Let's put lilbuddha in charge

2456713

Comments

  • But it's an honestly held point of view that certain branches of Christianity hold to. Ridicule feels like a Hellish response when someone really does believe this.
  • But it's an honestly held point of view that certain branches of Christianity hold to. Ridicule feels like a Hellish response when someone really does believe this.
    It might sound odd for me to say, but I think this POV is harmful to Christianity.
    And, I think people who approach religion is such an uncritical way are penitentially dangerous to themselves. It is not a joke or hyperbole to note that these way of thinking is what makes cults.
    Honestly, I think his dismissive attitude towards other interpretations no less hellish, for all that it is softer than my approach.


  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it's an honestly held point of view that certain branches of Christianity hold to. Ridicule feels like a Hellish response when someone really does believe this.
    It might sound odd for me to say, but I think this POV is harmful to Christianity.
    And, I think people who approach religion is such an uncritical way are penitentially dangerous to themselves. It is not a joke or hyperbole to note that these way of thinking is what makes cults.
    Honestly, I think his dismissive attitude towards other interpretations no less hellish, for all that it is softer than my approach.


    I suppose the only thing left to say is that these things tend to cut back - that we tend to grow to resemble the worst traits of the people we dislike. It's something about how we sharpen others as they sharpen us.

    In this context, being direct with others because we find their position disgusting may well lead to them being increasingly direct and entrenched because they find us revolting.

    But it's just an observation that may well be useless. Take or leave it.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I suppose the only thing left to say is that these things tend to cut back - that we tend to grow to resemble the worst traits of the people we dislike. It's something about how we sharpen others as they sharpen us.

    In this context, being direct with others because we find their position disgusting may well lead to them being increasingly direct and entrenched because they find us revolting.

    But it's just an observation that may well be useless. Take or leave it.

    You may be echoing US theologian Walter Wink, who claimed that we become what we hate (which IMO is basically what's wrong with hating).

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Hating is a lot of work we could do without.
    I recommend smug superiority with a healthy buffer of condescending disinterest.
  • I agree with you on the Biblical Inerrancy thread, but I have found you not quite strident at times, but definitely aggressive and derisive, and felt sorry for @MPaul facing such an onslaught (jointly, from us all). For example, as a response to MPaul, this sort of comment is likely to be counterproductive in its scornfulness:
    Jesus dude, even I can suss that one out. It is about accountability and responsibility for one's own failings.
    Free will is enough. The fall is several bridges to far for a loving, omniscient god. Now for an ignorant, sociopathic god...
    or this example:
    A reasonable intelligent being could figure out better ways to manage his creations. Instead, you have presented an explanation that is worthy of L. Ron Hubbard just after he read Mien(sic) Kampf.

    Wow, I thought that was lb on top form, most enjoyable.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it's an honestly held point of view that certain branches of Christianity hold to. Ridicule feels like a Hellish response when someone really does believe this.
    It might sound odd for me to say, but I think this POV is harmful to Christianity.
    It's not the least bit odd. There are Christians who honestly believe all sorts of bullshit, and their earnestness don't make it okay. Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy, like those who disapprove of homosexuality and those who don't think women can be ordained, are not only wrong, they give the rest of us a bad name. Those members of society at large who have a poor view of Christians hold that view because of these kinds of shitty and stupid things that some Christians believe.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The point of saying this is simply to illustrate that many of our differences are not fundamental, and I find infuriating the fact that you seem to operate with two categories : those who agree with you on everything and those who are wrong.
    OK, this is a misrepresentation. For one, there are few people (if there are even any) here with whom I agree about with everything. Even taking that as hyperbole and reducing that to the more important issues, this is not true.
    I'll pick on @Ruth. She is a lefty feminist so we agree on many things political. However we have argued quite strongly.
    Exactly. Because not only do we not always agree, but also because we both like to argue. Some folks don't know how to handle that; you being called "strident" reminds me of the times when people here have said I've seemed angry, when in fact I wasn't.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    But I think I'm done with lb. There's no real point in trying to have a discussion with someone who imagines that she knows everything.
    In this regard I don't think she conducts herself any worse than you or I do on these boards. She does this on more threads these days, but you frequently take the same I'll-brook-no-disagreement tone yourself, as do I. (In the late 90s, before blogs were even a thing, I had a blog: "My Opinions, and Why They Should Be Yours.")
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    The memory of which makes me wish blogs were still a thing!
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    If you're entering into a discussion while discounting the possibility of being wrong, it can only be to convince others of your inerrancy. This makes your participation one long ego fest, which will inevitably irritate those around you, as well as undermining the whole idea of discussion, which requires a certain porousness to the ideas of others.

