|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Locus, focus and hocus pocus
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Perhaps it was too sweeping a statement, yes. By 'supremely rational' I had in mind the attitude of the ilk of Prof. Dawkins et al. not all atheists in general. I have close relatives and friends who are avowed atheists who do not consider themselves 'supremely rational' when communicating with people of 'faith'. I accept that there is a place for rational thought, we should value it highly but it should not necessarily trump 'faith' by labeling it 'superstition'. Gracious people don't.
By 'spiritually immature' I intended to imply that spiritual maturity would be an attitude that has grown beyond 'finger pointing' and 'double standards' in the evaluation of other peoples cherished 'beliefs'.
By all means we should educate people by suggesting alternatives to their way of thinking, (if it would improve things for them), but it is uncharitable to simply condemn their, (perhaps ignorant religious practices from an educated point of view), as superstitious nonsense, particularly if their beliefs have 'seemed to work for them' for generations, and there is not something significantly better on offer with which to replace them.
By the way, never dismiss a personal 'spiritual' experience because others seem unimpressed. Always check it out against the teaching of Christ and file it away under '(I), for interesting' and wait patiently for the next one.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't regard Dawkins as supremely rational in the slightest. He seems incredibly sophomoric in his unexamined, unrealised rejection of genuine philosophy. He rejects clapping on the basis of seeing one armed men do it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interestingly, I had similar 'experiences' as a child to the one SusanDoris describes. I think a lot of kids do.
Those have got no bearing on my faith position now.
I'm not a believer because I thought I heard 'voices' as a child or because I've had a few apparently 'spiritual experiences' since.
I'm quite prepared to accept that there are scientific, readily explainable reasons for these.
My faith doesn't stand or fall on whether I've had this, that or the other spiritual experience.
I'm not sure that any of the theists here are claiming such a thing either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...Why do we worship God? The primary answer to that is because God has revealed Himself to us as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer. Adoration and thanksgiving correspond to this aspect of worship - we worship God for who He is and for what He has done for us. Thus, Psalm 136 seems to express this adoration and adoration in a very comprehensive way...
Couldn't agree less (creation hurts like hell) and more. Psalm 136 being immanent and transcendent with, Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I will not apologise for discussing the thread topic and placing challenges.
Nor should you, nor do I think any has suggested you should.
quote:
I am not saying I understand better than anyone. I am saying this is how I understand it and am challenging the defences that do not appear to be adequate.
I accept that and believe that, and that’s why I was careful to speak in terms how your posts may be perceived by others rather than how they are intended. What I’m suggesting is that despite your intention, your posts are coming across to at least some other posters as asserting that you do know more and understand better.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But I’d also have to say that they way those perspectives and challenges are expressed often comes across to me as saying “You Christians don't really understand your religion or the Bible as well as I do." And that, I think, is what has rubbed some the wrong way.
Thank you Nick. I couldn't have put it better. It's that, and not a question of,
quote:
People do not like their views being challenged. It activates the same regions in one's brain responsible for fight or flight.
Which comes across as passive-aggressive as all fuck.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...Why do we worship God? The primary answer to that is because God has revealed Himself to us as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer. Adoration and thanksgiving correspond to this aspect of worship - we worship God for who He is and for what He has done for us. Thus, Psalm 136 seems to express this adoration and adoration in a very comprehensive way...
Couldn't agree less (creation hurts like hell) and more. Psalm 136 being immanent and transcendent with, Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Could you please explain and elaborate?
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.
Sorry I shouldn't have written "primary". Well, indeed, this is why natural religion is defective or incomplete, and lends itself easily to superstition. Religion requires revelation both to attain and transcend its natural end.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Perhaps it was too sweeping a statement, yes. By 'supremely rational' I had in mind the attitude of the ilk of Prof. Dawkins et al. not all atheists in general. I have close relatives and friends who are avowed atheists who do not consider themselves 'supremely rational' when communicating with people of 'faith'. I accept that there is a place for rational thought, we should value it highly but it should not necessarily trump 'faith' by labeling it 'superstition'. Gracious people don't.
Thank you for your post. I do not think any faith *trumps* any other, however, much as I always enjoy reading and taking part in discussions here, I have not heard or read anything which would change my atheism into faith belief.
quote:
By 'spiritually immature' I intended to imply that spiritual maturity would be an attitude that has grown beyond 'finger pointing' and 'double standards' in the evaluation of other peoples cherished 'beliefs'.
