|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right, so you're not going to answer. Even though you are misapplying the thing that you've brought in to close down discussion.
Never mind then.
I'll answer a real question but it's not clear to me that you're asking one.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Forget Nazi Germany then. Let's say slaves in 18th century British colonies.
Would you say that slaves, being humans deprived of their humanity, were hated by the plantation and shipowners?
Is hatred not associated with depriving other groups of the civil rights one personally enjoys?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One needn't call anyone a Nazi to fall prey to Godwin's Law. Just introducing Adolf or the Nazis into the debate does it. A classical definition can be found here.
Classical? not sure, but definitely not accurate.
Godwin's actual law.
quote:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1
And Godwin on his intent:
quote:
I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Forget Nazi Germany then. Let's say slaves in 18th century British colonies.
Would you say that slaves, being humans deprived of their humanity, were hated by the plantation and shipowners?
Is hatred not associated with depriving other groups of the civil rights one personally enjoys?
There's two parts to that question-- first, from my reading of that period, masters did their best to dehumanize slaves, to justify to themselves their barbarous treatment. We can see expressions of this other-ing in the writings of those who tried to justify slavery in response to Wilberforce, etc, and in the years leading up to the US Civil War. I think that fear and hatred grew together, and were so intermingled that distinguishing them became difficult. These sentiments are not entirely gone, and I have been unfortunate to hear them in the country clubs of Florida (and in Canada, although not referring to the descendants of slaves specifically).
For the second part of the question, I think that fear is the overlying sentiment. During discussions on the Issue, much of the frothing I encountered was fearful, and reflected deep insecurities. Sometimes this can be addressed, and fears relieved; but sometimes it stays at an irrational and hysterical level-- while I've not seen it manifest itself in hateful acts, I'm aware that it happens.
PS As archaeologists of the Ship's archives know, I have long supported same-sex marriage, and advocated for it in political circles.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK, so you've defined hate outwith of the actual act of depriving someone else of the rights that you enjoy. Interesting.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, so you've defined hate outwith of the actual act of depriving someone else of the rights that you enjoy. Interesting.
mr cheesy-- you'll have to unpack that. I'm not sure that I follow you. I thought I was agreeing with you in substance if not the exact angle.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
mr cheesy-- you'll have to unpack that. I'm not sure that I follow you. I thought I was agreeing with you in substance if not the exact angle.
Mm. I'm still thinking about what you said, but was responding to this:
quote:
Sometimes this can be addressed, and fears relieved; but sometimes it stays at an irrational and hysterical level-- while I've not seen it manifest itself in hateful acts, I'm aware that it happens.
I submit that wilfully depriving someone else of the rights that one enjoys because they're different is already hatred. It might be caused by fear or histrionics but that doesn't actually matter. To the person who can't access whateveritis because some other group has power and is preventing them from doing so, it looks like hatred.
Hateful acts seems to be taking it to a different level; I think gay sex is a sin so I'm going to attack a gay couple with acid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
My abstentionism from the political processes predate any glimmer of a debate on marriage rights for homosexuals.
Isn't that failing to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
I believe in the eminent value of the sacramental solution, in grace, in God's healing power above everything else... in comparison to which all other solutions seem to be approximations. But again, I am speaking for myself.
I am reminded of the old joke about the priest in the flooding village, who refuses all offers of rescue because he insists God will save him.
We are God's hands. We are called to bear his light out into the world. Turning your back on politics (which is how we engage with each other in a large-scale formalized way to make collective decisions) doesn't seem to be consistent with that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Ship is very much a progressive space - zero Trump supporters (AFAIK), few conservatives, heavily anti-Brexit. The biggest fight I've seen this year was between two branches of the Judean People's Front over Jeremy Corbyn; the dead horse subjects used to generate that sort of anger, but now there's an overwhelming progressive consensus and arguments only flare up occasionally.
Part of this is down to society's DH values shifting leftwards, but I think it's also down to the sorting process which creates echo-chambers. A conservative poster needs to be exceptional to avoid hostility (e.g. Lamb Chopped) and these people are rare. My hunch is that the average conservatives are gradually silenced or driven away and the ones who remain tend to be more hard-headed than most. This then reinforces the negative view of them, creating more hostility, driving more away until finally you're left with a few conservatives who tiptoe around, plus Russ, romanlion et al in a guerrilla war with pretty much everyone else. A similar dynamic happens in right-wing spaces.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) I agree with this - I like it here, but do spend most of my time not getting involved. There's a definite group think (no different in that respect to anywhere else) that has the effect of causing most people to conform or leave; or turn into a crusading lunatic who rubs everyone up the wrong way.
