posted
I don't know whether to be honored Geoffry knows my name or peeved off. I'm not an intentional asshole, I just sometimes dont think.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by trance: One question that always puzzled me about religions is the conditions of being sent to Hell by belief in other faiths.
Jews don't believe there is such a thing as hell. Which is a shame, really, because folks like Hitler, Dahmer, etc, really deserve one.
Actually the thought that they were wiped from existence at death does offer its own appeal.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A non-Jew who keeps those seven is on the same level, spiritually speaking, as a Jew who keeps all of ours. Looks like non-Jews are going to be getting most of the good seats in the next world. <sigh>
Thats why at this point the best I can do is help my fiance and future children follow these laws. My loss shall be their gain.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So, some questions for LDS people: What are the essential differences in LDS and other Christian denominations? [snip the rest]
quote:Originally posted by wad: [a little dab of overt proselytization]
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [snip] ... with the exception of a single response to Wad's overt proselytization, something that you've made a point of discouraging on your site, ... [snip]
posted
Oh, I had no real problem with it, which is why I was lightheartedly snippy instead of actually critical. I figured it was harmless, but couldn't let it pass completely unscathed. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Blayne Mormons don't take kindly to "underpants" comments. It's sacrilege almost on par with abusing the name of Sid Meier in front of a gamer ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I *did* ask, and I got what I wanted! Thanks!
Quibble:
quote:The LDS Church (Mormon church), is different from traditional Christianity in that we claim that there is again divine relevation.
AFAIK no Christian denomination would disagree, although some individual Christians would, except with the implication that there was an interruption. Catholics, for example, believe that we've had divine revelation throughout. Pentecostals look for lots of it. I think most Christians do, in daily life.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but would these religions call it blasphemous if someone reported a Moses-burning-bush-like experience and said they'd talked with God face to face?
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Catholics, for example, believe that we've had divine revelation throughout.
Actually, from my understanding of the Catechism, the Catholic Church specifically DENIES that there has been ANY new revelation since the time of the original Apostles. The Pope doesn't claim to be a Prophet, but an Official Steward and Interpreter of the Knowledge that has already been given.
Is that incorrect?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon (though Icarus would know better) My understanding is that there are three pillars of revelation in the Catholic church.
1) Bible (including the intertestament books that protestants reject) 2) Traditions of the Church, including the writings of the Doctors of the Church (though this isn't considered sacred scripture like the Bible, however the concepts that the Doctors (theologians) developed from their interpretations may not be expressly spelled out in the Bible. 3) the Pope speaking ex cathedra or "in the seat of Peter" (happens very very rarely, and normally after considerable research and documentation from sources 1 and 2 first. Elevation of Mary to "official" co-redemptrix actually happened relatively recently, with a pope making an ex-cathedra proclamation. However, if you look at Catholic church tradition she has been held at that level in practice for a pretty long time.
AJ
It's more of the harder line non-charismatic protestants that deny "new" revelation. They base this on these verses in Revelation 22 among other places.
quote: 18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (KJV)(
quote:There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. Thus, thanks to the living magisterium and ecclesiastical preaching, thanks to the living sense of truth in the Church, to the action of the Holy Ghost simultaneously directing master and faithful, traditional truth lives and develops in the Church, always the same, at once ancient and new--ancient, for the first Christians already beheld it to a certain extent, new, because we see it with our own eyes and in harmony with our present ideas. Such is the notion of tradition in the double meaning of the word; it is Divine truth coming down to us in the mind of the Church and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divine truth by the organ of the living magisterium, by ecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in the Christian life.
(hard-line protestants would call the ongoing process described above "new revelation" even if Catholics believe that the essential repository of Truth is constant... we are and we are just discovering how big it actually is)
posted
I would say that the vast majority of Christian denominations believe that there still is divine revelation. We/they just don't call it scripture.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Taalcon (though Icarus would know better) My understanding is that there are three pillars of revelation in the Catholic church.
See, as I understood it, the third is not considered a Revelation, just an Authoritative Doctrinal Statement.
Revelation, at least how I'm using it, means new information coming directly from God, not just new insight garnered from studies (although I do believe studies can be condusive to one recieving a revelation).
Tradition (with the Capital T) as I understand it, is basically Oral Scripture/Doctrine that isn't accounted for specifically in any firsthand texts we currently have. Because we don't have the original texts, it isn't as authoritative as Scripture, but because of their importance and sacredness in the History of the Church, they are still followed and believed to be still very authoritative.
The Ex Cathedra statements, as I understand, and as you said, do not come from God directly communicating with the Pope, but are Authoritative Statements and Conclusions being reached based on their understanding of information already had in the Repository.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Talcon, I believe that you are incorrect, though I would defer to any of our Catholic Hatrackers on this point. The emphasis is different – Roman Catholic teaching about revelation concentrates on the idea that the Truth has not changed. It doesn’t deny that God speaks to the pope, (or other contemporary humans) only that God would tell the current pope something contrary to what has previously been revealed. (With the caveat that it may not previously have been understood correctly.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm looking at this and wondering how people think the Catholic Church views the Marian visitations if not as revelation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gotcha. I've just been doing a lot of reading of the Catholic Catechism lately, and it seems that they are very picky and careful with terminology, and that it explicitly says that the Deposit of Information has been given, and that nothing new will ever be revealed. New interpretations and understandings may come to light, of course, but everything that will ever need to be known doctrinally has been given, and does exist in the Deposit of Revelation that ended with Christ.
The Catechism, in line 65-67, says the following:
"In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty."
There will be no more Revelation.
"The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. There are an awful lot of Catholic saints who would be guilty of foolish behavior and offending God if that statment were strictly interpreted. I suspect a technical definition of CAPITAL "R" Revelation.
Edit: and now you add more and make me look silly. Your added stuff is what I was getting at.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say that sometimes trying to comprehend some of the more specific important technical meanings of Catholic terms (Revelation, Person, Substance, etc), while fun, can often result in headaches.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ok I don;t think I've ever abused the name Sid Meier, in fact I've always done well as China in civ3. And won consistently in Starcraft.
As for the underpants question, it was an honest question because a friend of mine mentioned it and supposedly believes its some kind of reason to believe that the LDS church is a cult, I wanted to find out if it was true or not to disprove him. In fact as it is I'm gathering people on "the other side" to correspond with once my friend here finishes his list of reasons why Mormons aren't Christians.
BTW: I don't take his view point I'm the guy that walks into their club room and argues with them. But he's still a friend.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So ya sorry if my question was disrectful in anyway and ouch my back is hurting me.
IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon I believe they got considerably more careful with their technical definiton of "Revelation" after the Protestant reformation.
It's the "making explicit" part where different sects disagree otherwise they wouldn't practice their faith differently... the biggest break of course being when the protestants decided that the pope "making explicit" the revelation wasn't Revelation at all. (but you probably already know all that Taalcon) The true "sola scriptura" fundamentalists don't necessarily think they believe in a "deposit of faith" or Magisterium concept which they believe is "Revelation" outside of that in the Bible itself, even if they still use some commentaries.
I admit that I don't know how different the LDS definition of "Revelation" is different from any of the other definitions either.
posted
Actually, having grown up in one, I think many denominations who claim to be 'Sola Scriptura' rely a lot more on Tradition than they realize or will readily admit .
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Martin Luther was convinced that if everyone read the Bible for him(or her?)self every reasonable person would agree what it said/meant. He was demonstrably wrong.
Every reading of scripture is an interpretation, it's just that some people are so ingrained in how their tradition has "always" interpreted that they don't recognize that not everyone sees it that way -- that they're relying on their tradition for their interpretive lens.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also find it interesting that most of the time the example held up from the Bible, is Phillip and the Ethopian Eunuch. However someone *did* need to explain it to the dude otherwise God wouldn't have sent Phillip. Not to mention the ethiopian guy was only reading the old testament as well.
quote:There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).
Edit: fixed the link.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Catholics, at least, would not call it blasphemous if someone reported a Moses-burning-bush-like experience and said they'd talked with God face to face.
However, the Church might call what was supposedly revealed to be contrary to faith or good morals if it contradicted anything in the public revelations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think the LDS church would react in a similar way.
If some random member said they'd seen God and He'd said we could drink alcohol all we wanted, we'd think he was a crackpot.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate that the board ate my post! And yet everything I wanted to say has been said better by dkw and Taalcon.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have stated that as "the Church would call what was supposedly revealed to be contrary to faith or good morals if it contradicted anything in the public revelation."
posted
I'm not trying to gain rhetorical posts, starLisa. Though we have argued in the past, the fact is that you don't know a thing about me, clearly.
My question was an entirely honest one, not at all like the catty one you suggested it was analogous to. It was asked quite simply to understand just how literally you meant to be taken. You have made many statements on Hatrack, in this thread and elsewhere, that I find completely reprehensible. This seemed to be another example, and I wanted to clarify my own understanding of it.
Answer me or don't as you see fit. I consider you a moral sinkhole and won't be too bothered by it either way. But this "I'm answering his question, but not for him, but for everyone else" crap is childish. It's not beneath you, but it ought to be.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: Originally posted by Icarus: quote: And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish. So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism? And is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?
I'm going to answer this for those, other than Icarus, who might actually be interested in an answer, rather than in scoring rhetorical points.
I think there are a ton of non-Jews who have a lot more respect for Jews and Judaism than a Jew who has intermarried. Marrying out demonstrates contempt for Judaism. How do you teach your kids that it's important to follow God's laws when you aren't following them yourself? "Do as I say; not as I do"?
Ouch. Icarus, I love starLisa because I worship intelligence and wit, but I agree with you. starLisa that was harsh. I still think you're awesome but I can't quite figure you out now. At first I thought you were really smart, funny and witty. You are still those things. But I also thought you were not as conservative as you are since you're gay. It just seems odd that you would be so...straight. I'm also glad I'm nowhere near as Jewish as you. I could never do it. So, question-My mom is Jewish and my dad is Christian-and I'm adopted. What am I? I was raised Jewish (not orthodox) ..but I don't practice. Am I still Jewish if I'm adopted?
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: Originally posted by Icarus: quote: And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish. So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism? And is it true that you've stopped beating your wife?
I'm going to answer this for those, other than Icarus, who might actually be interested in an answer, rather than in scoring rhetorical points.
I think there are a ton of non-Jews who have a lot more respect for Jews and Judaism than a Jew who has intermarried. Marrying out demonstrates contempt for Judaism. How do you teach your kids that it's important to follow God's laws when you aren't following them yourself? "Do as I say; not as I do"?
Ouch. Icarus, I love starLisa because I worship intelligence and wit, but I agree with you. starLisa that was harsh.
I'm sorry you think so, Treason. I felt that Icarus's automatically assuming that I meant no one who isn't Jewish can respect Judaism was fairly harsh as well. It's not as though Icarus asked what I meant. Or even asked if I meant that.
Despite Icarus's protestations to the contrary, I still think that.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I still think you're awesome but I can't quite figure you out now. At first I thought you were really smart, funny and witty.
<grin> I can be.
But Treason, I'm unwilling to take positions merely because they're comfortable. I stand by my convictions, come what may.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: You are still those things. But I also thought you were not as conservative as you are since you're gay.
Weird, isn't it. But... I mean, what's the connection? Think it through. I'm gay, right? So really, really liberal views would be comfortable for me, since they would remove a lot of pressure for me.
So... should I be the kind of person who changes my values and convictions based, not on reason and justice, but rather on whatever makes life easier for me?
Consider what you know about my convictions, and ask yourself if I could live like that. If I could live with myself after sacrificing my mind to the feelings of others.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: It just seems odd that you would be so...straight.
I know, right?
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I'm also glad I'm nowhere near as Jewish as you. I could never do it. So, question-My mom is Jewish and my dad is Christian-and I'm adopted. What am I? I was raised Jewish (not orthodox) ..but I don't practice. Am I still Jewish if I'm adopted?
Honestly? I don't know. It would depend on whether your birth-mother was Jewish. If she wasn't, then you would have had to have either converted yourself, or have been converted as a child by your parents. And I don't think it's possible for an intermarried couple to find rabbis who will acquiesce to such a conversion.
I apologize if you were offended by what I said about intermarriage. Many Jews who marry out don't do so out of malice, but simply because they weren't educated properly themselves. But the damage done is the same.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adopted by a Jewish mother? I found this when asked by somebody else in your position:
According to the Code of Jewish Law (the "Shulchan Aruch"), there are three requirements for a valid conversion. The requirements are:
1) Mitzvahs - He must believe in G-d and the divinity of the Torah, as well as accept upon himself to observe all 613 mitzvahs (commandments) of the Torah.
2) Milah - Male converts must undergo circumcision by a qualified "Mohel." If he was previously circumcised by a doctor, he then undergoes a ritual called "hatafas dam".
3) Mikveh - All converts must immerse in the Mikveh - a ritual bath linked to a reservoir of rain water.
All of the above must be done before a court of three Jewish men who themselves believe in G-d, accept the divinity of the Torah, and observe the mitzvahs. * * *
In the case of parents converting a child, it is slightly different, because obviously the child cannot fulfill one of the conditions - i.e. accepting upon himself to observe all 613 mitzvahs. (Only a child of age - i.e. 13 - has the ability to do such a thing.) Therefore, for a child's conversion to be valid, the parent's themselves must agree to observe all 613 mitzvahs. This is the only way it is reasonable to assume that the child will also observe the mitzvahs.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I apologize if you were offended by what I said about intermarriage. Many Jews who marry out don't do so out of malice, but simply because they weren't educated properly themselves. But the damage done is the same."
Oh, Lisa. It's not out of ignorance or lack of education. It's called love. I really am glad my grandmother didn't make a huge fuss when my mom married my dad. (she made a small fuss) She realized that he made her happy and they were in love. I Just find it so so weird that you're gay. To me, your view seems so "gays shouldn't marry" or "black should not marry white" I know it's different to you because it's about religion but Christians think the same thing about gay marriage.
And I have to concede one point to you. "The damage done is the same."
I grew up and became more agnostic than anything else. I don't like or agree with any organized religion. Thank god! Give me that kind of damage any day. I am free to love whom I please, think for myself, follow my own moral code, marry whomever I wish and have faith in myself instead of some father figure up in the sky. That is not meant to be insulting at all, it's about how I feel religion normally affects people. I still think you're cool, Lisa. Just way to straight for me. Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: In the case of parents converting a child, it is slightly different, because obviously the child cannot fulfill one of the conditions - i.e. accepting upon himself to observe all 613 mitzvahs. (Only a child of age - i.e. 13 - has the ability to do such a thing.) Therefore, for a child's conversion to be valid, the parent's themselves must agree to observe all 613 mitzvahs. This is the only way it is reasonable to assume that the child will also observe the mitzvahs.
Right. One other thing, though. Unlike regular conversion, a minor who has been converted can choose at the age of bar or bat mitzvah (12 years and a day for girls and 13 years and a day for boys) to refuse the conversion. If they do so, the conversion is nullified retroactively. If they do nothing, the conversion sticks.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to clarify something: I didn't agree with everything Icarus said. I didn't want you to think that, Lisa. I just thought you were to harsh before.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: "I apologize if you were offended by what I said about intermarriage. Many Jews who marry out don't do so out of malice, but simply because they weren't educated properly themselves. But the damage done is the same."
Oh, Lisa. It's not out of ignorance or lack of education. It's called love.
<sigh> Treason, it's both. You don't walk down the street and fall in love with someone walking past you. That's cool for movies, but you can't fall in love with someone unless you get to know them intimately.
Someone who is really committed to Judaism and their Jewish heritage just isn't going to put themselves in that situation.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I really am glad my grandmother didn't make a huge fuss when my mom married my dad. (she made a small fuss) She realized that he made her happy and they were in love. I Just find it so so weird that you're gay.
Really? I mean, it's not like I'm politically gay. I didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hmm... what can I do to be counter culture and piss people off and make people hate me? Hey, I know! I'll be gay!"
That said, I'm not at all sorry that I am gay. A group of Orthodox Jewish lesbians I used to be a member of had a discussion once about what they would do if there was a "magic pill" that would make them straight. Most of them said they'd take it in a heartbeat. Me? I'd seal it in lead and drop it into the Marianas Trench. It doesn't make my life any easier, but it's who I am. I'd be a completely different person otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: To me, your view seems so "gays shouldn't marry"
Except for the whole getting my head bashed in thing in the "OSC and Gays" thread for arguing for gay marriage, I guess.
But if you want a seeming contradiction, I absolutely think that marriage should be recognized exactly equally by the government regardless of whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex. They should either recognize both or keep out of it altogether. With the latter being my preference.
On the other hand, I fought hard against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and I am inalterably opposed to any laws which dictate who may or may not or must or must not rent/do business with/socialize with/hire whom.
If I get hired, and the contract says nothing about gay or not gay, and my employer fires me when he finds out I'm gay, that's a contract violation, and I'll fight it. If he refuses to hire me up front because I'm gay, I'll think he's an ass, and if I'm sufficiently upset, I'll try and organize people to boycott his business, or him personally, but I would never in a billion years try to take legal action against him.
Now... I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer this. But knowing what you've expressed about Rand's writing and philosophy, but being far more "liberal" than I am, what's your take on that issue? Should someone be forced by law to hire me and trade for my services if they don't want to?
quote:Originally posted by Treason: or "black should not marry white" I know it's different to you because it's about religion but Christians think the same thing about gay marriage.
I'm against having same sex marriage in Judaism, too. Look, think of it this way: I am honestly, intellectually convinced that there really is a God, and that He really did give us the Torah and the system by which it is to be applied. I really think that things the Torah says are wrong are wrong, and that things the Torah says are right are right.
From that place, what I may think about same sex marriage in Judaism is utterly irrelevant. If I ever got to create the universe, maybe I'd do it differently. But that's not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: And I have to concede one point to you. "The damage done is the same."
I grew up and became more agnostic than anything else. I don't like or agree with any organized religion. Thank god! Give me that kind of damage any day. I am free to love whom I please, think for myself, follow my own moral code, marry whomever I wish and have faith in myself instead of some father figure up in the sky.
See, but the god you don't buy, I don't buy either. The whole Santa Claus on a throne with a lightning bolt in one hand and a bag of goodies in the other seems more than childish to me. I follow the laws God gave us not because I'm afraid of getting struck down, and not because my invisible friend told me to. I do it because I have sufficient cause to be convinced that what God says is forbidden is really a bad thing, and that what God says is required is really a necessary thing.
I never had a "personal revelation", and I didn't get invited to someone's home for Shabbat and get an attack of the warm fuzzies. If I didn't think it was for real and true, I wouldn't waste my time on it.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: That is not meant to be insulting at all, it's about how I feel religion normally affects people. I still think you're cool, Lisa. Just way to straight for me.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm sorry you think so, Treason. I felt that Icarus's automatically assuming that I meant no one who isn't Jewish can respect Judaism was fairly harsh as well. It's not as though Icarus asked what I meant. Or even asked if I meant that.
Despite Icarus's protestations to the contrary, I still think that.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote: And of course, there's no way a Jewish child can be raised to have any respect for Judaism when one of that child's parents isn't even Jewish.
So you believe that nobody who is not Jewish has any respect for Judaism?
Believe what you want. I think it's pretty clear I was asking if you believed what you had obviously implied, or if I was misinterpreting you. But you've made it pretty clear that your specialty is assuming you know what people really intend, despite whatever they say to the contrary. It's one of the things I despise about you. (But I'll throw back at you something you've said to me. Do you really think, based on our conversations, that if I wanted to be insulting to you I would be indirect about it?)
For what it's worth, I misspoke when I called you a moral sinkhole. I don't really think you are immoral, but merely so narcissistic and immature that you can only perceive the world in the way that will make you feel heroic, etc. Amoral bordering on sociopathic, but I guess not so much immoral. Not that you care (obviously). I'm ammending what I said merely for clarity's sake--I misspoke and I feel the need to correct it.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goo Boy: For what it's worth, I misspoke when I called you a moral sinkhole. I don't really think you are immoral, but merely so narcissistic and immature that you can only perceive the world in the way that will make you feel heroic, etc. Amoral bordering on sociopathic, but I guess not so much immoral. Not that you care (obviously). I'm ammending what I said merely for clarity's sake--I misspoke and I feel the need to correct it.
I'm not amoral. I'm im(GooBoy)moral. I simply reject the ethics that you seem to be championing here. The funny thing is that you call me narcissitic, but you're willing to use the term "amoral" to describe someone who doesn't subscribe to your moral view. It isn't a GooBoy-centric universe.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm . . . That actually suggests a rather interesting question. I am not a moral relativist, and I suspect you would say you are not either. Our moralities, such as they are, clearly do not coincide, however. Is someone who is not a moral relativist narcissistic (since, after all, everyone generally believes his or her beliefs are correct)? I don't think so, but I guess one could make a convincing argument that the answer is yes.
In any case, let me clarify: I don't call you a narcissist because you subscribe to a different morality or reject my own. I call you a narcissist because you generally insist you know other people's motivations better than they themselves do, even to the extent of contradicting their claims otherwise. I generally ask people what they mean, or if they mean what I think they mean. Or, at the very least, if they tell me I have misinterpreted, I take their word for it (though I certainly may ask for clarification).
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Now... I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer this. But knowing what you've expressed about Rand's writing and philosophy, but being far more "liberal" than I am, what's your take on that issue? Should someone be forced by law to hire me and trade for my services if they don't want to?"
The two sides of my personality still fight over that one. I've thought it over quite a bit and I can tell you, I just don't know. You're not the only one who is a bundle of (seeming) contradictions. If I had to answer right away I would say "It's wrong to force an employer to hire anyone they don't want to." But... Well, I'm sure you can guess how I go back and forth on that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Though we have argued in the past, the fact is that you don't know a thing about me, clearly.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's not out of ignorance or lack of education.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
