|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ideological Christianity is an illness which pushes people away: pope
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Seriously?!? That's the sort of bullshit argument I expect from a Protestant, frankly, not from a Catholic.
It's really sad that you think in terms of "Right" vs. "Protestant." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
You may be surprised Zach, but some of us aren't.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why the profanity? That's rhetorical. I know it's a compulsion with you. And the classic example of you, eventually, running out of words, words, words.
One day, like your patron saint old Thom, you'll stop, realising their utter vanity.
You have glimmers of humility, of doubt, then you are heartbreakingly adorable.
Peace IngoB.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[The interpretation of this as divorce (defined as "separated and free to remarry") being possible on account of "sexual immorality" is untenable both by what Christ said just prior and by the reaction of the apostles just after. You don't get Jesus contradicting Moses in no uncertain terms, accusing all Israelites since then of hardness of heart, just in order to establish the then well known teaching of the school of Shammai on divorce. It is totally incoherent for Jesus to heavy on Moses only to come up with the same teaching as one of the two major schools interpreting Moses. Neither does it make any sense for the apostles to stammer that under these conditions nobody should marry if Jesus has just reiterated the teachings of Shammai by which a large number of Jewish couples were in fact living their marriages. Your interpretation of Matt 19 simply makes no sense by and in itself. It is also of course an isolated difficulty, and the idea that not only the other gospel writers (e.g. Mk 10:11-12) and St Paul (1 Cor 7:10-11), but the entire Church of antiquity including all the Church fathers would forget about this for centuries in the face of both Jewish and Gentile cultures that knew divorce is just plain ridiculous. This difficulty can be removed in several different ways, but not by saying that this allows divorce in the case of adultery. That is an untenable claim. (And incidentally, modern Protestant practice has usually little to do even with this misinterpretation. Divorce is not being limited to cases of adultery.)
I find your response interesting, especially in the context of the passage that follows the divorce verses, on the nature of eunuchs.
Jesus says "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
I wonder why in the entire context, you feel in any way that these verses about Jesus' view on sexual relationships, is applicable to all Christians, rather than only to those "who can accept this." If there was something definitive here as a command to all believers, I wonder why it's written in a way to suggest that it is a specific calling that some - but not all - can achieve.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are simply forgetting who the Boss is in all matters, including human ones.
Don't think His Bossness is in question; the issue here is when human interpretation of what God wants becomes an ideology.
(If you think that the plain meaning of the Gospel text should be the end of the story then I'm sure many here will happily welcome you into the Protestant church ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
quote:
There is no need for God's mercy in your faith. What is God going to be merciful about? Doing what you think is the best that you can do while you think it is reasonable to do so does not require God's "mercy".
Don't agree. When we find ourselves in that place where there are no good choices then we need God's mercy even while doing the best we can.
quote:
how did you get license from mercy? By making it the law. If mercy is the law, then it becomes license. But God is not licentious, He is merciful.
That's right. There is no mercy without discretion. For the law to allow for the possibility of mercy, it has to leave space for discretion.
Which ISTM means couples have no right to God's blessing on their second-attempt marriages. But neither are they necessarily condemned to exclusion from the sacramental life of the church community. Leaving it up to the parish priest allows for mercy to be shown. Or not. At his discretion.
If a Hollywood starlet on her seventh marriage has a right to be remarried in church, that's licence.
If a priest has permission to bless a second union (not full church wedding, just a quiet chat to say that if you're serious about living as man and wife then this is what it means and we in the community will support you as best we can and you're very welcome to participate fully in the life of the local church) is that not showing God's mercy ? Is that not non-ideological Christianity ?
By your argument, does not the whole project of Canon Law - standardised procedures for every aspect of church governance - stand condemned as incapable of reflecting God's mercy ?
quote:
The pope is the vicar of Christ, he is not Christ.
Seems to me that what we want is not for the Pope to be an absolute monarch, a Boss. What we want is for him to take up occasionally the power to restrain the institution from following its institutional logic to the detriment of the people that it is supposed to serve. And then lay that power down again.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are simply forgetting who the Boss is in all matters, including human ones.
Don't think His Bossness is in question; the issue here is when human interpretation of what God wants becomes an ideology.
Yep. And a total lack of humility of the "well this interpretation could be wrong" variety. Oh wait it's the Catholic Church. Theirs and mine both claim to have the ability to change God's mind for Him.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm wondering about the legalistic approaches taken by Pharisees in Jesus' day after reading very rational, but devoid of humanity defences of traditional ideological Roman catholicism. Does this god enjoy suffering? Needs the painful energy of marital martyrs's sorrow? These sorts of ideas are nothing like the pastoral care I have heard about from RC clergy. Which involves some of the real world.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Where someone has escaped from a hell of a marriage with a Satan's spawn of a partner they have considered themselves bound to by the church's teaching should they consider themselves similarly bound not to accept the love which came their way afterwards?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody ever gets bound into marriage by someone else, forced marriages or marriages where the partners are unaware of what they are doing are invalid and belong annulled, not divorced. Now, Christian marriage simply is "all in", to use a poker term, by the Lord's command. And sometimes when people go "all in", they lose. And then they have to live with that. By saying that it must not be possible for anybody to ever lose it all, you are de facto insisting that nobody can ever give it their all. But Christ has established just that as the Christian standard for marriage. If you are shocked by that, then you are in the good company of the apostles.
IngoB, I phrased what I wrote with care for a reason. I don't go round using words like demonspawn for nothing. I wasn't talking about someone losing it all, but having it violently reft from them. And if God is happy with seeing that person then forced into sacrificing all hope of a shared loving life for some obscure priestly reason, then that is quite properly shocking, being without purpose. I don't think a sacrifice can be made by compulsion. It has to be freely offered. (And not offered because of the fear of new relationships and new opportunities for hurt.)
And where someone has already been a victim of the sort of mind games which have made them believe themselves to be bound, they are going to be particularly vulnerable to extensions of the religious teachings that were used in that manipulation.
Moreover, in a situation where there is a possibility of an actual relationship with an actual person, making that enforced choice to pursue celibacy means that other person is also involved, also bound, without any choice at all, so another person is to be hurt.
It's either not good for someone to be alone, or it is. It's either ordained that we should love our neighbours as ourselves or it isn't. And I'm not using "love" here in the soppy or erotic sense. If it is the highest expression of love to walk away from a person and deny them companionship and affection because of something which someone else did to you, and which that new person had nothing to do with, apart from offering an unconditional love, that's not deserving of being called storge, agape, or philia (leaving eros out of it).
[ 31. October 2013, 18:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
no prophet: These sorts of ideas are nothing like the pastoral care I have heard about from RC clergy.
This isn't the first time I've thought that the more vocal RC's on the Ship are nothing at all like the RC's (including clergy) whom I meet in real life.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's really sad that you think in terms of "Right" vs. "Protestant."
You are keeping bad doctrinal company, so don't complain if you get tarred with the same brush. The Tiber is there for you to swim across, your splish-splashing about in demonstrations of swimming prowess and marvels of diving interest nobody. Well, at least certainly not me.
As for the concrete case, a Protestant can make these arguments (and on SoF they frequently do). A Catholic cannot, because arguing like that shows that they have not understood even the most basic principle of their Church's teaching on the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I wonder why in the entire context, you feel in any way that these verses about Jesus' view on sexual relationships, is applicable to all Christians, rather than only to those "who can accept this." If there was something definitive here as a command to all believers, I wonder why it's written in a way to suggest that it is a specific calling that some - but not all - can achieve.
You forget Matt 19:11. This is in response to the disciples complaining that this call to indissoluble marriage is too hard. Christ answers: well, some are are called to indissoluble marriage (Matt 19:11), others are called to sexual continence (Matt 19:12). He gives no other option! And it is really important to look at what Christ lists there as to how you can get "called" to sexual continence. For only the last of His three points is what we would understand today as a proper "calling to a vocation". But Christ is explicitly not limiting this to intentional decisions. He is saying that if nature rendered you incapable of sex, or if other people did so, then you are called to be a "eunuch". The equivalent teaching on marriage is spelled out by St Paul in 1 Cor 7:2-9. Note that St Paul is not talking about any glorious intentions for marriage. He is saying: if you are horny, get married. This is like the first reason for becoming an "eunuch". At any rate when Christ says "he who is able to receive this, let him receive it," the implied failure mode is not "and if not, let him do whatever he wants." The implied failure mode is simply "or be hard of heart, an adulterer" (Matt 19:8-9). That Christ's calls falls on deaf ears does not establish a morally viable third option.
Now, while I assume that Christ's second reason for becoming an Eunuch was a description of men actually having their testicles destroyed by others, this is close to our problem here. The unfaithful spouse dumping their partner and moving on leaves an "eunuch" who has been made an "eunuch" by that spouse. This is glaring injustice, of course, but it nevertheless then becomes a call by God to bear this cross. The sin of others does not establish license, two wrongs do not make a right.
quote:
Originally posted by Ross:
If a priest has permission to bless a second union (not full church wedding, just a quiet chat to say that if you're serious about living as man and wife then this is what it means and we in the community will support you as best we can and you're very welcome to participate fully in the life of the local church) is that not showing God's mercy ? Is that not non-ideological Christianity ?
First, a fantastic ceremony is non-essential to a wedding. Just because there is less human fuzz does not imply any change in status before God. Second, if a second union, why not a third? Or a fourth? Surely people can have a string of really bad luck? Surely you will not condemn those who have made terrible choices before? Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion. If a marriage can be dissolved, then it can be dissolved. Period. There is then no such nonsense as "only once or twice, but then no more." The only rationale one can give for such fudge is that it keeps up appearances in spite of lacking substance. Once upon a time marriage used to be extra special, so we pretend that it still is by allowing you to repeat it only a couple of times, and you have to pretend to be all sad about it. Third, it seems to me that ideology is very much in the eye of the beholder.
quote:
Originally posted by Ross:
By your argument, does not the whole project of Canon Law - standardised procedures for every aspect of church governance - stand condemned as incapable of reflecting God's mercy ?
Canon law cannot contradict doctrine, only serve it. Your law does contradict doctrine, and hence simply plays a different game.
quote:
Originally posted by Ross:
Seems to me that what we want is not for the Pope to be an absolute monarch, a Boss. What we want is for him to take up occasionally the power to restrain the institution from following its institutional logic to the detriment of the people that it is supposed to serve. And then lay that power down again.
Changing the Church's teaching on marriage is not an institutional issue. It is doctrinal. The pope is perfectly powerless to mess about with that sacrament. And if he tried some stupid stunt there, then I for one would turn sedevacantist faster than you can spell 'infallible' backwards. That is not to say that no accommodation of the "remarried" is possible. If you want to argue about for example "partial absolution" then I will listen with interest. But there just is no give in the doctrines about marriage itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And if God is happy with seeing that person then forced into sacrificing all hope of a shared loving life for some obscure priestly reason, then that is quite properly shocking, being without purpose.
Not for some "obscure priestly reason", but by direct Divine command. I really have no idea where this attitude comes from, that God would only demand of us what is nice and easy and fair. Where is that in the bible then? I don't see it in the OT, and I sure as heck do not see it in the NT, the protagonists of which mostly end up getting slaughtered for their faith in various interesting ways. Did St Peter deserve this? Do you think he enjoyed that?
The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church … which turns out to be a kindergarten. Right.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It's either not good for someone to be alone, or it is. It's either ordained that we should love our neighbours as ourselves or it isn't.
All you are doing here is to take some piece of scripture that you like and then you interpret it as you like, and all contrary scripture or tradition or anything else really be damned. You … play … God. It's dangerous business, playing God.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This isn't the first time I've thought that the more vocal RC's on the Ship are nothing at all like the RC's (including clergy) whom I meet in real life.
Well, we live in times of aggiornamento, stating Catholic truths in clear and proud terms has been out of fashion for about sixty years now. Without a shadow of doubt, we must be able to discern the good fruits of this change by now… After all, people just hated the reactionary old days.
(Unfair? Probably… Still, I tire of this stern demand for mollycoddling. If you want that, and if your local RC priest gives you that, then why the blazes do you demand it of me here? I never had the slightest intention to serve in any pastoral position, and I am not here to win converts.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Like others, I thank God that I know "real life Catholics" capable of realizing that they have more in common than different with Protestants, and that Protestants aren't holding out on joining the Roman Catholic Church out of stupidity or viciousness.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well that's a relief.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion....
ISTM that it is that if you insist on principle and rational deduction from church rules as your only foundations for morality, it is then that your morality really does become a matter of ideology rather than Christian faith or obedience. Although he has not been mentioned so much on this thread, I can't see a great deal of difference between IngoB's approach and John Piper's. I also suspect that it is a matter of temperament, or possibly even a person's Myers Briggs profile, whether that floats your boat or sinks it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion....
ISTM that it is that if you insist on principle and rational deduction from church rules as your only foundations for morality, it is then that your morality really does become a matter of ideology rather than Christian faith or obedience. Although he has not been mentioned so much on this thread, I can't see a great deal of difference between IngoB's approach and John Piper's. I also suspect that it is a matter of temperament, or possibly even a person's Myers Briggs profile, whether that floats your boat or sinks it.
Fair enough. I agree that Christian morality must be founded in faith and obedience and not abstract, universalized ethical principles. But then I ask "Faith and obedience in what?
Naturally, as a Protestant, I answer "In the teaching of the Church found in the Scriptures."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although he has not been mentioned so much on this thread, I can't see a great deal of difference between IngoB's approach and John Piper's. I also suspect that it is a matter of temperament, or possibly even a person's Myers Briggs profile, whether that floats your boat or sinks it.
Yes and yes! Unbending ideologues (or committed holders to the truth, if you prefer) can be found across the denominations.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion..
Overstated in the extreme. Rigid rules cum the ideology that this current pope is concerned about, allow for none of the nuances of real human problems to be addressed. For example an untruth told to escape detention and torture, which is something my grandfather did getting out of Hitler's Germany. He engaged in false witness and the family got out.
Or the young man I spoke to today who denied to his friend that he reported him to the police, and then the police showed up and seized the friend's firearms, escorting him to hospital. He also sacrificed the truth apparently for whim and fashion.
Pray tell how blindly must we continue in Kohlberg's stage 4 of 'conventional morality'?* Can Roman catholics not reason at more mature levels?**
* do an internet search if you don't know about this
** rhetorical question. Yes they can, but obviously not all of them.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Three in one there ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And if he tried some stupid stunt there, then I for one would turn sedevacantist faster than you can spell 'infallible' backwards.
Pope Francis, from the OP link;
quote:
“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”
Jesus minsitered to the marginalised such as the ritually unclean, who were unable to receive forgiveness of sins from the Temple authorities. He assured them that they were forgiven. For much of its history, the Church has acted like the Temple in Jesus' day. When it dogmatises, anathematises, and excommunicates, while proclaiming " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus " it is creating another class of marginalised, who have no hope of salvation. This is what Jesus fought against and died for. As someone who values piety over ideology, and the great mystics of the Church over Scholasticism I like the way Pope Francis is shaping up. An ideology which chases people away and distances them from the Church is an illness.
Pope Francis has made it clear that he considers God's mercy to incude atheists, remarried divorcees, those who have abortions and use contraceptives. They are sinners, but aren't outside the possibility of mercy. No one wants to see a "stupid stunt." The Church can't accept remarrige. But in convening this Extraordinary Synod next year, the Pope wants more to be done to keep these sinners in the Church, and prevent them leaving. We don't know how much leeway there will be, but if moving further in the direction of the controversial German diocese will make sedevacantists out of some ideologists, it's a price worth paying for bringing the tenderness, love and meekness of Jesus to people who've been excluded from it by ideology
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion.
I can't help thinking about PDDNOS here. I've been trained in working with teenagers who have PDDNOS, and both in theory and in practice I've learned that thinking in this way is a strong indicator of this condition.
I'm not saying that you or any other posters on this thread have PDDNOS (or that this would necessarily be a bad thing), but it is a fact of life that in most situations there are many grey areas. And most of us are able to deal with them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Oh Lord, let's keep the pseudo-psychology out of it.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Well, we live in times of aggiornamento, stating Catholic truths in clear and proud terms has been out of fashion for about sixty years now. Without a shadow of doubt, we must be able to discern the good fruits of this change by now…
Yes. I have seen the good fruits of Vatican II with my own eyes. And I am very impressed by them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
In case you're wondering, like I was, what PPDNOS is: the Wikipedia explanation
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... Rigid rules cum the ideology that this current pope is concerned about, allow for none of the nuances of real human problems to be addressed. ... [/i]
I'd put it more bluntly than that. I'd say that,
Rigid rules are a convenient tool that enables you to let yourself off having to address the problems that real humans throw up.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
The pope is perfectly powerless to mess about with that sacrament. And if he tried some stupid stunt there, then I for one would turn sedevacantist faster than you can spell 'infallible' backwards.
That demonstrates a profoundly Protestant world view.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
IngoB: Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion.
I can't help thinking about PDDNOS here. I've been trained in working with teenagers who have PDDNOS, and both in theory and in practice I've learned that thinking in this way is a strong indicator of this condition.
I'm not saying that you or any other posters on this thread have PDDNOS (or that this would necessarily be a bad thing), but it is a fact of life that in most situations there are many grey areas. And most of us are able to deal with them.
I was taught the notion of pre-ambivalence, which shows an intolerance of, you've guessed it, ambivalence, which equates to your grey areas. I suppose it's also about living with the tension of opposites.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Is this the moment to point out that one of Our Lord's things about the priests and Levites of his time was the narrow-mindedness of some in being all about the minutiae of "The Law" rather than of the care of the people of God?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Is this the moment to point out that one of Our Lord's things about the priests and Levites of his time was the narrow-mindedness of some in being all about the minutiae of "The Law" rather than of the care of the people of God?
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-19
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: I was taught the notion of pre-ambivalence, which shows an intolerance of, you've guessed it, ambivalence, which equates to your grey areas. I suppose it's also about living with the tension of opposites.
I think that being able to live with ambivalence is at the core of most inter-human relations. I couldn't imagine living in Latin America without being able to deal with it.
And FWIW, I don't believe that our ambivalence is a sign of human weakness or imperfection.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: I was taught the notion of pre-ambivalence, which shows an intolerance of, you've guessed it, ambivalence, which equates to your grey areas. I suppose it's also about living with the tension of opposites.
I think that being able to live with ambivalence is at the core of most inter-human relations. I couldn't imagine living in Latin America without being able to deal with it.
And FWIW, I don't believe that our ambivalence is a sign of human weakness or imperfection.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:15-16
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: I was taught the notion of pre-ambivalence, which shows an intolerance of, you've guessed it, ambivalence, which equates to your grey areas. I suppose it's also about living with the tension of opposites.
I think that being able to live with ambivalence is at the core of most inter-human relations. I couldn't imagine living in Latin America without being able to deal with it.
And FWIW, I don't believe that our ambivalence is a sign of human weakness or imperfection.
Well, one of the basic themes in my work, is that the immature cannot stand ambivalence - thus adolescents see things in black and white - but maturity brings an increasing tolerance of grey. Of course, it's quite difficult, as with the tension of opposites, which pull us in different directions, but then growing up is hard. It's interesting to relate it to religious ideas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:15-16
Are you going to prooftext all our posts? Anyway, I don't think Revelation 3 is about people who are able to deal with ambivalence of rules. It is about a congregation of people who think that they are rich and therefore lose their enthousiasm because they don't need anything anymore.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:15-16
Are you going to prooftext all our posts? Anyway, I don't think Revelation 3 is about people who are able to deal with ambivalence of rules. It is about a congregation of people who think that they are rich and therefore lose their enthousiasm because they don't need anything anymore.
Good Lord, the way people cry "proof-texting!" these days, the Bible would be completely irrelevant to every theological discussion.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But proof-texting can be used as a substitute for argument.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Oh, I'm just being contrary about other people's arguments by wondering how biblical they are. I'm not making my own argument at the moment.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, I'm just being contrary about other people's arguments by wondering how biblical they are. I'm not making my own argument at the moment.
So I've noticed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: maturity brings an increasing tolerance of grey.
I think this is sometimes necessary. *Looks worryingly at the first signs of colour change in his hair*
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:15-16
Everyone knows that Revelation should have been left out of the bible. They messed up with that one. Blame Irenaeus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Good luck with this 'maturity' business, quetzalcoatl. I have a hard enough time "becoming a little child" and obeying the Word of God to contemplate the rigors of maturity quite yet.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, I'm just being contrary about other people's arguments by wondering how biblical they are. I'm not making my own argument at the moment.
There's a word for that. Not a nice one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, I'm just being contrary about other people's arguments by wondering how biblical they are. I'm not making my own argument at the moment.
There's a word for that. Not a nice one.
It can't be worse than the word for writing off people who disagree with you as immature and mentally ill, can it?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If a priest has permission to bless a second union (not full church wedding, just a quiet chat to say that if you're serious about living as man and wife then this is what it means and we in the community will support you as best we can and you're very welcome to participate fully in the life of the local church) is that not showing God's mercy ? Is that not non-ideological Christianity ?
To the extent that such a rule expresses a consistent and clear doctrine about marriage and coherent ethical principles, it would, of course, be thoroughly ideological.
On the other hand, if such an approach was not based on some substantive principle, then it would indeed be non-ideological, and that would be a bad thing.
It's stupid to object to Catholicism on the grounds that it is ideological. An organisation that claims to have divinely ordained authority to teach doctrine and ethics can go in two directions: it can be ideological, or it can be arbitrary. Ideology is not only the better option, but the obviously better option.
Object to Catholicism because it is wrong by all means, but even then, be grateful that it is ideological, because the fact that Catholic teaching works damned hard at getting the principles it uses consistent and clear makes it possible for the rest of us to argue against something which has real substance. An organisation claiming divine inspiration but having no ideology couldn't be the subject of meaningful argument at all, because there would be no underlying principles to argue about.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Like others, I thank God that I know "real life Catholics" capable of realizing that they have more in common than different with Protestants, and that Protestants aren't holding out on joining the Roman Catholic Church out of stupidity or viciousness.
The former is obvious. I do consider you heretic, after all, not pagan.The latter… well, I'm glad that you say so. What is the reason then? Bad habit? Insufficient knowledge? Acedia?
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
When it dogmatises, anathematises, and excommunicates, while proclaiming " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus " it is creating another class of marginalised, who have no hope of salvation. This is what Jesus fought against and died for.
Sorry, the risks of millstones around my neck are getting too high there.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Pope Francis has made it clear that he considers God's mercy to incude atheists, remarried divorcees, those who have abortions and use contraceptives. They are sinners, but aren't outside the possibility of mercy.
Sure, and I happily agree with this most orthodox teaching. The other side of that orthodox teaching however is of course the requirement for sincere repentance on the human side.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We don't know how much leeway there will be, but if moving further in the direction of the controversial German diocese will make sedevacantists out of some ideologists, it's a price worth paying for bringing the tenderness, love and meekness of Jesus to people who've been excluded from it by ideology
The bishops and the pope can impose discipline and adapt doctrine, and potentially derive "new" doctrine from the existing deposit of faith, but they cannot fundamentally change existing doctrine or invent new doctrine at will. There are some judgement calls involved in saying what is what, but in fact the RC doctrinal systems is geared to making those relatively easy. There are tight limits there in the RCC, and no amount soppy fawning over Jesus will make them go away. Thank God, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus is happy about that, too…
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can't help thinking about PDDNOS here. I've been trained in working with teenagers who have PDDNOS, and both in theory and in practice I've learned that thinking in this way is a strong indicator of this condition.
Really?! Just how low are you willing to sink?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That demonstrates a profoundly Protestant world view.
Argue your case, if you can. Perhaps you just suffer from a profoundly Protestant misunderstanding of what the RCC is about?
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, one of the basic themes in my work, is that the immature cannot stand ambivalence - thus adolescents see things in black and white - but maturity brings an increasing tolerance of grey. Of course, it's quite difficult, as with the tension of opposites, which pull us in different directions, but then growing up is hard. It's interesting to relate it to religious ideas.
Mental illness, immaturity, what's next I wonder?
The problem here is a much more fundamental one. For you and others like you, faith is functionally equivalent to opinion. For me and others like me, faith is functionally equivalent to fact.
Now, can we imagine this entire discussion centred not on the indissolubility of marriage, but on the existence of Australia? What would you think if someone insisted on grey areas about the existence of Australia? Would that be a sign of a sound mind? Of maturity? Or wouldn't your rather say "WTF are you talking about? Of course, Australia exists. Here's a globe, it's right there. The news earlier today had a piece about them electing their Prime Minister. Talk to James over there, he is from Australia. Or book a flight to Australia. Yes, this is pure 'black and white', Australia exists. Get real."
Of course there is plenty of room for grey areas given the existence of Australia. Should Australians enjoy automatic residency in the UK? Does the Australian accent sound horrible? Are Australians overly fixated on sports? Should there be a free trade agreement with Australia? And so on. People can have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of matters pertaining to Australia. But they cannot have different opinions on whether it exists, validly. It does. Fact. End of discussion. Black and white, no grey at all.
Now, my Catholic faith is in some aspects (by far not in all!) functionally equivalent to facts. I defend the indissolubility of marriage in much the same spirit as I would defend the existence of Australia (assuming that there would be some people who for some reason have doubts on the matter). To accuse me about being "black and white" about that is hence at most an indication for me that I have not managed to clear up the mistaken grey that those unfortunately less informed have. Just as I can admit that pointing to a globe may not on its own convince the Australia-doubter.
But if you say that this rather is a fundamental "mental problem" of mine (whether due to mental illness or retarded development), then I answer that fundamentally you have no faith at all. And that is that, as far as I am concerned.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's an odd comparison, since the indissolubility of marriage is something that is not universally proclaimed, can be argued about, and is argued about at length, whereas the existence of Australia is generally accepted as a physical fact. Maybe there are people who would deny it, and of course, there are those Buddhists (and others), who might deny that anything exists, but still, a chunk of land seems rather different from a doctrine.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Really?! Just how low are you willing to sink?
Can we get over the sissy-fit faux-offendedness? Being able to deal with ambivalence of rules is part of human maturation. That's a fact; I can cite psychological articles on this if you want. If having difficulties in learning this could be one of the indicators of a condition within DSM-IV, then this further illustrates that dealing with ambivalence is part of the 'normal' human condition.
To me, it seems perfectly acceptable to discuss this. I haven't said that anyone on this thread has PDD-NOS; in fact I've actually denied saying this. You often make all kinds of comparisons on the Ship to get your point across, I don't see why we can't take this comparison and see where it goes?
quote:
Zach82: Good luck with this 'maturity' business, quetzalcoatl. I have a hard enough time "becoming a little child" and obeying the Word of God to contemplate the rigors of maturity quite yet.
I'll see your Matthew 18:3 and raise you a 1 Corinthians 13:11. See, I can prooftext too ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yes, there are many things about children that are wonderful and worthy of emulation. The open-mindedness with which they approach the world, their readiness to accept other people... We should really become like children in this sense more often.
But we also shouldn't over-romantize things. Just look at any group of 8 year olds, especially when they're under eachother. Besides the many good things you'll also see selfishness, petty behaviour and yes, difficulties to see things in a nuanced way. No-one seriously thinks that these kinds of behaviour are examples we should follow.
In fact, this is way we raise children in the first place, why we take all this time and effort to try to teach them a feeling of what is right and what is wrong, and all the nuances in between. We wouldn't do all of this if theirs was already a perfect example of human behaviour.
So yes, in some sense we should be more like children from time to time. And in another sense, we should strive towards more maturity. But I guess that's another ambivalence...
PS The Bible seems to say at one point that we should become more like children, and at another point that childish thoughts are something we should overcome. Ambivalence in the Bible! How can it be?!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'll see your Matthew 18:3 and raise you a 1 Corinthians 13:11. See, I can prooftext too
[snip]
in some sense we should be more like children from time to time. And in another sense, we should strive towards more maturity. But I guess that's another ambivalence...
PS The Bible seems to say at one point that we should become more like children, and at another point that childish thoughts are something we should overcome. Ambivalence in the Bible! How can it be?!
Well said, LeRoc; your whole post but particularly what I've quoted.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's an odd comparison, since the indissolubility of marriage is something that is not universally proclaimed, can be argued about, and is argued about at length, whereas the existence of Australia is generally accepted as a physical fact. Maybe there are people who would deny it, and of course, there are those Buddhists (and others), who might deny that anything exists, but still, a chunk of land seems rather different from a doctrine.
It's a perfectly fine comparison. I did not say that (some of) my beliefs are facts, I said that they are functionally equivalent to facts to me. Or as St Paul says "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Heb 11:1). My point was not that I can prove the indissolubility of marriage in the same way that I can prove the existence of Australia. Obviously that is not the case. My point was that attributing mental illness or developmental retardation merely to seeing certain matters of faith "black and white" is in outright contradiction to what I consider faith to be. To me, being "black and white" about certain things hoped for and unseen exactly is faith. If that is dysfunctional, then I wear that label with pride. And anyone who claims to be all shades of grey about Christianity in my eyes has no faith in Christ whatsoever. None.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can we get over the sissy-fit faux-offendedness?
I can't help thinking about fuckwittery here. I've been trained in working with adults who are fuckwits, and both in theory and in practice I've learned that speaking in this way is a strong indicator of this condition.
I'm not saying that you or any other posters on this thread are fuckwits (or that this would necessarily be a bad thing), but it is a fact of life that in most situations one should not attribute mental illness to others. And most of us are able to argue without that.
<For hostly reference, I'm spoofing this post to make a point, without being in a particularly hellish mood.>
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Being able to deal with ambivalence of rules is part of human maturation.
And your evidence that I cannot deal with ambivalence is that I have principles you do not like or share? Or that I have any principles at all?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's a fact; I can cite psychological articles on this if you want. If having difficulties in learning this could be one of the indicators of a condition within DSM-IV, then this further illustrates that dealing with ambivalence is part of the 'normal' human condition.
