18 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodey"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -Eleanor Roosevelt... and whodey wisely interjects an innocuous topic to clear the air and to lighten the mood as surgeons, anesthesiologists and nurses often do instinctively in operating suites during demanding, high risk lengthy procedures in order to stay focused. Savvy.
It's lovely weather we are having, isn't it.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou should pop in and say something innocuous on the "Christianity is not a religion" thread so as to clear the air and to lighten the mood. 😀
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -Eleanor Roosevelt... and whodey wisely interjects an innocuous topic to clear the air and to lighten the mood as surgeons, anesthesiologists and nurses often do instinctively in operating suites during demanding, high risk lengthy procedures in order to stay focused. Savvy.
18 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiIf you are saying that people should be steered towards being impartial in discussions, then I strenuously disagree ~ although my disagreement is irrelevant as such 'impartiality' would be utterly impossible to achieve and utterly undesirable.
Of course - poor choice of words on my part. Actually, I did not mean impartiality, because none of us are, but rather objectivity.
Well, on second thoughts, who is objective either? I suppose what I mean really boils down to just sticking to a subject without personal attacks.
there was absolutely nothing that went on between you and twhitehead that came anywhere remotely near needing moderation or adjudication. If you were to envisage your "appeal court of peers" idea to be activated by the kind of verbal friction that there was between you two, I think it would be a terrible idea.
OK, scrap that. How would you suggest that a similar conflict be resolved? (assuming, of course, that it is worth resolving.) Also assuming that both parties wish to retain their credibility and honour.
If you are familiar with the Johari Window, let me practice a bit of "disclosure" here. Actually, I have in the past quite enjoyed my sparring with twhitehead. And I have said so to him. However, when I read the comment "he will probably try to wriggle out of this one for about twenty posts" I really and truly felt totally deflated and, yes, insulted. I had no desire to continue the discussion at all, since there was clearly no respect on that side. So why waste my time? Those were my true feelings.
Then, when he challenged me to show where and why I accused him, I was equally dumbfounded. Can it be that he REALLY did not know?
Later I read and re-read his post to see whether there was a chance that I had (perhaps) over-reacted, and it seems to me that it there was indeed a possibility that I may have. But by that time it was too late, and I had retaliated in kind.
But it had absolutely nothing to do with me wanting to avoid any particular discussion, and I would be only too willing to pick up the Principles of OT Laws in another thread.
So, after all is said and done, no arbitration needed.
I'm prepared to say to twhitehead let bygones be bygones, and let's not have a permanent rift. Especially not with a fellow countryman.
CJ
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by CalJustWell technically I am Zambian, but that shouldn't get between us. I too am happy to let bygones be bygones and made it clear from the start that I never intended that comment to be insulting or derogatory. It wasn't even intended to be personal but rather a general comment on the typical behaviour of theists when faced with criticism of their scriptures. But you made it clear that it wasn't the intent that mattered but your own interpretation of what I wrote and what you managed to 'read between the lines' that I did not in fact write - and I think that is totally unreasonable. It essentially means that I can accuse you of insulting me in the worst possible way at any time I feel like and demand an apology for something you never said but rather something I chose to imagine you would have said given half the chance.
I'm prepared to say to twhitehead let bygones be bygones, and let's not have a permanent rift. Especially not with a fellow countryman.
If we do continue the discussion then it must be on the understanding that I can only be held accountable for what I actually say.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK, since you really want to pick this up again, let us look at what you actually said:
If we do continue the discussion then it must be on the understanding that I can only be held accountable for what I actually say.
Actually, many of them (i.e. the Principles) were wrong, and still are, and you know this, but probably will never admit it but instead will spend the next 20 posts trying to wiggle around.
How would a normal thinking and feeling person interpret this?
1. "You know this" (i.e. that they were wrong) but "will not admit it". To any person who knows English this sounds like an accusation of deceit and lying. If you defend something that you KNOW is wrong, there is a basic lack of, well, Morality. This accusation is not insulting? FACT: I DID NOT "know this", and therefore did not need to admit it, so your accusation is false.
2. "Wiggle around" sounds a lot like a worm squirming on the end of a fish hook. It paints a picture of somebody trying desperately to get out of an uncomfortable situation in which he has been placed by the protagonist, who is gleefully watching his victim wiggle and squirm. There is no question of an intelligent debate between equals. Again, this is not demeaning?
3. "Twenty posts", as I said before, is a mocking description of meaningless and superfluous postings, intended only to wear down the reader, so that the writer can "wiggle" away.
If this is not what you meant, please explain how I SHOULD have understood these words?
18 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterThe phrase, "in the real world", or its equivalent is used online often to make a distinction without a difference (imo): in this forum, especially, where the crux issue is life on earth and in the after life. An observation: no conclusion being drawn.
I mentioned "spurious excuses" in my OP and while I agree with your high level objectivity, I would propose that in the 'case in hand', this is one of those excuses. I would also challenge that if this spiritual "talk to the hand 'cos the face aint listening" aloofness, is in fact the modus operandi, then it is not executed with grace, not execute ...[text shortened]... is not the place for them and that they are going to have a tough time of it in the real world.
Originally posted by CalJustOK.
OK, since you really want to pick this up again, let us look at what you actually said:
How would a normal thinking and feeling person interpret this?
So now we are back to interpretation, not what I actually said?
1. "You know this" (i.e. that they were wrong) but "will not admit it". To any person who knows English this sounds like an accusation of deceit and lying.
I wouldn't put it that harshly.
