Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Thinking ill of the dead

I watched a You Tube video clip this week about the death of Fred Phelps. It was interesting, as there ensued a discussion on whether it was acceptable to think / or speak ill of the dead.

Should we have a moral obligation to look rationally and logically at a life? Should we accept the good in people (eg. he was a great neighbour, always helping others if asked), or, should we consider that actions in life outweigh the good? And if so - where would you draw the line?

The presenter in the clip I watched said that where the evil was spoken, then the review of life should accept both good and bad, but where they had caused physical harm to the vulnerable (eg in child abuse), then the memory could never be balanced - everything would have to be viewed in the light of those actions.

What do you think?
bnabernard

Funny old thing innit, those who speak ill of the dead wish to kill the spirit, while those who speak well of the dead want to keep the spirit alive.
A classic example in our times might be the spirit of Hitler.

bernard (hug)
gone

deleted
Ketty

Re: Thinking ill of the dead

Lexilogio wrote:
What do you think?


If we speak factually then we are not speaking ill.
Shaker

Re: Thinking ill of the dead

Lexilogio wrote:
I watched a You Tube video clip this week about the death of Fred Phelps. It was interesting, as there ensued a discussion on whether it was acceptable to think / or speak ill of the dead.

You can think whatever you like - anything else is Orwellian thoughtcrime.

Quote:
Should we have a moral obligation to look rationally and logically at a life?

I should say so, absolutely - but then I would say that.

Quote:
Should we accept the good in people (eg. he was a great neighbour, always helping others if asked), or, should we consider that actions in life outweigh the good? And if so - where would you draw the line?

The presenter in the clip I watched said that where the evil was spoken, then the review of life should accept both good and bad, but where they had caused physical harm to the vulnerable (eg in child abuse), then the memory could never be balanced - everything would have to be viewed in the light of those actions.

What do you think?

There are some people about whom very little if in fact any good can be chalked up on the 'pro' list - some of the worst tyrants and dictators the world has ever seen were notable in being absolute charm and courtesy personified when met on an individual level (I'm thinking of Hitler and Idi Amin), but what, realistically, does this matter when set against their crimes?

There's a lot to be said for the Christopher Hitchens line on this, as so much else. When the obnoxious liar, crank, fraud and charlatan Jerry Falwell died in 2007, Hitchens famously said that if they'd given Falwell an enema he could have been buried in a matchbox. (This is not only funny but draws its strength from being true). Hitchens defended his comments on the perfectly reasonable grounds that he said rude things about people after their death because those same people would not hesitate or scruple to say equally bad or even worse things about him after his own death - and, of course, he was absolutely correct because a great many of them did just that after his tragically early passing in December 2011.
Leonard James

I see nothing wrong in citing the actions which appalled us when the person was alive. It certainly makes no difference to the individual concerned.

But we should also recognise that nobody is completely bad ... but I don't want to get into the same argument I have had in another thread.  
JMC

A relevant sermon, I think, first preached 1500 or so years ago. I posted it elsewhere after Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

Rejoicing In the Destruction of the Ungodly
by St. Cyril of Alexandria

        As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village.
        - Luke 9:51-56


What, then, was the purpose of this occurrence? He was going up to Jerusalem, as the time of His passion was already drawing near. He was about to endure the contumelies of the Jews; He was about to be set at nought by the scribes and Pharisees; and to suffer those things which they inflicted upon Him when they proceeded to the accomplishment of all violence and wicked audacity. In order, therefore, that they [the disciples] might not be offended when they saw Him suffering, as understanding that He would have them also to be patient, and not to murmur greatly, even though men treat them with contumely, He, so to speak, made the contempt they met with from the Samaritans a preparatory exercise in the matter. They had not received the messengers. It was the duty of the disciples, treading in the footsteps of their Lord, to bear it patiently as becometh saints, and not to say anything of them wrathfully. But they were not yet so disposed; but being seized with too hot indignation, they would have called down fire upon them from heaven, as far as their will went. But Christ rebuked them for so speaking.

See here, I pray, how great is the difference between us and God: for the distance is immeasurable. For He is slow to anger, and long-suffering, and of incomparable gentleness and love to mankind: but we children of earth are quick unto anger, hasty unto impatience, and refuse with indignation to be judged by others when we are found out in committing any wrong act; while we are most ready to find fault with others. And therefore God the Lord of all affirms, saying; "For My thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor your ways as My ways; but as the heaven is far from the earth, so are My ways from your ways, and My thoughts from your thoughts." Such, then, is He Who is Lord of all: but we, as I said, being readily vexed, and easily led into anger, take sometimes severe and intolerable vengeance upon those who have occasioned us some trifling annoyance: and though commanded to live according to the Gospel, we fall short of the practice commanded by the law. For the law indeed said, "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand:" and commanded that an equal retribution should suffice: but we, as I said, though perhaps we have suffered but a trifling wrong, would retaliate very harshly, not remembering Christ, who said: "The disciple is not greater than his teacher, nor the slave than his master;" Who also, "when He was reviled, reviled not again; when suffering, threatened not; but committed His cause to Him Who judgeth righteously." As treading this path much-enduring Job also is justly admired: for it is written of him, "What man is like Job, who drinketh wrongs like a draught?" For their benefit, therefore, He rebuked the disciples, gently restraining the sharpness of their wrath, and not permitting them to murmur violently against those who sinned, but persuading them rather to be longsuffering, and to cherish a mind immovable by ought of this.

It benefited them also in another way: they were to be the instructors of the whole world, and to travel through the cities and villages, proclaiming everywhere the good tidings of salvation. Of necessity, therefore, while seeking to fulfil their mission, they must fall in with wicked men, who would reject the divine tidings, and, so to speak, not receive Jesus to lodge with them. Had Christ, therefore, praised them for wishing that fire should come down upon the Samaritans, and that so painful a torment should be inflicted upon them, they would have been similarly disposed in many other instances, and when men disregarded the sacred message, would have pronounced their condemnation, and called down fire upon them from above. And what would have been the result of such conduct? The sufferers would have been innumerable, and no longer would the disciples have been so much physicians of the sick, as torturers rather, and intolerable to men everywhere. For their own good, therefore, they were rebuked, when thus enraged beyond measure at the contumely of the Samaritans: in order that they might learn that as ministers of the divine tidings, they must rather be full of longsuffering and gentleness; not revengeful; not given to wrath, nor savagely attacking those who offend them.

And that the ministers of God's message were longsuffering, Paul teaches us, saying, "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were, condemned to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. Being reviled, we bless; being defamed, we persuade: we have become the offscouring of the world; the refuse of all men up to this day." He wrote also to others, or rather to all who had not yet received Christ in them, but, so to speak, were still afflicted with the pride of the Samaritans: "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Great, therefore, is the benefit of the gospel lessons to those who are truly perfect in mind; and may we also, taking them unto ourselves, benefit our souls, ever praising Christ the Saviour of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.
Shaker

tl;dr

gone

deleted
JMC

Thanks for quoting it, Floo. It looks much more readable as black text on white rather than black text on the normal background of the forum.
JMC

With thanks to Floo for the idea of quoting the post so the text is more easily readable

JMC wrote:
A relevant sermon, I think, first preached 1500 or so years ago. I posted it elsewhere after Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

Rejoicing In the Destruction of the Ungodly
by St. Cyril of Alexandria

        As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village.
        - Luke 9:51-56


What, then, was the purpose of this occurrence? He was going up to Jerusalem, as the time of His passion was already drawing near. He was about to endure the contumelies of the Jews; He was about to be set at nought by the scribes and Pharisees; and to suffer those things which they inflicted upon Him when they proceeded to the accomplishment of all violence and wicked audacity. In order, therefore, that they [the disciples] might not be offended when they saw Him suffering, as understanding that He would have them also to be patient, and not to murmur greatly, even though men treat them with contumely, He, so to speak, made the contempt they met with from the Samaritans a preparatory exercise in the matter. They had not received the messengers. It was the duty of the disciples, treading in the footsteps of their Lord, to bear it patiently as becometh saints, and not to say anything of them wrathfully. But they were not yet so disposed; but being seized with too hot indignation, they would have called down fire upon them from heaven, as far as their will went. But Christ rebuked them for so speaking.

See here, I pray, how great is the difference between us and God: for the distance is immeasurable. For He is slow to anger, and long-suffering, and of incomparable gentleness and love to mankind: but we children of earth are quick unto anger, hasty unto impatience, and refuse with indignation to be judged by others when we are found out in committing any wrong act; while we are most ready to find fault with others. And therefore God the Lord of all affirms, saying; "For My thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor your ways as My ways; but as the heaven is far from the earth, so are My ways from your ways, and My thoughts from your thoughts." Such, then, is He Who is Lord of all: but we, as I said, being readily vexed, and easily led into anger, take sometimes severe and intolerable vengeance upon those who have occasioned us some trifling annoyance: and though commanded to live according to the Gospel, we fall short of the practice commanded by the law. For the law indeed said, "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand:" and commanded that an equal retribution should suffice: but we, as I said, though perhaps we have suffered but a trifling wrong, would retaliate very harshly, not remembering Christ, who said: "The disciple is not greater than his teacher, nor the slave than his master;" Who also, "when He was reviled, reviled not again; when suffering, threatened not; but committed His cause to Him Who judgeth righteously." As treading this path much-enduring Job also is justly admired: for it is written of him, "What man is like Job, who drinketh wrongs like a draught?" For their benefit, therefore, He rebuked the disciples, gently restraining the sharpness of their wrath, and not permitting them to murmur violently against those who sinned, but persuading them rather to be longsuffering, and to cherish a mind immovable by ought of this.

It benefited them also in another way: they were to be the instructors of the whole world, and to travel through the cities and villages, proclaiming everywhere the good tidings of salvation. Of necessity, therefore, while seeking to fulfil their mission, they must fall in with wicked men, who would reject the divine tidings, and, so to speak, not receive Jesus to lodge with them. Had Christ, therefore, praised them for wishing that fire should come down upon the Samaritans, and that so painful a torment should be inflicted upon them, they would have been similarly disposed in many other instances, and when men disregarded the sacred message, would have pronounced their condemnation, and called down fire upon them from above. And what would have been the result of such conduct? The sufferers would have been innumerable, and no longer would the disciples have been so much physicians of the sick, as torturers rather, and intolerable to men everywhere. For their own good, therefore, they were rebuked, when thus enraged beyond measure at the contumely of the Samaritans: in order that they might learn that as ministers of the divine tidings, they must rather be full of longsuffering and gentleness; not revengeful; not given to wrath, nor savagely attacking those who offend them.

And that the ministers of God's message were longsuffering, Paul teaches us, saying, "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were, condemned to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. Being reviled, we bless; being defamed, we persuade: we have become the offscouring of the world; the refuse of all men up to this day." He wrote also to others, or rather to all who had not yet received Christ in them, but, so to speak, were still afflicted with the pride of the Samaritans: "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Great, therefore, is the benefit of the gospel lessons to those who are truly perfect in mind; and may we also, taking them unto ourselves, benefit our souls, ever praising Christ the Saviour of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.
Ketty

Lexilogio

Floo wrote:


YAWN!


Did you read it Floo? It makes a similar point to one I've read by the Dalai Llama - that hate and revenge does not heal, or cure, but causes harm to yourself.

I guess perhaps it is easier for me, as I believe Fred Phelps has well & truly discovered the error of his ways as he faced his maker. So I would try not to waste any of my energy with negative thoughts about him now.

Alternatively - I posted a Russell Brand interview on the thread about Phelps' death. Its well worth watching. Russell Brand may be a prat sometimes, but he also has a unique ability to understand justice and fairness at others.
JMC

Lexilogio wrote:

Alternatively - I posted a Russell Brand interview on the thread about Phelps' death. Its well worth watching. Russell Brand may be a prat sometimes, but he also has a unique ability to understand justice and fairness at others.


I must admit that I stopped watching that interview about half-way through, but up until that point I was struck how fair Brand was being; yes, maybe he felt confident doing that because he knew there was no chance any would be swayed by the arguments of the two Phelps clansmen, but nevertheless it appeared fair.
Lexilogio

JMC wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:

Alternatively - I posted a Russell Brand interview on the thread about Phelps' death. Its well worth watching. Russell Brand may be a prat sometimes, but he also has a unique ability to understand justice and fairness at others.


I must admit that I stopped watching that interview about half-way through, but up until that point I was struck how fair Brand was being; yes, maybe he felt confident doing that because he knew there was no chance any would be swayed by the arguments of the two Phelps clansmen, but nevertheless it appeared fair.


It was remarkably fair all the way through. And I thought he deserved enormous credit for that. He was almost making a statement - that to change hearts, we have to stop shouting and abusing, and instead listen to each other. Hopefully, if there is enough rational listening, the Phelps brigade will start to realise how far off the mark they really are. But if we continue to shout back, they just think they are right.
JMC

Lexilogio wrote:
JMC wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:

Alternatively - I posted a Russell Brand interview on the thread about Phelps' death. Its well worth watching. Russell Brand may be a prat sometimes, but he also has a unique ability to understand justice and fairness at others.


I must admit that I stopped watching that interview about half-way through, but up until that point I was struck how fair Brand was being; yes, maybe he felt confident doing that because he knew there was no chance any would be swayed by the arguments of the two Phelps clansmen, but nevertheless it appeared fair.


It was remarkably fair all the way through. And I thought he deserved enormous credit for that. He was almost making a statement - that to change hearts, we have to stop shouting and abusing, and instead listen to each other. Hopefully, if there is enough rational listening, the Phelps brigade will start to realise how far off the mark they really are. But if we continue to shout back, they just think they are right.


Yes, clicking on from the Brand interview there was a short clip of two of the Phelps' granddaughters making the point that because they are hated it proves they are disciples of Christ - as Jesus promised His disciples would be hated. Obviously such a comment ignores the fact that they themselves display hate towards others, in contradiction to Christ's commandments, but that is just  something that convinces us. As you say, to convince them there needs to be a gentle response because they do not expect it.
Powwow

Yes we know floo, you trash your departed mother alot and seem to enjoy doing so.
Shaker

Perhaps she has what she considers good reasons for doing so?
The Boyg

And good reasons for regularly trashing deceased relatives in front of complete strangers on the internet might be?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
And good reasons for regularly trashing deceased relatives in front of complete strangers on the internet might be?

Because said relatives were abusive (in some, any or all of the senses of that word) and the person finds it useful to vent their feelings about them would be one good reason, in my view.

I have absolutely no idea whether this was the case with Floo's upbringing: I'm answering your question as to what a good reason would be.
Shaker

Returning to the OP: I do wonder if the taboo about speaking ill of the dead might have its roots in some dim, primordial, atavistic fear that the dead are not really dead and gone but still exist in some form and can know what's being said about them - a superstition that the maligned dead can exact revenge upon the living who malign them.

No idea if this is the case but but it's a good working hypothesis to start off with. Perhaps some psychology department somewhere could delve into it.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
And good reasons for regularly trashing deceased relatives in front of complete strangers on the internet might be?

Because said relatives were abusive (in some, any or all of the senses of that word) and the person finds it useful to vent their feelings about them would be one good reason, in my view.

I have absolutely no idea whether this was the case with Floo's upbringing: I'm answering your question as to what a good reason would be.


If that were the case then they would be better advised to consult a good therapist to work through their issues.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
If that were the case then they would be better advised to consult a good therapist to work through their issues.

