juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, cyberpi!
I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree pertaining to the necessity of "confession" as you have described. I realize it is a major functional component of at least one major denomination of Christianity, and they are welcome to do as they see fit. I do not see any benefit in "confessing my sins" publically, even to a religious leader. Those things I choose to share, I am deliberate about and with purpose. Otherwise, my personal life is mine and mine alone. I do not believe in airing dirty laundry for just anybody to see.
My confessions are made to G-d, and G-d alone. No man need serve as an intercessor. What is between me and G-d, is between me and G-d alone. Unless and if I so choose to share. So, depending what it is you mean by internal dialogue, I am thinking I disagree with the above sentiment.
Perhaps there may be some poetic conflation of terms, but I believe I said as much about the mob condemning, but a judgement must be passed before condemnation, even if that judgement is reflexive and prejudicial.
I can accept what you say here about Jesus using judgement, even passing judgement. Staying with this example, notice the way in which He does so. So atypical compared with how a regular joe goes about things. Most of us tend to want to force our own views upon others, rather than considering what is the most beneficial for all concerned.
You lost me. Care to expand on this?
I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree pertaining to the necessity of "confession" as you have described. I realize it is a major functional component of at least one major denomination of Christianity, and they are welcome to do as they see fit. I do not see any benefit in "confessing my sins" publically, even to a religious leader. Those things I choose to share, I am deliberate about and with purpose. Otherwise, my personal life is mine and mine alone. I do not believe in airing dirty laundry for just anybody to see.
My confessions are made to G-d, and G-d alone. No man need serve as an intercessor. What is between me and G-d, is between me and G-d alone. Unless and if I so choose to share. So, depending what it is you mean by internal dialogue, I am thinking I disagree with the above sentiment.
Perhaps there may be some poetic conflation of terms, but I believe I said as much about the mob condemning, but a judgement must be passed before condemnation, even if that judgement is reflexive and prejudicial.
I can accept what you say here about Jesus using judgement, even passing judgement. Staying with this example, notice the way in which He does so. So atypical compared with how a regular joe goes about things. Most of us tend to want to force our own views upon others, rather than considering what is the most beneficial for all concerned.
OK, I'm trying to see where you are coming from, I think I can go along with this.
You lost me. Care to expand on this?
Armchair quarterback I believe is one of the more polite terms. Of course, unlike a spectator to a football game, an open forum such as CR invites any and all to play. It is perfectly OK to have multiple quarterbacks all playing at the same time, because the game here is not football. The difficulty I see is in witnessing the event, knowing it is turning south, folding one's hands and enjoying the fireworks *without making any effort to defuse the situation,* and returning later with a critical evaluation that fails to consider the entire event, (even to the point of harping on about it at length). Since we are being sincere with each other, this is why I have found your critique just a tad short of fully credible, in that you watched and did nothing, only to come back later and criticize everyone else for trying to do anything. Yes, I responded to both of the people you continue on about, but that response in both cases was far from knee-jerk. What you seem to fail to consider (by all means, please review *the whole threads* where these things took place), is that I did make long concerted efforts to deal as amicably as possible with both before things got out of hand. Sadly in the second case, things were already pointed south before I arrived and my efforts were to no avail. In the first case I spent considerable time and effort, in concert with others behind the scenes, in an attempt to get the person to play nice. For a while it seemed to work, and then that person returned to unacceptably rude behavior. Neither person, nor any person ever here, has been banned for their views. Were that so, I would think a lot more people would be gone. Likewise, without some form of civil restraint, as evidenced by other forums available elsewhere on emotionally fraught issues, CR would quickly turn into a muddle of chaos where only the most vocal and masochistic would dare voice an opinion. It is a balancing act to make CR work effectively, and I think the request of civility is an appropriate and modest request to abide by.