Subject:
|
Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:16:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@ANTISPAMio.com
|
Viewed:
|
1421 times
|
| |
|
|
Erik Olson wrote:
> 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.
Hipness? I'd say that's a worldly attribute, de-emphasized by our parents'
(any given parents') generations. But I digress.
Intellectual curiosity, attentiveness, and especially productivity are
promoted by several churches, including my own. If you're going to throw out
the bathwater, let's at least find the baby in it first. A gross example of
productivity in religion is the wonderful architecture you may find in many
places of worship. Such piles of stone and wood rarely rise without sheer
productivity. As for intellectual curiosity and attentiveness, one may name
dozens of reputable hospitals operated under the auspices of a religious
order. Such an operation relies upon modern medicine, scientific research,
and study on a daily basis. I would shudder to think of the status of their
patients if all these hospitals relied upon was faith.
You seem to be of the mistaken assumption that any religious person is a
brain-washed drone with delusions of adequacy. Am I correct in this
deduction?
Furthermore, you also assume that someone with an absense of religion in their
life is an invigorated, hard-working behemoth of intellectual power. So far,
so good?
Doesn't this system of yours seem rather inflexible to you? Such blanket
statements are rarely, if ever, accurate. One might suppose that accuracy
would be important to such a student of the sciences as yourself.
> 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.
You'll have to find me a reference on that. I'm sure that it's possible that
a Bishop of my church would say such a thing on the record (seeing how no one
perfect and even Bishops can make bone-headed remarks sometimes), but that's a
fairly insulting accusation to make without backing it up.
While we're discussing Mormons and their relationship with the Lord, yes, we
do have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Take that with as much
salt as you want. It is our belief that salvation is impossible without at
least meeting Him, whether it be in this life or the next.
As for daily conversations with Christ, hmmm. That would make Him rather
busy, don't you think? I would hope He has some help in the task.
> As for what makes for a bigot.. Let's explore "the dictionary".
> [...] 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.
So you're admitting to bigotry? I'm willing to confess to it if you are.
You seem unable to endure religion in spite of reason. I am just as unable to
endure country / western music in spite of reason. We are all bigots in some
way, irregardless of religion or upbringing. The important part is to
recognize this.
> Anyway, what this means for my train of thought is that, Christianity,
> which admires faith above reason, is notorious for breeding bigotry.
> [...] Christianity itself has a
> lurking hostility to reason; it can't help but break out and create
> monsters.
I don't meean to derail your train of thought (look! there's Elvis! heh heh),
but suppose just for a minute that faith and reason are opposite sides of the
same coin? A yin and a yang, so to speak. One without the responsible
exercise of the other is wasted. I had this converation with Larry here some
time ago. The basic concept was a web of trust. You *must* trust some things
to be true. By the same token (pun intended), you *must* investigate some
things personally before you can accept them.
And since I'm throwing in two cents, here's another coin: bias and
tolerance. You can't have one without the other. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Card-carrying member of the Star-Bellied Sneech Preservation Society
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
