Actually, my only real problem with Martin is when he asserts his opinions as incontrovertible facts. I like the odd poetry and the quirkiness. A little humility in the mix and I'd be good with him.
Actually, my only real problem with Martin is when he asserts his opinions as incontrovertible facts. I like the odd poetry and the quirkiness. A little humility in the mix and I'd be good with him.
And his apologies mean nothing at all - true contrition causes us to change our behaviour. He never does.
His apologies are just like his posts, meaningless. He may feel some contrition in the moment, but he never acts on it.
The gospels say that if you offend your brother then seek reconciliation with them (Matt 5: 23-24). But they don't envisage that reconciliation being cast back into your teeth.
The gospels say that if you offend your brother then seek reconciliation with them (Matt 5: 23-24). But they don't envisage that reconciliation being cast back into your teeth.
Reconciliation does not mean saying ‘I apologise’ then going on exactly as before.
Well, apparently Martin still seems to think he is all-knowing and can speak for everyone, as he has announced that the idea that Gethsemane was necessary to reconcile God to humanity "doesn't work in any coherent way for... anyone now." (Ellipses his.)
Coherent is the word. It certainly works for a vast number of people. It works for me. But coherently? If it's predicated on Eden, original sin? Which is incoherent, unreal, not true. Gethsemane was not necessary for God to forgive - what does He have to forgive? We psychologically need forgiveness, not truly morally, not for God's 'mercy' beyond 'justice' in any sense. We need to say sorry, be sorry, atone, start again and again, fail better at best. Divine justice is not a concept I understand or see the need for. In truth and reconciliation, there is no justice. In transcendence there is restitution for all lack, for all irreversible cul-de-sacs of development, for all loss, and life is loss.
The vast majority, if not all of mankind is ignorant of Gethsemane and the rest ignorant in it. Surely? Axiomatically? Rationally? If Gethsemane reconciles any to God, I'm glad. It does for me too. In swirling, turbulent chaos including that of Jesus' own fully human mind at the time. If it's calm and clear for others, I envy that.
Well, apparently Martin still seems to think he is all-knowing and can speak for everyone, as he has announced that the idea that Gethsemane was necessary to reconcile God to humanity "doesn't work in any coherent way for... anyone now." (Ellipses his.)
Coherent is the word. It certainly works for a vast number of people. It works for me. But coherently? If it's predicated on Eden, original sin? Which is incoherent, unreal, not true. Gethsemane was not necessary for God to forgive - what does He have to forgive? We psychologically need forgiveness, not truly morally, not for God's 'mercy' beyond 'justice' in any sense. We need to say sorry, be sorry, atone, start again and again, fail better at best. Divine justice is not a concept I understand or see the need for. In truth and reconciliation, there is no justice. In transcendence there is restitution for all lack, for all irreversible cul-de-sacs of development, for all loss, and life is loss.
The vast majority, if not all of mankind is ignorant of Gethsemane and the rest ignorant in it. Surely? Axiomatically? Rationally? If Gethsemane reconciles any to God, I'm glad. It does for me too. In swirling, turbulent chaos including that of Jesus' own fully human mind at the time. If it's calm and clear for others, I envy that.
What should I say?
Well, you could start with recognizing that “incoherent” does not mean “unreal” or “untrue.”
Then you could go with something that qualifies your answer appropriately:
“ . . . doesn’t work for me anymore.”
“ . . . doesn’t work for lots of people anymore.”
“ . . . I don’t see how it can work for anyone anymore.”
What you don’t need to do is purport to speak for everyone.
The gospels say that if you offend your brother then seek reconciliation with them (Matt 5: 23-24). But they don't envisage that reconciliation being cast back into your teeth.
Yes. But we’ve gotten this same apology for years, yet nothing changes. Is that really seeking reconciliation?
The next time someone leaves or threatens to do so, I hope everyone is equally as effusive as they are to them in asking them to stay, as they are to Martin here
I'm going to be less effusive. Unless you actually want to contribute meaningfully to discussion, please feel free.
I never follow anyone's instructions until I am able to trust them implicitly. I must therefore, with regret, decline your kind invitation
The next time someone leaves or threatens to do so, I hope everyone is equally as effusive as they are to them in asking them to stay, as they are to Martin here
I'm going to be less effusive. Unless you actually want to contribute meaningfully to discussion, please feel free.
I never follow anyone's instructions until I am able to trust them implicitly. I must therefore, with regret, decline your kind invitation
The invitation was to Martin. I was suggesting you were being excessively effusive towards him.
The next time someone leaves or threatens to do so, I hope everyone is equally as effusive as they are to them in asking them to stay, as they are to Martin here
I'm going to be less effusive. Unless you actually want to contribute meaningfully to discussion, please feel free.
I never follow anyone's instructions until I am able to trust them implicitly. I must therefore, with regret, decline your kind invitation
The invitation was to Martin. I was suggesting you were being excessively effusive towards him.
Well I was suggesting that everyone else was going over the top with him in a manner they never would with anyone else who threatens to leave. Your comment "unless you …. contribute meaningfully to the discussion" was sent to me, not Martin. It rather suggested that I wasn't really contributing and that I should leave.
Can't I be Gary in Old Harry's Game? Of course I'd rather appear righteous than be so, as that's far more important in socialization. My left hand had to know.
...and shitting all over the whole forum. I'm really tired of your vanity, Martin, but I'm lonely and I keep coming back on here for a bit of interaction when circumstances make that difficult in RL. Well, time to be off and read a book.
...and shitting all over the whole forum. I'm really tired of your vanity, Martin, but I'm lonely and I keep coming back on here for a bit of interaction when circumstances make that difficult in RL. Well, time to be off and read a book.
Because you appear to have inexplicably adopted the "let's get it all over with" mantra.
Plus, it must be said, a side order of your more idiosyncratic self-flagellation at the hands of others: "I'll suffer horribly with the rest of them as a result of No Deal but at least it will be the uneducated masses' fault I'm suffering, not mine".
Start making more whole sentences again and stop being so dystopian. It doesn't wear well on you.
...and shitting all over the whole forum. I'm really tired of your vanity, Martin, but I'm lonely and I keep coming back on here for a bit of interaction when circumstances make that difficult in RL. Well, time to be off and read a book.
It's all your mate.
Yours. 'strewth. Sorry for any Freudian slip.
And E, the mantra follows from the denial of the majority vote. It's that simple. Screeds of seemingly patrician, noble, principled attempts to justify that are no less immoral and futile.
I am sorry @Arethosemyfeet for your concern for your wife's medication and therefore for my last remark and anything and everything I have said to worsen your concern.
I am sorry @Arethosemyfeet for your concern for your wife's medication and therefore for my last remark and anything and everything I have said to worsen your concern.
That might be a clear and concise sentence, but it is a rotten apology..
I am sorry @Arethosemyfeet for your concern for your wife's medication and therefore for my last remark and anything and everything I have said to worsen your concern.
That might be a clear and concise sentence, but it is a rotten apology..
I am sorry @Arethosemyfeet for your concern for your wife's medication and therefore for my last remark and anything and everything I have said to worsen your concern.
That might be a clear and concise sentence, but it is a rotten apology..
Tell me what to say.
Have we another aquatic mammal? Or a close relation.
Well, apparently Martin still seems to think he is all-knowing and can speak for everyone, as he has announced that the idea that Gethsemane was necessary to reconcile God to humanity "doesn't work in any coherent way for... anyone now." (Ellipses his.)
Coherent is the word. It certainly works for a vast number of people. It works for me. But coherently? If it's predicated on Eden, original sin? Which is incoherent, unreal, not true. Gethsemane was not necessary for God to forgive - what does He have to forgive? We psychologically need forgiveness, not truly morally, not for God's 'mercy' beyond 'justice' in any sense. We need to say sorry, be sorry, atone, start again and again, fail better at best. Divine justice is not a concept I understand or see the need for. In truth and reconciliation, there is no justice. In transcendence there is restitution for all lack, for all irreversible cul-de-sacs of development, for all loss, and life is loss.
The vast majority, if not all of mankind is ignorant of Gethsemane and the rest ignorant in it. Surely? Axiomatically? Rationally? If Gethsemane reconciles any to God, I'm glad. It does for me too. In swirling, turbulent chaos including that of Jesus' own fully human mind at the time. If it's calm and clear for others, I envy that.
What should I say?
Well, you could start with recognizing that “incoherent” does not mean “unreal” or “untrue.”
Then you could go with something that qualifies your answer appropriately:
“ . . . doesn’t work for me anymore.”
“ . . . doesn’t work for lots of people anymore.”
“ . . . I don’t see how it can work for anyone anymore.”
What you don’t need to do is purport to speak for everyone.
The gospels say that if you offend your brother then seek reconciliation with them (Matt 5: 23-24). But they don't envisage that reconciliation being cast back into your teeth.
Yes. But we’ve gotten this same apology for years, yet nothing changes. Is that really seeking reconciliation?
70 x 7 years? No nothing changes Nick. Not on anyone's side. Is that really seeking reconciliation? Not here. Not by anyone who has taken offence. Offensively. Apart from yourself in which we have a more dynamic relationship, actually have mutual goodwill despite our natures. You know that you have forced me to change tack when you can't take it any more. And you have accepted that I have. I revert. Like EVERYONE else here.
Incoherent does mean unreal and untrue. And I do speak for everyone. To the degree that everyone has rationality that can be invoked alone. As the predicate. Not as slave to the passions. As it is in God. Who creates rationally. Forever. From eternity. Who incarnates rationally. Everywhere. For infinity. Who does not damn us. Rationally. Who does not need to exercise mercy on us. Rationally. If you need to worship a God who damns, as I have, a God who needs His only begotten (but not eternally begotten of course) (human) Son to die for us in some legal exchange, I understand, I've been there. Those are childish things. Mere projection.
Sorry, it - damnationism and/or the scandal of particularity - is not true, regardless. Without apology.
And of course I delude myself if I think that my rationalism is not slave to my passions. But one of the passions is for rationalism. Is struggling for faith in the face of meaninglessly ordered existence.
If you can't be rational, I accept your unspoken apology. If you can't be forgiving, I forgive you. Whoever you are. At least we all have hypocrisy and self deceit above all in common.
Much as I like this 5-ingredient list, I think a 6th ingredient is (at least sometimes, perhaps even often) needed: sincere expression of attempts to avoid a repeat of the offense.
There is an interesting rabbinic definition of repentance. How do you know when you have truly repented? When you find yourself in the same situation, but this time you do not sin.
Well, that was a delayed response Martin. A predictable one, but delayed all the same.
I have no problem with your desire or need for rationality, Martin. None at all, though I question both whether you’re really as rational as you think—regarding this post and the ones leading up to it, there’s nothing at all rational in stating with the utmost certainty that you know exactly how to explain a situation you’ve only read a brief description of on the internet—and whether there’s a sort of fundamentalism (and lots hyper-reaction to “damnationism” and “the killer God” that seems to trump your rationalism) going on.
No, my problem is your complete lack of respect for others, demonstrated time and time again—most recently with Lamb Chopped in the post referenced above. You seem to have the idea that if it doesn’t fit your experience or your imagination, it can’t possibly be real. As a result, you tell others over and over that you understand their experiences and their situations better than they do themselves, even when it’s clear that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
And even though you’ve demonstrated that you can post quite coherently and cogently, you persist in posts that expect the rest of us to try and figure out what the hell you’re talking about. Just another way of showing a lack of respect for others.
I get that you’re dealing with lots of baggage. Eutychus and Rublev have shown the patience of Job in continuing to engage with you, and I’m sure they’ve both earned stars for their crowns. I don’t have the patience anymore. Maybe one day I will again, but not until you stop being a complete jackass to other shipmates. I deal with enough jackasses in real life.
Oh, and how could I have forgotten your insistence that you speak for everyone, even people who specifically tell you that you don’t speak for them. Disrespect and arrogance, rolled up in one bloviating package of jackassery.
Comments
Stuff it.
And his apologies mean nothing at all - true contrition causes us to change our behaviour. He never does.
His apologies are just like his posts, meaningless. He may feel some contrition in the moment, but he never acts on it.
Reconciliation does not mean saying ‘I apologise’ then going on exactly as before.
Coherent is the word. It certainly works for a vast number of people. It works for me. But coherently? If it's predicated on Eden, original sin? Which is incoherent, unreal, not true. Gethsemane was not necessary for God to forgive - what does He have to forgive? We psychologically need forgiveness, not truly morally, not for God's 'mercy' beyond 'justice' in any sense. We need to say sorry, be sorry, atone, start again and again, fail better at best. Divine justice is not a concept I understand or see the need for. In truth and reconciliation, there is no justice. In transcendence there is restitution for all lack, for all irreversible cul-de-sacs of development, for all loss, and life is loss.
The vast majority, if not all of mankind is ignorant of Gethsemane and the rest ignorant in it. Surely? Axiomatically? Rationally? If Gethsemane reconciles any to God, I'm glad. It does for me too. In swirling, turbulent chaos including that of Jesus' own fully human mind at the time. If it's calm and clear for others, I envy that.
What should I say?
It is perfectly possible to speak and discuss in a calm and clear way without feeling that the subject matter is in the least bit calm or clear.
Many, many people have doubts and fears just as big as yours without confusing others.
You really are a piece of work aren't you?
Well, you could start with recognizing that “incoherent” does not mean “unreal” or “untrue.”
Then you could go with something that qualifies your answer appropriately:
“ . . . doesn’t work for me anymore.”
“ . . . doesn’t work for lots of people anymore.”
“ . . . I don’t see how it can work for anyone anymore.”
What you don’t need to do is purport to speak for everyone.
