Bertrand Russell was one of the great freethinkers of the twentieth century. Known for his skepticism and devotion to Reason, Russell provides a meaningful view of life despite his agnosticism:
"But the beauty of Tragedy does but make visible a quality which, in more or less obvious shapes, is present always and everywhere in life. In the spectacle of Death, in the endurance of intolerable pain, and in the irrevocableness of a vanished past, there is a sacredness, an overpowering awe, a feeling of the vastness, the depth, the inexhaustible mystery of existence, in which, as by some strange marriage of pain, the sufferer is bound to the world by bonds of sorrow. In these moments of insight, we lose all eagerness of temporary desire, all struggling and striving for petty ends, all care for the little trivial things that, to a superficial view, make up the common life of day by day; we see, surrounding the narrow raft illumined by the flickering light of human comradeship, the dark ocean on whose rolling waves we toss for a brief hour; from the great night without, a chill blast breaks in upon our refuge; all the loneliness of humanity amid hostile forces is concentrated upon the individual soul, which must struggle alone, with what of courage it can command, against the whole weight of a universe that cares nothing for its hopes and fears. Victory, in this struggle with the powers of darkness, is the true baptism into the glorious company of heroes, the true initiation into the overmastering beauty of human existence. From that awful encounter of the soul with the outer world, enunciation, wisdom, and charity are born; and with their birth a new life begins. To take into the inmost shrine of the soul the irresistible forces whose puppets we seem to be--Death and change, the irrevocableness of the past, and the powerlessness of Man before the blind hurry of the universe from vanity to vanity--to feel these things and know them is to conquer them."
From "A Free Man's Worship" by Bertrand Russell
Friday, October 27, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
Atrocities
One thing that has caused me to pause and think is the large number of genocidal massacres supposedly ordered by God and carried out by the Israelites in the old testament. Many times the Hebrews were ordered to kill every man, woman, and child in a given population, sometimes simply because that group was living in the land promised to the Hebrews. Most Christians never think twice about the double standard this attributes to a supposedly harmonious collection of documents divinely written by God, in which Jesus himself tells us to love our enemy and offer to carry his burden.
Since I'm lazy, I won't take the time to reference all of these instances, but if you're bold enough, take the time to Google "bible atrocities" and read a few of the websites that condense a number of old testament passages, showing how bloodthirsty God's people were.
Then think about it. Some of the prophets decried the bloodshed and greed that Jerusalem was built upon, and Jesus speaks of the desolation that God later brings upon Israel with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Israel finally paid for its warmongering ways and the temple has never been restored.
Since I'm lazy, I won't take the time to reference all of these instances, but if you're bold enough, take the time to Google "bible atrocities" and read a few of the websites that condense a number of old testament passages, showing how bloodthirsty God's people were.
Then think about it. Some of the prophets decried the bloodshed and greed that Jerusalem was built upon, and Jesus speaks of the desolation that God later brings upon Israel with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Israel finally paid for its warmongering ways and the temple has never been restored.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Update
Hi everyone! I know it's been a long time and many of you are wondering what happened to Chris, especially since my bombshell a few months ago. Well, it's been a crazy few months since I disappeared from church and I'd like to let everyone know what's going on.
Sometimes a step away and a view in from the outside is required to gain a better understanding of the truth. Sometimes we need to leave the cave of traditional Christian dogma to let our spiritual eyes begin to develop in the light of reality. True, I regret my sudden proclamation and departure and wish that I didn't alienate myself from the people who care about me, but it gave me a greater insight into the character of Christianity.
Right now I don't claim to have many answers, but I can honestly say that the love of the church is a huge testament to some sort of Spiritual presence in the lives of Christians, and I think it's the spirit of Jesus. Now, I'm far from believing that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God" as many conservative Christians claim, but I think it reveals many truths and does not necessarily need to be considered as a cohesive, perfect entity in order to please God (however you define him).
Anyway, I'm keeping this short because I have a lot of homework to finish tonight. I'll follow up in the next few weeks with some insights I've gained over the last few months. I really do appreciate all of the prayer and support and I wish you all peace as you continue with school and work.
Sometimes a step away and a view in from the outside is required to gain a better understanding of the truth. Sometimes we need to leave the cave of traditional Christian dogma to let our spiritual eyes begin to develop in the light of reality. True, I regret my sudden proclamation and departure and wish that I didn't alienate myself from the people who care about me, but it gave me a greater insight into the character of Christianity.
Right now I don't claim to have many answers, but I can honestly say that the love of the church is a huge testament to some sort of Spiritual presence in the lives of Christians, and I think it's the spirit of Jesus. Now, I'm far from believing that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God" as many conservative Christians claim, but I think it reveals many truths and does not necessarily need to be considered as a cohesive, perfect entity in order to please God (however you define him).
Anyway, I'm keeping this short because I have a lot of homework to finish tonight. I'll follow up in the next few weeks with some insights I've gained over the last few months. I really do appreciate all of the prayer and support and I wish you all peace as you continue with school and work.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Is your computer possessed by a demon?
2000-APR: Reverend Jim Peasboro of Savannah GA has written a book "The Devil in the Machine: Is your computer possessed by a demon?" Some of the points raised in the book are:
He had the opportunity to inspect an infected computer. He found that an artificial-intelligence program started up automatically. He said that: "The program began talking directly to me, openly mocked me. It typed out, 'Preacher, you are a weakling and your God is a damn liar.' Then the device went haywire and started printing out what looked like gobbledygook...I later had an expert in dead languages examine the text. It turned out to be a stream of obscenities written in a 2,800-year-old Mesopotamian dialect!"
From Religioustolerance.org
- "While the Computer Age has ushered in many advances, it has also opened yet another door through which Lucifer and his minions can enter and corrupt men's souls."
- Demons can possess anything with a brain, including a chicken, a human being, or a computer.
- "Any PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit."
- "...most of the youths involved in school shootings like the tragedy at Columbine were computer buffs...I have no doubt that computer demons exerted an influence on them."
- an estimated "...one in 10 computers in America now houses some type of evil spirit."
- "Technicians can replace the hard drive and reinstall the software, getting rid of the wicked spirit permanently."
He had the opportunity to inspect an infected computer. He found that an artificial-intelligence program started up automatically. He said that: "The program began talking directly to me, openly mocked me. It typed out, 'Preacher, you are a weakling and your God is a damn liar.' Then the device went haywire and started printing out what looked like gobbledygook...I later had an expert in dead languages examine the text. It turned out to be a stream of obscenities written in a 2,800-year-old Mesopotamian dialect!"
From Religioustolerance.org
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
It's true
Many of you have heard that I left the Church recently. Yes, it's true. I'm sure a number of you are curious as to why. I'm strapped for time right now, but I thought I'd include a copy of an email that I sent to a friend a couple weeks ago:
Hey Phil,
I know that was probably a shock for you but I needed to be honest. I
made the decision on July 12 after a long process.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
First of all, I need to tell you that I did not decide to reject
Christianity for some painful experience in the church. Nor was it the
desire to rebel, "live a life of sin," or escape the shackles of
religion. Also, don't say, "he must not have ever been a real
Christian then," because I truly believed and followed the teachings
attributed to Jesus and Paul. I made this decision based purely on
reason and my understandings of history, science, and Christianity
itself. This was by no means an easy process and has been quite
painful at times.
I grew up in a Christian home and accepted Jesus as a young child. My
first doubts regarding Christianity occurred in high school biology
class, where we learned about evolution. Like most young Christians,
but like Paul teaches us to do, I tried to discount this science as
well as I could, though this doubt remained in the back of my mind.
And as I took college courses in biology, geology, psychology I began
to see scientific truths that I couldn't deny, even though they didn't
agree with what I was taught in the bible an church. I began to wonder
if any of my religious experiences could be explained solely in terms
of God and the Holy Spirit, and I began to see that everything I've
seen and felt could have a natural cause. But it wasn't until I began
to examine the bible itself that I began to experience substantial
doubts.
Of course I'd struggled with the typical philosophical questions like,
"would a loving God really send people to hell?" I did my best to
answer them in as Calvinistic manner as possible, thinking that God
has reasons for everything, and we can't understand it all. But I
never really got the statement that "God doesn't need anything but he
designed us to give him glory."
