““That Ark’s esteem is enhanced when he diminishes another human being.”
That’s not what he’s doing and it’s not what I’m applauding. He is criticizing belief in certain incorrect ideas. You are the one – like Heather – who associates the incorrect idea as if it were a personal trait. It’s not. It’s a Bad Idea worthy of criticism … criticism that uses critical words.
Imagine that. How very terrible. Not kind at all.
Since when was kindness for Bad Ideas more important than respecting what’s true? Without the latter, I don’t think you can have an honest expression of the former.”
Dear Tildeb –
How many times, with those you love, are you kind (even when you know they are wrong)? I ask because I have found relationships do not thrive on an absence of kindness – even when one or the other is wrong. I have found relationships cease when being right takes precedence over kindness.
People who blog do so for many reasons. It has taken several years for me to learn that Ark performs for an audience, does the same proselytising he finds despicable in others, layers his Ark-based-faith over “evidence”, actively rears back from “relationship”, and pours disdain on anyone not yet deconverted to his satisfaction. He has no interest in finding out anything about who I am, what makes me tick, what makes me the person who blogs.
So knowing now that Ark performs, enters a forum of sharing not to share but to diminish and pull down, seeks to groom those who are vulnerable … whose foundation stones are rocky … who live their life by a code they now doubt … with real consequences for any change of faith-based-belief (like “the Clergy Project” he uses as “evidence” of being right) …
BTW: if I admit to all of what Ark wants – but continue to live my life preaching the same things as I did before – because to not do so means I am out of job … why is that deception okay?
So when words of abuse and disdain and dismissal and pulling down are validated by “being right” – I see no difference between the application of poison by a religion you detest, and the application of poison you applaud.
Because if words did not have consequences – why are you so passionate about the “fiction” that is the bible? A fiction used by you to describe a cruel and vile God who is the same vile Jesus of Nazareth (with that “fiction” being evidence to validate being cruel to those who think differently).
I am missing something.
I read one book that challenged the bible. It did so in a way that made sense of the bible (with a different) history and “fiction”. It did not tell me what to think. It did not perform. It did not proselytise. It did not groom. I was given freedom of choice.
But Ark does not allow choice. Nor do you. If I do not agree with you I am wrong (and vile?). And I wonder how that is different to the “poison” of which you accuse religion.
People change, Tildeb.
Just look at the empty pews on a Sunday morning, the churches being sold off, the vacancies for clergy, the fractures over “good theology and bad theology”. And then look at how little interest “real” people have in the academia of religion. Listen to the alienating language of “academic theology and atheism” that has arisen from those who love their research more than they love the application of their results …
Of being kind to someone you love even when they are wrong. Of knowing one more criticism might push this person over the edge. That this person writes with a ton of baggage. That this person reacted when they read these words because they were having a bad day so anything would light their fuse.
Isn’t NOT factoring all that in the real “fiction of being right”?
None of us know who that one person might be. Nor who will wander by months after these words are written today (when we have changed – again – and would not write the same words again). So I will not perform. And I will not groom. Because if I do real people don’t matter. Only being right. And that is something you also level at religion. And all THAT is why I have responded to Ark and you as I have.
I discovered you are as dishonest as those you accuse of dishonesty.
And that’s not kind.