unprovable.

[edhopper]

88. And those who have faith in things

that have been proven to be wrong?

Who keep that faith after the evidence is presented.

Who discard things like science and reason to hold onto their faith?

Is that not faith too. Do you have another word for that?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. Most religions believe quite sincerely that theirs is the only true belief.

Some adherents think it's okay to kill all who don't believe the way they do. Others merely consign those who believe differently to eternal hellfire.

The essential problem with organized religions is exactly that stance.

[Angry Dragon]

10. My belief system is the only way

[guillaumeb]

26. As long as you follow it, it is the only way.

[Angry Dragon]

52. I mean for everyone

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. Yawn.

Actions, not words.

[trotsky]

12. "I would say that they too are following a different path. Not better, not worse. Just different."

Then why is it such torture for you to have to read criticism of religion? Why do you insist that there must be "balance" in this forum?

Say what you want to say, and let others say what they want to say.

No more bullshit about "choirs" or your anonymous fan club or "misframing" or any of that crap.

Just a free exchange of ideas.

Can you do it? Apologize for how you've treated others here, and move forward?

I doubt it, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Act like you probably think a Christian "should."

[sprinkleeninow]

45. Giving a shout out from 'someone's' anonymous fan club! 😤

(Oy veh! Potatoe Pierogies!)

[trotsky]

54. guillaumeb wrote: "Are thinking skills generally absent among theists?"

When what MineralMan actually wrote was speaking to the critical thinking skills of the particular SUBSET of theists who believe clumsy apologetics.

Why do you applaud guillaumeb's dishonesty?

Is being dishonest a good Christian trait?

[Mariana]

60. Lying for the Lord.

That dusty old Commandment against bearing false witness against one's neighbor must be metaphorical. Anyway, it's in the Old Testament and it only reflects the culture at the time. We mustn't read these things literally, you know.

[trotsky]

66. Besides, when you have a large anonymous fan club that you're performing for,

well, one must take a bit of artistic license with the truth, I guess.

[sprinkleeninow]

63. Okay. Clumsy apologetics will get one into a sticky wicket.

I'll give in to that one.

I dint read all this back 'n' forth in previous threads.

Being dishonest is a falling short that humans in the flesh can and do succumb to.
I do it hourly.

I jest plain 'n' simple have a fondness for M. Guillaume and his spirit.

[trotsky]

65. guillaumeb's "spirit" thinks that deliberately spreading falsehoods is a good thing.

Do you think that's a good thing?

[sprinkleeninow]

68. Oh my DOG.

I'm needing an aspirin or Tramadol.

Anything I say will be wrong. So I say nothing.

[trotsky]

69. Do you think dishonesty is a good trait for Christians, or not?

This isn't a trick question.

I guess your loyalty to your friend is greater than your desire to see honest discussion.

[sprinkleeninow]

73. I fall short hourly, daily, monthly, yearly, decade-ly.

Being dishonest happens. Humans can be. I yam fake, false, plastic, dishonest at times.

In all honesty, it's somewhat difficult attempting to have an honest discussion w/ some of youse guys.

[trotsky]

76. This isn't about making mistakes.

This is about deliberate dishonesty, like the kind that guillaumeb exhibited when he started another thread. Multiple people (including the person he smeared with his deceit) have pointed it out to him, and he has refused to edit his post.

Being a Christian isn't a "get out of jail free" card, is it? Or can you commit any sin you want, then just ask for forgiveness later and everything's OK?

[sprinkleeninow]

87. In all honesty, I don't know this thread of which you speak.

I can only answer for my own short-comings and 'passions' (virtue adverse).

Following the encouragment by first having received the gift of salvation, we aren't left vulnerable and in 'open season'. We are afforded the saving grace of repentance.

In Greek, 'Metanoia', 'turning from', the conscious and voluntary repelling of any falling short that our inner witness 'suggests' against.

[trotsky]

96. It's right here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=270939

The person guillaumeb dishonestly frames responded in the thread to present the truth.

I encourage you to give it a read, and perhaps send a private message to your good friend if you think his behavior crossed a line.

It would go a long way to fostering genuine discussion, which guillaumeb *claims* he wants.

[sprinkleeninow]

97. Mmm. That thread.

Does not the highlighted wording say it clearly?

Theists are devoid of critical thinking skills, yes?

