|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Isn't it time IngoB took up golf?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet, you use your certainty not just for yourself, but to beat other people about the head with.
I reject this negative characterisation. I discuss these matters seriously, based on my convictions, in a place dedicated to that.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the thing about certainty without compelling evidence and proof. It might work fine in your own private system, but it's rather wanting when you march out and try to tell other people definitively that they are wrong.
Did you read the Aquinas quote I linked to? It describes exactly what can be done in such circumstances, and what I believe to be doing (within the limits of my abilities).
The Aquinas quote agrees with the point I'm making, that you cannot insist that people accept your axiomatic frames of reference, and that therefore you cannot declare them wrong in absolute terms. You can only talk in terms of 'given X, then Y'.
Now, I'm perfectly happy myself with accepting something for the sake of argument. I do it quite frequently. But the whole purpose of that is to recognise that I'm confining the scope of the argument and that I can't therefore show that something is definitively true. It rests on premises, and if those premises aren't accepted then the 'truth' no longer holds.
In any case, I don't know how many times it's been said on this thread but I'll say it again: the issue isn't what you do but the precise method by which you do it. You can say as many times as you like that Purgatory is 'dedicated to serious discussions', and it will remain correct but it will never be complete. It's not a place dedicated to serious discussions between abstract avatars. It's a forum for serious discussions between human beings.
You've made it clear enough that you don't think other human beings on the internet are all that important in your life. Okay then. You are free to think that. You are free to think that your interactions here don't have the same kind of intrinsic value as your interactions with people face-to-face, or via the telephone or via e-mail (I assume your work, at least, requires those kinds of interactions, if not your personal life.)
You are free, if you wish, to act accordingly, and to accept the consequences of acting in that fashion. Those consequences will include a larger number of people disliking their online interactions with you. You don't have to aim to be liked, it's your choice. Those consequences will probably include, if some kind of misfortune happens to befall you, fewer of the people you've interacted with online feeling sorry for you in some way, or praying for you. Some of them still will, of course. You don't have to aim to have people care about your welfare, it's your choice.
If you want to treat this entirely as a system of rules and principles and forums for debating theorems, then I certainly can't stop you. I can't demand that you treat people halfway around the world with a bit of warmth. I can only try and persuade you of the merits of trying to get along and caring what others think. But there are pros and cons both ways. Heck, some people don't care much about what others think even in face-to-face interactions, and they often do extremely well in the world because they're not held back from pursuing their self-interest.
So go behave how you want to behave. I've had enough of trying to hint to you the possible benefits of a different path. Over and out.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's nice to know that you have no respect for our character or morals whatsoever.
You are probably a nice enough guy. But on SoF you are part of a system that makes you judge and jury, and allows no recourse against your decisions other than by complaining to you and your buddies. That's actually a close match to the historical situation described in the gospel, and it leaves no other option to fight against injustice than what the widow did.
SoF's system cannot be defended as just as such, even though it is licit, since this is a private website we all participate in by our own free will. But that we all agree to follow this system does not change what it is. If it makes you uncomfortable to have spelled out your questionable role here, then I consider that to be a good thing. Perhaps indeed no better system can be found, but one should not become complacent about that. If you rather take this as a personal insult, then that's regrettable though understandable.
What I don't think you understand is that this is true of absolutely any system where someone has authority to make rulings.
And that includes God's authority. Who do you complain to if you don't think God is being fair? Oh that's right. God.
There's a little episode in Genesis where Abraham spends a bunch of time trying to negotiate with God not to destroy a city.
So yeah, if you were trying to compare me to God, I won't take it as an insult. The problem is I think you were trying to compare Hosts to another character in that story.
Gently Hosting/
FWIW orfeo is posting as a shipmate, not as a Host. I've backed out of this thread, so I'm hosting only, which enables others who are designated hosts here to post as freely within the 10Cs and board guidelines as anyone else.
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
/Gently Hosting
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Was Aquinas part of progressive revelation? Or did he just say x=x? And are you therefore saying that Samuel quoted God's orders verbatim or at least accurately and not just 'validly', 'understandably', according to conscience re the Amalekites?
This needs a Purg thread.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And of course, it's predicated on the notion that there was an injustice. The fact that we finally got you to shut the hell up suggests either that you finally accepted that there wasn't any injustice involved, or just that you lack the kind of persistence required. We appear to be going with the latter option now, which doesn't reflect all that well on you, either.
