My belief system

You just quite succinctly described the position of the role player, not only at this temple but in society in general. Nice job, however I chose to not be a role player, but a real participant.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You just quite succinctly described the position of the role player, not only at this temple but in society in general. Nice job, however I chose to not be a role player, but a real participant.

Not at all, unless you can show me what you mean in the context of my post and its meaning? Which should be easy for you since you say its so succinct for you.

I'd actually struggle to classify my path as role playing... and an effort to do so would be a bit of a waste of my time, but feel free to have a crack.

14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

We are not discussing someone elses beliefs but the nature of belief in general and how it applies to reality.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

What's odd about it? Our own rules encourage members to debate ideas not personalities. Beliefs are ideas, and on a discussion forum where we openly admit to having syncretic origins it seems like quite a natural progression.

ren wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

What's odd about it? Our own rules encourage members to debate ideas not personalities. Beliefs are ideas, and on a discussion forum where we openly admit to having syncretic origins it seems like quite a natural progression.

True
This IS a discussion forum.

I'm a little disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. I think at some point I tried to make the point how is Lenny's belief system different from others? The point of that question is that I think we all try to take some measures in limiting our criticism, especially of Abrahamic religions, in an effort to avoid unnecessary offense. Maybe it's because these religions are more "mainstream" and stranger ideas represent more "extreme" views. But why? Why do we not treat all religions equally? Shouldn't they be? Or is it because many people believe in them and thus, mob rule, creates the boundaries where we respect the belief simply because it is believed?

And at what point does the "poking and prodding" become a kind of religious persecution because I've been in many debates where people felt attacked for less. I simply wish there were rules when it comes specifically to debating someone's beliefs publicly. Like, if you're asking questions that's cool. But if people start jumping in stating facts against their beliefs I think the OP should have the opportunity to actually invite that type/level of scrutiny kind of like having consent before intercourse.

Because what's going to happen is the natural response to one set of beliefs being attacked is to question other people's beliefs. And I can tell you that major religions borrow from other cultures, embellish details, create false narratives, lie, etc. all in an effort to assert their own dominance. And believers do not question the historical authenticity for the most part. They simply believe. I remember talking to a Christian friend about Christians celebrating Christmas even though it is an obvious pagan holy day. I couldn't give justice to his response but in effect he said it didn't matter. HE... gave it the meaning that it needed to have... for him.

Without singling any out, MOST religions are guilty of whatever anyone might reasonably say about Lenny. Research? Most major religions are sourced from oral traditions, many of which can be proven false. Every believer believes they have the "truth". That's simply part of their belief. But how they use their belief can be positive or negative. I have yet to hear any argument about how Lenny's own belief is negative, just that people disagree on a factual basis. Okay. I also disagree with the bible on a factual basis and it's pretty easy to do so. But that's not why people believe in it.

People don't believe the bible because it proves it's entire account of past and future is accurate. They believe in the bible because they believe in God. And so by extension the bible gives them a STORY that connects them to God. A story. Do they care where God came from? How many people really even care what Jesus's name actually is? All these so-called "facts", at the end of the day, mostly don't matter because for believers it is all about the belief in something greater than themselves. It's all about the belief in God. And for Lenny... it's all about his belief in the Force.

The "system" part is simply the STORY that, for him, reinforces his belief. And that story inspires him just like the fictional SW universe inspires me. Judging Lenny would be like casting the first, second, and third stone at myself. I also believe in the Force. And if for this person the Force manifests as a dream and for that person it manifests as story and for someone else it manifests in the religion they grew up with... what difference does it make?

ren wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

What's odd about it? Our own rules encourage members to debate ideas not personalities. Beliefs are ideas, and on a discussion forum where we openly admit to having syncretic origins it seems like quite a natural progression.

a belief is more than an idea. It is a held idea tied to our ego and the more we belief something the more that belief and idea become part of us. At that point, you are debating the person because we are a collection of memories and experiences, knowledge and beliefs. All these things combine to form our unique perspective. And that.... I think it what should be respected and treated accordingly.

