Is the Bible as it is translated, infallible? Probably not. Are the truths behind the words dependable? Most definitely!
And herein lies the conflict. When quotes are taken out of context, or we rely exclusively on the King James translation, or we neglect to consider the poetry and picture language of the original, we fail to truly "understand." And too often we supplant the literal for the metaphorical, or vice-versa.
However, the biggest problem in any discussion is this, that it is impossible to test ideas with someone who knows they are always right.
Showing posts with label Arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arguments. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 October 2013
Monday, 19 August 2013
Saturday, 1 December 2012
IMHO
I mentioned last week I've been following the fiasco of the Labour Party conference with its apparent in-fighting and jostling for position.
I watched with fascination as the wolves turned on each other! Considered opinion became swamped in accusation and counter-accusation, knee-jerk reactions, biased viewpoints, pot-shots from loose cannons and folks ducking for cover. And no, I'm not talking about the politicians, it was the media - newspaper columnists vs. bloggers, the official vs. the unofficial, the paid vs. the voluntary, and particularly on the blogs, the commentators vs. the commenters.
Fiction became facts and facts became fiction as anyone with an axe to grind found an easy forum in which to express it. It amazes me that in this incredible Information Age in which we live, that people can be so ignorant. And they say you can't believe everything you read in newspapers!
Sadly however, I do have to admit that there is some truth in that... I once worked with a reporter who would listen to their subject, paraphrase their comments in the reporter's own words, and then publish them as direct quotes - gross!
Then there was the journo who deliberately took the concept of journalistic licence so far beyond the extreme, that I read their subsequent reports with a good spoonful of salt.
And yes, I've met rookies who have closed minds, who wouldn't consider the other side of a question. And I've worked with old-school reporters who have become so cynical they've forgotten how to appreciate that some people actually do have genuine motives.
But I also know a contributor who writes his regular column, sleeps on it, re-reads it, gets his wife to check it, submits it, and even then, to his chagrin, will occasionally find a mistake when he opens the paper. And for all the daily writers, it's not their fault that in these days of lower staffing there are less checks in the process before a story hits the press.
So yes, it's true, the media - modern and traditional - is an imperfect beast, and we shouldn't be surprised to find that journalists are just people. Some have an agenda, and all of them have an attitude, just as we do. But given the human-ness of the humanity they report, I dare you the reader to check your facts before you apportion blame.
I once spoke to a woman who spat the dummy about her local council's inaction in fixing her road. When I repeated back what she said, she pulled half the comments, and toned down the rest. What would she have said if I'd published without checking? Who would she have blamed? Whose fault would it have been? Moral of the story? Never say anything to a reporter that you don't want published.
I recently wrote a simple caption based on information given to me by the absolute head-honcho of the organisation in question. It turned out the information was wrong, and we published a correction. So yes, the dreaded media can get it wrong, but it's not always their fault. As in all relationships, what really counts is whether or not you have the intestinal fortitude to admit it, apologise and where possible, put it right.
And when deciding whether or not an article is believable, I invite you to consider whether you're reading a report or an opinion piece, though I admit that that is becoming more difficult. In an attempt to become more contemporary, many journos are encouraged to put themselves into the story rather than simply relaying the facts and letting the reader decide. As evidence, one need to look no further than the news anchors (professional actors) who are paid massive amounts of money just to read the autocue for our 6pm news bulletins. Journalists? Pfft!
Though when it comes to opinion, it seems to me that the biggest complaints about "facts" come from those who simply have an opposing opinion. It's easier to attack the writer than the view which is being expressed. And whether we the reader consider them to be objective or objectionable has a lot to do with our own (biased) viewpoint.
A friend of mine once rebutted my argument by saying, "That's just your opinion." My response was quite simple: "Yes, but if I agreed with you, that would also be 'Just my opinion'..."
I watched with fascination as the wolves turned on each other! Considered opinion became swamped in accusation and counter-accusation, knee-jerk reactions, biased viewpoints, pot-shots from loose cannons and folks ducking for cover. And no, I'm not talking about the politicians, it was the media - newspaper columnists vs. bloggers, the official vs. the unofficial, the paid vs. the voluntary, and particularly on the blogs, the commentators vs. the commenters.
Fiction became facts and facts became fiction as anyone with an axe to grind found an easy forum in which to express it. It amazes me that in this incredible Information Age in which we live, that people can be so ignorant. And they say you can't believe everything you read in newspapers!
Sadly however, I do have to admit that there is some truth in that... I once worked with a reporter who would listen to their subject, paraphrase their comments in the reporter's own words, and then publish them as direct quotes - gross!
Then there was the journo who deliberately took the concept of journalistic licence so far beyond the extreme, that I read their subsequent reports with a good spoonful of salt.
And yes, I've met rookies who have closed minds, who wouldn't consider the other side of a question. And I've worked with old-school reporters who have become so cynical they've forgotten how to appreciate that some people actually do have genuine motives.
But I also know a contributor who writes his regular column, sleeps on it, re-reads it, gets his wife to check it, submits it, and even then, to his chagrin, will occasionally find a mistake when he opens the paper. And for all the daily writers, it's not their fault that in these days of lower staffing there are less checks in the process before a story hits the press.
So yes, it's true, the media - modern and traditional - is an imperfect beast, and we shouldn't be surprised to find that journalists are just people. Some have an agenda, and all of them have an attitude, just as we do. But given the human-ness of the humanity they report, I dare you the reader to check your facts before you apportion blame.
I once spoke to a woman who spat the dummy about her local council's inaction in fixing her road. When I repeated back what she said, she pulled half the comments, and toned down the rest. What would she have said if I'd published without checking? Who would she have blamed? Whose fault would it have been? Moral of the story? Never say anything to a reporter that you don't want published.
I recently wrote a simple caption based on information given to me by the absolute head-honcho of the organisation in question. It turned out the information was wrong, and we published a correction. So yes, the dreaded media can get it wrong, but it's not always their fault. As in all relationships, what really counts is whether or not you have the intestinal fortitude to admit it, apologise and where possible, put it right.
And when deciding whether or not an article is believable, I invite you to consider whether you're reading a report or an opinion piece, though I admit that that is becoming more difficult. In an attempt to become more contemporary, many journos are encouraged to put themselves into the story rather than simply relaying the facts and letting the reader decide. As evidence, one need to look no further than the news anchors (professional actors) who are paid massive amounts of money just to read the autocue for our 6pm news bulletins. Journalists? Pfft!
Though when it comes to opinion, it seems to me that the biggest complaints about "facts" come from those who simply have an opposing opinion. It's easier to attack the writer than the view which is being expressed. And whether we the reader consider them to be objective or objectionable has a lot to do with our own (biased) viewpoint.
A friend of mine once rebutted my argument by saying, "That's just your opinion." My response was quite simple: "Yes, but if I agreed with you, that would also be 'Just my opinion'..."
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Did so! Did not!
They say it's the woman who always gets the last word in an argument, because anything a man says after that is the start of a new argument.... Hmm, I'm not sure that I agree, anyone dare to have an opinion on that?
I guess I've always enjoyed a good argument. Not the "Yes, I did"..."No, you didn't" variety, though I'm sure I engaged in many such exchanges as a child...
As a high school student I wasn't very good at sports and was never that involved in inter-house or inter-school competitions - until I discovered debating. It was awesome, legalised arguments! The school library had a huge dictionary, literally 30cm (12-inch) thick, from which I could glean the most obscure definitions, creating arguments that came right out of left-wing.
And it was no problem debating topics or arguing a case when I privately had no opinion at all, or even agreed with the opposition. That was half the fun. Rugby emasculates. And I hope you can forgive my expressing just a little pride in my teams who won 30 of their 33 debates. The good part was, that as first speaker, I always got to speak twice.
I enjoy talking and I enjoy a mature discussion, the mutual expression of ideas, the consideration of questions which probe the exterior to discover the truth, to learn why people think the way they do, to understand why they believe what they believe. What do they really care about? What's important, to them?
They say one should never discuss religion or politics in a social setting. Too bad, I'm gonna break that rule. Religion and politics fascinate me. Maybe that's why I enjoy reading blogs and political commentary, though it does get a bit sad when the bloggers/commentators take on each other rather than the point in question.
I know I approach a lot of things as an idealist, and that's okay, you have to have something to attain to. And I can handle the reality that not everything is black and white. But we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking everything is grey and tolerance is king. I've coined a new word on that one - mediaocre - when the fourth estate tries to have a bob each way, and in trying to please everybody ends up pleasing nobody. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe.
In contrast, my Dad tells me I was always sure of what I was sure of. Maybe that's why I'm a fan of the letters from the Apostle Paul. He presents a point, throws in a few ifs and buts, and rebuts a couple of possible counter-arguments - but the reader is never left in any doubt as to the point he's trying to make.
There are of course risks in having a strongly-held opinion. I have a friend who plays a superb devil's advocate, but the difficulty is, they often end up believing their own rhetoric. And here's a thought: It's all very well winning an argument, but is it worth it if you lose the relationship?
I've discovered in my household I have to be a good sounding board. After all, a woman has to get through about 17,000 words a day compared to my manly 2,000. Um, wrong again. In checking my facts for this post, I discovered there are those who disagree with that concept, and they've got the research to prove their case. There went another belief...
So perhaps on this occasion the last word should go to my friend, Ian Clayton who says "People only argue when one person is not listening."
I wonder if it was his wife who said it first....
I guess I've always enjoyed a good argument. Not the "Yes, I did"..."No, you didn't" variety, though I'm sure I engaged in many such exchanges as a child...
As a high school student I wasn't very good at sports and was never that involved in inter-house or inter-school competitions - until I discovered debating. It was awesome, legalised arguments! The school library had a huge dictionary, literally 30cm (12-inch) thick, from which I could glean the most obscure definitions, creating arguments that came right out of left-wing.
And it was no problem debating topics or arguing a case when I privately had no opinion at all, or even agreed with the opposition. That was half the fun. Rugby emasculates. And I hope you can forgive my expressing just a little pride in my teams who won 30 of their 33 debates. The good part was, that as first speaker, I always got to speak twice.
I enjoy talking and I enjoy a mature discussion, the mutual expression of ideas, the consideration of questions which probe the exterior to discover the truth, to learn why people think the way they do, to understand why they believe what they believe. What do they really care about? What's important, to them?
They say one should never discuss religion or politics in a social setting. Too bad, I'm gonna break that rule. Religion and politics fascinate me. Maybe that's why I enjoy reading blogs and political commentary, though it does get a bit sad when the bloggers/commentators take on each other rather than the point in question.
I know I approach a lot of things as an idealist, and that's okay, you have to have something to attain to. And I can handle the reality that not everything is black and white. But we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking everything is grey and tolerance is king. I've coined a new word on that one - mediaocre - when the fourth estate tries to have a bob each way, and in trying to please everybody ends up pleasing nobody. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe.
In contrast, my Dad tells me I was always sure of what I was sure of. Maybe that's why I'm a fan of the letters from the Apostle Paul. He presents a point, throws in a few ifs and buts, and rebuts a couple of possible counter-arguments - but the reader is never left in any doubt as to the point he's trying to make.
There are of course risks in having a strongly-held opinion. I have a friend who plays a superb devil's advocate, but the difficulty is, they often end up believing their own rhetoric. And here's a thought: It's all very well winning an argument, but is it worth it if you lose the relationship?
I've discovered in my household I have to be a good sounding board. After all, a woman has to get through about 17,000 words a day compared to my manly 2,000. Um, wrong again. In checking my facts for this post, I discovered there are those who disagree with that concept, and they've got the research to prove their case. There went another belief...
So perhaps on this occasion the last word should go to my friend, Ian Clayton who says "People only argue when one person is not listening."
I wonder if it was his wife who said it first....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)