|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2008 04:26:21 AM · #226 |
Jeb - Sadly I agree that the church is pretty much a miserable failure. Politics and religion are such touchy subjects, I think, because 90% of what goes on is intended to strengthen the power of the incumbent over the faithful. What is really needed gets lost in the quest. Sad, sad, sad.
I for one will not stand up for preachers or churches or denomination. Personally, we've been left to twist in the wind on several occasions, and we've heard self-serving spin/doctrine offered as absolute truth from way too many pulpits.
But I'll stand for Jesus the Christ all day long.
A stimulus for you guys: your thoughts on the concept of "answered prayer".
Message edited by author 2008-05-18 08:38:14.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2008 04:27:03 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I am now striving to be the kind of man I believe God, as I understand him, wants me to be.
And that journey suits me just fine in its rewards right here. |
If gods are the product of human imagination, then every god is indeed real and unique to every person (to whatever extent an idea can be real)... and such a personal journey, free of the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion, is perhaps the only kind deserving of the admiration each demands. Bon voyage! |
But by this standard the imaginary voices speaking to some lunatics are real to every lunatic that hears them. That's all fine and good with me until those voices start telling people to hurt someone around them. I never minded religious people thinking their particular god really exists until they started imposing their ideas on me. Why ban U.S. funding of stem cell reserch? It's a ban with a high liklihood of resulting in needless death and misery for countless real people? It was banned because the voice of the magic man in the sky told enough law makers not to do it.
I also think anyone who considers their journey purely personal and "free of the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion" is just deluding themselves. Anyone's concept of a god is based largely on their cultural experience. Notice how the ideas in this thread have been mostly monotheistic Judeo Christian ideas? Where do those ideas come from? Organized religion of course! Put your own 'personal' twist on it as much as you like, it still is prejudiced by "antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion"
Actually, I can think of some exceptions to the above. Take scientology. For L. Ron Hubbard that was certainly a very personal journey for him that broke from just about everything before it. So yes, I suppose some people do have their own unique personal journey, but they tend to be the folks who start cults.
So, for the most part, I don't believe  scalvert's scenario exists and where it might exist we have good reason to be concerned rather than having admiration. |
|
|
|
05/18/2008 04:34:54 AM · #228 |
Jeb - again, context. You are again, correct, your response to His demands, (read commandments) is entirely voluntary. Is the faithfulness of your wife a demand on your part? Sure, it's optional on her part, as she can fly the coop if she wants. But if she wants the relationship unsullied, she'd probably better stay faithful. His demand, in context, is that in order to have and maintain proper relationship, we need to not be bowing down to idols, or "worshiping the creation more than the Creator".
|
|
|
|
05/18/2008 06:10:41 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
In the context of God being a "jealous" God, He is only demanding what is rightfully His. |
Sounds more like a bratty kid, or an indignant liege lord overseeing his fiefdom. It's interesting to me how most human beings are vastly superior to this sort of tribalistic god. The paragon of a rational person that most people admire is one who is jealous of and demands nothing, who cringes at the merest suffering, who abhors cruelty in its tamest form, who is reasonable to the point of being predictable in equanimity, who enjoys life (especially the lives of others)... in short, everything that God as portrayed in various ancient holy texts is not. |
|
|
|
05/18/2008 10:58:38 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I am now striving to be the kind of man I believe God, as I understand him, wants me to be.
And that journey suits me just fine in its rewards right here. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If gods are the product of human imagination, then every god is indeed real and unique to every person (to whatever extent an idea can be real)... and such a personal journey, free of the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion, is perhaps the only kind deserving of the admiration each demands. Bon voyage! |
Originally posted by JMart:
But by this standard the imaginary voices speaking to some lunatics are real to every lunatic that hears them. That's all fine and good with me until those voices start telling people to hurt someone around them. I never minded religious people thinking their particular god really exists until they started imposing their ideas on me. Why ban U.S. funding of stem cell reserch? It's a ban with a high liklihood of resulting in needless death and misery for countless real people? It was banned because the voice of the magic man in the sky told enough law makers not to do it. |
Overly simplistic and cherry-picked.
We're not talking that miniscule percentage of lunatics, we're talking the general population of regular folks.
The magic man in the sky told lawmakers not to do it?
I'm not even going to go there.
Originally posted by JMart:
I also think anyone who considers their journey purely personal and "free of the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion" is just deluding themselves. Anyone's concept of a god is based largely on their cultural experience. Notice how the ideas in this thread have been mostly monotheistic Judeo Christian ideas? Where do those ideas come from? Organized religion of course! Put your own 'personal' twist on it as much as you like, it still is prejudiced by "antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion" |
Again oversimplification.
My journey absolutely IS my own "personal" twist, and yes.....I choose to use the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion as an earmark of what I DON'T want from mine.
Of course we're a product of the society we're part and party to.....that means we can't choose to set the social mores aside and follow our own path?
A friend of mine here in central Pennsylvania, locally born and raised, is a Buddhist.....LOTTA them 'round here in Ford country........NOT!
Granted, that's an isolated example, and yes, he cast off the teachings and environment he grew up in to embrace Buddha, so I guess it's not his personal journey, either.
But I think rather than being deluded by putting my own spin on it, my journey has been much more unfettered since casting off any deep-rooted obligation I had felt by the status quo of the society I grew up among.
And guess what else????
I don't give a rat's ass whether you think my journey suits your definition, it's between me and the God of my understanding, and if you want to think that makes me deluded, have at it.
Judge all you want, try to pigeonhole me, but you really know nothing about me, or where I'm going, so who are you to decide I'm deluded anyway?
It's not like you have one iota of facts to work with.......and apparently a whole pile of preconceived notions.
That's how the terrible persecutions and oppresion start.....cause someone decides that he's scared of an unknown influence that he, or she, doesn't understand.....so they decide it's no good and try to stamp it out.
Nice attitude.
Originally posted by JMart:
Actually, I can think of some exceptions to the above. Take scientology. For L. Ron Hubbard that was certainly a very personal journey for him that broke from just about everything before it. So yes, I suppose some people do have their own unique personal journey, but they tend to be the folks who start cults. |
So now someone with some original thought is a cultist to you?
I know why people got burned at the stake.....fear, ignorance, a lack of acceptance, and judgmentalism.
Originally posted by JMart:
So, for the most part, I don't believe scalvert's scenario exists and where it might exist we have good reason to be concerned rather than having admiration. |
Who's we, and who are you to be concerned?
I know I certainly want no parts of the way you look at things.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2008 12:57:51 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If gods are the product of human imagination, then every god is indeed real and unique to every person (to whatever extent an idea can be real)... and such a personal journey, free of the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion, is perhaps the only kind deserving of the admiration each demands. Bon voyage! |
But by this standard the imaginary voices speaking to some lunatics are real to every lunatic that hears them. That's all fine and good with me until those voices start telling people to hurt someone around them. |
Fair enough, but the point remains that anything a person believes to be real IS real to that person, and associated voices may be no more a symptom of lunacy than saying to yourself, "Where did I leave those keys?" A terminally ill patient with a 1 in a million chance of survival who prays at Lourdes and is subsequently cured will likely thank God. A Chinese earthquake survivor who is miraculously pulled from the rubble against 1 in a million odds will probably thank Buddha. A resident of Banda Aceh who survived the tsunami despite 1 in a million odds will likely be forever indebted to Allah. In each case, the real events will serve to reinforce their beliefs and be held up by like-minded people as evidence of truth, and I wouldn't begrudge any of them the right to think so... even if I might simply recognize the 999,999 people who didn't survive the same event. Using personal beliefs to strive for betterment is admirable. It's only when those beliefs are tied to ancient rules that marginalize or harm others that nobility is lost. |
|
|
|
05/18/2008 02:04:24 PM · #232 |
Well, this is going to be long :/
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
We're not talking that miniscule percentage of lunatics, we're talking the general population of regular folks.
|
Uh, excuse me? The general US population of "Regular Folks" have elected officials that have blocked stem cell research based soley on their religious views. That took more than a miniscule percentage. That took a majority. This same group is unhappy that science does not support their view of the origin of the species (about half the US population doesn't believe in evolution, which not just a fringe percentage) so they try to undermine science education by forcing creationism into schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design". Fortunately, even conservative judges have seen through those attempts and reversed such laws so far. "Regular Folks" in the US are far too eager to force their religious choices on everyone else.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
My journey absolutely IS my own "personal" twist, and yes.....I choose to use the antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion as an earmark of what I DON'T want from mine.
