20 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayTo serve the interests of a quest for truth.
Why should I attempt to give you reasons to go against your
conscience with respect to those things you find repugnant when I'm
most certainly not going to vote for a Democrat against my conscience
when there are things about the Democrat's stance I find equally
repugnant?
Kelly
I didn't say that I find individualism morally repugnant, only that it is repugnant to the teachings of Jesus. It should be repugnant to those that profess themselves Christians.
20 Sep 09
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm not sure what you mean when you say individualism and how you
To serve the interests of a quest for truth.
I didn't say that I find individualism morally repugnant, only that it is repugnant to the teachings of Jesus. It should be repugnant to those that profess themselves Christians.
view it as morally repugnant. Can you give me a high level over view
of your take on this subject please?
Kelly
20 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI meant to say how you view individualism morally repugnant to being
I'm not sure what you mean when you say individualism and how you
view it as morally repugnant. Can you give me a high level over view
of your take on this subject please?
Kelly
a Christian, sorry my bad.
Kelly
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by WulebgrAnd your point is...?
So, I should conclude that a person with manners does not correct error.
That's ridiculous. I attack your ideas, not you as a person, nor your egregious typing, spelling, grammar, and other indications of minimal literacy.
You attributed to me something I did not say. I called you on it, and you reiterated your point with a flawed explanation. I sho ...[text shortened]... ginal question to clarify.
Having lost the argument, you attacked me as one without manners.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by WulebgrCorrect again.
[b]So, I should conclude that a person with manners does not correct error.
And I'd be careful attacking mistakes in spelling, grammar, etc. on here. Everyone types faster than they think, and (almost) nobody proofreads or spellchecks, or any of those pu$$ified actions that slow down debate.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydNot everyone, but I agree most. In five years reading these forums, I've seen precious few posts where the words failed to outrun the thoughts.
Everyone types faster than they think, and (almost) nobody proofreads or spellchecks, ...
Thanks for the nice metaphor!
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by Wulebgrshouldn't that be "your" tail? 😀 Like I said, never get in a pi44in' contest over grammar here.
That you tail is in a kink because you looked in the mirror, saw your egregious personal attacks, and thought that was me coming after you. Alas, despite a shared interest in decent music, I doubt we look much alike.
Look, all I said was you were inconsiderate and discourteous because....you were! Some people can let such offenses slide; some of us find rudeness to be the pinnacle of bad behavior and are compelled to point it out.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydOriginally posted by Wulebgr
shouldn't that be "your" tail? 😀 Like I said, never get in a pi44in' contest over grammar here.
Look, all I said was you were inconsiderate and discourteous because....you were! Some people can let such offenses slide; some of us find rudeness to be the pinnacle of bad behavior and are compelled to point it out.
You attributed to me something I did not say. I called you on it, and you reiterated your point with a flawed explanation. I showed how your logic was a case of misreading, and offered another version of my original question to clarify.
Where was I inconsiderate? Because I clarified what you clearly misread? That seemed to be about the time you started this claim that I was rude.
24 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrWhere were you inconsiderate? "You need a reading lesson." You see, people of class would simply ask the person to explain their meaning, IF they addressed them at all on a subject. If someone says something that you don't think is relevant, or doesn't make sense to you, it's OKAY TO IGNORE IT. In fact, it's considered polite. But one does NOT insult them by intimating that their reading skills need work. THAT is inconsiderate. And these are things you should have learned when you were knee-high to a grasshopper.
Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]You attributed to me something I did not say. I called you on it, and you reiterated your point with a flawed explanation. I showed how your logic was a case of misreading, and offered another version of my original question to clarify.
Where was I inconsiderate? Because I clarified what you clearly misread? That seemed to be about the time you started this claim that I was rude.[/b]
I hope that clarifies everything for you. Contemplate these words of wisdom. Think on these things. 😏
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydWhen someone misrepresents what you have said, you ask them to "explain their meaning"? That's noble of you.
Where were you inconsiderate? "You need a reading lesson." You see, people of class would simply ask the person to explain their meaning, IF they addressed them at all on a subject. If someone says something that you don't think is relevant, or doesn't make sense to you, it's OKAY TO IGNORE IT. In fact, it's considered polite. But one does NOT insult ...[text shortened]... e. And these are things you should have learned when you were knee-high to a grasshopper.
I don't. I correct and clarify, and do so respectfully, which I had done. You then intimated that I did not know the meaning of my own sentence. I could have dismissed you as rude, but my skin is thick enough for debate.
Perhaps "You need a reading lesson" was harsh. But the point had to be made that your misunderstanding of the question was because you read something that was not there. Asking you to clarify your meaning is an invitation to further violence against the language.
It's funny that you think the effort to be polite is so compelling that one can create a thread and then should abandon it out of courtesy when cretins vandalize it.
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by WulebgrI'll ask again, why do you think individualism is morally repugnant
To serve the interests of a quest for truth.
I didn't say that I find individualism morally repugnant, only that it is repugnant to the teachings of Jesus. It should be repugnant to those that profess themselves Christians.
to Jesus' teachings?
Kelly
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayJesus lived in a world that did not contain the sort of atomism that is at the heart of western individualistic thinking, so he did not need to address it directly. Many years of study have brought me to this conclusion, not a few verses that we can hop through.
I'll ask again, why do you think individualism is morally repugnant
to Jesus' teachings?
Kelly
In order to gain some understanding of the Bible, you might start with something written by Pastor William O'Brien:
I am convinced that the largest single barrier to our understanding is individualism. Individualism is perhaps the most pervasive and powerful force in Western culture, especially in the United States. As a philosophy, a cultural paradigm, and a mode of being, individualism is a bulwark of our political and economic systems, central to many of our most closely held values. Inasmuch as individualism grows out of the biblical teaching that each person is valuable and bears the divine image, it is the fount of human rights and personal freedom.
Yet individualism fuels the atomizing and alienating effects of consumer capitalism and quickens the deterioration of community. Individualism has also shaped Western Christianity. We stress individual salvation and speak of one's "personal relationship with Jesus." Many Christians bring a consumer mentality to matters of faith, "shopping" for the church that best satisfies their private spiritual needs.
Consciously or unconsciously, individualism also shapes our interpretation of Scripture. Whether in private reading or even within communal worship, I usually hear the biblical text addressed to me personally and uniquely. I try to discern its meaning for my life—while the person beside me applies it to her or his life, likewise acting as a private consumer of the text.
This individualism would have befuddled biblical writers. Although the biblical worldview certainly values each unique person, the Hebraic culture understood each individual as belonging to and fulfilled in a community. The radically individualized person apart from community would be an anomaly to the biblical mindset. The biblical writings are addressed to a people: in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was the Israelites; in the New Testament, the discipleship communities and house churches of those committed to Jesus. The narratives are part of a culture and history shared and shaped by a people. Scripture's commandments, teachings, and liturgical practices make sense only within a covenanted community with a common life.
http://www.forministry.com/
25 Sep 09
Or, you might look at this exposition of Jesus' teachings on marriage and divorce:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermons_that_work_3133_ENG_HTM.htm
a snippet:
But in Jesus' time, marriage and divorce were not just about the man and the woman. They were about two families representing many generations, property, honor, and status. Divorce was not just an individual event; it was a risky break of confidence that could lead to family feuds, shame, and hardship for numerous people. The hardness of heart Jesus speaks of seems not only to point to the potential suffering of the woman, who must return in shame to her family of origin; but it also points to the suffering of two entire families and the greater community.