»
Archives
»
Open Poetry #43
»
Common Ground
| Open Poetry #43 |
|
Common Ground |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
I am in utmost harmony with your moral distaste of religious truth misplaced and spirituality wielded as a kind of flogging stick But I need to say this in reply (no this is not a trick) You sound as if you’re sure your morals too are really more than just vermiculate markings on a dust-laden floor inside a structure that only seemed like it was once somebody's house And though we are just babes with rattlers in our mouths It is better to grow up even an angry reformer of a faith gone far afield than as one who can find no basis at all for being either wrathful or kind or why even poor eyes are deemed better than blind |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Wishing you peace... |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Powerful words and thoughts...hopefully, to fall on 'fertile' if not so-common ground. Namaste, as always. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Thank you both, friends. Stephen |
||
|
steavenr Member Elite
since 2003-11-17
Posts 4058 |
"even poor eyes are deemed better than blind" a power-filled phrase suiting such an insightful write...very well done |
||
|
Marchmadness Member Rara Avis
since 2007-09-16
Posts 9271So. El Monte, California |
Wow, a powerful and insightful write, Stephen, especially for one so young. Ida |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Sweet Ida, Thanks, But I look much younger than I am ... three decades and seven years (here in my old rocking chair)  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This is interesting Stephen. It sounds like an anti-Dawkins polemic. Probably I shouldn't delve into the message too much here, but for what it's worth I think one should be careful about assuming that because someone sounds sure that is a certain indicator that they ARE sure. In fact anyone who claims to be sure about anything, be it religious faith or amoebic slime, instantly attracts my scepticism. I was reading Chesterton (Everlasting Man). He, for instance, sounds sure. The analogy of the boy and the chalk giants, upon which premise his whole book is predicated, seems to me inherently flawed. Postulating that those best placed to analyse are those within, or, failing that, those far away, seems at best a way of attacking the critics of his time, and at worst a self serving manoeuvre. But this isn't the place to delve into all that, so I won't. As for a reformer of existing tradition being better than a fresh start, humm. I can think of a few analogies of my own - such as a wood grown old and thick and tangled, choked with rotting timber and fallen trees; a case for clearing and starting anew? Or an impossible maze which sprouts dead ends as fast as new generations enter it until its poor inhabitants are forever colliding with one another. They surely are the ones who are blind - not the brave soul who mounts a step ladder and rises above the thick hedges to get a wider view? Just a few random thoughts, hope you don't mind. Oh and PS, thanks for the new word "vermiculate" |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
"But I need to say this in reply (no this is not a trick) You sound as if you’re sure your morals too are really more than just vermiculate markings on a dust-laden floor inside a structure that only seemed like it was once somebody's house" Dearest Stephanos, I’m not sure who the ‘You’ are... ...you are referring to above. Certainly not I, who has already confessed to having a Clever Tongue and Fickle Heart. And who speculates that there is no ‘ought’, there only is. Read all about it here: /pip/Forum106/HTML/002831.html What you call ‘morals’ Stephan, are nothing more than a cornucopia of cerebral programming, that influences your myriad competing behaviors, and your judgment of those behaviors. These ‘morals’ are written first and foremost by your genes, and then shaped by your unique temporal experiences, that are strongly influenced by the social environment where your brain is being programmed. Thus, your ‘morals’ are always being fine tuned, as you age and experience new situations. We even have a word for that, it’s called maturity. In addition, the shared morals of a generation are always being fine tuned at a macro level by the evolution of their cultures survival strategies. Thus, nice Christian young men did things they thought were perfectly moral and righteous in the eyes of your pantheon in 1808… …that nice Christian young men like you, now consider ‘immoral’ in 2008. See how that works? Your ‘morals’ are actually much better aligned with an atheist homosexual who lives across town from you, in Statesboro, GA, then they are with faithful Christians living in 1808 or 1608. Funny…but it seems belief in the Christian god isn’t the major consistent influence in this scenario, it’s simply the underlying foundation of the shared, evolved culture you both have to survive in. I realize you may be frustrated with the bigotry, ignorance, divisiveness, hatred and conservative political rhetoric that pervades your particular brand of USA southern Christianity. A religion very loosely affiliated with the messianic savior deity, of a tiny first century apocalyptic Jewish cult. But with the fall of corrupt, state sponsored Christianity, this religion has evolved and morphed into countless different brands with competing beliefs. Amusingly, each brand will typically mock and call the other brands; heretics. So, we certainly don’t need to reform ‘it’, and launch yet another brand, in search of new ‘morals’. If you don’t like your church, and it’s smarmy and smug moral superiority, don’t lay that guilt trip back on me, simply choose another brand. I hear the Methodists and Unitarians are much more accepting than the Baptists. Or choose to ‘home church’ and simply dedicate the time you spend each Sunday, singing wretched 19th century hymns, off key, to helping the sick, giving to the poor, or comforting those in prison. I think it was Ghandi who said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." [This message has been edited by Vestibular Bard (12-15-2008 09:42 AM).] |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Stephanos, There is still a chance a sardonic imp might save you from your plight: /pip/Forum106/HTML/002876.html |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Actually VB I didn't see anything in this poem that suggested that the practise of the christian religion was set in stone, immutable, unchangeable. So I'm not sure how your point about the changing "morals" of changing generations relates to what Stephen wrote. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Perhaps you didn’t read my reply closely enough Moonbeam? I went out of my way to demonstrate that is exactly the case. And why 'reforming' Christianity into various new 'forms' or 'brands' is something taking place ALL the time. I will however be interested in you explaining to me, who has the authority at your church, to edit the book of Genesis, so that the god fearing people at your church, clearly understand that at best, Genesis is a collection of sacred Semite folklore and allegory, and at its worst, just another one of countless, ignorant, cultural creation stories, told by ancient peoples, around their campfires, who were not informed by the modern science we have today. Stephan’s argument that it is better to be an ‘angry reformer’ of an implied ignorant and corrupt religion, than to be someone who can’t ‘find’ a ‘reason’ why humans, and even good ‘Christians’, are both ‘kind’ and ‘wrathful’, is completely fallacious and ignorant. It is a classic argument from ignorance. And that is what my previous post was pointing out. The biggest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Please keep that in mind. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Perhaps you didn't read my reply closely enough VB. If you look, my whole point was that you WERE suggesting the constant evolution of new brands, but that I couldn't see how your point, in that respect, related to Stephen's poem. After all, to repeat myself, I can't see anything in his poem that suggests that this isn't the case. quote: "My church"? I don't profess to have a church, or subscribe to a particular view about Genesis. You sound very certain of your ground when you talk about "modern science" - you might like to reflect, before you base too many of your suppositions upon that shaky pedestal, that today's modern science is tomorrow's "folklore and allegory," or a mere "ignorant, cultural creation stor[y]". quote: I don't think there's any call to use the word "ignorant[ce]" four times in five lines. It sounds a little rude and overwrought. Moreover I don't think Stephen's suggestion is that at all, it's based upon a long and honourable philosophical and theological tradition. It may be too subjective for my taste, but it's hardly ignorant. If there is any misguided thought here I respectfully suggest that it's your certainty in your comfort zone of a modern science that, ironically, will in time come to be shown to be the very thing you claim to be the biggest obstacle to discovery, the "illusion of knowledge". |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: Perhaps you ought to explain to me exactly what you think Stephan’s poem is saying…then perhaps I can communicate more clearly with you. quote: Well then, perhaps you aren’t qualified to discuss this topic? Perhaps you should take some time to read Genesis, and various scholarly analyses of the text, form a ‘view’ and get back to me? quote: I do? Where? I am quite certain that cosmology, geology, life sciences, archeology, anthropology and comparative religion studies have some a long way since Genesis was written. You think my statement to bold for your post modern views? quote: You might want to reflect that science is a process that has never claimed absolute knowledge or absolute certainty about the origins or the universe or your species. Perhaps you need to read more philosophy of science, before any more hairs stick up on the back of your neck? ________________________________________ Stephan's argument that it is better to be an ‘angry reformer' of an implied ignorant and corrupt religion, than to be someone who can't ‘find' a ‘reason' why humans, and even good ‘Christians', are both ‘kind' and ‘wrathful', is completely fallacious and ignorant. It is a classic argument from ignorance. And that is what my previous post was pointing out. The biggest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Please keep that in mind. ________________________________________ quote: Feel free to insert a more palatable synonym of your choice. An ‘argument from ignorance’ refers to a very specific kind of debating fallacy. The ‘bifurcation fallacy’ or ‘either/or dillema’ are also specific erroneous argument techniques employed by the ignorant. These are not my ‘inventions’. I suggest you google them to find out what they each mean, and how it relates to Stephan’s ‘argument’ that there are two choices in this world, to have either ‘really poor eyes’…or be ‘blind’. Which one of those would you be, dear Moonbeam? Believing the universe, our solar system and planet, and every living thing was created in the span of 6 days…a few thousand years ago…is wholesale ignorance in 2008…it was quite in fashion in 1308. Sorry, if that is lost on you or Stephen. quote: What tradition is that? Eventually admit that Galileo was right 350 years after you arrested him for heresy? Eventually allow blacks and women to vote 200 years after 'god' created all men 'equal'? You'll find I'm quite familiar with my species "honourable philosophical and theological traditions"...they often make me smirk, and write sardonic poetry. quote: You know nothing of me, or my “certainty” in any current scientific theory or fact. You need to come to grips with that. You have obviously misapplied the confidence of my prose, with my confidence is some subset of current scientific knowledge. I know that the science of Newton and Darwin have both been shown to be partically wrong and/or incomplete. What do you know about me? I am certain that modern science is a vastly superior process for discovering the truth of my universe, than the book of “Genesis”(which you still haven’t read) or waiting for a senile Pope, in a funny hat and robe, to be sent a message from god…350 years after a scientist discovers the earth revolves around the sun. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Vestibluar, I don't mind discussing any of these issues with you (as much as I'm able, with December time restraints) but I don't think that "Open Poetry" is the place for Open Debate of this kind. It is not a discussion forum. Perhaps the Alley would be the place for you to post your distaste for Christianity ... or even Philosophy, since it is the closest thing to a forum that overlaps Theology. Thanks, Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I don't need to. I was simply querying why you felt it necessary to explain at some length that the christian church has, as you put it, evolved. You don't have to satisfy my curiosity of course. quote: Perhaps not. But then of course I do have a view about people who have a fixed view of Genesis. They are probably thinking too narrowly to form a useful contribution to what is an ongoing debate. quote: I think I'll pass on that delight thank you; at least in respect of Genesis. Your various contributions elsewhere on this site indicate that your mind is closed to any meaningful discussion. quote: Here: "These ‘morals' are written first and foremost by your genes, and then shaped by your unique temporal experiences, that are strongly influenced by the social environment where your brain is being programmed." And here: "Genesis is a collection of sacred Semite folklore and allegory, and at its worst, just another one of countless, ignorant, cultural creation stories, told by ancient peoples, around their campfires, who were not informed by the modern science we have today." quote: I don't have a problem with that statement. But I'm inclined to say "so what"? It doesn't add much credence to your vitriolic ridicule of modern day religion. quote: That's the second time you've kindly advised me upon reading matter. I'll pass again thanks, and simply say that what "science" says doesn't particularly concern me here. What YOU infer from what science says is however much more entertaining. Anyway having acknowledged that science cannot be certain I am glad to see that you thereby acknowledge, either that you cannot be certain about your belief and unbelief, or that you do not found your belief on science. Either conclusion is satisfactory. quote: Someone who knows how to spell dilemma. And I suggest you buy a copy of Debrett's and learn when to use the salutation "dear". quote: Humm, I need to think about that. Not your sarcasm I mean, but simply the question of whether the creationist argument is relevant to the issues arising from the poem, and in fact whether it's a debate worth having at all. quote: You obviously well know the tradition having googled and read so widely. Still, you were so busy getting in a tizzy, that you didn't actually notice that I don't disagree with parts of your position in this area. I simply disagree with your implication that Stephen's premises and inferences were based on, what you helpfully pointed out earlier were, arguments from ignorance. quote: If I have presumed too much I apologise. People who embark on "I know best" polemics against religion excite me nearly as much as people who do the opposite, and I tend to lose what meagre analytical ability I have. quote: I think your use of the word "my" is well advised. And your presumptuousness regarding my reading matter ill advised. quote: Yes, I can quite believe that. And Stephen is right - this needs to be moved to one of the other forums. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
quote: You chose to post a polemic poem about the superiority of your religious approach to some unspecified question of 'morality', while fallaciously arguing that anyone who disagrees with you, is impotent or 'blind'. Perhaps you should choose a different glass house to cast stones next time? quote: My distaste for 'Christianity' or even 'Philosophy', will always depend on the theologian or philosopher who smugly thinks himself an official authority, and representative of those incredibly broad and diverse disciplines. I look forward to finding more common ground with you in the future. |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Dearest Moonbeam I’m sorry I don’t own a copy of Debrett's, and I called you ‘dear’. I’m sorry I misspelled dilemma. I’m sorry you haven’t read the book of Genesis. I’m sorry you can’t explain the meaning of Stephan’s poem. I’m sorry my brief ‘various contributions’ on this site, have resulted in you labeling me ‘close minded’. I’m sorry that all of mankind's hard work, that has resulted in immense scientific knowledge and understanding, of his universe, and his own behaviors and 'ethics'… …has left you breathlessly saying ‘so what!’. I'm sorry I overused the word 'ignorant' in my prior post. I’m sorry I’m not more ‘certain’ about everything, or at least not ‘certain’ enough to satisfy you. I’m sorry for all these backhanded apologies. But most of all, I am sorry I responded to you in the first place. I assure you, it won’t happen again. Sincerely, The Vestibular Bard |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That is a surprise. quote: Pity. It was fun. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Vestibular, Come, don't be pretentious. We both think our philosophy as "superior" or we wouldn't be subjecting it to public expression. Even Moonbeam and myself disagree on quite a number of issues (including the ones implied by my poem here), but I don't make accusations of character, and there is always genial discussion between us. (Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy giving and occasionally taking good-natured satire) Again, I am happy to discuss any of these issues with you elsewhere. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, Stephen. Vestibular Bard, you are new to the site and perhaps not aware of all of the forums we have here. One is called the Alley, where banter such as is displayed here is welcome. You would find it to your liking, I believe, and have the freedom to express whatever thoughts you like. Moonbeam, you have no such excuse. You know better. The Open forum is for posting poetry and commenting (or critiquing, if asked for) on the poetry itself, not the poet or his beliefs. There are other forums available for those purposes. Please keep this in mind... |
||
|
Bill Charles Member Patricius
since 2000-07-11
Posts 10619highways, & byways, for now |
Stephanos - interesting read, especially the replies... BC |
||
|
Vestibular Bard Member
since 2008-12-11
Posts 284New York |
Balladeer, Thank-you for the clarification and advice. My first post in this thread was very much meant to be a critique of the specific poetry, it's message, and it's insulting and fallacious conclusion, and that is how I framed it, perhaps with too much effort. I guess being new, I am not certain if my critique crossed a line, or just stepped on a moonbeam's and a fallacious theologian's toes. Perhaps it is best for me to just let my poetry do the talking on this subject. Thanks for the clarification on the different forums. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes, there are speciality forums but those do not mean that more critical and philosophical exchanges of opinions ought to be excluded from the openness of Open Poetry. Conversation is allowed in this forum. It is only a shame that more extended conversation and sharings of thoughts, memories, philosophies, etc, alongside the poems are sometimes hard to find. If you may keep it respectful, I certainly would encourage it and discourage anyone from discouraging it. Write poetry, read it, and share your minds alongside it. I don't think there is any need to discourage any conversation that takes place alongside the poetry as long as it is done without "clawing" each other to shreds, of course |
||
|
Robert E. Jordan Member Rara Avis
since 2008-01-25
Posts 8541Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
Yo Stephanos, How are things in Statesboro, one of my kids used to teach at Georgia Southern. Nice poem, keep up the good work. Bobby |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bill: quote: Thanks! I see you're a guitar player? What do you play/ listen to? Bobby: quote: Thanks for the compliment. About the 'boro, you know, it doesn't change fast. That's part of the reason I live here I suppose. I'm a bit of a shireling. Nice to hear from someone with a connection here. I graduated from Southern. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Vestibular B, (and others who are interested) I have responded to your replies here: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000905.html Later, Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Actually Balladeer, I don't know better; in fact I'm puzzled. But rather than discuss the issue here, I've asked you what you mean here: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001778.html |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, Did you finish "The Everlasting Man"? I meant to ask you, but so many other threads have had my limited attention. S. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