Anyhow, during Mayday Aaron was preaching about Jesus' regard (or
disregard) for the law. One moment we see Jesus telling his disciples
that he didn't come to abolish the law and that it's still important,
and the next we see him defending his disciples and downplaying the
law when they are picking seeds in the fields (a crime punishable by
death). Wait, I thought Jesus perfectly upheld and fulfilled the law,
yet he disregarded it and even seemed to hate it. Furthermore, the
prophet Isaiah said that God "has no pleasure in the blood of bulls
and lambs and goats." I was sick of people attempting to downplay such
passages and say God has no pleasure in these things "compared to this
or that." The language in the passage couldn't be stronger. In fact,
he calls these things evil. So I asked myself, "did God or man write
the book of Leviticus?" The next morning I opened to Jeremiah and read
through 7:21-23: Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add
your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to
your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and
sacrifices. But this command I gave them: 'Obey my voice, and I will
be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that
I command you, that it may be well with you.'
Well, I was shocked and I realized that either the book of Leviticus
or Jeremiah was untrue. God wouldn't give us a law and then deny that
he had done it (unless we completely misunderstand God). At that time
I was inclined to the side of Jeremiah, since Jesus seemed to regard
the prophets above the laws. Perhaps the passage in Isaiah which
speaks of trampling God's temple and polluting it with bloody
sacrifices evoked Jesus' outrage at the people in the temple who were
selling animals to be sacrificed.
This led me to the realization that ANY book of the bible could be
false, despite always being taught that the bible was harmonious and
contained no real contradictions. People were deluding themselves and
twisting logic in order to hold onto this archaic belief, and I wanted
to look at the Bible objectively and dig in to find what was true and
what was false. But this was what finally gave me leeway to begin
criticizing the bible and seeing all of the faults and contradictions
I had tried to ignore or justify for so long. I finally decided to
look at Christianity from an objective, logical point of view to see
if I could believe it, rather than using (and twisting) reason in
order to back up a conclusion I had already arrived at. I knew that
people from every other successful religion were able to do that! What
made Christianity more true?
How could I know that my religion was the right one? Through pure
reason? That wouldn't work, since Paul himself said that the things of
God are foolishness to the wisdom of men. How about my experiences? We
as humans are amazingly adept at manufacturing memories and creating
images in our mind in order to believe we're having a religious
experience. Some of the strongest "religious experiences" I've had
were at secular rock concerts, where the sound and lights and beauty
of the music overwhelmed my senses. How about the success of the
religion? Popularity doesn't make something true, as we all know. The
ability of a religion to win converts and keep them could speak to its
crafters' genius and the methods of mind control it employs (look up
"meme" on Wikipedia.org).
How about history and archaeology? This is where the Bible really gets
into trouble. For instance, there's no archaeological evidence of a
massive Jewish empire during the time that David and Solomon were
supposed to rule. Historically, Judaism can be seen as a natural
progression from earlier, polytheistic religions into a monotheistic
one as other religious were experiencing the same trends. In fact, we
see elements of all sorts of previous religions in the bible, from
animal sacrifices, to the progression in life after death from "sheol"
to "heaven and hell" and the transition of Satan from being God's evil
henchman and accuser of men to the beast/dragon/devil/prince of
darkness and God's main opponent. This duality (God vs. Devil), which
was a new idea in the New Testament, seems to have been introduced by
Zoroastrianism, a persian religion that evolved in to Christianity's
main competitor in Rome. And furthermore, we have no reliable
historical evidence that the Jesus of the bible even existed!
Josephus' testimony? A clear forgery, despite what the apologists
would have us think.
Then there was the issue of prophecy. Jesus was supposed to have
fulfilled all sorts of prophecies from the old testament. First of
all, many of these "prophecies" didn't appear as prophecies or were
explicitly regarding different people or places. The gospel of Matthew
even made the blunder of misinterpreting the prophecy about Jesus on
the donkey riding into Jerusalem. Matthew has him riding on two
donkeys because he seemingly misunderstood "he rides on a donkey, even
the foal of a donkey" (sorry, this is a paraphrase... you can look it
up) to mean "he rides on a donkey and its foal" so Jesus awkwardly
rides into Jerusalem somehow straddling two donkeys!
No matter how hard they try, biblical apologists fail to convince the
rational mind as they attempt to reconcile passages that clearly
contradict each other. I finally came to the point where I decided
that it wasn't wise to believe something simply for the sake that I
wanted to believe something. When I say I seek the truth, I really
mean it, and this is more important to me in life than being
comfortable and having everything decided for me by a religion. A
religion that can't even agree with itself whether we can go to heaven
if we don't give all our money away. Paul doesn't even seem to know
Jesus' teachings (which makes sense, since many scholars believe he
wrote his letters before the gospels were written). He seemed ignorant
of the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin (and he even said that he
was born of man, the seed of David).
Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless other
reasons, and many sources on the internet for information like I
mentioned. Simply google "bible atrocities" for an overview of
genocides supposedly endorsed by a loving God, or "biblical
contradictions" to see some hardly reconcilable idiosyncrasies. Also,
religioustolerance.org offers an overview of the bible from a
historical viewpoint and exchristian.net has a huge archive of
"anti-testimonies" of former christians. Most of these stories bear
striking resemblances to mine. This site also has links to a number of
other sites related to a skeptical or atheistic view of Christianity
and other religions.
Well, there's my explanation. I know it's long but I could write a
book about it. I hope this communicates my though process. Like I
said, I really enjoyed the time I spent making music with you, and
I'll definitely miss that. Take care.
Sincerely,
Chris
Anyway, I'll be posting more as time goes on and my summer school lets up a bit.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Hey Phil,
I know that was probably a shock for you but I needed to be honest. I
made the decision on July 12 after a long process.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
First of all, I need to tell you that I did not decide to reject
Christianity for some painful experience in the church. Nor was it the
desire to rebel, "live a life of sin," or escape the shackles of
religion. Also, don't say, "he must not have ever been a real
Christian then," because I truly believed and followed the teachings
attributed to Jesus and Paul. I made this decision based purely on
reason and my understandings of history, science, and Christianity
itself. This was by no means an easy process and has been quite
painful at times.
I grew up in a Christian home and accepted Jesus as a young child. My
first doubts regarding Christianity occurred in high school biology
class, where we learned about evolution. Like most young Christians,
but like Paul teaches us to do, I tried to discount this science as
well as I could, though this doubt remained in the back of my mind.
And as I took college courses in biology, geology, psychology I began
to see scientific truths that I couldn't deny, even though they didn't
agree with what I was taught in the bible an church. I began to wonder
if any of my religious experiences could be explained solely in terms
of God and the Holy Spirit, and I began to see that everything I've
seen and felt could have a natural cause. But it wasn't until I began
to examine the bible itself that I began to experience substantial
doubts.
Of course I'd struggled with the typical philosophical questions like,
"would a loving God really send people to hell?" I did my best to
answer them in as Calvinistic manner as possible, thinking that God
has reasons for everything, and we can't understand it all. But I
never really got the statement that "God doesn't need anything but he
designed us to give him glory."
Anyhow, during Mayday Aaron was preaching about Jesus' regard (or
disregard) for the law. One moment we see Jesus telling his disciples
that he didn't come to abolish the law and that it's still important,
and the next we see him defending his disciples and downplaying the
law when they are picking seeds in the fields (a crime punishable by
death). Wait, I thought Jesus perfectly upheld and fulfilled the law,
yet he disregarded it and even seemed to hate it. Furthermore, the
prophet Isaiah said that God "has no pleasure in the blood of bulls
and lambs and goats." I was sick of people attempting to downplay such
passages and say God has no pleasure in these things "compared to this
or that." The language in the passage couldn't be stronger. In fact,
he calls these things evil. So I asked myself, "did God or man write
the book of Leviticus?" The next morning I opened to Jeremiah and read
through 7:21-23: Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add
your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to
your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and
sacrifices. But this command I gave them: 'Obey my voice, and I will
be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that
I command you, that it may be well with you.'
Well, I was shocked and I realized that either the book of Leviticus
or Jeremiah was untrue. God wouldn't give us a law and then deny that
he had done it (unless we completely misunderstand God). At that time
I was inclined to the side of Jeremiah, since Jesus seemed to regard
the prophets above the laws. Perhaps the passage in Isaiah which
speaks of trampling God's temple and polluting it with bloody
sacrifices evoked Jesus' outrage at the people in the temple who were
selling animals to be sacrificed.
This led me to the realization that ANY book of the bible could be
false, despite always being taught that the bible was harmonious and
contained no real contradictions. People were deluding themselves and
twisting logic in order to hold onto this archaic belief, and I wanted
to look at the Bible objectively and dig in to find what was true and
what was false. But this was what finally gave me leeway to begin
criticizing the bible and seeing all of the faults and contradictions
I had tried to ignore or justify for so long. I finally decided to
look at Christianity from an objective, logical point of view to see
if I could believe it, rather than using (and twisting) reason in
order to back up a conclusion I had already arrived at. I knew that
people from every other successful religion were able to do that! What
made Christianity more true?
