3 ms·

> While also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist. Can you go into more detail as to these exclusionary practi

> While also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist. Can you go into more detail as to these exclusionary practices? All organizations, all things really, are defined by both what they include and what they exclude. Nothing is fully inclusive, else that thing would have no meaning! To be more concrete, How, were churches more exclusionary than other private or civic organizations of their times? When we judge the history of something, we really need to judge it in proper context, including by comparing to the society at large within the same time frame. On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! > The world isn't perfect, and as strong as the desire is to reduce things to a "good" or a "bad" the real world comes with confusing good and bad points that we don't have to average out into a final score. I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs.

IanCal 4y ago
I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Even if they were less exclusionary to the group the other commenter identifies as a member of than other things "of the time" that's a relative measure and "better than some other things" isn't really relevant to the point. > On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. > I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs. You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. There does not have to be some primary emotion and weighing these things is at best a waste of time. Accepting a bad side of something does not have to come with ignoring any good sides. This was the mistake you were making and still are. It's not a shocking bit of wisdom, it's just a simple thing to keep in mind when you find yourself drawn into an "is complicated thing X good or bad?" argument.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. It only takes on a moral character when you consider what is being included or excluded and why. Being "less exclusionary" could be bad, depending on your perspective! I asked you to be more specific, and you chose not to do so, although I can probably guess what you mean, I will instead wait on you to be explicit. > Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. Inclusivity and welcomeness are not the same thing. Christianity is inclusive because it posits every human to be a child of an all-powerful God, having instrinsic worth, and the capacity to be saved and exalted by that God. While conquest definitely played a part in the religion's expansion, it certainly isn't the only factor or even the primary factor. > You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me. For instance, I never said there had to be a primary emotion. I did, however, suggest that there should be one, at least relative to the subject of organs, specifically organ production and access.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    > Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. Yes I did, and at no point did I even assign a moral value to the exclusion because it's not relevant. Even the original poster didn't. It can be necessary for the group, inherent in groups, whatever. You don't need to argue around the balance of good Vs bad and can leave it at simply "this part in isolation is a shame". That's it. It's not a big revelation, or shouldn't be, but it may help you with not reacting like such a simple statement is an attack on a larger part of your identity. > No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me You called it obvious yet didn't understand it. This isn't Reddit and I don't want to contribute in turning it into that, if you don't want to read my banal points then don't - I have nothing to win or lose here. If you want to try and understand I think I've framed it as best as I can, so try reading it without assuming it's an attack, responding further after a few misunderstandings is futile because either I can't explain it to your further satisfaction. Much like the balance of emotions, there does not need to be some winning think out of this.

IanCal 4y ago

I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Even if they were less exclusionary to the group the other commenter identifies as a member of than other things "of the time" that's a relative measure and "better than some other things" isn't really relevant to the point. > On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. > I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs. You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. There does not have to be some primary emotion and weighing these things is at best a waste of time. Accepting a bad side of something does not have to come with ignoring any good sides. This was the mistake you were making and still are. It's not a shocking bit of wisdom, it's just a simple thing to keep in mind when you find yourself drawn into an "is complicated thing X good or bad?" argument.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. It only takes on a moral character when you consider what is being included or excluded and why. Being "less exclusionary" could be bad, depending on your perspective! I asked you to be more specific, and you chose not to do so, although I can probably guess what you mean, I will instead wait on you to be explicit. > Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. Inclusivity and welcomeness are not the same thing. Christianity is inclusive because it posits every human to be a child of an all-powerful God, having instrinsic worth, and the capacity to be saved and exalted by that God. While conquest definitely played a part in the religion's expansion, it certainly isn't the only factor or even the primary factor. > You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me. For instance, I never said there had to be a primary emotion. I did, however, suggest that there should be one, at least relative to the subject of organs, specifically organ production and access.
- IanCal 4y ago
  > Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. Yes I did, and at no point did I even assign a moral value to the exclusion because it's not relevant. Even the original poster didn't. It can be necessary for the group, inherent in groups, whatever. You don't need to argue around the balance of good Vs bad and can leave it at simply "this part in isolation is a shame". That's it. It's not a big revelation, or shouldn't be, but it may help you with not reacting like such a simple statement is an attack on a larger part of your identity. > No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me You called it obvious yet didn't understand it. This isn't Reddit and I don't want to contribute in turning it into that, if you don't want to read my banal points then don't - I have nothing to win or lose here. If you want to try and understand I think I've framed it as best as I can, so try reading it without assuming it's an attack, responding further after a few misunderstandings is futile because either I can't explain it to your further satisfaction. Much like the balance of emotions, there does not need to be some winning think out of this.