Concerning the concrete case, in protesting I had to admit that I got caught on a technicality. One can of course complain that a technicality should not determine a ruling, but that simply is a different matter to protesting a straight injustice. If the latter is a long shot, then the former is pointless.
And yes, I'm not quite as determined as the widow to get my way. But then I reckon that she suffered far more important injustices than I ever could suffer here. To be honest, I find it really hard to say how much any of this SoF stuff matters. But practically speaking, I can maintain my outrage about posting on SoF only for a certain length of time, before it dissolves into "whatever".
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The other thing I suspect you've completely missed about the story is that it's about persisting in trying to get an action or a decision, rather than accepting inaction. It's about praying to God until you get an answer. It is not about, after God gives you an answer you don't actually like, harassing God from here to eternity because eventually he'll change his mind and agree with you.
One could of course ask whether the situation before a petitionary prayer is granted was not also given by God and hence should have been accepted without harassing God about it... But frankly, this is just over-thinking my point. If the widow had harassed the judge about revoking an unjust decision against her, then that would have been just as much an expression of the justice system she was operating under than the parable is now. And that's what I was getting at.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Some of this grief seems to boil down to not adding "I think" in front of "what you say is wrong". But taken literally, that's a waste of breath. Indeed, I generally say things that I think.
Taken literally, of course, you're right. But the point that quite a few people have tried to make to you is that most people don't parse sentences and arguments only in a fully literal way. They interpret and glean impressions much more than just a literal reading. I understand that you might disapprove of that, but that's the way people are. So my question, the same one that I asked earlier, is why not do it a bit more? I can't understand why, when you weigh up the pros and cons of making your language a little bit more accommodating, that you're choosing the annoyance of typing two extra words, or some kind of internal satisfaction about the language that you use in certain situations, compared to coming across a bit less abrasive to a lot of people, and therefore having a fuller engagement with them on these boards. I just can't see the pay off, for you, or anyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is exactly what I sometimes see you doing here. Your arguments are brilliant but you are still arguing that 2+2=5, however well you wrap it up. 'Nobody knows' when it comes to God and the afterlife. We'll only truly know after death, all else is interesting argument - so we may as well be humble about it imo.
You are contradicting yourself there. If you think that I am as wrong as "2+2=5", then you should tell me that I am wrong and why. If you believe that "nobody knows", then all you can do is to disagree and list some reasons for your preference. I'm humbled by my faith, I'm not humble about it.
You're missing the wood (Boogie's overall point) for the tree (the impreciseness of one part of it).
You're right, if you're talking about objective truth, saying "you're wrong" to 2+2=5 is fine and understandable. But if we're talking about uncertainties, then "I think you're wrong" is much more appropriate. You made this point yourself.
But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation. Your views are strong, no problem there. But they're not evidently 'truth' to everyone, and no matter what you say, they aren't readily apparent and objectively 'provable' like 2+2=5 is. There are times where we are, of course, discussing 'facts' on these boards, but many times when we are discussing opinions, you treat them the same as facts. That's the distinction, and it's for the latter that it would be helpful if you were more conciliatory with your language.
As I've said, this isn't a huge deal for me. I don't mean to criticise, and I too appreciate your presence on the Ship, and your contributions, so I hope you take this as helpful advice, rather than strong criticism.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The Aquinas quote agrees with the point I'm making, that you cannot insist that people accept your axiomatic frames of reference, and that therefore you cannot declare them wrong in absolute terms. You can only talk in terms of 'given X, then Y'.
You can only argue with them that way, which is different from saying that you cannot declare them wrong in absolute terms. It is a pretty safe bet that Aquinas considered heretics as being wrong in absolute terms, and that he would have insisted that they need to accept his own frame of reference in order to be pleasing to God. But if you want to argue heretics into admitting a falsehood, then you are necessarily reduced to making use of those truths that they still admit. Otherwise they can defeat your argument simply by rejecting its premises. And as Aquinas says, those that share none of the premises cannot be argued properly into anything. The only thing one can do there is to answer what they raise at difficulties against the faith.
