reply to post by EricD
I wouldn't mention this if the poster wasn't calling some Christians idiots, insulting the OP's supposed lack of knowledge and making
generalizations about 'backwoods preachers', but it seems incredibly hypocritical to be insulting the erudition and sophistication of thought in
others when you can't string together a sentence or two without proper use of parenthesis, capitalization or commas. I hope you have a great view
from that glass house.
Yes Eric, but seriously mate, you're doing more or less the same thing yourself.
By insulting the poster you're answering, you're doing the very same thing that you're posting to complain about!
Grammar and diction are either mastered as we grow, or they are not - some find it a simple and natural thing to be able to write creatively and
accurately, others do not.
They're environmental (based on life experience) human constructs to enable the transference and communication of ideas and thoughts. Consequently,
as long as the ideas and thoughts are communicated, the choice of grammar and diction used are fairly unimportant in the grand scheme of things...only
the ideas and thoughts themselves are.
e.g. You understood perfectly what was being communicated by the poster you're answering, so why is it apparently important for you to insult the
choice of grammar and diction used?
It seems to me, based on my observations over the years on this and other internet forums, that people are *usually* attacked over using perceived
poor grammar or diction, simply as an excuse to wound or otherwise hurt or subjugate. IOW *not* out of a genuine intellectual desire to correct
perceived errors in this regard.
The 'stones in glass houses' analogy could equally apply to yourself (and myself, and just about everyone else at one time or another) you know.
Just thought i'd mention that (IMO) it's a better and less offensive idea to challenge the ideas and thoughts being conveyed, rather than the
vehicle used to convey them.
Don't you agree?
As far as the OP goes, the thread is pretty useless i feel. (sorry OP, not bashing you)
Being argued about are a cobbled together, hotch-potch of ancient myths and legends, embellishments and out and out lies designed to coerce and
Why any rational adult would ever fall for it, makes me despair for our species sometimes, but hey - that's just my point of view..could be right or
could be wrong, but ultimately all of us, can only go on our instinctual reasoning, when the lack of any tangible evidence for or against is as severe
as it is around this topic.
This is the reason religion is *so* divisive and always has been. Every person of conviction experiences exasperation and sometimes fury, not because
their neighbour doesn't necessarily believe the same things they do, but because they can not break through their neighbours conviction and convince
them of their folly as they perceive it to be.
This is true of every area of human belief systems.
Take this thread for example.
The OP believes and has a conviction regarding his or her belief system, in this case it is Christianity (unless i'm mistaken OP?).
There is no proof to support any of it, nor is there for any other religion...that's why religion is a *faith* and not a factual, provable or
Faith *is* required. (or you could call it 'conviction of belief' if you like that better)
Christians recognise there are people who do not share in their particular belief system, that they believe or have faith that something else is
That is the same thing with this Zeitgeist argument.
People believe that the ideas and thoughts conveyed by the makers of the Zeitgeist series, are more valid or hold more truth for them personally, than
Christianity or any other belief system.
How does this make a belief in the message of Zeitgeist *any different* to a belief in the message of Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any other
recognised system in the world?
It doesn't. It's the same principle.
The OP does not attack Islam, or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhists...they are all belief systems, that have similar, although ultimately very different
aspects and teachings. Sometimes the ideas and teachings surrounding one or more of these beliefs, greatly conflict or disagree with another, yet they
still coexist and millions of people subscribe to one system over another despite of the apparent difference in the detail.
Why is it acceptable to attack the difference in the detail and aspects of a belief in a Zeitgeist message but not acceptable to do the same for other
systems messages? It isn't acceptable.
People who subscribe to a belief system, regardless of whether that system is in your (or my) opinion basically what amounts to a children's fairy
tale, or a complete corruption of logic or history - is *irrelevant* to believers, because it *is based on faith* and the conviction one has in that
faith, and is not based in logic or on available proof.
It's highly unproductive to try and argue one system is wrong and the other system is correct, when your reasoning from a faith based perspective,
and not one of logic and proof.