-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
god
- Thread starter rajatworld
- Start date
- Status
OK, this is getting ugly. I only foresee it getting uglier.
I can't imagine anything positive coming from this thread. Is there any compelling reason to keep it open, or would we all be better off just locking it?
I can't imagine anything positive coming from this thread. Is there any compelling reason to keep it open, or would we all be better off just locking it?
I don't know that I'd consider this ugly.
There are some reasonable and non-confrontational posts in the thread that go ignored in favor of sniping at one another. But I've never seen the reasoning behind locking a thread that has reasonable discussion because of a few instances of sniping. That seems to me to cater to those who want to disrupt threads.
There are some reasonable and non-confrontational posts in the thread that go ignored in favor of sniping at one another. But I've never seen the reasoning behind locking a thread that has reasonable discussion because of a few instances of sniping. That seems to me to cater to those who want to disrupt threads.
fleamailman
Closed Account
("...I still wonder why there is no boiler room section on this forum..." mentioned the goblin without malice, explaining "...I mean to the casual eye then, seeing lots of locked threads for whatever reason hardly looks inviting, moreover, those hell bent to fight it out here will simply hijack another thread on the forum to do so, however, if the thread is simply moved to the boiler room section within the forum itself, the rest of the forum will look neat for having no locks, while those interested in fraying can do so to their heart's content alone without bothering the rest of us, leaving others like myself who are not interested in frays at all to get on with trying to up the readership here without the fear of the thread being hijacked for their infights..." in fact, if one ever talked to a troll on one of their forums, one soon learns that one of their favorite ploys when raiding a forum is to get moddy to lock one thread after another for obvious reasons)
Last edited:
I'm not sure I'd call it 'ugly' yet, but let's see if I can pretty it up at all:
I do not feel that the Bible is a good historical text, certainly. I imagine that is has been used a a correlation for certain historical events, though, and I'm sure much can be learned from it as a more-or-less faithfully preserved (I'll elaborate on that in a moment) old text. However, the real 'meat' of the bible is not accounts historical events, but of an inspirational person. The Jesus Christ presented by the Bible is, even to atheists, one helluva role-model. "Let he amongst you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone," is one of my favorite quotes, from any source.
Has anyone heard of the Jefferson Bible? CNN just did another story on it so I was reminded. Thomas Jefferson was, even during his presidency, assembling a personal version of the Bible that focused entirely on Jesus as a man. It got rid of miracles and the like. Here is the article for a bit more info, and there is more info elsewhere as well.
It's an interesting project that Jefferson had going. He apparently considered accounts of miracles to be bogus, and yet still turned to the stories of the life of Jesus for a moral guide. Stories of miracles are nice and all, but they don't actually help us live our lives better.
Now, as to the 'more or less faithfully preserved' bit - as I've said before, the Bible has been cut up, reassembled, and translated both with and without outside agenda for a couple thousand years. The early church fathers had to decide which books went in and which did not - one of the most interesting things I ever read was the Gospel of Judas. However, it's a big book, and most of the parts that were subject to change and redaction were the same parts we debate over a lot these days. Lots of it, by virtue of its relative mundanity (mundane-ness? What the hell is the word for that?) has been preserved 'more-or-less' faithfully.
Leaving aside the question of any historical veracity, what do people think of Thomas Jefferson's project? Would you agree with the statement: "The only thing that truly 'matters' in the Bible is the story of Jesus' life?"
Finally, I wonder what followers of various other religions might say is the "Central aspect" of their own holy writings...
I do not feel that the Bible is a good historical text, certainly. I imagine that is has been used a a correlation for certain historical events, though, and I'm sure much can be learned from it as a more-or-less faithfully preserved (I'll elaborate on that in a moment) old text. However, the real 'meat' of the bible is not accounts historical events, but of an inspirational person. The Jesus Christ presented by the Bible is, even to atheists, one helluva role-model. "Let he amongst you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone," is one of my favorite quotes, from any source.
Has anyone heard of the Jefferson Bible? CNN just did another story on it so I was reminded. Thomas Jefferson was, even during his presidency, assembling a personal version of the Bible that focused entirely on Jesus as a man. It got rid of miracles and the like. Here is the article for a bit more info, and there is more info elsewhere as well.
It's an interesting project that Jefferson had going. He apparently considered accounts of miracles to be bogus, and yet still turned to the stories of the life of Jesus for a moral guide. Stories of miracles are nice and all, but they don't actually help us live our lives better.
Now, as to the 'more or less faithfully preserved' bit - as I've said before, the Bible has been cut up, reassembled, and translated both with and without outside agenda for a couple thousand years. The early church fathers had to decide which books went in and which did not - one of the most interesting things I ever read was the Gospel of Judas. However, it's a big book, and most of the parts that were subject to change and redaction were the same parts we debate over a lot these days. Lots of it, by virtue of its relative mundanity (mundane-ness? What the hell is the word for that?) has been preserved 'more-or-less' faithfully.
Leaving aside the question of any historical veracity, what do people think of Thomas Jefferson's project? Would you agree with the statement: "The only thing that truly 'matters' in the Bible is the story of Jesus' life?"
Finally, I wonder what followers of various other religions might say is the "Central aspect" of their own holy writings...
The Blue Lotus
Auror
WOW for once you almost make sense!
I agree there should be a place where a thread can be moved that is dedicated to heated, sometimes nasty debates. With a few ground rules of course.
Yeah I've seen what fleamailman is talking about as well -trolls whose purpose is to disrupt thread and get them locked. I do not see any of that going on here - not even close, in fact. But oddly enough (in my view) the mods on plenty of forums are only too happy to give the trolls exactly what they want and lock the threads. I've never understood it, to be honest.
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
It's the kind of thing I'd do, if Jefferson hadn't beaten me to it by two centuries ;-)
Eh, it depends on what is meant by "matters." Matters to whom? Very little of the Bible matters to me per se, but all of it matters insofar as it informs the beliefs and actions of billions of people, many of whom would gladly imprison or kill me simply for what I believe. There are definitely some good insights in the Bible—it's no different in that respect from any other half-decent work of fiction—and plenty of (what I consider to be) nonsense, as well as some stuff which is downright horrifying (the numerous instances, mostly in the Old Testament, that are totally A-OK with slavery, rape, genocide, etc.).
Jesus as depicted, minus the supernatural stuff, is an interesting guy, but since I take it for granted that none of the supernatural things depicted actually happened (and I have my doubts about the mundane stuff, too), Jesus to me is no more (or less) inherently interesting or profound than e.g. Gandhi or Buddha or Washington or Hitler or any other important historical figure.
The Blue Lotus
Auror
Jefferson like many of the founding fathers had very specific ideas about religion.
So much so that we are left grasping at straws in effect to figure out exactly what they did belive.
What we do know is that they were for the most part people who belived that religion was something that was never to be talked about.
For that matter most of the founders are now thought to have been Deist.
According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events. Tending instead to assert that a god does not (or can not) alter the universe by intervening in it.
As for other points brought up, I can point out many things with in the bible that seem to cancel eachother out but, I won't. Unless asked specificly to do so. The OP asked what we believed, they did not however ask us to try and debate and or convice one another about who is right.
Last edited:
Here's the deal:
I've been getting private messages from long-standing members who are feeling alienated because of how people are responding to each other in this thread.
Originally, this thread began with a simple question: What is your view of God?
In good faith people began sharing their views. My hope was that people would respectfully share their perspectives, and that we could learn from one another.
That isn't what happened. Instead, the religious beliefs of some members are being systematically dissected and torn apart.
While there has been no name calling or flaming, what is going on here can hardly be described as a respectful exchange. Attempting to deconstruct and prove as false another person's deeply held beliefs is not a respectful exchange.
The end result is that people are experiencing hurt feelings and alienation. How is this good for our community?
We built this site to be a place where fantasy writers can exchange ideas. This thread is not a good example of that. As one member told me, this thread has become an "echo chamber" where only one viewpoint is welcome. People are afraid to share their ideas here.
My concern is that the lack of trust and ill-will that is building in this thread will spill over and poison other parts of the site. I don't think that adding a boiler room will stop that. From my vantage point, what's going on here is counterproductive to the purpose of our community.
I've been getting private messages from long-standing members who are feeling alienated because of how people are responding to each other in this thread.
Originally, this thread began with a simple question: What is your view of God?
In good faith people began sharing their views. My hope was that people would respectfully share their perspectives, and that we could learn from one another.
That isn't what happened. Instead, the religious beliefs of some members are being systematically dissected and torn apart.
While there has been no name calling or flaming, what is going on here can hardly be described as a respectful exchange. Attempting to deconstruct and prove as false another person's deeply held beliefs is not a respectful exchange.
The end result is that people are experiencing hurt feelings and alienation. How is this good for our community?
We built this site to be a place where fantasy writers can exchange ideas. This thread is not a good example of that. As one member told me, this thread has become an "echo chamber" where only one viewpoint is welcome. People are afraid to share their ideas here.
My concern is that the lack of trust and ill-will that is building in this thread will spill over and poison other parts of the site. I don't think that adding a boiler room will stop that. From my vantage point, what's going on here is counterproductive to the purpose of our community.
Maybe a separate thread in the research forums?
The reason I suggest that is this: in a few of my works (and one in particular) religious beliefs are an important element of the story. I do find discussion of it helpful, particularly with respect to a point/counter-point exchange where people with or without religious views make a point, others question it, the original person offers their answer to questions or problems posed, and the like. Debate in that manner gives me insight into viewpoints and rationales I wouldn't have come up with on my own.
If you had a topic somewhere on the boards that dealt with those issues, I think it could be helpful. We deal with cosmology a lot in creating fantasy worlds. People who were not interested in participating could easily avoid the thread.
Of course there are other places online where such discussions can be found, but it isn't quite the same as having it among a group of writers with similar interests.
I do get the sense that there are those who want the subject matter off the table entirely. In the end, the decision of the admins stands, and that's as it should be. But threads are so easily avoided in a forum setting like this that I'd hate to see a situation where the board as a whole caters to a person with a religious viewpoint who simply can't tolerate the idea of the discussion existing on the board, or someone with an atheistic viewpoint who simply can't abide any sort of religious discussion.
Thoughts?
The reason I suggest that is this: in a few of my works (and one in particular) religious beliefs are an important element of the story. I do find discussion of it helpful, particularly with respect to a point/counter-point exchange where people with or without religious views make a point, others question it, the original person offers their answer to questions or problems posed, and the like. Debate in that manner gives me insight into viewpoints and rationales I wouldn't have come up with on my own.
If you had a topic somewhere on the boards that dealt with those issues, I think it could be helpful. We deal with cosmology a lot in creating fantasy worlds. People who were not interested in participating could easily avoid the thread.
Of course there are other places online where such discussions can be found, but it isn't quite the same as having it among a group of writers with similar interests.
I do get the sense that there are those who want the subject matter off the table entirely. In the end, the decision of the admins stands, and that's as it should be. But threads are so easily avoided in a forum setting like this that I'd hate to see a situation where the board as a whole caters to a person with a religious viewpoint who simply can't tolerate the idea of the discussion existing on the board, or someone with an atheistic viewpoint who simply can't abide any sort of religious discussion.
Thoughts?
Steerpike,
I certainly don't want to make religious discussion off-limits. In the "real world" I'm a professor of philosophy and religious studies. Facilitating and encouraging religious discussion is what I do for a living.
In my classes, though, we always follow a cardinal rule: treat other religions with respect.
I encourage my students to look for what is good and true in all religions - even those that they disagree with.
If you don't understand another person's belief, politely ask them to explain it, emphasizing that you want to understand where they are coming from.
If you disagree with another person's belief, don't bring it up. If your mind is already made up that they are wrong, there's no point in having a discussion. It only puts them on the defensive.
If we approach religious discussion from this perspective, we can have fruitful exchanges.
I certainly don't want to make religious discussion off-limits. In the "real world" I'm a professor of philosophy and religious studies. Facilitating and encouraging religious discussion is what I do for a living.
In my classes, though, we always follow a cardinal rule: treat other religions with respect.
I encourage my students to look for what is good and true in all religions - even those that they disagree with.
If you don't understand another person's belief, politely ask them to explain it, emphasizing that you want to understand where they are coming from.
If you disagree with another person's belief, don't bring it up. If your mind is already made up that they are wrong, there's no point in having a discussion. It only puts them on the defensive.
If we approach religious discussion from this perspective, we can have fruitful exchanges.
Neurosis
Minstrel
And if that doesn't work, we go on a holy crusade to their homeland. There we kill thousands of them and steal all their possessions in the name of our God, then tell them their deity is not good as our deity.
In my experience religious discussion == argument. Anyone who doesn't want to be involved in that should just not post in such a thread.
Last edited:
The Blue Lotus
Auror
Oh dear... I'm at a loss for words.
That statement sums up what is wrong with the world. In glaring technicolor no less!
And I shall now add that common sense dictates that one not make such obtuse, horrid statements, even if it were a bad attempt at humor.
I've been watching this thread for a while and would agree with Black Dragon and what others have said that I don't feel comfortable sharing my views about this because I feel like I'll get attacked or have my views dissected. Overall, we're a pretty united community and discussing politics and religion almost always ends in tears (or people getting agressive). I don't think this thread has reached any personal attacks as of yet, but it's just talking in circles.
Neurosis
Minstrel
Oh dear... I'm at a loss for words.
That statement sums up what is wrong with the world. In glaring technicolor no less!
And I shall now add that common sense dictates that one not make such obtuse, horrid statements, even if it were a bad attempt at humor.
I don't see anything funny about genocide in the name of the adult version of an "imaginary friend". Everything to do with religion leads to conflict--which was obviously the point of my "obtuse, horrid statements".
A statement such as this doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way. It's dismissive and insulting to refer to someone's deity as an "imaginary friend."
Surely you know better than this.
I agree with what you said in the post, above, except with respect to the quoted portion. To me, the most fruitful discussions I've been a part of have involved people who disagree with one another, and are able to do so in a respectful manner. If someone becomes defensive merely at the idea of being disagreed with, they have problems in my opinion. There is no cause for that sort of reaction so long as all of those who are in disagreement with one another are able to be respectful. Respect does not necessarily equate to agreement or silence.
Discussing the Problem of Evil, for example, is interesting and can be enlightening in terms of learning how various people approach the subject. It is a very longstanding philosophical debate. If someone follows the Christian religion, and I say "Hey, what about the problem of evil," there is nothing disrespectful in that (unless the way I say it is insulting), it is a legitimate interest on my part to see how people reconcile such issues with their own beliefs, particularly because I do not find a way to reconcile them myself.
I'm not sure why someone would feel threatened or unwanted or somehow less able to contribute to the community at a whole because of a thread in which some members disagree with their religious views (or lack thereof). I haven't seen the PMs you are getting, but I've seen them on other boards and they often are some variation on "I don't like or am not interested in that subject, so please don't let people talk about it." I admit to finding that odd when the obvious solution for any forum member who feels that is to not click on the thread regarding that subject matter. When I see threads that don't interest me, I just don't read them.
EDIT: I might add that I do appreciate the fact that we are being allowed to "debate" the moderation issues regarding this thread. On some sites it would simply be locked without much commentary.
There's levels to community building. You can't simply try and refute every statement someone makes and expect them to continue interacting with you. You need to build a legitimate level of trust.
True. But if someone wants to stop interacting with me, or with you, in a given thread, that's exactly what they should do. My question is of the need to take it beyond that and actually complain to the mods in an attempt to get them to stop everyone else from interacting in the thread as well.
- Status
