Longest Thread Ever

[babe]

Well that's the reason I decided to post the question in this thread in the first place, knowing that I'll at least get some sensible answers out of it. The alternative would be to start a new thread, but then the question would be thrown to the wolves, with everyone wanting a piece of the action.

But yeah, this kind of thread only works if you have someone who's committed to the course (similar to PKM's draft thread), otherwise it'll just run out of energy and die.

But I guess if you enjoy what you're doing - why stop right?!?!

there are pros and cons to almost anything.

I could just start a clearly limited discussion/thread every once in a while that would draw people based on the topic. that's what is generally the rule in here, and it has the merits of the clear label to draw folks interested in it. And yah, most of the time it draws combatants who want to claim ownership on some ideological basis.

The general merit of a forum like JazzFanz is in the common interest that brings people here. A shared interest can be the beginning of some decent human interaction, even "friendship". . . . even "online".

In most neighborhoods, people don't go out on the shared street to claim "ownership" on an ideological basis. Americans still basically respect people who around them in their neighborhoods, regardless of political ideology. If someone breaks the rules in regard to noise, trash, or other significant norms they'll draw fire in the form of complaints. If someone starts some criminal behavior they'll draw police interest. But basically mere opinions are tolerated. Well, some not so much.

A private forum gets to set its own rules, and I have to live with the rules here or at least observe some kind of respect for them to the extent that the owners/mods can tolerate, and I think I have to make this thread actually constructive and worthwhile. If it's different somehow, and interesting to some, it could be a niche some members want to have around. . . . if just for a good laugh or some kind of notice.

I don't particularly think the format of a limited topic thread is the only way to go about being a JazzFanz member. We have some special forums dedicated to some one members' circle of friends that require a password to get in. I like that idea, too. It gives some a little field to have some talk with people who are willing to value that private forum, excluding perhaps some obnoxious nuisances. . . ..or people who are just hostile somehow, or with some axe to grind.

This idea has popped up in some other forums and I've seen where it can have some merit. Sometimes it can be a better format because if people are more interested in being friends than just having a certain topic discussed, it can be fun. Or if someone wants to talk without the contest over who is "King of the Hill" or "Right".

When friends come to me to talk about something, I don't tell them they have to listen to me and do what I say. I listen. I try to figure out what it's all about, and what I can do to help. I might have some suggestions, I might not. I will try to understand some things about the person. I don't often tell them what they need to do. I'm hopeful if I see them working through the ideas they're struggling with. I'm glad if they don't feel threatened with something they're afraid I might think.

I call it all good if they go home feeling better about life than when they came into my living room.

 

[babe]

LOL.. not much of a leader.. don't really have that much of an ambition neither.. I'm content just sitting back and contribute where/when I can.

every day is potentially some kind of new beginning. . . . . I'm not sure I care to be a "leader" exactly, sometimes not sure "sitting back" is worthwhile, either. . . . . but learning to have fun in what you do is a good life skill, just as learning to explore different ways of having "fun" can be.

 

[babe]

So I'm pulling this outta another thread that has just gone nuts.

There is no such thing as "immoral" if there is no God. There is just lawful and unlawful.

Your statement that God has not provided mankind with an absolute moral code assumes there is a God in order to "prove" there isn't one, so I don't know what to take from that.

Are you trying to explain your "rationality" or convert me to your way of thinking?

PearlWatson

I think this is something worth talking about.

My first wife's family joined the LDS church while I was hanging around the place trying to memorize some stupid "six discussions" that essentially were a simplistic line of propaganda. I mean people had to produce the indicated answers to "progress" in the line of ideology. After being married to me, and working in the LDS church offices as a highly trusted confidential records expert, she found her "faith" totally blasted. Old ladies in the Presiding Bisphopric Office telling her not to pay her tithing since she could see what was being done with it. Excommunication proceedings that were just atrocities. She decided to become a Born Again Christian, and mocked me telling me the church authorities didn't believe what I believed. She had no moral bearing whatsoever herself, in fact. She was just trying to find something to "belong" with.

Being a professed believer in religion has not had a high correlation with actually having moral principles. Well, except for in the underdog classes of followers sometimes, in a minority of instances.

I know the atheist dogmatists are merely another class of religious folks with all the problems other religious folks have. Pretty nice to have some straw man arguments against other religions for the convenience of prideful puffery about your own superiority. The very fact that this argument is used by "atheists" is a positive proof that atheists actually don't have any fixed moral reference frame. You have some with some pet values trying to hype them as part of their systematic logical foundation, but they will vary from person to person because there is in fact no "source" for authority except themselves. Like most religions, in fact. It would truly be a singular event if it were true that God has inspired any line of religion in any significant way. If we wish to examine the Judeo-Christian history on that point, there are a number of problems.

first of all, no actual texts known to pre-date the time of Solomon, who sent his horsement around the country breaking up all the sites of worship in an effort to re-shape the traditions of Israel into a state religion. Not credible, in my book. Well, it wasn't long before the nation was broken up and scattered after that. And yes, there were a number of religious writers. . .. prophets and chroniclers who did some impressive writing after that time. And then you come down to the time of Christ where according to the best historical sources available and the Christian apostles, the "state religion" of the Jews was incredibly corrupt. But Jesus didn't really make things a lot better. His followers dumped some of the foundational concepts of the Hebraic God, and basically lost the concept of a covenant people with a law given by God.

The Jews, the remaining tribe in Israel, were broken up by the Romans, and mostly driven out of the territory. The Christians were similarly hounded and persecuted for about four hundred years, until on the strength of teachings about a personal moral code and identity as disciples of Jesus who unconditionally did good to others, an Emperor named Constantine took up the cross. Before long, the teachings of Jesus, which were clearly adapted only to those folks who would "take up their cross" and follow Him in a world largely intolerant of a principled minority. . . . became the "state religion" throughout Europe. Individual conscience was relegated to the dustbin of history at that time, and people were the chattel of Popes and Kings and Lords. . . . the very epitome of feudalism.

I get it, a lot of folks even today are making a break for what they think is freedom from a 'controlling' religion, and a lot of them might just hate the moral code being imposed by the "religion". But many don't see "atheism" in the hands of "progressives" hell-bent on controlling mankind by their intolerant precepts for what it is. Another statist religion.

Where are there any advocates of "atheism" who are not statists who want to make their precepts the law of the land???? Who are not hell-bent on driving "unbelievers" off the board in the games people play???? "Separation of the State from every system of belief but Mine" is pure hypocrisy and personal dishonesty. Atheists who raise that cry are liars who may have fooled themselves best of all, but likely just don't have the morals to care about the truth. All they want is the power of the State going their way.

A real atheist would not be willing to formally promote a system of "belief". He would want a government that would not be hijacked by any system of belief. Gameface???

 

[babe]

Most believers in most religions do rely on their belief in the existence of God as a main hinge in their "moral principles". Atheists are actually no different. Their belief in their own minds is foundational, the main hinge, for their "moral principles". Like followers of any two systems might discover, believers in the other system likely will call them "immoral" because they are not following the other camp's morals. their dialogue is a classic hesaid/shesaid argument in general.

I just look at it in a different light. I've done my own thinking, and placed my own feet on the ground I claim. I might be wrong, I don't care to argue it particularly. Maybe if someone just wants to think some things through. Anyone who comes at me with some kind of load thinking they'll knock me down is gonna waste his time and his "load".

I see no reason to blame God for me and what I am, nor to judge "God" by any other people there ever were. Well, that could change, maybe. Actually, it might not be entirely true. But the exceptions I would make are scarce enough the whole would largely prove the rule.

It would be an incredible romance, a love story in fact. . . .. if there is a God who cares about humans. Maybe more of a tragic love story in many respects. But in the life of Jesus an overwhelming triumph.

 

[PearlWatson]

So I'm pulling this outta another thread that has just gone nuts.



PearlWatson

I think this is something worth talking about.

My first wife's family joined the LDS church while I was hanging around the place trying to memorize some stupid "six discussions" that essentially were a simplistic line of propaganda. I mean people had to produce the indicated answers to "progress" in the line of ideology. After being married to me, and working in the LDS church offices as a highly trusted confidential records expert, she found her "faith" totally blasted. Old ladies in the Presiding Bisphopric Office telling her not to pay her tithing since she could see what was being done with it. Excommunication proceedings that were just atrocities. She decided to become a Born Again Christian, and mocked me telling me the church authorities didn't believe what I believed. She had no moral bearing whatsoever herself, in fact. She was just trying to find something to "belong" with.

Being a professed believer in religion has not had a high correlation with actually having moral principles. Well, except for in the underdog classes of followers sometimes, in a minority of instances.

I know the atheist dogmatists are merely another class of religious folks with all the problems other religious folks have. Pretty nice to have some straw man arguments against other religions for the convenience of prideful puffery about your own superiority. The very fact that this argument is used by "atheists" is a positive proof that atheists actually don't have any fixed moral reference frame. You have some with some pet values trying to hype them as part of their systematic logical foundation, but they will vary from person to person because there is in fact no "source" for authority except themselves. Like most religions, in fact. It would truly be a singular event if it were true that God has inspired any line of religion in any significant way. If we wish to examine the Judeo-Christian history on that point, there are a number of problems.

first of all, no actual texts known to pre-date the time of Solomon, who sent his horsement around the country breaking up all the sites of worship in an effort to re-shape the traditions of Israel into a state religion. Not credible, in my book. Well, it wasn't long before the nation was broken up and scattered after that. And yes, there were a number of religious writers. . .. prophets and chroniclers who did some impressive writing after that time. And then you come down to the time of Christ where according to the best historical sources available and the Christian apostles, the "state religion" of the Jews was incredibly corrupt. But Jesus didn't really make things a lot better. His followers dumped some of the foundational concepts of the Hebraic God, and basically lost the concept of a covenant people with a law given by God.

The Jews, the remaining tribe in Israel, were broken up by the Romans, and mostly driven out of the territory. The Christians were similarly hounded and persecuted for about four hundred years, until on the strength of teachings about a personal moral code and identity as disciples of Jesus who unconditionally did good to others, an Emperor named Constantine took up the cross. Before long, the teachings of Jesus, which were clearly adapted only to those folks who would "take up their cross" and follow Him in a world largely intolerant of a principled minority. . . . became the "state religion" throughout Europe. Individual conscience was relegated to the dustbin of history at that time, and people were the chattel of Popes and Kings and Lords. . . . the very epitome of feudalism.

I get it, a lot of folks even today are making a break for what they think is freedom from a 'controlling' religion, and a lot of them might just hate the moral code being imposed by the "religion". But many don't see "atheism" in the hands of "progressives" hell-bent on controlling mankind by their intolerant precepts for what it is. Another statist religion.

Where are there any advocates of "atheism" who are not statists who want to make their precepts the law of the land???? Who are not hell-bent on driving "unbelievers" off the board in the games people play???? "Separation of the State from every system of belief but Mine" is pure hypocrisy and personal dishonesty. Atheists who raise that cry are liars who may have fooled themselves best of all, but likely just don't have the morals to care about the truth. All they want is the power of the State going their way.

A real atheist would not be willing to formally promote a system of "belief". He would want a government that would not be hijacked by any system of belief. Gameface???

Yes, Gameface is about the only "atheist" I could have any amount of respect for in that regard. I think he goes one step farther than you about "evolving" authority, and denies a higher authority. I don't know why you are resistant to doing the same. I personally can't give up what I know for what I don't know. There is nothing to offer in local or Global meaninglessness.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I could get interested in the 9'ers. Please elaborate, post by post, on how well they did.

No need to elaborate except this: Alex Smith GONE. Good.

 

[Stifle Tower]

For all you non-football types, Alex Smith is like Al Jefferson. His stats look impressive at first glance until you really analyze him as a teammate and how he gets those numbers.

 

[UGLI baby]

For all you non-football types, Alex Smith is like Al Jefferson. His stats look impressive at first glance until you really analyze him as a teammate and how he gets those numbers.

Wow worst comparison ever.



posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO

 

[babe]

Yes, Gameface is about the only "atheist" I could have any amount of respect for in that regard. I think he goes one step farther than you about "evolving" authority, and denies a higher authority. I don't know why you are resistant to doing the same. I personally can't give up what I know for what I don't know. There is nothing to offer in local or Global meaninglessness.

Most actual christian believers. . . .. qualifying the term "christian believers" as those who yield themselves wholly to the mercies of God. . . . are not inclined to either philosophy or politics. It is the sense of a God who is other than this world that enables an actual christian believer to rely on faith instead of what most people may call "good sense". Such believers sorta get it that God is there in the next life and maybe not so much here. So we have no compelling argument for people who won't just leave it all behind voluntarily.

you tell it all when you say you "personally can't give up what I know for what I don't know". Someone might remember the name of that razor that is supposed to be used in choosing hypotheses, preferring the simpler to the more complex. In this case it's a razor with two edges. And it looks the same from either side. One Brow, and most atheists are saying the same thing. They define what they know in intellectual or rational terms. You or I might define what we know, and rely most on, in terms of simple direct knowledge of the most basic kind. Like a kid knows who "ma" is at about day one.

I am resistant to degrading my concept of Divine authority or concept of the identity of God simply because I know Him. I probably wouldn't say I actually know anything else. Probably I am not unique among believers in God.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Since this thread has taken quite a religious slant, let me post the Football Prayer I heard many, many years ago. Unfortunately, memory fails me a bit and I had to re-create the last few lines. Rep to anyone who can post the original version. I "googled" and "binged" but could not find it.
*
"Our Football, which art on television,
Hallowed be thy game.
Thy fullback run, thy pass be flung
In Miami as it is in Dallas
Give us this day our four quarters
and forgive us our fumbles as we forgive our fumblers.
And lead us not into overtime, but deliver us to the end zone
To win our division, then on to the playoffs and Superbowl glory.
For ever and ever

Amen."

 

[babe]

No need to elaborate except this: Alex Smith GONE. Good.

From the link I've been reading and logging in here, it really sounds like the 9'ers have a good team already. Extra talent, even. Yah, I didn't know who Alex Smith was. who is taking his place??

 

[Stifle Tower]

Wow worst comparison ever.



posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO

Why is that? Alex has not won a title. He posts impressive numbers but has glaring faults that prevents the team from going further. Namely, he's wonderful at the short throws (just like AL is fantastic at push shots). But Alex cannot make an accurate deep throw; he can't throw back across the field. So essentially, the team is playing a very limited offensive game when Alex is the QB. Defenses KNOW Alex is going to throw a 5-yd pass on 3rd and 7 and hope the RB or TE can get 2 yards after the catch. Alex doesn't know what a wide receiver is...just look at what Crabtree did AFTER Kaepernick took over. Just like many of the Jazz players have much better numbers when Jefferson is on the bench. Smith is a decent QB, just not one who is going to lead a team to a championship...unless they have an overwhelming defense and great running game, much like the time Trent Dilfer won his SB ring.

 

[Stifle Tower]

From the link I've been reading and logging in here, it really sounds like the 9'ers have a good team already. Extra talent, even. Yah, I didn't know who Alex Smith was. who is taking his place??

In the spirit of openness we now enjoy, I'm coming out today. Yes, that's right, I'm bi!
I actually follow both basketball AND football. I hope all of you will accept me for who I am. I know liking both is probably frowned upon in these parts.

 

[babe]

No need to elaborate except this: Alex Smith GONE. Good.

So now I remember him for the Utes. That was when I was doing diapers and ba-bas for our twins.

I read the wiki on him. Interesting about how the 9-ers found someone else in the ranks when he got his concussion. Sounds like a fundamentally good team.

The KC chiefs are hyping him now as something great. I'm gonna see what happens.

 

[babe]

In the spirit of openness we now enjoy, I'm coming out today. Yes, that's right, I'm bi!
I actually follow both basketball AND football. I hope all of you will accept me for who I am. I know liking both is probably frowned upon in these parts.

I'm primarily basketball fan, but hey, I'm coming out today too. I'm tri. I love baseball, basketball, and football. Well, the language fails for me. I also love swimming, running, hiking, and philosophy. . . ..

 

[babe]

I've gotta bail. Business at hand. see ya.

 

[The Midnight]

I've gotta bail. Business at hand. see ya.

What do you do for a living babe, if you don't mind my asking. You seem like an interesting dude...

 

[Stifle Tower]

I'm primarily basketball fan, but hey, I'm coming out today too. I'm tri. I love baseball, basketball, and football. Well, the language fails for me. I also love swimming, running, hiking, and philosophy. . . ..

Yikes, I guess I'm actually tri as I follow baseball too. Used to like hockey, but their last strike did me in and I just stopped caring.

 

[Stifle Tower]

OK, this video has to be shared. Maybe the funniest ever (and no, it doesn't involve cats). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_y3y5yqDQ

 

[Dr. Jones]

Trisexual.. wil try anything.