I was about to post a reply to 'wouldee' on the now defunct

'... if the word of Jesus is worth anything...'

thread from Abra.


It insipred the above topic.


Here is my reply to wouldee.






With all due respect 'wouldee', divisiveness is the only leitmotive I get from your words lately.

I choose to think that something upsetting must be taking place in your life right now, and transpires in these threads.

Although divisiness is the general thrownness of your recent posts, let me highlight the 'faith' factor you bring up to illustrate the point.

You wrote:

"... But , if the exercise is weighing faith of one label in the balance against faith of another label, then equitable arguments may be waged in the pursuit of resolution of the intended balance. But when a matter of faith, such as "evolution theory" is afforded the distinction as being fact when it is not, but yet still also a matter of faith inconclusive in its veracity throught the investigative scrutiny of fact..."

To use faith as a measure, or label, or entity that might have different 'clubs', and could be weighed, and traded as some vulgar merchandise, is to mischaracterize the essential meaning of faith.

Of course faith has a 3rd or 4th subordinated meaning, referring to religious creed, but its first and essential meaning is 'BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF'!

Only that kind of faith is of essence in the forums here, or anywhere else in life.

The confusion of genre as to the context and appropriate meaning of faith, is at the heart of every pissing contest taking place in these and other religious fora.

The faith you speak of above, religious creed, is out of context. It may as well be a sports team, or an army. It is imminently DIVISIVE.

But here is the thing. WE NOT AT WAR!!!

I don't hate you wouldee, and I'll be damned if I start doing so simply because you have different beliefs than I.

You and I have faith, and we justify that same faith, ... with different abstractions, through words.

There are no warring churches, clubs, or religions. Only insecure people whom confuse faith: belief without proof (1), and faith: religious credence (4).

Using (4) in a public and open forum is clearly divisive and conflict seeking. Using same definition train apologetics ‘armies’ is just as misguided and divisive. Certainly not Christian like.

FAITH is an abstraction shared by all humanity. You don't get to weigh, compare and trade an abstraction wouldee!!!

Abra has faith, just the same as you wouldee. I too. Feral, Jeannie, David, same thing.

Only 'spider'...


:) just joking


Even 'spider', SAME FAITH!!!

Not measurable!!! That's the beauty about faith.

While it is possible to attempt to put the abstraction of our shared universal faith into limiting and inexact words,

... it is totally pointless and trivial to 'barter', or otherwise proselytize onto others, the limiting and trivial words which help each one of us justify 'faith' to ourself.

In that context, the ultimate 'trivial personal pursuit', is the 'selling and mascarading' of the 'word for word' 'supremacy' of the same, limiting and inexact, words of a bible.

Words, given their limiting and inexact range, will never be usefull in disguising themselves as spirit (faith). They are part of the inexact tools we have to evoque spirit, but certainly, will never be spirit itself.

Confusing 'belief without proof' with 'religious creed', when dealing with faith is consciously or unconsciously a mischaracterization.

To represent to the rest of a faith inherent humanity, that one group holds THE TRUTH, characterized by a bible, holding the WORD of a speficic god (word for word, inerrant), PROSELITYZED AS THE ULTIMATE GOD, is a perversion of faith.

Not the bible as such. Agree with it or disagree with personally, it is just words. If they empower you, great. If not, move on.
Not religion as such.
Not even one's PERSONAL belief in the word for word inerrancy of the bible.

The perversion lies in the mischaracterization that one's belief, 'would(ee) :) be the ultimate belief.

This is the only persistent and unresolved conflict on these threads.

I know not, whether I will ever agree, or share the particular inexact and limiting words you use to speak faith as it occurs to you wouldee.
Neither you will you ever know whether you could agree with my words.

But on the first degree meaning of faith, we are condemned to agree on the fact that we share it.

We are indivisibly ONE in faith my friend.

The rest is but our petty human perversions, and 'ego' based diisiveness which we should endeavour to embrace!!!

We are all in the same 'faith' boat.

And that's (my) final limiting and inexact word on the matter!

:)

yup.

now re read what I wrote as though I wrote it like you depict that it ought to have been.

you get it, but not from me,

God, apparently had to open your eyes to it.

and then, in your assumptions, mean it to mean that I have been reckless with the way I use the word, "faith".

SO, do try to be more diligent in the exercise of controlling your filters, my friend.

I never procalaimed Christianity as the "faith" I am talking about, but ypou assumed that.

Sometimes, Voila, you disapponit me.

I f I wanted to exclude, Islam, Judaism, pantheisim, etc (please forgive me, those of you that I have not exemplified) from my remarks, i would have tailored them and characterized them differently.

What is so elusive to you is the very pertinence that is the impetus for all you see from me in the last few days.

As a matter of fact, if you all had the commom courtesy to recognize that feral is sharing from her heart that which is dear to her and sought to rejoice at all with her joys, you would refrain from attacking her like you do.

You systematically remove Jesus and Christianity from your inclusiveness of faiths and endearments and exclude Christians from being at all capable of sharing anything with good will and in faithful demeanor.

This precisely why you have been put to the test to defend your hypocricy and negligence.

You do not see it, Voila!!!!

Even still, you will not see it, as it will reduce your criticisms of me as an embarrassment to you.

I am sure some smug or shrewd or dismissive rebuttal my very well accompany my responding to you at all, but such as will, so shall be, my friend.

You are under no compulsion to continue in the vain of your errant observation.

I do stand in doubt of you, however, since you saw fit to unlock the thread quite ingeniously.

Does rebellious disrespect for authority ring a bell?

This was not Mark's intention, Voila!!!!!!!


Tellme, do you submit to no one?

are you not also under authority, Voila!!!!????


Of course, you are.

Show some dignity, man.

Be faithful.

Divisiveness:

I think I am getting the feeling of this from Wouldee also, more so recently than before, although we have disagreed quite strongly on many things in the past.

The point to which divisiveness has reached in communication with Wouldee, for me, has recently increased and reached the point where all real communication is lost completely, save for a few sarcastic and gratuitous exchanges.

He choses only to speak seriously to those who revere and admire him in the Christian Coffee house thread; preferring to lecture rather than discuss or communicate with those who might question or challenge or debate his points.

He has drawn the line between himself and others who refuse to fall in line with his religious notions. ( More like a wall between himself and others, preferring not to know or listen to anyone outside of his own religious following.)

That is his choice of course. But I can feel the wall he has constructed and I know that my words to him now fall on deaf ears. He is gone. There is no reaching him truly. He has closed the door, and I doubt if a real communication will develop between him and me again, if there ever was one to begin with. He choses not to care, he choses not to know.

That is the way it looks from my perspective anyway.

JB

By the way.


faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

now if the word, itself, were the very criteria of faith, then faith can be reduced to mere confidence, by definition, Voila!!!

But in describing faith which is entirely a greater matter, a word is given to earmark its importunity.


Sometimes, in life, living examples of showing what things are not employs showing things that are not that they are not what they claim to be.

With respect to faith, faith is not employed equally by all those that bandy about the word.

It means, apparently, different things to different men, and respecting the differences is not always yielding faithfulness.

Now, whom is being less than diligent in that regard is a questionable matter, my friend.

And that, my friend, starts wars, doesn't it?


Oh, if you could only receive that by faith, faithfully.

It matters little that you keep using divisive language 'wouldee'! A lie is running you these days. You might be upset, anxious, or distracted by some personal situation, and I don't rejoice at that thought if it is the case.

But divisive dispositions produce only lies.


I have no quarrel, insults, harsh words or judgment toward you or anyone on these forums wouldee.

I will keep pointing out divisiveness.


As I wrote earlier:

'... We are indivisibly ONE in faith my friend.

The rest is but our petty human perversions, and 'ego' based divisiveness which we should endeavour to embrace!!!

We are all in the same 'faith' boat.

And that's (my) final limiting and inexact word on the matter!

:)

I suppose Wouldee is right that common courtesy would have us draw a line of divisiveness between ourselves and even Feralcatlady so as to allow her to share from her heart what ever she wishes without any comment on it whatsoever.

Is that what she wants? Why? Is this not a discussion forum?

Would ignoring her make her feel better? I wouldn't think so.

Should we patronize her so as to encourage her preaching of a thing we personally find offensive or false?

I don't know why you think she has been "attacked." I think she is a wonderful person, I thought she enjoyed debates, as she always feels and declares that she wins them.

Shall we draw a line in our own communication with people when we disagree?

Shall we cease all discussion?

JB

Faith.

Here is how I define faith.

Faith is to cooperate with God in a calm manner.



JB

I am !!! by faith and faithfully receiving it that is!!!

Revisit my earlier post, and afford me the same faithfull treatment.

Ask claryfying questions if you wish. I will answer authentically and faithfully.

Let's see where you might disagree, or yet agree. No obligations. We share faith wouldee. No quarrels needed.

You know as well as I wouldee, divisive quarrels are lies; not real.

They're lies for me, they're lies for you, and they're lies for all.

We could have a real discussion here. I trust and have faith in that!!!

JB.

you have caught a GLIMPSE.

at the core, is the simple distinction that evolution parades around as though it has answered its persuppositions affirmatively.

That is not true.

It still yte remains that te hypothetical validity of the pursuit has not been reached and within the scientific community, there is sufficient cause to recognize that the answers sought are not forthcoming, if ever.

That does not mean that the study should be abandoned.

My distinction lies in the misappropriation of conjecture as fact.

It is that simple.

I have shown that this is the case and that the conjecture has not been overcome by the evidence irrefutibly declaring that th hypothesis is in fact a fact itself.

This is the rub.

It gets carelessly and recklessly characterized as something that it is not.

It is predominately construed to be antithetical to matters of faith and that is pointed squarely at Judaic beginnings.

The two , Judaic thought on the one hand, and the origins of species, on the other are clearly matters of faith.

They are not fact vs. faith.

Ths is where the rubber meets the road.



You all will see it for what it is or will not.

If where I land becomes the issue for accepting my assessment of the disatinctions that inspired my discourse and inclusion in this dabacle are the hot button, then i doubt that any will agree with me wholeheartedly.

Christians would characterize my advocacy as reprehensible to a large degree, but secretly enjoy what is revealed of each and every contributor to this debacle consuming any number of threads.

Where those of you cannot find it within yourselves to embrace Christianity at all as coherent and legitimate and intelligent and wholesome , does not mean that I preclude you from seeing the bigger picture that I have been so careful to argue in these debates from the very careful premise I am exposing as my motives for so behaving.

It has been missed by most.

Some, not Christians have caught on.

Though they might not yet realize that my intentions were thus.

I did reach some.

Most however are too rigidly planted in convictions to divorce their own with the same caerfulnness that I have done with my own, to the degree with which I frame the distinction made.

Evolution is a faith based doctrine.

It is not fact.

No one has or can rebuke that observsation.

My goal is and was and will always be to characterize things for what they are, not what one wants them to be.

In that, I am diligently faithful to do.



You have gotten a glimpse.

Perhaps now you know better what it is you are looking at, JB.

Voila!!!

I do agree with you.

I said that first and foremost by sayiing that I have done so as you say should be.

There is no need to dissect what you said.

I agree, completely.

Always have.


But I am a deep pool of water, my friend.


and very very complex.

Wish I were not, sometimes, Voila!!!!

It places me in polar contrast to the middle, every time.


I stand to lose nothing.

I also stand to gain nothing.

i seek no special privileges.

I seek no advantages.

I see things for what they are and call them how I see them.

I characterize every word I utter from that perch.

I am a labeled man, and I am a man of convictions.

I have come to a place in my life that represents the simplicity of truth, the moral duty for being truthful and representing facts clearly and filing opinions where they belong in the unfinished probability drawer where such things as opinions belong.

My knowlege of God is viewed largely as an opinionated choice I have made to most that I encounter everywhere.

I also know that most never find that knowledge.

I do not dispute that or even care to prove it or convince any otherwise.

That is impossible with men when it comes to God answering for God.

Nor, do I believe that everyone that believes differently than they hold that I myself do are going to hell in a handbasket because they don't.

I have said so too many times.

I have shown scripture that reveals that.

I have given place to share that, but it falls on deaf ears.

Within the Christian community, i am viewed by each group as in the other and visa versa, Voila!!!!.

I wear that.

I also wear the badge of the club, et al.

I knew I would when God revealed Himself to me in Christ. It didn't matter then, and it doesn't matter now. It will not matter to me later.

I haven't parked my brain at the curb to come inside, Voila!!!

I also didn't let the jeers and and taunts in the world dissuade me from approaching Almighty God at all, and I did approach knowing full well that I am unworthy and not a perfect specimen to make a man od=f God out of, nor do I hold myself in any such esteem now.

Oddly enough, I am adamant to not declare anything righteous and do remind all that the Lord is my righteousness, and that I have none of myself.

Oddly, when i do some poor soul some good, it is the Lord doing that through me.

Have a learned anything from it to make me see myself as a better person?

Emphatically NO~~~~~~

I learn more of the Lord in so doing, and that is my delight.

Wherever I may land in that perspective for my efforts is not what began this pilgrimage of mine and not what will end it.

I came forweard to know God and learn from God that which God will teach me, and that alone.

I am not iin control of that, nor can I or do tell God how to do that.

Should I start now?

Of course not.



well, there you have a morsel of something.

chew on it.

or not.

it is what it is.

wouldee the glimpse that might be revealed through your recent posts, is one of exasperation.

You have embarked on a personal mission to free the world from evolution! You have invested every ounce of energy and intellect into your project, ... and the 'dummies' just don't get it!!!

Well join the party!!!

We all sleep at the same address.

I have embarked on a mission too, so has Abra, Feral, JeannieB, David, spider, and everyone else whom posts here.

Nothing wrong with mission. But the battle we engage in, in the name of those missions is whole other matter.

If you can't avoid battles all together, at the very least, choose them very carefully, with wisdom and generosity.

The mission of deconstructing evolution in our current day and age, is a the mother of marathonian missions!!!

We're talking about a generational undertaking. If this happens in your lifetime, you will be able to claim a miracle, on top of having succeeded in your mission.

I don't agree with your mission. IMO opinion Don Quichotte had a more realistic mission, attacking windmills!!!

But that is not the point. Whether I agree or not, is neither here nor there, in the matter of missions.

Do it honorably, and take into consideration that you will face massive disagreement over which you have no dominion.

And don't forget to explain very slowly, our SHARED PURPOSE and MOTIVES in this debunking of evolution mission.

Why stop evolution!?!?!?

Or as I suspect you imply, why is important that evolution should never have existed!!!

If you hold us as 'dummies', whom <dissapoint you wouldee, WE WILL NEVER GET IT!!!


Respectfully.


P.S.: Fyi, written while you fired above post.

Voila!!

we have been post frogging over one another.

yup.

I have been doing just as you suggest all day.

wander around for any inkling of that

funny, how things go, my friend.

your mentorship is but an echo, my friend.

revelation of my muse had been already forthcoming.

funny, that.

I don't wish for this comment to across as an insult, so please do not misinterpret it.

YOU ARE NOT SO COMPLEX WOULDEE!!! YOU ARE NOT EVEN A LITTLE COMPLEX.

You are a rather straight read. You don't want to be a straight read, but after a few posts, you are.

I am not being condescending or pretending to know something about that is not already public and common knowledge for posters on these threads.

Again, you and I, and everyone else on these threads, feel we're special and hard to figure out (in some secret place of our being).

Well, surprise!!! We all think the same!!! And on that we're all figured out.

Inclusive/exclusive is human beings ultimate paradoxical battle.

We're all farting at that address.

In or out!!! The paradox frees us up, or chokes us up, sometimes covered in incomprehensible speeches.

Spirit is neither inclusive or exclusive. So it is with faith. The faith we have, the extent of which we couldn't even start to imagine!!!

Spirit! We had that discussion before, and we keep having it.

Spirit! It is there for all of us, regardless of credence.

Spirit! It is there for all, limitless, but it is there for no one in particular. As you might say, THAT'S THE RUB!

I don't want to jinx it, but I sense we might be starting to have a discussion here?!?!?!?

Take it in steads!

I trust you won't let the out of sequence leapfrogging kill the spirit!

And of course, no need to remind you I am one the 'dummies' whom doesn't understand your evolution debunking mission, but I am on the other hand a genius in defending people's right to their missions!!!

:) :) :)

were that such as you say were true, you would not be so adamant to lump me in the barrel withh the other fish scooped up in the net when you made your first catch and set out to teach us a thing or two, my friend.

That culminated with misapprehending my so misunderstood apprehensoin fo what constutes a consensual view of faith irespective of one's own discipline in merit.

Not that I doubt you meaning well, my friend, but your words do not align with your deeds.

In any case, the confligration has run its course ahead of your schedule.

I am sure you will remind me of further necessities and duties as you see fit in the clean-up I am already engaged in since the close this party.

Do stay around and help.

I really don't mind the help.

perhaps you can persuade some of the other guests to be so likeminded, my friend.

you better leapfrog this last post of mine up a notch on the scroll, my friend.

the context given where it lands would infuriate me if it landed there.

HUM! Clarification required!

I get that you are warning me about 'jumping to conclusions' about the post at the top, but I'm confused still by the 'context landing' and the 'infuriate landing there' comments.

Do you suggest disregarding the post altogther???

If not, do you wish to re-word it???

Just asking.

not at all, but if loked like a answer to the post just above it, it would give me pause to think that strife and contention were all that was real.

that could be infuriating.

i nsay i would be infuriated if it happened to me and i was not thinking clearly in my deliberations.

that is not the case here, with either one of us.

it was dry humor, Voila!!!

good evening,

Well, I'll be darned, words I can read and understand, at last.

Wouldee you have said alot and so has Voil and JB was brave to comment in the middle.

I think Voil needs to be commended, for finally bringing you out, Wouldee. However, there are still some things left unsaid and this thread would not be complete with addressing them.

First Wouldee, you make a fine point regarding how much of eveolution is taken on faith. You can be a master of words and ideas and I have seen you take a thought and formulate it on high intellectual ground, and then restate it just as aptly for those with less education. Yet you chose in these threads not to do so.

Instead, here, in this thread you lament over the treatment of Feral. JB has brought up some very good points about that. Let me just clarfy it a bit. One does not debate something they beleive to be in error, the way that she has done.

HOWEVER, if you were so inclined to help her to maintain her integrity and her usual acceptance here with everyone, why did you abandon her? It's obvious that you know how to debate, it's obvious that you CAN make some good points, you did so here.

Why did you not pursue that theory instead of taking on the fundamentalist view that envelops Feral's existence. I NEVER LOSE, YOU CAN'T WIN, FIND ME THIS, FIND ME THAT, I'M RIGHT AGAIN, YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Tell me Wouldee, how do you expect other to treat her, and what did you do to help?

AT LEAST I was honest with her, I've tried every way I know how, including blatently telling her how to debate. But she is lost to me, is she lost to everyone, have you tried.

Wouldee, had you posted with such eloquence your opinions of why you see evolution as faith, not fact, you MIGHT have changed the direction of the discussion, or maybe not. I guess that would have depended on the attitude of another.

I will say again, you have brought forth some good discussion points, but too late. I wish you would have been there earlier.

Thanks Voil, for letting me see 'Wouldee' before I take my leave for the term.

And thank-you both (and JB) for teaching me some new lessons.

di (First time I ever signed my name to a post)

hi redy

I wouldn't characterize my "thing" as lament for Deb.

She is quite aware of her surroundings and very coherent, if you ask me. She is adorable and feisty. I like that.

I happen to agree with her, in general, too.

I also see how she is pigeonholed, time and time again, and discounted for her style.

But there is a depth to her spirit and soul that is womderfully admirable and that woman can take the heat.

She needs no assistance.


I see what I see.

I do what I do.

I start with what I see and put it out there.

I stick to what is that which I see and pound it home.

This isn't about anyone in particular, it is just that some will wear the hat and the hat isn't appropriate attire, given the circumstances.


The evolution debate has been characterizing itself with a funny little quirk for far too long, and by now, everyone following my posts knows more than they did about that quirky little nuance than they did before.

But some, not so emotionally involved and personally passionate about "the origins of man" on any side of the issue have seen my muse and made comments on their own that display to me that some actually get it.

Now, Deb and I never discussed what I was doing.

and she may have wondered herself what i was up to.

But I drove home a point that needed to be made in a very distinctive way and that way shaped itself with the living nature of the fluidity given on every front, and each and every step of the way was tailor fit to receive that which I was predisposed to elucidate.

SOme of it was intended as light humor, and some of it became quite comedic.

But glaringly to me is the obstinance and belligerance that is associated with this topic everywhere in America and that is exhibited on both sides of how this social debate and inquiry has been framed and characterized without question.


If, in fact , we are to act locally and think globally, then in truth, we ought to frame this inquiry into "the origins of man" with lucidity.

That is not being done, when peered into through the emotions of those affected by the outcome in consensus.

It is the man, woman, and child on the street in every day life that is being fed information with no comprehension of what is ultimately at stake, and the burden of proof rests largely o science to step up to the plate and admit that they have overreached their competence in putting the conclusory picture together first and then fitting the pieces together after the fact assming incorrectly so that in the end, the picture will work.

They have do so with impunity and in a matter with as far reaching consequences to mankind as a whole, society has the greater responsibility to provide wise and serious oversight of scienmce for their work.

The scientific and academic community is too close to the fire to be the arbiters of this subject and how it is characterized to our children and future generations.

It is an unfinished work, with a very low probability of ever moving forward any closer to its endgame goal, but that is also more than suspect inlight of technological advances that are raising more questions that are being answered with regards to veracity of the evidence at haND AND THE LACK OF MOMENTUM AND PROGRESS oops taking place to come to any sound conclusion regarding the facts and unltimately whether or not the "bird will fly" or the "dog will hunt".

With all of that being said, I have come to no other conclusion than that which I had at the outset of this strange debacle.

Which is as I have shared throughout.


Nevertheless, this is precisely why i entered into this issue and tagged along for the ride.

It is a hotbutton issue, and one which would become characterized here much differently had i remained silent through it all.

And yes, Deb would most certainly have had all of the grief and anguish due her from those that do not respect her depth and understanding on this issue.

damn that wouldee...


you think about that one now.

think hard on it.


You will see it.


many will see it, that I chose to say what I ahd to say, the way I said what I had toi say, the way I said what I had to say.

From beginning to end, and it wasn't til it was over iin my judgement that anyone ralized what I was actually saying all along.

Nothing changed except for what?


and in the end, why not?

why not another way?


There is still so much more than meets the eye in all of this here in this forum.

so , disguises work even in plain view.

No deception offered from me, but what I have been saying wasn't heard and it did nothing to temper the differences since everyone plodded along discounting Deb's point which is shared by me and missed by all those that took issue with both of us.

That faulty science has overreached its actual achievement in credibility.


I do still stand in doubt that such will be made clear soon enough to mitigate the consequences horrendously being abrogated upon the minds of our youth in such a contemptible miscarriage as is being perpetrated upon them in their textbooks which they are asked to trust.

I do not stand in doubt that science will ever recant and renounce its witch hunt to declare God dead and blame Jesus Christ for man's ills as having been an erroneous undertaking of nefarious importunity and neglect of duty to God and man for the opportunity science has had to do the right thing from the beginning, honorably and with dignity and with all due diligence afforded them in their dedication to serve humanity well.
The ramifications of this debate and inquiry into resolving the truth of "the origins of man" is a very slippery one.


Few there be among men that do see that fact.