Forum manners in an ideal world
I have been reading a book by a philosopher on the human mind and evolution with which I thoroughly diagree (Daniel C. Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking). However, he has many useful ideas and uses many thinkers I admire including Anatol Rapoport. Dennett's summary of Rapoport:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Admittedly they, while good guidelines, fail to be consistently practical in the forums. So I have created my own list of guidelines for how to avoid looking like a bigoted idjit, a goal I think everyone with any interest in apologetics shares:
1. Topic: You should attempt to express your own position clearly rather than stating the others' position poorly. Show humility in the limits of your knowledge.
2. Domain: Don't use a broader brush than justified - just as there exist differences between Baptists, so here exist differences between Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Republicans, Asians ...
3. Language: Ban the use of the pet phrases of your own tradition - they mean nothing outside your tradition. "liberals", "infidels", "idjits" mean different things to different groups. Abrasive language is a marker for our fears and ignorance. Cherry-picked facts are as useless as no facts.
4. Complexity: Don't solely blame religion when economic, social, cultural and ethnic issues are also in play. The Irish Catholic/Protestant issue has roots in English rule and Scottish immigrants more than the Reformation.
My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
Great points Martha! I would like to clarify your point #3. I believe you mean, correct me if I am wrong, more than derogatory terms. For example, as a Reformed Christian I should avoid pet terms such as "elect" for it will mean something completely different to an Arminian.
0 -
Alan Charles Gielczyk said:
I should avoid pet terms such as "elect" for it will mean something completely different to an Arminian.
exactly
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?
Good points here.
Maybe we should add some other common sense points here too like:
- Don't caricature a position for the purpose of dismissing the caricature.
- Not every disagreement is worthy a response.
- I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.
- Not everyone is interested in my unique perspective on this topic/passage/point of theology/etc.
- If you're not asking for help, or trying to help someone who has asked for it, ask yourself what you hope to accomplish.
- As a general rule, avoid generalizations. [;)]
- Delay posting when you're feeling anxious, defensive, angry, or any other strong emotion. If it's worth saying, it will be worth saying tomorrow.
- Never think you know someone's motives, if they haven't specifically stated them.
- No one here actually fits in your "box" about who you think they are.
There are probably some more.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
nice additions, Richard.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Where's that 'chapeau bas' emoticon when you need it? Very well expressed and I agree wholeheartedly. I have learned this the hard way (translation: I have made myself sound like an idiot numerous times before). May I suggest this be 'stickied' or supplemented to the forum's rules?MJ. Smith said:My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?
In other words, Seek first to understand then to be understood (from Steven Covey's 7 habits). More often than not, people forget about listening emphatically and tend to start thinking of what to say in response even before the other person finishes his/her statement.MJ. Smith said:1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.
I fear that if this was heeded, the internet would be a quiet, lonely place. (insert photo of a tumbleweed rolling down the street of a ghost town here)
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
There are some geat posts in this thread. That especially to MJ. and Richard.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?
Maybe I didn't understand because of having a simple mind and english being not my native language, but does buying Noet make you instantly a non-believer?
My first book for Libronix was Waltke-O'Connor. I bought it because it was easier to have in my laptop than carrying that big book. Later on I have added L4 OL plus many resources relating to ancient languages. Although being a christian I still consider ancient languages to be my main motive for my Logos library.
0 -
Niko said:
does buying Noet make you instantly a non-believer?
[:)] Nope ... but non-believers have more reason to purchase Noet than Logos
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Peace! *smile* Thanks to all who have contributed to this very pleasant and helpful thread. I will be bookmarking it and re-reading it a number of times.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Paul Golder said:Richard DeRuiter said:
I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.
I fear that if this was heeded, the internet would be a quiet, lonely place. (insert photo of a tumbleweed rolling down the street of a ghost town here)
Can do:
0 -
Looks like Oklahoma. Notice the utility pole is leaning to the left. A tornado must have gone through here.
Ward Walker said:Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Looks like the ghost town is down to foundations only ... at least nothing above grass height. I like it[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I am in the middle of writing a book on American conservative philosophy (its roots, what it is, how it is misunderstood even by alleged Conservatives, etc.), and I have a chapter on "feminized discourse" that is germane to this thread. And I have a lot to say that some might or might not find interesting; I don't know how far we can or should push this thread. Prolly I'll just post this up and people will get mad at me and that will be the end of it. [:P]
I agree with much of what has been said; for example, it is not only appropriate but essential to understand your adversary's position. Indeed, you should ideally understand it better than they do.
Well and fine.
However, I have noticed that there is a decided aversion in this forum (and elsewhere) to feisty and spirited debate; that is what I personally grew up on, and I must say it’s a bit of a culture shock to meet people (in both the virtual and real world, and here) who put such an overwhelming premium on being sensitive, “perspectival” etc.
And yet, that^ is not quite true after all.
What is a bit closer to the truth is that demands that people be more “sensitive” and “nuanced” and “perspectival” (and all the other ways we try to feminize what such people call “discourse”) are usually made when a person doesn’t agree with the content of the post, irrespective of the "mode of discourse" employed.
I have many times been told in seminars that my "discourse" is "phallic" - by both men and women who believe they deserve to be affirmed at every point in the conversation; and that their viewpoints ought to be confirmed no matter how wrong-headed. This is why Aristotle is so despised in some circles: his modal logic is as inexorable as it is powerful.
This is a sad state of affairs and the result of years and years of mis-training people into believing that their viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's merely because they hold it; who have been insulated from "penetrating" questioning for so long that they are not used to having to defend their positions cogently; and, indeed, cannot do so.
In other words, these demands are more often than not ways of insulating oneself from penetrating analysis and rigorous thinking; as well as ways of controlling conversations and debate so that it conforms to one's own viewpoint.
I have seen it over and over again in this forum: if a post expresses a consensus opinion content-wise, one can be as impolite (“snarky”) as one likes and it goes un-noticed; whereas, if a post’s content expresses a non-consensus position, it is perceive it as impolite, however politely written. I have noticed (and noted) this on many threads in this forum.
In short, it seems to me that for many people perceptions of “polite” or “impolite” posts are highly (if not almost completely) mediated by whether that person agrees or disagrees with the content of the post.
As for me, my education and upbringing was entirely conducted upon spirited debate and often in tutorials with very intimidating and able adversaries as tutors; I am very used to the rough and tumble of verbal debate and do not mind at all a bit of feistiness - indeed, I relish it. And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so Carol Gilligan-ated and feminized.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Butters, recognizing you're trying very hard, but I just have never seen someone paint the behavior discussed by the good apostle Paul (Rom 12-13) as feminine. I'll have to read your book.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Paul's behavior seems to reflect the circumstance at hand. Sometime he was quite prepared to "throw down", as it were:
"You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Butters contra mundum.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
Paul Golder said:
you will take no other view than mine
I like that.
Paul Golder said:I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"
Paul, are you saying the Apostle started the movement to feminize the Bible?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Butters said:
As for me, my education and upbringing was entirely conducted upon spirited debate and often in tutorials with very intimidating and able adversaries as tutors; I am very used to the rough and tumble of verbal debate and do not mind at all a bit of feistiness - indeed, I relish it. And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so Carol Gilligan-ated and feminized.
MOST of the time we almost do OK - then every 18 months or so we go off the deep end on who is and who is not a REAL Christian.
The internet is still new - we are NOT face to face and we are not used to 100,000 others being involved.
0 -
Super Tramp said:Paul Golder said:
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!"
Paul, are you saying the Apostle started the movement to feminize the Bible?
Now that's funny [:D]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
-
Super Tramp said:
I stand with Sparticus Butters.
Me too. It was a refreshing post although I confess to having to research "Carol Gilligan-ated".
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
I think probably the adjectives normally associated with women, being self-applied to males is the confusing part. Feisty "phallic discourse".
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Butters said:
However, I have noticed that there is a decided aversion in this forum (and elsewhere) to feisty and spirited debate;
Part of the reason for that is that the forum guidelines tell us that this is not a place for debate, spirited or otherwise.
Butters said:And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so . . . feminized.
To consider politeness to being feminine and 'rough and tumble...verbal debate' to being masculine is to live in a world I do not live in. I know too many 'rough and tumble' sharp-tongued women and too many 'polite' men. I don't believe the traits to which you refer are inherently feminine or masculine, but rather aggressive vs. passive-aggressive (would that be fair?). Honestly, I do prefer aggressive to passive-aggressive, in the way I prefer bullets to booby-traps. On the other hand, both types of aggression (overt vs. covert), make me suspicious that the person holding the position is not totally convinced him/herself.
