REGISTER
|
MAIL/PROFILE
|
HELP
|
NOW ONLINE
|
SEARCH
|
RATING
| FORUMS |
SUCCESS STORIES
Posted In Forum:
All Forums
Alabama
Alaska
Alberta
Arizona
Arkansas
Art/Music
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Australia
British Columbia
Broken Hearts
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Dating & Love Advice
Dating Experiences
Dating Sites
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Health & Fitness
Humor
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Introductions
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Manitoba
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Brunswick
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Newfoundland
News/Current Events
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nova Scotia
Off Topic
Ohio
Oklahoma
Ontario
Oregon
Over 30
Over 45
Pennsylvania
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Plentyoffish Site/Suggestions/Help
Poems And Quotes
Politics
Prince Edward Island
Profile Reviews
Quebec
Recipes & Cooking
Relationships
Religion/Supernatural
Rhode Island
Saskatchewan
Science/Philosophy
Sex and Dating
Single Parents
South Carolina
South Dakota
Sports
Stories/creative writing
Technology and computers
Tennessee
Testimonials
Texas
Uk Forums
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Volunteer Moderators Only
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Home
login
MyForums
Show ALL Forums
Author
Thread: Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
202 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/24/2006 1:10:41 AM
I was under the impression that, like ore purified by fire, that evil is consumed by that lake of fire, leaving behind the goodness of each soul behind, to be redeemed by God.
Since God is good, and He creates all souls, wouldn't they all return to Him?
Sage ... this is a very brief but pithy post. Thank you.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
48 (
view
)
Ego, or Confidence
Posted:
1/24/2006 1:02:33 AM
@artandsoul
if arrogance = inferiority complex then how can arrogange = alpha male trait?
wouldn't arrogance play a key role in survival of the fittest?
So then which is it? Is arrogance just a signal to an underlying Inferiority complex or is a fragile ego a desirable trait?
Rake ... Hello, glad to meet you, my friend.
My simple answers to your questions:
(a) Apparent arrogance MAY indicate an underlying inferiority complex. On the other hand, it may indicate a "superiority complex" that is not only "underlying" but also painfully obvious.
(b) Fragile ego is not a desirable trait but nevertheless it seems to be a near universal trait -- no matter what we all present or profess. Sometimes the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
The longer answer:
I'm not saying that "arrogance = inferiority complex". If you check back on my last few posts here, you'll understand what I'm saying and the point that I'm making -- with which I doubt you'd be in disagreement.
I quoted a passage from "The Catcher in the Rye" that basically makes fun of a theory current at the time it was written. The theory, a bit of past "pop psychology", was that guys who appeared to be arrogant and overconfident really weren't -- they actually had "inferiority complexes", ie, they were "overcompensating" and hiding their real feelings of unworthiness with the image of supreme confidence that they presented.
J. D. Salinger, the celebrated author of this book, wrote in the first person from the viewpoint of a male teenager, "Holden Caulfield" who goes on to say, in effect, that if the girl is attracted to you -- whether because of your looks or because of your apparent "alpha male" behaviour or for whatever reason -- she will find a way to excuse you or to believe the best about you in any case. If you appear arrogant, she will excuse this by ascribing it to an "inferiority complex" if necessary -- then she will imagine that she is the one who is going to cure you of it, assure you of your worth as a human being ... and all that stuff! Today -- when a new pop psychology is prevalent, when the myth and the allure of the "alpha male" is more dominant -- she would be more likely to call your apparent ego and arrogance ... confidence!
On the other hand, if she isn't attracted to you, she will likewise find a reason for rejecting you. Your confidence is more likely to be called ... ego or arrogance!
Go figure!
As pointed out previously, men are no better in this respect. We all see what we want to see and act accordingly -- then, we justify our perceptions and our actions accordingly. If we ever do figure out the real truth of it all, I suppose we won't have to be here wondering about it and discussing it!
Does this help?
You've also called attention to a topic that is very worthy of discussion here. This is the question you posed that I haven't answered, ie, "wouldn't arrogance play a key role in survival of the fittest?" Good question. We're on to the whole idea of the "alpha male". Your thoughts on this? Other people's thoughts?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
47 (
view
)
Ego, or Confidence
Posted:
1/24/2006 12:52:22 AM
@artandsoul
if arrogance = inferiority complex then how can arrogange = alpha male trait?
wouldn't arrogance play a key role in survival of the fittest?
So then which is it? Is arrogance just a signal to an underlying Inferiority complex or is a fragile ego a desirable trait?
Rake ... Hello, glad to meet you, my friend.
Simple answers to your questions:
(a) Apparent arrogance MAY indicate an underlying inferiority complex. On the other hand, it may indicate a "superiority complex" that is not only "underlying" but also painfully obvious.
(b) Fragile ego is not a desirable trait but nevertheless it seems to be a near universal trait -- no matter what we all present or profess. Sometimes the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
The longer answer:
I'm not saying that "arrogance = inferiority complex". If you check back on my last few posts here, you'll understand what I'm saying and the point that I'm making -- with which I doubt you'd be in disagreement.
I quoted a passage from "The Catcher in the Rye" that, among other things, basically makes fun of a theory current at the time it was written. The theory, a bit of past "pop psychology", was that guys who appeared to be arrogant and overconfident really weren't -- they actually had "inferiority complexes", ie, they were "overcompensating" and hiding their real feelings of unworthiness with the image of supreme confidence that they presented.
J. D. Salinger, the celebrated author of this book, wrote in the first person from the viewpoint of a male teenager, "Holden Caulfield" who goes on to say, in effect, that if the girl is attracted to you -- whether because of your looks or because of your apparent "alpha male" behaviour or for whatever reason -- she will find a way to excuse you or to believe the best about you in any case. If you appear arrogant, she will excuse this by ascribing it to an "inferiority complex" if necessary -- then she will imagine that she is the one who is going to cure you of it, assure you of your worth as a human being ... and all that stuff! Today -- when a new pop psychology is prevalent, when the myth and the allure of the "alpha male" is more dominant -- she would be more likely to call your apparent ego and arrogance ... confidence!
On the other hand, if she isn't attracted to you, she will likewise find a reason for rejecting you. Your confidence is more likely to be called ... ego or arrogance!
Go figure!
As pointed out previously, men are no better in this respect. We all see what we want to see and act accordingly -- then, we justify our perceptions and our actions accordingly. If we ever do figure out the real truth of it all, I suppose we won't have to be here wondering about it and discussing it!
Does this help?
You've also called attention to a topic that is very worthy of discussion here: the whole idea of the "alpha male". Your thoughts on this? Other people's thoughts?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
43 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/23/2006 10:16:41 PM
Admin ... with all due respect, I don't think that displaying more or different matches would significantly help in this area.
It's important to me that you understand where I am coming from here. Therefore, I'd like to preface this statement by reiterating my very sincere opinion that this is by far the best online dating site that I have ever seen. I am not saying this to butter your bread or polish your apple. It is said with absolute sincerity. I hardly bother with the other sites anymore and as soon as I get around to it, I will probably remove my profiles from them. I find them to be virtually useless when one considers the time and money spent on them versus the actual results. Here -- as several have pointed out, unnecessarily really -- at least it doesn't cost you any money to be ignored on a regular basis. In addition to that, a feature like the forums is a brilliant and enjoyable addition to a dating site. It's probably the most effective means of getting people together that you have.
I believe that you are not satisfied with having the best online dating site there is. Let's face it; you saw a need and you filled it and -- from what I can see -- for the most part you have done it wisely and well. You saw that the average dating site was not only ineffective for the majority of people but also costly and, in many cases, an outright scam. Your site is clearly on the cutting edge of online dating systems, a legitimate pioneer and breaker of new ground. But I believe that you would prefer your site to be not just better than the competition -- which, at this stage, is pretty weak -- but the very best that it can possibly be, ie, the most effective that it can possibly be in terms of helping people to make good romantic connections.
I believe that, in general, the potential of online dating services has barely been tapped. There are some success stories, yes; one could hardly say that they are never effective. Nevertheless, having talked to numerous others, read numerous opinions from other members in forum threads and via private emails, and considering my own experience, I don't think it's unfair or inaccurate to say that the "failure rate" and the "dissatisfaction rate" are considerably higher than the success rate.
One of the primary reasons that the internet is often so unsatisfactory as an effective and enjoyable means of getting people together is -- as you no doubt know -- the fact that there is little or no "accountability" here. The "anonymity factor" makes all kinds of deception and strange behaviour possible. Married people pose as single. People send emails and other messages that they would never send if they were not shielded by the anonymity and lack of accountability that they enjoy in the wild west fantasy world that the internet often is. Consequently, the world of internet dating and romance is often as far removed from the "real world" as it could possibly be. Since, presumably, most users of your service are hoping to make connections in the "real world", this seems to be a rather lamentable truth.
Useful stats such as those we are suggesting here -- that can be opted into, not crammed down anyone's throats -- would help to bring the online dating experience one step closer to the "real world" and would inject a measure of accountability that many would appreciate. I humbly suggest that, at the very least, the addition of these optional statistical features holds enough potential to make the internet dating experience more enjoyable and more rewarding for many that it deserves a trial at least -- as, gratefully, you seem to be considering.
Those who prefer not to reveal such information or accept this form of accountability would be free to opt out. I can anticipate the objections of those who, for whatever reasons, seem so adamantly opposed to our suggestions here. I expect they will say something to the effect of: "people who opt out of these features will be considered guilty by omission, people will misinterpret the stats, etc ..." In the first place, the possibility of misinterpretations could be mitigated somewhat by disclaimers, advice re "reading of stats", etc. Secondly, is it really your responsibility to worry about such possible misinterpretations of an optional statistical feature? As for the objection that people will post new profiles, etc, to get around such a feature, that is hardly a valid reason to not even try it. People find ways to circumvent every system and every law known to man. Certainly, we try to make them as foolproof and as just as we can, knowing that there will always be loopholes for the abusers to slip through. We do not abandon all systems and all laws on that account.
So -- this is my earnest plea to you to give some serious consideration to the suggestions made. Thanks for your time and interest and, again, thank you for the best online dating site that I have ever participated in. If I can play a small part in helping it to go from "good to great", I would be very pleased.
Best Regards
Ron Hughes
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
38 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/23/2006 8:00:58 PM
"Someone mentioned that there is a stat telling you when a person has been active here."
Only shows on forum posts under a user's avatar.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
It was another one of those stats that was tried, then taken off profiles due to it's misinterperatation.
Late ... What misinterpretation could there be of that stat? Every other dating site that I've ever been on has such a stat -- not that you should just because they do -- but still there's a good reason that they have it. If you see that a person hasn't been on the site in three months, you can assume they have either found someone else (is that the misinterpretation?) or that they rarely if ever come here in any case. Why would you waste time writing them a thoughtful letter that they are unlikely to even see for months? If people are concerned about their inactivity being misinterpreted, they can easily fix that just by logging in occasionally. Otherwise, what is their profile doing here other than wasting everyone else's time?
it is a good idea for a test i suppose.