    Not really.

    If I'm a Trotskyist (I'm not, fwiw), I might well have pretty firm understandings of Marxist theories of revolutionary history.

    I might well be interested in discussing Brexit and American politics.

    I can see that it could get irritating to have a Trot monopolising the conversation, but I don't think that's the accusation here.

    In the terms of this example, it is like lB is here being criticised for having an unmovable faith in the underlying ideas of Trotsky.

    Err. Yeah, that's what it means to be a Trotskyist.

    I have a mate who has spent the last 30 years working as an organiser/industrial officer within the Union movement, including the Public Sector union in the 1980's. He haaaaaaaates dealing with the trots in meetings, although sometimes I think he uses the term quite broadly :)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    ...In this regard I don't think she conducts herself any worse than you or I do on these boards. She does this on more threads these days, but you frequently take the same I'll-brook-no-disagreement tone yourself, as do I....
    I've worked pretty hard to get past that, in part because I now recognize how untenable it is.


  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Ruth wrote: »
    "My Opinions, and Why They Should Be Yours."
    Please, for the love of all that is snarky and true, say that it still exists and that you have links to it.

    [wears badge of approximate infallibility with pride, along with lilbuddha and RuthW]
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Hating is a lot of work we could do without.
    I recommend smug superiority with a healthy buffer of condescending disinterest.

    Hail the master! :not worthy:

  • On the other hand, being an internal processor who has lived far too much of his intellectual life in profound isolation, exchanges like this have a definite and mostly positive impact.
    This thread has been informative and, in the main, a positive thing. Even the criticisms by the reasonable posters. Perhaps even especially those. We all need a mirror held up on occasion.
  • CK quoted the "Biblical Inerrancy" thread. I don't know the context, because I haven't read it for some time. But the quotes are similar to things Christians (myself included) have posted on the Ship at various times.

    ISTM that discussing God and the Bible will bring up issues like that.
  • My point was that on a Dead Horses thread that phrasing is attacking the poster, which makes them defensive and puts them on the attack. It doesn't make them receptive to the point being made.

    I agree with @Ruth that this sort of Christianity gives Christians a bad name, and said as much on the Biblical Inerrancy thread.
  • I agree with you on the Biblical Inerrancy thread, but I have found you not quite strident at times, but definitely aggressive and derisive, and felt sorry for @MPaul facing such an onslaught (jointly, from us all). For example, as a response to MPaul, this sort of comment is likely to be counterproductive in its scornfulness:
    Jesus dude, even I can suss that one out. It is about accountability and responsibility for one's own failings.
    Free will is enough. The fall is several bridges to far for a loving, omniscient god. Now for an ignorant, sociopathic god...
    or this example:
    A reasonable intelligent being could figure out better ways to manage his creations. Instead, you have presented an explanation that is worthy of L. Ron Hubbard just after he read Mien(sic) Kampf.

    Wow, I thought that was lb on top form, most enjoyable.

    Aren't we supposed to keep this "enjoyable" invective to Hell? Which is/was what kept Hell so entertaining?

    I don't expect a poster with genuinely held views, however mistaken I believe them to be, to hear arguments that are making them feel scorned and derided. And this conviction comes from some heated debates in Dead Horses with @Eutychus, who I know to be open to change because I've witnessed this. Because I was trying to persuade him, I was trying to calm my posts enough so that what I posted did not feel personal, but a dispassionate laying out of the arguments against the original point of view. But it felt that half the time this was to calm the tenor of the debate back down after some aggressive and derisory posts from others on the same thread.

