Kevin's Watch

religion, worldview and spirituality aside rus...it's getting to the point where you're not only becoming offensive, but incomprehensible...

rdhopeca wrote:Rus, I'd like to know how you reconcile this position:

1. Absentee Fathers

“What is called matriarchy is simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remains fixed because all the fathers are fugitive and irresponsible.” – The Everlasting Man, p.186

with this one:

3. Bigotry

“Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” – Lunacy and Letters

Seems like holding the latter would preclude the opinion on the former, given the various success of matriarchal societies as evidenced by Ali in another thread on this site?

There's no point in responding to the other stuff anymore, but I think I can answer this.

I had to think twice myself about the bigotry one. There is a difference between being unable to conceive an idea or proposition and being able to seriously consider it and reject it. The trouble with the modern use of the word "bigot" is that people no longer make that distinction - they think the two are one and the same. That there can be no such thing as reasoned rejection of their imagined forms of tolerance - and I think they have to insist on it - that a person MUST be unreasonable; that it is not enough that they be wrong, but that they are of necessity irrational.

So obviously a person can consider claims like the one Ali makes, can consider rules and exceptions, the inclusion of certain facts, the exclusion of others and of course, interpretation of said facts. It is possible to do all this and not come to the fashionable opinion of the majority. There's no trouble reconciling the two when you understand that fundamental difference of having seriously considered vs not having seriously considered.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:

rusmeister wrote:FWIW, I recognize that you could censor my statements and respect that you, to date, have not.

I feel compelled to point out that Fist chooses not to censor your statements because this would be the ultimate in hypocrisy on his part, as it is totally contrary to his worldview... he appears to believe that multiple ways of thought (and life in general) are a reasonable and respectable thing, and should be allowed to live in harmony, at least to the extent that opposing worldviews are capable of permitting this.
What he appears opposed to is the worldview that would declaim all others as False, pronounce its humble supremacy, and then set about winning over the hearts, minds, and souls of all others in the attempt to remediate a supposed prehistoric Falling.

dw

FWIW, DW,
If I were running my dream site - a Socratic Club on the model of the one Lewis organized in Oxford in the 40's and 50's - I would not censor, either (provided the discourse remained civil, that profanity was checked at the door and so on). I believe the Truth can withstand examination by people who honestly examine it. (I don't think everyone honestly examines it, though.)

I agree that unbelievers of all stripes have great virtues, just as believers have serious vices (and I do not see myself as a special exception.) There's no need to point out to me what I know so well.

rusmeister wrote:

rdhopeca wrote:Rus, I'd like to know how you reconcile this position:

1. Absentee Fathers

“What is called matriarchy is simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remains fixed because all the fathers are fugitive and irresponsible.” – The Everlasting Man, p.186

with this one:

3. Bigotry

“Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” – Lunacy and Letters

Seems like holding the latter would preclude the opinion on the former, given the various success of matriarchal societies as evidenced by Ali in another thread on this site?

There's no point in responding to the other stuff anymore, but I think I can answer this.

I had to think twice myself about the bigotry one. There is a difference between being unable to conceive an idea or proposition and being able to seriously consider it and reject it. The trouble with the modern use of the word "bigot" is that people no longer make that distinction - they think the two are one and the same. That there can be no such thing as reasoned rejection of their imagined forms of tolerance - and I think they have to insist on it - that a person MUST be unreasonable; that it is not enough that they be wrong, but that they are of necessity irrational.

So obviously a person can consider claims like the one Ali makes, can consider rules and exceptions, the inclusion of certain facts, the exclusion of others and of course, interpretation of said facts. It is possible to do all this and not come to the fashionable opinion of the majority. There's no trouble reconciling the two when you understand that fundamental difference of having seriously considered vs not having seriously considered.

So, in other words, as long as one has seriously considered the possibility that all human beings have the same fundamental right to exist, and then discarded that for what they consider to be valid reasons, it is then all right to conclude that certain humans of a certain race should be considered "sub human" and treated as slaves, and not be considered a bigot or a racist for doing so?

