Thread: You're 51 going on 13, Gamaliel... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024347
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Yes, you're so right, Gamaliel. I'm a charismatic nutter.
There. I've admitted it. Happy now?
I'm totally up the creek. Deluded. My spiritual life is as 'precious' to me as guns are to the 2nd amendment "It'll be 1776 all over again" fanatics. After all, you said it (and everything you say is sooooo incontrovertibly true):
quote:
Bluntly, I get the impression that EE's reaction over this issue is rather like that of some US gun-lobbyists if you even entertain the possibility of introducing further gun controls.
'You ain't a-takin' any of ma guns!'
'I'm not after your guns, I'm simply suggesting that the legislation should be looked at that governs these things ...'
'You ain't a-takin' ma guns off-of me ... The 2nd Amendment tells me I've a right to ma shootin' irons ...'
'I'm not after your guns, I'm just saying that ...'
'You ain't a-takin' ma guns off-of me ...'
Only, with the 'tongues' issue it goes like this:
'Let's look at this exegetically, it doesn't quite fit the standard schemas that charismatics customarily adopt ...'
'You ain't a-taking ma tongues off-of me ...'
'I'm not suggesting that you stop speaking in tongues, I'm simply suggesting that we're making a considerable exegetical and hermeneutical leap when we ...'
'You ain't a-taking ma tongues off-of me ... the scriptures say "Do not forbid speaking in tongues ..."'
'I'm not about to forbid speaking in tongues, I'm simply saying that it is very difficult to work out a consistent and coherent praxis based on ...'
'You ain't a-taking ma tongues off-of me, the Lord gave me them thar tongues ...'
What a pathetic stream of complete and utter bullshit.
But, hey, like you say (and therefore it must be true)... I am only a very young lad, and I'll grow out of it. Perhaps one day I might even become as super mature as you. Oooh, I do hope so!! (And yes, your suggestion to close down the Purg thread - "if we are all agreed" - would so help poor EE, because he is so emotionally fragile, isn't he? I mean we can all see how the poor soul can't stop reacting. Yes, Gammy dear, it's so touching; I'm welling up...)
And you were, of course, being so tactfully unpatronising with this little beauty (neatly packaged in so much very very very sincere apologising):
quote:
I won't patronise you by trying to guess how old you are - but it may have a bearing. I'm 51. When I was 21 or 31 I might have argued along the lines that you have done ... that's not to say I'm older and wiser and know better ... I've just come - or am coming - to different conclusions.
Oh noooo, Gammy. Certainly it's not as though you are saying that you are older and wiser. I mean I don't know how anyone could possibly imagine that you are saying that? It's not as though there is any discernible put down in what you said, is there? I realise that the phrase "it may have a bearing" just looks like English, but you were really writing something in 'tongues" - speaking mysteries and all that!
FFS, Gammy. Grow up.
But, hey, maybe you're right. Maybe one day (if I'm a good boy) I will enter the promised land of endless ambiguity, where waffle and mealy mouthed prevarication is the language of love and truth. I am sure I will grow out of this horrible "certainty straitjacket" that you are so devotedly trying to free me from.
But, seriously, reading your thousands of words of spineless and conclusion-less crap, makes me feel a great sympathy for Ellis Boyd Redding (Morgan Freeman) in the Shawshank Redemption. In his immortal words:
I don't give a shit.
Now, having cleared up this small point, can we please have a sensible discussion in Kerygmania about you-know-what subject, without all the personal digs and slurs?
Oh but no! Apparently I don't want a sensible discussion because wise old mature Gamaliel has pronounced ex cathedra:
quote:
I sometimes get the impression that he'd only be happy with an uncritical endorsement of his position, which rather defeats the object of even discussing/debating these things.
What utter and total crap.
Why do you think I opened that thread? So that everyone would agree with me?
Have you seen me getting upset with Kominsky or Josephine? It's not as though I completely agree with their positions.
No, the problem is YOU, Sonny. You have absolutely f-all to say about this subject other than:
"We just don't know"
"It's all so ambiguous"
"It's not clear"
"oh dear, oh dear, oh dear"
etc etc etc
But this does not stop you from smugly and superciliously sitting in judgment on those who have the sheer temerity to draw useful teaching from the Bible and try and live accordingly. What pathetic nutters they all are, don't you think?! But of course you are now "post-charismatic", and what a scintillatingly sensible person you are! A fine figure of a man, no less!
The Bible may be a load of incoherent bullshit to someone as 'mature' as you, but while you are walking the bracing mountaintops of unknowing, spare a thought for us poor ignorant simple minded plebs down in the valley who have deluded ourselves into thinking that there might just be such a thing as 'truth'. And that there might actually be some useful teaching in the Bible - perhaps even a praxis (to put it more pretentiously) - by which we can live our Christians lives.
But really the fact is that the reason why we can't have a sensible discussion is because you have nothing to say, nothing to contribute. You have nothing at all. Nada. Zilch.
Now be a good boy and off you go and do your bloody homework. And instead of farting around with endless uncertainties, why don't you come back with something that has at least the remote appearance of a conclusion. Because then - and only then - will you be in any position to correct me, if that is really what your great purpose in life is. And once you have successfully corrected this naive lost confused and deeply deceived little boy, do reward yourself with an extra helping of fudge cake (not forgetting the big dollop of cream). After all, you so deserve it, big man.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
You're a wankstain for Jesus.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Who is, Yorick? Me or EE?
Ok, EE - it's a fair call. I deserve a Hell call for some of the stuff I've served in your direction. However ...
As the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that the world isn't out to get you.
You couldn't exegete your way out of a paper bag. You're calling me immature but your attempts at exegesis are worthy of a 13 year old.
My kids could exegete better than you do.
Then there's this apparent inability to entertain the remote possibility that there might be other explanations for what goes on in the narrow EE universe. The same thing's been happening on the 'evidence' thread.
I apologise for the comparison with the 2nd Amendment gun-nuts, but that's how you were beginning to sound. A tongues-nut. Please, please, please don't touch my precious tongues ...
My mistake was to post it in Kerygmania and not in Purgatory - or even here in Hell.
I cut you a lot more slack in Purgatory than you deserved. You kept whining and whining that no-one could produce the kind of linguistic analysis you required even though Komensky and others had done so several times.
On plenty of occasions I clearly stated that I was keeping an open mind on these things and was more than happy - indeed, was relieved - when you suggesting a Kerymania discussion. Cool. So what do I find in Kerygmania? More of your two-dimensional and woodenly literal exegesis.
I'm glad you've called me to Hell. Now I can cut to the chase.
You're clueless. Sod off.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
EE, of course, is a wankstain for Jesus.
Even if there is a god (and, let's face it, there just isn't), he/she/it would surely dispatch this arrogant evangelical arsehole to a special corner of hell just for being such a douchebag. He puts me off religion like suddenly thinking about cancer puts me off my vinegar stroke.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
EE, of course, is a wankstain for Jesus.
For sure, but this is still a good hell call.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
As the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that the world isn't out to get you.
You couldn't exegete your way out of a paper bag. You're calling me immature but your attempts at exegesis are worthy of a 13 year old.
My kids could exegete better than you do.
...
On plenty of occasions I clearly stated that I was keeping an open mind on these things and was more than happy - indeed, was relieved - when you suggesting a Kerymania discussion. Cool. So what do I find in Kerygmania? More of your two-dimensional and woodenly literal exegesis.
I'm glad you've called me to Hell. Now I can cut to the chase.
You're clueless. Sod off.
Ah, some honesty at last, instead of the disingenuous and patronising stream of insincere apologies, which fool no one with half a brain cell.
By the way... I must congratulate your children on their intellectual abilities. Their father obviously has a lot to learn from them. I assume, like me, they have the ability to draw conclusions and think logically, rather than come out with the sort of prevaricating and turgid non-committal nonsense that you spew out: "Oh it's all so ambiguous! Oh, we just don't know! blah blah blah..."
You call that exegesis?
I call that talking out of your rectum.
As for sodding off...
You've been the one who has had a curious interest in things that are none of your sodding business. I don't start trying to get into bed with you, getting all cosy and personal. I've tried to keep the whole thing objective. But no. That's not good enough for Mr Amateur Psychologist. You have this obsessive need to get me to admit to something, that I don't feel the need to admit to. You make all sorts of claims about things you can't possibly know anything about. It's just surreal reading your bullshit. What bloody difference does it make to you what I personally think about my own spiritual life? It's voyeurism.
No one else carries on like this. Not even people of the great intellectual calibre of the seriously philosophically challenged Yorick. When he wants to insult me, at least he's honest about it (oh, and I really do feel soooo guilty about turning him off religion. Poor sod obviously can't think for himself). He doesn't come up with a load of insincere flattery and pathetically deceitful apologies. And this crap about not being patronising: "I am not being patronising, BUT I used to think like you when I was in my twenties..."
You're a predator. You need help, man.
As for 'exegesis': look the word up. You might learn something.
Better still, ask your kids...
(As for your knowledge of linguistics... what a joke!)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's a good Hell call and EE is still talking bollocks. In fact he can't help it. Everything he says is bollocks. It's not 'tongues' I have an issue with ... it's bollocks.
And EE is talking it. Big time.
If you think that your half-baked, half-arsed proof-texting constitutes exegesis then you are clearly even more deluded than might be thought (see, I'm prevaricating, leaving the possibility open that you might not be deluded - I have an open mind - you don't).
Everybody (except EE) appears perfectly capable of accepting that the passages we've been considering in Kerygmania and in Purgatory before that are ambiguous. Read any commentary, any serious theological work and it'll tell you that.
It's bleedin' obvious that it's ambiguous, that's why there's been so much debate about these issues and that's why not all Christians agree on these issues.
Duh!
It might not be exegesis in the way you understand the term but it's closer to it than the crap you talk. All you do is take some verses with your pre-existing assumptions and presuppositions and argue a case for them. That's not exegesis.
You're the one who is talking out of their arse. Tongues or no tongues, I can smell your farts from here.
Don't flatter yourself that I've got any curiosity whatsover about your beloved tongues. I couldn't give a flying fart whether you speak in tongues or not. Irish Lord Thingummy said the same thing the last time you started squealing and mewling and making a big deal out of it.
I don't think we were even talking about tongues that much on the 'pictures' thread until you came in making such a big deal about it.
To cap it all, you then have a go at me about my poetry - something you clearly know sod all about - suggesting that I might get upset if someone criticised it. Well, no, I wouldn't as it happens, because criticism would help me improve. Bring it on.
You've had a go at me over daft analogies - that's the daftest analogy I've heard this year so far. It's as if these tongues of yours are some kind of accomplishment, as if you've had to 'earn' them or work at them ... in the same way as someone has to work at a poem or some other craft or art form.
If they're spiritual gifts, they're spiritual gifts - they are GIFTS not something to be PROUD of. You seem inordinately proud of them, it seems to me ... and that's not because I've gone chasing you to find out, I'm just commenting on the way you seem obsessed about them and fixated with pulling down whatever alternative explanation there might be. You're clearly threatened by the whole thing otherwise you wouldn't be making a big deal out of it.
I'm not trying to get you to 'admit' to anything. Read.my.lips.
I.don't.care.if.EE.speaks.in.tongues.doesn't.speak.in.tongues.or.whether.he.uses.a.feather-duster.to.wipe.his.arse.
Why do you think you're so fucking important that any of us would be so bothered about your spiritual gifts and so on? Nobody here gives a shit.
Get over it already.
You're right about one thing. I did used to think like you in my 20s. Guess what? I grew out of it. You didn't.
I was trying to sugar the pill. I shouldn't have done. I should have called you to Hell in the first place and told you to sod off for being so pathetic.
You can't exegete, you can't argue as logically as you think you do and you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
You're pathetic.
You're the one who needs help. Big time.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And another thing - I've never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable about linguistics - although I've studied some as part of my degree - but I know a fatuous argument when I see one.
I get the impression that you could have a PhD and a life-long Professorship in Linguistics and it still wouldn't make any difference ...
You've not engaged sensibly with any of the linguistic comments posted by people who are way more knowledgeable than I am on the issue - such as Komensky.
You're a fucking mess.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I assume, like me, they have the ability to draw conclusions and think logically,
ROTFLMFAO!
I haven't laughed this hard at an SOF post in quite a while, thank you.
Oh dear, you weren't being self-depreciating, were you? No, still hilarious.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
This is rather dangerous, isn't it? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
I don't think EE and Gamaliel should be allowed to post on the same thread. Otherwise, the explosion of Extremely Long Posts could cause the Ship to develop a dangerous list to one side, and possibly even to capsize ...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
At the very least, spin in circles.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Apologies, brevity isn't my strong point (and that WAS a self-deprecatory comment) ...
I do feel a bit bad about my last post ... it's too personal. I would like to edit it in some way.
It's too late, I've posted it, but it should really be 'you're in a fucking mess' not 'you are a fucking mess.'
I know enough about linguistics to know that words are important. The 'in' word is the key one. It's less ad-hominem that way.
I know we are allowed to be ad-hominem in Hell but I feel guilty. I'm more Purgatorial than Hellish. But it's a fair call ... to an extent ...
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Brevity isn't my strong point. Logic isn't EE's.
Nor is self-awareness.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I think they secretly fancy each other and need to get a room.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Sheesh - whatever happened to responding in the opposite spirit? Any chance we could have a "turn the other cheek" board as a unique Christian alternative to a hell board?
Just sayin....
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
You're both as bad as each other. I had half a mind to call you both to Hell.
I like you both, but EE, there are times when it seems like you can only debate with a rod inserted up your arse, and other times where you seem to miss the point by such an amount it's spectacular... And Gam, you can take a lot of words to say very little - and the "I'm not saying X, but...", when it's plain that X is exactly what you're saying... well, it comes across harsher than if you just said X in the first place. Plus the way you gravitate towards any thread on charismatics like a fly to horseshit can become tiresome, especially when it's just to say, well, exactly the same as what you've said on the last 49 charismatic threads.
But like I said, I still like you both. If you just stayed away from any thread that the other is posting on, I'd probably like you both even more ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Any chance we could have a "turn the other cheek" board as a unique Christian alternative to a hell board?
You could try this.
Generally speaking, though, the separate divisions of the Ship have meant that a far wider variety of viewpoints survive here alongside each other than just about any Christian board you will be able to find.
There's no need to contain conflict when everyone stands around congratulating each other for holding sound opinions.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
Posted by Truman White:
quote:
Any chance we could have a "turn the other cheek" board as a unique Christian alternative to a hell board?
Good question. Based on EtymologicalEvangelical's mind-boggling OP, the only benefit from the system of calling-to-hell seems to be to show the world just how twisted, mean-spirited, and vituperative certain religious obsessives can be, when driven over the edge.
Or, was that why Hell was created in the first place?
[ 21. January 2013, 18:14: Message edited by: roybart ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You're both as bad as each other. I had half a mind to call you both to Hell.
Then they could find a two-holer and exegete together.
Seriously, though, it is rather stimulating to have friends you disagree with. Can you guys just sit down, work things out, and then wipe each others' butts lovingly? You've both had rather interesting things to say at various times, and the contents of this thread are anything butt.
[ 21. January 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair point, Goperryrevs.
Mea culpa.
And stop being so holier-than-thou, Truman White ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
On a Purgatorial note, I think Purgatory probably brings out the worst of both EE and myself. EE gets himself into an entrenched position where he imagines that people speculating/debating about issues he feels strongly about are making a personal attack on his spirituality.
Whereas I've developed annoying debating habits such as 'I'm not saying you are a prat, but on the basis of that last statement you really are a prat ...'
Or, 'I don't wish to be rude but you're ugly.'
And so on. It's partly a Welsh thing. Rob Brydon sends it up particularly well. But I can't hide behind culture and so on ...
So fair calls.
Now get lost back to Kerygmania, Truman and stop sulking EE and stop imagining slights where none have been intended. We're really not that interested in your spiritual life. Honest.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
If the hell thread means you stop slinging half insults in at each other in purg, so we don't have to post warnings to calm down every five minutes like a stuck record, I am all for the hell call. It is exactly what hell is for - to stop people sniping at each other on other boards.
There is no virtue in avoiding it if you, (generic you), are then going to make personal / snarky remarks elsewhere anyway. You're not behaving any more nicely or 'christlike' if you are doing it outside hell - you are just choosing to pretend you're playing nice.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Does that mean I can insult you here in Hell, Doublethink? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Perish the thought ...
And yes, good call. I've been too snarky on the aforementioned threads.
I'll be honest ... my heart sank when EE started posting on the pictures one because he got into a strop over this issue before and accused me of bullying and so on.
I suspect there's a personality clash where we bring out the worst in one another - I'm sure we'd get on great guns over a cuppa or a pint.
I'm happy to bury the hatchet - and not in anyone's head either ...
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Any chance we could have a "turn the other cheek" board as a unique Christian alternative to a hell board?
You could try this.
Cool.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@ Gamaliel. Thanks for the invite, but like I said on Kerygmania I'vr got other fish to barbie.
Now behave yourself or I'll be back to call you to All Saints with a bag of Paul's blessing coals.
Meantime, I've got a picture for you you old cutie.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Now that IS Hellish ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think they secretly fancy each other and need to get a room.
Could well be true, then the wankstains would be mutual - with a bit of luck
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think they secretly fancy each other and need to get a room.
There's a small gap they can fit into just behind Hell's main engine. And no, I'm not turning the blades off first.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
How old is EE, anyway? I'm genuinely curious now. It's always fascinating to discover whether my mental image matches up with reality.
[ 21. January 2013, 22:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
EE, of course, is a wankstain for Jesus.
Damn
My money was on Gamaliel.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How old is EE, anyway? I'm genuinely curious now. It's always fascinating to discover whether my mental image matches up with reality.
In the other thread, he said 3 years younger than Gam, I think.
But maybe they're both 16 year old girls - internet anonymity and all that...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It could have been both of us, Evensong.
As a liberal you must surely be aware that two things can be true at one and the same time.
Anyway, who rattled your chain?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'll be honest, my mental image of EE was of an earnest young evangelical - someone in his 20s or 30s.
And yes, that was bloody well patronising of me.
I admit it.
My only regret (in that particular instance) is trying to be mealy-mouthed about it.
Here I stand ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, for what it's worth, my mental image of EE was of someone around about their 50s. The earnestness, as you put it, never struck me as the earnestness of the young.
Not that I win any prize or anything.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Just so's you know, I'm 60, and was the target of a certain amount of patronising guff from Gam, so I guess that, even if his posting style is irritating at times, at least he isn't ageist!! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I'm just patronising.
I 'grew out' of full-on charismaticism in my early 40s so it's about time you guys did the same ...
'It's joking, I am,' as Rob Brydon would say.
Perhaps I ought to adopt that in future so people will know when I'm teasing them or when I really am being a patronising pain in the arse.
Either way, I can be a pain in the arse. But you knew that already.
On a Purgatorial note, I don't think I'm an 'ex-charismatic' - I think I've simply shifted my vatic/charismatic tendencies in a slightly different direction.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
In the other thread, he said 3 years younger than Gam, I think.
The answer to life, the universe and everything plus the first perfect number.
Perhaps that is why I am going through a "confidence and certainty" stage, which, if our dear 'umble and never patronising friend is to be believed, I will grow out of.
Can't say I'm looking forward to it...
(But then again, Mr "I know it all, because none us of can know anything" Ambiguity might conceivably be wrong.
Personally, I think I know where I prefer to place my bet! )
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I 'grew out' of full-on charismaticism in my early 40s so it's about time you guys did the same ...
Hmmm, as late as that?
I grew out of it in my mid-thirties (if indeed I ever grew into it in the first place).
Obviously you're a late developer.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At least I've developed ...
Actually, you've not been reading my posts properly (possibly you never have been) - I fully acknowledged being patronising and I've never claimed to be humble.
What I haven't done is claim to be using irrefutable logic as you have done - and got the biggest laugh on this silly thread so far.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You couldn't stop me laughing either. You've had a self-awareness by-pass operation somewhere along the line.
You ought to be called Exegetically-ImpairedEvangelical because what you take for exegesis is really nothing of the kind.
You can speak in tongues until the cows come home, just don't pretend that you've arrived at this by some irrefutable exegetical and logical process.
I acknowledge that I can be a pain in the butt, however it's you who've been getting into a strop and taking these things personally.
That's your problem not mine. Part of me wonders whether this phase of deep certainty and security of which you speak is more fragile than you would have us believe ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The answer to life, the universe and everything plus the first perfect number.
Oh that's right. Why say something with 2 digits when you can say it with a whole sentence and 2 links. The pixels of my monitor thank you ecstatically for the chance to be of service to your golden words.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, I'm just patronising.
I 'grew out' of full-on charismaticism in my early 40s so it's about time you guys did the same ...
'It's joking, I am,' as Rob Brydon would say.
Perhaps I ought to adopt that in future so people will know when I'm teasing them or when I really am being a patronising pain in the arse.
See, the thing is, your teasing is just a different means of you being a patronising pain in the arse.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok. I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't.
I'll just be a patronising pain in the arse.
Then everyone will know where they stand.
Just because I'm a patronising pain in the arse doesn't mean that EE doesn't deserve to be patronised.
If anyone deserves to be patronised it's EE.
He's got 'Patronise me, you pain in the arse' tattooed on his forehead.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok. I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't.
This weirdly suggests that patronising people and teasing people are the only two forms of communication that are available to you. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart
Based on EtymologicalEvangelical's mind-boggling OP, the only benefit from the system of calling-to-hell seems to be to show the world just how twisted, mean-spirited, and vituperative certain religious obsessives can be, when driven over the edge.
I never realised that expressing anger towards those who cynically and patronisingly sit in judgment on others is "twisted, mean-spirited and vituperative".
I guess I'm in good company.
Read Matthew 23.
I rather like the "religious obsession" of the One denouncing those who bind heavy burdens on others, who delight in looking down on those they consider to be spiritually inferior, who mock their spiritual walk with God, who seem to have more love for the wisdom of the world than the wisdom that comes from God, and who despise the Word of God and dismiss it as basically irrelevant (i.e. ambiguous bullshit).
So thanks for the insult.
It's a medal.
I'll proudly wear it alongside my "wankstain for Jesus" one.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I guess I'm in good company.
Read Matthew 23.
As soon as you can walk on water, you can be as snotty as Jesus was in Matthew 23. Until then, "Jesus did it so I can do it too" don't cut no ice.
[ 22. January 2013, 23:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Just reflecting on your comment, Orfeo - you seemed to be placing me into those binary categories ...
But fair call. There is a third way, there is a better way. I will endeavour to follow that in future.
Meanwhile @EE - for the 40-millionth time ...
Look, I am NOT trying to stop you speaking in tongues. I am not out to criticise your spirituality. This is not about YOU, the thread was about 'pictures' and charismatic gifts and how we evaluate them. It had nothing to do with YOUR gifts or YOUR spirituality - YOU CHOSE to take it that way.
Is it my fault that you are so hyper-sensitive that you take any robust and rational discussion of these issues as some kind of personal attack?
Sure, if you were posting things about people from South Wales and criticising them, I'd feel a tad got at ... even though I haven't lived there for many years. But I'd certainly acknowledge if any of your comments were on the money.
I accept that I've been obnoxious. I'll accept that I've been patronising. It isn't only you saying that, others have said the same. Fair enough. Several posters have taken my comments that way and called me on it. Fine. I accept those calls. I take them on the chin.
But why should it all be about YOU?
Why are apparently so threatened by the very idea that we might debate this issues and come to a different conclusion to yourself?
How does it injure or undermine your faith or spirituality in any way whatsoever whether I take a different view on this issue to the one you do or whether I worship the Speckled Green Jelly Monster from the Planet Zarg?
I have said time and time and time again that for all I know you might have the genuine article - that all the other instances of 'tongues' I've come across might not be legit' but yours might. I have no idea on that score. You might be the only person who has really spoken in tongues in the entire history of the church post-1st century - I don't know ...
All I get is you over-reacting to what you see as vague and inconclusive (and admittedly, lengthy) musings on my part.
I sometimes wonder whether I'm have been better off not even trying to find common ground with you or admitting the possibility that these things exist - which I do and which I have repeatedly acknowledged.
Given the black-and-white binary way your tiny little mind seems to work I think I might have been better simply typing:
'I am right. EE is wrong.'
Maybe then your completely unsubtle brain would have been able to process it. Black. White. No Grey.
It's because I've been introducing shades of grey that you can't fucking cope with it. Because there are no shades of grey in your tiny fucking mind.
Logical arguments my arse.
Black and fucking white. Black and fucking white. A colourless man in a colourless universe.
I've been an arse on some of these posts. Certainly. But no-one can say I haven't been fucking provoked.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All I get is you over-reacting to what you see as vague and inconclusive (and admittedly, lengthy) musings on my part.
I'm afraid I can sympathize with EE.
Revelation 3:16 eat your heart out.
It's like intellectual prevarication wankery for Jesus.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
If I can engage in some armchair analysis here, I think this typifies your problem Gamaliel. You seem to do a mea culpa with
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But fair call. There is a third way, there is a better way. I will endeavour to follow that in future.
but just before we have
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just reflecting on your comment, Orfeo - you seemed to be placing me into those binary categories ...
Does the emoticon mean you don't really mean that and we should take the mea culpa bit seriously? Or does it mean that you can't really do a mea culpa without claiming that Orfeo got it a bit wrong and it isn't all your fault?
Then at EE you combine;
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I accept that I've been obnoxious. I'll accept that I've been patronising. It isn't only you saying that, others have said the same. ... I accept those calls. I take them on the chin.
with
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why are apparently so threatened by the very idea that we might debate this issues and come to a different conclusion to yourself?
....All I get is you over-reacting to what you see as vague and inconclusive (and admittedly, lengthy) musings on my part.
Well if you accept that you've been obnoxious and patronising what do you expect?
And while I'm at the judgemental Gamaliel posting style critique I may as well go the whole hog and quote this from purgatory;
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know people who had that kind of dramatic 'infilling' as we would have called it who later lost their faith or else got into naughty things ... cheating on their wives and so on ...
Not that this invalidates their earlier experiences ... but it doesn't quite ring true somehow - in terms of what's being claimed.
Well which is it? Does it invalidate their earlier experience or not? You imply it does with "doesn't quite ring true". I think that you know you can't claim it invalidates their earlier experience, but somehow can't quite resist making the point anyway. And if called on your "doesn't quite ring true" you will so "I've said it doesn't invalidate their experience" in a lengthy post with various "musings".
It makes engagement with the discussion quite tedious.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - fair comments Evensong and mdjon.
I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides of every argument. I can also vacillate. It's a weakness. I can be indecisive in real life - but at times I can also be dangerously impetuous.
I studied a two-subject degree at university. Back in my full-on charismatic days elders, church leades and so on were always 'at' me because they thought I was 'double-minded' ... 'the double-minded man shall not receive anything from the Lord, he is double-minded, unstable in all he does ...' as James has it.
You can see why I didn't fit in.
So, if I can get back up off the psychiatrist's couch now, I suspect this is why I react strongly (rightly or wrongly) against personalities like EE - although I'm sure we'd both get on fine in real life and I don't disagree with all his points nor all his posts - far from it.
Perhaps EE is right and I do need 'help' ... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But if I do, I suspect it would be over different issues to those he supposes. We all need help and we all need one another ... even if we exasperate one another at times.
My posting style does tend to be - on the one hand this, on the other hand that, meanwhile ...
So I can see how frustratingly irritating that can get and I don't 'blame' EE for his Hell-call.
To an extent, I feel I'd be strait-jacketing myself if I posted differently, so I'm not sure how to proceed.
I will try not to be obnoxious though. Like I was back then with the dig at EE.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, if I can get back up off the psychiatrist's couch now, I suspect this is why I react strongly (rightly or wrongly) against personalities like EE - although I'm sure we'd both get on fine in real life and I don't disagree with all his points nor all his posts - far from it.
Why do you think he's so easily wound up by you?
(I think he's wound up by me too but we don't argue much as I back out quickly, being poor at arguing in the written medium - in RL I'd wipe the floor with him )
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides of every argument. I can also vacillate. It's a weakness. I can be indecisive in real life - but at times I can also be dangerously impetuous.
But that isn't the problem. It isn't that you see both sides of an argument that frustrates me, it is that you want to say x.... you can see that x doesn't quite hold water... but you don't post in the form "I would like to say x, but I can see that y invalidates it, nevertheless I'd counter with z", you post in the form "I'd like to say x... before anybody says y, I know about y... but x anyway".
Seeing both sides of the argument is fine. It is the having of cake and eating it that's the problem.
(By the way I'll try to remember this when the mdijon-posting-style-critique thread gets going).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You might be the only person who has really spoken in tongues in the entire history of the church post-1st century - I don't know ...
See, Gamaliel, when you make suggestions like that it comes with a subtext. "I don't know... for certain... but we all know it's not bloody likely."
You constantly avoid statements of outright certainty while making it pretty clear where you think the probabilities lie.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Is it my fault that you are so hyper-sensitive that you take any robust and rational discussion of these issues as some kind of personal attack?
"Robust and rational discussion", eh?
OK, let's just give the world and his dog some idea of your approach to "robust and rational discussion"...
On Kerygmania I responded to Komensky's post, and you gave your fifty million penn'orths, as follows...
quote:
I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, but is the idea of 'personal tongues' really what the Apostle Paul is referring to here?:
1 Corinthians 14:28 - "But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."
What does it mean? It may mean what you take it to mean but there are other alternative explanations.
And then you launch into one alternative explanation, which you then deftly shoot down in flames, while still apparently believing it (or perhaps not quite believing it, but affirming that some other people believe it, so therefore it's valid, or it may not be valid, but whatever...)
quote:
I've already mentioned the one about it referring to people who might be present in the meeting - Corinth being a multicultural seaport - who might be praying in their own language - be it Latin, Ancient Spanish, Aramaic, whatever else.
In which case it might simply be that the Apostle Paul is asking them not to pray out loud but to pray in their own language quietly so as not to disrupt the service.
Now, that is an explanation that has been put forward - mainly, but not exclusively, by conservative evangelicals.
I'm not saying I agree with it. It doesn't seem to fit the data - if we assume (and it can only be an assumption) that the apostle Paul is referring to the same thing in 1 Corinthians 14:2 where, as you say, it appears that the speaker themselves can't understand what they are saying - 'no one understands him'.
Could it not be, though, that this means that 'no one else understands him' - rather than him not understanding what he/she are saying themselves?
This would fit. But then we have the tantalising thing about 'he utters mysteries with his spirit.'
Now, what on earth does this mean?
What it means, dear, is that you have answered your own bloody question. Well done! You've been thinking out loud, you have marked out all the dots, but for some mysterious reason (known only to your dear darling self) YOU REFUSE TO JOIN THEM UP!
And so we plough through this winter wonderland of woolliness (see, that pathetic attempt at alliteration proves I didn't get a degree in English. So hope that makes you feel better)...
quote:
We can assume or infer that it's referring to what we know as the contemporary practice of speaking in tongues - that it refers to glossolalia - but we can't 100% prove that it is or it isn't.
No, we can't. In fact, we can't prove anything apart from perhaps dear old Descartes' eureka moment. But, hey, let's continue our trek through the vague valley of vacillation (bet you enjoyed that one. You must be in stitches by now...)
quote:
Which is exactly why I'm urging some caution in the way we interpret these verses - because I'm not sure there's sufficient data to come to any hard and fast conclusion. I'm sorry, but there it is.
Yep, I am sure you are crying buckets at the tragic realisation that the Bible says absolutely nothing about anything. In fact, what I suggest you do is this: write to the Bible Society (and ask them to get your missive translated into various languages - you being a lover of human languages - and suggest that they could make a significant saving on the printing of Bibles. Instead of actually printing any text, they could just bind up blank pages, and market it as a new edition of the Bible: "The Subtle Christian's Bible". It's a special edition for those who are the proud possessors of subtle minds, who refuse to come to any firm conclusions about anything, who refuse to join up the dots, even when the solution is staring them in the face, who refuse to be 'binary', who refuse to think in black and white. In fact, why not throw in a free set of colour felt tip pens - or even crayons - so that these 'subtle Christians' can spend many happy hours drawing pretty pictures on the blank pages of their 'Bibles' and, of course, colour them as their feelings dictate. How about it, Gammy? This would surely be a revolution in Bible publishing. No more of that nasty old tome with its hard edges and miserable binary dogmatism. No. Bring on "The Postmodern Bible", "The Post-Charismatic Bible", "The Post-Christian Bible" - perhaps even "The Post-Sanity Bible"!
And so we continue to navigate your exasperating expatiation of equivocation...
quote:
The text itself is ambiguous at this point. We're told that someone is speaking a language that no-one else present understands (it doesn't specifically say that they can't understand it) and that in doing so, this person is somehow 'uttering mysteries with his spirit.'
I'd be interested in explanations from the more scholarly among us as to what this might mean.
Again, I think it's a bit of a hermeneutical leap to suggest that the apostle Paul is encouraging this person to keep on speaking in tongues privately - all it says is that he should keep 'quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.'
Is this saying anything, necessarily, about what this person should do when not in church?
Again, it's not clear.
*yawn* Zzzzzzzzzz.....
Someone wake me up when this dreary droning of double-mindedness is all over.
quote:
I'm open to ideas too ... because these verses have me foxed.
Wot?!!
What was that??!! Did someone say something about 'foxes', eh?
Oh, I must have been dreaming. I'm off back to sleep....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Whereas EE's characteristic trait is to find things easily proved that most people don't find proved at all. Off the top of my head we've had the creation of the universe and moral certainty, but there could be others I've missed...
...it really is a beautiful marriage of opposites we have here, innit?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Poor comparison, orfeo.
Scientists and moral philosophers at least try to come up with some theories, but Gamaliel's response is:
"Dunno. Dunno. Dunno.
It's not clear. I'm sorry but it's just not. End of."
Welcome to the surreal world of intellectual nihilism.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You constantly avoid statements of outright certainty while making it pretty clear where you think the probabilities lie.
But everyone who makes a definite point is usually ripped to shreds, and you are one of those who do the ripping orfeo!
If Gamaliel says "You are XYZ, EE" then he get's hammered for it. If he says "I belive EE, that you might have the qualities of XYZ" then he still gets hammered for it!
Of course we know what he really means, but he's just softening the blow to ease the pain of some of the more fragile sensitivities that are round here.
Which is another way of saying he's being polite!
You might try it yourself sometime.
[ 23. January 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
If we alll took the planks out of our own eyes, we could build a shed!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
For crying out loud, EE ...
This is EXACTLY what I'm getting at.
I acknowledge that something isn't clear and you put 2 and 2 together and make 48 (or 42 or whatever your age happens to be ...)
Just because I acknowledge that some verses can be ambiguous you extend that to suggest that I don't believe the Bible says anything of any value at all.
Which is far from the case.
It's YOU who are being disingenuous here, my friend.
It's all so fuckingly wooden to you that if we suggest that something is ambiguous in one part or other then you think that the whole edifice is in risk of collapse.
I am not saying that at all. It's just that you're so stupid that you think I am.
Where do you get your Bible from? The Forestry Commission (without it being pulped and processed into paper first?).
I'll acknowledge the 'calls' I'm receiving here on equivocation. Sure. That doesn't mean I don't believe anything. I have said time and time and time and time again that I'm fully committed to historic creedal Christianity - I believe in the resurrection, the deity of Christ, the Trinity and lots of other things that Christians believe in besides.
What I'm not wedded to is your kind of Pope EE binary interpretation of everything.
If you can't cope with nuance then that's your fault not mine.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano
...he's just softening the blow to ease the pain of some of the more fragile sensitivities that are round here.
But that just makes it worse, because it's insincere.
He says it's a Welsh thing, but maybe it's my northern English genes coming to the fore: call a pile of shit a pile of shit. Yeah, it's crude, but sometimes the blunt honesty is needed with some people.
There is something in me - Lancashire birth and father and Yorkshire childhood (part of) - that recoils from mealy mouthed flattery-cum-apologies-with-patronising-subtext.
I suppose southern English tact (or manipulation, as one may sometimes see it) has its influence on me (that's where I live) and maternal Irish blarney takes the edge off the northern bluntness, but there is only so much bullshit that one can take.
In fact, I'm surprised that Gamaliel can get away with it, living in Cheshire. But then Cheshire isn't Lancashire or Yorkshire. Or maybe it's all changed up there from the good ol' days...
[ 23. January 2013, 12:21: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
He says it's a Welsh thing, but maybe it's my northern English genes coming to the fore: call a pile of shit a pile of shit. Yeah, it's crude, but sometimes the blunt honesty is needed with some people.
There is something in me - Lancashire birth and father and Yorkshire childhood (part of) - that recoils from mealy mouthed flattery-cum-apologies.
Oh I understand that perfectly. I am currently based in a power station in North Yorkshire, and the level of "plain-speaking" is at it's normal level for Yorkshire - all the fucking time!
It gets wearing after a while. Us Derbyshire folk have a bigger vocabulary I suppose, and can call a spade a spade, or a shovel, or a generic digging implement.
Tact, politeness and diplomacy aren't something to be derided. They help the world get along. If a softening is made, it doesn't cover up the issue, it is an attempt to criticise without inflamming a situation even further.
I just wish that was NFY (Normal For Yorkshire).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You constantly avoid statements of outright certainty while making it pretty clear where you think the probabilities lie.
But everyone who makes a definite point is usually ripped to shreds, and you are one of those who do the ripping orfeo!
If Gamaliel says "You are XYZ, EE" then he get's hammered for it. If he says "I belive EE, that you might have the qualities of XYZ" then he still gets hammered for it!
Well the first obvious solution is to find a different topic besides EE to discuss. (And actually, why you think EE was the topic of discussion is a bit of a mystery to begin with.)
Because not all topics are equally prone to doubt and uncertainty. Nor, conversely, are all topics equally prone to the kind of proof that EE finds so readily.
As for 'everyone' getting ripped to shreds? Hardly.
People get ripped to shreds for making definite points if they can't back them up. Or if they haven't laid a foundation for them. Not because there's something inherently wrong with making definite points.
In fact, PLENTY of people get around the boards quite nicely, making clear assertions about all sorts of things.
The reasons for you personally getting ripped to shreds everytime you open your mouth mostly have to do with you finding unique and special ways to piss people off while saying whatever it is you have to say, but also sometimes because you just pull something out of the air and expect people to agree with it when many Shipmates find it contrary to their existing knowledge.
Oh, and finally, as for me being polite, do you think I got to where I am by being polite?
I'm in a particularly weird and savage mood the last few days for reasons I'm not even going to BEGIN to try and articulate, so I acknowledge that I'm going through one of my nasty periods. But here in Hell I sometimes feel like expressing the fact that some Shipmates piss me off a bit. If anything, it's my hosting duties that have given me some reason to pause before doing that. But sometimes - as in recent days - I'm just not in the mood to inhibit myself.
I'm quite sure I similarly piss off some Shipmates. The degree to which I care about this is directly affected by the degree to which I find the Shipmate's contributions interesting/useful. I'm sure that makes me a shallow human being in some ways, but again, my higher self is on vacation just now and may not be back for some time.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The reasons for you personally getting ripped to shreds everytime you open your mouth mostly have to do with you finding unique and special ways to piss people off while saying whatever it is you have to say, but also sometimes because you just pull something out of the air and expect people to agree with it when many Shipmates find it contrary to their existing knowledge.
Oh orfeo! That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I'm touched.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
And actually, why you think EE was the topic of discussion is a bit of a mystery to begin with.
Errrr - because he started this thread, painting a great big target on himself in the process?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
And actually, why you think EE was the topic of discussion is a bit of a mystery to begin with.
Errrr - because he started this thread, painting a great big target on himself in the process?
Yes, but Gamaliel's discourse began long before that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm touched.
What by, exactly? A large plank?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - Gamaliel's discourse did begin before that. But it isn't Gamaliel's fault that EE - despite his Yorkist/Lancastrian credentials - is such a great big, soft, sensitive wuss that he gets all upset whenever anyone discusses topics close to his ever-so-sensitive heart.
Yes, the way I debate here is a Welsh thing to a certain extent - filtered through a liberal-arts background hence the equivocation and so on at times.
But I lived in Yorkshire for 27 years and as well as Wenglish - 'talking tidy' - I can also talk Tyke.
'Nah then, EE, wilt tha jes' fook off yer gurt wet big girl's blouse ...'
Better?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Why must these statements always be accompanied by smilies? WHY????
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You want me to delete them?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What sort of answer is that?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Are we now playing Rosencrantz?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why must these statements always be accompanied by smilies? WHY????
Same reason you used too many question marks just there ↗
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I don't think this is going well.
(Nice UBB code, BTW)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
❤ Thank you ❤
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just because I acknowledge that some verses can be ambiguous you extend that to suggest that I don't believe the Bible says anything of any value at all. Which is far from the case. It's YOU who are being disingenuous here, my friend.
So what does the bible say unambiguously, in your opinion?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
But it isn't Gamaliel's fault that EE - despite his Yorkist/Lancastrian credentials - is such a great big, soft, sensitive wuss that he gets all upset whenever anyone discusses topics close to his ever-so-sensitive heart.
The problem with that truth-free comment is that the issue that is allegedly 'upsetting' me isn't even being properly discussed by you (although other people are making a good effort). Despite your voluminous output of verbal diarrhoea, you have hardly even begun to discuss it. That is the problem. You don't want to discuss it. All you want to do is give the appearance that you do, hence the fact that you become so hysterical when someone blows your cover. You want to appear clever and learned, but you can't come to terms with the fact that you actually have nothing to say.
You were the one who brought up the issue of linguistic testing. I was the one who decided to engage with that, citing something you may conceivably have heard of in your liberal-arty education: evidence. But oh no. Six months ago I was apparently "showing off" when producing this evidence. That was your profound refutation of the evidence that I presented in response to YOUR sodding argument. And then when I produced similar evidence again recently, it was again airily dismissed without any intellectually plausible justification.
And apparently, the act of responding to YOUR argument is equivalent to "getting all upset and being a great big, soft, sensitive wuss". Trying to have any kind of sensible discussion with you is a trip into a kind of Kafka-esque world of absurdity and contradiction (but I guess that's the kind of chaotic world in which you feel comfortable, because it puts you and your comfort blanket of many words in control, without any of the normal checks and balances of intellectual rigour.)
Having tried to make sense of where you're coming from, I have constructed a little theory: deconversion syndrome.
You used to be into something dodgy in a so called charismatic church, and frankly, you're embarrassed. You've come out of it, and lament the wasted years when you carried on like a complete pillock. (By the way, I've been there as well.)
But because of a deep-seated and carefully concealed pride, you aren't man enough to stand up, puff out your chest and put the whole stupid episode behind you. No. You have to drag everybody else down with you. It's called projection.
After your 'deconversion' from that particular brand of Christianity, you're now on a crusade (and no, I don't believe all your denials about that). In order to relieve yourself of the pain of your humiliation and embarrassment (and the disappointment of all those wasted years of deception and general pratting around), you turn on others who YOU IMAGINE are into the kind of thing you were into. Certain things - doctrines and practices - stimulate a reaction in you, and in your mind are markers that indicate that someone falls into a certain spiritual and religious category. Tongues, of course, is one of the main markers - especially the so called 'yabadabadoo' kind.
Now during the course of your life, you happen to come into some kind of contact with someone who claims to be into 'yabadabadoo', and even seeks to defend this practice. For you this is clear evidence that such a person falls neatly within the category of the kind of spirituality from which you have gloriously been delivered. Like a circling shark you smell blood. So when this poor unfortunate soul dares to express any kind of confidence in this particular spiritual practice, you go in for the kill. Now this naive soul didn't realise what kind of person you were. He stupidly thought that he could reason with you, but, of course, a swimmer cannot reason with a shark. So in his struggles to knock some sense into the shark he got himself into greater and greater trouble. The endless accusations started flowing: "you're proud", "you look down on others who you think are not as spiritual as you", "you're driving me to atheism" (yes, there was even a silly hell thread on that one), "you're hyper-sensitive and possessive about your precious little gift", "you're closed minded and bigoted", "you can't read and interpret the Bible properly", "you're a big softy", and so on and so on ad nauseam.
But the truth is that this is just a smokescreen. You are just projecting onto me your own spiritual failures. That is why you are so nauseatingly patronising (as if a genuinely mature person would really need to hang a sign round his neck saying: "Look at me, I am so mature"!). You have a deep personal need to put others down as a psychological mechanism to cope with your own proud inability to admit to yourself that you totally screwed up.
Now I don't expect you to agree with my theory. But please note that this is what I believe you are doing, on the basis of your behaviour.
What I suggest you do is this: find a large mirror. Stand in front of it and say the following words to it: "You. Yes you. You totally screwed up, didn't you? You were a complete and utter prat in that church. You made a complete idiot of yourself. I forgive you, you silly sod. Now, I want to say this to you: your complete and total cock-up has bugger all to do with anyone else. Just leave them alone."
We've all been there and done it. I've got all the t-shirts.
Just do it, FFS, and put us all out of our misery...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Are we now playing Rosencrantz?
Not in here, you're bloody well not.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Are we now playing Rosencrantz?
Not in here, you're bloody well not.
orfeo, you beat me to it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Having tried to make sense of where you're coming from, I have constructed a little theory: deconversion syndrome.
You used to be into something dodgy in a so called charismatic church, and frankly, you're embarrassed. You've come out of it, and lament the wasted years when you carried on like a complete pillock. (By the way, I've been there as well.)
<deleted stuff explaining theory and consequences>
We've all been there and done it. I've got all the t-shirts.
Just do it, FFS, and put us all out of our misery...
EE, the details may be a bit febrile, but that is probably the most worthwhile post on the thread, although that isn't saying much.
I've been a member of some rum organisations in my life (CND, the Young Liberals and CAMRA among the better ones) but now I inhabit this place and I'm a member of a model railway society. Oh, and a church not unlike the one Gamaliel used to go to. None of them are perfect, but for the most part it is the people in them that make them bearable or otherwise, not the constitutions, doctrinal bases or Commandments. And from time to time I have my differences with all of them.
[ 23. January 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Actually, EE, that's one of the most sensible posts of yours I've read.
Thanks.
Seriously. I think you're onto something.
The only part I'd disagree with is the shark analogy - but that might only because nobody likes to see themselves as a shark.
I think you are right about the projection thing and that's why a red-mist occasionally descends whenever these topics come up and I start lashing out.
So yes, I wasted a lot of years, I was a stupid prat and it seems that I wasn't the only one - you were too.
Now, all that said - and yes I'm embarrassed now about the 'atheist' hell call - I do think there's a genuine debate to be had and I am more than happy to continue that debate with you in Purgatory or in Kerygmania.
I think we would have to agree ground-rules though. I'd have to stop being an obfuscating, post-modern prat but equally you might have to stop reading all manner of personal attacks inot my posts which aren't always there (although they are at times, certainly ... ).
I still think that your exegetical approach is rather wooden and I still think that your linguistic evidence - fine as far as it went - didn't fully address the issues that Komensky and others had raised. But that's no big deal.
I'm also more than happy to accept that you are not a charismatic nutter - if you are a charismatic nutter then so is Jolly Jape and you'll notice that my tone has often been different with him than it has with you. I've not gone on any tirades after reading his posts. I might put an alternative viewpoint but that's as far as it goes.
Why do you think that might be?
So yes, you're right, I'm feeling fucked over by years of cognitive-dissonance on the charismatic scene and I've been lashing out in all directions whilst I've been going through detox and cold-turkey.
I will endeavour now to be clothed and in my right mind.
To be frank, I suspect that if thee and me had met in a pub somewhere or at a Ship meet and these things came up in conversation we wouldn't have ended up failing out at all. We'd have probably have agreed on more than we disagreed about.
So, thanks for that, EE. A 'sadder and a wiser man I will awake the morrow morn' to coin an Ancient Mariner-ish phrase.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... my higher self is on vacation just now and may not be back for some time.
You should copyright this, then put it on those inspirational plaques that a certain type of perky, sunshiny office worker tends to collect.
You'd make a fortune selling it to the other poor souls in the office.
In the meantime, I'm taking it to the Quotes thread...
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I just wish both EE and Gama would post concisely, ideally without multi-posting. Scrolling down I lose the begining and end of these mega posts and can't see if I have missed one (especially as they all seem to say much the same thing) and I need to check the bloody things because half the time they have ill-disguised side-swipes at each other in.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You wish is my command.
Fook off EE.
Better?
More seriously, good points but as Sioni Sais says (ha ha) febrile in the detail.
Food for thought though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You wish is my command.
Fook off EE.
Better?
Only on some measures.
Now, if the two of you are at the point where you can dance off happily into the exegetical sunset, hand in hand, can you let me know and get out of my hellhole?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
orfeo -
I've said my piece.
I'm outta here.
You can now call the fire brigade if you like, AFAIAC.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just because I acknowledge that some verses can be ambiguous you extend that to suggest that I don't believe the Bible says anything of any value at all. Which is far from the case. It's YOU who are being disingenuous here, my friend.
So what does the bible say unambiguously, in your opinion?
No bites Ingo?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
orfeo -
I've said my piece.
I'm outta here.
You can now call the fire brigade if you like, AFAIAC.
Excellent. I actually want to applaud you for making pretty good use of a Hell call.
Thread closed. Anyone who has a good reason for reopening can get in touch. And taunting Ingo doesn't count.
orfeo
Hellhost
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0