With or without religion

@kellyjay said
Living in a free country didn't hinder my not being exposed to the Bible, but having a family that didn't bother did. There was no one that prayed, no one that read the scriptures, no one that went to church in my life. I didn't met a religious person until I joined the Navy and that was a Mormon not a Christian.

It must be annoying to you that so often people assume the opposite -- that everyone who is religious was specifically raised that way, and anyone who was raised witout religion generally does not re-enter it. There is a lot of stock invested in this idea that losing one's religion is part of a sort of progress and that, in the future, no one will be religious.

I remember my good buddy's wife telling us about how she was raised without God and became a devout a devout Catholic -- my other friend could hardly believe she grew up in a truly areligious environment and was literally asking her about her family history to find some instance that would confirm his bias that only religious people stay religious, and someone raised purely without religion would not have ever gone to religion in this modern era.

He was frustrated that he failed.

@fmf said
You clearly do not understand my views on nature and nurture. It's OK for you to disagree, of course, but you obviously - judging by what you are saying - don't understand why those views are.

Gee, I don't know, man.

Even if you disagree with Kelly, he regularly posts from a very smart perspective and seems like the sort of guy who has a deep understanding of most any topic, especially one as basic as "nurture" versus "nature."

I think you are in denial on this one.

@philokalia said
Even if you disagree with Kelly, he regularly posts from a very smart perspective and seems like the sort of guy who has a deep understanding of most any topic, especially one as basic as "nurture" versus "nature."

Well, he clearly doesn't get it.

@philokalia said
Even if you disagree with Kelly, he regularly posts from a very smart perspective and seems like the sort of guy who has a deep understanding of most any topic, especially one as basic as "nurture" versus "nature."

KellyJay puts people on “forum ignore” because they challenge his mindset and beliefs which he is demonstrably incapable of defending. His reading and writing comprehension ranks amongst the worst of all forum contributors and he regularly contradicts his own muddled theology while trying to convince readers that everything, yes absolutely everything in the book of Revelation is literal. Including the Harryhausenesque multiheaded beasts being ridden by literal whores wearing robes soaked in the literal blood of millions of Christians.

Probably you would all agree that other posters have been entirely out of control on this forum, right? Indeed, you regularly recollect about people who fit that description.

I can also say that I find a lot of posters here to have annoying and aggravating styles, and seemingly everything they do is to get a rise out of other posters, and there aren't as many legitimate attempts at communication as they should be.

Kelly is rightfully weary of some of the stuff here.

@philokalia said
Probably you would all agree that other posters have been entirely out of control on this forum, right? Indeed, you regularly recollect about people who fit that description.

I can also say that I find a lot of posters here to have annoying and aggravating styles, and seemingly everything they do is to get a rise out of other posters, and there aren't as many le ...[text shortened]... ttempts at communication as they should be.

Kelly is rightfully weary of some of the stuff here.

KellyJay claims he understands what I mean by nature and nurture. But he doesn't. He can disagree with it. He can reject it. But, judging by what he has said in reply to what I have said, his claim that he understands what I mean is false.

Actually, Kelly hasn't interacted with your statement enough to show that he does not understand it.

You were talking past him, insisting on your nature/nurture argument, while he continued arguing about something else that isn't even particularly related to what you were saying.

Kelly was talking about where the ultimate good comes from -- and that nurture does not mean that it will provide you with an ultimate good.

He then insisted that he was not brought up to be a Christian in some environemnt of "nurture," which goes against the idea that your moral compass comes from "nurture."

And you reiterated your concept of nature/nurture, didn't really deeply interact with anything that he said, and now you accuse him of not understanding nature/nurture when you would think it is clear that it is not a high priority for him to interact with it.

At least, that is how I see things.

@philokalia said
Probably you would all agree that other posters have been entirely out of control on this forum, right? Indeed, you regularly recollect about people who fit that description.