I do not have ‘double standards’; if I see a statement from a believer or an atheistfor which an answer is, ‘I don’t know’, or ‘please provide objective evidence’, then I will ask both to clarify or define. Many of my friends and contemporaries have a religious faith, but none of them mentions this in conversation except very rarely when, for example, a friend has died; nor do I bring up the subject except with thosewho are interested. Yes people have ‘cherished beliefs but I suppose I could say I have a cherished lack of belief!! I would not use the adjective ‘cherished’ though.
quote:
By all means we should educate people by suggesting alternatives to their way of thinking, (if it would improve things for them), but it is uncharitable to simply condemn their, (perhaps ignorant religious practices from an educated point of view), as superstitious nonsense,
That is not what I do – unless you can cite an instance?
quote:
…particularly if their beliefs have 'seemed to work for them' for generations, and there is not something significantly better on offer with which to replace them.
By the way, never dismiss a personal 'spiritual' experience because others seem unimpressed. Always check it out against the teaching of Christ and file it away under '(I), for interesting' and wait patiently for the next one.
The chances of my having an experience which I would interpret as a religious one are slim, considering the number of years I might have left!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interestingly, I had similar 'experiences' as a child to the one SusanDoris describes. I think a lot of kids do.
Those have got no bearing on my faith position now.
I'm not a believer because I thought I heard 'voices' as a child or because I've had a few apparently 'spiritual experiences' since.
I'm quite prepared to accept that there are scientific, readily explainable reasons for these.
My faith doesn't stand or fall on whether I've had this, that or the other spiritual experience.
I'm not sure that any of the theists here are claiming such a thing either.
When I had a faith, it was because that belief had been firmly inculcated in me. It was something that was an unquestioned an absolute, so that why it stayed around such a long time in my life.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.
Sorry I shouldn't have written "primary". Well, indeed, this is why natural religion is defective or incomplete, and lends itself easily to superstition. Religion requires revelation both to attain and transcend its natural end.
Nicely, deeply put. And no apology necessary. You filled in the implicit gap between the thread and where we've taken it.
I'd continued my response to your request, as I'd only answered the first half, with:
'But He takes responsibility for creation as demonstrated in the incarnation. He shared the unavoidable Hell with us and trumped it.'
And then saw your latest post; mine above possibly evokes a suggestion of the revelation to which you refer?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you will forgive me for asking, Susan Doris, was your transition from religious faith to atheism a sudden thing, or gradual?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see God immediately as supremely loveable and supremely worthy of our adoration as our creator and redeemer.
Sorry I shouldn't have written "primary". Well, indeed, this is why natural religion is defective or incomplete, and lends itself easily to superstition. Religion requires revelation both to attain and transcend its natural end.
Nicely, deeply put. And no apology necessary. You filled in the implicit gap between the thread and where we've taken it.
I'd continued my response to your request, as I'd only answered the first half, with:
'But He takes responsibility for creation as demonstrated in the incarnation. He shared the unavoidable Hell with us and trumped it.'
And then saw your latest post; mine above possibly evokes a suggestion of the revelation to which you refer?
And this is so pregnant with soteriological meaning, with the sacramental and charismatic orders. His responsibility - the steadfastness of Him who neither deceives, nor can be deceived, who keeps His promises.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think what rankled a bit and I didn't articulate it very well, was the way - IMHO - that you didn't apparently hear us out. It could be that this is because the conversation is ranging over several related threads now - relics, special places, hocus pocus .
It is possible, but not an excuse, that the terseness in my phrasing is a reaction to the the One-Thread-In-Three_Places.
But as far as hearing you out, there hasn't been much to hear out.
Tradition. I am not one to dismiss tradition out of hand, however it is not in itself a justification of a practice. And many things that are considered tradition have been argued across the centuries and vary considerably within Christianity.
So, it is not an inherent justification.
The Incarnation doesn't give strength to pooling holiness in saint's body parts or sacred places. Not without some connection, at least.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But I’d also have to say that they way those perspectives and challenges are expressed often comes across to me as saying “You Christians don't really understand your religion or the Bible as well as I do." And that, I think, is what has rubbed some the wrong way.
Thank you Nick. I couldn't have put it better. It's that, and not a question of,
quote:
People do not like their views being challenged. It activates the same regions in one's brain responsible for fight or flight.
Which comes across as passive-aggressive as all fuck.
Me. Passive? Seriously? Well, OK, it was partly a taunt, but one based fact. It truly is how people's minds work. It is a real challenge to seperate this innate reaction from one's assessment of a discussion. It is something I try to do myself.
If rudeness were purely the issue, then Buddhism wouldn't have needed to be brought in. The implication, intended or otherwise, is that only an insider has the proper knowledge/and or right to comment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, that's not the implication at all, intended or otherwise.
I'm sure we all of us recognise that you are knowledgeable and have the right to comment.
That's not the issue.
The issue was that it come across as though you were claiming to know more about our religion and how it 'should' operate than we do ourselves.
That's what got on some of our goats.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, that's not the implication at all, intended or otherwise.
I'm sure we all of us recognise that you are knowledgeable and have the right to comment.
That's not the issue.
You say that, and then in the very next sentence get proprietorial about "our" religion.
quote:
The issue was that it come across as though you were claiming to know more about our religion and how it 'should' operate than we do ourselves.
You cannot see this?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm only 'proprietorial' to the extent that Christianity is my religion and not yours.
That doesn't mean I'm dismissing out of hand any comment you make about it just because you aren't 'on the inside as it were.'
It was a question of tone, I think. It wasn't so much what you said as the way you said it.
It sounded to me, and it would seem to others here, that you were saying, 'Look guys, I'm a Buddhist and even I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'
Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but that's not how it sounded.
I'm not sure if that makes things any clearer.
I'm not at all saying that you have no right whatsoever to comment. Of course you have. Heck, I very much enjoy reading your comments here on Ship and find myself in broad agreement with much of what you say.
I don't think I'm particularly touchy either.
But the way I read your posts - and it's a matter of interpretation and I'm open to correction - was as though you were saying, 'Look you saps, I know more about this Christianity business than you do and I can tell you that you've got it all wrong ...'
Can you not see that?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was a question of tone, I think. It wasn't so much what you said as the way you said it.
It sounded to me, and it would seem to others here, that you were saying, 'Look guys, I'm a Buddhist and even I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'
Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but that's ... how it sounded.
This.
[ 13. January 2018, 17:43: 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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was a question of tone, I think. It wasn't so much what you said as the way you said it.
It sounded to me, and it would seem to others here, that you were saying, 'Look guys, I'm a Buddhist and even I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'
Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but that's ... how it sounded.
This.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Gamaliel makes a statement that specifically states that an outsider comment is less welcome¹ than an insider one whilst trying to posit the reverse and you think he is spot on?
Being a Christian does not impart knowledge. A massive number of Christians have little knowledge of their own theology.² This is true even in the sects with a formal catechism.
I am not a theologian and am claiming no such authority. What I am saying is that being, or not being, Christian has no bearing on the validity of what anyone says in the framework of this discussion.
If the complaint were purely me saying
'Look guys, I know more about Christianity than you do and I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree on this one ...'
Then 100% I'd agree that it could appear rude.
But the inclusion of 'I'm a Buddhist' in the original quote is inherently exclusionary.
Especially when I am saying nothing "as a Buddhist" here. I am saying what I say within the confines of Christianity. Anything "as a Buddhist" is inferred by the reader.
¹knowledgeable, authoritative, whatever
²True of any religion, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How could I be otherwise, though when your moniker states who you are, 'lilBuddha'?
Is that not exclusivist
You are not 'lilCatholic' or 'lilMuslim' or 'lilHindu' or 'lilMormon.'
If any of us are 'projecting' Buddhism onto you then it's because it's what you are saying on your tin.
I repeat. I have no problem with you commenting from Buddhist or any other perspective. Great. Bring it on.
That's not and never has been the issue.
The issue is that you are setting yourself up as judge and jury as to what Christians 'ought' to believe despite not being one yourself.
It'd be like me presuming to tell Muslims how they ought to believe and behave, or Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Jews or any other faith.
I can't speak with any particular insight about Buddhism because I'm not a Buddhist. That's not 'exclusivism' it's simply stating a fact.
It sure you know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than I know about Buddhism. But you seem to think that you know more about it than Shippies who are knowledgeable and practicing Christians do. Of course there are a range of views and perspectives within Christianity and none of us are catechised to the nth degree, but surely those who are practitioners of any faith position are best placed to pontificate about what it is or isn't about?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gamaliel makes a statement that specifically states that an outsider comment is less welcome¹ than an insider one whilst trying to posit the reverse and you think he is spot on?
