Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[iloveangels]

How did we get from conservative forums to wading at the beach?

 

[atheistgirl]

Your memory of other posters’ posting history is borderline creepy, but I take that to indicate you have a mind that likes to keep track of other people.

Advanced Search - username - then key words - is your friend

Let’s say I wanted to bring something into the conversation about something you might have said a long time ago, mostly to derail the conversation in my favor of course, all I do is type in AlanFrom Wichita for username then, let’s see, hmmmm, papal infallibility, then at the bottom of the page click posts (not threads) and I find out that you gave yourself the right to add to Vatican I here

Naughty boy

You come back all amazed I have such an incredible memory for an obscure post from 7 years ago

And I say humbly, well, yes I do

(of course, it’s not a lie, as I have a very vague very vage idea you said something along those lines before, so I am ‘‘remembering’’ in a manner of speaking, just not quite it was July 30 at 8.29pm on a thread called were all the Popes really infallible. But I’m happy to let you think I am, if you want to - It kinda reminds me of all this mental reservation stuff. )



Sarah x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How did we get from conservative forums to wading at the beach?

Just trying to shower a self-proclaimed “conservative” with lots of apparent luv in a most likely vain attempt at breaking her down.

I admit it was clearly out of line. I was totally failing at attempts to be subliminal.

Alan

 

[iloveangels]

Just trying to shower a self-proclaimed “conservative” with lots of apparent luv in a most likely vain attempt at breaking her down.

I admit it was clearly out of line. I was totally failing at attempts to be subliminal.

Alan

Yeah, Alan, pretty far from being subliminal. More like totally off-topic in a glaring sort of way.

 

[PRmerger]

Just trying to shower a self-proclaimed “conservative” with lots of apparent luv in a most likely vain attempt at breaking her down.

Huh? Are you talking about me? :blushing:

If so, you are mistaken in my saying I am a self-proclaimed “conservative.”

I describe myself as an orthodox Catholic. Not a conservative. Or a liberal.

Or, to use the pridian descriptor: I have a conservative head and a liberal heart, just like the Church. And just like Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this like parlor tricks?

As far as I’m concerned, my relationship with God is no more or no less than my relationship with other people. Because if I don’t love other people, then I can’t love God. If I don’t love God, then I cannot truly love other people. Whatsoever you do, and all that. So unless you tell me specifically, I look for clues in the way you treat me and other posters, both on your side and against.

First I see you as very sensitive to subtle clues in the attitudes of other posters, but I don’t think you’re as sensitive to those same clues in your own. Because I feel a little condescension, and.I feel that you want to control the conversation, making it harder for me to make my point using my own words and thoughts. Note that doesn’t mean I’m saying you are condescending, but your posting style is such that I felt a similar feeling upon reading.

You spent a lot of time trying to get me to accept your statements, rather than exploring mine and testing out any of the vocabulary or points of view I was throwing out. I don’t think you were doing this intentionally, because you seem very sincere and honest and that you really want to know how I feel. But the problem is that when I try to tell you, on your turf and under your rules, it can spoil what I want to say or even distract me from it entirely, and it becomes almost a teacher-student relationship instead of brother to sister.

I do think you are very careful not to blame and cast guilt, and I really appreciate that. I also think you are fair about rewording something when it connotes something you may not have intended. You also get back up from a fall very quickly without holding an apparent grudge, so that’s another Good Thing. Your memory of other posters’ posting history is borderline creepy, but I take that to indicate you have a mind that likes to keep track of other people. I admire that because I’m lacking that in myself. I’m really bad at remembering names and faces and personal details of others, and I’m guessing – tell me if I’m right – that you are good at that.

What does that mean spiritually? Hard to tell. Could pride or fear be involved in the controlling aspect? I don’t know. You really don’t reveal much about yourself other than your officially stated beliefs. But I do think you are very genuine in your quest to live your life in accordance with your beliefs, and not to get sidetracked from your goals.

I’d like to see you “let your hair down” so to speak, take off your shoes and socks,roll up the cuffs, and go wading on the beach and let the water circle your ankles and the wind blow gently as you share the moment alone or with any of your loved ones. If I could I’d wish you into a vacation at a nice resort. Or is that your style?

