Kevin's Watch

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:

rusmeister wrote:If sin is a disease rather than arbitrary law, then the attitude becomes more important than the actions -

But if you have accepted the Authority of your church, whichever one it may be, then you likely don't consider the law to be arbitrary, right? I don't understand why the distinction between disease and transgression is important. Wrong is wrong, no matter the degree. Call it breaking a rule, or knowingly corrupting onesself, so what? And attitude versus action... murder is murder - no matter whether it is undertaken with a sense of dark purpose, or with one of casual disregard.
And if both a juridical religion as well as a 'sin as disease-state' religion agree that something is'bad', then there is effectively no difference whatsoever, unless it is one of degrees.

dw

But you have not explained WHY murder is bad. The tautology does not explain the problem (except to people to whom it does not need explanation). Murder is a primary violation of communion, both with others and with God. The murderer takes on the role of God and does so via the passions. He says "YOU are not God - I am God!" as he lawlessly takes someone's life. He has made himself the law on his own authority.

SoulBiter wrote:Maybe the concept of Hell is not really a burning lake of fire where there will burning and gnashing of teeth?

Maybe its a translation problem.

Example: In the New Testament Bible Jesus says: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother...he cannot be my disciple.

However I beleive that he was not literally saying to hate your mother and father but that your Love for him must be so great that the love you have for your mother and father is as 'hate' when compared.

So perhaps Hell is being defined as a full separation from God rather than a place. And being totally separated from God is so bad that the only way the writers could describe it was to describe a place of fire and pain.

Just a thought.

I'd think that you would read Lewis's "The Problem of Pain", which I found most helpful. He'll is described under symbols, including the symbol of fire. These symbols are as close as we can get in our understandings. The problem in our time is when otherwise intelligent people insist that everything in Scripture (leaving out the rest of the Tradition that produced the Scriptures, of course) be taken literally - and so miss that it could be a ten-dimensional experience that us 3-D folk just couldn't otherwise grok.

So I think that there could be, in a definite and true sense, fire - or at the very least that fire is the closest thing in our experience to it.

Having received an administrative warning...

If my thoughts are to be muzzled by the rules, which favor a worldview hostile to my own, then the playing field is unequal - the only truly equal playing field is where either side could actually lose - be proven wrong, and there are too many opportunities within the existing rules to turn anything I say into something that violates them. I look at the constant miscastings of what I say (I'd rather not reference individual posts and single people out) and see little hope of being understood. As things stand it seems more likely that you will be left with with no bridges to understanding of traditional Christianity (or arguably Islam and maybe even Orthodox Judaism as well, though I won't insist, especially on the last) - and hold an expectation that modern Christianity toe the pluralistic line - something that it cannot do, though it be open to dialog.

I realize some ascribe this to my personal behavior; I say that is not true, and that if people choose to take my assault on ideas as personal insult, I cannot help that; that is their fault for confusing the two; not mine. I strive to insult no one, even though I believe that bad ideas can and should be taken apart. So no apologies to those who take offense at my deconstruction of their ideas, but every apology if and when I have ever (unintentionally) actually insulted someone's person. Nor will I debate that, or dwell on the seemingly inevitable ad hominem attacks, which are only a means of evading the ideas.

rusmeister wrote:

I've always been fighting at more than ten-to-one odds here - quite literally. I wonder how many of you would last even three months in St Justin's Orthodox debate forum at Christian forums www.christianforums.com/f827/ ?

Fist wrote:

Why on earth would I go there and tell them they're all wrong??? I can't imagine doing something so rude, arrogant, and unnecessary. If they come here and tell me I'm wrong, I'll give them the same I've given you.

Fist, when I bring up the just question of whether you could possibly grasp my position of posting on an essentially hostile forum, I get no effort to put yourself in my shoes and imagine, "What if I believed in one truth and objected to its being denied based on false representations and found myself on a forum where most people disagreed with me?" I get "Why should I empathize with your situation, anyway?", which is what the whole thing about confusing attacks on ideas with insults is all about. To an outside observer, you are deliberately refusing to try on my shoes for a minute and consider how difficult it could be. I, on the other hand, CAN grasp your position of the truth being a matter of personal need and an unwillingness therefore to challenge what you see as belief satisfying individual need, and seeing something denying that as rudeness and arrogance and unnecessary.