Of course we're a product of the society we're part and party to.....that means we can't choose to set the social mores aside and follow our own path?
A friend of mine here in central Pennsylvania, locally born and raised, is a Buddhist.....LOTTA them 'round here in Ford country........NOT!
Granted, that's an isolated example, and yes, he cast off the teachings and environment he grew up in to embrace Buddha, so I guess it's not his personal journey, either.
But I think rather than being deluded by putting my own spin on it, my journey has been much more unfettered since casting off any deep-rooted obligation I had felt by the status quo of the society I grew up among.
|
Hmmm, I wasn't addressing you personally in my post, I was addressing scalverts well intentioned notion that personal religious journeys that are free of the antiquated moralities (etc.) are deserving of admiration. I don't admire anyone's journey simply because it is a personal journey. Jim Jones had a personal journey that led to the death of his followers, so I certainly don't admire that. I don't know anything about your particular religious views or lack thereof, although I could probably piece together a loose idea from previous posts. My statements were general because societies act in generalized ways. You may know a few exceptions and even be one yourself, but the overwhelming majority of 'regular folk' will assimilate the religion of the culture to which they were born. Nothing wrong with people for doing that, it's normal, just as normal as it would have been to believe in Zeuss and the gods of Mount Olympus if you were born into ancient Greece. Perhaps you've broken the mold, but most people in the US belong to a variety of the Christian faith.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And guess what else????
I don't give a rat's ass whether you think my journey suits your definition, it's between me and the God of my understanding, and if you want to think that makes me deluded, have at it.
Judge all you want, try to pigeonhole me, but you really know nothing about me, or where I'm going, so who are you to decide I'm deluded anyway?
|
Actually, I haven't decided you're deluded. After all, I dont know you. If you're angry because you fit the category of people I called deluded, well I am sincerely sorry if it bothers you, but believing in something that is not real is delusional. I'm not talking about an overarching psychosis, in fact I would be surprised if there is anyone on the planet that is not deluded about something they believe in (myself included of course). We all experience various levels of disillusionment through our lives when delusions are seen for what they are. The problem with delusions is when they negatively impact reality (stem cell research, scientific progress, civil liberties etc.)
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's not like you have one iota of facts to work with.......and apparently a whole pile of preconceived notions.
That's how the terrible persecutions and oppresion start.....cause someone decides that he's scared of an unknown influence that he, or she, doesn't understand.....so they decide it's no good and try to stamp it out.
Nice attitude.
|
Well, again, I'm not addressing you personally (as far as I know). You're jump to terrible persecutions is uncalled for since I have not and would not suggest anything of the sort. At the top of my list of morales is individual freedom, so, even if I could, I would not deprive you of freedom for what you choose to believe and I would not deprive anyone else the freedom to criticize your beliefs. As for understanding, this is where you don't know a thing about me. I actually understand more about this issue than you might imagine as it has been a central part of my life and I know many theistic/agnostic/atheistic belief systems and arguments fairly well. I'm not afraid of any of it until people start taking actions and making laws based on their religions that infringe on the rights of people outside of that religion.
[/quote]
Originally posted by JMart:
Actually, I can think of some exceptions to the above. Take scientology. For L. Ron Hubbard that was certainly a very personal journey for him that broke from just about everything before it. So yes, I suppose some people do have their own unique personal journey, but they tend to be the folks who start cults. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So now someone with some original thought is a cultist to you?
I know why people got burned at the stake.....fear, ignorance, a lack of acceptance, and judgmentalism.
|
I already answered this above, but actually you are over-generalizing why people were burned at the stake. If that was all it took, then atheists would have been widely burned at the stake in the US by now. Atheists are more feared and mistrusted that Muslims according to polling data I can dredge up if you really need me to. Burning at the stake happens when those things you cited are used by tyranical people to control their opponents. Using burning at the stake in the way you are using it is a way of fear mongering to deflect honest criticism.
Originally posted by JMart:
So, for the most part, I don't believe scalvert's scenario exists and where it might exist we have good reason to be concerned rather than having admiration. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Who's we, and who are you to be concerned?
|
Fine, replace we with I, it's not a conspiracy. I am concerned for the reasons I stated above. To recap more generally, there are many examples in US politics and civil discourse where delusional religious zealots have ruined the lives of those around them. Please don't misunderstand the context I was using either. I actually prefer the well worn religions embraced by the masses to those that people just make up from scratch as their own personal cult. And please don't confuse having concern with taking a violent course of action against a group of believers. Scientologists can believe what they want about Xenu, but I am concerned about them because they have plowed open a wide swath of human sufferning in their wake. We as a US society have shown concern about many dangerous cults/religions by taking them to court when their beliefs lead to the endangerment of people around them.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I know I certainly want no parts of the way you look at things. |
It is interesting to me that you do not hesitate to talk as if you know me or the way I look at things and yet attack me for knowing something about you when I was not even adressing you directly in this way. After all, you've posted far more in this thread than I have, and I have read much of it, so this is ironic since I have a little more to go with when it comes to guessing what you might believe. Still, I'll save my arguments on this topic for the ideas. If you happen to believe in an idea that I'm questioning I can understand how you might take it personally, but you should really ask yourself before responding if the argument was aimed at you personally or at an idea in general. |
|
|
|
05/18/2008 02:54:40 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Using personal beliefs to strive for betterment is admirable. It's only when those beliefs are tied to ancient rules that marginalize or harm others that nobility is lost. |
This is certainly a notion I might encourage on the basis that striving for self-betterment without harming or infringing upon others should be relatively innocuous. If this thread was about something like Buddhism I would leave it at that. In the context of religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam you have 'sacred' texts that are ALL about ancient rules that make distinct in/out groups that have historically, and continue to do great harm to people on their 'out' lists.
So that leaves me to wonder, who are the people whose beliefs are divorced from their ancient rules & texts? I'm sure there are tons of people who would say, "that's me, I'm not tied to those ancient rules..." but polling statistics in the US demonstrate that most people here are (as of 2005, 63% of Americans believed that the Bible is literally true). Besides, in my days as a Christian I would have just told you that I fit that definition because I didn't see spreading the gospel as "an ancient rule that maginalized or harmed others". Christian conquests through history were justified with the idea of saving souls, not marginalizing or harming others.
So, I just think this is a notion that, while it has a worthy core, is so subjective that almost anyone can shoehorn themselves in like a good ol' DPC photo.
(had to fit photography in this at some point ;) |
|
|
|
05/18/2008 04:46:16 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by JMart:
It is interesting to me that you do not hesitate to talk as if you know me or the way I look at things and yet attack me for knowing something about you when I was not even adressing you directly in this way. After all, you've posted far more in this thread than I have, and I have read much of it, so this is ironic since I have a little more to go with when it comes to guessing what you might believe. Still, I'll save my arguments on this topic for the ideas. If you happen to believe in an idea that I'm questioning I can understand how you might take it personally, but you should really ask yourself before responding if the argument was aimed at you personally or at an idea in general. |
Since you're going to misquote me, respond out of context, and be deliberately obtuse, not to mention just throwing in a looooooong way down the discussion with subjects that we've already been over, I just cannot take the time to respond to all of it. It's just the same old, same old, and it's nit-picking instead of conceptual.
You guys that cherry-pick details and make mountains out of them will always out-argue me simply because I really try not to get mired in one or two specific details that don't mean a hill of beans in the big picture....or at least not in my meager understanding.
If you want to try to talk apart arguments based on those points, fine, but the bottom line is you're not even in the same discusiion as the rest of us.