[trotsky]

98. Nope, that's wrong.

Read MineralMan's posts.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=271009
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=271013
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=271130

I get it, you've chosen a "team," guillaumeb is on your team, and whatever it takes to stick it to us mean old atheists is just fine with you.

And so things continue on, as acrimonious as ever. But your good friend gil can be as nasty as he wants to be, because that's OK.

[sprinkleeninow]

99. Dumping on theists who are an audience to apologetics.

That's what it appears to be.

I asked you to tell me if I, as an admitted practitioner of the Christian Faith, AND a registered, Democratically voting Democrat for decades, am I devoid of critical thinking.

Huh?

[trotsky]

101. Here's your answer:

I asked you to tell me if I, as an admitted practitioner of the Christian Faith, AND a registered, Democratically voting Democrat for decades, am I devoid of critical thinking.

No, you're not. And no one said you were.

Your good friend guillaumeb lied and PORTRAYED someone as if they had said that.

And you got mad and insulted, because of gil's lie.

Your anger is directed at the wrong person, IMHO.

[sprinkleeninow]

104. See how these internets can distort.

Please show me where and to what degree I became mad/insulted/angered? To the point of you using those descriptives?

Addendum: I am NOT angry now. 🙂

[trotsky]

106. No, your friend is the source of the distortion.

Pity you won't at least acknowledge that. It would go a long way toward encouraging honest discussion.

[sprinkleeninow]

110. I'm quite fond of monsieur.

You have already stated your mind regarding this whole enchilada.

[trotsky]

116. And you have chosen dishonesty over honesty.

And thus the state of this forum.

[sprinkleeninow]

125. Ooooh.

[guillaumeb]

114. "Honest discussion"?

Interesting.

[trotsky]

117. Yes.

You should try it sometime.

[guillaumeb]

120. More interesting.

[trotsky]

123. Drop the fucking bullshit and try it, gil.

You might just be surprised.

Or continue on your current path, and continue to piss everyone off.

Your choice.

[guillaumeb]

131. Do not equate "everyone" with you.

I do not consider that my opinion is the default, and neither should you.

[trotsky]

142. You don't get to tell me what to do.

And you never will.

[guillaumeb]

146. Still fighting those strawpeople I see.

[trotsky]

149. I can't afford to keep up with these, you know.

[sprinkleeninow]

141. All these PO'd people.

Shut the windows, shut the doors! A busload just got let off!

[sprinkleeninow]

105. Well, that's what that post seemed to project saying.

I mentioned b4 (my words) that a percentage of non-theists in actuality do not have a desire for discourse. Only to jump on those who are attempting to practice the Christian Tradition of Faith they embrace.
Yours truly,
Ms. Dimwit

[trotsky]

107. Why don't you try engaging in discourse with the person who wrote the words?

Instead of going on the deceit that your friend posted?

Judge for yourself. Talk to the person.

[sprinkleeninow]

111. Jumpin' Jehosaphat! Any, any 'thing' I say will be wrong.

[trotsky]

119. Not true.

You could condemn your friend's dishonesty.

That would be a very good thing to do, and not wrong at all. Unless you value dishonest friends over actual discussion, that is.

[sprinkleeninow]

126. Oh, please. You will call my reading comprehension skills

into question next.

I feel I know what I read and how it was to be inferred. And I am not ANGRY.

Mb I should go back and repeat K-12 and university.

Yours truly,
Ms. Fittt

[trotsky]

128. Despite the person himself clarifying what he wrote,

you have made a choice to believe your dishonest friend over him.

Such is the state of this forum. At least now I know what kind of dialog you want to see here.

[sprinkleeninow]

130. Oy veh. Prune Hamantaschen!

Pops is on his way home for din-din and chill-out.

The pick-up game shall resume l8r.

[marylandblue]

134. Why do you support guillaimeb?

You are a better representative of faith than he is. You say what you believe. You don't play word games.

[sprinkleeninow]

136. I wouldn't elevate myself to that position.

I have a fondness for him. Already admitted by me.

He fluent in French.

I feel his 'kindred'-ish spirit in ways.

I will attempt my level best to have friendly discourse with any, but I'm no theologian and fall way short of deep answers.

[marylandblue]

138. You don't need to be a theologian

Just say what you think. That's true dialogue.

[sprinkleeninow]

140. Okay. Will do.🤗

[guillaumeb]

151. Agreed. I am certainly no theologian.

But dialogue requires avoiding insults and other obstacles to dialogue.

