Subject:
|
that whole 'Christmas' Thang
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:39:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
432 times
|
| |
|
|
OK, this is probably going to hurt when the responses roll in, but in the
meantime, there's a soap box, and by God(1) I'm standing on it!
First off, My impression of this whole 'Christmas debate' here is that there
are several people over-reacting. Steve over-reacted to the original post, and
while I commend him for expressing (and holding to) his beliefs, he could hold
to them a little less indignantly. Larry over-reacted to several things, and
while he has a right (IMO) to be offended, he doesn't have to be offended quite
so righteously. Sorry Larry, but some of your posts did come off as fairly
righteous(2). This was followed up by several people jumping on the bandwagon,
and (sorry to say it) but to an impartial observer, it sure looked like people
were taking the opportunity to 'slam the christian' - which does not mean they
didn't have valid points, but they certainly took the opportunity to slam them
home.
Secondly, the other thing that I noticed was sweeping generalizations, on
both 'sides'. I could dredge up several, but the most glaring is the
consistent use (by both Steve and Larry) of 'christian' as though it describes
a single belief system.(3). There were several abuses, but the one that comes
to mind (probably because it was recent) was Larry's rejection of the
'christian god'. I have yet to find (and believe me, I've tried) to find
christians of two denominations that can agree on exactly what they think 'God'
is, and it's rare to find two christians of even the same denomination who have
the same concept of God. The same applies to the concept of 'heaven'
Finally(4), I count myself vary fortunate (and probably fairly picky) in that
most of my peer group is fairly open-minded. As such, most of them,
regardless of personal belief, hold that 'God', if it exists, is almost
certainly beyond our understanding in anything but a symbolic way, and that
(almost invariably) it is not likely to be so prejudiced as to only 'save'
people of a specific belief, rather it is a moral(6) character that it
considers important. The other commonly expressed opinion is that (much like
Larry's point) if it is so prejudiced as to restrict access to 'heaven' based
on belief structure, nobody wants to go.
Please note that nowhere in this post do my personal religeous beliefs
appear. My opinions, yes, but not my beliefs. Why? Because they are (or
should be) irrelevant.
1 - or by (insert symbolic representation of belief system here)
2 - Please note that I use righteous in the original intent, without the
implication that common usage attaches to it of being un-thinking, or stupid.
I certainly accuse Larry of possessing neither fault.
3 - others misused in similar fashion were 'athiest' 'muslim' and 'bhuddist',
as well as likely several that I missed, but 'christian' was the most common,
so it is the example I use.
4 - except for closing comments and footnotes(5)
5- self-referential, viral, or otherwise.
6 - and there is no way I am getting snared into a debate about the nature of
morality!
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
