CO CO Constantine

1789101113»

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Well, for one example, I raised some questions on the now-closed ‘Religious right’ thread in about mid-March. After three weeks they still hadn’t been answered, and AFAICT they never were, giving the strong impression that any so-called discussion would only be on your own terms, and that any too-hard challenge would simply be ignored.
  • All you've done is proven my point. I could have guessed about 80% of the titles you've mentioned were on your shelves.

    I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, simply that the selection isn't as broad and eclectic as you would have us believe. If you'd cited some Patristics and Mystics I may have accepted your point.

    As it is ...
  • All you've done is proven my point. I could have guessed about 80% of the titles you've mentioned were on your shelves.

    I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, simply that the selection isn't as broad and eclectic as you would have us believe. If you'd cited some Patristics and Mystics I may have accepted your point.

    As it is ...

    Yebbut - as I pointed out, that's only the stuff I've kept, and only the theology at that. And what I've actually read over the years is a very much wider selection - including Patristics and so on. Mystics not so much. My reading speed is considerable....

    On other points above - I've just been re-reading at length the currently closed church and state thread partly because it does (and I just found it a few minutes ago) contain the most recent case of me defending my views on the 'kingdom not of this world' text.

    Basically what 'went wrong' with that thread was that I got swamped by umpteen conflicting questions. I'll have to have another go at it sometime but I think I also need to find a way to 'hive off' some of the side issues to be dealt with elsewhere. I just couldn't keep up; which I think did rather prove my point that the state/church issue is actually of wide relevance and was not really a derailment of other threads where I brought it up.

    Just for starters, a thread to discuss the 'Old Covenant/New Covenant' thing, in which hopefully I could take more of a backseat than I was able to in what was pretty much a me against everybody else thread....
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Honestly, a list of titles isn't impressive. Just look at that massive lack of respect that leo commands on, well, anything.

    Ingesting huge volumes knowledge can be meaningless because of some people's proclivity for confirmation bias. Knowledge is powerful because it can be transformative. If you consistently fail to be transformed, then frankly you're missing the whole point. Steve, your interpretations are so shallow that a goldfish would asphyxiate. All you prove by citing vast libraries of readings, in the context of your pathetically limited conceptualizations, is an extraordinary inability to clutch a clue of any kind.

    Why aren't people "engaging you" the way you like? Because they weary of pretending to swim in kiddie pools.
  • Yes, and you continually blame everyone else for your own failings and inadequacies. It's always someone else's fault other than your own when a thread fails. It's always the fault of someone who challenges you on what you take to be your own incontrovertible conclusions.

    If only they'd stop lobbing in those pesky objections or extraneous comments then you could have set out your clear and incontrovertible case and the rest of us would have no option but to marvel at your cogent erudition, wide and extensive reading and superior insight.

    Instead, someone or other has continued to wriggle and object, thereby depriving you of the opportunity to convince the rest of us of your arguments.

    It's always convenient to blame someone else isn't it?

    Meanwhile, you bang on and on like a stuck gramophone record and wriggle out of answering people's clear and repeated questions.

    Then you wonder why you get some stick.
  • by Rook
    Knowledge is powerful because it can be transformative. If you consistently fail to be transformed, then frankly you're missing the whole point.

    Exactly. And knowledge is transformative which is why I transformed from my previous position to an approximately Anabaptist position. And obviously I won't be transforming back in a hurry unless demonstrably better information/knowledge is produced. Which it isn't being because lots of Shipmates are "consistently fail(ing) to be transformed"....

    I only mentioned the considerable reading because of people who kept claiming, for example, that I only read "CS Lewis and a few Anabaptists".

    Gamma Gamaliel, I've just been re-reading the Religion and State thread, and no, I haven't been "wriggl(ing) out of answering people's clear and repeated questions". Part of what happened as I pointed out above, was simply a massive overload that I couldn't keep up with - much of which was indeed extraneous to the thread.

    But a major part was also that people were insisting on 'answers' without being willing to lay the necessary foundations. You can't do the detailed working out of some things if you haven't sorted out the basic principles first; and too many people were wanting to skip over that and go straight to the results which, without the foundations, would actually be rather meaningless. As I repeatedly pointed out, the detailed results would be different in different circumstances anyway, the important thing was to have the foundations laid to put the further working out on.

    Without people's willingness to go through the 'foundation-laying' stage I couldn't offer the kind of answers they wanted - nobody could. They were asking the impossible and therefore they weren't going to get it. Don't blame me for that....
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    (...) because lots of Shipmates are "consistently fail(ing) to be transformed"
    Just leaving this here.

  • Bloody hell, you must be hyperlexic if you've ploughed all the way back through that thread ...

    Yes, there was a lot of overload there, not all of it your fault. But if you actually tried to answer people's questions then perhaps you wouldn't provoke that kind of reaction?

    BroJames isn't the only one here who has persistently asked you to answer a question or clarify some points only for it to never happen. Most Shipmates give up before they reach that point.

    I admire BroJames for his tenacity.

    As for lots of Shipmates failing to be 'transformed' when confronted with your "wide reading" and superior arguments ... I'll just do what LeRoc did ... leave it there.

    I'm speechless. For once.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Having 50 books on your bookshelf does not make you well read. Having read 50 theology books a year does not make you well read.

    Furthermore, most of the rest of us do not see the purpose of engagement here to persuade you that Roman Catholicism or Quakerism or Orthodoxy or whatever is better than the version of Anabaptism that you've swallowed.

    The simple fact is that people that have other explanations than you are not stupid, or unable to comprehend obvious Bible verses or unable to read or lacking in intelligence or lacking in theology books on the shelf.

    All of those are utterly bogus ways to "win" an argument when the majority of us are not interested in framing a debate in those terms.

    You so lack self-awareness that you can't appreciate that there are good reasons other people believe alternative things and that your explanations have no standing because you are framing the thing in a way that nobody else accepts.

    It is like you are constantly talking in an dialect of Welsh that nobody else speaks - and when others try to engage on the level of seeking clarification as to what you are meaning, you shout that only you have the pure/correct version of the language and go off on tangents explaining why the use of specific words is the only rational thing to do.

    We don't speak your language. Most of us don't want to speak your language because even those of us familiar with the words you are using can see that you are using them in an extreme and self-defence way.

    Why don't you just go somewhere that people actually want to engage with the stuff that you write on the level that you want rather than continuing to inflict it on everyone here?

    There must be placed on Facebook and Reddit where people float nonsense theology and analyse it with tools that you recognise.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    reading =/= understanding
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    No, and life is frequently more complicated than thinking everyone is out to find the optimum solution to any given theological problem. The fact is that the questions look different from different angles and perspectives.
  • by Gamma Gamaliel
    Yes, there was a lot of overload there, not all of it your fault. But if you actually tried to answer people's questions then perhaps you wouldn't provoke that kind of reaction?

    Actually the trouble was that I did try to answer the questions - and there was just too much and too diverse. Even with hyperlexia I couldn't keep up.

    And unfortunately in some cases the answer was precisely that I couldn't give a neat answer because so much would depend on the detailed circumstances to which the answer would be applied. I was, as I said, trying to lay the foundation principles from which the detailed applications would be derived, not to dictate detailed actions to diverse people in diverse circumstances; not to impose my own opinion to anywhere near that extent.

    Chuck in some extraneous issues particularly from Croesos and re-reading the thread I'm actually surprised I did as well as I did under the pressure. Especially as 'overload' is a particular problem for us Aspies.

    My comment on Shipmates failing to be transformed was picking up on Rook's phrase and simply pointing out that other Shipmates do not change significantly either over time - why pick on me when I'm clearly not unusual in that respect? Is there a 'tongue in cheek' smiley?

    mr cheesy,
    The simple fact is that people that have other explanations than you are not stupid, or unable to comprehend obvious Bible verses or unable to read or lacking in intelligence or lacking in theology books on the shelf.

    Agreed. NOT the point I was making. In some cases the opposite of what I intended. Back on Ye Olde Shippe there was a guy who actually asked, in apparent sincerity, what was the relevance of 'state Islam' to 'IS' - now that's stupid....

    And there was a guy who tried to insist that as a Christian I shouldn't criticise Islam because it's "a completely different religion" - that is stupid in so many ways....
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate

    Agreed. NOT the point I was making. In some cases the opposite of what I intended. Back on Ye Olde Shippe there was a guy who actually asked, in apparent sincerity, what was the relevance of 'state Islam' to 'IS' - now that's stupid....

    Not stupid at all. For reasons which are fairly obvious to almost everyone.
    And there was a guy who tried to insist that as a Christian I shouldn't criticise Islam because it's "a completely different religion" - that is stupid in so many ways....

    No, the point was that you were judging Islam with Christian tools and then saying it didn't add up and claiming that you knew more about the essentials of Islam than Islamic scholars.

    It would do a lot of good if you shut up about things that you don't understand.
  • Which it isn't being because lots of Shipmates are "consistently fail(ing) to be transformed"....

    To step back a little is there anything other than complete agreement with what you say that would qualify with engaging with your ideas ? (In your view, of course).
  • Plus there have been plenty of Shippies over the years who have changed their approach, their thinking and their churchpersonship - in all sorts of directions.

    So the idea that no Shippies ever budge or change their position on things is far from the case.

    Plus, what chrisstiles asked ...
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    pointing out that other Shipmates do not change significantly either over time - why pick on me when I'm clearly not unusual in that respect?

    This has been disagreed with already in general, but it seems like it might be useful to clarify.

    There are indeed many Shipmates who don't change significantly over time. These are mostly the ones who troll. The vast majority of Shipmates who actually engage in discussion, they make continuous tiny changes with respect to the discourse here. They demonstrate actual understanding of what other people say, which itself is the most meaningful transformation with respect to participation in discussion. The best of us aren't trying to persuade each other; we're here to understand each other.

    Then there's you. You're essentially a troll who doesn't enjoy it. Gosh, why aren't you better received?
  • Or a troll who doesn't know he is doing it? Steve keeps telling us he's an Aspie. Can that lead to troll like behaviour? Just asking ...

    I don't know how these things work.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Or a troll who doesn't know he is doing it? Steve keeps telling us he's an Aspie. Can that lead to troll like behaviour? Just asking ...

    I don't know how these things work.
    I've known enough people with Asperger's to think it is not an excuse for Steve's behaviour.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    In any event, he's a frequent flier here. He knows because he's been told often enough. What he does with that information is up to him.

    Using past experience as a guide, it's 'they can't possibly mean me'.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited March 26
    To start a new thread or to continue where we left off, that is the question.

    As Steve's arrival back here started with
    Picking up where we left off….
    continuation seems the name of the game.

    I cannot give any answer to this particular bit of crassness outwith Hell:
    On the other “charge” which Alan Cresswell levelled against me I will have to come back with more detail. For now I will comment that I’d already made the basic point in earlier posts that in effect I am challenging the common current view of the ‘category’ in which ‘gayness’ belongs. That is, it is not in the category of something people ‘just are’ like being, say, blue-eyed or red-haired, but very much in the category of things people ‘do’, and unlike being born blue-eyed etc., definitely have a choice about doing.

    @Steve Langton what in your deluded little mind makes you think that your view is right and everyone else is wrong? Why do you continue to disregard all the evidence and testimony that being gay is not something people do, it is something they are? And that for gay people there is no choice?

    The foulness continues with:
    I would also comment that I did not crassly compare homosexuals to paedophiles. I was responding to a Shipmate’s comment about what ‘science’ showed and asking a question about the extent and limits of ‘the science’ in this kind of context. Namely that as far as I can tell, the same kind of tests that would show the ‘naturalness’ of heterosexuality and homosexuality would also show a similar ‘naturalness’ of other ‘paraphilias’ including some, such as the proclivities of Brady, that would be considered questionable or evil – and therefore the science in this case, when considered more broadly, might well be ‘proving’ either not enough or altogether too much. That is surely a question that needs a proper answer, and being ‘offended’ is not a proper answer but an evasion.

    You really do not read or comprehend what you are told, do you?

    Tagging @Alan Cresswell as his name was taken in vain.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    I suppose, in his defence, Steve Langton only has a single-track mind and can only cope with a certain level of complication and complexity.

    It's much easier to categorise people into good/bad and then bang on about it than to get on with other stuff.

    The poor lovey. Imagine having a mind the size of a planet and a library bigger than most universities but be unable to avoid ranting about every minor error in other people's lives.

    I mean, what a waste. He could be inventing acute for the world's biggest diseases but instead he is here arguing about a paraphrase of Dawkins.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I suppose, in his defence, Steve Langton only has a single-track mind and can only cope with a certain level of complication and complexity.

    Ane fule kno that single-track railways have a particular problem, namely the inherent danger of trains travelling in opposite directions. Steve seems to simply ignore anything coming in the opposite direction, and runs through red lights time after time.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Oh, dear Lord. Brexit and Langton. Kill me now.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Oh, dear Lord. Brexit and Langton. Kill me now.

    There is an obvious alternative. I wouldn't advocate it obviously.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Steve, I know you are reading this. I'm keeping insults here and not anywhere else.

    If you want to refer to my posts in Hell elsewhere, just know that I won't be replying there.

    Also, oh fool of a fool, you are still an utterly delusional prune. Utterly and totally delusional.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    And that's the point I'm making - if it is a 'being' thing, homosexuality is actually entitled to a higher level of protection and effectively a higher level of how they are allowed to variously sue, prosecute, and legally restrict those who disagree with them. And that can be a significant civil liberties issue, not to mention being an inequality biased towards homosexuals.

    Steve, Steve, Steve.

    Stop talking utter drivel.

    First you are wrong. Second even if you can't see that you are wrong, you should be able to see the legal consequences of believing this. Third it makes no sense from an anabaptist point of view - where your first priority is the protection and uplift of the weak.

    Fourth, nobody else here holds your ideosyncratic understanding of anabaptist theology, never mind Christian theology. And you've not been able to convince anyone else in all the years you've been here that you are anything other than a windbag.

    Now might be a good time to finally shut up about it.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate

    I know what I say next is one of the extreme examples but by its extremity it does make the more general and widely applicable point; sometimes love has to say the painful things. I would presume that someone like Hitler would consider it 'love' if people supported his ideas and actions; indeed we pretty much know that's how he saw it. Yet someone who truly loved Hitler would massively criticise his ideas and actions, and as far as we can tell he would not only see that as painful and unloving, he'd actually get quite nasty about it. No sinner likes to be challenged about their sin; but it's definitely part of 'radical anabaptist theology' to do just that. I do not by a very very long way consider 'gay sex' as the same level of sin as Hitler's ideas and acts; but the general principle does apply.

    You need to take yourself outside for a good talking to. You can't compare something to Hitler and then in the next sentence say that you didn't say it.

    There is no obligation to believe that the same principle applies. I dare to suggest that there are many things that happen around you that you don't immediately leap to compare with Hitler.

    Because almost everyone has a range of responses to things that they don't like.

    Now, the fact is that if gay people have extra protections in law (which I don't think they do, but anyway) it is because people like you keep yammering on and keep saying offensive things long after the point where everyone knows what you think.

    It's a form of bullying, Steve. You just can't shut up about it. You just can't stop using the most offensive ways to describe what you think. You can't understand that others - including apparently your long suffering pastor - are sick, sorry and tired of your behaviour.

    What is it that you think you are doing? Who are you trying to persuade?

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited March 27
    admin note/

    Posters addressing @Steve Langton should note that following his own undertakings, his next post is expected in the Styx - and nowhere else.

    /admin note
Sign In or Register to comment.