As to your 'charge' that agreement with the consensus is treated differently than disagreement as to degrees of politeness, I must say that I haven't seen it quite that way, but I do try to avoid the debate threads as much as possible. I wish I were better at it. And I even wonder whether I should debate you about the nature of debate in this thread. (!)
Note: I have no idea who Carol Gilligan is, except for what I skimmed in a wikipedia article.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Denise said:
I think probably the adjectives normally associated with women, being self-applied to males is the confusing part.
You know, if you inverse this statement, you end up with inclusive Bible translation philosophy.
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Very true. Sirach was the last writer that knew which side of the bread had the butter.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
On the other hand, both types of aggression (overt vs. covert), make me suspicious that the person holding the position is not totally convinced him/herself
Now that's passive-aggressive!
I once had a feminist say my having lots of children was my attempt to convince myself I was not a homosexual. I just (confidently) assured her I needed no convincing.
Richard DeRuiter said:Note: I have no idea who Carol Gilligan is, except for what I skimmed in a wikipedia article.
Me either. Butters could have just said Gilligan and accomplished the same message. [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:Richard DeRuiter said:
Note: I have no idea who Carol Gilligan is, except for what I skimmed in a wikipedia article.
Me either. Butters could have just said Gilligan and accomplished the same message.
+1. I suspected a connection to Gilligan's Island, but after having read a bit about Carol and the "ethics of care" approach, I think this reference is butt on *)
My, male, summary of what I learned in ten minutes: "for the feminine side (however defined) of ethics, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, but only that relationships don't get hurt". While I concede that some of Butters' observations are not totally out of place, I think it's a legitime interest of Logos as our provider and rule-maker as well as of the many forum users coming from very different areas of faith (or even un-faith) to make sure that people won't get hurt here. And we have no chance to establish who is or was right or wrong in faith, dogmatics, practice or even history. Going round circle, however, this IMO entitles Butters and others to hold a critical view against e.g. the mainstream "Abrahamic ecumenic" view of Islam. Logos should provide resources to research such questions from various angles - but we probably won't be able to reach a consensus here.
Mick
*) non-native speaker's weak attempt at a pun - normally we should refrain from even trying. Please don't whack me with hard, blunt & phallic-looking objects, I will edit my post if it hurts anyone....
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
[:D]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I learned to argue well from my father ... mother would often ask to be let out of the car rather than listen.[:P]
However, I learned to argue in the context of a small community - 3 room school for 8 grades; town of 125 counting Grandma's goats. Being able to rely upon one's neighbor was a higher value than proving one's self to be right. Drive off the dirt road in a snow storm and you want to trust the closest neighbor ... who was bound to be within a couple of miles most the time.
I also learned to argue in an academic environment from the head of my committee. He was so "sweet" that some students became sick the first few days he was back from sabbatical. Luckily, professors around the world had the utmost respect for him ... and did not want to work on joint projects with him.
I learned to reason from Dad and from a computer ... a billion dollar payroll does not allow for errors
I learned from experience that being aggressive rather than factual guarantees I will be ineffective.
Not sure where masculine/feminine fit into it. My style is closest to Dad and my elder brother. Mother, my sister and my other brother are less argumentative ... perhaps that is why the older brother was a research engineer ... and the younger was university administration.
P.S. Coalescent Argumentation by Michael A. Gilbert presents a model that I believe to fit well in the context of religious discussion as does An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue by Griffiths, Paul J.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I learned from experience that being aggressive rather than factual guarantees I will be ineffective.
What a great life lesson for us all to learn. I would add that even being factual without expressing care will also result in ineffectiveness. A person might win the argument but lose the relationship.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
I would add that even being factual without expressing care will also result in ineffectiveness. A person might win the argument but lose the relationship.
You are right... and I'm often not good at that end 'cause the computer didn't care.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
- Not every disagreement is worthy a response.
I simply wanted to agree with you, but now I'm in doubt as to whether agreement might disqualify my response on the basis of worthiness.
"I read dead people..."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I learned from experience that being aggressive rather than factual guarantees I will be ineffective.