As long as one has considered the possibility that a matriarchal government might be successful, and then rationally discarded that, it is then ok to assume that a matriarchy must inevitably become immoral anarchy, and not be considered a bigot or sexist?

If neither of these conditions qualify as bigotry, do they qualify as wrong and morally and intellectually indefensible? I mean, are we really dealing with semantics here as we decompose the thoughts of this "great thinker"?

TheFallen wrote:Maybe this thread's reaching a peaceable "let's agree to differ" end... who'da thunk that?

rusmeister wrote:Hi, TF,
Giving you the benefit of the doubt...
Fist and I have had an online relationship for five years now that you are just, well, sort of barging in to. I'm sure Fist is thrilled that you agree with him - I'd certainly appreciate people agreeing with me, and they usually don't, and maybe someone would give me kudos for tenacity and not simply spitting on the carpet and leaving. Please don't take my responses as merely flippant, but I feel that you're really on the outside in some things that I have communicated, or tried to communicate, a hundred times to him, and arguably he to me, and I feel that I have responded far too often to some of these charges. Like the one above.

Well that's the most even-handed and least tub-thumping post that I've seen from you in this thread, Rus - you're absolutely right to point out that I am a very recent gatecrasher to this party and therefore cannot possibly be aware of the content of what is clearly a very long history. I'll attempt to excuse my presumption by simply saying that hey, if ideas are being discussed that interest me in a public forum where I've been granted a voice, then I hopefully have the right to chip in. By the way, I'd be delighted to agree with you whenever I see you saying something I do (or even can) agree with.

Oh and thanks for the benefit of the doubt, which I'll graciously accept, without quite knowing why I'd need it...

rusmeister wrote:(Please note that I am ditching the stuff aimed at me out. I've had it with AH, and I'm not wasting any more time with it. Maybe , if you ever try to understand and I really perceive sustained general attempts to understand, I might respond to the more personal questions. I ain't gonna do it with people that don't know me at all and only want to debunk because they happen to agree with Fist.)

Fair enough, but I do have to point out that with me at least, you have cause and effect sort of ass about face - I react fairly strongly to your portrayal of your world view because to me (and me alone, as far as I'm concerned) it's unpalatable and ought to be challenged - or at least ought to have an alternative to it expounded. The fact that this seems to fit in with Fist's (and others') own thinking is an irrelevant post-event by-product - although it's obviously in some facile way satisfying to discover others are of like mind.

I'm entirely with you on not dismissing dead authors just for being dead, as I've said before. The only difficulty with those is that it's hard to ask them a question or get into an active debate with them - however, this doesn't in any way mean they should be discounted out of hand (and in my short time here, I haven't actually seen anyone doing that).

rusmeister wrote:

TheFallen wrote:More importantly, you omit the logical fourth possibility. You've listed "only X is true", "only Y is true" and "neither X nor Y (nor anything else) are true", but have failed to take into account "both X and Y are true"... or at least, equally valid - which happens to be my position.

Go right ahead and call it "a logical error". If one says, "both 2+2=3 and 2+2=4 are true - or at least equally valid", outsiders might be amused by your concept of validity. What I think you mean, though, is that "If we don't know 'x', both 'y' and 'z' can be proposed as answers - and that's true - if you really don't know the answer. But if you DO come to know the answer, that ceases to be true, and if your knowledge is correct, then the other proposals, whatever they may be, lose any "validity". But "valid" is only useful on a hypothetical level. Once you ask "What is true?", "validity" must accede to the question of what is true.

Except we're not dealing with the objectively provable - even you admit that faith has to be involved, so we simply can't be dealing with the objectively provable - so therefore pretty much any postulate is potentially valid, with the sole differentiator being how meaningful and apt that postulate subjectively is to its individual adherent.

rusmeister wrote:I'm not going to go a hundred rounds with you, as I did with Fist, and I'm not doing it any more with Fist. I feel satisfied that I have said and done everything I can, and am very glad that his, and others' salvation doesn't ultimately depend on me - though I very much hope for it, as I hope for my own.

That's fine by me - as stated above, I don't know all the old ground, but can imagine it would be tedious to have to re-cover that. I do have to repeat one question, though - and that's my one on motivation.

TheFallen wrote:This brings me onto the question of motivation. I'll be entirely up-front about mine - I'm reacting to your portrayal of a world view that I find (for all the reasons I've given) both distasteful and concerning when it's broadened out beyond the personal (i.e. beyond you yourself) - it's intolerant, exclusionist and absolutist and I honestly think it borders on a worrying and fanatical belief fascism. But Rus, what's your motive in posting here? It can't be to debate, simply because debate implies the possibility of change of mind, based upon exchange of ideas and new concepts being understood - and that's not going to happen with you. It can't be to defend, simply because nobody else has started off on the offensive against your brand of Christianity - though I grant that people have then reacted vehemently about what you've posted. So is your motive a need to evangelise and convert/redeem? Or just a need to assert your own views?

I've just discovered, courtesy of your post, that such discussions have been going on on KW for ages - which does beg the question as to your motivation in getting involved in such lengthy debate. Fist's stated his, I've stated mine (however short-lived it may turn out to be)... I just wonder what yours has been?

rusmeister wrote:Is there a moral compass? Is there meaning? NOT 'Are Rusmeister's delivery skills lacking?' The former attempt to engage the intellect. The latter does not.

Agreed, but I wasn't actually saying that you're an incompetent presenter. I've told you before that I think your beliefs necessarily put you in an invidious position and I'm not sure how anyone could palatably market a message that starts with first principles of "I'm 100% right, you're all wrong - I can't prove it, but that doesn't matter."

I'll fully understand if you feel this one's run its course and choose not to answer. After all, it'd be a shame to blow on the embers once there's some sign of peace breaking out.

Hi, TF,
I agree on the discussion of ideas in general. But there's been the personal interaction of Fist and myself and that's something I don't think an outsider who hasn't been following it can fairly pronounce on.

If you notice the level of hostility toward both me and my ideas, I'd think you could understand why I might be guarded in talking with people who disagree with me. From my standpoint, are they hecklers seeking merely to debunk? Or is there an honest inquirer there, who thinks that maybe there is something to my stand, though I be ultimately wrong?

If I say that there is truth, and that I know what it is, and that claims to the contrary are wrong, I am labeled as "aggressive". If I acknowledge the virtues of others, or otherwise attempt to maintain humility, I am labeled as "passive-aggressive" - and this HAS happened here (I think even on this thread). Really, one CAN'T win if they face that.

Strangely enough, there are a great many questions you can ask 'my' dead authors. And because they follow particular traditions that spring from a common one, you can ask living people in that tradition, (and if they don't know, they can refer you to appropriate resources).

SOME things CAN be objectively proven. But I find, even there, that some people deny them because they deny basic facts of reality. Other things cannot. These are a matter of faith. But frankly, we live our practical lives by faith and do not "objectively" prove everything; faith is eminently practical. A sensible worldview must combine both reason and faith (even if it is faith in the idea that no one can possibly know truth) No worldview can exist only on the objectively proven. For the very determination of what is objective is a matter of philosophy, not science. All science is conducted by humans - who have some sort of worldview or other and are definitely, as humans, fallible. So there is no special logic in insisting that all ideas be subject to empirical tests. We all believe in something.

Sin (however the modern psychologist cares to label it) is a fact as practical as potatoes. It can be proven; it is in front of our faces every day. A peculiar quality of it is that it is more difficult to see our own, and yet quite easy to see it in others. This is objective, and not subjective. I've given the objective example of being cut off in traffic (never mind the subsequent sins of cursing, road rage, etc.) These things really happen, and they are symptomatic of the human placing of the self above others - and this is especially evident when it is to the detriment of others. So yes, sin and the moral compass (a slightly more complex topic) are objective starting points for considering both the validity and possible actual truth of my worldview.

On motivation - which has nothing to do with meaninglessness and is only a distraction from it, I'll say that I live a life isolated from the English-speaking world - something that I sometimes find difficult, so interaction in my native language is a motivating factor. I came here as I have always enjoyed SRD and find that his readers tend to have a higher-than-average intelligence. There is a place here where people are specially invited to discuss philosophy and religion, which are the things that now interest me the most. In my own discovery of serious, deep and traditional Christianity I have found that many of the popular objections to belief are easily debunked; that both public schooling and the press work together to spread a general impression that there is nothing rational in the holding of faith, and that the believer has no rationality on which to stand. I have found this to be entirely untrue, and frequently find the attitudes even here, IQ notwithstanding. My own theory, strongly supported by personal experience, especially with public education, is that modern thought has largely been pre-determined, and indoctrinated relentlessly by ever-increasing incarceration in public education, and then reinforced in the ubiquitous media, which is run by graduates of... public education. Such holding of views is not one arrived at by rational thought, any more than the raising of children in a Christian environment is the rational acquisition of faith - it is the indoctrination of it. So it is no more of a virtue, and the modern is no more to be congratulated for his holding of views of tolerance and diversity, than the Christian child of the preceding millennium and a half for holding his worldview. As something that became a huge discovery in my own life, I have a strong interest in debunking modern myths about faith, that tend to take a narrow and parochial view that excludes most knowledge of Christianity in the preceding two millennia (and I recently laid out a good summary of that biased knowledge that we are all taught - and Ali complemented me on it!).

Oh, and I do think it matters very much.

Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.

This is interesting...do you seriously conceive the alternative to your own proposition?

--A

Avatar wrote:

Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.

This is interesting...do you seriously conceive the alternative to your own proposition?

--A

Yes, I do, although you'd have to specify the proposition where you think I'm bigoted. I think there is a great deal of modern bigotry against the idea that people in the Middle Ages were as intelligent, and thought as well as anyone today, for example.
But on the things we have argued over most - abortion, homosexual relations, and yes, meaning, yes, I have seriously conceived and considered the alternatives. I tried for a number of years to actively practice tolerance toward homosexuality, for example, when my best friend "came out" to me. I myself considered the possibility of abortion and held the other view at one time in my life (thank GOD we didn't go through with it), and I spent twenty years living myself "in the now". I have not only experienced them, I have also seriously considered them intellectually. Since I hold that "being gay" is not a normal state to be approved of, but a desire that one suffers from, I am not bigoted against gays any more than you are against drug addicts. Since I hold that a conceived human being is already human, and need not wait for your personal approval on whether they are human or not, then the killing IS murder of a helpless human being (at whatever stage of development), I am not 'bigoted" against abortion. And so on. I hold a stance that is intellectually defensible, and reasonable. "Bigotry" and "prejudice" are out the window and invalid as charges against my stand in any objective context. You can still insist I am wrong, but not on the basis of a lack of thought. If a person really HAS familiarized themselves with Church history, for example, I could similarly not call them bigoted, even if I didn't like their conclusion that Christianity is NOT true, or that the Orthodox Church is NOT the Church established by Christ. But if they haven't - if they have learned nothing, and applied no particular thought, then I could. I can say "wrong!" but I can't say "bigoted" or "prejudiced" against someone who really knows about John Chrysostom, the Seven Councils, the causes of the Great Schism, etc.

I think Batman said There's a difference between twenty years of experience, and one year of experience twenty times. And there's a difference between trying to be something, and being something. You "tried" to practice tolerance toward homosexuality; accept abortion; and live "in the now", but you could not. And it's not a problem to try something, find it doesn't work for you, and say it's wrong. It is a problem to then claim to know that thing better than those for whom it does work. It's impossible for me to argue that I know something that feels wrong to me, which I must abandon, nearly as well as someone for whom it does work. That person can experience it in ways that are not visible from the outside. If I can't accept Stage 1, and move to the next step, I can hardly claim to understand Step 4 as well as that other person.

