ISA and religion

As promised; The Lumberjack Song


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xToPCaNxaow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQOMxz-O7Sc&feature=endscreen&NR=1 (Shortened)

Wulkowicz

BTW: I think of most all scholarly papers as anecdotal anyway. Remember Phlogiston? http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm Lasted about 100 years. Probably had a Journal of Urban Phlogistonery.
jiggy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Say you went to a conference and a speaker comes out for opening remarks. If he started by saying, "Let's look at these slides of my model airplanes," would you find that appropriate? It isn't that anyone is likely to be offended by this--nobody really cares if he wants to build models. But it is off-topic and a waste of everyone's time. When I go to a conference, I am paying a pretty hefty registration fee, losing income because I miss work, and often I have to buy a hotel room, all to learn more about being a good arborist. I don't want my time to be wasted on something that doesn't relate to trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Babberney,

Your post illustrates the problem perfectly. I applaud your decision to start this thread and make your complaint public. Truthfully, we won this debate long ago (long before this thread began), and our opponents' arguments have been reduced to diversionary tactics, incoherent ranting, revisionist history, bullying, and bold type foot stomping as they watch their historical position of privilege plummet back into the Dark Ages where it belongs.

Even the Texas Chapter will eventually embrace the diversity of our global enrollment. Thank you for speaking up and being a catalyst for positive change.

Our opponents on this thread will of course disagree that they've been defeated, but unfortunately for their views, they're powerless to quash ours any longer. Individual readers will decide for themselves.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I am offended that you hijacked this thread, which is not meant to have anything to do with pruning paint.

...


So tell us, straight up: do you think it is okay for the ISA (or one of its chapters) to add prayer to the agenda of its events? What if it is a Muslim prayer? What if it is a prayer to Gaia?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they offended you in just that, are you sure you can handle tree care for a living - lol

Anyway, on the prayer thing ...

I'm fine with prayer not being part of the agenda.

The only possible exemption I can think of, would be certain religions where people have been conditioned to pray several times per day. But I don't think they need an exemption ... just an allowance to go for their ritual privately somehow without consequences like missing CEUs.

But I don't even know anybody who fits in that last group. Anybody even know any aborists who would pray 3 or more times per day at certain hours?


****************

Now considering Butler ...

When he went down in flames trying to soapbox us about science ... that debasing was deserved on is part.

But although the tree wound paint was a tangent, it essentially proved to be an acid test about motives. Fact or Fiction don't mean a thing when one's motives are not honorable. In his case, the reaction to the tangent showed that the intent was not the betterment of ISA meetings, as much as a display of bitterness and vitriol.

That kind of attitude can't lead, even if it's right.

I mean ... you know somebody needs to have their head examined if they complain about bullying, but boast about their own "bashing" of others.

cool.gif
 
Yes Mario, I've bashed your arguments to bits. Bashing is a word. I've used words to defeat your incessant blithering, not baseball bats.

[ QUOTE ]
When he went down in flames...

[/ QUOTE ]

The only flames on this thread are the ones that you lighted, prancing around like a maniacal pyromaniac in a field of straw.

Straw man fallacy
 
OP Lesson for Butler

Here's a final lesson for Butler ...

[ QUOTE ]
In Texas, public events often include public Christian prayers. This includes high school graduations and football games, school board meetings, city council meetings, etc. (not always, but often--and, yes, it is illegal at govt-sponsored events, but peer pressure often trumps that). So when I first began attending ISA banquets and luncheons, I never thought much about the prayer before the meal.

But the more I think about it, the more it bothers me. We are potentially alienating non-Christians every time we do this. I am okay with my tablemates asking to hold hands and say grace or whatever, but when the prayer is coming from the dais, it implies the ISA is a Christian organization. To the best of my knowledge, it is not. As a member for over 15 years, I am tired of being left out of a part of "my" organization's events.

My question is, do other chapters include prayer at their events? Do national events include prayer? I'm just wondering what the extent of this practice is for now while I figure out what, if anything, I want to do about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lesson lies in how Babberney started the OP ...

Agree or disagree with him, there is a question posed, and that OP exudes a fairly clean attitude and desire for some kind of improvement.

No bashing, no chest-beating, no bragging, no announcements of one's victory or personal score board. It's a well presented OP.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Now considering Butler ...

When he went down in flames trying to soapbox us about science ... that debasing was deserved on is part.

But although the tree wound paint was a tangent, it essentially proved to be an acid test about motives. Fact or Fiction don't mean a thing when one's motives are not honorable. In his case, the reaction to the tangent showed that the intent was not the betterment of ISA meetings, as much as a display of bitterness and vitriol.

That kind of attitude can't lead, even if it's right.

I mean ... you know somebody needs to have their head examined if they complain about bullying, but boast about their own "bashing" of others.

cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

what parallel universe were you in when you read this thread? Glenn pointed out the difference between science and religion (i.e., evidence that can be duplicated by other scientists). He was absolutely right and nobody showed otherwise.

Somewhere in the tangent on paint, he admitted he was mistaken and asked for research so he could learn more about it. That's not him going down in flames, nor is it debasing. In fact, it is just the sort of thing scientists (and arborists) should be doing. He won, his clients won, and the trees won.

Where did you see the "bitterness and vitriol?" Is it just everywhere anyone disagrees with you? Where did you see the boasting about bashing others? Where did you even see him bashing others? Is it just that you can't handle differing opinions?

I commend Glenn for staying calm, rational, reasonable, and on-topic throughout this discussion (paint tangent notwithstanding). Based on other comments in this thread, I am not the only one who feels this way. Why do you suppose your perception is so different?
 
Man ... you just screwed up royally.

I just posted your OP as a classic example of a good post.

Then you go off on that last reply.

Your missed the error in heart on his part.

Butler was on a roll so to speak, of trying to prove someone wrong. That error in heart, became an error in habit, and flowed over into another aspect.

It's not JUST that he was wrong, it's what triggered him to practically accuse someone of not knowing about something, rather than possibly assume the other knew.

Since you referred to it, let's go back to this partial quote ...

[ QUOTE ]
Mario, ...

Your statement reveals that you have a poor or perhaps negligible understanding of how science works. Science is cumulative and self-correcting. This scientific ability to admit previous errors and mistakes is the very strength of the process. Can you provide a citation for the scientific paper(s) that expound on the efficacy of painting tree wounds? Have you read a scientific paper supporting wound painting? I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’ve just never read one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was his reaction to me saying something along the lines that science can be partly a matter of faith. Because scientists will believe things that are wrong at times, as long as they are convinced. And will lead others down that path. Regardless of their intentions.

I don't see where my statement and profession background gives Butler license to critize I don't know how science works.

It's hard to say for a fact. But it comes across as if Butler was so sure he's the smarter on religious matters, that someone else certainly must know less about other issues too.

As for scientists, it does not bother me most of the time whether they are right or wrong, as long as their intention is to be right. But even science is not completely free of faith on some things.

*********************

Oh ... Babberney ....

I just realized something about my first reply in this thread, and probably should have clarified. When I first wrote "allowed", that was more or less along the lines of tolerating prayer at MEALS by individuals.

Not expecting that the ISA should have it on their agenda though.

Maybe the reason I phrased it that way, was because I chimed in on the third page of replies, when the conversation beyond that with someone writing that prayer should "never" enter a an ISA "event".

On the surface, that idea sounded as if it meant more than just excluding from the agenda.





cool.gif
 
Theres a huge difference with faith and going on the best available knowledge of its time. Once again science can change when new evidence comes to light and religion does not have that flexibility. I think he was right to critique you on that accord.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Theres a huge difference with faith and going on the best available knowledge of its time. Once again science can change when new evidence comes to light and religion does not have that flexibility. I think he was right to critique you on that accord.

[/ QUOTE ]

No ...

I'll wrap this up fast. It will help you.

Study of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, figures of speech, etc., led some "religious" folks as you might call them, to change their belief and teaching on various things.

Some religious folks go back to scrolls and archeological findings, and do change what they believe, because a few do seek to learn.

But there are hundreds of scrolls, texts and artifacts, that have been found, and many are still studied for new insight.

Other try to merely reinforce their century old beliefs. But since not all are like that, what you wrote is more opinion than reality. It's your own faith, so to speak.

Now ... again ...

If science believes something that is not correct, even if science can change ... the belief in whatever they believe in, is a matter of faith. It's simply what they believe in.
 
"and bold type foot stomping as they watch their historical position of privilege plummet back into the Dark Ages, where it belongs"
I actually agree with your position on not having prayer at an ISA event. I have Not RANTED or raved or any such thing...however this does not sound like a tolerant statement especially the "where it belongs " part. Explain please for the sake of clarity. I actually prefer clarity over agreement!! The word choice and tone sound as if you have animous toward those of faith. True? If so all faiths or just Christians?
No ranting,simple straighforward question so i know where I stand w a fellow buzzer.
 
and I don't need you to "wrap anything up for me". I think that the statement that religion has a lack of flexibility is a very reasonable assertion. Because religion is based on "faith" is the very reason for this. There are no logic based rules.
 
that being said I applaud Biblical scholars but these are all just accounts from history. Why have only certain gospels of Christ been passed down through time? Political agenda? Control?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I didnt say that religion couldnt change. I said it does not have the same flexibility as science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sure it does - lol

The flexibility or lack of it, is people. "Science" is not a thing. It's people.

In fact, some science could very much have it's heels dug in on some matters of assembling facts, as much as certain religions.

Do note that you more or less defined the lack of "flexibility" as the opposite of what science "can" do when something new is realized.

If science's flexibility is "can", is seem reasonably to read the reply as meaning religion can't.

cool.gif
 
I do not 'worship' him or anyone else.

I am not an Aethist. Far from it.
just watching American Christians try to hold onto their control - it is slipping. I hope.

good thread. weird...
thanks Babberny. Go bro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom