|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Peak Langton
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Over in another thread, which was supposed to be about Islam but was just a cartwheeling discussion which arrived repeatedly back at Mr Langton's pet subjects, he just posted this:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.
The context, should you be bothered to read it, is here.
The tl;dr version is that Langton thinks Islam is wrong and therefore it is inconceivable that one could be a Muslim and not be violent. Because it is wrong. It is almost as unsubtle and circular as that.
Now, to be honest, I'm struggling to be angry with Steve Langton. He really really resembles me. When I was 12.
He has a simple solution and is looking for anywhere to apply it. He likes to bring it up in conversation. He likes to ask questions more than answer them. He can't deal with complexity.
Which is all fine-and-dandy, but aren't we all getting a bit old for this? Can't we have an intelligent conversation about Islam without it somehow always coming back to Constantianism, Anbaptists and, to put it bluntly, Steve Langton?
[ 23. September 2016, 17:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
And another thing you'll probably never hear again in Hell:
Steve, I'm sure you are a lovely bloke. I'm sure you are genuine and sincere and that you are doing your best.
But you just can't go around treating people like that, mate. You just can't turn around what someone has said and then say that they therefore are something they're not. Because that's just rude that is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And now you've been rude to Gamaliel as well. It's just not acceptable, however passionate you may feel.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Don't know about peak Langton, but Dead Horses has been consigned to a hell of logorrhoetic vacuity by an excess of Langton.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I liked the post where he objected to the Romano-British defending themselves from the Saxons because it might lead to the Saxons getting the wrong idea about Christianity. Personally, if I were a Romano-British warrior in the shield wall at Mount Badon, I might not regard that as top of my list of things I was worried about.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I liked the post where he objected to the Romano-British defending themselves from the Saxons because it might lead to the Saxons getting the wrong idea about Christianity. Personally, if I were a Romano-British warrior in the shield wall at Mount Badon, I might not regard that as top of my list of things I was worried about.
Like it - but
Of course the Romano British warrior wouldn't be all that worried about his Saxon opponent getting the wrong idea about Christianity - that's one of the ways the state church things works....
But I think the Saxon warriors might well have been registering that this was in effect a Christian Crusade against them. Badon in particular is recorded in one source in these terms;
quote:
a battle "...in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights upon his shoulders [or shield]..."
That's really going to endear Christianity to the Saxons who saw their colleagues killed in the battle, isn't it? And can I suggest that Jesus might have some awkward things to say to the Romano-British about exploiting/misrepresenting Him in a way extremely hard to justify from His recorded teaching, and the teaching for example of Paul about Christian warfare being 'not with physical weapons'...? This could all too easily have ended up with the Saxons developing the kind of attitude and bitter vengefulness we see in Islam against Christendom's later Crusaders....
As a 'kingdom of this world', of course "the Romano-British (would be) defending themselves from the Saxons" The objection is to Jesus being involved in that warfare by them.
I'm a bit disappointed in that one Callan, after I'd thought your contributions to the other thread were quite good.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
This
quote:
quote: Originally posted by Steve Langton: mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.
by me about mr cheesy, was of course somewhat 'tongue in cheek'. It was an alternative to subjecting the thread to yet more lengthy analysis of mr cheesy's illogicalities in his post. I hoped it might give him pause - clearly I was wrong. For now I've nothing more to say to him.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This
quote:
quote: Originally posted by Steve Langton: mr cheesy, the only thing left for you to do now is to announce later tonight your own conversion to the beauties of Islam.... You don't seem to have much interest in Christianity any more.
by me about mr cheesy, was of course somewhat 'tongue in cheek'. It was an alternative to subjecting the thread to yet more lengthy analysis of mr cheesy's illogicalities in his post. I hoped it might give him pause - clearly I was wrong. For now I've nothing more to say to him.
Roughly then, you're saying "I was talking bollocks and have nothing more to add".
Story of your life. Life aboard anyway. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And now you've been rude to Gamaliel as well. It's just not acceptable, however passionate you may feel.
I thought I was being rather moderate considering some of the stuff I'd had thrown at me.
In recent discussions I've repeatedly had that vague stuff thrown at me about there being 'other opinions'. Very often accompanied by an insinuation that I'm not even aware of the possibility of there being 'other opinions'.