And I keep having to re-learn that aggression negates even the most factual and well reasoned arguments.
"I read dead people..."
0 -
NB.Mick said:
I suspected a connection to Gilligan's Island,
After reading this thread, I got the theme song for "Gilligan's Island" stuck in my head, so much so that I had to change it to "Logos Island". The following is meant only for humorous and entertainment purposes.
Logos Island (to the tune of Gilligan's Island)
Just sit right back
And you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip,
That started on Golgotha's hill,
and ended in a tomb.
The Christ was a mighty saving man,
though hung on a cross for sure,
Salvations plan was set that day,
After three days in the tomb,
after three days in the tomb.
The Romans started getting rough,
The mighty Lord was pierced,
If not for the plan of an awesome God,
The sinners would be lost,
The sinners would be lost.
The Saviour rose on Sunday morn
The Messiah to be seen,
By Gilligan,
The Skipper too.
The millionaire
And his wife.
The movie star,
the professor and May Ann,
Here on Logos Island.
Gilligan played by Unix
The Skipper played by Michael Childs,
The millionaire played by fgh
His wife played by Denise,
The movie star played by Butters
The professor played by Thomas Black
Mary Ann played by MJ
0 -
Pretty good Michael. Except that fgh is not a 'his' but a 'her' so can't be the millionaire. She may be in real life though.
0 -
Michael said:Sleiman said:
Pretty good Michael. Except that fgh is not a 'his' but a 'her' so can't be the millionaire. She may be in real life though.
We can swap fgh and Butters.
I don't know. The resemblance is rather striking:
AND....
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Paul Golder said:Richard DeRuiter said:
I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.
I fear that if this was heeded, the internet would be a quiet, lonely place. (insert photo of a tumbleweed rolling down the street of a ghost town here)
Right ! MJ, are you trying to create "the best of all possible worlds"? We'll be bored out of our gourd. [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thanks so much for all the thoughtful responses. I really like this place and hope I come across as respectful; for that is certainly how I regard all of you. I’d like to respond (indirectly) to a few comments and to clarify a few points.
1. I agree that the purpose of this forum is obviously not to debate; and yet, why was this thread inaugurated at all except to explore and suggest the terms upon which debate is acceptable? Excepting Butters, we’re all adults here; most of us are probably committed to our religious convictions, which permeate virtually everything really; obviously some debate is going to happen, which I’m sure is fine as long as we keep it within reasonable bounds.
2. I have never suggested and do not believe that anyone should be unkind while debating a point; quite the opposite in fact. However, I do object to “kindness” meaning that you cannot rigorously demolish a person’s argument. Similarly to “love the sinner, hate the sin,” there is a clear difference between a person and their argument.
I’ve often sensed that the people who have scolded me for engaging in “phallic” discourse were unable to distinguish between themselves and their own arguments. That is to say, they so identify with their arguments that any criticism of their arguments are perceived as criticism directed at them.
I do not, however, believe that one should allow outright lies or illogical or unsupportable assertions to proliferate just because one wishes to avoid offending a person, merely because that person identifies so intimately with their position. Rigorously pulling apart a person’s argument is fair game; and politeness ought to be part of that. However, as I have suggested, perceptions of “politeness” and “impoliteness” are often mediated by considerations other than the actual “politeness” or “impoliteness” of the “discourse.”
3. I often get the sense that when people use the word “love” in the context of Christ and Christianity, that they mean a kind of vague and sentimental, subjective feeling. That to “love” means to refrain from making judgements (I can hear the quotations churning already - I do NOT mean judging a person’s soul or their relationship with God or anything of the sort); that “love” is indeed a sort of cloying miasmic atmosphere around which we enclose (suffocate? lol? [:P]) the beloved.
But that isn’t theological or scriptural or philosophical or commonsensical. To love a person, as St. Augustine said so well, is not to adopt a passive and indifferent relativism veiled by a vague and sentimental feeling, but to “will the good of the other.” And, of course, we are commanded to love.
4. I don’t know where anyone got the idea that I have suggested that feminine = polite v. masculine = impolite. Indeed, that was my very point: that debating a point rigorously, even though perfectly politely, is often perceived impolite simply because one isn’t used to rigorous debate, or because one disagrees with the content of the opposition’s argument.
