Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:17:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
542 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Ah -- I think I see what happened. You had replied to my message, in a
> fairly (imho) personal kinda way ("personal" as though one person addressing
> another, not "personal" as in insulting.) In this message, you had used the
> proverbial or collective "you", though I interpreted it as the 2nd-party "you".
8^)
What's your problem, anyway? I was getting set to demonize
you and burn you in effigy, and then you turn out to have
been reasonable all along!
8^)
> Specifically, you had dismissed my comments as nonsense, the effect of which
> was two-fold: you had addressed me directly and personally; and you had
> directly cast my own statements in a light which I had perceived as negative.
Ah! My fault. My use of "nonsense" was intended with a note of irony
(which, as is endlessly demonstrated here, is difficult to convey in print)
as opposed to a "Sproat-spouts-spilth" declaration. I can easily see how
that came across as a personal attack.
> I apologize for this misunderstanding, but it raises the question: when
> should your ("you" == Dave Schuler) usage of "you" be interpreted as
> 2nd-party, and when should it be recognized as proverbial? I ask this to
> further my understanding of this discussion, and for future reference.
Well, if I tip my hand now, I lose that ace-in-the-hole later. I have to
plead the fifth by saying it's all context, but I can try to make an effort
to be clearer about it henceforth.
> > Further, accusing me of trolling is simple ad hominem; my
> > questions are valid.
>
> Oh, I disagree. Trolling is a valid debate tactic that most of us here have
> used (you and I included); I was merely the pot calling the kettle black.
> If you've taken it as a personal attack, then again I apologize. Rest
> assured that it wasn't the first misunderstanding between you and me today. :-,
This whole 'trolling =/= bad' thing is amazing to me! You and DaveE are
the only people I've ever known to accept "troll" as a neutral term, so my
response was based on a (mistakenly) perceived label.
> I personally can't tell you which parts of the Bible are true and which are
> myth. (Even if I did know, I wouldn't proudly declare them as proof in some
> discussion with strangers for the sake of trying to prove someone else
> wrong. That just seems...icky.) There are several places where I got a
> pretty good hunch, indeed some I feel good enough about to stake the way I
> live by them.
Among the faithful, I accept that yours is an acceptable course to follow;
one's relationship with Christ is inherently personal, after all. For the
non-believers though, the subjectivity of bible interpretation works against
the possibility of an absolute morality, or at least of an absolute morality
that is legitimately accessible to us.
> I'm still trying to figure out how you perceived that my definition was so
> broad as to include people who questioned the veracity of the Bible.
> Reading back now, I'm trying to figure out how I perceived you referring to
> me as fundamentalist. Arg.
Well, if you'd just stop miscomprehendifying my gobbledygook, we wouldn't
have this problematization.
> It's clear that we're both too set in our beliefs to try to meet halfway.
> You've clearly already made up your mind in this matter; your words flatly
> describing a god who is "petty, vindictive, and spiteful" seem to indicate
> this. That's really too bad; it is my personal hope that I would some day
> learn the flexibility to do so.
It's a good caution for both (ie: all) of us not to be dogmatic in our
thinking. Your earlier post hinted at the incompatibility between your
definition of "evidence" and mine, and I think that's the basis of our
disagreement, rather than either one of us simply being too set in his ways.
> 2. just came back in from trying to change the oil in my truck... *@#&@!
> jerks placed the oil filter directly above the u-joint on the driveshaft, so
> it's of course impossible to remove without skinning at least three nuckles,
> and oil goes EVERYWHERE... :-P
I ask you--what sort of benevolent God would allow that? J/K.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
