Thread: Isn't it time IngoB took up golf? 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=026332

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I wish IngoB was interested in something less important and life changing than theology and belief in God.

He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them.

Like a huge red robed spider who prowls the ship to wrap people in the sticky threads of his favourite theological themes.

This thread in the Styx is an example - IngoB steps close to the line, again. Why? Because he loves the rigour of debate.

I just wish he was debating the merits of birdies and albatrosses or something equally unimportant.

Love of God and neighbour is too crucial a subject to be used as a tool to hone one's debating skills when there is no evidence of love of God and neighbour in tone/delivery/content or method of that debate.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Hear hear. IngoB, you often seem to treat debates on the Ship in a totally adversarial way, using phrases like (these are from three different threads) 'you are reduced to endlessly repeating sentimental rhetoric', 'your incoherence here', and 'an absurd case of the pot calling the kettle black'.

ISTM either you don't realise that most people respond negatively to such language and are unlikely to come round to your way of thinking, or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim. If only you used more conciliatory and bridge-building language, maybe you'd go further towards changing your interlocutors' minds.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
In other words, he is far too good at Purg subjects to be ruthlessly debating in Purg. He can knock the stuffing out of someone who merely wants to present the heartfelt (or what he might consider the fluffy bunny) POV. Bah! Humbug, ye bears of little brain!

I know what you are saying. He does seem like a pretty cold fish much of the time. But I think he feels much safer leading with his strengths than revealing his softer core here on the ship. And he does have a more warm side. It has peeked out a few times. And just look at his picture in the gallery- you know he's a sweet daddy!

But he really doesn't do sweet here.

[ 27. November 2013, 07:58: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them.

---

I agree that he can fight his corner, but there comes a point where his arguments break down and then he starts on the "you're a heretic" or "that's just not Christian" approach. A far more intelligent approach would be to say in those instances: "OK. Fair enough. You have a point there". (I speak as, historically on the Ship, one of the worst offenders! ) But the trouble with being a member of an exclusivist organisation is that no concessions can really be made: "We are right and I am going to move heaven and earth to prove it!"

As for being heartless: I did actually introduce this thread as a reaction against the likes of IngoB along with daronmedway and Zach82.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
I can never decide whether he is a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I guess his posts serve a purpose. I mean, if I'd ever feel an inkling to swim the Tiber, I'd only need to read one of IngoB's multi-quote posts to keep my feet firmly planted on this side of it.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

Like a huge red robed spider

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM either you don't realise that most people respond negatively to such language and are unlikely to come round to your way of thinking, or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.

---

IngoB has previously answered calls like this one to say exactly that. I think he said something along the lines that he was here to debate and to test his ideas and justifications out. He certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
IngoB... certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.

---

My question to him is still 'why?'.

The God he debates about does very much want to win hearts and minds (imo). Why not choose a less important subject if all you want to do is sharpen your intellectual knives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
If you have your faith sucked out of you because someone is a capable debater, then your faith isn’t well rooted. It says more about the OP than IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I may not agree with all of his views and opinions, but I do respect him, and his admirable debating skills. I enjoy reading his posts in the main. They are well written and tend to treat the other ship members as educated adults deserving of respect, which is something that I always struggle with.

If he shows the occasional sign of exasperation at some of the weaker-minded morons amongst you then that is fine by me. As the old adage amongst teachers goes “you can’t educate pork”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano
Some people have logical and rational minds and are capable of pursuing complex and detailed lines of argument. Other people are not. That is to be celebrated – especially as the latter are a good source of cheap labour for the world’s menial jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Host Hat gently on

Boogie,

Did you actually tell Ingo in some way that you had called him to Hell, as is proper Ship etiquette?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
If you have your faith sucked out of you because someone is a capable debater, then your faith isn’t well rooted. It says more about the OP than IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

I cannot believe IngoB is being chastised for being a clever, subtle and sophisticated debater. Why on Earth is that bad? I can only wish that more of you were of his calibre!

---

quote:

---

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,* but do not have love, I gain nothing.

---

quote:

---

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Host Hat gently on

Boogie,

Did you actually tell Ingo in some way that you had called him to Hell, as is proper Ship etiquette?

---

Ooops, sorry - forgot this!



 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I can never decide whether he is a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I can never decide whether he is a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

---

Or the sound of piss going into the pot

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.

---

IngoB has previously answered calls like this one to say exactly that. I think he said something along the lines that he was here to debate and to test his ideas and justifications out. He certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.

---

My question to him is still 'why?'.

The God he debates about does very much want to win hearts and minds (imo). Why not choose a less important subject if all you want to do is sharpen your intellectual knives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Love of God and neighbour is too crucial a subject to be used as a tool to hone one's debating skills when there is no evidence of love of God and neighbour in tone/delivery/content or method of that debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Are you saying that Ingo lacks love of God and neighbour, or that you'd rather he prefaced every point he makes with some saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation lest he upset some sensitive flower who's not actually obliged to read or take part anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you imagine if the whole of society ran on the 'well you don't have to watch' line of argument? There'd be no criminal laws for starters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you imagine if the whole of society ran on the 'well you don't have to watch' line of argument? There'd be no criminal laws for starters.

---

I think there's quite a lot of open water between saying that if you don't like someone's mode of argument on the internet you can scroll past and "no criminal law."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?

The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.

---

This I agree with. But doesn't it lead us to the conclusion that there is commandment-breaking behaviour, which rightly leads to host and admin action, and there is behaviour that we should, if we don't like it, scroll past.

Are you proposing that we add "over-vigorous under-emotional argument" to the list of prohibited behaviour?

Or that this is a second-level of behaviour - non-actionable under the commandments, but still something people shouldn't be expected to scroll past? What else might fall into that category?
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
IngoB was debating a New Atheist. New Atheists are supposedly all about reason. I say supposedly because generally they don't know a damn thing about philosophy or religion relying instead on a grab bag of logical fallacies mixed with emotional rhetoric bordering on demagoguery. The New Atheist will then attempt to cover the weakness in their arguments by delivering the boilerplate in an arrogant and condescending tone.

IngoB responds to those type arguments with pure reason, which the New Atheists claim they are all about in the first place, and he is the bad guy?!

It's not just New Atheists. Liberal Christians claim to reject fundamentalism because they don't want to leave their brains at the door. Apparently, some of them are more than willing to leave their brains at the door when it allows them to believe what they want to believe and not be challenged.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?

The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.

---

This I agree with. But doesn't it lead us to the conclusion that there is commandment-breaking behaviour, which rightly leads to host and admin action, and there is behaviour that we should, if we don't like it, scroll past.

Are you proposing that we add "over-vigorous under-emotional argument" to the list of prohibited behaviour?

Or that this is a second-level of behaviour - non-actionable under the commandments, but still something people shouldn't be expected to scroll past? What else might fall into that category?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Adeodatus:
It would be easy for some of us to think we should be Roman Catholics. Some of us like the liturgy. Some may like the culture. To some it may simply be a case of thinking "the grass is greener". IngoB's contibutions help strip us of all such illusions. He reminds me that whereas I'm a slightly discontented Anglican, I'd be a bloody miserable Catholic once the honeymoon periood was over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?

The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.

---

This I agree with. But doesn't it lead us to the conclusion that there is commandment-breaking behaviour, which rightly leads to host and admin action, and there is behaviour that we should, if we don't like it, scroll past.

Are you proposing that we add "over-vigorous under-emotional argument" to the list of prohibited behaviour?

Or that this is a second-level of behaviour - non-actionable under the commandments, but still something people shouldn't be expected to scroll past? What else might fall into that category?

---

What I'm proposing is that there might be reasons for not engaging in behaviour besides "if I do this I will get in trouble with hosts or admins". I would hope that another reason for not in engaging in behaviour is "if I do this I will upset other Shipmates".

But that reason requires caring about how other Shipmates feel and taking the view that upsetting them is something that, all other things being equal, is better avoided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Like IngoB, I had thought that Purgatory existed for serious discussion.

---

quote:

---

I am not God ...

---

quote:

---

originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
No saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation needed, just a way of phrasing that communicates respect for other posters and a working assumption that they're discussing in good faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Like IngoB, I had thought that Purgatory existed for serious discussion.

---

It is. None of this is about having to not be serious, it's about having to be respectful.

Personally, I think South Coast Kevin already did an excellent job on this thread of showing how the same serious idea can be conveyed in 2 different ways, one respectful and one not.

EDIT: In Ingo's case, he quite definitely has a habit of framing his remarks as 'you' and 'your'. He might think he's attacking an argument, but by addressing his remarks in this way he is constantly personalising it, making it feel like an attack on the person rather than on the argument the person presented. It's his choice of word that creates this, not anything about the content of his argument or his ideas.

It's really no different in principle to the therapy that's performed with people suffering from depression or other conditions, or even just people who tend to be down on themselves, to say/think "that was a stupid thing to do" rather than "(I did that thing therefore) I am stupid". If Ingo framed more of his dialogue as "I think that argument is wrong" instead of "you are wrong", he could say exactly the same content in a far more palatable way. And with less chance of ending up with a Hostly warning in Purgatory, too.

---

As one that tends to think along the lines of "I did that thing, therefore I am stupid," I think people who are offended by that are being silly. Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."

Don't get me wrong, IngoB seems to assume that the only reason people would disagree with him is because they are stupid or vicious people. His conscious ignorance of Protestantism is a real pain in the ass. But the accusation that "He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them" is a bit much. Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.

[ 27. November 2013, 13:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I tend to avoid Hell these days but find myself - again - in broad agreement with EE. This is getting just too much ...

More seriously, I do like reading IngoB's posts, partly because they reaffirm my constant stereotyping of late-Thomist medieval Scholasticism ... just as Zach82's posts confirm my stereotyping of particular kinds of Calvinist ...



Or Deano's posts confirm my stereotyping of particular types of middle-class twat.

As for the use of 'you' - have you noticed how Deano resorts to a collective 'you' when dismissing the views of Shippies who don't share his blinkered, anally-retentive view of the world?

I also notice how he posted in the thread about redundancies and laying people off as if he was the only person here aboard Ship who has ever had to do such a thing and make those kinds of decisions.

'I ran my own company, you peasants ...'

If anyone deserves a Hell-call at the moment it's not IngoB but Deano.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
As one that tends to think along the lines of "I did that thing, therefore I am stupid," I think people who are offended by that are being silly. Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.

---

quote:

---

Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."

...

Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."

...

Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically.

---

Can you not see the difference between these propositions?

---

• tl:dr
• Not enough "funny"
• Gives the Roman Catholic View in spades which is both helpful and unhelpful
• So right I want to be wrong

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to avoid Hell these days but find myself - again - in broad agreement with EE. This is getting just too much ...

