|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: FFS, man up you two and say what you mean...
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To echo something Marvin said: it is most definitely a complete mischaracterisation of humility to think it somehow involves "rolling over", or otherwise debasing yourself below your actual value.
It's a somewhat popular misuse of the word, but it's still a misuse.
Humility is fundamentally about treating yourself in the same way that you treat others. Not elevating yourself, and not debasing yourself. Humility is celebrating the successes of others as if they were your own, and commiserating with others as if you yourself were affected. Humility allows you to recognise when you've done a good job, so long as you also recognise when others have done a good job.
Humility is saying that finding the truth is more important than who found it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair point, Marvin, I ought to fucking well learn and show more sense than I have done hitherto.
Far more erudite, learned and cleverer posters than me are engaging with EE and getting nowhere so why should it even enter my head that he's even going to bother listening to me?
He doesn't listen to anybody.
Once we've clocked that there really isn't anything else to say.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Having said nice things about EE, I missed the edit window so couldn't add that I don't agree with you (EE) about this humility thing. I agree with MtM, orfeo et al; accepting an argument that's stronger than one's own is rationality, not humility.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Now, which of those options did you actually choose to follow on the Jericho thread?
First of all, I refused to accept that a particular researcher was 'biased' simply because he was a Christian with a high view of the Bible. I don't think humility involves going along with other people's prejudices. Do you?
Secondly, I looked at both points of view - the Kenyon and Garstang / Wood views - and concluded that the evidence was inconclusive.
Therefore I feel assured that my response was honest.
So I don't see what case you have against me on this issue.
Are you saying that humility involves accusing scholars of bias? Is that it?!?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so you are prepared to state here that I have a right to believe that, for example, the conquest of Jericho was an historical event,
Yes, of course. Most people in my church, including many friends, have that view, so it's not one I'm a stranger to.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
without feeling frustrated with me? Yes?
I can't promise that. But I'll continue to do my best to disagree politely.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We can agree to disagree?
Of course.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You can say - along with Doc Tor, mousethief and all the others - that "we respect your right to hold a point of view with which we disagree, and we appreciate the fact that you have acknowledged that the evidence is inconclusive"?
Of course, that's a start. But, again, I can't promise that when you (or anybody else) gives arguments that seem, to me, contrived / biased / has lots of holes, that I won't pick them up on it or point out where their understanding & reasoning is flawed. I'd expect you to do the same too (and you have, enough times).
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because that was certainly not the approach towards me on that thread. The whole attitude was: "you are a stupid idiot for not just accepting our point of view."
It was never my intention for my posts to leave you feeling like that. My interpretation of the thread was that your arguments were contrived and selective, because to accept the alternative would screw with your worldview too much. I still think that. But I never intended any disrespect in my disagreement (though I admit to frustration). As I've said, I certainly don't think you are a stupid idiot.
Perhaps because I am a open evangelical minority in a church of conservative evangelicals, I projected a little, and revelled in being the majority for once. I know it is hard being a lone voice, one does have to develop a thick skin.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair point, Marvin, I ought to fucking well learn and show more sense than I have done hitherto.
Talk is cheap.
quote:
Far more erudite, learned and cleverer posters than me are engaging with EE and getting nowhere so why should it even enter my head that he's even going to bother listening to me?
He doesn't listen to anybody.
Once we've clocked that there really isn't anything else to say.
See how cheap talk is? You couldn't even get to the end of the same fucking post without taking another shot.
You either don't get it or you can't stop yourself. Whichever it is, it needs to change. Probably quite soon.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
goperryrevs -
OK, so you are prepared to state here that I have a right to believe that, for example, the conquest of Jericho was an historical event, without feeling frustrated with me? Yes?