5. Also, there’s been a confusion of terms here. Think of “masculine” and “feminine” as being akin to grammatical gender. Men can easily be “feminine” and women can easily be “masculine.” When I say “feminized,” for example, I am not talking about “womanly” postures or attitudes, at least not necessarily. Nor was Ms. Gilligan.
6. One would have to be so extremely selective in reading and quoting Paul to elicit a non-combative, milquetoast image of a Christian that one would have to practically edit most of his words into utter oblivion.7. I found Super Tramp’s example of “passive aggressive” depressingly familiar. I could tell scores and scores of similar stories about that sort of verbal arsonry - which is frankly dishonest, underhanded and without foundation.
For example, for no other reason than that a person disagreed with my position on, say, gay marriage, and was unable to engage with it much less refute it (a position I hold and can defend theologically, scripturally, legally and philosophically), I have thereby been accused of engaging in “hate speech.” I have actually been dragged before a committee to decide whether or not I “belong” at a school. Now, unless I am actually engaging in “hate speech,” (and I do not), when someone argues that I am, what it more often than not really means is this: “I disagree with you but either won’t or can’t argue the point, so I shall pejoratively characterize you in such a way that resonates with a sort of collective group think, and thereby brand you and your words as illegitimate.”
In short, that sort of passive aggression is often merely a way of shutting down certain points of view. There is something truly skin crawling about it.
Now, the question is, why do they find my words so upsetting? I think it’s because they have an emotional commitment to something they cannot really defend because they do not understand their own position, much less mine.
And ironically, it is PRECISELY because they have not had to engage in “spirited debate” - they have effectively insulated themselves from it - that has kept them so vulnerable and so unable to understand what they apparently believe in; and, moreover, they are so un-tutored in any sort of genuine opposing argument (as opposed to a silly caricature) that they are shocked and tongue-tied when actually confronted by a persuasive, logical clear opposition argument.
And in my opinion, given the general drift of the world, we as Christians really need to root ourselves in truth and learn how to argue effectively, politely, rigorously, fearlessly. And I’m afraid it will be perceived as “impolite” by those who disagree with you, no matter how far you bend over backwards to be polite. John 15:18-25 comes to mind.
JRS mentioned contra mundum - which is funny because I've been reading St. Athanasius, and in particular De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. I sometimes think he ought to be a patron saint for our age; or at least, as a "Mad Bad Trad", that he ought to be mine.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Peace, Butters! *smile* Thank you for your words! Indeed!
I appreciate your being part of these Logos Forums!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Butters, thank you for taking time to clarify your thoughts through your last thoughtful post. I think you make a lot of great points.
It is so easy to misread someone when we have the luxury of interacting with them face to face but that challenge goes up exponentially when we try to communicate on a computer forum like this. That is why it is probably better for each of us to take a few more moments to think about how a post might be interpreted before pressing the "post" icon.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Bruce Dunning said:
Butters, thank you for taking time to clarify your thoughts through your last thoughtful post. I think you make a lot of great points.
It is so easy to misread someone when we have the luxury of interacting with them face to face but that challenge goes up exponentially when we try to communicate on a computer forum like this. That is why it is probably better for each of us to take a few more moments to think about how a post might be interpreted before pressing the "post" icon.
To illustrate: I went to the grocery yesterday morning. When I pulled into a parking space and walked toward the store one person was looking rather strangely at me and said "You shouldn't be on the road." I was offended since I thought he was being critical of my driving (which is pretty darn good). Later when I finished and returned to my mini-van to load the groceries I noticed that the temporary tags had expired so he wasn't commenting on my driving but on my expired tags. [:)] (I borrowed another vehicle and went to the dealer to get an extension on the tags until the new plates arrived).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Butters.
My only problem continues to be with your classification of masculine vs feminine. You apparently have something clearly in mind by those terms, but I still don't know what you mean. Perhaps speaking of the same phenomena with other terms could be helpful.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I suspect the feminine discouse concept may link to my going down to the garage, after letting my nail polish dry. Sharpening up my tongue with the 18v Ryobi is especially painful, when getting the two points even.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Yes Butters I also enjoy reading your posts. No boring stuff! So keep on posting.
[Y]Bruce Dunning said:That is why it is probably better for each of us to take a few more moments to think about how a post might be interpreted before pressing the "post" icon.
