|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
68 members (Anglagard44, brdwyguy, amc252, Bellyman, accordeur, Aliasjunto, benkeys, abcowboyqh, 15 invisible),
2,258
guests, and
363
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161 |
RZ,
Eloquently stated!
But I will tell you a key problem for some of us who have been posting here on PW for a long time. These same discussions keep coming up again and again and again and again ad nauseum, especially this topic of homosexuality and religion.
So the first time one posts, one tends to take the time to lay out one’s full case. Meanwhile, new people keep coming onto PW and then into the coffee room and you see basically the same points being made again and again and again ... etc.
So I try to say or add something different to what I said in the past. No doubt it still turns out somewhat repetitious because underlying it is the same set of beliefs and viewpoint.
In effect, I’ve already made my dump on the subject way back when. The issue that gave me the strongest negative feeling against the anti-gay position, as I mentioned back then, is the one you stated. Having been married as long as I have makes me especially resonant with that position. To me, the deprivation you stated is the most mean-spirited consequence of an anti-Gay position.
But … and a big but … my position is based on the assumption that being gay is Natural, not merely a life-style choice. Again, we had a thorough discussion here on PW many many months ago about that topic. The consensus was that the scientific "jury" is still very much out on that premise.
As I said several times in the past, if I were gay, the main thing I’d be doing to help my cause is to support, perhaps donate $, to such research. At the same time, if I observe general inaction from gays in this area (I don’t mean here on PW, I mean irl) I will begin to suspect that perhaps they don’t want such research to proceed because they know it’s only a life style choice after all.
(watch this space)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161 |
Dwain, This certainly IS a merry-go-round. :rolleyes: I think we old-timers here all have a touch of masochism in us. Speaking of praying, please say a prayer for me that I'll never ever enter one of these threads again. And, if you want, I'll do the same for you.
(watch this space)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,419
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,419 |
Originally posted by MusicMagellan: But I will tell you a key problem for some of us who have been posting here on PW for a long time. These same discussions keep coming up again and again and again and again ad nauseum, especially this topic of homosexuality and religion. If you think you get tired of the same points made over & over again, try being Member #10, and a veteran of the "old board" before this forum existed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
I guess I kind of miss your point here, Sidd. If you are chiding me because faith is suprarational, then have your fun if you think its fun. Is in not that my faith does not follow logic, but my faith is neither in logic nor constrained by it. The logical method is always predicated on how you define the terms of the equation. Logic is but a tool of human reasoning and expression, as is poetry, metaphor, and mythopoetics. What Aquinas could not syllogize he put into hymns. I am sure that you can write a syllogism for why one form of condescension is better than another, but not based on Christianity's refusal to acknowledge logic. Regardless, condescension is condescension -- and I know it when I see it.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244 |
Originally posted by KlavierBauer: Sid, I can't make you see something if you don't want to see it....
But I stated clearly that the post you quoted: "We understand where they're coming from just fine, because we've been there. Unfortunately they can't understand the very foundations of what we're talking about, and therefore will likely not "take" to what we're saying." Was not in reference to you. I have also tried to state in finer detail what I mean with my words regarding your understanding and my understanding.
You can either choose to keep telling me what I meant, or you can accept my explanation of what I was trying to say, and what I do in fact mean.
fin I dont want to see it? Oh geez, not again. I dont care if it wasnt in reference to me, it was condescending to a group of people with no basis for it. Thats what offends me. And yes, I do consider myself in that group of people. I'm not telling you what you meant, I'm showing you your text. I think anyone with 6th grade reading comprehension skills knows what you meant. Its not tricky prose. If you've rethought it, and feel otherwise, or now feel you misrepresented your thougths with that text, great. I clearly understand your follow up clarifications. But there is no misunderstanding of what that text meant. So dont try to sell me this.
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,789
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,789 |
Faith may transcend logic, but neither trumps the other.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger. - Clemens
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244 |
Originally posted by ivorythumper: I guess I kind of miss your point here, Sidd. If you are chiding me because faith is suprarational, then have your fun if you think its fun.
