Steve would point to Anabaptism as a, sorry, the form of Christianity that has avoided all trappings of this and is therefore the closest branch of Christianity to what Jesus intended.
But how does he actually back this up with evidence? Are the no abuse of power in anabaptist circles? I highly doubt that, humans being humans.
Steve would point to Anabaptism as a, sorry, the form of Christianity that has avoided all trappings of this and is therefore the closest branch of Christianity to what Jesus intended.
But how does he actually back this up with evidence? Are the no abuse of power in anabaptist circles? I highly doubt that, humans being humans.
Any group that has a set of rules and a mechanism for enforcing* those rules will be subject to abuse of power. Anabaptism meets those requirements.
*Yes, SL, the pressure of conformation and acceptance qualifies.
But how does he actually back this up with evidence? Are the no abuse of power in anabaptist circles? I highly doubt that, humans being humans.
Another idiot (sorry, but this is 'Hell' and I'm getting fed up of idiots) who thinks I'm claiming Anabaptists are inhumanly perfect. Yes, humans are humans and "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and yes Anabaptists can get things wrong too. Of course the consequences are likely to be a lot less lethal in bodies which are pacifist and believe in separating church and state rather than using state power for enforcing their rules even on outsiders. You surely aren't suggesting that abuse of power is nicer in, say, Islamic State circles...?? This is a trivial objection.
For crying out loud. Steve. We know what you believe. You have told us. Again and again and again. Now give a bloody rest will you?
Looking back, actually you show very little sign of knowing what I believe. I'm thinking of quite a load of points I've made which have been ignored and gone unanswered while people make great fuss (smokescreens?) about 'abuse of authority' or about Munster - an objection the making of which shows somebody didn't think before hitting the keyboard.
Especially in view of current news like IS, the state religion thing is not just a discussion point but something requiring urgent action - and you're clearly not listening to that bit at all. Sure, you'd like to go back to sleep on the issue and ignore that need to act. I don't see any way I can responsibly let you do that.
It might actually be your fault - well, not you personally, Doc Tor, but the others ducking points I raise.
For example, I've repeatedly pointed out that 'Constantinianism' does have implications for certain churches' authority claims. Theodosius' decision to make state and church effectively co-terminous (by the decision that everyone in his empire was to be a Christian) had the effect of changing the nature and definition of the Church - at that time one body that had not suffered the later split into RCC and Orthodox.
So when the church is no longer a kingdom not of this world composed of the 'born again', as described in Scripture, but supposedly consists of anyone and everyone born in a worldly empire - can that completely different, and worldly defined rather than scripturally defined, kind of church seriously have the authority in Scripture interpretation which the NT implies the NT's version of the Church has?
Posed this one several times, and it's hardly a minor issue - but nobody's answering; though they still keep chucking the usual crap at me no matter how many times I answer it (and if you're wondering why I occasionally 'disappear' there might be a connection there....).
Power corrupts, but the state is not the only source of power. Every organised entity, religion or otherwise, is susceptible. And all have and will again, abuse power. Even your Anabaptists.
@Steve Langton, I'm an agnostic atheist who thinks that humans need to collectively reject organized religion for the sake of improving society and civilization - and I'm totally fucking sick of hearing you post about Constantinianism. You make points poorly. Your obsession is so loathsome that you actively drive people to disagree with things that would otherwise be in their best interests. I'm pretty sure we could monetize your collected posts by selling it to CIA black sites as a form of torture.
How many different versions of shut up Shut Up SHUT UP SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUUUUUP!!! do you need to hear before you clue in?
I bumped into this Styx post when I first reappeared on the Ship, and thought Gamma Gamaliel was over-reacting. I just hadn't read enough posts to get the background of Steve Langton's OCDness on the topic. So now I'm with GG, send the poor old nag off to the knackers for a humane end.
Power corrupts, but the state is not the only source of power. Every organised entity, religion or otherwise, is susceptible. And all have and will again, abuse power. Even your Anabaptists.