And as it happens, I do exactly that (or at least I try). It do not just say "this is the dogma, therefore you are wrong". Rather, where I see some opening for that I argue along the lines of "you accept this or that (other dogma, bible verse, scientific research, whatever), and by the following chain of reasoning you should then also accept this dogma, therefore you are wrong to reject it". And where I do not see an opening for that, I argue like this: "this is the dogma, which you do not believe, but by this chain of reasoning we can see that it is not illogical / contrary to the facts / incoherent with other dogmas / ... as you say, therefore you are wrong in attacking it."
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It rests on premises, and if those premises aren't accepted then the 'truth' no longer holds.
Truth is truth. If true premises are being rejected, then one often cannot argue any longer to true conclusions from what remains accepted. That does not affect the truth status of these lost conclusions at all, merely whether they are realized in particular minds.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So go behave how you want to behave.
Indeed. And just a little reminder, it's not me who has been making so much ado before arriving at this rather obvious conclusion.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What is truth?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
...said jesting Pilate and would not stay for an answer.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I dunno, maybe it would take a full hour for a good theologian to leave you behind, IngoB, but I've never really seen you go past sources like the catechism and Thomas Aquinas. I've never seen you get really theoretical with your theology. It's the difference between a good high school science teacher and a research physicist, if that makes sense.
I don't mean that as a criticism at all, I'm more getting defensive about theology itself. I'm sure I'd find you digging into the modern heavyweights like Karl Rahner or Karl Barth terribly fascinating. Kinda mean, but fascinating.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
...said jesting Pilate and would not stay for an answer.
Pace Bacon, I've always read it with a resigned sigh rather than with mockery.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Are you not in fact asking me here to become your "Socratic teacher", eliciting with careful questioning what you really mean?
No, I'm not. Like another famous philosopher said in 1952: it takes two to tango. When we're discussing things in Purg, courtesy requires that you at least make an effort to try to understand the other.
I'm also surprised by the ease with which you already put yourself in the role of the teacher here, and not of the pupil.
I mean, my posting style isn't that obtuse. I'm not exactly Martin PC Not (bless him). I have my faults (I get carried away too far in a discussion at times) but my communication style is usually very direct.
Doesn't logically the possibility also exist that when I explain something in different ways and you still don't understand it, the problem might be you?
Maybe it's the pupil that's being a bit dumb here.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
They interpret and glean impressions much more than just a literal reading. I understand that you might disapprove of that, but that's the way people are.
Your quoting (from here) leaves out that I went on to discuss what impression adding "I think" conveys, and why I am not usually happy with that.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I just can't see the pay off, for you, or anyone else.
Well, if we scan the many, many words that I have written on SoF, then we will certainly find places where I could have been more accommodating in style without affecting the message. But by and large it seems that I pick my words about right. The "hard edge" that you complain about is intended. Not because I want to hurt people, but because I really do think that some things are right, some are wrong, and spades should be called spades.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation.
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But they're not evidently 'truth' to everyone, and no matter what you say, they aren't readily apparent and objectively 'provable' like 2+2=5 is.
Again I point to the Aquinas quote above and my explanation here. It is simply not the case that I am trying to "prove faith" in a simplistic sense.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
There are times where we are, of course, discussing 'facts' on these boards, but many times when we are discussing opinions, you treat them the same as facts.
Not really, no. See above.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I don't mean to criticise, and I too appreciate your presence on the Ship, and your contributions, so I hope you take this as helpful advice, rather than strong criticism.
Thanks, and I did not find your comments offensive at all. I may tone down some things in future posts, there is always some room for improvement. But I don't think that there will be a major change, since I am basically happy with what I am doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno, maybe it would take a full hour for a good theologian to leave you behind, IngoB, but I've never really seen you go past sources like the catechism and Thomas Aquinas. I've never seen you get really theoretical with your theology. It's the difference between a good high school science teacher and a research physicist, if that makes sense. I don't mean that as a criticism at all, I'm more getting defensive about theology itself. I'm sure I'd find you digging into the modern heavyweights like Karl Rahner or Karl Barth terribly fascinating. Kinda mean, but fascinating.
