Dinner Doodle - What Do You Believe?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(hopefully, there will be discussion about the content and not the appearance)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

this doodle gives some hints into our church's interdenominational way of thinking:

1) we don't split hairs over non-salvational issues
2) but we will defend salvational issues by truth and not desire, knowing that falsehood will not change true reality.

[afleitch]

Point 8 is overly simplistic.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Point 8 is overly simplistic.

how so?  >95% (if not 99%) of abortions are due to "convenience" alone

[asexual trans victimologist]

Point 8 is overly simplistic.

how so?  >95% (if not 99%) of abortions are due to "convenience" alone

Cite.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Point 8 is overly simplistic.

how so?  >95% (if not 99%) of abortions are due to "convenience" alone

Cite.

there you go again, playing dumb to justify your position:  the abortion issue is NOT about woman's health, rather it is about having "the right" to kill someone based on convenience:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

first number is from 2004 survey, second number is from 1987

Reason 2004 1987
(N=957) (N=1,773)
Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong 25 27
Can’t afford a baby now 23 21
Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
children are grown 19 8
Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems 8 13
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young 7 11
Would interfere with education or career plans 4 10
Physical problem with my health 4 3
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3 3
Was a victim of rape <0.5 1
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion <0.5 1
Parents want me to have an abortion <0.5 <0.5
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant <0.5 1

[asexual trans victimologist]

Point 8 is overly simplistic.

how so?  >95% (if not 99%) of abortions are due to "convenience" alone

Cite.

there you go again, playing dumb to justify your position:  the abortion issue is NOT about woman's health, rather it is about having "the right" to kill someone based on convenience:

I wasn't playing dumb. I genuinely wanted a citation. Why do you automatically assume bad faith of anybody who disagrees with your sophomoric 'Christianity' like a complete paranoid? You do know that the placemat tells you not to do things like that, right? Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

first number is from 2004 survey, second number is from 1987

Reason 2004 1987
(N=957) (N=1,773)
Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong 25 27
Can’t afford a baby now 23 21
Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
children are grown 19 8
Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems 8 13
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young 7 11
Would interfere with education or career plans 4 10
Physical problem with my health 4 3
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3 3
Was a victim of rape <0.5 1
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion <0.5 1
Parents want me to have an abortion <0.5 <0.5
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant <0.5 1

Thank you for citing your claim.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I wasn't playing dumb. I genuinely wanted a citation. Why do you automatically assume bad faith of anybody who disagrees with your sophomoric 'Christianity' like a complete paranoid? You do know that the placemat tells you not to do things like that, right? Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

you have a repeated history of playing dumb, Nathan.  If you want others to take you seriously, than you need to first be honest with yourself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

your church teaches that abortion, at least in the case of convenience, is immoral?

[asexual trans victimologist]

I wasn't playing dumb. I genuinely wanted a citation. Why do you automatically assume bad faith of anybody who disagrees with your sophomoric 'Christianity' like a complete paranoid? You do know that the placemat tells you not to do things like that, right? Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

you have a repeated history of playing dumb, Nathan.  If you want others to take you seriously, than you need to first be honest with yourself.

The funny thing is that I don't have a history of playing dumb, whereas you do have one of automatically assuming bad faith of anybody who disagrees with you. Stop that. The placemat told you to.

Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

your church teaches that abortion, at least in the case of convenience, is immoral?

There's no clear doctrine on this particular subject, but abortion on demand is certainly something a lot of us, including me, aren't immensely comfortable with.

[True Federalist]

I notice that of the eight topics chosen for the doodle, none of them deal with social issues, such as "Helping the poor."

I realize that obviously not every possible topic could be included, yet room was found to include two topics (6 and 7) on the subject of hurting others and none on the subject of helping others.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The funny thing is that I don't have a history of playing dumb

Is “dodging” a better description?! 

---

, whereas you do have one of automatically assuming bad faith of anybody who disagrees with you.

That is not true, for I have even admitted when I am wrong, either by misreading someone’s post, or when I am simply wrong about something in the bible:

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

wow, thanks, forgot about that.  guess i need to reread...I stand corrected.

---

Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

your church teaches that abortion, at least in the case of convenience, is immoral?

There's no clear doctrine on this particular subject, but abortion on demand is certainly something a lot of us, including me, aren't immensely comfortable with.

