CO CO Constantine

1246713

Comments

  • I'm reminded of the definition of a fanatic as one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    @Steve Langton
    Imagine a RL discussion. There are a few people in the group. One person simply gives long monologues of his view. He doesn’t listen at all. When someone else is speaking he simply spends the time deciding what to say next. Then he picks up one sentence as a hook for his next long, dreary, repetitive speech.

    That person is you.
  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    There was a discussion about a zillion posts ago about whether being aspie affected something. There's a new aspie/autism private discussion board - SupAut - for those that are. This is a public service announcement and please forgive me if it's been made already - I can't be faffed to check all the pages of discussion
  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    PS the contact is Jacobsen
  • Are you really sure you want to be told how all Aspies think?
  • Again, not the thread for that particular discussion...
  • Are you really sure you want to be told how all Aspies think?

    I agree with DT that this is not the thread for that discussion; but as regards your implication at my expense, if there is one thing I do know about Aspies it is that at 'high-functioning' level we are immensely variable.
  • 'Medicalisation' of ethical problems has a fairly powerful exculpatory effect and is therefore attractive to people for obvious reasons.
  • PalimpsestPalimpsest Shipmate Posts: 6
    Where'd be the fun in that?

    Seriously, I will try harder in future.

    If not now, when?
  • I think the (or perhaps more accurately a) problem here is that we collectively are never going to be able to address the issues Steve thinks are important to talk about in a way that satisfies him, so at least as far as he is concerned it is an unresolved and ongoing discussion.

    That's the problem at root: one of vocabulary. Few of us have a whole lot of grasp of much Anabaptist thought. Even those of us who have, we've obviously not taken it to heart in the way that Steve has, and thus we lack the tools to engage on the level that he thinks we ought to engage.

    Most of us do not see the association of religion and power in the always-negative way that Steve sees it. Most of us bump along tutting or condemning excesses when we see them but generally believing that it is possible to use the levers of power constructively and honestly as Christians (and/or as any other religious). Most of us do not think that Islam can only honestly lead to Islamic State or Wahabbism - because I suspect we know Muslims ourselves and we don't want to believe that our peaceful neighbours are inevitable proto-terrorists simply because Steve says that they must be.

    In essence, Steve wants to understand the broad sweeping religious-political-historical context by placing people and things into tiny boxes of his own creation and is only able to sustain a conversation when those boundaries and boxes are implicitly accepted.

    Given that almost nobody does, the discussion usually goes nowhere.
  • Adroit analysis, mr cheesy.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    I also was thinking that there is something very comic-tragic about the way Steve expresses his views in discussion. On the one hand it appears that in his own mind he is being entirely logical. Like a few other posters we've seen over the years, Steve appears to believe that if everyone else would just stop messing about (in his case, stop messing about with all that unnecessary liturgical pompery and nonsense) and read their bibles properly, every right-minded person would think like he does. Hence the insistence that he must be correct unless someone else can point out a fatal flaw in his reasoning.

    Put together with the ultra-selective engagement with other posts and regular performances of the Dunning–Kruger effect, Steve is a noble Quixotic knight - wearing the weakest and rustiest armour of a theology he has largely patched together himself and charging at windmills thinking that they're giants.

    It has been an amusement for a while to try to get the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance to realise that his quest is a delusion. For a longer time it has been a frustration as he bombs from one topic to another with his curved spear and broken sword and lack of ability that he believes makes his views impenetrable.

    But it really is time to let him rant away in his own delusion about his lady Dulcina del Tobosco, whose matchless beauty only he appreciates and who everyone else simply sees as a washerwoman.

    Put down your weapons oh noble Knight Don Quixote de la Mancha, for your quest is finished and it is time for you to go back to bed.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Are you really sure you want to be told how all Aspies think?

    I agree with DT that this is not the thread for that discussion; but as regards your implication at my expense, if there is one thing I do know about Aspies it is that at 'high-functioning' level we are immensely variable.

    Then start a thread about that and say something interesting for a change.

  • Palimpsest wrote: »
    Where'd be the fun in that?

    Seriously, I will try harder in future.

    If not now, when?

    Now.

    I've been away for a few days with limited internet access.

    I've taken one look at Steve's posts here since I've been away and also at his new Purgatory thread and thought, 'Yikes!'

    Engaging with him on this topic seems even more futile than it did when I started the thread. I should have known better.

    Mr Cheesy has nailed it. Quixotic Mr Langton is tilting at windmills with his home-spun, largely home-made theology which appears to simply consist of a few selective quotes from hither and yon with a bit of Tyndale and one or two other heavy-weights to give a semblance of wider reading.

    The only saving grace is that he is at least confining his Quixotic jousts to this thread and to the current church-state thread in Purgatory.

    That keeps him from ruining other threads with his tunnel-vision and simplistic myopic ramblings ...

    As for me, Callan and Palimpsest are right. I risk becoming a monster myself.

    A sadder and a wiser man I will awake the morrow morn ...

    I know ... I know ... I've said that before. 'But like a dog returning to its own vomit ...'