More seriously, I do like reading IngoB's posts, partly because they reaffirm my constant stereotyping of late-Thomist medieval Scholasticism ... just as Zach82's posts confirm my stereotyping of particular kinds of Calvinist ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."

...

Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically.

---

Can you not see the difference between these propositions?

---

I do see the difference. I was making two propositions. Not unrelated ones, but two nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

Well then, I would say I agree with the second proposition but disagree with the first. In my view, finding wrongness in relation to an argument is the goal of serious debate, not finding wrongness in relation to a person.

Because if a person is in possession of a wrong argument, they can discard it in favour of the argument that was found to be right. But all that a wrong person can do is lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Aside from the fact that I wouldn't wish golf on anybody (I mean, come on, we have debates in Purgatory about the eternal fires of hell, but golf? No, that's going too far.), I find IngoB a very helpful contributor here.

IngoB gives us the teaching of the Catholic Church straight. No frills, no compromises, no knowing winks that allow us to think "Well yes, but in practice it's not like that". IngoB shows us exactly what a person would be signing up to were they to become a Roman Catholic.

It would be easy for some of us to think we should be Roman Catholics. Some of us like the liturgy. Some may like the culture. To some it may simply be a case of thinking "the grass is greener". IngoB's contibutions help strip us of all such illusions. He reminds me that whereas I'm a slightly discontented Anglican, I'd be a bloody miserable Catholic once the honeymoon periood was over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Zach82:

quote:

---

Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.

---

I consider you the IngoB of the Prots, upright and unbending in righteousness (and rightness).

Damn, damn, damn! I so wanted include an emoticon there. Must be strong...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
I think it is more difficult than that to separate medium and message. If the content is Absolute Truth, transcendent, unchanging, irrefrangible, sharper than any two-edged sword etc etc, then putting any even mildly concessionary spin on the expression of it is a bit like putting a bobble hat on a Dalek is it not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If anyone deserves a Hell-call at the moment it's not IngoB but Deano.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Zach82:

quote:

---

Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.

---

I consider you the IngoB of the Prots, upright and unbending in righteousness (and rightness).

Damn, damn, damn! I so wanted include an emoticon there. Must be strong...

---

I am fairly certain that I've never once claimed to be righteous on these boards. I do think I am right, but that seems a strange thing to criticize someone for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If anyone deserves a Hell-call at the moment it's not IngoB but Deano.

---

There's no rule saying "only one person called to Hell at a time". If you think someone else deserves a Hell call, you know what to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If you are a Christian who is in fact "right" by your own admission, how can you not be "righteous"?

But then you knew I was just poking you with a stick, didn't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
deano, which menial job did you have in mind for yourself? Because if you think you qualify around here as one of the intelligent folk, there'll be a long queue of people ready to inform you that you are no Ingo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Are you saying that Ingo lacks love of God and neighbour, or that you'd rather he prefaced every point he makes with some saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation lest he upset some sensitive flower who's not actually obliged to read or take part anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Boogie said: "He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them." That isn't how I read him, and personally I don't think that's what Ingo intends. Equally, I doubt he cares that that's what Boogie thinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It takes guts to broadcast the unvarnished truth, and it's really not IngoB's fault if some of us find it unpalatable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
deano hell call just posted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Zach82 is being unnecessarily modest. He and IngoB are like book-ends.

I might be a twat but I'm not a trolling twat when it comes to Calvinists. I sometimes cut Calvinists slack. I have done so on these boards very recently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

What I struggle to understand is, if you can phrase things in a way that is helpful to everyone (including yourself), why the heck wouldn't you at least try? There are many positives, and the only negative I can think of is that it takes a little bit of effort. It doesn't take any more words - just different ones. And Ingo doesn't seem to have a problem with being thorough with his posts, does he?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
Before we gloss over IngoB's claims here, on this thread people who believe in hell are accused of worshiping Moloch, Cthulu, and worse with complete impunity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I get the impression that IngoB converted to Catholicism because of the dry and intellectual aspects that nail the Church's colors to the wall without emotion. Pope Francis is annoying to him since, although he is a learned cleric and does indeed support his church's tittles and jots, Pope Francis isn't focused on them. He actually cares about people's lives and their relationship with Christ. To IngoB this is falling down on the job and a sign of papal mediocrity. Likewise, those of us who bring feelings and the non-intellectual to board discussion are considered mediocre thinkers and often unworthy of basic respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82
Before we gloss over IngoB's claims here, on this thread people who believe in hell are accused of worshiping Moloch, Cthulu, and worse with complete impunity.

---

Funny, but the Bible seems to make a similar comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I get the impression that IngoB converted to Catholicism because of the dry and intellectual aspects that nail the Church's colors to the wall without emotion. Pope Francis is annoying to him since, although he is a learned cleric and does indeed support his church's tittles and jots, Pope Francis isn't focused on them. He actually cares about people's lives and their relationship with Christ. To IngoB this is falling down on the job and a sign of papal mediocrity. Likewise, those of us who bring feelings and the non-intellectual to board discussion are considered mediocre thinkers and often unworthy of basic respect.

---

Can't you sense even a little the implicit contempt of IngoB's spirituality in this sort of assumption?

---

This is Hell, and yes, there is some implicit contempt there. The thing is that this is my impression from how he has posted on the Ship. He might well have oceans of emotive, spiritual depth to go with his intellectualism. But he doesn't show it here much. That's fine; his business. But it's all we have to work with.

That and a very tender picture of himself with his little child.
 

---

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
My dear old Irish mother often said that there is none so fervent as a Convert. I wonder if Squiggle is reading this.

▲
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
My dear old Irish father always used to say:
"none so pious as a reformed tart......"
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Are passer and Mrs Beaky siblings?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is Hell, and yes, there is some implicit contempt there. The thing is that this is my impression from how he has posted on the Ship. He might well have oceans of emotive, spiritual depth to go with his intellectualism. But he doesn't show it here much. That's fine; his business. But it's all we have to work with.

That and a very tender picture of himself with his little child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Holy hell, it's like you TRY to be as nonsensical as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is Hell, and yes, there is some implicit contempt there. The thing is that this is my impression from how he has posted on the Ship. He might well have oceans of emotive, spiritual depth to go with his intellectualism. But he doesn't show it here much. That's fine; his business. But it's all we have to work with.

That and a very tender picture of himself with his little child.

---

A person has to gush his feelings about God and salvation and post cookie recipes in heaven before he can simply discuss theology in a rational manner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Holy hell, it's like you TRY to be as nonsensical as possible.

---

Whereas you no longer need try as you have clearly mastered this skill.

Your modus operandi is to make misaligned assumptions and, when challenged, to complain of being accused of something which no one had accused you of. Then consistently refuse to directly address questions which would involve defending your actual statements.
This indicates you are too stubborn to admit your initial failure, truly lack the ability to comprehend your native language or simply prefer to wind up and derail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is Hell, and yes, there is some implicit contempt there. The thing is that this is my impression from how he has posted on the Ship. He might well have oceans of emotive, spiritual depth to go with his intellectualism. But he doesn't show it here much. That's fine; his business. But it's all we have to work with.

That and a very tender picture of himself with his little child.

---

A person has to gush his feelings about God and salvation and post cookie recipes in heaven before he can simply discuss theology in a rational manner?

---

Ah. Direct contempt. Okay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Holy hell, it's like you TRY to be as nonsensical as possible.

---

Whereas you no longer need try as you have clearly mastered this skill.

Your modus operandi is to make misaligned assumptions and, when challenged, to complain of being accused of something which no one had accused you of. Then consistently refuse to directly address questions which would involve defending your actual statements.
This indicates you are too stubborn to admit your initial failure, truly lack the ability to comprehend your native language or simply prefer to wind up and derail.

---

I can say one thing for myself. I don't have the energy to hold grudges. I would never get into an argument, then continue holding it against a person for weeks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Before we gloss over IngoB's claims here, on this thread people who believe in hell are accused of worshiping Moloch, Cthulu, and worse with complete impunity. On this thread the suggestion that making your own image of God based solely on your feelings might be idolatry sends the entire thread into screeching offense, complete with accusations of mental illness for thinking so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It is "sufficient but not necessary"? So there would be other valid points you could make? Let's have them then, because frankly this is getting nowhere. I'm quite satisfied that I have successfully answered your point, and that you are reduced to endlessly repeating sentimental rhetoric. You are convinced that I have said nothing of value and am evading your single point. No further progress is to be expected from this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

Would you like him to nice it up? then who would challenge you? who would force you to face some of that shit you don't want to face?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
you're all idiots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Life is too short to deal with your pathetic grudges.

---

And yet you continue to respond.
Truly, I hold no grudge. You are a minor annoyance at best and it is, at times, to the detriment of my character that I participate.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is Hell, and yes, there is some implicit contempt there. The thing is that this is my impression from how he has posted on the Ship. He might well have oceans of emotive, spiritual depth to go with his intellectualism. But he doesn't show it here much. That's fine; his business. But it's all we have to work with.

That and a very tender picture of himself with his little child.

---

A person has to gush his feelings about God and salvation and post cookie recipes in heaven before he can simply discuss theology in a rational manner?

---

Ah. Direct contempt. Okay.

---

Sorry, how is that contempt? You can't hold "intellectualism" against IngoB without being asked why he has to post any other way to be taken seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say from his behavior he doesn't give a fuck about his neighbors except as things to use to prop up his ego, and despises God enough to drive away from God those whom God loves. He may be completely different from this IRL. But on this ship, this is his MO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That seems an excellent description, and of course he doesn't care what Boogie thinks because he doesn't care what ANYBODY thinks except his precious self and Thomas Aquinas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's treating other people as stage props (or worse, Kleenex) for his ego-boosting intellectual orgasms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
For someone who has read this site for many years I think that It is more Ingo's journey and not just his present state that makes Catholicism seem unappealing. Years ago he was a very human, searching soul, leaving Buddhism and experiencing what seemed to be a truly joyous conversion and celebration of faith. But he quickly became a hard hearted, legalistic combatant and his humanity seemed to drain away. This community rallied around him and supported his journey, prayed for him and offered him congrats when he announced he was formally converting and starting a new life. Now he treats people here as opponents to vanquish and this community is just a place to sharpen his sword. If his is an example of what converting to Catholicism does to a person then it is no wonder so many believe it is not a path they would ever follow him on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I get the impression that IngoB converted to Catholicism because of the dry and intellectual aspects that nail the Church's colors to the wall without emotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Pope Francis is annoying to him since, although he is a learned cleric and does indeed support his church's tittles and jots, Pope Francis isn't focused on them. He actually cares about people's lives and their relationship with Christ. To IngoB this is falling down on the job and a sign of papal mediocrity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Likewise, those of us who bring feelings and the non-intellectual to board discussion are considered mediocre thinkers and often unworthy of basic respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Re-framing my comments in a sarcastic manner. Contempt.

