You didn’t really give the impression of it.
And? At least I made a token effort in that direction. I’m no militant atheist, I just was shocked at how such smart people could be so fooled. Bricker’s no dummy, but he said some dumb stuff in this thread, dude. It happened.
But, again - soul in jeopardy. If you care at all you care about* that*, I would imagine. If that isn’t enough, why would no longer being in communion with the Church be?
And… that made that statement a lie, then.
Huh? Dude, you will rarely meet someone as thoughtful on the topic of religion as me. I go to a Unitarian church, and often find the members to be too vitriolic on the topic. LOL really. I’ve got a long list of flaws, but…thoughtfulness on this topic sure is not one.
No, I meant the “I say this with all love” one.
This is not a thread about my personal flaws. If you want to hijack it, then go ahead, but that’s not where it started. Granted, it’s not a thread about Theology with a big T either, but that’s a pet topic of mine, and we tend to steer things toward our pet topics.
The more you talk about your personal virtues, the more other folks will want to talk about your personal flaws. Your “with all love” line was so clearly insincere that I took it as sarcasm; why not just own the snottiness and move on?
Being well-thought-through on religion is not an important virtue. It helps you avoid being part of the problem in terms of religious conflicts, and helps you avoid wasting time/energy on wondering whether you’ve “kept kosher” or avoided breaking whatever arbitrary rules a given religion has. That’s mostly it.
You came into the thread in order to, it seems, declare people in here (as a subset of others but also specifically) foolish, misleading, and ignorant, and to say that the arguments in here weren’t useful or helpful in any real sense.
It seems reasonable to me to point out in that same spirit that the very first sentence you typed in this thread was a lie.
If that’s what it does, then you shouldn’t consider yourself well-thought-out on religious issues, since your snarky snotty posts here are undoubtedly a small part of the problem.
Look, own the snot, quit the self-back-patting, and move on.
Yes, and in today’s world, editors are pressured by publishers to write headlines that will get more clicks.
Who cares? At least I’m making a useful and valid point, that common sense and a little reflection would tell you that rules lawyering is probably a dumb activity in the area of spirituality. Realizing that is also a stepping stone to realizing that most of the differences between the main religions of the world, Eastern or Western, is just that. Silly rules lawyering and pointless distinctions.
Of course, I don’t usually bother pointing all that out, even in religion threads, which I almost never post in. I was just caught off guard by the hilarious gap between Bricker’s intelligence and the way he was approaching religion/theology.
Now you two can go search every single post I’ve ever made, hoping to find where I’ve addressed religion, theology, etc… You’ll find I haven’t, though, if you really are that petty and obsessed. Part of not feeding the problem is avoiding the topic unless people are ready. Maybe someone’s ready in this thread. It could be a potential teachable moment.
I am hoping you will come back and say more about this.
I am interested in more about what you have said because in the rape exception example, the Church would say no exceptions…?
Well looky you, solving all religious squabbles in a single soundbite. How come nobody thought of that before?
Look. I ain’t religious, and if I were, I’d be Sufi or Unitarian or Neopagan or some other shit with more mystical and less rules emphasis. But that’s me. What looks like “rules lawyering” to you looks like deeply considered and yes, well-thought-through religion to other people.
You see most of the differences between different religions as due to rules-lawyering. I see it as due to thoughtless contempt for those with a different set of spiritual beliefs. So yeah, you’re definitely part of the problem.
Not you, I suppose, which is a shame. It does seem a little hypocritical to come into this thread and accuse others of misleading others in a manner that suggests that this is worth discussing, and then reacting with indifference to your own lie.
Put another way; if I should ignore your misleading, why shouldn’t I also ignore the misleading you point out? "IOW, you, and your churches, are hilariously misled and misleading. " - who cares?
Heh? You should get to combing my post history for religious references. Or did you do that super-fast, find none, and decide to soldier on anyway?
Yeah, you should be ashamed of your pettiness. I’m not perfect in that area, by a long shot, but you’re still sucking at it right now. 
And you didn’t even grasp my point. However, I believe that was due to thinking I meant differences as “disagreements”. I simply meant differences in the more general sense. I shouldn’t have used the term “rules lawyering” to cover that much stuff, though. Rules lawyering is an activity, and I should have said that it’s the pointless doctrinal minutiae that allows the rules lawyering that is a basis for religous disagreements.
Yep, because no one on this board has ever heard that religion is stupid. Thank you for your loving contribution.
How is the thread about lying? You need to work on your obsession with lies. I am not a fan of liars, but I know I need to watch myself on that issue. I’m not sure you realize that about yourself yet.
And it wasn’t a lie. I wasn’t being sarcastic. It was really just a toss off phrase to disarm people so they might be more willing to listen to what I was saying.