Alan

I will address the rest of your comments about me later, Alan, but right now I’m busy uncurling my fingers from my ruler and taking those dern bobby pins out of my schoolmarmish hairdo…so it may take a while.



Oh, and as I type this my 9yr DD is sitting on my lap, and I’m having a heck of a time trying to explain to her what this conversation is about.

Do you have any hints how to 'splain this to her?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Yeah, Alan, pretty far from being subliminal. More like totally off-topic in a glaring sort of way.

Yes, and I got your message in a glaring sort of way from your last post.

I describe myself as an orthodox Catholic. Not a conservative. Or a liberal.

Or, to use the pridian descriptor: I have a conservative head and a liberal heart, just like the Church. And just like Jesus.

OK.

I will address the rest of your comments about me later,

Don’t hurry. If they’re useful then great, I’m glad I could help. Either way I don’t need a reply on them. You can let them wither and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings.

Oh, and as I type this my 9yr DD is sitting on my lap, and I’m having a heck of a time trying to explain to her what this conversation is about.

Do you have any hints how to 'splain this to her?

Not really. If I knew what it was about I might have an idea. I’m kind of tired of being the “Alan & PR Show,” though. Just tell her that there is some stubborn jerk on CAF who refuses to listen to you even when you type the truth, and who thinks he can read your mind although he knows nothing about you.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Is this like parlor tricks?

As far as I’m concerned, my relationship with God is no more or no less than my relationship with other people. Because if I don’t love other people, then I can’t love God. If I don’t love God, then I cannot truly love other people. Whatsoever you do, and all that. So unless you tell me specifically, I look for clues in the way you treat me and other posters, both on your side and against.

First I see you as very sensitive to subtle clues in the attitudes of other posters, but I don’t think you’re as sensitive to those same clues in your own. Because I feel a little condescension, and.I feel that you want to control the conversation, making it harder for me to make my point using my own words and thoughts. Note that doesn’t mean I’m saying you are condescending, but your posting style is such that I felt a similar feeling upon reading.

You spent a lot of time trying to get me to accept your statements, rather than exploring mine and testing out any of the vocabulary or points of view I was throwing out. I don’t think you were doing this intentionally, because you seem very sincere and honest and that you really want to know how I feel. But the problem is that when I try to tell you, on your turf and under your rules, it can spoil what I want to say or even distract me from it entirely, and it becomes almost a teacher-student relationship instead of brother to sister.

I do think you are very careful not to blame and cast guilt, and I really appreciate that. I also think you are fair about rewording something when it connotes something you may not have intended. You also get back up from a fall very quickly without holding an apparent grudge, so that’s another Good Thing. Your memory of other posters’ posting history is borderline creepy, but I take that to indicate you have a mind that likes to keep track of other people. I admire that because I’m lacking that in myself. I’m really bad at remembering names and faces and personal details of others, and I’m guessing – tell me if I’m right – that you are good at that.
**
What does that mean spiritually? Hard to tell.** Could pride or fear be involved in the controlling aspect? I don’t know. You really don’t reveal much about yourself other than your officially stated beliefs. But I do think you are very genuine in your quest to live your life in accordance with your beliefs, and not to get sidetracked from your goals.

I’d like to see you “let your hair down” so to speak, take off your shoes and socks,roll up the cuffs, and go wading on the beach and let the water circle your ankles and the wind blow gently as you share the moment alone or with any of your loved ones. If I could I’d wish you into a vacation at a nice resort. Or is that your style?

Alan

I found the above comments about me fascinating, Alan. No sarcasm intended and I mean it as simply as that. Fun to read what your insights are about me.

But I’m not going to bore everyone else on this thread with an expository about where you got it exquisitely right and where you got it exactly wrong.

I do want to address the bolded section though, because that is precisely what you proclaimed you *could *discern from reading someone’s posts.

And yet here you are, after writing a very thoughtful post about me, now declaring that you have no idea what my writings declare about my spiritual status.

That, friend, has proven my point. Not yours.

It is indeed, as you maintain, “hard to tell” about someone’s spiritual state, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Just tell her that there is some stubborn jerk on CAF who refuses to listen to you even when you type the truth, and who thinks he can read your mind although he knows nothing about you.

Alan

Heh.

She did want to know if I was winning.

I will, indeed, use your words above (sans the “stubborn jerk” phrase–I might replace it with "fair and funny guy who thinks that he can re-create God to match his own ideas) to describe the conversation, and that will make her happy.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It is indeed, as you maintain, “hard to tell” about someone’s spiritual state, no?

Yes, it’s hard to tell about it. It isn’t the sort of thing I can accurately put into words, so I wrote whatever I could think of that might be meaningful.

Did you want me to tell you whether you’ve been born of the spirit and are in the kingdom yet? I say if so, it doesn’t show. Nor do I see any particular evidence that you are involved in contemplative practices or that you can describe what the contemplative path has been like. Maybe that’s not important to you; there are many parts to one body. But as an “orthodox” Catholic, I thought you’d at least like to know the CCC says one’s prayer should go all the way to true union with God, which can be reached via contemplative prayer. You can read 2700-2724 (esp 2708) for yourself; whether you heed its advice is up to you. If I’m wrong and you are in fact a mystic then that’s all the better!

OK, really now I’m going to try to get back on topic or quit posting.

Oh, and here’s a photo of me, circa 2006, so you’re daughter can have a visual. If you want to really get a rise out of her, don’t just tell her I’m creating God – tell her I believe I am God. It isn’t altogether false. And tell her for me it’s clear her mother is very proud of her.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

http://www.wordsfree.org/catholic/WichitaNoid.jpg

Alan

For those who can’t read the tshirt:

Top 10 Reasons to Stay Roman Catholic

10.) It’s politically incorrect. (Annoy the Catholic bashers).
9.) You can sing badly, and no one cares. (9 out of 10 American Catholics are musically impaired).
8.) You can impress your friends. (Tell them you belong to a militant international institution).
7.) Your Mother. (Low cost way to keep her happy).
6.) Great Weddings! (When it comes to ceremony, the Catholic Church is smokin’).
5.) Great Pope!
4.) Saints. (Talk about friends in high places!)
3.) Confession. (No, it’s not fun, but what a deal).
2.) Dependability. (Jesus founded our Chuch on Peter, the rock, and promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against It.)

And the number one reason to stay Roman Catholic is the awesome gift of… (Drum roll, please…)

(On the back side of the shirt)

THE EUCHARIST!

“He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day. For My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood lives in Me and I in him.”

• John 6:54-56

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it’s hard to tell about it. It isn’t the sort of thing I can accurately put into words, so I wrote whatever I could think of that might be meaningful.

Did you want me to tell you whether you’ve been born of the spirit and are in the kingdom yet?

Well, I wanted to see if your comment that someone’s words were an “excellent indicator” of one’s spiritual state could be proven true.

I say if so, it doesn’t show. Nor do I see any particular evidence that you are involved in contemplative practices or that you can describe what the contemplative path has been like. Maybe that’s not important to you; there are many parts to one body. But as an “orthodox” Catholic, I thought you’d at least like to know the CCC says one’s prayer should go all the way to true union with God, which can be reached via contemplative prayer. You can read 2700-2724 (esp 2708) for yourself; whether you heed its advice is up to you. If I’m wrong and you are in fact a mystic then that’s all the better!

You are indeed wrong. Firstly, a mystic is none other than someone who knows God by experience.

And I get that definition from some contemplative Carmelites that I spent a summer with in Crestone, Colorado.

OK, really now I’m going to try to get back on topic or quit posting.

Oh, topic-schmopic. I leave it to the mods to rein us in.

Oh, and here’s a photo of me, circa 2006, so you’re daughter can have a visual. If you want to really get a rise out of her, don’t just tell her I’m creating God – tell her I believe I am God. It isn’t altogether false. And tell her for me it’s clear her mother is very proud of her.

http://www.wordsfree.org/catholic/WichitaNoid.jpg

Alan

OhmyGOSH! That’s exactly HOW I PICTURED YOU! (Sans the colander hat, because, really, who factors that into the image?) Did you post a pic of yourself before a lonngggg time ago and that’s why I have that visual of you???