    I do agree with @lilbuddha's point of view here - but am questioning the use of aggression and/or derision in Dead Horses and/or Purgatory. And not just from lilbuddha.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Hating is a lot of work we could do without.
    I recommend smug superiority with a healthy buffer of condescending disinterest.

    Alongside the occasional snarly snap?

  • To borrow from great men and women: I wish I was as certain of anything as lilbuddha is of everything.
  • I don't expect a poster with genuinely held views, however mistaken I believe them to be, to hear arguments that are making them feel scorned and derided. And this conviction comes from some heated debates in Dead Horses with @Eutychus, who I know to be open to change because I've witnessed this.
    And there’s the difference. The poster to whom @lilbuddha was responding has shown repeatedly that he is not open to even considering the possibility that people with an interpretation other than his are not “rejecting” the Bible, much less open to changing his own opinions, however much anyone has tried to discuss things reasonably.

  • But that poster is still here to discuss things, and in the last few posts there has been a request for the back up to a point made. If their mind was totally closed, why come to the Ship?
  • Frankly, I’m this particular case I think it’s to witness to others in the hopes of saving at least one of the Ship’s liberals from damnation.

    I agree that it’s better to try to discuss things without deriding someone’s beliefs. I’ve tried to do that with that poster. I’ve repeatedly made clear that I’m not trying to get him to change his mind, but rather am just inviting him to consider the possibility that other people may see it differently and still be faithful Christians trying to take Scripture seriously. All that comes back is that one sees things the way he does, or one is mocking God and the Bible.

    I don’t know that I can say he’s here to “discuss” things. It seems to me that he’s here to defend and explain things to the rest of us.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    I don’t know that I can say he’s here to “discuss” things. It seems to me that he’s here to defend and explain things to the rest of us.

    And so long as we understand things in the same way as he does, he will be happy.
  • But that poster is still here to discuss things, and in the last few posts there has been a request for the back up to a point made. If their mind was totally closed, why come to the Ship?
    I think Nick Tamen has the right of it. At least in part. We are a social species, and some people participate just to participate. And then there is smug superiority. Some people participate to show how wonderful they are. IngoB participated, at least in part, just for sparring practice. Some participate to simply express their view; it is not quite as acceptable to talk religion at the office, especially "You lot are going to BURN" type of religion.
    Open is not a requisite to participation in discussion. It is the proposition under which that this Hell thread was begun, after all.

    All that, and I actually agree with you. Though I do not believe all minds are open, it is not a good look for those viewing who might be, to give a particular individual the derision they have earned.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Open is not a requisite to participation in discussion.
    I clearly need lessons in how to be more hidebound.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Open is not a requisite to participation in discussion.
    I clearly need lessons in how to be more hidebound.
    I did not say it is more desirable to be closed, I don't think it is. Just saying that not everyone who engages in discussion is open.

  • Oh, I think there's a time and a place for derision: Hell threads for one. And even if the other party doesn't engage, a Hell thread can act as a pressure release, a place for enjoyable, colourful invective and somewhere to demonstrate for those reading along that the subject of derision's views are not accepted by at least those posting there.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    It is play the ball not the man outside Hell, but I did not realise the man had been played until LB admitted it here. It looked like going in very forcibly at the ball to me, which I believe is allowed. Or at least is down to hosts/admins discretion.
  • balaam wrote: »
    It is play the ball not the man outside Hell, but I did not realise the man had been played until LB admitted it here. It looked like going in very forcibly at the ball to me, which I believe is allowed. Or at least is down to hosts/admins discretion.
    I play the ball. My derision is aimed at his POV, that is all I know of him. The problem is that there is no completely clean separation between a POV and the person. The only way to completely control that is to prohibit contrary opinions and that would not work on a discussion board.
    So when I say someone earned the derision, I am saying that their posts have. However, as I said, that is not completely simple.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    RooK wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    "My Opinions, and Why They Should Be Yours."
    Please, for the love of all that is snarky and true, say that it still exists and that you have links to it.