Although who cares if men put up their response rates to emails? Only non popular women would want to put up their response rates. The whole email thing is very tricky, the best way to combat it is to give people very specific matches.
Admin ... Agreed, given the fact that men are less likely to ignore emails than women because they apparently get a lot less of them, some people might not care about this rate being put up. On the other hand, no doubt there are men who do the same thing and some women might appreciate the info. Also, just like women, men could opt out of the frequency response rate stat if they don't want it there. And even if it were true -- which I don't necessarily concede -- that "only non popular women would want to put up their response rates", then so be it. Those non popular women might get some more mail and become more popular; what's wrong with that? If it's an optional feature, people could opt out of it whenever they didn't feel it was desirable for them to use.
"Specific matches" are often very hard to determine in romantic relationships. There are all kinds of reasons for this -- such as:
People might seem to have very few common interests yet make great couples nevertheless -- the old "opposites attract" scenario.
A person might say I'm looking for someone between the ages of 30 - 40. Then they meet someone who is 29 or 41 and fall in love.
There's no way to quantify looks. I don't know how many times I've been "matched" to people --- by some computer program that determined this according to stats such as height, age, etc --- that I wouldn't look twice at.
Often, profiles give so little information that there isn't much to go on when trying to determine whether someone is a match.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
163 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/23/2006 7:09:50 PM
Late, I refuse to go around the mulberry bush with you any longer. You have your definition of music and it is clearly out of tune -- pardon the pun -- with what most of the world defines as "music". If it has musical notes, rhythm and melody, it's music -- period! I didn't come here to get into an argument about what "art" or "true art" is either.
The point of this thread is a discussion of the power of music and the responsibility of those who create it to do so in a way that is creative as opposed to destructive. Whether the musicians are the only ones who have responsibility in this matter is completely irrelevant -- and, in fact, I have made it crystal clear that, in my opinion, SOME -- not all -- musicians are responsible but they are NOT the only guilty parties; so your entire argument is against a straw man that you yourself have erected for God only knows what reason. Oh, sorry, I mentioned the word God ... is that "attaching aspects of theology" according to your bizarre methods of analyzing someone else's argument?
If you insist on derailing this entire discussion with pointless arguments about fine distinctions that exist in your head but are irrelevant to the point of the thread, knock yourself out. If so, I will exercise my own right to ignore your so called arguments.
For anyone who remains in doubt about the power of music and the fact that this power is being used for destructive purposes in this world, here's some information about bands -- yes, bands that play actual instruments and songs with melodies, such as they are, NOT rappers! The information below is excerpted from an article that may be read in full here: http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2000/258/sounds.html
They call it a lot of things – White Power Rock, Oi!, Hatecore, Volk Music. There is even something called White Power Country and Western. But it all has something in common – it is today perhaps the most important tool of the international neo-Nazi movement to gain revenue and new recruits. And those recruits are in turn inspired by this music to engage in acts of racist violence.
The most popular form of such music is a variety of heavy metal accompanied by lyrics which repeat slogans of white Aryan Supremacy, glorify racial violence and Nazism, and call for various forms of "White revolution" and murder.
The Nazi music business has grown throughout the 90s, thanks largely to the internet and the ability it gives skinheads and other neo-Nazi groups to set up internet businesses to sell this music, and the organisational advantages it gives to them in avoiding the racial hatred laws that they frequently breach....
Many people are unaware of the direct connection between music and the growth of the neo-Nazi skinhead movement in the 1970s.The skinhead movement is actually the **stard child of British musical counter-culture mated with soccer hooliganism. Despite a brief skinhead counter-culture in the late sixties, the skinhead "movement" really took off on the back of the punk music revolution in Britain from 1976 onwards.
The skinhead movement was originally tied up with a an offshoot of British punk called "Oi!" music. This was punk music which was influenced to some extent by Reggae and Ska type music, but also sought to be explicitly an expression of the British working class. Certain Oi! bands developed an extensive skinhead following which they were unable to shake even when they desired to do so, especially SHAM ’69, the Angelic Upstarts and the****ey Rejects. Skinheads began appearing at their concerts shouting fascist slogans and starting fights with the non-skinhead punks in the audience. The Oi! movement as a whole, though mostly non-racist, rejected criticism of their racist followers because this was seen as interference by the outside "middle-class establishment." Overtly skinhead Oi! bands such as the 4skins began to appear.
In the late 70s, the Rock against Racism initiative in Britain succeeded in uniting most of the punk movement against the skinhead fringe and against Britain’s National Front, a rapidly growing neo-Nazi political party. As more and more Oi! concerts increasingly led to violent skinhead attacks and riots in the early 1980s, police began to shut down Oi! Concerts and record companies refused to produce new Oi! records.
The National Front responded in the early 1980s by attempting to harness skinhead music for their own purposes. They started their own record company, White Noise Records, and published a series of magazines devoted to overtly racist music. They particularly championed the band "Skrewdriver", led by Ian Stuart Donaldson, a long-time NF activist convicted of a racist attack on an elderly black man. At the same time, racist music began to appear elsewhere as the skinhead movement spread to Germany, the US, and Scandanavia, as well as Australia. Certain alternative record companies in France and Germany began issuing racist records.
Ian Stuart Donaldson later led Skrewdriver and some other bands to split off and form Blood and Honour in 1987, as the National Front was collapsing. By the early 1990s, this had been taken over by Combat-18, a violent thuggish neo-Nazi fringe spinoff of the racist British National Party (the 18 refers to Adolf Hitler’s initials, the first and eighth letters of the alphabet.) After Donaldson’s death in a car accident in 1993, he became a martyr to the cause, and the name of the record division became ISD Records in his memory. Combat-18 successfully turned ISD Records into a major money spinner for the movement and eventually broke into using the internet as their key sales tool. Other racist groups saw the opportunity, and purveyors and producers of purely racist records quickly sprang up around the world, including Sweden’s Nordland Records and Resistance Records, founded in Detroit by a Canadian adherent of the World Church of the Creator, a violently racist pseudo-religion....
Today, there are literally dozens of websites available on the internet where one can buy white supremacist music, and the total number of different albums available in the various racist sub-genres is well in excess of 400.
With the internet, Nazi music is flourishing. In fact, it is probably the most successful part of the international skinhead movement, and clearly serves to provide financial support and recruitment to a variety of racist organisations around the world.....
However, in addition to creating vast e-commerce opportunities for neo-Nazis, the internet is also clearly creating a cooperative trans-national community which facilitates the spread of this sort of music, especially in the face of legal barriers....
The various Nazi bands compete with each other to be more violently offensive in their lyrics, while the vendors use the extremity of the lyrics as a selling point. Thus, for example, one site lauds "Barbecue in Rostock", an album by British Nazi band No Remorse, as "easily one of the most racist, violent, offensive White Power albums ever done." The site is not exaggerating. Not only does the album contain songs such as "Zigger! Zigger! Shoot those ****ing ni**ers", "Belsen was a Gas, Exterminate ya!" and "Zyklon B", but the very title of the album is about the worship of racist violence. It refers to a German city where neo-Nazi arsonists burned to death several asylum seekers in a refugee hostel in 1992, while the cover art of the album shows a skinhead spit-roasting a man with a large nose.
While that album is now several years old, contemporary productions are capable of being just as violent and offensive. For instance, the Combat-18 band Warhammer this year put out an album entitled "Valhalla’s Warriors" which contains songs such as "Die Jew Die" and "Hang ‘em all", referring to "Jews", "Ni**ers" and "Reds".
‘Parasites’ — Fortress (Aust.)
Get outta our country…
Let into this country, to play with drugs and crime
Hold the hands of them all, the’re never satisfied
People who oppose them, are promptly locked away
And those who thought they had a voice, no longer have a say
Get out! We don’t want you around
Get out! Want the people to shout
Get out! Get outta my sight
Get out! Parasites…Parasites…Parasites
Legends of Eureka, turn over in their graves
They can see what has happened to the Southern Cross today
Laws made to put us down, laws are made to keep us quiet
Jail all the racists who wanna keep this country white
Reject an alien government, don’t recognise their laws
It’s time to close the floodgates, it’s time to shut the door
Repatriate, ship ’em out, send the **stards back
If they don’t ****ing like it, it’ll be in body bags
Get out!...
One of the most worrying trends to develop in the international Nazi music scene is the takeover last year of the US company, Resistance records by the American neo-Nazi group, the National Alliance (NA). The National Alliance has been adjudged the "single most dangerous organised hate group in the United States today" by the American anti-racism body, the Anti-Defamation League. The NA is led by William Pierce, the author of two books, The Turner Diaries and Hunter which have probably done more than anything else to promote the current tendency toward acts of terrorism by extreme rightwingers internationally. For instance, these books influenced both the Oklahoma Bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the London Nazi bomber, David Copeland.
The National Alliance, meanwhile is a growing organisation of over 1000 individuals in 26 states across the US, generally well-disciplined, and includes both skinheads and more "respectable" and older racists. Like many white supremacists, it seeks to create "a racially clean area of the earth" for whites only, and believes that "Aryans" are naturally superior to other peoples. It’s program is consistent with The Turner Diaries, which is a novel that describes how groups of secret white supremacists cells successfully stage a revolution and then systematically exterminate all Blacks, Jews and other minorities.
The National Alliance, which has always been very adept at using technology to spread its message, has made Resistance Records into the giant of the international Nazi music market, especially, after the takeover of Swedish competitor Nordland late last year. The company now has probably the most sophisticated websites in the international nazi music scene, has more than 250 titles for sale, and also publishes a glossy 64-page magazine, Resistance, which promotes both hate music and National Alliance ideology.
But perhaps most worrying is the revenue Resistance Records is clearly generating for the National Alliance. They are reportedly receiving an average of more than 50 orders a day averaging around $70 each. This is well in excess of US$1 million per annum, the vast majority of which is profit which can go into the National Alliance coffers to promote the organisation’s plans for racist revolution.....
The time has come for governments, including Australia, to consider new policy responses to the problem of the developing trans-national neo-Nazi movement, and especially their music scene. If this large and largely illegal industry can be curtailed, so can the neo-Nazi movement and all the racist violence it brings with it.
No matter how you want to define "music", this is what is being done with it in the world today -- and this is a blatant example of the way that the power of music can be misused by immoral, sick people.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
161 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/23/2006 12:01:50 PM
Why does POF disallow profanity
In practice?
Not when used in context, only when the intent to offend is blatant and in violation of decorum.
decorum n. Propriety of speech, appearance, or behaviour; seemliness; decency
Sounds a lot like what I call "class". Yet you label our reasons for banning profanity "specious".
If this site's policies aren't up to any users standards, the door is just two clicks away.
Are you inviting me to leave, Late? Despite the fact that you know quite well that I have no problem with "censorship" on POF? Can't handle it when your own argument is turned back on you?
"Suppose Paul Martin came out and said "what the **** are you doing in Iraq anyway, George?"
My faith would be restored in Canadian politics, I would applaud. I wouldn't see the use of "what the ****" in this context, as being gratuitous, ...I would see it as an honest expression of incredulity.
If I were not accustomed to your own "speciousness" by now, I would give my own "honest expression of incredulity" in response to this. Do you not think it would be rather "a blatant attempt to offend and a violation of decorum" if a Canadian Prime Minister used such language referrring to the head of state of a foreign country? No, of course, you don't! On the other hand, I doubt that you'd be so approving if he said, "why the f*** are all these people complaining about the U.S. being in Iraq? Someone had to do something about that murderous f***er Saddam!"
Whatever ... would it be in violation of decorum to ask why the f*** I bother to argue with some people?
Just as you are offended by the dreck offered up by pop culture shills, I am just as offended at this dreck being used as a vehicle to drive misguided placing of blame, which to me; seeks to absolve by degree: accountability and responsibility in those who are at the point of root causality of the problem.
"Absolve by degree"? Which one of us here is doing the "absolving"? Throughout this thread I could hardly have made it more clear that I don't absolve ANY party responsible for the dreck that I am objecting to. Talk about specious argument!
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
34 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/23/2006 11:20:26 AM
Someone mentioned that there is a stat telling you when a person has been active here. I can't find it in the profiles. Am I missing something? That would at least be one tipoff.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
24 (
view
)
Religion Rears it's Ugly Head.
Posted:
1/23/2006 1:20:05 AM
"cavorting about with angels and such while you roasted in the flames below."
Am I putting you to sleep, Skypoet? If so -- Shhhhh, everyone, don't wake him! Can I take credit for performing a valuable service to forum posters and humanity in general? You missed the humour in my post -- and the point -- obviously; what else is new?
My point remains that no doubt the OP's wife wanted to share her faith with him and might have been concerned about his eternal destiny. Imagine that from a woman who loves you! Yet, he "ran out" after 14 years just because -- he claims -- she tried to convert him and he got "spooked". Was she throwing Bibles at him? Or was he looking for an excuse to get out anyway? Is this just another religion bashing thread that says more about the basher than what he's bashing? Something smells rotten in Denmark.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
200 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/23/2006 12:55:19 AM
I see we are having a pretty reasonable discussion here lately. That's nice, we must all be improving our karma -- those of us who believe in it at least. As Davie said, it's good to see that we can all disagree, even as drastically as we do, and still treat each other with a little Christian -- or Buddhist -- charity and respect.
There have been a few questions raised about reincarnation that prompt me to point out that -- just as within Christendom, there are many differing doctrines held by various denominations and movements -- there are many differing versions of reincarnationist theory. Just as many of you who are evangelicals would differ rather severely with, for instance, churches of a more "liberal" persuasion, I would distance myself from some versions of reincarnation.
Some say, for instance, that we come back as dogs, cats, worms or even plants. I don't believe that. There are also the "Hollywood" versions of reincarnation which are -- for the most part -- a complete joke. Also, many of the people who become interested in reincarnation are little more than gullible "new age" flakes. So called "psychics" make a fortune from these people, most of whom are walking around telling everyone that in a previous life they were Alexander the Great or Cleopatra. Common sense tells us that far more of us have spent most if not all of our lives as farmers, carpenters, and other "ordinary persons" than as famous personages. Most of these people are as credible as the guy in the nuthouse who thinks he is Napoleon.
Re "new age" theories, etc: I find the whole "movement" -- if one can even properly call it such -- interesting and at times fascinating but I am highly skeptical to say the least about most of it. I do think there are some genuine articles among all the "new age" ideas and individuals out there but my guess is that ninety per cent of it is based on either outright fraud or sheer delusion. My evangelical Christian friends, have you ever been embarassed when some crackpot "Christian" -- who lives way "out there" where the buses dont run -- speaks up with some half baked notion of Christian beliefs or acts like a moron in public and makes your faith look foolish to non believers? If so, you know how I feel when someone comes up with some half baked version of reincarnationist theory and proposes to shoot down the whole idea on that basis. Please don't assume that reincarnationist beliefs are necessarily associated with half baked ideas from various other religions, cults and lunatic fringe groups. In turn, we won't assume that evangelical Christians, Mormons and Moonies all belong to the same school of thought.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
20 (
view
)
Religion Rears it's Ugly Head.
Posted:
1/22/2006 4:52:39 AM
OP, she was probably trying to convert you because she didn't want to spend eternity without you, cavorting about with angels and such while you roasted in the flames below. If you ran out "spooked" just because she tried to convert you, it sounds like the 14 years you already spent together were enough of an eternity for you. Methinks that when one wants out, any excuse will do.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
30 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/22/2006 4:35:23 AM
I have another modest proposal in this same vein, a reverse logic implementation of sorts on the original idea. What if this were something for which an account holder could 'opt in'? A gold star of sorts that one, if one wished, could put in their profile (and for which a POF 'bot could vouch) showing they have a very low 'unread/deleted' history? Something to which they could point and say, "See, it doesn't take a Coast Gaurd cutter to break the ice with me"?
Good idea, Kerry. Everyone's privacy is protected that way. Who could object to such a feature if it was optional? What do you think, Admin?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
112 (
view
)
What is going slow in regards to a relationship?
Posted:
1/22/2006 4:27:27 AM
Well ...
There is going slow without undue haste
Then there is moving at a glacial pace
Yes, its quite true, be friends first
bubbles of lust so often burst
But if after three dates
no kissing takes place
you can be sure of this
you're on the "friends" list ... forever!
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
156 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/22/2006 4:09:00 AM
"It's interesting that you can post the "F" word here when most of us can't even say "dam*"! Ah, the power of "moderation"!"
Nope
The power of "edit". (it's to the left, right under your avatar)
Gotta admit I got a chuckle out of this one, Late! It's OK though; I wasn't really complaining. I kind of like it that it's not that easy to swear around here -- as you can imagine. And now at least I know how to do it if I really need to, damn it!
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
188 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/22/2006 3:36:01 AM
Here is a little tid bit i cut and pasted . I dont know the vadality of it. So if there are errors please correct
Davie, your information about Edgar Cayce is for the most part correct with regard to the facts concerning his history -- with this notable exception: the statement that "during his trance he would have an entity who would speak that was clearly different from himself".
This is clearly inaccurate. Cayce never claimed to be getting information from "spirit guides". The entity who spoke through Cayce was none other than Cayce's own soul and this is evident in the language that he used during his readings, thoroughly infused with Biblical quotes and perspectives just as his everyday speech was. He was not a "medium" or a "spiritualist". That he had access to information normally unavailable to him during his waking state is true enough but to suggest that some other entity possessed his body and spoke through him at these times is not accurate-- with one exception as noted below.
His explanation, given during his readings, was that his own soul went out of his body and examined such things as the "Akashic Records" from which he got his information. The only instance of other spirits speaking through him was on the very rare occasion when a voice identifying itself as the archangel Michael spoke through him with an exhortation of a Biblical nature to those present at the time. In his readings, Cayce frequently warned against the dangers of such things as "automatic writing" that could expose a soul to discarnate influences of an earthbound and not highly evolved nature. He constantly advised people to seek God within through meditation and prayer as opposed to seeking guidance from other spirits.
Concerning the interpretations of Cayce's activity by the writer of your "tidbit", there are several errors, in my opinion. Here's one that is obvious to anyone who has studied the man and his work in any detail, as I have: "a process began which, in time, had him abandoning his own Christian beliefs for the new spiritual information that his spirit was giving him." Cayce was indeed at first very tortured when he discovered that in his trance state, he had expressed support for beliefs which seemed to contradict the orthodox Christian beliefs that for so long he had held dear.
This was a man who read the Bible from cover to cover once for every year of his life, a feat which few Christians of any stripe could truthfully claim. He was a respected Sunday schoolteacher and his kindliness and Christian manner of life were noted by all. Indeed, as you report, Cayce almost abandoned his psychic work because of concern "that the Devil might be tempting me to do his work by operating through me when I was conceited enough to think God has given me special power. If ever the Devil was to play a trick on me, this would be it." This to me shows the humility of the man and his deep concern for Christian truth -- despite the inevitable objections that are sure to come from those who disagree with his vision of that truth.
In the end, Cayce overcame his doubts and reasoned that -- in answer to a childhood prayer that God would allow him to be of service to his fellow human beings, especially children -- his readings had always been used for purposes of healing, for good and not for evil; in time, he came to believe that there was no essential contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and the idea of reincarnation.
Cayce lived simply with his family and never accumulated any wealth from his talents. "Psychics" were not celebrities in those days as they are today. He suffered persecutions such as time in a jail cell when he was arrested for "fortune telling" and also considerable harassment from members of the orthodox medical profession. At the end of his life, at the height of World War II in 1945, in addition to the typical numerous requests for medical advice, Cayce was besieged with pleas for help from people seeking, among other things, information about loved ones missing in action. Unable to turn away from this deluge of suffering people -- against the advice of his own readings that for his own health, two readings per day was all he could handle -- Cayce gave up to eight readings per day; this certainly hastened his premature death in his sixties.
I can vouch for the effectiveness of the medical remedies that he suggested from personal experience. But, far more importantly, I can testify that without the sensible explanations of life, death and the afterlife offered in the Edgar Cayce readings -- which are thoroughly Christ-centred and repeatedly point to Jesus as the way, the truth and the life -- I would never have come to accept the truth of Christianity and would most certainly be an agnostic or an atheist today. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Don't forget that all religious pioneers, including Jesus and all Christians, were also once labelled as heretics and blasphemers. Christians who adopt a kneejerk stance of condemnation toward people such as Edgar Cayce -- whose teachings of love and goodwill mirror their own beliefs in so many ways but do not exactly coincide with them in all areas -- might do well to consider whether they are in danger of becoming modern day Pharisees, stoning the prophets and rejecting those whom God has sent on the basis of man-made laws and doctrines.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
154 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/22/2006 2:10:40 AM
Well, Late, I appreciate the apology to CAMEO members -- though I find it pretty hard to believe that you typed in comments from the CAMEO statement without knowing that this was the same organization I am part of. Pretty bizarre "coincidence" if you ask me.
Perhaps you're right that our stance re profanity at our events should be elaborated in more detail. Nevertheless, I stand by the statement that we choose to be an organization "with a touch of class" and, in my opinion, that in itself is sufficient reason to ban profanity at our events. And if Paul Martin or any Canadian prime minister came out with a public statement including profanity -- especially if it was directed at a foreign head of state -- as a Canadian citizen, I would find that offensive and classless whether I agreed with his sentiments or not. On the other hand, if I heard that Martin used the word in private, I wouldn't care at all. Even Trudeau, caught reacting to a statement by an Opposition MP in Parliament and mouthing the word "f**k" to himself, certainly never intended this kind of thing for public consumption and defused it by referring, tongue firmly planted in his cheek, to it as "fuddle duddle".
The debate about "what is art" has gone around and around and it is pointless in the context of my original post. I don't consider the work of such as Eminem "art" either -- certainly not in the truest sense of the word. Nevertheless, much of the world does consider it "art", these people are called "rap artists" and this is the type of "art" that I am standing against. I've made it pretty clear that we are not really in disagreement on that point. Nevertheless, you keep hammering away at it.
It's interesting that you can post the "F" word here when most of us can't even say "dam*"! Ah, the power of "moderation"!
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
152 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/21/2006 8:38:34 PM
Late, I see you've done your homework, good on you. I'm actually flattered in a strange sort of way.
I haven't identified the organization that I represent because I wanted to be free to speak as a private individual here and not necessarily as the spokesman for the organization. I am the president and principal founder of CAMEO and therefore, naturally, many of the ideals expressed in our constitution and in our policies are based on my own philosophy; certainly, I am not in disagreement with them. Nevertheless, I am not the dictator of the organization, I have not discussed representing the organization in this forum, and I speak here not on behalf of CAMEO but as a private individual expressing his own thoughts. Contrary to your implication, I am not here to solicit memberships or press some point for political reasons -- or whatever else it is that you imagine (at which I can only guess) to be my "hidden agenda".
You raise some good points. Deciding what songs we choose to feature at our events, what songs we might "ban" and what songs we might choose to sponsor as worthy of our organization and not in contradiction to our mission statement, our policies and our ideals -- these are very complex questions and often require considerable soul searching to answer. I've never claimed that the answers are simple. One thing that I do appreciate is that Rory and yourself have caused me to think -- again -- very deeply about these issues. Nevertheless, it would be nice if you waited for me to answer the questions before you assumed my answer and proceeded to bash my organization and the members of it so rudely and inaccurately.
"CAMEO chooses to be an organization with a touch of class. The popular music industry survived quite well for many years without foul language. We too will survive and prosper without it".
It's not just about gratuitous violence, ideas. It's about the mentality that some feel they are the arbiters of "class". Some believe it's not up to the artist to be allowed the distinction of honest expression over gratuitous, nor is it up to the observer.
Since the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, and now that I feel that my organization has come under attack -- and you no doubt feel, rightly or wrongly, that we are attacking others which perhaps explains your hostility here -- I will defend our policies.
Regarding profanity and "class": Profanity is not disallowed at our events because it violates our constitution. It is disallowed primarily because our events are attended by persons of all ages and backgrounds. Offensive as it is to some, including young children and senior citizens, we made a decision to disallow it because we feel that is the classy and common sense thing to do. In addition to not wishing to offend the patrons of our events, we feel that once you allow one "f**k", there's no end to it and, in general, use of such language increases the probability of confrontation among people -- particularly at events which sometimes feature alcohol service. If you and I are arguing, for instance -- imagine that -- and I say, "what's your point?" that's one thing but if I say "what's your f***ing point?" I've moved the disagreement to another level. Really, I think it does show "a touch of class" when you refrain from certain language where it's not necessary or appropriate. Would you not consider it, for instance, a breach of class (and common sense) if the prime minister of Canada were to use such profanity in public? Suppose Paul Martin came out and said "what the f**k are you doing in Iraq anyway, George?"
In my own personal life, I have been known to utter words that many would call profane. Nevertheless, I restrain myself and do not use them at CAMEO events or in connection with CAMEO projects because that is our policy. Interestingly enough, POF, which you represent as a moderator, seems to have a very similar policy.
What's your take on that? Why does POF disallow profanity -- maybe because THEY think it's the classy thing to do? If so, hats off to POF for that! But how can you work for an organization that seems to think it's an "arbiter of class"?
A single word can kill? rape?
Where it is that I -- or my organization -- are supposed to have claimed such a preposterous thing, I have no idea. Is this just another example of what you call logical argument? How about showing some class yourself and not ascribing to me ridiculous arguments that I have never made?
I have to head to work now but I may address both the good and bad points you have made in the last post when I can.
See you Later.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
179 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 7:25:17 PM
"I can read reincarnation into the Bible and you can read it right back out again."
Yes it is true, and it could also be said, the same the other way around. I am, by no means knocking what you believe. I'm simply stating how i take things.
Agreed, Davie. We all tend to get a little hot under the collar arguing about these things. I suppose that -- believing as each of us does that our interpretation of the scriptures is the correct one and considering the importance of the issue as it concerns one's eternal destiny -- it's hard not to get worked up about it. I apologize if at times I have been less than respectful in my disagreements. It does get frustrating at times when people state or imply that your beliefs are demonically inspired.
I think that is one of the great tragedies of true religion throughout the ages -- that people who in so many respects think so much alike are divided by doctrinal squabbles such as this one. We both believe in Jesus and His teachings -- yet we differ so drastically that to the outside, unbelieving world we come across as so hopelessly divided that they, despairing that there can ever be agreement about such things, tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater and reject all Christian teachings.
I suppose in a way that it's unavoidable. You really do think that what I believe in is dangerous heresy. I really do think that what you believe in, namely the "instant salvation" theology, is dangerous heresy. I suppose that the best either of us can do is to disagree as kindly and respectfully as possible and then go on, in Schweitzer's words, to "make our lives our arguments". In the end, I expect that God, who knows the hearts of all men, will finally reunite all sincere believers and judge each of us in accordance with the knowledge that we had and what we did with it. Scary thought, perhaps, for some of us. Have you ever wondered if you were supposed to be down feeding hungry people or visiting people in prison or clothing naked people rather than arguing about theology here? I have.
Yet here I go again, may God forgive me:
I believe If reincarnation was taught in the bible. It would of been much more obvious. and I still stand on my belief. if it were so. Then there would be no need for the plan of salvation,which was so widely taught in scripures. and if there was no need for salvation then every thing that points to it in the bible is a lie, and if it's a lie then i might as well forget Christianity. It's just my opinion .
Now, this is an interesting point. I have wondered the same thing. If reincarnation is true, why isn't it more scripturally obvious? Why indeed is the Bible so cryptic on so many issues? Why did Jesus always speak in parables?
Questions like this always get around to considering the "inerrancy" of the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, as I suspect you do, you're in good company. There are numerous schools of Christian thought that believe exactly that. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, also believe that the Bible is inerrant. So do the Mormons. So do Pentacostalists and many Presbyterians. Yet, each of these groups have radically different outlooks as to what the Bible actually teaches. One might wish that God would have made His teachings in the Bible perfectly obvious as well as perfectly accurate. But He didn't, it seems.
Personally, I believe that the Bible is, in many ways, the "Word of God". I think that it is one of the greatest -- perhaps THE greatest -- pieces of literature in the history of mankind. I believe that it is full of wisdom and truth and that if people understood it and lived by its principles -- at least according to the best and most sincere interpretation of those principles that they are capable of -- God's will on Earth would be fulfilled and the day would indeed come when "they shall beat their swords into plowshares and no more make war upon each other". Nevertheless, I do not believe that every word from the Bible proceeded from the mouth of God. The numerous internal contradictions contained in that wonderful Book and a historical study of how what we call the Bible today came to BE the Bible dispels that notion for me, as comforting as it may be for some.
This is not the thread for an argument about biblical inerrancy so I won't go into a lot of detail about it. Still, it's impossible for me to answer your question about why reincarnation is not more obviously taught without bringing it up. I suspect that one reason for the lack of clear teaching on reincarnation in the Bible is that passages dealing with it may have been removed or altered. Check back throughout this thread for more information and ideas about that. To say that God wouldn't allow tampering with His scripture is not really a credible objection, in my opinion. Fallible men were the agencies through which what we call His Word came to be. In Revelations, there is a warning of dire consequences to all who would add or delete from His words. If such a thing were not even possible, why would this warning be necessary?
Peace to you, my friend.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
174 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 6:25:23 PM
The problem is that each person had a first incarnation. That means that each person then had perfect Karma since he had no previous life and had done nothing wrong. Therefore, if he had perfect Karma and didn't learn or do what he was supposed to in his first life, then what makes him think that after hundreds of incarnations with accumulated bad karma that he will be able to achieve the perfect state of union with the divine consciousness that reincarnation moves him toward? It doesn't make any sense.
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Did you learn everything there is to know about the Bible at your first Bible study? What makes you think that in a single short life -- especially if you were one who died in infancy or at a very young age -- you could possibly fulfill the command of Jesus, "be ye perfect"?
Check out the story of the "Prodigal Son". Think of it as the "Prodigal Soul", once living in harmony with its Father, wandering off to squander its inheritance, reduced to living in abject sin and "eating with the pigs" -- then, at last, the realization dawns that the true Home of the soul is with its Father and the erring soul finally "repents" and turns back. One can guess that on the way back home, the Prodigal Son might have run into a few distractions and been tempted to slide back into its old ways. Nevertheless, that soul has to continue on its path back towards its true Home -- following in the footsteps of Jesus -- if it is to be fully reinstated as a true son of God.
We are all prodigal souls. We must make our own choices. "Bad karma" may put us into a sty of our own choosing where we are forced to eat pig slop to survive. When we finally tire of living like pigs, we can choose to follow Jesus, obey His commandments, and become like Him.
There is no easy road to salvation. That's why St. Paul said "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". Jesus never EVER said that He would do all the work for us. Nor did He say that His sacrifice eliminated the need for us to reject sin and embrace God's laws. Jesus said: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come to fullfill the law and the prophets and not one iota, not one jot of the law shall pass until all these things are fulfilled." The often touted theory (and that's ALL it is, a pernicious, false theory promulgated by foolish men, NOT by Jesus or the Bible) that we can never escape the clutches of sin and therefore should just "cast our cares on Jesus", expecting Him to usher us into Heaven -- in whatever spiritual condition we happen to be in when we die -- with little or no effort really required on our part other than a single prayer accepting Him as our saviour -- is a disastrous misinterpretation of the Scriptures and a blatant violation of all reason and common sense.
I believe that Jesus is indeed our Saviour, the first soul that ever made it all the way back to God. Like all great leaders do -- and leaders are often called "saviours" -- he sacrificed Himself to open the Door -- to BECOME the Door -- that we all can and must pass through. He set the example for all humanity and established a pattern for us. Like all great leaders, He did what He expects us to do -- with His help. "The captain of our salvation", "the pioneer and perfecter of our faith" will not be satisfied -- nor will He be done with us -- until we have become like Him. Nor will God -- who has promised to search for His lost sheep for as long as it takes to find them -- cast any soul into a lake of fire until it is clear that such sheep will NEVER be found and that plight will be of their own choosing. How impatient IS God, the same God that is revealed in Jesus who said: "if your brother sins against you, forgive him not once, not seven times but seventy times" -- in other words, keep on forgiving him for as long as it takes?
Now, when I personally shuffle off this mortal coil, I fully expect that a judgment of this life that I am now living will take place. If I go in the state I'm in now -- not in a state of gross, rank sin but certainly well below the standards set by Jesus -- I expect that He would say to me something to this effect: "You knew better. Why didn't you live more according to My teachings? You made some progress in that last incarnation but you slipped in a lot of ways too. You're not ready to enter Heaven. Go back, pay more attention this time and get it right. I'll be there to guide you and transform you by My Spirit -- as I always have been. Go and sin no more, my son."
