Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, WordWolf said:

As to the thread, I expected it to go to Doctrinal,  I mentioned Doctrinal as the place to discuss the subject, in fact, and suggested starting a new thread there- but the same thread could just be moved. 

 

What the fresh hell are you talking about?

Oh, I get it. Never mind.

Yeah, I'm not sure the thread is doctrinal. "Have you heard of this guy" is not doctrinal.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Have you heard of this guy" is not doctrinal, but "Have you heard of this guy who was big in promoting this doctrinal practice" is doctrinal, as is any discussion of "this guy" because it's not going to be about where he grew up or something, but rather about his doctrinal practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without turning this into too much, I'll ask ModTheOtherGuy to take a look and make the final call.

My view is, the guy is not accused of doctrinal stuff but of practical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 12:16 PM, Raf said:

Which she follows up with, of course there's a God, but people should be free to worship him however they wish.

And then it struck me: "Keep your religion to yourself" only applies to atheists. It doesn't apply to theists. They can say whatever they want, in my home, in defense of monsters who worship a vindictive, petty a-hole.

But I'm supposed to be the polite one.

And you know what?

That's rude too. The expectation that unbelievers should remain silent while believers are free to express themselves whenever, wherever and however they want is RUDE.

I see it here when people post about the "miracles" of the past, while unbelievers, I presume, are expected to just accept that these outlandish stories happened as advertised.

"What do you think of schmoe and schmoe" who played such a significant role in the miracle working ministry of Rev. Healed-A-Lot?

You know, sorry. That's rude too.

There's something referenced in scripture as being "utterance," and more specifically in one place as being, "a door of utterance."  It's not rocket science to realize that all communication (like a radio wave between two walkie-talkies)  involves senders and receivers. But if one isn't tuned in to the other and each are talking on different wavelengths, the message - at best, if any noise is even heard -  is garbled.  If the goal is to communicate... then some sort of commonality (or synchronization) has to be in place between the sender and receiver.  But if there isn't... well, to me that would appear to be a rather tightly closed door.

I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves.  Frankly, I don't know that it's possible not to.  However, seems fundamental ignorance of who or what anyone serves or is captivated by (or addicted to, if you prefer) is also very commonplace.  (And in light of that, maybe the "keep your religion to yourself" is fairy sound advice, as it might run parallel to the old adage, "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.") 

Given some of what you have indicated was said to you, I suppose I'd be inclined to question and dig rather deeply into how well they really know what they say they believe.  (...'cause there appears to be some real flaws there.)  Which, by the way (if you haven't noticed already), is pretty much the direction I was headed with that posting of "What do you think of schmoe and schmoe" who played such a significant role in the miracle working ministry of Rev. Healed-A-Lot?

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves."

Yeah, this isn't true.

This is what religious people tell themselves to project their behavior onto those who do not share their beliefs.

The problem becomes, they expand the definition of "worship" beyond sensible meaning, then accuse non-worshippers of idolatry because they put some other priority above the worship of a god. So if I put "earning a living" above "God," then I worship work or money. I mean, FINE, if you want to torture the definition of the word "worship." 

People generally don't worship themselves (certain high profile exceptions notwithstanding).

Why is it so hard to accept the notion that some people don't "worship" anything? That you can admire something without worshiping it. That something can be a priority in your life without being a "god" to you?

It reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Rather than butcher it, I'm going to find it...

 

ch851212_thumb1.jpg

The point being, "off" is not a TV channel.

I do a lot of things. None of them involve worship, unless you define it out of existence.

Edited by Raf
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's truer than you think, Raf.  Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it, you obey and serve yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rude. And stupid.

Just letting you know.

 

Just because you have an imaginary friend doesn't mean I worship myself in his place.

Edited by Raf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this is precisely what I was talking about.

It's perfectly fine for a religious a-hole to tell us we worship "orselves," but let me say he has an imaginary friend, or that his assertion is both obnoxious and rude, and watch what happens. "Hey, that's my religious belief. You can't insult me like that."

Yes I can.

You're a piece of garbage for telling OTHER people what they worship or don't.

GARBAGE. That's what crappy people do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't worship anything."
"yes you do. You worship yourSELF."


Tell me, in what universe, how is that NOT rude?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flak from both sides."- "Unofficial motto of the U.N." 

Ok, here's where I step in and see if I can get both sides to agree on something. (Yes, probably to agree I should shut up, but at least that's agreeing on something....)

 

 

7 hours ago, TLC said:

It's truer than you think, Raf.  Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it, you obey and serve yourself.

 

 

I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself."  Acting in his own self-interest and listening to himself and doing what he himself says, I don't think that's much of a stretch to agree to.  (Or, you know, agreeing he eats breakfast or something.) 

However, that being said,

that's NOT the same as "worship."   In the Middle Ages, there were plenty of people who swore oaths of fealty to those above them in the social order, who did so in good faith.  None of them (none of the sane ones)  actually WORSHIPED their sovereigns, kings, lords, etc.   They did obey them and served them.  For that matter, any loyal employee who works directly for someone will likely obey them (do what they're told to do)  and serve them (act in their best interest.)  I worked directly for an attorney once, in his private office.   I was not a perfect employee, but whenever I understood things clearly, I obeyed and served him.  In fact, I think he was surprised to what degree I did so honestly, with no need to check if I cheated him (which I did not.)    So, that's something.  That attorney never would have entertained the notion that I actually WORSHIPED him no matter who said it. He knew I didn't (and he knew who I worshiped, for that matter.)

 

The word "worship" is a pretty extreme word. It could be argued that certain people really DO worship themselves, but those would be incredibly narcissistic people who really obsess over themselves specifically.   More technical terms which could apply to a person might be "adoration" or "homage" or things along that line.   An old Simpsons video showed Bart at a heavy metal concert, giving "the devil's salute" and hailing an image of the devil.   Someone saw that with me and said that Bart worshiped the devil at that point.  I clarified that he wasn't worshiping, but he was paying homage, and that it's a fine distinction that a lawyer would care about ("it's a lawyer-ish distinction" were the exact words I used.)    There are people who use the word "worship" nowadays to mean "adoration" or lavishing attention on another person.  They'll insist it's a correct term, but that's not a standard usage of the word outside of their circles. 

 

For Raf to actually "worship" himself, he'd need to devote a lot of time to himself personally, and obsess over himself, with personal details of his physical person or history or some other aspect/s  of his life.   I'm pretty sure he doesn't have TIME for any of that nonsense, and doesn't feel the lack of it (i.e. "If I only had more time, I could devote more of it to myself, for I certainly deserve it!" )  

 

So, to say he worships himself is a lot like saying he prays to himself when never prays to anyone or anything.  (I'm making the assumption he's not praying to any (-one or -thing).    So, I would find that factually incorrect.  (Unless, say, someone found him making an altar to himself or something.)    Adding "Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it" was somewhat inflammatory.  If it was added to a true statement, it's adding an unnecessary bite to a cold fact.  Since it was added to an incorrect statement, it compounded a mistake with a shot- whether that was intended or not. 

 

I'm hoping we can agree to that, and everyone can take a brisk walk around the block, and type in a more calm manner.   I think we're all capable of that, but it remains to be seen how many adults in the room would agree to that part if nothing else. and move on.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

For Raf to actually "worship" himself, he'd need to devote a lot of time to himself personally, and obsess over himself, with personal details of his physical person or history or some other aspect/s  of his life.   I'm pretty sure he doesn't have TIME for any of that nonsense, and doesn't feel the lack of it (i.e. "If I only had more time, I could devote more of it to myself, for I certainly deserve it!" )  

By golly, some might even consider such a practice ANTI-Christ.:spy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said the same thing WW said in half the words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself."  Acting in his own self-interest and listening to himself and doing what he himself says, I don't think that's much of a stretch to agree to.  (Or, you know, agreeing he eats breakfast or something.) 

I will accept this ONLY if it is in the context of, "no s#8!, everyone does this, including people who claim to delegate that responsibility to a third party." Believers are no different from everyone else in obeying and serving themselves.

Honestly, we save time by just noting that the comment was f-ing rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 4:16 PM, WordWolf said:

Since it was added to an incorrect statement

So, after plainly opining I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself," you're now going to turn around and call my same statement of that incorrect? 

Care to explain that, WW?

