Things I Hate, Part MMMCCCXLVI
By Mitch Berg
While the “Linguistic Hit List” is a regular feature on this blog, it’s time for me to widen my focus. To creep my scope.
To take on things above and beyond language, wrestle them to the ground, mark them for execution, try and convict and sentence them, and strap ’em into Ol’ Sparky.
Today’s docket: Aphorisms that must die:
“Live Without Regrets!” – If you have no regrets, then you really didn’t risk all that terribly much, now, did you? Either that, or you don’t care about the slopover.
To “Live without regret” either implies that one has won every one of life’s battles (impossible) or that the consequences of the losses (rare as they may have been) were so utterly bearable that not a single peep of remorse, “what-if” or blurp of retrospective anger has ever crossed one’s mind, that the consequences really didn’t matter that much, and that they didn’t affect anyone else in any way.
Let me be clear – this is different than accepting and forgiving oneself for the failures, mis-steps and regrets, and making any amends needed to anyone else affected, of course – but in my humble experience, most of the people who claim to “live without regrets” either haven’t thought about it all that hard, or are solopsistic to the point that they don’t recognize the effects their failures, mis-steps and mistakes have on themselves or others, no matter what they might have been.
“Live Like Every Day Is Your Last” – Well, every day can indeed be just that – and one day, one of them will be, for all of us. But there are a couple of problems with this aphorism. Isn’t it just as narrow, self-defeating and self-limiting to focus ones’ life on permanently “living on the edge” as it is to live every day fearing the end?
Doesn’t this injunction to “suck the marrow from every day” tend not only to leave one without any remaining marrow on the next day of the thousands that bless most lives, but also lend a kind of frantic, treadmill-y-ness to daily life? Like, if you go bungee-jumping on the day that (one can have no way of knowing is) 12,448 days before one actually ends up dying, don’t you have to come up with something even edgier on Checkout Minus 12,447? And so on, and so forth (assuming that the edginess doesn’t itself kill you, perhaps in a fit of XtRe3m cordless bungeeing)? Doesn’t that lead one, necessarily (and providing one doesn’t actually die terribly soon) to become jaded with the whole notion of “living every day like it’s your last”, which indeed contradicts the original sentiment?
And is a life of inherently less value, less “lived”, if one spends the the day before one checks out blogging, working the job one work to pay for ones’ kids’ food and house, watching Scrubs with ones’ daughter, and talking with a high school pal on the phone than if one climbed the IDS Tower freehand?
And why?
“I’m Spiritual, But I’m Not Religious” – I’m trying to figure out what would have happened back in college if I’d said “I believe in learning, but I don’t believe in study groups, the library or reading books at all”, as if being with a group of like-minded people actually, in and of itself, detracts from ones’ search for spiritual enlightenment.
No, I know – there are churches, clergy and congregations that don’t help much, that can even interfere with one’s search for God or Truth or Satori or whatever it is you’re looking for, but those are usually individual, situational things. So what is it, supposedly, about the act of meeting other people who have chosen freely to seek their enlightenment roughly the same way as you are seeking the same that, in and of itself, hinders that search?
More as my memory warrants.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 am
““Live Like Every Day Is Your Last””
Excellent advise. I’m going to stay home from work today, lay moaning in my bed and then stop breathing around 4:00 PM.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 am
Kermit-that remark got a chuckle! No one ever thinks about it that way….
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:32 am
Mitch said,
“So what is it, supposedly, about the act of meeting other people who have chosen freely to seek their enlightenment roughly the same way as you are seeking the same that, in and of itself, hinders that search?”
There’s a difference between spirituality and religion just as there is a difference detween religion and going to church.
People who go to church may or may not be religious and they may or may not be spiritual.
People who consider themselves spiritual may never set foot in a church and they may not follow a mainstream religion.
Among the many great bits of wisdom that Jesus shared was that the kinkdom of God isn’t out there. It’s within you.
He also said that those that think the realm of God belongs to them will be thrown out into the darkness and cry bitter tears of regret.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 am
There’s a difference between spirituality and religion just as there is a difference detween religion and going to church.
Yeah, but those who think that they are fundamentally different are either a) victims of some really bad clergy or b) very self-serving.
A friend of mine who speaks the language tells me the Hebrew words for “Spirituality” and “Religion” are the same. Apropos not much, and yet everything.
People who go to church may or may not be religious and they may or may not be spiritual.