If you defend something that you KNOW is wrong, there is a basic lack of, well, Morality. This accusation is not insulting? FACT: I DID NOT "know this", and therefore did not need to admit it, so your accusation is false.
Well then I was wrong - but I honestly thought that any sane person who had read the OT would know that some of those laws are not morally right even in principle. But if you claim it was an insult (ie I was deliberately falsely accusing you) and not a statement that I believed to be true then you are essentially accusing me of deceit and lying are you not? Should I now take offense?
2. "Wiggle around" sounds a lot like a worm squirming on the end of a fish hook. It paints a picture of somebody trying desperately to get out of an uncomfortable situation in which he has been placed by the protagonist, who is gleefully watching his victim wiggle and squirm. There is no question of an intelligent debate between equals. Again, this is not demeaning?
Again, to characterize it as 'demeaning' is going overboard - but yes, I did not think there was much chance of intelligent debate given that you made what I consider to be an outrageous and indefensible claim.
3. "Twenty posts", as I said before, is a mocking description of meaningless and superfluous postings, intended only to wear down the reader, so that the writer can "wiggle" away.
It is something that is common practice on this forum and I sought to avoid it by preempting it.
If this is not what you meant, please explain how I SHOULD have understood these words?
You should have understood them as an error of judgment on my part given that your character is not what I was guessing it was. You could simply have said 'thats not me, I am quite happy to defend my statement'. Instead you made an accusation about me to another poster (not directly to me) calling my post 'offensive abusive attacks'.
I am still unsure whether or not you are in fact doing exactly what I predicted you would do (avoiding discussing the original claim) or you are actually genuinely offended.
Now lets look at what you said:
Your approach is to ridicule the other person, to point out where they are wrong and/or inconsistent. Then, when you have destroyed them, you feel nice and warm and give yourself a pat on the back - you have WON again!
Do you feel that was a fair characterization of my character, or were you just lashing out in anger?
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou know, you are now REALLY beginning to wear me down.
So now we are back to interpretation, not what I actually said?
Another insinuation - please tell me how the stuff in my quotation box differ from YOUR ACTUAL WORDS, LETTER BY LETTER?
If you do not agree, please repeat here WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID so that I can see where I quoted you incorrectly.
18 Mar 14
On second thoughts, don't bother replying. At least the facts are there for all to see - what you wrote is on the record, I do not make it up or interpret it.
Now that we have hijacked this thread too, it's time to call it quits. I offered an olive branch, but it was not to be.
You know, life is just too short for these senseless interchanges.
Back to divegeester and his merry men to sort out how a good debate should proceed!
Adieu
CJ
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by CalJustYou have misunderstood me. I did not say you misquoted me, I said that right after announcing that we would look at what I actually said, you then asked how it would be interpreted - as opposed to what I intended, or what it actually means (if such a thing can be said to exist).
You know, you are now REALLY beginning to wear me down.
Another insinuation - please tell me how the stuff in my quotation box differ from YOUR ACTUAL WORDS, LETTER BY LETTER?
If you do not agree, please repeat here WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID so that I can see where I quoted you incorrectly.
I am more than ready to apologize for things I said - interpreted in the way I intended them. I am not so prepared to apologize for things I did not say or interpretations that take liberties with what I said.
Did I think (and say so) that you were being less than totally honest with regards to Old Testament Law? Yes I did.
Was I 'insulting, offensive and demeaning'. No, I do not think so. And I consider the fact that you called it that - and did so to a third party to be rude.
What is more, you do not live up to the same standard that you expect of others. You are quite happy to dish out at good as you get including accusations of dishonesty as well as wild speculations about the other parties motives - all without submitting apology - or even acknowledging that you have done so.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeesterWell I could be wrong, I don't think so but we all know this is pretty much directed at Robbie and myself. IF I'm wrong I apologize for my asuming so.
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.
This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?
I've been letting this thread go to see what comments come up and generally they are all good with good points for all to consider.
I could come back with some colorful comments about this but I'm not in respect to the overall quality of the answers given by many here and I try daily to reflect a Christian attitude which I wish could be returned.
The issue that is being missed and not understood is that sometimes one does answer to the best of their ability by their understanding of the subject being discussed.
A couple issues to go with this is the one answering is human, has a real life with some good days and some bad days and could have some real issues with something going on within their personal life's such as "sick parents". For someone to say one is using that as an excuse to avoid giving an answer to a question that has probably run it's course and not able to give the answer that one wants to hear, is really pushing being disrespectful and will not gain the respect of anyone.
And there is the possibilty that they are tired of trying to answer and finally knows that no matter what the answer is, it will never be good enough.
One would also hope that the other party would understand that even though you may not agree, understand or could even care less about it, that it has to stop then and there.
But that does not always happen which is sad and direspectful as you are not that person, you do not know any of the details in that persons life and maybe one should just back off and.........."let it go"......... instead of going on some rant and rave campain.
One should realise to that if one wants respect and hopefully can get that in return with the daily conversations here, one has to show respect to all and accept, not agree with, but respect whatever answers are given or are not given.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by galveston75IOW it is best to assume that our correspondents might discontinue the conversation at any time. Don't get too invested in it.
Well I could be wrong, I don't think so but we all know this is pretty much directed at Robbie and myself. IF I'm wrong I apologize for my asuming so.
I've been letting this thread go to see what comments come up and generally they are all good with good points for all to consider.
I could come back with some colorful comments about this but I'm not ...[text shortened]... pect to all and accept, not agree with, but respect whatever answers are given or are not given.