homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » What should we do about 'our own' terrorists? (Page 26)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  23  24  25  26 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What should we do about 'our own' terrorists?
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But orthodox is not always seen as properly Christian; do you remember when the liberal Christians on the Ship were called to Hell for not being proper Christians? That OP quoted something I'd said, which I had very carefully made sure was a properly orthodox Christian statement.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13605 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But orthodox is not always seen as properly Christian; do you remember when the liberal Christians on the Ship were called to Hell for not being proper Christians? That OP quoted something I'd said, which I had very carefully made sure was a properly orthodox Christian statement.

The root problem here is that Evangelicalism is an idea that has only really been around for a few hundred years but (some) Evangelical believers absolutely believe that it is the be-all-and-end-all of all Christianity and therefore that they can measure the "soundness" of everyone else against their own standard(s).

Which just seems mental to anyone else.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10340 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hence my exasperation which Kaplan puts down to paranoia and narcicism on my part.

It can't possibly be anything on his part, can it?

I mean, don't we realise he has a time-machine and has used it a few times to put the Apostles straight on a thing or two?

I mean, it's so obvious that everyone should have interpreted the scriptures in an IVP type way from the outset ...

Why can't the rest of us see that?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15543 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel

What Eliab said.

Kindly take these kinds of personal comments to the hell thread you started.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 01. September 2017, 08:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 20955 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hence my exasperation which Kaplan puts down to paranoia and narcicism on my part.

It can't possibly be anything on his part, can it?

Mm, but you'd have to admit that it is part-and-parcel of a particular worldview, mindset, hermeneutic - right?

You're asking them to deny something fundamental about their whole outlook.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10340 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But orthodox is not always seen as properly Christian; do you remember when the liberal Christians on the Ship were called to Hell for not being proper Christians?

Oh bugger. I missed that one. But then these days I'm happy to go with Improper Christian. They're only labels, they mean what the person using them takes them to mean (yeah, I know, it's a bit Humpty Dumpty isn't it?, but if Christian means homophobia, right-wing politics and fanatical support for the modern state of Israel to someone, it'd be a bit misleading for me to describe myself as Christian to them. It's rapidly losing its usefulness as a label because it means so many different and contradictory things).

Call me what you like, I say to these people, you're not going to make me believe a load of hateful tosh by labelling it "Christianity", however I self-define.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17724 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Call me what you like, I say to these people, you're not going to make me believe a load of hateful tosh by labelling it "Christianity", however I self-define.

It seems to me that all flavours of Christianity are basically assertions and one has to decide whether one is going to agree or disagree with them - corporately and individually.

The irony for me is that there often seems more openness to changes of behaviour on DH subjects from those who see themselves firmly within forms of Traditional Christianity* than from those within relatively recent movements.

I conclude that for some Christians, their sense of identity is about belonging to a community of faith, so it isn't really a great threat to admit that ideas and practices have changed, that mistakes were made in the past, that NOW is the time to embrace and welcome rather than push away excluded people and groups.

Whereas for Evangelicals it often feels like the most important thing is holding to correct ideas and theology (which is nonsense in a way, given that there are so many different evangelical theologies - which is the "correct" one?) even when they make no rational or logical sense and are clearly unfit to meet the challenges of the present and future.

* of course this is an over-generalisation - some traditional Christians are horrible.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10340 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but there's a faultline within evangelicalism, I think. Not long ago I reckon most evangelicals in the UK would have happily signed up to the Nashville Statement, but there are plenty now who are as appalled by it as any wishy-washy liberal compromising type who's sold himself out to the contemporary secular worldview etc. etc. like yours truly here.

And I think it is a faultine rather than a spectrum. At least, it's a gorge with a bloody great cliff on one side, no matter how gentle the slope on the other; for the people on the cliff it's their view or nothing.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17724 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hence my exasperation which Kaplan puts down to paranoia and narcicism on my part.

It can't possibly be anything on his part, can it?

Mm, but you'd have to admit that it is part-and-parcel of a particular worldview, mindset, hermeneutic - right?

You're asking them to deny something fundamental about their whole outlook.

Or to see sense?

No, but you're right and I've been pushing against a closed door and getting frustrated when it hasn't even begun to creak open.

This is about fixed ideas and entrenched positions not people. So apologies for the Hellishness here rather than in the Hell thread created for the purpose.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15543 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I feel a bit inadequate responding with only one post after your six (at last count) since my last post which specifically name me - I don't know when you find time to eat!

Perhaps I should feel flattered....


quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Cromwell would have been aware of the peaceful witness of the Quakers in his own day and that of the Anabaptists in previous generations.

Amongst other factors, and could have therefore have acted differently.

quote:
We are constrained by our conditioning but that does not remove our culpability.

Charlemagne couldn't have introduced a full Parliamentary democracy in the modern pluralist sense. That option wasn't open to him. He could have shown clemency towards his enemies. That option was and he didn't take it.

You are contradicting yourself.

You want to have your cake (given their historical circumstances, Charlemagne, Cromwell et al could not have even conceived of acting differently from how they did) and eat it (they were culpable because they could have conceived and acted differently).

You have regressed obdurately and immediately to your besetting sin of rigid binary positioning.

And just as an exercise in nostalgia to remind you of your shameful evangelical past, here is a verse to reinforce the rebuke: "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" Proverbs 26:11).

It is not a matter of two alternative positions, ie Charlemagne and Cromwell should have acted like 21st century liberal pluralists, versus Charlemagne and Cromwell were irrevocably locked into the limitations of their prevailing worldview.

They were both in a position to understand, on the basis of examples in church history, other Christians, and Scripture, the principle that Christians are not intended to kill heretics and heathen per se, ie simply on the grounds that they were heretics and heathen.

Show me.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17033 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
you can state confidently that there are no hermeneutics in play in these situations, can you?

Of course there are hermeneutics in play in such situations - really shitty, inadequate hermeneutics, with all the exegetical sophistication of deriving guidance from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid on the basis of Isaiah 19;19-20, or deliberately drinking poison on the basis of Mark 16:18, or going out and slaughtering the reprobate because God has "told" you to do so through one of the more lurid passages in Revelation.

Your elusive NT scholars whom we don't know about (untheologians?) but who definitely believe the NT teaches/requires/allows the killing of heretics and heathen, are beginning to look more and more like the "...little man upon the stair/A little man who wasn't there".

As elusive as the C9th and C17th scholars saying otherwise.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17033 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Meanwhile, if it helps, Kaplan and I are having some amicable off-site exchanges. We are pals really. But I will keep away from posting Hellishly here.

I do feel better for having vented in Hell, even though neither Jamat or Kaplan have joined me there.

But I do wonder whether this thread has run its course ... it probably had pages ago ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15543 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, but there's a faultline within evangelicalism, I think. Not long ago I reckon most evangelicals in the UK would have happily signed up to the Nashville Statement, but there are plenty now who are as appalled by it as any wishy-washy liberal compromising type who's sold himself out to the contemporary secular worldview etc. etc. like yours truly here.

And I think it is a faultine rather than a spectrum. At least, it's a gorge with a bloody great cliff on one side, no matter how gentle the slope on the other; for the people on the cliff it's their view or nothing.

Mmm. I'm not quite sure how to order my thoughts, but I think I both agree and disagree with you here.

I think there is a danger of the mindset illustrated here with Evangelicals - but also applicable to others - which goes beyond simply being on this or that side of the issues.

If every Evangelical suddenly rejected this statement from Nashville, I'm not sure that'd change much if they continued with the same mindset - viz that they measure "rightness" of other religion by their own arbitrary standards, where their own ideas are elevated to being the "obvious, inarguable, simple reading of scripture" and where logical and theological inconsistencies are simply brushed away.

The reality is that the of locus of the centre of truth in Christianity is not for Evangelicals to say. When one argues with an Evangelical idea (which is to say little more than "an idea held by a group of Evangelicals"), one is not arguing with God, or scripture, or the central doctrine of Christianity - because those things rarely overlap and things are not central just because someone asserts that they are from their viewpoint and therefore must be.

So, tbh, I'd be pretty wary of an Evangelical who stood up and said that it was "obvious from scripture that women should be preachers" just as much as the one who stands up and says "it is biblical that women shouldn't preach in church" because that's turning the argument back onto the Evangelical to be the arbitrator.

That's not accepting the stupid, tedious argument that all ideas are equal, that all cultural practices need to be accepted, that Nazism is a perfectly acceptable idea - or any of that crap.

But it is to say "I don't really care what you think" when the Evangelical puts out yet another boring statement as if what they farted out yesterday as any theological importance. It is to reject the idea that the centre of Christianity is simply an area that is asserted by an Evangelical. It is to refuse to participate in the same stupid dance articulated by evangelicals that says accepting gays or trans kids is simply about whether or not the dance-moves meet the approval of their self-appointed leaders.

I'm done with this whole conversation that there is an objective truth on what the bible says about trans or gays or male/female leaders - and that we all have to listen open-mouthed to Evangelicals as if they're rational beings talking logical and theological sense.

Most of the time they're not.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10340 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my private email exchange with Gamaliel I asked whether he inferred that I was accusing him of narcissism or paranoia in any strict clinical sense, thereby implying that he suffered from some sort of mental deficiency.

He assured me that such was not the case, and that he was not offended.

I find it difficult to believe that anybody could fail to understand the employment of the term paranoic in its common polemical sense (analogous to schizophrenic, which is found from time to time on the Ship), or could be so ignorant of the cultural and psychological context of Freud's "the narcissism of small differences" as to imagine that it was some sort of casual personal insult on the same level as "you're a loony".

Posts: 3247 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

I find it difficult to believe that anybody could fail to understand the employment of the term paranoic in its common polemical sense (analogous to schizophrenic, which is found from time to time on the Ship), or could be so ignorant of the cultural and psychological context of Freud's "the narcissism of small differences" as to imagine that it was some sort of casual personal insult on the same level as "you're a loony".

So: "I'm very sorry you were offended, it was due to your obvious ignorance.."

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10340 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Host
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In my private email exchange with Gamaliel I asked whether he inferred that I was accusing him of narcissism or paranoia in any strict clinical sense, thereby implying that he suffered from some sort of mental deficiency.

He assured me that such was not the case, and that he was not offended.

I find it difficult to believe that anybody could fail to understand the employment of the term paranoic in its common polemical sense (analogous to schizophrenic, which is found from time to time on the Ship), or could be so ignorant of the cultural and psychological context of Freud's "the narcissism of small differences" as to imagine that it was some sort of casual personal insult on the same level as "you're a loony".

As a human being and fellow Christian, my heart is warmed by this sudden outbreak of good-will.

As a host, my concern is to facilitate open discussion within the rules of this site, which means that:

1) Anything that looks like a personal attack gets said in Hell, or nowhere. I can't speak for the other Purgatory hosts, but in evaluating the nature of an apparently personal comment my cultural ignorance should be presumed to the same extent as my lack of ability to read minds.

2) Questioning hostly warnings or rulings is done in the Styx, not on the thread in which the warning appears. Anything more than a simple acknowledgment (or, on the rare occasions that someone is so minded, a brief apology) risks de-railing the thread.

Eliab
Purgatory host

--------------------
"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: 4593 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In my private email exchange with Gamaliel I asked whether he inferred that I was accusing him of narcissism or paranoia in any strict clinical sense, thereby implying that he suffered from some sort of mental deficiency.

He assured me that such was not the case, and that he was not offended.

I find it difficult to believe that anybody could fail to understand the employment of the term paranoic in its common polemical sense (analogous to schizophrenic, which is found from time to time on the Ship), or could be so ignorant of the cultural and psychological context of Freud's "the narcissism of small differences" as to imagine that it was some sort of casual personal insult on the same level as "you're a loony".

You either mean paranoiac or paranoid. Noun or adjective. Which? Schizophrenic is, appropriately, both. Whatever happened to schizophrene?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17033 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, I wasn't offended but I could understand the Hostly warning.

That applied to me too.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15543 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  23  24  25  26 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools