29 Apr 11
How easy it seems to call out a “them”
that “we” then with little thought can condemn:
round the name, not deeds, to tie a barb’d truss—
“Why worry if ‘these’ are diff’rent from ‘those’?
‘thems’ are just ‘thems’, as everyone knows;
and even if they’re not, why make a fuss—
what some of them will but some of them won’t,
as some of them say, though some of them don’t?
All we need to know: that ‘them’ are not ‘us’.”
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by vistesdIs "Them" the same people as "They"? 🙂
How easy it seems to call out a “them”
that “we” then with little thought can condemn:
round the name, not deeds, to tie a barb’d truss—
“Why worry if ‘these’ are diff’rent from ‘those’?
‘thems’ are just ‘thems’, as everyone knows;
and even if they’re not, why make a fuss—
what some of them will but some of them won’t,
as some of them say, though some of them don’t?
All we need to know: that ‘them’ are not ‘us’.”
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by vistesd[i]http://www.barnabasministry.com/quotes-sneeches.html
How easy it seems to call out a “them”
that “we” then with little thought can condemn:
round the name, not deeds, to tie a barb’d truss—
“Why worry if ‘these’ are diff’rent from ‘those’?
‘thems’ are just ‘thems’, as everyone knows;
and even if they’re not, why make a fuss—
what some of them will but some of them won’t,
as some of them say, though some of them don’t?
All we need to know: that ‘them’ are not ‘us’.”
...I’m quite happy to say.
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day.
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches.
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether
They had one, or not, upon thars.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by vistesdI'm curious vistesd, from what context is that taken?
How easy it seems to call out a “them”
that “we” then with little thought can condemn:
round the name, not deeds, to tie a barb’d truss—
“Why worry if ‘these’ are diff’rent from ‘those’?
‘thems’ are just ‘thems’, as everyone knows;
and even if they’re not, why make a fuss—
what some of them will but some of them won’t,
as some of them say, though some of them don’t?
All we need to know: that ‘them’ are not ‘us’.”
The words are true I think. Reminds me of a Bible passage that says essentially the same thing about judging others while we ourselves do the same things.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by josephwHello, Joe old friend! Hope you and yours are well!
I'm curious vistesd, from what context is that taken?
The words are true I think. Reminds me of a Bible passage that says essentially the same thing about judging others while we ourselves do the same things.
Well, you deserve a “long answer” (for old times' sake). In my most recent visits back here, I have seen a phenomenon that I saw years ago: persons of one religion claiming what persons of another religion believe (or how they behave) as if (1) they have some actual knowledge, and (2) their knowledge itself is broad enough to justify a generalization: “they” or “them”—as in “all” they or them, or at least most, or the “mainstream”, or whatever.
Suppose a Muslim were to speak of “Christians”—and make assertions about what “they” believe (or, even worse, must believe to be “true Christians” )—inclusive of Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Coptic, etc., etc. ? Well, a whole lot of Christians, across the spectrum would jump in both to (a) declaim their differences (and maybe themselves indulge in some intramural “no true Christian™” argument), and (b) to ask where a Muslim gets off making what might be seen as unwarranted generalizations about Christians as “they” or “them”. Well, it happens. But, on this particular forum, it seems to happen often from Christians—but, since Ahosyney left, there hasn’t been much of a Muslim presence here. So, the most recent context for me (not on just a given thread) happened to be from Christians aimed at Muslims (and I argued that point on here so many years ago…!). But “Muslim” can be taken as no more a monolithic generalization than can Christian (and if there were as many varied Muslims on this site as there are Christians—e.g., “mainstream” Sunnis, Wahabbis, Ishmailis, Twelver Shia, Sufis (of different tariqas), etc., etc.—I’m sure we would see as much intramural argument among them about how the Qur’an should be interpreted, the role of hadith, who are the “true Muslims™”, as we do among Christians on here now!).
But we both know that we have seen it on here from Vedantists, from Christians, and from atheists as well. But none of “them” can really be generalized into that kind of “they/them” either!
And the very worst (in the sense of being presumptuously absurd!) is when someone starts insisting to the other what that other “must” believe in order to be a “true them/other™”! Second worst is when people start asserting what [all of] “them” believe, or how [all of] “them” behave. Third worst is when a person of one religion insists (properly) on some cogent hermeneutical framework for understanding their own scriptures, while (a) abusively throwing out quotes—without even addressing the question of context—from the scriptures of a different religion (as if they didn’t need to think about such stuff in order to understand “those” scriptures), or (b) assuming that the same hermeneutical principles (e.g. appropriate contextualization) apply willy-nilly for all scriptures—e.g., the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospels, the Qur’an, the Tao Te Ching…
Of course we can argue and debate! But one has to at least listen to the other’s argument before pronouncing on them. If one wants to declaim on (the various interpretations of) what the Qur’an says, one needs to at least have studied the Qur’an. If one wants to know how this or that Muslim interprets the Qur’an, one must first hear them—and not assume then that they necessarily speak for all Muslims (for all of “them” ).
But I did want to de-contextualize the whole thing, so no one group would think I was accusing “them”—and so I wrote that little doggerel.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNice! How are you, ATY? Been some time. Hope all is well with you and yours.
[i]http://www.barnabasministry.com/quotes-sneeches.html
...I’m quite happy to say.
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day.
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches.
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether
They had one, or not, upon thars.
29 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThat deserves a rec.
Hello, Joe old friend! Hope you and yours are well!
Well, you deserve a “long answer” (for old times' sake). In my most recent visits back here, I have seen a phenomenon that I saw years ago: persons of one religion claiming what persons of another religion believe (or how they behave) as if (1) they have some actual knowledge, and (2) their knowledge ...[text shortened]... e thing, so no one group would think I was accusing “them”—and so I wrote that little doggerel.
I agree with you about the poor representation of other beliefs. In this respect, it's a shame Dasa/Vishvahetu alienated himself with his conduct.
29 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergAh, another old friend!
That deserves a rec.
I agree with you about the poor representation of other beliefs. In this respect, it's a shame Dasa/Vishvahetu alienated himself with his conduct.
Thanks. I see that you tried to make a similar point on the "Futility" thread. Some took you as "mocking" the religion (and arguments among religionists--and non-religionists--per se), when really it seems you were "mocking" a certain kind of exchange, in which neither side can see that they are acting the same way as the other side. And end up at loggerheads (rather than what I would call a valid impasse) because neither side is actually making a cogent argument at all. That's the way I read it anyway...
I have come to the conclusion that any argument between dualism and non-dualism (me) is going to end up at impasse, and the only thing that one can hope for is that one learns from the argument itself--by listening to and engaging the other. I think that dualism makes no sense; but I have never been able to nail that down--just as I cannot see a position of "strong atheism" being nailed down across the board (though maybe against specific inconsistent or incoherent theistic claims). [As a non-dualist, I have my own problems with various theist/atheist dichotomies.]
But, even as I think dualism/non-dualism is the great religious/metaphysical divide, I think that I have to hear the other out--listen to how they are making their argument. At the same time, I confess that I have less patience for engaging in the same ole arguments years later (without judgment: mostly that's because I've been here a long time, and there are always new people who come along--who also are worth listening to and arguing with; somebody else's turn, though. I just drop in here and there).
Yeah, although I learned from Vishy/Dasa, he could never seem to see that his preaching sounded like all the other preaching, "except for the names and a few other changes" [Neil Diamond]. Which I read as our point in the "Futility" thread.
29 Apr 11
6 edits
Originally posted by vistesdIndeed! That was precisely the motivation for that thread, but I'm just too set in my ways to avoid satire; and as such my points run the risk of coming across as shallow mockery. If one observes the underlying structure of a typical (interpretation of the Bible)_1 vs (interpretation of the Bible)_2 argument, abstracting any particular focus, one sees that they're both pretty much homogeneous on all levels; they differ only in the specific details.
Ah, another old friend!
Thanks. I see that you tried to make a similar point on the "Futility" thread. Some took you as "mocking" the religion (and arguments among religionists--and non-religionists--per se), when really it seems you were "mocking" a certain kind of exchange, in which neither side can see that they are acting the same way as the other si er changes" [Neil Diamond]. Which I read as our point in the "Futility" thread.
I think that strong atheism is an easy position to hold privately, but impossible to defend. By that I mean that I can be as sure any god (endowed with any of the standard properties theists apply to gods) doesn't exist as I can be sure I'm not just some brain in a vat, but there is no way to make a valid argument that an objective and sufficiently rational listener would be forced to accept is true account of how things are. Some theists recognise the symmetry of this 'dilemma' manifest in their own faith - and all credit to those who do. There are many theists (and undoubtedly many 'strong' atheists) however who don't. Feeling sure that some god exists is one thing, asserting it to others, as a fact, this god exists is another!
With this in mind I see it better (if one is privately convinced there is no god(s)) to adopt a weak atheist approach when it comes to debating since they can validly say they lack sufficient evidence to sway their opinion on this matter, and that the Bible (or any other holy book) lacks sufficient justification or substantiation to take its supernatural claims seriously.
30 Apr 11
Originally posted by vistesdThe "Blame Game"? (Lame Game? 🙂 )
How easy it seems to call out a “them”
that “we” then with little thought can condemn:
round the name, not deeds, to tie a barb’d truss—
“Why worry if ‘these’ are diff’rent from ‘those’?
‘thems’ are just ‘thems’, as everyone knows;
and even if they’re not, why make a fuss—
what some of them will but some of them won’t,
as some of them say, though some of them don’t?
All we need to know: that ‘them’ are not ‘us’.”
30 Apr 11
Originally posted by vistesdguilty as charged. Though I think its worth noting that rigorously defending one's beliefs is a prerequisite to funamentalism. I do not consider myself a "fundie" in the manner usually thought of here, but what I believe does come from the bible, so in that respect I suppose I am (a fundie). I guess the main difference is that I am not a biblical literalist, and my hermenuetical focus tends to be liberal.
How easy it seems to call out a “them”
that “we” then with little thought can condemn:
round the name, not deeds, to tie a barb’d truss—
“Why worry if ‘these’ are diff’rent from ‘those’?
‘thems’ are just ‘thems’, as everyone knows;
and even if they’re not, why make a fuss—
what some of them will but some of them won’t,
as some of them say, though some of them don’t?
All we need to know: that ‘them’ are not ‘us’.”