I often remind people of how the dems try to portray candidates as something other than what they are (i.e. Obama is just like Romney). The same thing happens here. Tango was potrayed as something he's not, and ended up off the board as a result. And it's happened to other posters since. What's interesting is that, like in real life, the usual culprits here are dems (or dems who claim they aren't dems).
Once again, no one attacked Luth. But many of those who this thread IS about tried to make it look that way.
If you take my posts as defending Luth from an "attack", you're as far off-base as tango's comment that he sees the "lack of sincerity" in how agnostics/atheists treat Luth. I don't need to defend Luth, he's a big boy. But I will most definitely stand up to someone saying that my and others interactions with him are insincere. And I stated why. You'll find I was on point before tango threw that out there.
I think you've completely missed the point of the thread. And that surprises me. You're one of the more adept posters around here.
Some people here are masters at taking a thread about one thing, and making it about something else because they are either uncomfortable with the topic, or they lack the cognitive ability to have an honest discussion.
I like this verse from the desiderata:
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit.
As far as agnostics go, it would be simple. They still dont know, so to show respect as deference to an individual that may help them come to a conclusion in their spritual path is only logical. Unless they have totally disregarded what sort of teachings that particular member of the clergy puts forth. If that be the case I can only assume it would be out of respect for the fact that said Clergyman has what the Agnostic wants. A clear and definitive spiritual path in their life.
As far as athiests, I can see where the other assertions could be correct as far as acknowledging learned individuals that are merely trying to help others. THose that may not be quite as sure of their path as a dyed in the wool athiest may be.
Originally Posted by tango
Thanks for the post Squatch. So would you say, not knowing the individual, you/society gives members of the clergy deference/respect until they know what is being offered/taught?
I realize the thread is disjointed. Have you seen the Desidarata Poem. How would an agnostic apply the tenets of desiderata.
I would say yes initially, and then in continuance even if the teachings dont include what would appeal to the Agnostic spiritually. Just as long as the teachings werent of discrimination or a place of backwards ignorance from the Agnostic's point of view. Any respectful human being might say thanks and carry on. Any deference after that would merely be from a position of humane respect and seeking of the Truth.
As far as the Desidarata Poem, I beleive a true Agnostic would take it as wisdom to use on their path until they find their answers. If it be that hey find no God, it still give useful tidbits about life. If they find that God exists for them then it is a collection of verse to soothe in times of need. Either way it can be useful. Prose is beautiful in that way, good for those seeking and those that have found.
Life Lesson: DO NOT LET THE MAN KEEP YOU DOWN! http://forum.huskermax.com/vbbs/show...er-King-Jr-Day "Yeah, saw that only Larry, Moe, and Curly had chimed-in before the thread was locked. C'est la vie when the cumulative IQ of those 3 shxxxeads is something less than 200, with Squatch nailing down 3rd place. Almost not worth the keystroke time expended reporting those twits, however..."