Welcome to the Discussion of Religion Forum.  If you have trouble posting here, please leave a note in the Technical Difficulties Reporting Forum.

I Am Dude wrote on Jul 13^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:


Your feelings about that are why the separate forum for religion as well as some of the other new forum rules were created.  Sometimes it's best to let go of the past and start anew.  It's my hope that the new rules will make that easier for everyone to enjoy themselves.  Bruce and I were quite tired of the hostility too.  So I took everyone's feelings, complaints, and issues into consideration when I wrote the new rules and created the new forums.  To me it seems only fitting to have a forum just for religion, especially with how many religious followers we have here. 

Vicky

I personally find value in discussing all religions as they are very much a part of our culture and many, if not all, share commonalities and insights as a means for spiritual growth.

Whether or not valuable discussions can take place will depend on the willingness of posters to follow the new guidelines as well as how well those guidelines are enforced.

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jul 14^th, 2017 at 11:53am:


My belief is if a person has no interest in what the creator of life has to say, and has it in mind to steer people away from what the creator of life has to say, then perhaps that person should be respectful and find another... hmmm. You can take this where your imagination desires, but I'm sure you see the point. You're defending a man, others are defending the author of life. I'm not sure you're on the right side of the battle, but I guess you'll find out some day, one way or another.

If the creator of a forum has a belief system that goes against a majority of one of the most dominant religion's beliefs, and he not only creates subforums to discuss that religion but allows people of all beliefs to discuss the afterlife, which is one of the principle foundations of religion, and this religion is held by the majority of the population, then either he didn't think things through, or he's simply not as worried as you are about people expressing different beliefs.

There was never a conspiracy to discredit Bruce, simply to discuss ideas, theories, beliefs and claims, and to hold true to what we believe is truth for the benefit of others. If Bruce holds a belief regarding the afterlife that someone on the forum disagrees with, that person should be able to express that without being condemned or accused of having a personal agenda against Bruce. I guess you still haven't let go of this delusion, even after those you considered guilty completely stopped posting. If there was a sinister agenda against Bruce, it would still be taking place. Rather, those members realized this forum wasn't a productive place to do what we were truly here to do, unfortunately due to constant interference and personal attacks, so we relocated to a more tolerant community. So that pretty much proves your conspiracy theory to be false.

"Christianity predominates in the West, because Europeans traveled to America and stole if from the natives"

Huh?

Anyway let me pose a question: I don't buy the disk concept. I don't believe we are probes, sent by our disks to gather information.

As you know that's pretty much verbatim from one of Bruce's books.

So, does that mean I'm disqualified from participating in rhis forum? 

My feeling is, of course not. But I'd like Vicky to weigh in on this. Bruce was adamant that he didn't want cheerleaders, and that beliefs should be subject to verification.

Actually I don't know how the disk concept could be verified in any case.

R

Hi Roger,

Ok, weighing in here.  You're right, of course you can participate in this forum.

And I'm assuming everyone has read the new posting guidelines and understands their meaning.  I don't want to see the same old debates taking place, and it seems to be the general census that most people are tired of the debates happening and/or having to defend themselves every time they make a comment or share something. 

Everyone should feel safe posting and sharing without having to guard themselves from attack.  I want to change the past image here that this is a site where all we do is debate everything that someone says.  For example, if I were to start a thread about something about the nature of OBEs or some specific element of an OBE I wanted to share, for instance, I certainly wouldn't want people responding by debating why they don't think OBEs are even real and that they demand I prove it, and that they don't want people believing in what I'm saying. 

If someone wants to start a thread specifically about what they believe or don't believe (as long as they aren't breaking the posting guidelines) that's fine, but it's not ok to interrupt my thread with debate, diversion, or argument or trying to force me to defend myself.  This is a crucial element to the new posting guidelines that I hope everyone understands. 

It took a couple months for me to get them implemented.  Prior to that, if everyone remembers, I made it clear I wasn't going to just swoop in and ban everyone in that interim.  But, now that they are finally posted, if the rules get broken then the consequences will be enforced. 

I'm sure that Bruce has no problem with people having their personal views and sharing them on his site, as long as it's in a respectful and appropriate manner.  It's really not so much about Bruce's own personal feelings.  It's more about the fact that his site is a public forum, and it's the job of any forum administrator to keep the site a safe place for visitors.  We don't want the image of this site to be that if you post, you'll be ripped to shreds so you better be prepared for that.  Obviously I'm trying to clean that up and prevent it from being.  That goes for everyone, in any forum, on any topic. 

So Roger, if you don't buy the disk concept and don't believe we are probes sent by our disks to gather information, that's not a problem nor is it an issue.  The problems and issues comes into play if anyone is disrespectful in how and why they present themselves and their beliefs. 

So everyone, just stay on topic.  If you don't like a thread topic, then don't participate.  If rules get broken and you don't think I see it, please PM me or use the Peer Moderator system. 

I hope that helps.

Vicky

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:


Checking the facts:

According to gallop Catholics are not in the majority.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx

Albert said: Quote:


By making such a statement when no where has anyone said such a thing is the essence of you making an untrue personal accusation.  You seem to read things into what people say that is simply a figment of your imagination, Albert. 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that, but it might be helpful for you to not jump to conclusions about others.

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2017 at 11:23am:


Yes, there are and have always been many false Christians out there, although none of this has anything to do with my point, which is that it is ridiculous to expect the majority's belief not to have some level of input in a western demographic-oriented public forum.

Quote:


God's will is expressly stated in the Bible. If you've ever read it, you'd know that many of the new age beliefs supported by Bruce are in direct opposition to God's word.

Quote:


I was referring to you, as you have repeatedly spoken out against the bible, and have thus spoken out against the word of God, and have thus spoken out against God. You have made the mistake of separating Jesus from His proper context, which is the Bible, and have thus created an idol of your own design. The Jesus that you speak of is not the historical Jesus, as the historical Jesus confirmed the validity of the old testament, not to mention condemned idolaters and those who worshiped men, as you have done with Bruce.   

Quote:


The conspiracy you have fabricated is that there is even a reason to speak up for Bruce, that there is an evil agenda against him. There is nothing wrong with speaking out against a belief and providing an alternative viewpoint if it is done with respect and honest intentions. Forum members here aren't required to be interested in Bruce's personal opinions, they are only required to be interested enough in the main topic of the forum (the afterlife) to make some kind of contribution to the community.

Quote:


Kathy is correct in saying that you have a tendency to distort reality, this statement being an example of such behavior.

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2017 at 10:38am:


Albert,

I specifically put this topic in the new posting guidelines.  Please read through it and be aware of all the new rules and why they are in place.

Whatever Dude made mention of to this in the past, it's in the past.  Whatever he may or may not think or believe, that's his right.

What i'm saying is that it's NOT a subject that continues to be discussed and rehashed and perpetuated here on this site.  Bruce has already shown that he doesn't want it here, so it has been dropped.  Let's not bring it up again. 

Roger:

I did not mean to offend anybody, and considering some of the things you have said in the past, I find it hard to believe that you were offended.

What I said about Trump was a metaphorical way of expressing the viewpoint that is odd for people to speak as if I am involved with some sort of conspiracy theory, when on the very post where Dude complained about my Devil comment, he made a statement that represents the same way of thinking, without saying "Devil" or "Satan."  What do the words "Direct opposition to God" mean, when they come from a person who believes in a Satan who misleads through new ageism and other means? Do you find such words offensive?


rondele wrote on Jul 18^th, 2017 at 1:20pm: