The Inconstant Gardener

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'entitled'. I would say that from the rocks perspective, no, he would not.

In the context of the analogy as I/we understood it you are completely right.

However, if you are NOT looking at the OP from that perspective, then neither plants nor
rocks have a perspective and thus it doesn't matter [to them] if they are destroyed.

This does in my view make a mockery of the analogy in the OP, however if you accept that
misinterpretation of the op it does make sense.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Heh, GoaD chimed in earlier apparently on Dive's side.

I suspect what you are saying is correct.

TW took the analogy the same way I did.
Dive read it differently, focussing on different elements of the OP analogy.

And the two have been arguing from different premises ever since.

Agreed!

Originally posted by googlefudge
In the context of the analogy as I/we understood it you are completely right.

However, if you are NOT looking at the OP from that perspective, then neither plants nor
rocks have a perspective and thus it doesn't matter [to them] if they are destroyed.

This does in my view make a mockery of the analogy in the OP, however if you accept that
misinterpretation of the op it does make sense.

Actually, I think 'make a mockery' is too strong.

The OP sets the premise that God created human life and then let's us get on with it (there is, in fact, nothing about intervening negatively in the lives of humans in an active way). Like a gardener not bothering to tend to his hydrangeas.

I think it is perfectly valid to challenge the analogy on the basis that you cannot legitimately compare looking after hydrangeas with looking after human beings.

Even if you disagree with this, it is not making a mockery of the OP, but simply challenging its validity. It also does not mean that Dive misinterpreted the OP, but simply that he did not agree with Goad that the situations were comparable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Div was clearly saying that if our relationship to God is analogous (not identical to) that of a gardener and his plants, then we (not plants) should have no valid reason to be upset.

Man are you wrong about this.

Dive was saying that, if we are nothing more than plants, then we are not going to care what God does to us because we do not have the capacity to care one way or another. Everything he posted on the first few pages is consistent with this point of view.

You are still making the mistake of reading Dive's initial post as if it is a legally binding statement of evidence written by a lawyer.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Man are you wrong about this.

No, at least in this post, you are clearly in the wrong.

Dive was saying that, if we are nothing more than plants, then we are not going to care what God does to us because we do not have the capacity to care one way or another.
No, there is no rational way to interpret his post as saying that.
Now he could have said: "If we were plants, we would not (or could not) get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project."

But that is not what he said. What he said was:

So let's not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

Do you not see the difference?

The former is a statement of incapacity. The latter is a statement about should / shouldn't.

You are still making the mistake of reading Dive's initial post as if it is a legally binding statement of evidence written by a lawyer.
No, I am just taking it in plain English. When someone says 'lets not get upset' they are suggesting a course of action to someone capable of the choice of getting upset or not. There is really no other rational interpretation, certainly your interpretation - that it means we cannot get upset - is not a reasonable one.
Now I can see that there are subtleties to the phrase on a number of levels - but your interpretation is not one of them.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I think it is perfectly valid to challenge the analogy on the basis that you cannot legitimately compare looking after hydrangeas with looking after human beings.

Of course you can legitimately compare them. As with all analogies there will be things that match and things that do not match, but a comparison is possible and insight can be drawn from the analogy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, at least in this post, you are clearly in the wrong.

[b]Dive was saying that, if we are nothing more than plants, then we are not going to care what God does to us because we do not have the capacity to care one way or another.
No, there is no rational way to interpret his post as saying that.
Now he could have said: "If we were plants, we w ...[text shortened]... are subtleties to the phrase on a number of levels - but your interpretation is not one of them.[/b]

Hence why my comment about the joke was appropriate.

You simply can't see that you have become almost obsessed about a couple of words and on a post that I expect Dive did not spend more than a couple of seconds on from concept to writing and which was intended to be humorous.

You have taken it as some deadly serious, and carefully constructed, comment which has been extrapolated into (amongst other things) a justification for genocide. And you have steadfastly ignored anything that Dive has said to explain what he meant.

He has made it clear over and over again that his objection to the OP is that plants are not sentient. He may not have been clear, but he is clearly frustrated that you will not accept what he subsequently said at face value.