And I haven't said he has to meet my expectations in posting, and I do take his posts seriously. He is just dry and intellectual and often seems arrogant. But I'm not saying he should change. Evidently we both make a few too many assumptions, Zach.

comet is right. IngoB is IngoB, love him or loath him, he brings an interesting POV to the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess his posts serve a purpose. I mean, if I'd ever feel an inkling to swim the Tiber, I'd only need to read one of IngoB's multi-quote posts to keep my feet firmly planted on this side of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
IngoB gives us the teaching of the Catholic Church straight. No frills, no compromises, no knowing winks that allow us to think "Well yes, but in practice it's not like that". IngoB shows us exactly what a person would be signing up to were they to become a Roman Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Subtle?

*checks dictionary*

---

Yeah, me too.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Iron sharpens iron. This place would be poorer without IngoB. Even if he is just sharpening his debating skills in order to take on the Jesuitical casuistries IRL.

....I theenk ..
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It is when feelings and the non-intellectual are used to decide issues which are very much in the rational and knowable domain, that I get tetchy. It's the "this cannot be true, because that would make me feel terrible (about myself / God / the Church)" style of claims that drive me nuts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Re-framing my comments in a sarcastic manner. Contempt.

And I haven't said he has to meet my expectations in posting, and I do take his posts seriously. He is just dry and intellectual and often seems arrogant. But I'm not saying he should change. Evidently we both make a few too many assumptions, Zach.

comet is right. IngoB is IngoB, love him or loath him, he brings an interesting POV to the Ship.

---

That wasn't sarcasm. What does he have to post before he can dispense with talking about feelings and talk about the Christian faith in a rational manner?

Sorry, but it seems to me that if you are giving him and his spirituality contempt, then you DO want him to change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Not enough to wish him to change. And although I copped to it, I don't think my feelings about IngoB rise to the level of actual contempt. Regular bouts of exasperation is more like it.

You show contempt here on a regular basis. (And I still read your comment as sarcasm. And contempt.) Do you want all your opponents to change?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Well then, I would say I agree with the second proposition but disagree with the first. In my view, finding wrongness in relation to an argument is the goal of serious debate, not finding wrongness in relation to a person.

Because if a person is in possession of a wrong argument, they can discard it in favour of the argument that was found to be right. But all that a wrong person can do is lose.

---

I take "you are wrong" at face value. I don't usually leap from "You are wrong" to "You are an inherently disordered person that cannot be right." Granted, IngoB can and does argue that way from time to time, but not usually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Not enough to wish him to change. And although I copped to it, I don't think my feelings about IngoB rise to the level of actual contempt. Regular bouts of exasperation is more like it.

You show contempt here on a regular basis. (And I still read your comment as sarcasm. And contempt.) Do you want all your opponents to change?

---

How about I pass off my contempt the same way you pass off yours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Iron sharpens iron. This place would be poorer without IngoB. Even if he is just sharpening his debating skills in order to take on the Jesuitical casuistries IRL.

....I theenk ..

---

Yes, I hope IngoB continues to participate. It has been a long while since we've heard from Johnny S or El Greco / §Andrew and I think this place is poorer without them, not only because of their controversial contributions, but equally because of the responses they provoked from everyone else.

[ 27. November 2013, 21:55: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Indeed. Andrew's theological misunderstandings (and attachment to them) drew out excellent responses from Father Gregory and Leetle Masha ( ), among others.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Not enough to wish him to change. And although I copped to it, I don't think my feelings about IngoB rise to the level of actual contempt. Regular bouts of exasperation is more like it.

You show contempt here on a regular basis. (And I still read your comment as sarcasm. And contempt.) Do you want all your opponents to change?

---

How about I pass off my contempt the same way you pass off yours?

---

Whatever floats your boat.

---

Don't write me off—I take you at your word that your habit of judging people and elaborating on their flaws is all harmless exasperation and not simple self-righteousness.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Habit?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Look at it this way—in response to me questioning your ridiculous expectations and the inherent contempt of your reasoning, you responded with questioning my usual behavior on the ship and waved away any question of your righteousness as harmless exasperation. You've judged my character and explained my moral failures many times in the past.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Here in Hell we offer rooms for rent at reasonable rates. We accept payment by cash, credit card or little pieces of your soul.

Now, is the gentleman paying for his lady-friend or should I split the bill?
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Wow. I hadn't realized that my digs on occasion of your Hell calls over the years had added up to a habit. I really hadn't. I'll take your word on that since the receiver of the wounds can count the scars.

Tell you what: I apologize for judging you on this and other occasions. Judgmentalism Is Bad. And as I said about IngoB it is best to let you be you. Pax.

ETA: Talk about a timely crosspost!

[ 27. November 2013, 22:28: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Fair enough—turns out I can hold grudges from time to time. Sorry for springing that on you out of the blue.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
That's okay. It is something for me to watch for in my "habits".

ETA: No, orfeo, we won't need a room. The "make-up sex" wouldn't be fiery enough for that.

[ 27. November 2013, 22:33: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, around here we don't seem to mind if you just get it on in the lobby in full view of the other guests.

We even sell popcorn.
 

---

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
He's an Evelyn Waugh-like figure giving hell to liberal (or any type) Protestants (on a site dominated by them ) and I enjoy the hell out of it



but that's just me
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I might be overbearing and insensitive at times, but at least I try to argue in good faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
My dear old Irish mother often said that there is none so fervent as a Convert. I wonder if Squiggle is reading this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
A person has to gush his feelings about God and salvation and post cookie recipes in heaven before he can simply discuss theology in a rational manner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
Would you like him to nice it up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Few people seem to particularly worry about driving me away from God, or about me getting used as a prop for some anti-Catholic and/or anti-conservative rant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Not enough to wish him to change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
He's an Evelyn Waugh-like figure giving hell to liberal (or any type) Protestants (on a site dominated by them ) and I enjoy the hell out of it



but that's just me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
Would you like him to nice it up?

---

No. We just want him to stop being a screaming fucking know-it-all condescending treating-people-as-a-means-to-his-own-ego-gratification-ends asshole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Few people seem to particularly worry about driving me away from God, or about me getting used as a prop for some anti-Catholic and/or anti-conservative rant.

---

No, we know that's not likely to happen. False equivalence. Nice try, asshole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mouse thief:
I do wish he would change, enough to treat other human beings as ends and not just as means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mouse thief:
I do wish he would change, enough to treat other human beings as ends and not just as means.

---

This (or at least Purg) is a "serious discussion forum". I assume that peoples' aim in joining is to discuss things, as is mine. If their main aim is to socialise, then I would suggest that they join a "serious socialising forum", Facebook or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Mind you, I am not opposed to meeting people through activities and shared interests. I don't think that SoF is particularly efficient for that though, because I distrust "virtual" friendships, and Shipmeets are limited.

---

quote:

---

Currently looking for friends on Valve's Steam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Call me a Kantian if it makes you feel better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Were you born without a clue, or did you lose it somewhere along the way? The issue is not discussing theology in a rational manner. It's being an asshole while discussing theology, rational or otherwise. One can discuss theology in a rational manner without being an asshole. Unless one is IngoB, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
More Purgatorial than Hellish ... but: we are all twats, we are all Kants. Some are bigger ones than others but even so ...

@Zach82 - to be fair, yes, I have been a prat and have trolled Calvinists at times. More recently, if you'd actually cared to read my posts properly, you'll have seen that I have cut Calvinists more slack than previously. I've over-egged things in the past.

What I haven't done, though, is cut you more slack.

Other Calvinists deserve to be cut more slack.

You don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Call me a Kantian if it makes you feel better.

---

You're a complete and utter Kant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
He's an Evelyn Waugh-like figure giving hell to liberal (or any type) Protestants (on a site dominated by them ) and I enjoy the hell out of it



but that's just me

---

If you think liberal protestants dominate here you have very particular definitions of both liberal and protestant.

---

Probably so. Your mileage may vary
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You both have a Nietzsche you can't scratch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Would you mind changing your current signature block, then, before the sheer intensity of the irony makes me pass out? EDIT: Oh, and let me preserve for posterity, exactly what that signature currently says:

quote:

---

Currently looking for friends on Valve's Steam.

---

---

quote:

---

Steam runs a community, and "friends" can play together on multiplayer games, trade items they have won within games, etc. For example, I right now have a bunch of discount codes for games that I do not plan on buying, but I could trade these against things my "friends" own that I have more interest in (as in a barter economy). Or another example, I have not tried Total War Rome II in multiplayer mode, but a "friend" may have that game too and we could easily match up via Steam for a co-op or competitive game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.

---

IngoB has previously answered calls like this one to say exactly that. I think he said something along the lines that he was here to debate and to test his ideas and justifications out. He certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.

---

My question to him is still 'why?'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You sure love dishing out scorn on other people, but if any goes the other way this is how you react.

---

Best link I've been required to click on as a Host in a long time.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You sure love dishing out scorn on other people, but if any goes the other way this is how you react.

---

Best link I've been required to click on as a Host in a long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You sure love dishing out scorn on other people, but if any goes the other way this is how you react.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
My question to him is still 'why?'.

---

Well, probably because Purgatory is a place for, you know, debate…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

As far as discussing the issue rather than attacking the person goes, most of the time I have the impression that I take more than I dish out, and stick closer to the issue than my opponent. I think there is again a bit of selective blindness going on there among my critics. Obviously I could be really saintly about this, and forego dishing out entirely. But snark is part of the fun, really, and so I think I will stick with St Augustine there for now: "Lord, make me chaste – but not yet!"

---

 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
The object of this thread's scorn appears to be active on the Ship for two reasons:

The first seems to be his insatiable craving for other peoples' admiration of his brand of "intellect". He loves to hear himself speak smart (or the blogging equivalent of that). Well, this sort of "I-am- smarter -than -all -of -you -and -please -admire- me -for- it " might go on some peoples’ nerves, I for one find this disgusting and immature, more smug than smart, and not always very "intelligent" either, but I think we can indulge him in that, as we would indulge a smart-assing child… after all, this is a Christian website

The second reason is that, as a convert, he is very eager to “test-fly” his new-found certitudes, and test flying always involves pushing the envelope. Which he does constantly. He needs the reassurance that his constructs are sound because none of his dim-witted shipmates comes close to debunking them. Which must be an extremely satisfying experience for him, but whether this contributes to “debate” is another question.
He stipulates his own rules for what he calls "debate" and then sneers at people for not adhering to that.

In short: What he claims to be a “debate” might be such in form, but not in content.

I certainly do not agree with most of his take on RC theology, but that is my personal problem; what I do object to more forcefully is his constant sneering at people.
The incessant putting-down. The arrogance of his tone. He just “listens” to others to find a fault in their argument (fault according to his own strict rules of ontology and, more generally, debate).
And as a RC I might add, his constant putting down of other RCs solidity of faith and practice is nauseating, misleading, and outright dangerous.

It is for this, and the disturbing arrogance of his style, that he deserves a tour down here in hell.

[ 29. November 2013, 07:53: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
My question to him is still 'why?'.

---

Well, probably because Purgatory is a place for, you know, debate…

---

And debate necessitates arrogance, personal put downs, ego boosts for the writer and the poster constantly sailing close to C3?

My question wasn't why be robust and thorough in debate/discussion - that's what purg is FOR.

My question was why does he sneeringly put others down in an attempt to boost his argument, when his arguments are excellent and well made anyway? Especially when he's arguing for his Church and the God of love, justice and mercy?

He hasn't even begun to answer this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Knowing what you are talking about and correcting the erroneous assumptions of others may sometimes be seen - usually by the corrected - as smug, patronising and arrogant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A number of other traditional Catholics don't show up here so much any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
And debate necessitates arrogance, personal put downs, ego boosts for the writer and the poster constantly sailing close to C3?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Ingo is not a normal Catholic and as such needs to be taken with much salt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You have a sig completely at odds with your shipside personality.

Curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You have a sig completely at odds with your shipside personality.

Curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I must confess that I haven't followed IngoB's posts closely (mainly because he posts on subjects on which I'm not terribly interested) so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on this. But I do wonder whether there's one of those irregular verb-type things going on here?

"Your views coincide with mine and I find your posts clear, direct, well-argued and an asset to the Ship."

"His views don't coincide with mine and I find his posts to be rude, aloof, haughty and he doesn't have a place on the Ship."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
For me this thread has highlighted nothing except just how many people don't like to see intellectual ability displayed, or more probably, mistrust it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You have a sig completely at odds with your shipside personality.

Curious.

---

Well, for one thing, it's not my personality. It's the personality that has been stamped on me. So if that's what people expect me to be like, why not give the people what they want?

Frankly if people call me a fascist then it doesn't bother me in the least. The term has become so devalued through overuse that around here one need only claim to not read the Guardian to be labelled a fascist.

It isn't difficult to be labelled a fascist when you are surrounded by the far left and the hard left.

Second, I have no idea why my universalism should be at odds with my "personality". I don't understand the thrust of your argument. My belief is that the concept of eternity is completely alien to human understanding, that any kind of punishment or distress that lasts for eternity is not compatible with a God of justice. The only logical (there we go) concusion for me is that we must all enter Heaven, even if we claim to not believe in God or the Christian God.

Again I don't quite follow the point your making.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There are selection pressures at work here, and perhaps you are all just getting exactly what you asked for...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
[IngoB] engages ... comprehensively

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
deano, from where you stand the far left and the hard left look the same. Then again, so would the soft left, the centre-left, the centre, the centre-right and any politician as far to the right as, I suppose, Ian Duncan-Smith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

IRL I would have been definitely called a wet in Mrs Thatchers cabinet, but around here a blanket "Fascist!" is thrown around. Well fair enough, if that's what people want to call me I'll play up to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
So, you believe IngoB is only playing at being a Roman Catholic? I disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fascinated every time deano manages to imply that I'm a radical leftie. Me, with my voting history!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I don't like the Guardian.

Who does, here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fascinated every time deano manages to imply that I'm a radical leftie. Me, with my voting history!

---

I have to tell you that you were not who I was thinking of when I wrote "committed" left-winger. Ken was, wee-mousie-boy was, but not you.

I just think your a twat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you people have against female genitalia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fascinated every time deano manages to imply that I'm a radical leftie. Me, with my voting history!

---

I have to tell you that you were not who I was thinking of when I wrote "committed" left-winger. Ken was, wee-mousie-boy was, but not you.

I just think your a twat.

---

What do you people have against female genitalia?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What's its funny page like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I just think your a twat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The first seems to be his insatiable craving for other peoples' admiration of his brand of "intellect". He loves to hear himself speak smart (or the blogging equivalent of that).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The second reason is that, as a convert, he is very eager to “test-fly” his new-found certitudes, and test flying always involves pushing the envelope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
It is for this, and the disturbing arrogance of his style, that he deserves a tour down here in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
The second reason is that, as a convert, he is very eager to “test-fly” his new-found certitudes, and test flying always involves pushing the envelope.

---

I find it mildly amusing to be classed as a convert with new-found certitudes after seven years as RC, and before that one or two years as rather serious "inquirer". How much longer do you reckon until my zeal has decayed to the lukewarmness that you consider healthy and normal? Another ten years perhaps? Twenty?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Let us know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Let us know.

---

Why?

---

Because the sweepstake is on
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Because the sweepstake is on

---

quote:

---

I just think your a twat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
(Why the hell I am back here I just don't know but I would suggest your insults could be greatly improved by a grammar lesson or two)

---

quote:

---

Concerning my supposedly exceptionally bad argumentation style, the only real fault I see there is that particularly in answering multiple posters at once I do not always adapt to the current opponent. And as these things go, if I am locking horns with heavy hitters like Justinian, then that tends to spill over into dealing with the various faint-hearted fluffy bunnies chiming in, rather than vice versa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Concerning my supposedly exceptionally bad argumentation style, the only real fault I see there is that particularly in answering multiple posters at once I do not always adapt to the current opponent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Then you agree with the general consensus here—you argue like you are dealing with the chimings of "various faint-hearted fluffy bunnies."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not for the first time, IngoB has made me think hard. If his written style in Purg does come across as arrogant, or heartless, or lacking in generosity to views which are not his own, that may be a simple misreading of his basic intentions in debate.

---

He's told us his basic intentions in debate: victory at all costs. How admirable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
He stands his corner and defends his beliefs robustly in his own style. Others who fail to dent or who disagree with his beliefs sometimes revert to attacking his style instead. (See OP).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
He does not misrepresent his opponents*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
I have come to the belief that when something someone else is doing bothers you, it is a sign that you have the problem, not the other person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Then you agree with the general consensus here—you argue like you are dealing with the chimings of "various faint-hearted fluffy bunnies."

---

Actually, I just said precisely the opposite and flagged it as a (mild) problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
(Why the hell I am back here I just don't know but I would suggest your insults could be greatly improved by a grammar lesson or two)

---

.

---

 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Because the sweepstake is on

---

Do I get a cut?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
In fact, speaking as one of these "various faint-hearted fluffy bunnies" you must cope with, it's seemed to me that you at least deserve the credit of being fully conscious of the effect of your behavior here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
My working hypothesis was (well, still is, mostly) that you have an absurdly ironic lack of understanding of human minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You are aware of the problem and don't have any apparent intention to change. How does this situation constitute a problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
In fact, speaking as one of these "various faint-hearted fluffy bunnies" you must cope with, it's seemed to me that you at least deserve the credit of being fully conscious of the effect of your behavior here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
In fact, speaking as one of these "various faint-hearted fluffy bunnies" you must cope with, it's seemed to me that you at least deserve the credit of being fully conscious of the effect of your behavior here.

---

Zach, you can't possibly believe you are a faint-hearted fluffy bunny? That's as ridiculous as if I were to make the same claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not sure what it is to you,

---

quote:

---

but I imagine that's how IngoB thinks of me, judging from how he tends to treat me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not sure what it is to you,

---

God forbid I should comment on a post on a public forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not sure what it is to you, but I imagine that's how IngoB thinks of me, judging from how he tends to treat me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not sure what it is to you, but I imagine that's how IngoB thinks of me, judging from how he tends to treat me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not sure what it is to you, but I imagine that's how IngoB thinks of me, judging from how he tends to treat me.

---

I pet faint-hearted fluffy bunnies, and feed them salad leaves. Since that is rather hard to do in the gym with boxing gloves on, I try to avoid them there. Still, I feel somewhat guilty when one of them hops into the fray and is sent flying splat against the nearest wall.

But you, sir, are a heavy hitter. An incredibly whiny heavy hitter who will bore the shit out of everybody by retelling his grudges until kingdom come, but nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
(Why the hell I am back here I just don't know but I would suggest your insults could be greatly improved by a grammar lesson or two)
.
[Killing me] [Overused]

---

It's a fair cop, Chaps, it's a fair cop!

Goodnight from here
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:

(Did Ingo just give Zach a kind of compliment-thingy?)

▲

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Mousethief you bastard - you made me look up Bulverism. Please don't do it again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Mousethief you bastard - you made me look up Bulverism. Please don't do it again.

---

Why, do you think you're likely to forget what it means?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You clearly did not read at all what I said.

---

quote:

---

I don't think IngoB's purpose is victory at all costs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
And as a RC I might add, his constant putting down of other RCs solidity of faith and practice is nauseating, misleading, and outright dangerous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And as he observed himself earlier, he's survived here while other traditional believers have hung up their boots (more or less). I guess his hard-nosed approach helps him in that.

Maybe he's right? There's a certain element of 'survival of the fittest' at work. You might not like what makes him the 'fittest', or certainly one of the 'fittest' holding unpopular traditional views, in this particular debating community, but maybe we got what we deserve? It's a lot easier to be a liberal here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Originally posted by orpheo:

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
(Why the hell I am back here I just don't know but I would suggest your insults could be greatly improved by a grammar lesson or two)
.
[Killing me] [Overused]

---

It's a fair cop, Chaps, it's a fair cop!

Goodnight from here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

IngoB believes that the Roman Catholic Faith is his salvation. Shouldn't he preach it with all his might, brooking not compromise ever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Guardian is a left-of-centre newspaper in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IngoB, for goodness' sake would you please stop with the presumptions about people who disagree with you. From the 'How can I enjoy heaven...' Purgatory thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You clearly did not read at all what I said.

---

As an alternative, maybe EE did read your post but - shock - didn't agree with your argument. Might that at least be a possibility, both in this case and generally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Rather he is always prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in him. … It doesn't come across as "speaking the truth with love" of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
EE was attacking a straw man, which simply had nothing to do with my actual argument. This could be because he had read my argument carefully, and malicious decided to employ a rhetorical ruse. This could be because he had read my argument carefully, but was too stupid to comprehend it. Or this could be because he did not read my argument at all, at best skim-reading for keywords.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If taking up golf would help IngoB to realise progressive revelation then I'm all for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My overall perspective as a Purg Host is that he nearly always stays within posting guidelines in accordance with the general unrest ethos. They do not require us to be nice.