That's not what Gamaliel said. What he said is not welcome or appreciated is a tone of superiority, a tone that suggests “you people don't understand your religion as well as you think you do or as well as I do." And that is the tone that some of your posts have conveyed, whether intended or not.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
From Gamaliel Interestingly, I had similar 'experiences' as a child to the one Susan Doris describes. I think a lot of kids do.
So have I on a couple of occasions, both in adulthood, but thankfully it is rare and both occasions were 'helpful' to me. If it happened frequently I would make an appointment with a psychiatrist.
quote:
From Gamaliel I'm not a believer because I thought I heard 'voices' as a child or because I've had a few apparently 'spiritual experiences' since.
Nor me. That is why I suggested it simply be filed under the, '(I) for interesting' label, as far as 'faith enhancement' is concerned.
quote:
From Gamaliel I'm quite prepared to accept that there are scientific, readily explainable reasons for these.
So am I, and also the possibility that God's 'voice' was actually perceived by human consciousness somehow.
quote:
From Gamaliel My faith doesn't stand or fall on whether I've had this, that or the other spiritual experience.
Again I agree, mine neither, but neither should it stand or fall on whether you believe The Bible is inerrant, supernaturally authoritative or infallible, either. All of which are bogus claims, none being derived directly from scripture.
quote:
From Gamaliel I'm not sure that any of the theists here are claiming such a thing either.
Quite! Neither was I.
quote:
From Susan Doris That is not what I do – unless you can cite an instance?
I was not specifically referring to you personally. I was addressing the thread subject generally. Sorry if it came across as personal. No relevant emoji apparently to express, 'I'm not being deliberately impertinent'.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[That's not what Gamaliel said. What he said is not welcome or appreciated is a tone of superiority, a tone that suggests “you people don't understand your religion as well as you think you do or as well as I do." And that is the tone that some of your posts have conveyed, whether intended or not.
The tone I have apologised for. But, at worst, it would be me against particular posters, not me against all Christians.
I replied to actual posts, never making a blanket 'all Christians' post. I am addressing specific claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If any of us are 'projecting' Buddhism onto you then it's because it's what you are saying on your tin.
It isn't about the tin or its contents. It is about the argument I am putting forth. Full stop. Well, it should be.
quote:
It sure you know a heck of a lot more about Christianity than I know about Buddhism. But you seem to think that you know more about it than Shippies who are knowledgeable and practicing Christians do.
Practise is meaningless in terms of knowledge, in religion at least. Though I will full well concede that there are many posters here whose knowledge of Christianity far exceeds mine. This includes you, mt and LC. But that doesn't mean you are correct in every particular. No one knows everything or gets it all correct and we are all susceptible to belief trumping reason and uncritical acceptance.
An example of practise not always giving knowledge is your use of the word practise. Though I am certain you have been practising English for a number of years longer than I, you are still misspelling it. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
ETA:When critiquing spelling, make sure you get it right yourself. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 13. January 2018, 20:58: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[That's not what Gamaliel said. What he said is not welcome or appreciated is a tone of superiority, a tone that suggests “you people don't understand your religion as well as you think you do or as well as I do." And that is the tone that some of your posts have conveyed, whether intended or not.
The tone I have apologised for. But, at worst, it would be me against particular posters, not me against all Christians.
I replied to actual posts, never making a blanket 'all Christians' post. I am addressing specific claims.
Right. But my point was simply that no one had said that an outsider comment is less welcome than an insider one, and a number of posters, including Gamaliel, had specifically asserted they were not saying that.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course I'm not correct in every particular, nor was I claiming infallibility - least of all on my spelling. I ought to know better, having a postgraduate qualification in English.
But there you go ...
If you've apologised for the tone, fair enough, but oh never mind ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gamaliel makes a statement that specifically states that an outsider comment is less welcome¹ than an insider one whilst trying to posit the reverse and you think he is spot on?
This is disingenuous. That's not what Gamaliel said.
quote:
Practise is meaningless in terms of knowledge, in religion at least.
That's your belief. In this you are wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you will forgive me for asking, Susan Doris, was your transition from religious faith to atheism a sudden thing, or gradual?
I started to write a reply this afternoon, but was distracted by a headache - I never have headaches. I have just returned from ~A& E - it was either a small bleed in the brain not a TIA, or a TIA, but either way, I'm okay now, so will reply tomorrow!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is disingenuous. That's not what Gamaliel said.
It is what he said. If the comment were simply that I, as a person, were wrong to say someone else was wrong, then it would purely be about tone or me. But when the qualification of Buddhism is added in, that makes it an insider v. outsider issue.
