Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Would we believe them? (Migisi)

In response to Would we believe them? posted by Migisi:

I wrote:
The psalms are highly personal, but the narratives contained in my other examples were not. We aren't told how those people felt about much of anything.
.
Migisi responded:
The narratives were written by humans, not androids. Is it possible for a human to write even a narrative without interjecting personal feeling? For instance, you and I might observe a cat eating a bird. Depending on our feelings about that event, I might write "the vicious cat sank its dagger claws into the defenseless little bird, ripped it apart, and ate it" while you might write "the desparately hungry cat caught the bird, mercifully released its spirit, and took in its nourishment'.
.
But, do you find that, in OT narratives? Are we told what Lot felt when he saw his wife had been turned to a pillar of salt? Are we told if David felt fear when he faced Goliath? I could give you a lot of examples in which the narrative doesn't say a thing about the protagonist's thoughts or feelings. This doesn't mean the composers of those stories were andriods, or that the composers thought their protagoinsts were without feeling. It simply means they were following the literary style of their day.
.
I wrote:
People are biologically male or female, but within the psyche we all contain male and female characteristics.
.
I don't think the ancient writers of Gen saw the human psyche as male and female. If they did, I don't think they would've admitted it - fearing it would undermine their patriarchal society and religion.
.
My point, in post #24 was not what the OT authors knew, but what we now know--and has always been true. Therefore, we can read the creation narrative with the understanding that God is genderless (and/or the perfect yin and yang of male/female) and men and women are also yin and yang.
.
I bet you're good with people's names too, committing face and name to memory, right? I wish I was. Sigh.
.
I'm better at remembering faces, but once I have a name down, I never forget it. I could draw the faces of my children and closest friends from memory--every detail. Remembering where my car keys are, though, is another thing altogether. LOL
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Being nice (Phil)

.
In response to Being nice posted by pink101:
.
Phil--
.
I was emotionally vulnerable yesterday, having visited my father in the nursing home--a father who doesn't remember who I am, doesn't remember my children, doesn't even remember how he used to earn a living.
.
Before I left for that visit, you and I were having an interesting--and I thought substantive--conversation about imagination (and various other related topics. Then I came home and found this:
.
.Phil, "Recently" thread, post #21:
Well, some people appear to be here just to pass the time of day with niceties and sweetness.
.
Phil, "signs and wonders" thread, post #38, in response to my message in post #37)
I'm not in a rut, but our discussion group is. I think it is because some of us want to control how others behave. I called in sweetness and niceties in another thread. Why do you come here? To have participants be sweet and nice?
.
I like to be sweet and nice in relationships with people who are intimates of mine. For starters, I know their names and they know mine. We touch each other physically and we experience each others happinesses and pains. We share love with each other. My life is filled with people like that. I don't come here looking for companionship. It's good to have pleasant interactions none of which comes from being a fake. I come to gain intellectual reflections. Everything that goes on here is taking place in our heads. It's cyber space for crying out loud. What is there about that fact of reality that some of us fail to grasp?
.
Phil, that felt very insulting. Under ordinary circumstances I probably would have just laughed about it, but I couldn't do that yesterday. Your remarks felt patronizing. It felt as if you were saying being nice rendered me totally incapable of carrying on a conversation in depth. In short, you seemed to be saying being nice was the antithesis of intellectualism.
.
You asked if I was trying to make you be nice. You asked questions with a similar sentiment more than once. I did not specifically ask you anything. I (indirectly and implicitly) asked the participants here, ***as a whole,*** to stop behaving like bullies. This was not an unreasonable request. Verbally duking it out seems, to me, like a counter productive approach. If people are shouting at each other, they are not listening. If one person insults another the insulted person does not feel inclined to give the insulter a friendly ear.
.
How is a discussion in cyber space any different than one in real life? Are you saying there should be two rules of conduct, one on the 'net and one in real life? Are you saying that only certain topics are worthy of discussion on the 'net and others are not? If that's what you're saying I have to strongly disagree.
.
.
Phil, "signs and Wonders" thread, post #52;
So, are you saying that she didn't explain the absolute truth to you?
.
That unless you accepted what she wrote, you are wrong?.
.
Is that how the rest of us are suppose to interact?
.
Or else we're persona non gratia?
.
No. I was simply pointing out that we could disagree without verbally duking it out, and it is possible to have an intelligent discussion, on issues of substance, and still use the good manners our mothers taught us--as you and I had done earlier yesterday.
.
.

Have I told someone else what they must believe or how they must behave in order to be legitimate? Have I been disdainful? Or did I just lay it on the line to someone who was being a bully with me? Would I have been more acceptable if I had ignored the insults and not related with him any more? Should I have patronized him?
.
I' not trying to pick on you, but you did ask. In another thread you said something yesterday about something one MUST accept in order to ....
.
You speak assertively, and perhaps you don't realize that sometimes this assertiveness can make (what you intend as) a simple statement seem more like an order.
.
And yes, your words towards me *felt* disdainful.
.
As I said above, I don't think giving back as good as you have gotten is always the most constructive approach, but that's just me. In my life I've found ignoring bullies is more effective--and not just because I'm female and not able to physically fight with a man. Bullies want attention. They bully you because they have been bullied. Giving tit for tat tells the bully his verbal arrow found its mark in your psyche--so he wins, no matter what you say (or do). Personally, I don't want to let the bully win. (wink)
.
What I said in "being nice" was in response to the post you edited as I was writing that response. I can't go back and quote the words to which I responded because you erased them. Whether or not you meant what I thought you did, your words didn't feel very good. And what you left for a message makes no sense at all to me.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - The Bible Speaks Of...(BroJo)

In response to The Bible Speaks Of... posted by Brother_Jones:

You had several posts on Monday that reflected some of the best thinking and writing that I have seen since joining here. I wanted to jump in and participate, but I just decided to listen to how you speak so well for the idea of spiritual involvement. I meant to say something earlier but I got busy watching baseball.
.
Thanks, BroJo. I really needed to hear that this morning.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» redback - smilies

In response to The Bible Speaks Of... posted by pink101:
you ask what happened to your smiley? did you put full stops immediately before as that's what it looks like to me? Someone's taken all the colour out of the frownies and smilies. To get 'em to work, you really need to separate them from full stops, text, etc. Like this, says I, holding my breath!

The last 3 are frownies.

-- posted by redback

» redback - The Bible Speaks Of...

In response to The Bible Speaks Of... posted by Migisi:

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Being nice (Phil)

In response to Being nice (Phil) posted by paper_turtle:
.
I am very sorry that my responses came across so negatively.
.
How is a discussion in cyber space any different than one in real life?
.
The two seem quite different to me.

Are you saying there should be two rules of conduct, one on the 'net and one in real life? Are you saying that only certain topics are worthy of discussion on the 'net and others are not? If that's what you're saying I have to strongly disagree.
.
I guess I've posted some things that have got me in deeper than I intended. I'll try to be more sensitive to your feelings in the future. I never intended to have any defugalties with you whatsoever. And, I am sorry you have taken offense.
.
Please forgive me.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Being nice (Phil)

In response to Being nice (Phil) posted by pink101:

I accept your apology, and I forgive you--old friend.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» _Boanerges_ - Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population

Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population
http://infowars.com/articles/science/pop...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» paper_turtle - Would we believe them?

.
I wrote:
Those people were all examples of ordinary people who did extraordinary things through faith.
.
Migisi responded:
I don't think these legendary OT superheroes were just 'ordinary' folk we might have coffee with at the local diner. Not at my diner, anyway. And I don't think the OT writers intended them to be.
.
I wrote:
They were meant to be examples to other ordinary people. This was the intent of those who composed/compiled the OT.
.
Migisi responded:
If we were talking about the NT, I'd agree that Jesus' champions appeared to be ordinary guys. But were they really?
.
The Talmud encompasses much more than just Torah. It also refers Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara--all of which are interpretations of text. This is important because it clearly points to a view of Torah which is NOT literal. The Jews viewed
their scripture as instructive, not because it was literal but because of the truths it contained.
.
This implies (I believe) that the Bible was intended as an instruction manual, not a textbook. The stories about what happened in the Bible are important not because of their literal truth but because of what they tell us about God and ourselves.
.
Maybe you don't see Moses, or David, or Jonah as "ordinary" but they were certainly weak and fallible like the rest of us.
.
Paul, a former devout Jew and therefore a student of Talmud, says something similar to my contention:
.
All of these things that happened to them were symbolic [or, as an example], and were recorded for our benefit as a warning. (1 Corinthians 10:11)
.
And, we may think of ourselves as ordinary, but given the right circumstances we, too, can do extraordinary things.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Would we believe them? (Migisi)

In response to Would we believe them? (Migisi) posted by paper_turtle:
.
I could give you a lot of examples in which the narrative doesn't say a thing about the protagonist's thoughts or feelings.
.
Sure, there are narratives without editorial or emotional interjection. Like 'the cat ate the mouse'. But what might be read between the lines? I think that an author makes a personal statement by what he includes and does not include in the story. Not wanting my reader to dislike the cat, I might not mention the cat at all as the cause of the mouse's death, and just record that the mouse died. But anyway, it all depends on how the author writes the story, and the reader reads it.

-- posted by Migisi