And for the record, I never accused Raf (or anyone else) of worshiping anything - though evidently, he was exceedingly quick to presume what I wrote meant that, and in such haste to be offended, missed entirely the basic meaning and heartfelt message of what was really said (and intended.)   Fact is, there was a purpose (which seems to have eluded others here) for my writing worship/serve in that post, as I am well aware that servitude doesn't necessarily equate to worship.  But if you, or anyone else, finds and takes what I wrote to be rude, then so be it.  I am more than done with this.  (And as rude as Raf takes others to be, he is surely no less rude himself.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TLC said:

So, after plainly opining I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself," you're now going to turn around and call my same statement of that incorrect? 

Care to explain that, WW?

And for the record, I never accused Raf (or anyone else) of worshiping anything - though evidently, he was exceedingly quick to presume what I wrote meant that, and in such haste to be offended, missed entirely the basic meaning and heartfelt message of what was really said (and intended.)   Fact is, there was a purpose (which seems to have eluded others here) for my writing worship/serve in that post, as I am well aware that servitude doesn't necessarily equate to worship.  But if you, or anyone else, finds and takes what I wrote to be rude, then so be it.  I am more than done with this.  (And as rude as Raf takes others to be, he is surely no less rude himself.) 

Stated another way, "which purpose I apparently did not make adequately clear to readers."

It is my view that responsibility for clarity of communication resides almost exclusively with the writer... not that I think you were being rude. :love3:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLC:    "I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves.  Frankly, I don't know that it's possible not toHowever, seems fundamental ignorance of who or what anyone serves or is captivated by (or addicted to, if you prefer) is also very commonplace."

 

Raf: ""I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves."

Yeah, this isn't true.

This is what religious people tell themselves to project their behavior onto those who do not share their beliefs.

The problem becomes, they expand the definition of "worship" beyond sensible meaning, then accuse non-worshippers of idolatry because they put some other priority above the worship of a god. So if I put "earning a living" above "God," then I worship work or money. I mean, FINE, if you want to torture the definition of the word "worship." 

People generally don't worship themselves (certain high profile exceptions notwithstanding).

Why is it so hard to accept the notion that some people don't "worship" anything? That you can admire something without worshiping it. That something can be a priority in your life without being a "god" to you?"

 

TLC "It's truer than you think, Raf.  Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it, you obey and serve yourself. "

 

Raf:  "Just because you have an imaginary friend doesn't mean I worship myself in his place."

 

WordWolf:  "I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself."  Acting in his own self-interest and listening to himself and doing what he himself says, I don't think that's much of a stretch to agree to.  (Or, you know, agreeing he eats breakfast or something.)  

However, that being said,

that's NOT the same as "worship."  "  

"For Raf to actually "worship" himself, he'd need to devote a lot of time to himself personally, and obsess over himself, with personal details of his physical person or history or some other aspect/s  of his life.   I'm pretty sure he doesn't have TIME for any of that nonsense, and doesn't feel the lack of it (i.e. "If I only had more time, I could devote more of it to myself, for I certainly deserve it!" )  

 

So, to say he worships himself is a lot like saying he prays to himself when never prays to anyone or anything.  (I'm making the assumption he's not praying to any (-one or -thing).    So, I would find that factually incorrect.  (Unless, say, someone found him making an altar to himself or something.)    Adding "Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it" was somewhat inflammatory.  If it was added to a true statement, it's adding an unnecessary bite to a cold fact.  Since it was added to an incorrect statement, it compounded a mistake with a shot- whether that was intended or not. "

 

TLC: "So, after plainly opining I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself," you're now going to turn around and call my same statement of that incorrect? 

Care to explain that, WW?"

 

WW responds:I didnt think it would be necessary, but I'll explain it once more.  'You claimed he "worshiped himself", and it's clear that any fair definition of the word "worship" would not apply here- neither direct prayers from him to himself, nor a deep adoration of himself.  So, neither a de jure nor a de facto usage of "worship" applies here.   As to what it could mean to say he obeyed and served himself,  I compared it to saying he ate breakfast.   As I already said, everyone serves himself to a degree, and anyone not doing that is probably off in a monastery of some kind, renouncing the world and all fun.   Everyone obeys himself also- nobody makes decisions without some listening to himself as to what he wants, what he thinks is a good idea, and so on.   Jesus made the same comparison when he spoke a parable about a wealthy man communicating with his "soul",  He obviously was doing what we might now call "engaging in self-reflection."    

