SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: James Calladine who wrote (15913)9/6/2003 6:31:24 AM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) of 28931
 
I may agree with much of what Scott says, but I think it is unecessary for you to post in a manner that pretends there is absolutely no divergence in our opinions.

As to "hearsay"...that is what your opinons are to me as regards Jones. I thought that last fellow I posted had written a very thoughtful and sincere analysis of Jones. He struck me as honest and credible. I find it unfortunate that you appear to resent my unwillingness to accept your opinion in exclusion to all the many other opinions expressed by those whom have met Jones and cared to publicly share their impressions and thoughts.

I have already noted that your personal entanglement over many years with Jones can not help but contaminate your attempts to be objective.

Finally, neither your certainty nor your experience nor your devotion translate into a presumption of fact. We both know of enough cult followers to appreciate that devotion and certainty are not sufficient to establish or justify their beliefs.

You are also well aware (I am sure) that many cult leaders have been megalomaniacs. Naturally such "certainty" is very convincing as it does not need to be faked. A person who believes he is God or His messenger IS compelling. When such megalomaniacal certainty is combined with an extraordinary intelligence, it can be more than persuasive.

Am I saying that Jones is an anxiety-ridden egomaniac? Of course not. But I know you are aware of such compelling people in history, and you should therefore be tolerant of the fact that to an objective outsider, who has not been compelled by the experience of such certainty...there remains at least an honest suspicion that both guru and followers may conform to the rule--especially since there is no general agreement that exceptions to the rule have ever existed.

Certainly, amongst followers of Jones with first person familiarity, there are a range of opinions and a clear disagreement as to his nature and his character. It is these differences of opinion which form the rational basis for a discussion of Jones by people such as myself, who have no personal knowledge of him. You seem to be of the belief that my lack of a personal discipleship under his sway ought to disqualify my exploration of his merit. But I find no rational basis for such an opinion.

Finally, I am not dismissing your opinion or your experience. I am pointing out that it is not universal and it is contentious even between followers. Your desire that Jones remain above criticism or even examination is touching but rather unreasonable.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News