Maybe I'm really preaching to myself. Albert Schweitzer went to a jungle in Africa and built a hospital to care for natives ravaged by "white man's diseases". This brilliant man, a world class musician, a renowned scholar and theologian, a university dean who could have made the world his oyster and lived in comfort, finally became tired of arguing with fundamentalists who considered his beliefs about Jesus to be dangerous and heretical. He sacrificed the rest of his life to become a true follower of Jesus and to actually put His teachings about love, compassion and service to one's fellow man into practice. "I decided to make my life my argument," Schweitzer said.
And here I am, making my argument my life! Bad karma for me ... Maybe I should hang my head in shame.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
169 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 4:51:11 PM
Also, reincarnation contradicts the Bible which presents Jesus with His miracles, fulfilled prophecies, resurrection, and so much more.
How so? I believe in reincarnation and I also believe in "Jesus with His miracles, fulfilled prophecies, resurrection and so much more". Where's the contradiction?
Reincarnation denies the Day of Judgment.
Not at all. Reincarnation and the law of karma is all ABOUT the "Day of Judgment". As opposed to fundamentalist Christian teachings -- which allow the possibility that a rank, vile sinner will get into Heaven on the basis of a deathbed prayer for salvation while others who lived decent, compassionate lives will rot in Hell forever -- reincarnationist theory insists on a very fair, very precise "judgment", a TRUE fulfillment of biblical statements such as "God is not mocked; as a man sows, so surely shall he reap" and "he that killeth by the sword shall be killed by the sword". And referring to the "Day" of judgment, remember that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord, according to Peter.
Judgement and salvation are ongoing processes, not instantaneous events.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
166 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 4:31:49 PM
In Heb. 9:27 it says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." This verse alone shows that reincarnation is not true.
Davie, I've seen posts of yours that are very thoughtful and sensible but this one (msg. 178) isn't among them. See message 99 for other possible interpretations of the one and ONLY verse in the Bible that SEEMS to directly contradict the idea of reincarnation. I'll have more to say about the rest of your statement later.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
165 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 4:13:50 PM
Key, it was John who denied that he was Elijah -- because he probably didn't KNOW that he was. Jesus did, however, because, according to the Bible, He made it quite clear to his own disciples that John was, in fact, Elijah returned to the earth as promised in earlier scriptures.
Here's another interesting biblical passage re reincarnation-- and this one is often quoted by people on both sides of this fence to prove their point:
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. And his disciples asked Him, saying, 'Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents. He was born blind that the works of God might be made manifest in him."
John 9: 1-3
Now, the enemies of reincarnationist theory will say, "See? His blindness had nothing to do with sins committed in a previous life. So much for reincarnationist theory!" Then they will generally go on to say that this poor blind basta*d had to live his whole life up to that point in darkness just so that Jesus could come along one day and heal him for God's glory. Well, if that's what you call a just God, then I have to ask, who sinned, you or your supposed Christian "teachers", that you became so blind? Isn't this a slander on God's character?
Those who think this way should open their eyes and take another look. First, the question itself makes no sense unless the disciples supposed that reincarnation -- or, at the very least, pre-existence of the soul before it incarnated in a body -- was a fact. Now, why didn't Jesus take this golden opportunity to burst the reincarnationist bubble right then and there? Why didn't He say, "Peter, John, Matthew! What have you been smoking so early in the day? How could the man have sinned before he was born? Father, give me patience!"
Here's why He didn't, in my opinion. He did not question or refute the basic assumption of the disciples that a soul could sin before it was born into this life because He Himself knew that it was not only possible but certain. He was making a point that we are not to judge -- as some people who believe in reincarnation do -- that whatever miseries people are born into are of their own making (due to their sins in other lives) and that therefore we should let them suffer and have no compassion for them.
The whole point of reincarnation -- in a Christian reincarnationist outlook -- is to give erring souls the opportunity to manifest the love of God in their lives and in the lives of others. The law of "karma" -- which governs the incarnation of souls -- is intended not primarily to punish us but, rather, to educate us. "Whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth." The soul that was born as a blind man might have even chosen this plight ITSELF -- perhaps for its own spiritual growth, perhaps for the opportunities that this condition presented to others to learn compassion and, yes, perhaps even so that Jesus could demonstrate the works and the glory of God by healing him. Think of the cry of Job to the Lord after his many trials: "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear but now my eyes see thee." (Job 42:05) Perhaps, in many cases, it is only through suffering that we are prepared to receive our "sight" and become able to truly manifest the grace and love of God.
In any case, this passage -- and the various possible interpretations of it -- once again illustrate the fact that, as the Christian reincarnationist Edgar Cayce said, "I can read reincarnation into the Bible and you can read it right back out again."
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
161 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 3:11:58 PM
Jesus has already told you, no man comes to the Father except by him, Jesus. How much simpler do you want it to be. It is very simple. One way, man, one way to God, that is through the Son, my lord and savior, the Jewish Messiah, and ours as well. Praise Jesus!
I always get a kick out of the way that fundamentalists insist that the Bible should be taken literally -- except when it doesn't suit their particular belief system! When a particular verse contradicts the point of view that they themselves cherish, they insist on an allegorical interpretation. Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop ... it's as dependable as the ticking of a clock.
Here's a case in point:
"And the disciples asked Him, 'Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?' He replied, 'Elijah does come and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come and they did not know him, but did to him as they pleased.... Then the disciples understood that He was speaking to them of John the Baptist."
Matthew 17: 10-13
Gorilla, how much simpler do you want it to be? Literally speaking, what can this possibly mean except that John was actually Elijah reincarnated?
Now, before someone starts to go on about how Elijah never actually died, don't waste your breath -- because it's irrelevant. Elijah didn't drop down from the sky as an adult just carrying on from where he left off with a new name. John the Baptist was born as an infant into a new body. His mother was Elizabeth. Check chapter 1 of the gospel of Luke if you don't believe me. John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. It is very simple.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
156 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/21/2006 6:00:04 AM
Christian`s are to have there whole self ressurected . The same body is restores in indistructable form. in the next age to come. Jesus was the first.
Now hold on there, Key. What if a person is as ugly as a stick in this life? Do they have to spend eternity like that? How fair is that?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
104 (
view
)
What is going slow in regards to a relationship?
Posted:
1/21/2006 4:47:19 AM
It's funny that many here compare going at a natural(fast) pace to the behavier of chinps , well chinps are the 2nd smartest animals on the planet , they share 98% of our DNA(just 4 protein differences in their genetic code) , infact they are so smart they can be taught sign language and hold complex conversations with us. But thats where the comparison ends , they dont have complex mating rituals , they just seek out a girl chimp display their strengh and in most cases they mate for life . There is no divorse and alamony or child support, a girl chimp does not leave because she is bored, the male chimp does not beat his mate.
A male chimp acheives status not based on his familly tree but on his ability as a protector,
hmmmmm maybe chimps arent the second smartest creatures on the planet , maybe we are.
Mortalez, you and Flamesoflove could be right about the natural superiority of chimps, my friend. How many male chimps waste their time sending emails to female chimps who are likely to completely ignore them, or engaging in long email correspondences and interminable IM sessions with female chimps that they've never seen and who are likely to disappear at any moment because they misread some line you wrote -- or, worse yet, weren't really serious about dating or mating in the first place? They may be chimps but at least most of them aren't CHUMPS like some of us.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
26 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/21/2006 4:28:56 AM
Many women on the site will check out your profile before they read your letter, if your profile "sucks", has no picture etc they will NOT open your letter. They do this because many people email them demanding to know why they didn't get a response, and only a read deleted.
Well, it's your site and you probably know best what will work and what will not. The only thing that bothers me is that so many assume that all these emails are getting ignored because the senders' profiles "suck" or they are sending lousy letters, etc. I suppose that everyone would have their personal opinion about whether a profile "sucks" or not. I don't think mine, for instance, sucks. Also, I've taken the time to write thoughtful letters tailored to the individuals, addressing common interests, etc, AFTER having read their profiles. None of these women would be in any way "out of my league" if I were to meet them in person.
The best response rate I've managed is probably less than twenty percent. From what I hear around here, I'm probably doing well compared to a lot of guys -- and many of these guys are quite articulate and polite in the forums so one can assume that their letters are similarly decent. I've had the odd lady write back and say she was dating someone else or "thanks but I don't think we'd be a match" or something to that effect. Still, about 80% of the letters I sent were read/deleted with no response at all. Also, I've had women write an initial letter to me -- this has happened at least four times -- saying they'd like to chat. I wrote back and said "Sure, I looked at your profile. You seem like an interesting and attractive lady. Let's chat." Then they just disappeared. What is a person to make of all this? One has to conclude that all kinds of people are just diddling around here. Those are the kind of people that I guess we're hoping to weed out somehow before we waste our time on them.
It may be true that in many cases "people want someone or something to blame for their lack of success". Nevertheless that's all too easy to say and it seems that all of you are singing the same tune in that regard. It's also true that because this is the internet and people are "anonymous" and not accountable in any way for their actions here, they tend to act far more rudely and irresponsibly than they would in "real life". Our suggestion was intended to, in a way bring this venue closer to real life by injecting some accountability and fair warning for those who do write decent letters but don't like wasting them on such people.
Granted, statistics can be misread; still, noone has really answered the question as to why these people who are receiving a deluge of email -- according to them at least -- should really care if they did not have a high response rating. One would think that they would welcome anything that would reduce the flow of unsolicited email to their bursting inboxes. And, as already discussed, there is no reason that they could not themselves take the initiative to contact people they are interested in (but who, presumably, would hesitate to write because of their low response rate). Are they afraid that they would be ignored themselves? Are they afraid that a low response rating would make them appear rude -- even though they generally insist that there is nothing rude about not answering a polite letter? Either way, something doesn't ring true about their protests and it seems that these people want to have their cake and eat it too.
Having said all this, I'll drop the issue. I appreciate you taking the time to address it. As I said, this is your site and you probably know better than I what is practical and what is not.
Thanks for a site that -- no matter what -- is far and away the best of its kind that I have ever seen.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
175 (
view
)
A thought
Posted:
1/20/2006 8:16:00 PM
Glad I could give you a laugh, Rhiannon!
But I'm really irritated with myself too -- my last post should read "... to misrepresent the true teachings of Jesus". I hate typos -- especially when I make them myself! Shouldn't there be a little icon here that slaps itself in the head?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
173 (
view
)
A thought
Posted:
1/20/2006 6:52:27 PM
To exploit the faithful, to give false phophecy, and to do so knowingly. The worset wolves are the ones that hide amoung the sheep.
To confuse the faithful, to misrepresent the true of teachings Jesus, and to do so ignorantly. .. The most irritating sheep of all are those think that they have all the flockin' answers and who insist on labelling all sheep of other flocks as "wolves". Meanwhile, the real wolves divide, conquer and feast on all foolish sheep.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
150 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/20/2006 1:51:54 AM
Rory, I'll answer your posts with my take on things in bite size pieces because they are complex questions.