Originally posted by twhitehead

So let's not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

Taken, as a reflective and considered statement, you might have a point twhitehead about what Dive said. However, add a dollop of Christian sarcasm to his words and you surely see you have misunderstood his intent? (Surely?!). In essence, he was ridiculing the idea of the 'Gardener God' i was presenting, that was far removed from the God he believed in. I would expect nothing less from a Christian.

Perhaps if he had started with "Yeah, right,...so let's not get upset..." you would have better understood his meaning and avoided the subsequent descent into the perceived feelings of a carrot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course you [b]can legitimately compare them. As with all analogies there will be things that match and things that do not match, but a comparison is possible and insight can be drawn from the analogy.[/b]

I think you once mentioned that people sometimes find your approach to conversations like this difficult. Please accept my apologies in advance if I am confusing you with someone else. But this is nonetheless a classic example of why people find your posting style so frustrating.

Is what you said wrong? No.

Is it relevant? Yes.

So what's the problem?

Look, when I said that Dive was saying the analogy was not valid, I am just making a general statement that Dive saw a fundamental problem with the analogy in terms the insight that was being claimed.

Now, I could have expressed myself more precisely but it will become tedious beyond belief if I have to craft every remark I make to make it bullett proof to every conceivable semantic challenge.

(It's also quite insulting as it suggests that you don't think I understand this.)

Just as arguing the toss about whether rocks should feel upset about how they are treated is something neither Dive or I think is worth debating.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, at least in this post, you are clearly in the wrong.

[b]Dive was saying that, if we are nothing more than plants, then we are not going to care what God does to us because we do not have the capacity to care one way or another.
No, there is no rational way to interpret his post as saying that.
Now he could have said: "If we were plants, we w ...[text shortened]... are subtleties to the phrase on a number of levels - but your interpretation is not one of them.[/b]

If this is true, why has every poster in this debate now accepted that there is another possible interpretation of Dive's original post?

If you copy the quote into your response again, you will have spectacularly failed to understand my previous post.

What people mean, and what they say, can sometimes seem to be at odds. At these points, it has to be judged in the context of a broader debate.

If you think when someone misspeaks (and I am not saying Dive did) that it is legitimate to ignore all that is subsequently posted and keep repeating the original comment as 'proof', you will find yourself in endless pointless debates like this one.

Just I won't be participating.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If this is true, why has every poster in this debate now accepted that there is another possible interpretation of Dive's original post?

If you copy the quote into your response again, you will have spectacularly failed to understand my previous post.

What people mean, and what they say, can sometimes seem to be at odds. At these points, it has ...[text shortened]... will find yourself in endless pointless debates like this one.

Just I won't be participating.

Well said.

Why not start a thread arising from this one with a clear premise to discuss.

... and no referring back to this confused thread.

I put that to twhitehead and divegeester and anyone else interested.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You simply can't see that you have become almost obsessed about a couple of words and on a post that I expect Dive did not spend more than a couple of seconds on from concept to writing and which was intended to be humorous.

Whatever he intended originaly, your attempts at reinterpreting it are still wrong. (and his attempts at defending it were also wrong).

You have taken it as some deadly serious, and carefully constructed, comment which has been extrapolated into (amongst other things) a justification for genocide.
No, I have not. I have however taken it at face value and refused to accept as and explanation "but it isn't English and it says something other than what it says".

If it was carelessly said and he doesn't stand by what it says, well and good, let him say so.

And you have steadfastly ignored anything that Dive has said to explain what he meant.
On the contrary, I have tried very hard to get him to explain it and he has tried very hard not to do so.

He has made it clear over and over again that his objection to the OP is that plants are not sentient.
But his response clearly and unambiguously does not fit with that interpretation. As I say above, he is free to say he misspoke and meant something else.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
In essence, he was ridiculing the idea of the 'Gardener God' i was presenting, that was far removed from the God he believed in. I would expect nothing less from a Christian.

Yes, I am sure he was. But he was ridiculing it by using Christian theology that is unsound and which he clearly does not wish to discuss because its unsoundness would be exposed.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Why not start a thread arising from this one with a clear premise to discuss.

Because Christians in general refuse to discuss the actually interesting aspects of theology.