by rune 160 Replies latest jw friends
I think I understood you perfectly...
The point of my post was that just because you reply doesn't mean you've listened, rather it shows a great deal about how little you've comprehended. Or didn't you get that point, either?
And I didn't specifically mean that you were "Terry"...
just because you reply doesn't mean you've listened, rather it shows a great deal about how little you've comprehended.
LittleToe: So replying to someone shows how little you know? That doesn't make any sense to me, for if I comprehended plenty of it but you didn't understand my reply, you just take that impression from it. If you don't understand me, then you don't know how much I took away from what I'm replying too...it's that simple. What did you mean then when you said you 'smell a rat'? I think the possibility is very strong that you didn't understand my replies, and weren't willing to consider them. If you disagree, I ask that you point out specific instances where it is clear that I did not comprehend a lot about a post I was replying to.
Rune:Ah, my dear lad...
So replying to someone shows how little you know? That doesn't make any sense to me, for if I comprehended plenty of it but you didn't understand my reply, you just take that impression from it.
Or alternatively, you demonstrate how little you know by virtue of what you write.
You're an intelligent kid. I'm sure you can work it out, and demonstrate that you're more than a psuedo-intellectual.
'smell a rat'?
You mean you don't understand, and I have to spell it out to you? Ok, that's fair enough. I don't believe you posted this thread with any intention of hearing anything contrary to your own opinion. Prove me wrong...
I think the possibility is very strong that you didn't understand my replies, and weren't willing to consider them.
On the contrary, I considered them. They have a modicum of merit. My comments were limited to your disparaging remarks to others. I suspect you're too busy taking umbrage to see that, though.
If you disagree, I ask that you point out specific instances where it is clear that I did not comprehend a lot about a post I was replying to.
Your reply to Dansk: You were too busy putting down on him to listen to what he had to say. I've still not seen a comment from you that indicates any understanding of what he wrote. He's a personal friend of mine, he's ill, and both those facts are common knowledge on this board. I hope you'll forgive my defensiveness of him. I simply won't tolerate him being treated like that, without comment, especially when he's over twice your age and has been through things that you can't even begin to imagine.
Your reply to me regarding the "smell of Africa": Sorry dude, but that one went straight over your head, didn't it?
You "appear" too quick to brush aside different opinions with little consideration of them. I'm not the only one to notice and point out your condescending manner. I would have thought it was clear enough, by now, that this is what people are taking issue with.
You appear to be a bright kid (and I mean that without any tone of condescension), albeit a little narrow in focus. You could get so much further with a minor change in the tone of your language.
Honestly, if I didn't care I wouldn't bother posting to you. I can only think of one other person who I attempted this with, in recent times, but he no-longer posts here. I would hate to see you get overcome by your ego, too.
Take care, Daniel.
LittleToe: Yes, saying I am ignorant is all fine and good, but I would appreciate more examples of this rather than you just repeating it over and over. If you mean ignorant of spirit, save your breath...er, typing.
You're an intelligent kid. I'm sure you can work it out, and demonstrate that you're more than a psuedo-intellectual.
I'm not sure how many more times I'm going to repeat myself on this issue, it gets tiresome and boring playing broken record player with people. I am not here to flaunt intelligence or gain respect/admiration of anyone. So, I am not interested in earning your or whoever's title of 'true intellectual'. This, coming from a person who does not think the burden of proof lies on the one who holds the beliefs in addition to just living. I'm afraid things just don't work that way for me. Even if science showed you every function of what you experience and think down to the last neuron and nerve fibre, you would still argue spirit exists without proof because you and other believers just say it is an exception to this rule and must be experienced. That is complete crap (with the exception of course of the %0.0000000000000000000001 chance of it being true, or whatever the real figure is - wouldn't want to confuse you on my beliefs now and have another giant post argument with you).
Forget I asked about the rat comment, it seems getting you to do a simple thing like explain why you said 'I smell a rat' is not something you can do for me.
On the contrary, I considered them. They have a modicum of merit.
And they have a modicum of merit why? You don't give backup or reasons behind your statements. Examples, man, examples. Please, it is not worth my time to ask someone to do something over and over. The exception being the next part of your post, but if you continue to reply to me, when you make a statement please try to give an example at least. So let me address each and every one to allay these apparent concerns of yours that I am not giving peoples' answers due attention by clarifying my reponses to you.
Your reply to Dansk: You were too busy putting down on him to listen to what he had to say. I've still not seen a comment from you that indicates any understanding of what he wrote. He's a personal friend of mine, he's ill, and both those facts are common knowledge on this board. I hope you'll forgive my defensiveness of him. I simply won't tolerate him being treated like that, without comment, especially when he's over twice your age and has been through things that you can't even begin to imagine.
You took my reply to Dansk completely out of context, and even so I rephrased several things I had said in further posts out of consideration for your comments. 'Wacko', and 'sap' were in hypothetical cases. 'Deluded' was the only comment I directly applied to him, my brother and so many others. I stand behind it, though I have digressed that this delusion can be very beneficial to one's life. Take it as you may, but it was not an insult, and as I have pointed out many times, people should not be putting their feelings on the line in a discussion like this. I feel as though this thread is going to have the same information repeated four to five times before you interpret any of the messages I'm trying to get across. So no, this invalidates that entire comment of yours because I was not putting him down. His comment was rather simple:
1. Many people do believe in the spiritual because they are hopeful. 2. I don't believe in the same thing as some, but I believe in something else! (spirit)
3. You won't believe me because you haven't experienced it yet! (in other words no proof available)
4. The universe came out of consciousness! (completely unfounded statement without basis, no proof whatsoever, no way of knowing of this for sure... As I said, I have a brother who says the EXACT same things after doing psilocybin mushrooms 20+ times.)
5. You think we're all like you! (He didn't understand the context of my post at all, as so many of you do not)
6. Life isn't unsolvable! Some people think they have solved it! (So what? They could all be wrong, and deluded, as I have suggested.) 7. I am alive from the spirit!! Just because you haven't felt it, you don't believe in it. You might feel it someday, or in some other life. (hinting at unfounded belief of afterlife)
8. Instead of believing mainstream religion, I have come up with my own ideas on spirituality. Of course I'm just a lowly, humble apprentice yadda yadda.
See? Now we have a tedious description of Dansk's post for what, for me to prove my understanding to you, when it was plainly obvious in my replies. This is not what I want. If you truly cannot grasp the concepts I refer to in my posts or are incapable of stepping down from your pedestal for a moment to consider ideas that conflict your long journey through life, then don't read or reply to them any further. This is not a productive use of my time. I have already said at least once that this discussion does not need to be taken to heart, and that simply considering what I am saying does not mean I am trying to convert you nor will it change you in any way if you do not wish it to. That's what being self-convinced is all about, is it not?
Your reply to me regarding the "smell of Africa": Sorry dude, but that one went straight over your head, didn't it? *** (Just to add an allegory - have you ever smelt Africa? I have, and it has entered my blood and captured my soul. Unless you've been to Africa I suspect you haven't the faintest notion of what I'm talking about.)
You honestly think your Africa comment was that sophisticated? Your delusion of it 'entering your soul' (the soul - no proof, not a hint) is very simple, and I really had nothing to say on it. Now I've had to say it's a delusion, which will you probably now take as an insult. Are you satisfied? Yes, new experiences certainly are something. But you didn't understand what I meant by mentioning the olfactory senses. There is only a certain range of variance that the human senses can pick up. That means, there is only so much that can be experienced. If someone has experienced a wide enough variation of things, then they can easily surmise something they haven't experienced yet exactly. If you disagree, that's a shame, but there is nothing else to take from that short comment. Experience can be skewed of course, by internalized interpretation, perhaps even to the point of altering perception. Terrific, I really don't care if you turned a regular trip to Africa into a magical wonderland experience. It has nothing to do with me.
You "appear" too quick to brush aside different opinions with little consideration of them. I'm not the only one to notice and point out your condescending manner. I would have thought it was clear enough, by now, that this is what people are taking issue with.
Oh, well, since you have a condescending manner too, I guess we're about even. However, I didn't realize I had one at all. Perhaps this is because when I write that is not how I feel; that is to say, when I am replying I do not feel as if I am 'talking down' to anyone for any reason or for anything to do with their denomination - not sex, not age, not race - with the exception of course of belief structures, since the discussion directly relates to that. Clear enough? Have I not said already that people are taking this far too seriously and in the wrong direction from the intended purpose of this thread? I have almost had my fill of repeating myself, truly.
You appear to be a bright kid (and I mean that without any tone of condescension), albeit a little narrow in focus. You could get so much further with a minor change in the tone of your language.
Honestly, if I didn't care I wouldn't bother posting to you. I can only think of one other person who I attempted this with, in recent times, but he no-longer posts here. I would hate to see you get overcome by your ego, too.
Narrow in focus - yes, it is true, I will not ever in my entire life submit to irrational belief without proof, but I will also not deny the existence of yours or any beliefs 100% because that is the whole angle of sitting on the fence - you cannot know what is true and therefore only look to the clues that provide you with a vague direction about what has the most chance of being true. There is no logical reason for me to submit to blind faith, unless emotions overtook me and I became hopeless & depressed (or if my future wife [whoever she may be] felt really strongly that I should be a part of her beliefs [still, I would be playing along, but for love's sake I see it as worth it so long as it doesn't screw with anyone's life badly - i.e., No Witness Membership]). Then I would probably believe anything that made me feel better. But I am going to try to make certain that this never happens. Life is wonderful, and full of amazing and terrible things that intrigue and horrify me all at once. Overcome by my ego? I would think that would cause me to post even more.
I always take care. You take care too, ...LittleToe.
Did we get our panties in a bunch, or what??
You're thread title has just taken on a brand new connotation.
It seems that I've upset you, and for that I apologise (whether you want it or not) - sorry.
The only thing I've offered you, beyond taking you to task for (at best, and now giving you the benefit of the doubt) being abrupt with my friend Dansk, is the African thing. So if you don't mind, I'll set the rest aside and explain to you what I mean. Otherwise we could be here for days, and the truth is I was going to ignore the thread until I saw your comment to my pal.
LT wrote: Just to add an allegory - have you ever smelt Africa? I have, and it has entered my blood and captured my soul. Unless you've been to Africa I suspect you haven't the faintest notion of what I'm talking about.
There is sommething about Africa that you either love or hate. If you come to love it it's as if it enters every fibre of your being (it was in this context that I used the word "soul", not any metaphysical sense) and you pine for the place. It's like a love affair that saturates you.
It hasn't necessarily got anything to do with your olifactory senses, though no doubt they come into play with regards to the memories that get embedded. It's more that your senses are enlivened by such an experience, so that your love affair for the place is so tangable you can almost smell it when you return home.
I honestly don't know if you've done that kind of travelling, but if you've had that kind of experience then my allegory shouldn't have been lost on you.
Now the application to the points Dansk alluded to:
When you've "connected" it can have a similar effect on you. You are left affected.
It isn't because you're any more special than anyone else, in fact the humbling factor of the experience often has quite the reverse effect. Nonetheless, it seems that it's an experience that you haven't entered into, and that's not said to demean you, no more than stating that you've never been to Africa.
There are people here who took your initial post on face value and poured out their heart to you. IMHO you went straight for the jugular and spat on the remains. In the first instance it's not nice or respectful behaviour. In the second, it appeared to demonstrate a not-so-nice character.
Please bear in mind that we don't know you from Adam. Given half a chance we will get to know you, but if it's respect you want (and I find it unusual that you claim you don't) it'll take a wee while to be earned.
Your other two threads have been good. It's a shame this one took the course it did.
Bear in mind your own responsibility for that, as I will mine...
Slainte bha
Incidentally, perhaps I might ask you if this is the crux of the matter:
There is no logical reason for me to submit to blind faith...
Because if it is, noone was recommending that (either for you, themselves, or others).
Rune
(going on blissfully ignorant of the trouble around)
Hypothesis 0 : I desire what is not and cannot be.
Attitude A (materialistic delusion): I desire only what is or can be; if hypothesis 0 is true I will run from desire to disappointment and to another desire to another disappointment as I get what I thought I was desiring.
Attitude B (mystic delusion): What I desire is or can be (somewhere, somehow); if hypothesis 0 is true I would be disappointed when I get it -- but I'll never get it.
Attitude C: accept hypothesis 0, don't cheat on the essence of your desire and the non-existence of its object.
Of course hypothesis 0 may be wrong...
From the little guy sitting in the corner: the beginning of wisdom is the realization of how little one actually knows.
But what do I know? I get most of my answers from fortune cookies.
Well maybe everybody should take responsability ... I don't know why this have slide on this side
why not call a football team to slam "THE KID" ... isn't calling him a kid quiet arrogant too ? ... Is it an argument ? ... It's easy ... you kid go sit in the corner (ok mr elder ! well ... LOL ...excuse me ... this time is done ... NO?) ...
Would you say that to Abbadon or worst in the manner lets say Farkel for instance ? (One would try once in a while and just quit, cause they are just like that ... are they BAD ? ... Where is the real difference in the way ?) ... No it's all about who ? Maybe there should be 2 parts in this forum, one for the cuddles for everything to nothing to a$$ kissing and an other for real discussion (to put the personnal feelings aside when needed)
So some are allowed to express themselve the way they are, and some are not ? Why ? What is this double standard all about (do we have the right to be different ?) Maybe some are Ministerial JWD servant and PIC NIC organiser and did so much hours together that it makes the difference (subjective isn't it ? ... "TAKE CARE" ... ... Wow ... what about a little shunning and group bashing/gossiping in the back to take rank and have him bending over ... ... how fun ... pitiful isn't it ? Where is the real power ? ) ... please ... It doesn't work on everybody (some people are just ready to pay cash for this freedom, its easy to find out on there way of speaking (that's just the way they are) also, what is the need to be bond to people who just want you to be what they want you to be or rejected ? Back to JWland ? Just think about it what does he have to loose ? ... but more over what do you gain out of it (ILLUSION of power) ... ? And it's probably the reason why he doesn't care emotionally about what you think when things comes out this way for this reason ... I guess he knows better about himself (also that doesn't mean there's no sensibility behind all that ... ) ... but you know better I guess about him ?
*under74 peaks into thread. Sees a bunch of people yelling and Frenchbabyface having to bitchslap everyone. Backs out slowly*
