Not Helping

[tealin]

Would someone please make Pat Robertson sit in the corner for a while?

Top US evangelist targets Islam

Comments

Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)

[tannhaeuser.livejournal.com]

Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)

[(Anonymous)]

I truly appreciate your reply, however brief. I certainly understand how a lack of time and/or energy can impede upon the desire or ability for lengthy debate(I am certainly in no position to judge anyone else, and certainly not you, for having non-instantaneous replies lacking depth or thoroughness). I did fear (I guess I still do!)that you felt ambushed by a friend undeservedly, or that you deemed my questions and/or assertions to be so ignorant as to be unworthy of recognition. For what it's worth, I really respect the breatdth and depth of your knowledge of things secular and spiritual, and would not bother to discuss such matters if I didn't really want your input and insights. Sadly, I have often embarked on what I saw as an enjoyable, friendly, mutually-enlightening debate with friends and family, who saw it as me picking an unprovoked, particularly tiresome fight, bludgeoning them repeatedly, pointlessly, and unimaginatively with MY same self-righteous, arrogant points and opinions, ad nauseum, until they fled my presence in frustration, anger, and/or disgust. I keep telling myself I'm not going to do that to people anymore (ironically I reserve such behavior for people I value and trust) but, well...
My apologies for my sloppy wording ("modern" instead of "modernist" - you are right, a BIG difference!), and, although it took some initial wading and digging, I actually got a lot out of the article you kindly refered me to on Modernism! My simplistic grasp of the overall concept (allowing for variance and different degrees)is that it basically denies the possibility of true miracles, formerly documented or in the future, and asserts that only personal revelation is valid, that noone has the right to truly divine revelation on behalf of another (even if they are the appointed ecclesiastical authority) - obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but am I close? Anyway, since you must be dying to know more of my personal thoughts on this (Shh!!), I fall in the contemptible catagory of so-called Christians who do not deny the possibilty that any/most/all of the miraculous events described in the scriptures could have happened (although I strongly suppose, for example, that the Book of Job may be more of a divinely-inspired parable than actual history [that whole thing in "V for Vendetta" about how a so - called "lie" can help you understand a true principle]), and that church authorities may very well be divinely appointed and inspired to council and prophecy on my or others' behalf...but I reserve the right to personally question and/or accept the validity of each and every claim on a case-by-case basis, judging everything against personal study/research, experience, careful contemplation, and by seeking individual spiritual confirmation. Which, I fear, pits me with those who are "neither cold nor hot", but "lukewarm", fit only to be spued.(KJV, Revelations 3:15-16). But such is my perspective at this point in my life, and I reserve the right to revise it, in the face of new, compelling evidence, at any time.:)Yeah, I'm "solid as a rock"!
Although I really would like to know more about the Crusades and the Inquisition, I realize it isn't your job to educate or enlighten me, or anyone else, and you inspired me to to do a little research of my own on the subject (I suspect that a lot of your readers are similarly inspired to learn a lot more about everything, not just to find ammo to refute your assertions, but to have some clue as to what the CRAP you're talking about! For that alone, I dub thee Sir Awesome-Cool). Anyway, if you do ever have the time or inclination to expound upon these subjects more lengthily in your journal, please let me know - I look forward to reading

Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

Hey Tann -
I just spent, like, all day on a comment here, and just as I was typing the last couple of words, before I could proofread or spellcheck or anything, all of a sudden it says I posted the comment anonymously! I don't know if you got any of it at all, but if you didn't, please let me know, and I could try to summarize it, assuming you even care. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (shakes angry fists in the air)

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

There, I unscreened it ... if you want to copy/paste and proofread then post it nonanonymously, now you can.

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

thankyou thankyou thankyou xxxoo (or just vigorous handshakes, if you prefer)

On Argument

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

As host of this journal, here are my two cents:

Even if you have no hope of actually bringing people around to your point of view (thus making your argument, as you consider it, 'wasted effort') I feel that such provocative statements must at least be backed up with an explanation. Even if no one agrees with you, at least we'll know why you feel what you do. Take your time, but some explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Re: On Argument

[tannhaeuser.livejournal.com]

Re: On Argument

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

Wow - I didn't expect such an immediate and thorough response. Thanks! OK, what you said (other than an apparent slam at protestants at the top - and hey, I can't claim to know enough about protestants to know if that's accurate or not) seems to jive with what little I've gleaned about the Inquisition(s) and Crusades, in a very general, non-specific way. The one point I might still disagree with (I have to think about it)is that I don't know that it's fair to minimize the worst aspects of any of the Crusades or Inquisitions by comparing them favorably to contemporary actions of the state, or to the French Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars, or any other war (because, in my view, all wars really ARE evil and horrible, and represent a total failure to resolve problems in a remotely humane, acceptable way). To say that something is less horrible than something that is really monstrous, or at least that it wasn't any worse (than, say, a lot of horrific crap regularly perpetrated by different ruling parties during the Middle Ages)isn't exactly enough to constitute a glowing endorsement (this is a crass example, but along the lines of, "Hey, compared to the Nazis, they were real humanitarians!".)
Would it be presumptuous of me to suggest clarifying/amending your previous statement along the lines of, you understand and identify with the sentiments behind the original Crusade and Inquisition - to defend the Church and her members against serious attacks and persecution - that both were understandable responses (at least initially) to the attacks and outside pressures facing the Church at the time, even if you don't agree with or condone all of the actions committed by the Crusaders (i.e., the Sack of Constantinople, the indiscriminate massacre of the population of Jerusalem, as well as the sacking of many small towns along the way), or those directly inspired by the Crusaders (particularly the mass murder of Jews throughout Europe), as well as much of what motivated and occured in the several following Crusades and Inquisitions? Is that fair? Or have I misrepresnted your position? It's just that, the way you threw it out there before, the casual reader (particularly one without a detalied familiarity of history) might assume you were asserting that EVERYTHING about ALL the Crusades and Inquisitions was really noble and wonderful, which I don't think you intended.

Re: On Argument

[tannhaeuser.livejournal.com]

Re: On Argument

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify/support you postion, and I acknowledge that you have made some very valid points.

If I were to say that I’d be proud to identify myself with the Allies in World War II, do I really have to explain that I am not referring to the fire-bombing of Dresden or the internment of the Japanese? Do I have to admire the suspension of habeas corpus to admire Lincoln or condone the Phoenix Park murders to admire the Irish struggle for freedom?

Well, maybe not, but, speaking for myself, it would be nice.

Generally, it is true that most people wouldn't hold your feet to the fire for voicing support for the WWII allies, or Lincoln (though I essentially agree with you, you might not get as much of a free pass with the Irish struggle, depending on who you were talking to) - you generally won't be forced to explain yourself, but thoughtful (and humble;)) people like myself will always appreciate it when anyone bothers with such caveats, however obvious they may seem, particularly in an age when the justifications for and methods of war are getting particularly murky and complicated (maybe they always were, but at least we're more willing to acknowledge that, nowadays), and there are plenty of people who really DON'T have a problem with the caveats you mentioned, and who are defending/advocating the use of similar tactics right now.

Not having nearly the grasp you clearly do of history,it's impossible for me to confirm/deny your contention that Holy Wars (undertaken in the name of God) are generally more humanely conducted than unapologetically secular wars (or are you confining this statement to the wars influenced by the enlightenment?), but it does seem (unfairly or not) to me that an awful lot of conflicts were perpetrated by people (not always Catholic or Christian) who claimed to be acting in the name of God, and who felt that, because they had a divine mandate, they had carte blanche to ignore the laws or rights of the unbelievers (which is, unfortunately, what scares a lot of secularists - the fear that religious people can justify any action, as long as they are convinced that God told them to do it, or just that He is on their side, no matter what)

For what it's worth, your example from Nicholas Nickelby is excellent; clearly war, however awful, is sometimes the best available option. As someone who actually liked a lot of the aspects of Clinton's administration, I still think it's absolutely shameful that he and other world leaders did not orchestrate a swift military intervention into the Rwandan genocide, for example.

Re: Part 2 (it was too long to post together)

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

I truly appreciate your reply, however brief. I certainly understand how a lack of time and/or energy can impede upon the desire or ability for lengthy debate(I am certainly in no position to judge anyone else, and certainly not you, for having non-instantaneous replies lacking depth or thoroughness). I did fear (I guess I still do!)that you felt ambushed by a friend undeservedly, or that you deemed my questions and/or assertions to be so ignorant as to be unworthy of recognition. For what it's worth, I really respect the breatdth and depth of your knowledge of things secular and spiritual, and would not bother to discuss such matters if I didn't really want your input and insights. Sadly, I have often embarked on what I saw as an enjoyable, friendly, mutually-enlightening debate with friends and family, who saw it as me picking an unprovoked, particularly tiresome fight, bludgeoning them repeatedly, pointlessly, and unimaginatively with MY same self-righteous, arrogant points and opinions, ad nauseum, until they fled my presence in frustration, anger, and/or disgust. I keep telling myself I'm not going to do that to people anymore (ironically I reserve such behavior for people I value and trust) but, well...
My apologies for my sloppy wording ("modern" instead of "modernist" - you are right, a BIG difference!), and, although it took some initial wading and digging, I actually got a lot out of the article you kindly refered me to on Modernism! My simplistic grasp of the overall concept (allowing for variance and different degrees)is that it basically denies the possibility of true miracles, formerly documented or in the future, and asserts that only personal revelation is valid, that no one has the right to truly divine revelation on behalf of another (even if they are the appointed ecclesiastical authority) - obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but am I close? Anyway, since you must be dying to know more of my personal thoughts on this (Shh!!), I fall in the contemptible catagory of so-called Christians who do not deny the possibilty that any/most/all of the miraculous events described in the scriptures could have happened (although I strongly suppose, for example, that the Book of Job may be more of a divinely-inspired parable than actual history [that whole thing in "V for Vendetta" about how a so - called "lie" can help you understand a true principle]), and that church authorities may very well be divinely appointed and inspired to council and prophecy on my or others' behalf...but I reserve the right to personally question and/or accept the validity of each and every claim on a case-by-case basis, judging everything against personal study/research, experience, careful contemplation, and by seeking individual spiritual confirmation. Which, I fear, pits me with those who are "neither cold nor hot", but "lukewarm", fit only to be spued.(KJV, Revelations 3:15-16). But such is my perspective at this point in my life, and I reserve the right to revise it, in the face of new, compelling evidence, at any time.:)Yeah, I'm "solid as a rock"!
Although I really would like to know more about the Crusades and the Inquisition, I realize it isn't your job to educate or enlighten me, or anyone else, and you inspired me to to do a little research of my own on the subject (I suspect that a lot of your readers are similarly inspired to learn a lot more about everything, not just to find ammo to refute your assertions, but to have some clue as to what the CRAP you're talking about! ;) For that alone, I dub thee Sir Awesome-Cool). Anyway, if you do ever have the time or inclination to expound upon these subjects more lengthily in your journal, please let me know - I look forward to reading your insights.