I still find virtually every thread on SoF interesting, but struggle to summon the energy to engage. I'll fight my corner on the things I really know about - the military, rural England, Trad ACism, steam engines, but on the things where I've just got opinions I more often than not hold back.
I'm not even *that* conservative.
Agree wholeheartedly with both posts, and they deserve very careful attention.
Whether I agree with the Ship group-think on a particular thread or not, I'd want to see the contrary arguments given a fairer run-out so they could be analysed in a balanced way. However it tends to be one person only, up to their neck against pages of counterarguments and hopelessly outnumbered.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I now watch myself very very carefully in my Ship interactions whenever I take an unpopular position. Erin used to be the one who would bite people in the ass for dogpiling simply due to content (and not added jackassery), but she's with the Lord now.
Could this typically astute mechanism somehow be restored?
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I'd want to see the contrary arguments given a fairer run-out so they could be analysed in a balanced way. However it tends to be one person only, up to their neck against pages of counterarguments and hopelessly outnumbered.
"Outnumbered" is relevant if it drowns out the signal.
On a thread on which the ship is equally divided, you might have 4-6 people arguing more or less one side of an issue, and 4-6 others more or less opposing them. But even then, it's not a team sport, and sometimes some of the people on one "side" will develop a side argument of their own. And that produces an argument that looks fairly balanced.
On the other hand, where there's a large ship majority on one side of an argument, you'll have the same number of people interested in the topic, but it'll be 10 vs 1. Except that each of those 10 will have a different slant or nuance.
The lone 1 might feel rather beleaguered, but you can still have some sensible discussions.
When all 10 are responding to each point of the 1, it's a bit of a challenge, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
I can just about follow the argument that not being prepared to advance or defend LGBT rights shows ‘hatred’, though I would have thought the word ‘indifference’ is more accurate - and incidentally I think it gets more to the heart of the matter and actually encourages a reply.
What I don’t understand is why this very interesting thread has suddenly turned into an attack on the position of having nothing, or as little as possible, to do with the state. Surely this has been a ‘traditional’ Christian position for nearly 2000 years, though not, as it happens, the predominant one. Yet it’s one that many people here apparently won’t tolerate.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
I can just about follow the argument that not being prepared to advance or defend LGBT rights shows ‘hatred’, though I would have thought the word ‘indifference’ is more accurate - and incidentally I think it gets more to the heart of the matter and actually encourages a reply.
What I don’t understand is why this very interesting thread has suddenly turned into an attack on the position of having nothing, or as little as possible, to do with the state. Surely this has been a ‘traditional’ Christian position for nearly 2000 years, though not, as it happens, the predominant one. Yet it’s one that many people here apparently won’t tolerate.
Hate isn't perfectly accurate, but indifferent ignores the damage that it does.
A Christian, or anyone who cares about others, must be involved with the state as they are part of it and it is what controls the overall fate of its residents.
The idea of seperation is false. This opposite of this isn't control, but participation.
And, no. Seperation from the state has not been a traditional position. Control of the state is a much more common one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Less heat and more light might be generated if "Hindu" were substituted for "gay" in some of the foregoing interchanges.
As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.
Having worked in India for years, I have known huge numbers of them, and like every other belief group (atheists, Muslims, liberal Protestants) they range from arseholes to wonderful people who are nicer than most evangelicals.
As a Christian I appreciate the freedoms I have so far enjoyed in a liberal democratic pluralist society, and I want Hindus to enjoy the same freedoms.
Near where I live in Australia there is a large Hindu temple, and supporting Hindus' peaceful right to worship there is analogous to supporting gays' right to marriage.
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
*snip* My hostility toward those views predates the Ship, so no change there -- but I'm certainly less patient now with the people who hold them. Whole bunches of people in and around my age cohort have changed their minds, and new generations of people are growing up without the iniquitous views of women and gay people that used to hold sway. It's time for us to stop giving that shit the time of day.
I'm not sure that I agree- in my experience one of the reasons that whole age cohorts have shifted on this issue is because there were people who gave them the time of day and who spent the time to work through the issue(s) with them.