But, of course, that's merely arrogant and annoying, brought on by the ignorance of what happens to/within those for whom Stage 1 does work, and who move on to the next step. What's much worse is being actively and intentionally dishonest.

There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic. ~Anaïs Nin

Fire Daughter wrote:There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic. ~Anaïs Nin

Hi, FD!
Hopefully I can get across that I do not think that I know everything, or that ALL the truth has been revealed to me - or even huge amounts. So I agree completely regarding individual learning. But that important truths can be revealed - even critical truths, necessary for the attainment of both wisdom and eternity - and can be discovered by the least of God's human creatures - I do not doubt. St Kseniya (Xenia) of Petersburg is one of hundreds of great examples of this:
www.stxenia.org/stxenia.html
(There's a wikipedia entry, but it is so devoid of detail that it's not worth it)

Fist and Faith wrote:I think Batman said There's a difference between twenty years of experience, and one year of experience twenty times. And there's a difference between trying to be something, and being something. You "tried" to practice tolerance toward homosexuality; accept abortion; and live "in the now", but you could not. And it's not a problem to try something, find it doesn't work for you, and say it's wrong. It is a problem to then claim to know that thing better than those for whom it does work. It's impossible for me to argue that I know something that feels wrong to me, which I must abandon, nearly as well as someone for whom it does work. That person can experience it in ways that are not visible from the outside. If I can't accept Stage 1, and move to the next step, I can hardly claim to understand Step 4 as well as that other person.

But, of course, that's merely arrogant and annoying, brought on by the ignorance of what happens to/within those for whom Stage 1 does work, and who move on to the next step. What's much worse is being actively and intentionally dishonest.

It always seems like something can be said, even when it seems that it is useless to say anything. If everything is arrogance and annoyance, it is indeed useless. I should just be quiet and humbly acknowledge myself to be in the wrong...

It ought to be obvious that you speak of things "working for people" I speak in terms of what IS, regardless of what people enjoy, or like, or pleases them.

Therefore it is inevitable that you should not like what I have to say, for it can not "work" for you. It hardly "works" for me. One of the greatest truths it reveals is the one that I am not what I ought to be. That cannot be something that "works" for people. One cannot be satisfied specifically by being dissatisfied with oneself. And I am not satisfied with that. It works very badly, using your language. But I see it to be true, and true for everybody, not just me.

Anyway, since the paradigm of ideas "working for people" is irrelevant to me, it is useless to complain of my not applying that principle. It seems to me that it ought to be possible to communicate that, at least.

So, the only accpetable options then are suicide, social/psychological reprogramming to conform to the Christian norm, or perhaps exorcism? Awesomely bleak Truth, that.

I am [mostly] kidding, btw.

dw

Avatar wrote:

Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.

This is interesting...do you seriously conceive the alternative to your own proposition?

--A

Shock horror - I'm about to agree with Rus (well, sort of).

The word "conceive" is odd - if it's intended to mean "consider", then the quotation makes some sort of sense - though it's somewhat stating the obvious.

Presuming this to be true, let's go for a reduction ad absurdum. Let's say someone is trying to convince me of their belief that having sex with children is healthy, moral and generally a wonderful thing. It's faintly possible that, just before calling the authorities or smacking the guy in the mouth or both, I *might* consider what he has to say for a millisecond, if only to be better able to tear his views to pieces.

Having done so, I would be every bit as opposed to his views as I was in the first place - I'd have considered them as best I was able (which would no doubt be pretty much not at all, so I hardly could have been said to consider them "seriously"). But from that point on, having considered them, my stance of utter rejection of them would be every bit as ongoing, and there'd be precisely nothing wrong with that.

If however "conceive" means "come up with by oneself", then the quotation is complete and utter nonsense. I am never going to be able to come up with/create/formulate ANY alternative - let alone a "serious" one - to my unshakeable view that child abuse is utterly immoral and completely intolerable. If that makes me bigoted against the quoter's definition as apparently expounded, then so be it.

Easy when dealing with moral absolutes, much more tricky when dealing with matters of faith, where serious alternatives are far simpler to conceive in any sense of the word (and in my book, impossible to invalidate)... but that's back to the original ball of wax.

*** Added edit ***

My agreeing with Rus didn't last long enough to be seen as a trend...

rusmeister wrote:It ought to be obvious that you speak of things "working for people" I speak in terms of what IS, regardless of what people enjoy, or like, or pleases them.

The very fact that it's you, the individual, speaking, means that all you can really say is "I speak in terms of what I believe to be" - nobody can realistically award themselves the right to a capitalised "IS". Back to self-appointed spokesperson for the universe again...

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:So, the only accpetable options then are suicide, social/psychological reprogramming to conform to the Christian norm, or perhaps exorcism? Awesomely bleak Truth, that.

I am [mostly] kidding, btw.

dw

Humor - ar-ar! A difficult concept!

Seriously, an eternity where all lies are ended, merry meetings are frequent, all tears, sighing and sorrow are swept away and the voice of those feasting is unceasing does sound awesomely bleak, I suppose.

TheFallen wrote:

Avatar wrote:

Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.

This is interesting...do you seriously conceive the alternative to your own proposition?

--A

Shock horror - I'm about to agree with Rus (well, sort of).

The word "conceive" is odd - if it's intended to mean "consider", then the quotation makes some sort of sense - though it's somewhat stating the obvious.

Presuming this to be true, let's go for a reduction ad absurdum. Let's say someone is trying to convince me of their belief that having sex with children is healthy, moral and generally a wonderful thing. It's faintly possible that, just before calling the authorities or smacking the guy in the mouth or both, I *might* consider what he has to say for a millisecond, if only to be better able to tear his views to pieces.

Having done so, I would be every bit as opposed to his views as I was in the first place - I'd have considered them as best I was able (which would no doubt be pretty much not at all, so I hardly could have been said to consider them "seriously"). But from that point on, having considered them, my stance of utter rejection of them would be every bit as ongoing, and there'd be precisely nothing wrong with that.

If however "conceive" means "come up with by oneself", then the quotation is complete and utter nonsense. I am never going to be able to come up with/create/formulate ANY alternative - let alone a "serious" one - to my unshakeable view that child abuse is utterly immoral and completely intolerable. If that makes me bigoted against the quoter's definition as apparently expounded, then so be it.

Easy when dealing with moral absolutes, much more tricky when dealing with matters of faith, where serious alternatives are far simpler to conceive in any sense of the word (and in my book, impossible to invalidate)... but that's back to the original ball of wax.

Well, look at it this way - maybe we're not quite the poles apart that first impressions make...

TheFallen wrote:Easy when dealing with moral absolutes, much more tricky when dealing with matters of faith, where serious alternatives are far simpler to conceive in any sense of the word (and in my book, impossible to invalidate)... but that's back to the original ball of wax

Easy only when we can agree as to what *all* the 'moral absolutes' are. Child abuse, as horrific a thing as it is, can be lawyered into corners with spongey borders, as to what is and what isn't. Child-buggery is pretty universally considered wrong, but spanking creates a fair bit of controversy. As soon as you take the discussion into the realm of actions between consenting adults, suddenly you have a much larger and theoretical rights versus morals controversy, because some people fall squarely into "harm none, do what ye will", while others are "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm [my definition of] your soul", and the rest of us fall somewhere in between. Gray gray gray areas where we disagree on what is moral v. immoral, right v. wrong, and should be allowed but discouraged. To the absolutist, however, it has never wavered from black v. white. There is only God-ly and un-God-ly. The one benefit of that perspective is that you are not required to figure everything out for yourself, since you have millennia of tradition to tell you exactly what is Right and everything else that isn't. Doesn't make it an easy life to live, just makes it clearer to measure which path you are (or are not) on.

There are some who might try to convince you that you cannot be both miserable and Godly, or that if you are, then you must not be doing it right. It's not that I require there to be justice in the world, it's that I don't believe in self-appointed torture for the sake of something whose value/existence I seriously question at this point in my life. I see lots of people on a lifelong treadmill of sin and redemption, and I can admire anyone who obviously strives to improve the quality of their character. The problem I see is perhaps they are using the wrong ruler to measure their success by -- reminds me of 'The Necklace'. All that suffering and strife, and for what again? Put yourself through hell on earth, and *any* afterlife might seem like Heaven in comparison.

dw

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:

TheFallen wrote:Easy when dealing with moral absolutes, much more tricky when dealing with matters of faith, where serious alternatives are far simpler to conceive in any sense of the word (and in my book, impossible to invalidate)... but that's back to the original ball of wax

Easy only when we can agree as to what *all* the 'moral absolutes' are. Child abuse, as horrific a thing as it is, can be lawyered into corners with spongey borders, as to what is and what isn't. Child-buggery is pretty universally considered wrong, but spanking creates a fair bit of controversy. As soon as you take the discussion into the realm of actions between consenting adults, suddenly you have a much larger and theoretical rights versus morals controversy, because some people fall squarely into "harm none, do what ye will", while others are "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm [my definition of] your soul", and the rest of us fall somewhere in between. Gray gray gray areas where we disagree on what is moral v. immoral, right v. wrong, and should be allowed but discouraged. To the absolutist, however, it has never wavered from black v. white. There is only God-ly and un-God-ly. The one benefit of that perspective is that you are not required to figure everything out for yourself, since you have millennia of tradition to tell you exactly what is Right and everything else that isn't. Doesn't make it an easy life to live, just makes it clearer to measure which path you are (or are not) on.

There are some who might try to convince you that you cannot be both miserable and Godly, or that if you are, then you must not be doing it right. It's not that I require there to be justice in the world, it's that I don't believe in self-appointed torture for the sake of something whose value/existence I seriously question at this point in my life. I see lots of people on a lifelong treadmill of sin and redemption, and I can admire anyone who obviously strives to improve the quality of their character. The problem I see is perhaps they are using the wrong ruler to measure their success by -- reminds me of 'The Necklace'. All that suffering and strife, and for what again? Put yourself through hell on earth, and *any* afterlife might seem like Heaven in comparison.

dw

I see nothing to disagree with here.

I think the main thing I would ask is whether traditional Christian understandings (the ones I'm interested in defending) are 'self-appointed torture' (ie - asking exactly what that is). That people discover negative things in themselves - the main thing that many do not like about T.C. - and that they are not already in an ideal state, that is hardly self-appointed torture, but facing a harsh truth about oneself when we would like to see ourselves, if not as angels, at least as "good enough".

But aside from that I agree with the sentiments, and they are a main basis I would use myself to attack Puritanism, were that a serious tendency of members on this site (but as we probably all agree that Puritanism sucks, why bother?). I like my pipe, my glass of wine or mug of beer, good company and laughs galore. I'm not interested in self-torture. I'm actually normal in that regard.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:I think Batman said There's a difference between twenty years of experience, and one year of experience twenty times. And there's a difference between trying to be something, and being something. You "tried" to practice tolerance toward homosexuality; accept abortion; and live "in the now", but you could not. And it's not a problem to try something, find it doesn't work for you, and say it's wrong. It is a problem to then claim to know that thing better than those for whom it does work. It's impossible for me to argue that I know something that feels wrong to me, which I must abandon, nearly as well as someone for whom it does work. That person can experience it in ways that are not visible from the outside. If I can't accept Stage 1, and move to the next step, I can hardly claim to understand Step 4 as well as that other person.

But, of course, that's merely arrogant and annoying, brought on by the ignorance of what happens to/within those for whom Stage 1 does work, and who move on to the next step. What's much worse is being actively and intentionally dishonest.

It always seems like something can be said, even when it seems that it is useless to say anything. If everything is arrogance and annoyance, it is indeed useless. I should just be quiet and humbly acknowledge myself to be in the wrong...

It ought to be obvious that you speak of things "working for people" I speak in terms of what IS, regardless of what people enjoy, or like, or pleases them.

Therefore it is inevitable that you should not like what I have to say, for it can not "work" for you. It hardly "works" for me. One of the greatest truths it reveals is the one that I am not what I ought to be. That cannot be something that "works" for people. One cannot be satisfied specifically by being dissatisfied with oneself. And I am not satisfied with that. It works very badly, using your language. But I see it to be true, and true for everybody, not just me.

Anyway, since the paradigm of ideas "working for people" is irrelevant to me, it is useless to complain of my not applying that principle. It seems to me that it ought to be possible to communicate that, at least.

It doesn't matter if you call it "what IS" or saying it "works for me." How did you know homosexuality, abortion, and meaninglessness were not "what IS" when you were trying to accept them? How do you distinguish your method of knowing that they are not "what IS" from "it didn't work for you"? From "it felt wrong, no matter how much I tried to make it feel right"?


Anyway, I'm extremely serious about your dishonest approach to all of this. You simply will not accept that someone CAN have an opposing view.
-When we will not embrace Orthodoxy, it's not because we disagree with it. Nor because we (I) don't believe it's true. We reject it because if would require major changes to nearly all aspects of our lives, and we don't want to put in the effort.
-When we will not immerse ourselves in Chesterton, it's not because we disagree with him. It's because we know he's right, and we don't want to admit it, so we refuse to read him.

It is entirely possible for people to disagree with your view. To not believe it is good. To not believe it is even accurate. To see a different picture when looking at the uncountable pieces or reality. Dismissing so many people here (all of whom have different, even very different, worldviews) - ignoring the overwhelming number of voices telling you things do not appear to all as they appear to you - and claim that we all say what we say for reasons of laziness and stubbornness reveals that you have a very dishonest worldview.

This is what enables you to dismiss the possibility that transient meaning can play the role in someone's life that transcendent meaning plays in yours. You need not even accept that such a thing can be, much less attempt to understand it. It's much easier to dismiss all opposition as impossible, and ignore what is said. We think the religious system you believe in has flaws. We don't think it's real. We don't think Chesterton was right all that often. Meaning that lasts only while alive - meaning of the moment - is sufficient.

rusmeister wrote:I think the main thing I would ask is whether traditional Christian understandings (the ones I'm interested in defending) are 'self-appointed torture' (ie - asking exactly what that is). That people discover negative things in themselves - the main thing that many do not like about T.C. - and that they are not already in an ideal state, that is hardly self-appointed torture, but facing a harsh truth about oneself when we would like to see ourselves, if not as angels, at least as "good enough".

I am far from an ideal state, by any measure, including my own. There are many areas of my character that can be improved to varying degrees, from minor to drastic. Even with that, I simply don't think my basic morality (meaning, the mores, taboos, and internal laws I consider to be basic right and wrong, many of which we have in common) numbers among my list of flaws. I think my moral compass is fine, even though it surely differs in measurable ways from yours. That we each struggle to follow our own compasses does not imply that we are traveling in the same directions, however, or navigating to the same destinations, if any, or are motivated by the same drives.

rusmeister wrote:But aside from that I agree with the sentiments, and they are a main basis I would use myself to attack Puritanism, were that a serious tendency of members on this site (but as we probably all agree that Puritanism sucks, why bother?). I like my pipe, my glass of wine or mug of beer, good company and laughs galore. I'm not interested in self-torture. I'm actually normal in that regard.

Puritanism doth suck. They even managed to take the 'fun' out of 'fundie', leaving only 'die'.

Extremely well said, DW. (The fundie thing's a riot. )

Personally, I'm the most arrogant, stubborn person I know. At least two wives will back me up on that. It's just how I am. I'm not too concerned about the stubbornness. Since I'm always right, there's no point in giving in, eh? The arrogance has given me problems quite often. It's just so automatic, I don't even realize I'm doing it sometimes until someone say, "You know, that wasn't necessary." And I'm like, "Oops. Yup. Sorry."