Comments on: Why Must Others Be Like Us? http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/ Trying God's patience since 1958 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:57:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: arlywn http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-2/#comment-5567 arlywn Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:11:45 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-5567 ah..... my 2 cents worth! YAY! (What? I doubt any of you would yay me... so I did. lol) Maybe we all want the same thing, and same people because 1. we hate change. passionately. Change is very big and very drastic. Not so good with our tribal theories here. We are not nomadic (right word?) tribes. we are buy- a- house- and- live- in- it- until- it- collapses- people. 2. because we hate being wrong. wrong about jobs, school, people, elections, religion, marraige, politics. Anything that can be discussed but not proven.... ruffles our feathers. And we hate the ruffling of feathers. Okay, 2 cents done... lol. Im not sure if this makes any sense what so ever, but... I think it's true... and deep down... thats all that number 2 is talking about. lol. ah….. my 2 cents worth! YAY! (What? I doubt any of you would yay me… so I did. lol)

Maybe we all want the same thing, and same people because

1. we hate change. passionately. Change is very big and very drastic. Not so good with our tribal theories here. We are not nomadic (right word?) tribes. we are buy- a- house- and- live- in- it- until- it- collapses- people.

2. because we hate being wrong. wrong about jobs, school, people, elections, religion, marraige, politics. Anything that can be discussed but not proven…. ruffles our feathers. And we hate the ruffling of feathers.

Okay, 2 cents done… lol. Im not sure if this makes any sense what so ever, but… I think it's true… and deep down… thats all that number 2 is talking about. lol.

]]> By: Enemies at the Gate « SHARP IRON http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1543 Enemies at the Gate « SHARP IRON Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:47:55 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1543 [...] I think this attraction stems from an ingrained need for people to identify with a group and the accompanying urge to keep those who do not conform outside of the tribe. A sense of insecurity pervades many churches, a fear that the flock will be corrupted by the sin of others. In practice this makes it easier for us to ignore some of the deeper meanings of Jesus’ teachings; those about unconditional forgiveness, love, mercy and tolerance. We often find it easier to accept Levitical exhortations against homosexuality rather than Jesus’ command not to judge others. (Matt 7: 1-2)  [For more thoughts on why we have this tendency, check out this thread on ‘Suddenly Christian; http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/] [...] [...] I think this attraction stems from an ingrained need for people to identify with a group and the accompanying urge to keep those who do not conform outside of the tribe. A sense of insecurity pervades many churches, a fear that the flock will be corrupted by the sin of others. In practice this makes it easier for us to ignore some of the deeper meanings of Jesus’ teachings; those about unconditional forgiveness, love, mercy and tolerance. We often find it easier to accept Levitical exhortations against homosexuality rather than Jesus’ command not to judge others. (Matt 7: 1-2)  [For more thoughts on why we have this tendency, check out this thread on ‘Suddenly Christian; http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/ [...]

]]> By: John Shore http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1501 John Shore Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:00:54 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1501 No, 30, I appreciate your understanding of what I'm saying. And it really IS a matter of editorial-type precision. My whole professional LIFE is about choosing exactly the right words for exactly what I want to say. Naturally, other people DON'T write like that: They write like they talk. The problem with that, of course, is that the use of language spoken is diametrically opposed to the use of language written. The former is about socializing--which is about being polite, which involves lots of ... open-ended ambiguity. The latter is about crystalline clarity--about extreme UNAMBIGUOUSNESS. Not the same. Don't mix well. No, 30, I appreciate your understanding of what I’m saying. And it really IS a matter of editorial-type precision. My whole professional LIFE is about choosing exactly the right words for exactly what I want to say. Naturally, other people DON’T write like that: They write like they talk. The problem with that, of course, is that the use of language spoken is diametrically opposed to the use of language written. The former is about socializing–which is about being polite, which involves lots of … open-ended ambiguity. The latter is about crystalline clarity–about extreme UNAMBIGUOUSNESS. Not the same. Don’t mix well.

]]> By: -30- http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1499 -30- Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:39:41 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1499 Damon, you said it's John's blog so it is "by definition censored"? What's that about? How do you know he censors anything? This blog is his to edit, his to maintain, his to moderate. None of that constitutes censorship. Has he deleted or edited some of your comments? (Pssst, it's his blog. He has that right.) I think he's been extremely open-minded and generous to let us all pursue our discussions here. It's always interesting when he replies to a post, but his NOT replying is NOT censorship (dude, look it up). He gets in his well-written two-cents' worth up at the top. John, I know you're a big boy and can take care of yourself... but I just had to say something. An editor just can't let the misuse of a hot word like "censorship" slide by. Damon, you said it’s John’s blog so it is “by definition censored”? What’s that about? How do you know he censors anything? This blog is his to edit, his to maintain, his to moderate. None of that constitutes censorship. Has he deleted or edited some of your comments? (Pssst, it’s his blog. He has that right.) I think he’s been extremely open-minded and generous to let us all pursue our discussions here. It’s always interesting when he replies to a post, but his NOT replying is NOT censorship (dude, look it up). He gets in his well-written two-cents’ worth up at the top.

John, I know you’re a big boy and can take care of yourself… but I just had to say something. An editor just can’t let the misuse of a hot word like “censorship” slide by.

]]> By: John Shore http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1496 John Shore Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:03:13 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1496 Right here, exactly, is why I so rarely comment on comments. Your sentence, "The other side represents people of a Christian persuasion, which I think (correct me I’m wrong), you support," doesn't actually make SENSE. It's not clear whether you're saying that I support people "of a Christian persuasion" (whatever that means), or Christianity generally, or what you even mean by "support"--and the word "represents" communicates something entirely unclear, and ... the whole sentence is just so packed with hairy, vague, broad, unclear assumptions that just weeding THROUGH that would ... well, do nothing but open up a whole OTHER universe of more of the same. Also (sigh), look: A blog is not, by "definition" censored. That's just not what "by definition" means. So how do I answer that? It's just too ... WRONG to deal with. And again: "neglecting" to answer someone isn't even ALMOST the same as censoring them. So, again, I'm stuck: How do I answer an assertion that doesn't even make literal sense? It's just ... not doable. This isn't a college course in Writing 101. And how can you not see that taking time to tell someone I don't have time to answer them TAKES TIME?? Anyway: this exchange, right here, is why I tend to stay away from comments. It's now taken a fair amount of time; and it's gone virutally nowhere. And I KNOW it won't. I love reading comments people leave; I almost always respect and appreciate what they say; out of respect for their writers I make a point of carefully reading each and every one of them. I comment when I feel like it, how I feel like it. I think too many of the athiests are narrow-minded reactionaries; I think too many of the Christians are narrow-minded reactionaries. I think 80% of the comments, from either side, are written by sane, thoughtful, kind people. Right here, exactly, is why I so rarely comment on comments. Your sentence, “The other side represents people of a Christian persuasion, which I think (correct me I’m wrong), you support,” doesn’t actually make SENSE. It’s not clear whether you’re saying that I support people “of a Christian persuasion” (whatever that means), or Christianity generally, or what you even mean by “support”–and the word “represents” communicates something entirely unclear, and … the whole sentence is just so packed with hairy, vague, broad, unclear assumptions that just weeding THROUGH that would … well, do nothing but open up a whole OTHER universe of more of the same.

Also (sigh), look: A blog is not, by “definition” censored. That’s just not what “by definition” means. So how do I answer that? It’s just too … WRONG to deal with.

And again: “neglecting” to answer someone isn’t even ALMOST the same as censoring them. So, again, I’m stuck: How do I answer an assertion that doesn’t even make literal sense? It’s just … not doable. This isn’t a college course in Writing 101.

And how can you not see that taking time to tell someone I don’t have time to answer them TAKES TIME??

Anyway: this exchange, right here, is why I tend to stay away from comments. It’s now taken a fair amount of time; and it’s gone virutally nowhere. And I KNOW it won’t.

I love reading comments people leave; I almost always respect and appreciate what they say; out of respect for their writers I make a point of carefully reading each and every one of them. I comment when I feel like it, how I feel like it. I think too many of the athiests are narrow-minded reactionaries; I think too many of the Christians are narrow-minded reactionaries. I think 80% of the comments, from either side, are written by sane, thoughtful, kind people.

]]> By: John Shore http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1491 John Shore Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:00:27 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1491 I don't answer comments from either camp that would clearly take more time than I have to address properly. And I only delete comments that are rude or offensive. I don’t answer comments from either camp that would clearly take more time than I have to address properly. And I only delete comments that are rude or offensive.

]]> By: Damon http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1494 Damon Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:39:47 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1494 The other side represents people of a Christian persuasion, which I think (correct me I'm wrong), you support. You're right. It is your blog. So, it is by definition, censored. And I've seen you censor atheist commentaries by neglecting to respond. If you don't have enough time to respond accordingly, then just say so. I'm sure people will understand. The other side represents people of a Christian persuasion, which I think (correct me I'm wrong), you support.

You're right. It is your blog. So, it is by definition, censored. And I've seen you censor atheist commentaries by neglecting to respond. If you don't have enough time to respond accordingly, then just say so. I'm sure people will understand.

]]> By: John Shore http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1493 John Shore Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:31:57 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1493 First of all, I don't know what you mean by "other side." Secondly, I can promise you I almost never totally agree with anyone's comments--there's always something in what just about ANYONE says that I either disagree with or at the very least think needs clarification. That's why I tend to stay uninvolved with comments; I just don't have the time. Besides, in my posting I guarantee you I've already said everything I have to say on that particular topic. That's ... why I wrote it. Thirdly, this isn't the Wall St. Journal, or the New York Times. I'm under no obligation here to be "fair" to anyone. I AM fair, to everyone, because that's my nature--but if I want to delete something because for whatever reason I don't want it on my blog, there's no reason whatsoever for me not to. This isn't an objective forum, where I'm under any kind of obligation to present or preserve unbiased opinions. It's more like a party I'm hosting. Hosts make all KINDS of calls about their ongoing affairs. If I find a guest to be rude or offensive, I show them the door. I don't want them here. It's my blog. I have a right to moderate it in whichever way I think is best for it and its readers. First of all, I don't know what you mean by "other side."

Secondly, I can promise you I almost never totally agree with anyone's comments–there's always something in what just about ANYONE says that I either disagree with or at the very least think needs clarification. That's why I tend to stay uninvolved with comments; I just don't have the time. Besides, in my posting I guarantee you I've already said everything I have to say on that particular topic. That's … why I wrote it.

Thirdly, this isn't the Wall St. Journal, or the New York Times. I'm under no obligation here to be "fair" to anyone. I AM fair, to everyone, because that's my nature–but if I want to delete something because for whatever reason I don't want it on my blog, there's no reason whatsoever for me not to. This isn't an objective forum, where I'm under any kind of obligation to present or preserve unbiased opinions. It's more like a party I'm hosting. Hosts make all KINDS of calls about their ongoing affairs. If I find a guest to be rude or offensive, I show them the door. I don't want them here. It's my blog. I have a right to moderate it in whichever way I think is best for it and its readers.

]]> By: Damon http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1492 Damon Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:14:06 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1492 But you support the other side. You don't have to answer to someone you already agree with. Conversely, I've seen several occassions where you totally ignore an atheist's point of view. But you support the other side. You don't have to answer to someone you already agree with. Conversely, I've seen several occassions where you totally ignore an atheist's point of view.

]]> By: Damon http://johnshore.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1490 Damon Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:53:12 +0000 http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/#comment-1490 John - sometimes, you don't answer or just delete comments/questions that atheists pose to you. It just comes off unfair. John – sometimes, you don't answer or just delete comments/questions that atheists pose to you. It just comes off unfair.

]]>