The 11th Commandment revisited and explained.

[guillaumeb]

The original text was this:

An 11th Commandment is clearly needed.
One specific to the Religion group. One that would reflect the reality of many of the viewpoints and responses here.

The 11th Commandment to read:

Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group.

Some very few here resist the implications of that post, choosing instead to claim that I desire a group filled with only positive posts about religion. Unfortunately for these very few, my own posts that are captioned "Bad news" refute such a simplistic analysis.

So what are the implications of the original post?

One is that I have been reading old posts back to 2012, and based on my admittedly limited reading, the same few posters can be observed attacking every positive post about religion, often questioning the motives of the poster.

Much of the attack centers around the good being attacked becasue it is not the perfect. And if one expects perfection, one will inevitably be disappointed.

[Cartoonist]

1. Religion group revisited

So you went back and did a study. You came here and gave us your conclusion bereft of any evidence to back it up. You're a theist alright.

[Major Nikon]

2. Sounds more like the words of someone who has risen from the dead

So to speak.

[guillaumeb]

12. Like this study, also presented with no evidence?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218283916

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

51. Heh heh.

[Mariana]

3. There is no 11th Commandment.

You may make positive references to religion. religious beliefs, and theists in this group, and you often do so. Your positive references are not deleted, and you are neither banned from DU nor blocked from this group as a result of your posts. Therefore, this:

"Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group."

is a lie.

[uriel1972]

4. Noooooo......

I don't agree with this statement

Much of the attack centers around the good being attacked becasue it is not the perfect. And if one expects perfection, one will inevitably be disappointed.

Not for myself at least.

If I attack religion, it is because I think it's adding to human misery. If religion itself were a positive I would praise it. If it was benign, I would ignore it.

Please note I am not saying it is the sole source of human misery, but that it adds to it.

[guillaumeb]

13. Any human actions can have the same effect.

So the argument actually ends with the conclusion that humans are not perfect and that humans can take actions that have bad consequences.

But the 11th Commandment refers to the tendency of a very few to reflexively attack any posts/posters that present religion in a positive light.

[Mariana]

59. Any human actions can have the same effect.

That is true, but this is the religion group. We discuss religion here. That is the purpose of the group. If you wish to talk about things other than religion, there are groups set up for discussion of many different topics.

[guillaumeb]

67. I am happy that we agree on my point. eom

[trotsky]

5. Your words say one thing.

Your actions say another.

Want to be taken seriously? Stop throwing around this lame "commandment" as an excuse to avoid dialog.

People are allowed to have their own opinions about what you post without you making insulting public comments about their motivations.

That you would choose to go back SIX YEARS and dig through posts to target individuals for attack speaks to what you view as true Christian behavior. You have made yourself a vendetta against posters in this forum who don't respond as you would like them to. How does that mesh with what Jesus taught?

Why not try to turn the page? Why not engage in honest, sincere dialog? Start by responding to this post and apologizing for your attacks on posters here. Show us what a good Christian looks like. Are you able to do that? Or will you simply do as you always do, respond with a snide remark and/or attack?

Ball's in your court, gil. Everyone's watching.

[guillaumeb]

14. I am judging those few by their actual actions.

And if those actions are consistent over 6 years, can I be forgiven for making assumptions based on those observations?

Would you prefer that I present it as a theory?

[Major Nikon]

55. You're judging things with zero experience

There’s been people in this group who viewed atheists as scum and expressed as much openly. Some of them are no longer DUers. So yes, they didn’t receive a warm reception because they in no way deserved it.

Meanwhile there’s theists who have participated in this group who do get a warm reception from just about everyone because they engage in discussions in good faith.

I get you want to play the victim, but that dog won’t hunt.

[guillaumeb]

69. More claims with no evidence.

Unfortunately for your assertion, reading the actual posts reveals a different narrative.

[Major Nikon]

71. Hitchens's razor is working against you

[guillaumeb]

72. Hitchens was an arrogant clown.

With a strong tendency to believe in his own perfection.

[Major Nikon]

73. Even if true ad hominem does your argument no favors

Nice try though.

[guillaumeb]

75. Even if true?

What a powerful defense of Hitchens.

[MineralMan]

79. Do you suppose that all atheists are strong supporters of Hitchens?

It's not so. You appear to be lumping all non-believers into one category. That's a mistake, and one that is obvious.

Perhaps it's time for you to rethink a bit. You seem to be getting many things wrong. Perhaps a re-calibration is in order.

[Mariana]

83. We're not really individual, discrete human beings at all, you know.

We are all the same and interchangeable, and we all have one common mind. If one atheist says a thing, then all atheists must agree. You didn't know that?

This is a handy way to dehumanize atheists.

[MineralMan]

84. I must be confused.

Here I am thinking I'm a unique individual with my own ideas and knowledge. Now I find out I'm just part of a homogeneous group of people who are identical. That's, you know, like really depressing and stuff like that.

But wait...that's just his opinion? Never mind, then...I'll just carry on as I was...

[guillaumeb]

98. More ad hominem and misframing.

Remove the beam.......

[Major Nikon]

93. Powerful doesn't mean what you think it means

Just sayin’

[trotsky]

63. You're upset with people because they post opinions you don't like.

Jesus fuck gil, the Internet must be a horrifying place for you.

[guillaumeb]

100. Another misreading.

[trotsky]

121. Then explain!

Again, throwing out your useless charges like "misreading!" without actually fucking EXPLAINING how someone misread what you wrote is utterly ridiculous.

Support your position like a reasonable adult, for fuck's sake.

[Major Nikon]

130. #4

[guillaumeb]

157. The 11th Commandment is the explanation.

[trotsky]

176. So, no explanation.

Thanks.

[Lordquinton]

33. Imagine if an atheist repeatedly linked to a post

In a protected group insisting it was offensive until it got hidden. Theists would flip their lid if we even mentioned a post in their groups!

[guillaumeb]

101. Great comedy routine.

Really well done.

[Lordquinton]

117. You're the only one laughing

[trotsky]

122. Well, that's only if you don't count his giant invisible fan club.

Which he assures us exists.

[Major Nikon]

131. You can't prove it doesn't exist

As such your faith it doesn't is really no more or less valid.

[Lordquinton]

139. ...

[Lordquinton]

140. We should absolutely take his word for it

To question would be opression.

[MineralMan]

146. I believe in the "fan club."

I think about it often. I imagine who might make up its membership. It occupies my mind virtually every waking hour.

Yes, indeed. Verily it doth exist, and its members are legion. Its voice speaks loudly and unendingly.

[marylandblue]

149. You know, they have medications that can help that.

Just saying...

[MineralMan]

150. LOL!

[Lordquinton]

163. Mayhap you are correct

Forsooth you have socred another convert to the fan club!

I too shall spend every waking hour thinking about it. I have more time to do so too! I only posted 300~ times the last month, thousands less than our leader.

[trotsky]

6. The "11th Commandment" *truly* explained:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283803

Mariana (6,813 posts)
20. The "11th Commandment" is a lie anyway.

Criticism isn't prohibition.

This is the kind of "dialog" I think some participants in this group want, based on an actual OP in this group from awhile back.

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

This kind of exchange is unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe this creator."
Bad: "Which human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this?"

There are groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one lone group permits the second kind, and they don't like it one little bit.

[Major Nikon]

7. The simplest explanation is it's meta and violates the SOP

Just another example of pollution in this group.

[MineralMan]

8. Reading old posts from a time before you were here?

To what end? I wish I had enough spare time to engage in such fruitless activities.

[guillaumeb]

15. How many posts have you written in the religion group in the past 90 days?

Since you mentioned time and activities?

[MineralMan]

17. 1383 now. Why do you ask?

You've written 1786 in the same time. What's your point, and how does that relate to my question?

[guillaumeb]

19. Think about it.

[MineralMan]

21. OK. You wrote 400 more in the same time. Again, what's your point?

[guillaumeb]

22. You wrote 36 out of the last 80 posts in this group.

How much time did that take?

[MineralMan]

25. Why does that matter to you?

Last edited Thu May 17, 2018, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

When I'm not actively writing for money, I write other things. I write. That is what I do, when I'm not reading.

How is that any possible concern of yours? I'm semi-retired at age 72.

I suggest you mind your own affairs and leave me to mine.

[guillaumeb]

26. You wrote:

I wish I had enough spare time to engage in such fruitless activities.

And when you dismiss what I write you invite a response. That is how it works in this type of forum.

[MineralMan]

27. We all choose our own activities.

[Lordquinton]

36. Less time than you spent

How much time do you spend on it?

[guillaumeb]

40. 86% of your posts are in religion.

So no need for me to ask about you.

[Lordquinton]

49. Deflection

And poor stastical skills.

[guillaumeb]

66. Arguing with your own profile?

Okay.

[MineralMan]

81. All this clicking of profiles and reading of old posts and replies

is unseemly. Why not try simple discussing topics, answering questions honestly and participating in this group with integrity?

That would be refreshing, and you might learn something along the way.

[guillaumeb]

95. More of your insults?

Not at all refreshing, but familiar. The poster apparently disagrees with his own DU profile. Perhaps there is a software glitch?

[Lordquinton]

88. That's what you did upthread

You had what, 400 more posts on someone and accused them of wasting time? How many posts did you read on my profile that that 86% came from?

[guillaumeb]

96. You claimed that the profile numbers are incorrect.

Perhaps you should let the Administrators know that there is a software glitch.

[Lordquinton]

116. Um, no I didn't

And why are you deflecting so much?

[guillaumeb]

156. So when you wrote this:

Lordquinton (6,759 posts)
49. Deflection

And poor stastical skills.

what did you mean?

[Lordquinton]

164. I meant you're deflecting

Also engaging in whataboutism.

Still are too. Hilarious.

[guillaumeb]

165. And the second line?

Or did you not write the second line?

Speaking of hilarious.......this exchange qualifies.

[Lordquinton]

167. Still deflecting I see

And you prove my point in another thread.

[guillaumeb]

168. So you are arguing with your own words?

Interesting technique, wherein you make an initial assertion that is refuted by DU's own software, and then accuse me of referring to your own disproven assertion as being hilarious.

[Lordquinton]

173. Deflect, deflect

I'd give a more detailed post, but that's when you'd stop responding.

You're either bad at stats, of being intentionality dishonest.

[guillaumeb]

174. Someone is having difficulty here. eom

[Lordquinton]

175. Glad you can admit to it

Tell me, why did you call out MM on the number of posts, then switch to percentage of posts when you came after me?

[MineralMan]

89. Those 36 original posts probably took about 180 minutes total to create.

Three hours. I write quickly. My keyboard text entry speed is about 100 wpm, on average. I almost never take more than five minutes to write an original post here.

The earliest original post in the current Religion Group thread list was written on May 6. So, the 80 posts shown were created over the past 11 days.

My 36 took about three hours out of those eleven days. That's not all that much time, really. I can easily spend three hours or more on DU in a single day, so, no big deal. My paid work is less than half-time, so I have time to spare.

Do the math.

Replies in threads, which make up the bulk of my post count here, take far less time to create, since I don't need to compose an essay.

How I spend my time is up to me, as is how your spend your time up to you. You're attempting some sort of ad hominem attack, but it fails because there's no there there.

Now, aren't you embarrassed to have brought that up? Perhaps you should pay more time reading the posts than trying to figure out minutiae regarding posting activity. Then, you could respond to the substance of what is posted, rather than attempting weak ad hominem attacks.

[guillaumeb]

97. Ironic that you should bring up the topic of ad hominem attacks.

Given that most of this post is one.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

102. I don't think ad hominem

means what you think it means.

[guillaumeb]

104. Someone is confused.

[trotsky]

123. You are indeed, gil.

You are indeed.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

129. Yup. NOTHING in post #89 is an ad hominem.

Though me pointing that out is probably the 11th Commandment. Or perhaps you want to make up a 12th Commandment--When someone randomly spouts a fallacy and uses it incorrectly, thou must not point out the error.

