 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / November 2009Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ??
Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? Read about it at http://emailministry.webs.com/areyougoodenoughforheav.htm Thanks On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? Read about it athttp://emailministry.webs.com/areyougoodenoughforheav.htm > > Thanks nope, i'm not > On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" > <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > nope, i'm not Me either. In fact, I don't know how many of us really are. On Oct 19, 8:47 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" > > <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Me either. In fact, I don't know how many of us really are. Hours later, days later, weeks later, awhile later...I'm still not. Sigh. I struggle to smote the mote from mine own eyes, daily. But I'm guessing ppl in this newgroup *are*?? > On Oct 19, 8:47 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But I'm guessing ppl in this newgroup *are*?? Are good enough to get into heaven?? You mean along the likes of say Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and say Fred Rogers??? I don't think many in this world really are. I'd guess a handful are. I think it all depends on how high your standards are. In this forsaken world, it is painfully obvious to me that some people have no standards, whatsoever, and it seems these days, the bar has been lowered quite a spell. (I'm not sure how far above ground it is anymore, but if you've seen it, let me know, will ya?). >> On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" >> <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Me either. In fact, I don't know how many of us really are. What the? Of course you both are deserving. Vickie >>> On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" >>> <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Vickie No, I've been demoted from being a real prince, by a real princess. >>>> On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" >>>> <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No, I've been demoted from being a real prince, by a real princess. Lol. I'd rather be a dragon. Vickie >>>>> On Oct 19, 8:37 pm, "The Lord's Work E-mail Ministry" >>>>> <emailminist...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Vickie Or alternatively, maybe instead we can both be dragon slayers!! Which reminds me of that recent mystical dragon movie, with Josh somebody in it. Pretty weird. Nice epecial effects, though. I have to admit the special effects are better these days. But .. I'll leave it at that. > Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? Read about it athttp://emailministry.webs.com/areyougoodenoughforheav.htm > > Thanks good question, depend on what yiou are doing or what you have been doing since along time ago! any how every body could guess about that , and make reevaluation to your situation > Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? Of course I am, if there were such a thing anyway. >> Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? > > Of course I am, if there were such a thing anyway. :-) Oh yeah??? Are you as worthy as Mother Teresa?? >>> Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? >> >> Of course I am, if there were such a thing anyway. > > :-) > Oh yeah??? Are you as worthy as Mother Teresa?? Mother Teresa? The Ghoul of Calcutta? The one who withheld succor and relief from the poor wretches in her care until they converted to Catholicism? Teresa, who pocketed donation money and sent it to Rome while hospitals in her area of ministry went without basic equipment? My cat is more worthy of Heaven than Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, and I am happy that there is no Heaven, because that means she is not in it! >>>> Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > My cat is more worthy of Heaven than Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, and I am happy > that there is no Heaven, because that means she is not in it! Incredible. Your cat may be worthy, but so is Mother T. 610 missions in 123 countries hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis soup kitchens children's and family counseling programs orphanages schools refugees for the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine opened the first Home for the Dying assisted and ministered to the hungry in Ethiopia helped radiation victims at Chernobyl and helped earthquake victims in Armenia If she is a ghoul, we are all devils. Isn't it easy to criticize when someone else does the work... "If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one." -MT Vickie >>>>> Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Vickie She was evil and selfish, keeping people poor instead of helping them out of poverty. "dejablues <dejablues@comcast.net>" wrote, of Mother Teresa: > She was evil and selfish, keeping people poor instead of helping them > out of poverty. About 15 years ago, in another group, someone explained that he thinks missionaries do everything wrong. They shouldn't be building churches, they should be building hospitals! A lot of other people chimed in to agree. Some friends of ours were missionaries at the time. The mountain village they lived in had no running water or electricity. An average "house" was a 15x10 foot wooden structure with no glass or screens in the windows; some couldn't even afford a curtain inside to divide their home into separate rooms. The husband is a skilled craftsman, and could easily earn many thousands of dollars in the USA, but instead he taught people in this village to build, maintain, and operate woodworking and other equipment. After a year or so, they actually achieved a small degree of income, as residents learned to make things that they could sell, and he took them to markets in his truck. The wife has a degree in biology, and could also earn a handsome salary in the States; instead, she taught classes in reading (since the literacy in their area was about 2%), hygiene, cooking safely, child care (infant mortality was very high), gardening, and nutrition. Their reward for this consisted of being able to live in a shack fancy enough to have a curtain. So I asked: how many of the people condemning Christian missionaries have ever actually done similar work? People were blabbering about how my friends should be building hospitals, when they had to drive for an hour to get to a telephone. And every time they headed back into the mountains they had to be sure the truck was gassed up, because there weren't a lot of places to refuel. Build a hospital? They may as well try to build a space shuttle. Their first priority was to learn the local dialect (they spoke the language of the nearest large city, which was good enough to get started. They eventually built a multi-purpose building to serve as a church, school, and clinic, but it was more than a year before they even started on it. Maybe MacGyver could whip up a hospital from chewing gum and dirt, but in a place where the average income is zero, things just don't work that way. If you think that you can go into poverty and just fix everything in 22 episodes, you watch way too much TV. * So, if you were dropped in Calcutta with just what you own today, what would you do to get things fixed? If you're so sure you know what to do, why not go do it? Everyone is a perfect quarterback on Monday morning. Using only what you own right now, go fix poverty in Calcutta. Give it a go for 10 years and report on how it went for you. If you're at all successful, you can write a book which will easily make you a millionaire when you get back. However, like all those childless people who have great theories on parenting, you may find that you know way fewer of the answers once you are actually face-to-face with the problems. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (quote is often misreported) > "dejablues <dejablues@comcast.net>" wrote, of Mother Teresa: >> She was evil and selfish, keeping people poor instead of helping them [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > So, if you were dropped in Calcutta with just what you own today, what > would you do to get things fixed? I don't know a great deal about Mother Theresa or Calcutta. I don't know what her motives were. But I do remember the lessons of Christ I think I learned in school. They did not involve requiring a certain believe system in order to receive assistance. I have no idea if that was really the system under which she operated, but if it was, it lends a certain suspec to her work. I don't see deja condeming the efficacy of her work. Only her motives and the real value for her. When I was in Catholic school as a child, good works for the sake of something other than the work for the people whom you were offering was not condered good work at all. So *if* that is what M. T. was doing, then it really does tend to dust up her halo a bit. > If you're so sure you know what to do, why not go do it? Everyone is > a perfect quarterback on Monday morning. Using only what you own [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, > plausible, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (quote is often misreported) > I don't know a great deal about Mother Theresa or Calcutta. I don't > know what her motives were. [...] > When I was in Catholic school as a child, good works for the sake of > something other than the work for the people whom you were offering > was not condered good work at all. So *if* that is what M. T. was > doing, then it really does tend to dust up her halo a bit. Since no evidence whatever has been presented except the bald assertion by a person who doesn't even have a real name, it is simply unseemly gossip for anyone to entertain any accusations at all. ("One who listens to backbiting is a backbiter himself." -- Ali ibn-abu-Talib) Further, except those who are truly sinless, nobody's motives are completely pure. Most people who do volunteer work readily admit that they feel good about themselves when they do it, and that part of the reason they do it is to feel better about themselves. One could argue that's somewhat selfish, but the people who get the help don't seem to mind. At freshman move-in day, many student groups show up to help new students; partly because they remember being new freshman and know how nice it is to have help when moving in, but partly because it makes the new students aware of the various clubs and may help them get new members. Maybe that's not entirely selfless, but none of the freshman moving in seem to mind at all. Is Bach's music somehow tainted because he wrote SDG on the scores? * Christopher Hitchens, who wrote an unflattering book about Mother Teresa some years ago, was invited on TV to provide commentary for her funeral. He said how awful it was that so many people thought she had done such good things, when she was really trying to attract people to the Roman Catholic faith -- as if, all by itself, that was proof she was a bad person. In his litany of her evils, he even asked something to the effect of "Did you know she was against abortion?!" -- as if being against abortion made her evil, or as if this would come as a shock to people who would previously have believed that a Roman Catholic nun was in favor of abortion. He also complained that lots of the money she'd been donated was used to build convents in many other countries; but I'm not sure what the problem is with that, because there are poor people in lots of places. He did have one objection I considered substantive: that her organization provided relatively primitive medical care, which may be what you expect when she got started but not after funding had improved a great deal. I don't know enough to gainsay this one, and so provisionally grant it as correct given Mr Hitchens's claims to have researched it. But as I have no idea about the numbers of people involved, and what exactly constitutes "primitive", I don't know how seriously to take it. (I used to work in a hospital, and the place spent money like you would not believe. Just in my department we had over $20million worth of equipment, and easily went through $3million a year -- before adding in the cost for any of the patients.) I did not read Mr Hitchens's book, but I did listen to him for about a half-hour of TV coverage. Much, but not all, of what he said seemed silly. I'm pretty sure I would remember it, even across this large gap of time, if he had said "She lets people starve unless they convert". If anyone would be in a position to raise that complaint, it would have been him him, but he said nothing of the kind. He *did* say that people who came to her for food or help also got preaching in the deal, but nothing about conversions being mandatory. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Hey, all you frowny faces, who are still moping because you lost your job, and your house, and any shred of dignity: everything's fine now, because the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 10,000. Everybody is all excited about it. Wall Street is poised to give out its biggest annual bonuses in history, and it looks like 9.8% of Americans took the year off work to celebrate." -- Peter Sagal >> I don't know a great deal about Mother Theresa or Calcutta. I don't >> know what her motives were. [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ("One who listens to backbiting is a backbiter himself." -- Ali > ibn-abu-Talib) I used words like If and whatnot. You seem quite excited over this topic. I am sorry this topic excites you. I have no strong opinion at all. > Further, except those who are truly sinless, nobody's motives are > completely pure. Most people who do volunteer work readily admit that > they feel good about themselves when they do it, and that part of the > reason they do it is to feel better about themselves. One could argue > that's somewhat selfish, but the people who get the help don't seem to > mind. The desire to feel good about oneself is not a crime. What I would say is pretty awful is to link one's good works to the religious beliefs of the beneficiaries. To require someone be the same religion as you in order to receive poverty aid is simply blackmail. Again I have no idea of M Teresa was of this ilk. Nor do I particularly care. > At freshman move-in day, many student groups show up to help new > students; partly because they remember being new freshman and know how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is Bach's music somehow tainted because he wrote SDG on the scores? You are cerainly equating motives that I don't see as equal. > * > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > annual bonuses in history, and it looks like 9.8% of Americans took > the year off work to celebrate." -- Peter Sagal >> Since no evidence whatever has been presented except the bald >> assertion by a person who doesn't even have a real name, it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this topic. I am sorry this topic excites you. I have no strong > opinion at all. So, if I say that without any evidence whatsoeve to know if it's true, that I heard that you're a lying ho and whatnot, and that if that's true, that you would make a vile scumbag and whatnot, that'd be OK by you because I used the words "if" and "whatnot"? (Prediction..... right-fighter says yes, it'd be perfectly OK by her.) I wrote that it is unseemly to even *listen* to accusations of wrongdoing that come without documentation. Merely the act of listening at all creates a market for such gossip, and makes you partially culpable for it. "Stephanie <noway@nohow.com>" replied: > I used words like If and whatnot. You seem quite excited over this > topic. I am sorry this topic excites you. I have no strong opinion > at all. Gossip is immoral. Innuendo and rumors can do lots of damage, and there are people with no scruples whatever who make their fortunes pandering such rubbish to anyone who will listen. Repeating accusations with "if it's true" on the front is merely acting to spread the rumors yourself. There's even a website devoted to it now, <http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/>. If you don't care, at least don't be part of the problem. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "No gossip ever dies away entirely, if many people voice it: it, too, is a kind of divinity." -- Hesiod > I wrote that it is unseemly to even *listen* to accusations of > wrongdoing that come without documentation. Merely the act of > listening at all creates a market for such gossip, and makes you > partially culpable for it. I disagree. I disagree with that with extreme vehemence. > "Stephanie <noway@nohow.com>" replied: >> I used words like If and whatnot. You seem quite excited over this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If you don't care, at least don't be part of the problem. You are excited beyond reason, and I am not sure why. Listening is part of an open mind. When one refuses even to listen to a POV one cannot ever have new truth exposed to them. Spreading gossip would make me culpable. > Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy > "No gossip ever dies away entirely, if many people voice it: it, too, > is a kind of divinity." -- Hesiod >> Gossip is immoral. Innuendo and rumors can do lots of damage, >> and there are people with no scruples whatever who make their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You are excited beyond reason, and I am not sure why. How is it beyond reason to take the position that repeating gosip, even if qualified with an "if true" predicate, is still spreading unsubstantiated gossip? I can understand where some people might diagree, but I do not understand how that position is "beyond" reason. > Listening is part of an open mind. When one refuses even to listen > to a > POV one cannot ever have new truth exposed to them. Given your position you've just taken regarding the opinion above, I find it mildly amusing that you'd be the one to make this clam. How much of an open mind have you taken to the opinion that repeating gossip is perpetuating the problem? This reminds me of all of the times that you preach tolerance by being intolerant of any opinion which, in your opinion, with no accompaning logical argument, is inconsistent with your own opinion.. > Spreading > gossip would make me culpable. Yes, it would. > You are excited beyond reason, and I am not sure why. Letting other people fill your head with idle gossip is a form of stupidity that is particularly offensive to me. Aren't I allowed a pet peeve? Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Be very, very careful what you put into your head, because you will never, ever get it out." -- Thomas Cardinal Wolsey >> You are excited beyond reason, and I am not sure why. > > Letting other people fill your head with idle gossip is a form of > stupidity that is particularly offensive to me. Aren't I allowed a > pet peeve? Certainly! Peeve on! But I fail to see how listening "fills your head with idle gossip." If I then *believed* it in the absence of reason, then I think my head would be thus filled. It wouldn't be idle gossip if it were true. > I wrote that it is unseemly to even *listen* to accusations of > wrongdoing that come without documentation. Merely the act of > listening at all creates a market for such gossip, and makes you > partially culpable for it. I'm not sure how you determine if accusations have meritorious documentation without listening to them. But apart from that quibble, Christopher Hitchens (who has been mentioned in this thread) claims to have evidence for his criticisms of Mother Teresa, the Catholic Church's handling of her beatification, and the journalists who have contributed to what he considers to be her myth of saintliness. So maybe Hitchens is wrong, and maybe Hitchens is right. The issue has never seemed important enough to me to put a lot of time into reading about. But whichever it is, Mother Teresa has critics who use their names and claim to have evidence for their criticisms that we could choose to investigate. You mention (further above) Christopher Hitchens's shock that Mother Teresa doesn't like abortion. It may be that he didn't actually make his point on the TV interview you saw, but that isn't his point at all. His actual point isn't that she opposes abortion, but used the bully pulpit of a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to claim that abortion is the "great destroyer of peace." >> I wrote that it is unseemly to even *listen* to accusations of >> wrongdoing that come without documentation. Merely the act of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not sure how you determine if accusations have meritorious > documentation without listening to them. It's pretty clear that he meant it in the sense of "to pay attention to: give credence to" as opposed to "give attention with the ear", although what his clear intentions were in using the term wouldn't stop someone, as part of their right-fighting endeavors, from trying to demean the author by suggesting that he just said something stupid. > But apart from that quibble, Christopher Hitchens (who has been > mentioned in this thread) claims to have evidence for his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > critics who use their names and claim to have evidence for their > criticisms that we could choose to investigate. How is that, in any way, a response to what DNS wrote? Are you fully agreeing with what he said, or disagreeing to some extent or other? > isn't his point at all. His actual point isn't that she opposes > abortion, but used the bully pulpit of a Nobel Peace Prize > acceptance speech to claim that abortion is the "great destroyer > of peace." How do you know that was his point? Where's your proof for that leap? And since when do political figures being honored with a Nobel price not give a speech which is furtherance of their beliefs? And since when is a Nobel acceptance speech a "bully" pulpit? A major part of Mother Teresa's life work was a fight to save the defenseless, and everyone in the world should have known, or at least assumed, that a Catholic Nun would regard the unborn as the ultimate defenseless person. And so to be shocked that she'd use the world stage not to advance her cause for defending the unborn is shocking in its own right for its sheer stupidity. But then again, some people, through their own arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness, are so convinced of the right of a mother to choose to kill the unborn that they would be shocked if every opportunity to advance *that* cause would not be taken, while being shocked that anyone would take an opportunity to express the opposing opinion. The first casualty of the need to prove tolerance IS tolerance. I wrote that it is improper to listen to accusations without references, because the act of listening creates a market for gossip and makes one partially culpable for its spread. "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" asked: > I'm not sure how you determine if accusations have meritorious > documentation without listening to them. If the documentation is not presented in advance, or at least promised, then the safer course of action is not to listen at all. "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" offered: > It's pretty clear that he meant it in the sense of "to pay attention > to: give credence to" as opposed to "give attention with the ear"[.] Actually, Mr Anderson has it right: there have been times I have interrupted stories about people not present to ask where the information came from. If no sensible source was provided, I have either left the room or asked the speaker to stop. I try not to even listen -- and I really do mean "listen at all" -- to accusations without reasonable evidence behind them. (On Usenet, I skim such posts; if no references appear, I don't go back to read the article.) It's all well and good to talk about "I will listen, and postpone assent until the references appear", but I doubt many people can really do that. In my experience, once something gets in your head, it can be tough to get it out. Think about this example for a second: suppose you were told by a friend of yours that some third friend was cheating on their spouse. You listen for a few minutes, finally ask "How do you know this?", and the answer is "overheard some people talking on the elevator". I think most of us would be able at that point to put the thing aside consciously: it is an unproven accusation. But can you fully put aside the credence you were giving the story while listening? Can you put aside the emotional reaction you had when you were listening? The next time you see the person the gossip was about, could you be 100% sure that you wouldn't think of the accusation at all? Maybe Mr Spock could do it, but I have my doubts that the rest of us could really 100% erase those things from our minds. One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Internally, that means that if you listen to the gossip now, when you hear it again it'll seem more plausible to you. You may not remember where you heard it before, but somewhere in your head you will remember hearing it before, and that will make it seem more believable, even if it shouldn't be believed. And externally, it means that if you repeat gossip -- even if you put "if it's true" on the front -- then you are contributing to the problem. Repeated often enough, even by people saying "I don't know for sure", a lie will become one of those things that "everybody knows". * Christopher Hitchens isn't posting in this thread, so I don't see what he's got to do with the problem of gossip. Nobody who posted (or repeated, even with "if it's true" on the front) the attacks on Mother Teresa has cited anything worth citing. My complaints are not to Mr Hitchens. My complaints are to those who stated, or repeated, attacks on a person not present without justification. If you can't give any reason to believe an attack, you shouldn't repeat it--even with "I'm not saying it's true" as a disclaimer. If you don't know whether it's true, you shouldn't repeat it until you find out. (And if you don't care enough to find out, why do you care enough to repeat it?) And yes, I really do mean that if you're hearing/reading accusations of wrongdoing and don't find any indication of sensible sources, then you should exercise the self-discipline to stop listening/reading and not finish. Letting other people fill your head with gossip is not doing you, or them, any favors. * Earlier, Mr Anderson thought it worth pointing out that Ms Vickie had committed a reasoning error in trusting a web page whose author is not really an expert on the subject, and whose citations are insufficient to demonstrate his claims. Why is it not also worth pointing out the reasoning error of taking seriously accusations written by someone who provides no documentation at all? Since I consider accusations of wrongdoing more immediately serious than somewhat abstract discussions of how brains work, it seems to me that gossip is *more* worthy of response than the material you objected to. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "The reason there's so much ignorance is that those who have it are so eager to share it." -- Frank A Clark > I wrote that it is improper to listen to accusations without > references, because the act of listening creates a market for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > interrupted stories about people not present to ask where the > information came from. But by that point, you've already 'listened', and so, by your standard, you've become part of the problem. The passive act of listening to an unsupported assertion, all by itself, is no different than the passive act of seeing something as vile as kiddie porn. If someone shouts 'look at this', and flips a picture in front of me, I'm not part of the problem unless I do something that could remotely be considered consumption of that product. In the case of unsupported claims about people, I agree that once it becomes clear that no support of negative assertions will be forthcoming, that further consumption of those assertions for its own sake could well be providing a market for it, and therefore, make me part of the problem. However, I think it's too strick a standard to claim that I must first read some support for an assertion that hasn't even been made yet. > It's all well and good to talk about "I will listen, and postpone > assent until the references appear", but I doubt many people can > really do that. In my experience, once something gets in your > head, it can be tough to get it out. I doubt that most people can write support for an assertion yet to be made. I suppose someone could say "In his book, DR Smith has reasearched Mother Theresa quite extensively, and he claims to know that.......". But I think it's just as acceptable to say 'I've come to believe that Mother Theresa wasn't as generous as we've come to believe, and I've come to that conclusion by reading Dr. Smith's book on the subject....". By your standard, the latter would make you part of the problem. > Think about this example for a second: suppose you were told by a > friend of yours that some third friend was cheating on their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > accusation. But can you fully put aside the credence you were > giving the story while listening? Well, I think you just acknowledged that you were talking about 'listening' as in the definition of 'giving credence to', which is what I replied to Anderson, and which you said that I had it wrong. Secondly, even if it were true that I could not get it out of my mind, to the extent that you're making a case that I could not help it, then you're also making a case that it's my friend who is the problem, and not me for not being able to help what's now in my mind. Thirdly, I would not give it any credence in the first place until I got the support to do so. But if my friend blurted out to me 'Joe is cheating on his wife", and then couldn't provide any support for that, I certainly would not think that I was part of the problem for having heard it unless I had given my buddy a reason to think that I'm in the market for that kind of gossip. I wrote: > Actually, Mr Anderson has it right: there have been times I have > interrupted stories about people not present to ask where the > information came from. > But by that point, you've already 'listened', and so, by your > standard, you've become part of the problem. The passive act of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > front of me, I'm not part of the problem unless I do something that > could remotely be considered consumption of that product. Yes, I should have been clear that I meant "as soon as you understand what is going on". If someone throws a book of objectionable photos in your lap, and you look at it and then close it to be rid of it, that is different than paging through it at length. Once you know what it is, however, I am still of the view that you should be rid of it without finishing. > I doubt that most people can write support for an assertion yet to > be made. I suppose someone could say "In his book, DR Smith has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to believe, and I've come to that conclusion by reading Dr. Smith's > book on the subject....". I agree that either of those would be reasonable. Of course, if one is actually quoting a source, one standard textual cue is indenting the entire paragraph, which sends an immediate signal that some sort of reference can be found at the bottom. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Cogito ergo I'm right and you're wrong." -- Blair P. Houghton > I wrote: >> Actually, Mr Anderson has it right: there have been times I have [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it at length. Once you know what it is, however, I am still of > the view that you should be rid of it without finishing. Me too, and hence my comment: "It's pretty clear that he meant it in the sense of 'to pay attention to: give credence to' as opposed to 'give attention with the ear'," The first, unintentional look at the porn is 'give attention with the eye', whereas the continued look at the porn once you know what's going on is the 'pay attention to', or 'give credence to'. > I wrote that it is improper to listen to accusations without > references, because the act of listening creates a market for gossip [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > consciously: it is an unproven accusation. But can you fully put > aside the credence you were giving the story while listening? I don't think everyone automatically gives credence to a story just from listening to it. > Can > you put aside the emotional reaction you had when you were listening? [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > "The reason there's so much ignorance is that those who have it are so > eager to share it." -- Frank A Clark > I wrote that it is improper to listen to accusations without references, > because the act of listening creates a market for gossip and makes one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If the documentation is not presented in advance, or at least promised, > then the safer course of action is not to listen at all. I grant that this is true, though being rigorous about pursuing such a principle would require some fairly flagrant violations of social norms. > "AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net>" offered: > > It's pretty clear that he meant it in the sense of "to pay attention [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > do that. In my experience, once something gets in your head, it can be > tough to get it out. I suppose. If I were to count the unsupported assertions (some critical, many neutral from my point of view) I hear in a day, it is probably a large number. Most things I hear I simply don't care about. The ones I do care about require further investigation, so in that sense they don't get out of my head, but on the other hand, I also don't automatically lend them credence. Even well-meaning people who believe they are speaking the truth are frequently mistaken after all. > Think about this example for a second: suppose you were told by a > friend of yours that some third friend was cheating on their spouse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the credence you were giving the story while listening? Can you put > aside the emotional reaction you had when you were listening? This is a good point. I'm no Spock, mevertheless I don't think I'd have a strong emotional reaction to a claim that a friend of mine was having an affair (I also have no strong emotional reactions to either the beatification or the villification of Mother Teresa), which would make it easier to put aside. > The next > time you see the person the gossip was about, could you be 100% sure > that you wouldn't think of the accusation at all? Maybe Mr Spock could > do it, but I have my doubts that the rest of us could really 100% erase > those things from our minds. I devote very little time (but more than none) to wondering which of my friends might be having affairs. And in so far as I think about it, I doubt that many of them are. But if I _really_ think about it, I realize that I simply have no idea. > One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough > becomes the truth." (If I say he got it from George Orwell, will that become the truth?) > Internally, that means that if you listen to the > gossip now, when you hear it again it'll seem more plausible to you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > enough, even by people saying "I don't know for sure", a lie will > become one of those things that "everybody knows". Not to knock Lenin, who clearly understood propoganda, but I don't actually think his maxim works. I think it works only in so far as people have some desire to believe the particular lie. For example, the story about the health care bill including death panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It acquired weight because people wanted to believe it. > Christopher Hitchens isn't posting in this thread, so I don't see what > he's got to do with the problem of gossip. Nobody who posted (or > repeated, even with "if it's true" on the front) the attacks on Mother > Teresa has cited anything worth citing. You brought up Hitchens (or at least you mentioned him - maybe someone else mentioned him first). And you (I'm sure unwittingly) mischaracterized what he said. So I wanted to correct that. Certainly Hitchens (in a more careful and respectful way, though not that much more respectful) has made accusations similar to those of dejablues. That doesn't make either of them right (or wrong). It may or may not be the source of dejablues's opinions. > My complaints are not to Mr Hitchens. My complaints are to those who > stated, or repeated, attacks on a person not present without [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > reasoning error of taking seriously accusations written by someone who > provides no documentation at all? I think if someone has made that reasoning error it is worth pointing out. I don't know if anyone has. And I suppose, since you didn't give any source, if I follow your rules I should just not have read the paragraph above! > Since I consider accusations of wrongdoing more immediately serious than > somewhat abstract discussions of how brains work, it seems to me that > gossip is *more* worthy of response than the material you objected > to. Thus you should respond to it. Though how you'd be able to do that without reading it is a worthy conundrum. >> One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often >> enough becomes the truth." [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It > acquired weight because people wanted to believe it. It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be true. But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie. In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be true. And so to DNS's point, repeating a lie often enough can very well create the perception of reality that is totally false. That's why I not only hate the kind of gossip to which DNS alludes, but it's why I hate the kind of revisionist history in which movie makers like Oliver Stone engage. So many people take those kinds of portrayals of history as reality that some of it is bound to leak into societies belief of what transpired, and then the value of history is diminished accordingly. DNS might take his point a little too far, but, for the most part, I agree with it. >>> One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often >>> enough becomes the truth." [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be > true. "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest? I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he is not American, and want to see his birth certificate. (the moronic and apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd and its followers). I reread this and it still isn't clear to me, as commented on below. AllYou! wrote: > In news:3ck4ygfqwk.fsf@ethel.the.log, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be > true. "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?? I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he is not American, and want to see his birth certificate (the moronic and apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd, and its followers). Come to think of it, have we ever had a non-American President? >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> mused: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be >> true. It unfortunately is already true. Insurance companies deny claims and people die. No matter how unpleasant the idea there are not unlimited funds for medical care. If there were we would all be impoverished to put people on life support. There was a time when the medical technology simply did not exist to extend life. As the technology advances more and more it is a matter of having unlimited funds available. I have long considered spending my 70th birthday getting "DNR" tatooed on my chest to tell folks that I do not want to be such an unlimited fanancial drain. >> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the >> truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest? Playing the straight man in a joke? I think the point was a lot simpler and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up something that's false, no matter how many times you repeat it it remains false. Not even if it's about someone treated as a political mesihah. > I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he is > not American, and want to see his birth certificate. (the moronic and > apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd and its > followers). Your attempt to turn a simple example into a joke failed to work with me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true. >>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> mused: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Playing the straight man in a joke? If that's directed to me, it wasn't a joke. I was trying to understand what was written, as written. And it makes no sense. More on this below. > I think the point was a lot simpler > and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow > you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true. Whose attempt, Doug?? I didn't try to turn it into a joke, so I guess you mean AY, because I don't find it funny *at all*. I just find this whole thing a really sad commentary on us, as a society. On Oct 29, 1:10 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > mean AY, because I don't find it funny *at all*. I just find this whole > thing a really sad commentary on us, as a society. Not sure, Beams. As a society, we're probably remarkably similar to as a society 100 years ago. (I think this may have been addressed in a discussion previously about movies) Had we polled the population in 1909, probably just as many ppl would not know when Columbus sailed to "america"-- Fill > On Oct 29, 1:10 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Not sure, Beams. As a society, we're probably remarkably similar to as > a society 100 years ago. Ummm, I don't think so!!! Well, let's go a bit more recent than that (more on that below). > (I think this may have been addressed in a > discussion previously about movies) Had we polled the population in > 1909, probably just as many ppl would not know when Columbus sailed > to "america"-- But today there is NO excuse for such rampant illiteracy. As for comparing periods, I'm not sure if I would choose 1909 as a pivotal moment in our history, either. Let's try around, say, the 1940's, instead, the Era of the "Greatest Generation", which just barely preceded me (although I share most of its core values). :-) On Nov 1, 8:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 1:10 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > But today there is NO excuse for such rampant illiteracy. This is persuasive. With the ease of information (which can be remarkably different from knowledge or, probably, even literacy)--I would have to agree, that today, it's so easy to find info compared to when I was my students age. Yet, there ARE excuses, I suspect, and I'd probably accept most of them. > As for comparing periods, I'm not sure if I would choose 1909 as a pivotal > moment in our history, either. Let's try around, say, the 1940's, instead, > the Era of the "Greatest Generation", which just barely preceded me > (although I share most of its core values). :-) > Think about this example for a second: suppose you were told by a > friend of yours that some third friend was cheating on their spouse. > You listen for a few minutes, finally ask "How do you know this?", and > the answer is "overheard some people talking on the elevator". I think > most of us would be able at that point to put the thing aside > consciously: it is an unproven accusation. Right. And even in a case where evidence builds until there's little doubt, why would I want to start telling the tale to others? > But can you fully put aside > the credence you were giving the story while listening? Can you put [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do it, but I have my doubts that the rest of us could really 100% erase > those things from our minds. Aristotle said something like - It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without agreeing with it. Aristotle's standards included folks with less emotional control than Spock but he's definitely not discussing the majority of the population when he mentions "an educated mind". > One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough > becomes the truth." I thought that was Goebells. If so then they both likely learned it from someone a generation before that. It's the basis of propaganda and part of why the open flow of ideas on the Internet is such a mixed blessing - It allows statements to be checked for accuracy but it also supplies a channel for unlimited propaganda. Telling the difference between the true and the false is a matter of who elitist you think Aristotle was! > > Think about this example for a second: suppose you were told by a > > friend of yours that some third friend was cheating on their spouse. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I thought that was Goebells. If so then they both likely learned it > from someone a generation before that. I've seen this quote attributed to Lenin. I've seen similar, but more nuanced ideas attributed to Goebbels. And I've seen another similar idea (also more nuanced than the supposed Lenin quote) attributed to William James, which presumably would predate the Lenin and Goebbels versions, thus justifying your "generation before that." I've never seen a proper source for any of these quotes, and for various reasons I kind of doubt that Goebbels actually said the quote attributed to him. My favorite forged dead Nazi quote is the one attributed to Goering (which he probably also didn't say): "Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver." Hard to use considering its supposed source (though again, Goering appears not to be the actual source) but an often apt sentiment. > It's the basis of propaganda and > part of why the open flow of ideas on the Internet is such a mixed > blessing - It allows statements to be checked for accuracy but it also > supplies a channel for unlimited propaganda. Telling the difference > between the true and the false is a matter of who elitist you think > Aristotle was! I wonder if the internet makes false information more problematic than it used to be, or not. One doesn't have to look very hard to find widely accepted and very damaging false information before the internet. My guess is that some of this is human nature and based on the desire to believe certain false things in the first place (hence my caveat that the supposed Lenin quote is more accurate if modifided to "A lie that people would like to believe told often enough become the truth." >> I don't know a great deal about Mother Theresa or Calcutta. I don't >> know what her motives were. [...] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >gossip for anyone to entertain any accusations at all. ("One who >listens to backbiting is a backbiter himself." -- Ali ibn-abu-Talib) (snip of good stuff) >Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy >"Hey, all you frowny faces, who are still moping because you lost your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > annual bonuses in history, and it looks like 9.8% of Americans took > the year off work to celebrate." -- Peter Sagal As it happens, while I was browsing through this thread, TLOML (aka my wife) walked in and I started reading it aloud to her. She immediately started objecting... *very* strenuously. You see as it happens, when we were living in India, TLOML had personal contact with some of the nuns and the patients at one of Mother Theresa's hospices. And so she has personal experience in this. My wife was told by the nuns at the local hospice that one of Mother Theresa's very firm rules was that no proselytizing was to go on and that *everyone* was to be loved and cared for, regardless of religion. And further, she says, that she personally saw that love and care there in action in that very hospice. In addition, the very strong anti-proselytizing/anti-conversion laws in effect in that part of India (this was Tamil Nadu) would have brought the full force of the nationalistic Hindu government down onto the hospice if they had been even subtly violated. So, these allegations about Mother Theresa are not only unfounded but seem to me to be themselves more than a little bit evil. Or at least, just plain *wrong*. rj > Since no evidence whatever has been presented except the bald assertion > by a person who doesn't even have a real name, it is simply unseemly > gossip for anyone to entertain any accusations at all. So, would it be fair to ask Deja for references to back up her assertions? Or does that fact that she feels it to be true mean it would be rude to suggest she might be wrong? >> Since no evidence whatever has been presented except the bald >> assertion by a person who doesn't even have a real name, it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, would it be fair to ask Deja for references to back up her > assertions? That would be fair, although it doesn't reduce her complicity in making an assertion which attempts to destroy a reputation without support. > Or does that fact that she feels it to be true mean > it would be rude to suggest she might be wrong? It would not be rude to suggest that she might be wrong, no matter what she feels. And it certainly would not be wrong to suggest that she is being wholly unfair for posting her assertions without any support. > Innews:1j88myg.1t4q35i1satsm0N%emma_anne@mac.com, > Emma Anne <emma_a...@mac.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > she is being wholly unfair for posting her assertions without any > support. A while back, I read a book called "Mother Theresa: Beyond the Image" (or something close to that). I thot it was fairly even-handed in discussing both the good works MT performed and some of the problematic issues related to her work in Calcutta. I would think most public libraries would have that book (I don't think it is too old; I'm thinking it was maybe a decade since I read it?), and I think the author--Sebba?--had done extensive research and provided a coherent bibliography. Maybe deja read something similar...??? Fill In news:488852b4-8594-4bde-819b-69e97d6632b9@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, phelbooth <phelbooth@gmail.com> mused: >> Innews:1j88myg.1t4q35i1satsm0N%emma_anne@mac.com, >> Emma Anne <emma_a...@mac.com> mused: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Maybe deja read something similar...??? I cannot allow for that possibility based simply on her post because, to DNS's point, it seems to me highly unfair to post something like: "She was evil and selfish, keeping people poor instead of helping them out of poverty." with no support whatsoever, and not even any indication of any support. If, at this point, I allow for the possiblity that deja might have support, the danger is this...... I'm sure that there are some here, maybe you, and maybe even me if I ever bothered to keep track of the posting habits of many of the 'regulars' here, who would have some degree of respect for deja. And so when she posts something like that, you (in the hypothetical sense) would give it some degree of credibility. Maybe not too much, but some. And then time passes, and the next time you're in a discussion with someone about MT, you say something to the effect of 'I read somewhere where MT wasn't all that she was cracked up to be, and that she could actually be somewhat nasty at times'. So now, the people who respect *you* file that in their heads, and on and on it goes. It's the type of gossip and rumor mongering that DNS was talking about, and how giving it any credibility whatsoever, if not supported, would make you (or me, or anyone) part of the problem for having given deja's post any allowance at all for the possibility that it might be true ("Maybe deja read something similar...???") In my mind, she provided no support whatsoever, and so I cannot allow myself to even entertain the possibility that she's got support for it, or, as DNS has indicated, I'm part of the problem. > "dejablues <dejablues@comcast.net>" wrote, of Mother Teresa: > So, if you were dropped in Calcutta with just what you own today, what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > parenting, you may find that you know way fewer of the answers once you > are actually face-to-face with the problems. I have no desire to fix poverty in Calcutta. None whatsoever. I don't care about it , and never will. I admit that. I won't, however, take money from people and pretend to fix poverty there when I'm really not. Teresa whined, exhorted and raised millions of dollars "for the poor" in Calcutta. Guess what? Much of that money went to the Vatican. There are still poor people there! The only thing that seems to be raising India out of poverty is the tech boom and Western corporations building satellite facilities there. No religion or insincere conversion required. Religion is fine when it gives unconditionally. It's evil when its representatives require conversion and adherence to a doctrine unwanted and unnecessary, and withholds basic needs like food and water until the individual gives up and accepts the particular brand of religion the giver is offering. Teresa did just that. I wish people would learn more about her before blindly praising her. Her religious ideology came first, while the suffering masses were the means to her end. > > "dejablues <dejabl...@comcast.net>" wrote, of Mother Teresa: > > So, if you were dropped in Calcutta with just what you own today, what [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > religious ideology came first, while the suffering masses were the means to > her end. ,,,There is laughter every day in the terrible streets of Calcutta, and the women laught in the cages of Bombay; we lessen the importance of their deprivation, We must risk delight... Jack Gilber "A Brief for the Defnese" Some amuzing spammer wrote: > Are you GOOD ENOUGH for Heaven ?? On the one hand the question can be asked in terms of a very strict interpretation of Christianity that all who get to heaven get there through Jesus and that good works are not relevant. If good works are not relevant that paints a pretty ugly picture of putting effort into life. On the other hand, why figure that it's hard or atypical to be blessed in the afterlife? I prefer the question - Are you bad enough to go to Niflhel? It's interesting that the questions comparing any of us to saints or soon to be saints have an assumption that it takes an above average amount of good work to have a blessed afterlife. How pessimistic. I think the question would have been better as a Cialis commercial. Can you stay hard enough to take her to heaven? At least it would have been funny in a way recognized by more here. > Some amuzing spammer wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you stay hard enough to take her to heaven? At least it would have been > funny in a way recognized by more here. Right, right, and right! Vickie > Some amuzing spammer wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not relevant that paints a pretty ugly picture of putting effort into > life. You cannot say that "the question can be asked in terms of a very strict interpretation of Christianity that all who get to heaven get there through Jesus and that good works are not relevant. " since Christians differ greatly on this point. This was the very crux of the dogmatic difficulties that Luther had with Catholicism. The other difference was the corruption of forced and abusive tithing and payment linked absolution... > You cannot say that "the question can be asked in terms of a very strict > interpretation of Christianity that all who get to heaven get there > through Jesus and that good works are not relevant. " since Christians > differ greatly on this point. This was the very crux of the dogmatic > difficulties that Luther had with Catholicism. Some RC theologian (I think it was Hans Kung) has written that the entire doctrinal dispute between Luther and Rome is because of a misunderstanding. His view is that Luther missed a subtlety in the phrasing of the Latin, and that the Vatican respondents got defensive and so didn't completely address Luther's position, and it went out of control from there. As regards practice, Luther got almost all of his 95 theses addressed by the Vatican, because (as they realized once they got over being defensive about the criticism) he was basically right on those issues. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy I was torn between two possible quotations for this post. You get both: "Again, my own position is that all doctrine sucks." -- Michael Siemon "Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in." -- Mark Twain > > You cannot say that "the question can be asked in terms of a very strict > > interpretation of Christianity that all who get to heaven get there [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the Vatican, because (as they realized once they got over being defensive > about the criticism) he was basically right on those issues. Not that Luther is really my fave religious figure, but did they address those points before or after excommunicating him? I seem to remember a passage of 40-50 years between the 95 theses and the pope banning indulgences. I confess that I don't know when vernacular bibles began to be accepted by the catholic church, though I do know that latin mass was the rule up until Vatican II. Given who Kung is, it makes sense for him to want to reconcile the reformation with Catholicism (though the Catholic church seems to want him to be quiet), but I'm not sure I really buy this argument you quote. (I understand - you are not advocating it, merely noting it.) I noted an RC theologian's theory (possibly Hans Kung) that Luther's position on salvation could be reconciled with the Vatican's, and that some of that doctrinal dispute was the result of a mistake. Eventually, most of his 95 theses were addressed by the Vatican. "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" replied: > Not that Luther is really my fave religious figure, but did they > address those points before or after excommunicating him? Almost certainly after. The Vatican takes forever to do things. It was 480 years before they canonized Joan of Arc, which is more than twice as long since the Declaration of Independence. (They still use Roman numerals for the Popes; I guess they figure Arabic numerals may turn out to be fad, or something. 8-) > Given who Kung is, it makes sense for him to want to reconcile the > reformation with Catholicism (though the Catholic church seems to want > him to be quiet), but I'm not sure I really buy this argument you > quote. I'm not sure about "wants him to be quiet", but he was stripped of his official teaching position after publishing _The Church: Maintained in Truth_, in which he argued against the notion of Papal Infallibility. That being an official dogma, the book is officially heretical, and there went his formal teaching authority. I often find the esoteric doctrinal hairs that theologians like to split incomprehensible, so I'm not at all competent to address the particulars of the argument about Luther. However, I have seen competent histories that connect the split in 1054 in part to language differences. For centuries, Greek and Latin had been spoken at Rome, and essentially all educated people, along with anyone involved in trade or business, could speak both. But in the 6th century the Latin-speaking world essentially dropped Greek. After that, communication difficulties got worse, Greek theologians didn't read Latin commentaries and vice-versa, differences accumulated, and the Church eventually broke in two. So, it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me that similar things may have happened in other times and places, and may have contributed to other problems. (Note that nobody claims the language problems alone are responsible for any of these troubles.) Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "...But if we laugh with derision, we will never understand. Human intellectual capacity has not altered for thousands of years so far as we can tell. If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding of their world, not in their distorted perceptions." -- SJ Gould > I noted an RC theologian's theory (possibly Hans Kung) that Luther's > position on salvation could be reconciled with the Vatican's, and that [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > other problems. (Note that nobody claims the language problems alone > are responsible for any of these troubles.) Nor to me, I suppose. But the fracas with Luther doesn't seem like an example from the bits of that history that I've learned about. >> I noted an RC theologian's theory (possibly Hans Kung) that >> Luther's position on salvation could be reconciled with the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > like an example from the bits of that history that I've learned > about. Can you provide any support for how you came to that perception, or did you just make that leap by finding another a-hole on the internet to agree with you? :-) Or maybe you didn't even do that much. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.