A therapist who might say that venting such feelings need not be confined solely and exclusively to the therapeutic hour, possibly?

A therapist may encourage the person seeking relief to express their feelings by writing them down, perhaps, or maybe by trying to express them visually, in paintings and drawings even if such materials are subsequently destroyed unseen by anyone else. It's quite possible, as I've seen such things before, that a therapist may also say that venting such feelings in an anonymous manner online, without fear of comebacks from other relatives, could also be beneficial. I'm sure there are umpteen such dedicated forums online, but of course one needn't necessarily have recourse to something set up specifically for that purpose.
The Boyg

I would hope that the therapist in question would advise them not to bore other people rigid with the constant repetition of complaints against their relatives though.
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Returning to the OP: I do wonder if the taboo about speaking ill of the dead might have its roots in some dim, primordial, atavistic fear that the dead are not really dead and gone but still exist in some form and can know what's being said about them - a superstition that the maligned dead can exact revenge upon the living who malign them.

No idea if this is the case but but it's a good working hypothesis to start off with. Perhaps some psychology department somewhere could delve into it.


Possibly - although there have been plenty of examples through history when the memory of powerful deceased have been deliberately maligned to benefit the living (King John, for example - or Harold Hardrada)
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
I would hope that the therapist in question would advise them not to bore other people rigid with the constant repetition of complaints against their relatives though.

If there's any boredom involved then surely that problem lies squarely and solely with people reading things they don't have to read, quite possibly purely for the ability then to complain of being bored as a means of sniping and sneering at somebody with an emotional issue about their upbringing.  

Which would be an interesting subject for therapy in its own right, I should say.
JMC

Shaker wrote:

If there's any boredom involved then surely that problem lies squarely and solely with people reading things they don't have to read, quite possibly purely for the ability then to complain of being bored as a means of sniping and sneering at somebody


The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
If there's any boredom involved then surely that problem lies squarely and solely with people reading things they don't have to read


If there were some means of blocking the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts then be assured that I would.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
If there's any boredom involved then surely that problem lies squarely and solely with people reading things they don't have to read


If there were some means of blocking the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts then be assured that I would.  

I haven't seen any posts where Floo asks anyone to feel sorry for her - you'll have to link me to some, if they exist.

In the meantime, there is a means of doing just that, and it's known as not reading any post written by Floo.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
If there's any boredom involved then surely that problem lies squarely and solely with people reading things they don't have to read


If there were some means of blocking the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts then be assured that I would.  

I haven't seen any posts where Floo asks anyone to feel sorry for her - you'll have to link me to some, if they exist.


Were you talking specifically about Floo?

I thought that we were talking hypothetically about grounds on which it might be considered legitimate to regularly slag off one's deceased relatives to strangers on the internet.
Farmer Geddon

Should the title be "Speaking ill of the dead"?

If we were just 'thinking' it then nothing would be said!
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Were you talking specifically about Floo?

Pow wow was, and entirely predictably you joined in at that juncture so I assumed that that's who you had in mind given that Floo has spoken about the abusive upbringing she had at the hands of her grandmother (though not her mother, as pow wow stated. I've no idea what relationship Floo had with her mother - I'm not personally aware that she's ever mentioned her).

Quote:
I thought that we were talking hypothetically about grounds on which it might be considered legitimate to regularly slag off one's deceased relatives to strangers on the internet.

I covered that one an hour ago.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Were you talking specifically about Floo?

Pow wow was, and entirely predictably you joined in at that juncture so I assumed that that's who you had in mind


Well, since my question was generalised and you were at pains to point out that your response to it was not specifically about Floo:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
And good reasons for regularly trashing deceased relatives in front of complete strangers on the internet might be?

Because said relatives were abusive (in some, any or all of the senses of that word) and the person finds it useful to vent their feelings about them would be one good reason, in my view.

I have absolutely no idea whether this was the case with Floo's upbringing: I'm answering your question as to what a good reason would be.