I know the Book of Lamentations. I also know a pseudo-diagnosis for rhetorical purposes when I hear one. There is quite literally not a single indicator of PDDNOS that would apply to me. If you knew the first thing about my life, you would know that. But hey, you don't. And you didn't bother asking either. So please don't pretend that you are speaking from some kind of objective or professional place here. This was simply a bit of nasty rhetoric, in particular so if you actually had some "psychological training". The one and only appropriate thing for you to do here would be to apologise.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You often make all kinds of comparisons on the Ship to get your point across, I don't see why we can't take this comparison and see where it goes?
Well, in the end of course you get to define who you are by the boundaries that you set yourself. And the same is true for me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: <For hostly reference, I'm spoofing this post to make a point, without being in a particularly hellish mood.>
You're illustrating my point perfectly! You're making a comparison to get your point across, like I was doing before and like I said you are doing on the Ship.
FWIW I wouldn't have a problem at all if you compared some of the things I've said on the Ship with the behaviour of someone who is a fuckwit. It would give me a chance to explain why my post isn't fuckwittery.
My proposal is that both of us will be allowed to use comparisons in our argumentation, and both of us will also try to avoid jumping to conclusions because of these comparisons. Deal?
quote:
IngoB: And your evidence that I cannot deal with ambivalence is that I have principles you do not like or share? Or that I have any principles at all?
No, my evidence is you saying "Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion."
I have nothing against principles per se, I probably have a couple of them myself. My objection is to the idea that the only alternative to principles are 'whim and fashion'. At the very least, you're guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle here.
quote:
IngoB: I also know a pseudo-diagnosis for rhetorical purposes when I hear one.
Oh, I'd never claim to be a psychologist or a psychiater so they truly are pseudo-diagnoses. And once again, I'm not trying to diagnose you. I'm only commenting on a similarity I'm seeing.
I have worked with these teenagers for a long time. It wasn't my task to diagnose them, but I have been professionally trained in dealing with their behaviour. A large part of this traing —specifically and explicitly— was taking into account their difficulties in dealing with ambivalent rules.
So, what do you do when you're working with children/teenagers with PDD-NOS? You try to remove ambivalence from your rules and communication. Clarity of rules gives them a sense of security. I can point to countless psychological websites that give this advice.
I'm not saying that all people who are unable to deal with ambivalent rules have PDD-NOS. Hey, I like me a clear rule myself too from time to time. But the fact that a kind of thinking is also present in people with PDD-NOS seems to me like an interesting fact to discuss.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Deal?
No deal. Stop justifying your misbehaviour by alleging that I do something similar. Even if it were so, that does not get you off the hook.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, my evidence is you saying "Once you abandon principle, your rules do become arbitrary and their morality becomes a matter of whim and fashion." I have nothing against principles per se, I probably have a couple of them myself. My objection is to the idea that the only alternative to principles are 'whim and fashion'. At the very least, you're guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle here.
Go ahead then, tell us what the middle is between principle and arbitrariness / whim / fashion, as far as the drafting of rules is concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But the fact that a kind of thinking is also present in people with PDD-NOS seems to me like an interesting fact to discuss.
It was just a random factoid mentioned by chance, was it?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: No deal.
Take it or leave it.
quote:
IngoB: It was just a random factoid mentioned by chance, was it?
Of course it wasn't.
quote:
IngoB: Go ahead then, tell us what the middle is between principle and arbitrariness / whim / fashion, as far as the drafting of rules is concerned.
Oh boy, almost the whole of human experience. Sonny-boy should to be in bed by seven o'clock but today we'll make an exception. Little Lily wasn't supposed to play with felt-tip pens yet, but she made a beautiful drawing! Maybe we should revise this rule. Peter reacted strongly to his teacher, but maybe she was provoking him too...
Real life has countless examples where rules aren't as rigid as they seemed. That doesn't mean that there are no rules at all.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the notion of pre-ambivalence is tied up with a schematic approach to reality in various areas of life. Thus some approaches to autism currently distinguish between systemizing and empathic modes of thought in humans (these are Baron-Cohen's terms), but humans probably need to be able to use both modalities.
It's certainly interesting to apply this to religious ideas; for example, an excessive legalism could be connected with the schematic tendency; whereas the empathic mode can be connected with the ideas of love, an open heart, and so on.
So I take the word 'ideological' in the OP as really meaning schematic or overly systemizing. I don't think it's an illness, it's just one polarity in human connectivity.
Is the pope an empathizer rather than a systemizer? I don't know really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