You're free to hold any view, no matter how ludicrous. You even have the right to believe that you're achieving anything in this thread but showing yourself up as an arrogant, boorish waste of bandwidth. But when you support your views with nothing more than special pleading and appeals to shoddy and ideologically motivated spin, it's no surprise if sensible, rational people become frustrated at your behaviour. It's not the beliefs that are the problem, so much as the nonsensical house of cards they're built on.
If I called you a tedious wanker, I doubt there would be much disagreement, but if I backed up my opinion with arguments based on the number of letters in your username, or selective quotes from people who don't even know who you are, and did so even after I had been repeatedly been told that those were terrible reasons for my conclusion, I would expect a lot of frustration at my intransigence and inability to hold a rational conversation. See how it works?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We can agree to disagree?
Ah, now here we have a problem. Because the reason the Jericho issue was such a tediously long-running point of contention, as pointed out earlier, was that you dogmatically insisted that it was unquestionably true. Asking to agree to disagree when your original absolutist claim is lying in tiny pieces all over the place like so much dubiously-dated pottery says more about you than you might be comfortable with.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
First of all, I refused to accept that a particular researcher was 'biased' simply because he was a Christian with a high view of the Bible.
It's the fact that he was trying to make the research fit with his high view of the Bible that makes him biased.
quote:
I don't think humility involves going along with other people's prejudices. Do you?
No, but it does involve recognising your own.
quote:
Secondly, I looked at both points of view - the Kenyon and Garstang / Wood views - and concluded that the evidence was inconclusive.
...and then went on to repeatedly state that nobody had provided any evidence to counter your arguments, which meant they must be right. Including on this very thread.
quote:
Therefore I feel assured that my response was honest.
So I don't see what case you have against me on this issue.
Dishonesty is not something I have accused you of.
quote:
Are you saying that humility involves accusing scholars of bias? Is that it?!?
Is that really all you got out of the four alternative answers I offered in my previous post? Have they shown you nothing about the various ways one can respond during a thread, and why your chosen mode of interaction gets everyone's backs up so much?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Well, after The Great Gumby's insulting, childish and ill-informed post, I don't see how anyone can wonder why I become 'arrogant' and strident.
This is a perfect example of what I have been talking about: I am being required to just roll over and accept points of view on the basis of being browbeaten, hectored and insulted.
If TGG does not like me expressing my viewpoint, then he can just fuck off, AFAIAC.
[ 19. June 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, after The Great Gumby's insulting, childish and ill-informed post, I don't see how anyone can wonder why I become 'arrogant' and strident.
This is a perfect example of what I have been talking about: I am being required to just roll over and accept points of view on the basis of being browbeaten, hectored and insulted.
If TGG does not like me expressing my viewpoint, then he can just fuck off, AFAIAC.
Ah, but now you are losing me, EE. If you're being required to roll over and accept other people's points of view at all, it's on the basis of their arguments being judged to be far more solid than yours. If you want to dispute that judgement in any specific case then obviously you can, but going defensive and outraged is unlikely to help...
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, after The Great Gumby's insulting, childish and ill-informed post, I don't see how anyone can wonder why I become 'arrogant' and strident.
I guess it's a chicken-or-egg thing. Is it other people's mean posts that make you become arrogant, or are their posts mean because you are arrogant?
But Gumby's final paragraph makes a pertinent point. Agreeing to disagree is only a starting point. On the Joshua thread, your approach was that it was totally self-evident that the Jericho narrative was fully historical, and anyone who didn't believe that was talking nonsense. Posts like:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction? If so, please be so kind as to present it. Personal dislike for the content of the book doesn't count, by the way, as I am sure you must know, if you have any kind of intellectual and academic credentials.
Is the kind of passive aggressive-approach you've been challenged on.* Now, just imagine that, on that thread, there were 20 people who agreed with you, and only one person who thought the Jericho account was not historical, and all those people posted in that strident manner that you did (like the above) throughout the thread. Would that person maybe 'browbeaten' and forced into agreement like you feel? The only difference would be the volume of the content, not the quality. You are as guilty of the aggressive (usually passive-aggressive but sometimes directly aggressive) form of posting that winds you up in other people's posts. The only difference was that you were a minority voice on that thread.