Is in not that my faith does not follow logic, but my faith is neither in logic nor constrained by it. The logical method is always predicated on how you define the terms of the equation. Logic is but a tool of human reasoning and expression, as is poetry, metaphor, and mythopoetics. What Aquinas could not syllogize he put into hymns.
I am sure that you can write a syllogism for why one form of condescension is better than another, but not based on Christianity's refusal to acknowledge logic. Regardless, condescension is condescension -- and I know it when I see it. No, I'm sorry, I didnt mean to be chiding you at all. In fact, I was showing respect for some of your actions on this forum, to the extent I felt I was being too flattering (I must work on my rhetorical skills, i guess). My point was, I dont agree that condescension is condescension. Sure it all reeks, but condescension because "you dont agree with me (and my illogic)" is infuriating, whereas condescension because "you dont accept the facts" is more tolerable (to me anyway).
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244 |
Originally posted by Matt G.: Faith may transcend logic, but neither trumps the other. They are from different decks. The suits dont coincide.
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244 |
Originally posted by MusicMagellan: RZ,
Eloquently stated!
But I will tell you a key problem for some of us who have been posting here on PW for a long time. These same discussions keep coming up again and again and again and again ad nauseum, especially this topic of homosexuality and religion.
So the first time one posts, one tends to take the time to lay out one’s full case. Meanwhile, new people keep coming onto PW and then into the coffee room and you see basically the same points being made again and again and again ... etc.
So I try to say or add something different to what I said in the past. No doubt it still turns out somewhat repetitious because underlying it is the same set of beliefs and viewpoint.
In effect, I’ve already made my dump on the subject way back when. The issue that gave me the strongest negative feeling against the anti-gay position, as I mentioned back then, is the one you stated. Having been married as long as I have makes me especially resonant with that position. To me, the deprivation you stated is the most mean-spirited consequence of an anti-Gay position.
But … and a big but … my position is based on the assumption that being gay is Natural, not merely a life-style choice. Again, we had a thorough discussion here on PW many many months ago about that topic. The consensus was that the scientific "jury" is still very much out on that premise.
As I said several times in the past, if I were gay, the main thing I’d be doing to help my cause is to support, perhaps donate $, to such research. At the same time, if I observe general inaction from gays in this area (I don’t mean here on PW, I mean irl) I will begin to suspect that perhaps they don’t want such research to proceed because they know it’s only a life style choice after all. Its kinda hard not to step in it again tho. I went through the rounds months ago, and was supposedly done with it. Particularly, with certain posters. I have declined to post responses to many many threads of this nature. But oops, I had a weak moment, and one post turns to many But onto your juicy remarks here, I'm not clear on what exactly you'd be donating toward research ffor. You say you dont see gays pushing for this research. What research, what causes homosexuality? or a 'cure'? I'm not donating to research on what causes heterosexuality, so why would they want to? And I'm quite sure, not many are interested in a cure. I do see you as an intelligent contributor here, MM, so it really shocks me that you would even suggest a 'life style choice' explanation. You must know better than that. Explain why you think ANYONE would choose that lifestyle? And then why did you choose to be hetero? and when did you make that choice? Seriously, you know better than this. Dont you? Please?
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
OK, Sidd, I was a bit taken aback by "In other words, you acknowledge the logical, and choose otherwise."
As I tried to indicate, the definitions of the terms are important. I don't agree with Jeffrey on first principles or basic understandings of what constitutes "creation" (even terms such as this and cosmos are probably too laden with tradition), yet if I were a materialist I could see his logic being persuasive. I am not, and I don't.
Yours,
Steve
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244 |
Originally posted by ivorythumper: OK, Sidd, I was a bit taken aback by "In other words, you acknowledge the logical, and choose otherwise."
As I tried to indicate, the definitions of the terms are important. I don't agree with Jeffrey on first principles or basic understandings of what constitutes "creation" (even terms such as this and cosmos are probably too laden with tradition), yet if I were a materialist I could see his logic being persuasive. I am not, and I don't.
Yours,
Steve Oh, then perhaps I too misunderstood. I thought you have acknowledged that his premise is logical but your faith is not bound to logic. I'm not saying you need to find it persuasive. I'm not interested in you being persuaded into anything. I am interested in hearing you acknowledge logic, because so many dont. Its difficult to lend creedence to someones argument if they deny logical premises "just because". You may say "yes, that all makes sense, religion and mythology are the same" or whatever "but my faith has called me into a space where that is irrelevant". That is fine, perhaps even beautiful. But its when people say "no, religion is NOT mythology" (for example) "because, well, because jesus told me, and you just wouldnt understand". That makes no sense, denys logic, and renders any discussion impossible as no there is no definition of a common reality. And frankly, I wouldnt even have a problem with this second scenario, if they would just attach "...for me, anyway. Your experience may be different". But all too often its "this is the way it is, for all people everywhere, because jesus told me, so I know, you dont get it, and everyone will burn in heck who doesnt get it." How can I not laugh and change the channel to the more intelligent Jerry Springer at that point.
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 476
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 476 |
Originally posted by MusicMagellan: Further I have a gay male cousin who the entire family "knew" was naturally gay from a very early age. Again no proof, but overwhelming "obvious" from observation.
Interestingly, he meets the common profile of being born as the third of three successive sons. I thought this was interesting. I have a nephew, who is the third of four sons (no sisters). I think everyone in the family thinks he is gay (except his parents, who might just be in denial). He is 16 years old. He has the stereotypical mannerisms, voice patterns and interests. I am the youngest of five brothers (no sisters). The middle brother, now divorced in his 40's with children) also showed some inclination toward it. Interestingly, both my brother and the nephew were teased and physically abused unmercifully(nothing violent, just a climate of fear and intimidation) at a young age by the older brothers.
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161 |
Sid, If you check my post here somewhere in the coffee room today (i'm losing track of the threads) you'll see that I do believe it's Natural. However, if I can find it, I'll send you a link to a past thread here where several of us went into specifics about such research that has been going on. Also, if I can, I'll provide some references I used in the past on this topic. The evidence seems strong that it is Natural. But I would like to see an air-tight case before I see any body start using this as an argument lest it get shot down and undermine the whole case. (My off-hand swipe at gays related to my past irritation at some people complaining about the problem without really doing anything constructive about it. Talk is OK, but constructive action to me is what ultimately carries the day.) P.S. Your seeing me as an intelligent contributor is driven by your observation that you and I seem to have the same taste in women. Can't we revive that thread again? Edit: Kincaid, I'll look for the reference on that particular topic if you're interested.
(watch this space)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
Originally posted by Siddhartha: Oh, then perhaps I too misunderstood. I thought you have acknowledged that his premise is logical but your faith is not bound to logic. I'm not saying you need to find it persuasive. I'm not interested in you being persuaded into anything. I am interested in hearing you acknowledge logic, because so many dont. I don't find the premises that we are in an entirely material and mechanical universe and that consciousness is a product of evolution to be any more reasonable (FWIW, logic is the product of a syllogism, not a predicate of a premise, which is a matter of reason) than the notion of a creator God. Again, faith is not bound by logic, any more than it is *bound* by mythopoetics. If I can make you happy -- maybe even give you spiritual joy -- by acknowledging logic, then I am pleased to do so. It is, however, only a tool of ratiocination, and must be used in recta ratio. As far as the rest of your concerns, I thought I already addressed that when I wrote above: "I find Christianity entirely unique in that respect, but I also see the world as sufficiently complex that it is by no means persuasive to everyone." I am sorry that you have encountered judgmental Christians. I have encountered judgmental atheists and agnostics, who call me a bigot and hateful for my positions that they consider to be sadistic and benighted. Oh well, I hope we both think better of the other.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 476
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 476 |
Kincaid, I'll look for the reference on that particular topic if you're interested. That would be much appreciated, if you have the time. I keep wanting to post on this subject but keep holding back - trying to keep more focused on my work and also afraid of my unsorted feelings on the matter being shot to pieces.
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 9,217
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 9,217 |
You folks realize of course that Yahoo purposely intended to lure you into a religious debate.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773 |
Sid Sid Sid....
I don't know what to say to you. If I'm understanding you correctly, you took a statement not directed toward you, included yourself in an undefined group, then defined it (as including you), then put it back in my face telling me my meaning, and adding that any 6th grader could do the same?
Let me try to approach it a different way because I still don't understand the offense, or the hold up.
Do you and I have different understandings of faith, God, and religion? If this is unknown, would it be safe to assume that our understandings are different based on the fact that you were previously religious and are no longer, while I still am? Isn't it possible that we can't possibly understand each other's view points the way that the other does because we have already come to different conclusions regarding said subject matter?
This being the case, no you can't understand my position, at least not in the same way that I do, as you have already dismissed it. I understand the premise of your position (as you do mine) having been where you are myself. But I also can not completely understand your position as I have already dismissed it.
Make sense? For the last time there is no offense or value judgement here. For all the logic that's running rampant in this thread it seems to be above comprehension. I apologize if I am not communicating well what I am trying to, but continuing to tell me what I'm trying to say when I have explained what I am trying to say is essentially calling me a liar. I don't think you're doing that, because we seem to get along most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773 |
Yes Larry, and even knowing that certain doom awaited us, we waded right in!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,161 |
Originally posted by Matt G.: Faith may transcend logic, but neither trumps the other. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are from different decks. The suits dont coincide. I agree Sid. But let me extend the notion of logic itself a bit and move into territory which is sometimes misconstrued for faith. Goedel’s theorem (I imagine you're familar with it) established that intuition and observation are necessary inputs to any complete system of logic. One can not compose a complete self-consistent (formal logical system) without it. In my R&D (Research and Development) work, I’ve observed a number of times that the most profound, and market-worthy, patents, are those that come to me by intuition. I always prove them subsequently by math modeling, simulation and emulation (bread/brass boarding, field testing, etc.). On the other hand, my more mundane patents are invariably "conceived" by merely knowing the theory well and applying it systematically and "logically." Those in the R&D world likely share my cynicism but acceptance of the business reasons for the latter-type patents. Maybe as an Engineer, you too have had such experiences. I "know" there is a process of mind that lies deeper than we (at least to date) can externalize in some formal logical/mathematical/scientific structure. Einstein apparently had such a belief (if you allow me the poetic license of interpreting his world view) when he just knew his general theory of relativity would be proven correct by experiment. He stated that, if it didn’t, then he knew the experiment had to be wrong. I suspect you've read about this yourself. This is a top level, admittedly superficial, version of the beginning of a discussion I had here many months ago with the brilliant yet humble Moonbat. Moonbat is a scientist of the highest order. Sharp and precise. He also knew Quantum Mechanics and so I was able to open up on that topic which happens to be pertinent to what I just skimmed. He thought I knew more than him, but I knew he knew more than me. Moonbat, please come back!
(watch this space)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,244 |
We should probably drop this. Originally posted by KlavierBauer: Isn't it possible that we can't possibly understand each other's view points the way that the other does because we have already come to different conclusions regarding said subject matter?
you say that now, but before you said: "We understand where they're coming from just fine, because we've been there. Unfortunately they can't understand the very foundations of what we're talking about, and therefore will likely not "take" to what we're saying." These are contradictory. Somehow, you understood 'us' just fine before, but now you couldnt possibly. I have understood everything you have said in every post here, with no misinterpretation. Lets just let it go.
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,403
Posts3,349,419
Members111,636
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|