I can also say that I find a lot of posters here to have annoying and aggravating styles, and seemingly everything they do is to get a rise out of other posters, and there aren't as many le ...[text shortened]... ttempts at communication as they should be.

Kelly is rightfully weary of some of the stuff here.

You must be confusing this forum with one of your racist forums elsewhere.

Who has said that other posters are out of control?

When have I “regularly recollected” such a thing?

Who is “aggressive” in your opinion? Examples please. See if we align on who is agressive and how.

Which posters do you think post just to “get a rise” out of people in this forum? In other forums maybe, but not in here I don’t think.

KellyJay runs away from scrutiny and tough debate.

@philokalia said
Actually, Kelly hasn't interacted with your statement enough to show that he does not understand it.

I disagree with you. It is clear he doesn't understand it.

@philokalia said
He then insisted that he was not brought up to be a Christian in some environemnt of "nurture," which goes against the idea that your moral compass comes from "nurture."

I've known the story of how he became a Christian since about ten years ago. He and I have been talking about the source of morality for almost as long as that. "Nurture" just refers to things he has been exposed to, or learnt or that he has experienced. Each person's moral compass is synthesized from a combination of their hard wiring and stuff they experience.

@philokalia said
Kelly was talking about where the ultimate good comes from -- and that nurture does not mean that it will provide you with an ultimate good.

Everybody gets their religion from what they encounter and experience and ends up thinking it creates moral sensibilities that are "ultimate" and "objective" and "unchanging". I'm just demystifying it, that's all.

There's nothing supernatural about it. If he lived somewhere else or experienced different things, he'd just as likely be professing some other religion and claiming that his moral beliefs were somehow not just a complex set of subjectivies that stemmed from his hard wiring and his life experience.

@philokalia said
Probably you would all agree that other posters have been entirely out of control on this forum, right?

There are three that come to mind. The website got rid of the creepy Romans1009 with his incessant paedophilia-themed "comedy" and stalking of Ghost of a Duke.

Another was a poster called living in a cave [among other names as he reappeared from time to time] who was an anti-semite who taunted a Jewish poster with references to the Holocaust.

And there was another poster who trolled another poster about his deceased wife. You may have approved of them, who knows, but I thought it was good that they were banned for essentially being out of control.

@divegeester said
You must be confusing this forum with one of your racist forums elsewhere.

Who has said that other posters are out of control?

When have I “regularly recollected” such a thing?

Who is “aggressive” in your opinion? Examples please. See if we align on who is agressive and how.

Which posters do you think post just to “get a rise” out of people in this forum? In ...[text shortened]... forums maybe, but not in here I don’t think.

KellyJay runs away from scrutiny and tough debate.

See? In your very first line you are trying to say that I am someone who regularly visits racist forums and disparage me. That's a personal attack. And then you are saying that Kelly runs from scrutiny -- another sort of personal attack.

What if he just doesn't like interacting with things that are personally directed insults and forum drama, and instead prefers interacting with real content and less with forum drama..? Then maybe it'd look like he was "running away from scrutiny" or some such.

But he doesn't. He's a good poster and you should be kind to him.

Sure, FMF.

Point being, the forum has issues with posters that make things overly personal and less about the spiritual.

Sometimes it is extreme -- extreme enough for the administration to be involved... But, I think even countless posts that fall within the rules of the forum can still be toxic to the community. And maybe we shouldn't dwell on those.

@philokalia said
See? In your very first line you are trying to say that I am someone who regularly visits racist forums and disparage me. That's a personal attack. And then you are saying that Kelly runs from scrutiny -- another sort of personal attack.

What if he just doesn't like interacting with things that are personally directed insults and forum drama, and instead prefers intera ...[text shortened]... y from scrutiny" or some such.

But he doesn't. He's a good poster and you should be kind to him.

Maybe divegeester should seek to emulate the poster you singled out as the "best high volume poster" on the Spirituality Forum in 2018.