There are two positions one can take on beliefs - the modern pluralistic one that beliefs are purely personal and ultimately do not matter (although one philosophical belief will definitely dominate the public square no matter what you do), or the traditional one that there is one definite truth that may be known or not known, but that definitely matters and as a part of world view, cannot be excluded from public life. I am one of the few that stand for the latter. The battle is worth it, because it matters, very much - but it cannot matter to the pluralist by definition. For the pluralist, everything matters, except everything (the holistic view of the universe).

And so, because while you may deride him, he prophesied what is happening now and can be seen with the naked eye:

Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram:
"The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more
and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's
opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters;
his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and
explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object,
the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost.
Everything matters--except everything.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heret12.txt

And with that, folks, I am going into shutdown mode. I wish you all the best. If there are any honest questions, I will be lurking, but for now, прощайте! (Russian: "farewell", the root being from the same word as "forgive") /pruh-SHIGH-tyeh/

You admit that anyone so much as talking about a view other than your own is considered an attack on your faith, and that you intend to always oppose all such discussions. That you do not see the problem with this kind of thing is unfortunate. Wanting a non-pluralist world does not justify not allowing other people to have conversations near you about things that do not agree with your faith. As surely as allowing same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between humans and animals, your attitude will soon find you accosting people in the street for wearing a Star of David, a burka, or a Buddhist robe. You will be storming into protestant churches, telling them the true meaning of sin, as defined by Chesterton and Tradition.

Hey rus,

You know I've taken a few breaks from the Watch for similar reasons... there are some good things that can go into taking a break, and some bad things. (I'm sure you can guess how some of my weaknesses have played into my need for breaks!)

I think the net result of my breaks was good for me, for the people of the Watch, and the rest of the people in my life. (though, of course, I can always be blind) Stepping back helped me to see some things more clearly. It's hard when we want to speak the truth as we see our allegiance to our God calling us to, and at the same time be understood as people.

I hope you can look at Av's words as the words of an "interpreter of culture" or a "bard of the Watch" - as much as the words of a friend as possible for someone who is in some ways in opposition to you. It's true that the culture of the Watch is not structured to suit Christians; it's catered to its member base. Btw, in the office of "representative of the Watch," I think Av is way wiser than as a philosophical-debater. (no offense, Av... but with posts like that one it's much more clear you're invested in what you're saying.)

Insofar as God lives in you, rusmeister, may it be that when you return, His work in you (as He is continually changing His people) will be more obvious.

Expect you yourself to be missed by many by the time you get back; even if your views are missed by fewer. (and some who don't want to hear what you have to say - at the same time - do want to. "Why do you kick against the goads?")

Fist and Faith wrote:You admit that anyone so much as talking about a view other than your own is considered an attack on your faith, and that you intend to always oppose all such discussions. That you do not see the problem with this kind of thing is unfortunate. Wanting a non-pluralist world does not justify not allowing other people to have conversations near you about things that do not agree with your faith. As surely as allowing same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between humans and animals, your attitude will soon find you accosting people in the street for wearing a Star of David, a burka, or a Buddhist robe. You will be storming into protestant churches, telling them the true meaning of sin, as defined by Chesterton and Tradition.

It's interesting you should reference traditional religions (and that two out of three should be "religions of the Book"). While I do think wrong ideas come from ideas that have gone wrong, I also find that those religions - or all of them that remain traditional - that really do remember and worship what their ancestors worshiped a thousand years ago - actually retain and teach more truth that I could agree with, and more common ground with my faith, than the essence of modern pluralism, so different from the climate of Jerusalem - they are the very ones that will never promote same-sex marriage and the other things I do warn against. And again, Christians and Jews that do promote those things are those that have left their own traditions, and do NOT remember or honor what their ancestors taught and worshiped. Historical tunnel vision, even regarding their own faith. Few views are more fundamentally illogical than those that proclaim that their faith teaches truth, and then that their faith got it wrong for x thousand years, but NOW they've got it right. Basically they have abandoned their faith to conform to the world.