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You are indeed wrong. Firstly, a mystic is none other than someone who knows God by experience.

Perhaps that is the definition. I’ve been roughly equating mystical thinking with non-dualism (in harmony with dualism of course).

Oh, topic-schmopic. I leave it to the mods to rein us in.

Just because you have no self control doesn’t mean any of the rest of us do.

OhmyGOSH! That’s exactly HOW I PICTURED YOU! (Sans the colander hat, because, really, who factors that into the image?) Did you post a pic of yourself before a lonngggg time ago and that’s why I have that visual of you???

Yes, I did. I was in a thread with a bunch of “noids” and decided to don my equipment.

I’m pretty sure atheistgirl has seen the post.

If you want a moving picture, here I was a couple months ago butchering Hail Holy Queen.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

If you want a moving picture, here I was a couple months ago butchering Hail Holy Queen.

Alan

Very moving, indeed!

Your name goes here.

 

[Contarini]

This is the old “Jesus was a revolutionary” shtick, refuted long ago (e.g., %between%

I don’t find the refutation particularly convincing.

That’s not to say that I agree with Alan’s description either.

Where I’m coming from is shaped more by N. T. Wright and John Howard Yoder.

Edwin

 

[atheistgirl]

If you want a moving picture, here I was a couple months ago butchering Hail Holy Queen.

Alan

That’s really sweet :heaven:

Sarah x

 

[Gaber]

Perhaps that is the definition. I’ve been roughly equating mystical thinking with non-dualism (in harmony with dualism of course).

I did that as well, but finally arrived at the notion that a contemplative is a mystic who has overcome the temptation of phenomena.

Just because you have no self control doesn’t mean any of the rest of us do.

Hey! Mine’s exquisite!

If you want a moving picture, here I was a couple months ago butchering Hail Holy Queen.

Alan

Darn, Alan. that console is more intimidating than the bridge of an intergalactic star ship! I’m impressed that you even sat down in front to the keys, never mind made beautiful sounds appear!

 

[ManOnFire]

But it points to something relevant: the idea of dimensionality in the turn of phrase, and words as fulcrums or the kind of puncturing of limits we enjoy from humor due to the unexpected use of a word or situation that points to another facet. And perhaps this is where the ideas of liberalism and conservatism have differences?

I have mentioned before the study and book that looks at the differences of conservative and liberal thinking. And while as someone who is liberal, I can acknowledge the usefulness, within certain bounds, of conservatism, that mind set is not as useful for deeper, broader, and more encompassing views than what to me is preservationism. And of course that is wonderful, until we need to get out of the box that caused our problems. We can’t solve problems on the level or within the parameters of what caused them.

As this might apply to religion, I wish to clearly distinguish between an acquired, inculcated faith taken at face value and used as a sheild, and the activity of mining a faith, any faith, or even lacking of one, for universal values pertinent on here, at least to the idea of being made in the image and likeness of God. Elsewhere I might very well use other terminology, but that suits here.

All of my criticisms of any faith or belief system, religious or not, boil down to this: the one thinking about it and making comparisons and drawing conclusions most very often does not have a clear and useful grasp of the very instrument and its nature that they are using to accept their premises and use those to come to conclusions. In other words there is a lack, sometimes profound, of self awareness. The accepted paradigm is substituted for a working knowledge of one’s not so dinkum thinkum. So yet while we merrily go into fields of complexity in economic, political, religious, social, and other areas of endeavor, the last thing we tend to do is look at the looker.

Now we might do that if the looker seems to be broken, which means a person is not agreeing for one reason or another with consensus reality. That would be the reality that on a day to day basis we consider, very mistakenly, to have a 1/1 relationship to Reality Itself. But we most certainly do not do that if we fit comfortably into a group of consentuees. Catholics, Shintoists, Atheists, Cargo cultists, Mormons, Jews, you nameem, look to their won for agreement as to what the world is about, because faith is safety from the unknown and any explanation of the Unknown/able that does not contradict physicality in a gross way will do. Raelians, for example, get along perfectly well in the world so long as it doesn’t come down to an argument about origins.

But no one, or precious few, look at the very water they are swimming in. The reflexive quality of human awareness is used in passing or by accident, and sometimes in and awkward clinical way, But it is very rarely systematically delved into, save by mystics and contemplatives of any stripe. And what is remarkable is that over the ages, regardless of circumstance, location, culture, religion or lack of it, all of the proponents of that search come up with a nearly indistinguishable model of human relationship to what on here is called “God”

From the perspective of that search as conducted to its end by those Saints and Sages, Catholic or not, all of the particulars of what is considered the main body of doctrine of our religion or any or lack thereof is easily seen and accounted for, and in a far simpler and much more useful manner. All of it. Without, I might add, destroying one iota of its signification, meaning, importance, value, or portent.

What does hap[pen, is that all of that is put on the biblically proverbial Rock that is recommended as a foundation for a structure, that structure being the mind in conformity to Reality as it IS, not as it is thought. Why? Because as it is thought, the light to the thinking is not accounted for experientially. If it is, the accounting is in a descending mode from actuality as destinct from and ascending mode based on belief.

So all that has this to do with the thread: it is far more likely, imo, for a “liberal” to undertake and impartial study of self and its mysteries, because ideas can grow in and as experience

, than it is for a “conservative” who by dint of faith believes that all answers are at hand in their paradigm as intellectual or believed knowledge to be applied legalistically.

those very same conservatives will either deny or extol the virtues of the mystic life, usually up to and only up to the eight level, but will decline the actual tools available for such exploration and thus keep it theoretical as far as their own experience. Andthe mistake in that is that the search I propone here is about identity as it actually IS, not as it is thought about. The difference is like reading about the sport of swimming by a Tuareg and a water baby in an LA pool.

And it has nothing to do with being Catholic, or not, or being atheist, or any such thing. But at least the atheist is not necessarily hampered by belief and has, actually the advantage of not anthropmorphizing THAT into a “Person.” And really, neither one is in a better position. You can’t accomplish what you already are. You can only discover something rather astounding in the place of thinking about it.

You seem to define your idea of “God” as somewhat gnostic in nature. I’ve often wondered if Jesus intended it to be this way, or did it evolve this way naturally. Many of the Catholic lessons are like an instruction book for life. You seem to like to call non-analytical people who have blind faith as being ignorant, but the ends to both blind faith and all this analytical gnosticism is the similar: Christ’s message of sacrificial love for others. One difference is that under religion, the nuclear family takes care of itself except for those who are not able-bodied. Under liberalism, liberals sell anti-religious themes of lust, violence, chemical addiction, selfish individualism, until the lives of many individuals are actually far more dependent on collectivist support, a la “it takes a village.” It’s essentially socialism. People are “freed” until they become more selfish, and the selfishness is the opposite of Christ’s message of sacrificial love. Dependency is the opposite of freedom. Hardened, selfish individuals who bail out on true, sacrificial love for others are the ones causing all the increased dependency. They are the Takers. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is not interested in the Prevention of these problems in the first place because then people would see that we need to be more conservative, and the media is not run by conservatives. We can be saved by the charity of the Givers. But one must ask, if people are forced into Charity, at what point does it cease to be Charity? The liberal social engineers can see the injustice of our current middle ground where the takers are supported by the givers by force, so they’re trying to expedite the system where we’re all attracted to anti-religious themes of lust, violence, chemical addiction, selfish individualism, until the lives of more individuals are actually far more dependent on collectivist support, i.e.: we have no choice but to be dependent, i.e. socialism. The difference is that the conservatives believe in following God’s rules for love of Others which seduces men and women into taking a chance for the heart to truly sing with each other, to see the value in believing that a romantic sacrifice for each other is well worth the effort. Love of Others cannot be forced by the laws of a nation. Whereas, the liberal belief takes care of love of Self first, the end result of which, is forced collectivism. It’s one thing if the media was educating the public to these plans by our liberal social engineers, but they’re not. They’re coercing people into it. They’re thriving off the ignorance of those who don’t know better, those who haven’t experienced the depth of true love, or those whose hearts have been broken.

I’ve opened my mind, and the result which yields the most Love of Others is still the same as those with blind faith who never questioned it. Maybe Jesus wanted to save many people the laborious exercise of going full circle to arrive at the same depth.

 

[Gaber]

Wow. That is quite a mouthful, MoF. I hear that the best way to eat an elephant, if you have to do that, is one bite at a time. Let’s try that and see how far I get before I can’t take another bite.

You seem to define your idea of “God” as somewhat gnostic in nature. I’ve often wondered if Jesus intended it to be this way, or did it evolve this way naturally.

I don’t define “(my) idea of God” because God, whatever the referent is of that word, which has been used into near meaninglessness by argumentation, is indefinable, indescribable, ineffable, etc, and only can be refered to with any meaning by what “God” is not. Andy positive attributes are meaning less because they are fantasy in that for the human mind, something like, say “infinite goodness” is semantically null. it has no referetial meaning in experience and only a speculative one as guesswork. All of the “infinite,” which is a negative itself, descriptors of God boil down to, in understandable terms, “bigger than I can imagine.”

As to what Jesus intended, have you ever given much thought to how we know about what He said and did and how we “know” what little we do today? We could write a book(s) about how we arrive at what we think we know. It would include such things as how we get from THDTHTRMCNDHBRWWRWRTTNWTHTSPCSCPTLZTNRPNCTTN (THeiDeaTHaTaRaMaiCaNDHeBReWWeReWRiTTeNWiTHouTSPaCesCaPiTaLiZaTioNoRPuNCTuaTion) to cultural differences and worldviews including deep patriarchism and poverty influenced by a nomadic heritage, the meaning of meaning, translations, collections, witnessing, interpretation, and a host of other disciplines that even make the simple word “I” have two radically different meanings, to what the Church, or anyone, tells us today about what happened four to two thousand years ago when most p[eople can’t accurately describe what happened five minutes ago. I know; ridiculously long sentence.

Point is we are in fact guessing, because even with “Divine guidance” even the purest message has to go through the capacity of the mind receiving it. Like the fellow who argued, when the Bible was being standardized, for four Gospel;s because there were four elements and four directions.

Many of the Catholic lessons are like an instruction book for life.What is a “Catholic lesson?” How is it different from a non Catholic lesson?

You seem to like to call non-analytical people who have blind faith as being ignorant, but the ends to both blind faith and all this analytical gnosticism is the similar: Christ’s message of sacrificial love for others.

I don’t like calling people anything. I can describe a condition that even someone very well educated might have. I’m an aeronautics buff. But I don’t know how to fly a plane or design or build one. I’m ignorant of those things. It isn’t a value judgement about a person. It describes a condition relative, in our instance to a particular level and kind of seeing and understanding. Having of not having that doesn’t effect, imo, the intrinsic value of an individual one way or another. And the “ends of blind faith and all this analytical gnosticism,” me not being an analytical gnostic, are indeed ultimately the same. It is all contents in awareness, awareness being the common factor.

As for Jesus’ message of sacraficial love for others, how do you see the meaning of that, and what is it derived from? Is there a very specific answer to that that is the subtext of that message?

One difference is that under religion, the nuclear family takes care of itself except for those who are not able-bodied. Under liberalism, liberals sell anti-religious themes of lust, violence, chemical addiction, selfish individualism, until the lives of many individuals are actually far more dependent on collectivist support, a la “it takes a village.”

I personally don’t recall a “liberal” running on a platform of anti religion, lust, violence, chemical addiction, or selfish individualism. It would be interesting to see an ad for such a platform. Except that most people in congress, given the stats, seem to be high on selfish individualism for their own pockets by passing laws that line the pockets of the people who pay them to do so. And please show me the life of anyone who does not rely on “collective support.” Have you ever made a pencil, built a road, forged a faucet, designed a working tractor or psychological technique, or paved a road? What around you that you use did you personally build or grow on your own, and if you did, where did what you use to do it come from? Even if you made it from dirt, like a clay pot, that was already there by the agency of Nature. You didn’t make it out of nothing by your own means. You were not, at least up to a point, even responsible for your own education and you sure didn’t invent English. Correct?

(continued)

 

[Gaber]

OK, I blew the cut and paste on that last part and erased it… I just don’t have the heart to go through all that again. But the media run by liberals? Uhhh… hoboy. Don’t think I can help you.