How could I know that my religion was the right one? Through pure
reason? That wouldn't work, since Paul himself said that the things of
God are foolishness to the wisdom of men. How about my experiences? We
as humans are amazingly adept at manufacturing memories and creating
images in our mind in order to believe we're having a religious
experience. Some of the strongest "religious experiences" I've had
were at secular rock concerts, where the sound and lights and beauty
of the music overwhelmed my senses. How about the success of the
religion? Popularity doesn't make something true, as we all know. The
ability of a religion to win converts and keep them could speak to its
crafters' genius and the methods of mind control it employs (look up
"meme" on Wikipedia.org).
How about history and archaeology? This is where the Bible really gets
into trouble. For instance, there's no archaeological evidence of a
massive Jewish empire during the time that David and Solomon were
supposed to rule. Historically, Judaism can be seen as a natural
progression from earlier, polytheistic religions into a monotheistic
one as other religious were experiencing the same trends. In fact, we
see elements of all sorts of previous religions in the bible, from
animal sacrifices, to the progression in life after death from "sheol"
to "heaven and hell" and the transition of Satan from being God's evil
henchman and accuser of men to the beast/dragon/devil/prince of
darkness and God's main opponent. This duality (God vs. Devil), which
was a new idea in the New Testament, seems to have been introduced by
Zoroastrianism, a persian religion that evolved in to Christianity's
main competitor in Rome. And furthermore, we have no reliable
historical evidence that the Jesus of the bible even existed!
Josephus' testimony? A clear forgery, despite what the apologists
would have us think.
Then there was the issue of prophecy. Jesus was supposed to have
fulfilled all sorts of prophecies from the old testament. First of
all, many of these "prophecies" didn't appear as prophecies or were
explicitly regarding different people or places. The gospel of Matthew
even made the blunder of misinterpreting the prophecy about Jesus on
the donkey riding into Jerusalem. Matthew has him riding on two
donkeys because he seemingly misunderstood "he rides on a donkey, even
the foal of a donkey" (sorry, this is a paraphrase... you can look it
up) to mean "he rides on a donkey and its foal" so Jesus awkwardly
rides into Jerusalem somehow straddling two donkeys!
No matter how hard they try, biblical apologists fail to convince the
rational mind as they attempt to reconcile passages that clearly
contradict each other. I finally came to the point where I decided
that it wasn't wise to believe something simply for the sake that I
wanted to believe something. When I say I seek the truth, I really
mean it, and this is more important to me in life than being
comfortable and having everything decided for me by a religion. A
religion that can't even agree with itself whether we can go to heaven
if we don't give all our money away. Paul doesn't even seem to know
Jesus' teachings (which makes sense, since many scholars believe he
wrote his letters before the gospels were written). He seemed ignorant
of the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin (and he even said that he
was born of man, the seed of David).
Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless other
reasons, and many sources on the internet for information like I
mentioned. Simply google "bible atrocities" for an overview of
genocides supposedly endorsed by a loving God, or "biblical
contradictions" to see some hardly reconcilable idiosyncrasies. Also,
religioustolerance.org offers an overview of the bible from a
historical viewpoint and exchristian.net has a huge archive of
"anti-testimonies" of former christians. Most of these stories bear
striking resemblances to mine. This site also has links to a number of
other sites related to a skeptical or atheistic view of Christianity
and other religions.
Well, there's my explanation. I know it's long but I could write a
book about it. I hope this communicates my though process. Like I
said, I really enjoyed the time I spent making music with you, and
I'll definitely miss that. Take care.
Sincerely,
Chris
Anyway, I'll be posting more as time goes on and my summer school lets up a bit.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Monday, July 31, 2006
Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honored
July 26, 2006 | Issue 42•30
NEW YORK—Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
"It would have been a major oversight to ignore this portentous anniversary," said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, whose site now boasts over 4,300,000 articles in multiple languages, over one-quarter of which are in English, including 11,000 concerning popular toys of the 1980s alone. "At 750 years, the U.S. is by far the world's oldest surviving democracy, and is certainly deserving of our recognition," Wales said. "According to our database, that's 212 years older than the Eiffel Tower, 347 years older than the earliest-known woolly-mammoth fossil, and a full 493 years older than the microwave oven."
"In fact," added Wales, "at three-quarters of a millennium, the USA has been around almost as long as technology."
The commemorative page is one of the most detailed on the site, rivaling entries for Firefly and the Treaty Of Algeron for sheer length. Subheadings include "Origins Of Colonial Discontent," "Some Famous Guys In Wigs And Three-Cornered Hats," and "Christmastime In Gettysburg." It also features detailed maps of the original colonies—including Narnia, the central ice deserts, and Westeros—as well as profiles of famous American historical figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Special Agent Jack Bauer, and Samuel Adams who is also a defensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals.
"On July 25, 1256, delegates gathered at Comerica Park to sign the Declaration Of Independence, which rejected the rule of the British over its 15 coastal North American colonies," reads an excerpt from the entry. "Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and ***ERIC IS A FAG*** know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America."
"All our lives, we are taught about the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, and FAG, but we seldom consider the factors and conditions that led them to risk everything for a republican cause," Wales said. "What was it really like to be a patriot in those times? How did the colonists' perception of democracy conform and contrast with our modern one? Did Betsy Ross, as legend has it, really have the biggest boobies in the New World? It's these types of questions I want Wikipedia to be a forum for, all at the click of a mouse."
The exhaustive entry also includes links to video clips of the First Thanksgiving, hosted by YouTube.
The special anniversary tribute refutes many myths about the period and American history. According to the entry, the American Revolution was in fact instigated by Chuck Norris, who incinerated the Stamp Act by looking at it, then roundhouse-kicked the entire British army into the Atlantic Ocean. A group of Massachusetts Minutemaids then unleashed the zombie-generating T-Virus on London, crippling the British economy and severely limiting its naval capabilities.
The entry also addresses several traditionally taboo subjects, such as the influence of LSD on the drafting of the Constitution and the role of funk-slaves in painting the White House black.
While other news and information websites chose to mark the anniversary in a muted fashion, if at all, Wikipedia gave it prominent emphasis over other important historical events from the same day, including the independence of the nation of Africa in 1847, the 1984 ascension of Constantine to Emperor of the Holy Roman Emperor, and the 1998 birth of Smokey, a calico cat belonging to Mark and Becky Rousch of Erie, PA.
Founder Wales, a closeted homosexual and hot-dog freak, according to his user-edited bio on the site, also hosted a symposium of amateur historians at the New School in New York on Saturday.
"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89-87."
Despite spirited discussions bloggers present later described as "eluminating" and "sweet," the symposium was cut short when differences of opinion among the panelists degenerated into personal insults and name-calling.
While Wikipedia's "American Inderpendance" page remains available to all site visitors, administrators have suspended additions and further edits to its content due to vandalism.
From www.theonion.com
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
July 26, 2006 | Issue 42•30
NEW YORK—Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
"It would have been a major oversight to ignore this portentous anniversary," said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, whose site now boasts over 4,300,000 articles in multiple languages, over one-quarter of which are in English, including 11,000 concerning popular toys of the 1980s alone. "At 750 years, the U.S. is by far the world's oldest surviving democracy, and is certainly deserving of our recognition," Wales said. "According to our database, that's 212 years older than the Eiffel Tower, 347 years older than the earliest-known woolly-mammoth fossil, and a full 493 years older than the microwave oven."
"In fact," added Wales, "at three-quarters of a millennium, the USA has been around almost as long as technology."
The commemorative page is one of the most detailed on the site, rivaling entries for Firefly and the Treaty Of Algeron for sheer length. Subheadings include "Origins Of Colonial Discontent," "Some Famous Guys In Wigs And Three-Cornered Hats," and "Christmastime In Gettysburg." It also features detailed maps of the original colonies—including Narnia, the central ice deserts, and Westeros—as well as profiles of famous American historical figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Special Agent Jack Bauer, and Samuel Adams who is also a defensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals.
"On July 25, 1256, delegates gathered at Comerica Park to sign the Declaration Of Independence, which rejected the rule of the British over its 15 coastal North American colonies," reads an excerpt from the entry. "Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and ***ERIC IS A FAG*** know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America."
"All our lives, we are taught about the achievements of Washington, Jefferson, and FAG, but we seldom consider the factors and conditions that led them to risk everything for a republican cause," Wales said. "What was it really like to be a patriot in those times? How did the colonists' perception of democracy conform and contrast with our modern one? Did Betsy Ross, as legend has it, really have the biggest boobies in the New World? It's these types of questions I want Wikipedia to be a forum for, all at the click of a mouse."
The exhaustive entry also includes links to video clips of the First Thanksgiving, hosted by YouTube.
The special anniversary tribute refutes many myths about the period and American history. According to the entry, the American Revolution was in fact instigated by Chuck Norris, who incinerated the Stamp Act by looking at it, then roundhouse-kicked the entire British army into the Atlantic Ocean. A group of Massachusetts Minutemaids then unleashed the zombie-generating T-Virus on London, crippling the British economy and severely limiting its naval capabilities.
The entry also addresses several traditionally taboo subjects, such as the influence of LSD on the drafting of the Constitution and the role of funk-slaves in painting the White House black.
While other news and information websites chose to mark the anniversary in a muted fashion, if at all, Wikipedia gave it prominent emphasis over other important historical events from the same day, including the independence of the nation of Africa in 1847, the 1984 ascension of Constantine to Emperor of the Holy Roman Emperor, and the 1998 birth of Smokey, a calico cat belonging to Mark and Becky Rousch of Erie, PA.
Founder Wales, a closeted homosexual and hot-dog freak, according to his user-edited bio on the site, also hosted a symposium of amateur historians at the New School in New York on Saturday.
"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89-87."
Despite spirited discussions bloggers present later described as "eluminating" and "sweet," the symposium was cut short when differences of opinion among the panelists degenerated into personal insults and name-calling.
While Wikipedia's "American Inderpendance" page remains available to all site visitors, administrators have suspended additions and further edits to its content due to vandalism.
From www.theonion.com
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006
A short break...
Well, everyone, I'm done with school for the quarter. Things went pretty well and my group's design project was a hit with the City of Arroyo Grande and the landowner. My lone final was easy and I finished in less than an hour, and I got all my assignments turned in to my professors.
Now I have a week to go home, see the family, and catch up with some old friends before summer quarter starts on the 19th (I believe). I want you all to have a great week and rest in the Lord! I'm sure I'll release an update or two though.
Now I have a week to go home, see the family, and catch up with some old friends before summer quarter starts on the 19th (I believe). I want you all to have a great week and rest in the Lord! I'm sure I'll release an update or two though.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
The rules of civilised debate
I came across this well-written guide on polite debate. I think we can all learn a lot from these principles. I apologise for the one or two instances of language, but they're there for a reason. Take a gander...
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
From To Be INTp
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Mannerly Art of Disagreement (or how an INTP sees discussion)
Borrowed from Macedon as an introduction to how to discuss with an INTP
Table of contents:
I. Introduction
II. Rules of Engagement
III. What If One Participant Refuses to Play Fair?
IV. Is It Ever All Right to Break the Rules?
I. INTRODUCTION
Among the greatest problems faced in a public forum is how participants may disagree without descending into either personal attacks or not-so-witty one-line repartee. There are certain "rules of engagement," if you will, which can prevent name calling and other debate no-nos.
But first, we must dispel the myth that polite equals namby-pamby. In fact, it is possible to disagree--even to disagree significantly--in a civil manner. Disagreement is never comfortable, but if we refrain from permitting it to become a war (or, on the internet, a flamewar) we might learn something and keep our blood pressure down at the same time. Disagreement can be fruitful. But it will be fruitful only so long as certain guidelines are followed.
II. THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
1. THE paramount rule of Jeffersonian Debate: Grant your opponent respect. This means you must allow that he or she can examine the facts and come to a different conclusion from you. This is harder than it sounds, particularly for those who view disagreement as a personal affront, or a sign of stupidity. Persons who hold such views cannot engage in fruitful debate.
2. ...Which brings up the second point: Learn objectivity. Be able to separate others' disagreement with your ideas from attacks on your person. Beware of the overly subjective individual who identifies with certain ideals/ideas to such an extent that disagreement is considered to constitute a personal threat. Such persons hold to the perception, "You're either with me or you're against me." Should you meet with such a one, disengage immediately unless you enjoy being subjected to Scream and Leap.
3. Part of learning objectivity means recognizing the difference between a fact and an opinion. 2+2=4 is a fact, more or less. That John Mellencamp writes great lyrics is an opinion. In order to disprove a fact, one MUST present contrary evidence. Just saying, "That's wrong!" isn't good enough. It's an opinion, not an argument.
"That's wrong because..." is an argument. When presenting an opinion in a debate, it's usually a good idea to indicate in some manner that you realize it's an opinion. "It seems to me..." or "It's been my experience..." or (in nettese) the ever-popular, extremely useful IMHO (in my humble opinion). In short, avoid stating your opinion as if it were a fact: e. g. "Romance stories are gross," or "Action-adventure is boring." Likewise, another's experience or feelings cannot be "wrong" or "right." Don't confuse the existential with the objective. My experience (the existential) is MY experience and no one else can gainsay it because no one else is living in my head and body but me.
What someone else might justifiably do is question my interpretation of my experience: "Well, it didn't strike me as...."
Now for the fine point: While experiences can never be right or wrong, opinions arising from incorrectly interpreted experiences can be. When dealing with fiction, in which opinions and interpretation come from the experience of reading, this "fine point" is more than splitting hairs. Without encroaching too much on Peg's "Mannerly Art of Critique," being able to recognize that interpretation of fiction is opinion, not fact, is as essential to productive feedback as to productive debate.
4. Refrain absolutely from ad hominem attack. What is ad hominem attack? To criticize or belittle the one who holds a certain position rather than the position itself. Example: "How stupid can you be?" or "That just goes to show you don't know anything." Attacking your opponent rather than your opponent's ideas merely indicates a weakness in your position. It wins no brownie points.
5. Absolutely. Never. Use. Invectives. What's an "invective"? A verbal attack, often one that employs obscenities. No matter what your opponent says to you, do not respond with obscenities. Doing so shows deplorably bad manners and convinces any onlookers that you were raised in a barn. Locker-room talk doesn't belong on the debating block. There's simply no excuse for it. Period. It doesn't matter who started it. (Incidently, there is a difference between obscenity as invective and simple adjectival use: "Fuck you" is invective; "That's a hell of a note" or "You know damn well" is adjectival.)
6. Avoid irrelevancies and non sequiturs. Perhaps that goes without saying, but be sure your points relate to the topic. If your opponent (or someone else) says, "What do you mean by that?" or "Your point/parallel/example doesn't seem to follow," you must be able to explain how it does. By the same token, think through points and parallels before you make them to be certain they DO relate. A good way of weakening any argument is by using non sequiturs or bad metaphors.
7. Remember that there may be more than two sides to any debate. You may find yourself agreeing with neither debater, or agreeing with some points made by one, and some points made by the other. Polite debate includes frank admission of where one may agree with an opponent. It's a debate, not a war. Insisting, "You're with me or you're against me" merely points to the lack of objectivity mentioned in point #2 above.
8. In any debate, even polite ones, there is always a certain degree of side-taking: onlookers who are convinced by, or agree already with the arguments of one participant or another. Onlookers who choose to speak out should obey the same polite rules of engagement as anyone else. Also, it is helpful to state why one agrees. "John's right and you're wrong" is neither convincing nor helpful. However, "I find John's arguments persuasive because...." can contribute to the debate in a positive way. It also prevents "side-taking" from becoming mere ego-massage, which in turns helps to keep the focus on the matter at hand, not the personalities involved. It IS permissible to disagree with a friend. This goes back to being able to separate subjective from objective. I may like you very much, but still disagree with your position.
9. Persons who have tender egos should think twice before leaping into a debate. As Apollo advised, "Know thyself!" If you have a tendency to take disagreement personally--stay out of debates! People have skins of differing thicknesses. What may strike you as insulting may have been meant innocently. Assume ignorance, not malice, and inform your opponent if he or she just said something which struck as hostile or personal. Allow the other the opportunity to qualify remarks which may have been innocently meant. If your opponent says, "I didn't mean it that way!"--accept the refutation. Don't insist otherwise!
10. By the same token, recognize that phrasing is everything.
Bluntness can be plain rude, not charmingly honest. If you are one who does have a thick skin, realize others may not and take some care with what you say and how you say it. Such simple things as noting that your opinion is an opinion (the "In my experience" or "IMHO" mentioned above) can go a long way toward keeping feathers smooth and unruffled.
11. Don't be afraid to employ humor, as long as the humor is not a cover for personal attack. Humor in debate keeps blood from boiling.
12. Don't use religious principles or canons as absolutes. Recognize that not everyone may hold the same beliefs. Some debates directly concern religious points, but introducing them into an otherwise unrelated issue is inappropriate. "The Bible says..." is not an argument unless all participants agree on the Bible as an authority, and on a particular interpretation of the Bible, to boot. Otherwise, the reaction will--justifiably--be, "So what?" The use of religious principles or canons in debate must be treated as opinions, not facts.
