Post Reply
Page 9 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Dialog: What is it and why?
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 9:42AM #81
hewy1952
Posts: 2,454

May 12, 2012 -- 9:37AM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 11, 2012 -- 7:57PM, happygardener wrote:



Meaningful dialog is only possible between people with open minds. It's conceivable that Traditionalists with open minds and capable of dialog may exist, but I haven't seen much  evidence of that on this board.


Meaningful dialog doesn't require that anyone surrender his/her own values, but it does require a mind open to learning and understanding  new values and an ability to show at least polite respect for the opinions and values of others.  For those Traditionalists who believe that they, and they alone, have all the Truth already, such dialog may  be difficult, if not impossible.  The same can be said of some Progressives of course, but Progressives have an advantage in that so many of them are former traditionalists who realized from experience that  they really didn't know it all after all.


 




If having an open mind requires showing respect for the views of others, I am not sure you qualify.  Or is it necessary to show respect only to those who show respect to ones self?


Don't take that as an insult because I am not sure having an open mind is always a laudable quality.


When I left home for the seminary at age 13, my mom took me aside and said  "Keep your mind and your bowels open, in that order".  At my advanced age, I have found that sage advice.


And you would be surprised, I think, at how many Traditionalists are reformed Progressives.


And vice versa.


Many Progressives become Traditionalists after they see the social pathologies spawned by Progressive policies.


I'm mystified about your equivocal desire to dialogue.  Is 'social pathologies' evidence of an 'open mind'? 





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 10:34AM #82
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

May 12, 2012 -- 9:37AM, SeraphimR wrote:


If having an open mind requires showing respect for the views of others, I am not sure you qualify.  Or is it necessary to show respect only to those who show respect to ones self?


Don't take that as an insult because I am not sure having an open mind is always a laudable quality.


And you would be surprised, I think, at how many Traditionalists are reformed Progressives.


Many Progressives become Traditionalists after they see the social pathologies spawned by Progressive policies.




I really think the terms "Traditionalst," "Conservative" and "Progressive" are woefully inadequate when used to label adherents of various doctrinal and political factions within the Catholic Church, simply because these are so unstable over time. Within my own lifetime I've seen these labels applied to a spectrum of ideologues, from Leonard Feeney and Clare Booth Luce for the TradCons, to Cardinal Cushing and Pope John XXIII for the Progressives. When you factor in people like these, the idea of old versus new becomes much less reliable, especially when we try to apply it to the recent historical record, and that in reality it's an ongoing polarization of one old tradition versus some other old tradition. As Harry Truman put it, the only thing new here is the history you haven't read yet. And, of course, there's St. Francis of New York of happy memory...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 10:42AM #83
happygardener
Posts: 734

"If having an open mind requires showing respect for the views of others, I am not sure you qualify.  Or is it necessary to show respect only to those who show respect to ones self?"


 


Insults and bullying don't deserve respect from an open mind, they deserve to be challenged. And respect for another's views doesn't  imply agreement to those views. I don't apologize for challenging insults or for not agreeing with your religious opinions. Other than that, if you want to list examples of my having maligned your views you will have my apology. 


-----------------


"Don't take that as an insult because I am not sure having an open mind is always a laudable quality."


I kinda guessed as much.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 1:25PM #84
SeraphimR
Posts: 9,855

May 12, 2012 -- 10:42AM, happygardener wrote:


"If having an open mind requires showing respect for the views of others, I am not sure you qualify.  Or is it necessary to show respect only to those who show respect to ones self?"


 


Insults and bullying don't deserve respect from an open mind, they deserve to be challenged. And respect for another's views doesn't  imply agreement to those views.


So the answer is yes.


 I don't apologize for challenging insults or for not agreeing with your religious opinions. Other than that, if you want to list examples of my having maligned your views you will have my apology. 


You called jlb a misogynist and a bigot in post 67.


-----------------


"Don't take that as an insult because I am not sure having an open mind is always a laudable quality."


I kinda guessed as much.





People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important.


P.J. O'Rourke
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 2:53PM #85
happygardener
Posts: 734

 


"I don't apologize for challenging insults or for not agreeing with your religious opinions. Other than that, if you want to list examples of my having maligned your views you will have my apology.


You called jlb a misogynist and a bigot in post 67."


 


Not quite. AT post 52 I drew a parallel between jlb's comment that he had a hard time distinguishing Progressive Christian views from agnostic/atheist views to my own difficulty in distinguishing certain  fundamentalist views from those of misogynists and bigots.  Neither of the comments are directed at any individual.


At post 67, I quoted jlb applying my comment to himself and I agreed with him.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 4:07PM #86
jlb32168
Posts: 13,398

May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, JeanneD wrote:

LOL! Avoid the factual issue (nothing about women priests in the creed), make angry . . .


Had I thought it was of much import, I’d have mentioned it, JeanneD.  Why address the issue of female clergy, why they are needed, and link it to the Creeds which don't even mention clergy, much less the male-only variety?


May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, JeanneD wrote:

A tad sensitive in being called out too.


Um . . . okay [??]  In any case, I tried to summon up the energy to address your post which was essentially one verbose, drone of an attempt at insult but . . . why?


This thread is about a negotiation of power, misidentified as “dialogue”.  Start a thread on my alleged neuroses if you want to discuss them.


Personally, I think your need to “get personal” is indicative of lack of confidence in one’s ability to defend his/her position, but that is just an amateur diagnosis borne out of 20+ years of forensic debating competition.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 4:22PM #87
Buggsy
Posts: 4,731

May 12, 2012 -- 10:34AM, cherubino wrote:


I really think the terms "Traditionalst," "Conservative" and "Progressive" are woefully inadequate when used to label adherents of various doctrinal and political factions within the Catholic Church....




What are these factions anyway?  What do they stand for - liturgical or moral matters?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 4:25PM #88
jlb32168
Posts: 13,398

May 12, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Buggsy wrote:

May 12, 2012 -- 10:34AM, cherubino wrote:


I really think the terms "Traditionalst," "Conservative" and "Progressive" are woefully inadequate when used to label adherents of various doctrinal and political factions within the Catholic Church....


What are these factions anyway?  What do they stand for - liturgical or moral matters?


"C" - All of the Above [?]

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 4:27PM #89
Buggsy
Posts: 4,731

May 12, 2012 -- 4:25PM, jlb32168 wrote:

What do they stand for - liturgical or moral matters?


"C" - All of the Above [?]



Okay so what are the moral matters?  I think the liturgical issues are insignificant in my view.  That's all show - presentation

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 12, 2012 - 4:50PM #90
jlb32168
Posts: 13,398

If they do not force females to be in subservient rolls, they feel threatened. They feel their manhood is threatened. They must feel they are on the top of the pecking order, or they are not real men. It is silly, but it is how it appears, and how it is played out.


We’re actually already on top of the pecking order since . . . well . . . we’re primates and that’s how primates “work”.


The cultural anthropologist would have to conclude that the Christian religion, or any religion for that matter, serves to down-regulate H. sapiens’ tendency to kill one another (The Well-Dressed Ape: A Natural History of Myself, Hannah Holmes) and this feeling of being threatened is actually a fear that natural tendency (to . . . well . . . rule/kill other males, and take their females, or be ruled/killed and have his females taken from him) will overcome more civilized (albeit unnatural) acculturation through the medium of religion.


Worshipping the alpha male is natural and probably preferable since it will keep the other males in line.


The author of your quote (I apologize for not naming him/her since I can't remember your citation of this person) is an idiot, MECap.  S/he clearly doesn't know a thing about science or anthropology.  Instead, s/he concentrates on artificially contructed, politically-correct rot, fancies him/herself brilliant, and then passess this crapola off as modern psychology.  The stuff that passes for science these days is frightening.


If religion is irrevocably changed to be more egalitarian, the mechanism that down-regulated H. sapiens behavior will have been destroyed and  . . . well . . . he will revert back to its native state – like it was before the Bronze Age.  I doubt many women would prefer that.


Don’t shoot the messenger.  Shoot evolution.


BTW, I don't actually believe the above crap since I believe we're creatures created in God's Image and Likeness and that we worship Christ because He is God and moves us to do so.  I'm just able to play both sides of the fence since I've been on both sides.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 21  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook