Creativity of Belief: The question of belief is not what but why do we beleive as we do?

Aneeda72 said:
Oh, gosh, thanks I thought you had forgotten about me. I was crushed, well, not crushed, hmm, IGNORED, yes, that’s the word ignored. I felt ignored. You asked me, in a PM, to put you on ignore. And I refused. I actually like discussions with you. Then, again, you might follow your own request so you will no longer FEEL like you are being bullied.

I am sorry you feel bullied when someone disagrees with you and when you are “proven” wrong. But @Shero and I are not bullies. We do like a lively discussion; but not a prejudice one. It was the Romans that nailed JC to the cross and killed him. Even your Bible agrees with this.

Your insistence on blaming the Jewish people is annoying, historically wrong, and insulting. Yet, I have not accused you of anything, or called you names. Think on that a while @Lara
Click to expand...

The part of your quote in bold type is true, Aneeda, but I'd say it's the understatement of the century. That ancient lie about the Jews having killed Jesus has been responsible for literally millions of deaths, incredible cruelty, torture, exclusion, etc. It certainly helped the Holocaust to happen. And yet, here it is once again, alive and well.

The people fanning the flames of this ancient hatred are doing it because they need a scapegoat. If that's perfectly OK to do on a
"friendly" social forum, how about if we turn the tables? How about the millions killed or tormented by the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and even today, the evil actions that still take place under the umbrella of Christianity? (And none of that is a lie, it's sadly true.) Does that add one iota to world peace, kindness, or anything else good?

Even at best, endless discussions about Jesus (who - maybe - lived over 2000 years ago, give it a rest already!) do not belong on a social forum with diverse participants, in the year 2022. It might be appropriate in a religious discussion forum, but even there, I would tread lightly. This is not a theological seminary. And repeating ancient, and extremely harmful lies only serves to make people upset and angry. It's the kind of mentality that is usually found behind riots and lynchings, not to mention wars. "Insulting" doesn't even begin to come close.
 

Last edited:
Now that you mention it, Irwin, I got a similar message yesterday after posting here. I got a Code Red sent to my phone (not medical...but weather related meaning "imminent danger").

A combination of a severe lightening/rain storm, wind gusts, and high tide all at once. The sea looked higher, waves were huge and angry, the house was shaking a little. Very scary because I thought the waves were going to go over the sand dune.

Soo BIG, soo close! I took pics but my videos are more telling. Can't post iphone videos here though.
 
Sunny said:
The part of your quote in bold type is true, Aneeda, but I'd say it's the understatement of the century. That ancient lie about the Jews having killed Jesus has been responsible for literally millions of deaths, incredible cruelty, torture, exclusion, etc. It certainly helped the Holocaust to happen. And yet, here it is once again, alive and well.

The people fanning the flames of this ancient hatred are doing it because they need a scapegoat. If that's perfectly OK to do on a
"friendly" social forum, how about if we turn the tables? How about the millions killed or tormented by the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and even today, the evil actions that still take place under the umbrella of Christianity? (And none of that is a lie, it's sadly true.) Does that add one iota to world peace, kindness, or anything else good?

Even at best, endless discussions about Jesus (who - maybe - lived over 2000 years ago, give it a rest already!) do not belong on a social forum with diverse participants, in the year 2022. It might be appropriate in a religious discussion forum, but even there, I would tread lightly. This is not a theological seminary. And repeating ancient, and extremely harmful lies only serves to make people upset and angry. It's the kind of mentality that is usually found behind riots and lynchings, not to mention wars. "Insulting" doesn't even begin to come close.
Click to expand...
Well, I was trying to be diplomatic, cause I am a bully according to some people, well, one person.

I agree with you-those without sin cast the first stone. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones: and on and on. The Catholic Church, and I became catholic late in life, is guilty of many horrors and is still guilty of on going horrors. As are many Christians, but I leave it to JC to sort it out. And to God to sort out the rest.

I disagree that this discussion does not belong here, however. I believe diverse participants are needed and necessary to such a discussion. People do need to learn not to be “thin skinned”and be informed as to how and what others believe. Even if those beliefs are archaic.

Why do I believe as I do? My part in the discussion indicates what I believe, how I got to this place in my beliefs, how my belief is still evolving, and how, despite a strong faith in JC, and GOD, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit; I still have questions. We are allowed to question.

@Lara, in some ways, reminds me of my mother. She, at 96 soon to be 97, has become very Bible thumping for lack of a better word. Once on vacation, a decade or so ago, we were all at my hotel. Crazy witch that she is, she said; knowing that I was Catholic, “you know your nephew and his family are Jewish?”

“Yes, I do.“. 😂😂.

I had always wondered if she expect me to pull out a sub machine gun and start firing. My parents were non denominational as adults. But there are in our ancestry, on our fathers side, a Germany Jewish connection. My brother remained Christian, but no certain denomination. I doubt he was baptized. His son converted to become Jewish after marrying a Jewish woman. Their children are, of course, Jewish.

I chose to become Catholic and was baptized as such and married in the Catholic Church. My children are Catholic. I have no problem with the religion my nephew and his family have.
 
