Fact and Truth

[Fist and Faith]

rus, in four years posting here, you have not convinced a single person that:
1) Orthodoxy is the Truth.
2) Your faith is reasonable and logical.
3) Chesterton is remotely worth reading.

Indeed, instead, you have:
1) Convinced many - who have joined in at different parts of different conversations over the four years - that you are arrogant, condescending, and rude.
2) Made some people wonder if Orthodoxy is the reason you speak to us as you do.

Obviously, you will say that the overwhelming majority of us are - again and again and again and again, for four years - mininterpreting what you say. But, as the saying goes, How's it working out for you? Have you achieved your goals? No. Will digging in your heels, refusing to consider that you may be doing something wrong, and continuing as you have been likely accomplish your goals? It is not particularly logical to assume it will. So it is possibly a good idea to stop refusing to try to understand what so many people have told you so many times for so long, and see if you can communicate with us in other ways.

Let's look at what the Search function shows to be your first post here, on Nov 09, 2006:

I really sympathize, hamako - I lost my father this year.

The one thing I would say though, is that it is possible that what you've presented as Christian teaching...isn't necessarily Christian teaching. More accurately, it doesn't reflect mature theological understanding of what they're saying. If that is so, then it follows that the arguments can be straw man arguments. Please forgive me, I don't mean to offend, but what you've said lists a number of reasons I walked away from the Baptists when I became an adult and joined the Navy. (I then spent the following 20 years as an agnostic, which is a very convenient faith, as you can live however you please.) I later learned that my understanding of faith was a 'sunday school', or as I like to say, a 'second-grader's' version of Christianity. By that I mean what we (those raised as Christians) absorb in church as children and from believing parents, without really understanding, and as in my case, when we are free of home, we also free ourselves from church and faith. We don't seek further understanding - we think we understand enough. From that child-ish perspective of theology, it does indeed look like lists of rules or be damned, it makes God out to be a selfish sadist and it can well appear, as you said to have an emphasis on human control.

I wonder if you've read (as an adult) G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis's works? You ask how I know, and it would save several pages of posting if you have read Chesterton's 'Orthodoxy' or 'The Everlasting Man' (available free online) or Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' (under copyright - sorry!). If not, I'll say in brief that if you accept logic and common sense, that it is possible to recognize the existence of objective truth, and that some can indeed be right, and others wrong (and all sincere, at that). if that is so, then you have to embark on the path of figuring out who is right. All I'll say is that it is possible to arrive at the answer. (Well, I'll go a little further and say that Lewis narrows it down to Christianity or Hinduism.)

Oh, yes, you are soooo right about Bush.

Oh, and by the way, Orthodox Christians believe that we can pray for the dead. We don't know what comfort those prayers provide for souls that have passed, only that somehow they do so.
If you pm me your mother's name, I'll put her on my list!

This single post perfectly captures your presence here. Even though this is in the "What is it you believe?" thread, you do not tell us anything about what you believe. Instead:
-You begin by telling someone his beliefs are wrong.
-Because of your misunderstanding of morality that does not come from Orthodoxy, you belittle agnosticism.
-And you make a plug for Chesterton!! Your very first post!!

Let's say you're right about EVERYTHING. And the only problem here is that we just don't like to be told we're wrong. You might want to consider the fact that you're not bringing anybody into the Light. If anything, you're driving people away from it. If your message is Truth, it is very strongly hidden by your method. If it is important to you that anybody embrace the Truth that you feel, or even see it, then you need to go about things in a different way.

But maybe I misunderstand your intentions. Maybe your goal in posting here is not to make us embrace, or even see, this Truth you have found. Maybe there's an upside to continuing to make people feel about you, and Orthodoxy, the way you've been making us feel for four years.

[Zahir]

Seems to me, "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to us" are just nice ways of saying I disagree, and I don't like what you're saying (IOW, being "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to someone"). Its not rus' tone, or what he says, its the simple fact that he thinks you're wrong. And people hate that (that's why Jesus said the world will hate you, b/c you'll claim the world is wrong). Its why we can say, "well, I just gave my opinion", b/c then I don't think its a fact, so no one should get upset about it. B/c what all the complaining about rus sounds like? A bunch of people telling him he's wrong for thinking they're wrong. Bah! This is the nonsense of relativity, and the hypocrisy too. I know, I sound insulting.

You don't sound insulting, but I do think you've missed the very point I and others were making. Crude as it is, here is an illustrative example:

Statement: "I don't see anything wrong with the filioque."

Reply #1: "That's because you're a heretic. But I not sure you're totally to blame because we haven't discussed the issue before now. Fortunately that can now be amended, so listen up. First, you'll need to read a list of books I'm sending you. Read all of them because there will be a test and your grade will determine whether you care about right and wrong or have accepted the moral pollution of our times."

Reply #2: "Yeah, it seems rather esoteric and subtle to say the least but there are some pretty solid (if rather esoteric and subtle) reasons why the Orthodox Church so firmly rejects it."

Now in both instances the person replying is saying that yes, the filioque is wrong. But there is a substantive difference between the replies. One is displaying arrogance, giving orders, ushering sweeping judgments and frankly being very rude. The other is sharing information with respect, some (perhaps not very good) humor and an implied invitation to explain in detail their point of view. Among other things, the latter is far more likely to actually persuade someone.

You may not see a substantive difference between these two, or find some reason to prefer the first reply. But methinks the vast majority of people would respond better to the latter reply--precisely because they don't feel insulted, don't feel someone without authority is giving them orders, are being spoken to with respect. One involves listening and responding with sympathy to what someone says. The other is latching onto words coming out of people's mouths to give a lecture (and homework). The differences between the two aren't really that subtle.

[Vraith]

That's definitely part of the problem, Zahir, at least for some in the thread...not so often does that particular thing bother me.
Mine is more related to, as an example, I just a bit ago read the "Orthodoxy" GKC. Now, in just the first couple parts, it is clear to me that GKC doesn't understand Nietzsche, Tolstoy, how scientists understand "natural laws" [the scientists of his time...he's forgiven for not understanding todays], the relationship between frame and painting, or between democracy and tradition. [or he does, and intentionally takes them out of context and reduces them to less than what they are].

In some cases, when he extends himself, I actually find Rus to be more reasonable/insightful than those he keeps citing...not convincing so far, but at least things that are worth thinking about.

[rdhopeca]

Seems to me, "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to us" are just nice ways of saying I disagree, and I don't like what you're saying (IOW, being "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to someone"). Its not rus' tone, or what he says, its the simple fact that he thinks you're wrong. And people hate that (that's why Jesus said the world will hate you, b/c you'll claim the world is wrong). Its why we can say, "well, I just gave my opinion", b/c then I don't think its a fact, so no one should get upset about it. B/c what all the complaining about rus sounds like? A bunch of people telling him he's wrong for thinking they're wrong. Bah! This is the nonsense of relativity, and the hypocrisy too. I know, I sound insulting.

You don't sound insulting, but I do think you've missed the very point I and others were making. Crude as it is, here is an illustrative example:

Statement: "I don't see anything wrong with the filioque."

Reply #1: "That's because you're a heretic. But I not sure you're totally to blame because we haven't discussed the issue before now. Fortunately that can now be amended, so listen up. First, you'll need to read a list of books I'm sending you. Read all of them because there will be a test and your grade will determine whether you care about right and wrong or have accepted the moral pollution of our times."

Reply #2: "Yeah, it seems rather esoteric and subtle to say the least but there are some pretty solid (if rather esoteric and subtle) reasons why the Orthodox Church so firmly rejects it."

Now in both instances the person replying is saying that yes, the filioque is wrong. But there is a substantive difference between the replies. One is displaying arrogance, giving orders, ushering sweeping judgments and frankly being very rude. The other is sharing information with respect, some (perhaps not very good) humor and an implied invitation to explain in detail their point of view. Among other things, the latter is far more likely to actually persuade someone.