Yes. But we’ve gotten this same apology for years, yet nothing changes. Is that really seeking reconciliation?
I never follow anyone's instructions until I am able to trust them implicitly. I must therefore, with regret, decline your kind invitation
The invitation was to Martin. I was suggesting you were being excessively effusive towards him.
Well I was suggesting that everyone else was going over the top with him in a manner they never would with anyone else who threatens to leave. Your comment "unless you …. contribute meaningfully to the discussion" was sent to me, not Martin. It rather suggested that I wasn't really contributing and that I should leave.
Winner. Of. Entire. Thread.
There's the scroll wheel. Use it liberally.
Well, within limits...
And my apology for that.
You're more than entitled.
Why?
It's all your mate.
Because you appear to have inexplicably adopted the "let's get it all over with" mantra.
Plus, it must be said, a side order of your more idiosyncratic self-flagellation at the hands of others: "I'll suffer horribly with the rest of them as a result of No Deal but at least it will be the uneducated masses' fault I'm suffering, not mine".
Start making more whole sentences again and stop being so dystopian. It doesn't wear well on you.
Yours. 'strewth. Sorry for any Freudian slip.
And E, the mantra follows from the denial of the majority vote. It's that simple. Screeds of seemingly patrician, noble, principled attempts to justify that are no less immoral and futile.
Vanity.
You're standing on a mirror.
That might be a clear and concise sentence, but it is a rotten apology..
Tell me what to say.
Have we another aquatic mammal? Or a close relation.
This?
70 x 7 years? No nothing changes Nick. Not on anyone's side. Is that really seeking reconciliation? Not here. Not by anyone who has taken offence. Offensively. Apart from yourself in which we have a more dynamic relationship, actually have mutual goodwill despite our natures. You know that you have forced me to change tack when you can't take it any more. And you have accepted that I have. I revert. Like EVERYONE else here.
Incoherent does mean unreal and untrue. And I do speak for everyone. To the degree that everyone has rationality that can be invoked alone. As the predicate. Not as slave to the passions. As it is in God. Who creates rationally. Forever. From eternity. Who incarnates rationally. Everywhere. For infinity. Who does not damn us. Rationally. Who does not need to exercise mercy on us. Rationally. If you need to worship a God who damns, as I have, a God who needs His only begotten (but not eternally begotten of course) (human) Son to die for us in some legal exchange, I understand, I've been there. Those are childish things. Mere projection.
Sorry, it - damnationism and/or the scandal of particularity - is not true, regardless. Without apology.
And of course I delude myself if I think that my rationalism is not slave to my passions. But one of the passions is for rationalism. Is struggling for faith in the face of meaninglessly ordered existence.
If you can't be rational, I accept your unspoken apology. If you can't be forgiving, I forgive you. Whoever you are. At least we all have hypocrisy and self deceit above all in common.
Thanks. Saved.
Much as I like this 5-ingredient list, I think a 6th ingredient is (at least sometimes, perhaps even often) needed: sincere expression of attempts to avoid a repeat of the offense.
There is an interesting rabbinic definition of repentance. How do you know when you have truly repented? When you find yourself in the same situation, but this time you do not sin.
I have no problem with your desire or need for rationality, Martin. None at all, though I question both whether you’re really as rational as you think—regarding this post and the ones leading up to it, there’s nothing at all rational in stating with the utmost certainty that you know exactly how to explain a situation you’ve only read a brief description of on the internet—and whether there’s a sort of fundamentalism (and lots hyper-reaction to “damnationism” and “the killer God” that seems to trump your rationalism) going on.
No, my problem is your complete lack of respect for others, demonstrated time and time again—most recently with Lamb Chopped in the post referenced above. You seem to have the idea that if it doesn’t fit your experience or your imagination, it can’t possibly be real. As a result, you tell others over and over that you understand their experiences and their situations better than they do themselves, even when it’s clear that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
And even though you’ve demonstrated that you can post quite coherently and cogently, you persist in posts that expect the rest of us to try and figure out what the hell you’re talking about. Just another way of showing a lack of respect for others.
I get that you’re dealing with lots of baggage. Eutychus and Rublev have shown the patience of Job in continuing to engage with you, and I’m sure they’ve both earned stars for their crowns. I don’t have the patience anymore. Maybe one day I will again, but not until you stop being a complete jackass to other shipmates. I deal with enough jackasses in real life.
I'm not sure he is capable of answering any question with a straight 'Yes' or 'No'...
In this case, yep. It astounds me that minds immeasurably superior to mine in every way can't even play let's pretend.
Let alone do actual uniformitarianism. That's a concept to far I realise.
Try me.