But, again, doing both is not the same as "worship" by any reasonable usage of the word "worship", neither when he does either or both, nor when you do neither or both, nor when I do either or both.   So, the claim he "worshiped himself" was incorrect, and the statement he "obeyed and served himself" was non-informative.  It's like accusing him of buying things or getting up in the morning.   So,  I didn't claim that part was factually incorrect.  The "worship" thing definitely was.

 

TLC: "And for the record, I never accused Raf (or anyone else) of worshiping anything - though evidently, he was exceedingly quick to presume what I wrote meant that, and in such haste to be offended, missed entirely the basic meaning and heartfelt message of what was really said (and intended.)   Fact is, there was a purpose (which seems to have eluded others here) for my writing worship/serve in that post, as I am well aware that servitude doesn't necessarily equate to worship.  But if you, or anyone else, finds and takes what I wrote to be rude, then so be it.  I am more than done with this.  (And as rude as Raf takes others to be, he is surely no less rude himself.)  "

 

WW responds:You SAID as much. You said everyone worshiped something or someone.  When Raf disagreed, you said that he was incorrect, and that he "obeyed and served himself" and left it at that, with no attempts whatsoever to distinguish that from what he objected to- your claim that everyone (including him)  worships and serves something.  Your communication was clear enough-  by saying that he "obeyed and served himself", you were equating that with "worshiping" himself.   When the time came to distinguish what you said from that meaning, you made no effort to do so.  Either through intent  (INSINUATING it and meaning to say it while pretending you didn't mean it), or through laziness (you didn't mean it, but you didn't bother to explain when the time came) , that is the message you communicated.  That's why posters with completely different opinions came away with the same message from your posts.  (Seriously, do you think Raf and I see eye-to-eye concerning worship, of all things?)    Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend to insinuate what you meant (we've had dishonest posters who did that before),  you miscommunicated what you MEANT to communicate.   A refusal to take responsibility for that doesn't change that, nor does it absolve you from that responsibility, nor does it make you look like it was really an honest mistake. But hey, your decision. 

 

Rocky: "Stated another way, "which purpose I apparently did not make adequately clear to readers."

It is my view that responsibility for clarity of communication resides almost exclusively with the writer... not that I think you were being rude."

 

WW responds:That was directed to TLC.  Different posters with radically different opinions all came away with the same message from his posts.  The obvious conclusion is that is what TLC communicated, whether by accident or otherwise.  If it was by accident, TLC should be more careful to communicate what he means, and to NOT communicate what he does NOT mean.

Any chance everyone can move to a neutral corner and take a breath, maybe a brisk walk around the block a few times, or box the old punching bag or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

 

Rocky: "Stated another way, "which purpose I apparently did not make adequately clear to readers."

It is my view that responsibility for clarity of communication resides almost exclusively with the writer... not that I think you were being rude."

 

WW responds:That was directed to TLC.  Different posters with radically different opinions all came away with the same message from his posts.  The obvious conclusion is that is what TLC communicated, whether by accident or otherwise.  If it was by accident, TLC should be more careful to communicate what he means, and to NOT communicate what he does NOT mean.

Any chance everyone can move to a neutral corner and take a breath, maybe a brisk walk around the block a few times, or box the old punching bag or something?

I know, I was replying (directly) to TLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WordWolf said:

'You claimed he "worshiped himself",

Not true.  

What part of worship/serve do you not understand?  Given the clear context of "everyone" doing this, the slash represents the allowance of a choice between between whichever word was/is/would be the most appropriate or applicable to any given situation. 

But you, along with Raf, and God knows who else, prefer to choose to read/hear only the words that you want to read or hear, and then proceed to speak/write/rant in much the same judgmental and condescending manner that twi and the wc was/is so notoriously adept at, while totally ignoring or purposefully obscuring the actual heart and intent of what was originally said. 

What is rude?  Perhaps some here might want to ask themselves that same question.  So many are so easily offended anymore, seems it;s not just the younger generation that are "snowflakes."  

Furthermore, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here.  I'm far from a professional writer or "communicator" of sorts, but neither do I consider myself as useless or totally incompetent in that arena.  I'll simply say that my thinking is obviously on a far different wavelength than others here, and for that reason, I am out.

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What part of worship/serve do you not understand?" 

The part where you conflate the two, as if they mean the same thing or almost the same thing.  Are you trying to communicate your ideas, or just vague concepts for others to interpret like an inkblot?  If you're trying to communicate ideas, it's either one, the other, or that both are the same idea.  You got across that you're saying they're the same idea, which allows you to pretend to say one and mean the other, while people take you to mean the one you don't, in order to say both.  Even lawyers think that's underhanded.   geer pulled the same thing when he said that it was all the same if he said that God "foreknew" or "foreordained."  I can foreknow a hurricane is coming without foreordaining that it come!    He continued with "foreknew, or forced or tracked OR WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO PUT AS THE WORD THERE."    Swapping words as if you can shuffle their meanings doesn't go over well because we know that's not how language works, and trying to do so says more about the speaker than anything he was trying not to say outright. 

We understood you wanted to say that all people "worship" something, and atheists "worship" themselves, and then you used a verbal sleight-of-hand to try to insinuate it without saying it outright- but the meaning came through nice and clear despite that. 

"  prefer to choose to read/hear only the words that you want to read or hear, and then proceed to speak/write/rant in much the same judgmental and condescending manner that twi and the wc was/is so notoriously adept at, while totally ignoring or purposefully obscuring the actual heart and intent of what was originally said. "

Not at all. You said something and got caught at it.  If someone says something, and others disagree, they get called on it.  That's part of discussion.  Disliking it and just slamming it was common in twi- which is what you're pulling now.   Outside of twi, it's common to speak clearly, and explain when you're misunderstood.

"seems it;s not just the younger generation that are "snowflakes."  

Yeah, taking responsibility for one's words or actions, fessing up, trying harder next time, those are un-twi behavior.  Sometimes they can be found here. Sometimes they're not found here.  And some posters find they just can't ever admit a mistake- it always HAS to be the other person, since they MEANT well.  So, trot out the insults, then storm off in a huff, claim a moral victory, and go off and polish one's medals.  We've seen that plenty of times. Usually, it was vpw apologists who did it, but anyone can pull that stunt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said everybody worships something.

In response, I said I don't worship anything.

In response to THAT, you said I obey and serve myself.

 

Now you expect us to believe you did not say I worship myself?

B---, please. You insult our intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how someone with half a brain would approach this conversation.

"Everybody has priorities. I believe it can be said you "worship" the objects of your highest priority or priorities. That is how I define worship, and by that definition, everybody worships something."

Given THAT definition of worship, I would respond in two ways. First, I would agree. If that's what worship means, then of course everyone worships something.

Second, I would challenge your definition of "worship," because I think it butchers the language, which was my original point in the first place:

The problem becomes, they expand the definition of "worship" beyond sensible meaning, then accuse non-worshippers of idolatry because they put some other priority above the worship of a god. So if I put "earning a living" above "God," then I worship work or money. I mean, FINE, if you want to torture the definition of the word "worship."

Thus... the only thing you did by saying "you obey and serve yourself" was to prove my point.

Rudely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TLC said:

Not true.  

What part of worship/serve do you not understand?  Given the clear context of "everyone" doing this, the slash represents the allowance of a choice between between whichever word was/is/would be the most appropriate or applicable to any given situation. 

But you, along with Raf, and God knows who else, prefer to choose to read/hear only the words that you want to read or hear, and then proceed to speak/write/rant in much the same judgmental and condescending manner that twi and the wc was/is so notoriously adept at, while totally ignoring or purposefully obscuring the actual heart and intent of what was originally said. 

What is rude?  Perhaps some here might want to ask themselves that same question.  So many are so easily offended anymore, seems it;s not just the younger generation that are "snowflakes."  

Furthermore, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here.  I'm far from a professional writer or "communicator" of sorts, but neither do I consider myself as useless or totally incompetent in that arena.  I'll simply say that my thinking is obviously on a far different wavelength than others here, and for that reason, I am out.

"God knows who else..." reads/hears only what they want to? Pretty much EVERY one (in the world).

Therefore, Dude, again: YOU are responsible for making your message clear to the reader.

Don't blame the reader for not understanding your message. Try to figure out a different way to get your message across.

I understand your expression of frustration. Please try again to make your message more clear to your intended audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...