True, and irrelevant. This is not about how every person worships, meditates or otherwise exercises spirituality. It’s about the false wall some try to put between the two – as if spirituality is “better”, as if religion extinguishes spirituality.
People who consider themselves spiritual may never set foot in a church and they may not follow a mainstream religion.
And they may think that religion is in and of itself inimical to “spirituality”, or that “spirituality” is inherently better if you just avoid those pesky churches.
Among the many great bits of wisdom that Jesus shared was that the kinkdom of God isn’t out there. It’s within you.
And the kingdom of God, too.
He also said that those that think the realm of God belongs to them will be thrown out into the darkness and cry bitter tears of regret.
True, and equally irrelevant.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 am
“Yeah, but those who think that they are fundamentally different are either a) victims of some really bad clergy or b) very self-serving.”
Or maybe they have found that living a spiritual life and being spiritually connected with the divine doesn’t require traditional religious practice.
I’m willing to wager that when someone says they are spiritual but not religious, they are in fact saying they are spiritual but they’re not Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, etc etc etc.
I also know from personal experience that that statement is usually a reactive response. In my case, I said it for years when I felt that I was being judged for NOT being a regular Church attendee.
For years, I worked with a guy who was an evangelical Christian. At least twice a month, John would remind me that I really should get to know Jesus, would tell me frequently that he was praying for me and invite me to his Church. He told me many times that his mission was to help save me.
What I told him was that I was a spiritual person – which I am – but I was not interested in his religion. I was told repeatedly that that was great but it wasn’t enough.
Whether you like it or not Mitch, there is a wall between spirituality and religion. It’s built by people like my co-worker who believe that attending the multi-million dollar church of the hooting and hollering is the only one true way to know God.
And Mitch, religion can extinguish spirituality. I’ll bet you people that get so caught up in the dogma, the practice and the evangelizing that they fail to live the words they preach.
I was raised Catholic and to this day one of the greatest ironies I witnessed and continue to witness when I do attend church is at one particular point in the mass, the Priest says “let us celebrate” followed by an entire congregation of people droning, “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might…” as if they all swallowed a handful of Quaalude’s 5 minutes prior.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Whenever sentences start “whether you like it or not”, it’s never a great beginning:
Whether you like it or not Mitch, there is a wall between spirituality and religion.
Let’s be accurate: YOU perceive a wall between the two. Sorry to hear it, but it’s yours.
It’s built by people like my co-worker who believe that attending the multi-million dollar church of the hooting and hollering is the only one true way to know God.
And again, that’s a conflict between you and a particular denomination. A conflict I’d admit to sharing, truth be told.
But it’s not “a wall”. It’s “Doug’s Wall”.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
Let me try this another way:
Whether you like it or not Mitch, there is a wall between spirituality and religion
And whether you like it or not, Doug, for me there is not. Never has been. One has always complemented the other.
I suspect that’s the case – whether you like it or not – for the vast majority of us.
Not attacking those who see it differently, by the way (although you seem congenitally unable to notice that), although for quite a few people from whom I’ve heard this aphorism it’s been a sign that they’re too solopsistic to recognize any spirituality that doesn’t come from directly between their own ears.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Mitch said,
“it’s been a sign that they’re too solopsistic to recognize any spirituality that doesn’t come from directly between their own ears.”
A good example of how walls get built and further a great example of the wall that you have chosen to put up yet refuse to acknowledge exists.
Everybody that I know, without exception, that says they are “spiritual but not religious” came to that place through a journey. It is a personal statement. You said as much in your post which I will remind you is titled “things I hate“. The thing you hate is when people say, “I’m Spiritual, But I’m Not Religious”.
They’re not saying Mitch Berg’s religious beliefs or practices are less valid or less important than theirs. They’re not saying that the act of meeting other people who have chosen to seek their enlightenment the same way hinders that search and they’re not even saying that they don’t recognize spiritual value that comes from other sources as you suggest.
That you interpret and get emotionally wrapped up in a personal declaration and take it as an assault reveals a lot about your own biases and baggage that you carry.
I wonder if your issue is really with how some people use the word religious.
“Spirituality” and “religion” is analogous to “healthy” and “exercise”.
Spirituality, like health, is a place – a destination – a goal.
Religion, like exersise, is the journey.
Like I said before, when people say they are not religious, they are usually saying they don’t follow an familiar organized doctrine. The fact is that any discipline that brings you closer to the divine IS religion whether that is meditation, attending church services, praying the Rosary, hiking or sitting in a sweat lodge like we do.
You seem to believe that religion can only mean church, congregation and groups of like minded people.
That’s just not true.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
“Like I said before, when people say they are not religious, they are usually saying they don’t follow an familiar organized doctrine.”
Doug, does your spiritual goal include facing Mohammed, Christ, G*d, Budda, Karl Marx, Al Gore or some other diety at the end of your journey? If it is either one, hate to tell you, you are religious, ’cause you ARE following an organized religious doctrine. There is no wall – they are one and the same, even if it is a religion of one disciple.
BTW, Doug, I do agree with most of what you said, just not your conclusion.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
The problem with the phrase “I am spiritual, but I am not religious” is that it tells you absolutely nothing about the person. It’s too often a conversational ploy designed to convey the messages, true or false, that you are deep and interesting(I am spiritual) but not judgmental (I adhere to no belief system whose tenets you can criticize or be offended by). It’s trite, cliched, and as annoying as someone who insists on describing their occupation as “artist” when they attend a junior college by day and wait tables at night.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“The problem with the phrase “I am spiritual, but I am not religious” is that it tells you absolutely nothing about the person.”
It’s probably like all the “green” people I know who “care about the environment”, yet don’t recycle, they drive large cars, love to fly around the country on commercial jets, and crank their heat in the winter.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Doug,
While in many respects, like JPA, I don’t disagree with you…
You seem to believe that religion can only mean church, congregation and groups of like minded people.
…that is utterly false. I believe no such thing.
Merely that the “wall” between the two is entirely human-built. That human actor could be doctrine, a crummy clergyperson, or an individual’s sense of exceptionalistic grandiloquence. But it’s nothing to do with the two terms themselves.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
JPA said,
“Doug, does your spiritual goal include facing Mohammed, Christ, G*d, Budda, Karl Marx, Al Gore or some other diety at the end of your journey? If it is either one, hate to tell you, you are religious, ’cause you ARE following an organized religious doctrine.”
Facing? As in standing before?
No, it does not.
Regardless, my actual words were a “familiar organized doctrine”.
Religion has two components to it. First is the underlying set of beliefs that unite the followers. The second is the set of rituals that are an expression of those beliefs. If someone proclaims to be religious, they’re probably saying that they hold a set of beliefs and they participate in the rituals common to that faith. Spirituality on the other hand could be viewed as your connectedness or your relationship with the divine.
In other words, religion is talking to God. Spirituality is understanding there is a God to talk to.
My religious practices include sweat lodges and filling a canupa. I am fully aware that what I do is a religious practice and it is organized but since it is doesn’t fit with what most people understand as a religion and since the response I usually get is that my practices aren’t a legitimate religion anyway, it was just easier to say I’m not religious.
The unfortunate thing is that for a lot of people – including myself, the “but I’m not religious” statement is a conditioned response – almost an apologetic rejoiner. I would also like to mention that I wouldn’t have never come out and just stated that without first being asked what religion I was.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Mitch said,
“…that is utterly false. I believe no such thing.”
But Mitch, you said,
“as if being with a group of like-minded people actually, in and of itself, detracts from ones’ search for spiritual enlightenment.”
and,
“So what is it, supposedly, about the act of meeting other people who have chosen freely to seek their enlightenment roughly the same way as you are seeking the same that, in and of itself, hinders that search?”
and you’ve clearly implied that people who state, “I’m Spiritual, But I’m Not Religious” somehow have devalued the church, the congregation or groups of like minded people.
So Mitch, do you believe that persons who say “I’m Spiritual, But I’m Not Religious” are actually expressing a belief that community hinders the search for enlightenment as you suggest or are you willing to admit that you’re just playing with strawmen?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
do you believe that persons who say “I’m Spiritual, But I’m Not Religious” are actually expressing a belief that community hinders the search for enlightenment
My belief is irrelevant. In many cases, that’s the expressed belief of the people I’ve spoken with.
as you suggest or are you willing to admit that you’re just playing with strawmen?
I maintain that the “wall” between faith and religion is a human wall, not either theological, metaphysical or even semantic.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Mitch said,
“I maintain that the “wall” between faith and religion is a human wall, not either theological, metaphysical or even semantic.”
I’m not arguing that point Mitch. I’m challenging your assertion that the wall that does exists does so because some people declare that their spirituality is not dependent upon traditional religious practice.
It was you that said,
“It’s about the false wall some try to put between the two – as if spirituality is “better”, as if religion extinguishes spirituality.”
Again Mitch, I don’t know anyone who asserts that spirituality is inherently better than religion. I do however know people who believe that their own religious experience lacked a spiritual component. In that sense then, for them individually, spirituality is better than unfulfilling religious practices.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Doug doesn’t want to be judged. He thinks that if he just doesn’t believe in a judgmental God, then he’ll be fine and He will pass him by…like a little “spiritual” mouse in the corner. Then what? Jesus is either who He said He is or He is not. You either accept Him and the Christians who are directed to tell you about Him (it’s in the “Book”!), or you go on your merry way believing what you want and cramming that little niggle (that keeps you arguing about “spirituality”) back down, way down…
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Colleen said,
“Doug doesn’t want to be judged.”
Why would I continue to post here if I was concerned about being judged?
““He thinks that if he just doesn’t believe in a judgmental God, then he’ll be fine and He will pass him by…like a little “spiritual” mouse in the corner.”
I don’t believe in a judgmental God but it has nothing to do with the reasons you suggest.
By the way Colleen, when you say something like, “He thinks that if he just doesn’t believe…”, that’s judging me…
I’ll bet you don’t see the irony of your words…
“Then what? Jesus is either who He said He is or He is not.”
Not exactly. Jesus is either who others said he was or he is not. The four Gospels of the New Testament were not written by Jesus and the first wasn’t even written for 70 years after Jesus died.
“You either accept Him and the Christians who are directed to tell you about Him
Fascinating how you elevate Christians to the same level as Jesus. I’ve heard other tell me for years that I had to accept Jesus but you’re the first person who ever suggested that I had to accept all Christians.
“you go on your merry way believing what you want.”
Wrong again. I go on believing what I know.
and cramming that little niggle back down, way down…
What’s is it with you Christians and your incessant need to judge others?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
didn’t close tag. sorry ’bout the duplicate post…
Colleen said,
“Doug doesn’t want to be judged.”
Why would I continue to post here if I was concerned about being judged?
““He thinks that if he just doesn’t believe in a judgmental God, then he’ll be fine and He will pass him by…like a little “spiritual” mouse in the corner.”
I don’t believe in a judgmental God but it has nothing to do with the reasons you suggest.
By the way Colleen, when you say something like, “He thinks that if he just doesn’t believe…”, that’s judging me…
I’ll bet you don’t see the irony of your words…
“Then what? Jesus is either who He said He is or He is not.”
Not exactly. Jesus is either who others said he was or he is not. The four Gospels of the New Testament were not written by Jesus and the first wasn’t even written for 70 years after Jesus died.
“You either accept Him and the Christians who are directed to tell you about Him
Fascinating how you elevate Christians to the same level as Jesus. I’ve heard other tell me for years that I had to accept Jesus but you’re the first person who ever suggested that I had to accept all Christians.
“you go on your merry way believing what you want.”
Wrong again. I go on believing what I know.
and cramming that little niggle back down, way down…
What’s is it with you Christians and your incessant need to judge others?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“What’s is it with you Christians and your incessant need to judge others?”
Doug criticizing someone for judging people. That’s good.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Getting judged by someone who claims to be a Christian. That’s better.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:10 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 am
Just trying to clear the tag . . .
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 am
Only a person who who is ‘spiritual, but not religious’ could find no irony in condemning another person for being too judgmental.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 am
Doug, you misunderstood my post. I am not judging you now nor will I ever be. That will be God on Judgement Day. See, you don’t want to be judged by God…What you do or think or believe in is no skin off my nose…just as it shouldn’t be to you what Christians believe, but YET, somehow it is! Something just bugs the hell out of you (and many others on the left) about Christians! And it is judgement-but it ain’t gonna come from us. If you feel Christians judge you now, you can ignore that…who cares? But you will, whether you like it or not, face God…
There is such a huge problem with the left and Christians that there has to be something behind it. Something….
And it is funny how you judge others such as the Christian you knew (is anybody else getting sick of the whole “don’t judge me” thing”? Could that be another on the list along with the phrases Mitch cited above?!). He had your best interests at heart and it pissed you off! Amazing.
Child.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 am
Colleen said: “Something just bugs the hell out of you (and many others on the left) about Christians!”
Yeah, what could it be that bugs people about Christians? Oh yeah, maybe it’s when you try to take over the government, ban entertainment you don’t like, try to make everybody pray in schools, oppose civil rights for gays and other people you consider immoral, try to recast Jesus as the poster boy for war, laissez-faire capitalism and intolerance and otherwise make yourselves obnoxious to the rest of the world. Maybe that’s it, Colleen.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Such tolerant and non-judgmental comments from our friends on the left! C’mon, fellas! Don’t be afraid to suggest that the Bush administration, conservatives, and Christians are acting in an immoral or unjust manner. You’re carrying this ‘judge not, that thee be not judged’ business too far!
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Getting judged by someone who claims to be a Christian. That’s better.
Now, Doug, this is one of those comments – along with your many comments about your self-described miserable Catholic childhood – that can hardly help but tell the casual observer that that “wall” is entirely human-imposed – and that you would seem to be the mason for a lot of it.
There is no Christian injunction against judgement. One is not to judge, lest he be judged by the same standard.
(Plus, of course, the fact that Christians are human, and fallible, and occasionally – like, exactly as often as everyone else – just plain wrong).
Speaking of judging others…:
I go on believing what I know.
Ah. But nobody else can say the same thing?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
didn’t close tag. sorry ’bout the duplicate post…
I shall follow the example of my lord and savior, and forgive you.
Go forth and commit no more HTML sins.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 am
Terry said,
“Only a person who who is ’spiritual, but not religious’ could find no irony in condemning another person for being too judgmental.”
Only a person with a steel plate in his head would read condemnation into my intentionally ironic post, “What’s is it with you Christians and your incessant need to judge others?”
Colleen, I didn’t misunderstand anything. The simple fact that you claim to know or even attempt to interpret what I think is a judgment.
Here it is again…
“See, you don’t want to be judged by God”
A. You don’t know what I want or don’t want.
B. The notion of a judgmental God is the construct of man as a means to explain tragedy and to keep followers in line. Thousands of indigenous cultures and billions of people around the world have no concept of a judgmental God.
“But you will, whether you like it or not, face God…”
Whether I do or don’t is none of your concern so why do you even care enough to mention it?
“There is such a huge problem with the left and Christians that there has to be something behind it. Something….”
Maybe the problem is that you describe the problem as a conflict between Christians and the left.
“And it is funny how you judge others such as the Christian you knew. He had your best interests at heart and it pissed you off! Amazing.”
Bullshit. I didn’t judge him. I described his actions and detailed the words he spoke.
“For years, I worked with a guy who was an evangelical Christian. At least twice a month, John would remind me that I really should get to know Jesus, would tell me frequently that he was praying for me and invite me to his Church. He told me many times that his mission was to help save me.”
Notice Colleen there is no equivalent to, “Doug thinks…” or Doug wants…” in what I wrote?
And to your claim that he had my best interests at heart? You don’t know that either. Another judgment from Colleen.
Maybe he believes that if he helps harvest enough souls, he will curry favor with God? Maybe the whole evangelizing for Christ thing is nothing more than a huge Ponzi scheme with fantasies and promises of huge eternal payouts at the end.
And did you actually call me a child or was that your signature?
I wonder how you God will judge that type of taunt when you go to glory?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Terry blathered: “Such tolerant and non-judgmental comments from our friends on the left!”
Angryclown is under no constraint to be non-judgmental. In fact, for Angryclown to refrain from exercising his superior judgment would leave the field wide open to people, like Terry, with much more modest gifts in that area. Therefore Angryclown judges Terry to be slow-witted and tedious; Colleen to be scary and unbalanced.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Mitch said,
“Now, Doug, this is one of those comments – along with your many comments about your self-described miserable Catholic childhood…”
huh?
Tell you what Mitch; I’ll go throw on a pot of coffee while I wait for you to provide to me and your readers my many comments that describe a miserable Catholic childhood…
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
No, Doug, I’m not going to dig back through any posts. You described having a lousy experience in Catholic schools.
Did you or did you not?
And you can put that pot of coffee…
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Mitch said,
“Did you or did you not?”
