| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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! =)
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.
> 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.
One difference is that the Christian propagandists keep it as a fairly low
ambient background noise. When someone like you opts to trash one of them,
it's quite noisy for a while then goes away.
> 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?
Need, or at least could benefit from. And I think he could think that even in
light of your recent tirade against him.
> it really IS cultural war we are talking about.
Yeah, but if you just wait it out, we can't lose. Truth, like all information,
wants to be free.
> 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?
Because they do almost no harm and are sometimes interesting. There is wisdom
in everyone and they might express it.
> What if I
> came to the door and inquired of you the frequency and gender bias of your
> sexual proclivities?
Now that would be funny! I'd probably invite you in to hear your spiel just
like I do with missionaries...if I had the time.
> 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?
Yes. Just like that. On the other hand, Moloch might have wisdom to offer
too. I'm just not up to worshiping him.
> > _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?
I was hypothesizing that there are rules "up there" that we don't fathom here.
And because of those, it might make sense to hassle the meat. I find this
whole line unlikely, but maybe.
> 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...
Sure! To whatever extent a soul exists _and_ it communicates with _my_ flesh,
doing pleasurable things to this body pleases the soul.
> > 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.
I actually agree, but when done wrong it can be pretty painful too.
> 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.
I'm not sure where the boundaries are. "Physical love" and "emotional love"
are pretty tightly wound up as far as I can tell. I think one desires the
other and there an infinty of ways to express these ideas.
> Anyway, I think we agree.
I think so on this one.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
