Dialogue or …..

Thinking required

Thinking required

Well-Known Member
Messages
706
Reaction score
134
Points
43
I got up this morning, read some of the posts and said to myself, today is the day. Went to my Kindle and a book I have been working through: Christianity for modern Pagans: Pascal’s Penees

This statement by the Author states my thoughts perfectly. I will leave you with this even though most of you will not get it. I looked into the Scriptures, unchurched and saw me. An enemy of God. Most here run on bias, pain, person hurt, clouding everything to do with truth. It’s been a fun adventure keep living in your prejudice.

“Above all, we must not make the elementary but common mistake of confusing interpretation with belief and interpreting Scripture—or any book—in light of our beliefs. The fact that such a procedure sounds right to many of us should show us how foolish we are and how far from basic competence to interpret Scripture. For the author is trying to break into the house of our mind with his ideas. How dare we close the door and substitute our ideas, our beliefs, for his? How dare we substitute our fantasies of what he ought to mean for his intentions, his meanings? How dare we look at him through the colored glasses of our categories and presuppositions, our prejudices, rather than looking at ourselves through his? That would turn dialogue into monologue. And that is exactly what Deconstructionism advocates and exalts. It is the death of objective truth. That is the philosophy of Hell.”
 
I was about to click like, and give you kudos for actually starting a dialogue...

But then this.
Thinking required said:
I will leave you with this even though most of you will not get it.
Click to expand...
You had to go all holier and smarter than thou...tossing pearls before swine from.your high horse
Thinking required said:
everything to do with truth. It’s been a fun adventure keep living in your prejudice.
Click to expand...
Insulting your readers while trying to convince them that you have all the answers.and are the sole perveyor of truth.

Yet again proving us.with high hopes that you will add value someday only have wishful thinking. Sigh
 
I think we need to cut the guy a break. My husband is like that he doesn't consider how things come across and just hits post or verbally diarrheas all over the place. I don't believe his intention is not to offend and maybe just a bit defensive with all the criticism he gets with everything he posts.
 
Thinking required said:
I got up this morning, read some of the posts and said to myself, today is the day. Went to my Kindle and a book I have been working through: Christianity for modern Pagans: Pascal’s Penees

This statement by the Author states my thoughts perfectly. I will leave you with this even though most of you will not get it. I looked into the Scriptures, unchurched and saw me. An enemy of God. Most here run on bias, pain, person hurt, clouding everything to do with truth. It’s been a fun adventure keep living in your prejudice.

“Above all, we must not make the elementary but common mistake of confusing interpretation with belief and interpreting Scripture—or any book—in light of our beliefs. The fact that such a procedure sounds right to many of us should show us how foolish we are and how far from basic competence to interpret Scripture. For the author is trying to break into the house of our mind with his ideas. How dare we close the door and substitute our ideas, our beliefs, for his? How dare we substitute our fantasies of what he ought to mean for his intentions, his meanings? How dare we look at him through the colored glasses of our categories and presuppositions, our prejudices, rather than looking at ourselves through his? That would turn dialogue into monologue. And that is exactly what Deconstructionism advocates and exalts. It is the death of objective truth. That is the philosophy of Hell.”
Click to expand...
An OP for the Christianity forum?
 
Faithfulservant said:
I think we need to cut the guy a break. My husband is like that he doesn't consider how things come across and just hits post or verbally diarrheas all over the place. I don't believe his intention is not to offend and maybe just a bit defensive with all the criticism he gets with everything he posts.
Click to expand...
I hear ya...but the dude averages over 33 posts a day since he arrived and yesterday hit 44...

Hard not to respond...gotta quit taking the bait and let him just stand on his soapbox and pontificate? I don't know if I am capable to ignore his salacious posts insulting the members of this site ... but I will give it a shot.
 
wil said:
I hear ya...but the dude averages over 33 posts a day since he arrived and yesterday hit 44...

Hard not to respond...gotta quit taking the bait and let him just stand on his soapbox and pontificate? I don't know if I am capable to ignore his salacious posts insulting the members of this site ... but I will give it a shot.
Click to expand...
Maybe he's trying catch up to your post count? That would be quite an accomplishment!

I would be more impressed with a high reaction score personally 🥰
 
I do see @wil's point. When such comments are not directed at me personally, I am not terribly upset by them. I have crossed swords with a few people here. If you hit me, I will hit you back. I don't bear a grudge though and would buy any of them a beer. There are two people here who have made a point of ignoring posts that I have made to them. I find that far more insulting, and they can buy their own beer, preferably in a different country.

I think we all know that it takes all sorts to keep a forum alive. Lately this forum has most definitely been alive and I, for one, am grateful for that.
 
Thinking required said:
“Above all, we must not make the elementary but common mistake of confusing interpretation with belief and interpreting Scripture—or any book—in light of our beliefs. The fact that such a procedure sounds right to many of us should show us how foolish we are and how far from basic competence to interpret Scripture. For the author is trying to break into the house of our mind with his ideas. How dare we close the door and substitute our ideas, our beliefs, for his? How dare we substitute our fantasies of what he ought to mean for his intentions, his meanings? How dare we look at him through the colored glasses of our categories and presuppositions, our prejudices, rather than looking at ourselves through his? That would turn dialogue into monologue. And that is exactly what Deconstructionism advocates and exalts. It is the death of objective truth. That is the philosophy of Hell.”
Click to expand...
To me, this is self-contradicting:

In spite of asking the reader to not bring along any beliefs to interpret the text, it presupposes the belief that a holy text contains objective truth.

