Ecumentalism

[Davidsun]

10 hours ago, Burl said:

Just observations about posting anything by anyone on any forum anywere.  The message and the medium must be complimentary.

Nothing personal intended.

Fiirst and foremost, Burl, pleas know that I responded the way I did to you first comment to me the way I did because I 'saw' and experienced it as not being 'complimentary'

Second, the "must" in your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial', unacceptably (by me) so. My guess is that you are  so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even tho i use your own words to point it out to you. Sp please know that this statement is really an effort on my part to  share what I 'see' as being the case here with others here.

Thirdly, your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow to me. Your statement in response to my posts have been quite personally implicative.

The joke-line "Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind.

I don't know if this will work as intended, but all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas being presented.

[Davidsun]

15 hours ago, thormas said:

Also, remember you are on a progressive site and I suspect most are not conventional and do not have to expand their LGBTQ group.

I think you miss my point, Thormas. I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included. Am working (in my own way!) to be understood, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to tango!"

[Davidsun]

13 hours ago, Craig V. said:

Thormas, I am guessing that David is pleading for more tolerance about his writing style, and yes, It is starkly elaborate if not too obtuse for this lamentable Twitter/Facebook age..

David, I opened up your email and am half-way thru the 24-page work you sent me, thank you.  I had so much junk from my denomination this week, that I did not notice it until yesterday. I think the analogy I would make, rather than to LGBTQ tolerance,  is that you stylistically evoke the Gospel of John, as opposed to that of the synoptic gospels.  I had seminary teachers that were rather dismissive of John, being written much later than the synoptics, and it was already somewhat compromised due to that lateness, and John seems obtuse in parts, but there is beauty and mystery too.  You are a student of other faith movements, and looking for an approach to connect in those directions, and sometimes ambiguity serves a good purpose in that. Especially since God and much of what we discuss here is bound . . . in reality . . .  thankfully . . . to be much more Unfathomable than we can possibly expect by our relatively primitive tangible conceptualizations and traditions..  

High Five, Craig!

The idea of God being 'unfathomable' means we can't get to 'the bottom' of the ocean in this regard, but we sure can enjoy splish-splashing about and occasionall going on some 'deep' dives, both ideationally and experientially, in IT.

As you say, thankfully!

Woohoo!!!

[To everyone else: I presented a link to the article that Craig references in my first reply to Burl. Since that is 'water under the (screen) bridge' right now, I just want to add that it is also downloadable from the Articles page of my website which should be accessible via my profile should you be interested.]

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Davidsun

[Davidsun]

Continuing with the topic of "Ecumentalism" (great word coinage, BTW! ):

I wonder what peeps think might be entailed if they were to seriously consider 'ecumentally' including of this Irishman's world-view and belief-system:

This is the first of a two part video exposition, which I heartily recommend as being 'right on' (in my opinion, that is) in terms of real 'truth':

In it, he speaks of being "religiously" in collision with "the Bible" - meaning what's been includedThe Old Testament and so widely embedded in 'Western' cultural thinking about mankind's 'place' in 'nature'.

I wonder how anyone using 'Christian' (progressive or otherwise) as a personal- or group- identity moniker can 'ecumanize' (lol) with such as he and vice versa. An interesting 'problem' to be considered and hopefully playfully resolved, methinks.

[thormas]

30 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

Fiirst and foremost, Burl, pleas know that I responded the way I did to you first comment to me the way I did because I 'saw' and experienced it as not being 'complimentary'

Second, the "must" in your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial', unacceptably (by me) so. My guess is that you are  so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even tho i use your own words to point it out to you. Sp please know that this statement is really an effort on my part to  share what I 'see' as being the case here with others here.

Thirdly, your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow to me. Your statement in response to my posts have been quite personally implicative.

The joke-line "Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind.

I don't know if this will work as intended, but all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas being presented.

We have had meaningful discussions and it should be obvious to any who have spent some time reading on this site that there are many differences. That's life, that's Christianity, that's philosophy, that's this site.  Again, I didn't agree with the suggested limits but Burl was trying to help - how many have responded to your posts, to your actual writings? He was trying to help. And then you make assumptions about his character and slam him? Nice messaging! He was talking about writing style - you are the one who has made it personal.

 

34 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

I think you miss my point, Thormas. I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included. Am working (in my own way!) to be understood, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to tango!"

Not sure of your point. Burl (and I) was trying to make suggestions so others would want to dance with you. 

[Davidsun]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

He was talking about writing style - you are the one who has made it personal

News flash - my writing style is personal, it is an expresssion of who I am quite consciously aiming to reach, those who can/will 'hear' my 'voice' (parallel with Jesus's saying intended), i.e. what I wish and choose to express as part of my God-Life-'service'.

That you one-sidely (IMO) only see it from and sympathize with his 'points' says something (personal) about you to me (personally), Thormas.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Davidsun

[Davidsun]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Not sure of your point. Burl (and I) was trying to make suggestions so others would want to dance with you. 

Maybe this will get my 'point' across: That (what you just said) strikes me as being like a parent who, thinking and feeling that he or she is thereby really giving his or her beloved child 'loving' advice and support in order to further said child's soul's 'success' in 'the world', tells him or her that it would be 'better' if he or she took up and practiced 'ballet' or 'the piano' instead of 'going out' for 'sports' (or vice versa).

Has it occurred to you that  my souls' 'dance-muse-ic' inclinations an preferences may be of a quite different nature than his or yours?

Also, has  it occurred to you that you are 'dancing' my kind of 'truth'-meaning-full dance with me right here right now (precisely because I didn't just 'graciously' 'accept' Burl's and your 'advice' but made a point of saying it didn't suit my purpose(s)?

I imagine not, or else you wouldn't be persisting in your kind of 'lovingness' (of truth, spirit, etc.) in relation to someone as different from you (in said 'truth' and 'spirit' regards) as I am.

[thormas]

20 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

News flash - my writing style is personal, it is an expresssion of who I am quite consciously aiming to reach, those who can/will 'hear' my 'voice' (parallel with Jesus's saying intended), i.e. what I wish and choose to express as part of my God-Life-'service'.

That you one-sidely (IMO) only see it from and sympathize with his 'points' says something (personal) about you to me (personally), Thormas.

First, there was no side, I simply said what I believe Burl was after and I too tried to make suggestions so you might be heard. There is no service if your voice cannot be heard. And, again I ask, how many have actually engaged with you on the substance of what you wrote, not this side stuff, the substance? 

News flash (catchy, by the way): all our styles are 'personal' but it doesn't mean another can't comment and give a well intentioned suggestion to help someone (be heard). And, of course, it follows that one doesn't have to take the advise - just move on, see if people respond to your style and if not??? No need to attack the one who makes the suggestion. Personally, it was not meant to be personal so you shouldn't take it personally because I have not attempted to say something personal to you personally-  but the more you talk the more personal you seem to get and some might take that personally. Seems you are the only one who has gotten personal with you comments on Burl. 

Good god, first it's dictatorial and now it's bad parenting - all over innocent attempts to help you communicate better on a new site. And, I get dance, I get muse, but what is ic? Regardless, you don't know either of us well enough to be able to judge our 'soul' dance' but anybody's dancing can be improved. 

And no it never occurred to me that I'm dancing your dance, rather it occurred to me that you can't take a helpful hand. Ruh roh, you seem to be getting personal with the 'your kind of lovingness' comment. Hold it, had to gather myself - okay, I can go on. It had nothing to do with truth, spirit and the American way - it had to do with writing style: writ-ing-sty...le.

Finally, I have been dealing - although I prefer engaging - with 'different' since I was in college and, in particular, a favorite professor, who has a similar style to the 100th power: I can work through his writings but I am also witness to many others who can't or simply can't take the time. The lost is theirs, but the lose is also his. Further, my style is not all that different but as a teacher and a writer I knew I had to be aware of my audience and write to/for them - otherwise why do either?  After all, It is not an exercise in ego; if it is not for the other, it is not. 

 

 

[Davidsun]

No, I wasn't saying you or anyone couldn; or shouldn't comment on my style or share personal reactions to it. I was just 'calling' (both) you and Burl out on your "nothing personal" and "I'm just saying what I'm saying to 'help' you to 'serve' your purposes", dare I say (condescending?), posturing.

Regarding what you say in your last para, have you still not registered what I told you - that I am fine with peeps not reading or skimming and/or not responding to the ideas I share. I hope you understand, in retrospect at least, that you (and Burl) have been trying to foist your preferences off onto me under the guise (even hiding the fact from yourselves) that you were just doing so for my sake (any by extension or the sake of my ideas and values). That's what it looks and feels like to me, and so what I believe has been really going on here.

Ecumenism - i.e. 'rubbing shoulders' with peeps who have different sets of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values than 'you' or 'your' reference group - is great to talk about - but its required more than that to actually put it into practice.  I hope some readers at least get an 'object lesson' pertaining to what's involved from what's been displayed above/here.

Anyone want to respond to the video I posted the URL to, relating to the comments I made while posting it?

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Davidsun

[Craig V.]

Hi David,  I will have to watch more later, I got only to the "Walk Naked to Tara" illustration, the video is over an hour so I saved it. (I am too overweight for that advice!!)

But so far, I agree.  Here is my take on the value of our Old Testament: some of that tradition was edifying, some morally implausible. Too often a tyrant-god emerged, capricious and vindictive (the “meat coming out of their nostrils” bully of Numbers 11), a flash-angry martinet telling Moses or Joshua to “show no mercy” or “leave none breathing” in their conquests.  

Those San Bernardino mujahedeen, husband Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik “feared Allah” and conformed to piety with such superior devotion that their six-month old daughter becoming an orphan was part of their plan.  Since the Old Testament describes our shared Abrahamic deity as a barbarian who seethes about slack commitment and commands genocide and slaughter of infidels, he has to be impressed with Syed and Tashfeen.  Ugghhh.

It is criminal to attribute much of the OT to God! It has nonsense fit for the “Trump University School of Theology” . . . myth as repugnant as Ezekiel’s special barley cakes [Ezekiel 4:12].

Thank you, Peace, Craig

[thormas]

10 hours ago, Davidsun said:

No, I wasn't saying you or anyone couldn; or shouldn't comment on my style or share personal reactions to it. I was just 'calling' (both) you and Burl out on your "nothing personal" and "I'm just saying what I'm saying to 'help' you to 'serve' your purposes", dare I say (condescending?), posturing.

Regarding what you say in your last para, have you still not registered what I told you - that I am fine with peeps not reading or skimming and/or not responding to the ideas I share. I hope you understand, in retrospect at least, that you (and Burl) have been trying to foist your preferences off onto me under the guise (even hiding the fact from yourselves) that you were just doing so for my sake (any by extension or the sake of my ideas and values). That's what it looks and feels like to me, and so what I believe has been really going on here.

Ecumenism - i.e. 'rubbing shoulders' with peeps who have different sets of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values than 'you' or 'your' reference group - is great to talk about - but its required more than that to actually put it into practice.  I hope some readers at least get an 'object lesson' pertaining to what's involved from what's been displayed above/here.

David, you repeatedly mischaracterized people and their good intentions. Again, it is on writing style and communication. Short, simple and to the point. You are the one who has repeatedly gotten personal with attacks on people's characters.  Out of your mouth have come the following comments about others: posturing, condescending, foist(ing) preferences, guise and hiding - all personal attacks. I'm sure readers did get a lesson from you and are wise and kind enough not to repeat it. 

It is amazing you have made this such an issue. Again and for the final time, I had no issue with the substance of what you were saying and I actually enjoyed the exchange. We didn't fully agree, which is fine and I was looking forward to more of the same. However, even then, I thought your style was a little more loaded (not meant to be pejorative) than it had to be to make what I thought were interesting points and I noticed no one else engaged. Burl was honest, he had a problem following you and said so. I have had many exchanges with Burl and witnessed his exchanges with others, we don't always agree, but I have never though he didn't have the intellectual capacity, the passionate curiosity or the reading ability to understand. So when he indicated this to you........it was so he could hear you, so others (with the same reaction) could hear you and all (interested) could engage. It was not meant as an attack, it was not intended to be personal - and that's what you should have focused on: intentions, good intentions. 

However, it seems you can't see this, your go to reaction is personal attacks and, as you said, you are fine (i.e.don't care) if others don't read or respond to your ideas. I have never heard a writer make such a statement, after all that is the point of writing and specifically, it is the point of engaging and sharing on a site such as this. 

p.s. I remember when a fellow member said one of my post was too long, so I tried to shorten it and another was confused by my use of certain words, so I tried to clarify: style issues. Now when someone else flatly disagreed with me, that was her/his right but I held the substance of my position (even after playing with style so I was heard). Simple!

[Davidsun]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

p.s. I remember when a fellow member said one of my post was too long, so I tried to shorten it and another was confused by my use of certain words, so I tried to clarify: style issues. Now when someone else flatly disagreed with me, that was her/his right but I held the substance of my position (even after playing with style so I was heard). Simple!

Great! For the reasons I have stated, which apparently aren't 'valid' in your eyes, I don't 'respond' the way you do. News flash: because I am me, not you.

I just tell the truth as I as 'see' it, as do you Bro. Some experience that (the parts of what I say that they don't 'soft-cotton to') as an 'attack'. From my point of view I am simply declaratively identifying (what I think of as) a spade as a spade without pretending to be 'nice' just for the sake of thinking or myself as being and appearing to being 'nice' - that isn't one of the personal-social 'mores' I personally don't think of as being especially 'good'.

I am always 'personal', BTW - and don't think of that as being a 'bad' thing either. Neither do pretend, as some holier-than-thou's (ahem, ahem) here do, to be or do otherwise.

You understand what I say in your  way - I fully accept and relate to that as a FACT of LIFE which pertains to everyone.  I sincerely hope you will someday make 'peace' with your understanding that I understand what you (and others say) in my way and then proceed to relate to that as (news flash!) me validly (personally) being me and me legitimately (personally) doing what I am here to do. Till then, we are just likely to repeat the current not-so-merry go round circle. So please know, that unless there's evidence of such a change having taken place, this will be my last attempt at communication with you.

Sincerely - David

Edited February 17, 2018 by Davidsun

[Burl]

13 hours ago, Craig V. said:

Hi David,  I will have to watch more later, I got only to the "Walk Naked to Tara" illustration, the video is over an hour so I saved it. (I am too overweight for that advice!!)

But so far, I agree.  Here is my take on the value of our Old Testament: some of that tradition was edifying, some morally implausible. Too often a tyrant-god emerged, capricious and vindictive (the “meat coming out of their nostrils” bully of Numbers 11), a flash-angry martinet telling Moses or Joshua to “show no mercy” or “leave none breathing” in their conquests.  

Those San Bernardino mujahedeen, husband Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik “feared Allah” and conformed to piety with such superior devotion that their six-month old daughter becoming an orphan was part of their plan.  Since the Old Testament describes our shared Abrahamic deity as a barbarian who seethes about slack commitment and commands genocide and slaughter of infidels, he has to be impressed with Syed and Tashfeen.  Ugghhh.

It is criminal to attribute much of the OT to God! It has nonsense fit for the “Trump University School of Theology” . . . myth as repugnant as Ezekiel’s special barley cakes [Ezekiel 4:12].

Thank you, Peace, Craig

I used to think a little like you Craig, but you are missing the forest for the trees on the OT.  Some of the big messages are:

There is one God but also a rich and diverse variety of other extant supernatural and human/supernatural entities.

