Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:11:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2069 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
Although The Rev has already addressed a lot of this very capably (and
with remarkably polite restraint!), I wanted to add a few thoughts here,
since the debate has taken a bit of a turn...
That's an interesting point, but if we remove the emotional element (and I
don't mean that in any derrogatory way--merely as a method of rhetoric to
pare the issue to its fundamentals), can we consider the effect of closing
one's debate post with an invocation of the essence of the debate? That is,
if we're having a serious (insofar as it's possible) discussion the relative
merits of two sports teams, and we were actually formulating a serious
debate on the matter, it would be improper to end one's post with "Steelers
Rule" since that would be an emotional appeal outside the bounds of the
actual debate. When Nathan closed his post (#18490) with
> God Bless, (yes I believe in God, his son Jesus who died for my sins,
> and the holy spirit.)
I found it to be somewhat inappropriate to the debate at hand. If it's part
of Nathan's usual signature, that might be different. I absolutely support
Nathan's right to proclaim his religion, just as Brendan has the right to
lampoon it, but the placement in the context is questionable.
Since the debate was about the atrocities and generally unpleasant stories
within the bible, and in a larger sense about the inconsistencies in God's
OT and NT portrayals, it's valid to discuss the "evidence" of the bible. By
including his invocation at the end of a debate post, Nathan was changing
the tenor of the debate, and he was frankly opening himself up to the response.
As a parallel, I cite the example of my office, which like many offices has
a practice of distributing birthday, sympathy, and "get well" cards. I make
no secret of my atheism, yet I still receive "God Bless" and "You're in my
prayers" messages in cards to me. Honestly, it makes me a little
uncomfortable not because of some religious guilt or void in my life, but
because my friends and coworkers are obviously unware of my beliefs. Or
worse, if they are aware of my beliefs, then they're obviously ignoring them
or simply don't respect them. Either way it's not cool to force a blessing
on someone. For that matter, an unsolicited blessing on someone else's
behalf qualifies as black magic, since it's an invocation without consent...
> I was wondering, do you have the necessary qualifications to use the 'Rev.'?
A local DJ in Pittsburgh is called The Reverend. I don't think there are
any ironclad, universal requirements for that particular honorific.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Either way it's not cool to force a blessing (...) Even in the middle of composing another post, I was struck by your words, because they echo a similar ascertain you made which I didn't understand in (...) (22 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
