Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    149176
    20 Jan '19 01:32
    “But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
  2. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    20 Jan '19 05:21
    @kellyjay said
    “But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but ...[text shortened]... urposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
    We can perhaps wait for a poster who is "rebelling against everything" or who self-identifies as "an infinite sceptic" to come along and see what they say about about G.K. Chesterton's quote. Are you going to argue the writer's corner?
  3. Stargazing
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    89260
    20 Jan '19 05:54
    @kellyjay said
    “But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but ...[text shortened]... urposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
    Another hand-grenade OP obviously aimed at specific poster(s) in the forum but lacking the courage to name them.

    At least it’s not using biblical scriptures referencing god’s enemies or rambling on about demons.
  4. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35902
    20 Jan '19 11:27
    @fmf said
    We can perhaps wait for a poster who is "rebelling against everything" or who self-identifies as "an infinite sceptic" to come along and see what they say about about G.K. Chesterton's quote. Are you going to argue the writer's corner?
    Another obvious attempt to twist one's words back onto that person.

    Except this is just a quote, man. Your frothing is useless. As is your twisting of the meaning of the words.
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35902
    20 Jan '19 11:29
    @divegeester said
    Another hand-grenade OP obviously aimed at specific poster(s) in the forum but lacking the courage to name them.

    At least it’s not using biblical scriptures referencing god’s enemies or rambling on about demons.
    "Obviously"? "Obviously" to you, perhaps, but then you do seem to act as if everyone in this forum posts for the same reasons you do, to attack others. It's just not true.

    Again, it's a quote. No need to fluff your feathers and act all offended.
  6. Stargazing
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    89260
    20 Jan '19 14:50
    @suzianne said
    "Obviously"? "Obviously" to you, perhaps, but then you do seem to act as if everyone in this forum posts for the same reasons you do, to attack others. It's just not true.

    Again, it's a quote. No need to fluff your feathers and act all offended.
    Then why don’t we see if KellyJay is willing to unequivocally and truthfully state that his OP is not in any way purposefully aimed at another poster in this forum.

    Let’s see...
  7. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29885
    20 Jan '19 15:14
    @suzianne said
    Another obvious attempt to twist one's words back onto that person.

    Except this is just a quote, man. Your frothing is useless. As is your twisting of the meaning of the words.
    Who is "rebelling against everything"? Who self-identifies as "an infinite sceptic" in this community? I haven't "twisted" any words. They are keywords from the OP quote.
  8. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    24 Jan '19 11:052 edits
    @kellyjay said
    “But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but ...[text shortened]... urposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
    What Chesterton describes is the archetype of the hypocrite. Skeptics and rebels have no monopoly on hypocrisy. There are hypocrites among the faithful, too. For example, bishops who move predator priests around from parish to parish and cause evidence against them to remain buried until the statue of limitations expires, while condemning " in the strongest possible language" sexual perversions. Or certain fundamentalists who oppose abortions and contraception and go to the ends of the Earth to protect an unborn foetus, yet refuse to fund national health care or social services for people in need. That's hypocrisy, too. Until bishops start handing over predator priests (and evidence) to the secular criminal court system for justice, they have no right to preach any sexual ethic to the rest of us.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    149176
    24 Jan '19 18:06
    @moonbus said
    What Chesterton describes is the archetype of the hypocrite. Skeptics and rebels have no monopoly on hypocrisy. There are hypocrites among the faithful, too. For example, bishops who move predator priests around from parish to parish and cause evidence against them to remain buried until the statue of limitations expires, while condemning " in the strongest possible language" ...[text shortened]... criminal court system for justice, they have no right to preach any sexual ethic to the rest of us.
    Hypocrisy is a human issue in every walk of life. Remaining consistent in argument from beginning to end is the goal, as well as life in general. Condemning requires a standard of just behavior, without that it’s simply a comparison of one moving ever changing standard to specific events that can be liked today, and hated tomorrow. Therefore the judgment passed is only a passing fancy nothing more.
  10. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    24 Jan '19 20:311 edit
    @kellyjay said
    Hypocrisy is a human issue in every walk of life. Remaining consistent in argument from beginning to end is the goal, as well as life in general. Condemning requires a standard of just behavior, without that it’s simply a comparison of one moving ever changing standard to specific events that can be liked today, and hated tomorrow. Therefore the judgment passed is only a passing fancy nothing more.
    Still, some formerly-ethical precepts were repudiated or abandoned, and rightly so. Exodus 22:18, for example, did not merely go out of fashion.
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    149176
    24 Jan '19 21:23
    @moonbus said
    Still, some formerly-ethical precepts were repudiated or abandoned, and rightly so. Exodus 22:18, for example, did not merely go out of fashion.
    Yes now there is room for repentance before standing before God in sin.
Back to Top