Fair enough, I should not claim competence that has not been put to a real test. This was more a reflection of how easy I found following works in these various fields when I was reading up on things. And I have read some modern theology (including some Rahner IIRC). I think there is a valid point to my comment about the "steepness" of physics, philosophy and theology, and I don't think that it is a slur on theology. But anyway, I guess as far as theology (and indeed philosophy) is concerned, I am a bit of a Luddite. I really think that with the end of the Middle Ages something was lost that was more valuable than what has since been gained. And ultimately, I'm not really interested all that much in "theoretical" theology. Actually, "a good high school science teacher" just fits perfectly. People here think I'm this theory monster just because I deny that the earth is flat and insist that "greater than" is a transitive relation. But that says more about them than about me, in my opinion. I've just ordered my next readings for £20 thanks to Cyber Monday discounts, and I believe that I will be much happier with that than with either Karl.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet, you use your certainty not just for yourself, but to beat other people about the head with.
I reject this negative characterisation. I discuss these matters seriously, based on my convictions, in a place dedicated to that.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
quote:
But by and large it seems that I pick my words about right.
We know YOU think that. That's the problem here.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.
Not in English it ain't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Like Samuel's.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
IngoB: quote:
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.
Your faith is your conviction. Your faith says that it has the Truth in fullness. But I'm with Paul (and Boogie) that in this world we see "through a mirror, dimly", even so the popes and the theologians. Even you. Your mirror might be more clear than that of others, but a little humility on your part might not come amiss.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Ok, Ingo.
I guess we just disagree with what conviction is. To an outsider, however fervently we believe what we do, a conviction is still just an opinion. It falls under "subjective", not "objective".
An example: (albeit from a long time ago, the "Why wouldn't it work" thread)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB: quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The way I see it, there's two options - either everyone will be saved, or if they're not, it'll be their choice, not God's. The third option: that God is the one who does the rejecting, is not a valid one for me.
Too bad then, because the last one is clearly the case.
You are fully convicted that God rejects some people. I am fully convicted that he doesn't reject anybody. I don't think it would be easy to decide who is more convicted.
But ultimately, neither of us know with the certainty of 2+2=5 that God does or doesn't reject people. Which is why, for that kind of discussion, I think it's more helpful for convictions (even strong ones) to be framed in 'opinion' language rather than 'fact' language. What was clear to you is far from clear to me.
As a side note, I probably veer too far the other side from you, bulking my posts out with maybes, perhapses and inmyopinions, and sometimes maybe perhaps I could probably do with a bit more assertiveness!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Here: "That is, of course, bullshit."
Ripped out of context, the next sentence explains the judgement.
As others have pointed out, it was not about context, but the use of emotive language. I have no problem with anyone using the term 'bullshit', but that is not the point. The problem is that you market yourself as a "serious debater", who looks down on us mere mortals who may be emotionally engaged with something called reality, but I was merely pointing out that your implied claim to uphold some higher and more objective and less emotional standard of expatiation and expostulation is...errrmm... actually a load of bullshit. You are, of course, a highly selective sentimentalist like the rest of us mere underlings (I can only speak for myself, of course...)
The fact that you didn't even understand the point I was making in my post, and you thought that you could defend yourself by pleading 'context', rather undermines your claim to be a heavyweight intellectual. At least in the field of theology anyway. I have no doubt that you are an expert in your professional field, but that is not what we are discussing here.
quote:
Assertions indeed can be dealt with by counter-assertion. Only argument requires counter-argument. The context of course was a prior pure assertion.
Of course assertions can be dealt with by counter-assertions! But not by "serious debaters".
The basic tool of debate is argument. If you want to go to work without the tools of your professed trade, then that's up to you, I guess...
quote:
This follows a statement by orfeo, which was answered by me, and the "Humpty-Dumpty" theme was established there by argument. SCK then quoted both orfeo and me in his response, making his contribution part of this discourse. In my response I cut out this prior history, to avoid lengthy multi-quotes, and just quoted SCK himself. But my response has to be seen in that argument flow, not simply as answer to the post just prior.
It certainly was a straw man argument. It was a rather feeble attempt at a reductio ad absurdum argument, to try to distort the point SCK was making:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Indeed, I'd say defining the church as something other than a visible institution gives Christians a tougher task in some ways, because we are then obliged to seek fellowship and harmony with those whose doctrines and practices are very different from ours, in a way that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians perhaps might not feel obliged.
SCK was saying that we have to work harder at fellowship with those who may think differently from us, when we cannot just fall back onto the regularity and norms of a visible institution which demands conformity. He is not at all saying that "everything goes" as long as there is peace and harmony. In fact, that is the very opposite of what he is saying, because he makes clear that this kind of fellowship is a tougher task. In other words, we are going to encounter difficulties with each other in this kind of scenario, but we have to work through them. That is rather different from pursuing a policy of syncretistic appeasement.
