--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > I can't make you understand my point Judy.
You didn't even try, Curtis. You kept backing off and never really addressed anything I said. At one point you attempted to make an explanation conditional on my telling you what *I* saw in the ritual, and I did some of that in the post you're responding to--but now you're opting out entirely. > With your belligerent attitude understanding is obviously > out of the question. You are too interested in my role as > a person to castigate. You make it about yourself, Curtis, every damn time, but it doesn't always start out that way. It didn't this time. > But don't try to sell it as your high sense of ethics > that you decide to take the least charitable view of me > any my posts while rescuing people who don't post here > like Michael Jackson and this TM priest from my horrible > ideas. This is crap and you know it. If someone said something that you understood in a way that offended your sensibilities, whether it was about anyone who posted here or not, you'd respond just as I do. It's absurd to rule out of line any objection to something said about someone who doesn't post here. I didn't "decide" to take what you say is the "least charitable view" of you, or even of what you wrote. That's how it appeared to me, and would have, as I said, no matter who had posted it. > You are standing up for nothing other than your desire > to castigate the person in front of you, misconstrue > their points into the most superficial straw man and > then unload on them. Bullshit. It wasn't a straw man; you *confirmed* it, over and over, and never offered any even remotely coherent counterexplanation. What really nailed it for me was your astonishing contention that the priest was a figment of my imagination--and then you turned around and claimed you were taking this very real priest as a representative of all priests. Should I assume all Catholic priests are a figment of my imagination? Or just those that do TM? That's part of what I mean by incoherence. > It is your default, your MO. And no one has given > you more invitations to act otherwise than I have Judy. I took you up on your "invitation" this time and you promptly decided to end the discussion with a personally insulting tirade. > We are just not able to have decent exchanges without > devolving into a weird niggling battle. I don't have > all the answers why and am sure I am playing my part > in this dance. You're not only playing your part, you are the instigator in almost all cases. Go back and look at my first post in this exchange. We *could* have had a discussion. But you wanted to have a fight. Look at the beginning of any one of our exchanges that became hostile. You'll see the same exact pattern. The instant you feel something you've said hasn't met with total approval and acceptance, you go into battle mode. > But I'm out on this particular song. No surprise there. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > I choose my battles and so do you. You present yourself > > > > > here as a very unsympathetic person. > > > > > > > > So as far as you're concerned, it's OK for folks to tell > > > > lies about someone you consider unsympathetic. To you, > > > > the priest is unsympathetic, and you don't know him > > > > personally anyway, so it makes no sense from your > > > > perspective for me to take offense at your making him out > > > > to be cannibalistic. > > > > > > You have missed too many points to fix here. You don't > > > get what I write or why I write it. I'll leave it at that. > > > > Why, of course you will. Saves lots of time. > > > > > > > I don't choose to defend Richard here either. In fact I > > > > > am not on a mission to defend anyone I just happen to > > > > > have done it a few times if it interested me. > > > > > > > > It isn't a matter of a "mission," Curtis. It's just > > > > basic ethics. It isn't something you do for your own > > > > benefit, so whether it "interests" you is irrelevant, > > > > IMHO. > > > > > > If that were the case you would have defended me from > > > outrageous misrepresentation of what I have written by > > > other but you have not. So I don't buy your claim of > > > basic ethics. We both choose our battles here and > > > ignore a lot. > > > > Yes, I pick my battles based on how likely the unfair > > attack or falsehood is to be taken seriously. > > > > > Stop judging me for my choices. > > > > I'll judge whom and what I please, actually. > > > > > > > > You're entitled to think of the Eucharist as > > > > > > cannibalistic, (although I should think you'd > > > > > > have left that kind of juvenile nonsense > > > > > > behind as you grew up). > > > > > > > > > > It IS cannibalistic. The idea that seeing it that way > > > > > is juvenile misses the point of my piece. > > > > > > > > Well, first of all, you're eager to jump on biblical > > > > literalists. If the notion that the Eucharist is > > > > cannibalistic isn't an extreme literalist view, I > > > > don't know what is. > > > > > > Exactly! Now you are catching on. > > > > > > > > > You're not entitled to attribute those feelings to > > > > > > someone else as if, as I said, he *enjoys* them. I > > > > > > mean, I can't stop you, but I sure as hell can call > > > > > > you out on it. > > > > > > > > > > What a ridiculous analysis of what I wrote. There isn't > > > > > a real priest and no real priest thinks this way. > > > > > > > > Of course no real priest thinks this way. But there *is* > > > > a real priest in this case--how can you suggest > > > > otherwise??--and you attributed to him thinking that > > > > you now say real priests don't engage in. > > > > > > Again, I can't sort this out. Think about it. > > > > There isn't anything to "sort out" here. You've > > just being evasive. What is it that confuses you > > about what I wrote? > > > > > > > If you do GET why I wrote it that way articulate it for > > > > > me. Tell me why I would write it just as I did,what > > > > > was my purpose and what was the meaning I wanted to > > > > > convey? > > > > > > > > To dump on Catholicism, TM, and this priest who finds > > > > value in TM, by suggesting TM would make him, in effect, > > > > a better cannibal. As a "cradle Catholic," albeit lapsed, > > > > you're in a position to mislead non-Catholics about what > > > > the Eucharist involves, and you took that opportunity. > > > > > > No. And that was not even a very good try. It was > > > the most literal view of what I wrote which > > > interestingly enough is your criticism of what I wrote! > > > > And which you go on to *confirm*, Curtis. > > > > > But at least I get now that you are relating to this > > > priest as if he posts here. > > > > That isn't how I'm relating to him. > > > > > I understand why you believe you are defending a > > > specific person. I was taking him as a representative > > > of all priests since I do not communicate with him. > > > > Not all priests do TM, Curtis. You may have been taking > > him as a representative of all priests who *do* do TM. > > Either way, you were demonizing him and his fellow > > priests, or at least the TMers among them. > > > > > > > Let's see if you GOT it and rejected my ideas as you > > > > > claim or missed the point as I claim. > > > > > > > > Well, of course you'll now say I "missed the point." > > > > > > I'm not playing that game. I wanted to see if you could > > > see beyond the literal use of language to understand my > > > intent the same way you insist I do with religious > > > symbols. You have not. > > > > Says Curtis, playing the "You missed the point" game > > just as I predicted and as he denies. > > > > > > But whatever you come up with as the point I supposedly > > > > missed (interesting that you still haven't deigned to > > > > set me straight), what I just outlined was clearly in > > > > your post. > > > > > > I haven't clarified my meaning because you decided to > > > turn this into a shame fest instead of a discussion > > > by choosing to take the most literal view of what I > > > wrote, assuming you knew my bad intentions for writing > > > it, and then assuming your favorite emotions of "being > > > offended" on behalf of a person you do not know. > > > > Nope, no good. My first post simply pointed out that > > your literal version was not in accord with Catholic > > doctrine. No "shaming." You could have clarified your > > meaning then--if there was, in fact, anything to be > > clarified--and it could have stayed a discussion. > > > > But you didn't want to have a discussion. All you did > > was *confirm* that my literal interpretation was > > correct, daring me to object to it. > > > > > > In my response to Barry, I praised your writing, and I > > > > meant it. You're not always as crystal-clear as you'd > > > > like, but I think you're way too good a writer not to > > > > have recognized the implications if what you wrote and > > > > fixed the post before sending it, if what I described > > > > was so far from what you had in mind. > > > > > > I didn't need to fix it > > > > You did if you didn't want it to imply what it implied. > > > > <snip> > > > > > There was a glimmer of an option to this bickering style > > > > > we fall into and it was when you mentioned the beauty of > > > > > the the Eucharist ceremony in your eyes. Instead of trying > > > > > to make me feel badly about writing a POV that I valued > > > > > you might have spent the time articulating a radically > > > > > different take on the same ceremony. > > > > > > > > And have you take it apart by demonstrating, at least to > > > > your own satisfaction, that the Eucharist "really" IS > > > > cannibalistic? > > > > > > It is one of the extreme views that I find entertaining. > > > > It's *your* extreme view; you've made that, at least, > > crystal clear, several times now. > > > > > It also has a message about letting old customs slip > > > by without examining their literal meaning occasionally. > > > > Oh, jeez, that's just like Barry's insistence that > > the Gita is about the glorification of killing. He > > also pretended this was some kind of revelation, as > > if we all hadn't examined it long ago. > > > > > We just grow to accept this ritual as if it does not > > > have any literal meaning which if examined is bizarre > > > and should be loathsome to modern minds rather than > > > accepted as the most precious part of our cultures. > > > The premise of Christianity is that God required a > > > human sacrifice and most Christians believe it > > > literally took place. We tend to forget that fact > > > when we discuss it all on a metaphorical academic > > > level. > > > > Speak for yourself, Curtis. The sacrifice is *the* > > central meaning of the Eucharist. To consume the > > substance of the sacrifice, in the form of bread > > and wine, is to accept it on one's own behalf. > > > > "Bizarre" and "loathesome" is one way to describe it; > > in Christian theology, as I just coincidentally > > remarked to Tartbrain, it's known as "the scandal of > > the Cross" (a phrase derived from the biblical phrase > > translated as "a stumbling block [skandelios] for the > > Jews"). And of course it's part of the liturgy of the > > celebration. > > > > Sure, there are Catholics who haven't thought about > > it. But probably not many priests who haven't. > > > > > > > One that I would have enjoyed reading and since I have > > > > > actually spent time being sincerely religious in the > > > > > Catholic faith could readily relate to. I always have > > > > > two tracks to take when discussing any spirituality, > > > > > my snarky take and a genuine appreciation for the > > > > > beauty of mythical customs. > > > > > > > > I don't think it's possible to genuinely appreciate or > > > > "relate to" the beauty of this "mythical custom" when you > > > > hold the POV--not just a "snarky take"--that it really IS > > > > cannibalistic. If you hadn't made that no-ifs-ands-or-buts > > > > declaration above, there might be some point to it. > > > > > > It is a ritual of participating in eating the body and > > > drinking the blood of a human sacrifice Judy. Cannibalism > > > IS the symbol. Human sacrifice IS the purpose. You just > > > seem incapable of holding the full range of meaning in > > > your mind at the same time. > > > > See above. > > > > What you're doing is mixing up two ideas, one of which > > doesn't hold water theologically--that a bloodthirsty > > God wanted a human sacrifice, looked down, saw a human > > being called Jesus, and said, "That one. Give me that > > one." > > > > But that isn't the myth, is it? That's something you > > made up. > > > > And if you want to take God out of it, the human being > > called Jesus, deluded though he may have been about > > his status, had the stones to give up a normal life > > and spend his time "comforting the afflicted and > > afflicting the comfortable" with his preaching, putting > > himself at the mercy of the comfortable who preferred > > not to be so afflicted. > > > > When push came to shove, he could have found a way to > > back out and save his life, but he wasn't willing to > > sacrifice his principles, so he sacrificed his body > > instead. > > > > If there's anything "bizarre" about such an > > extraordinary person becoming the central figure in a > > religion, it's the notion that he was both God and > > God's divine/human son in some mysterious sense, and > > that it was God who arranged to sacrifice Himself on > > the Cross to make it possible for human beings to be > > forgiven their sins. > > > > To reduce the ritual commemoration of that myth, > > no matter how bizarre you think it is, to "cannibalism" > > is just crude and thoughtless. In fact, I'm inclined > > to call *it* "loathesome," because it's utterly > > irrelevant; it's just designed to dehumanize, even to > > demonize, the folks who believe in it, not to > > contribute to some broader, more enlightened > > understanding of the religion. > > > > Sheesh. There's so much to *legitimately* demonize > > about the Roman Catholic Church. Come on, you ought > > to be able to come up with something that links TM > > with priestly child abuse. > > > > <snip> > > > > Don't hold your breath waiting for it from me. There's a > > > > very substantial pile of crap you need to clear away > > > > first. You can start by explaining how the priest you > > > > were talking about, the one in the video, is somehow just > > > > a figment of my imagination. > > > > > > I didn't see the video, I just read the quote. Defend > > > him all you want Judy, we are posting here with > > > completely different agendas and intents. > > > > Translation: Curtis declines (not surprisingly) to > > explain his claim that the priest is somehow a > > figment of my imagination. > > >
