TAN
Paul Evans
--
Luv, Paul
Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
Frank van Schie
Paul Evans wrote:
>
> What does TAN mean?
Tangential. Equivalent to 'Off-topic' in other groups.
It's in the FAQ, which is required reading 'round these parts.
http://linuxmafia.com/jordan/
Have fun,
--
Frank
Ludvig Hagmar
news:afbuu5$ld9$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> What does TAN mean?
>
all your Trollocs Are belong to Narg.
--
Ludvig Hagmar
Reality is for those that can't cope with WOT
Jean Dufresne
>
> Frank van Schie while grazing in <3D198694...@casema.net>, made the
> following shapes:
> >
> >
> > Paul Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > What does TAN mean?
> >
> > Tangential. Equivalent to 'Off-topic' in other groups.
>
Because that would be almost as obvious as [OT].
--
Jean
Michael Hoye
Clavicula Salomonis <cl...@orgasmatron.de-NoSpamMe-mon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I was always wondering, why not "[OFF]"?
Tangential doesn't always mean completely off-topic. That said, it's
a done decision, and one flag is as good as any other.
As an aside, for the fellow who asked originally, the reason it's
"[TAN]" and not "TAN:" is because of the number of broken newsreaders
in the world that crop titles up to the initial colon. Outlook Express,
I believe, is one example.
--
Mike Hoye
Alexander Johansen
news:afd4k0$t0k$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
Actually no, at least not the newer versions of OE, I've never experienced
this, and believe me I've gotten a lot of posts starting with "re:" because
my newsserver has deleted the original posts due to time.
--
ACJ
Maier's Law:
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
Leigh Butler
<al...@NOSPAM.f-dur.dk> wrote:
>"Michael Hoye" <mh...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>news:afd4k0$t0k$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
>> As an aside, for the fellow who asked originally, the reason it's
>> "[TAN]" and not "TAN:" is because of the number of broken newsreaders
>> in the world that crop titles up to the initial colon. Outlook Express,
>> I believe, is one example.
>
>Actually no, at least not the newer versions of OE, I've never experienced
>this, and believe me I've gotten a lot of posts starting with "re:" because
>my newsserver has deleted the original posts due to time.
Yeah, but what Mike meant is that OE strips any _other_ colons in the
Subject line. So if you reply to a thread titled "TAN: Yadda yadda"
with OE, instead of getting "Re: TAN: Yadda yadda" as is right and
proper, you'll get "Re: Yadda yadda".
Which then fucks up the threading, and annoys people. Hence the switch
to [TAN] to avoid the problem.
--
Leigh Butler leigh_...@paramount.com
******************************************************
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those
of Paramount Pictures or its affiliates.
Dave Rothgery
You're misunderstanding; OE6 still does exhibit the behavior that caused
the switch from TAN: to [TAN].
If you reply to a post where the subject is 'TAN: RE: Whatever' in OE,
the subject of your reply will be 'RE: Whatever', because OE will clip
everything before the last colon, and then add an RE.
--
Dave Rothgery
Picking nits since 1976
drot...@alum.wpi.edu
http://drothgery.editthispage.com
Tessy
<cl...@orgasmatron.de-NoSpamMe-mon.co.uk> wrote:
>Frank van Schie while grazing in <3D198694...@casema.net>, made the
>following shapes:
>>
>>
>> Paul Evans wrote:
>> >
>> > What does TAN mean?
>>
>> Tangential. Equivalent to 'Off-topic' in other groups.
>
>I was always wondering, why not "[OFF]"?
What? Like Tan off! Don't think it'll catch on.
--
Tessy @ nospam.com
General info: your sig should be prefaced by "-- " ie dash, dash, space.
This enables intelligent newsreaders to snip it upon reply automagically.
Michael Hoye
Tessy <te...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:27:44 +0100, Clavicula Salomonis
><cl...@orgasmatron.de-NoSpamMe-mon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was always wondering, why not "[OFF]"?
>
>What? Like Tan off! Don't think it'll catch on.
You're screwed. Tans fade, they don't just switch off, and "Tan: Fade"
would be on topic, not tan.
--
Mike Hoye
Ken Gerrard
[...]
>Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
>any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
--
Ken Gerrard
k...@nubule.nu
http://nub.nubule.nu/
Mark Loy
umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
> "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
> >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
>
> That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
I ask because there's a part of me that wants to be a Christian, too.
I mean, most of the people in my family consider themselves to be
Christians. And Eric...I think I told you that he "found" Christianity on
his own when he was quite young (three or four) as a way of dealing with
the issue of death and recently he and Deb have been attending a truly
excellent neighborhood church. The thing is he now asks me why I don't
attend. He even went as far as to ask me if I believe in God. Not
wanting to utterly destroy his belief system with a sustained volley of my
doubts/objections I just decided to be honest and say that no, I don't
believe in God. To which he replied, in complete and honest sincerity, "I
hope I get to see you in heaven, anyway, Dad."
Yeah, I know. My son is worried about my immortal soul.
So it would be so much easier if ol' Marcus was a born again Christian type.
But I ain't and I'm not gonna be.
I'm not any religion. I am who I am and that sure as fuck ain't religious.
But, as of this moment, my little boy is. And he's smart enough to do the
math and it just don't add up to his old man makin' it to heaven with him
and that hurts him.
Fuck.
I'm caught here. Organized religions, as in neighborhood Christian
churches, have some very nice qualities especially those associated with
getting to know the people where you live and being involved with
community activities like sports and dinners and family outings all
enjoyable and fairly safe and trouble-free with a strong emphasis on
nurturing character development and learning about strong family and
community moral values.
But then they are also dens of propoganda and religious indoctrination.
Of course that doesn't mean that my son won't someday be able to evaluate
his beliefs objectively and really determine what is and isn't fact and
what that has to do with how he wants to live his life and raise his own
children.
It just means that now, today, he's sad for his dad.
And that's made me consider attending church with them despite my problems
with the institution.
The thing is I don't believe and it seems really hypocritical to "put on"
as if I do. It's bad enough, at least from my perspective, that I'm
involved with as many church related and sanctioned sports activities
where I coach and volunteer and work for the betterment of the
neighborhood kids. During team prayers and the like I quite literally
feel like a fuckin' ass. And if the people that run the programs knew
that I'm not religious...how might their opinion of me change? And the
parents that consider me to be an excellent coach and mentor for their
children...if they knew that I'm a "fraud" how would the feel about me as
a coach and role model for their kids?
Fuck if I don't feel like a real cad. But the programs are first-rate.
And the kids are wonderful and I really do feel that I help them develop
physical skills as well as increased feelings of self-worth,
sportsmanship, and teamwork.
And now I think I'm ramblin' so I should end this.
Thanks for listening.
From your friendly neighborhood heathen,
I remain,
ML
Johan Gustafsson
> In article <afsi11$l3g$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
>
> > "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
> > >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
> >
> > That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
>
>
> Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
>
> I ask because there's a part of me that wants to be a Christian, too.
>
> I mean, most of the people in my family consider themselves to be
> Christians. And Eric...I think I told you that he "found" Christianity on
> his own when he was quite young (three or four) as a way of dealing with
> the issue of death and recently he and Deb have been attending a truly
> excellent neighborhood church. The thing is he now asks me why I don't
> attend. He even went as far as to ask me if I believe in God. Not
> wanting to utterly destroy his belief system with a sustained volley of my
> doubts/objections I just decided to be honest and say that no, I don't
> believe in God. To which he replied, in complete and honest sincerity, "I
> hope I get to see you in heaven, anyway, Dad."
>
> Yeah, I know. My son is worried about my immortal soul.
He shouldn't be. I've fired off a couple of e-mails to Jesus the other
week, complete with links to Maggie's humor archive. He replied to me
just yesterday and said something to the effect of: "Damn, that Loy guy
is funny. Would have split my side if it wasn't already. Tell him he's
the new big thing up here (and good riddance to those damn knock-knock
jokes). Everybody loves him, except S:t Peter, but he's a bit on the
slow side anyway. Anyway, I've looked him up in the Word-document of
Life, and it turns out he's a sin-infested heathen. But I had a chat
with dad and pulled a few strings, so when Mark kicks the bucket we'll
make an exception. Of course he won't have the same priveliges as the
others. Can't set a bad example for the rest of the world, can we? So,
the 700 virgins are out. Mark will have to settle for a mere 600. Hey,
I'm a tough-loving god. So explain to me again who Chuck Woolery is?"
-Johan
--
"The light was sweet for her, delight was spread over her,
full of abundant beauty was she.
As the light of the rising moon,
she too was clothed in enchantment."
- Enheduanna, "Nin-me-sara"
Ken Gerrard
>In article <afsi11$l3g$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
>> "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
>> >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
>>
>> That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
>Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
No, it means I don't want to be a Christian.
>I ask because there's a part of me that wants to be a Christian, too.
[...]
>And now I think I'm ramblin' so I should end this.
Maybe, but it was the good kind of rambling.
All I can suggest is that you endeavour to keep your child's mind as open
as possible, thereby avoiding the most common drawbacks of religion.
[...]
Roy G. Ovrebo
> In article <mloy-02070...@134.68.134.43>, ml...@iupui.edu says...
>> In article <afsi11$l3g$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>> umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
>>
>> > "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
>> > >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
>> >
>> > That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
>>
>>
>> Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
>>
>> I ask because there's a part of me that wants to be a Christian, too.
[snip]
>> Yeah, I know. My son is worried about my immortal soul.
>
> He shouldn't be. I've fired off a couple of e-mails to Jesus the other
> week, complete with links to Maggie's humor archive. He replied to me
[snip Johan gets mail from Jesus]
You know, reposting private email without permission is not good.
And an email from _that_ guy? You're in trouble, kid, and I'm not just
talking about your ISP's TOS.
--
Roy G. Ovrebo
Rajesh Vaidya
> The thing is I don't believe and it seems really hypocritical to "put on"
> as if I do. It's bad enough, at least from my perspective, that I'm
> involved with as many church related and sanctioned sports activities
> where I coach and volunteer and work for the betterment of the
> neighborhood kids. During team prayers and the like I quite literally
> feel like a fuckin' ass. And if the people that run the programs knew
> that I'm not religious...how might their opinion of me change? And the
> parents that consider me to be an excellent coach and mentor for their
> children...if they knew that I'm a "fraud" how would the feel about me as
> a coach and role model for their kids?
I've been doing this for many, many years now - I call it non-practising
atheism. The pluses are many (as you've pointed out), the minuses can
be mitigated somewhat by extra-vigilance within oneself. For instance,
when I do join my hands in simulated prayer, in my mind, I'm merely being
courteous. Any furhter demands/requests are met with a firm no.
It doesn't always work. Geeta firmly believes in God. During our marriage
ceremonies, many of my requirements (mainly ommissions of rituals) were
simply over-ridden with polite variations of "Pretend, why don't you?"
Normally, this would be utterly unacceptable to me. But the trade-off -
living with this woman for the rest of my life and the truly low importance
I placed on those rituals - well, it became sorta palatable because I
reserved the right to question the priest on whatever points I wanted to,
and mock the whole mumbletyjig when he wasn't looking. (The ceremonies
lasted half as long as they should have.)