Gamaliel's continuing it despite comments I'd made about that non-argument before was a bit 'last straw' - I know a lot of people who would have really 'gone postal' at it.
Guys, I am a hyperlexic Aspie who has been reading voraciously from age 3 - I'm very aware of the basic idea that there are 'other opinions' in the world. I've read enough to be nearly drowning in 'other opinions'.
And as I quoted Gamaliel himself pointing out, "They can't all be true" - so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock, to examine 'other opinions' and try and sort out the facts and what is at least likely to be true.
And I am open to persuasion; as you'll know from the thread I've bought for my Kindle and have been reading a book recommended by mr cheesy and I'm reporting that on the thread as I go - next instalment hopefully some time tomorrow...
Thus far I have found nothing to seriously counter the implications of the widely agreed very-much-not-just-my-personal-opinion historical fact of Muhammad founding a de facto 'Islamic state' first in Medina and then with the aid of a substantial de facto Islamic army expanding to conquer Mecca where he remained effectively king for the rest of his life and continued to order and lead military expeditions.
Is mr cheesy seriously denying that Muhammad did that? And if he's not denying it, how does he get round the implications?
Take your answer back to the main thread please mr cheesy, and without your own insults to me.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sioni Sais, don't tempt me! Do you really want the analysis of mr cheesy in depth?? Leaving here now for the main thread....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sioni Sais, don't tempt me! Do you really want the analysis of mr cheesy in depth?? Leaving here now for the main thread....
Or the one in DH. Or in The Styx. Or here. That's four threads to run your hobbyhorse in and do you ever resist an opportunity?
Believe me, it gets very tedious. Your talent for boring could sink this creaky old vessel.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Don't know about peak Langton, but Dead Horses has been consigned to a hell of logorrhoetic vacuity by an excess of Langton.
Logorrhoeic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And another thing you'll probably never hear again in Hell:
Steve, I'm sure you are a lovely bloke. I'm sure you are genuine and sincere and that you are doing your best.
But you just can't go around treating people like that, mate. You just can't turn around what someone has said and then say that they therefore are something they're not. Because that's just rude that is.
And the cheesemeister should know.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Steve--
Um, respectfully, does hyperlexic lead to hypergraphic (writing a lot)?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock,
Not sure Asperger's is what he was aiming for.
But logical does not mean correct. In this context, it is about how one reasons, given the information available. But a conclusion is worth no more than the information used to generate it.
In other words, you are starting from presuppositions that flaw your results.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Did he mean Aztec? Has his heart been yanked out?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Guys, I am a hyperlexic Aspie who has been reading voraciously from age 3 - I'm very aware of the basic idea that there are 'other opinions' in the world. I've read enough to be nearly drowning in 'other opinions'.
And as I quoted Gamaliel himself pointing out, "They can't all be true" - so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock, to examine 'other opinions' and try and sort out the facts and what is at least likely to be true.
What gets me is the way you simultaneously invoke your condition as grounds for special indulgence and suggest it makes you more likely to be right than lesser mortals.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Guys, I am a hyperlexic Aspie who has been reading voraciously from age 3 - I'm very aware of the basic idea that there are 'other opinions' in the world. I've read enough to be nearly drowning in 'other opinions'.
Steve, this really has nothing to do with it and I don't see how you could possibly think that it did.
You may indeed "know" on an intellectual level that other opinions exist, but you seem to fail at understanding that other people approach things from their perspective/understanding and not automatically from yours. Simply stating over and over again your opinion doesn't make it fact - and even if it is something that we share (for example that Jesus was God incarnate) does not mean that others are operating from that framework. Therefore it makes no sense to say that Muhammed wasn't a prophet following Jesus - when Muslims don't believe that traditions about Jesus that you and I accept.
That's a pretty basic flaw in your argument.
quote:
And as I quoted Gamaliel himself pointing out, "They can't all be true" - so I make serious efforts, and with a fair share of the Aspie logic that Gene Roddenberry didn't quite get right in his portrayal of Spock, to examine 'other opinions' and try and sort out the facts and what is at least likely to be true.
I'm not sure Star Trek's portrayal of someone with Aspergers really has any relevance to the way you approach discussion on a discussion board.
Whilst it is true that all opinions cannot be true, it doesn't follow that one can disprove (much of the time) someone else's religious view by simply stating another view.
Muslims operate within a certain mental framework, and that framework of thought and tradition is not the same as the Christian one. Therefore applying a Christian theological answer to an Islamic theological question is not possible.
That doesn't make Islam right but means that understanding why Muslims behave in a certain way it not as simply as coming up with a Christian solution and superimposing it upon the the Islamic reality and expecting that it answers the question. You can only ever hope to understand Islam within its own terms - and very clearly you're hopeless at doing that.
I don't know if that's because you're "an Aspie" that you can't put yourself into someone else's position. It might be.
quote:
And I am open to persuasion; as you'll know from the thread I've bought for my Kindle and have been reading a book recommended by mr cheesy and I'm reporting that on the thread as I go - next instalment hopefully some time tomorrow...
Please don't.
quote:
Thus far I have found nothing to seriously counter the implications of the widely agreed very-much-not-just-my-personal-opinion historical fact of Muhammad founding a de facto 'Islamic state' first in Medina and then with the aid of a substantial de facto Islamic army expanding to conquer Mecca where he remained effectively king for the rest of his life and continued to order and lead military expeditions.
But y'see that's the problem here: you keep saying things as if they are accepted by all Muslims as being true and therefore they must get to your conclusion because it is obvious. Well it isn't obvious. Muslims understand the life of Muhammed in different ways, and even those who understand it in the way you've explained apply it in different ways.
This is not a controversial point. The only controversy here is that you claim Islamic history is easy to understand and that there can only be one honest interpretation of it.
quote:
Is mr cheesy seriously denying that Muhammad did that? And if he's not denying it, how does he get round the implications?
It doesn't matter what I think: what matters is that Muslims think different things (as shown by the book you are reading) about Muhammed and Muslims interpret it in different ways. Violence is certainly one interpretation, but other interpretations are available and are not wrong.
quote:
Take your answer back to the main thread please mr cheesy, and without your own insults to me.
No.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And now you've been rude to Gamaliel as well. It's just not acceptable, however passionate you may feel.
I thought I was being rather moderate considering some of the stuff I'd had thrown at me.
Like facts? Contrary opinions?
When they say "the truth hurts", they're not generally describing the truth being contained in a heavy physical object thrown, but I like the imagery.
You show little evidence of being "open to persuasion" as you claim.
[ 24. September 2016, 08:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
No amount of broadcasting from Steve will convince me he's right. No amount of broadcasting will convince me that there is any point to engaging on any thread on which he is posting, because he invariably saturates threads with verbiage until his agenda dominates discussion, and then broadcasts about it until everyone is so bored they just shut up and go away, or get infuriated to the point of personal attack - and a new hell thread. This is killing threads all over the place.
I use the word "broadcast" because the content of his posts never varies or develops. He simply selects from his available pre-existing bank of comments.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
As another aspie, I feel I should point out that Steve Langton's inability to think outside of his own little box, inhabited AFAICT by himself and the ghost of Emperor Constantine, has little to do with him having Asperger's syndrome and a lot to do with him being Steve Langton.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The answer to any sweeping generalisation by an anabaptist about Constantinianism is "King of Münster". It is historical fact that all anabaptists expel at least one Roman Catholic every day, and like getting naked.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The answer to any sweeping generalisation by an anabaptist about Constantinianism is "King of Münster". It is historical fact that all anabaptists expel at least one Roman Catholic every day, and like getting naked.
And that's the great irony - every time Anabaptists and/or Mennonites have been in a position of power, they abuse it. They create systems which oppress people, they turn to Naziism, they build enclaves of extreme authoritarianism. I've yet to see any Mennonite-majority community which is healthy.
Of course, Steve just dismisses this by saying that they're the wrong kind of anabaptists.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I liked the post where he objected to the Romano-British defending themselves from the Saxons because it might lead to the Saxons getting the wrong idea about Christianity. Personally, if I were a Romano-British warrior in the shield wall at Mount Badon, I might not regard that as top of my list of things I was worried about.
Like it - but
Of course the Romano British warrior wouldn't be all that worried about his Saxon opponent getting the wrong idea about Christianity - that's one of the ways the state church things works....
But I think the Saxon warriors might well have been registering that this was in effect a Christian Crusade against them. Badon in particular is recorded in one source in these terms;
quote:
a battle "...in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights upon his shoulders [or shield]..."
That's really going to endear Christianity to the Saxons who saw their colleagues killed in the battle, isn't it? And can I suggest that Jesus might have some awkward things to say to the Romano-British about exploiting/misrepresenting Him in a way extremely hard to justify from His recorded teaching, and the teaching for example of Paul about Christian warfare being 'not with physical weapons'...? This could all too easily have ended up with the Saxons developing the kind of attitude and bitter vengefulness we see in Islam against Christendom's later Crusaders....
As a 'kingdom of this world', of course "the Romano-British (would be) defending themselves from the Saxons" The objection is to Jesus being involved in that warfare by them.
I'm a bit disappointed in that one Callan, after I'd thought your contributions to the other thread were quite good.
Dude, I still think that you are missing the point here. You are treating any conflict between the Romano-British and the Saxons as a deplorable instance of the Romano-British embracing the ideology of Constantinism. I think that the Romano-British would have experienced it as a bunch of hairy arsed barbarians invading their kingdom killing, raping and enslaving people and them thinking, "do you know, we might want to do something about that".
Somebody, I think William James, made a distinction between "live" and "non-live" options. In any theoretical question the number of potential positions are many and manifold but the number of live options is much smaller. If you were a member of the Oxford movement in the 19th Century you might be an Anglo-Catholic, you might go over to Rome, but I'm pretty sure that none of them embraced Atenism or Tibetan Buddhism. If you are a member of a tribal kingdom in 6th Century Britain this whole discussion is irrelevant. In the massively implausible event that some Celtic Steve Langton had popped up to start explaining how this might impede the evangelisation of the Saxons King Arthur, or whoever, would have cut him off with the words of another great Celtic Warrior. "You have two choices, you can fight or you can die, but I am not letting you take me down with you". This isn't because they had a worked out ideology of church - state relations. It's because people, by and large, have an aversion to being murdered, raped and enslaved. This is the thing. You judge everybody as to whether or not they conform to your concerns. You completely overlook the fact that other people in different contexts or, even, in the same context may have greatly different concerns to you for perfectly valid reasons.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The answer to any sweeping generalisation by an anabaptist about Constantinianism is "King of Münster". It is historical fact that all anabaptists expel at least one Roman Catholic every day, and like getting naked.
And that's the great irony - every time Anabaptists and/or Mennonites have been in a position of power, they abuse it. They create systems which oppress people, they turn to Naziism, they build enclaves of extreme authoritarianism. I've yet to see any Mennonite-majority community which is healthy.
Of course, Steve just dismisses this by saying that they're the wrong kind of anabaptists.
My irony detector might be out of whack, but isn't there an inconsistency between Anabaptists acting contrary to their book and Muslims doing the same?
If such a low proportion of Muslims actually carry out terrorism despite their book instructing them to do so (which is, I think, what Steve Langton is getting at) shouldn't we give thanks and welcome them?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My irony detector might be out of whack, but isn't there an inconsistency between Anabaptists acting contrary to their book and Muslims doing the same?
Dunno. I don't see that Anabaptists are anything more (or less) than a particular interpretation of Christian theology. The irony seems to me to be that a movement (anti-movement?) apparently built on values of peace and justice so often ends up being authoritarian.
Of course, there are many different versions of anabaptist so it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that one day they might be in a majority in an area without it going all authoritarian, but I can't think of anywhere it has happened yet.
Maybe that's just telling us that human nature is stronger than even strongly held traditions of peace.
quote:
If such a low proportion of Muslims actually carry out terrorism despite their book instructing them to do so (which is, I think, what Steve Langton is getting at) shouldn't we give thanks and welcome them?
Well maybe, except isn't that likely to be seen as pretty rude - if the Muslims think that we're only welcoming them because we understand that they're not-real, non-serious, non-authentic Muslims?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Dude, I still think that you are missing the point here. You are treating any conflict between the Romano-British and the Saxons as a deplorable instance of the Romano-British embracing the ideology of Constantinism. I think that the Romano-British would have experienced it as a bunch of hairy arsed barbarians invading their kingdom killing, raping and enslaving people and them thinking, "do you know, we might want to do something about that".