    [wears badge of approximate infallibility with pride, along with lilbuddha and RuthW]

    It's not online anywhere, but I hand-coded the damn thing and I'm a digital packrat, so I probably have the files. I'll have to see.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »

    I don’t know that I can say he’s here to “discuss” things. It seems to me that he’s here to defend and explain things to the rest of us.

    And so long as we understand things in the same way as he does, he will be happy.

    I just found this and you are both right of course and so is LB. there is just one questionable comment she made about me... that I did not care about others. I sincerely hope that is not true.
  • Summing up, MPaul will never be happy here.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    I do understand things the way MPaul does.

    I also disagree with MPaul on it.
  • balaam wrote: »
    I do understand things the way MPaul does.

    I also disagree with MPaul on it.
    I've argued with people in DH who agree with you, but mostly more gently. Why? Because they don't have the sheer arrogance or dismissive attitude that he does.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »

    I don’t know that I can say he’s here to “discuss” things. It seems to me that he’s here to defend and explain things to the rest of us.

    And so long as we understand things in the same way as he does, he will be happy.

    I just found this and you are both right of course and so is LB. there is just one questionable comment she made about me... that I did not care about others. I sincerely hope that is not true.
    I don't think I did say that you do not care. I do remember saying, in response to @Curiosity killed, that caring is not a requisite for posting.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    To borrow from great men and women: I wish I was as certain of anything as lilbuddha is of everything.
    But I am not. I do have very strong opinions about a few things, but far fewer than is likely supposed. And definitely not sure of everything.
    I think rigorous discussion a good thing. However, I did berate IngoB for his self-admitted combat for the sake of combat approach.
    So clearly I need to communicate better.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Because they don't have the sheer arrogance or dismissive attitude that he does.

    Tit for tat doesn't make it OK. Just because MPaul is being a tit is not an excuse for you to be one.

  • balaam wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Because they don't have the sheer arrogance or dismissive attitude that he does.

    Tit for tat doesn't make it OK. Just because MPaul is being a tit is not an excuse for you to be one.
    The first reply I typed was a complete agreement with you. Then I thought "He swung first and am I not entitled to swing back?"
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't vacillate between those.
  • It's not an excuse for being a tit, but it's an emotionally cogent reason for being one. Not that I think lb is a tit.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ]The first reply I typed was a complete agreement with you. Then I thought "He swung first and am I not entitled to swing back?" <snip>

    Most of us get over that impulse after we turn 20 or 25 and start to actually like our siblings.
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't vacillate between those.

    The problem is not the vacillating. It's choosing the wrong one.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ]The first reply I typed was a complete agreement with you. Then I thought "He swung first and am I not entitled to swing back?" <snip>

    Most of us get over that impulse after we turn 20 or 25 and start to actually like our siblings.
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't vacillate between those.

    The problem is not the vacillating. It's choosing the wrong one.
    dude. What rook said
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    dude. What rook said

    Ah the tu quoque. You do it so well. Tip of my hat to your audacity.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    dude. What rook said

    Ah the tu quoque. You do it so well. Tip of my hat to your audacity.
    not speaking of the validity of your post, just amazed you can walk with balls that size

  • And she does it again, folks. Amazing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    And she does it again, folks. Amazing.
    For the comprehension challenged:
    If a binge-drinking, violent alcoholic says "Mate, you are a fucking moron for getting drunk too often", he might be right, but he's an arse for saying it.
    If, with a little self-awareness, he says "Mate, take it from me, getting blasted so often is not a good thing." he is right, and not an arse.
    The self-awareness was the point of my comment.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    How do you guys manage to dick-joust while also being dickless?
  • RooK wrote: »
    How do you guys manage to dick-joust while also being dickless?
    We learn at your feet, oh great one.
  • However, you are correct. I was doing OK at not getting too fighty on this thread and I should have just let that go. I do so want to be good, I am just not great at it yet.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The self-awareness was the point of my comment.

    Of course someone who hasn't had self-awareness for decades and then just suddenly obtains a tiny bit railing at people who (according to them) don't have it are a bit much.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Still going, I see.
This discussion has been closed.