As much as I loathe turning postmodern arbitrariness into any kind of objective truth, I also find claims to absolute, objective truth based on some belief such as that text X or revelation Y be divinely dictated or inspired, as supremely tiring. I get that people believe in supernatural sources of these texts. I only wish they would own their belief for what it is - a belief - rather than use the language of objectivity or absolute truth.

What I really like about the above quote is the encouragement to read a text on its own terms. It reminds me of the quote by Kafka:

I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves if we had to. But we need books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.

- Franz Kafka
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Faithfulservant said:
I think we need to cut the guy a break. My husband is like that he doesn't consider how things come across and just hits post or verbally diarrheas all over the place. I don't believe his intention is not to offend and maybe just a bit defensive with all the criticism he gets with everything he posts.
Click to expand...

Well, @Thinking required repeatedly asserted that he likes to be challenged.

He didn't respond to challenges on an emotional, interpersonal level, but then, this can be difficult in this type of written communication, so I let it be.

@wil is challenging his self-righteous attitude, and that doesn't seem to sit well with him, either.

So I'm concluding that his invitation to be challenged only extends to a highly specific topic of his own personal interpretation of the Christian Bible. Not too many people here seem to be interested in that narrow playing field. A bit like our friend who almost exclusively posts passages from the Baha'i writings - a highly specific topic, which only engages a few people now and then, but is one of the things that contribute to this forum as well.

On the other hand, the forums have definitely been lively these past days, and that's been nice! I got to know several of you better through reading the more intense exchanges.

It's the mix of characters and approaches and attitudes, which makes this place the interesting and, yes, challenging place it is.

Grateful to you all for being here, including @Thinking required . 🙏
 
Thinking required said:
I got up this morning, read some of the posts and said to myself, today is the day. Went to my Kindle and a book I have been working through: Christianity for modern Pagans: Pascal’s Penees

This statement by the Author states my thoughts perfectly. I will leave you with this even though most of you will not get it. I looked into the Scriptures, unchurched and saw me. An enemy of God. Most here run on bias, pain, person hurt, clouding everything to do with truth. It’s been a fun adventure keep living in your prejudice.

“Above all, we must not make the elementary but common mistake of confusing interpretation with belief and interpreting Scripture—or any book—in light of our beliefs. The fact that such a procedure sounds right to many of us should show us how foolish we are and how far from basic competence to interpret Scripture. For the author is trying to break into the house of our mind with his ideas. How dare we close the door and substitute our ideas, our beliefs, for his? How dare we substitute our fantasies of what he ought to mean for his intentions, his meanings? How dare we look at him through the colored glasses of our categories and presuppositions, our prejudices, rather than looking at ourselves through his? That would turn dialogue into monologue. And that is exactly what Deconstructionism advocates and exalts.
Click to expand...
Reading that excerpt, I agreed to what was said; not to impose the own interpretation seen in the light of our belief (and experience and situation) to others. I stumbled on the final sentence:

It is the death of objective truth. That is the philosophy of Hell”
Click to expand...
made me stumble a bit. Of course, objective truth exists, but we as individuals, even we as the sum of all humans, know only a small part of it, and the greatest part of objective truth is completely irrelevant for us. And there's still a part we don't know but is relevant to us. That's where we operate on models, hypotheses, assumptions and faith.
I wonder how the author will go on. Will he keep to his introduction or will he be the one of the destructionism advocates, saying that he has the objective truth?
 
Leveller said:
There are two people here who have made a point of ignoring posts that I have made to them. I find that far more insulting, and they can buy their own beer, preferably in a different country.
Click to expand...
Isn't the ignore feature designed to help cool things down? I suppose most people use the ignore feature temporarily?
 
Leveller said:
There are two people here who have made a point of ignoring posts that I have made to them. I find that far more insulting, and they can buy their own beer, preferably in a different country.
Click to expand...
If I was ever guilty of not responding to a post addressed to me, I apologize. I often read posts and respond later, sometimes days later, and so there's stuff that slips by. ;)
 
RJM said:
If I was ever guilty of not responding to a post addressed to me, I apologize
Click to expand...
No problem RJM. I am referring to being snubbed. I am sure most of us miss or forget a post here and there.
TheLightWithin said:
Isn't the ignore feature designed to help cool things down? I suppose most people use the ignore feature temporarily?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a button for ignoring people who are ignoring me😅
 
Leveller said:
No problem RJM. I am referring to being snubbed. I am sure most of us miss or forget a post here and there.

I don't think there is a button for ignoring people who are ignoring me😅
Click to expand...
I've only ignored one person and that's because his posts were painful to me.
 
I think there's a difference between ignoring someone with the intention to snub them, and ignoring posts in order to protect oneself.

Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top