1) I'm pretty sure I just said exactly that myself a few posts ago - and here you are saying it as if you were disagreeing with me??
Yes, any organisation can abuse power including Anabaptists; at least where mainstream Anabaptist principles are being followed their abuse of power will leave you with your head still attached to your body, unlike abuses by, say, IS; and Anabaptists don't run jails.
I repeat, since you don't seem to have got it yet, that I don't think Anabaptists are 'incorruptible', I do think they are human and fallible and can get it wrong. I know that they DO get it wrong at times. Still massively better than the religious alternatives....
2) And you quote my words
So how about answering that, somebody...?
and you don't even slightly mention that my 'that' is a specific question about a specific abuse of authority by specific churches which I'm asking them to answer. You treat it as if I'd asked a completely different question. How about answering the question I actually asked?
I'll be even more foolish and attempt to answer Steve's latest challenge.
Look, Steve. I know perfectly well what you believe. I do actually have sympathy with aspects of the Anabaptist position. That's not the issue. The issue is you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
Listen. We get that you are an Anabaptist. It's a position some of us have a lot of respect for. We'd have even more respect for it if you didn't keep banging on and on and on and on and on about it obsessively ...
Do I think that the current position with Orthodoxy in Russia is ideal, with the Patriarch as Putin's poodle? No, I don't.
Do I think that the CofE suffers to some extent from being the 'established church' here in England (but not the UK overall)? Yes, because it blunts its teeth and establishes in many people's minds as something simply to wheel out on royal occasions or for rites of passage - 'hatch, match and despatch.'
I accept all that.
Those are problems.
There would have been a whole different set of problems had the whole of Europe turned Anabaptist after the Reformation.
There are a whole different set of problems within Hutterite communities that you don't get outside such groups.
The Plymouth Brethren have a different set of problems to the Pentecostals say. The Orthodox have different issues in many respects to those of the Roman Catholics.
The Copts have different issues again no doubt ...
None of that is eliding issues, sweeping things under the carpet. It's simply to acknowledge that however we cut it there are problems within organised religions of all kinds. That applies, to varying degrees, across the board - irrespective of whether churches have state backing or not.
If organised religion disappeared tomorrow would the world be a better place? Some would say so. Would all the world's problems be automatically solved overnight if it did? I don't think even the staunchest atheist would believe it was that simple.
I repeat. I am writing a book a the moment which will be published by a company with strong Anabaptist roots. I don't have an issue with Anabaptists. What I have an issue with is you blarting on and on and on and on and on and on about it all the time ...
Can any of you get it through your skulls that the purpose of this thread, here in Hell, is surely not to discuss the merits and demerits of Anabaptism or Constantinianism?
At least it keeps Steve here and stops him from crapping all over Purgatory. Which, admittedly, isn't the purpose of Hell, but it's still a useful function.
So far we've ascertained that Steve things we're all in denial, and the only reason he brings up Constantine because we won't.
Is that an admission of Crusading? Because it sure sounds like one to me.
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen
Is he bloody crusadeeng?
Not for us to say lest we all get it wrong,
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen
Keeps banging on 'bout Constantine,
He doesn't leave it just keeps on and on ...
There was a Roman Emperor with a familiar name,
He cocked things up and buggered up,
We all know who to blame --
But when Steve Langton heard of him
he thought we should be told.
So he started posting and a roasting
until we all were bloody bored ...
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen,
The Ship Boards' biggest shit-machine
We can't stop him he just keeps crapping on.
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen
So obsessed with Constantine
He doesn't let he just keeps on and on and on ...
There was a Shippie called Gamaliel who cried, 'Give it a rest!'
I'm calling you to Hell my friend, to get it off my chest.'
But Steve Langton followed him down there, he wasn't letting go,
And bloody well went on and on -- saying nothing we don't know!
