posted March 18, 2007 05:16 PM         

In my country, anyway, freedom of speech was fought for and won....

As long as one does not set out to maliciously hurt another, what is wrong with speaking one's mind ie: starting a thread that is the opinion of an individual and closing it just because certain individuals disagree...

I do not support slamming people and starting a thread with the intent to hurt--karma will serve there...

However, when someone is struck down for beliefs that differ from others, simply, plainly, BELIEFS, it is such a shame. Not to mention that some individuals are very versed on particular subjects and what is wrong with the sharing of knowledge??

posted March 18, 2007 06:57 PM         

quote:

---

Yeah he (jwhop) has a tendency of being a bit TOO upfront Lol!

---

posted March 18, 2007 11:48 PM         

Are you speaking about specific threads at LL or are you just generalizing?

I am all for freedom of speech. However, verbal abuse in the form of personal attacks on people is not, nor has it ever been a part of the Constitutional right of freedom of speech . In fact, people can legally by law sue another person for such things. There are laws against smearing the character of another person.

Abuse of any kind is illegal and that also covers verbal abuse. Abuse is abuse be it physical or verbal.

Although name calling and labeling other people reflects more on the character of the person doing it than the person on the receiving end of the verbal abuse.

posted March 19, 2007 12:24 AM         

"I have learned silence from the talkative,
tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind;
yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers."
- Kahlil Gibran

Often, the things we find most judgmental, are merely the most threatening to our illusions and prejudices. We frequently evoke the lofty names of virtues, to defend what amounts to our egos. We say, "Love is everything", but what we are really saying is, "It hurts my ego to be told I am wrong, therefor, any attempt to tell me I am wrong is devoid of love for me". It's exactly the same as when an instructor tries to correct a child, and the child says, "You don't love me!!" To be a good instructor is not to back down just because the child feels unloved. Be gentle, but be firm, even if your gentleness is overlooked, and your firmness is called "intolerance". Someday they'll thank you.

"Virtues become vices, swollen with pride, and vices humbled virtues describe." - hsc
Tolerance and acceptance are great, but how far shall we go to "tolerate" and "accept" false and destructive views? Often, people do not realize how harmful the consequences of their views are. They want to voice them in passing, casually, superficially, without having their beliefs subjected to scrutiny, or told that their perception is somehow wanting.

But,

"When the eagles are silent,
the parrots begin to jabber."
- Sir Winston Churchill

Any attempt to convey the illusory and divisive nature of their point of view is seen as a personal attack. Even to say to a person openly and directly, without diplomatic ambiguity, "Your view is an illusion," is seen as "intolerant" and "judgmental". People want to be free to spread their destructive views without anyone telling them they are wrong (mistaken). Some people are so sensitive, they cannot even admit that a belief could be "wrong". Sure, they can "tolerate" it if you state contradictory views, just as long as you don't state, in no uncertain terms, the fact that you know you are correct and the other person's view is incorrect. In fact, just as long as you say, "I believe", before every statement, and "of course, I could be wrong," after every statement, there is a good chance nobody will ever accuse you of intolerance. But this is to deny the truth of one's conviction, and to dillute the impact of one's expression. "For, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?" (Corinthians 14:8)

When most people say "I believe", and seek to distinguish this from "I know", what they are really saying is, "I suspect", or "this appears reasonable to me at present, but I could be wrong" (although, if you try to tell them they are wrong, that is going too far, lol). We are all encouraged to share our beliefs, but, the conviction that another person is indeed wrong, or mistaken, is considered judgemental, the instant it is expressed. That is unfortunate.

The only thing that is truly judgmental is to imagine that a person is willfully and knowingly in the wrong, and to hold this against them. It's worth mentioning here that, in truth, it is a logical impossibility to be knowingly and willfully in the wrong.

"A man cannot knowingly commit evil.
In order for me to do that which I consider evil,
I must simultaneously approve and disapprove of my action.
This is absurd."
- Jean-Paul Sartre

So, although it is possible to speak with malicious intent, it is not possible to do so while being fully conscious of the fact that maliciousness is a bad thing. Consciousness of "good and bad", as opposed to "correct and incorrect", is based on feeling, not logic. The consciousness that a thing is "bad" would necessarily entail remorse (if it has already been done) or the desire not to commit it (it it has not been done). At all times, when we do anything, it is because the desire to do it exceeded the desire not to, and the desire to do or not do a particular thing is occassioned by our perception of that thing as good or bad (desireable or undesireable). No one desires to be that which they consider bad.

Okay,
This is probably as good a place to stop as any.

love,
HSC

posted March 19, 2007 12:54 AM         

And Father God makes impossible demands,

And where they meet, a Messiah is born.

posted March 19, 2007 12:55 AM         

Sometimes I may be thinking to myself that someone else is wrong but do I necessarily have to out and out tell that person that they are wrong?

If I tell someone that they are wrong then am I not obligated to prove to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am the one in the right and they are the one in the wrong?

posted March 19, 2007 12:58 AM         

This is why I distinguish between belief and suspicion.

I think the word "believe" is very misleading.
What is a belief, anyway?

Either you know something, or you don't.
If you don't, it is a suspicion.

posted March 19, 2007 01:05 AM         

If we were to be 100% honest with ourselves,
(I suspect) we would believe nothing,
and claim to know very little.

I don't claim to know very much.
Deteminism is one of the few things I claim to know,
but its implications are many,
and I have endless proofs of it,
for anyone who is ready to see them.

posted March 19, 2007 01:15 AM         

Sometimes I get the feeling that I know you very well,
like, from a past-life or something.

Do you ever feel like that about me?

posted March 19, 2007 02:29 AM         

quote:

---

Mirandee,
Sometimes I get the feeling that I know you very well,
like, from a past-life or something.

Do you ever feel like that about me?

---

No

But I'm happy to have sort of known you online in this life.

The definition of belief is: 1: CONFIDENCE,TRUST 2: something ( as a tenet or creed) believed syn conviction,opinion,persuasion,sentiment

The definition of believe is: 1. to have religious convictions 2.to have a firm conviction about something: accept as true 3. to hold as an opinion

I have many profound beliefs, HSC. But I have also lived long enough to know how very many times beliefs can change over the course of years.

What I believed to be true as a small child changed in my teens. What I held to be true in my teens changed in my young adult years, then again in mid-life. Mainly those beliefs changed on further knowledge and from personal experience.

I have only a few beliefs that have never changed and in fact, have grown even more deep and profound through the years.

My point is those beliefs are important and right for me and I love to share my beliefs but do not see the need to force those beliefs on others or tell them they are wrong because they don't believe as I do. I feel that if what I do believe is truth the other person will come to that truth if they are truly seeking. I respect the beliefs of others as I would also like my beliefs to be respected.

Beyond that I trust the nature of other people to come their truths and beliefs in their own time and their own way just as I did. I trust God, and I trust God to know just the right way to reach all of his children with truth. And his way is a whole lot gentlier than our way of bringing people to truth. We can teach by stating our beliefs but we will never bring one soul to truth by telling them they are wrong and we are right. That automatically turns people off.

posted March 19, 2007 03:44 AM         

Language is always evolving, and we are the ones who decide the meanings of things. I suspect the definitions you accepted and repeated are misleading. It's possible the word "belief" was invented by and for people who could not distinguish between their suspicions (or theories) and their knowledge.

quote:

---

I have many profound beliefs, HSC. But I have also lived long enough to know how very many times beliefs can change over the course of years.
What I believed to be true as a small child changed in my teens. What I held to be true in my teens changed in my young adult years, then again in mid-life. Mainly of those beliefs changed on further knowledge and from personal experience.

---

Doesn't this suggest to you that your "beliefs" are really suspicions?
And that, as new evidence appears,
you ought to form new theories, not beliefs,
Until you are firmly convinced that the case is solved?

quote:

---

I love to share my beliefs but do not see the need to force those beliefs on others

---

That's good. Neither do I. I don't see how I possible could "force" anyone to agree with me, other than by appealing to their reason, but, then, it is reason (and their own ability to recognize it when it is set before them) which forces them to change their beliefs, not me.

quote:

---

or tell them they are wrong because they don't believe as I do.

---

That's good. Neither do I. I only tell people they are wrong when it is a matter of what I know, not what I suspect (i.e. "believe"). Just as, if someone were to say to you, "You know, 2 + 2 = 7," you probably would not consider it unethical to tell them they are wrong. The reason you don't feel comfortable telling people they are wrong is probably because you are not convinced of your suspicions (or "beliefs").

quote:

---

I feel that if what I do believe is truth the other person will come to that truth if they are truly seeking.

---

I agree. If a person gropes in the dark long enough, they will eventually find the light switch. Does that mean, if you have your hand on the switch, you shouldn't flick it? Or, if you see they are about to take a fall down the stairs, and they say, "I think this is the way," should you say to them, "Well, maybe you are right, but I don't think so,"? Will your uncertainty give them pause? "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

quote:

---

I respect the beliefs of others as I would also like my beliefs to be respected.

---

I respect truth.
If what I "believe" is untrue,
by God, I hope you will tell me so,
and I will joyfully cease to respect it,
and shower you with thanks.

quote:

---

Beyond that I trust the nature of other people to come their truths and beliefs in their own time and their own way just as I did.

---

I don't know how ideas like this ever got so widely circulated. Again, I refer you to the lightswitch.

quote:

---

I trust God, and I trust God to know just the right way to reach all of his children with truth.

---

This reminds me of that story of the people caught in the flood, and the boats come by to rescue them, and they say, "No thanks, God will provide," and they drown and God says, "Dude, I sent you three boats!" The only difference is that, in this case, you are the one in the boat, and you are leaving those people to drown, calmly passing by, saying to yourself, "I trust that God will provide for them,". When you meet God, I wonder, will He tell you He intended for you to pick them up, and do your absolute best to convince them to get into the boat; maybe even force them, if it's necessary and possible, against their ignorant wills, and for their own good; to save their lives and the lives of the children they are dragging down with them.

quote:

---

And his way is a whole lot gentlier than our way of bringing people to truth.

---

I beg to differ. God waits, at first, whispers second, speaks third, shouts fourth, and then watches helplessly as you fall into a pit. Then you start to listen. That's how God brings people to the truth. "Some people take the hint, and some people take the hit." - hsc

quote:

---

We can teach by stating our beliefs but we will never bring one soul to truth by telling them they are wrong and we are right. That automatically turns people off.

---

I don't think this is true of all people, Mirandee. It sounds unlike a Pisces to me. Pisceans are inclined to set their objections to your tone aside, and listen. But, sure, if a person is very proud and inclined to hold stubbornly to things, yes, they will resist your tone, and not your arguments. It is unfortuneate. But I still have hope that persistence can overcome their resistance. Provided you reason persistently with people, and do not only persist in saying "you are wrong".

The reason you never forced your kids to go to Church is because you are not convinced that they will go to Hell if they don't accept the Catholic religion. If you were convinced of this, you would force them. Maybe they would hate you for it. Maybe the whole world would see you as a monster. Maybe they would grow up to be not-so-decent folks, but, if you were right, then, when they die, they would rejoice in Heaven, instead of burn in Hell, for all eternity. For their sakes, I'm glad you were never convinced by the "Holy" Roman Church.

Here is what I'm thinking:

posted March 19, 2007 04:22 AM         

When I read that, Mirandee, a freaky Aquarian outburst sprung to my mind and it was all I could do to restrain myself from posting it.
I was worried you would take me wrong! Then Steve said it in a different and calmer way so now I feel like I can say what sprang to my mind with his comment as a calming hum to my cacaphony.

Here is me:
God brought us here
God brought Steve here
God made Steve an unrelenting philosophical/spiritual blabbermouth
What more do you want!?!?

Here is Steve:
This reminds me of that story of the people caught in the flood, and the boats come by to rescue them, and they say, "No thanks, God will provide," and they drown and God says, "Dude, I sent you three boats!"

Hey Steve, did this just come to you
"I know that Mother God is unconditionally loving,

And Father God makes impossible demands,

posted March 19, 2007 04:26 AM         

quote:

---

God brought us here
God brought Steve here
God made Steve an unrelenting philosophical/spiritual blabbermouth
What more do you want!?!?

---

F*ckin' "A".
That's what I'm talking about.

Maybe they'll be more open to it when you say it, Mel.

For some reason,
most people slam their doors in my face
the instant I say I'm from God.

Go figure.

posted March 19, 2007 04:32 AM         

and you have yuuuuuuge
tracts of land...

or something like that.

posted March 19, 2007 04:44 AM         

now it's the "Tao of Steve"? Now I'll have to watch that one. I'm sure it will contain the perfect message for me at the time I actually pick it up.

Nice synchronicity lately. I've really been listening lately and the Universe is talkin'.

posted March 19, 2007 04:48 AM         

This comment is better than
well, it's better than most things
I've heard today and today has been quite a day

posted March 19, 2007 05:21 AM         

But what about:
"Not all prophets are lukewarm."

I thought that was pretty clever,
and helpful to accentuate the "firey prophet" thing by contrast.

posted March 19, 2007 06:57 AM         

quote:

---

We say, "Love is everything", but what we are really saying is, "It hurts my ego to be told I am wrong, therefor, any attempt to tell me I am wrong is devoid of love for me". It's exactly the same as when an instructor tries to correct a child, and the child says, "You don't love me!!" To be a good instructor is not to back down just because the child feels unloved. Be gentle, but be firm, even if your gentleness is overlooked, and your firmness is called "intolerance".

---

Exactly. Eveyone has a different methodic approach to a problem (some being more effective than others,) butpeople never ever want to look beyond their own two feet. There is always more to a person than what meets the eye. It may not be outwardly obvious sometimes but then again, few things are ever that clear.

To quote a good friend of mines:

"Opnions are like Bums; Everyone has one."

So why get burned by another person's POV?

quote:

---

"Upfront"?? Wow. Is that what calling fellow forum-members Brain Dead Leftist Morons is termed these days -- "upfront"??

---