My experience has been that most people change their minds about things like female clergy or same-sex marriage because of personal experiences, not because of analytical discussions of views. In my parish, the people who were dubious about female clergy changed their minds when we got a kick-ass interim priest who was a woman. My uber-conservative "traditional" Christian cousin and her husband changed their minds when one of their sons turned out to be gay. These former Fox News-watching, Limbaugh-listening folks are now basically pragmatic centrists.
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
I can just about follow the argument that not being prepared to advance or defend LGBT rights shows ‘hatred’, though I would have thought the word ‘indifference’ is more accurate - and incidentally I think it gets more to the heart of the matter and actually encourages a reply.
I don't know why there was a big snag in the discussion over hatred. My dad didn't hate gay people, but he wasn't indifferent to them either. He thought they were sick, and he felt both disgust and pity. He thought there was something deeply wrong with them and that they needed help. And then he learned that his best friend from high school, who he'd kind of lost track of, was gay. He never completely came around on the topic -- I think in the end he didn't know what to think and so preferred not to think about it at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk back on page 1:
I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs.
The second that holding to such beliefs influences the public sphere, there are going to be negative consequences for people -- you may not be feeling hatred or contempt, but there is certainly going to be hounding of people who don't conform to whatever is passing for "traditional beliefs." I learned about my dad's views on gay people when there was a ballot measure in California that would have prohibited gay people from being teachers in the public schools. I don't think he hated gay people, but he voted "yes" on that proposition.
I don't personally care whether Kim Davis hates gay people or not. But I do care that her adherence to "traditional beliefs" led her to use her position as a county clerk to prevent gay people from getting marriage licenses.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.
There are, of course, plenty of Christians who don't regard homosexuality as "meaningless and wrong", and think it entirely possible to be a gay Christian. That would be the current majority view on the Ship.
And I'm sure you'd accept that Christians who support and accept their gay brethren have just as much right to say that they regard you as wrong as you think you have to argue that homosexuality is wrong.
And whereas I'm not going to take a Hindu to task over the content of his beliefs, I might take a stronger line with people who are reading the same book as me but coming to different conclusions.
But really, if the evangelical right were consistent in saying that they regard homosexuality as sinful, but they're going to support gay people's civil rights, then there's be far less crap slung at them. But somehow all you hear is "I'm not going to register your wedding because I don't agree with it", "I won't make you a cake", and vote after vote after vote to deny gay people the rights that straight people enjoy.
It is hard to believe that most of the evangelical right share your desire for gay people to enjoy the same freedoms as straight people in a liberal pluralistic society. 'cause they sure don't act like it.
[ 27. July 2017, 02:24: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is hard to believe that most of the evangelical right share your desire for gay people to enjoy the same freedoms as straight people in a liberal pluralistic society. 'cause they sure don't act like it.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.
Nope, there does not need to be this right. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say. Say whatever you want -- I'll defend that right. But I will not hold back on saying what I think about what you say.
[ 27. July 2017, 02:33: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
RuthW posts:
quote:
My experience has been that most people change their minds about things like female clergy or same-sex marriage because of personal experiences, not because of analytical discussions of views.
I agree entirely; that was what I meant, but evidently I was quite unclear. Spending time makes change, analytical discussions rarely.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.
Nope, there does not need to be this right. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say. Say whatever you want -- I'll defend that right. But I will not hold back on saying what I think about what you say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
He's demanding a "recognized right". Are you even listening to him?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Kaplan:
What Leorning Cniht and RuthW said.
But also, whilst it is insulting to tell a Hindu s/he is going to Hell, they are not Christians. A lot of gay people are. So besides the actively working to curtail rights that some "traditional" Christians do, even those who do not are telling gay Christians that they are doing evil within their own framework. And that is kinda messed up. Like RuthW said, you have the right to believe that. But the hell you have the right not to hear about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.
I don't think being nice about it helps change people's minds either. Being nice didn't win any civil rights.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
I'm a big fan of civility. I find it easy enough to have a civil discussion with civil proponents of the opposite viewpoint. But then, I'm not gay, and I haven't been hounded out of my church, repeatedly told I'm a hell-bound sinner, denied my civil rights, or suffered any of the persecution that gay people in our societies have suffered over the last few decades. So I understand if people who have experienced all that, and are currently experiencing it, don't have as much patience.
