Not much to say...
- Thread starter Zenn
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Look at his signature....
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
musterion
Well-known member
Right, it's said that for a long time. I was just thinking that despite it, Lon once said he doesn't technically consider himself a Calvinist. Must be thinking of someone else but there's someone here who is very Calvinistic but denied being a Calvinist.
Zenn
New member
Zenn
New member
With all due respect Mr. Religion, the first post you made in my intro thread was a dour and parsimonious comment against the Septuagint (#25). So it's not like you came into the thread to say hi and respect my views.
And in your second post, I do appreciate the insight you gave about the rather odd system of limitations accorded to newbies, although the comment "Get crackin'" presumes liberties of an informal relationship that rather does not exist yet. Then again, I ignored it as a difference in culture and have since been informed that Americans would find such a comment "friendly".
But you then call me fresh meat. (#51)
And demand I take a test (#74) labeling me as a tease (as opposed to someone who is merely cautious amongst strangers).
"... just take the tests..." is a rather demanding turn of phrase, is it not?
But while I will admit to some curiosity as to why you would represent your own Calvinist views as "mean", just realize I had not done so.
Things didn't get any better with your next post, declaring me to be a fraud (#77), or at least jumping on the bandwagon of a decidedly unfriendly person who has deluded himself in this matter.
And didn't your next post (#128) directly put words in my mouth? Usually that's not considered a friendly thing to do, but I will say I was impressed with your stylistic sarcasm.
Face it, sir, you came on hostile and you stayed that way. For the life of me I'm not sure why Town Heretic decided to make an apologetic for such behaviour, but since he wishes me to believe that you are an upright outstanding person of a genteel nature and impeccable character, I will have to take it on Kierkegaardian faith that he is correct.
The only thing I would ask is that if you only had the above posts from which to gauge the intent of a person, would you consider that person friendly? :AMR:
Zenn
I really think this is largely about how we choose to see a thing...by way of:
At this point, to your mind you were simply being cautious. Others, with an experience I've noted, read it as evasive and needlessly coy. Some of those became antagonistic and aggressive and maybe you read everything that wasn't carefully something else in that same light?
I thought that was funny.
:thumb: And I doubt he knew or assumed you weren't American. Most though by no stretch all of the posters here tend to be and it's not unreasonable to assume the same general cultural markers absent some particular reason to believe otherwise, don't you think?
He was commiserating at that point. We've all been there and that's about how it is in relation to the more aggressive around here. You'd noted that yourself, if using different verbiage.
He didn't actually label you a tease. Rather he lamented having to tease particulars from you. It's a very different animal.
It's a strong suggestion couched by the self effacement of "my meanie Calvinist views"...
At this point, to your mind you were simply being cautious. Others, with an experience I've noted, read it as evasive and needlessly coy. Some of those became antagonistic and aggressive and maybe you read everything that wasn't carefully something else in that same light?
Because he wanted you to know he wasn't actually being aggressive and to couch the "here's one way to stop the gossip/speculation without having to exhaustively answer any given person with a query up their sleeves" in language that would indicate an easier approach to you, though it fell through in part because of a cultural difference and in part because you read in a harsher context in part at least owing to a larger treatment by others. Understandable and correctable as impressions go.
Lots of people come back under other user names for any number of reasons. Again, you have to understand the other side of the coin here. Or, if you do it will tame some impressions and put all of it in a less sinister or challenging light.
No. He summed it as he saw it. At that point he reads as exasperated and wary. In part because of your response and misread and in part because of his read in via long experience. Again, it's an active sort of miscommunication between parties with fundamentally different expectations and backgrounds. It's not beyond salvaging then.
You're wrong, but I can understand why you think that.
Because it and your understanding are grounded in mistake. He wasn't even particularly acerbic until he'd reached his own point of conclusion, steeped in some assumption, which tends to happen where there's nothing present to counter it. That's why information is always a good thing and openness is a near necessity.
I'd defend his character and intent against all comers. I don't know you, but I'm an optimist and I genuinely desire to see an increase in active membership and a broadening of perspective here. I think it's good for everyone.
And it's hard not to be encouraged by someone who brings Danish to chew on. :chew:
Maybe everyone can see a little more clearly. And wouldn't that be grand?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Now now, Mustie.....don't you believe in coincidences?
It was all AMR's fault in the Gospel thread, too. :think:
Oh, and I dared to say, "the word nasty was in the eye of the beholder". :jawdrop:
It must be merely a coincidence that I was attacked for daring to use his word in that way.
Let's fact it, AMR, you and I are just horrible and unkind. It's a good thing we have a liberal coming on to soothe this poor victim's tender feelings, and buying the story he is another German. He just doesn't understand our way of speaking. :chuckle:
Your observation is subjective, not objective.
What do you imagine your perspective on that is?
That said, a good bit of what I related was actually objectively true. For instance, most posters here are American. Many people have come back under different user names. Zenn said he was being cautious. That sort of thing.
My read of AMR is, of course, the product of my own experience. It's both subjective and objective by turns. If he feels my judgment on his approach is off in estimation I'm sure he'll correct it.
Edit: see his post following this for confirmation that my subjective impression of his approach is in keeping with his intent. I don't know Zenn, but I'm extending benefit of the doubt and attempting to ward off needless conflict, which seems worth the effort.
:cheers:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, it is clear he has mistaken my intentions. I appreciate TH's explanations as he channeled my own thinking dead on to the point that I can add very little more. Of course, TH's insight worries me, somewhat. Am I that transparent? Note to self: Get back the olden days of being more obtuse and verbose. :AMR:
Zenn need not take the tests I suggested. It is just a recommendation and can foster discussion. The prior 8 items in my earlier post also help lay a nice foundation for ongoing discussion as they help everyone know from what position someone is coming from on important particulars of the faith. If anyone would take the time to review my past posts in a Newbie intro thread, I only offer these items up when someone strongly hints that they have done some deep dives into Scripture (see Zenn's OP), so no one should assume I am ambushing someone out of the gate.
Perhaps he also missed the self-deprecation in that post ("meanie Calvinist"). In time it will come to him as he discovers how we Calvinists are the red-headed stepchildren at this site, regularly beaten. On that point, he seems to be off to a good start. Wait. What?
AMR
Last edited:
High IQ shak
:shocked:
musterion
Well-known member
Evil Eye can't quit you, AMR.
