by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends
PSac: many times what sounds stupid was just worded in an imprecise and perhaps naive manner.
A good point and something we ALL do at times.
I've seen problems arise when a person is asked for clarification and instead of saying, "Whoops, you're right, I didn't word that well!" gets huffy and tries to support their "stupid" comment.
No one likes being told their communication skills suck, but sometimes they do.
I know that I've had many a "brain-fart" moment, LOL !
I know that there is one scripture from the Bible that I have found to be painfully true. I can't remember the exact wording but the gist was that the more we say, the more chance we give ourselves of saying something unhelpful or even foolish.
I was personally SO "afraid" to comment on this thread (may you all have peace!)... because I can do nothing more than be honest... and my honesty isn't [always] palatable to all, I know this. For some, it... provokes, even where no provocation is intended. I almost didn't, then, believe me - I have mulled over what seems like a gazillion potential responses during the past 13-14 hours.
BUT... I think my silence here would be misconstrued (as not "for" a truce) and so thought perhaps I should. I have three specific comments; the first being that I think many/most of the comments were wonderful... and demonstrative of a desire for all of us "just get along". I would like that, as well, but I am also (perhaps overly) realistic. I've been here a long time... and what we see occurring is cyclical - comes and goes. Truces are made... and broken. Sooner or later. Just a reality, perhaps unfortunate, but really understandable... given the dichotomies that exist and are almost always involved.
There were many things that I would have liked to comment to, directly, but only three (3) really moved me to do so because I think comment is important as to them. I truly hope the one who posted them (Q, peace to you!) doesn't think I am targeting him - I am NOT. But the comments were compelling, so much so they're the only ones that I feel I MUST speak to:
if we could agree not to use bad tactics
While I realize that the tactics included are distasteful to Q, I am not sure all of them are distasteful to all... or that the list is all-inclusive. Indeed, I think that if we were to try and compile a list of "distastes"... well, there may not be boardspace enough. For example, the first "tactic":
1 - A lack of reflexive statements (e.g. IMO/ I believe) attached to opinions , the paucity of such turns the opinion into an assertion. I believe god speaks to me v god speaks to me. One is subjective the other objective. One specifies your world the other tries to specify mine.
To someone like me, this is not a "tactic" at all, but merely a statement of truth. True, others may not agree... and it may not be THEIR truth, but they cannot say it is not MY truth. Indeed, including "reflexive statements" such as "I believe" sometimes makes me gag - because I know I'm only using it so that someone who might not otherwise can at least allow me to make my statement. So, I feel as if I have to lie, or at least waterdown my truth, to accommodate them. I am just not comfortable with that, any more than such one might be comfortable with me excluding such statements.
So, I think that any list would have to include some manner of COMPROMISE (which is usually the basis for a real truce), which I am not sure all involved CAN do/reach... without feeling like they're selling out. And I believe that applies to both "sides", based on my experiences here.
The other comment was:
"True humility is the willingness to put your most cherished idea on the altar of peer review and dispassionately allow it to be dissected and examined and if, after weighing, it is found wanting to join in heartily as everyone takes a hammer to it."
I found this statement curious. Particularly the parts about "willingness to put...", "altar of PEER review", "dispassionately allow...", and "if, after weighing it is found wanting." I think many here willingly put their most cherished ideas on the altar. The thing is, WHO are their "peers"? I recall on another thread where "peers" in the scientific arena are scientists - people who have an educated knowledge of the subject. If, though, one puts ones "cherished idea(s)" on the altar of one's "peers"... and it is those OUTSIDE that arena who take it upon themselves to "dissect and examine" them... is this REALLY "peer" review? "Peers" are usually involved, if not ensconced in the subject area; yet, I find that time and time again, "peer review" HERE is attempted by folks who say they have absolutely NO interest in the topic!
I often find that, as with issues related to science, where some have a cursory, elementary, or even intermediate understanding of the topic, an attempt by someone who HAS such to discuss such issues is scorned (by the more knowledgeable). Indeed, the latter often base their scorn on the other's lack of knowledge which may be warranted - the former really should weigh how much they know about the topic and concede their ignorance if that's the case). On the other hand, however, when speaking of "spiritual" things, some of those same ones often claim that they know "all about" that, too... while admitting they've "never heard of/about" or were told what is being presented now. Yet, consider themselves "peers" enough to challenger the assertions.
For me, that is an unmistakable double-standard. Not to say that the knife doesn't cut both ways; double standards have been demonstrated by religion for... ever. And still is. But I personally don't see how this new(er) "wrong"... makes it right. To me, both are hypocritical. Yet, both deny that hypocrisy.
Don't get me wrong: I don't want to be a negative voice in this attempt. Not at ALL. So, please, don't misconstrue my realism for dissent. I think dear Palm (peace to you!) is very sincere in what she's trying to facilitate with this thread and I will do all I can to be a part of that. And I think many here want, are ready for, and will do all they can to come up with a basis for, recognize and respect, and to the best of their abilities, uphold a truce. I also KNOW, however, that some won't. They can't. But, again, given the history of this place, I believe that they will be a minority, at least for a while.
So, what to do?
I would like to ask one thing: for EVERYONE to leave this thread for a few days... and then go back and re-read it from the start. Every post, every comment, every response/retort... from everyone. With fresh "eyes". If you can, overlook "who" authored the post, including your own (if you can; you may recognize your own style/words, so maybe not - just a suggestion).
But just read the words. Out loud, if that will help you "see" (because sometimes we skim and/or think we're reading words... or "hearing" tones... that really aren't there... or vice versa, not when such are). Just read, without pre-judgment, and so giving every poster the benefit of the doubt: not judging their words... or their motives... but just trying to take in the information, what was posted... the different perspectives and POVs.
Again, try not to "see" the particular poster, if you can. If you need help to do that, maybe cut and paste the entire discussion, leaving out the poster, if possible.
That's really all I have to offer at this time.
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ (sorry, but MY truth),
SA
A quick thought re compromise (peace to you all!):
Is it possible to consider something like, perhaps, a word like "religious" has the same... mmmmm... anathema connotations... to some believers... as "faith" has to some non-believers? Results in the same setting teeth on edge for the former, as the other does for the latter... and that BOTH aversions are based on what religion has used/done/pushed with those words (as well as some others)?
If we would only at least TRY to understand one another. It doesn't have to make absolute sense to US, does it? Or... does it... and, if so, isn't that really the underlying cause for the division(s)?
Just a thought. Done. I think...
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
To someone like me, this is not a "tactic" at all, but merely a statement of truth. True, others may not agree... and it may not be THEIR truth, but they cannot say it is not MY truth
There is no such thing as relative truth - it is not open to subjective feelings. Truth is truth. If you assert something as a fact it imposes itself on your readers who have a right to voice their reasonable doubts. Sometimes you assert things as fact that insult the intelligence of your readers.
If you modestly say "I believe that....." then who can object?
Is it possible to consider something like, perhaps, a word like "religious" has the same... mmmmm... anathema connotations...
A couple of days ago I asked you twice in the same thread how you were defining religion. You declined to answer.
I would like to ask one thing: for EVERYONE to leave this thread for a few days... and then go back and re-read it from the start.
Well it is still my thread
And I'm trying to keep an eye on my thread, so I don't mind if people still want to post thoughts on it.
True, others may not agree... and it may not be THEIR truth, but they cannot say it is not MY truth.
I think this is where a common misunderstanding is happening between the 2 POV's:
No one is saying you can't have your own personal TRUTH.
The problem is when your TRUTH, which you have to admit cannot be proven by outside sources, is pushed forward as FACT.
Obviously it's frustrating to not have "proof", but can you see where it's frustrating to others who need more proof than you have to offer?
No one is saying you can't have your own personal TRUTH.
Actually I am. I think this is an abuse of language.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but there is no such thing as ones own truth.