Kaplan Corday seems to particularly object to the word homophobe. I tend to agree that it's a stupid word - most homophobia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with fear. But it's the word we have, and we all know that it means the same as racist or sexist, but for gay people.
Homosexualist was already taken, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
1. Civility isn't always appropriate. Some things are simply unacceptable. Some things are still apparently acceptable that shouldn't be. I'll calm down about this when it's just as unacceptable to express anti-gay and anti-women views as it is to say the N-word at a dinner party. You're asking for civility in response to dropping turds on the tablecloth.
2. I don't care about changing the minds of people posting here, because, as I said above, in my experience this kind of discussion doesn't change people's minds.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
I would suggest that you are wrong on both counts. I've seen minds changed, in depth, without painting of villainy. Lots of times.
As far as civility being over-rated, I would draw Lamb Chopped's attention to the situation south of the World's Longest Undefended Border, and see some of the problems caused by the lack of civility. If anything, I would call it under-rated.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I've hit a nerve, apparently.
Look, once upon a time (back when the dinosaurs grazed freely) we were capable of dealing with opposing viewpoints on this Ship, even abhorrent ones, without completely losing our shit and descending to complete gibble gabble. (And when we did lose our shit, we did it in Hell, and mostly without proclamations of how righteous we were.) We even managed to survive a person with child molester type views for what, three months? before his ass was canned, and there were actually posters who attempted to show him the error of his ways rather than simply flinging shit.
Why the hell is it a fucking VIRTUE now to attack the poster rather than the post, and to declare ahead of time an intent to vilify (seriously, folks?) over the content of someone's post rather than bending our brains to try to show the poster the error of his ways? We can do better than that. We can BE better than that. Are you learning your manners from Trump, now?
I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question. Which he/she has every right to refuse, as that's not the point of the OP.
Why this determined desire to drag the whole fucking thread into yet another Dead Horse sex feast?
Is that really the only difference that exists between traditional (call it whatever the hell you want) Christians and everybody else?
I'll give you a few more.
- Ordination of women (yes, I know that's a dead equine. There are bound to be several in this mix by definition);
- the nature of marriage and roles within it;
- authority, authoritarianism, and freedom: where to draw the lines (particularly in the public sphere)
- authority of Scripture (particularly over one's life);
- proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
- whether there is any value in humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice (all things called by varying names, positive or otherwise, depending on what your viewpoint is);
- whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
- Whether one should submit to wrongheaded authority, and if so, under what circumstances;
- The comparative value of personal liberty when compared to other social or religious goods;
whether intellectual freedom has any limits, or ought to have; - What form the relationship between church and state ought to take, and how best to bring about that state of affairs;
- whether religion is only for the private sphere;
- to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.
That's just a few. They are not all Dead Horse issues, they are certainly subjects that tend to divide traditional vs. ... whatever, liberal, nontraditional, whatever you want to call it, I don't care--and they are not about sex. They also encourage thinking (in those so inclined) as apart to simple frothing at the mouth.
Come back, guys. You don't have to agree with me. But can we at least re-learn what it means to treat fellow posters as human beings (even wrongheaded ones) rather than "you are automaticaly an inhuman asshole because you won't sign up to my doctrine X"?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
I would suggest that you are wrong on both counts. I've seen minds changed, in depth, without painting of villainy. Lots of times.
As far as civility being over-rated, I would draw Lamb Chopped's attention to the situation south of the World's Longest Undefended Border, and see some of the problems caused by the lack of civility. If anything, I would call it under-rated.
Yo Augustine, you missed the sarcasm. We need a sarcasm smiley.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
LC:
Ruth said, and I notworthyed:
quote:
I will not hold back on saying what I think about what you say.
She most explicitly did NOT say she would attack the person and not the words. You need a narrower brush.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
A villain is a person, however dispicable. To vilify is to paint a person as a villain--not a post or some other inanimate object.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question. Which he/she has every right to refuse, as that's not the point of the OP.
Why this determined desire to drag the whole fucking thread into yet another Dead Horse sex feast?
Because this wasn't a "general complaint". After being asked to clarify what was meant by "traditional Christian teaching", Gottshalk said "I hope that it is clear to all that holding to traditional beliefs with respect to mariage, gender, same-sex attraction does not imply or, even less, necessitate hatred, contempt and hounding of people who do not hold to those beliefs."
This may not be the fucking thread you want, but in that case there's nothing stopping you from starting your own fucking thread. (Presumably one that will have less fucking, if that's not the aspect of "traditional Christian teaching" that interests you.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why the hell is it a fucking VIRTUE now to attack the poster rather than the post, and to declare ahead of time an intent to vilify (seriously, folks?)
Not what anyone here has said.
quote:
I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question.
Because the OP used a term that most predominately means marriage for straights when it is used. Asking for clarification isn't out of line.
quote:
Why this determined desire to drag the whole fucking thread into yet another Dead Horse sex feast?
Because that is pretty much what the OP confirmed here. And the OP failed to engage on your laundry list of possibilities.
quote:
Come back, guys. You don't have to agree with me. But can we at least re-learn what it means to treat fellow posters as human beings (even wrongheaded ones) rather than "you are automatically an inhuman asshole because you won't sign up to my doctrine X"?
You haven't been paying attention to the posts in DH and Purg lately. There are two posters that people are still engaging with and they have been posting in insulting ways for quite a bit.
I gave up being civil to them fairly early, but quite a number of posters haven't.
--------------------
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
You're playing with words now. She explained what she meant and you're choosing to ignore it.
[ 27. July 2017, 04:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
In your years on these boards, Lamb Chopped, how many discussions have led you to change your mind about any of the things in your bullet-point list?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Quite a few, actually. Are you about to stick a finger in my chest and demand to know which ones?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
No, I'm going to ask, civilly. On which of these topics have you changed your mind because of discussions that took place on these boards?
quote:
- Ordination of women (yes, I know that's a dead equine. There are bound to be several in this mix by definition);
- the nature of marriage and roles within it;
- authority, authoritarianism, and freedom: where to draw the lines (particularly in the public sphere)
- authority of Scripture (particularly over one's life);
- proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
- whether there is any value in humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice (all things called by varying names, positive or otherwise, depending on what your viewpoint is);
- whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
- Whether one should submit to wrongheaded authority, and if so, under what circumstances;
- The comparative value of personal liberty when compared to other social or religious goods;
whether intellectual freedom has any limits, or ought to have; - What form the relationship between church and state ought to take, and how best to bring about that state of affairs;
- whether religion is only for the private sphere;
- to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.
quote:
Come back, guys. You don't have to agree with me. But can we at least re-learn what it means to treat fellow posters as human beings (even wrongheaded ones) rather than "you are automaticaly an inhuman asshole because you won't sign up to my doctrine X"?
I am not going to be polite to people when they are assigning whole groups of people to second-class status. You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return. You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.
[Edit: how many years, and I still screw up the code?]
[ 27. July 2017, 04:48: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return.
So far as I can tell, in Purgatory them's the rules, indeed for me that premise is part of the whole ethos of the Ship.
We are entitled to be enraged by other people's views; we are not entitled to "say shitty things to them in return" - at least not in Purgatory. Purgatory is supposed to be a place for discussion.
I see Purgatory as a place where we can invite people to share their views with a guarantee of immunity from personal attack (within limits: they can be called to Hell) provided they themselves are capable of framing an argument in such a way as not to violate the 10Cs.
That way the argument can be assessed on its own merits and the person cannot complain that they've been dogpiled without anybody listening to what they have to say.
In my experience it quickly becomes apparent whether their argument holds water or not. I've changed my mind on more than one issue as a result of this process. On other occasions, it's made me realise that on some issues, there are legitimate arguments for more than one position.
quote:
You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.
As far as I'm concerned that's where the "Christian" in "Christian Unrest" comes in.
However reprehensible we find others' views or actions, I believe they deserve to be treated as a human being because somewhere, by virtue of their existence, they are in the image of God. If you've stoppped believing that, you're "assigning whole groups of people to second-class status".
To forget the other person's basic humanity, whoever they are and whatever they have done, is to forget one's own.
It would be nice if Purgatory could reflect that. All the more so in that we have the luxury of Hell just next door if needs be.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why the hell is it a fucking VIRTUE now to attack the poster rather than the post, and to declare ahead of time an intent to vilify (seriously, folks?) over the content of someone's post rather than bending our brains to try to show the poster the error of his ways? We can do better than that. We can BE better than that. Are you learning your manners from Trump, now?
I've watched this thread morph from someone making a general complaint to having people virtually walk up, plant a finger in his (her) chest, and demand to know his/her views on homosexual issues, and basically refuse to discuss anything else at all until the OP answers that question. Which he/she has every right to refuse, as that's not the point of the OP.
Please tell me how exactly we're supposed to discuss the topic introduced in the OP without examining the assumptions in the OP's post.
The thread hasn't "morphed", he/she said something which I've been discussing.
If I might be so bold, this is the problem with many conservative posters around here; they want to have the right to post stuff, they don't want to have to explain what actually it means. And then they get all angsy when someone dares question whether what they've said can be true.
I don't care what crap you believe. And yes, I believe almost everything you've ever written is utter bollocks. I have no respect for those ideas or they way you've come by them. Utter drivel composted in a mind that is inclined to believe idea are true simply because you've thought them.
But you don't get a freeride just because you write them down. And particularly not if you've introduced an OP saying "waaa waaa why is everyone being horrible to me" which involves examining and thinking about terms that you've actually introduced.
That's not a personal attack. That's not introducing dead horse topics. That's not having a go at conservatives because this website is too damn liberal.
That's simply discussing the topic in terms that the OP has introduced.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think Gottschalk needs to pop along to Dead Horses to get his questions answered.
If, once there, he says "all xxx are immoral due to their sexual orientation and lifestyle" then he can expect his arguments to be pretty well mauled.
Maybe he avoided Dead Horses for this very reason?
As soon as we start grouping individuals and saying "All xxx ..." we are walking away from the Christian path imo.
Jesus asked about people and spoke to people. He condemned no-one apart from the religious, judgemental folk who persecuted others. So it's the religious who need to look closely at ourselves and see if we are talking to people or condemning groups simply to make ourselves look righteous.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because civility is over-rated, and nobody ever managed to change another person's mind without painting him or her as a villain.
Are you even listening to yourselves?
Yeah we should tiptoe around each other like Jesus did.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So it's the religious who need to look closely at ourselves and see if we are talking to people or condemning groups simply to make ourselves look righteous.
Yes. Or to affirm to ourselves our opinions.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And yes, it is a hall of mirrors, we all project, we all delude ourselves, we're all self righteous and we do need a better collective dialectic. We're not pure. And internally we don't differentiate between attacking an issue and its issuer or having our issues attacked.
Even Jesus would have been planked from Purgatory.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus would have been planked from Purgatory.
And, with his presumed carpentry background, made something cool from the plank.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Less heat and more light might be generated if "Hindu" were substituted for "gay" in some of the foregoing interchanges.
As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.
Why do you disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices?
I understand that you're not Hindu, and perhaps, like me, find Hinduism so strange as to be hard to 'get', but do you profoundly disagree with Inuits, or fans of a sport you don't care for, or vegans (if you're not one), or people who collect antiques?
Aren't the beliefs and practices of others available for our curiosity and understanding? Why, if we are not feeling oppressed by their followers, would we take up an antagonistic position?
Do alternative views chip away at my soul merely by being there? The FIEC statement did feel like that to me, but perhaps because it is framed, especially the appendix on unity, in excluding language. It was a door slam to me.
You suggested Hinduism as a defusing parallel to the usual sexual topics, but I feel your 'profoundly disagree' pointed to the real problem, which is our difficulty in relating to the other, our persistent personalising and choosing opposition. Getting this right is, for me, the whole point of the Gospel and of life.
And maybe 'profoundly disagree' weren't well chosen words.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht wrote:
quote:
Kaplan Corday seems to particularly object to the word homophobe. I tend to agree that it's a stupid word - most homophobia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with fear. But it's the word we have, and we all know that it means the same as racist or sexist, but for gay people.
Homosexualist was already taken, though.
Aw come on, I'm here defending the right of words not to be etymologically transparent. Homophobia doesn't mean fear, even though 'phobia' does.
FFS, do people really believe that you arrive at the meaning of a word by adding up its constituent parts? No.
Eymological fallacy - the classic example is 'decimate', but a nicer example is 'logic' which does not mean just words (logos).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Ruth, I think you do these boards a disservice. In the 15 years since I first came across SoF, I've changed my mind on these issues:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
- the nature of marriage and roles within it;
- proper use of Scripture and/or tradition in the church;
- whether denial of certain doctrines (such as the resurrection) are sufficient to render one either "not a Christian," or "not saved";
- whether religion is only for the private sphere;
- to what extent a public official or a provider of public goods (such as a chef) ought to be permitted to take actions based on personal religious standards.