---

quote:

---

Repay evil with good is the gospel of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyway, I don't think IngoB is seeking to proselytise here,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There is a time and a season for everything. To me SoF is much more an occasion for the Areopagus sermon (Acts 17:16-34) than the Corinthian ones (1 Cor 9:19-23). Also I rarely speak of reasons for my hope here (Mt 7:6), though it is my hope that gives me reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyway, I don't think IngoB is seeking to proselytise here,

---

True. He's doing the very best he can to drive people away from the Catholic Church. But at least he stays within the rules most of the time. That's what matters. Not human souls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
He has a mind of gears and wheels, and human beings are not gears and wheels. At least the rest of us aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The SOF is not an occasion, it is a group of people. Perhaps this bizarre misunderstanding is your basic problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
He has a mind of gears and wheels, and human beings are not gears and wheels. At least the rest of us aren't.

---

OK, I get it now. You are just a small cock in the large weal of Orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

‘He is plotting to become a Power. He has a mind of metal and wheels; and he does not care for growing things, as far as they serve him for the moment.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Guardian is a left-of-centre newspaper in the UK.

---

Supposedly.

So, only one taker so far?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
OK, I get it now. You are just a small cock in the large weal of Orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
OK, I get it now. You are just a small cock in the large weal of Orthodoxy.

---

Glad you admit that Orthodoxy is a weal. Not sure what either roosters or penes have to do with it, but you know best, as you keep telling us until we scream.

You don't answer the main point. You drive people away from your church and away from God.

Pancho, I think it's from The Two Towers.

---

Orthodoxy is a hickey? What am I converting to?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Pretty defensive use of Mt 7:6 IngoB. Maybe if you were a bit more revealing about the hope which is in you, rather than sticking to the relative safety of argument and debate, things might be different.

I really did think you did a fair bit of the former, but am happy to be corrected. No intention to misrepresent you.

It's not that much of a risk to take the more open road. More human beings around here than dogs and pigs. Even in Hell.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Orthodoxy is a hickey? What am I converting to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Read the referenced scripture for comprehension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think IngoB's purpose is victory at all costs. Sure, there's not much concern for the feelings and values of other debaters, unless they form part of a specific argument. But I don't think he misrepresents. He may misunderstand, but we can all do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Is that what "weal" means in Germany? Heck, over here it means "state of well-being: a general state of well-being, prosperity, and happiness."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You don't answer the main point. You drive people away from your church and away from God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Pretty defensive use of Mt 7:6 IngoB. Maybe if you were a bit more revealing about the hope which is in you, rather than sticking to the relative safety of argument and debate, things might be different.

---

quote:

---

<snip> ... I find IngoB a very helpful contributor here.

IngoB gives us the teaching of the Catholic Church straight. No frills, no compromises, no knowing winks that allow us to think "Well yes, but in practice it's not like that". IngoB shows us exactly what a person would be signing up to were they to become a Roman Catholic.

It would be easy for some of us to think we should be Roman Catholics. Some of us like the liturgy. Some may like the culture. To some it may simply be a case of thinking "the grass is greener". IngoB's contributions help strip us of all such illusions. He reminds me that whereas I'm a slightly discontented Anglican, I'd be a bloody miserable Catholic once the honeymoon period was over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Serious debate is about getting things clear, not attractive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Serious debate is about getting things clear, not attractive. It has its uses, but not generally as sales pitch to attract converts. If getting things analyzed and laid bare is destructive to your faith, then I recommend staying away from serious debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
I think if an adult decides to join a serious debate on religion, then they can be expected to deal with what they are getting into. And serious debate simply is not the same as preaching or even "witnessing" (a much overused term). Serious debate is about getting things clear, not attractive. It has its uses, but not generally as sales pitch to attract converts. If getting things analyzed and laid bare is destructive to your faith, then I recommend staying away from serious debate.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite taken be the notion that in the end the "all in all" presence of God will be heaven for some, hell for others.

---

I find this quite strange. It is rather obvious that 1) this notion is weird, since nobody can come up with a mechanism for it that passes the laugh test, and 2) even if it were somehow the case, it would change absolutely nothing concerning the apparent "moral dilemma" that the loving God tortures some people eternally. This is nothing but "auto-sophistry", a way to bullshit yourself into believing that you have solved a serious problem, so that it can be glossed over and tucked away safely in some corner of the mind, when in fact not even a hint of a solution has been offered.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The only "circularity breaker" is logic and evidence (or possibly a profound experience, which would only have authority for those for whom it feels real). Appealing to authority while denying those elements cannot possibly be anything other than circular.

---

You are trivially wrong. Anything that I can access by logic and evidence I do not need to have faith about. You can use logic and evidence to cross-check claims of faith against other claims (say scientific ones). You can use logic and evidence to test the internal coherence of a set of faith claims. But when you are done with that, then any sophisticated faith system (as found in all major religions) is still standing basically untouched. And there's nothing more that you can do about that. You can only choose to believe it, or not. And whether explicitly or implicitly, any positive choice assigns authority to somebody or something by virtue of having chosen to believe. This is simple inescapable, and entirely independent from whatever content your faith may have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If taking up golf would help IngoB to realise progressive revelation then I'm all for it.

---

It can help with the ultimate futility of existence as well.

---

Tapping a little spherical object around until it drops down a hole is more likely to trigger the absolute futility of it all in some of us.
-----------------------------------------

I watch these debates on cathlicks v proddies , I've seen the same rift cause tension even in our little, out of the way local churches .

In a few years time it will be 500 years since the Reformation . Yes it was bloody, yes it was bitter , yet the feelings that left in it's wake are as if it happened yesterday.
European Christendom seems trapped in the moment , like it's in a permanent state of PTSD since the first protestations of 1517 . If it hasn't recovered by now one must assume it never will.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
rolyn - I started this thread and it had NOTHING to do with the fact that IngoB is a Catholic.

I attend a Catholic prayer group, Lent studies and Advent studies. I have always said I'd become a Catholic if it weren't for the priests and the pope
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If taking up golf would help IngoB to realise progressive revelation then I'm all for it.

---

It can help with the ultimate futility of existence as well.

---

Tapping a little spherical object around until it drops down a hole is more likely to trigger the absolute futility of it all in some of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Five pages of people trying to explain to you what the problem is, and you still want to play the bull in the china shop, only now it's the poor, put-upon, slandered, WOE IS ME bull in the china shop. You poor, poor, dear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I did wonder, IngoB, If you do this because you work so hard on your arguments, and are so personally invested in them, that you see an attack on them as an attack on yourself as a person. So you goes on to reply in kind (from your pov)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If we have profound convictions and a living hope, does it really matter if people are opposed to them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure I'd be here myself if this forum didn't work as exchanges between human beings, rather than - say - some kind of chess competition to see who makes the best moves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here: "That is, of course, bullshit."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here: "But this idea that one can sit on a pile of evidence from scripture and tradition, refuse to think about it, and feel all holy about it - that's just feeble-minded bullshit."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here: "Bullshit. And no, I do not need to argue that. You assert, I assert back."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here is an example of a dismissive straw man argument supported by an insulting and childish analogy: "Of course, everything is acceptable as long as it is harmonious. We are all friends who live and let live. What is the peace of Christ but the blanket acceptance of whatever anybody wishes to consider as Christian? Well, I for one do not welcome our new Overlord Humpty Dumpty. From such eggs serpents spawn."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here you are not slow to mock what you clearly don't understand: <snip attack on Barnabas62 liking "river of fire" ideas>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And then finally you demolish your own claim to engage in serious debate, by admitting that it is all ultimately about submission to authority, which lies beyond the investigation of reason:

---

quote:

---

Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
That's what I meant, dearie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
...I did wonder, IngoB, If you do this because you work so hard on your arguments, and are so personally invested in them, that you see an attack on them as an attack on yourself as a person. So you goes on to reply in kind (from your pov)?

---

I think as long as people realize that IngoB is not any kind of authority on the Roman Catholic faith, then there is no reason for them to get upset with him. And he is perfectly free, as far as I'm concerned, to carry on posting in his customary style, and I'll just carry on ignoring him.
 

---

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If taking up golf would help IngoB to realise progressive revelation then I'm all for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
l think as long as people realize that IngoB is not any kind of authority

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What kind of context makes saying "Bullshit" dispassionate? That's bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Ripped out of context.

---

Said so many times, that it's clear you think the context excuses calling things bullshit.



Erm, I rather think the point was that it isn't necessary for you to say these things regardless of the context.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
On the other hand, I think most of my supposedly personal insults boil down to to some exchange like this: "I think X is evil / wrong for the following reasons: ..." "But I love X / X is my way to God. So you must be saying that I'm evil / wrong."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What kind of context makes saying "Bullshit" dispassionate? That's bullshit.

---

The military, psychoanalytical, agricultural and horticultural contexts. As a Hellhost it's not my job to rule on appropriate language though, unless it's foreign or excessively fluffy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You performance on this thread provides a good example of what I'm talking about . I've tried to engage with you particularly on this thread,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
But I feel like pointing out that, from my perspective, IngoB does an excellent job of following the rules here. While I have reservations about his blithe ignorance regarding his insulting summa modus, I have no doubt that he will adjust his posting as requested by the Crew¹. When he disagrees with us (which is pretty fucking often), he does so within the established protocols provided.

¹ Assuming that we can phrase it in a sufficiently semantically clear instruction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


It's a bit like playing one of those echo games with a child, though isn't it? Because the child knows the rules, and completely ignores the content.

So you get:

"Okay, it's time to stop"
"Okay, it's time to stop"
"No, Johnny, I mean it, stop now"
"No, Johnny, I mean it, stop now"
"Johnny! The game is over!"
"Johnny! The game is over!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
We are all just facets of ourselves here. I like to think that many of us are poignantly true and representative lenses to our wholes. But if anyone doesn't care to peer through, or sees only distortion, that's just the limitation of the medium.

