Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 9:31am

---
Forrest,

"It's one thing to 'question' authority, quite another to announce "Neener, neener, it can't make me respect it!"

I've noticed you sometimes use the words "Neerer, neerer" to characterize the words and actions of others. I do not recall hearing those words in my life except from you so they through me a bit because I did not understand them. You have ever used those words directly toward me in the past.

The urban dictionary, among other online sources, defines 'neerer neerer' this way:

" A childish taunt or jeer pronounced with a nasal sneer, for lack of a more intelligent retort to someone else's jeer or taunt, usually from a peer. Sometimes sung to the tune of "Ring-Around-the-Rosy" for really driving the point home."

And 'neener' this way:

''An interjection typically used to taunt, ridicule, or boast."

So when you write: It is one thing to question authority, quite another to announce, "Neener, neener, it can't make me respect it!"

Are you suggesting, for example, that people who go further than questioning outward authority and into actually not respecting or regarding it as a referent or context for direction, meaning, purpose, and identity, (because they respect and regard immanent Presence itself in itself as their sole referent and context regarding spiritual matters) are childishly taunting, ridiculing, and/or boasting?

That is, are you suggesting that when a person shares their experience that they no longer respect or regard outward political, religious, economic, social, forms, institutions, ideologies, etc., because they know immanent Presence itself in itself as sufficient guide, that, in the very announcing of it, they are childishly ridiculing, taunting, and/or boasting?

I'm trying to understand your use of the phrase. You seem to use it when you are interested in ridiculing what another person has written. That is, in the very act of accusing another of taunting, ridiculing, or boasting in a childish manner, you are participating in ridiculing and taunting.

With that said, perhaps you are not using the phrase in the same way as defined by the Urban Dictionary?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 10:27am

I haven't turned my back on the Bible nor suggested others do so.  Nor have I suggested that the Bible is the only Holy Book deserving of a seeker's or scholar's attention.

When I say "Question Authority," I'm not saying "the Bible is bunk," I'm saying that preacher man at his pulpit, telling you exactly what the Bible means to you, is not someone you must give your automatic "yea" to. You're not living in a state where preachers have such authority.

Just because some desert tribes were into stoning people who committed this or that offense, or couldn't abide this or that behavior, doesn't mean some other tribe on another continent, some thousands of years later, is likewise committed to those same contracts or codes of conduct. 

To treat the Bible as a set of boilerplate legal contracts and/or as some ultimate code of ethics is not the only way to respect its content.  Indeed, what we find in the Bible are people getting their insights directly from prayer and contemplation.  Lets do the same.  Without Continuing Revelation, it's "game over". 

Forcing the Bible to be our guide today, is like the ultimate cop out and is not what people did in the Bible, as the Bible as we know it today didn't exist for them.  Scripture is a work in progress, up to the present moment.

To paraphrase one of my teachers, Walter Kaufmann, who (gently) mocked students claiming to be Christian or Jewish who didn't read Genesis and so on:  if Abraham were to pull that stunt today, and almost sacrifice Isaac, but for the goat that showed up instead, he'd likely lose Isaac to state custody and end up confined to a mental hospital himself (or to prison if he resisted).

In treating the Bible as a compendium of human projections, I'm not thereby dissing it as unworthy of study, nor as a source of insights.  On the contrary, I'm agreeing it's a "special" tome.

I'm just not at all nostalgic for some community of like-minded, wherein we all agree to adopt the behaviors of some desert tribe based on the rules in Leviticus. I don't see my Quakerism as asking that of me, much as I do seek a community of like-minded eager to experiment with self-governance using structures somewhat akin to a Quaker meeting's.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 11:11am

"Neener" illustrates a certain childish tone of defiance & assumed superiority towards whole groups of people whom one doesn't know directly (except perhaps for a small personal sample)

but assumes to be uniformly inclined to thinking in ways one disapproves of.

"Foolishness" is clearly 'in the eye of the beholder'; so I'll have to leave it to others to decide whether it applies to them.  Does it lie in finding wisdom in simple, silly books for children, or in failing to find it in ancient books of wisdom, or in ascribing shallow ignorant slavish deference at work in people who do find it there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 12:08pm

---
Forrest.

So back in May when I wrote to you in the discussion thread "Bible Revisited ...":

"The blessing is that I am under no obligation to conform to your expectations or characterizations as you are not obligated to mine. For conscience sake, I will continue advancing (pushing) the sufficiency of imminent awareness in all circumstances and in all contexts even in the face of your aversion."

You responded:

"Is 'Neener!' a theological term?"

In this context I was not assuming "superiority towards whole groups of people." I was talking to you specifically as an individual and stating my conscience is not informed by you. Your response "Neener" suggests you were characterizing my words to you specifically (not to a whole group) as childishly or foolishly ridiculing, taunting, and/or boasting. Or, as your response implies, that I was being defiant toward you and assumed superiority over you. So, is it your contention that if someone says their conscience is not informed by you and, therefore, they will not act according to your conscience, that they are childish and foolishly defiant toward you and have assumed a superiority over you? Is there another reason you responded using the term "Neener." Again, just trying to understand your intent in using these term.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 12:25pm

Your words and tone were in fact, to the best of my sense of how you worded them, "childishly or foolishly ridiculing, taunting, and/or boasting."

You might have found ways to say the obvious, that we don't see things _entirely_ the same way (although we have far more in common than you seem to credit, given your apparent trouble in recognizing agreement in differing words -- a common characteristic of early Friends' ways of referring to God, by the way) -- and that you will, of course, be governed by how you see them rather than the way I see them.

I expected nothing else, but the tone of the statement made me think you felt a need to fight off my influence...

I frankly agree that contact w Spirit/Presence is quite sufficient, merely contending that people do in fact find this in a wide variety of ways & forms -- and were probably Intended to do so. And that laying less stress on one aspect of human function or another -- as a temporary means of finding and identifying that contact, is _temporarily_ desireable, but probably shouldn't, for most people, be an end in itself. A person presumably intuits, at least for now, what direction for that suits them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 2:36pm

Okay, that is very helpful to know that your sense of my response was that I was childishly and foolishly ridiculing and/or taunting you and/or being boastful. I appreciate your honest response. I have no intent or desire to change your sense of my words.

I also appreciate your assessment that I do not credit that we have much in common and I have trouble recognizing agreement in different words. I will give them much consideration.

Your sense that I felt the need to fight off your influence (I would say contend with you) does get to the nature of my response to you back in May and the last paragraph in your response here is a good example of why I often contend with you.

When I share the sufficiency of immanent Presence itself in itself I am not merely sharing a different way among different ways. I am testifying to the witness that people can find meaning, purpose, and identity by direct inward experience of immanent Presence continually throughout their daily lives without reference to any outward way, practice, or form. This testimony to this witness is different in essence from glimpsing immanent Presence by participating in outward ways, forms, practices, etc. I do not share your contention that people are "probably intended" to "find this in a wide variety of ways & forms." I am contending that participating in outward forms to mediate the experience of immanent Presence is a flawed human function and to nurture and foster it as a "temporary means of finding and identifying that contact" goes against my conscience. The inshining Light in my conscience moves against my establishing and nurturing adherence to outward ways, practices, and prescriptions to temporarily mitigate for Presence itself in itself. And admonishes me that it is the usurpation of the inshining workings of immanent Presence itself in itself guiding, pushing, and nurturing in the conscious and conscience of men and women. Again, as I have suggested in discussions with you, this is the essence of our differing consciences even as we are in agreement with the sufficiency immanent Presence itself in itself. This was the essence of the disagreement between the founding Quakers. I am saying to the extent that I were to support and nurture outward forms, whether temporary or not, is the extent to which I would go against my conscience which is against usurping the spiritual human function of participating directly and without mediation with immanent Presence itself in itself.

Now, as I have said many times, I acknowledge that most people will continue to look toward outward political, religious, social, and economic, forms for meaning, purpose, and identity in this world. And I would not impose my conscience over against that of another. I will just keep walking amongst them and testify to a witness (experience) wherein outward political, religious, social, and economic forms are not helpful or needful.

Finally, thank you against for helping me to understand your intent in using the word "Neener." It helps me understand some other things you have written.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 3:32pm

I'm also inclined to think that God's provision of such forms, for them as wants them -- suggests that God is more patient with flawed human functioning than you -- and certainly more patient with it than I am myself; but hey! Here we are!

May we continue to find each other annoying in fruitful ways!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 4:37pm

---
Yes, It was once necessary for human being to be established in and follow outward forms to participate in immanent being and know righteousness. The was the old participation. The old participation was fulfilled in the coming of immanent Presence itself in itself directly into the consciences of men and woman. The old type of outward participation is expired. To turn to this type of participation is to anchor the conscious and inform the conscience in an relationship with immanent Presence that is expired. What was once a gift is now a penalty in relation to immanent being.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 5:01pm

Kirby Urner said:

I haven't turned my back on the Bible nor suggested others do so.  Nor have I suggested that the Bible is the only Holy Book deserving of a seeker's or scholar's attention.

Probably what worries me most about Bible scholars is their lack of a track record in preventing wars.  As the US was moving towards Civil War, both sides tried to work out the issues in Biblical terms. Yet we experienced a train wreak, the repercussions of which are still with us to this day.

How about Prohibition, which criminalized a majority of citizens, teaching them to become scofflaws and gangsters.  How was the Bible a help with that?  Or now, with Prohibition only partially rolled back?

The pro-slavery camp, favoring that institution as an ongoing lifestyle option (for would-be owners), pointed out that Jesus never said anything specifically against slavery, yet would have been surrounded by slaves his whole life. The Romans were really into slavery back then, if no one else, and continued to be so as Christians.

Most KKKers consider themselves a part of some kind of Christian organization.  Likewise in South Africa:  Apartheid was the Divine Order.  Some of the first slaves brought to the New World were already Christians by birth.

Contemporary racialism was invented as an outgrowth of Social Darwinism, a pseudo-science designed to allow self-appointed "animal husbandry" types to work amongst us, as father-knows-best Eugenicists, authorized to sterilize the "unfit," perhaps without telling them.  "God wouldn't have invented races if He'd meant them to inter-marry" -- that kind of immoral nonsense.

Fast forward and once again I see televangelists with their heads in the sand.  They broadcast how Persians are rapacious for nukes, doing everything to squirm out from under our tightening choke hold, whereby only the superpowerful US and its friends will call the shots. "Thou shalt bow down to our will" seems to be the "Christians" message, to their nuclear free zone counterparts. 

It's a re-run of what people thought might be going on in Iraq, but it wasn't happening there either.  Do we learn anything from all this Bible reading?  Or do we just get more sick?

How do Christians justify holding nukes over the heads of their brethren again? They say America has two major industries:  War and Christmas.  So true.

How is it good, in the long run, for Christianity, to have bully pulpit televangelists spewing their ignorant meme viruses to their flocks, hypocritically accusing the Persians of wanting to share in their own moral depravity? 

I'm frankly disgusted by these self-professed Christians and look forward to a time when they don't keep popping up on my radio dial in such numbers.  If I had to choose between Quaker and Christian, I'd gladly choose Quaker, just to put more distance between myself and these obnoxious nuke heads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 29, 2016 at 7:38pm

I am willing to stipulate that most Christians are not yet walking on water.

Most Bible fans pick our noses with the same fingers (of our own hands) that atheists use to (fingers of their own hands, that is) pick their noses. If you ever go wading through online religious discussions frequented by any sect, from Islamic to Atheist) you will find people shamelessly stirring up fear & hatred of Moslems, Christians, or both. Likewise pretty ignorant defenders of all of the above.

A great many Bible fans would consider me a raving heathen. What does that have to do with what's available in there if one doesn't start out with automatic adoration or automatic contempt? (Give that up & you won't need to add so many disclaimers.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 8th mo. 30, 2016 at 1:33am

I don't perceive myself to be issuing disclaimers so much as taking a position, one in which I keep the Bible open for consultation, but don't follow some party line about geopolitics as a result, at least not one dictated by so-and-so.  At the code school this evening, we all went around per usual with the introductions, and part of my fifteen seconds was "I'm something of a lobbyist and political animal."  That just echoes what's in my blogs (journals).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 30, 2016 at 10:07am

Let's see. The original theme was that the various odd religious notions of the world came into circulation because each of them, for at least one of us benighted fools, makes some contribution towards them sorting out (imperfectly, but a little bit clearer) what kind of world we're in & what direction they (personally, at least) needs to move their spiritual butt.

Your contribution to the subject has been a harsh & irrational attack on the Bible, on the grounds that a lot of people find ways to take it wrong. (I'd be astonished if they didn't, given that the gist of its long-term message is too simple to be quickly grasped, goes against the grain of human psychology, & only seeps in after the rah-rah stuff has been eagerly gulped down, where it induces a loooooong (kalpas, anyone?) period of psychic indigestion.

Every time I call you on this, you emits a quick reassurance about how much you loves your Bible (aside from all those idiots who take it seriously in some way) and then add a heap of the same.

Hero worship & 'demonization' (or for intellectual types, 'stupifization'?) are two sides of a strong defect in psychological vision. Yes, we do see people with extraordinary gifts & people with extraordinarily clueness badness; but we're all of us just poorsouls all the same. Terms like "Fundies" (whether or not you need them to say, "Thank You NonGod that I am not like that idiot over there!") include a great many uninformed but not necessarily incapable people who are mostly doing Goodstuff, best as they know how. Some of them were out on the San Diego streets a few years back, taking a lot of police flack for providing food to the people who have to live out there.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page