Subject:
|
3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:11:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1379 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Erik Olson wrote:
>
> > and
> > raises its children up to be bigots, sloths, mindless drones and worse, which
> > it is powerless to prevent except by making people feel *guilty* by
> > threatening God's judgment.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> Forgive me, but I feel that I must distance myself from what your definition
> of a Christian is. I am most certainly a bigot; I challenge you to show me
> someone who is without bias.
> ...Sloths, mindless drones and worse, heh heh heh. This is a troll, right?
Well, I guess it was a troll. But I left off the really bad names! I
don't think Christianity has much power to form character traits like
intellectual curiosity, productivity, attentiveness, and hipness, so
more second-generation Christians tend to lack these things even if
their converted parents had them. These are all worldly attributes,
de-emphasized by religion.
I'll define Christian in simple terms: someone who believes that faith
in God is paramount in their life. Yes, this would include a great
many other religions, which is why I sometimes use the term "religious
people" with this definition in mind.
The first implication of that definition is that the religious person
doesn't order their mind on reason; they consult God, which defaults
to consulting a mysterious voice in their conscience. If they happen
to have a sudden feeling of conviction about something while listening
to a missionary or kneeling in prayer, it is taken as proof, and the
Christian feel insecurity about questioning it because that *might
have been the voice of God*. A rational person doesn't assign
metaphysical overtones to their emotions (not the same as ignoring
them!), but the Christian does, because they're trying to communicate
with God. Granted, if on examination, some doctrinal issue comes up
with the particular revelation, it can be dismissed as a demon or
something. "GACK! I have demons in my head?"
A rational person does not order their mind this way. I've always
wondered if perhaps that Mormon bishop had a clue who said something
like "A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is impractical (or
unlikely to be granted to you?)", which was meant to rebut some
Baptist-like sect emphasizing having conversations with Jesus daily.
This is one of those things that the anti-cult books trot out, and I
think it tends to make the Mormons look good, more psychologically
astute (which not that book's intention.)
As for what makes for a bigot.. Let's explore "the dictionary". Mine
says pretty much "A person who is utterly intolerant of any creed not
his own" (Random House 1984.) Intolerance refers to Tolerance or
Bigot--I hate that in a dictionary. Tolerance is "fair and objective
attitude toward those whose opinions differ". OK, informative. But it
doesn't really say how far you have to go to NOT be a bigot. What is
fair and objective attitude? This is a notoriously murky swamp in
dictionaries! Definition 8 of "objective" gets to the root of "based
on facts"; (this primary philosophical sense is ranked somewhere below
optics jargon!) So, a bigot is one who doesn't base his opinion of
others on facts. Why couldn't they give such a practical definition in
the first place? The only supporting text under "bigot" is "a
derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans"!
I mistrust dictionaries (the above runaround illustrates one cause
why) so let's look in my mom's dictionary too (Webster's 7th, 1971;
not really my mom's dictionary, but at least a generation older.) It
defines bigot "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church,
party, belief, opinion." And obstinate? Webster's sense is "adhering
in spite of reason, arguments, persuasion." (Random House says
"adhering firmly or perversely.") Got it in two, reduced to basics: a
bigot is someone who is devoted to their cause in spite of reason to
the contrary. Webster's also gets 'intolerant' as unable to endure,
or, unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression.
Anyway, what this means for my train of thought is that, Christianity,
which admires faith above reason, is notorious for breeding bigotry.
If Christian parents raise their child to hate fags, where does the
blame lie? They got this doctrine from the Bible, believed it, and
never budge despite any evidence that gays are not much different from
themselves. This religious type who has become a bigot isn't open to
reason, but they got that way because the Church told them faith was
supreme, and that science (the lust of the eyes) should be plucked out
if it tempts them away from God's will. Christianity itself has a
lurking hostility to reason; it can't help but break out and create
monsters.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) It's funny you mention that. An article of my church's faith declares that "we belive that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." (...) What then is the good life? Can you tell me that? Can anyone (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
