| |
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! =)
>
> 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 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 thread in the first place. If you want respect, if you
want understanding, if you want "us" to leave "you" be, then for the love of
everythign that's spelled right and non offensive, would it kill you not to
*be* condescending. I do believe in the 'Sticks and Stones' ideal, but if
you hear it over and over, with the inflection (or outright saying of
'wacko') that we are 'less than' you, it's demeaning. You shouldn't use the
'n' word when describing a black person for that word has power, and is
demeaning. I think that 'wacko Xian' is probably a good case of putting a
section of society down.
>
> 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?
I get a little forthright when Jehovah Witnesses come knocking on my door.
I mention that I believe what I beleive and if they want to give me a half
hour of thier time for me to discuss what I beleive, or if they sit thru one
of my church services, I'll have no issue sitting thru one of theirs, they
usually go walking.
>
> > 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?
Or it sounds as if it's the only way to redeem a fallen world (fallen due to
us, btw), and the only way we have any hope of gaining forgiveness.
>
> > _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...
Now we're actually on the same page (scary thought). You can't separate the
physical from the spirit. What, you think we live as like ghosts with God
up in heaven? GGod created this world for us to live on. We're living.
What makes the body happy in turn, I think, would also make the soul happy,
and vice versa. Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of the
soul. Whoever is spouting that brand of whatever hasn't understood the
simple and undeniable idea that God created the body, with all it's ability
to experience pleasure. Where's the problem in experienceing joy, love,
happiness, sensualness, whatever. Where in my Bible does it say to deny
these things? The fracture due to sin fractured all elements of life. The
'soul' is not closer to God and therefore should not be focused on more than
the body. C'mon people--don't look at some misguided and misinformed people
and say, 'Well, they're all like that!'.
After all, I'm not using this discussion as a template to form a hypothesis
that all athiests are word twisting, trash talking, Xian bashing,
'Science-is-God' folks who couldn't find the significant meaning in any
metoaphor thrown their way 'cause 'if it ain't real, it don't exist'.
I do, however, concur that there have been things said by either side for
all of us to come away from this with a bitter taste.
>
> > 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.
That's one of the most poetic and wonderful things you have ever written.
>
> Anyway, I think we agree.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
/agree that Christians should stop shoving their ideas and ideals down
people's throats.
/disagree God is vindictive tyrant who sacrifices His kids for no apparent
reason
/agree that you cannot separate body and soul
/agree that when 'you got it all', is a good thing :)
So we mostly agree :)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) "Only way?!?!" Aren't we talking about Big-G God here? The "only way" an infinite being can do something is however it wants to! And if that's not the case, then I can think of something greater than "a God who can't do things any way He (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Not only is my grammar atrocious, but my spelling as well. Sorry 'bout that--firstly no spell check via web interface, and secondly, I think, I type, and mostly don't bother to re-read. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) OK, so when Moses (or God, depending on what you believe) tells us not to covet the neighbor's wife, what do you believe you shouldn't do? Is it a sin to nail your neighbor's wife? What if she wants you to? What if her husband does too? There (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