None of this helps you substantially, of course. Above, was I being
courteous or hypocritical? I think the former, some may say the latter.
In your activities, I think you're being the former. (This is certainly
impossible to explain to a little kid.)
Then again, I don't have kids, nor am I involved with the "community." In
the future, it may become impractical to be a non-practising atheist. We'll
see.
--
Rajesh
Emma Pease
> In article <afsi11$l3g$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
>
>> "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
>> >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
>>
>> That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
>
>
> Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
Difficult.
From my understanding if you feel you must attend a church and don't
want to be a hypocrite, an Unitarian Universalist church might be the
best bet (it is perfectly possible to be a non-theist and an UU though
I gather the individual churches vary). They don't sound quite my cup
of tea but they might be yours. Note that the universalists tend to
think that everyone will end up in heaven (if there is a heaven) by
one route or another which might comfort your son a bit vis a vis you.
Another route is to encourage him to learn about the multitude of
religions dead and alive.
Emma
ps. I wonder how many of your fellow parents are also non-believers
but don't dare confess it.
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:--
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
"What writest thou?"--The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blest,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Pat O'Connell
>
> In article <afsi11$l3g$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
>
> > "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
> > >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
> >
> > That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
>
> Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
>
> I ask because there's a part of me that wants to be a Christian, too.
>
> doubts/objections I just decided to be honest and say that no, I don't
> believe in God. To which he replied, in complete and honest sincerity, "I
> hope I get to see you in heaven, anyway, Dad."
>
> Yeah, I know. My son is worried about my immortal soul.
>
[snip]
> I'm not any religion. I am who I am and that sure as fuck ain't religious.
>
> I'm caught here. Organized religions, as in neighborhood Christian
> churches, have some very nice qualities especially those associated with
> getting to know the people where you live and being involved with
> community activities like sports and dinners and family outings all
> enjoyable and fairly safe and trouble-free with a strong emphasis on
> nurturing character development and learning about strong family and
> community moral values.
>
> But then they are also dens of propoganda and religious indoctrination.
[Mark does lots of things that would be considered ethical and
positive--very good things]
The point being that much of what you do, including the hillarious
stuff with Chuck Woolery and shop-vacs, are good things. From past
experiences with the Catholic church, I'm of the opinion that
attendance at church is not a measure of the decency of a man. Actions
(karma if you prefer) speak louder than words.
> And now I think I'm ramblin' so I should end this.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> From your friendly neighborhood heathen,
> I remain,
> ML
Theology According to Pat:
I consider the existence of a higher being to be one of those
undecidable things, so I prefer not to decide. In my mind, if there is
a God-like being, it probably does not expect worship, wouldn't
comprehend worship if it could see/hear it, and might not even know
we're here most of the time.
A thought: God as a man with a microscope occasionally studying
microbes, with which he has nothing in common.
(That thought could be a basis for a religious belief, but without
worship there's no dinero in it, so the belief probably would quickly
disappear.)
FWIW I generally feel the most spiritual when I'm out hiking in the
boonies.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Mark Shea
"Roy G. Ovrebo" <bur...@c2i.net> wrote in message
> [snip Johan gets mail from Jesus]
>
> You know, reposting private email without permission is not good.
> And an email from _that_ guy? You're in trouble, kid, and I'm not
just
> talking about your ISP's TOS.
I tend to agree. I can't help avoiding the certainty that violating
the e-privacy of the Almighty is a Mortal Sin.
To the Confessional with you.
Mark Shea
Johan Gustafsson
*pffft* Yeah, right. Like He's gonna do anything as long as I've got
those pictures of Him and the Mormon Tabernacle Cho...
*ahem*
Yes, terrible of me. Most terrible. Five Hail Marys, five Our Fathers
and some self-flagellation. Now, where's my hairshirt?
Anne Willick
[...]
> I mean, most of the people in my family consider themselves to be
> Christians. And Eric...I think I told you that he "found" Christianity on
> his own when he was quite young (three or four) as a way of dealing with
> the issue of death and recently he and Deb have been attending a truly
> excellent neighborhood church. The thing is he now asks me why I don't
> attend. He even went as far as to ask me if I believe in God. Not
> wanting to utterly destroy his belief system with a sustained volley of my
> doubts/objections I just decided to be honest and say that no, I don't
> believe in God. To which he replied, in complete and honest sincerity, "I
> hope I get to see you in heaven, anyway, Dad."
>
> I'm caught here. Organized religions, as in neighborhood Christian
> churches, have some very nice qualities especially those associated with
> getting to know the people where you live and being involved with
> community activities like sports and dinners and family outings all
> enjoyable and fairly safe and trouble-free with a strong emphasis on
> nurturing character development and learning about strong family and
> community moral values.
>
> But then they are also dens of propoganda and religious indoctrination.
>
> Of course that doesn't mean that my son won't someday be able to evaluate
> his beliefs objectively and really determine what is and isn't fact and
> what that has to do with how he wants to live his life and raise his own
> children.
>
> It just means that now, today, he's sad for his dad.
Ack, this post hit home for me. I grew up going to church whenever the
building was open. I can remember during Summer Bible Camp, the children
with non-believing parents were _encouraged_ to go home and ask their
parents why they weren't going to heaven.
Being an non-religious parent now, I want to go back in time and smack
every teacher that ever said that. And I'm sure they still do encourage
that behavior. There's nothing like harping on the parent-child bond to
get a few more conversions. But I digress.