On another thread (a recent long one with many tributaries), I was the one to ask refrain from expressing opinions on certain matters (referring to this post). I did so mainly because I was trying to stop myself from engaging in a debate that has no place on these forums. Since I am not very effective at restraining myself (I can resist anything but temptation [;)]), I tried to stop the temptation from evolving; and in the process, I disguised my weakness and subtly pointed it at others, and for that I apologize and ask forgiveness.
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Butters.
My only problem continues to be with your classification of masculine vs feminine. You apparently have something clearly in mind by those terms, but I still don't know what you mean. Perhaps speaking of the same phenomena with other terms could be helpful.
Thank you for your question Richard! I really wish we could discuss this in my living room or study with a [D] in hand.
Well, I am not a nominalist; indeed, I consider nominalism to be one of the most destructive ideologies of our time, and one that has its roots in every impulse that is contrary to truth, not to mention Christianity.
I hold that words (including beauty, truth and goodness, et cetera) are fully meaningful, and that they refer to something real. Every great philosopher and theologian did so as well. And to be sure, Christ was no nominalist.
The postmodernist project, in a highly sophisticated and subtle and even intellectually seductive manner, has long held language and words in it's crosshairs, with the object of de-racinating words. It is so insidious, I even discover people adopting nominalist positions without having ever assented to it; somehow it's absorbed by people unwittingly via a kind of cultural osmosis.
Nominalism has many disguises; however, one disguise it currently goes by is "deconstructionism."
You can tell you're talking to deconstructionist/nominalist when he or she employes air quotes used around almost every significant word, such as "feminine." Because, you see: they argue that the meaning of words is "socially constructed" and so the word's meaning refers to nothing real; therefore the meaning of words is arbitrary. Their arguments are easily refutable if you want advice on how to go about doing so; I have a lot of practice doing so.
So, I hope you don't mind that I personally refuse to adapt my use of words in order to account for an implicit nominalism. In any case, I think it's highly probable that you know very well what "masculine" and "feminine" mean. After all, they aren't new words and are standard English.
I could provide many definitions; however, here's a particularly nice C.S. Lewis passage on the topic:
[center]_________[/center]
"Both bodies were naked, and both were free from any sexual characteristics, either primary or secondary. That, one would have expected. But whence came this curious difference between them? He found that he could point to no single feature wherein the difference resided, yet it was impossible to ignore. One could try – Ransom has tried a hundred times – to put it into words. He has said that Malacandra was like rhythm and Perelandra like melody. He has said that Malacandra affected him like a quantitative, Perelandra like an accentual, metre. He thinks that the first held in his hand something like a spear, but the hands of the other were open, with palms toward him.
But I don’t know that any of these attempts has helped be much. At all events what Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender. Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and other feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex.
Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless.
Masculine is not attenuated male, not feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity…
Malacandra seemed to him to have the look of one standing armed, at the ramparts of his own remote archaic world, in ceaseless vigilance, his eyes ever roaming the earth-ward horizon whence his danger came long ago. “A sailor’s look,” Ransom once said to me; “you know… eyes that are impregnated with distance.” But the eyes of Perelandra opened, as it were, inward, as if they were the curtained gateway to a world of waves and murmurings and wandering airs, of life that rocked in winds and splashed on mossy stones and descended as the dew and arose sunward in thin-spun delicacy of mist."
[center]_________[/center]
I'm always willing to discuss further. And please know that you have an open invitation to drop by for a [D] with Butters.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Michael said:
After reading this thread, I got the theme song for "Gilligan's Island" stuck in my head, so much so that I had to change it to "Logos Island". The following is meant only for humorous and entertainment purposes.
Michael, I've been meaning to mention that your adaptation of that song was very, very clever. I got a huge laugh out of it. And Butters has a crush on Ginger so he doesn't mind at all being identified with her.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0 -
Butters said:
Michael, I've been meaning to mention that your adaptation of that song was very, very clever. I got a huge laugh out of it. And Butters has a crush on Ginger so he doesn't mind at all being identified with her.
~Butters
Thank you, you just made my day! [:D]
0 -
Sleiman said:
Yes Butters I also enjoy reading your posts. No boring stuff! So keep on posting.
Thanks and likewise Sleiman!
Cheers,
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
0