Well, apart from a few Romano-Britons in Colchester Theological College who agonised over these issues at considerable length, up until their families forcibly took them on the boat to Brittany.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Of course the Celts at Bradwell would have had something to say to the Colchester lot! St. Cedd, we have need of thee!
[ 24. September 2016, 12:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Callan;
quote:
If you were a member of the Oxford movement in the 19th Century you might be an Anglo-Catholic, you might go over to Rome, but I'm pretty sure that none of them embraced Atenism or Tibetan Buddhism.
Atenism is indeed no longer a live option since well back in BCE. But I've an acquaintance who has been involved with one of the 'Independent Catholic' groups which also go back to the Anglo-Catholic period, and was a bit shocked to find that her group had had a considerable involvement in Buddhist-like ideas via the 'Theosophy' movement, and indeed arguably hasn't yet separated itself enough from that.... Hmmm!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Callan;
quote:
Dude, I still think that you are missing the point here. You are treating any conflict between the Romano-British and the Saxons as a deplorable instance of the Romano-British embracing the ideology of Constantinism. I think that the Romano-British would have experienced it as a bunch of hairy arsed barbarians invading their kingdom killing, raping and enslaving people and them thinking, "do you know, we might want to do something about that".
Dude, I still think that you are missing the point here. I am treating the Romano-British v Anglo-Saxon conflict as exactly what it was. A bloody mess of a conflict between two kingdoms very much of this world, and dealt with accordingly. I also pointed out that a definite theme in this was that the Romano-British were nominally Christian, and made enough of that nominal Christian status to be reflected in my quote from the period about Arthur's 'bearing the Cross' in what sounds similar to the Crusader 'taking the Cross' thing.
And I pointed out that this Crusading aspect was a major enough part of it to significantly risk producing in Saxons the kind of anti-Christian feelings seen in Muslims over the Crusades against them. And that this is rather tragic as it misrepresents Jesus and His and His church's role in the world.
I don't know what Christians of a different perspective might have done instead - but at least they wouldn't have been there killing people in Jesus' name, which seems decidedly counterproductive for the faith and everyone else involved. As I see it, Christians would be 'internationalist' in such a situation, not taking sides in the worldly battle but doing something else and better.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
I don't know what Christians of a different perspective might have done instead - but at least they wouldn't have been there killing people in Jesus' name, which seems decidedly counterproductive for the faith and everyone else involved. As I see it, Christians would be 'internationalist' in such a situation, not taking sides in the worldly battle but doing something else and better.
Does it not occur to you, on any level, that most of those fighting would have been doing so because the alternative was being killed or enslaved, not because a religious state was fighting a religious war against the Saxons? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
As another aspie, I feel I should point out that Steve Langton's inability to think outside of his own little box, inhabited AFAICT by himself and the ghost of Emperor Constantine, has little to do with him having Asperger's syndrome and a lot to do with him being Steve Langton.
I'm NOT saying all Aspies are the same. Anything but. You should see the variety just among Aspies I know - though a lot of those I know have at least the common factor of being railway nerds.
I was simply explaining that one factor in how AS affects me is the hyperlexia and voracious reading - a common example, which sometimes leads to AS going undiagnosed because hyperlexics can mitigate the effects of AS by learning through reading of things that don't come instinctively - and how that in turn affects my awareness of there being different opinions and my approach to that.
The annoyance here, and the reason for the rant above, is the way too many on the Ship have pulled that thing of just blankly telling me "There are other opinions..." as if I was completely unaware even of the possibility of other opinions - when in reality, as I said, if anything I'm massively aware of there being other opinions and verging on drowning in them unless I take serious effort to check them out and assess them, and take positive views (after assessment) on which are something like true and worthwhile and which not. If I have a problem it's not too little information/knowledge, it's too much.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Callan;
quote:
Does it not occur to you, on any level, that most of those fighting would have been doing so because the alternative was being killed or enslaved, not because a religious state was fighting a religious war against the Saxons? [brick wall]
Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.
And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way. And in the long run, everyone who chooses Jesus' way is making future bloody battles like Badon less likely.
It might help if you assumed that the reason I don't keep stating the blindingly obvious myself is precisely because I DO know it, and I do you the courtesy of assuming you know it too - but I'm concerned with the rethink that can go beyond the current blindingly obvious in a better way....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
If such a low proportion of Muslims actually carry out terrorism despite their book instructing them to do so (which is, I think, what Steve Langton is getting at) shouldn't we give thanks and welcome them?
No that's NOT what I'm getting at, you should read me more carefully - on the Islamic extremism thread where I'm discussing that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
You do realise that one of the symptoms of hyperlexia (which is nothing to do with AS and is in fact a subset of dyslexia) is the ability to read fluently and even voraciously without fully comprehending what is being read? That supports the idea that you've failed to understand views other than your own.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I was simply explaining that one factor in how AS affects me is the hyperlexia and voracious reading - a common example, which sometimes leads to AS going undiagnosed because hyperlexics can mitigate the effects of AS by learning through reading of things that don't come instinctively - and how that in turn affects my awareness of there being different opinions and my approach to that.
This is the sort of thing one keeps to oneself. Otherwise it looks like an excuse for bad behaviour. As it does in this instance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You do realise that one of the symptoms of hyperlexia (which is nothing to do with AS
This is debated. ISTM, it is best seen as a comorbidity and managed as such.
quote:
is the ability to read fluently and even voraciously without fully comprehending what is being read? That supports the idea that you've failed to understand views other than your own.
Boy howdy
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.
I don't think it is blindingly obvious and hence reasoned Christian views are available with a range of opinions as to war.
quote:
And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way. And in the long run, everyone who chooses Jesus' way is making future bloody battles like Badon less likely.
That certainly looks obvious to you now - with your accepted understanding of pacifism, with your access to various schools of thought and with your understanding of the history of the crusades.
But I'm not sure it was so obvious then. And I'm not really sure that your over-simplistic explanations of the whole complex political and religious conflicts really help to understand what happened then nor how one should behave now.
It is probably true that very few Christians today would think that the crusades were a good thing. But that doesn't follow that it was blindingly obvious at the time, nor does it follow that those Christians who believe in Just War are being oblivious to the blindingly obvious teaching of Jesus in the New Testament.
By even using those phrases you're making it out that your interpretation is the only - and final - word on the subject. And that you're the only arbiter of who is and who is not accurately following the truth. Both of which are not very helpful ways to continue a discussion in which you're very heavily invested in the idea that you're right and every other idea out there is wrong.
quote:
It might help if you assumed that the reason I don't keep stating the blindingly obvious myself is precisely because I DO know it, and I do you the courtesy of assuming you know it too - but I'm concerned with the rethink that can go beyond the current blindingly obvious in a better way....
I'm curious how you manage to perceive what you contribute here as being something other than you constantly expressing that which you understand to be blindingly obvious.
[ 24. September 2016, 16:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Oh I get it. If your brain is inhabited by pixies you're not responsible for what you post. It's the fault of the pixies.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Oh I get it. If your brain is inhabited by pixies you're not responsible for what you post. It's the fault of the pixies.
Isn't that "blindingly obvious"? It should be.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.
OK. You are a Romano-British tribesman. The balefires light up warning you that a Saxon army is converging on your village. You don't speak their language, they don't share your religion. You can't run away because the harvest is gathered in your barns and you will starve to death if you do. So you have a fairly unpleasant binary choice.
My point is for you it is perfectly logical having read the New Testament and various Anabaptist books on the evils of Constantianism that the Romano-British tribesmen should have just surrendered to the Saxons and that their failure to do so reflects badly on them. I think that this is massively emotionally illiterate. People fighting for their lives are not lay people in your personal drama where you get to be always right. Even if they were wrong this is a tragedy of massive proportions which you do not acknowledge.
Theologically, I think that the Kingdom of God is both a kingdom of peace and a kingdom of justice and sometimes there will be conflicts between the two. I think that you have no business telling people that they have a moral obligation to lay down and die from your comfortable middle class English experience. Granted the Romano-British thing is all blood under the bridge but did you take the same line about Bosnians fighting the Serbs in the 1990s or Syrian democrats fighting Assad. if you do, shame on you. The real objection to Constantianism is that it made the Church complicit in a claim that the Kingdom of God was a kingdom of order. That people had to obey their betters and suffer and endure. You think that they should suffer and endure for the sake of an illusory peace. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way.
It may be obvious to those who base their entire set of religious beliefs on an eccentric interpretation of one short Biblical passage. To the rest of us, it's not.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Theologically, I think that the Kingdom of God is both a kingdom of peace and a kingdom of justice and sometimes there will be conflicts between the two. I think that you have no business telling people that they have a moral obligation to lay down and die from your comfortable middle class English experience. Granted the Romano-British thing is all blood under the bridge but did you take the same line about Bosnians fighting the Serbs in the 1990s or Syrian democrats fighting Assad. if you do, shame on you.
Thinking that a good Christian should not wage war even in defence is a perfectly rational and valid interpretation of Jesus' teachings. However, judging those who choose to defend their families, friends and even themselves is not in line with Jesus' teachings.
The problem with the self-defence justification is that it often obscures the conditions that we allow which fertilize the fields of contention.
If Christian countries acted in a Christian manner, there would be less need for them to defend themselves.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thinking that a good Christian should not wage war even in defence is a perfectly rational and valid interpretation of Jesus' teachings.
That's true, although I don't think anyone is saying that this is an irrational way to read the scriptures. Indeed, the problem here is when someone is arguing that an extreme form of pacifism is the only way to read it.
And then trying to argue that this must be the way it was read from the beginning.
quote:
However, judging those who choose to defend their families, friends and even themselves is not in line with Jesus' teachings.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. This whole don't judge thing is full of contradictions and complexity - if one is deciding that (a) is the right course of action rather than (b), it is very hard to say that without sounding like one is judging those who believe (b). And, of course, some level of judging must be occurring. We don't say "I think child abuse is godawful, but other views are available which I think it absolutely fine." Because that would be ridiculous.
quote:
The problem with the self-defence justification is that it often obscures the conditions that we allow which fertilize the fields of contention.
That's quite true, but then I think it illustrates how one shouldn't rush to determine that things are simply black or white. One can both believe that the Crusades were disgusting, that the Iraq War was awful - and at the same time believe that innocent unarmed Syrian minorities should be protected and that you'd protect your family from an unprovoked attack in the street by a drunk with a broken bottle.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
quote:
If Christian countries acted in a Christian manner, there would be less need for them to defend themselves.
The thing I absolutely agree with Steve Langton about is that there is no such thing as a Christian country. There are countries with a Christian majority, there are countries with a legacy of a Christian majority, etc and so on.
A country cannot act in a Christian manner.
What I think you're more saying here is that many Western countries - who have a Christian majority or have a legacy of a Christian majority - have got into far too many pointless wars. I don't see anyone arguing with that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You do realise that one of the symptoms of hyperlexia (which is nothing to do with AS and is in fact a subset of dyslexia) is the ability to read fluently and even voraciously without fully comprehending what is being read? That supports the idea that you've failed to understand views other than your own.
Yes I do realise it. And I've studied the whole autistic spectrum thing quite thoroughly and as lilBuddha points out hyperlexia is one of several things - of which the best known is 'hypercalculia' as in the fictional 'Rain Man' and the real world Alan Turing - which often go along with autism and are sometimes explained as the brain finding an alternative use for the capacity which, due to a neural wiring glitch, can't be used for its normal purpose of 'mind-reading' in social interactions.
I know people who have that "read-it-fluently-and-even-have-a-photographic-memory-of-it-but-didn't-understand-a-word-of-it" thing. I'm a long way from that though it occasionally happens a bit under stress. My brother, BTW, is dyslexic, as is one of his kids, and we've had interesting discussions on the theories behind this whole business.
I wish I didn't have to raise the point here but I'd got heartily fed up of the situation of people constantly telling me I'm ignorant of this that and the other when the truth is I'm well aware and I'm putting my view forward as the well-cooked, rather than 'half-baked', consideration of all the 'other interpretations' I've come across over the years. I don't claim omniscience - if only! - but I'm definitely not ignorant....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And it's obvious that people who form Christian nations and fight Crusades and bear Christian symbols on their shields and so on, are not in fact obeying Jesus and behaving as Jesus intended but are compromising his message and hindering the progress of Jesus' better way.