They trapped him and they poisoned him, they filled him full of lead.
They handed him to ISIS to chop off his fuckin' head,
They buried him in the deepest sea, they tied anchors round his legs,
But he only bobbed back up again as sure as eggs are eggs.
STEE-STEE Steve Langton,
The bugger just keeps on and on.
He's never ever going to give it a rest.
STEE-STEE Steve Langton,
OCD obsess--ion
With one Roman Emperor he's bloody obsessed.
Steve Langton won't you ever bloody give it a rest!!!
He who fights monsters, should beware of becoming a monster. And he who stares into the abyss should remember that the abyss, also stares into him. And he who goes after Steve Langton for having one tedious obsession....
It is becoming harder to tell Steve Langton and Gamma Gamaliel apart, since you both feel the need to dilute whatever point you are trying to make with gallons of liquid sewage verbiage. You are homeopaths of shit.
Let me help you distill your points, such as they are:
Steve Langton: Constantine Is Responsible For Islamic State! (helpfully abbreviated to CIRFIS. Simply post CIRFIS every time you feel the need to make this point for the millionth perseverating time.)
I'll be even more foolish and attempt to answer Steve's latest challenge.
Look, Steve. I know perfectly well what you believe. I do actually have sympathy with aspects of the Anabaptist position. That's not the issue. The issue is you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
Listen. We get that you are an Anabaptist. It's a position some of us have a lot of respect for. We'd have even more respect for it if you didn't keep banging on and on and on and on and on about it obsessively ...
Do I think that the current position with Orthodoxy in Russia is ideal, with the Patriarch as Putin's poodle? No, I don't.
Do I think that the CofE suffers to some extent from being the 'established church' here in England (but not the UK overall)? Yes, because it blunts its teeth and establishes in many people's minds as something simply to wheel out on royal occasions or for rites of passage - 'hatch, match and despatch.'
I accept all that.
Those are problems.
There would have been a whole different set of problems had the whole of Europe turned Anabaptist after the Reformation.
There are a whole different set of problems within Hutterite communities that you don't get outside such groups.
The Plymouth Brethren have a different set of problems to the Pentecostals say. The Orthodox have different issues in many respects to those of the Roman Catholics.
The Copts have different issues again no doubt ...
None of that is eliding issues, sweeping things under the carpet. It's simply to acknowledge that however we cut it there are problems within organised religions of all kinds. That applies, to varying degrees, across the board - irrespective of whether churches have state backing or not.
If organised religion disappeared tomorrow would the world be a better place? Some would say so. Would all the world's problems be automatically solved overnight if it did? I don't think even the staunchest atheist would believe it was that simple.
I repeat. I am writing a book a the moment which will be published by a company with strong Anabaptist roots. I don't have an issue with Anabaptists. What I have an issue with is you blarting on and on and on and on and on and on about it all the time ...
I see the SMOKESCREEN apparatus is still fully functioning - I'll respond when you actually say something meaningful....
I happen to think that class struggle explains much of our current travails, and applying Marxist dialectics to the major issues of the day provides much needed clarity.
I don't, however, use it as if it was either, the only tool in my box, or that everybody else is desperate for my analysis.
Sometimes, God forbid, I read a thread and comment on what someone has written using their own frame of reference.
Basically, I try not to be a dick. Do you think you can manage not to be a dick, Steve? Because I'm not sure that you can.
Yeah well oddly enough it's a form of respect in a community. Even in Hell.
This Hell thread is (again) telling you in no uncertain terms that you need to adjust your behaviour for the community to be able to accommodate you.
But I'm still holding out the hope that you might realise it is also a sign that the community wants to keep you on board and hear your views.
This thread is not about discussing those views, either. It's about trying to educate you into expressing them within acceptable limits. Why not return a little of that respect?
So, your response to the suggestion that you don't talk so much about the relationship between Church and State, is to start a whole new thread about the relationship between Church and State.