So I would find more genuine fellowship with a Jew wearing a star of David and worshiping in the ancient Jewish manner, or with a Muslim similarly remembering and his ancestors' tradition than with people who basically hold that the truth is whatever I happen to see and approve of now - the Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and myself have something critical in common and a far better basis for understanding each other because we all agree that it matters very much what you believe, and that we as individuals cannot be the ultimate arbiters of that truth, that the input of all who came before us is incredibly valuable. We might require different states or nations to live in, but at least we could have diplomatic relations and live in peace with a good fence between us. But I could never know what the individual who is his own authority might appeal to, on what basis he might give his oath or agree to a treaty, whether he might break that oath or treaty at any time.

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself

Heb 6:13
And the modern individualist pluralist likewise can only swear by himself, for he does aim to be his own god.

It is a tangled web, but is especially tangled because in our time it appears that anyone can claim even those traditional labels and yet have less and less connection to what a person of the same label believed long ago - so that we no longer can say clearly what exactly a Christian, or a Jew, or whoever believes.

rusmeister wrote:Having received an administrative warning...

If my thoughts are to be muzzled by the rules, which favor a worldview hostile to my own, then the playing field is unequal - the only truly equal playing field is where either side could actually lose - be proven wrong, and there are too many opportunities within the existing rules to turn anything I say into something that violates them.

Your thoughts are no more muzzled by the rules than are those of anybody else. The rules do not dictate your thoughts, they guide your interaction with other members.

There are two positions one can take on beliefs - the modern pluralistic one that beliefs are purely personal and ultimately do not matter...or the traditional one that there is one definite truth that may be known or not known, but that definitely matters and as a part of world view, cannot be excluded from public life.

Of necessity, the rules must take the first position.

Linna wrote:It's true that the culture of the Watch is not structured to suit Christians; it's catered to its member base.

I hear that a lot. You would probably be surprised to learn that more people on the Watch identify themselves as Christians than any other religious (or irreligious) group. (Must be because of the Americans. ) (Syl, it's time for another poll probably...its been 3 years...)

Btw, in the office of "representative of the Watch," I think Av is way wiser than as a philosophical-debater. (no offense, Av... but with posts like that one it's much more clear you're invested in what you're saying.)

*shrug* It's probably true. I am far more invested in a Watch which is as enjoyable as possible for everybody than I am in some abstract philosophical concept. The happiness of the collective membership is both real and immediate.

As a firm subjectivist, quite happy with the idea that in the greater scheme of things nothing matters, and that we all die anyway, those other issues are of passing interest, but scarcely worth getting worked up about.

However, when the actions of one member start to negatively impact the enjoyment and participation of other members, then we're obliged to try and restore some measure of harmony.

Despite what Rus feels, it is not his views which are causing the problem. It's his insistence on turning every discussion into only a discussion of his views, which largely boils down to generalisations that everybody is wrong, probably because they're ignorant of what he believes is right.

I respect his conviction. I do not respect the way he communicates it. Or his insistence that only he (as proxy for his belief system) has the knowledge, experience and understanding to determine what other people think and feel. There are other ancillary issues, but I think that is the crux of it.

I'm pretty sure that Rus does not mean to come across this way. However, it's important to consider the perception of others as well as your own intentions. The two are not necessarily the same.

Never think that this type of warning is given lightly. We make a point of interfering as little as possible. As intelligent human beings, Watchers are usually fully capable of moderating themselves, and most of the time, they do. It takes exceptional circumstances, or the culmination of a long-standing issue, to involve us in our official capacity.

And finally, I hope you realise that this has nothing to do with Christianity or any "attitude" toward Christianity on the Watch. I've met more Christians here that I admired, liked and / or respected than in any other place. Some of them have moderated this very forum. From Iryssa and Baradakas to Xar and the inestimable Furls Fire, we have had / do have many members who exemplified all the best aspects of Christianity.

You might notice, for example, that the Close is always moderated by one Christian and one atheist. That's not an accident. (Some years we added an agnostic into the mix as well.)

The point of the Watch is to be as many things as possible to as many people. If people's experience is becoming negative, we need to address that wherever possible.

--A

Thanks, Av,
I appreciate most of what you say.
(If you ever check, you might find that I do thank posts that I disagree with, if I find that they are intelligently expressed and address what I'm addressing, particularly if they engaged something I'm asking be engaged.)

I'd suggest a poll among self-identified Christians at some point to ask to what extent do they feel they believe what early Christians believed, and if they deny teachings that Christians of the past came to a broad consensus about.

I simply don't think that self-identification, by itself, equals adherence to an identifiable and definable thing, one that we could all say, "Yeah, I understand what this is, or is supposed to be". You ought to admit that if we find people claiming to be Christians (such as myself, or anyone else) denying such core teachings that everybody recognizes this is what that faith has always claimed (such as that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and has existed eternally before all ages as part of a Trinity) then, while they may self-identify how they wish, we would no longer understand what it is that they actually believe. It'd be like a Buddhist advocating Jihad. One might call oneself a Buddhist, but if they advocate Jihad I might reasonably question their self-identification. And then people were shocked when I pointed out that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches say you have to accept the authority of the those Churches in order to even be received into them.

That might be difficult for a pluralist to grasp, when one of their first principles is that anybody can believe whatever they want, but as I said before, we could hardly understand or accept a self-proclaimed abolitionist supporting the Fugitive Slave Act. We'd have to ask if that person is really an abolitionist, and we'd be reasonable to do so.

I'm just saying that self-identification on its own cannot be a defining principle by which we understand what a person believes, so using that to say "We have Christian support for x, y or z" doesn't really tell us anything. There has to be some kind of agreed-upon understanding. Within Christianity, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed has always been a benchmark (and perhaps not the only, but certainly the most important one) for identification as a Christian, just as the acceptance of the authority of the Catholic Church is a necessary benchmark for identification as a Catholic.

That, and the fact that the rules do favor the pluralist, and so naturally work against traditional and ancient ideas about dogma, reason and truth, are a couple of thoughts I offer for your consideration. As long as that's acknowledged, I can acknowledge that the rules do work to try to be as many things to as many people as possible, and that I do appreciate the overall courtesy that has been extended to me here.

You are free to start your own polls, rus. I imagine you'd have to have quite a few, though. One for each of the things early Christians believed - in order to learn what you want?

A different idea would be to start a thread describing what early Christians believed.

Avatar wrote:

Linna wrote:It's true that the culture of the Watch is not structured to suit Christians; it's catered to its member base.

I hear that a lot. You would probably be surprised to learn that more people on the Watch identify themselves as Christians than any other religious (or irreligious) group. (Must be because of the Americans. ) (Syl, it's time for another poll probably...its been 3 years...)

Yes. More people here are closer to rus' religious beliefs than they are to mine. More here believe in God, Jesus, the Trinity, etc, than don't. And nobody of any beliefs is the slightest, tiniest bit upset that he believes what he believes. However, more people agree with me that people who do not believe those things should be allowed to have conversations about their beliefs without being molested. That is the behavior that rus is getting such flak for. (And he just ignored that point in his response to me three posts above.) None of us are challenging the "Kabbalah Thoughts" or "This I believe..." threads. Let people talk about what they believe.

rusmeister wrote:

Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram:
"The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more
and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's
opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters;
his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and
explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object,
the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost.
Everything matters--except everything.