It may be obvious to those who base their entire set of religious beliefs on an eccentric interpretation of one short Biblical passage. To the rest of us, it's not.
Not so long ago I read a book, published by UK 'IVP', called 'A Higher Throne', which was the proceedings of a conference or summer school held by a UK Anglican theological college. I found myself particularly concerned by one contribution and a 'closing sermon' by the same person. Even when I personally contacted him for further explanation, he didn't expand on what he said in the lecture and sermon. Essentially his 'case' consisted of one very stretched interpretation of a passage which definitely has other and more straightforward interpretations, and a lot of quotes of the OT in which he didn't seem to realise that Jesus in the NT might have put a fresh 'spin' on them, to say the least...!
I've had similar experiences studying the products of 'Constantinian' theology in Anglicanism, and in such documents as the Westminster Confession - only a few and very thin (and stretched out of shape at times) 'proof-texts' against my position, whereas I base my case on a considerable range of texts including almost the whole of I Peter, big chunks of Paul, Jesus himself obviously....
I await with interest your book proving the Anglican position with huge numbers of NT proof-texts....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
: Originally posted by Steve Langton: quote:
Of course it occurs to me - not least because it's blindingly obvious. But it's also pretty obvious that Jesus taught another way of doing things which he wants his followers to do in the world and which I think is well worth exploring.
I don't think it is blindingly obvious and hence reasoned Christian views are available with a range of opinions as to war.
What I said was 'blindingly obvious' was in the context not my view but the point raised by Callan. He was accusing me of indifference to a particular aspect, I was saying No, I was if anything taking that obvious-to-everybody stuff as a starting point and seeking to go beyond it. As part of that 'going beyond' I suggested that it was then also fairly obvious that Jesus had suggested, and indeed he and his early followers practiced, a different approach to the situation.
That different approach is counter-intuitive, and consequently many people have failed to grasp it and have spent a lot of time trying to argue round it and producing 'interpretations' which in the end don't hold up. One of the classic cases known to me is Ian Paisley's deeply flawed commentary on Romans 13, which goes a long way to explain the violence in NI, but distorts and misrepresents Paul. Check it out for yourself.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That different approach is counter-intuitive, and consequently many people have failed to grasp it and have spent a lot of time trying to argue round it and producing 'interpretations' which in the end don't hold up. One of the classic cases known to me is Ian Paisley's deeply flawed commentary on Romans 13, which goes a long way to explain the violence in NI, but distorts and misrepresents Paul. Check it out for yourself.
No. You don't know the first thing about holding an argument; you think it just involves repeating many times the same view as being "the truth" over and over and over again.
You just saying anything doesn't "hold up" is a sure sign that the thing you're attacking is far more complex than you are suggesting and that you've not thought enough about it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. This whole don't judge thing is full of contradictions and complexity -
It certainly is if you mix meanings. Judging in the pejorative sense is not the same thing as making an evaluation.
quote:
These things are not mutually exclusive.
To an extreme pacifist any violence, even in defence of self or others, is wrong.
quote:
A country cannot act in a Christian manner.
Many have claimed this very thing.
quote:
What I think you're more saying here is that many Western countries - who have a Christian majority or have a legacy of a Christian majority - have got into far too many pointless wars. I don't see anyone arguing with that.
Not quite what I was saying. I am saying that such countries have gotten into pointless conflicts that they themselves at least tilled and fertilized the fields so that the seeds found good conditions for growth.
It is difficult to find any modern conflict that this is not true.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Callan;
quote:
Even if they were wrong this is a tragedy of massive proportions which you do not acknowledge.
I not only acknowledge the tragedy, I'm deeply and painfully affected by it - even though not personally involved. It's because I thoroughly acknowledge the tragedy that I've put so much effort into thinking through an alternative.
The problem I'm outlining is that the Christian teaching which might help to stop the next Badon in our time is considerably undermined by an Arthur 'bearing the cross on his shield'. In the same kind of way that to this day the 'cross-bearing' Crusaders have got in the way of Muslims hearing the Christian message. Do you want the carnage to continue??? I don't!!!!!!!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
