Quote:
sidey22:
Adam: You're not kidding.. I made a comment to someone that they were perhaps burned out (they posted comments that their ministry is wasted on those who won't listen)
I was accussed on being rude and hostile.. I begged to differ, but what can ya do.. Some people just can't take a comment lightly..
I can.. so fire away.. but if you feel that you can't particpate in this discussion because of the elements presented, I would ask you refrain from particpating then.
I was listening to talk radio the other night, we have a resident know it all who was discussing the baseball strike.. Now this guy is intellecual, well versed in politics, education, arts and the like.. but the guy didn't have the first clue on sports.. He was complaining on the length of the season in the pro sports: baseball, hockey, basketball.
He didn't know what the Red Sox were shooting for "Wild something or other".. Didn't know what the hockey championship was called but yet he felt the need to complain about the length of sports he obviously doesn't follow.
The muscles in my neck get sore from shaking my head.
I will ask that if you do want to post, dumb it down a little.. I'm stupid and it hurts reading your posts ) |
When I read the sports forum, my head hurts. I know absolutely nothing about Baseball, Football, and Hockey. Pouring over this sporting mumbo-jumbo, to me, is like trying read Chinese, and from left to right at that. Suffice to say, I don't often post in That forum.
It is wise to avoid arguing a subject one knows nothing about, and certainly for the sake exercising the ego via congradulatory sermonizing—who ... me? Never. But I am not so wise. Even I, however, foolish in the rules of Baseball, may have an opinion on sports.
How silly is it to question the sportsmanship of striking Baseball players when one knows nothing about the sport of Baseball? Not silly at all, so long as the dialogue deals with the general philosophy of sportsmanship and not the specific ins-and-outs of Baseball.
You see, the same may be applied to religious(for this, I will encompass all interpretations of reality, from science to solipsism, under the word ‘religion’) matters. A system of beliefs might be compared with a specific sport—Catholicism and Basketball. Each has it’s own set of rules, edicts and writings. And discussion of both is played-out on much larger, and perhaps less tangible, fields of discourse—religion and sport—which themselves have rules, edicts, and writings.
To confuse matters, all conceived systems are coloured by individual perceptions of the rules and writings which form them — my ‘idea’ of Soccer is different than your ‘idea’, and Soccer doesn’t fall within DaveB’s grand vision of sport itself. The same goes for religion. Jacob plays a version of Atheism which is different my version of Atheism, which isn’t really a religion in the mind of DaveB, who, quite obviously, doesn’t believe in anything save himself!
From this, one might deduce that all discussion is impossible. Sometime, this appears to be the case.
Fortunately, not all is lost. A framework for discourse can always be created. There are always matters which the parties can agree, or agree to disagree on. From these foundations can be built. For instance, we have a definition of Hell: the place bad folks go when they die. One might find this redundant. It isn’t. If I thought Hell was another word for shit, this talk would be futile.
Another foundational rule is an acceptance that the rules of sub-fields may not be applied on the macro scale. For instance, when discussing the sportsmanship, the rules of Baseball do not apply. The reverse, however, is true. When discussing Baseball, the concept of sportsmanship applies.
It is here that we cross the point of the(mine, and I apologize if it offended you) post which start this entire digression: religious issues can not be successfully discussed when a party to that discussion is applying the rules of their specific religion to the larger discussion. Imagine trying to define degrees ‘athlete’ when the person you are in dialogue with insists that the only sport is Football. The only room for discussion would be the athletic merits of a quarterback versus those of a linesman.
I know nothing about the Bible, but I am fully capable of discussing religion.
PS, Sorry about the hoity-toity language—it makes call post funny things, and I find it difficult to resist.