    I've lost the stomach this time.
  • by mr cheesy;
    Most of us do not think that Islam can only honestly lead to Islamic State or Wahabbism - because I suspect we know Muslims ourselves and we don't want to believe that our peaceful neighbours are inevitable proto-terrorists simply because Steve says that they must be.

    My view is not quite that simplistic; I'll hopefully shortly be responding to similar comment by Eutychus on the state religion thread and that should clarify things for you....

  • My view is not quite that simplistic; I'll hopefully shortly be responding to similar comment by Eutychus on the state religion thread and that should clarify things for
    you....

    You seem to forget that we've all heard your thought on this matter before.

    The one thing that can be said about your thoughts on Islam is that they are simplistic.

  • The one thing that can be said about Steve Langton's thoughts on [insert topic of choice] is that they are simplistic.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate

    I know ... I know ... I've said that before. 'But like a dog returning to its own vomit ...'

    I've lost the stomach this time.
    The one thing that can be said about Steve Langton's thoughts on [insert topic of choice] is that they are simplistic.

    That didn't take long.
  • Sorry ...

    But it's true though, isn't it?

    Probably doesn't need saying, mind.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Either you stop responding to him, or you don't.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Either you stop responding to him, or you don't.

    It's both/and Eutychus ;)
  • I think some people here are confusing the concepts 'simple' and 'simplistic'. My responses are simple because they are the result of a lot of thinking revealing that the answer is actually quite straightforward. GG's efforts appear much more complex - but are simplistic in the sense that they are little more than an attempt to sit simultaneously on every possible fence without actually coming to any concrete conclusion.
  • I think some people here are confusing the concepts 'simple' and 'simplistic'. My responses are simple because they are the result of a lot of thinking revealing that the answer is actually quite straightforward.

    Speaking only for myself, I know the difference between simple and simplistic. And I think your explanations are simplistic because most of the time they are wrong.

    That you've done lots of thinking is irrelevant. It is still simplistic and wrong.
    GG's efforts appear much more complex - but are simplistic in the sense that they are little more than an attempt to sit simultaneously on every possible fence without actually coming to any concrete conclusion.

    I'm not talking about Gamaliel I'm talking about you. Whatever anyone else might do, your explanations are simplistic because you seek to reduce things that are complicated into categories that "sit well" in your mind - and then make sweeping generalised statements based on those categories and conclusions.

    That's what I mean by simplistic: over-reduced to the point of being wrong.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    My responses are simple because they are the result of a lot of thinking revealing that the answer is actually quite straightforward.

    No. Your answers are not simple, because if they were simple they would be clearly expressed. Your answers are simplistic, because they refuse to climb any higher than the bonsai-tree of your chosen paradigm.

    Clearly, you do not conceptualize the limitations of your arguments, because of your own inherent limitations. You, sir, are an idiot.
  • And an idiot who fails to appreciate the significance of the things he has written no less.

    Either lacking in self-awareness or really really stupid. Probably both.
  • PalimpsestPalimpsest Shipmate Posts: 6
    Sorry ...

    But it's true though, isn't it?

    Probably doesn't need saying, mind.

    It needs saying as much as we need Steve to write an even longer response on a subject everyone doesn't want to hear about on a thread.

    Why don't you stop talking about Steve, his motivations and his posts. Don't use your statement that you're ashamed of your postings and in the same post go on about Steve.

    Just stop talking. And by Now that doesn't mean tommorrow after another dozen posts that you believe are true.
  • Is there a proper/clever term for associating oneself intellectually with a concept - to the extent that you've persuaded yourself that there is no other correct way to understand (in this case) scripture - whilst at the same time showing absolutely no grounding in the thinking and tradition behind that idea?

    Also is that any different to simply making up your own religion and then getting annoyed when others don't recognise the truth of it?
  • Mr Smiff wrote: »

    To go claiming to be able to tell Muslims what the problem with their religion and its relationship to the state seems to me to be somewhat arrogant and more likely to hinder, rather than help make progress.

    The simple dichotomy is that Steve appears to think that the only correct understanding of Mohammed is to create an oppressive Islamic state whereas the only correct understanding of Christianity is a neo-anabaptist paradise.

    Showing Steve that other Muslims who exist who don't think this about Islam makes no difference - obviously they know less about their religion than he does.

    Conversely, the existence of a Constantinian tendancy within Christianity does not tip the whole religion into the category of "bad" because it is obvious that such Christians have just misread the plain teachings of the Bible.

    There is a constant theme here: the root and truth of both religions is what Steve says it is.



  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    I have given up on the Purg thread for now because Steve is making less and less sense to me.

    However, I think this is a good insight:
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    The simple dichotomy is that Steve appears to think that the only correct understanding of Mohammed is to create an oppressive Islamic state whereas the only correct understanding of Christianity is a neo-anabaptist paradise.
    My similar thought, which your comment crystallised for me, was that Steve was criticising the millenarian aspects of Islam whilst simultaneously advancing a millenarian form of anabaptism (which ironically, is what happened at Munster, of course).