God communicates to us through intuition, voice, visual theophany, poetry, fiction, song, history, myth and human rationality.

God has an active interest in human development and protects us under a mutual covenant.

God reveals itself to humanity in a gradual fashion.  Not exactly dispensational, but rather progressive revelation.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Burl
Autocorrect is demonic posession.

[Davidsun]

13 hours ago, Craig V. said:

Since the Old Testament describes our shared Abrahamic deity as a barbarian who seethes about slack commitment and commands genocide and slaughter of infidels, ...

It is criminal to attribute much of the OT to God! It has nonsense fit for the “Trump University School of Theology” . . . myth as repugnant as Ezekiel’s special barley cakes [Ezekiel 4:12].

Yup!. Methinks 'ecumism' as an unqualified 'ideal' is therefore not worth being taken 'seriously'. Hitler thought he was 'inspired' by 'divine' (in his eyes that is) 'spirit' as well!

Maybe some here will suggest 'qualifications' (like 'amendments' to the concept of that 'bill') which might result in the discussion of the concept becoming more enlightened/enlightening.

[Davidsun]

11 minutes ago, Burl said:

I used to think a little like you Craig, but you are missing the forest for the trees on the OT.  Some of the big messages are:

There is one God but also a rich and diverse variety of other extant supernatural and human/supernatural entities.

God communicates to us through intuition, voice, visual theophany, poetry, fiction, song, history, myth and human rationality.

God has an active interest in human development and protects us under a mutual covenant.

God reveals itself to humanity in a gradual fashion.  Not exactly dispensational, but rather progressive revelation.

YIKES!

Talk about exclusive-ness masquerading other-inclusive!

He that hath ears that here, let him hear! As far as I can see (or hear ) the above statements don't at all (not really at least) relate to the substance what Craig said in is post.

Other may of course 'see' (or 'hear') it differently I'm just telling the truth like I see (and 'hear') it, folks - in single sentence'paragraphs' no less! Caveat: I could be deluded!

[Craig V.]

Thanks! I read and know the OT well. But I believe that Jesus INTRODUCES us to the Authentic Supreme Being . . . for the unassailable rationale above. I try to keep this to myself at church, and don't want to offend anyone  here, but it was my endorsement  of the beginning of the John Moriarty video that David posted.

[thormas]

6 hours ago, Davidsun said:

Great! For the reasons I have stated, which apparently aren't 'valid' in your eyes, I don't 'respond' the way you do. News flash: because I am me, not you.

I just tell the truth as I as 'see' it, as do you Bro. Some experience that (the parts of what I say that they don't 'soft-cotton to') as an 'attack'. From my point of view I am simply declaratively identifying (what I think of as) a spade as a spade without pretending to be 'nice' just for the sake of thinking or myself as being and appearing to being 'nice' - that isn't one of the personal-social 'mores' I personally don't think of as being especially 'good'.

I am always 'personal', BTW - and don't think of that as being a 'bad' thing either. Neither do pretend, as some holier-than-thou's (ahem, ahem) here do, to be or do otherwise.

You understand what I say in your  way - I fully accept and relate to that as a FACT of LIFE which pertains to everyone.  I sincerely hope you will someday make 'peace' with your understanding that I understand what you (and others say) in my way and then proceed to relate to that as (news flash!) me validly (personally) being me and me legitimately (personally) doing what I am here to do. Till then, we are just likely to repeat the current not-so-merry go round circle. So please know, that unless there's evidence of such a change having taken place, this will be my last attempt at communication with you.

You're right: you don't respond the same way (I or most people do) but thanks for recognizing that I am nice.  The 'evidence is there (again, thanks) and if I change and there is evidence that I stop being nice, as requested, I'll let you know.

You're a very sensitive guy to take offense at a helping hand. Interesting but I won't pretend to be a therapist: I never pretend. You talk about understanding but what you consistently fail to see is that the writer is obliged to take pains to use words (also goes to writing style) so they are really communicating which is the first step in being heard and being...............wait for it............understood. For one who values writing to not take care is as you might say: Narly, bro! 

Edited February 17, 2018 by thormas

[Davidsun]

17 hours ago, thormas said:

You're a very sensitive guy to take offense at a helping hand. Interesting but ...

This is said to share my thoughts as well as stimulate further thoughts on the part of everyone else here:

I agree that I am a 'sensitive' (in the 'sense' of sense-itive , IMO at least) guy.

I hope others can also see that I wasn't and am not now 'taking offense' (in the usual sense of the phrase), but, rather, conscientiously objecting to the verbal and spiritual behaviors of peeps who smugly 'advise' other people to be something and/or behave in ways which they would like them to be (falsely IMO) projecting themselves to be in the 'side' of Life (i.e. Creativity, Love. God, Truth, etc.) as though they were doing Life Itself, said others included, a 'favor'.

Assumed 'leadership' is presumptuous, aye what?

Edited February 18, 2018 by Davidsun

[Davidsun]

Attempting to get back 'on topic' of respecting-and-harmoniously-engaging/relating-with-other-thought-and-feeling-systems-(if-and-as-they-are-not-disparaging-and/or-violational-of-other-thought-and-feeling-systems-tjhat-is!) ECUMENTALISM:

What do interpersonal assertions ('tactical arguments'?) such as

"You are mistakenly taking things (too) 'personally' ''
"You are being (too) 'sensitive' ", and
"I am/we are really just trying to address your issues nicely/helpfully" etc.

suggest to you?

BTW: I am not just challenging the postures of the apparent (i.e. currently displayed?) 'leaders' here, but wondering about what the spiritual stance and agenda of the 'regular' members here generally is as well. I mean, is the cap P 'Progressive Christianity' movement "worth its salt?" (idiomatically speaking)

Edited February 18, 2018 by Davidsun

[Craig V.]

This place is evoking less my seminary classroom with spirited, but respectful even loving debate. 

And more the "Lord of the Flies" or some sort of Man-Cave rivalry.

The classroom was at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary . . . .and ground-zero of the "Baptist Holy War" during the Fundamentalist takeover.

Yet I do not remember ANY insults, not one, from my time there.  Despite the faculty purge, and student sit-ins, and protests.  Civility never disappeared. 

David, I am sorry you have received the majority of the insults.  On the other hand, you have said some provocative things to them too, a normal human reaction to the jaundice that got pitched your way.  Your ideas have merit and I am looking forward to finishing your 24-pager today.  Some of the advice offered to pare down some of the elaboration, I think is constructive and would serve your intent.  I would have suggested it as well . . . .but not in the manner nor degree of this insensitive WWF brouhaha.

Thanks. Peace. Have a good Sunday.  I had to skip church, 8 inches of snow.  Dogs were happy about that.

 

.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, Davidsun said:

This is said to share my thoughts as well as stimulate further thoughts on the part of everyone else here:

I agree that I am a 'sensitive' (in the 'sense' of sense-itive , IMO at least) guy.

I hope others can also see that I wasn't and am not now 'taking offense' (in the usual sense of the phrase), but, rather, conscientiously objecting to the verbal and spiritual behaviors of peeps who smugly 'advise' other people to be something and/or behave in ways which they would like them to be (falsely IMO) projecting themselves to be in the 'side' of Life (i.e. Creativity, Love. God, Truth, etc.) as though they were doing Life Itself, said others included, a 'favor'.

Assumed 'leadership' is presumptuous, aye what?

David, you wrote this about your own writing: "the disjointedness of aspects of my preceding post. ...I get so wrapped up in the 'totality' my ideas, I often don't see 'gaps' present in my verbalizations." and it was directly on the heels of this statement about your own writing that Burl, offered a simple statement, a simple suggestion. And your follow up - not only if we're imputing spiritual behavior, as you have done, but on the very basis of your words and emphasis - was curt, dismissive and suggested Burl's corner of Being was less than yours.

And my immediate response on the heels of your dismissal of Burl was accepted by you, with you saying, "point well taken."  Then, next, when I said I would read your post, complemented you again and made the same basic suggestion - it all went to hell. In your next post you suggested 'my proposal' (the same basic one I made earlier) would be taking it easy on a spoiled generation. You did say 'you had to be you' but my comment/suggestion/proposal did not change from the post before to the post after that comment of yours - nor did my attitude. READ IT! What the hell happened? Go back to the beginning - this is on you!

 

 

[thormas]

p

Edited February 18, 2018 by thormas

[thormas]

3 hours ago, Craig V. said:

David, I am sorry you have received the majority of the insults.  On the other hand, you have said some provocative things to them too, a normal human reaction to the jaundice that got pitched your way.  Your ideas have merit and I am looking forward to finishing your 24-pager today.  Some of the advice offered to pare down some of the elaboration, I think is constructive and would serve your intent.  I would have suggested it as well . . . .but not in the manner nor degree of this insensitive WWF brouhaha.

Craig,

I suggest you go back and read the comments - especially the beginning. David has made numerous personal comments (insults, jaundice), some of which I summarized - even after he repeatedly read that the issue, rather the suggestions were about writing style. These include: pretending to be nice, something about being on the side of Life (and guess who he thinks is false?), our spiritual behavior, smugness and suggesting we think we're doing the work of Life - when it was just about his writing style, which even he found fault with.

And now you admit that you do too.  You have just said the advise offered, like paring down some of the elaboration would be constructive and serve his intent and you would have suggested it as well. But nobody went all WWF on him when this advise was offered - go back and check. Only with his 'spoiled generation' in which he stated that Jesus offered an indulgently loving Father and I quote, "there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking personal responsibility...." And he goes on to state "I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word).." and then his LGBTQ comments (which I still find confusing which goes to the need to pare down and write clearly) did I push back. Not attack, not personal - push back, disagree! First the Jesus/messenger comment, really: do you buy his understanding of Jesus, do you accept him as a (with all god-sent implications applied) messenger, do you think we need a reverse correction from the teachings of Jesus? And then his LGBTQ comments (humorous?) that we need to expand our horizons: is that an acceptable analogy for our comments (with which you agree) on his writing style? I thought this was insensitive, insulting and presumptuous: I have gay relatives, have lost a friend to AIDS, was at the bedside of a brother who almost died of the same disease (and suffered from the related dementia), I taught with gays and lesbians who I valued and were my dear friends and I taught and accepted kids of the same orientation. I don't need to expand this horizon and said so. Again, no attack - push back. David did say I might have miss his point and then, he adds: "I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included."  So my push back was not seen as an attack but who can't accept a point on principle until they're understood?  

In between these comments, Burl once again restated his point and said 'nothing personal.' Read David's reply, look at his comments: "....your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial'........ My guess is that you are so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even though I  use your own words to point it out to you...... your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow........... Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind...... all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas." This is an attack, this is personal, this is full of insults, this is jaundice pitched - and this is where it began - with David's hate-filled words.

I responded to David by saying, "He (Burl) was trying to help. And then you (David) make assumptions about his character and slam him? Nice messaging (in reference to his being a messenger!) He was talking about writing style - you are the one who has made it personal." And then David continued to escalate. 

So, go back and read - David continues to get more vocal, more personal, more insulting and now he presumes to speak for everyone. My last comment tied to reset showing him his own word and the progression. We shall see. 

p.s. I had actually enjoyed his first post and I believe I was the only one to respond. And I was looking forward to more (and hoped he would make it a bit easier on readers). My writing style, all our styles are personal. but if to be heard, some paring would serve the writer's intention (to be heard about something that is important to him/her) who wouldn't tweak things? If someone couldn't 'hear' me, I would try to change it up a bit - it doesn't lessen what I have to say, it doesn't lessen me? This is a mountain made from a molehill - he will not get it, I now expect additional attacks. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by thormas

[Davidsun]

All of the recently made comments, some advising 'change' on my part, are accepted as being respectful of my attitude and positionality.

My response is that (I think) my writing 'style' varies (sometimes being more 'difficult' and sometime 'easy' for others to process) depending on the 'state' of my mind and heart at the time, which as I said in my original 'apology', sometimes (often even) gets 'carried away' with 'excitement' which often intensifies in the process of my idea-expression-flow.

I do not wish to alter my (writing or any thing else) flow-process to suit anyone else because that would interfere with it its being what it is and continuing to 'develop' on that (isness) basis.

The apology was merely meant to communicate that I am aware that people may sometimes have difficulty 'processing' my 'process' , to the point of even electing to simply 'notice it in passing'  or to bypass it completely.

Having heard and now acknowledging certain 'judgments' (in the sense of 'assessments') shared above as 'making sense', I nevertheless reiterate my choice to continue to write as the Spirit (in me) moves me to and to not 'alter' my 'style' of 'flowing' with IT to suit the 'needs' and/or 'wishes' of particular others.

I invite any and all readers to continue to engage with my writing or not as the Spirit of Life moves them to (or not to   ).

If there is something 'in' you or something 'in' (i.e. conveyed by) my writing which 'pulls' you into 'munching' on the ideas I present, you are very welcome to do so. If not, you are hereby 'advised' not to.

I hope readers 'see' that (anyone) trying to to 'get' me to change myself to suit them is basically not honoring ('trusting in'?) the 'benevolence' of the 'divinity' of my Spirit (i.e. of the Spirit as IT flows through me).

If your comments (which, if really respectfully offered, will be truly welcome) are going to have have 'an effect' on 'me' (hence on how the Spirit flows through me), they will. If not, they won't. Just don't keep 'nagging' me as though you are a 'loving' and 'caring' (of me and my process) 'advisor' to change so as to have your 'tastes' satisfied. That will incur the same kind of response that Thormas has already 'tasted'. I will be the 'arbiter' in terms of deciding and choosing how 'best' to proceed 'in face of' said commentary.

I have also made comments 'advising' (various) people to examine the 'nature' of the way in which the Spirit has flowed and continues to flow through them, being openly critical of and objecting to the 'nature' of said flow when and where it has been condescending, presumptuous and designed to 'get' me to change to suit what I consider to be 'lesser' (in my hierarchy of) values - hence not augmentative of my Spirit flow, but potentally 'diminishing' of its 'radiant' vitality .

And I have chosen to not continue to relate to such of them that don't meet my minimum (cut off!) standards in terms of what I regard as important in relation to Life (to the point of being 'sacred'). I advise and hope that others do likewise, here as well as in the rest of their life, based on the value-hierachy that they have organically constructed on the basis of their experiences and observations.

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Davidsun

[Davidsun]

21 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

I have also made comments 'advising' (various) people to examine the 'nature' of the way in which the Spirit has flowed and continues to flow through them, being openly critical of and objecting to the 'nature' of said flow when and where it has been condescending, presumptuous and designed to 'get' me to change to suit what I consider to be 'lesser' (in my hierarchy of) values - hence not augmentative of my Spirit flow, but potentally 'diminishing' of its 'radiant' vitality .

As an 'educator' - for the uninitiated - I wish to point out that there is a significant difference better the 'nature' (which I have and continue to 'criticize' others here for theirs) and the 'style' (which I am primarily being criticized for) of something. 'Style' just being a a matter of 'superficial' appearances.

Of course, there are degrees of superficiality! All (different!) 'natures' are emanations of/from the same core Essence, which is Life Itself.

From The Bhagavad Gita:

"O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man.

I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics.

Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendor of the resplendent.

I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and, O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness.

Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me.

O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man.

I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics.

Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendour of the resplendent.

I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and, O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness.

Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me."