?

Log in

No account? Create an account

a gentle reminder // responding - Lograh — LiveJournal

Tuesday, 06.Feb.2007

16:10 - a gentle reminder // responding

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

So, someone posted a nice little rant and asked for opinions, but the comments on said rant were disabled (interesting twist, that, asking for responses but refusing to allow them). And I feel the point I have to make is general enough, and we are all guilty of it often enough, that I'd post it here.

Please remember, you are often a far worse sinner than those you accuse of sin.

It is interesting to me, and I know for some of you this will be old news, please bear with me for I am still learning in this life. But it is interesting to me, from my observations, how often we will look with disgust at those behaviors in others which we dislike in ourselves the most. We pass judgment so quickly on others while turning a blind eye to our own behavior year after year.

We are all guilty of the same evils so let's not get too caught up in casting stones at one another.

Comments:

From:dotarvi
Date:2:25 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
Um, yeah, what you said!

If someone criticizes me, I am only bothered if secretly I agree. If someone treats me badly it is only really hurtful if I let them get away with it. Otherwise it is really just disappointing.

But it can be taken too far that way too. One should only shoulder one's own burden.

But casting stones is always bad. Like begets like. (Am I sounding too preachy?)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:19:34 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
no, not too preachy for me. This is a rather preachy post, so getting preachy in comments (for or against) is to be expected.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:dotarvi
Date:23:59 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
Heh. I read the response from the original poster. My comment of course had nothing to do with what he wrote as you didn't link to it, but was to what you wrote instead.

But I still stand by hating the haters doesn't help anything.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:17:48 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
lj also doesn't like your use of the > or the < characters. :)

as for "you don't know me . . . you have no idea who I really am", well, that may be true. I thought you were someone I spent some time with once, got to know a little more than superficially, but I may be mistaken. If you are wondering who I am, you can , to quote your words, "Ask Ryan some time, he can give you some data on that." :) hehe..

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:18:22 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
Aye, you have finally remembered me. Though I didn't honestly feel my initial post was overly religious (and still don't see it as such, but I can understand the misunderstanding).

And I never intended to poke you (or anyone) with a stick, as I attempt to clarify below.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:19:11 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
actually, the reason I was vague was because I was meaning it to be a reminder to all of us, myself included. You did, I think I admitted at the beginning, prompt the initial reaction but those words I posted were directed at everyone I know. I directed them at myself, because I often am angered by people behaving in ways I find myself doing sometimes when not being mindful of my actions. I directed them at other friends of mine who are intolerant of people they witness being intolerant of yet others. I directed them at you, for trying to claim your faith in science is right when their faith in god is not.

My words were vague because I was not typing them for any one person.

And as for going to visit you, now that you are in the bay area and the offer has been extended I believe I shall. Let me find a weekend open and an email shall follow.

(and yes, I know who she is as well, you'll notice I read her also)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:18:18 07.Feb.2007 (UTC)
(Link)
You seem to think I am arguing with you. You seem to assume I am using specific definitions of words you dislike. Your reaction seems to think I am somehow angry by what you said (or, at least, you are defending yourself as though I were confronting you). You claim I am feeling somehow "self-righteous and holy".

How drastically you missed my point.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my words, but I feel then the meaning would have been lost for the substance.

As for unfriending you, well . . . if I were to turn my back on all those who disagree with me, my life would be a very lonely place indeed. I welcome disagreement in discussions, if for no other reason than to be told when I am on the wrong track.

I will say this one more thing, though, for you touched on so many points I did not wish to discuss but this one I feel worth delving in to:

You bring forth concepts of 'faith' and 'reason', and state that 'faith' precludes fact while implying that reason does not. People who are members of the scientific religions often make this distinction, and I can't fault you for falling prey to the same trap. This I find interesting, though, for I have spent many years studying what some would call the most reason-based of all endeavours. The point I wish to make here (and what I attempted to make initially) is that what you call 'reason' and 'faith' are not so different. They both make some fundamental assumptions that are without any evidence. They both accept those assumptions without proof. They both then build a framework for thought around those assumptions. Whenever they are presented with a phenomenon that is not accounted for by the initial framework, they attempt to alter their framework as little as possible to account for it. And finally, they are both soundly assured that the various assumptions they have used are correct and they resist any alteration of those assumptions.

Perhaps you feel I am attacking you again, and if that is the case I am sorry you perceive my words in such a manner (for I am not). I do not mean to anger or upset. I just feel you may have misunderstood my initial comment and I wish to attempt to clarify my point. I fear my attempts are in vain, but I hope such is not the case.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)