How noble

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nathan...here is an example of a goat- one who finds problems to confront just for the sake of causing dissension.  He is the type who would fuss over even the church's choice of wallpaper in the bathroom.  I don't say that out of hate, rather I say it out of experience:

I notice that of the eight topics chosen for the doodle, none of them deal with social issues, such as "Helping the poor."

I realize that obviously not every possible topic could be included, yet room was found to include two topics (6 and 7) on the subject of hurting others and none on the subject of helping others.

Ernest, would you care to walk a little further out on that limb and just spell out, loud and clear, what you are insinuating?  Just take a couple of more steps so that the thud at the end of your drop will be louder than the innuendoes of your all-knowing wisdom.  

[asexual trans victimologist]

The funny thing is that I don't have a history of playing dumb

Is “dodging” a better description?! 

Not really.

, whereas you do have one of automatically assuming bad faith of anybody who disagrees with you.

That is not true, for I have even admitted when I am wrong, either by misreading someone’s post, or when I am simply wrong about something in the bible:

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

wow, thanks, forgot about that.  guess i need to reread...I stand corrected.

All right, I stand corrected as well. You don't do it all the time, but you do have a history of doing it.

Why do you even assume I'm in favor of abortion?

your church teaches that abortion, at least in the case of convenience, is immoral?

There's no clear doctrine on this particular subject, but abortion on demand is certainly something a lot of us, including me, aren't immensely comfortable with.

How noble

It's what you get when you're in a liturgical church that sees in terms of generations. It's not immensely noble but there's no great shame in it either.

Your definition of a goat in this context is pretty good, and I'd agree with it (we all have our preferences but we need to prioritize sometimes), but I'm not sure I'd agree that Ernest qualifies.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's what you get when you're in a liturgical church that sees in terms of generations. It's not immensely noble but there's no great shame in it either.

is the rewriting of your church's doctrine timed to the change of every generational wind?

---

Your definition of a goat in this context is pretty good, and I'd agree with it (we all have our preferences but we need to prioritize sometimes), but I'm not sure I'd agree that Ernest qualifies.

be patient, goats are very restless and will not follow, they are never content and hate to be confined.  He'll be back, trying to find a gap in the doodle to exploit.

[asexual trans victimologist]

It's what you get when you're in a liturgical church that sees in terms of generations. It's not immensely noble but there's no great shame in it either.

is the rewriting of your church's doctrine timed to the change of every generational wind?

No, that's not the sort of seeing in terms of generations that I meant.  I meant that liturgical churches typically see on an incredibly large time frame and hence attract all sorts of people with disparate political and social beliefs and even some pretty different interpretations of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, as opposed to snake-belly-low churches which are liable to get caught up in some obsessive moment (hint: Not the Christ Event, which is the only moment worth obsessing over) and never let it go.

Your definition of a goat in this context is pretty good, and I'd agree with it (we all have our preferences but we need to prioritize sometimes), but I'm not sure I'd agree that Ernest qualifies.

be patient, goats are very restless and will not follow, they are never content and hate to be confined.  He'll be back, trying to find a gap in the doodle to exploit.

This doodle is a lot better designed than the other ones. I actually don't see much wrong with it, personally, since a lot of what Ernest would have wanted in it seems to follow logically from the points that are there; then again, maybe this isn't so logical to some people.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's what you get when you're in a liturgical church that sees in terms of generations. It's not immensely noble but there's no great shame in it either.

is the rewriting of your church's doctrine timed to the change of every generational wind?

No, that's not the sort of seeing in terms of generations that I meant.  I meant that liturgical churches typically see on an incredibly large time frame and hence attract all sorts of people with disparate political and social beliefs and even some pretty different interpretations of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

what are saying, are you saying they're so caught up in rituals that they never really say anything, therefore no one is offended?  I mean, what exactly is stopping them from speaking clearly in regard to substantive matters?

[asexual trans victimologist]

It's what you get when you're in a liturgical church that sees in terms of generations. It's not immensely noble but there's no great shame in it either.

is the rewriting of your church's doctrine timed to the change of every generational wind?

No, that's not the sort of seeing in terms of generations that I meant.  I meant that liturgical churches typically see on an incredibly large time frame and hence attract all sorts of people with disparate political and social beliefs and even some pretty different interpretations of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

what are saying, are you saying they're so caught up in rituals that they never really say anything, therefore no one is offended?  I mean, what exactly is stopping them from speaking clearly in regard to substantive matters?

We do that. It's called 'liturgy'.

[shua]

If "because he said so" is not a good reason for believing something, what does that do to Scripture?

[True Federalist]

I notice that of the eight topics chosen for the doodle, none of them deal with social issues, such as "Helping the poor."

I realize that obviously not every possible topic could be included, yet room was found to include two topics (6 and 7) on the subject of hurting others and none on the subject of helping others.

Ernest, would you care to walk a little further out on that limb and just spell out, loud and clear, what you are insinuating?  Just take a couple of more steps so that the thud at the end of your drop will be louder than the innuendos of your all-knowing wisdom.  

That both you and to a lesser extent, this doodle, emphasize the "do not" portions of Christian doctrine at the expense of neglecting the "do" portions.

I hear fairly little from you about loving thy neighbor (and to be clear, and to forestall you taking this off on that tangent, I am not referring at all to sex) or helping the less fortunate.  You spend a lot of time here complaining about the motes in the eyes of others and come across as being proud that you make those complaints.

I find you being so worried about what can be broadly categorized as the sins of commission while you seem to be ignoring the sins of omission.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I actually agree with a good deal of this particular Dinner Doodle. "What do you believe?" and "Why do you believe it?" are in fact the two favorite questions of the Texas based show "The Atheist Experience". Does your pastor happen to be a fan?

The last one may or may not be useful depending on how one takes it, though. If it's taken in the sense of Pascal's Wager it isn't really useful - there are so many alternatives to a given belief that going over the possible consequences for not holding them would be an act in futility. It's better taken in the sense of examining what the costs of your actions based on your beliefs are, and whether or not those costs are actually worth it if your beliefs aren't true.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Not that I have a real problem with a church not getting involved in an issue as divisive and touchy as abortion (mine basically does the same, I've never heard it mentioned a single time), but I don't see how liturgy exactly acts as a substitute for taking solid positions.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Not that I have a real problem with a church not getting involved in an issue as divisive and touchy as abortion (mine basically does the same, I've never heard it mentioned a single time), but I don't see how liturgy exactly acts as a substitute for taking solid positions.

It's the way of taking solid theological positions. To take solid political positions would be to make the Episcopal Church (or even the Anglican Communion) a Magisterium, which the Pope would very much like it to be but which most Anglicans outside continental Africa and a certain South American province very much do not.

There are of course issues where the political becomes theological, and that's where the flash-points and debates happen. Abortion might or might not be one of these in some places. It probably is. The idea is still to make such things subjects of argument, not hand down proclamations from on high.

[Redalgo]

This is my favorite Dinner Doodle from among those you've posted thus far. There is just enough wiggle room provided on it for one to answer and discuss the matter even if they are not faithful.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

See, Nathan, I told you, if given a little time, he’d be back…

I notice that of the eight topics chosen for the doodle, none of them deal with social issues, such as "Helping the poor."

I realize that obviously not every possible topic could be included, yet room was found to include two topics (6 and 7) on the subject of hurting others and none on the subject of helping others.

Ernest, would you care to walk a little further out on that limb and just spell out, loud and clear, what you are insinuating?  Just take a couple of more steps so that the thud at the end of your drop will be louder than the innuendos of your all-knowing wisdom. 

That both you and to a lesser extent, this doodle, emphasize the "do not" portions of Christian doctrine at the expense of neglecting the "do" portions.

I hear fairly little from you about loving thy neighbor (and to be clear, and to forestall you taking this off on that tangent, I am not referring at all to sex) or helping the less fortunate.  You spend a lot of time here complaining about the motes in the eyes of others and come across as being proud that you make those complaints.

I find you being so worried about what can be broadly categorized as the sins of commission while you seem to be ignoring the sins of omission.

So, you’re claiming they’re simply Dont-odles and not Do-odles?  Well, you know, I just wanted to start over and make a new thread. Be like everybody else. Have some friends, y'know, maybe a dog... But, no, you had to come in here, you couldn't go suck on some other thread.


Now, we can do this the hard way, or... well, actually, with you, there's just the hard way….But, this is not gonna be pretty. We're talking violence, strong language, adult content...


Here is one whole Dinner Doodle on Love:





Here is one dedicated to Charity:





Here’s one dedicated to Loyalty:





Here’s one dedicated to Bullying:



---

Now, see what happens when you roughhouse?  With all your contention, you’re going to cause Nathan to accuse me, once again, of bullying your stupidty and not obeying the Doodle.

But, in the end, seeing that the Harvest is coming, DON’T be a goat, Ernest, falsely accusing those who preach truth, but DO be a sheep, lest you be swallowed up in the end, by the Mouth of Hell.