Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:05:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1912 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
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...
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
another debate.
How exactly is "force" used when I say to you "God bless you"? It may be
insensitive to your beliefs, (but certainly no more than someone lampooning
someone else's religion, which I think we both agree anyone has the *right* to
do) but where is the coercion, where exactly is the wrong? (especially in the
light of the fact that an atheist *knows* that all of it is fictitious anyway!)
I'm sure you recognize by now that I am referring back to the "under God"
debate a while back. If there isn't any *actual* force being brought to bear
on an individual to actually hold any particular belief, I don't understand how
this can be construed as the actual *establishment* of religion. The phrase,
in essence, becomes a toss-away, neither requiring it to be believed and/or
spoken.
I am not arguing that "under God" should be or shouldn't be included in the POA
here; I'm just trying to get a firm grasp on the argument *against* it.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Well, "force" might have been too strong a word for me to choose, and the "black magic" angle was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you ask a good question. When someone says it to me I repond on two levels. The primary meaning is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