13. Be man or woman enough to concede. If one's opponent convinces--admit it! Those who can never admit to being wrong show fragile ego structure. The real point of any debate is not to win, but to learn.
If one enters a debate merely to win, one has entered for the wrong reasons. Whatever the ancient Greeks thought, life is not a continual contest.
14. Know when to quit. There is a point in any debate when continued discussion ceases to be fruitful and becomes mere argument. Graceful closure is as important as graceful conduct. One does not have to have the last word, and it is permissible to say, "I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced." Agree to disagree.
15. Finally, watch grammar, especially when debating in written forms such as that found on the Internet. This is not a petty point. One cannot convince others of one's glittering wit and clever insight if it's delivered full of misspellings and grammar errors. Instead, participants will wonder how one passed eighth grade English. More, bad grammar or lack of clarity will contribute to misunderstanding.
One may say the opposite of what one means, or say something that is unintentionally amusing. ("Except" means the opposite of "accept," yet I see the two all-too-commonly confused in internet posts--with sometimes laughable results.)
If these simple rules are followed, even extremely controversial topics can be safely discussed. If these rules are not followed, the most mundane of matters may turn explosive.
III. WHAT IF ONE PARTICIPANT REFUSES TO PLAY FAIR?
In order for Jeffersonian debate to flourish, all participants must be willing to obey the rules of engagement. If one individual refuses, there's not much the rest can do but ignore him or her.
Nevertheless, a couple of things to keep in mind when this happens:
1. Some people feed on conflict; this is how they get their jollies. It's a sign of unhealthy social adjustment. Such individuals will make inflammatory remarks simply to irritate. On the internet, this may manifest as "trolling": those who post intentionally controversial or insulting statements simply to stir things up. (Trolls are not usually regular participants in any particular group.) Yet there are also individuals who aren't trolls but still jump into debates with both feet for the thrill of pissing off others: gadflies. Don't confuse the two. Nevertheless, the wise response is the same: ignore them and they go away (or at least shut up).
2. Replying to rudeness in kind simply makes you look foolish. As my grandfather used to say, "Don't lower yourself to their level." Temper, temper. Grit your teeth and keep the rules of engagement.
3. In the rare circumstance that a gadfly or troll does not leave even after being ignored for weeks, or whenever one takes his or her harassment from a public forum to a private one (such as email), immediately notify that person's ISP provider (i. e. postmaster@_gadfly's address_). If the mail bounces--that is, if the real ISP provider has been camouflaged--then immediately notify your ISP provider of the harassment and ask them to track the person down, or to give you a new mail address.
IV. IS IT EVER ALL RIGHT TO BREAK THE RULES?
Aren't there some topics that just don't deserve Jeffersonian debate? Aren't some positions so disgusting that they shouldn't be dignified by polite responses? What about posts by hate groups, neo-Nazis, pornographers, etc.?
This is a problematic question since it may lead down a slippery slope--rather like censorship. The automatic pitfall of free speech is that it IS free: people you don't like and with whom you disagree have just as much right to state their positions--short of slander--as you have to argue with them. Child pornography or its advertisement is illegal; debate about it is not... however disgusting or horrifying one may find the phenomena.
There are certain topics which are so widely regarded as morally objectionable that if one attacks them with non-Jeffersonian methods such as name-calling and invective, one may be cheered by most if not all the on-lookers. Yet there are other subjects, more controversial, which involve opinions just as virulent--such as homosexuality or abortion--but about which there is far less consensus. Some consider homosexuality or abortion to be as reprehensible as child pornography or murder, and refuse to engage in any polite debate about it because, of course, they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong (and usually disgusting and stupid, too). The reverse can be equally true: defenders of either may automatically see all opponents as bigoted or irrational (often based on past experience), and refuse to even listen to other positions as they're too busy screaming their own at the top of their (virtual) lungs.
Neither side is trying to debate. They're just on rampage and should be treated accordingly: Laugh at them, ignore them, or get out of their way, but don't lower yourself to their level by copying their methods. Doing so certainly won't accomplish anything except to make you look just as foolish. If, however, you meet up with someone who IS being polite in debate--no matter what you may think of his or her position--IF YOU WISH TO CONVINCE ANYONE ELSE OF YOURS, stay polite yourself.
In other words, No, it's never wise to break the rules. Not unless you're applying for God's job.
I. Introduction
II. Rules of Engagement
III. What If One Participant Refuses to Play Fair?
IV. Is It Ever All Right to Break the Rules?
I. INTRODUCTION
Among the greatest problems faced in a public forum is how participants may disagree without descending into either personal attacks or not-so-witty one-line repartee. There are certain "rules of engagement," if you will, which can prevent name calling and other debate no-nos.
But first, we must dispel the myth that polite equals namby-pamby. In fact, it is possible to disagree--even to disagree significantly--in a civil manner. Disagreement is never comfortable, but if we refrain from permitting it to become a war (or, on the internet, a flamewar) we might learn something and keep our blood pressure down at the same time. Disagreement can be fruitful. But it will be fruitful only so long as certain guidelines are followed.
II. THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
1. THE paramount rule of Jeffersonian Debate: Grant your opponent respect. This means you must allow that he or she can examine the facts and come to a different conclusion from you. This is harder than it sounds, particularly for those who view disagreement as a personal affront, or a sign of stupidity. Persons who hold such views cannot engage in fruitful debate.
2. ...Which brings up the second point: Learn objectivity. Be able to separate others' disagreement with your ideas from attacks on your person. Beware of the overly subjective individual who identifies with certain ideals/ideas to such an extent that disagreement is considered to constitute a personal threat. Such persons hold to the perception, "You're either with me or you're against me." Should you meet with such a one, disengage immediately unless you enjoy being subjected to Scream and Leap.
3. Part of learning objectivity means recognizing the difference between a fact and an opinion. 2+2=4 is a fact, more or less. That John Mellencamp writes great lyrics is an opinion. In order to disprove a fact, one MUST present contrary evidence. Just saying, "That's wrong!" isn't good enough. It's an opinion, not an argument.
"That's wrong because..." is an argument. When presenting an opinion in a debate, it's usually a good idea to indicate in some manner that you realize it's an opinion. "It seems to me..." or "It's been my experience..." or (in nettese) the ever-popular, extremely useful IMHO (in my humble opinion). In short, avoid stating your opinion as if it were a fact: e. g. "Romance stories are gross," or "Action-adventure is boring." Likewise, another's experience or feelings cannot be "wrong" or "right." Don't confuse the existential with the objective. My experience (the existential) is MY experience and no one else can gainsay it because no one else is living in my head and body but me.
What someone else might justifiably do is question my interpretation of my experience: "Well, it didn't strike me as...."
Now for the fine point: While experiences can never be right or wrong, opinions arising from incorrectly interpreted experiences can be. When dealing with fiction, in which opinions and interpretation come from the experience of reading, this "fine point" is more than splitting hairs. Without encroaching too much on Peg's "Mannerly Art of Critique," being able to recognize that interpretation of fiction is opinion, not fact, is as essential to productive feedback as to productive debate.
4. Refrain absolutely from ad hominem attack. What is ad hominem attack? To criticize or belittle the one who holds a certain position rather than the position itself. Example: "How stupid can you be?" or "That just goes to show you don't know anything." Attacking your opponent rather than your opponent's ideas merely indicates a weakness in your position. It wins no brownie points.
5. Absolutely. Never. Use. Invectives. What's an "invective"? A verbal attack, often one that employs obscenities. No matter what your opponent says to you, do not respond with obscenities. Doing so shows deplorably bad manners and convinces any onlookers that you were raised in a barn. Locker-room talk doesn't belong on the debating block. There's simply no excuse for it. Period. It doesn't matter who started it. (Incidently, there is a difference between obscenity as invective and simple adjectival use: "Fuck you" is invective; "That's a hell of a note" or "You know damn well" is adjectival.)
6. Avoid irrelevancies and non sequiturs. Perhaps that goes without saying, but be sure your points relate to the topic. If your opponent (or someone else) says, "What do you mean by that?" or "Your point/parallel/example doesn't seem to follow," you must be able to explain how it does. By the same token, think through points and parallels before you make them to be certain they DO relate. A good way of weakening any argument is by using non sequiturs or bad metaphors.
7. Remember that there may be more than two sides to any debate. You may find yourself agreeing with neither debater, or agreeing with some points made by one, and some points made by the other. Polite debate includes frank admission of where one may agree with an opponent. It's a debate, not a war. Insisting, "You're with me or you're against me" merely points to the lack of objectivity mentioned in point #2 above.
8. In any debate, even polite ones, there is always a certain degree of side-taking: onlookers who are convinced by, or agree already with the arguments of one participant or another. Onlookers who choose to speak out should obey the same polite rules of engagement as anyone else. Also, it is helpful to state why one agrees. "John's right and you're wrong" is neither convincing nor helpful. However, "I find John's arguments persuasive because...." can contribute to the debate in a positive way. It also prevents "side-taking" from becoming mere ego-massage, which in turns helps to keep the focus on the matter at hand, not the personalities involved. It IS permissible to disagree with a friend. This goes back to being able to separate subjective from objective. I may like you very much, but still disagree with your position.
9. Persons who have tender egos should think twice before leaping into a debate. As Apollo advised, "Know thyself!" If you have a tendency to take disagreement personally--stay out of debates! People have skins of differing thicknesses. What may strike you as insulting may have been meant innocently. Assume ignorance, not malice, and inform your opponent if he or she just said something which struck as hostile or personal. Allow the other the opportunity to qualify remarks which may have been innocently meant. If your opponent says, "I didn't mean it that way!"--accept the refutation. Don't insist otherwise!
10. By the same token, recognize that phrasing is everything.
Bluntness can be plain rude, not charmingly honest. If you are one who does have a thick skin, realize others may not and take some care with what you say and how you say it. Such simple things as noting that your opinion is an opinion (the "In my experience" or "IMHO" mentioned above) can go a long way toward keeping feathers smooth and unruffled.
11. Don't be afraid to employ humor, as long as the humor is not a cover for personal attack. Humor in debate keeps blood from boiling.
12. Don't use religious principles or canons as absolutes. Recognize that not everyone may hold the same beliefs. Some debates directly concern religious points, but introducing them into an otherwise unrelated issue is inappropriate. "The Bible says..." is not an argument unless all participants agree on the Bible as an authority, and on a particular interpretation of the Bible, to boot. Otherwise, the reaction will--justifiably--be, "So what?" The use of religious principles or canons in debate must be treated as opinions, not facts.
13. Be man or woman enough to concede. If one's opponent convinces--admit it! Those who can never admit to being wrong show fragile ego structure. The real point of any debate is not to win, but to learn.
If one enters a debate merely to win, one has entered for the wrong reasons. Whatever the ancient Greeks thought, life is not a continual contest.
14. Know when to quit. There is a point in any debate when continued discussion ceases to be fruitful and becomes mere argument. Graceful closure is as important as graceful conduct. One does not have to have the last word, and it is permissible to say, "I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced." Agree to disagree.
15. Finally, watch grammar, especially when debating in written forms such as that found on the Internet. This is not a petty point. One cannot convince others of one's glittering wit and clever insight if it's delivered full of misspellings and grammar errors. Instead, participants will wonder how one passed eighth grade English. More, bad grammar or lack of clarity will contribute to misunderstanding.
One may say the opposite of what one means, or say something that is unintentionally amusing. ("Except" means the opposite of "accept," yet I see the two all-too-commonly confused in internet posts--with sometimes laughable results.)
If these simple rules are followed, even extremely controversial topics can be safely discussed. If these rules are not followed, the most mundane of matters may turn explosive.
III. WHAT IF ONE PARTICIPANT REFUSES TO PLAY FAIR?
In order for Jeffersonian debate to flourish, all participants must be willing to obey the rules of engagement. If one individual refuses, there's not much the rest can do but ignore him or her.
Nevertheless, a couple of things to keep in mind when this happens:
1. Some people feed on conflict; this is how they get their jollies. It's a sign of unhealthy social adjustment. Such individuals will make inflammatory remarks simply to irritate. On the internet, this may manifest as "trolling": those who post intentionally controversial or insulting statements simply to stir things up. (Trolls are not usually regular participants in any particular group.) Yet there are also individuals who aren't trolls but still jump into debates with both feet for the thrill of pissing off others: gadflies. Don't confuse the two. Nevertheless, the wise response is the same: ignore them and they go away (or at least shut up).
2. Replying to rudeness in kind simply makes you look foolish. As my grandfather used to say, "Don't lower yourself to their level." Temper, temper. Grit your teeth and keep the rules of engagement.
3. In the rare circumstance that a gadfly or troll does not leave even after being ignored for weeks, or whenever one takes his or her harassment from a public forum to a private one (such as email), immediately notify that person's ISP provider (i. e. postmaster@_gadfly's address_). If the mail bounces--that is, if the real ISP provider has been camouflaged--then immediately notify your ISP provider of the harassment and ask them to track the person down, or to give you a new mail address.
IV. IS IT EVER ALL RIGHT TO BREAK THE RULES?
Aren't there some topics that just don't deserve Jeffersonian debate? Aren't some positions so disgusting that they shouldn't be dignified by polite responses? What about posts by hate groups, neo-Nazis, pornographers, etc.?
This is a problematic question since it may lead down a slippery slope--rather like censorship. The automatic pitfall of free speech is that it IS free: people you don't like and with whom you disagree have just as much right to state their positions--short of slander--as you have to argue with them. Child pornography or its advertisement is illegal; debate about it is not... however disgusting or horrifying one may find the phenomena.
There are certain topics which are so widely regarded as morally objectionable that if one attacks them with non-Jeffersonian methods such as name-calling and invective, one may be cheered by most if not all the on-lookers. Yet there are other subjects, more controversial, which involve opinions just as virulent--such as homosexuality or abortion--but about which there is far less consensus. Some consider homosexuality or abortion to be as reprehensible as child pornography or murder, and refuse to engage in any polite debate about it because, of course, they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong (and usually disgusting and stupid, too). The reverse can be equally true: defenders of either may automatically see all opponents as bigoted or irrational (often based on past experience), and refuse to even listen to other positions as they're too busy screaming their own at the top of their (virtual) lungs.
Neither side is trying to debate. They're just on rampage and should be treated accordingly: Laugh at them, ignore them, or get out of their way, but don't lower yourself to their level by copying their methods. Doing so certainly won't accomplish anything except to make you look just as foolish. If, however, you meet up with someone who IS being polite in debate--no matter what you may think of his or her position--IF YOU WISH TO CONVINCE ANYONE ELSE OF YOURS, stay polite yourself.
In other words, No, it's never wise to break the rules. Not unless you're applying for God's job.
From To Be INTp
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Do what you are
Something I find very useful about personality types is that it helps me to value other people for their unique abilities and outlooks on life. Okay, so there are certain people that I can't stand for certain reasons, and it's hard for me to let that go. But on the other hand, I think every person has something positive to offer the world if they can learn what that is. INTps can greatly improve the world with their scientific discoveries. ESFjs are wonderful with children and make great nurses. ESFps entertain us and keep us young. ESXjs counterbalance the ENTp's desire to change and improve everything they see. ISFps make all sorts of beautiful art. XSTps work with their hands to fix the things we break. And the list goes on.
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Sure, I've got my favorite types and I definitely relate to some better than others. And some types are more likely to cause problems. But just like the church, this world needs every type of person to make society work... as well as it does at least (there are lots of things I'd change, but I try to remain optimistic.)
I've also found that learning personality types has helped me with group work. Different people have vastly different skills and working styles, and understanding this can greatly help when assigning roles in a group project. For instance, this last quarter, rather than trying to have our whole group of five design our site plan, Devin and I (both xNxp's) decided to work together on this and it turned out wonderfully. The rest of the group, who are the detail-oriented artisans to the best of my knowledge (that is, xSxp) did a great job putting together the reports and 3d models. Not only did this minimize the scheduling difficulties, but we were able to all work to our abilities and not get burnt out. Which is one of the most important aspects of discovering our types.
When we try to fit into a mold and choose a career based on who we think we should be, we inevitably get burnt out. Attempting to be an engineer earlier in college led to some serious depression because I was trying to do something that was outside of my interests and nature. I soon realized that picking a career because of the money I could make was completely contrary to my personality. However, once I discovered City and Regional Planning, I found a career path where I could use my intellect and creativity to benefit humanity in a tangible way. All of a sudden I was in a major that lined up with my abilities and values, and I flourished.
Discover who you really are, and find a way to do what fits your personality. Perhaps you are indeed built to be a business executive (although I doubt any of those people actually read my blog!) Do it! Live life to the best of your abilities (and serve God in that way!) But many of us are not and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves that this is the only way to be a valuable member of society! And remember, anyone who has made a huge positive change in society likely has struggled to fit in (and has been martyred, but that's a whole other can of worms).
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
Sure, I've got my favorite types and I definitely relate to some better than others. And some types are more likely to cause problems. But just like the church, this world needs every type of person to make society work... as well as it does at least (there are lots of things I'd change, but I try to remain optimistic.)
I've also found that learning personality types has helped me with group work. Different people have vastly different skills and working styles, and understanding this can greatly help when assigning roles in a group project. For instance, this last quarter, rather than trying to have our whole group of five design our site plan, Devin and I (both xNxp's) decided to work together on this and it turned out wonderfully. The rest of the group, who are the detail-oriented artisans to the best of my knowledge (that is, xSxp) did a great job putting together the reports and 3d models. Not only did this minimize the scheduling difficulties, but we were able to all work to our abilities and not get burnt out. Which is one of the most important aspects of discovering our types.
When we try to fit into a mold and choose a career based on who we think we should be, we inevitably get burnt out. Attempting to be an engineer earlier in college led to some serious depression because I was trying to do something that was outside of my interests and nature. I soon realized that picking a career because of the money I could make was completely contrary to my personality. However, once I discovered City and Regional Planning, I found a career path where I could use my intellect and creativity to benefit humanity in a tangible way. All of a sudden I was in a major that lined up with my abilities and values, and I flourished.
Discover who you really are, and find a way to do what fits your personality. Perhaps you are indeed built to be a business executive (although I doubt any of those people actually read my blog!) Do it! Live life to the best of your abilities (and serve God in that way!) But many of us are not and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves that this is the only way to be a valuable member of society! And remember, anyone who has made a huge positive change in society likely has struggled to fit in (and has been martyred, but that's a whole other can of worms).
[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post
From http://linus.highpoint.edu/~bblatchl/infp.html:
INFPs and Stress
INFPs feel internal turmoil when they find themselves in situations in which there is conflict between their inner code of ethics and their relationships with others. They feel caught between pleasing others and maintaining their own integrity. Their natural tendency to identify with others, compounded with their self-sacrificial dispositions, tends to leave them confused as to who they really are. Their quiet personalities further feeds their feelings of depersonalization. The INFP's quest for self-identity then seems even more alluring - but increasingly impossible to attain.
As with all NFs, the INFP will feel lost and perplexed at stressful times. As stress builds, INFPs become disconnected from their own personality and perceived place in life. They will lose sight of who they are in relation to time and place. They may not make basic observations, while instead they will focus on the more abstract and symbolic meanings of a particular interaction. This can sometimes baffle those who expect more direct communication and a fairly concrete relationship.
Might explain some things.
Friday, June 02, 2006
The inner world
I know I've written a lot of posts about personality type. I find that writing is the most effective way to understand my own thoughts. Which leads me to this: once again, I think I might be an introvert.
Funny, often times I'm one of the more outgoing people at social engagements. I have a great time, but when I leave I often feel like I've ... hmmm... it's hard to explain... maybe I could use an example. A couple times after being the talkative one at a get-together I've felt like a terrible person and that people think I'm just a goofball. I enjoy entertaining people, but I often feel like this is a mask on the dark and brooding world I have inside.
But it's difficult for me to not just put a positive face on everything and then feel like I've deceived others and myself. I hate it when people see me as less complex than I really am, but I often don't show the other sides because I want to make people feel good... about me.
This is why I often love to spend time with other complex people because I know they can relate to my conflict between the inner and outer worlds. Blogging can help me to learn to express my true self in a controlled, well-thought-out way without exposing too much and risking offending others or scaring them away.
And it's interesting... I'm definitely attracted to people who have a "dark side," that is, people who aren't going to be offended or put off by my cynicism and sinful nature that I often try to cover up. People who will listen without judging and appreciate me even more, even if they disagree with me. And people who expose their own secrets so it's safe for me to do the same. If you're one of these people, you probably know who you are, and you really mean a lot to me!
Funny, often times I'm one of the more outgoing people at social engagements. I have a great time, but when I leave I often feel like I've ... hmmm... it's hard to explain... maybe I could use an example. A couple times after being the talkative one at a get-together I've felt like a terrible person and that people think I'm just a goofball. I enjoy entertaining people, but I often feel like this is a mask on the dark and brooding world I have inside.
But it's difficult for me to not just put a positive face on everything and then feel like I've deceived others and myself. I hate it when people see me as less complex than I really am, but I often don't show the other sides because I want to make people feel good... about me.
This is why I often love to spend time with other complex people because I know they can relate to my conflict between the inner and outer worlds. Blogging can help me to learn to express my true self in a controlled, well-thought-out way without exposing too much and risking offending others or scaring them away.
And it's interesting... I'm definitely attracted to people who have a "dark side," that is, people who aren't going to be offended or put off by my cynicism and sinful nature that I often try to cover up. People who will listen without judging and appreciate me even more, even if they disagree with me. And people who expose their own secrets so it's safe for me to do the same. If you're one of these people, you probably know who you are, and you really mean a lot to me!
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Cars and Drugs
Lately I've been considering the role of technology in our lives. We often lament our slavery to automobiles and computers and long to return to a simpler time when humankind lived off the land and enjoyed the tranquility of nature. We see ourselves as part of a rapidly accelerating machine that will soon destroy itself or the earth if not stopped.
But while society may indeed be spinning out of control, we often ignore the huge benefits that technological advances have brought us. Indeed, there seem to be tradeoffs in both direction for every invention and innovation that has come along.
For instance, despite overuse, abuse, and a likely contribution to world overcrowding, modern medicine has improved quality and length of life exponentially. Those who distrust the medical world and pride themselves on never see a doctor may not realize the immense benefits they have directly and indirectly gained from healthcare. Along with likely being born in a hospital and receiving immunizations at a young age, antibiotics have significantly reduced the number of harmful diseases these people are exposed to. This is not to minimize the negative impacts that the pharmaceutical companies have doubtless created, such as increased pollution from manufacturing processes.
Likewise, the advent of the automobile changed the world in countless ways. Those of us in the urban planning world are all familiar with the negative impacts of unmitigated automobile use: air pollution, obesity, and barren, car-oriented retail strips scattered throughout a suburban wasteland. But we must also remember the benefits that Ford and Honda have brought us: easy access to outdoor escapades in the relative wildland of the Sierra Nevada; a cozy home in the woods with a well-paying job in the inner city; easy access to food and clothing...
So maybe we've taken it too far and built a society that enslaves us to our Toyotas. But rather than attacking the automobile as the root of all evil, we ought to learn to balance our need for freedom with our desire to preserve the natural world that is so vital to our livelihood. Urban planners are finally finding ways to do this, and it will be exciting to see cities like Portland and Vancouver start to change the way we view mobility and urban living.
I'll talk more about this in future postings if I see interest in the comments!
But while society may indeed be spinning out of control, we often ignore the huge benefits that technological advances have brought us. Indeed, there seem to be tradeoffs in both direction for every invention and innovation that has come along.
For instance, despite overuse, abuse, and a likely contribution to world overcrowding, modern medicine has improved quality and length of life exponentially. Those who distrust the medical world and pride themselves on never see a doctor may not realize the immense benefits they have directly and indirectly gained from healthcare. Along with likely being born in a hospital and receiving immunizations at a young age, antibiotics have significantly reduced the number of harmful diseases these people are exposed to. This is not to minimize the negative impacts that the pharmaceutical companies have doubtless created, such as increased pollution from manufacturing processes.
Likewise, the advent of the automobile changed the world in countless ways. Those of us in the urban planning world are all familiar with the negative impacts of unmitigated automobile use: air pollution, obesity, and barren, car-oriented retail strips scattered throughout a suburban wasteland. But we must also remember the benefits that Ford and Honda have brought us: easy access to outdoor escapades in the relative wildland of the Sierra Nevada; a cozy home in the woods with a well-paying job in the inner city; easy access to food and clothing...
So maybe we've taken it too far and built a society that enslaves us to our Toyotas. But rather than attacking the automobile as the root of all evil, we ought to learn to balance our need for freedom with our desire to preserve the natural world that is so vital to our livelihood. Urban planners are finally finding ways to do this, and it will be exciting to see cities like Portland and Vancouver start to change the way we view mobility and urban living.
I'll talk more about this in future postings if I see interest in the comments!
Sunday, May 21, 2006
A posting from an INTP forum I was just reading hits the nail on the head regarding my thought process. I've often had trouble learning from a teacher and have had to teach myself from the book because I couldn't take in new information without processing it. Check out what Henry wrote:
I was once told by an IT trainer that some people learn best by seeing and some by doing. He commented that there is a much rarer third way, which he observed mostly among programmers (and in me - hence the discussion), which he called data processing. This is exactly what I do, and should not be mistaken for slowness of thought!
When I'm learning, I need to process the information I hear/see. When the data comes faster than I can process it I can get stuck and 'overflow' as it were, particularly if I have to grapple with an idea. At such a time I have to stop the teacher (the input) and clarify the point before I can continue. If this is not possible I will generally lose track of proceedings until I am done processing, which is inconvenient in group learning situations. However, once processed, I have fully grasped the point and will not need to return to it.
Anyone else do this? I suspect it is related to the INTP stubborness I have seen described - the unwillingness to accept what others say (whatever their status may be) without first analysing and deciding for ourselves.
It tickles me to think that I work rather like a computer program.
~Henry, age 25
I was once told by an IT trainer that some people learn best by seeing and some by doing. He commented that there is a much rarer third way, which he observed mostly among programmers (and in me - hence the discussion), which he called data processing. This is exactly what I do, and should not be mistaken for slowness of thought!
When I'm learning, I need to process the information I hear/see. When the data comes faster than I can process it I can get stuck and 'overflow' as it were, particularly if I have to grapple with an idea. At such a time I have to stop the teacher (the input) and clarify the point before I can continue. If this is not possible I will generally lose track of proceedings until I am done processing, which is inconvenient in group learning situations. However, once processed, I have fully grasped the point and will not need to return to it.
Anyone else do this? I suspect it is related to the INTP stubborness I have seen described - the unwillingness to accept what others say (whatever their status may be) without first analysing and deciding for ourselves.
It tickles me to think that I work rather like a computer program.
~Henry, age 25
Saturday, May 20, 2006
More Myers-Briggs...
I know, I know, I'm always changing my mind. But right now I'm definitely in an INTP phase. That is, Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving. Take a gander:
INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.
Okay, so sometimes my extroverted intuition takes over (social situations) and I get quite goofy and/or talkative. But in general, I need to spend time alone with a problem or idea in order to really feel like I understand it. And I have no problem doing so (as demonstrated by the hours I've spent figuring out myers-briggs!) Anyway, I know that's a lot of talking about myself...
I want to know what you guys are! There are a couple links I can recommend: Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test and Myers-Briggs: A Complete Guide (try out the test link at the bottom of the page... it's an interesting one!) I would check both out, partly because a single test may not be accurate; redundancy is wise. You may be surprised how accurate the descriptions are!
(It's interesting... I took the test that I linked above, and I scored closest to INTP, followed by INTJ, INFJ, and INFP...)
INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.
Okay, so sometimes my extroverted intuition takes over (social situations) and I get quite goofy and/or talkative. But in general, I need to spend time alone with a problem or idea in order to really feel like I understand it. And I have no problem doing so (as demonstrated by the hours I've spent figuring out myers-briggs!) Anyway, I know that's a lot of talking about myself...
I want to know what you guys are! There are a couple links I can recommend: Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test and Myers-Briggs: A Complete Guide (try out the test link at the bottom of the page... it's an interesting one!) I would check both out, partly because a single test may not be accurate; redundancy is wise. You may be surprised how accurate the descriptions are!
(It's interesting... I took the test that I linked above, and I scored closest to INTP, followed by INTJ, INFJ, and INFP...)
Friday, May 19, 2006
Mayday (revisited)
I realize that I haven't yet posted a post-Mayday post (how's that for re-using words?) so I'd like to talk about that.
The weekend started with a slight hitch: when I arrived at the church slightly late, one of the guys (who will not be named here, Josh) who was signed up for my vehicle was not there. After about 45 minutes Mini, Kim and I decided to take off. Turns out the young man had contacted another person (who will also remain unnamed... for reals) the night before and was not attending the trip, but the chain of communication stopped there. I'm not bitter (for reals).
Anyway after an adventure involving an unexpected passenger switch, a broken caravan, and a wrong turn that took us past CSU Monterey Bay (strange area!), Mini and I arrived at Mount Hermon after dinner and part-way through the first worship service. I'm not bitter.
Actually, the weekend was excellent. Arriving in the forest of the Santa Cruz Mountains was such a pleasant feeling. Being born in the Northwest and spending five of my formative years in the Portland area really makes me appreciate tall trees and dense undergrowth. I instantly relaxed upon driving under the canopy of the ponderosa pines.
Another highlight was definitely Derek Webb's concert on Saturday. What an amazing musician and songwriter! I particularly enjoyed the song "Table for Two," an old Caedmon's Call song which Derek wrote, describing a night when he and a friend stayed up late at IHOP discussing "women and the sovereignty of God." I can't tell you how many times I've had such a conversation, and I felt like I would have put the same words in that song if I had written it! Anyway, he really appreciated the theme of our retreat and tailored his set to fit our theme ("Loving like Jesus would").
Well, I feel like I'm not actually saying anything so I'm going to peace out, fools. See, I'm totally goofy right now. But I'm not bitter.
The weekend started with a slight hitch: when I arrived at the church slightly late, one of the guys (who will not be named here, Josh) who was signed up for my vehicle was not there. After about 45 minutes Mini, Kim and I decided to take off. Turns out the young man had contacted another person (who will also remain unnamed... for reals) the night before and was not attending the trip, but the chain of communication stopped there. I'm not bitter (for reals).
Anyway after an adventure involving an unexpected passenger switch, a broken caravan, and a wrong turn that took us past CSU Monterey Bay (strange area!), Mini and I arrived at Mount Hermon after dinner and part-way through the first worship service. I'm not bitter.
Actually, the weekend was excellent. Arriving in the forest of the Santa Cruz Mountains was such a pleasant feeling. Being born in the Northwest and spending five of my formative years in the Portland area really makes me appreciate tall trees and dense undergrowth. I instantly relaxed upon driving under the canopy of the ponderosa pines.
Another highlight was definitely Derek Webb's concert on Saturday. What an amazing musician and songwriter! I particularly enjoyed the song "Table for Two," an old Caedmon's Call song which Derek wrote, describing a night when he and a friend stayed up late at IHOP discussing "women and the sovereignty of God." I can't tell you how many times I've had such a conversation, and I felt like I would have put the same words in that song if I had written it! Anyway, he really appreciated the theme of our retreat and tailored his set to fit our theme ("Loving like Jesus would").
Well, I feel like I'm not actually saying anything so I'm going to peace out, fools. See, I'm totally goofy right now. But I'm not bitter.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
My surprise staring contest
Yesterday I went out to Los Osos Oaks State Preserve (in Los Osos, nonetheless!) to hike and pray. I climbed onto an oak limb hanging over the trail and sat there for a few minutes. About fifty yards ahead of me I heard some crows in the trees making a racket. I thought, "don't they do that when there's a predator around?" Wouldn't it be wild...
All of a sudden a bobcat runs down the trail toward me! About 20 feet away, it sees me in my perch and stops. It stares at me, slowly backing up, for about five seconds, until I shout and it runs back into the undergrowth!
All of a sudden a bobcat runs down the trail toward me! About 20 feet away, it sees me in my perch and stops. It stares at me, slowly backing up, for about five seconds, until I shout and it runs back into the undergrowth!
Monday, May 15, 2006
The Word of God
I think that one of the reasons I started looking into these things is my belief that the Church has put more importance on the Bible than on Jesus Christ Himself! Rather than learning to turn to Christ in prayer, we're taught to go straight to the Bible to have our questions answered. And honestly, how do we know that the bible is the "inerrant word of God?"
The bible itself is explicit that Jesus is the Word of God! We've replaced Jesus with a book. No wonder we don't love Him! We're so tied up in our huge assortment of doctrines and dogmas (Calvinism or Arminianism? Creationism or evolution? Pre-millennialism or a-millennialism?) that we lose sight of the fact that Jesus died so we could have life. Let's lose the baggage and learn to trust in the true Word of God!
The bible itself is explicit that Jesus is the Word of God! We've replaced Jesus with a book. No wonder we don't love Him! We're so tied up in our huge assortment of doctrines and dogmas (Calvinism or Arminianism? Creationism or evolution? Pre-millennialism or a-millennialism?) that we lose sight of the fact that Jesus died so we could have life. Let's lose the baggage and learn to trust in the true Word of God!
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Jesus and the Moneychangers
Here's another interesting article: Jesus and the Moneychangers. The main premise is that Jesus was indignant primarily because the temple had become a slaughterhouse and the men in the temple were making money off of the sacrificial system.
All of the articles I have posted should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to lead anyone astray! I simply want us all to pursue the truth and not take for granted what we've been told in the church our entire lives. Here is a cool guide for reading the bible in view of Jesus's teachings:
How Does The Bible Say We Will Know God?
All of the articles I have posted should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to lead anyone astray! I simply want us all to pursue the truth and not take for granted what we've been told in the church our entire lives. Here is a cool guide for reading the bible in view of Jesus's teachings:
How Does The Bible Say We Will Know God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)