I naturally presumed that our subsequent conversation was also generalised. You should have pointed out that you were talking specifically about Floo at some point.
Shaker

If the issue was purely general, hypothetical and abstract, who or what did you have in mind when you referred to:

Quote:
the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts


(which I have never seen from anyone - if you think you've seen such posts you must have an idea who wrote them), and

Quote:
regularly slag[ging] off one's deceased relatives to strangers on the internet

? Who is doing this "regularly," if you claim (as you now do) that you were speaking hypothetically?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
If the issue was purely general, hypothetical and abstract, who or what did you have in mind when you referred to:

Quote:
the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts


(which I have never seen from anyone), and

Quote:
regularly slag[ging] off one's deceased relatives to strangers on the internet

? Who is doing this "regularly," if you claim (as you now do) that you were speaking hypothetically?


Anyone who might (hypothetically) be doing either of those things.  
Shaker

So your mention of

Quote:
the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts


and

Quote:
regularly slag[ging] off one's deceased relatives to strangers on the internet


are completely and entirely unrelated in any way whatever to Floo's past mentions of the abusive upbringing she received at the hands of her grandmother - is that what we're expected to believe?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
So your mention of

Quote:
the tedious "boo hoo, I hated my granny and my mum, feel sorry for porr widdle me" type posts


and

Quote:
regularly slag[ging] off one's deceased relatives to strangers on the internet


are completely and entirely unrelated in any way whatever to Floo's past mentions of the abusive upbringing she received at the hands of her grandmother - is that what we're expected to believe?


We were talking in general terms about people slagging off their relatives to strangers on the internet (at least I thought we were, you seem to be suggesting now that you were acting under the impression that we were specifically discussing Floo's behaviour).

Frankly, I do not give a shiny shit what you choose to believe or disbelieve Shaky old boy.  
Shaker

That's almost as humungous a crock of shit as what passes for your religion  
The Boyg

Is there some part of "Frankly, I do not give a shiny shit what you choose to believe or disbelieve Shaky old boy" that you're having difficulty comprehending that I could help you with?  
Shaker

Not at all. Is there some part of my ignoring that statement and posting my opinion regardless with which you're struggling?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Not at all. Is there some part of my ignoring that statement and posting my opinion regardless with which you're struggling?


Well, yes. I'm wondering why you would post it when I've already stated my indifference to your belief.
Shaker

Because I wanted to, and because I can  
The Boyg

How very self-gratifying that must be for you.
Shaker

A fair bit, yup
The Boyg

Shaker

I'm sure that that must have made some sort of sense in what passes for your mind when you posted it, but I really do think mummy and daddy should get you to bed now.
The Boyg

I'm not surprised that it was too subtle for you Shaky. The blunt instrument of unimaginative personal insults are more your stock-in-trade after all.  
Shaker

It's the only language that the unimaginative in dire need of being insulted know, you know  

Now the truly imaginative insults ... well, they'd just be wasted on them, wouldn't they?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
It's the only language that the unimaginative in dire need of being insulted know, you know  


I don't know whether anyone "needs" to be insulted. Nevertheless it would appears to be the level at which you are most comfortable operating and explains why you would totally fail to understand anything remotely more subtle.  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
I don't know whether anyone "needs" to be insulted.


Oh yes - all sorts.

Quote:
Nevertheless it would appears to be the level at which you are most comfortable operating and explains why you would totally fail to understand anything remotely more subtle.  

Ah yes, that old one - "My lame-ass attempt at humour was too subtle for you."

Very poor 0/10  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Ah yes, that old one - "My lame-ass attempt at humour was too subtle for you."


If it wasn't too subtle for you then you would have no difficulty understanding the reference, would you?  
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ah yes, that old one - "My lame-ass attempt at humour was too subtle for you."


If it wasn't too subtle for you then you would have no difficulty understanding the reference, would you?  


That's one interpretation.

The other is that when it comes to attempts (and I use the word advisedly) at humour you're every bit as funny as a burning orphanage.

Since I can only go with observation and experience, the evidence points unambiguously in the direction of the latter  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ah yes, that old one - "My lame-ass attempt at humour was too subtle for you."


If it wasn't too subtle for you then you would have no difficulty understanding the reference, would you?  


That's one interpretation.


Yes, and it's the correct interpretation. If the reference hadn't been too subtle for you then you would have got it by now. It's a shame for you that you don't get anything that isn't completely "in your face" but it's amusing to watch you struggle and bluster though.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Yes, and it's the correct interpretation.

Nah, it isn't really. I was definitely on the money with the funny-as-woodworm-in-a-cripple's-crutch tack.

Quote:
If the reference hadn't been too subtle for you then you would have got it by now.


Or perhaps a minute fuzzy picture of some man makes sense only to you and what for want of a better word you have to call your mind?

Perhaps it's a Catholic thing? They have dafter habits and beliefs, after all.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Perhaps it's a Catholic thing? They have dafter habits and beliefs, after all.


Oh dear! You're really having to scrape the bottom of the insult barrel there.  
Rose

JMC wrote:
A relevant sermon, I think, first preached 1500 or so years ago. I posted it elsewhere after Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

Rejoicing In the Destruction of the Ungodly
by St. Cyril of Alexandria

        As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village.
        - Luke 9:51-56


What, then, was the purpose of this occurrence? He was going up to Jerusalem, as the time of His passion was already drawing near. He was about to endure the contumelies of the Jews; He was about to be set at nought by the scribes and Pharisees; and to suffer those things which they inflicted upon Him when they proceeded to the accomplishment of all violence and wicked audacity. In order, therefore, that they [the disciples] might not be offended when they saw Him suffering, as understanding that He would have them also to be patient, and not to murmur greatly, even though men treat them with contumely, He, so to speak, made the contempt they met with from the Samaritans a preparatory exercise in the matter. They had not received the messengers. It was the duty of the disciples, treading in the footsteps of their Lord, to bear it patiently as becometh saints, and not to say anything of them wrathfully. But they were not yet so disposed; but being seized with too hot indignation, they would have called down fire upon them from heaven, as far as their will went. But Christ rebuked them for so speaking.

See here, I pray, how great is the difference between us and God: for the distance is immeasurable. For He is slow to anger, and long-suffering, and of incomparable gentleness and love to mankind: but we children of earth are quick unto anger, hasty unto impatience, and refuse with indignation to be judged by others when we are found out in committing any wrong act; while we are most ready to find fault with others. And therefore God the Lord of all affirms, saying; "For My thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor your ways as My ways; but as the heaven is far from the earth, so are My ways from your ways, and My thoughts from your thoughts." Such, then, is He Who is Lord of all: but we, as I said, being readily vexed, and easily led into anger, take sometimes severe and intolerable vengeance upon those who have occasioned us some trifling annoyance: and though commanded to live according to the Gospel, we fall short of the practice commanded by the law. For the law indeed said, "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand:" and commanded that an equal retribution should suffice: but we, as I said, though perhaps we have suffered but a trifling wrong, would retaliate very harshly, not remembering Christ, who said: "The disciple is not greater than his teacher, nor the slave than his master;" Who also, "when He was reviled, reviled not again; when suffering, threatened not; but committed His cause to Him Who judgeth righteously." As treading this path much-enduring Job also is justly admired: for it is written of him, "What man is like Job, who drinketh wrongs like a draught?" For their benefit, therefore, He rebuked the disciples, gently restraining the sharpness of their wrath, and not permitting them to murmur violently against those who sinned, but persuading them rather to be longsuffering, and to cherish a mind immovable by ought of this.

It benefited them also in another way: they were to be the instructors of the whole world, and to travel through the cities and villages, proclaiming everywhere the good tidings of salvation. Of necessity, therefore, while seeking to fulfil their mission, they must fall in with wicked men, who would reject the divine tidings, and, so to speak, not receive Jesus to lodge with them. Had Christ, therefore, praised them for wishing that fire should come down upon the Samaritans, and that so painful a torment should be inflicted upon them, they would have been similarly disposed in many other instances, and when men disregarded the sacred message, would have pronounced their condemnation, and called down fire upon them from above. And what would have been the result of such conduct? The sufferers would have been innumerable, and no longer would the disciples have been so much physicians of the sick, as torturers rather, and intolerable to men everywhere. For their own good, therefore, they were rebuked, when thus enraged beyond measure at the contumely of the Samaritans: in order that they might learn that as ministers of the divine tidings, they must rather be full of longsuffering and gentleness; not revengeful; not given to wrath, nor savagely attacking those who offend them.

And that the ministers of God's message were longsuffering, Paul teaches us, saying, "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were, condemned to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. Being reviled, we bless; being defamed, we persuade: we have become the offscouring of the world; the refuse of all men up to this day." He wrote also to others, or rather to all who had not yet received Christ in them, but, so to speak, were still afflicted with the pride of the Samaritans: "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Great, therefore, is the benefit of the gospel lessons to those who are truly perfect in mind; and may we also, taking them unto ourselves, benefit our souls, ever praising Christ the Saviour of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.





Ok!

I can see you are not into yes and no answers.

Julie  
JMC

Rose wrote:


Ok!

I can see you are not into yes and no answers.



Maybe.  
Leonard James

Rose wrote:

Ok!

I can see you are not into yes and no answers.

Julie  


Quoting reams of other people's thoughts is far easier than thinking about it yourself.  
Rose

Re: Thinking ill of the dead

Lexilogio wrote:
I watched a You Tube video clip this week about the death of Fred Phelps. It was interesting, as there ensued a discussion on whether it was acceptable to think / or speak ill of the dead.

Should we have a moral obligation to look rationally and logically at a life? Should we accept the good in people (eg. he was a great neighbour, always helping others if asked), or, should we consider that actions in life outweigh the good? And if so - where would you draw the line?

The presenter in the clip I watched said that where the evil was spoken, then the review of life should accept both good and bad, but where they had caused physical harm to the vulnerable (eg in child abuse), then the memory could never be balanced - everything would have to be viewed in the light of those actions.

What do you think?


I think with someone you have known you have  to remember the good and the bad, otherwise it isn't really that person you remember but a glorified copy.  
Remembering faults as well as the plusses keeps the memory sharper and I think is more healthy.
However I do think that within families sometimes it is not good to bring up ill feeling towards the deceased if it can no longer be resolved and is going to cause conflict.

Public or publicised figures are a bit different because in a lot of cases we don't really know them well enough to know their good or bad points.

All we really know is what we have read or seen about them.

I don't know a good side to Fred Phelps because I never knew him so cannot treat him the way I would someone close to me.

I think we still have to be able to object to what he stood for! Just like we would object to what Hitler stood for.

I must admit, I don't like personal insults when someone is deceased, but again it depends on context.

I was quite shocked at the idea that they might remove the remains of Jimmy Saville as someone might dig him up, although I would understand why they would want to remove the grand headstone.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...f-disgraced-tv-star-jimmy-1372143

I draw the line at digging people up!

Remove the headstone?, yes. But dig him up? No!
And vindictively dig him up? definately not!

Julie
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Quoting reams of other people's thoughts is far easier than thinking about it yourself.  

gone

deleted
Shaker

Floo wrote:
I think digging that piece of scum Savile up, and dissecting his body in public, might help to give his many, many victims  some satisfaction which was denied to them when he was alive!

It's possible that it may do just that, but it seems more like the rule of the knuckle-draggers and the lynch mob than the disinterested and dispassionate operation of justice to me. There are very good reasons why societies which aspire to be civilised and rational don't let victims of crime decide punishments. Personally I prefer this:



over this:



The former isn't infallible and certainly has many imperfections, but I trust it to weigh up evidence and come to a conclusion (which is right more often than not) in a sane and measured manner. I can't say that about the latter.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum