I thought my banter with my email buddy was over.... I can't say I'm thrilled that he refrains from addressing me in retorts to my blogspot so that my readers can see the thread, but hey... I can cut-n-paste.... Here is the section of his latest blog that pertains to me and our recent disagreement. (See bottom of this post for a cross-reference.)....
Comment 1) The second blog, published by 'bloggerB', a person who long-ago opted out of 'religion', is one I follow casually, because we know each other.
Response 1) Wrong: I didn't opt out. I was never in.
Comment 2) There were 'heated' discussions between us; I expressed my understanding of the topic, bloggerB became incensed, feeling I was hurling insults at him;
Response 2) Wrong: I felt you were hurling insults at everyone, not just me. Point of clarification: I was "incensed" by the idea that anyone would trivialize the accumulated wisdom of the world's religions by refusing to consider <"gasp"> READING any viewpoint but your own. In your words, their opinions are "trivial".
Comment 3) then he expressed hsr views, and when I questioned about the logic of, and the basis for those views, the answers were less than salient and substantial.
Response 3) Less than Salient and substantial? Even if I were a moron, I would still deserve a listen (as would the other 6.5 billion people on the planet who you cast aside as unenlightened idiots!)
Comment 4) So now, I refuse to discuss bloggerB's viewpoint.
Response 4) You clearly lack other post material...
Comment 5) When it comes to religious discussions, humanism and atheism are lies.
Response 5) How would you KNOW? You don't read or consider as salient any other viewpoints!
Comment 6) This is a 'give no ground' stand I must take.
Response 6). Sigh.
Comment 7) Blogger B discusses a topic I totally believe is wrong.
Response 7) Yup. Got that part.
Comment 8) I only follow that blog to observe the blogger's journey down a dead end path.
Response 8). Your contempt is breath-taking!
Comment 9) That is my 'give no quarter' stand.
Response 9) Yeah, yeah, you've already said that....
Comment 10) BloggerB's latest blog summarizes the dynamic between bloggerB and a friend, which vaguely resembles the dynamic between bloggerB and myself.
Response 10). Yes, it does resemble it. The important differences are that:
a) my friend isn't discarding the world's viewpoints as inconsequential,
b) my friend IS listening (but not necessarily agreeing), and
c) my friend hasn't jumped ship because we don't agree.
Comment 11) Our discussion ended with the two sides of the topic diametrically opposed, as did bloggerB's discussion with his friend.
Response 11). Nope, my friend and my conversation hasn't ended yet....
Comment 12) Our views can't meet, can't find common ground, because the two sides are mutually exclusive, much the same as black and white, light and dark concepts are incompatible.
Response 12) Can't meet? Won't meet is more likely. We're both stuck!
Comment 13) I am curious to see if anyone who posts comments or responses in opposition to bloggerB's views, is able to make any dent in the 'armor' bloggerB wears.
Response 13) Considering that you posted this question to only your readers, I guess nobody but your readers will be aware of your wonderment.
Comment 14) I'm just a spectator, watching what happens.
Response 14) Hardly.
Comment 15) I've gone down the '...give an answer for the hope....." path, to no avail.
Response 15). You're flying your colors.... you consider your position the side of "hope", thus you imply that I am "hopeless". Goodness only knows how deep your contempt goes for anybody who disagrees with you.
Comment 16) This ties in with the first item above, in that all the questions I posed to bloggerB were legitimate.
Response 16) We ALL think our own questions are legitimate! The question is whether you and I are comfortable enough in our own skins to step back and look at ourselves with skeptical eyes. Why do you think that your questions are legitimate yet mine weren't "salient or substantial"?
Comment 17) They asked for consideration as to the ramifications of taking the model to the nth degree, ad nauseum, its ultimate conclusion, if you will.
Response 17) I'm not sure how this sentence fits, so I will put it aside...
Comment 18) By looking at the extremes, by asking BloggerB what keeps man from going there, or, how man arrived where he is now, based on his model, I did not receive sufficient logical or conclusive evidence that supports his claims about why, and how, man is, where he is.
Response 18) "I did not receive sufficient logical or conclusive evidence".... Oh! I'm sorry your honor, I was certain that I had heard you profess to a "give no ground" position.
Comment 19) This strikes me the same way as the item above: How? Why don't....?.
Response 19) See http://www.speedbumpsinroad.blogspot.com for the full text, but know that the author screens and censors all replies and/or retorts.
okay, I'm wrong. I don't know anything, and I'm close-minded; but, if being open-minded means denying what I believe is the truth, no thanks; there is too much at stake for me to do that. no more insults or innuendos; no more aspersions, no more trying to reason. no more trying to explain anything; I am un-enlightened. no more asking 'why', or 'how'. no more.
ReplyDeleteI don't now, nor ever have, wished you any ill.
I regret the frustration and anger you felt. I regret the time spent, since it seems nothing was added to either of us from the words we exchanged. Nothing I've said about my beliefs has changed you opinion of them for the better. our beliefs are mutually exclusive, so there could be no accommodation or 'centering' between us. I didn't know that initially. you've made that abundantly clear, now.
I'm done.
Journeyman, homeward bound...