*It's also an example of your arrogance, that you has already assumed that no-one could possibly have any evidence that it wasn't historical. Which, as it turned out, they did.
[ 19. June 2014, 11:53: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin The Martian
It's the fact that he was trying to make the research fit with his high view of the Bible that makes him biased.
Trouble is that everyone does this. They have a theory and try to find evidence to fit it. If we ignore all examples of bias, then we could not consider any evidence at all.
Whatever Dr Wood's motives (and I would not want to run to judgment), the fact is that he is making certain claims, based not on "what the Bible says", but "what the archaeological evidence says". He is claiming that the evidence upholds John Garstang's original dating for the destruction of Jericho. Now either this claim is sound or it is not, quite irrespective of Dr Wood's motives. To use an analogy: Hitler built the Autobahns for a totally nefarious reason. His motives were warped. Does that mean that no one should drive on them today?
Citing motive as proper evidence is highly dubious and more often than not totally irrelevant. Just look at the claim, and assess that on its own merits.
quote:
Originally posted by Goperryrevs
But Gumby's final paragraph makes a pertinent point. Agreeing to disagree is only a starting point. On the Joshua thread, your approach was that it was totally self-evident that the Jericho narrative was fully historical, and anyone who didn't believe that was talking nonsense. Posts like:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably you have evidence that the book of Joshua, for example, is fiction? If so, please be so kind as to present it. Personal dislike for the content of the book doesn't count, by the way, as I am sure you must know, if you have any kind of intellectual and academic credentials.
Is the kind of passive aggressive-approach you've been challenged on.* Now, just imagine that, on that thread, there were 20 people who agreed with you, and only one person who thought the Jericho account was not historical, and all those people posted in that strident manner that you did (like the above) throughout the thread. Would that person maybe 'browbeaten' and forced into agreement like you feel? The only difference would be the volume of the content, not the quality. You are as guilty of the aggressive (usually passive-aggressive but sometimes directly aggressive) form of posting that winds you up in other people's posts. The only difference was that you were a minority voice on that thread.
*It's also an example of your arrogance, that you has already assumed that no-one could possibly have any evidence that it wasn't historical. Which, as it turned out, they did.
Firstly, I have been accused of arrogance concerning my posting style, but I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach. I find that very telling, to be honest. Double standards again.
Secondly, there was nothing aggressive or passive-aggressive in what I wrote concerning the claim that the account in Joshua is fictional. I asked for evidence to support this claim. I also made the point that "personal dislike for the content of the text" does not count as evidence, and this is consistent with the way academia works. Was I saying any more than that? You may imagine that I was, and try to put your own construction on my comment, but that is simply not fair, as you must surely know!
I get the feeling that, unless I just roll over and accept certain ideas, I will be accused of arrogance. I realise that there is nothing I can do about it. If I try to write something in more 'civil' language it will be picked over. If I write more stridently, it will be condemned and so on.
Anyway, I agree with CS Lewis when he wrote that anyone who claims to be humble is very conceited indeed. So I won't claim that. If you want to see me as arrogant, then fine. I am arrogant. Big deal. At least I admit it. Unlike certain other people.
Do you think you are humble?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Firstly, I have been accused of arrogance concerning my posting style, but I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach. I find that very telling, to be honest. Double standards again.
If you continue to go over single posts by other individuals in forensic detail, and attempt to compare it to the impression you have built up over several years of behaviour, you will continue to be disappointed by "double standards".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Trouble is that everyone does this. They have a theory and try to find evidence to fit it. If we ignore all examples of bias, then we could not consider any evidence at all.
No, really not. Any of us with a scientific background start with a hypothesis - an idea for why something might happen - carries out experiments and if the expected happens all is well and good. But frequently the expected doesn't happen, so the original hypothesis is incorrect and needs rethinking. The next hypothesis is based on the evidence already discovered. The scientists test that hypothesis experimentally and gathers evidence. That evidence may mean that that hypothesis might be a better match for the data, but it might also mean that the new hypothesis also fails.
The same is true in archaeology. When digging a site, you start with some ideas, often from geophysics and site surveys, but if what you find in the ground doesn't fit those ideas you have to rethink, and continue rethinking until the ideas / hypothesis fits the finds. (I've done this for fun as an amateur - and we rethought what we were finding several times for the first couple of seasons, went back and did a major literature search and rewrote the history books on that particular site.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach.
If I rebuked every shipmate who I thought over-stepped a mark, I'd be posting every five minutes, which would be pointless and stupid. And I tend to read a lot more than I post anyhow. But, yes, for the record, I do think that quite a few posters (including quite a few that I am very fond of) have been overly heavy-handed with you on this thread. But I understand why they have been. You can be very frustrating to engage with.
And the reason I'm engaging with you is because I actually care. I'm not here to shout at you and tell you you're an idiot, I'm only trying to help (for your sake, and the sake of the threads that we both post on).
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Secondly, there was nothing aggressive or passive-aggressive in what I wrote
Maybe this is the heart of the problem. That kind of post is standard for you, and perhaps you don't intend the tone that way, but everything about it screams passive-aggression. I've lost count of the number of your posts that appear to be in this form: "I know more about this stuff than you. My logic is superior. I know you're not going to be able to come up with anything to dissuade me. Go on then, try, I'm waiting." It doesn't enable meaningful debate. It stifles it. As I say, perhaps it's not intended that way, but that's how it's received - and evidently not just by me, but by swathes of your fellow shipmates.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Do you think you are humble?
Humility is the virtue that I most admire, and aspire to more than any other (even though I know Love is a greater virtue, there is a beauty in Humility that naturally draws me more than Love). Of course I fail to live up to the goal of humility all the time, but that's not for lack of desire, or admiration of the ideal.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Goperryrevs -
Perhaps if you looked at the context of my comment, you will see it rather differently.
Given that I was accused of "lunatic ravings" and "pathetic bloviating", you can hardly blame me for responding in kind to mousethief.
You may admire humility, but I would also like to suggest that you start admiring honesty as well, because your selective quotation of my comment is frankly "below the belt", mate.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I've lost count of the number of your posts that appear to be in this form: "I know more about this stuff than you. My logic is superior. I know you're not going to be able to come up with anything to dissuade me. Go on then, try, I'm waiting."
This. Honestly, EE, this is the trope you've become associated with in my mind, and in the minds of many others. I remember, the first time I encountered it, I was actually on your side in whatever debate was going on in Purgatory, and found myself wishing that I wasn't.
You ask why no-one ever provides you with evidence. One of the reasons is because you convey that the evidence will be rejected in the exact same breath that you call for it. In fact, quite frequently the rejection part happens before the call part.
It's certainly what you do in Hell. It's less naked when you're on other parts of the Ship, but variations of the form still appear. Saying to people "I don't think you can convince me. Go on, convince me!" might seem to you as if you're posting an exciting and interesting intellectual challenge, but for an awful lot of people it's just an aggressive turn-off. It doesn't convey "I'm interested in what you have to say", it conveys "whatever you have to say, I've already planned how to knock it down".
You basically set up the conversation as a contest between you as batsman and the other person as bowler. Come on, you say, bet you can't get me out. I dare you get me out. YES! Ha-ha! Four runs to me!
There are probably times when that's an appropriate mode to be in, but not quite so often.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Given that I was accused of
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"lunatic ravings"
As far as I can tell, that is something you imported from a Hell thread. It wasn't part of the discussion in Dead Horses. In terms of the debate going on in that thread, it's a different context. Things get hotter in Hell. You know that.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"pathetic bloviating"
No. You stated that someone else's analogy was a "pathetic comparison". Mousethief responded saying that unless you could give a valid argument as to why the comparison was pathetic, then your assertion was pathetic bloviating. That is not the same as accusing you of pathetic bloviating, it is stating that unless you back up your assertions, you are in danger of pathetic bloviating.
And the thing is, as Orfeo says, it would be easy to find scores of other posts of that same format. So arguing the details of the first one I found is by the bye. The "come on then, convince me.", "perhaps you have some evidence for me", "I know you won't be able to back that up" etc. posts, often backed up with a ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) . There are enough examples of them on this thread alone.
[ 19. June 2014, 14:11: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Marv.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This time my lips are sealed.
Dude, I have that in needlepoint on my bedroom wall.
Marv's right, this time mean it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You basically set up the conversation as a contest between you as batsman and the other person as bowler. Come on, you say, bet you can't get me out. I dare you get me out. YES! Ha-ha! Four runs to me!
There are probably times when that's an appropriate mode to be in, but not quite so often.
The problem comes when the batsmen is gleefully claiming to have hit a six when their middle stump is lying on the ground twenty feet behind them, the fielders are high-fiving each other and the umpire is giving you the finger. At this point, asking for a DRS review is unwise at best and likely to annoy all and sundry, even your team-mate batting at the other end.
If, as has been stated, there are other posters who do not receive the same type of response as you although they offer the same viewpoint, then clearly it is not the expression of the viewpoint which is the cause.
It seems to me that either everyone hates you for no discernible reason or there is another difference between you and the other posters with the same views in terms of your tone. In the former case, all you can do is grin and bear it, ignore them, leave or try and win them over. In the latter case, analysing what the difference is and modifying your tone might be productive. If you don't want to do that, fine, but don't be surprised if you continue to generate similar reactions.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Goperryrevs -
I have a strong impression that if I wrote comments in exactly the same kind of phraseology, but affirmed a view that was deemed to be ideologically 'acceptable', then you would not be having a go at me. It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs. If this is not the case, then clearly you would have made just some effort to rebuke others (far more cantankerous than I am) who happen to agree with your position.
I am pretty much resigned to the fact that nothing I can say or do is acceptable unless I toe the line ideologically. I have accepted that. I have said this before, but I wonder whether my moniker is like a red rag to a bull or blood to a shark. I am obviously being stereotyped, even though I am not a tribal big-E "Evangelical" by any stretch of the imagination (just ask Daron Medway!). The blatant double standards on this site is evidence enough for me, to support this suspicion.
But anyway... what exactly are you asking me to do? You say you want to help me, but in what way? To believe in a Jesus who was either deceitful or incredibly ignorant and stupid or both? After all, he affirmed the historicity of the Old Testament, even those parts considered to be the work of Moses. This seems to be the only conclusion I can draw. Not only are you incredibly patronising towards me, but also towards Jesus himself, whom you obviously regard as a primitive man, deluded by the supposed inferior thought forms of his day. And, of course, if this is so, then we can't really take anything Jesus said seriously.
In other words, it's all a capitulation to atheism. Strip away the Christian veneer, and that's what we find. Atheism and blasphemy.
Is this what you are wanting to help me accept?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And there we have it, an amazing display of what humility isn't.
A near perfect example of why criticisms of your posting are on the mark.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it's OK for me to believe that the account is historical then?
EE, I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the historicity of the Biblical account of the fall of Jericho. What is causing the cognitive dissonance for me is your insistence that you are not a fundamentalist while asserting that the Bible is literally true.
Again, please can you tell me your definition of "fundamentalist"?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have a strong impression that if I wrote comments in exactly the same kind of phraseology, but affirmed a view that was deemed to be ideologically 'acceptable', then you would not be having a go at me. It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs.
Well, actually, I probably agree with you on a lot more theological issues than I do with plenty of other Shipmates. So, I don't think that holds. I can think of many Shipmates that I get on with very well who are very different from me theologically, and many who are very similar. I'd say you're somewhere in the middle. I've said it enough times already, it's the style, not the substance that's the problem. You can take that at face value, or decide that I'm just lying or mistaken.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If this is not the case, then clearly you would have made just some effort to rebuke others (far more cantankerous than I am) who happen to agree with your position.
Well, I've rebuked Gamaliel quite a few times, despite being that bit closer to him theologically (only in some areas, mind. I'm nowhere near as 'high' church as he likes to be nowadays, and I'm still a proper charismatic). But the thing is, he tends to take it on board (at least verbally, if not in practice), whereas you seem to want to debate it a lot more... So, here we are debating it.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is this what you are wanting to help me accept?
I'm afraid my attempted help was much more mundane. It was simply to help you by pointing out how your style frustrates and antagonises people, thus bringing their ire upon you. To make things go smoother here for you and everyone else.
The theology stuff, well, that's a gross caricature, and my posts here had little to do with any of that.
I have no desire to be condescending, and I really think I've said everything I need to say. It's up to you what you do with it. You have a choice: You can either decide that the problem lies with everyone else because they can't handle your theology, or you can get a bit more introspective and see where you can shift your style to make it less abrasive. If you choose the former, then nothing is going to change round here for you, and if you're happy with that, go for it. In that case posting on this thread is probably pointless, though. Option 2 is remains a beautiful possibility though...
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am pretty much resigned to the fact that nothing I can say or do is acceptable unless I toe the line ideologically.
Which line? I see no line.
I am way off beam to most people theologically but they accept that I believe what I believe in good faith. I'm certainly not an atheist or blasphemer!
All you need to do is be less defensive, listen a bit and lighten up a lot.
Simples ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs.
Given that everyone on this thread is saying the opposite, I'm not sure how that's obvious anywhere but in your own imagination.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
A wise man once said to me that if everyone was telling him he was wrong, he had to consider the possibility that he was wrong. I commend this approach.
I've not posted on this before but as am frustrated as everyone else.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Goperryrevs -
I have a strong impression that if I wrote comments in exactly the same kind of phraseology, but affirmed a view that was deemed to be ideologically 'acceptable', then you would not be having a go at me. It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs. If this is not the case, then clearly you would have made just some effort to rebuke others (far more cantankerous than I am) who happen to agree with your position.
This is just perfect. A paragraph containing all the flaws of logic and of tone you could wish for, saying "you can't possibly have a problem with my arguing technique".
EDIT: Do you even realise you are basically constantly accusing every Shipmate who crosses paths with you of bad faith? And you're not just doing it to the argumentative curmudgeons like myself, you're doing it to fairly well respected Shipmates like goperryrevs who try to talk to you in patient, measured tones. "You can't possibly" equals "I think you're lying".
That is the undertone you constantly give. Either that, or "You're not sane". It's one thing to try to point out flaws in someone's argument, but the way that you do it has this relentless flavour of "I don't believe you, therefore you can't really think that" to it.
That in itself is a jaw-droppingly bad piece of logic. It is, in fact perfectly possible for people to genuinely think things that you personally don't believe. The very essence of several comments on this thread has been to try to get you to recognise that there are such things as genuine differences of opinion that are not motivated by bad faith or insanity. Is it any wonder that others sometimes employ similar tactics against you, when they sometimes seem to be the only tactic you employ?
[ 19. June 2014, 20:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What actually provoked me to open this hell thread was mousethief's and Gamaliel's barely concealed accusation against me on a Kerygmania thread, that I was lacking humility, simply because I disagreed with them on the rather technical point that there are ideas implicit in the Bible, and therefore such ideas cannot be called 'extra-biblical'.
Jeepers, I said ideas in the Bible were extra-biblical? Where?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I can't understand the accusation from mousethief and Gamaliel that I consider myself superior to other people, and yet they cannot quote one single post of mine where I express such a sentiment. Where the hell have I said that?
Can I take this to mean that you think the only way arrogant people can possibly demonstrate their arrogance is by directly stating it explicitly?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The whole attitude was: "you are a stupid idiot for not just accepting our point of view."
Nope. Bzzzt. Not even close.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Ah, but now you are losing me, EE. If you're being required to roll over and accept other people's points of view at all, it's on the basis of their arguments being judged to be far more solid than yours. If you want to dispute that judgement in any specific case then obviously you can, but going defensive and outraged is unlikely to help...
I'm beginning to think he simply can't help it.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Firstly, I have been accused of arrogance concerning my posting style, but I notice that you don't rebuke The Great Gumby for his aggressive approach. I find that very telling, to be honest. Double standards again.
Deflect, deflect, deflect. Will you man up and face your accusers without dragging in somebody else? I can see you before the judgment throne saying, "Look, Jesus, if you're going to accuse me of sin, you need to accuse my next-door neighbor of sin too, because he's a sinner too, you know. Until I hear you accuse him, I'm not going to even listen to your accusations of me."
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I get the feeling that, unless I just roll over and accept certain ideas, I will be accused of arrogance.
We know. You say it constantly. It's not true. Get the fuck over it.
Consider Lamb Chopped. She's not exactly John Shelby Spong, is she? Her theology is pretty damned conservative. But does she get the flak you do? Like hell. Nobody accuses LC of arrogance. Nobody gets into multipage pissing contents with her concerning her style. Because she's respectful and doesn't couch her posts in two-fists-up rhetoric like you do, as goperryrevs has so fluidly demonstrated.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Where's RooK? The only way to help EE is by considering his status as a Shipmate with supreme executive power and a retained childish disinterest in the ownership of limbs in spiders.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You know, an underdog is someone in a difficult position through circumstances beyond there control. Not some who starts on level ground, then grabs a shovel and starts digging.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yeah, let's not twist the meaning of "underdog" too much. A person who is being piled on for being an asshole isn't an underdog if they're really an asshole. I have never been an underdog on this ship because every time I have been piled on, it was because I was in fact being an asshole.
EE is getting the shellacking he's getting here because he acts assholic. He's not an underdog. More of an underarm.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, an underdog is someone in a difficult position through circumstances beyond there control. Not some who starts on level ground, then grabs a shovel and starts digging.
Quotes File.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's pretty obvious that the complaint against me cannot really be to do with language tone and style but beliefs.
It's eye-bleedingly obvious to me that it is about precisely that, and the issue is becoming clearer rather than more obscure as the thread goes on.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am pretty much resigned to the fact that nothing I can say or do is acceptable unless I toe the line ideologically. I have accepted that...
...I will now pick up my cross and sling my martyr complex over the other shoulder and trudge on, but by crikey I won't do it silently...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But anyway... what exactly are you asking me to do? You say you want to help me, but in what way? To believe in a Jesus who was either deceitful or incredibly ignorant and stupid or both? After all, he affirmed the historicity of the Old Testament, even those parts considered to be the work of Moses. This seems to be the only conclusion I can draw. Not only are you incredibly patronising towards me, but also towards Jesus himself, whom you obviously regard as a primitive man, deluded by the supposed inferior thought forms of his day. And, of course, if this is so, then we can't really take anything Jesus said seriously.
In other words, it's all a capitulation to atheism. Strip away the Christian veneer, and that's what we find. Atheism and blasphemy.
Take a breather. You seem to be foaming at the mouth.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
I'm not holding my breath. Though maybe I should. That guy has a bad case of verbal diarrhea.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"? ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"?
I've read that nobody wants to define "fundamentalist" but most Evangelicals believe it's somewhere to the right of them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"?
I've read that nobody wants to define "fundamentalist" but most Evangelicals believe it's somewhere to the right of them.