  • Steve would have been much happier in 17th century England, then he'd have every opportunity to shout "Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
  • I think some people here are confusing the concepts 'simple' and 'simplistic'. My responses are simple because they are the result of a lot of thinking revealing that the answer is actually quite straightforward. GG's efforts appear much more complex - but are simplistic in the sense that they are little more than an attempt to sit simultaneously on every possible fence without actually coming to any concrete conclusion.

    Here's a fence I've climbed down from. I agree with Eutychus that you are making less and less sense. I agree with Rook that you do not or cannot conceptualise the limitations of your arguments. I agree with mr cheesy that you are either really really stupid or lacking in self-awareness or both.

    I'm not the only one who does both/and ...

    Steve is both stupid and lacking in self awareness.

    @Palimpsest - fair challenge. Perhaps I'm doing the South Walian 'now in a minute' thing ...

    My bad.

    I don't mind Steve posting on threads set up specifically to discuss church/state relations or the C-word, nor posting here in Hell. It's when it leaks out onto other threads that it gets my goat.

    And yes, I share the blame for responding to him. 'No man is an island ...'

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    @Palimpsest - fair challenge. Perhaps I'm doing the South Walian 'now in a minute' thing ...

    My bad.
    The irony, it burns.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    @Palimpsest - fair challenge. Perhaps I'm doing the South Walian 'now in a minute' thing ...

    My bad.
    The irony, it burns.

    Call Steve what you like, but at least he doesn't write over a hundred words saying how apologetic he is for submitting the post he's currently fucking writing. :disappointed: :angry: :unamused:
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I say we quit all the talking and we burn Münster again.
  • Ok, Marvin, I overdid the apologies ... whilst putting the boot in ...

    What say we ask Steve Langton to apologise for Munster?

    Heck, various Popes have apologised for the Inquisition and the Crusades.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    What say we ask Steve Langton to apologise for Munster?
    You really can't stop, can you?
  • Ye gods, Gam you don't help yourself.

  • Gamaliel, why not just assume that Jesus has allotted Steve to be your roommate in eternity, and start praying for him/learning to put up with him?
  • They say hell is other people. That thought almost makes me feel sorry for [insert name]
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    They say hell is other people. That thought almost makes me feel sorry for [insert name]
    They say hell is other people. That thought almost makes me feel sorry for [insert name]

    The "they" is Sartre - " Les Mouches" from memory.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Your memory is faulty. It's in Les jeux sont faits (translated as The Chips are Down): l'enfer, c'est les autres.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks - close on 50 years since I read it.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    No excuse for not checking your sources. It's over 30 years since I read either.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Your memory is faulty. It's in Les jeux sont faits (translated as The Chips are Down): l'enfer, c'est les autres.

    Be nice if you could fully translate or explain as some of us have zero French.
  • I decided that since the quote in question has actually been stated, in English (Hell is other people) by Alan, that I was going to give a pass on having to do it again.

    DT
    HH
  • Mr SmiffMr Smiff Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Your memory is faulty. It's in Les jeux sont faits (translated as The Chips are Down): l'enfer, c'est les autres.

    Be nice if you could fully translate or explain as some of us have zero French.

    The translation was given in Alan's post above*: "Hell is other people".

    * I presume; I don't speak French either...
  • Oh I see. That makes more sense.
  • Gamaliel, why not just assume that Jesus has allotted Steve to be your roommate in eternity, and start praying for him/learning to put up with him?

    Ma'am, you have given the best description of Hell since Dante's Inferno ...

    An eternity of Steve Langton banging on about Constantine and church-state connections?!

    That would be as Hellish as him having to put up with 'both/and' and my legendary buttock-callousing fence-sitting.

    We would both suffer the torments of the damned ...

    As it happens, I have come off the fence on certain issues in real life (only to be advised to climb back onto it again for the time being). Let the reader understand.

    FWIW though, I do feel somewhat shamefaced about my recent posts and in particularly my unprovoked attack on Karl which earned me a Hell Call.

    I know that doesn't make amends but I will try to do better in future.

    Yes, yes, I know I've said that before ...

    I'd be happy to share a room in Heaven with Steve Langton. By then we'll be so astonished at the grace and mercy of the Almighty that we won't have time to consider anything else.

    Here on earth it behoves me to prepare for that and to cut him some slack. That might sound all po-faced and pietistic but yes, Lamb Chopped, there is much in what you say.

    Peace be to all.


  • So what does Steve believe - answers in a postcard.

    My belief is that he's just accepted a collection of some theological sounding ideas that that have very little resemblance to anything that anyone who belongs to the Anabaptist tradition actually believes.

    Things are right or wrong because he says so. That's it.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Things are right or wrong because he says so. That's it.
    Indeed. Lloyd-Jones "got it wrong", Packer "got it wrong". If only they'd read Steve's blog! Disagree with them one might (and Packer's life's work was to redynamise the institutional, established church, was it not?) but at least they have a life lived out according to their lights to show for it.

    Steve it's relatively easy to pontificate on a blog. It's a lot harder to go out and do things. Nobody is going to listen to why you think you've got it right unless you can not only set out, simply and concisely, what you think "right" involves doing and point to some people doing it with practical real-life results.

This discussion has been closed.