| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Truthfully, I try not to get into this discussion any more because to me it
> seems clear that your beliefs are the result of deep programming and
> childhood trauma. <snip> But for me to express feeling sorry for you is
> condescending. So where do we go with this?
I have to admit I almost snorted milk out my nose reading this "deep
programming" and "childhood trauma" bit. Too much! =)
But, if I may say so, it is no more obnoxious to express derision or
condescension for John's views than it is for him to continually rub
everyone's nose in his "pet topic" of "the existence of God" -- and his own
wacky, quasi-Xtian god at that. Why does he think anyone needs his help or
his testimony? Doesn't it imply that he thinks he has some kind of
information that we all need to be informed about? [n.b. and if you have
read some of my comments elsewhere you know that this can hardly be the case
as regards John in particular.] The missionary zeal of many Xtians is
starting to get downright offensive -- why should we let them get away with
it? Believe me, I am no longer amused -- it really IS cultural war we are
talking about. And the funny thing is most other groups, with the exception
of most Xtians, have no missionary zeal whatever -- so it is primarily
Xtians that are requiring this tolerance from the rest of us. But again,
that tolerance is not that we should let them alone (because, in fact, we do
let them alone), but that we should allow Xtians to intrude into our own
affairs. This is really backwards thinking in my view.
I am very comfortable letting John have whatever wacky views he wants to
have provided he leaves the rest of us alone in return. When did this
become so much to ask? When did the deeply private and personal issue of
one's relationship to spiritual matters (including a complete lack of such a
relationship in the first place) become some sort automatic invitation for
every wacko Xtian to start yammering on and on about god?
I am very serious here. Why aren't people angry when missionary type people
come to the door, or barge in on newsgroups with their nonsense? What if I
came to the door and inquired of you the frequency and gender bias of your
sexual proclivities? Wouldn't you tell me to get lost on the basis that
such matters are simply private and no one else's business? How are
spiritual matters different?
> No, I mean the God who lets -- or makes, bad things happen to good people.
You mean like requiring of his own son that he sacrifice himself on the
cross to redeem the world? Sounds like a baby-eating fire-god to me. Yahweh
or Moloch -- you decide? Then again, what's the difference?
> _If_ there's some whole other spiritual world in which our meat is connected
> to some other kind of entity, and if this fleshy existence is like our
> spirit-self telling a story, then I could see how it hardly matters that the
> fleshy self suffers.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume something like the soul and the
body co-exist. Why deny the body and favor the soul? This kind of duality
is something I find very peculiar. Who says the body and soul are
separable? Maybe the body and soul are indivisible. Why not valorize both
the body and the soul together? Couldn't the things that make the flesh
happy also make the soul happy, simultaneously? Just a thought...
> My map is about loving on this earth for the sole purpose of being loved in
> return.
Well, I would say that loving another is it's own pleasure and doesn't
absolutely require reciprocity. At the same time, loving another and being
loved in return is the height of wisdom in my book. Add physical love to
that equation and you are messing with something akin to body and soul dynamite.
Anyway, I think we agree.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) The only comment I'll make here is that the soul is generally defined to be a part of humanity which *can* be separated from the body at death, so I think this is not a logical assumption. But I see no reason why things that make the flesh (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I really didn't mean for it to be funny. It just seems like how this kind of faith is generally built. What else would explain it? Even those born-again seem to be the result of a different kind of indoctrination. (...) One difference is that (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I have stated many times that *my* form of Christianity takes the form of leaving you to run your life the way you want as long as you reciprocate. It's the phrasing 'wacko Xtian' (and related spelling and ideas) which kinda started this whole (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) idea (...) from (...) The existence of a creator, to me, implies that he's still hanging around. Since there is no evidence to support that, and it seems like there would have to be if He were really there, I choose to go with spontaneous (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