[Mariana]

166. Gil often assigns random definitions to words

that are unrelated to the words' read definitions. I've asked him to supply a glossary for the rest of us to use, but he hasn't done so.

[MineralMan]

105. ..

[guillaumeb]

106. Better.

Much better.

[sprinkleeninow]

119. I like 'ad homard' better. 😋 😃

[trotsky]

124. See, gil says "better" because the only good atheist to him...

is a silent atheist, apparently. He can't be bothered to explain why he doesn't want people posting negative comments about religion, so all we can do is guess.

[MineralMan]

128. Yes. There are limits to how many times I'll respond

to replies that are meaningless. However, I will not be a silent atheist. Not a chance.

[Major Nikon]

138. If one were to ponder his tactics...

which seems to be fair at this point, you could easily assume it relies quite heavily on argumentum ad nauseam.

[Major Nikon]

132. It certainly makes the cataloging of all the atheists' posts easier that way

[trotsky]

136. !!!

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. Question:

In your thorough and totes scientific investigation of past behavior, how did you control for selection bias?

[Major Nikon]

10. That isn't the only bias which lacks a control

Confirmation bias can also be found in anxious individuals, who view the world as dangerous. For example, a person with low self-esteem is highly sensitive to being ignored by other people, and they constantly monitor for signs that people might not like them. Thus, if you are worried that someone is annoyed with you, you are biased toward all the negative information about how that person acts toward you. You interpret neutral behavior as indicative of something really negative.

Wishful thinking is a form of self-deception, such as false optimism. For example, we often deceive ourselves, such as stating just this one; it’s not that fattening; I’ll stop smoking tomorrow. Or when someone is “under the influence” he feels confident that he can drive safely even after three or more glasses.

Self-deception can be like a drug, numbing you from harsh reality, or turning a blind eye to the tough matter for gathering evidence and thinking. As Voltaire commented long ago, “Illusion is the first of all pleasure.” In some cases, self-deception is good for us. For example, for dealing with certain illnesses having positive thinking may actually be beneficial such as cancer, but not diabetes or ulcer. There is a limited evidence that believing that you will recover helps reduce the level of stress hormones, giving the immune system and modern medicine a better chance to do their work.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

[guillaumeb]

20. Do you have any biases?

[Major Nikon]

29. Reread my post

[Major Nikon]

35. Nice try

[guillaumeb]

38. Nice avoidance.

[Major Nikon]

43. You have convinced yourself

[guillaumeb]

48. And influenced you.

[Major Nikon]

52. Nice try

[Lordquinton]

50. Post 11

[Act_of_Reparation]

60. Post #9

If you reread it and come back asking the same question, assume you know nothing of the scientific method and, if you are feeling particularly motivated, go forth and Google it.

[guillaumeb]

16. Reread my actual post.

Specifically, where I wrote:

One is that I have been reading old posts back to 2012, and based on my admittedly limited reading, the same few posters can be observed attacking every positive post about religion, often questioning the motives of the poster.

Now, compare what I wrote with what you claimed that I wrote.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. And what is it I claimed you wrote?

Please. Enlighten. Us.

[guillaumeb]

68. Happy to.

Act_of_Reparation (5,083 posts)
9. Question:

In your thorough and totes scientific investigation of past behavior, how did you control for selection bias?

[Act_of_Reparation]

80. You are familiar with sarcasm, yes?

[marylandblue]

11. Your Bad News posts never actually criticize religion

Instead, you always defend religion using whataboutism. Your most recent "bad news" was about Christian college censoring school newspapers. You commented, without citation, that regular colleges also censor their school papers. Whataboutism.

It really doesn't matter what someone does in the name of religion. If somebody, somewhere, sometime ever did something similar, then it isn't religion's fault.

So no, I have never seen you say one bad thing about religion. You only say bad things about people. Maybe you did say something bad about religion without blaming people in general at some point in the last 6 years, but I am not going to waste my time looking, it surely didn't happen often.

[guillaumeb]

18. So bad news is actually good news?

So you made an assertion with no admitted evidence.

[marylandblue]

23. I never said bad news is good news

And I did provide evidence. Reread my post if you missed it.

[guillaumeb]

24. You cited 1 post.

So no, evidence for your assertion is definitely lacking.

[marylandblue]

28. My claim is that I've never seen you make a negative post about religion

In all case where I've seen a negative point about a religion made by anyone, or in rare cases, you, there was always an excuse such as whataboutism. I incorporate by reference every one of your posts I have ever read in this group, which numbers in the thousands. If you wish to point out a contrary post which I may not have noticed, please do so. Alternatively, you may refute this claim simply by making a negative statement about religion without excusing religion itself.

You know what you wrote. You should have no trouble refuting my claim. If you don't remember what you wrote, I respectfully suggest you see a doctor.

[Major Nikon]

30. Kinda funny how some can make generalizations without evidence

Yet refuse to accept generalizations in return even with evidence. The lack of cognitive dissonance is striking.

[guillaumeb]

32. I have noticed the same thing.

The most avid followers of the 11th deny its existence.

[Major Nikon]

34. You avoided my point

[guillaumeb]

37. No, you missed mine.

[Major Nikon]

41. Nice try

[guillaumeb]

45. Thank you.

[Major Nikon]

47. De nada

[marylandblue]

42. I think there are only two regulars in this group who think there is an 11th Commandment

You are one of the two.

[guillaumeb]

46. Alternatively, there are 2 who openly admit to the position.

[Major Nikon]

53. You have convinced yourself

[guillaumeb]

31. You set the parameters.

And thus you alone are qualified to judge what fits your own personal parameters.

As to your suggestion that I suffer from a memory disorder, is that really the way you want to approach dialogue?

[marylandblue]

39. I set my parameters as you set yours

As for the memory thing, my apologies, it was a bad joke.

[guillaumeb]

44. Accepted.

I was surprised because that is not your demonstrated style.

As to parameters, you can search the group for my bad news posts if you wish. And I have commented many times about negative behavioral aspects of religious figures. What I do not say is that religion is bad, or that atheism is bad. I confine that judgement to individual actors and their actions.

[sprinkleeninow]

56. Guillaume! Mon Ami,

Mon Frère, Mon Cher.
Il est agréable que vous soyez au milieu de moi!
BonBon. 😍

[trotsky]

64. No, religion is never bad according to you. It's always good and perfect, and people mess it up.

That's the disconnect. That's your double standard. That's why so many people point out your hypocrisy.

And that's why you have such a bad time in this forum.

[guillaumeb]

70. You are demonstrating a tendency to misread or misunderstand.

I still remember when you accused me of attempting to define religion for others after I said that I can only define it for myself. That was a very good one.

[trotsky]

74. This is your fallback claim.

You tell people they are confused, or they've misread, or misframed, or misunderstood.

But you steadfastly refuse to explain yourself.

It takes two to dialog gil. If you think someone doesn't understand you, then try to communicate better. Don't insult them or imply they're stupid or mentally ill.

[guillaumeb]

76. And the example that I gave?

Nice try.

[trotsky]

77. Takes two to dialog.

Put forth an effort and I'll address your example.

"Nice try" is no effort. You are insulting me and everyone else in this forum with your behavior.

[guillaumeb]

78. I am demonstrating your own tactics.

Make of that what you will.

[trotsky]

82. You have convinced yourself. n/t

[MineralMan]

90. +100

Well played.

[guillaumeb]

94. It was an insut disguised as a response.

[trotsky]

125. Well, well. Look who just gave up their game.

You have admitted every time you've posted that response to someone, you actually intended it as an insult.

Thank you for humiliating yourself yet again, gil.

[MineralMan]

152. Dude! You've posted that identical thing multiple times.

So, you intend insult when you do that? Very informative.

[marylandblue]

99. Well, there are bad ideas as well as bad people

So even if you prefer to criticize people rather than ideas or world views, others don't have the same limitation. In fact, some think it makes more sense to criticize ideas rather than people, since ideas don't have feelings to hurt.

So why argue about whether an idea is bad, or just a person? Criticizing ideas is a basic approach and is not something people will stop doing.

[guillaumeb]

103. Yes, there are both.

But my observation about the 11th Commandment goes to what I see as a clear intent to suppress dialogue and discourage posters.

[marylandblue]

107. How? By expressing their opinion?

They have nothing good to say about religion. Ok. Not my opinion, but there are people who think that way. If you don't want them to express their opinion, what do you want them to do? Lie?

[guillaumeb]

108. Not at all.

But when people who post positively have their intelligence and motives attacked, and when other people notice and comment on these tactics, forgive me for making assumptions.

[marylandblue]

109. You are attacking other people's motives

then complaining about people attacking your motives. Not a winning move.

[guillaumeb]

110. I am attacking tactics, and giving my opinion about motivation.

If every positive post about religion is attacked by the same few posters, one might wonder as to the motivation behind the attacks.

[marylandblue]

111. What makes you think they agree a given post is positive?

[guillaumeb]

112. I would say that, based on their posts,

they see religion as a negative and they further see positive posts as a challenge to their beliefs.

My opinion.

[marylandblue]

113. Yes, I would agree with that

But that doesn't mean they are engaged in tactics to shut down debate.

[guillaumeb]

114. Again, my opinion.

But if their intent is to cause posters to refrain from posting here, (note the word if) and that is my personal opinion, I see it differently.

[marylandblue]

115. You are entitled to your opinion, but

continually talking about that particular opinion results in two things,
1) You end up debating motives rather than the group topic,
2) You work against your stated purpose of fostering dialogue, since a debate about motives is not a dialogue about religion, it is an argument about motives that leaves nobody satisfied.

[trotsky]

127. Thank you for trying. n/t

[guillaumeb]

155. My view is that some here are obviously not interested in actual dialogue.

[marylandblue]

159. Their interests are unimportant

If someone doesn't want to dialogue with you, don't talk to them.

[guillaumeb]

160. I am starting.

I do not use the ignore feature, but your advice is good.

[trotsky]

126. When you post something that challenges me, gil...

I'll be sure to let you know.

[Major Nikon]

134. Stalking has it's own pathology

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

158. How about misogyny?

Does that also have its own pathology?

Just asking.

[Major Nikon]

161. No, you aren't just asking

You are making another thinly veiled accusation that is part and parcel to your stalking. You’ve been repeating all sorts of nonsense about the posting habits of myself and others. You are getting called on it. So you can either apologize and stop doing it, or you can be assured you are going to be called on it.

[guillaumeb]

162. I was just asking.

As to your accusations about me, please let me know what part is nonsense. If I note that a poster spends 86% of the time in one group, I am merely providing information publicly available to anyone on DU who looks at a DU public profile for another member.

Note the highlighted words "public profile". So why would or should I apologize for posting publicly posted information?

Stalking in the sense that you are using it is incorrect.

[Major Nikon]

169. Horseshit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking

[guillaumeb]

170. So is referring to your own previous posts on a public bulletin board

stalking? Nice try.

[Major Nikon]

171. A canned response

Who could have ever seen that one coming

[guillaumeb]

172. Weak. My writing is available in my journal.

Feel free to read and post about it, as you obviously do.

This is not a good argument for you or anyone to make.

[Major Nikon]

133. Do you consider stalking a method of posting positively?

Do you consider condescension a method of attacking intelligence?

Do you consider making conspiracy allegations a method of attacking motives?

I get you have faith you are on the high ground here, but your actions betray that idea. Perhaps a bit of self-reflection is in order, but that's just my opinion.

[sprinkleeninow]

118. A little fib would be nice here and there.

🤣

[sprinkleeninow]

57. Here's my negative religion post.

'Religion' can cause problems.
'Spirituality' primarily does not.

[Major Nikon]

58. Probably not a bad way of looking at it

Who should care what someone else believes so long as they aren't bothering anyone else.

[sprinkleeninow]

87. Noone's belief or being devoid of any God or deity belief bothers me.

I only know what I have 'knowing' or experience of. 😊

[Major Nikon]

135. Not a bad way to look at it

Works the other way equally well.

[marylandblue]

62. Thanks, I even agree with that

[sprinkleeninow]

85. Incoming»»»

🤗

💙🇺🇸🌊

'them' out!

[sprinkleeninow]

120. I could have an exchange with you without a hesitation of getting dissed.

I have this thing about my Faith being termed a 'religion'.
Earliest of Christianity called the practice 'The Way".
Has anyone here ever read 'The Didache"?

[Major Nikon]

137. Some of the non-canonical gospels makes for interesting study

I'm not all that familiar with the one you mentioned.

[sprinkleeninow]

151. In Orthodox Christianity, The Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha

are regarded. But not used as epistle, gospel readings or sung in any hymnology.
I read them once and they are interesting.

[link:http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/the-so-called-apocrypha/|

[marylandblue]

148. I have not read the Didache, what's in it?

Why do you have a problem calling it a religion? It certainly all bells and whistles of a religion? I don't consider religion as necessarily bad, but it is subject to corruption and politics in a way that individual or small group spiritual practice is not.

[sprinkleeninow]

153. I just do. It's been a progression of sorts for me.

I will defend the Faith given me by my ancestors who were gifted and inherited Eastern Orthodoxy by the Apostles, Confessors and Fathers of the Faith. That's the only Faith I know.
Am I wonderfully perfect because of it? Nooo.
I go into the ditch daily.
We're not better than any one else or our neighbor. To hold that is dangerous deception.
Some here will be annoyed, repulsed mb by what is written in The Didache, but no different from similar scripture.
After salvation, we're not left open season for the enemy. We have the gift of repentance.
I love my Faith bc it's rich, deep and it keeps me steady in going on. Plus we do have fun times!

[sprinkleeninow]

154. Links, if you have an inclination:

[link:https://orthodoxwiki.org/Didache|

[link:https://orthodoxroad.com/voices-from-the-past/the-didache/|

[Voltaire2]

91. That is probably true.

Last edited Thu May 17, 2018, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Although it is difficult to define where the line is between spirituality and religion.

[c-rational]

54. From Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth...p. 18 -"Partly as a result of the spiritual teacinngs that have

arisen outside the established religions, but also due to an influx of the ancient Eastern wisdom teachings, a growing number of followers of traditional religions are able to let go of identification with form, dogma and rigid belief systems and discover the original depth that is hidden within their own spiritual tradition at the same time as they discover the depth within themselves. They realize that how "spiritual" you are has nothing to do with what you believe but everything to do with your state of consciousness. This in turn determines how you act in this world and interact with others.
Those unable to look beyond form become more deeply entrenched in their beliefs, that is to say their mind. ..." and this last sentence to often describes posters in this forum who wish to be right more than help others find Truth. You may consider the last word of my last sentence to be my God.
To sum it up, I find most religious people too intent with proving their own beliefs and mental positions which have nothing to do with spirituality. Maybe I should stick to the Science forum. Peace.

[c-rational]

65. Note: All answers lie within...no one can get any other person to get it...all you can do is offer

guideposts, carins so to speak if you are a hiker. Am I allowed to respond to my own posts?

[sprinkleeninow]

86. I do dat. 😉

[Voltaire2]

92. 3 train-recs in one week!

[Major Nikon]

141. I'm declaring all references to the 11th commandment as a violation of the 18th commandment

[NeoGreen]

142. Seconded. (nt)

[Major Nikon]

143. Parliamentary procedure doesn't require a 2nd or a vote

The 11th Commandment set the case law.

[NeoGreen]

144. Piffle...

...I still "second" it.

[Major Nikon]

145. Just so long as you understand you are self-identifying as a choir member

That's a good way to get your posts added to the catalogue.

[NeoGreen]

147. Promise?!