I wasn't taking most of it personally, but since I was the one of the people speaking of his own personal journey aspect, I felt that I fit *your* delusional context, hence my feeling free to state that you don't know me, so how can you just up and state that someone who is doing what I am is delusional, not knowing some of us personally?
Another point that you might want to consider is that your opinion of admirable probably doesn't matter one whit to the person who stated that HE thought something was admirable......instead, you made a comment to the effect that you thought that "we" ought to be concerned rather than admiring.
I'm thinking that your opinion may not be shared.
Trust me, you're really not winding me up enough to warrant the energy to attack you.......in fact, had you read as much as what you said you did, and took the meaning in context, you'd realize that I more than feel that I should respect your POV......but I don't have to share it and I'm certainly not interested in it when you take a tack that indicates you're not grasping either the general flow of the thread or my specific meaning.
The lunatic reference for instance was in response to your comment about lunatics responding to the voices in their head, NOT the stem cell research lawmakers comment.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2008 05:03:20 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
ETA: Thanks, Robert |
You're welcome, Jeb.
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:10:31 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I personally believe that Jesus's sense of morality was closer to Louis's than to Christianity's. The reason he went to great pains to say everyone is sinful was just a call to humility and self-examination. He wanted people to live a carefully examined moral life. I think he'd be mortified to find out he's become a Get Out Of Hell Free card. |
Is that belief based on any fact, or is it just what you would like to think? |
Well, there are precious few facts. There is no direct evidence that Jesus even existed, never mind evidence of what took place in his mind. But my belief is not solely wishful thinking. It's based on my readings of textual scholarship about the New Testament, as well as my own studies of text as an English literature major, in which you get a sense of an author from his/her writing.
The New Testament was created over a period of four hundred years. Most of the actual writing occurred in a period of about fifty to a hundred years. The sayings of Jesus, in one or more forms, is one of the earliest sources for the New Testament. Stuff like "no one gets to the Father but through me" was added later. It was part of a concerted effort to compete against other religions and sects, and I supposed followed naturally from the Judaistic roots, what with their jealous God and all. I can't prove that. So far, nothing about Jesus is provable. We can only study the earliest documents available and do textual analysis. Taking the New Testament "literally," aside from being impossible, is the blindest approach to "fact."
Originally posted by farfel53:
Isaiah chapter 53 tell you who He is, what He was to do, and why He came. Written several hundred years beforehand. Quite frankly, Isaiah described this man as a "Get out of Hell Free" card, as you say. Go read it and see, and base your beliefs on something other than fantasy and wishes. |
I'm pretty sure Isaiah never said anything about Jesus. It would have been on the news. Early Christianity did go through hoops, however, to try to show how their religion was predicted in the Old Testament. They went through some pretty amazing (but ridiculous) hoops of logic. Even with the conveniently tweaked translation, it's hard to believe. Any parallels you see were deliberately put there by New Testament writers.
Originally posted by farfel53:
Jesus Himself told the disciples what He would do. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:14 |
Yeah, that's one of the more doubtful quotes. You should check out the Jesus Seminar.
Originally posted by farfel53:
"For the Son of man is come to seek and save that which is lost." Luke 19:10 Not point you to morality, or tell you to be nice and not to fight with each other. To SAVE. |
I've also read some interesting stuff on what "son of man" and "son of god" mean. Try Guy Vermes.
Originally posted by farfel53:
And read the sermon on the mount to see if He was really pointing the people to morality and sinlessness, or if He was trying to show how impossible it is to live a perfect and sinless life, in complete harmony with God. Matt 5,6,7 |
I love the Sermon on the Mount! A marvelous sermon on morality! A radical work of genius, imho.
Originally posted by farfel53:
Or make up your own ideas about who He is/was and how sweet and lovely we all are. |
Personally, I think we're a bunch of animals.
Message edited by author 2008-05-19 09:18:18. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 07:09:53 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Since you're going to misquote me, respond out of context, and be deliberately obtuse...but the bottom line is you're not even in the same discusiion as the rest of us...I wasn't taking most of it personally...I'm thinking that your opinion may not be shared...Trust me, you're really not winding me up enough to warrant the energy to attack you...you'd realize that I more than feel that I should respect your POV...you're not grasping either the general flow of the thread or my specific meaning. |
I think he's perfecty capable of responding himself, but your post strikes me as particularly unfair, so to respond to all the above points: JMart didn't misquote you at all, and I see no reason to call him "obtuse". He certainly is in this discussion, and he very accurately reflects how I feel. It seems to me that, in general and not simply here, you do take everything that's said very personally; you have a very low capacity, it seems, for distinguishing between discussion of an argument and discussion of supposed defects in your personality (never brought up by others, but offered by you). As stated, his opinion very accurately reflects my own. Why would you feel a need to attack JMart, and not his argument? I'm sorry, but I see very little respect for his point of view coming from you. Your meaning may be difficult to decipher, but he is perfectly in line with the conversation of this thread. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 02:14:41 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Since you're going to misquote me, respond out of context, and be deliberately obtuse, not to mention just throwing in a looooooong way down the discussion with subjects that we've already been over, I just cannot take the time to respond to all of it. It's just the same old, same old, and it's nit-picking instead of conceptual.
|
-Where did I misquote you? If you point it out I will fix it as I did not ever intend to misquote you.
-As for context, I can only read your words, not your mind. If you think I have taken something out of context please be specific.
-Deliberately obtuse? That's just name calling on your part and has no place in an intellectually honest discussion.
-As for the rest, it is unfortunate that you only have time to write long attacks against me personally rather than my ideas.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You guys that cherry-pick details and make mountains out of them will always out-argue me simply because I really try not to get mired in one or two specific details that don't mean a hill of beans in the big picture....or at least not in my meager understanding.
If you want to try to talk apart arguments based on those points, fine, but the bottom line is you're not even in the same discusiion as the rest of us.
|
This is a perplexing thing for you to say since most of the arguments I've raised have to do with big picture ideas. I'm raising questions such as whether the individual spiritual journey of most people can really be divorced from the "antiquated moralities and imposed prejudices of organized religion". That's a BIG general question. Perhaps you accepted Scalvert's assertion about this, but I disagreed and explained why, and ever since you have been making personal attacks against me.
I also believe "the devil is in the details" (or "god is in the details"). In other words, if you're going to do something or know something, the details matter. So yes, I will "mire" myself in details when it is warranted
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I wasn't taking most of it personally, but since I was the one of the people speaking of his own personal journey aspect, I felt that I fit *your* delusional context, hence my feeling free to state that you don't know me, so how can you just up and state that someone who is doing what I am is delusional, not knowing some of us personally?
|
I sincerely apologize if you felt personally attacked as that was not my intent and I was speaking in general terms. Being deluded just means being mislead to believe certain things that are false, so show me someone who is not deluded in some way and I'll show you someone who knows everything. We are all deluded about something. I just happen to think it is highly likely that all supernatural beliefs are delusions regardless of who holds them.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Another point that you might want to consider is that your opinion of admirable probably doesn't matter one whit to the person who stated that HE thought something was admirable......instead, you made a comment to the effect that you thought that "we" ought to be concerned rather than admiring.
|
And you accuse me of cherry-picking, nit-picking, and taking things out of context?!?! I already conceded in a previous post that I should have used "I" rather than "we". If you can't accept me correcting myself when I think you're right about a detail like that then you are very ungracious indeed.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm thinking that your opinion may not be shared.
|
I'm thinking you're wrong. More importantly, I don't think it matters. My membership to DPC is equal in access to yours, so I will not be bullied around by statements like this. Furthermore, my personal journey places seeking truth higher than popularity, so this is a moot point.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Trust me, you're really not winding me up enough to warrant the energy to attack you.......in fact, had you read as much as what you said you did, and took the meaning in context, you'd realize that I more than feel that I should respect your POV......but I don't have to share it and I'm certainly not interested in it when you take a tack that indicates you're not grasping either the general flow of the thread or my specific meaning.
The lunatic reference for instance was in response to your comment about lunatics responding to the voices in their head, NOT the stem cell research lawmakers comment.
|
That's strange, I think any objective reader can see that you have attacked me vigorously and repeatedly with ad-hominem attacks, straw-man caricatures, and slippery slope tactics among other fallacious argument styles, even if others agree with you they should be able to at least see that much.
Respecting POV comes right back to the original point of disagreement regarding Scalvert's earlier post. Distilled to its essence I was making an argument (perhaps poorly) that belief in God does not deserve admiration simply for the reasons he gave. I appreciated his follow up comments as he addressed what I said in a reasonable way without resorting to personal attacks.
[be forewarned, I think I agree with your sentiment about POV, but I'm about to nitpick about an important semantic difference...]
I think the way people respect each otherĂ¢€™s POV is a similar issue to the one Scalvert raised. Should someone's point of view be respected just because they hold it? It seems strange to me that someone (I'm not talking about you,Jeb ;) who believes in eternal hellfire should respect a POV that leads people into that hellfire. I certainly have a degree of respect for the logic and compassion of the born-again true believers who disrespect atheism because they truly don't want someone like me to spend eternity in unimaginable agony. I, likewise, do not respect beliefs that undermine humanity's quest for truth and knowledge (again, not talking about anyone in this forum in particular since I don't know you all well enough). What I DO respect and believe in fighting for is the right of each individual to hold & practice their belief system regardless of who has respect for it. That, IMHO, is a significant aspect of respecting POV and it may come across as too nitpicky about the issue for some here, but being very accurate with language, meanings & definitions seems very important to me in the search for truth/knowledge.
Finally, my ideas may offend you Jeb, and they may even offend 90% of the people who read this thread, that does not mean I am in any way insincere or deliberately obtuse about what I am saying. I'm only obtuse on accident when I am indeed obtuse. I really was not trying to stir a hornets nest, I have been trying with a great deal of effort and patience to add what I perceive to be an important point of view to the conversation. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 02:30:00 PM · #239 |
Thanks Louis, I need to learn to keep my responses this succinct.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Since you're going to misquote me, respond out of context, and be deliberately obtuse...but the bottom line is you're not even in the same discusiion as the rest of us...I wasn't taking most of it personally...I'm thinking that your opinion may not be shared...Trust me, you're really not winding me up enough to warrant the energy to attack you...you'd realize that I more than feel that I should respect your POV...you're not grasping either the general flow of the thread or my specific meaning. |
I think he's perfecty capable of responding himself, but your post strikes me as particularly unfair, so to respond to all the above points: JMart didn't misquote you at all, and I see no reason to call him "obtuse". He certainly is in this discussion, and he very accurately reflects how I feel. It seems to me that, in general and not simply here, you do take everything that's said very personally; you have a very low capacity, it seems, for distinguishing between discussion of an argument and discussion of supposed defects in your personality (never brought up by others, but offered by you). As stated, his opinion very accurately reflects my own. Why would you feel a need to attack JMart, and not his argument? I'm sorry, but I see very little respect for his point of view coming from you. Your meaning may be difficult to decipher, but he is perfectly in line with the conversation of this thread. |
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 05:38:52 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Finally, my ideas may offend you Jeb, and they may even offend 90% of the people who read this thread, that does not mean I am in any way insincere or deliberately obtuse about what I am saying. I'm only obtuse on accident when I am indeed obtuse. I really was not trying to stir a hornets nest, I have been trying with a great deal of effort and patience to add what I perceive to be an important point of view to the conversation. |
Not necessarily, more like an exasperation, and I have a tendency to get frustrated when my meaning is misconstrued, intentional or not.
And I meant no persoanl attacks; I find that behavior basically repugnant.
It seemed to me that you were rehashing some points gone over, and the point taken out of context I did try to explain, and Louis missed it too, so I'm going to pretty much assume that I didn't convey it well at all.
So I apologize for whatever came across as a personal attack, it wasn't meant that way.....maybe pointed and snide to a point, but that attitude was borne out of misunderstanding your POV as well.
Some days I just don't communicate well.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2008 12:10:41 AM · #241 |
| I am way late on this thread but wanted to put in a HI to everyone. Jesus loves all of you. God Bless his children. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 03:42:20 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 03:42:20 PM EDT.
|