If this doesn’t make it clear, or you don’t agree, then there is no further point in discussing it.
quote:
quote:
Practise is meaningless in terms of knowledge, in religion at least.
That's your belief. In this you are wrong.
Perhaps we mean different things by the word practise. One can be a practising Christian, like church every week, had the typical teachings in youth and still know very little about one’s own religion. I’ve met them. And they are not small in number.
The very same thing is true of Buddhism, Islam and, I would presume, every other religion.
And this doesn’t even touch that people with the same level of teaching and study will disagree with each other.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Reading through over the days, is there a need to define what is what among: faith, superstition, belief, hope, other terms.
Example:
Is it superstition to pray the same prayer each morning because it brings a sense of security or comfort for the day? even if the person praying expects no influence on the world, but merely find it sets them up feeling better for the day ahead? Would this person be said to have a faith? or just a belief that experience has taught them that this gives them an improved sense of optimism for that day ahead (hope).
[ 14. January 2018, 00:12: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Susan Doris, I hope you are well now and will continue to be so!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is disingenuous. That's not what Gamaliel said.
It is what he said. If the comment were simply that I, as a person, were wrong to say someone else was wrong, then it would purely be about tone or me. But when the qualification of Buddhism is added in, that makes it an insider v. outsider issue.
No, it’s not what he said. He didn’t say outsider comments were less welcome than insider comments, which is how you characterized what he said. What he said was that outsider comments and perspective are welcome and valued, but that the tone for which you’ve apologized, which was directly connected to the context of an outsider speaking to insiders, was not appreciated.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What he said was that outsider comments and perspective are welcome and valued, but that the tone for which you’ve apologized, which was directly connected to the context of an outsider speaking to insiders, was not appreciated.
bold mine, for emphasis.
Which says that if I were considered an insider, there would be no issue. It says outsiders are welcome if they are properly deferential.
I'm an outsider? Nine years and more than 17,000 posts, most in Purg, and I am an outsider.
Depressing, that is.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
What he said was that outsider comments and perspective are welcome and valued, but that the tone for which you’ve apologized, which was directly connected to the context of an outsider speaking to insiders, was not appreciated.
bold mine, for emphasis.
Which says that if I were considered an insider, there would be no issue. It says outsiders are welcome if they are properly deferential.
I'm an outsider? Nine years and more than 17,000 posts, most in Purg, and I am an outsider.
Depressing, that is.
Oh please. You are, in fact, an outsider to Christianity. Because you're not a Christian. This is not a difficult concept. And yes, outsiders need to be properly deferential. If I were at a The Magazine of Buddhist Unrest and having a conversation with Buddhists, I would not start telling them what they believe or should believe, or what was or was not contradictory to their beliefs or practices. It would simply be rude. I might say, "That doesn't seem to square with what you said over here" or "aren't there other Buddhists who believe X, Y, and Z?" But I would not state flatly, "That is inimical to what Buddhism, at its very heart, is about."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
What mousethief said.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Reading through over the days, is there a need to define what is what among: faith, superstition, belief, hope, other terms.
Example:
Is it superstition to pray the same prayer each morning because it brings a sense of security or comfort for the day? even if the person praying expects no influence on the world, but merely find it sets them up feeling better for the day ahead? Would this person be said to have a faith? or just a belief that experience has taught them that this gives them an improved sense of optimism for that day ahead (hope).
Well, I tried to articulate a broadly Thomist, that is, theological, understanding of superstition, which sees it as a vice opposed to the virtue of religion. In addition to this theoloical concept of superstition, there are the ways in which it is used in common language, e.g. when atheists decry anything touching upon religious beliefs and practices as "supersitious" or when in the course of our daily interactions we characterise this or that attitude or belief as "superstitious", whether we are atheists or not. In both those cases, there is a profound implication of irrationality.
One ought to pray in the morning before one owes God a debt of worship, according both to natural and revealed religion. It pertains to the virtue of justice. One ought to pray whether one feels like it or not, whether one derives comfort from it or not. It is first a matter of our natural duties and obligations towards God. Grace helps us both to fulfil this natural duty but also transcend it by joining our prayer to that of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, a large part of spiritual consists precisely in persevering in prayer in spite of dryness, acedia, listlessness, lack of affect, etc.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you will forgive me for asking, Susan Doris, was your transition from religious faith to atheism a sudden thing, or gradual?
The only belief that was indoctrinated in my family was that God was there - around us and everywhere. All other beliefs such as virgin birth, resurrection, miracles, etc were quite clearly stories which taught people about life and how or how not to behave.
The process of then finding myself questioning God was only a vague background, occasional thought. Living abroad, meeting many different people, having my sons christened, these were things one just did. Then I (about late thirties) joined a discussion group where beliefs were not a taboo topic!and from then on the enquiry and interest into the subject became more central, but it still took me quite a few more years before I realised that the concept of God had become such a small, insignificant part of my thinking, unsupported by any facts, that I dismissed it
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, lilBuddha, you've apologised for your tone. Perhaps you'd now like to apologise for misrepresenting what I wrote?
Then we can move on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That would be nice.
The key word in Wiki's discussion of superstition is irrationality. The OP seems to be looking for religious condemnation of different religion; hocus pocus.
Is there anything rational in religion? Is there any religion shorn of hocus pocus? Of superstition? Of irrationality? Do I have to embrace inadequate use of reason, ignorance, misunderstanding of science or causality, a positive belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown, luck, prophecy, spiritual beings? Do I have to engage in thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives?
I've always liked the apostle James' definition of true religion. I can't do that either.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Neither can I.
I don't think the OP was out to 'condemn' anything, simply to explore issues of what we do or don't find acceptable and why that might be the case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed not G., you weren't looking to do that, but looking for it? To expose it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Have you guys given any consideration to the implications of your use of the "Not a Christian" card in this thread?
As in, who might be qualified, or not qualified, to participate with you on the ship?
What about Hindus, or Muslims, or atheists? Should they be properly deferential as well?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's got nothing to do with deference, Tortuf. It's about presumption.
I wouldn't presume to tell a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim that I understand their religion better than they do themselves.
It's got nothing to do with denying lilBuddha the right to comment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
If she is wrong prove her wrong. This is a debate board.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well, lB is wrong because of their idiolectic, "For me, something is superstitious when it falls outside of a belief system. So, believing breaking a mirror is "bad luck" is superstitious; but animal sacrifice, within the context of religion, isn't.
For Christians, believing an [sic] relic has power is; but for Wiccans, it isn't.".
It's all superstition.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
I think “deference” may be the wrong word. Close, but wrong. Avoiding apparent arrogance, perhaps? Not being a jackass?
And it’s not about religion, and certainly not about Christians vs. non-Christians. The same dynamic occurs if an American presumes to school a Brit on the British political system, as though the American understands it better than the Brit does, or if a non-lawyer presumes to school a lawyer on the law, or any number of other possibilities.
Is it possible that the American does understand British politics better than the Brit does? Of course! But any headway in discussion that the American might otherwise make, or any challenge to accepted truths, will likely be obscured or ignored because of the packaging the argument came in. Valid points may be dismissed because the tone of the speaker will undercut the speaker’s credibility.
Yes, this is a debate board. But fruitful debate depends on effective communication, and a tone of superiority or arrogance that many of us are cautioning against is counterproductive to effective communication; it inhibits rather than serves debate.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Have you guys given any consideration to the implications of your use of the "Not a Christian" card in this thread?
As in, who might be qualified, or not qualified, to participate with you on the ship?
What about Hindus, or Muslims, or atheists? Should they be properly deferential as well?
Participate <> pontificate. Even Christians shouldn't be pontificating on the content of the religion. But again, for a non-Christian to tell Christians what they believe, in a take-no-prisoners sort of way, is just ridiculous. Is this really so hard to understand that it must be twisted into something else, like "non-Christians are not welcome here"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Have you guys given any consideration to the implications of your use of the "Not a Christian" card in this thread?
As in, who might be qualified, or not qualified, to participate with you on the ship?
What about Hindus, or Muslims, or atheists? Should they be properly deferential as well?
Despite mt's protestations otherwise, it is an impossible standard that only serves to stifle discussion. There might as well be a board for every single variation of Christianity. Gods, the naming structure alone would exceed whatever server space the New Ship has allotted.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't presume to tell a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim that I understand their religion better than they do themselves.
And that I have never done.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, lilBuddha, you've apologised for your tone. Perhaps you'd now like to apologise for misrepresenting what I wrote?
I cannot, for I do not think I have done and I would be lying to say I did.
quote:
Then we can move on.
Well, that I can do as this thread has become pointless.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
The meat has indeed been gnawed of the bone.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