One thing that frustrates me about your OP is that it's completely vague, (the call for "positive" music, whatever that means).
Rory, I did give some thoughts on this one in message 111 which I'll more or less reiterate and add to here: I agree that a steady diet of nothing but "bland, didactic, preachy 'feel good' words" in songs or other artistic/literary efforts would be pretty insufferable. There are some tastefully done examples of songs with an undeniably "positive" message. Much of it was done in the 60s, for instance, "Get Together" by the Youngbloods. A song like "What the World Needs Now Is Love" is another example. I particularly admire artists who can pull off a new song with that kind of message which doesn't sound schmaltzy and cliche ridden. Phil Collins "Another Day in Paradise" is a more recent example of a song that really has a positive lyrical message in that it brings attention to the plight of homeless people -- and it does so in a creative, entertaining and musically satisfying way. Ya gotta love old Phil.
But I agree with you: how many times can you redo and restate that kind of thing before we all get bored out of our minds?" We all want a little "bite" in our entertainment too.
Granting your point that the primary function of entertainers is not necessarily to teach or to preach but primarily to entertain -- one might consider that in itself to be a positive use of one's artistic talents. We all want to hear a haunting melody, a great guitar riff, an infectious rhythm, a thrilling chord progression, etc, etc. Those things bring joy to our lives so that in itself is positive enough. The lyrics don't always have to be profound; even silly little love songs have their place.
It's when vile lyrical messages get thrown into the mix -- such as those that glorify and glamorize murder, etc -- that I get upset. In those cases, it seems to me that everyone involved -- the musicians, the "industry" and the public itself -- shares in the responsibility for what I consider to be a violation of their obligations as responsible and moral persons. If you can pardon a dramatic analogy here, in these cases, one might call the musicians and others involved on the "creative" end to be the "prostitute", the industry to be the "pimp" and the public who clamor for this kind of thing to be the "John". Now, I can expect to get blasted from someone for that one, I suppose; if so, bring it on, what else is new? Nevertheless, it occurs to me now, after using that analogy, that I'm as likely to be successful in restraining this so called "artistic expression" as human societies have been in curbing the so called "oldest profession"!
So, I'll stick with my music association and hope that we and the artists who emerge from our midst -- in part at least due to our efforts because one of our purposes is to discover and help develop emerging artists -- can function as a sort of oasis in the desert. We can't really change what goes on in the world out there. All we can really do is to be an example of something better.
Response to your other points coming later.... as mentioned, and as you know, they are pretty complex and deep questions. I don't just want to bang off something that doesn't do them justice. Take care, my friend.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
145 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/19/2006 6:42:05 PM
The message of the Bible, there is one life, to be lived for God, search for God, do God's will, serve God, obey God. There is life to be lived, a final judgment, eternal rewards and punishments, and you will spend eternity in one of two places. It is impossible to say that both this message and that of reincarnation are both true. That is a contradiction.
Methinks, as previously pointed out (see message 99), there is only ONE passage in the Bible that seems to directly contradict reincarnation and affirm the "one life" theory -- and even that one is subject to different interpretation. Fundamentalist concepts -- of Heaven and Hell and nothing in between -- are also highly debatable in regard to their consistency with the Bible. Many of us find such concepts in direct contradiction to the message of the Bible that God is both merciful and just.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
143 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/19/2006 6:17:45 PM
Interesting posts, 2weird. Thanks.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
18 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/19/2006 5:48:59 PM
Thanks, Trilby, for the thoughtful answers.
I agree that there is potential for misreading of statistics, etc, in the feature I proposed and that all statistics are subject to such misreading. That could be mitigated somewhat by a disclaimer similar to the one at the top of the inboxes now, something to the effect of: "Hey, don't automatically assume that a low response rate means this person is rude. Some members (.01%) receive an exceptionally high volume of mail from ignorant jerks that they can't be expected to respond to. Try sending them a polite letter." OK, I jest somewhat.
Some no doubt feel that we shouldn't get any information regarding what people do with our emails, ie, whether they have been read, deleted or whatever. I suppose that's very debatable -- but personally I am glad that POF has such a feature and it is definitely an improvement upon what is offered at pay sites where your letters just disappear completely into the ether with the added insult of paying for that privilege. I should add that, in my opinion, POF is certainly superior to all of these sites -- and the fact that it is a free site is only ONE of those superior qualities. I believe that the founder of the site -- and all who participate in running it -- must take some justifiable pride in its overall effectiveness and quality. My suggestions here are meant to help -- not just to complain.
Agreed also that the jerks might just transfer their ignorant attentions to those who do answer most of their mail. In turn, those people would see their rating drop when they started ignoring those letters. As acknowledged, a very high response rating is not necessarily a badge of honor even though some might irrationally perceive it as such. No doubt many irrational perceptions about favorites lists are happening yet POF still has them and many do find them of value.
Your example of a person who receives 90% of her email from ignorant jerks seems a little farfetched to me so I'm not sure it's really a valid objection. Do you think that's a very likely scenario?
From what I've observed around here, aggravation and frustration regarding this topic seem to be mostly self-inflicted. Many people manage to send mail, get no response, and move on without getting aggravated or frustrated.
I suppose that one could consider such aggravation "self inflicted". Still, haven't you ever experienced frustration about people who don't bother to answer phone calls or letters? Sure, such people often don't deserve to get them so you move on and no longer bother to call them. I organize music shows that involve many details and require phone calls, messages, etc, to a lot of people. When I first started doing it, I noticed that some of them seemed to be too busy to get back to me with necessary information and I had to make repeated phone calls to get an answer. Then they said, "Oh, sorry, I was really busy." (Ironically, often these are the same people who would complain most loudly if some aspect of the show was less than well organized -- just as the people who never answer their letters are often the first to say "well, you should take some time to write me a creative letter!") Eventually, I learned that to rid myself of this frustration, I had to tell these people, "Look, I'm not calling to gab about the weather. If you're too busy to get back to me in a reasonable time, I'm too busy to chase you around. Find yourself another show to be in."
Translating all that to the online dating scene, of course we do "move on". Unfortunately, what a lot of us do is to move on -- not to other persons of interest -- but right out of the email game completely. Arri made the point in another thread that guys who aren't idiots no longer bother to send emails and instead wait for women to send them to us. Given that many women still seem to think the man should make the first move, this is not always the ideal situation. If we had some inkling that our efforts were likely to be dignified with an answer -- favorable or not -- we might get back in the game and this would increase the overall effectiveness of the site as a means of making romantic connections. Or do you think that emailing interesting people that you haven't connected with in forums is mostly a lost cause anyway?
In any case, I agree that there are potential bugs and flaws in the proposed feature -- as there in any system -- but I still don't feel that these are necessarily sufficient reason to reject the idea. I wonder if a poll could be taken to see how many members would appreciate such a feature? If, for instance, a large number of members approved of it, would POF consider implementing it -- this question to POF, obviously.
I do appreciate that you have taken the time to state your objections in a thoughtful way.
Also, I would like to apologize to the moderators if my complaint about the handling of my suggestion here came across as rude. I know that you guys have a tough job. I don't know whether Trapped was responding as a POF moderator or merely as an individual POF member. I've just found that when I make a suggestion here it seems to basically get dismissed rather flippantly. When people make suggestions to us re the affairs of our non profit music association, we try to show a little respect when we reply. We may think their ideas are stupid in some cases but we don't show that when we respond. The rather laconic and borderline sarcastic dismissals of the suggestions that I have made here don't encourage a person to make any more of them. Unless POF has instituted these suggestion threads only to give the appearance of being receptive to member input -- which I doubt -- this doesn't seem like a desirable state of affairs.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
147 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/19/2006 2:57:34 PM
Just curious in what way you had to deal with a persons moral values in regards to their "music" in your "music society"? That is what your OP boils down too, that your idea of what is right and good are just that, right and good. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and I must deal with them
Jazz, what we've had to deal with is people who seem to feel that they should be allowed to play, sing or say anything their little heart desires at any time and in any place. When they are told that there are limits regarding that within our association, many of them start beating their chests about "censorship".
Occasionally, we do have to say that a certain song can't be played at our events. Despite the fact that our stance on this was clearly laid out in our literature, in our early years, even people who had taken positions on our executive committee got irate when they realized the implications of it and left, calling us "censors" because we disallowed the song "Goodbye Earl". Check message 111 in this thread for more details on that.
There are two passages in our mission statement that we are bound by in this respect.
One, our (fifth) purpose: to promote the expression of the universal language of music as a positive and creative force in our community and beyond
Two, an unalterable provision: we will not support, sponsor or endorse music whose content is deemed by the association to be demoralizing or degrading to any person or class of persons or otherwise in contradiction to the purpose stated above.
To help us decide what makes the cut and what doesn't, a set of guidelines was developed and approved at membership meetings that is very similar to what has been accepted by the Australian Recording Industry Association. Basically it says that you can't play at our events -- or under our sponsorship -- anything that glorifies, promotes, incites or instructs in such matters as criminal violence, hard drug abuse, sexual violence, child abuse or other activities commonly deemed abhorrent. When people start preaching to me about the evils of "censorship", I tell them they can hear and buy that stuff at any number of other places, they just won't get it at our events nor will it ever come out "under our banner", eg, on any recording projects sponsored by our association. Then I ask them which "banned" activity they think we SHOULD support -- child abuse? rape? murder?
In reality, for all the chestbeating that goes on about "freedom of speech", every one of us practises a form of "censorship" or "self censorship" on a daily basis. We don't use the same kind of language if we are dealing with a customer at work that we might use in the locker room. We don't say whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, do we? We don't stand up in a crowded theatre and yell "fire" for the fun of it. Nor do we allow others to say -- or sing -- whatever they might want to at any given time. If people come into your home, you probably wouldn't allow them to use certain language in front of your children. You certainly wouldn't allow them to start singing a song about having sex with children or animals, I would assume. If you once take a stand curtailing ANY "freedom of speech", you've admitted that there are limits to it. Then it becomes a matter of deciding exactly where to draw the line.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
54 (
view
)
Songwriters out there?
Posted:
1/19/2006 3:44:29 AM
Great points, Smiley -- especially about keeping a tape recorder handy. Even if you do remember the basic melody, chord progression, etc, later -- sometimes your timing is slightly different or there's a certain groove that you've lost and you find yourself wondering why the song doesn't seem nearly as exciting as it did when you started writing it.
I'll sometimes start writing a song in my head when I'm driving. If I don't keep it in my head for the whole ride, I may forget how it went later -- especially if I get home and have to do other things for hours on end before I get back to it. Something I found helpful was taking a course on ear training. Learning to identify the notes in my head without having an instrument around, I could jot down melodies when I stopped at a light.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
145 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/19/2006 2:56:56 AM
I don't mean to personally attack you artandsoul, and I guess I thought you'd get that...
I never really thought that you did, Livewire. It wasn't you I was referring to as part of the "all and sundry" in the post that I assume you are answering. Thanks for being concerned enough to make the above statement. I never really took offence at what you said though I did disagree with it, as you know. Yes, we may disagree and hopefully we can do so in an agreeable manner. Peace to you.
Granted, sometimes "the more things change, the more they stay the same". I do think nevertheless that some things have changed considerably and that many of the changes are not for the better. If you can pardon my dramatic expression here -- and I don't remember who said this beautiful line -- I "rage against the dying of the light". Some have to call attention to disturbing trends and say, hold on, things are going too far, let's conserve some decency and not just let the louts take over. It may be a hopeless cause but I think it's worth taking up. It reminds me of a great saying:
"The world favours underdogs but follows only top dogs. Fight for a few underdogs anyway." (from a book called "Anyway -- The Paradoxical Commandments" by Kent M. Keith)
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
13 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/19/2006 2:04:59 AM
One day, BusyLady signs up at POF. She puts up a picture. In addition to being busy, she's also a good looking lady. We all know what that means - lots of emails from guys being... ummm... let's just say, less than polite.
Being new to the site, she's unfamiliar with the way other members like to engage in divination by interpreting things like how many favorite's lists she's on, or what unread/deleted means, or what percentage of her emails she answers. She foolishly makes the mistake not answering mails from men who have nothing better to say than "Nice rack", or "Wanna see my penis?"
Result - she gets a "low" rating.
Trilby, thanks for taking the time to point out possible flaws in the proposed system. That's how ideas and systems get perfected. I don't think those possible flaws will really be a problem though and here's why:
Suppose that 50% of her email is from rude jerks. She ignores those. Let's say 30% is from guys who are polite but not of interest to her. If she answers those briefly anyway and blocks them after replying, she's still at a 50% response frequency rate. Not bad at all -- certainly not bad enough to discourage decent guys from writing her if they have any confidence in themselves at all. The guys will do the math themselves and realize that, as beautiful as she is, she's probably getting lots of mail from jerks so 50% is not a bad response rate. If she decides not to answer the polite but uninteresting guys her response rate would still be at 20%. Now, you may ask, what if only ten percent of the guys are of interest to her? Well, I suppose if she cares about her response frequency rate she can take a few minutes to answer a few of them at least. Or she can take her chances that some decent guys will still risk it and write to her. Or she can write to them herself -- now she has a chance to do the picking and choosing herself while being less burdened with email from unattractive suitors -- unless she's even too busy to bother scanning profiles herself.
If a person ignores more than 80 - 90% of her emails, don't you think prospective writers have a right to be forewarned before they waste their time writing to them? I don't see why anyone would care if people knew the frequency of emails that they respond to. Most of them don't seem to consider it rude not to answer anyway -- so what do they have to hide? And if their inboxes are so full that they have no time to answer even 10 - 20% of them, wouldn't they welcome any improvement in the system that reduced the flow?
Is it her fault that rude clowns keep emailing her? Should she have to answer and possibly encourage them just to keep her numbers high? Not to mention the potential for abuse if someone takes a dislike to you. All they have to do is keep emailing you, knowing you won't answer, and knowing you will get a lower rating because of it.
First, having a lower rating is not necessarily a bad thing as pointed out above. Having it moderately low would discourage not only persons who don't think they have much of a chance with her anyway but also -- most likely -- even a number of the absolute jerks would be discouraged if her response rate was very low because they know that their chances of getting the attention that they crave are so limited. An attractive woman doesn't need to keep that number high. She will get plenty of emails no matter what, it seems.
Second, re "potential for abuse": if the jerk senders are immediately blocked they could have no effect on her rating after a single email. If the lady in question is really worried about her "stats" in this area -- which she needn't be ... unless they are ridiculously low, perhaps -- she could always answer a few, tell them to take a hike and block them right after sending it.
Or does she have to live with the low percentage for the rest of her profile days because she didn't understand the deeper meaning some people infer from all these silly numbers?
The stats could be freshly updated for a new period weekly, monthly or even daily (as the favorites lists are) -- whatever seems most appropriate. If you check the original post, I did suggest that it could say "Busylady answered .01% of her emails last month." Whether some infer deep meanings "from all these silly numbers" or not, nevertheless some do find them of value. Apparently POF thinks that favorites lists, info about whether your emails have been read/deleted, etc, are -- potentially at least -- of some value or they wouldn't include any such information here.
(And as evidenced by the exchange between you and Melly - people are going to have different ideas of whether a high or low number is a good thing. So what's the point?)
Melly and I have made our peace after some initial difficulties. People are always going to have differing ideas about the value of a particular feature. No doubt many wish that there were no such things as favorites lists or that any information at all concerning their email answering habits was made available. That doesn't mean that there is no point to having any of these things. The points would be:
(a) to reduce unwanted email for busy people
(b) to help all letter writers to waste less time writing to those who are too busy to answer them and spend more time writing to people who are likely to answer them
(c) to save time and aggravation for all these parties
(d) to make this site more pleasant and less frustrating for all concerned
(e) to make this site more effective as a means for people to make romantic connections.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
12 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/19/2006 12:49:17 AM
people, people, people ! much ado about little here, lets not lose site of the fact that it's a free site here, and a lot of analysis paralysis about sending out an initial paragraph at best, shouldn't be such a time consuming chore.
I may see the validity, perhaps on a pay site where one might want to save a couple of euros or two, but really is it such a death blow when they don't reply or send back a howdy doody - no thanks? on POF's nickle? You know the mantra - "Next"
I don't really see what the fact that it's not a pay site has to do with anything. Don't you want this site to be as effective as possible in helping to get people together? Judging by the "ads" about the effectiveness of POF that one sees here, one would assume that is the case.
Here's what's happening the way things are with the status quo. More and more of us who do send decent emails are not even bothering to send them at all. Why? Because in all too many cases we don't even get the courtesy of a reply. The longer we are here, the less emails we send out and the less time we spend on each one. The less emails that we send out and the less time we take on each one, the less chance there is that good connections will happen. Hence, the overall effectiveness of POF as a dating site is adversely affected. Personally I would have abandoned this site long ago -- as I have all of the pay sites which are worse -- were it not for the forums which I do enjoy. Would it be costly to implement the suggestion made?
You know the mantra - "Next"
Did anyone ever suggest that not receiving an answer is a "death blow"?
"Analysis paralysis"?
"People, people, people! much ado about little here!"?
"You know the mantra - 'Next'"?
What kind of answers are these? Is this how you treat everyone who makes a suggestion around here -- with a flippant and insulting dismissal? Is this POF policy? This is the second time I've respectfully made a suggestion here and the second time I've received this kind of treatment from a "moderator". Why do you have site suggestion threads if you intend to treat people who make suggestions this way? Why should we even bother?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
8 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/18/2006 6:59:59 PM
Melly, no problem. All is forgiven on both sides, I hope.
I think that a lot of people WOULDN'T want a high number there. Many say that their inboxes are jammed as it is. It seems that most such people should appreciate anything that helped reduce the amount of email they receive. They'd still be free to send letters to those they were interested in and less burdened by unwanted email from those who aren't interesting to them. People who regularly ignore emails don't seem to consider it rude so I don't think they'd be afraid of looking bad.
Thanks to you for raising some good questions and also to Catchastar for her contribution here.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
135 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/18/2006 6:38:42 PM
Believe me Art when I say that I wasn't laughing at you/your beliefs .... patience is a virtue!
River Loon, my love, I know well that you weren't laughing at my beliefs. I'm glad I could add some comic relief to your day! What are friends for?
Melchizedek - Melchi (king) zadok (righteousness) Abraham met this king of righteousness in Canaan. Melchezidek was king of the city of Salem (peace)--Hebrew, shalom Arabic equivalent - salaam, Jerusalem - the foundation of peace. Who was this Melchizedek? Well, whoever he was Abraham paid tithe to him. Could this have been Jesus? Christian food for thought concerning reincarnation ....
The Edgar Cayce readings declare that Melchizedek was one of the incarnations of the soul that eventually incarnated as Jesus. They further suggest that this same soul was the first to achieve complete and total reunion with God, biblically speaking "the firstborn of many brethren", the "pioneer and perfecter of our faith" and the "captain of our salvation".
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
6 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/18/2006 6:29:14 PM
Well, one thing I do know, is that you have no sense of humour.
Ok, wait
Before you start getting all pissed off and s.hit, i thought you wanted to have a forum where people go to complain.
Melly, shouldn't you read the original post before you jump in with supposedly humorous insults that neither answer the question of the thread nor make any responsible contribution to it?
I apologize.
Apology accepted with thanks.
No need to be rude to me, either....
Please accept my apology in return for any perceived rudeness in my response.
Carry on.
OK, I will. Melly, what do you think of the suggestion made in the original post here? Do you think it would be a good idea for POF to adopt it? Why or why not? Thanks in advance for your participation and any helpful contributions that you can make.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
4 (
view
)
email suggestion to save time and aggravation for all parties
Posted:
1/18/2006 5:39:21 PM
LOL
an "I hate the world" thread
or "Nobody likes me..wwwaaaaaa" thread.
Funny :)
What a beautiful forum contribution -- and such an intelligent response to a post that seeks to reduce the need for such threads. Apparently you detest these so much that you can't resist the urge to whine about them in a hateful manner. Do you think that's funny at all -- or would "pathetic" perhaps be a better description?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
133 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/18/2006 5:24:05 PM
"Lord Jesus, give me patience! Where's the little praying man icon around here when you need it? "
I'm sorry Art , but this made me laugh so hard the tears were rolling down my face
River Loon, I didn't mean to make you cry, Hon! It was a very serious prayer -- really it was!
Now you see, you lot out there that believe all reincarnationists are misled by demons -- some of us aren't even ashamed to pray in public! And we even go so far as to address God by His "Christian name" instead of calling him "Rama" or "Krishna"! Do we get any brownie points for that? Can we join your club -- or are we forever doomed to be cast into the outer darkness as hopelessly misled, doctrinally dangerous purveyors of cultish heresy? Alas, I fear not. Oh well, at least we have lots of company here on this earth -- and presumably, after the one and only life which you insist is all we have, we reincarnationists will all be roasting in Hell with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and the Buddha.
Having said all that, I want to apologize for any apparent hostility that I may appear to have displayed toward all sincere believers in a fundamentalist Christian outlook on life. I know that many of you are probably very spiritual, dedicated Christians and I respect you for that -- especially because, at one time in my life, I was on your side of this fence.
Personally, I believe that many of you are as trapped in your own outlook as you assume that "Christian reincarnationists" are. Believing as you do, you can do little else but to combat our viewpoint in the best way that you can. I do believe that, if and when you do, you should be prepared to defend your point of view in a reasonable manner -- or, failing that, you should leave such matters to those who are able and willing to do so because you bring no credibility to your side of the argument if you do otherwise. "Let not many of you seek to become teachers -- knowing that as such you shall incur a stricter judgment." This is a very biblical concept.
I'd also like to make my own feelings regarding Jesus very clear. I believe in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. I love Jesus and I consider Him to have been not only the very incarnation of God Himself but also the greatest Man who ever walked this Earth. I also believe that the doctrine of reincarnation is the most sensible idea out there regarding the afterlife. I do not believe that this doctrine contradicts all Christian biblical beliefs and have given my reasons for this in several posts in this thread and in another titled "the worst Christian heresy of all".
Peace, my brothers and sisters.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
142 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/18/2006 4:38:52 PM
Thank you for opening the thread so that I could make my views heard.
OK, Rory ... things are looking up. You're welcome re my opening of this thread. I did so because I feel it to be a very important issue. Noone is more aware than I of how controversial the issue can be after having dealt with it for the past five years in connection with the non profit music society that I founded -- at least in part based on my feelings about this issue. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I am fully prepared to defend my beliefs when they do not.
It's unfortunate that intellectual disagreements frequently become so personally rancorous that productive debate and discussion becomes impossible. I am willing and able to move past that and it seems that you are too. I thank you for that and also for your good contributions to this thread.
All I want is a specific acknowledgement of the stance I'VE made vis-a-vis to your arguement.
I will give each of the points you made in your last post some thought and respond to them soon.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
129 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/18/2006 4:06:17 PM
Scripture contradicts reincarnation, which is taken directly from Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. There is not one scripture that supports such a stupid notion as reincarnation.
A number of posts here have already pointed to numerous passages in the Bible which do support the idea of reincarnation. I will not bother to reiterate them here. Is your mind open enough to the possibilities that you will take the time to scroll back through this thread and check those passages out? Even if you did, would you be likely to even consider for one moment the possibility that interpretations of those passages offered by the supporters of reincarnation could be more accurate than what has been offered by those who believe it to be a "stupid notion"? Somehow, I doubt it.
Does your belief that reincarnation "is taken directly from Hindu and Buddhist philosophies" pretty much seal the deal for you, as I suspect? Did God completely abandon the founders of those philosophies and the entire societies that received their teachings for all the centuries of history preceding the advent of Christianity and Judaism in diverse places around the world? Where was He when all these philosophies came to be? Was He only concerned at those times and in those places with the activities of a single race in one location of the world? Is it just possible that God did care enough about his "other sheep who are not of this flock" to even -- horror of horrors, heresy of heresies! -- actually participate Himself in the formulation of those philosophies by persons who were considered saints in those times and those places and who still are today? Is it possible that this explains the striking similarities in the moral teachings of those philosophies to those taught by Jesus? Is it possible that this also explains the notable similarities in the character and conduct of the leading founders and promoters of those philosophies to that of Jesus Himself?
Is it possible that reason can penetrate a closed mind that considers a sensible belief like reincarnation to be a "stupid notion" while adhering to other preposterous notions -- such as the idea that God has reserved a place of eternal torment for souls that He has callously abandoned and allowed to be led astray by these supposedly false philosophies throughout the ages? Somehow I doubt that too.
Edgar Cayce in my opinion was not of God, although many claim so.
Would it be unfair to reiterate a piece of popular wisdom in response to this? Have you not heard that opinions are like a certain part of the human anatomy that we all have and which is frequently filled with excrement that most decent people dispose of in a private manner? Has it ever occurred to you that opinions are more likely to be taken seriously when they are backed up by logical and sensible arguments? What, if any, evidence can you offer to support your opinion that Edgar Cayce was not "of God"? Would it be presumptuous of me to assume that your only offering in this regard is likely to be another simplistic one liner condemning without reason a doctrine that -- as a sensible explanation of God's merciful and just dealings with humanity -- in every way, towers above fundamentalist Christian doctrines that oppose it?
Lord Jesus, give me patience! Where's the little praying man icon around here when you need it?
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
140 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/18/2006 2:42:04 PM
Rory, are YOU having difficulty understanding the English language? Or are you perhaps having trouble arguing responsibly and with any integrity at all? I have NEVER asked you to "bow out of the thread". Would you be so kind as to quote the number of the message in which I am supposed to have said this? Is this false accusation just another example of the way that some people like to twist another's argument around to satisfy their own need to appear morally and intellectually superior?
You are obviously a pretty intelligent guy. In reality, we probably have far more points of agreement than is obvious in the unproductive and aggravating argument that we have been carrying on here. I've enjoyed many of the comments you have made and have acknowledged that here. Things went terribly awry after that and it's become obvious to me that further debate with you is a needless vexation to my own spirit and that nothing will ever be resolved between us in any case. Argue away and keep posting in this thread your "other, equalling thoughtful and compelling arguements" to your heart's content. That is your right. I am under no obligation to respond to your posts or to continue arguing with you -- and I have decided to exercise my own right to ignore you. If you want to believe that my decision is motivated by an inability to respond adequately to your brilliance, knock yourself out. It's a free world.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
136 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/18/2006 2:03:53 PM
"Yeah Kevlar~~ Music makes the world go round"
Livewirehere
"sure does...it also incites mindless masses of youngsters to violence and reprehensible behavior that they would otherwise have never done!
Right AandS?"
JustJazz
"Only if they're mentally unstable to begin with... Like with anything>>>>"
Livewirehere
Jazz, does it make you feel important or satisfy some deep need within you to lash out at someone by misrepresenting their argument and then ridiculing them for it? Are you, like several irresponsible debaters here, implying that I have somehow indicted music itself? I'll refer you to the original post which suggested that (a) music is powerful (b) power can be used in both positive and negative ways (c) artists who wield such power should take care how they use it. Which of these premises do you deny, if any?
If you are serious about making a real contribution here, please don't launch into a tirade about what "real music" or "real art" is. In a sense, I agree with you completely on that -- as I have made clear here more than once. Still, if you want to argue against my original points, those comments are just as irrelevant as statements to the effect that musicians and other artists are not the only ones who have responsibilities in this respect. I have never denied that nor did I ever suggest otherwise.
Livewire, I have never debated -- and have more than once acknowledged in this thread -- the point that those who commit violent acts and indulge in reprehensible behaviour are NOT entitled to "blame the music" as an excuse for their actions or as a way of escaping responsibility for their actions. Indeed, most if not all of these people were no doubt "mentally unstable" -- or morally suspect at least -- "to begin with". My point has been that responsible artists would not reinforce, encourage and justify such anti-social tendencies by creating and performing songs that do just that. You seem to feel that we should just "look away". I disagree. I believe that it is both our right and our duty to call artists in general to consider the power that they have and to choose to adopt a higher sense of responsibility in regard to its application. For all who DO adopt such a higher sense of responsibility I have nothing but respect. For those who do not, my point remains.
Furthermore, how "mentally stable" ARE impressionable youngsters who listen to such "music"? Are these youngsters not in the very process of forming the attitudes that they will carry through their adult lives? Should we just "look away" while "gangsta rappers" and others play their regrettable part in helping them to adopt anti-social attitudes?
To all and sundry here who seem to enjoy the sport of attacking my position with irrelevancies and "straw man arguments": I'd like to clear something up once and for all and remove another false label that some here seem eager to slap on my back -- presumably so that they can feel important or morally and intellectually superior when they attack me on the basis of that label. I have never once advocated "banning" any type of "art" -- so called or not -- in society in general. I have certainly spoken out against people who promote "art" that I consider to be an irresponsible use of their artistic power. Again, I consider that to be my right and my duty -- but to label me as some kind of "censor" on that basis is NOT an example of arguing with integrity.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
1 (
view
)
SUGGESTION: Add email statistics to user profiles
Posted:
1/18/2006 1:02:21 PM
The redundancy and popularity of forum threads concerning unread/deleted and read/deleted emails -- in general, emails that receive no reply -- shows that this is a disturbing issue for many. Here's a suggestion that might help save time and aggravation for many people on both sides of that fence. From what I understand, E-bay has a similar system.
As it is, POF shows things such as whether a person has read a particular email, how many favorites lists they are on, etc. How about adding a stat regarding a person's general habits re answering emails?
It could show up, for instance, as "BusyLady answered .01% of her emails last month". This would solve problems for all parties involved.
People who don't like writing thoughtful letters only to have them completely ignored could stop wasting their time writing to people who are most likely to do just that.
The people who are serious about meeting someone this way would get more -- and better quality -- mail because the time that would have been wasted on people who regularly ignore letters would now be spent on those who are more likely to answer them. As it is now, many of us -- who have no way of knowing who is likely to dignify our efforts with a response -- have either given up sending letters at all or no longer bother to put a lot of thought into the ones we do write.
The ones who do not answer most letters would be significantly less burdened by all these unwanted emails they now receive. Of course, the rude clowns who write ignorant emails would probably keep sending them because surely most of those fools are just indulging their nastiness and don't really expect a reply. Nevertheless, many others -- who do send polite expressions of interest but can read the writing on the wall -- would stop plugging their inboxes. Of those potential writers, only those who consider themselves special enough to warrant a reply from these people would bother to write them. The email overload problem would be reduced by 50% or more -- just like that!
The only possible objections I can imagine to this system might come from people who rarely answer emails but are afraid that they might lose out on an email from Mr. or Mrs. Right if their infrequent response rate was made public. This problem is easily solved. They can take the time to write to Mr. or Mrs. Right themselves. Others might possibly object that revealing this statistic is somehow an invasion of their privacy. If so, it is no more of an invasion of privacy than the stats and information that are now being revealed here -- and they have the right to not post a profile here at all if they can't accept those.
Adoption of this additional feature to the POF email system would eliminate a lot of unwanted email for those who say they receive too much of it, encourage serious seekers to send more (and more thoughtful) emails to those who are legitimately interested in finding someone here, and save a lot of time and aggravation for all concerned.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
50 (
view
)
Songwriters out there?
Posted:
1/18/2006 3:51:14 AM
There's a good site with lots of info about all aspects of the music business at starpolish.com
They have a library of free articles.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
131 (
view
)
The power of music
Posted:
1/18/2006 3:38:27 AM
Too bad you can't acknowledge-- through your blinkered hysteria-- a similar recognition of what others have said about the bigger picture.
I see the bigger picture quite clearly. I hope that the two of you can find happiness together producing your so called "high level artistic expression" through your "dedication and high moral calling" -- meanwhile, when someone else brings up the subject of the moral responsibilities of artists, you launch into a tirade condemning and ridiculing them for it. Talk about "blinkered hysteria"! You're right, pal. We really have nothing left to say to each other.
artandsoul
Joined:
11/7/2005
Msg:
126 (
view
)
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted:
1/18/2006 1:03:31 AM
The thought of reincarnation would distract one from worshipping God.
Since it may lead to speculation about past lives and future lives, reincarnation is thus considered a risk of becoming a distraction from such wholehearted worship.
For it's the First Commandment, to worship only God.
Huh? What kind of silliness is this? If you want to talk about thoughts that distract from the wholehearted worship of God, how about speculating about a God that roasts everyone who doesn't think exactly the way that fundamentalist Christians do in Hell forever? I find that pretty distracting and apparently I'm not the only one. Who in their right minds could worship such a God?
Show ALL Forums