ZealotX wrote: I'm a little disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. I think at some point I tried to make the point how is Lenny's belief system different from others? The point of that question is that I think we all try to take some measures in limiting our criticism, especially of Abrahamic religions, in an effort to avoid unnecessary offense. Maybe it's because these religions are more "mainstream" and stranger ideas represent more "extreme" views. But why? Why do we not treat all religions equally? Shouldn't they be? Or is it because many people believe in them and thus, mob rule, creates the boundaries where we respect the belief simply because it is believed?

And at what point does the "poking and prodding" become a kind of religious persecution because I've been in many debates where people felt attacked for less. I simply wish there were rules when it comes specifically to debating someone's beliefs publicly. Like, if you're asking questions that's cool. But if people start jumping in stating facts against their beliefs I think the OP should have the opportunity to actually invite that type/level of scrutiny kind of like having consent before intercourse.

Because what's going to happen is the natural response to one set of beliefs being attacked is to question other people's beliefs. And I can tell you that major religions borrow from other cultures, embellish details, create false narratives, lie, etc. all in an effort to assert their own dominance. And believers do not question the historical authenticity for the most part. They simply believe. I remember talking to a Christian friend about Christians celebrating Christmas even though it is an obvious pagan holy day. I couldn't give justice to his response but in effect he said it didn't matter. HE... gave it the meaning that it needed to have... for him.

Without singling any out, MOST religions are guilty of whatever anyone might reasonably say about Lenny. Research? Most major religions are sourced from oral traditions, many of which can be proven false. Every believer believes they have the "truth". That's simply part of their belief. But how they use their belief can be positive or negative. I have yet to hear any argument about how Lenny's own belief is negative, just that people disagree on a factual basis. Okay. I also disagree with the bible on a factual basis and it's pretty easy to do so. But that's not why people believe in it.

People don't believe the bible because it proves it's entire account of past and future is accurate. They believe in the bible because they believe in God. And so by extension the bible gives them a STORY that connects them to God. A story. Do they care where God came from? How many people really even care what Jesus's name actually is? All these so-called "facts", at the end of the day, mostly don't matter because for believers it is all about the belief in something greater than themselves. It's all about the belief in God. And for Lenny... it's all about his belief in the Force.

The "system" part is simply the STORY that, for him, reinforces his belief. And that story inspires him just like the fictional SW universe inspires me. Judging Lenny would be like casting the first, second, and third stone at myself. I also believe in the Force. And if for this person the Force manifests as a dream and for that person it manifests as story and for someone else it manifests in the religion they grew up with... what difference does it make?

It was posted in 'open discussions'. If it wasn't open for debate, it should not have been posted here.

ren wrote: It was posted in 'open discussions'. If it wasn't open for debate, it should not have been posted here.

By it, I assume you mean his belief system. But it wasn't posted as "let's discuss the truth and accuracy of everything I'm about to say because what I'm about to say is true". Debating the historical validity could have been viewed as off topic. If anything, I think the OP should get to control what he or she wants to discuss and what their thread is about. I'm not sure everyone is so informed about the implications of the term "open" discussion. Open Discussions can still have rules, protocol, guidelines, regulations just as we still expect folks to display manners, ethics, decorum. And I don't think one should suffer the consequences of posting on the "wrong forum" if indeed that's what happened.

At all times I think we should treat all members and visitors alike the same way we would want to be treated. Lenny did an admirable job keeping his cool and trying to respond to everyone but, being present from page 1, at some point it started looking more like target practice and we must always be mindful of our motives and act with humility and nobility. If one stops caring about the other person's feelings then what is the true reason for the continued discourse? I mean don't we want to encourage different perspectives, thoughts, ideas? Trying to kill them in infancy isn't exactly welcoming.