So we’ve gone from;
“many comments about your self-described miserable Catholic childhood”
We’ve gone from;
to
“You described having a lousy experience in Catholic schools”
I’ve taken the liberty of digging back through my posts where I mention catholicism and I found this;
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=564#comment-6325
“Which ironically led me to gradually question and ultimately abandon my Catholic / Christian practices and brought me to my current spiritual path which, according to my “Christian” family, is just this side of Satan worship.”
Would you like to further amend your words or should we stick with your tempered yet still inaccurate claim?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
On second thought, I think you should go back and prove you’re not lying.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
So we’ve gone from;
Oh, screw yourself. You’re the jagoff that gets mortally offended when people check your spelling; I take what sounded like a crappy Catholic School experience, and inadvertently transposed it to your childhood (because, amazing as this may sound, remembering “Doug” trivia isn’t something I really do).
Excuse me for getting your precious biography wrong, you little prick.
Would you like to further amend your words
Yes.
“You’re pompous, arrogant little jagoff whose entire problem with religion would seem to be that no religion reveres you as God himself”.
I’ll stand by that amendment, asshole.
On second thought, I think you should go back and prove you’re not lying.
Better yet, jagoff, you prove I was.
Ever.
Mr. Election judge.
That, or go pollute someon else’s comment section for a while.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Woo-doggies! This thread turned into a rip-roarer.
Just for the record ac…. none of what you wrote below applies:
“Yeah, what could it be that bugs people about Christians? Oh yeah, maybe it’s when you try to take over the government, ban entertainment you don’t like, try to make everybody pray in schools, oppose civil rights for gays and other people you consider immoral, try to recast Jesus as the poster boy for war, laissez-faire capitalism and intolerance and otherwise make yourselves obnoxious to the rest of the world. Maybe that’s it, Colleen.”
And you know it. Perhaps you will prefer living under Sharia law. Now, there’s a religion where they are truly non-judgmental and open-minded….far more preferable to Christianity which has been the major religion of the freest country in the history of the world.
BTW, I admit without hesitation to being a sinner in need of redemption DAILY. How about you doug and ac…always right, always “above the fray” are we?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Mitch said,
“Oh, screw yourself.”
and
“You’re the jagoff”
and
“you little prick.”
and
“You’re pompous, arrogant little jagoff”
and
“asshole.”
and finally,
Better yet, jagoff, you prove I was (lying)
I don’t have to. Your psychotic outburst speaks for itself.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Oh, and I love how, “I take what sounded like a crappy Catholic School experience, and inadvertently transposed it to your childhood” was originally framed as “many comments about your self-described miserable Catholic childhood”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Doug, the social worker heavily vested in the notion that Iraq War vets are not being properly treated for head injuries, wrote:
Only a person with a steel plate in his head would read condemnation into my intentionally ironic post, “What’s is it with you Christians and your incessant need to judge others?”
So you didn’t mean to imply that Christians have an incessant need to judge others? Your irony is indeed too subtle to me. I shall tighten the screws in my metal plate and see if that helps.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Terry said,
“So you didn’t mean to imply that Christians have an incessant need to judge others?”
Of course I did. I just wasn’t condemning anyone for it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Doug-
After calm reflection I realize that my last comment does nothing to promote the topic at hand. I apologize.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. What you see in “spiritual but not religious” seems to be a person on a spiritual journey. What many commenters here see is spiritual vanity, a soul trying to save itself, or at least spiritual vacuity.
I think it’s possible to have an illuminating discussion on the relation that stodgy, old fashioned, traditional Christianity has to Truth but this is not the place for it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
You were what, then? Making a morally neutral observation?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Terry said,
“but this is not the place for it.”
Why not?
“You were what, then? Making a morally neutral observation?”
Actually Terry, it was a somewhat serious question.
I know Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists, and a whole lot of people that follow very non-traditional faiths. When it comes to taking others inventory with regard to spiritual and moral stuff, it’s the atheists and the fundamentalist Christians that do the most judging and the most telling you how you should be living your life. I don’t know any fundamentalist Muslims but I’ll bet they’re right up there with the Fundy Christians and atheists.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Colleen said,
“BTW, I admit without hesitation to being a sinner in need of redemption DAILY. How about you doug and ac…always right, always “above the fray” are we?”
Redemption following sin are qualities and concepts from your faith tradition. Not mine.
If you want to discuss the concept of sin, I’ll be more than happy to discuss it.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Oh, here we go…finally to “the nub”…”fundamentalist Christians”….which are Christians who actually take their “religion” seriously. My mother belongs to what would be called a raving fundamentalist church…a charismatic non-denominational church where people sometimes speak in tongues, raise their hands in praise, etc. Their church is comprised of people who have seen the back side of life…drugs, alcoholism, broken marriages, etc. There are all ages, ethnicities (lots of native Americans). Everyone is welcomed and loved. Sometimes they backslide and come back because they know they need the Lord and these people and this pastor welcomes them back because all have sinned and all have hope. These are just the sort of people you would scorn and make fun of and call names (in your oh-so-spiritual non-judgemental way) yet they are NOTHING like a fundamentalist Muslim. They kill no one, they accept everyone, they actually have compassion for all. They do preach that Jesus is the only way, but jeez, can’t a Christian church do that without catching hell for it? The annoying self-righteous meddling Christians you may have in mind are the old ladies sitting in mainline churches with their noses up in the air. Generally Lutheran or Methodist, probably lifelong DFL voters. Not fundamentalists.
You simply…VERY SIMPLY… do not want to have rules or be told what to do. It pisses you off and you would rather say you are “spiritual”. Doug is his own god.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:47 am
I don’t have to. Your psychotic outburst speaks for itself.
Translation: “I can’t prove you’re a liar, Mitch, so I’ll pretend to be a psychiatrist as well as an election judge to change the subject.”
You called me a liar. I’m not. Ever. I wouldn’t dare. I have a slew of friends, colleagues, eight or nine high school or college classmates, a couple of childhood friends, two former roommates, two ex-girlfriends, my kids, and my ex-wife for good measure, reading this site daily. If I fabulated anything, at all, it’d be an eternal shitstorm.
So no. There has never been a single lie. None.
Tell you what, Doug. You either prove that ANYTHING I’ve said about myself, EVER, is a lie, or…
…apologize.
Your choice. But do it in your next comment on this site.
Or just don’t come back.
Believe me, you add nothing as it is.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Mitch, you claimed I made many comments about my self-described miserable Catholic childhood.
You can’t substantiate that claim and I called you on it. Your reaction was to get pissed off at me and back peddle as fast as humanly possible.
It’s not my job to prove you’re a liar. It’s your job to prove you’re not.
By the way, turning the burden of proof over to me is right up there with straw man arguments and diversion tactics.
Case in point…
Example 1.
““I can’t prove you’re a liar, Mitch, so I’ll pretend to be a psychiatrist as well as an election judge to change the subject.””
I never claimed either. I said I was an election observer and I also explained exactly what I was doing as an observer which, as you recall, was nothing at all similar to being an election judge. You know that but here you are repeating something you know to be false. Again.
Funny how you use lies and condescension to defame, slander and insult me while at the same time trying to convince your readers that you never – ever – EVER lie.
So when you claim, “So no. There has never been a single lie. None.”, you are in fact, Hmmmm… lying.
Example 2.
“You either prove that ANYTHING I’ve said about myself, EVER, is a lie, or…
…apologize.”
Way to deflect Mitch. I didn’t claimed you lied about yourself. I said you lied about me.
I have nothing to apologize for. The evidence that you are bearing false witness is plastered all over these last few posts.
You can be a man, admit your little stunt backfired and apologize to me or you can ban me.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:59 am
You can’t substantiate that claim and I called you on it.
It wasn’t a claim, it was a mistaken impression of a long-ago comment.
It’s not my job to prove you’re a liar. It’s your job to prove you’re not.
Wrong! Unless someone can show a “lie” – not a mistake, not a flub, not a misapprehension of trivia – then the burden of proof IS on you.
Mistakes are human, and I most definitely am. I mis-remembered some bit of Doug trivia. Sorry I remembered your little whinge wrong, but it didn’t even detract from the larger point (your eternal vapors about Catholicism and, thus, all religion). And you have a rod up your ass over it. Fine ‘n dandy, sorry I gaffed your long-forgotten comment, but it’s not remotely a “lie” – something stated with an intent to deceive.
So yes, Doug, after all of your pseudo-logical mewling, you owe me the apology. I have NEVER lied on this site, and you’re a dick for suggesting it without proof, and if your next post is not an apology, and a damn good one, than what would seem to be your only “creative” outlet will be closed off to you.
No more mulligans.
If this is how you act in real life, then I pity everyone that has to deal with you. Assuming they do. You would seem to be a wretched little man.