What needs restatement here? In short, it says that we are to focus on all the myriad details of life and to leave out the thing that puts them into a single whole picture - a world view, a life philosophy, a religion.
Behold, it is restated! I can do it. Why can't you? (Beyond saying that "It's bad") This directly addresses false ideas like "keep the religion out of politics", and can be re-expressed as the treatment of the whole as merely one of the myriad parts.

An odd place to reprimand people about this "problem". At what point did we say worldviews are not to be discussed here, in the Close?? That's sorta the purpose of the Close. Who says it is not?

Fist and Faith wrote: there's a bit of writing from 5,000 years ago. Accepted knowledge and carbon dating agree on the date. It says:

John was angry at the person in the house next door, and threw a rock at the window, breaking it.

Now, how clear is that? My "spin" on it is that John broke the window next door because he was angry at the person there. Is that too much of a stretch, or can we agree on that "interpretation"? If we can, let's move on.

Another scrap of writing is from 3,000 years ago. It says:

Long ago, there was a man who enjoyed going into other people's houses, and killing them in front of their windows, daring anyone to stop him.

You are SO wrong, it's not even funny. First off, there were no windows 5,000 years ago. It was the beginning of the bronze age, and I think pottery was first made at about this time. Now, you wersterners tend to forget this shit, because to you guys, nothing that happened before 1776 was of any import. But for our friend John of 30th century B.C., this was a major deal. We can see from historical data that John was amongst the first people to have a house built out of bronze, and a bed made out of pottery. Not to mention how happy he was to see the neolithic period end, whatever the hell that was. Now, I'm sure none of this makes much sense to you guys, being uneducated heathens and all. Well, I'd like to explain it to you, but I feel the early 20th century writings of T.S. Geisel say it so much more eloquently and succinctly that I ever could:

I do not like green eggs and ham; I do not like them, Sam I am.

As you can see here, John's neighbor Sam refused to break fast with him one morning, which upset John. John then took a common rock, and threw it at Sam's door (there were no windows back then, remember?), and it shattered against the door, because the door was made of bronze. So your theory that the window broke is completely untrue.

Later, John came to the conclusion that Sam's house was some form of life with strange and unimaginable powers. He set out to kill it, and any other house that appeared to be like it. John was not quite sane, unfortunately. He ran around the town, wildly swinging his medeival version of a sledgehammer around, weeping and swinging away, all the time begging his neigbors to stop him. Fortunately a meteor slammed into him, killing him instantly.

And that's how man invented popcorn.

rusmeister wrote:And with that, folks, I am going into shutdown mode. I wish you all the best. If there are any honest questions, I will be lurking...

I think this is a good way to do it. But then why do you still respond to people's goading?

Weeze's comment referencing Matthew 7:6 on another thread brought up a really useful point:
When we put so much of our ideas out there to a hostile audience, we will often feel like someone else has ignorantly trampled something precious.
When we put in time effort to lay our deepest convictions on the table, we're putting ourselves out there in a vulnerable way: others DO have the opportunity to "turn and attack" us personally in a way they wouldn't otherwise.

That said, I know there are Christian reasons to "break the social rules" some of the time, and also to take the risk of being hurt some of the time.

(btw, feel free to not respond to this one if your break has truly commenced!)

There's a very big difference between being hostile toward rus, and refusing to believe what he believes.

There's also a big difference between going to a park and joining a kickball game, and telling the other players that they are not playing by the right rules every time there's a play. If you want to play by your rules, you need to get a game going on a playground that only allows those rules.

Fist and Faith wrote:There's also a big difference between going to a park and joining a kickball game, and telling the other players that they are not playing by the right rules every time there's a play. If you want to play by your rules, you need to get a game going on a playground that only allows those rules.

This is exactly what got me going, Linna. Syl quoted the forum's rules to rus, which are here *not* to exclude any religions, but to keep the discussion civil -- so that everybody has a chance to be heard. I'm a big believer in the philosophy espoused by Milton in "Areopagitica": in the marketplace of ideas, the good ones will rise to the top and the bad ones will fall by the wayside. But for that to work, *all* ideas have to be heard. One person cannot be allowed to monopolize the conversation. But rus *has* monopollized the conversation. Over the past several months (years?), every topic -- with the exception of perhaps two or three -- has turned into a debate over Orthodoxy.

The rules are also in place to keep the discussion civil so that people's feelings aren't hurt. Rus is the first person to point a finger at someone whose views he believes are wrong. (And rus believes *everybody's* beliefs are wrong unless they're conservative Orthodox beliefs like his.) Unfairly or not, most people identify pretty closely with their religious beliefs; telling someone his beliefs are wrong is tantamount to an insult. That's why people keep attacking rus. He puts them on the defensive. But when other Watchers complain, he doesn't apologize; instead, he tries to justify his behavior. It's not until he's shamed, as he was when he criticized Furls' beliefs as she was dying, that he says he's sorry.

And as Av said above, the rules are there because the Watch is a place where people come to have fun. It's not fun if one person is always monopolizing the conversation and (inadvertently or not) insulting everyone he comes in contact with.

But what really got me was rus's reaction to Syl. Rus *argued* with him, because the rules weren't fair to *rus*. That told me that rus had no intention of following the rules -- that he felt himself *above* the rules, because, as he has told us over and over, Orthodoxy is The Truth.

That's why he got the warning. Not because he's Christian; not because he's Orthodox; but because he's not any more or less special than anybody else who posts on the Watch.

aliantha wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:There's also a big difference between going to a park and joining a kickball game, and telling the other players that they are not playing by the right rules every time there's a play. If you want to play by your rules, you need to get a game going on a playground that only allows those rules.

This is exactly what got me going, Linna. Syl quoted the forum's rules to rus, which are here *not* to exclude any religions, but to keep the discussion civil -- so that everybody has a chance to be heard. I'm a big believer in the philosophy espoused by Milton in "Areopagitica": in the marketplace of ideas, the good ones will rise to the top and the bad ones will fall by the wayside. But for that to work, *all* ideas have to be heard. One person cannot be allowed to monopolize the conversation. But rus *has* monopollized the conversation. Over the past several months (years?), every topic -- with the exception of perhaps two or three -- has turned into a debate over Orthodoxy.

The rules are also in place to keep the discussion civil so that people's feelings aren't hurt. Rus is the first person to point a finger at someone whose views he believes are wrong. (And rus believes *everybody's* beliefs are wrong unless they're conservative Orthodox beliefs like his.) Unfairly or not, most people identify pretty closely with their religious beliefs; telling someone his beliefs are wrong is tantamount to an insult. That's why people keep attacking rus. He puts them on the defensive. But when other Watchers complain, he doesn't apologize; instead, he tries to justify his behavior. It's not until he's shamed, as he was when he criticized Furls' beliefs as she was dying, that he says he's sorry.

And as Av said above, the rules are there because the Watch is a place where people come to have fun. It's not fun if one person is always monopolizing the conversation and (inadvertently or not) insulting everyone he comes in contact with.

But what really got me was rus's reaction to Syl. Rus *argued* with him, because the rules weren't fair to *rus*. That told me that rus had no intention of following the rules -- that he felt himself *above* the rules, because, as he has told us over and over, Orthodoxy is The Truth.

That's why he got the warning. Not because he's Christian; not because he's Orthodox; but because he's not any more or less special than anybody else who posts on the Watch.

Ah, Ali,
I would rather write nothing now. I doubt there's anything I could say that you could hear.
What have I ever been sorry for? For personal insult. That you equate the challenging of religious belief with personal insult I can't help, and cannot apologize for. If something is true, it is true. I could say I'm sorry it's true, and there are some things that I could wish weren't true.

But you really shouldn't have mentioned Furl's. I am sorry - sorry for any time I actually insulted a person, I am sorry that I am not Tracie's match in charity, I am sorry for misunderstandings contributed to by my lack of ability or carelessness. But I am not sorry that I have tried to speak the truth - for that there will be no apology forthcoming. Her beliefs were her beliefs - I do not think them to be completely correct - but in certain ways that is not so important, for she had a huge thing right. I don't even think you could fully understand my interchanges with her - if you are on the outside of that faith, some things are likely to remain unclear, which are not unclear from the inside.

I do always ask for forgiveness for any personal insult, for I am committed to not doing that. But that does not extend to your equation of one's beliefs to insult, for it is not. Show me where I have personally insulted (other than suggesting that such-and-such an idea is wrong) and I will humbly beg you for that forgiveness.

For the rest, I'll refer to the book of Acts, ch 5, esp vs 28-29.

rusmeister wrote:I do always ask for forgiveness for any personal insult, for I am committed to not doing that. But that does not extend to your equation of one's beliefs to insult, for it is not.

<sigh>

I truly wish I could explain this in a way you could grok. I keep trying, and I keep missing the mark. But probably fruitlessly, I'm gonna give it one more go:

People are their beliefs.

When you tell someone his religious beliefs are wrong, you are attacking the person. Not his beliefs -- *him*. You are telling him that *he* is wrong, that *he* is defective.

I understand that you don't get this, but trust me when I say it's true. And it's at the root of a large part of the problems you've had here.

aliantha wrote: It's not until he's shamed, as he was when he criticized Furls' beliefs as she was dying, that he says he's sorry.

Are you kidding me? Why has he not been banned?

rusmeister wrote:But you really shouldn't have mentioned Furl's.

Why? Because it shows us who you are? You would not believe how many times I've come to your defense, because, while I don't like your style, I believe in your cause. But this, this is indefensible.

dANdeLION wrote:

aliantha wrote: It's not until he's shamed, as he was when he criticized Furls' beliefs as she was dying, that he says he's sorry.

Are you kidding me? Why has he not been banned?

rusmeister wrote:But you really shouldn't have mentioned Furl's.

Why? Because it shows us who you are? You would not believe how many times I've come to your defense, because, while I don't like your style, I believe in your cause. But this, this is indefensible.

Exactly. Rus is a sanctimonious ass with no sensitivity towards others' feelings. I'm pretty sure that I can speak for the other religious folk that Rus has called "bad" at their respective religions, when I say that we're all big boys and girls who are secure enough in our faith not to be rattled by a fanatic spouting his dogma.

But the attacks on Tracie were inexcusable, and just downright inhumane. Were I still a mod, he would have been banned, no question about it.

Take a person's worldview away, rus, and what do you have? Anything? Anything you're interested in - as a friend; foe; person? We are not our arms, legs, hair, height, etc. As ali said, people are their beliefs. YOU and I agree that we shouldn't be separating our worldview from our politics. Why would either of us not want the government to operate by the principles that we believe to be Truth? We wouldn't. We shouldn't. Because our worldviews are the core of all aspects of our lives.

Yes?

Therefore, what are you insulting when you insult someone's worldview, you insult the person. Sheesh, people take insults to their favorite baseball team more seriously than you think we should take insults to our worldview! Those fans might be said to be taking things too far. (Particularly the Red Sox fans.) But when we're talking about worldviews?


But, that's not actually my problem with you. It's this:

rusmeister wrote:Fist, when I bring up the just question of whether you could possibly grasp my position of posting on an essentially hostile forum, I get no effort to put yourself in my shoes and imagine, "What if I believed in one truth and objected to its being denied based on false representations and found myself on a forum where most people disagreed with me?" I get "Why should I empathize with your situation, anyway?"...

The Close is not a forum that is essentially hostile to your beliefs. I am not hostile to your beliefs. Tracie's were as far from mine as yours, yet, despite never having actually met her, she is one of the most important, favorite people of my life. The point is that you have deliberately put yourself into the position of "fighting at more than ten-to-one odds." The overwhelming majority of people who post with any regularity in the Close are of a certain attitude. Despite very different ideas and beliefs, we are not in opposition to each other. You have chosen to be in opposition to all. You decided to tell all of us that we're wrong as often as you could. Even though all of us disagree on various ideas/beliefs/worldviews, we all agree that sharing our ideas is a good thing. You, otoh, say there must be a winner, and you're it.

Again, this is what you did in your very first post here:

rusmeister wrote: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!

The second sentence of your very first post is telling someone they are wrong.

And years later, the Depression thread illustrates perfectly that it remains your goal and method. You began (after one very brief comment) with this:

rusmeister wrote:One definite human tendency is to see oneself as exceptional. If we can classify ourselves as an exception to the general rule of humankind, we generally do so.

One can be deeply depressed, regularly and for long periods - and the nature of the 'illness' - if it be deemed such - may be spiritual rather than physical.

But this, I think is common, and not exceptional, and if an illness, then it is quite a common one, and one not effectively treated by physical medicines, but by a holistic approach that correctly understands the nature of the human spirit, which most views, if not all, cannot completely do if only by the evidence that they contradict each other. The only truly reliable treatment, then will be the one that actually does proceed from that complete and correct understanding.

Everybody else would have said something like this:

I believe we are of a certain nature, and I approach this issue with that nature as a starting point. If the problem is that, somehow, we are fighting our nature, the solution is to figure out in what way, and to find a way to stop. Whatever we're trying to accomplish with that action that opposes our nature, we need to try to accomplish in a different way. One that is in keeping with our nature.

But even if helping those who suffer from depression is an acceptable outcome for you, your first goal is to tell the other posters that they are wrong. No, I will not even try to put myself in your shoes. You brought it on yourself. I would not do so. I would not go to a site dedicated to people with a certain set of beliefs and attitudes, and provoke them. It would be stupid and rude. The Close may not be a place officially created for the mindset here, as christianforums.com, or any church, is. If it was, you wouldn't be able to express your beliefs here in any way, just as I can't go into a church and start giving them crap about the Fall, or Job, or the flood. But you know what it's like here. You know what to expect. And you choose to oppose the spirit of the Close, rather than present your beliefs in a way that is perfectly in keeping with the Close.

rusmeister wrote: Ah, Ali,
I would rather write nothing now.

Then don't. The fact that you ARE writing something now means you WANT it written down. If it didn't matter to you, there would be no need to respond.

What have I ever been sorry for? For personal insult. That you equate the challenging of religious belief with personal insult I can't help, and cannot apologize for.

Nothing wrong with this statement, so long as you take it in stride. For example, if you take personal insult because I challenge Orthodoxy, then I can not help you, nor will I apologize... and you shouldn't be surprised. Then you write the following:

If something is true, it is true. I could say I'm sorry it's true, and there are some things that I could wish weren't true.

Your religious beliefs do not equal truth. They are unverifiable. The fact that you are arrogant enough to presume that a small percentage of the world population in a small percentage of human history somehow stumbled upon this is really moronic. And that is an insult. More people in the entire history of the world believed in slavery and upheld it as a tradition, does that make slavery right? Of course not. So don't use the same damn argument and expect people to think you got a point. Nor does saying something is true make it so.

But you really shouldn't have mentioned Furl's. I am sorry - sorry for any time I actually insulted a person, I am sorry that I am not Tracie's match in charity, I am sorry for misunderstandings contributed to by my lack of ability or carelessness. But I am not sorry that I have tried to speak the truth - for that there will be no apology forthcoming. Her beliefs were her beliefs - I do not think them to be completely correct - but in certain ways that is not so important, for she had a huge thing right. I don't even think you could fully understand my interchanges with her - if you are on the outside of that faith, some things are likely to remain unclear, which are not unclear from the inside.

Now, here's something interesting: Furl's beliefs led her to do many wonderful acts of charity. Your beliefs lead you to posting Chesterton quotes on a Stephen R Donaldson site. And I'm suppose to take your claim to truth seriously?

For the rest, I'll refer to the book of Acts, ch 5, esp vs 28-29.

So.... God's telling you to post arrogant responses that It knows will not be accepted instead of telling you to do something better with your time?