Are you absolutely fucking dense or are deliberately trolling the entire board?
So, your response to the suggestion that you don't talk so much about the relationship between Church and State, is to start a whole new thread about the relationship between Church and State.
Are you absolutely fucking dense or are deliberately trolling the entire board?
Sorry but Hosts, Admin, and other Shipmates have actually suggested that in the past as a solution here - do I now also get criticised for following that advice? Doesn't seem exactly fair....
[BSo, you're saying that you see a long, screeding post, and find yourself feeling like it is not worth engaging with. That's some amazing insight.
Isn't it.][/B]
That a post is "long (and) screeding" does not necessarily mean it contains anything substantial. In this case Gamma Gamaliel simply presents, for what may be (and certainly feels like) the umptieth (rather than just the umpteenth) time, a great long post which amounts to little if anything more than his standard rant that "There are lots of other opinions...."
As I've pointed out to him before, that is not exactly new information, and it's not very useful either especially since, as one Gamaliel pointed out once on the old Ship, "They can't all be true".
To usefully respond I need evidence of what those opinions are and what, if any, evidence there is for them. Without that I can't usefully respond - nor could you!!
Steve Langton: Constantine Is Responsible For Islamic State! (helpfully abbreviated to CIRFIS. Simply post CIRFIS every time you feel the need to make this point for the millionth perseverating time.)
Except, of course - and given the 'fog of war' that has surrounded this topic I can't blame you for misunderstanding - 'CIRFIS' is not my view but at best a massive and misleading oversimplification.
Basically 'MIRFIS' - "Muhammad Is Responsible For Islamic State". He is responsible because it was his choice (after a start which might potentially have gone in a different direction) to set up his new religion in the form of a religious state established, maintained and expanded by military and in modern terms 'police' force. Which is the example 'IS' is now basically following even if one feels they sometimes go further than Muhammad would like.
There is a plausible but not 100% certain argument that - well at the very least Muhammad was not helped by the fact that the main representative of Christianity at the time was the nationalised Imperial Roman version of Christianity, which for somewhere between two and three centuries before Muhammad had also been "a religious state established, maintained and expanded by military and in modern terms 'police' force". That was not providing Muhammad with a good example.
And there is a corresponding plausible but not 100% certain argument that had a better Christian example been available - the NT form of Christianity which was inter- or supra-national, pacifist, and prepared to accept martyrdom for its beliefs rather than be the religious state coercive kind of religion, Muhammad might have made a different choice, hopefully to become that kind of Christian and spare the world the warfare that he inflicted on it instead.
Since Muhammad's time several centuries of warfare between the supposedly/nominally "Christian" countries of the West, and various Islamic states in different parts of the world have done nothing to help that situation. You may have seen news items in which IS and similar organisations describe Western countries and Westerners as 'Crusaders' and regard their current conflicts with us as a continuation of the Crusades. And like it or not, even to some Muslims I know in the UK, let alone those who don't know anything of our society, a set-up in which the head of state is both the 'C-in-C' of Britain's armies AND the earthly 'supreme governor' of our nominally Christian state religion is confusing, a bad example, and a considerable provocation.
A serious Christian response to IS would mean forsaking that state religion past of Christianity and returning to the original form of the faith.
So not exactly 'CIRFIS' - but I do recognise that you tried and were being more serious than some here in 'Hell'.
[BSo, you're saying that you see a long, screeding post, and find yourself feeling like it is not worth engaging with. That's some amazing insight.
Isn't it.][/B]
That a post is "long (and) screeding" does not necessarily mean it contains anything substantial. In this case Gamma Gamaliel simply presents, for what may be (and certainly feels like) the umptieth (rather than just the umpteenth) time, a great long post which amounts to little if anything more than his standard rant that "There are lots of other opinions...."
As I've pointed out to him before, that is not exactly new information, and it's not very useful either especially since, as one Gamaliel pointed out once on the old Ship, "They can't all be true".
To usefully respond I need evidence of what those opinions are and what, if any, evidence there is for them. Without that I can't usefully respond - nor could you!!
My italics
It hasn't stopped you responding in the past, has it? btw, I thought you posted that you were taking a long holiday from the Ship. I'm sure we could Crowdfund your fare, if not a decent place to stay.
The discussion so far has centred around why you can't use scripture as a slot machine, why your first-century approach is anachronistic, and trying to get you to say something substantive.
Certainly, though, if we thought you weren't going to post on the thread again, we'd have an interesting discussion.
And to reiterate. This thread in Hell is to discuss your behaviour, not to give you two threads to vomit on. Stick to the subject in question.
Steve Langton wrote: »
I am (...) hoping to convince them that my view is pretty much that right view.
And that is the nub of the problem.
And you, be honest, are equally hoping to convince me that your view is right. Otherwise this is a pretty pointless discussion.
I think we're all so very glad that you can read our minds and know why we're here engaging you in discussion.
Just as a clue, useful and interesting discussion can be the result of many more options than trying to convince others that our views are correct. We can engage in discussion to try and clear up problems in our own ideas. To see if the views of others are better. To try and understand a position we disagree with. We can discuss things for our own benefit, not for others. To sort out our own thoughts not to correct the perceived failures of others.
To share and discuss, not preach and harangue.
That's just why I enjoy discussions here. Eutychus and others have their own reasons, and I wouldn't presume to speak for them.
FWIW, yes, I do care and would happily engage with Steve on all manner of topics, including the C one if he stopped banging on and on about it and introducing it to discussions where its relevance is questionable at best.
...
I try not to do that so much these days, although I concede that my bait-taking at the Constantinian canards must have become equally annoying.
It's not insincerity on my part, Steve Langton, more a case of, 'Oh no, not bloody Constantine AGAIN!!!'
Yes. Have you ever considered stopping your bait taking? It enables him to continue disrupting threads instead of being a one post irrelevance.
Steve Langton wrote: »
I am (...) hoping to convince them that my view is pretty much that right view.
And that is the nub of the problem.
And you, be honest, are equally hoping to convince me that your view is right. Otherwise this is a pretty pointless discussion.
That's not what I'm doing and your failure to grasp this is as I said pretty much the nub of the problem.
Many of us can hold strong views that we are convinced are right.
But Purgatory is a discussion forum; we're there to discuss.
If your presence is simply "hoping to convince... that (your) view is pretty much that right view", that seems to me to amount to an admission of crusading.
For the nth time, Purgatory.Is.Not.A.Blog. We're there to discuss. Posting walls of text and coming back to cherry-pick a few words to generate another wall of text is not entering into the right spirit. Even if you're convinced of something, that doesn't entitle you to unload your entire argument in one go. You're supposed to interact.
Comments
It's that when challenged on what he believes, he disappears.
Which is always going to be frustrating, given these as supposed to 'discussion' boards.
Maybe if the rest of you shut the fuck up about it he will.
If you're going to spend three pages talking about what he believes then you don't get to criticise him for joining in that conversation.
But how does he actually back this up with evidence? Are the no abuse of power in anabaptist circles? I highly doubt that, humans being humans.
*Yes, SL, the pressure of conformation and acceptance qualifies.
Another idiot (sorry, but this is 'Hell' and I'm getting fed up of idiots) who thinks I'm claiming Anabaptists are inhumanly perfect. Yes, humans are humans and "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and yes Anabaptists can get things wrong too. Of course the consequences are likely to be a lot less lethal in bodies which are pacifist and believe in separating church and state rather than using state power for enforcing their rules even on outsiders. You surely aren't suggesting that abuse of power is nicer in, say, Islamic State circles...?? This is a trivial objection.
Looking back, actually you show very little sign of knowing what I believe. I'm thinking of quite a load of points I've made which have been ignored and gone unanswered while people make great fuss (smokescreens?) about 'abuse of authority' or about Munster - an objection the making of which shows somebody didn't think before hitting the keyboard.
Especially in view of current news like IS, the state religion thing is not just a discussion point but something requiring urgent action - and you're clearly not listening to that bit at all. Sure, you'd like to go back to sleep on the issue and ignore that need to act. I don't see any way I can responsibly let you do that.
#WakeUpSheeple
For example, I've repeatedly pointed out that 'Constantinianism' does have implications for certain churches' authority claims. Theodosius' decision to make state and church effectively co-terminous (by the decision that everyone in his empire was to be a Christian) had the effect of changing the nature and definition of the Church - at that time one body that had not suffered the later split into RCC and Orthodox.
So when the church is no longer a kingdom not of this world composed of the 'born again', as described in Scripture, but supposedly consists of anyone and everyone born in a worldly empire - can that completely different, and worldly defined rather than scripturally defined, kind of church seriously have the authority in Scripture interpretation which the NT implies the NT's version of the Church has?
Posed this one several times, and it's hardly a minor issue - but nobody's answering; though they still keep chucking the usual crap at me no matter how many times I answer it (and if you're wondering why I occasionally 'disappear' there might be a connection there....).
So how about answering that, somebody...?
How many different versions of shut up Shut Up SHUT UP SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUUUUUP!!! do you need to hear before you clue in?
1) I'm pretty sure I just said exactly that myself a few posts ago - and here you are saying it as if you were disagreeing with me??
Yes, any organisation can abuse power including Anabaptists; at least where mainstream Anabaptist principles are being followed their abuse of power will leave you with your head still attached to your body, unlike abuses by, say, IS; and Anabaptists don't run jails.
I repeat, since you don't seem to have got it yet, that I don't think Anabaptists are 'incorruptible', I do think they are human and fallible and can get it wrong. I know that they DO get it wrong at times. Still massively better than the religious alternatives....
2) And you quote my words
and you don't even slightly mention that my 'that' is a specific question about a specific abuse of authority by specific churches which I'm asking them to answer. You treat it as if I'd asked a completely different question. How about answering the question I actually asked?
I'll be even more foolish and attempt to answer Steve's latest challenge.
Look, Steve. I know perfectly well what you believe. I do actually have sympathy with aspects of the Anabaptist position. That's not the issue. The issue is you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
Listen. We get that you are an Anabaptist. It's a position some of us have a lot of respect for. We'd have even more respect for it if you didn't keep banging on and on and on and on and on about it obsessively ...
Do I think that the current position with Orthodoxy in Russia is ideal, with the Patriarch as Putin's poodle? No, I don't.
Do I think that the CofE suffers to some extent from being the 'established church' here in England (but not the UK overall)? Yes, because it blunts its teeth and establishes in many people's minds as something simply to wheel out on royal occasions or for rites of passage - 'hatch, match and despatch.'
I accept all that.
Those are problems.
There would have been a whole different set of problems had the whole of Europe turned Anabaptist after the Reformation.
There are a whole different set of problems within Hutterite communities that you don't get outside such groups.
The Plymouth Brethren have a different set of problems to the Pentecostals say. The Orthodox have different issues in many respects to those of the Roman Catholics.
The Copts have different issues again no doubt ...
None of that is eliding issues, sweeping things under the carpet. It's simply to acknowledge that however we cut it there are problems within organised religions of all kinds. That applies, to varying degrees, across the board - irrespective of whether churches have state backing or not.
If organised religion disappeared tomorrow would the world be a better place? Some would say so. Would all the world's problems be automatically solved overnight if it did? I don't think even the staunchest atheist would believe it was that simple.
I repeat. I am writing a book a the moment which will be published by a company with strong Anabaptist roots. I don't have an issue with Anabaptists. What I have an issue with is you blarting on and on and on and on and on and on about it all the time ...
Sadly, I feel I've lost a few minutes of my life that I will never recover ...
So far we've ascertained that Steve things we're all in denial, and the only reason he brings up Constantine because we won't.
Is that an admission of Crusading? Because it sure sounds like one to me.
For the avoidance of doubt, unequivocally no.
Is he bloody crusadeeng?
Not for us to say lest we all get it wrong,
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen
Keeps banging on 'bout Constantine,
He doesn't leave it just keeps on and on ...
There was a Roman Emperor with a familiar name,
He cocked things up and buggered up,
We all know who to blame --
But when Steve Langton heard of him
he thought we should be told.
So he started posting and a roasting
until we all were bloody bored ...
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen,
The Ship Boards' biggest shit-machine
We can't stop him he just keeps crapping on.
STEE-STEE Steve Lang-teen
So obsessed with Constantine
He doesn't let he just keeps on and on and on ...
There was a Shippie called Gamaliel who cried, 'Give it a rest!'
I'm calling you to Hell my friend, to get it off my chest.'
But Steve Langton followed him down there, he wasn't letting go,
And bloody well went on and on -- saying nothing we don't know!
They trapped him and they poisoned him, they filled him full of lead.
They handed him to ISIS to chop off his fuckin' head,
They buried him in the deepest sea, they tied anchors round his legs,
But he only bobbed back up again as sure as eggs are eggs.
STEE-STEE Steve Langton,
The bugger just keeps on and on.
He's never ever going to give it a rest.
STEE-STEE Steve Langton,
OCD obsess--ion
With one Roman Emperor he's bloody obsessed.
Steve Langton won't you ever bloody give it a rest!!!
Seriously, I will try harder in future.
You are already trying harder. In fact you try too hard. Please try harder in the other direction.
He who fights monsters, should beware of becoming a monster. And he who stares into the abyss should remember that the abyss, also stares into him. And he who goes after Steve Langton for having one tedious obsession....
Let me help you distill your points, such as they are:
Steve Langton: Constantine Is Responsible For Islamic State! (helpfully abbreviated to CIRFIS. Simply post CIRFIS every time you feel the need to make this point for the millionth perseverating time.)
Gamma Gamaliel: Steve Langton, stop it.
See? See how easy that was?
I see the SMOKESCREEN apparatus is still fully functioning - I'll respond when you actually say something meaningful....
I don't, however, use it as if it was either, the only tool in my box, or that everybody else is desperate for my analysis.
Sometimes, God forbid, I read a thread and comment on what someone has written using their own frame of reference.
Basically, I try not to be a dick. Do you think you can manage not to be a dick, Steve? Because I'm not sure that you can.
So, you're saying that you see a long, screeding post, and find yourself feeling like it is not worth engaging with. That's some amazing insight.
Isn't it.
Sick burn.
(as I understand the kids say these days)
You don't have to respond, you know....
This Hell thread is (again) telling you in no uncertain terms that you need to adjust your behaviour for the community to be able to accommodate you.
But I'm still holding out the hope that you might realise it is also a sign that the community wants to keep you on board and hear your views.
This thread is not about discussing those views, either. It's about trying to educate you into expressing them within acceptable limits. Why not return a little of that respect?
Are you absolutely fucking dense or are deliberately trolling the entire board?
(Which also involves ceasing to discuss it, as opposed to SL's attitude, here).
Sorry but Hosts, Admin, and other Shipmates have actually suggested that in the past as a solution here - do I now also get criticised for following that advice? Doesn't seem exactly fair....
At least that answers one question.
That a post is "long (and) screeding" does not necessarily mean it contains anything substantial. In this case Gamma Gamaliel simply presents, for what may be (and certainly feels like) the umptieth (rather than just the umpteenth) time, a great long post which amounts to little if anything more than his standard rant that "There are lots of other opinions...."
As I've pointed out to him before, that is not exactly new information, and it's not very useful either especially since, as one Gamaliel pointed out once on the old Ship, "They can't all be true".
To usefully respond I need evidence of what those opinions are and what, if any, evidence there is for them. Without that I can't usefully respond - nor could you!!
Except, of course - and given the 'fog of war' that has surrounded this topic I can't blame you for misunderstanding - 'CIRFIS' is not my view but at best a massive and misleading oversimplification.
Basically 'MIRFIS' - "Muhammad Is Responsible For Islamic State". He is responsible because it was his choice (after a start which might potentially have gone in a different direction) to set up his new religion in the form of a religious state established, maintained and expanded by military and in modern terms 'police' force. Which is the example 'IS' is now basically following even if one feels they sometimes go further than Muhammad would like.
There is a plausible but not 100% certain argument that - well at the very least Muhammad was not helped by the fact that the main representative of Christianity at the time was the nationalised Imperial Roman version of Christianity, which for somewhere between two and three centuries before Muhammad had also been "a religious state established, maintained and expanded by military and in modern terms 'police' force". That was not providing Muhammad with a good example.
And there is a corresponding plausible but not 100% certain argument that had a better Christian example been available - the NT form of Christianity which was inter- or supra-national, pacifist, and prepared to accept martyrdom for its beliefs rather than be the religious state coercive kind of religion, Muhammad might have made a different choice, hopefully to become that kind of Christian and spare the world the warfare that he inflicted on it instead.
Since Muhammad's time several centuries of warfare between the supposedly/nominally "Christian" countries of the West, and various Islamic states in different parts of the world have done nothing to help that situation. You may have seen news items in which IS and similar organisations describe Western countries and Westerners as 'Crusaders' and regard their current conflicts with us as a continuation of the Crusades. And like it or not, even to some Muslims I know in the UK, let alone those who don't know anything of our society, a set-up in which the head of state is both the 'C-in-C' of Britain's armies AND the earthly 'supreme governor' of our nominally Christian state religion is confusing, a bad example, and a considerable provocation.
A serious Christian response to IS would mean forsaking that state religion past of Christianity and returning to the original form of the faith.
So not exactly 'CIRFIS' - but I do recognise that you tried and were being more serious than some here in 'Hell'.
Thanks
SL.
And miss the interesting discussion which has followed me doing it the other way??!!
My italics
It hasn't stopped you responding in the past, has it? btw, I thought you posted that you were taking a long holiday from the Ship. I'm sure we could Crowdfund your fare, if not a decent place to stay.
Certainly, though, if we thought you weren't going to post on the thread again, we'd have an interesting discussion.
And to reiterate. This thread in Hell is to discuss your behaviour, not to give you two threads to vomit on. Stick to the subject in question.
Just as a clue, useful and interesting discussion can be the result of many more options than trying to convince others that our views are correct. We can engage in discussion to try and clear up problems in our own ideas. To see if the views of others are better. To try and understand a position we disagree with. We can discuss things for our own benefit, not for others. To sort out our own thoughts not to correct the perceived failures of others.
To share and discuss, not preach and harangue.
That's just why I enjoy discussions here. Eutychus and others have their own reasons, and I wouldn't presume to speak for them.
Yes. Have you ever considered stopping your bait taking? It enables him to continue disrupting threads instead of being a one post irrelevance.
Wow. You really are a 1-direction membrane, aren't you.
If you so completely missed the obvious point of my post, what makes you think you comprehend anything worth discussing?
Many of us can hold strong views that we are convinced are right.
But Purgatory is a discussion forum; we're there to discuss.
If your presence is simply "hoping to convince... that (your) view is pretty much that right view", that seems to me to amount to an admission of crusading.
For the nth time, Purgatory.Is.Not.A.Blog. We're there to discuss. Posting walls of text and coming back to cherry-pick a few words to generate another wall of text is not entering into the right spirit. Even if you're convinced of something, that doesn't entitle you to unload your entire argument in one go. You're supposed to interact.