I'm happy to describe myself as a fundamentalist (and you can put that in quotes and capitalise it if you wish) as I believe the bible to be fundamentally true.
I'm no literalist though. The Word is good, but some of the words are problematical.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean he won't tell me how he defines "fundamentalist"?
I've read that nobody wants to define "fundamentalist" but most Evangelicals believe it's somewhere to the right of them.
I'm happy to describe myself as a fundamentalist (and you can put that in quotes and capitalise it if you wish) as I believe the bible to be fundamentally true.
I'm no literalist though. The Word is good, but some of the words are problematical.
I submit that you are using "fundamentalist" in a way not used by the majority of people who use the word, and that if you are not a literalist, you are not a fundamentalist by the most obvious and public definition of the word. Sort of like people who say, "Yes I'm an Evangelical because I believe the Evangel." Well, no, the word has meanings beyond that simple etymological mapping.
[ 21. June 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Really, Sioni? If you look at the basic definition and origin of fundamentalist, it doesn't seem so bad. However, if you look at the behaviours commonly associated...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really, Sioni? If you look at the basic definition and origin of fundamentalist, it doesn't seem so bad. However, if you look at the behaviours commonly associated...
I'm taking that basic, or fundamental view of what fundamentalist means, which, as you and Mousethief say, is not the general and contemporary usage, which matches the kind of institution and views that are described in your link.
FWIW, I don't think the practices described in the link are even literalist. My bible doesn't say any of that.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
'Fundamentalist' originally meant specifically the beliefs described in a series of tracts called 'The Fundamentals' published in the early 20th C in opposition to 'liberal' versions of the faith which were becoming increasingly distant from the faith described in the NT and were distorting the picture of Jesus and his teachings found in the NT.
They were not intended to be 'dumb wooden literal' in biblical interpretation, but to follow the original medieval/Reformation idea of reading the Bible 'after the literal sense' as opposed to various 'allegorical' and other senses which had grown up over the centuries. In this usage 'literal' meant something like 'read it like you read other books', that is with full allowance for such issues as genre of writing, literary conventions of the day, use of figures of speech, and so forth.
To the Reformers it was not so much that you totally disallowed the other styles of interpretation, as that you didn't allow these more exotic and subjective ideas to contradict the plain meaning of the straightforward bits of scripture.
What we now think of as 'fundamentalism' was - and is - an extreme view which simplistically went for a dumb wooden literal approach and kidded itself that this actually rather irrational stance was the one true way to interpret Scripture.
A one-volume edition of the original 'Fundamentals', edited I think by RA Torrey, is fairly freely available. JI Packer's work 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God', originally published by IVP and I think still in print from another publisher, gives a reasonable modern Evangelical view.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
Yes but, as EE does seem to take a literal view of the Bible but denies being a fundamentalist, this does not help me work out his definition of the word. MT's contribution is the most helpful in that respect.
[BTW: I put fundamentalist in quotes in my original post because I was using it was a term to be defined. They were not intended as scare quotes.]
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
In many cases 'after the literal sense' will pretty much mean 'literal' anyway. Perhaps EE could expand a bit on his position...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To the Reformers it was not so much that you totally disallowed the other styles of interpretation, as that you didn't allow these more exotic and subjective ideas to contradict the plain meaning of the straightforward bits of scripture.
You say "plain meaning" he says "literal meaning". Potayto, Potahto?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'm struggling to find any room between "literal" and "dumb, wooden literal". If literal isn't literal what the hell is it?
Feel free to put that down to me being a bit dim.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There's:
literal
literal literal
literally literal
literal but not literal
woodenly literal
literal but not woodenly literal
not so much literal as literal
infallibly literal
literally infallible
literal but not infallible
inerrant but not infallible
literally inerrant but not literally infallible
infallibly literal but not inerrant
inherently literal
literal, where 'literal' means literal
alliterative
lateral
Lateran
Later
Late
La
La
La
I
Can't
Hear
You
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