In a large part, it was due to being exposed to different viewpoints on these boards. I encountered points of view that varied from the charismatic evangelical environment that I'd grown up in. Of course, my change of perspective wasn't solely down to SoF, but it played a big part. And there are quite a few other issues which I changed my mind on too.
IMHO one of the most worrying aspects of our polarised society is that class and social media result in people living in echo-chambers where they have their viewpoints endorsed, reinforced and never challenged. Ship of Fools has fortunately been a place where those things can and do happen, and on the whole, it still is.
I share that concern, though, that in this echo-chamber world, we need to work even harder to include and not dismiss, even if we strongly disagree with someone.
I've just travelled to Uganda and met some wonderful Christians there. The default Christian and State viewpoint there is, however, 'traditional' on the dead-horse topics that we're talking about. I vehemently disagree with that. For better & worse, much of the world does not share the ideals of the liberal west.
How to respond to someone (or pretty much an entire nation) for whom the entire concept of accepting LGBT values as moral and Christian is so alien to their experience of culture, society and church - (as indeed it still the case for some in the west today)? Is it always the best course to go on the front foot - attack, challenge, confront?
There is great power in the words 'I see things differently.' I see those four words as one of the greatest tools we have. They allow disagreement without forcing confrontation. They invite questions.
I understand that on a discussion forum things don't work the same as in normal conversations, and posting the above here would be of no use at all. But the point is there are gentle ways to approach people. I hope that SoF doesn't just become another echo-chamber. To an extent it has. I'm in the majority here now, but I want my views challenged. That means we need to work harder than ever to include people with different views than us.
Gottschalk, I disagree with you on the DH issues that have been talked about. I understand your apathy to politics, and used to feel much like you do. I hope you continue to feel welcome here. You're evidently not a prolific poster, but you've been around the Ship a long time, and your perspective is valuable. You obviously value humility and sacrifice highly - I fully agree with that.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
I'm sorry for my absence. Lots to catch up with here. I did not post on Dead Horses because I want to address not so much substantive as formal issues of rules of engagement in debates in general, on internet in particular, in the face of antagonism of views and positions. "Traditional christian teachings" "Traditional ethics", etc. were probably not the best test case, and were probably not well articulated by myself, but still, the reactions so far have been interesting.
It turns out that our enactment and respect of the rules of (civil) engagement will depend on how strongly we feel about the subject, on our proximity to the underlying substantive issue.
Are we able to see both sides of a debate? Are we able to dialogue with one another in a constructive manner, whereby we learn something from the other?
"When we discover that certain ideas about man, history and society seem, to those who believe in them, to be either self-evident or so manifestly correct that opposing them is a mark of stupidity or malice, then we may be fairly sure we are dealing with an ideology and ideological thinking."
My point in quoting this is to show that we should perhaps never give up the task of trying to dialogue, discuss and learn, in spite of our convictions and beliefs, and that we all need a healthy dose of distance from ourselves, our beliefs, and everything else, all peppered with humour.
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus would have been planked from Purgatory.
Purgatory is here because, contrary to the delusions of many, we are not Jesus, either in terms of our ability or in terms of our entitlements, so we have to make do with these pesky human-level arrangements in an attempt to keep the peace.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As an evangelical Christian, I disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices, but I have nothing personal against Hindus.
Why do you disagree profoundly with Hindu beliefs and practices?
Presumably Kaplan believes that there are statements which can be made about God that are either "absolutely" correct or incorrect, and believes the Christian ones to be correct and the Hindu ones incorrect.
To trivialise things: you and I can be looking at a red bus. One of us can say that it's red and the other can say that it's green. But, however strongly held the views of the latter, the fact is that it is red. In the same way, "traditional" Christians believe that there are (at least) some core beliefs and stories about God which are either correct or incorrect - and, indeed, they will seek to persuade others of the understandings they believe to be erroneous through evangelism and missionary work.
This approach certainly goes against the popular views of "it doesn't matter what you believe, what's important is that it works for you" and "all religious paths are ultimately equally valid routes to the divine". But it doesn't mean that one doesn't value the individuals with whom one disagrees - indeed, the attempt to change what they believe has often been seen as an expression of Christian love (as we could just not bother and leave them wallowing in their error).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