¹ Assuming that we can phrase it in a sufficiently semantically clear instruction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Kel// and hey, Marilyn wasn't as dumb as she acted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

...I like to think that many of us are poignantly true and representative lenses to our wholes. But if anyone doesn't care to peer through, or sees only distortion, that's just the limitation of the medium.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Kel// and hey, Marilyn wasn't as dumb as she acted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I once saw a TV segment about her, which had a close-up of her bookcase. I don't remember the titles. But I decided that if she was reading those sorts of books, she couldn't be dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Her IQ was higher than Einstein's as is Sharon Stone's and Sylvester Stallone's. But even IngoB won't approach James Woods'. Or Matt Damon's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
indeed one might even take the dumb acting as evidence of the opposite given the context

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I did just wonder if there might be a little bit of give in your position, but apparently not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What kind of context makes saying "Bullshit" dispassionate? That's bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Erm, I rather think the point was that it isn't necessary for you to say these things regardless of the context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Here's the nub of the problem. IME, it's more typical of your style (of which I'm admittedly less widely-read than others here) NOT to write, "I think X is evil / wrong" but instead to write "YOU are evil / wrong in stating X."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The question isn't appropriateness, though, but whether or not it is a dispassionate part of purely logical and rational discourse. Which is bullshit. Or in short, IngoB despises others for their emotionalism, but is either lying or deluded about his own emotionalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No you haven't. You've talked past me without trying to understand what I have to say. Then you deride me for expecting you to agree with what I say. You're very good at creating strawmen from what I say. I've seen no indication that you've tried to understand it, let alone that you DID understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This thread is, as far as Ingo is concerned, still part of the game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Hopefully, with his Marilyn Monroe level IQ, it won't take IngoB that long to ask to be granted repentance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm done with dialogue on this thread with IngoB . Don't see the point any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps I have tried and indeed managed to understand what you are saying, but simply disagree, and have tried to express why. It is a possibility that you could entertain…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And you are disappointed? Why precisely? Is it really so unthinkable that there is more than one valid way of engaging on SoF?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I have entertained it and rejected it because it doesn't fit the data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I can't speak for Barnabas62, obviously, but I'd say there are myriad ways of engaging on SOF, but the honorable ones don't involve treating other human beings as impersonal whetstones.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: To repeat, there's nothing dishonourable about focusing on "impersonal" debate in a forum dedicated to serious discussions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Perhaps, but I have to say that I mostly avoid engaging you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't know, maybe I don't always express my statements well (and I'm definitely not the best debater on the Ship) but wouldn't it be good sometimes to invest some time in trying to understand what the other person is saying, instead of jumping to find ways to slash it quickly in an avalanche of arguments?

---

quote:

---

IngoB: But let me ask you this, since a "long, logical answer with lots of quotes and examples" does not convince you that I am understanding you - what precisely would?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The words "you are wrong", literally, are a statement about a person, not about a person's argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This thread is, as far as Ingo is concerned, still part of the game.

---

Nope, this is a complete mischaracterisation. I'm not testing any boundaries of authority here, like a child with a grown-up. The H&As I obey as much as I must.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
The problem is that sometimes your llawloqae doesn't really address what I was trying to say. And when I try to explain my statement again in another way, I get another llawloqae that doesn't address it either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You are wrong in your assessment then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The words "you are wrong", literally, are a statement about a person, not about a person's argument.

---

That's one way to read them, orfeo, but insisting on reading them in only that way is simplistic. When "You are wrong" is used in an argument, it's usually equivalent to saying "You are mistaken". This is the same semantic mistake that has led to people trying to take the phrase "illegal immigrant" out of circulation because "No human being is illegal!"

Forty years of encouraging children in school to make "I"-statements has only resulted in a generation that believes prefacing every utterance with "I feel" makes their positions unassailable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm certainly not saying that semantics don't matter. I'm denying that this particular instantiation has the force you assign to it. If I say that the Battle of Borodino was fought in 1810 and someone corrects me by saying "You're wrong, it was in 1812," I don't hear that as "You are an abomination that has no right to exist"; I hear it as "You got the date wrong."

Of course, if I were talking with someone who objected to the construction I would avoid it, and it's not something I say often anyway. I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
First, I shouldn't have accepted Zach's characterisation of "you are an abomination that has no right to exist". That is an overinflation of what happens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I quite frequently say that somebody is wrong, as in having made a bad argument or saying something counter-factual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not see the great harm in that, and I also find the alternatives unattractive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not wish to weasel around,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
. . . and untruths do not spontaneously pop into existence, to be discussed like some neutral world event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
First, I shouldn't have accepted Zach's characterisation of "you are an abomination that has no right to exist". That is an overinflation of what happens.

---

If you'll pardon me for saying, Orfeo, I characterized your position as "wrong" meaning "fundamentally disordered."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But defo not James Woods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's perfectly possible that this is caused by me not expressing myself well. But wouldn't it also be good sometimes to entertain the possibility that you really have misunderstood me? Or to try to find out better what another person is trying to say before slashing his/her arguments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm, maybe you're not so great at understanding what everyone is saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Second, you do realise that this thread started after you went to Styx and wailed and wailed and wailed about a Hostly ruling instead of just shutting up and accepting you'd crossed the line? Sounds a damn lot like a child testing a grown-up's authority boundaries to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You are wrong in your assessment then.

---

How can you possibly know what's in my mind? Do you have some kind of magic mind-reading powers, perhaps from the NSA? This is nonsense. You cannot possibly know that you have understood me properly. Short of the Vulcan Mind Meld, it is humanly impossible for you to know that, and me to be wrong about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
On boards full of theological matters (and Ingo definitely tends to engage in the threads with a theological aspect to them), there's a suspension of reality required to think that there's much in the way of definitive, 'I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong' territory to work in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
We live on a planet full of billions of people with radically different opinions on the subject of God's nature, and that includes highly intelligent people throughout history who would wrap Ingo or anyone else on the Ship around their finger in about 5 seconds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
So am I correct in assuming that you see no difference between saying “I disagree” (a comment on your own position) or “Here’s the flaw in your argument” (a comment on what another poster has written) and “You’re wrong” (a judgment concerning the poster with whom you disagree)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Perhaps it may help to consider how you react when someone claims you are wrong as opposed to saying “I disagree.” Do you react in exactly the same way to both claims?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
If I understand you correctly, you again seem to be suggesting that those whose views differ from yours are uttering untruths, a term which can also be understood to mean “lies” or “falsehoods.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
That would appear to make you the final authority on what’s factual or correct or accurate in the debates you enter. Is that how you see yourself? Is that the impression you wish to offer others? If so, carry on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Second, you do realise that this thread started after you went to Styx and wailed and wailed and wailed about a Hostly ruling instead of just shutting up and accepting you'd crossed the line? Sounds a damn lot like a child testing a grown-up's authority boundaries to me.

---

Luke 18:1-8.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you believe that "2+2=5" and say it, then you are stating an untruth or falsehood, but you are not lying. There is no intention to misinform in you, you are simply making a honest mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
On boards full of theological matters (and Ingo definitely tends to engage in the threads with a theological aspect to them), there's a suspension of reality required to think that there's much in the way of definitive, 'I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong' territory to work in.

---

What you call a "suspension of reality" is actual faith. The real, old-school stuff, the one God actually asks for - not the "doubt is proper faith" that gets peddled on these boards as "superior" so often. How does it work out in practice when different faith systems clash? See the Aquinas quote at the end of this post above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
We live on a planet full of billions of people with radically different opinions on the subject of God's nature, and that includes highly intelligent people throughout history who would wrap Ingo or anyone else on the Ship around their finger in about 5 seconds.

---

Hmm, no. I would say that the best minds in physics would leave me behind in 5 seconds, the best minds in philosophy in a few minutes, and the best minds in theology in about an hour. (That's in spite of being a professional in physics, but amateur in philosophy and theology.) Theology is somehow a much more level playing field than physics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
So am I correct in assuming that you see no difference between saying “I disagree” (a comment on your own position) or “Here’s the flaw in your argument” (a comment on what another poster has written) and “You’re wrong” (a judgment concerning the poster with whom you disagree)?

---

This is simply not a reflection of the praxis, it presents a false diversity of meaning. I do not normally just say "you are wrong". This is usually preceded by a quote of a particular argument the person has previously given, and I practically always follow it up with a detailed analysis of the flaws in that argument which I see. As lead-in to such a discussion, all these three options you mention become de facto the same. "You are wrong" is here not some kind of fundamental rejection of the person, but rather clearly targeted at something that person said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Perhaps it may help to consider how you react when someone claims you are wrong as opposed to saying “I disagree.” Do you react in exactly the same way to both claims?

---

Largely, I do. And I find it unattractive to say "I disagree" precisely if that is simply a polite mask for "you are wrong". If you say that cheddar is the best cheese, then "I disagree" correctly indicates that I think a different cheese is best, but without necessarily indicating that your choice of cheese is "wrong". But if you say "2+2=5", then me saying "I disagree" becomes odd. My point is not that you have made a different choice to me as far as mathematics is concerned. My point is that your maths is wrong. I find it much preferable to say this clearly then, precisely to avoid the impression that I think your statement "2+2=5" can stand even if I do not make it my own. And yes, unlike perhaps many here, I do not believe that religion is like asking what cheese is best. I think it is a lot more like asking for the result of "2+2". And many people give wrong answers. It precisely is my intention to convey that, and "I disagree" does not really cut it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's nice to know that you have no respect for our character or morals whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is exactly what I sometimes see you doing here. Your arguments are brilliant but you are still arguing that 2+2=5, however well you wrap it up. 'Nobody knows' when it comes to God and the afterlife. We'll only truly know after death, all else is interesting argument - so we may as well be humble about it imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
When you recite the Nicene Creed or Apostle's Creed, Ingo, one presumes that you take out all that wishy-washy 'believe' nonsense and just state the bare facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
When you recite the Nicene Creed or Apostle's Creed, Ingo, one presumes that you take out all that wishy-washy 'believe' nonsense and just state the bare facts.

---

I do not lack certainty about my beliefs, I lack compelling evidence and proof. The creeds are not wishy-washy to me at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's nice to know that you have no respect for our character or morals whatsoever.

---

You are probably a nice enough guy. But on SoF you are part of a system that makes you judge and jury, and allows no recourse against your decisions other than by complaining to you and your buddies. That's actually a close match to the historical situation described in the gospel, and it leaves no other option to fight against injustice than what the widow did.

SoF's system cannot be defended as just as such, even though it is licit, since this is a private website we all participate in by our own free will. But that we all agree to follow this system does not change what it is. If it makes you uncomfortable to have spelled out your questionable role here, then I consider that to be a good thing. Perhaps indeed no better system can be found, but one should not become complacent about that. If you rather take this as a personal insult, then that's regrettable though understandable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet, you use your certainty not just for yourself, but to beat other people about the head with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the thing about certainty without compelling evidence and proof. It might work fine in your own private system, but it's rather wanting when you march out and try to tell other people definitively that they are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet, you use your certainty not just for yourself, but to beat other people about the head with.

---

I reject this negative characterisation. I discuss these matters seriously, based on my convictions, in a place dedicated to that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the thing about certainty without compelling evidence and proof. It might work fine in your own private system, but it's rather wanting when you march out and try to tell other people definitively that they are wrong.

---

Did you read the Aquinas quote I linked to? It describes exactly what can be done in such circumstances, and what I believe to be doing (within the limits of my abilities).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's nice to know that you have no respect for our character or morals whatsoever.