But your response to him was the rather sarky:
quote:
Of course, everything is acceptable as long as it is harmonious. We are all friends who live and let live. What is the peace of Christ but the blanket acceptance of whatever anybody wishes to consider as Christian?
Well, I for one do not welcome our new Overlord Humpty Dumpty. From such eggs serpents spawn.
Is SCK saying that the Church is a place which encourages "a blanket acceptance of whatever anybody wishes to consider as Christian"? Clearly not, otherwise, as mentioned, his "tougher task" makes no sense.
I would have thought that a "serious debater" would read people's posts carefully and with comprehension before rushing to judgment.
quote:
Now, EE, you hardly manage to write a post without claiming that this or that is complete nonsense, that something else is perfectly obvious, that a commonly held opinion is morally insane, that you do no need to pay attention to the opinions of another poster, that some poster's comments provide merely light amusement, that some argument does not allow intelligence, that somebody has not read the thread, that somebody is misquoting the bible, that somebody is attacking a straw man, that someone should have asked a different question, that something is a lie, that somebody's belief is a figment of their imagination, etc.
In case you wonder, I compiled the above from your posts on only the first two pages of the current thread about hell in Purg. You are in no position to make big noises here.
Oh, how interesting! You turn on me, but then I am NOT the one claiming to be a "serious debater". You are. I am quite willing to accept that I can be an emotional ratbag on these boards, and many times I have been and still am. You are the one who superciliously claims to be above all emotion. But clearly you are as much of a ratbag as I am.
I have no doubt that you are an extremely intelligent person. But don't pretend to be something you're not. Thank you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
He's the most unrestful poster we have, since Martin went all fluffy-wuffy.
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?
Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.
Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Some of this grief seems to boil down to not adding "I think" in front of "what you say is wrong". But taken literally, that's a waste of breath. Indeed, I generally say things that I think.
Taken literally, of course, you're right. But the point that quite a few people have tried to make to you is that most people don't parse sentences and arguments only in a fully literal way. They interpret and glean impressions much more than just a literal reading. I understand that you might disapprove of that, but that's the way people are. So my question, the same one that I asked earlier, is why not do it a bit more? I can't understand why, when you weigh up the pros and cons of making your language a little bit more accommodating, that you're choosing the annoyance of typing two extra words, or some kind of internal satisfaction about the language that you use in certain situations, compared to coming across a bit less abrasive to a lot of people, and therefore having a fuller engagement with them on these boards. I just can't see the pay off, for you, or anyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is exactly what I sometimes see you doing here. Your arguments are brilliant but you are still arguing that 2+2=5, however well you wrap it up. 'Nobody knows' when it comes to God and the afterlife. We'll only truly know after death, all else is interesting argument - so we may as well be humble about it imo.
You are contradicting yourself there. If you think that I am as wrong as "2+2=5", then you should tell me that I am wrong and why. If you believe that "nobody knows", then all you can do is to disagree and list some reasons for your preference. I'm humbled by my faith, I'm not humble about it.
You're missing the wood (Boogie's overall point) for the tree (the impreciseness of one part of it).
You're right, if you're talking about objective truth, saying "you're wrong" to 2+2=5 is fine and understandable. But if we're talking about uncertainties, then "I think you're wrong" is much more appropriate. You made this point yourself.
But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation. Your views are strong, no problem there. But they're not evidently 'truth' to everyone, and no matter what you say, they aren't readily apparent and objectively 'provable' like 2+2=5 is. There are times where we are, of course, discussing 'facts' on these boards, but many times when we are discussing opinions, you treat them the same as facts. That's the distinction, and it's for the latter that it would be helpful if you were more conciliatory with your language.
Thank you goperryrevs - that's what I was trying to say. I think it would be helpful if IngoB were more conciliatory with his language - and the person he'd be most helpful to by far would be himself.
He'd enjoy the discussions far more as they wouldn't descend into the personal anything like as often or as quickly.
But I've tried to say that already - several times.
Maybe this thread has run its course? Not the sort that requires little balls.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When we're discussing things in Purg, courtesy requires that you at least make an effort to try to understand the other. ... Doesn't logically the possibility also exist that when I explain something in different ways and you still don't understand it, the problem might be you?
But I am making an effort to understand you. That's where those "long, logical answers with lots of quotes and examples" come from. They do not write themselves, you know... Perhaps I am in fact too dumb to understand you. So what? I do not feel guilty about being dumb. And it seems rather pointless to urge me to become less dumb. Being dumb is not a choice one makes. Unless one is playing dumb, which I assure you I am not.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But Boogie's point is that, since we're talking about matters of Faith on these boards, not Maths, then we're not talking about matters of certainty. We're talking opinions, convictions and speculation.
This is the crux of the biscuit, as it were. IngoB doesn't see matters of faith as being uncertain (and neither do I). Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as are the fundamental principles of mathematics.
This, it seems to me, is the gorilla in the room. Liberal Christians see open questions where the orthodox see clear answers. If I were to try and answer every bizarro reading of Scripture and the Creeds that I see on these boards, I'd never do any work, and all I'd get for my pains would be scoffing, outrage and anger. I'm glad Ingo keeps on keeping on--most of the time what he says is exactly what I would say, except that it's voiced much more articulately and clearly than I'm capable of doing.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?
Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.
Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.
I see unrestful more as challenging thought within in one's own group than across. You are us, Crœsos is us; is IngoB us?
--------------------
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
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?
Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.
Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.
I see unrestful more as challenging thought within in one's own group than across. You are us, Crœsos is us; is IngoB us?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) So we're not to be challenged by anyone we don't regard as "one of us", now?
What sort of mutual congratulation society are we looking for?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Posted before thoroughly re-reading; second sentence of first paragraph should read "Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as the fundamental principles of mathematics are regarding arithmetic."
Sorry for the double post.
[ 03. December 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can so orthodox a person as IngoB be truly unrestful?
Is he resting us or unresting us at the moment? My definition of unrestful is something that challenges my status-quo and current way of thinking. He certainly does that.
Orthodoxy isn't a single-parameter measurement to me.
I see unrestful more as challenging thought within in one's own group than across. You are us, Crœsos is us; is IngoB us?
So we're not to be challenged by anyone we don't regard as "one of us", now?
What sort of mutual congratulation society are we looking for?
No. Not what I am attempting to convey, not in the slightest.
I was defining unrestful, not challenge. IngoB certainly challenges people here, and that is not a bad thing. I was challenging mdijion's definition of unrestful.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well I challenge your challenge. I think what you are saying is that genuine unrestfulness must originate from within a group.
I disagree, partly because it would be so hard to define groups objectively as to make it meaningless as a definition in practice - in fact already in your list I can spot someone I'd define as "not us" given half a change but whose postings I still read and find challenging - and unrestful.
(Then again maybe a neologism like unrestful that can mean whatever we want is meaningless to start with?). And partly because real provocative challenge is probably more likely from outside a group than from inside.
[ 03. December 2013, 16:34: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So it's certain that God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites through Samuel, who was certain?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
You talkin' to me?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Only if you don't see matters of faith as being uncertain Colonel Bickle, Sir.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber
Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as are the fundamental principles of mathematics.
Only if they obey the laws of logic, otherwise that is a truly absurd statement.
And don't think that that is an unbiblical proposition, because didn't our Lord say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? Contradiction leads to confusion and ultimately destruction. The embracing of contradiction (euphemistically 'paradox') is nihilistic. Furthermore, we are called to understand - Proverbs 4:7.
Therefore if the RC Magisterium contains contradiction, then it cannot stand. In fact, any body of truth claims that relies heavily on mere assertion and appeals to authority is clearly illegitimate, because truth claims can only be validated as truth by means of a consonance with reality. A truth claim without this support can still be accepted, but only with a resigned shrug of the shoulders: "So what? So X is true, but since X bears no relation to reality, is impossible to apply, possesses no logical coherence, then I guess I'll believe it out of fear of being branded a heretic, but frankly what's the point?" Such a concept of 'belief' is meaningless; a mere badge of conformity and nothing else.
Devoid of understanding and rational support, theology is as dead as Richard Dawkins claims it is. And that is what theology would be like if we just accepted truth claims on ecclesiastical authority alone. It's the ultimate intellectual cop out.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Double negative. I do see matters of faith as uncertain. Therefore not talking to me. Fine.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well I challenge your challenge. I think what you are saying is that genuine unrestfulness must originate from within a group.
I disagree, partly because it would be so hard to define groups objectively as to make it meaningless as a definition in practice - in fact already in your list I can spot someone I'd define as "not us" given half a change but whose postings I still read and find challenging - and unrestful.
(Then again maybe a neologism like unrestful that can mean whatever we want is meaningless to start with?). And partly because real provocative challenge is probably more likely from outside a group than from inside.
Unrest is only truly within. You cannot challenge my beliefs if I do not listen. I cannot challenge my beliefs if I do not listen.
--------------------
Us and them can be fluid, yes. I might be us in one discussion and them in another.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is neither opinion nor speculation, it is solid conviction.
Not in English it ain't.
The Oxford Dictionary of English on my Mac has
faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Your faith is your conviction. Your faith says that it has the Truth in fullness. But I'm with Paul (and Boogie) that in this world we see "through a mirror, dimly", even so the popes and the theologians. Even you. Your mirror might be more clear than that of others, but a little humility on your part might not come amiss.
Neither I, nor my Church, claim to have Divine Truth in fullness. Unless you mean that in the sense that we "have" Jesus Christ, who is Divine Truth in fullness. My Church claims to have received and kept the fullness of Divine revelation, and to have stayed true to it in slowly developing her teachings out of that, which is a different thing. And in a way not much appreciated in these parts I am quite humble about what I dare to say about Divine Truth. On SoF this becomes the accusation that I do not think for myself, but slavishly follow the RCC. However, I do have faith as St Paul defines it in Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I make no excuses for that.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You are fully convicted that God rejects some people. I am fully convicted that he doesn't reject anybody. I don't think it would be easy to decide who is more convicted.
This is not a competition on strength of conviction though. And in the actual thread, your quote is not the sum total of my statement. Far from it. It is the first sentence in an entire paragraph of argument why I am right and you are wrong! So as a matter of fact, this wasn't even some pure expression of faith. Rather I was considering this as something to be argued from things we both believe in. Whether that was successful or not, this just is no example of some kind of pure statement of indisputable faith. And you will find it quite difficult to find such, because boy, do I love to dispute things...
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But ultimately, neither of us know with the certainty of 2+2=5 that God does or doesn't reject people. Which is why, for that kind of discussion, I think it's more helpful for convictions (even strong ones) to be framed in 'opinion' language rather than 'fact' language.
And I don't think so, where that obscures the certainties that I do have.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You turn on me, but then I am NOT the one claiming to be a "serious debater". You are. I am quite willing to accept that I can be an emotional ratbag on these boards, and many times I have been and still am. You are the one who superciliously claims to be above all emotion. But clearly you are as much of a ratbag as I am.
Except that I have never claimed to be "above all emotions"; rather, that's what I get accused of. All I have said is that I'm not usually much interested in the emotional states and personal lives of other debaters during discussions in Purg. In return, I do not expect or even wish people there to be interested in my emotional state or personal life. As for being a "serious debater", well I try. Not without success, if comments on this thread are something to go by. However, it has been made crystal clear on several occasions by H&As that "serious debate" here does not mean to strike words like "bullshit" from one's vocabulary. Rest assured, if the rules change on that I will not find it hard at all to change the way I speak. Till then I will however enjoy calling bullshit bullshit.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He'd enjoy the discussions far more as they wouldn't descend into the personal anything like as often or as quickly.
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?
Perhaps - or perhaps not ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber
Scripture and the sensus patrum (or for Ingo, the RC Magisterium) are fully as trustworthy regarding matters of faith as are the fundamental principles of mathematics.
Only if they obey the laws of logic, otherwise that is a truly absurd statement.
And don't think that that is an unbiblical proposition, because didn't our Lord say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"? Contradiction leads to confusion and ultimately destruction. The embracing of contradiction (euphemistically 'paradox') is nihilistic.
Wait, so it's nihilistic to believe that God is one and three? To believe that Jesus is human and divine? To believe that in consuming bread and wine at the Eucharist we are receiving Christ's Body and Blood?
Many of the faith's fundamental tenets are apparent contradictions. Outside of those (which are common to many Christians), I can't think of anything the Magisterium teaches that contradicts itself.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?
And this, mdijon, illustrates why I do not consider IngoB unrestful.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: But I am making an effort to understand you. That's where those "long, logical answers with lots of quotes and examples" come from.
I find it difficult to see how a llawloqae dismissing everything you think I've said constitutes an effort to try to understand me.
Especially when I reply to your llawloqae with "I don't think you understood me. Here's what I've been trying to say," and you just do it again. I think there are better ways to try to understand someone you're debating with.
After you arrived on the Ship 9 years ago, when I was still relatively fresh too, I tried to have a discussion with you, I think it was about a topic related to Theoretical Physics. I was interested in hearing what you'd have to say about a thought of mine, but I never succeeded to hear it, because you were constantly busy trying to dismiss what you thought I said.
quote:
IngoB: Perhaps I am in fact too dumb to understand you. So what? I do not feel guilty about being dumb.
That's true, but since this is Hell, I'd like to register that I'm growing a bit tired with a number of Shipmates parroting eachother about what a 'superior intellect' you have. I'm not in that crowd.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Here's a thought: perhaps after nine years of posting over a thousand sizeable posts per year, perhaps I have pretty much worked what I can get from this place and how to best get it?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this, mdijon, illustrates why I do not consider IngoB unrestful.
And I have sympathy with that view. Put simply, he pisses you off by being arrogant and so you experience no real engagement of ideas or discussion because you don't get past the arrogance. Fair enough.
However if one can ignore that, there is still the potential for provoking unrest. But you may find it more conducive to get it elsewhere. Fair enough again. But this is all nothing to do with orthodoxy.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Put simply, he pisses you off by being arrogant and so you experience no real engagement of ideas or discussion because you don't get past the arrogance. Fair enough.
Not quite. One can learn from any source. Not that arrogance warms my heart, but it is not inherently and impediment.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
However if one can ignore that, there is still the potential for provoking unrest. But you may find it more conducive to get it elsewhere. Fair enough again. But this is all nothing to do with orthodoxy.
He does provoke unrest, but I do not see him as unrestful. Orthodox is as tricky a word as unrest. Perhaps I should not have used it, given how many here use apply it.
What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest. Not that he is the only such person here, but he is the one being questioned on this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Seems to me that "I feel this is true in my heart" is a proposition far less open to critical examination than "This was what the Bible says."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What's the difference?
I feel in my heart that when the people who wrote the Bible say God says commit genocide, their consciousness is predominantly the product of their barely evolved culture.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Was it Martin Luther who said "We are no better than our fathers?"
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He does provoke unrest, but I do not see him as unrestful. Orthodox is as tricky a word as unrest. Perhaps I should not have used it, given how many here use apply it. What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest. Not that he is the only such person here, but he is the one being questioned on this thread.
It seems to me you don't have an understanding of orthodox believers. People who grow up and remain in their faith often question the reasons for their belief in order to gain a better unerstanding. Converts often come to an orthodox faith precisely through a process of questioning and I would think IngoB is a perfect example of that.
You're judging people's quality of "unrest" after they've arrived at the answers because you do not like the answers they've found. I came to Jesus Christ so I could have life everlasting, not so I could wallow perpetually in your definition of self-referential "unrest".
[ 03. December 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: Pancho ]
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He does provoke unrest, but I do not see him as unrestful. Orthodox is as tricky a word as unrest. Perhaps I should not have used it, given how many here use apply it. What I meant was I do not see IngoB as very questioning of official RCC viewpoints. If you've no room for questions, you've no room for unrest. Not that he is the only such person here, but he is the one being questioned on this thread.
It seems to me you don't have an understanding of orthodox believers. People who grow up and remain in their faith often question the reasons for their belief in order to gain a better unerstanding. Converts often come to an orthodox faith precisely through a process of questioning and I would think IngoB is a perfect example of that.
You're judging people's quality of "unrest" after they've arrived at the answers because you do not like the answers they've found. I came to Jesus Christ so I could have life everlasting, not so I could wallow perpetually in your definition of self-referential "unrest".
Hear hear.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So finding genocide utterly evil is the same as finding it good.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
What I find is that calling other cultures "barely evolved" has more in common with the genocidal impulse than you will probably admit.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Erm. May I interrupt this dis-IngpB-fest to ask what "llawloqae" means?
I googled it- no luck. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erm. May I interrupt this dis-IngpB-fest to ask what "llawloqae" means?
I googled it- no luck.
"long, logical answers with lots of quotes and examples"
Took me a minute too.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