Lara said:
Oh yes, thank you for the reminder Shero. You, Pepper, JaniceM, and Aneeda did gang-bully me after Pepper labeled me a racist for using the word Jews when discussing how the Jews accused and tried Jesus and then took Him to the Romans yelling at them to "Crucify Him!" since they weren't allowed to". Then went on to say I was revolting and disgusting for using the word "Jews". Btw. I use the word Christians too to describe a group of like minded people. Saying, "the Jewish accused, tried Jesus, and " would be grammatically incorrect".
Click to expand...
Wow, and now @JaniceM joins the bully list for giving an opinion in a discussion.

Here is a suggestion; if you feel bullied by people in the discussion, leave the discussion. Here is another suggestion; put the people you feel are negative towards you on ignore; a third suggestions and my favorite, stop labeling people and continue with the discussion and, oh gee, admit you are wrong.
 
The whole point of mental exercise was to illustrate the diversity of perception among individuals discussing a designated topic. By accepting these differences in each other perhaps people would not have a desire to alter or change another human being. Perhaps I am the one who needs to change?
 
Mr. Ed said:
The whole point of mental exercise was to illustrate the diversity of perception among individuals discussing a designated topic. By accepting these differences in each other perhaps people would not have a desire to alter or change another human being. Perhaps I am the one who needs to change?
Click to expand...

I think that there is diversity of perception, and then there is hate speech. If we were discussing present-day pop music vs. the music of the mid-20th century, or whether someone is a great actor or a terrible one, that is a diversity of perception. Bringing ridiculously archaic, poisonous accusations into the discussion, aimed at one particular group who have too often been the victims of such accusations, is a passive-aggressive act of hate. At best, it is initiated by someone who is apparently trying to offend people and start a fight, while acting holier-than-thou. A perfect example of trolling.

Let's switch to a different set of victims, but the same point. What if someone deliberately dragged the worst, and completely untrue, racist accusations into a discussion, against Blacks, Latinos, Asians, or whoever? Even on a forum where members of those groups are present? (But sort of just as bad even if they weren't.) Would that be OK as a forum discussion? Where should the line be drawn?
 
Nice put! I am but a poor man seeking solace from this crazy planet called earth. Beam me up Scotty, it is not worth rebuilding.
 
Last edited:
Sunny said:
I think that there is diversity of perception, and then there is hate speech. If we were discussing present-day pop music vs. the music of the mid-20th century, or whether someone is a great actor or a terrible one, that is a diversity of perception. Bringing ridiculously archaic, poisonous accusations into the discussion, aimed at one particular group who have too often been the victims of such accusations, is a passive-aggressive act of hate. At best, it is initiated by someone who is apparently trying to offend people and start a fight, while acting holier-than-thou. A perfect example of trolling.

Let's switch to a different set of victims, but the same point. What if someone deliberately dragged the worst, and completely untrue, racist accusations into a discussion, against Blacks, Latinos, Asians, or whoever? Even on a forum where members of those groups are present? (But sort of just as bad even if they weren't.) Would that be OK as a forum discussion? Where should the line be drawn?
Click to expand...
Actually to a limited extent that has happened on SF concerning people of color, the homeless, etc. And the name calling has been worst. The line should not be drawn in a free society with limited freedom of speech.

And our freedom of speech is limited. And SF does have rules.

This is a discussion open to people who were raised with different rules and different expectations in different time periods. Some of us rejected the crap from the beginning, some of us became aware over time, and some of us seemed to have stayed with the belief systems of the 1950’s. But all of us have opinions which is what makes these discussions so interesting.

My grandmother married into a family that, one generation earlier, owned a plantation and slaves. That plantation was renamed a farm. Now it is a ranch. During the Great Depression my mother was sent to work on that farm, as a teenager, to pick cotton.

My mother is white/Native American. She worked along side the paid black workers. She was not paid. She worked for room and board for her Uncle. This property is still owned by that section of the family. The property is in some history books.

I was taught not to see the color of a person’s skin or consider their religion or wealth or place in the world. One of the few redeeming values of my parents.
 
Not that it really matters at all but I've only now spotted the spelling error in the thread title, (I mention it just to prove how inattentive or "thick" I've become, would you "beleive" :sneaky:!):

Creativity of Belief: The question of belief is not what but why do we beleive as we do?​

 
People are probably fairly consistent in how much they value truth. I would guess that religious people are more likely to doubt the science behind vaccinations and the wearing of masks, and to doubt the results of the last election as well as participating in the insurrection and coup attempt, and to believe other conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. That's why, if given the choice, I'd never choose a religious doctor, nor would I ever take the advice of a religious person for anything other than something relating to religion, which I have very limited interest in other than regarding its effects on society and politics.
 
Irwin said:
People are probably fairly consistent in how much they value truth. I would guess that religious people are more likely to doubt the science behind vaccinations and the wearing of masks, and to doubt the results of the last election as well as participating in the insurrection and coup attempt, and to believe other conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. That's why, if given the choice, I'd never choose a religious doctor, nor would I ever take the advice of a religious person for anything other than something relating to religion, which I have very limited interest in other than regarding its effects on society and politics.
Click to expand...
Interesting post, particularly in relation to truth or truthfulness.

I dont think it would be all that easy to prove your hypothesis one way or the other, but the importance of truth was apparently so great in the estimation of one religious man five hundred years ago, that he refused to listen to exhortations made by his daughter that he should put his name to a document everyone was being forced to sign in Tudor England, in order to save his own life.

That man was of course Sir Thomas More, who worked for the archbishop of Canterbury in England at one time, so was very devout himself it can be assumed, and he held some of the highest offices of the state during the rule of Henry VIII.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Sir-Thomas-More/
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top