---

You are probably a nice enough guy. But on SoF you are part of a system that makes you judge and jury, and allows no recourse against your decisions other than by complaining to you and your buddies. That's actually a close match to the historical situation described in the gospel, and it leaves no other option to fight against injustice than what the widow did.

SoF's system cannot be defended as just as such, even though it is licit, since this is a private website we all participate in by our own free will. But that we all agree to follow this system does not change what it is. If it makes you uncomfortable to have spelled out your questionable role here, then I consider that to be a good thing. Perhaps indeed no better system can be found, but one should not become complacent about that. If you rather take this as a personal insult, then that's regrettable though understandable.

---

What I don't think you understand is that this is true of absolutely any system where someone has authority to make rulings.

And that includes God's authority. Who do you complain to if you don't think God is being fair? Oh that's right. God.

There's a little episode in Genesis where Abraham spends a bunch of time trying to negotiate with God not to destroy a city.

So yeah, if you were trying to compare me to God, I won't take it as an insult. The problem is I think you were trying to compare Hosts to another character in that story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And of course, it's predicated on the notion that there was an injustice. The fact that we finally got you to shut the hell up suggests either that you finally accepted that there wasn't any injustice involved, or just that you lack the kind of persistence required. We appear to be going with the latter option now, which doesn't reflect all that well on you, either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The other thing I suspect you've completely missed about the story is that it's about persisting in trying to get an action or a decision, rather than accepting inaction. It's about praying to God until you get an answer. It is not about, after God gives you an answer you don't actually like, harassing God from here to eternity because eventually he'll change his mind and agree with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Some of this grief seems to boil down to not adding "I think" in front of "what you say is wrong". But taken literally, that's a waste of breath. Indeed, I generally say things that I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is exactly what I sometimes see you doing here. Your arguments are brilliant but you are still arguing that 2+2=5, however well you wrap it up. 'Nobody knows' when it comes to God and the afterlife. We'll only truly know after death, all else is interesting argument - so we may as well be humble about it imo.

---

You are contradicting yourself there. If you think that I am as wrong as "2+2=5", then you should tell me that I am wrong and why. If you believe that "nobody knows", then all you can do is to disagree and list some reasons for your preference. I'm humbled by my faith, I'm not humble about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The Aquinas quote agrees with the point I'm making, that you cannot insist that people accept your axiomatic frames of reference, and that therefore you cannot declare them wrong in absolute terms. You can only talk in terms of 'given X, then Y'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It rests on premises, and if those premises aren't accepted then the 'truth' no longer holds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So go behave how you want to behave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
...said jesting Pilate and would not stay for an answer.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: Are you not in fact asking me here to become your "Socratic teacher", eliciting with careful questioning what you really mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
They interpret and glean impressions much more than just a literal reading. I understand that you might disapprove of that, but that's the way people are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I just can't see the pay off, for you, or anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But they're not evidently 'truth' to everyone, and no matter what you say, they aren't readily apparent and objectively 'provable' like 2+2=5 is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There are times where we are, of course, discussing 'facts' on these boards, but many times when we are discussing opinions, you treat them the same as facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I don't mean to criticise, and I too appreciate your presence on the Ship, and your contributions, so I hope you take this as helpful advice, rather than strong criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno, maybe it would take a full hour for a good theologian to leave you behind, IngoB, but I've never really seen you go past sources like the catechism and Thomas Aquinas. I've never seen you get really theoretical with your theology. It's the difference between a good high school science teacher and a research physicist, if that makes sense. I don't mean that as a criticism at all, I'm more getting defensive about theology itself. I'm sure I'd find you digging into the modern heavyweights like Karl Rahner or Karl Barth terribly fascinating. Kinda mean, but fascinating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet, you use your certainty not just for yourself, but to beat other people about the head with.

---

I reject this negative characterisation. I discuss these matters seriously, based on my convictions, in a place dedicated to that.

---

quote:

---

But by and large it seems that I pick my words about right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.

---

quote:

---

Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The way I see it, there's two options - either everyone will be saved, or if they're not, it'll be their choice, not God's. The third option: that God is the one who does the rejecting, is not a valid one for me.

---

Too bad then, because the last one is clearly the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Here: "That is, of course, bullshit."

---

Ripped out of context, the next sentence explains the judgement.

---

quote:

---

Assertions indeed can be dealt with by counter-assertion. Only argument requires counter-argument. The context of course was a prior pure assertion.

---

quote:

---

This follows a statement by orfeo, which was answered by me, and the "Humpty-Dumpty" theme was established there by argument. SCK then quoted both orfeo and me in his response, making his contribution part of this discourse. In my response I cut out this prior history, to avoid lengthy multi-quotes, and just quoted SCK himself. But my response has to be seen in that argument flow, not simply as answer to the post just prior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Indeed, I'd say defining the church as something other than a visible institution gives Christians a tougher task in some ways, because we are then obliged to seek fellowship and harmony with those whose doctrines and practices are very different from ours, in a way that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians perhaps might not feel obliged.

---

quote:

---

Of course, everything is acceptable as long as it is harmonious. We are all friends who live and let live. What is the peace of Christ but the blanket acceptance of whatever anybody wishes to consider as Christian?

Well, I for one do not welcome our new Overlord Humpty Dumpty. From such eggs serpents spawn.

---

quote:

---

Now, EE, you hardly manage to write a post without claiming that this or that is complete nonsense, that something else is perfectly obvious, that a commonly held opinion is morally insane, that you do no need to pay attention to the opinions of another poster, that some poster's comments provide merely light amusement, that some argument does not allow intelligence, that somebody has not read the thread, that somebody is misquoting the bible, that somebody is attacking a straw man, that someone should have asked a different question, that something is a lie, that somebody's belief is a figment of their imagination, etc.

In case you wonder, I compiled the above from your posts on only the first two pages of the current thread about hell in Purg. You are in no position to make big noises here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

He's the most unrestful poster we have, since Martin went all fluffy-wuffy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Some of this grief seems to boil down to not adding "I think" in front of "what you say is wrong". But taken literally, that's a waste of breath. Indeed, I generally say things that I think.

---

Taken literally, of course, you're right. But the point that quite a few people have tried to make to you is that most people don't parse sentences and arguments only in a fully literal way. They interpret and glean impressions much more than just a literal reading. I understand that you might disapprove of that, but that's the way people are. So my question, the same one that I asked earlier, is why not do it a bit more? I can't understand why, when you weigh up the pros and cons of making your language a little bit more accommodating, that you're choosing the annoyance of typing two extra words, or some kind of internal satisfaction about the language that you use in certain situations, compared to coming across a bit less abrasive to a lot of people, and therefore having a fuller engagement with them on these boards. I just can't see the pay off, for you, or anyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is exactly what I sometimes see you doing here. Your arguments are brilliant but you are still arguing that 2+2=5, however well you wrap it up. 'Nobody knows' when it comes to God and the afterlife. We'll only truly know after death, all else is interesting argument - so we may as well be humble about it imo.

---

You are contradicting yourself there. If you think that I am as wrong as "2+2=5", then you should tell me that I am wrong and why. If you believe that "nobody knows", then all you can do is to disagree and list some reasons for your preference. I'm humbled by my faith, I'm not humble about it.

---

You're missing the wood (Boogie's overall point) for the tree (the impreciseness of one part of it).

You're right, if you're talking about objective truth, saying "you're wrong" to 2+2=5 is fine and understandable. But if we're talking about uncertainties, then "I think you're wrong" is much more appropriate. You made this point yourself.

But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation. Your views are strong, no problem there. But they're not evidently 'truth' to everyone, and no matter what you say, they aren't readily apparent and objectively 'provable' like 2+2=5 is. There are times where we are, of course, discussing 'facts' on these boards, but many times when we are discussing opinions, you treat them the same as facts. That's the distinction, and it's for the latter that it would be helpful if you were more conciliatory with your language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
When we're discussing things in Purg, courtesy requires that you at least make an effort to try to understand the other. ... Doesn't logically the possibility also exist that when I explain something in different ways and you still don't understand it, the problem might be you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:


But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?

---

Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.

Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?

---

Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.

Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.

---

I see unrestful more as challenging thought within in one's own group than across. You are us, Crœsos is us; is IngoB us?

---

So we're not to be challenged by anyone we don't regard as "one of us", now?

What sort of mutual congratulation society are we looking for?
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Posted before thoroughly re-reading; second sentence of first paragraph should read "Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as the fundamental principles of mathematics are regarding arithmetic."

Sorry for the double post.

[ 03. December 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?

---

Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.

Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.

---

I see unrestful more as challenging thought within in one's own group than across. You are us, Crœsos is us; is IngoB us?

---

So we're not to be challenged by anyone we don't regard as "one of us", now?

What sort of mutual congratulation society are we looking for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber
Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as are the fundamental principles of mathematics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Well I challenge your challenge. I think what you are saying is that genuine unrestfulness must originate from within a group.

I disagree, partly because it would be so hard to define groups objectively as to make it meaningless as a definition in practice - in fact already in your list I can spot someone I'd define as "not us" given half a change but whose postings I still read and find challenging - and unrestful.
(Then again maybe a neologism like unrestful that can mean whatever we want is meaningless to start with?). And partly because real provocative challenge is probably more likely from outside a group than from inside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.

---

Not in English it ain't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Your faith is your conviction. Your faith says that it has the Truth in fullness. But I'm with Paul (and Boogie) that in this world we see "through a mirror, dimly", even so the popes and the theologians. Even you. Your mirror might be more clear than that of others, but a little humility on your part might not come amiss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You are fully convicted that God rejects some people. I am fully convicted that he doesn't reject anybody. I don't think it would be easy to decide who is more convicted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But ultimately, neither of us know with the certainty of 2+2=5 that God does or doesn't reject people. Which is why, for that kind of discussion, I think it's more helpful for convictions (even strong ones) to be framed in 'opinion' language rather than 'fact' language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You turn on me, but then I am NOT the one claiming to be a "serious debater". You are. I am quite willing to accept that I can be an emotional ratbag on these boards, and many times I have been and still am. You are the one who superciliously claims to be above all emotion. But clearly you are as much of a ratbag as I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
He'd enjoy the discussions far more as they wouldn't descend into the personal anything like as often or as quickly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?

---

Perhaps - or perhaps not
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber
Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as are the fundamental principles of mathematics.

---

Only if they obey the laws of logic, otherwise that is a truly absurd statement.

And don't think that that is an unbiblical proposition, because didn't our Lord say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? Contradiction leads to confusion and ultimately destruction. The embracing of contradiction (euphemistically 'paradox') is nihilistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?

---

quote:

---

IngoB: But I am making an effort to understand you. That's where those "long, logical answers with lots of quotes and examples" come from.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: Perhaps I am in fact too dumb to understand you. So what? I do not feel guilty about being dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this, mdijon, illustrates why I do not consider IngoB unrestful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Put simply, he pisses you off by being arrogant and so you experience no real engagement of ideas or discussion because you don't get past the arrogance. Fair enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

However if one can ignore that, there is still the potential for provoking unrest. But you may find it more conducive to get it elsewhere. Fair enough again. But this is all nothing to do with orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He does provoke unrest, but I do not see him as unrestful. Orthodox is as tricky a word as unrest. Perhaps I should not have used it, given how many here use apply it. What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest. Not that he is the only such person here, but he is the one being questioned on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He does provoke unrest, but I do not see him as unrestful. Orthodox is as tricky a word as unrest. Perhaps I should not have used it, given how many here use apply it. What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest. Not that he is the only such person here, but he is the one being questioned on this thread.

---

It seems to me you don't have an understanding of orthodox believers. People who grow up and remain in their faith often question the reasons for their belief in order to gain a better unerstanding. Converts often come to an orthodox faith precisely through a process of questioning and I would think IngoB is a perfect example of that.

You're judging people's quality of "unrest" after they've arrived at the answers because you do not like the answers they've found. I came to Jesus Christ so I could have life everlasting, not so I could wallow perpetually in your definition of self-referential "unrest".

---

Hear hear.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So finding genocide utterly evil is the same as finding it good.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
What I find is that calling other cultures "barely evolved" has more in common with the genocidal impulse than you will probably admit.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
How?
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Erm. May I interrupt this dis-IngpB-fest to ask what "llawloqae" means?

I googled it- no luck.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erm. May I interrupt this dis-IngpB-fest to ask what "llawloqae" means?

I googled it- no luck.

---

"long, logical answers with lots of quotes and examples"

Took me a minute too.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Thanks.

ETA: Oh, boy. What a post for a page turn.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erm. May I interrupt this dis-IngpB-fest to ask what "llawloqae" means?

I googled it- no luck.

---

"long, logical answers with lots of quotes and examples"

Took me a minute too.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find it difficult to see how a llawloqae dismissing everything you think I've said constitutes an effort to try to understand me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Especially when I reply to your llawloqae with "I don't think you understood me. Here's what I've been trying to say," and you just do it again. I think there are better ways to try to understand someone you're debating with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
After you arrived on the Ship 9 years ago, when I was still relatively fresh too, I tried to have a discussion with you, I think it was about a topic related to Theoretical Physics. I was interested in hearing what you'd have to say about a thought of mine, but I never succeeded to hear it, because you were constantly busy trying to dismiss what you thought I said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's true, but since this is Hell, I'd like to register that I'm growing a bit tired with a number of Shipmates parroting each other about what a 'superior intellect' you have. I'm not in that crowd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest.

---

I've always been on the margins of the various RC communities I have belonged to, and I'm not shy about asking all sorts of questions of all sorts of RCs, all the way up to the pope. (Or at least I do so here.) Orthodoxy happens to be what anchors me in this faith community, but it is pretty naive to think that this makes me a tranquil MOTR representative thereof.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I don't think I'd ever call you "middle-of-the-road" myself.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
We're all in the middle of a road.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
...and always in danger of getting flattened.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

IngoB: If I disagree with everything that I understood you as saying, then compiling this into a lengthy, well-argued post seems like rather clear evidence of effort to me.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: And if I either disagree with your judgement that I did not understand you the first time around, or if I disagree with what you say now instead, then it is a perfectly fine reaction to explain this to you once more.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: Seriously? Are you trying to achieve some kind of world record in grudge-keeping?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We're all in the middle of a road.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest.

---

I've always been on the margins of the various RC communities I have belonged to, and I'm not shy about asking all sorts of questions of all sorts of RCs, all the way up to the pope. (Or at least I do so here.) Orthodoxy happens to be what anchors me in this faith community, but it is pretty naive to think that this makes me a tranquil MOTR representative thereof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pancho:
It seems to me you don't have an understanding of orthodox believers. People who grow up and remain in their faith often question the reasons for their belief in order to gain a better unerstanding. Converts often come to an orthodox faith precisely through a process of questioning and I would think IngoB is a perfect example of that.

---

quote:

---

Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pancho:

You're judging people's quality of "unrest" after they've arrived at the answers because you do not like the answers they've found.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pancho:

I came to Jesus Christ so I could have life everlasting, not so I could wallow perpetually in your definition of self-referential "unrest".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.

---

Not in English it ain't.

---

The Oxford Dictionary of English on my Mac has

faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Then I don't have faith nor does anybody I have ever talk to this about, except you. Only an idiot, a fool, or an egomaniac thinks their faith is completely solid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not sure St Thomas had the sort of faith IngoB is holding up, either.

---

quote:

---

If, on the other hand, "to think" be understood in the second way [consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight], then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts"; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects"; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines." But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Then I don't have faith nor does anybody I have ever talk to this about, except you. Only an idiot, a fool, or an egomaniac thinks their faith is completely solid.

---

I assume the operative word here is 'completely', which you added in order to gain some purchase?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I like IngoB's fabulously imperious style, and I suspect those who find it unpalatable and wish he'd respect their human feelings better are deficient in some way, and know it.

---

I am deficient in many ways, and know it. This doesn't, however, make me crawl along on my belly. I am used to my deficiencies and work with them.

I am not asking for IngoB to respect human feelings for me (I never engage him in debate anyway) but for others and the sake of the debate. I strongly suspect it would be more interesting without the slanging matches.

Hmmm ... maybe not ...
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ingo:

Beginner's mind, perhaps?
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Boogie,there is no such thing as the debate. The sort of discussion we have here is more like the interactions of a busy street market in which people come and go, entering into passing conversations with individuals and small groups, with stall-keepers hawking and a general hubbub about the place, and of course the occasional constable on his beat, watching for pocket-pickers and apple-stealers and swinging his truncheon. In any thread, you can have as many styles of debate as you have posters contributing, as we each bring different ways of interchanging with others, and we all have our own idea of what we want to get from the transaction. As long as our behaviour remains within the 10Cs, this great diversity should be welcomed and encouraged, as it is the life spirit of the Ship.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Um, no, "complete" came from the definition YOU supplied. Nice try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And really, what does it mean to say your conviction is solid, but not completely solid? Huh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick
Grow the fuck up, babies.

---

Oh, the irony!

Delicious...
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick
Grow the fuck up, babies.

---

Oh, the irony!

Delicious...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick
Grow the fuck up, babies.

---

Oh, the irony!

Delicious...

---

I do love it when this kind of response is used.

It's a sophisticated, all-grown-up version of "well it takes one to know one" as used by schoolchildren the world over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I do love it when this kind of response is used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Not sure St Thomas had the sort of faith IngoB is holding up, either.

---

It is really not all that difficult to look up what St Thomas thought about this, why not simply do so?

quote:

---

If, on the other hand, "to think" be understood in the second way [consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight], then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts"; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects"; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines." But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.

---

Unsurprisingly, I agree with all of this. In other threads I have called that an "operational certainty", for the mind operates with certitude as if something has been demonstrated conclusively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Is it possible that Curiosity was referring to a different Thomas? The one who doubted, and yet is still regarded as a saint?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Is it possible that Curiosity was referring to a different Thomas? The one who doubted, and yet is still regarded as a saint?

---

Sorry, that's probably right. My bad! Too much Aquinas on the brain there... But given that most of us will not "see" Jesus like that Thomas, must we not make John 20:29 our own? Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If the story had ended with Thomas doubting, I don't imagine that he would have ended up a saint, any more than Peter would have if the story ended with him denying Jesus.

The praise of Thomas' doubt heard in sermons these days is a modern corruption that justifies the reader and not Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Ma Teresa lived with doubt and uncertainty her whole life, and yet she is a saint.

ETA: We don't praise her FOR her doubt; that's a strawman even applied to Thomas. We praise her because she kept on serving Jesus IN SPITE OF her doubt.

But this worship of solid certainty is misplaced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Ma Teresa lived with doubt and uncertainty her whole life, and yet she is a saint.

ETA: We don't praise her FOR her doubt; that's a strawman even applied to Thomas. We praise her because she kept on serving Jesus IN SPITE OF her doubt.

But this worship of solid certainty is misplaced.

---

Seems you have more of an argument that saints overcome doubt than doubt being this huge virtue which we all should share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We're saying IngoB is so evil because he's so certain. The implication of that would be, I suppose, that he would be a better person if he doubted. Thus, Lyda*Rose brings up a biblical example of a saint doubting his Lord.

So I pointed out that Thomas is not praised, in the text, for doubting his Lord, and you have offered another argument that doubt is not to be praised.

---

quote:

---

Well, "evil" is a bit harsh. But he's an asshole because of the way he acts, and it would seem he acts the way he does because of his certainty, and his mistaking that certainty for virtue. So Lyda*Rose brings up someone who doubted as an example of why the rock-solid certainty is not the only way to approach God and be accepted by him. It's subtle, and you don't do subtlety well, so I forgive you for fucking it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You do nasty comments much better than arguments about vocabulary. Congratulations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You do nasty comments much better than arguments about vocabulary. Congratulations.

---

Imagine, nasty comments in Hell. Whatever was I thinking?

No, it doesn't make doubt a virtue. It makes not being an asshole a virtue. You do knee-jerk off-topic comments better than thinking. Congratulations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We're saying IngoB is so evil because he's so certain. The implication of that would be, I suppose, that he would be a better person if he doubted. Thus, Lyda*Rose brings up a biblical example of a saint doubting his Lord.

So I pointed out that Thomas is not praised, in the text, for doubting his Lord, and you have offered another argument that doubt is not to be praised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We're saying IngoB is so evil because he's so certain. The implication of that would be, I suppose, that he would be a better person if he doubted. Thus, Lyda*Rose brings up a biblical example of a saint doubting his Lord.

So I pointed out that Thomas is not praised, in the text, for doubting his Lord, and you have offered another argument that doubt is not to be praised.

---

Huh? You've got me confused with Curiosity Killed...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You are clearly just slinging whatever mud you can in the hope that some of it sticks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Too much Aquinas on the brain there...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
That still makes IngoB a better person for doubting, which makes doubt a virtue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I like IngoB's fabulously imperious style, and I suspect those who find it unpalatable and wish he'd respect their human feelings better are deficient in some way, and know it. And I like it despite (and because of) the fact that he trashes everything I ever post here.

Grow the fuck up, babies. You're incredibly lucky that the guy spends some of his time with this website, as it would be seriously diminished without him.

---