Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:12:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2024 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> From post http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=18491
>
> Where the first tweaking began...
>
> "
> > God Bless, (yes I believe in God, his son Jesus who died for my sins,
> > and the holy spirit.)
>
> May Maury the Talking Kangaroo watch over you in the night!
>
> -Rev. Smith
This was not intended as a harsh comment. It's just that when someone says
"God bless" to me, and then specifies that the God who they are asking to
bless me is the God of Christianity, it has as much meaning to me as my
imploring Maury the Talking Kangaroo to watch over someone would have to a
Christian.
Why would you tell an atheist "God bless" if you know he doesn't believe in
God? I don't mind in the least if you privately ask your God to bless me,
but when you end a message to an atheist with "God bless", it comes across
as "oh, and by the way, I'm right and you're wrong about what you believe".
It may not exactly be what was intended, but that's how it comes across.
> In this discussion you have used the spaceship/kangaroo scenario as an
> *example* as to how ludicrous you believe Christianity to be--to basically
> reinforce your point, and you used this scenario as a debate tool. Where
> the line was crossed, is when the facetious/sarcastic example was directed
> at a *person*, not the topic.
>
> Since no one, including yourself, believes in this 'Maury the Talking
> Kangaroo', you are basically 'tweaking the nose' of Christians and their
> beliefs with the expression, "May Maury the Talking Kangaroo watch over you
> in the night!"--you are moving away from the debate of the actual issue(s)
> into the realm of 'pot-shots' at people on the other side of the debate.
Again, it wasn't meant to antagonize, but to illustrate something.
> Further, since the belief in God is in the realm of faith, for someone to
> say, 'I believe in God' and you denounce *their* belief in a facetious way,
> it doesn't facilitate good continuing debate.
>
> Anyway, hope that's clear enuf.
>
> As an aside, I used to write for a newsletter a while back, and I signed off
> as "Dr. David Geoffrey Koudys"--the Dr. part came in for reasons that are
> irrelevant to this discussion, but I have no post-secondary education
> warranting the Dr. and some folks called me on it, saying that I was
> 'belittling the Dr. profession'. I may not have personally agreed with it,
> but I saw their point and promptly dropped the 'Dr.' from my sign-off. I
> was wondering, do you have the necessary qualifications to use the 'Rev.'?
I feel that "Reverend" is a significantly different sort of title than
"Doctor". Whereas "Doctor" informs others of a particular college degree
that the title-bearer has earned, and makes no value-statement about the
bearer, "Reverend" boldly proclaims that the title-bearer is or should be
revered by others. Its use by ministers and priests strikes me as quite
pompous. It's like a adding "the Great" to the end of your name. And if
religious authority figures can be pompous, why can't I? I have never
falsely described myself to anyone as a minister or priest, or any other
sort of position-holder in an organized religion, so I don't particularly
feel like I am seriously misrepresenting myself.
> Take care.
This is a much less antagonistic closing for a message directed at an
atheist. Thank you.
Take care,
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Besides, there's plenty of places you could mail off to and get all the official documentation you need in the US to be a reverend and conduct weddings... (This is one of the things which really highlights that the religious definition of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) And I have no problem with the 'refusal' of a blessing, and i do concur with your take on the, "Oh, you're an Athiest so I'm just going to throw that 'God Bless' at *you* to tweak your nose, 'cause I'm right and you're wrong not to believe". (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Just to clarify, read any post by me in .castle and see if you can find one without God Bless on the end (OK there may be a few). I tagged the other bit on to show where I would be coming from in this debate... Not to be snide. Of all the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) From post (URL) the first tweaking began... " (...) May Maury the Talking Kangaroo watch over you in the night! -Rev. Smith " In this discussion you have used the spaceship/kangaroo scenario as an *example* as to how ludicrous you believe (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 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
|
|
|
|