You may not see a substantive difference between these two, or find some reason to prefer the first reply. But methinks the vast majority of people would respond better to the latter reply--precisely because they don't feel insulted, don't feel someone without authority is giving them orders, are being spoken to with respect. One involves listening and responding with sympathy to what someone says. The other is latching onto words coming out of people's mouths to give a lecture (and homework). The differences between the two aren't really that subtle.

I would also say, that in context, the *only* time I have a real problem with it is on a thread like Zahir's Orthodoxy thread (or in the thread that Cambo just put up about What Has Gone Before), where he's trying to share something about his life, and Rus takes it upon himself to turn it into a battleground. Any other time, Rus can pontificate to his heart's content...

[rusmeister]

That's definitely part of the problem, Zahir, at least for some in the thread...not so often does that particular thing bother me.
Mine is more related to, as an example, I just a bit ago read the "Orthodoxy" GKC. Now, in just the first couple parts, it is clear to me that GKC doesn't understand Nietzsche, Tolstoy, how scientists understand "natural laws" [the scientists of his time...he's forgiven for not understanding todays], the relationship between frame and painting, or between democracy and tradition. [or he does, and intentionally takes them out of context and reduces them to less than what they are].

In some cases, when he extends himself, I actually find Rus to be more reasonable/insightful than those he keeps citing...not convincing so far, but at least things that are worth thinking about.

Hi Vraith, and thanks!
I would like to say though, that earning an MA in Russian Lit - and going back and re-reading later - gave me a really thorough handle on Tolstoy, and so on that one point (I'll grant that you could be more familiar, with say, Nietzsche than me) I'd say that Chesterton NAILED Tolstoy, and that your sense that he did not means that you either do not understand Tolstoy or you do not understand Chesterton. Everything else I'll concede that you could argue, but on that, anyway, I'll take you on and show that GKC is right.

But it sounds like you are referring to "Heretics" ( a slightly earlier book) more than "Orthodoxy"...?

[rusmeister]

Seems to me, "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to us" are just nice ways of saying I disagree, and I don't like what you're saying (IOW, being "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to someone"). Its not rus' tone, or what he says, its the simple fact that he thinks you're wrong. And people hate that (that's why Jesus said the world will hate you, b/c you'll claim the world is wrong). Its why we can say, "well, I just gave my opinion", b/c then I don't think its a fact, so no one should get upset about it. B/c what all the complaining about rus sounds like? A bunch of people telling him he's wrong for thinking they're wrong. Bah! This is the nonsense of relativity, and the hypocrisy too. I know, I sound insulting.

You don't sound insulting, but I do think you've missed the very point I and others were making. Crude as it is, here is an illustrative example:

Statement: "I don't see anything wrong with the filioque."

Reply #1: "That's because you're a heretic. But I not sure you're totally to blame because we haven't discussed the issue before now. Fortunately that can now be amended, so listen up. First, you'll need to read a list of books I'm sending you. Read all of them because there will be a test and your grade will determine whether you care about right and wrong or have accepted the moral pollution of our times."

Reply #2: "Yeah, it seems rather esoteric and subtle to say the least but there are some pretty solid (if rather esoteric and subtle) reasons why the Orthodox Church so firmly rejects it."

Now in both instances the person replying is saying that yes, the filioque is wrong. But there is a substantive difference between the replies. One is displaying arrogance, giving orders, ushering sweeping judgments and frankly being very rude. The other is sharing information with respect, some (perhaps not very good) humor and an implied invitation to explain in detail their point of view. Among other things, the latter is far more likely to actually persuade someone.

You may not see a substantive difference between these two, or find some reason to prefer the first reply. But methinks the vast majority of people would respond better to the latter reply--precisely because they don't feel insulted, don't feel someone without authority is giving them orders, are being spoken to with respect. One involves listening and responding with sympathy to what someone says. The other is latching onto words coming out of people's mouths to give a lecture (and homework). The differences between the two aren't really that subtle.

I think there's some truth in what you say here, Zahir. I think that I do sometimes fail in the subtlety and diplomacy departments. That's something that I do try to work on.
But I do think that over the years here, I have done a lot of #2 as well. And from there, like Cyberweez said, it's the demand for Cliff Notes.

And of course, esoteric and subtle can't be covered well in bit posting - real learning has to be done. I've insisted on that - and am right to do so. If people want to say "I understand thus and so" then they ought to do some homework. Before I can claim to know anything about, say, Islamic philosophy, maybe I ought to read Hayaam and al-Ghazali. But the central problem (here comes the GKC ref that Fist is waiting for.... ) as GKC pointed out in "The Everlasting Man" is that the modern critics of faith are not near enough to really know its depths, but too near it to be able to examine it impartially. So they WON'T make any real attempts to learn because they figure they don't need to. They've already pre-judged Christianity based on personal (most often childhood) experience) I no longer have anything to say to those people (although I wasted a good deal of time trying).

And of course, we're ALWAYS missing each other's points. The observation is mutual. Of course, in a rapier duel, the grand thing IS to miss the other's point.

[rusmeister]

rus, in four years posting here, you have not convinced a single person that:
1) Orthodoxy is the Truth.
2) Your faith is reasonable and logical.
3) Chesterton is remotely worth reading.

Indeed, instead, you have:
1) Convinced many - who have joined in at different parts of different conversations over the four years - that you are arrogant, condescending, and rude.
2) Made some people wonder if Orthodoxy is the reason you speak to us as you do.

Obviously, you will say that the overwhelming majority of us are - again and again and again and again, for four years - misinterpreting what you say. But, as the saying goes, How's it working out for you? Have you achieved your goals? No. Will digging in your heels, refusing to consider that you may be doing something wrong, and continuing as you have been likely accomplish your goals? It is not particularly logical to assume it will. So it is possibly a good idea to stop refusing to try to understand what so many people have told you so many times for so long, and see if you can communicate with us in other ways.

Let's look at what the Search function shows to be your first post here, on Nov 09, 2006:

I really sympathize, hamako - I lost my father this year.

The one thing I would say though, is that it is possible that what you've presented as Christian teaching...isn't necessarily Christian teaching. More accurately, it doesn't reflect mature theological understanding of what they're saying. If that is so, then it follows that the arguments can be straw man arguments. Please forgive me, I don't mean to offend, but what you've said lists a number of reasons I walked away from the Baptists when I became an adult and joined the Navy. (I then spent the following 20 years as an agnostic, which is a very convenient faith, as you can live however you please.) I later learned that my understanding of faith was a 'sunday school', or as I like to say, a 'second-grader's' version of Christianity. By that I mean what we (those raised as Christians) absorb in church as children and from believing parents, without really understanding, and as in my case, when we are free of home, we also free ourselves from church and faith. We don't seek further understanding - we think we understand enough. From that child-ish perspective of theology, it does indeed look like lists of rules or be damned, it makes God out to be a selfish sadist and it can well appear, as you said to have an emphasis on human control.

I wonder if you've read (as an adult) G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis's works? You ask how I know, and it would save several pages of posting if you have read Chesterton's 'Orthodoxy' or 'The Everlasting Man' (available free online) or Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' (under copyright - sorry!). If not, I'll say in brief that if you accept logic and common sense, that it is possible to recognize the existence of objective truth, and that some can indeed be right, and others wrong (and all sincere, at that). if that is so, then you have to embark on the path of figuring out who is right. All I'll say is that it is possible to arrive at the answer. (Well, I'll go a little further and say that Lewis narrows it down to Christianity or Hinduism.)

Oh, yes, you are soooo right about Bush.

Oh, and by the way, Orthodox Christians believe that we can pray for the dead. We don't know what comfort those prayers provide for souls that have passed, only that somehow they do so.
If you pm me your mother's name, I'll put her on my list!

This single post perfectly captures your presence here. Even though this is in the "What is it you believe?" thread, you do not tell us anything about what you believe. Instead:
-You begin by telling someone his beliefs are wrong.
-Because of your misunderstanding of morality that does not come from Orthodoxy, you belittle agnosticism.
-And you make a plug for Chesterton!! Your very first post!!

Let's say you're right about EVERYTHING. And the only problem here is that we just don't like to be told we're wrong. You might want to consider the fact that you're not bringing anybody into the Light. If anything, you're driving people away from it. If your message is Truth, it is very strongly hidden by your method. If it is important to you that anybody embrace the Truth that you feel, or even see it, then you need to go about things in a different way.

But maybe I misunderstand your intentions. Maybe your goal in posting here is not to make us embrace, or even see, this Truth you have found. Maybe there's an upside to continuing to make people feel about you, and Orthodoxy, the way you've been making us feel for four years.

Thanks, Fist.
I can't help remembering your recent pm observation that "The Ballad of the White Horse" DID look interesting. I've tried to say that there is far more to the man than Christian polemics, although certainly those are central works. The man had so many sides that there is almost no getting around him (a joke to those who know his immense size and girth). And while you have read a quite tiny fraction of his Christian polemics, as far as I can tell, you are familiar with nothing else.

I sincerely doubt your statement that no one has been convinced of the reason and logic in my faith - although I would concede that people who have done no real examination might still think so. Anyone who has read Schmemann or Men' cannot continue to pretend that their faith is unreasonable and illogical. Only (practically) no one has read them.

As for 'reasons I speak as I do' - I suppose a big one is the flash of light that made me see that I had been seeing everything upside down - and that so much of the modern criticism of faith truly is nonsense - it is contradicted at every turn within serious faith. Even among Protestant evangelicals there is plenty to contradict modern criticism. Only the modern critics don't loomk there. They look at stuff like this:
www.freep.com/article/20101204/NEWS05/1 ... sus-return
and this is what they actually (and rightly) refute. Only, as has been said, that's not what we actually believe (what I came to believe).
Anyway, having learned that it is vastly different on the inside from how it is painted on the outside, I want to show the people who look at the exterior paints (thrown onto the edifice by the enemies of faith in buckets as they drive by) - and use that as reasons to think the issue a settled one - to see past that.

It doesn't work for most. I think that there are serious barriers, not the least of which is that, if true, we have to make massive changes in our lives. I did it. I shut down my life in the US and moved to Russia, two weeks after being chrismated. But that doesn't mean I think it's easy to do - on the contrary. It was quite painful. It is very easy to grasp that human nature being what it is (self-deceptive) one might well be tempted to reject a proposed truth in advance - with prejudice - if it means such change.

I think there IS an upside, actually. I don't think I can draw you to the Truth - most certainly when you don't want to be and are determined or convinced that it is not the Truth. The upside is that it might deliver that if there is Truth, if it is not yours alone but universal - true for everybody, then it does not compromise. It can condescend to us, to accept us where we are, but not compromise itself, to say, OK, it's only partly true. CAN a belief be wrong? Is it just possible? You seem to imply that they can't be wrong - at least if they are held by Watchers who agree with you.

To the many who will respond, "There is no such Truth - there are only personal truths - that are true for YOU" then at least they might get that the claim of Truth won't compromise on that. Even learning that you can't have it both ways - that you can't, as we say, serve both God and mammon - is progress. At least you, on the other side of the fence, can say "Those guys won't compromise on what they believe". You can call that being unreasonable - I call it having reasoned, and having come to a definite conclusion. That's why I'm winding down. I think soon there will be nothing left to say at all to you. And maybe THEN you'll pick up "Ballad of the White Horse" (or whatever) and discover something you hadn't seen before.

I still agree with my old post.

Oh, and I said that we believe we can pray for the dead.

[rusmeister]

Seems to me, "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to us" are just nice ways of saying I disagree, and I don't like what you're saying (IOW, being "insulting", "arrogant" and "talking down to someone"). Its not rus' tone, or what he says, its the simple fact that he thinks you're wrong. And people hate that (that's why Jesus said the world will hate you, b/c you'll claim the world is wrong). Its why we can say, "well, I just gave my opinion", b/c then I don't think its a fact, so no one should get upset about it. B/c what all the complaining about rus sounds like? A bunch of people telling him he's wrong for thinking they're wrong. Bah! This is the nonsense of relativity, and the hypocrisy too. I know, I sound insulting.

Thanks, Weez.
My opinion is that many of the responses are due to what Jesus said.
Also that great comment by (gasp!) GKC (How on earth could I let a post go by without bringing in the fat jolly man?)

Now that is a small and purely political point.
But to me it was very awakening. It showed me quite clearly
the fundamental truth of the modern world. And that is this:
there are no Fascists; there are no Socialists;
there are no Liberals; there are no Parliamentarians.
There is the one supremely inspiring and irritating
institution in the world; and there are its enemies.
Its enemies are ready to be for violence or against violence,
for liberty or against liberty, for representation or
against representation; and even for peace or against peace.
It gave me an entirely new certainty, even in the practical
and political sense, that I had chosen well.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Well ... allows.txt

Of course, the context illuminates the quote; my experience is that most people won't read anything posted longer than that and here's a piece from the Onion on that:
www.theonion.com/articles/nation-shudde ... -te,16932/

But the context - about the British Liberal Party and the war in Spain - really makes the point. (Just find that block of text and start reading two or three paragraphs before that, Weez - I don't think anyone else will read it, anyway. It'd be cool if someone DID comment on it...)

[Fist and Faith]

rus, I'm not talking about Truth, or faith, or worldviews, or anything. I'm talking about human interaction. You're continually told, by many people, that your manner is arrogant and condescending; that we will not be talked to by you the way you have been talking to us since - literally - your first post here. Aside from the image of yourself that you are projecting to the world (or at least the Watch), you are overwhelmingly failing to convince anyone of anything you are trying to convince us of.

Your response is to dig in your heels, and rationalize your behavior. Do you know how it's going to end? You'll either continue on here as you have, and everyone will continue to tell you that your way of speaking to us is inappropriate and unjustified; or you'll leave (something you clearly don't want to do). Either way, you will have overwhelmingly failed in your goals, and our image of you will remain as it is.

Or, you can choose to believe that being an incredibly knowledgable linguist doesn't make one an accomplished communicator, listen to what we're all telling you, and change your methods. You'll certainly change the image of yourself that you project, and you might even teach us a thing or two.

And I really have no need to discover Chesterton. There are plenty of authors out there that I've been hoping to get to one day. Why should I add one who, from the little I have read of him, seems to be a big part of the reason you treat us the way you do; the reason you speak as from so high above the rest of us? Even if he does have some good stuff, why bother reading tons of stuff that is negative just to find the positive?

[rusmeister]

rus, I'm not talking about Truth, or faith, or worldviews, or anything. I'm talking about human interaction. You're continually told, by many people, that your manner is arrogant and condescending; that we will not be talked to by you the way you have been talking to us since - literally - your first post here. Aside from the image of yourself that you are projecting to the world (or at least the Watch), you are overwhelmingly failing to convince anyone of anything you are trying to convince us of.

Your response is to dig in your heels, and rationalize your behavior. Do you know how it's going to end? You'll either continue on here as you have, and everyone will continue to tell you that your way of speaking to us is inappropriate and unjustified; or you'll leave (something you clearly don't want to do). Either way, you will have overwhelmingly failed in your goals, and our image of you will remain as it is.

Or, you can choose to believe that being an incredibly knowledgable linguist doesn't make one an accomplished communicator, listen to what we're all telling you, and change your methods. You'll certainly change the image of yourself that you project, and you might even teach us a thing or two.

And I really have no need to discover Chesterton. There are plenty of authors out there that I've been hoping to get to one day. Why should I add one who, from the little I have read of him, seems to be a big part of the reason you treat us the way you do; the reason you speak as from so high above the rest of us? Even if he does have some good stuff, why bother reading tons of stuff that is negative just to find the positive?

I am not sure that I have failed, Fist. People that do not WANT to be convinced are notoriously difficult to convince. But I do agree that we can't see eye to eye, and I think Weez's characterization of it far more accurate than yours. And I do feel myself fading, like the ghost of Covenant or something. I think I've said what can possibly be said to you, and there's nothing else to say.

[Cybrweez]

Hate to break it to you fist, but its rare anyone has changed anyone else's opinion around here, or anywhere, but that doesn't stop all of us does it? We know some are genuinely curious, or seeking, others know the answers already. Some of them that already know the answers are religious, some aren't, big deal. You're certainly free to call out rus and claim he hasn't converted anyone, and he should change, but I'm not sure that's a road anyone should go down. If you genuinely think he should approach things differently, b/c you care for him, PM him, no need to air it out. If you air it out in order to sound like he's outnumbered, or to have others jump on the bandwagon, I'd have to say that's pretty low.

[Fist and Faith]

None of the rest of us are trying to convert anyone, cybr. rus is the only one. The fact that none of us have succeeded in converting anyone is not a problem for any of the rest of us. It is a problem for rus. He's trying to convince us of so many things, and I'm trying to help him understand at least one reason why he's not having any success. Human beings are notorious for not learning what the sage wants to teach when he begins and fills his lessons with "You are wrong." (Aside from it being insulting.)

rus, you once said you suspect you have Asperger's Syndrome. You must surely know that socialization issues are a big part of the entire autistic spectrum. I'm giving you a clue on one aspect of socialization that you are not picking up on. One that many people here have pointed out to you. One that nobody has ever said you do understand.

And no, Cybr, I don't need to take this to pm. It's not a bandwagon situation. rus has publically talked down to dozens of people here, and is now defending it. He's been publically told about it by many of us. This is just another attempt to point it out, and stop him from unknowingly insulting us.

Besides, I knew with absolute certainty that you would come to his defense. I'm only surprised he posted before you did.

[Fist and Faith]

...I think Weez's characterization of it far more accurate than yours.

I know you do. And, again, I ask, How's it working out for you? Is it all going just as it should be with your chosen manner of speaking to us? Isn't it possible that, when a large number of people nearly unanimously say you are doing a certain thing, it might be worth considering?

Come on, seriously, what's the motivation for so many of us to keep telling you this stuff?? Nobody's beliefs are farther from mine than Tracie's, and she's among a small handful of favorite, most important people in my life. And, as I've mentioned several times, Conversations With God, Fools Crow: Wisdom and Power, and Eknath Easwaran's introductions and translations of the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita - all books of extreme faith - are among my very favorite books. Brilliant, beautiful books!

So why have I singled you out???

BTW, you don't even approach Zephalephelah in being nasty, horrible, and intentionally hurtful. Nobody thinks (or, at least, nobody should think) that you're that kind of person.

[Zahir]

Isn't it possible that, when a large number of people nearly unanimously say you are doing a certain thing, it might be worth considering?

This bears repeating. Rus, you openly demand that everyone agree with you on points of ethics, faith and other questions. How about actually listening to the overwhelming majority who are telling you something about yourself? Not about your ideas, but about your communication skills--which are frankly appalling.

[Fist and Faith]

From the Tank...

the natural sciences, for instance, are based on a load of dogmas. So is theology.

Is there truly no difference between dogma that is the result of extensive observation and experimentation, producing predictable results; and dogma that cannot be tested or observed, and the results cannot be known until after we die? Is "knowing" really nothing more than accepting that something is true? And things that can be seen personally, by every human being, every minute of every day of our lives are not more surely known than things that no living human could make any claim to have seen personally, and which violate what every human being sees every minute of every day?

[Cybrweez]

I see a difference. I also see a difference though w/in "science". Some science fits your description, some doesn't. Some is based on what we see now, claiming what happened previously, then billed as fact, when in truth, we're just accepting that explanation.

Not sure what rus meant by natural sciences of course.

[Cambo]

Science can be dogmatic, especially if you accepted theories like Thomas Kuhn's (I think) paradigm model. Theory being that science builds systems of thought around the best knowledge available, but then begins to twist or ignore facts that do not fit within those sytems. As new knowledge accumulates, it becomes clear that a new systems of thought of thought are required. The cycle starts over.

[Vraith]

Science can be dogmatic, especially if you accepted theories like Thomas Kuhn's (I think) paradigm model. Theory being that science builds systems of thought around the best knowledge available, but then begins to twist or ignore facts that do not fit within those sytems. As new knowledge accumulates, it becomes clear that a new systems of thought of thought are required. The cycle starts over.

That does happen...but there's a difference. Some scientISTS do that [for whatever reason...power, arrogance, ignorance, etc.] But science itself does not demand it...is in fact antithetical to it.
Don't be fooled by the fact that in this particular case Rus is doing what others are accused of: defining a term [dogma] to include what it precisely does not [by definition] include.

[rusmeister]

Science can be dogmatic, especially if you accepted theories like Thomas Kuhn's (I think) paradigm model. Theory being that science builds systems of thought around the best knowledge available, but then begins to twist or ignore facts that do not fit within those sytems. As new knowledge accumulates, it becomes clear that a new systems of thought of thought are required. The cycle starts over.

That does happen...but there's a difference. Some scientISTS do that [for whatever reason...power, arrogance, ignorance, etc.] But science itself does not demand it...is in fact antithetical to it.
Don't be fooled by the fact that in this particular case Rus is doing what others are accused of: defining a term [dogma] to include what it precisely does not [by definition] include.

Vraith, all that means is that you understand the word differently than I do (and that etymo-site draws from the OED). Just because people today have forgotten what dogma has always meant and apply a narrow and hypocritical (in the most literal sense) understanding of it - that it is something unreasonable that only religious people have - is no reason for me to roll over and play dead. I've given a definition that is not my own and one that coincides with what the word has meant since its inception. So congratulations! - you guys all have dogmas - and are dogmatic about something or other.

No fooling.

[rusmeister]

From the Tank...

the natural sciences, for instance, are based on a load of dogmas. So is theology.

Is there truly no difference between dogma that is the result of extensive observation and experimentation, producing predictable results; and dogma that cannot be tested or observed, and the results cannot be known until after we die? Is "knowing" really nothing more than accepting that something is true? And things that can be seen personally, by every human being, every minute of every day of our lives are not more surely known than things that no living human could make any claim to have seen personally, and which violate what every human being sees every minute of every day?

Fist, most of our knowledge is frankly not scientific. Moreover, most of us accept what scientists tell us without conducting extensive experimentation ourselves. Yet we believe what we are taught (both those regarding the natural sciences and everything else - which is a heckuva lot of territory) anyway. Most of us believe Einstein was a great genius on the basis of authority, rather than actually doing the hard work of learning how that may be so ourselves. So a huge amount of what we hold to be true is accepted from authority, rather than learned through the sweat, blood and tears of verifiable experimentation producing predictable results (not sure why they should necessarily be predictable). Do we treat our life as an experiment? Like a rough draft that we will somehow get the chance to 'do over again'? I'd say that life is NOT an experiment, certainly as far as we are concerned.

The person can see those things that we see every day and they can CONFIRM the dogma of the unseen. That's sure how it is for me. Sin is the one part of Christian dogma that can actually be proved. There IS sin and anyone who opens their eyes can see it. When I am cut off in traffic (or cut someone else off) I see sin in operation. There are too many examples to list of things that we can see that prove this. From the dogma of sin other dogmas are built. Once I see that sin is a fact, that it is operating both in my life and in the lives of those around me, I have to start wondering why. "That's just 'the way it is'" doesn't satisfy the inquiring scientific - or simply intelligent - mind.