[marylandblue]

166. You've put up your own obstacles, so stop

[guillaumeb]

170. Right. Blame theists for reacting to constant attacks on other theists.

[marylandblue]

174. There is way to defend yourself

that is just another attack or an evasion.

[guillaumeb]

176. Why the constant attacks in the first place?

Is it an attempt to control the group and the "permitted' dialogue?

[marylandblue]

181. It's a topic full of controversy and has been for thousands of years

Much blood has been spilled on this topic and more is spilled every day. The attacks you find so offensive are nothing compared to what goes on in the real world.

[guillaumeb]

184. I agree. But if someone posts something positive,

some insist on denying that there is anything positive about religion. I have posted about churches gathering for progressive causes, and a common quarrel is that not enough churches are doing so. I understand that some prefer to oppose the good because it is not perfect but such lack of nuance and hostility can divide people who might be allies in some areas.

But yes, what you wrote is correct.

[sprinkleeninow]

127. Oh, P.S. Condemning/condemnation is not in my repetoire

of a brother of the Faith.

It is not either of a sister or brother in humanity.

Exception: oval office squatter. And even then it's calling him out on his egregious ways and not condemning his sorry butt personally.

(Oops. I said 'butt' within a religiosity group.)

[trotsky]

129. I'm done with you now.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Mariana]

133. No one has asked you to condemn a brother in the faith

or to condemn anyone else, for that matter. Trotsky asked you to consult the writer Gil misquoted to clarify his meaning. I don't see how you get from that to "condemning" anyone.

[sprinkleeninow]

135. It is my understanding that person used 'that' wording.

[sprinkleeninow]

139. Hi, sprink. The word 'butt' is being used now possibly bc

of your suggestive influence in using it.

Your Great Paschal Fast commences Monday. The Kingdom of all is at hand!

Nice going, Slick.

Shabby Christian witnessing.

Hay sprink, "You fast with your words, thoughts and actions. Abstaining from glomming rich, expensive and way too tasty foods is recommended as a 'guide'. But when you neglect the other three areas of 'passions', your so-called fasting is worthless. Like a whitewashed tomb of dead bones. You are the ultimate hypocrite."

The monastics exhort (paraphrased): "What good is it to fast from food and then devour your neighbor?"

Cordially,
~sprink
💙🇺🇸💪🗽

[Mariana]

115. Trotsky, Trotsky, that's completely unreasonable!

Go to the writer and ask for clarification, so as to be sure what he intended to say about whom? The very idea is highly offensive, if the response to your suggestion is any indication. Please, in the future, try to refrain from saying such outrageous things.

[trotsky]

118. Ah yes, my bad, sorry.

I forgot that those who are most vocal about claiming to want real dialog are those who are least serious about actually encouraging it.

[guillaumeb]

121. I asked numerous times.

The poster has declined to answer. Revealing.

[trotsky]

122. I wasn't talking to you.

You're committed to your dishonesty.

I asked your friend to speak to MineralMan to decide for themselves.

You need to butt out.

[guillaumeb]

132. Self-silence at your request?

Revealing.

[trotsky]

143. Your comments are indeed revealing.

You dishonestly smeared another DUer (far from the first time you've done this, you've done it to me multiple times) and instead of doing the "Christian" thing and apologizing and deleting your offensive post, you just keep doubling down with hatred.

Keep showing everyone that Christian love, gil. You are doing an AWESOME job.

[guillaumeb]

147. So you want to shut down any real debate here and insist on harmony among posters?

I understand. Revealing.

[trotsky]

150. Oh so now "real debate" means misquoting someone else out of context?

You're a real peach, gil. You keep on being you, showing everyone what a Christian is supposed to look like.

[guillaumeb]

152. Like when you accused me on multiple occasions of defining Christianity for everyone

when what I wrote was that I can only define it for myself?

That type of misquoting?

[trotsky]

154. Yes gil, sure, your false accusation against me....

is why you continue to behave the way you do. So glad you explained that this is all about revenge for you.

I even apologized for it just to try and give you an olive branch, and you took a dump on it.

You have earned my utmost contempt and I will continue to oppose your harmful agenda.

[guillaumeb]

155. So now you deny that you did make that accusation?

I understand.

[trotsky]

156. Yes I do.

Prove that I made it. Link to it.

If you can't, then your accusation is false and I will point back to this subthread every time you bring it up again to prove that you had the chance to back up your claim, but couldn't.

[guillaumeb]

157. Here is another example of your reframing:

trotsky (45,933 posts)
3. TIL "real respect" means preserving religious privilege.

Thanks, g.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218259968

Good luck explaining it.

[trotsky]

158. You failed to link to a post proving your accusation.

I knew it.

Thanks for the bookmark, gil.

[guillaumeb]

159. You might be sorry that you asked for proof, but here it is:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218257992#post35

Your apology to me for your previous accusation that I was attempting to define Christianity for others.

You are welcome. So that is 2 incidents with a few minutes of research.

[trotsky]

160. That was my attempt to apologize for something I didn't think I did.

But I did it anyway, to try and break an impasse.

That's not the proof of the accusation, BTW. You need to go find the post where I allegedly made the statement you claim I did.

You failed again.

[guillaumeb]

161. Try again.

Do you really think this refutes what I said? Sorry. You failed. Your explanation was interesting, however.................

[trotsky]

162. Try WHAT?

You still haven't proven your accusation!

Keep digging. This is wonderful.

[guillaumeb]

163. You are amazing.

You asked for proof.
I provided the proof in the form of you literally apologizing for a false accusation/characterization.

You deny that the apology was actually an apology.

Truly amazing. Now claim a victory and I will win the Bingo game at DU/Religion group.

[trotsky]

164. No, I already admitted that I *tried* apologizing to you.

Even though I didn't agree with your accusation. So linking to my apology doesn't prove the accusation, gil.

That's not how any of this works.

You failed to prove your accusation. I will keep this exchange bookmarked and refer to it when this pops up again.

To think, all you had to do was link to the post where I said what you claimed I said.... and you failed. Typical.

On edit: You know what else? I'll even be willing to let this go, because what it shows is that even though I apologized for something I didn't think I did, YOU STILL OBSESS OVER IT AND ACT LIKE YOU DO BECAUSE OF THIS PERCEIVED SLIGHT.

Aren't Christians big on forgiveness? Why do you still harbor such hatred and anger? What kind of Christian are you, gil?

[guillaumeb]

167. Amazing indeed.

Keep on with the qualifying and explaining.

[trotsky]

168. What this explains is your total inability to forgive.

I offered an apology to try and make peace, and you still harbor rage against me, taking it out on multiple others in this forum. You've admitted this, now own it.

You can't forgive me.

[guillaumeb]

172. What this shows is your inability or unwillingness to admit what you are doing.

And your attempt now to make yourself to be the victim when you made the initial accusation and subsequently apologized for it.

[trotsky]

175. I apologized, gil.

And you can't forgive.

That's what this comes down to.

Once again I'll apologize to you: I'm sorry that I hurt you. I'm sorry that I upset you so much that you feel you need to continue to punish me, and others in this forum, for what you feel was a totally unfair attack.

Now it's your turn: apologize to the people you've wronged here.

I bet you won't.

[guillaumeb]

178. Now you are attempting to reframe your apology, which was

for your accusation that you admitted was an actual error of fact, as merely an attempt to soothe my hurt feelings. And your denial of ever making the accusation apparently stands? Making you the actual victim?

Interesting, and resourceful. I will give you that.

[trotsky]

179. I see that you are not willing to apologize to those you hurt. You will go on hurting.

You will go on punishing.

Your rage will never be quenched.

Not only am I sorry, gil, I'm sorry FOR you. What a pity.

BTW, my denial of the accusation stands because you still haven't linked to my post proving the accusation. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for my apology, thinking maybe it would finally help you get past your anger. It didn't work, so now I'm taking a tougher line. Prove your accusation.

[guillaumeb]

183. I did say resourceful.

A compliment. As to your hyperbolic reply, complete with another accusation (or actually three), your words reveal more than you can imagine.

[trotsky]

185. What do I need to do to help you get past this?

I tried apologizing, but that didn't work.

How much longer do you need to keep punishing me, and others in this forum?

When will your quest for revenge be satisfied?

Please let me know what I can do to stop it. I am being completely sincere.

[guillaumeb]

187. 3 accusations in a row.

You previously apologized. Now, that apology has been retracted or modified into something else. And you accuse me of punishing, and a quest for revenge. More framing on your part.

If you are sincere in your question, stop with the framing and accusations. Your first 4 sentences contradict your stated request for sincere dialogue.

But in the interest of dialogue, I have not read one recent or near past post from theists at DU that attacks atheists. Not one. I have read posts about tactics, but those are not attacks on atheists. They are observations about what is happening in this group.

[trotsky]

188. I apologize again.

I am sorry I have hurt you.

Will you stop with your anger now? Will you apologize to everyone you have attacked here?

Please, gil, let's try. I am extending another olive branch.

Apologize to those you have harmed. You could start by apologizing to MineralMan for misquoting him out of context, claiming he meant to attack all theists when he did not.

Let's do this, gil. Show me what a good Christian can look like.

[guillaumeb]

189. Sigh.

You have not hurt me. I do not know you. You do not know me. You know only what I choose to reveal here. And among other things, I have chosen to reveal that I am a theist.

And because I am a theist, should I be placed in a box with all other theists?

One example:
If I am personally pro-life but also prochoice for others, does that make me your enemy?

Another example:
If I am a product of 17 years of religious education but opposed to any State funding for religious schools, does that make me your enemy?

We will each never convince the other that our choices of atheism/theism are proper, but that does not make us natural enemies.

[trotsky]

191. I am sorry I angered you then.

Because you are clearly very angry. You have harbored that anger since I said something that you believed to be a claim about you defining Christianity for everyone. I still want to read what it was I said, because I'd like to know. But you won't provide that link.

You admitted in your post above, when I asked about misquoting, that it was a direct response of something I said many MONTHS ago. You are carrying your anger from that perceived accusation and you are blaming it for all of your lashing out.

But I have placed you in no box. I'm addressing you and you alone. I'm talking about your behavior here and only yours. I don't see many theists act like you. I know you don't represent the majority.

What I'd like to see is you take responsibility for your behavior, and apologize to those you have mistreated.

Will you do that?

[guillaumeb]

192. When we engage in dialogue, what was said in the past is also a part of what is currently

discussed. So past behavior weighs when evaluating dialogue.

You claim that I have mistreated people. What of your own behavior? How do you judge that behavior?


And as further weight, I have more reason to be aware of your views because you have messaged me numerous times. Those hidden words weigh heavily in my evaluation.

[MineralMan]

193. Only if you can link to it, guillaumeb

Otherwise, it is just you saying that something was said. If you fail to link to it, you provide no evidence. For example, you quoted two sentences from a post of mine from February 1, but did not identify me as the poster, nor did you link to the post so people could view those two sentences in their original context.

There was no reason for not posting the link nor for not identifying those words as mine. Not doing so made it difficult for people to see the context, which I suppose was your intention. However, I recognized my own words, found the February 1 post and posted a link to it. The thing is that when you simply say someone did something, but don't provide evidence of that, we must take your word for it.

I don't take anyone's word for anything. I've been duped too many times. So, unless you post a link to demonstrate that what you said is true, I have no reason to believe that it is true. You concealed the context for my words, after all. Why would I believe that you are being accurate?

Honest debate requires honesty and transparency, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

195. I was speaking to another, and also speaking about PMs.

Messages that, while I will not speak generally or specifically about them, carry weight when one considers what any poster publicly says.

I have previously provided a link to what was specifically discussed here, the contention that I claimed to define Christianity for everyone, and that link was the reason for the actual apology that was previously given by Trotsky. So as far as I am concerned, that matter is not under dispute.

You also made a statement in one of your posts that you were attacked here. Following what you just wrote in your response, should I have any reason for believing that your contention of being attacked is true?

[trotsky]

194. My claim is supported by your posts here, and the number of people who have taken you to task.

If you are denying that reality, I can't help you. But I will acknowledge it is a consistent trait you display.

Look at how long you denied your lie about me and my claims before FINALLY acknowledging you were wrong. And even then it was only a "misstatement."

No, you're just too perfect, you have no problems, everyone else is bad for not genuflecting to religion enough for your liking. Look at this fucking subthread, you've chosen ONE incident that I don't even fully recall, you won't link to my post where you claim the offense took place, and you're STILL hounding on me for that alleged transgression.

You deliberately took MineralMan's quote OUT OF CONTEXT and misstated what he said. Your bullshit is ONGOING, but you blame it on what someone else (allegedly, since you can't prove it) said to you long ago.

I can't help you anymore. I will not respond on this thread anymore. I am content to let this entire exchange stand as a record of how impossible you are making actual dialog. Your abuse of me is unacceptable.

[guillaumeb]

196. More framing.

[trotsky]

124. Yeah, "revealing."

Let me reveal to everyone why he hasn't responded to you, so that they don't just assume your smear means something.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=271576

I think quoting material out of context, without links, and without naming the original author is inappropriate in a discussion forum. That is why I have not answered questions from the DUer who did that, but have referred back to this post so anyone can see the context. By not including the link, the other DUer has attempted to alter the meaning of what I wrote by pasting it out of context.

I find that to be deplorable and dishonest in a forum designed for discussion. You might agree or disagree with that.

[marylandblue]

137. As I understood it from his clarifications

He meant apologeticists, not theists in general. I agree with him in part. Apologetics can be type of high level propaganda. It is uses reason, but only when it supports the preferred viewpoint, and it discourage people from using reason to form a balanced view. You can see this in people like Ken Ham, who gets his geology from the Bible and hopes you won't know any real geology.

[guillaumeb]

148. The sentence could have been written to make that point.

But it was not. Oversight, or intent?

[marylandblue]

165. It was written the way it was written

then he clarified. Nonetheless, if anyone questions your intent, or reads your words in a way you didn't intend, you take ENORMOUS offense, always blaming someone for misreading, or you bring up past offenses, or refer to your secret.choir, or do one of a number of things, all just.to avoid talking about whatrver the topic. This you call "dialogue." But others have noticed - it's actually performance art.

[guillaumeb]

169. So it was an error, or a misstatement.

It could have been corrected. And my point was a response to what was actually written, not to what was intended to be written. Coincidentally, what was written was an attack on all theists.

[marylandblue]

171. My point is to remove the beam in your own eye

before taking the speck from the eye of another. But that doesn't to seem to operative in your postings on this website. I hope you do it in real life though.

[guillaumeb]

173. Avoidance of what I wrote.

Illustrative of a major part of the obstacle to real dialogue here.

[marylandblue]

177. I am not avoiding what you wrote

I am offering you another way to respond that doesn't involve eternal outrage at everything. But it's your choice.

[guillaumeb]

180. I am not outraged.

It makes me sad to see what happens to nearly every theist who posts positively about religion here. And not from every atheist, or even most atheists. But what happens is obvious.

[marylandblue]

182. You usually sound outraged, not sad

If thesee things make you sad, you should probably say that much more often and do other things much less.

[guillaumeb]

186. I will search for the sad font.

But seriously, when an infrequent poster posts something positive here and is immediately attacked, it illustrates a mindset and an agenda.

[MineralMan]

13. So, if I read you correctly, all deities are simply manifestations of one?

That really presents some difficulties for someone who claims to be a Christian. The central tenet of Christianity is that there is just one path to salvation, and that is through belief in a specific man/god. Your view appears to be in opposition to that tenet.

Then, you say that "faith...is the search for meaning." Again, that flies in the face of the normal Christian understanding of what "faith" is. I won't bother quoting verses from the Bible that demonstrate that. I'm sure you know which ones they are.

Your positions continue to be confusing, I think. Perhaps they are confusing even to you.

[Mariana]

15. Gil's flavor of Christianity is rather a novel and unusual one.

Most Christians wouldn't consider him to be a Christian at all. He doesn't seem to believe that any of the events in the Bible actually took place, for example. It's not clear whether he believes Christ even existed as real person, or believes the whole story is a fable. He simplifies the entirety of Christ's "message" down to one single instruction, one regarding behavior and not faith. In real life he may obey that one single instruction, I have no idea, but he seems to feel he's exempt from it when he's posting in this group. It's very strange.

[MineralMan]

19. After all this time, I still do not have any idea what guillaumeb believes.

I do not know what creed he accepts. I do not know whether or not he believes anything written in the Bible to be factual. Pretty much all of the Christians I know will gladly tell anyone who asks what their beliefs are regarding their faith. They are not ashamed to do so, as yet another Bible verse says. They all have recited one of the common creeds of Christianity at some point or another. In some denominations a recital of the creed is included in every service.

But about guillaumeb, I know nothing about what he believes, really. For all I know, he could be an atheist, and posts here because he likes an argument. Many have asked him specific questions about his beliefs, questions that could be answered with a yes or no. No answers have been forthcoming.

I don't really concern myself about anyone else's beliefs, frankly, but discussion is difficult if you don't know from what position a member of the discussion is speaking. That's the difficulty here, really.

[Mariana]

21. He has posted a few specifics from time to time.

He could have been lying about his beliefs, of course. That is always a possibility. It does seem that he has assigned his own unique personal definition to the word "Christian" the same way he has done to many other words.

[TwistOneUp]

53. Thank you

And here I thought I was the only one confused by Gil.

[Mariana]

94. That appears to be his intention. nt.

[Act_of_Reparation]

100. It's intentional, of course.

Most theists accustomed to talking with atheists learn at one point or another that specificity will ruin them. They understand it's just too easy to make shit like blood atonement, original sin, or Joseph Smith's improbable Golden Plates look ridiculous. So they talk about shit so-general-it-is-virtually-meaningless instead.

[MineralMan]

102. I suppose.

Religion is always a hot-button issue, it seems.

[marylandblue]

144. Not my experience with theists

They usually are willing to talk in great detail about what they think. Many have explanations for the harder points of their faith. The explanations may not sound good to atheists, but they do exist.

Gil is unusual in how vague he is about his actual beliefs.

[trotsky]

145. A distinction is probably in order here, I would guess.

Depends on the forum.

Creationists and whatnot are as you describe, perfectly willing to reveal any detail about their beliefs that you request. They're open because they don't care about contradictions or moral issues or any of that. They believe what they believe and your "logic" is from Satan and they won't be swayed.

The theists on DU, those who are the most - shall we say - "earnest" about lecturing atheists, are far more evasive. They are aware of the logical contradictions of their beliefs and know that any actual discussion about those beliefs will not go in their favor, so they evade and attack others instead, while claiming all along it's the horrible atheists who are keeping that discussion from happening. Previous offenders have all been PPRed for their horrible behavior eventually. But someone else is always ready to step up and pick up that mantle.

Just my experience - YMMV.

[Act_of_Reparation]

153. Precisely

Your average Evangelical street preacher will tell you what color underwear he believes God wears on Wednesday afternoons.

I'm talking about liberal believers. The ones smart enough to know—deep down—their apologetics make no fucking sense.

[Mariana]

190. In this case, there is the added complication

that Gil is known to be performing for his vast adoring public. He probably gets more applause when he's being a jackass than he does for posting reasonable, sensible arguments in favor of his position - whatever the hell that really is.

[guillaumeb]

28. If you are confused, I understand.

You apparently found a path that works for you. I would not call it better, or worse, simply your personal path.

[MineralMan]

35. No, I am not confused at all.

[edhopper]

14. Does your faith tell you

Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified and resurrected?

Any or all of those?

You start with a nebulous, agnostic believer concept of a deity and then say you are a Christian.

So what part of the Jesus story does your faith tell you is true?

[MineralMan]

20. You keep asking that question. The answer, I think, is either

unknown or perhaps unknowable. That, of course, leads to more questions, none of which will have answers, either, I suppose.

[guillaumeb]

22. The message to do to others as you would have them do to you,

and to forgive without end,
and to respect and work with women,
and to comfort the afflicted,
and to perform good works,
and other things like that.

[MineralMan]

27. Those are quite generic messages,

common to many religions, and also to many cultures that are non-religious. How does following those make one a Christian? Looking at them, they are also things that I follow, as do many of my friends who are atheists. Really, they all derive from the first one, which is the basic principle of reciprocity. That's common to almost every society and culture, at least in principle.

[guillaumeb]

30. Some of us are looking for the Creator.

Others are convinced that there is no Creator, or unsure on the question.


Many things are agreed to in principle, but in practice..............

[MineralMan]

34. I'm not looking for any such thing.

I don't believe such a thing exists.

However, I do strive to follow the principle of reciprocity, in all of its variations. Perhaps I'm a Christian too, then, by your definition for yourself. Interesting...

I have noticed that many people, though, regardless of their claimed beliefs, only give lip service to that principle.

[guillaumeb]

37. You fall into one of the two categories.

[MineralMan]

38. You provided three categories.

There are others, as well. I fit into the one that cannot believe that supernatural entities or events occur. That's my category. You didn't mention that one.

[saidsimplesimon]

31. "Faith"

is a loaded concept. If you walk down this path, you agree that logic and science are not your friends. I could say more, but, others have done so.

[guillaumeb]

36. Logic and science are my friends.

The non-overlapping magisteria argument is also my friend.

[HopeAgain]

46. I stopped posting in this group for the most part.

Because I sometimes felt like the only person here who is in between religion and faith. I have pursued a path that has included using a faith that saved me from self destructive behaviors, and has taught me that spirituality is about tending to my own spiritual nature, not trying to control that of others. My faith has helped to make me more kind, more understanding, less controlling and more grateful for everything I have in life. I believe that I am solidly "not religious", being free of any particular dogma, but I have learned so much of human spirituality from reading about many religions and disciplines.

I have experienced some kind of spiritual growth, and it there is an ineffable quality to my experience that makes me believe there is something more, beyond myself, that plays a role in my life. Prayer and meditation has been helpful to millions before me and used by many different religions and practices. Something I can tap into for inner strength. I suspect religions might be just human-conceived avatars of something common to humans that is beyond our full understanding. If that is true, all religions and practices are, to some degree, putting a human spin on the divine. Clearly some completely co-opt a human desire for spirituality by twisting it into something very primitive and very ugly. Others, on the other hand, seem to have tapped into something very humbling, very helpful and very beautiful.

Most importantly, if you don't agree with my views, that is none of my business. I could be wrong, but wrong works for me.

[guillaumeb]

51. Recommended

I hope you will consider posting more here.

I suspect that your experience is far more common that is generally assumed.

[trotsky]

55. "...some completely co-opt a human desire for spirituality by twisting it into something very..ugly"

You're judging someone else's faith right there, you realize, right?

[HopeAgain]

61. Sure, if their faith negatively affects others

For example if it would have them fly an airplane into a Twin Tower, then I question whether that has anything to do with something divine. But if someone seeks to better themselves through a particular means, I have nothing to say unless they take actions to harm others. And then the real concern is their action, not their faith.

[sprinkleeninow]

64. Hi there! I ran outta DU hearts to gift, but here's one for you! 💝

[HopeAgain]

92. Thank you!

[marylandblue]

80. You are not the only one like that

There is a difference between spirituality and religion. People have experiences that make them feel better or do better. That is spirituality.

Religion seems more interested in "proving" something, like God exists or my god is better than your god or Trump has saved Christmas from the heathens. I don't think you can prove anything like that and therefore I doubt they are true. But people have meaningful experiences. That is real.

[spicysista]

56. I believe that there are more paths than one.....

The catch, of course, is knowing which ones are the correct paths. I believe that no one religion has it all correct. The only thing infallible is God. This means that everything else will contain errors. I think that there is a divine purpose in "the search". Mankind's search for the creator ....to understanding the creation has lead to scientific discoveries, beautiful art, and amazing musical contributions that have greatly enriched our existence. It was Jesuit priests that helped us come up with the calender. A Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory! Science and faith are not mutually exclusive! One deals with this world, the other with the next.
Getting back to the op.........
I believe that most faiths have some things correct. These common threads of agreement are where I think the divine meets the faithful. Look at the common veins within the major religions and consider where the world would be if everyone practiced them.
I think it is absolutely possible to be faithful and hold this to be true. It's why, in my church, we say that an individual's relationship with God is personal. From Psalm 139: "You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways". To me, this clearly means that there are as many paths as there are people.
I believe that Christianity was the threshold for me. It introduced me to God. Now, it's up to me to get to know Him.

[sprinkleeninow]

70. In Eastern Orthodoxy: "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not."

We do the best we can with how we practice in believing.

God Almighty will do as He deems at our personal 'parousia' or The Parousia of the Lord. (Second coming corporately.) In the Eschaton.

[spicysista]

72. Beautiful!

I can't add anything else.

[sprinkleeninow]

74. Well, I simply 'relished' the 'fragrance' of your post! 😍 Lovely, like aroma therapy!

[spicysista]

79. Thank you.

[demigoddess]

78. I think god does a facepalm every time someone says churches and faiths

are the most important thing, Every time they build a church to pray in, every time someone is killed for their faith.

[guillaumeb]

84. A church is not needed.

It is, depending on your meaning, a building, or an organization.

The most important thing for religious belief is faith.

[sprinkleeninow]

95. The first peoples gathering in the Name of the Risen Christ

for giving glory to Him, giving tithes and offerings, communing, being of one mind and of one accord, assembled in homes. I think pretty cool.

Churches, Orthodox call them 'temples', are necessary in the modern world. But the true 'temple' is a body that is the house(hold) of the God-breathed spirit.

Some monastics as St. Seraphim, communed mostly in a forest 'cell'. The wild animals became docile in his presence.

He said to acquire the spirit of peace and those around you shall be saved.

Do y'all witness what I just wrote?
I preached to me.

[guillaumeb]

103. True, it is not the shell, but what is inside. eom