[Vision2020] Re:Eric E.'s answer to Ted's answer to Eric E.

Eric Engerbretson eric@eric-e.com
Thu, 27 May 2004 15:28:17 -0700


--Apple-Mail-31-15515180
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed

Ted, I apologize for offending you, I certainly didn't mean to.  You=20
are taking me WAY to literally and seriously. I would never say=20
something in a mean tone to be offensive. Sometimes people just take my=20=

jokes or rhetoric too literally.

Let me explain:

On May 27, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Tbertruss@aol.com wrote:

>
>  Eric:
>
>  Am I trying to fool anyone in my comments about religion and=20
> spirituality?=A0

I didn't mean you were TRYING to fool anyone.  I meant that people ARE=20=

BEING fooled if they think they are not religious.

> Do I follow a priest?=A0 Do I chant mantras?=A0 The other =
non-religious=20
> but "spiritual" people I referenced do not engage in these sorts of=20
> behaviors!

I thought you would see clearly that I didn't mean LITERAL mantras and=20=

LITERAL priests!  I was being poetic.  I meant people who go around=20
repeating things like "I'm not religious", "those religious people are=20=

weird", "I'm modern and sensible enough to not believe in religion",=20
"religion is the opiate of the masses"-- THOSE PHRASES are their=20
"mantras".  The other "non-religious" humanists that they look up to,=20
whose books they read, whose seminars they attend, THOSE are their=20
leaders, or one could say the "priests" of their non-religious=20
religion.
>
>  How do you know what my spiritual life consists of?=A0

I can only judge you by your words, Ted.  Hopefully I'm not=20
misunderstanding you.

> Do you think it is based on priests and mantras?=A0 What makes you =
think=20
> it might be?=A0 It seems you are revealing the dogma and reliance on=20=

> authority figures and rituals that underlies your socially/politcally=20=

> organized absolutist belief system, and imposing it on others.

Of course, I am!  I am religious and I want to change the world. I'd=20
like to make it a better place, just like you.

>
>  I know other Christian's though, who go to church, who embody both=20
> religion in the organized sense and a deep spirituality, who I do feel=20=

> a spiritual connection with, who respect my differing views on these=20=

> issues.

Ted, I completely respect you and your differing views. I would love to=20=

have you over for dinner at my house... there's no lack of respect. I'm=20=

sure if we talked, we would have some spiritual connection. But that=20
doesn't mean I will assume that both of our differing opinions are=20
simultaneously correct.  I can simultaneously respect someone and=20
disagree with him.

>
>  Sorry to be so uncharitable, but I can guarantee I will not attempt=20=

> to reveal to you the reality of my spirituality.=A0 It is clear there=20=

> would be no serious attempt at empathy on your side.

Not sure what you mean here, Ted. I would love to hear how you have=20
come to believe what you believe. You totally leapt to contusions :=AC) =20=

concerning the tone of my post.  I apologize for offending you.  I=20
don't think others reading our posts would say that I would have "no=20
empathy" for your spirituality.  I'm sure there are many points and=20
many areas of spirituality where you and I wholeheartedly agree!  I=20
simply disagree that you are not religious, by my definition of the=20
word, which I believe I have made clear.  I will always make a bold=20
"attempt at empathy" with any person and their opinions-- but=20
empathizing does not mean reversing one's opinion and converting to=20
that of the empathizee.

>
>  If I am wrong, you can start by withdrawing this statement:
>
>  "If it makes you feel better about yourself, call yourself=20
> non-religious-- but the only people you're fooling are the other=20
> non-religious people repeating their mantras, and
>  following their priests."

Hopefully you now understand that the statement was less offensive than=20=

you first thought. But if it remains offensive, I'd be glad to=20
apologize for it, and/or take it back. I need to be careful with my=20
rhetoric and dry humor. People often take me too seriously.

I believe what probably got your hackles up was the first line-- "If it=20=

makes you feel better about yourself..."  I didn't mean that in a mean=20=

way-- I just believe that we all choose our own labels by what makes us=20=

feel good about ourselves.  If we've known a bunch of hypocrites and=20
jerks who were religious, then we call ourselves non-religious because=20=

it makes us feel better than those people. We all want to feel better=20
than other people we don't like. Part of that is our sin nature, and=20
part of that is proper, because we don't want to be like people who do=20=

bad things.

And again, I didn't mean you were actively trying to fool anyone about=20=

your spirituality-- I just meant what I've been saying all along--=20
people are being fooled if they think they are not religious.  And they=20=

are being fooled if they think they're schools and countries aren't=20
religious.

Sorry to offend,

Eric E.

>
>  Enough of this today!
>
>  Ted Moffett
>


--Apple-Mail-31-15515180
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

Ted, I apologize for offending you, I certainly didn't mean to.  You
are taking me WAY to literally and seriously. I would never say
something in a mean tone to be offensive. Sometimes people just take
my jokes or rhetoric too literally.


Let me explain:


On May 27, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Tbertruss@aol.com wrote:


<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> Eric:</smaller></fontfamily>


<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> Am I trying to fool anyone
in my comments about religion and spirituality?=A0=20

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt>

I didn't mean you were TRYING to fool anyone.  I meant that people ARE
BEING fooled if they think they are not religious.


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Do I follow a
priest?=A0 Do I chant mantras?=A0 The other non-religious but =
"spiritual"
people I referenced do not engage in these sorts of =
behaviors!</smaller></fontfamily>

</excerpt>

I thought you would see clearly that I didn't mean LITERAL mantras and
LITERAL priests!  I was being poetic.  I meant people who go around
repeating things like "I'm not religious", "those religious people are
weird", "I'm modern and sensible enough to not believe in religion",
"religion is the opiate of the masses"-- THOSE PHRASES are their
"mantras".  The other "non-religious" humanists that they look up to,
whose books they read, whose seminars they attend, THOSE are their
leaders, or one could say the "priests" of their non-religious
religion.

<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> How do you know what my
spiritual life consists of?=A0=20

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt>=20

I can only judge you by your words, Ted.  Hopefully I'm not
misunderstanding you.


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Do you think it is
based on priests and mantras?=A0 What makes you think it might be?=A0 It
seems you are revealing the dogma and reliance on authority figures
and rituals that underlies your socially/politcally organized
absolutist belief system, and imposing it on =
others.</smaller></fontfamily>

</excerpt>

Of course, I am!  I am religious and I want to change the world. I'd
like to make it a better place, just like you.


<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> I know other Christian's
though, who go to church, who embody both religion in the organized
sense and a deep spirituality, who I do feel a spiritual connection
with, who respect my differing views on these =
issues.</smaller></fontfamily>

</excerpt>

Ted, I completely respect you and your differing views. I would love
to have you over for dinner at my house... there's no lack of respect.
I'm sure if we talked, we would have some spiritual connection. But
that doesn't mean I will assume that both of our differing opinions
are simultaneously correct.  I can simultaneously respect someone and
disagree with him.


<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> Sorry to be so uncharitable,
but I can guarantee I will not attempt to reveal to you the reality of
my spirituality.=A0 It is clear there would be no serious attempt at
empathy on your side.</smaller></fontfamily>

</excerpt>

Not sure what you mean here, Ted. I would love to hear how you have
come to believe what you believe. You totally leapt to contusions :=AC)=20=

concerning the tone of my post.  I apologize for offending you.  I
don't think others reading our posts would say that I would have "no
empathy" for your spirituality.  I'm sure there are many points and
many areas of spirituality where you and I wholeheartedly agree!  I
simply disagree that you are not religious, by my definition of the
word, which I believe I have made clear.  I will always make a bold
"attempt at empathy" with any person and their opinions-- but
empathizing does not mean reversing one's opinion and converting to
that of the empathizee.


<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> If I am wrong, you can start
by withdrawing this statement:</smaller></fontfamily>


<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> "If it makes you feel better
about yourself, call yourself non-religious-- but the only people
you're fooling are the other non-religious people repeating their
mantras, and </smaller></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> following their =
priests."</smaller></fontfamily>

</excerpt>

Hopefully you now understand that the statement was less offensive
than you first thought. But if it remains offensive, I'd be glad to
apologize for it, and/or take it back. I need to be careful with my
rhetoric and dry humor. People often take me too seriously.


I believe what probably got your hackles up was the first line-- "If
it makes you feel better about yourself..."  I didn't mean that in a
mean way-- I just believe that we all choose our own labels by what
makes us feel good about ourselves.  If we've known a bunch of
hypocrites and jerks who were religious, then we call ourselves
non-religious because it makes us feel better than those people. We
all want to feel better than other people we don't like. Part of that
is our sin nature, and part of that is proper, because we don't want
to be like people who do bad things.


And again, I didn't mean you were actively trying to fool anyone about
your spirituality-- I just meant what I've been saying all along--
people are being fooled if they think they are not religious.  And
they are being fooled if they think they're schools and countries
aren't religious.


Sorry to offend,


Eric E.


<excerpt>

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> Enough of this =
today!</smaller></fontfamily>


<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> Ted =
Moffett</smaller></fontfamily>


</excerpt>


--Apple-Mail-31-15515180--