Kevin's Watch

Z, I'm done arguing. I am thoroughly weary of talking to people who never really hear what I say. But if you had titled this thread "My Experiences with My Children", then you would have a better basis for complaining. (This is the problem of just wanting to hear from people who will approve of your ideas and exclude those that do not). You pretty specifically titled the thread "atheist" children, with a clear assumption that your children are more enlightened for not being exposed to "religious dogma". What could you expect any Christian to say??? Or you should write in huge letters at the top, "atheist response only, please" or "Christians need not respond" - not that that's discriminatory or anything; I'm sure it is a broad and open-minded approach.

Some awesome former mod wrote:-If you want to keep a thread friendly (for my own lack of a better word), put something to that effect in the title. If you're looking for a debate, let that be known also. For example, "Mormonism: *debate*" vs. "Mormonism: *info*" or even "Mormonism: *enter at your own risk*". If you don't tag it, it can't exactly be helped what it turns into. The way I see it, if you start the thread, you own it. Let a mod know if you want to add a tag, have it split, whatever. However, everybody owns their own posts, so except in extreme cases, anything moved will just become its own thread.

-Keep the titles of the threads as neutral in tone as possible. Nothing like, "Quakers. WTF is up with those guys?"

So, sure, maybe some changes in the title could've made it better, not that there's anything wrong with the title, and not that there's anything in the title that would give a person a reason to feel justified in seeking a confrontation. However, from what I read, Z did try to politely suggest that this thread wasn't for that. As the OP, he has a right to express that, and we have an obligation to respect his wishes.

An only slightly less awesome mod wrote:I would like to add something to Syl's original guidelines, given that I, too, have become recently aware of some people avoiding the Close due to reasons other than lack of interest:

Please do not derail threads, whether it is to prove your point, to change the topic, or any other reasons. It is very easy when talking about one's beliefs to attempt and inject them into any thread about philosophy and religion - for example, if discussing a particular little-known religion, presenting one's own to show similarities or differences. These derailings, though, eventually lead to entirely different discussions which may have little to do with the original thread topic. If, when discussing a particular topic, you absolutely cannot resist derailing it, create a new thread about this instead of adding to the old one.

Also, due to the volatile nature of the topics discussed in the Close, I will reiterate a very important statement: please be respectful of other people's views at all time, and avoid personal attacks (whether blunt or subtle). The Close is a forum where everyone should be considered on equal grounds: it is not right to bash other people's beliefs, and it is not right to claim moral superiority, regardless of whether you personally believe you know the truth, or not. Treat others with respect, whether they be Christians, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pastafarianists, and so on. Please understand that the mods will not hesitate in stepping in if they feel that someone is clearly attacking another member's beliefs (unless said member specifically asked for a challenge...).

And purely observational, I don't think you can call his remark "a clear assumption that your children are more enlightened for not being exposed to "religious dogma." If I see a group of Jews celebrating a Bar Mitzvah, I don't think it would be polite to yell into the crowd, "Oh, you think your religion makes you so damn manly. Harrummph! I say." When Menolly shared her pride in Beorn reading the scroll, nobody said, "Pfff. Reading biblical Hebrew doesn't make you any better than me!" It may be oppositional to your viewpoint, but it's not about you. Don't be so quick to piss in other people's cornflakes just because you prefer Wheaties.

[Syl] wrote:

Z, I'm done arguing. I am thoroughly weary of talking to people who never really hear what I say. But if you had titled this thread "My Experiences with My Children", then you would have a better basis for complaining. (This is the problem of just wanting to hear from people who will approve of your ideas and exclude those that do not). You pretty specifically titled the thread "atheist" children, with a clear assumption that your children are more enlightened for not being exposed to "religious dogma". What could you expect any Christian to say??? Or you should write in huge letters at the top, "atheist response only, please" or "Christians need not respond" - not that that's discriminatory or anything; I'm sure it is a broad and open-minded approach.

Some awesome former mod wrote:-If you want to keep a thread friendly (for my own lack of a better word), put something to that effect in the title. If you're looking for a debate, let that be known also. For example, "Mormonism: *debate*" vs. "Mormonism: *info*" or even "Mormonism: *enter at your own risk*". If you don't tag it, it can't exactly be helped what it turns into. The way I see it, if you start the thread, you own it. Let a mod know if you want to add a tag, have it split, whatever. However, everybody owns their own posts, so except in extreme cases, anything moved will just become its own thread.

-Keep the titles of the threads as neutral in tone as possible. Nothing like, "Quakers. WTF is up with those guys?"

So, sure, maybe some changes in the title could've made it better, not that there's anything wrong with the title, and not that there's anything in the title that would give a person a reason to feel justified in seeking a confrontation. However, from what I read, Z did try to politely suggest that this thread wasn't for that. As the OP, he has a right to express that, and we have an obligation to respect his wishes.

An only slightly less awesome mod wrote:I would like to add something to Syl's original guidelines, given that I, too, have become recently aware of some people avoiding the Close due to reasons other than lack of interest:

Please do not derail threads, whether it is to prove your point, to change the topic, or any other reasons. It is very easy when talking about one's beliefs to attempt and inject them into any thread about philosophy and religion - for example, if discussing a particular little-known religion, presenting one's own to show similarities or differences. These derailings, though, eventually lead to entirely different discussions which may have little to do with the original thread topic. If, when discussing a particular topic, you absolutely cannot resist derailing it, create a new thread about this instead of adding to the old one.

Also, due to the volatile nature of the topics discussed in the Close, I will reiterate a very important statement: please be respectful of other people's views at all time, and avoid personal attacks (whether blunt or subtle). The Close is a forum where everyone should be considered on equal grounds: it is not right to bash other people's beliefs, and it is not right to claim moral superiority, regardless of whether you personally believe you know the truth, or not. Treat others with respect, whether they be Christians, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pastafarianists, and so on. Please understand that the mods will not hesitate in stepping in if they feel that someone is clearly attacking another member's beliefs (unless said member specifically asked for a challenge...).

And purely observational, I don't think you can call his remark "a clear assumption that your children are more enlightened for not being exposed to "religious dogma." If I see a group of Jews celebrating a Bar Mitzvah, I don't think it would be polite to yell into the crowd, "Oh, you think your religion makes you so damn manly. Harrummph! I say." When Menolly shared her pride in Beorn reading the scroll, nobody said, "Pfff. Reading biblical Hebrew doesn't make you any better than me!" It may be oppositional to your viewpoint, but it's not about you. Don't be so quick to piss in other people's cornflakes just because you prefer Wheaties.

Hi Syl,
That's a good example of a reasonable pluralist viewpoint. Only trouble is, the pluralist does not grok the viewpoint of the non-pluralist. The only kind of analogy I can offer that you might understand is that if someone is saying "How wonderful it is that my kids are being raised as good Nazis..."
Now I can imagine some people immediately jumping up and saying "He called us Nazis!!!" - which I didn't. But it could help you understand how that "other viewpoint" is absolutely about me, especially if I am a Jew.
The non-pluralist (ie, someone who believes in a complete Truth, and that it matters very much what you perceive as truth) does not see things in terms of "preference", so to him the analogy of Wheaties is senseless, and completely misses what is important (I miss Wheaties; it's been 9-10 years since I've had them...).
So it is reasonable that we oppose each other; Z is almost as reasonable as Turnbull (a rather ideal atheist to my mind) and more reasonable than all the people who feel that it really is only a matter of preference; I think even Z would object to his view being treated as a preference, and I salute him for that. It is a real advance toward discovering Truth.

rusmeister wrote: Hi Syl,
That's a good example of a reasonable pluralist viewpoint. Only trouble is, the pluralist does not grok the viewpoint of the non-pluralist.

The *point*, which you obviously missed, rus, is that Syl is quoting The Rules Of This Forum -- which you violate pretty much every time you post.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that this forum uses pluralism as a basis for its rules of conduct, but that doesn't change the fact that it DOES. You're famous for setting up either/or scenarios, so here's one for you: If you don't like the rules here, you can do one of two things -- you can try to convince the mods to change them, or you can stop posting here.

You're just lucky that Fist is such a softy. I suspect if Syl were still modding this forum, you would have been banned long since.

(Sorry, everybody. Being sick makes me cranky. )

aliantha wrote:I suspect if Syl were still modding this forum, you would have been banned long since.

You'd be right. I didn't earn the nickname "Sheriff" for nothing, nor, to a lesser extent, "The Iron Fist" (or among some, I suspect, "that asshole" ).

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Hi Syl,
That's a good example of a reasonable pluralist viewpoint. Only trouble is, the pluralist does not grok the viewpoint of the non-pluralist.

The *point*, which you obviously missed, rus, is that Syl is quoting The Rules Of This Forum -- which you violate pretty much every time you post.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that this forum uses pluralism as a basis for its rules of conduct, but that doesn't change the fact that it DOES. You're famous for setting up either/or scenarios, so here's one for you: If you don't like the rules here, you can do one of two things -- you can try to convince the mods to change them, or you can stop posting here.

You're just lucky that Fist is such a softy. I suspect if Syl were still modding this forum, you would have been banned long since.

(Sorry, everybody. Being sick makes me cranky. )

Well, Ali, this shows the self-contradiction of pluralism, which lies in pretending to tolerate all beliefs, under the condition that what one believes doesn't really matter, that what one believes cannot possibly affect others. This means that you really would have to ban all traditional and Christians, Muslims at the very least. That's what philosophical pluralism does - it insists that, in the public square, your belief is not true or to be treated as such, in direct contradiction to all faiths that say that it is.

I'm reading GKC's "The New Jerusalem", which describes his visit, circa 1935, to that city, and he describes, among other things, how those three great faiths live together without that pluralistic philosophy. A good deal of diplomacy is called for, but there is little bigotry, for being forced together, with no possibility of banning each other, forces them to both be aware of each other's views and the impossibility of compromise, and to manage to live together, with the result that, having true diversity that is not compromised/watered down and negated by pluralism, the inhabitants have a larger view of the world.

So sure, ban me and those who deny pluralism and who hold that what you believe matters and affects everything. Your world will be the smaller and
the more bigoted for it.

FWIW, I'm really tired of arguing in general. I have two essential posts to respond to, yours and Murrin's, (assuming that you're actually interested in the answer to your question) and other than that, I'm ready for a vacation, anyway.

Yes, I'm still interested in the answer.

As I have said to you before, I think it's perfectly possible for Christians to make posts in this forum without trampling on others' beliefs and coming off like a jerk -- by sticking to "I believe" statements and by not constantly telling other people how wrong they are. But AGAIN, we need to stop discussing this in Z's thread. (Tho I'm sure he's about given up on rescuing his topic. )

I'm reading GKC's "The New Jerusalem", which describes his visit, circa 1935, to that city, and he describes, among other things, how those three great faiths live together without that pluralistic philosophy.

How'd that work out?

[Syl] wrote:

I'm reading GKC's "The New Jerusalem", which describes his visit, circa 1935, to that city, and he describes, among other things, how those three great faiths live together without that pluralistic philosophy.

How'd that work out?

It's a big answer, Syl.
I'd be fine with splitting the thread on the topic of the problem of pluralism vs actual belief, and even dragging in some of the stuff I'm reading, if people'd actually read it, instead of writing GKC off as always. A discussion of atheist children is bound to bring up the thing that defines it - non-atheism, what children of atheists might be losing or might actually deprived of - unless it is a praise-only thread, but I'm fine with discussing the larger issue (which contains this smaller issue) elsewhere.

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

Ch 6, "The Groups of the City" - the one I just finished - is especially relevant, I'd say.

To Ali (in the interest of limiting OT posts but like all intelligent people, desiring to defend myself when attacked):
"Trample on" is a characterization, which I see as challenge. If my position is true (and if I doubt that, then it is not my position) then obviously, ideas that conflict with it are not only challengeable, but defeatable. Z tramples on my beliefs by speaking of atheist children, and this is permissible - my faith says that this is deliberate damage and destruction - that it is like teaching children to be good bigots and being proud of it. I do believe this - and you tell me that I may not challenge it by characterizing Z's views as nice/interesting, and mine as "trampling". And instead of accusing him of trampling on my beliefs, I pointed out how he was giving his own child an inferior and distorted view of the understandings of faith, for Z himself does not know the better ones, and I agree in despising the God painted by that inferior characterization and came to that realization when I was 19. If that is being "a jerk", then guilty as charged. Only all of you will become jerks (by this loose definition) when your beliefs are presented in a more simplistic manner that makes them appear simply stupid (again, mistaken is one, stupid is another). I don't think my opponents' beliefs are stupid. I think them sophisticated and wrong.
'Nuff said.

rusmeister wrote:I'm reading GKC's "The New Jerusalem", which describes his visit, circa 1935, to that city, and he describes, among other things, how those three great faiths live together without that pluralistic philosophy. A good deal of diplomacy is called for, but there is little bigotry, for being forced together, with no possibility of banning each other, forces them to both be aware of each other's views and the impossibility of compromise, and to manage to live together, with the result that, having true diversity that is not compromised/watered down and negated by pluralism, the inhabitants have a larger view of the world.

The people here, rus, are asking you to engage in this diplomacy. That is all. Did the people of Jerusalem spend their time accusing each other of insanity for having come to different conclusions about faith (to recall one particularly notable argument on this forum, though I may be oversimplifying)?

I'd also hazard to point out that your non-pluralist veiwpoint as you have expressed it is the very definition of bigotry ("hazard" because some will see that as a loaded term, and not simply the dictionary word for what you've described).

I find your comments on my own posts recently ironic, given that my tone and approach are grounded in that same pluralistic perspective towards your faith that you disdain (edit: "reject" is probably the better word) (specifically, accepting your intolerance without criticism despite disagreeing with it).

rusmeister wrote:Z tramples on my beliefs by speaking of atheist children.

He does not. He spoke to his own experience. By your logic, rus, you trample on the beliefs of everyone in the Close every time you open your mouth.

rusmeister wrote:you tell me that I may not challenge it by characterizing Z's views as nice/interesting, and mine as "trampling".

Did he speak directly to *you*, in his initial post? No, he made a statement to the group. How in hell can you feel as if your own personal point of view has been "trampled on" by a simple statement of one person's experience? I know that Christianity has a strong streak of belief in persecution, but this is going too far.

rusmeister wrote:he was giving his own child an inferior and distorted view of the understandings of faith, for Z himself does not know the better ones

There you go, insulting people again. Do you know for sure that Z doesn't know anything about "the better ones"? Or are you assuming that because he told you he wouldn't waste his time reading GKC? The guy majored in philosophy in college (which you *might* find out, if you would ASK people direct questions instead of going ahead and bull-headedly ASSUMING they don't know what they're talking about). I'm pretty sure he's more conversant in the writings of the ancient philosophers than you are.

rusmeister wrote:Only all of you will become jerks (by this loose definition) when your beliefs are presented in a more simplistic manner that makes them appear simply stupid

Which you *never* do, of course. You told me I worship demons. You told Menolly her religion is imperfect. You Jenn she's not a good Christian (which is actually kind of funny, considering she's Pagan). You have told Fist, over and over and over again, that he's wrong about his own feelings -- and note my phrasing here: you didn't say his feelings are wrong, you said he has misinterpreted despair as contentment! In his own head!

You told Cail he's not a good Catholic. You told Zahir he's not a good Orthodox Christian. You told Sindatur he ought to go to jail for being gay.

Who *haven't* you insulted? I can't think of a single person.

You've been so busy pointing your finger and telling us what's bad about each of us here that you've completely neglected to tell us what's good about Orthodoxy. If you've got good news, nobody here has heard it. And you won't tell it -- whenever anyone has asked you for specific information, your answer is always, "Come and see!" Which is no answer at all.

And yet when someone points all of this out to you, they get your b.s. humility routine: "I'm not insulting anyone, I'm not arrogant or rude, I'm as big a sinner as the next person, and anyway it's okay to be judgmental because it's okay to judge which mushroom to eat."

<ali throws up her hands> Forget the answer to my question, okay? I've had it. You're a toxic individual and a toxic presence on this board, and you've had us all going for the better part of five years. And that's not an insult. The first defense against libel is the truth.

Murrin wrote:This post may veer slightly off the current topic.

I know you like to use the argument that the majority of Christianity these days is very far removed from the original faith and the teachings in the bible; I agree with you on that point, and indeed, I agree that Orthodox Christianity is most likely the closest that exists now to the religion as it was understood and practiced back in the 5th century or earlier.

However, while you hold up the reforms and changes that have caused other forms to deviate from the original church as evidence of how they do not represent true christianity, I do not think I've seen you address the same issues as regards Orthodoxy.

There are a number of fundamental tenets of Orthodoxy that were not dictated directly in scripture or through revelation, but were the result of voting by the early ecumenical councils, and subject to the very strong influence of the Byzantine Roman Emperors (sometimes directly, often through their selection of Patriarchs). The veneration of the Theotokos, and the specific nature of the relationships between father, son, and holy spirit, are among those things which came from this influence. Had the balance of power during certain periods of internal struggle in the Eastern Roman Empire been different, the Orthodox church could now hold wildly different opinions on the veneration of icons, to give another easy example. (Sainthood itself is a holdover from the pre-Christian Roman practice of deification of individuals.)

How do you see your faith aligning with these things? Did you consider and simply conclude that you agreed with the interpretation of scripture by the councils? Or do you accept the position of the early church that the voting of an ecumenical council is infallible and guided by god? The latter is a position I would consider difficult to defend, having no more evidence than the claim by the RCC that the decisions of the Pope are infallible.


[I fear I may just be exposing a deeper ignorance in myself with this line of questioning (I admit my own knowledge of the subject doesn't go far), but I hope that you can be provoked to give us a deeper understanding of how you see your own participation in the Orthodox faith.]

I apologize for the delay.
I have come to a place where I simply do not want to debate with people who are sure I am wrong. I'm feeling very tired, and feeling a huge sense of futility with most responses. Having tried for years, with the primary goal, not of absolutely proving, but of establishing that the Christian Tradition is no less reasonable than all of the others being offered for sale, and hitting a denial of even that - even though there is more than enough to establish both strong scholarship and a deep body of apologetics - I feel myself just drifting away and making only a few light posts here and there.

Still, this kind of question - that almost nobody poses - is really worth answering. So I'll do my best, and where there are holes in my knowledge - for I have never claimed to know, or to be able to know, everything about my own faith, and can see that it is quite impossible - there is far too much to know - I'll point to where the better answers may be found.

The first thing I have to do, I suppose, is to not take the assumptions made in your post for granted, Murrin. While it is true that clarity did come about in the wake of the Councils, the practices and understandings had their roots from the beginning, held by some, eventually disputed by others. So the idea that the ideas themselves appeared with Constantine, etc is false. Icons of the Theotokos (and subsequently her veneration) are to be found in underground churches predating Constantine; www.antiochian.org/assets/word/MARCH2008WORD.pdf (an eye-witness story, pg 14)
Also, your idea of sainthood being a mere copy of Roman ideas is assertion, and I'd say the truth is rather the other way around. The assumption that they MUST have looked for pagan ideas to copy ignores the holistic view of what exactly salvation is. A saint is not some random idea cherry-picked from previous pagan ideas; a saint is the very thing that we are supposed to become. Anyone could become a saint in any age. Even I could, although I sincerely doubt it.

But you ARE right that things could have been wildly different. But they are not. They are what they are. The 'balance of power' had other things besides the human forces arrayed on them. Logically, from the standpoint of earthly power, the Arians should have won. They had the money and the people in power on their side. Yet they did not. The dogma established was that of the Trinitarian God - which, again, had been held from the beginning.

So as to your questions, I find that I can accept Orthodox teaching with my mind because I do find that in general I agree - but do not hold the authority to be valid because I happen to agree. I have found my private opinions to be wrong before (on the nature of Confession, for example).

Were the Councils full of fallible humans? Of course. Could they nevertheless be divinely guided? Of course. That is the nature of the thing called the Church - a ship full of error-prone and sin-ridden humans (who at least realize that they are ill) that is divinely guided.

If you hold Papal infallibility on the same level, I can see why you would find the position of accepting the Councils difficult to defend. Yet they are not. Papal infallibility ex cathedra is an incredibly late doctrine, necessitated within the RCC by the logic of its theology, which eschews earthly collegiality in favor of a system where one man actually rules - a major difference from the Orthodox Church.

The most helpful book I can think of is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church" - written by a neophyte to Orthodoxy 50 years ago (who is now a metropolitan by the name of Kallistos) has shown itself to be a classic for English speakers, with a thorough and yet graspable layout of the Church's history and practices. Buy or borrow; abridged excerpts here:
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm

I realize that all of that "proves" nothing - but for a grasp of the POV, it would put you head and shoulders above everybody else. Any Orthodox Christian will probably tell you that in the end, the faith is not a mere intellectual proposition; that it must be experienced, and so nothing would beat actually going to a service (with a little advance 'heads-up': www.frederica.com/12-things/ ). Still, for an intellectual understanding, it's a start (from there you'd have to do things like start wading through the ante-Nicene Church fathers to see how this stuff is historically supported and how the practices did not actually appear out of thin air in the 4th century.

Murrin wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I'm reading GKC's "The New Jerusalem", which describes his visit, circa 1935, to that city, and he describes, among other things, how those three great faiths live together without that pluralistic philosophy. A good deal of diplomacy is called for, but there is little bigotry, for being forced together, with no possibility of banning each other, forces them to both be aware of each other's views and the impossibility of compromise, and to manage to live together, with the result that, having true diversity that is not compromised/watered down and negated by pluralism, the inhabitants have a larger view of the world.

The people here, rus, are asking you to engage in this diplomacy. That is all. Did the people of Jerusalem spend their time accusing each other of insanity for having come to different conclusions about faith (to recall one particularly notable argument on this forum, though I may be oversimplifying)?

I'd also hazard to point out that your non-pluralist veiwpoint as you have expressed it is the very definition of bigotry ("hazard" because some will see that as a loaded term, and not simply the dictionary word for what you've described).

I find your comments on my own posts recently ironic, given that my tone and approach are grounded in that same pluralistic perspective towards your faith that you disdain (edit: "reject" is probably the better word) (specifically, accepting your intolerance without criticism despite disagreeing with it).

Murrin, I DO engage in that diplomacy (and am doing so now), and we obviously have different working definitions of bigotry.

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

Now I certainly can imagine how I might have gone wrong - and how I did go wrong for 20 years, and the cost in my own personal life.

A common hesitation in our day touching upon the use of extreme convictions is a sort of notion that extreme convictions, specially upon cosmic matters, have been responsible in the past for the thing which is called bigotry. But a very small amount of direct experience will dissipate this view. In real life the people who are most bigoted are the people who have no conviction at all. The economists of the Manchester school who disagree with Socialism take Socialism seriously. It is the young man in Bond Street, who does not know what socialism means, much less whether he agrees with it, who is quite certain that these socialist fellows are making a fuss about nothing. The man who understands the Calvinist philosophy enough to agree with it must understand the Catholic philosophy in order to disagree with it. It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponents of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves. . .Bigotry may be roughly defined as the anger of men who have no opinions. It is the resistance offered to definite ideas by that vague bulk of people whose ideas are indefinite to excess. Bigotry may be called the appalling frenzy of the indifferent.

And THAT is what I mean by bigotry.

I'm not sure if you are clear on what I disdain, Murrin. I disdain the end-run idea of pluralism - that there is no truth, that what one believes does not and cannot affect others; that no one can and must actually be wrong. That's what I disdain.

If you're still trying to understand my position, I'll oblige. But if you're just looking to knock it then I won't. I see clearly how one can be absolutely certain of rightness and not be bigoted for holding that position. I realize that rubs against other people who are not used to it. It is the people of Jerusalem who are obviously the most used to it - they, at least, are not in the least surprised or shocked that their neighbors think them wrong, and so are forced, when they try to understand anything, to achieve better understandings. I intend no insult, call no one insane and try to be polite and civil in disagreement. I apologize if you have taken personal offense - no offense was ever intended - but I do not apologize for thinking myself right, nor would I expect you to.

Holy cow, Ali,
You think I do not know the better pagan positions - I am not hereby insulted, even if you say so. Why you think that saying so should be insult - when an active practicing adherent of a religion must defer whenever an unbeliever tell him he does not actually believe what he believes (which Fist sometimes confuses me with, and I always deny, and insist that he certainly DOES believe what he believes - such tautologies should not be necessary among intelligent people).

It appears that, according to you, I must accept that Z gave the best understanding of what hell is to his son. That, to me, is sheer nonsense. I read what he wrote. I know what Z presented to his son and that is what I'm talking about. he could be a closet Christian for all I know - I won't deal with what he didn't say. But I think I can address what he DID say. I KNOW better understandings of hell - have any of you - ANY of you read Lewis's "The Problem of Pain", the chapter on hell? I thought not. Fist listened to one podcast and he still cannot grasp that the western understanding of one hell that a person may be in now and forever is distinct from the understandings of sheol and gehenna. I've seen little attempt to actually understand these things, and then you rebuke me because I point out a fact - a FACT - to Z that his limited understanding can be undercut; that he runs the risk of his kid learning that there are better ones and the whole strategy backfire.

As to your individual charges, there is something untrue in each one, although they have to be taken case by case. On what the pagan worships, unlike, most, I take the idea of demons quite seriously, and do not think it makes you look stupid at all to suggest that that is what you may really be turning to - not stupid at all - but certainly dangerous.

If I think only one religion can have the fullness of the Truth, then all other religions must NECESSARILY lack something; be imperfect. Again, no insult. I never claimed that Jenn was Christian. Cail and Zahir, by their own admissions, do not recognize the authority of the Churches that they claim. I only tell you that those Churches formally teach that their members MUST accept their authority to be members in good standing. I make no other judgements about 'good' or 'bad'. I see myself as a poor Orthodox Christian; again, no insult. I did NOT say "Sindatur ought to go to jail". And so on. You take everything I say, do not seek to fully understand it, and twist it until it is something I do not say at all. I may suspect that you unwittingly worship demons, but I at least do not say that you say that you worship demons. Your idea of insult really seems to be 'to suggest that someone's worldview is mistaken', something I am indeed guilty of, only I hold a different conception of insult - one that seeks to demean a person and call them stupid, foolish, insane - things. I.do.not.say.and.you.cannot.produce. (If you did produce an actual statement to that effect - "You are stupid", "You are insane", then I will humbly apologize on my face. Only you can't. I think certain ideas do lead to insanity if brought to their logical conclusion - this is not calling the person insane, yet that is how you consistently read it.

So I give up on trying to communicate with you, too, Ali, as I've already given up with Fist. Only even now I do not say that you are toxic, despite your beliefs. Despite the fact that many of you do embrace pluralism, I refuse to say that you are toxic. I may think you mislead, but I do not think your intentions ill.

With that,
Adios! And all the best!

rusmeister wrote: Z, I'm done arguing. I am thoroughly weary of talking to people who never really hear what I say. But if you had titled this thread "My Experiences with My Children", then you would have a better basis for complaining.

Not once did I complain. I responded with a suggestion to two Christians who were complaining about their beliefs not being treated with respect in this thread: if you don't like the way your arguments are being treated here, then you could recognize that you were misuing my thread to begin with (i.e. it's your own fault) and stop using my thread to argue about Christianity. Or you could stop complaining, and deal with it. You should expect that in a thread about raising children as atheists you might not get the same kind of respect for your beliefs that you'd get if I wandered into one of your threads, for instance.

rusmeister wrote: (This is the problem of just wanting to hear from people who will approve of your ideas and exclude those that do not).

In all the years I've been on this site, there is absolutely no evidence that I want to avoid hearing from Christians. You can literally find 1000s of my posts where I have debated with Christians. This is just another form of whining/complaining. And I've already addressed this complaint once, yet you keep repeating this falsehood.

rusmeister wrote: You pretty specifically titled the thread "atheist" children, with a clear assumption that your children are more enlightened for not being exposed to "religious dogma".

There is nothing about my title that implies your assumption. It is only because you know something about my views that you could add this assumption to those two words.

rusmeister wrote: What could you expect any Christian to say???

I expected you to do EXACTLY what you always do: vomit your Orthodox regurgitations over every thread you enter, insult me for being ignorant of your religion (even though my thread had absolutely nothing to do with your religion), take over my thread, and generally bore the crap out of me.

Ok, hang on guys.

I'm going to assume from Rus' last post up there that he's taking a break from the Watch.

Rus, I'm going to suggest that you spend any time away from here reconsidering your approach.

Familiarise yourself with the board rules, and the guidelines for the sub-forums, and keep them in mind while posting.

Finally, please respect people's wishes not to turn every thread into a platform for your specific viewpoints. If you're not able to do so, I would further suggest that you reconsider your participation.

Everybody gets the same consideration, whether people agree with them or not. We'd be just as disapproving if you started a thread extolling the virtues of your belief and an atheist used it to tell you how wrong you are for believing in god.

As soon as a users behaviour starts to interfere with the enjoyment of other posters and their desire to participate, or their ability to discuss issues without being impacted by somebody else's agenda, then that behaviour starts to border on unacceptable.

Please take this into consideration on resuming posting.

Thanks,

--A

Avatar wrote:Ok, hang on guys.

I'm going to assume from Rus' last post up there that he's taking a break from the Watch.

Rus, I'm going to suggest that you spend any time away from here reconsidering your approach.

Familiarise yourself with the board rules, and the guidelines for the sub-forums, and keep them in mind while posting.

Finally, please respect people's wishes not to turn every thread into a platform for your specific viewpoints. If you're not able to do so, I would further suggest that you reconsider your participation.

Everybody gets the same consideration, whether people agree with them or not. We'd be just as disapproving if you started a thread extolling the virtues of your belief and an atheist used it to tell you how wrong you are for believing in god.

As soon as a users behaviour starts to interfere with the enjoyment of other posters and their desire to participate, or their ability to discuss issues without being impacted by somebody else's agenda, then that behaviour starts to border on unacceptable.

Please take this into consideration on resuming posting.

Thanks,

--A

I hear you, Av, and yes, I think I will take a break (except possibly for light answers to honest questions, so will probably lurk from time to time).
The rest of my response on another thread.