My son's father takes him to church on the weekends that he has him, and
says that he prays with him before bedtime. I've refused both him and my
extended family's requests to do the same. I fully expect a few years
down the road (Nick is almost 3) to get questions like you're getting
right now.
I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
weekends.
I'd be interested to hear how your situation develops, though.
> And that's made me consider attending church with them despite my problems
> with the institution.
>
> The thing is I don't believe and it seems really hypocritical to "put on"
> as if I do. It's bad enough, at least from my perspective, that I'm
> involved with as many church related and sanctioned sports activities
> where I coach and volunteer and work for the betterment of the
> neighborhood kids.
Actually, you'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) that many many
church attendees are there because they cannot imagine any other social
situation, and not because they have any kind of sincere conviction about
their faith.
[...]
> And now I think I'm ramblin' so I should end this.
As someone else said, it was a good ramble.
--
Anne
Jamie Bowden
> Ack, this post hit home for me. I grew up going to church whenever the
> building was open. I can remember during Summer Bible Camp, the children
> with non-believing parents were _encouraged_ to go home and ask their
> parents why they weren't going to heaven.
>
> Being an non-religious parent now, I want to go back in time and smack
> every teacher that ever said that. And I'm sure they still do encourage
> that behavior. There's nothing like harping on the parent-child bond to
> get a few more conversions. But I digress.
>
> My son's father takes him to church on the weekends that he has him, and
> says that he prays with him before bedtime. I've refused both him and my
> extended family's requests to do the same. I fully expect a few years
> down the road (Nick is almost 3) to get questions like you're getting
> right now.
>
> I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
> that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
> equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
> weekends.
The answer Evan'd get, if for some reason he ever had to set foot in a
church and came back with such questions, is that I'm not going because
you can't go to place that doesn't exist, so not only are we not going,
but neither is anyone else. My wife and I are both very clear on this
point, we are not religious, it's a sucker's game, and our child will not
be brought up in such a manner. Both sets of grandparents are still
living under the delusion that we'll come around some day. Of course,
they'd argue over which way is the proper way to come around, my parents
being Catholic and hers being firmly ex-Catholic Congregationalist.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
John S. Novak, III
> Ack, this post hit home for me. I grew up going to church whenever the
> building was open. I can remember during Summer Bible Camp, the children
> with non-believing parents were _encouraged_ to go home and ask their
> parents why they weren't going to heaven.
Lovely.
> Being an non-religious parent now, I want to go back in time and smack
> every teacher that ever said that. And I'm sure they still do encourage
> that behavior. There's nothing like harping on the parent-child bond to
> get a few more conversions. But I digress.
One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying to
save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness, underhandedness,
psychological warfare, and the like are not only acceptable but
*encouraged*.
Oh, how I hate that.
> I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
> that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
> equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
> weekends.
I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
Or more importantly, futile?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Anne Willick
said...
> In article <MPG.178cea713...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
> One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
> subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying to
> save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness, underhandedness,
> psychological warfare, and the like are not only acceptable but
> *encouraged*.
>
> Oh, how I hate that.
Speaking from experience, at least in the evangelical Protestant subset
of religious people, nearly all of them think the way you just described.
It's a brainwashed-in belief that they're in a "war for souls" and any
tactic is sanctioned as long as it produces results.
If you want to get really, steaming angry at Protestant psychological
warfare, ask me sometime about the funeral of my 26-year-old childhood
friend that I attended last summer. I get pissed again just thinking
about it.
> > I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
> > that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
> > equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
> > weekends.
>
> I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
> Or more importantly, futile?
Well, of course I'm going to say they're wrong, in an "I think that's
misguided" sort of way. It's a matter of integrity. But I waffle at
tearing down my son's father's beliefs to my son, so it's difficult.
--
Anne
John S. Novak, III
>> One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
>> subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying to
>> save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness, underhandedness,
>> psychological warfare, and the like are not only acceptable but
>> *encouraged*.
> Speaking from experience, at least in the evangelical Protestant subset
> of religious people, nearly all of them think the way you just described.
> It's a brainwashed-in belief that they're in a "war for souls" and any
> tactic is sanctioned as long as it produces results.
Oh, yeah.
"The end justifies the means," is a good descriptor, and many are so
dead to irony that they'd just nod eagerly if you said that to them.
> If you want to get really, steaming angry at Protestant psychological
> warfare, ask me sometime about the funeral of my 26-year-old childhood
> friend that I attended last summer. I get pissed again just thinking
> about it.
...Story?
>> I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
>> Or more importantly, futile?
> Well, of course I'm going to say they're wrong, in an "I think that's
> misguided" sort of way. It's a matter of integrity. But I waffle at
> tearing down my son's father's beliefs to my son, so it's difficult.
Don't introduce the little tyke to me, then.
Anne Willick
100...@banshee.wdc.photon.com>, Jamie Bowden said...
It's a good thing both of your son's parents can present a united front
when it comes to religion. I, and many other people, have no such luxury.
Grandparents, for me, are a lesser headache, since both of my parents
have repeatedly been disillusioned with regard to organized religion,
although they both still believe in a god.
--
Anne
Ben Ryan
> In article <MPG.178cea713...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
<when the little ones get religion and wonder why $PARENT doesn't>
>> I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
>> that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
>> equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
>> weekends.
>
> I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
> Or more importantly, futile?
Well, that's what I intend to say, when it comes up (and it probably
will, as my fiance' at least has a vestigial belief in a higher power,
her mother is an Episcopalian minister, and my parents are devout).
Whether I'll follow through on the intention is to be seen.
Mark, I know kinda what you're going through. I came out as an atheist
to my family about two years ago, and it's been a rocky ride at times.
My parents have been pretty good about it - better than they were about
my moving with my fiance' before marriage - but one or two of my younger
sister's have been shook up. I used to get a number of "presents" of
christian music, bible quotes, and what not when I would visit. I was
occasionally cornered and asked - plaintively - why I didn't love Jesus.
This has fortunately slacked off as she approaches high school.
It was tough. I was honest with her - I didn't believe, and I wasn't
going to in the future - but I didn't feel I could really explain myself
well. I don't think I could have without ending up trying to convince
her, and that would have *really* caused a rift in my family.
With my kids, I plan to bring them up as atheists, or at least
agnostics. I plan to answer all their questions honestly, and make sure
they're exposed to all the religious and philosophical ideas I can, so
they know what's what. And, if they should decide that they want to
believe in one of those religions, I plan to be okay with that. I won't
agree, and I'll make them justify it well before I accept it as anything
other than a phase, but if they want to believe in invisible pink
unicorns and it doesn't hurt them to, then fine.
But as for explaining the (lack of) afterlife... that's tough. I don't
know what advice to give you. All you can do is stand firm, explain why
you believe what you do when asked, and live and let live otherwise.
--
"Many say that DOS is the dark side, but actually UNIX is more like the
dark side: It's less likely to find the one way to destroy your
incredibly powerful machine, and more likely to make upper management
choke." -- The Brunching Shuttlecocks
Nick
bwil...@comcast.net says...
> In article <Pine.SGI.4.44.0207031248230.218512-
> 100...@banshee.wdc.photon.com>, Jamie Bowden said...
> > church and came back with such questions, is that I'm not going because
> > you can't go to place that doesn't exist, so not only are we not going,
> > but neither is anyone else. My wife and I are both very clear on this
> > point, we are not religious, it's a sucker's game, and our child will not
> > be brought up in such a manner. Both sets of grandparents are still
> > living under the delusion that we'll come around some day. Of course,
> > they'd argue over which way is the proper way to come around, my parents
> > being Catholic and hers being firmly ex-Catholic Congregationalist.
>
> It's a good thing both of your son's parents can present a united front
> when it comes to religion. I, and many other people, have no such luxury.
>
I've always thought the "Don't worry son, Mummy's just a bit of a
looney" method would be appropriate.
--
Nick
Mark Loy
j...@cegt201.bradley.edu wrote:
> In article <MPG.178cea713...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
>
> > Ack, this post hit home for me. I grew up going to church whenever the
> > building was open. I can remember during Summer Bible Camp, the children
> > with non-believing parents were _encouraged_ to go home and ask their
> > parents why they weren't going to heaven.
>
> Lovely.
Isn't it?
> > Being an non-religious parent now, I want to go back in time and smack
> > every teacher that ever said that. And I'm sure they still do encourage
> > that behavior. There's nothing like harping on the parent-child bond to
> > get a few more conversions. But I digress.
>
> One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
> subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying to
> save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness, underhandedness,
> psychological warfare, and the like are not only acceptable but
> *encouraged*.
Well said.
Although I'm not sure that it's a problem of religions, in general, as
much as it's a major component problem of Christianity. I've yet to have
a Jewish individual or Islamic person or a Buddhist or what-have-you
run-of-the-mill organized religious spokesperson do any serious
proselytizing in my vicinity. Nope. That seems to be pretty much a
disturbing/irritating Christian philosophical monopoly.
> Oh, how I hate that.
You're not alone. And the thing is, those doing the preaching, they
really don't want you to question them or bring up inconsistencies or do
anything other than nod your head "knowingly". And that's the most
irritating thing--they spout off as if what they are saying is *obviously*
the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth and if you don't get
it then Satan must be working to "cloud" your mind or some such bullshit.
Rare is the Christian who is willing to actually discuss their beliefs
openly. And certainly not any members of my family. Hell...they _must_
know that I'm not religious but I really believe that they delude
themselves into believing that I'm simply on the cusp or merely only
slightly non-practicing and will return to the fold any minute.
> > I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
> > that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
> > equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
> > weekends.
>
> I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
> Or more importantly, futile?
The thing is that dealing with ex-spouses when it concerns children is a
_very_ tricky situation. Sure, obviously you don't love them and don't
agree with them anymore and that's why you got divorced. But then again
if you are constantly fighting then you put the child in pretty traumatic
circumstances of feeling confused or caught in the middle or simply
distraught that they might have to choose one parent over the other for
any purpose/reason. So, for the sake of the children's sanity, you put on
a front that pretty much says that you, and your ex, will not bad mouth
each other in front of the child _and_ if at all possible you'll show
nothing but a united parental team unit thing...even when you really hate
your ex's guts and or don't completely agree with what they are doing.
And when it comes to religion...fuck if you're gonna agree.
Then there's the whole question of when should you open up an industrial
sized can of worms like this with a child? At what age are they mature
enough to handle the information and the ramifications thereof? It's
kinda like teaching math to them--Eric and I are doing basic, *very* basic
algebra and he's fine. But when I go into greater detail and or diverge
from the relatively concrete, he tends to get a little lost. He's just
not developed enough to handle the material. But he's learning and
someday, yeah, he'll blow right the fuck past me in what he can and cannot
handle. Hopefully he'll be the same way with religion.
I mean, religion is like Santa Claus--a comforting story that helps add to
the enjoyment of life and or provide some answers when the questions are
complicated but someday...well, the entire fable just doesn't hold up to
close scrutiny and will collapse upon itself. Christians, to me, are
people that still believe in Santa Claus despite _mounds_ of evidence to
the contrary as well as being totally unnecessary.
I just want Eric to have the desire and inner strength to someday examine
his personal Santa Claus and act accordingly.
And in that I guess I'll continue to do basically what Anne was
saying--provide a strong role-model counter-example of what the church
says.
Then again if I find out that somebody is actively trying to get my son to
do their proselytizing for them...I will have to discuss that with
whomever. Deb agrees with me on this. The neighborhood church is a place
for the community to gather and nurture each other and help teach our
children about The Golden Rule and a strong sense of brotherhood and
compassion for our neighbors as well as all the benefits of athletics
etc. It's not a place to brainwash 8 year olds to go out and do the
church's business.
Fuck that shit.
ML
Chris Hammock
[Discussing Mark's churchly dilemma]
> Actually, you'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) that many many
> church attendees are there because they cannot imagine any other social
> situation, and not because they have any kind of sincere conviction about
> their faith.
How very odd. I have the inverse problem. I can imagine that it
might be nice to go to church, but I can't imagine finding one in
a reasonable driving distance where I'd be able to stomach the
social situation.
This is one of the very few times I'm relieved not to have a kid,
though. I don't envy either of you the issues that have been / will
be raised. Good luck.
--
Chris Hammock zal...@nocturne.org
Anne Willick
said...[snipperoo]
> > If you want to get really, steaming angry at Protestant psychological
> > warfare, ask me sometime about the funeral of my 26-year-old childhood
> > friend that I attended last summer. I get pissed again just thinking
> > about it.
>
> ...Story?
What the hell, I'm bored and feeling inflammatory.
Actually, the story starts at a DFS. Last July I was in the lobby of the
hospital where Jeff Huo does his thing, in the middle of a gaggle of
Darkfriends, when an old elder from the church I grew up attending (from
age 5 to 17) recognized me as he was walking by. He pulled me aside and
informed me that one of the kids (no longer a kid, of course) I grew up
with was upstairs dying of a rare brain disease.
I'll skip the middle part and just say that I contacted some old friends
and was sufficiently informed enough to know when he died two months
later, and the date of the funeral. So my brother and I decided to go. We
weren't the only ones, evidently, as the church was full of people who
hadn't darkened the door of the place for years. Evidently the story had
spread. (That's relevant later, trust me.) We were all pretty affected by
the fact that "one of us" had died.
It was a normal funeral until the pastor, the one I grew up listening,
got up to give his sermon. Then things got strange. He began by saying
that he had prayed and fasted about what he was going to say today, and
that God had seemed to say to him that today was not normal, and he could
not deliver the standard funeral sermon. "I have spoken to ____'s family,
and they give their full support to what I am about to say," he said.
To paraphrase the preacher's sermon... He began by saying that anytime
someone young dies, we try to demand reasons for it, because it seems
such a waste. (That is certainly true.) "This time, I believe I have been
given a reason, and it is not a waste." He went on to say that my friend
had, a year ago, "rededicated his life to the Lord", and offered himself
as a tool for the Lord to use, however He might. He told us that our
presence there today was the result of my friend's offering. "The Lord
works in ways we do not expect, and sometimes he demands our lives." In
other words, my friend had died for the Lord. He had died so that his
unbelieving friends might hear the message that that preacher was giving
that day.
To sum up, my friend had offered up his life as a sacrifice to the Lord,
and the Lord had taken it, so that dozens more might hear The Word at his
funeral.
That preacher turned that funeral into a revival/missionary service. I
sat there in disbelief. If I hadn't been unable to process what was
actually happening, I may have been angry enough to stand up and say
something, or at least walk out. I suddenly didn't want to be sitting
there, if the preacher was stating that God had killed my old friend so
that I would be.
My friend's family sat in front, nodding along to what the preacher was
saying.
I believe that was the cheapest thing I have seen in my entire life. I
only hope that it did serve one purpose and make that poor family feel
better about their son's death, because on me it certainly had an effect
opposite from the one intended.
> > Well, of course I'm going to say they're wrong, in an "I think that's
> > misguided" sort of way. It's a matter of integrity. But I waffle at
> > tearing down my son's father's beliefs to my son, so it's difficult.
>
> Don't introduce the little tyke to me, then.
Ha. You've just pretty much guaranteed yourself a introduction to him,
there. My self-imposed injunction against speaking ill of the father or
his beliefs to his son doesn't extend to friends.
--
Anne
Erica Sadun
Loy) wrote:
> I mean, religion is like Santa Claus--a comforting story that helps add to
> the enjoyment of life and or provide some answers when the questions are
> complicated but someday...well, the entire fable just doesn't hold up to
> close scrutiny and will collapse upon itself. Christians, to me, are
> people that still believe in Santa Claus despite _mounds_ of evidence to
> the contrary as well as being totally unnecessary.
To me, religion is thousands of years of people trying to figure
out how to live good lives and treat each other well. The mythology
and faith aspects are, in my opinion, far less important.
-- Erica
--
www.ericasadun.com er...@mindspring.com
iMovie Solutions from Sybex Books. In Stores Now.
Grep Foo whilst ye may, Oh Daemons of the Spring...
Mike Kozlowski
Anne Willick <bwil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <afvdu5$hkfvo$1...@ID-100778.news.dfncis.de>, John S. Novak, III
>> Don't introduce the little tyke to me, then.
>
>Ha. You've just pretty much guaranteed yourself a introduction to him,
>there. My self-imposed injunction against speaking ill of the father or
>his beliefs to his son doesn't extend to friends.
The mind does not readily encompass the picture of Novak discussing
theology with a two year old, I'm afraid. (Though, really, how different
could it be from Usenet?)
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Frank van Schie
Anne Willick wrote:
> [snip]
> To sum up, my friend had offered up his life as a sacrifice to the Lord,
> and the Lord had taken it, so that dozens more might hear The Word at his
> funeral.
More succintly: Buying souls through the death of an innocent.
I do believe there is a Lord who deals in such matters. Wrong zipcode,
though.
The term Holy Shit springs to mind. I cannot grasp how people's minds
can be twisted like that.
> I believe that was the cheapest thing I have seen in my entire life. I
> only hope that it did serve one purpose and make that poor family feel
> better about their son's death, because on me it certainly had an effect
> opposite from the one intended.
Of course, if it didn't, the blame has been transferred to the
'infidels' who could not appreciate his 'sacrifice'. That'd be you.
Cheap is one way to put it. Disgusting another.
> > > Well, of course I'm going to say they're wrong, in an "I think that's
> > > misguided" sort of way. It's a matter of integrity. But I waffle at
> > > tearing down my son's father's beliefs to my son, so it's difficult.
> >
> > Don't introduce the little tyke to me, then.
>
> Ha. You've just pretty much guaranteed yourself a introduction to him,
> there. My self-imposed injunction against speaking ill of the father or
> his beliefs to his son doesn't extend to friends.
Someone bring a tape recorder.
--
Frank
John S. Novak, III
>> One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
>> subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying to
>> save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness, underhandedness,
>> psychological warfare, and the like are not only acceptable but
>> *encouraged*.
> Although I'm not sure that it's a problem of religions, in general, as
> much as it's a major component problem of Christianity. I've yet to have
> a Jewish individual or Islamic person or a Buddhist or what-have-you
> run-of-the-mill organized religious spokesperson do any serious
> proselytizing in my vicinity. Nope. That seems to be pretty much a
> disturbing/irritating Christian philosophical monopoly.
You haven't met enough, or read enough history.
Separation of Church and State aside, you're in a huge Christian
enclave, Mark. Buddhism swept Asia and Islam swept the Middle-East
(and Africa and parts of Asia) about like Christianity swept Europe.
>> Oh, how I hate that.
> You're not alone. And the thing is, those doing the preaching, they
> really don't want you to question them or bring up inconsistencies or do
> anything other than nod your head "knowingly".
Oh, but that's half the *fun*.
Hell, if you can keep from raising your voice, that might be the best
way to show up the worst of these people for what they are-- just ask
pointed, but reasonable and polite questions until they explode in
front of you and Eric, and he'll start to see that blind trust isn't
always a good thing.
> Rare is the Christian who is willing to actually discuss their beliefs
> openly.
Like prosletyzing Buddhists, though, they do exist.
> Then there's the whole question of when should you open up an industrial
> sized can of worms like this with a child?
Before it's too late?
But my biases are showing....
> At what age are they mature
> enough to handle the information and the ramifications thereof? It's
> kinda like teaching math to them--Eric and I are doing basic, *very* basic
> algebra and he's fine. But when I go into greater detail and or diverge
> from the relatively concrete, he tends to get a little lost. He's just
> not developed enough to handle the material. But he's learning and
> someday, yeah, he'll blow right the fuck past me in what he can and cannot
> handle. Hopefully he'll be the same way with religion.
(So you're saying that you don't want to start him out with lambda
calculus and partial recursive functions...?)
P. Korda
Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu> wrote:
>Yeah, I know. My son is worried about my immortal soul.
>So it would be so much easier if ol' Marcus was a born again Christian type.
>But I ain't and I'm not gonna be.
>
>I'm not any religion. I am who I am and that sure as fuck ain't religious.
>
>But, as of this moment, my little boy is. And he's smart enough to do the
>math and it just don't add up to his old man makin' it to heaven with him
>and that hurts him.
I don't know what kind of church he and Deb go to, but unless they're
deeply into religious indoctrination, it's likely that he'll settle
with the idea that what God really cares about is whether or not you
were a good person, no matter what your religion is. That's what I
decided when I was a wee child, and wondering if my Jewish friends
would go to Heaven or not. Sunday school was mostly bible stories and
singing songs and so forth, and not so much a brain-washing experience
where they told us, "If you don't believe in Jesus, you're gonna go to hell!"
I guess maybe you should get Deb to talk with him about it?
>I'm caught here. Organized religions, as in neighborhood Christian
>churches, have some very nice qualities especially those associated with
>getting to know the people where you live and being involved with
>community activities like sports and dinners and family outings all
>enjoyable and fairly safe and trouble-free with a strong emphasis on
>nurturing character development and learning about strong family and
>community moral values.
>
>But then they are also dens of propoganda and religious indoctrination.
Well, my dad often went to church with us when I was little. I've
since come to the realization that he was probably only doing it for
socializing, and to make my mom happy, because he never made a fuss
about us kids being raised Protestant instead of Catholic (my dad's
family is Catholic), and he often didn't go to church, and never goes
now that we kids are grown up. So, I guess my point is that
occasionally going to church with your family won't kill you. Also, it
will give you an opportunity to see what they're teaching your
kid. Not all churches teach such objectionable stuff as what Anne
related, and if this church does, you might want to find a different one.
>The thing is I don't believe and it seems really hypocritical to "put on"
>as if I do. It's bad enough, at least from my perspective, that I'm
>involved with as many church related and sanctioned sports activities
>where I coach and volunteer and work for the betterment of the
>neighborhood kids. During team prayers and the like I quite literally
>feel like a fuckin' ass. And if the people that run the programs knew
>that I'm not religious...how might their opinion of me change? And the
>parents that consider me to be an excellent coach and mentor for their
>children...if they knew that I'm a "fraud" how would the feel about me as
>a coach and role model for their kids?
Well, you don't have to tell them, "Hi. Nice to meet you. I'm a
godless atheist." Just don't discuss it.
And you shouldn't feel hypocritical just about going to church. After
all, if the religion is not true, what does it matter that you're not
a believer? It's not like God will strike you dead for your
presumption, right? If you start making up stories about how you found
Jesus, and he changed your life, yeah, that would be dishonest, but I
don't see anything wrong, in principle, with just going for the
socialization aspect.
Of course, it might bug the hell out of you, sitting in there,
listening to sermons and such, but that's a different problem
altogether.
--
Pam Korda
kor2 @ midway.uchicago.edu
Home Page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/
Book Log: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/booklog/
John S. Novak, III
> I don't know what kind of church he and Deb go to, but unless they're
> deeply into religious indoctrination, it's likely that he'll settle
> with the idea that what God really cares about is whether or not you
> were a good person, no matter what your religion is. That's what I
> decided when I was a wee child, and wondering if my Jewish friends
> would go to Heaven or not. Sunday school was mostly bible stories and
> singing songs and so forth, and not so much a brain-washing experience
> where they told us, "If you don't believe in Jesus, you're gonna go to hell!"
Yeah, that stuff is going to vary from church to church and, frankly,
from priest to priest. I don't remember any serious hellfire and
brimstone stuff from when I was in CCD as a little kid.
Even in high school, where I had full bore theology classes, there
were some priests of the opinion that "family pressures" were enough
of a circumstance that one would be forgiven for not becoming Catholic
or Christian. Ie, the Muslims and Hindus in class were being told
that the New Friendly Catholic Church of the mid-80s was not
consigning them straight to Hell unless they converted on the instant.
Then again, I'm sure some of the older obviously pre-Vatican priests
had a distinct difference of opinion on that. Some of them still
hadn't wrapped their brains around the concept of evolution, either.
> Well, my dad often went to church with us when I was little. I've
> since come to the realization that he was probably only doing it for
> socializing, and to make my mom happy, because he never made a fuss
> about us kids being raised Protestant instead of Catholic (my dad's
> family is Catholic), and he often didn't go to church, and never goes
> now that we kids are grown up. So, I guess my point is that
> occasionally going to church with your family won't kill you. Also, it
> will give you an opportunity to see what they're teaching your
> kid.
That last is a pretty good point, actually.
> Well, you don't have to tell them, "Hi. Nice to meet you. I'm a
> godless atheist." Just don't discuss it.
> And you shouldn't feel hypocritical just about going to church. After
> all, if the religion is not true, what does it matter that you're not
> a believer? It's not like God will strike you dead for your
> presumption, right? If you start making up stories about how you found
> Jesus, and he changed your life, yeah, that would be dishonest, but I
> don't see anything wrong, in principle, with just going for the
> socialization aspect.
Enh.
I'm kinda on Mark's side on this one. Or I can certainly see where
he's coming from. I think for the most part that long-term attendance
of a Church is giving an implicit "I believe" sign. Or at least, "I'm
ready to believe."
Which is one of the rasons I don't go to Church with my mother. I'd
be leading her on and to a certain extent I'd be leading on the
pastor, there. And I actually have a lot of respect for that pastor,
as things go. But he's never going to get me to Believe, so I'd feel
a little odd about the whole thing.
I could probably overcome that, though, if I had a kid and wanted to
keep an eye on just exactly what he was getting exposed to.
Conflicting motives and all that.
John S. Novak, III
>> ...Story?
> What the hell, I'm bored and feeling inflammatory.
[...]
> To sum up, my friend had offered up his life as a sacrifice to the Lord,
> and the Lord had taken it, so that dozens more might hear The Word at his
> funeral.
Well, that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
Yes, I do believe I'd have gotten up and walked out, and let the whole
congregation listen to the sharp clack of my dress shoes on the marble
floor.
> I believe that was the cheapest thing I have seen in my entire life. I
> only hope that it did serve one purpose and make that poor family feel
> better about their son's death, because on me it certainly had an effect
> opposite from the one intended.
But then, I am a Professional Asshole.
>> > Well, of course I'm going to say they're wrong, in an "I think that's
>> > misguided" sort of way. It's a matter of integrity. But I waffle at
>> > tearing down my son's father's beliefs to my son, so it's difficult.
>> Don't introduce the little tyke to me, then.
> Ha. You've just pretty much guaranteed yourself a introduction to him,
> there. My self-imposed injunction against speaking ill of the father or
> his beliefs to his son doesn't extend to friends.
Bear in mind that my vestigial sense of fair play would probably
prevent my trashing his father in front of him. Especially given I've
never met the guy.
And I don't think that discussing the finer points of theology with a
two year old is my cup of tea. If I want to have that discussion, I
have Flunkie and GITNO at work.
Mike Kozlowski
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <weKU8.35$Z4....@news.uchicago.edu>, P. Korda wrote:
>> would go to Heaven or not. Sunday school was mostly bible stories and
>> singing songs and so forth, and not so much a brain-washing experience
>> where they told us, "If you don't believe in Jesus, you're gonna go to hell!"
>
>Yeah, that stuff is going to vary from church to church and, frankly,
>from priest to priest. I don't remember any serious hellfire and
>brimstone stuff from when I was in CCD as a little kid.
That's because you were Catholic. The Catholic Church, despite its bad
rep these days, is pretty easygoing. You only really get the terrible
stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
nutball loons. The Church should have had Luther killed while it had the
chance.
Anne Willick
said...
> In article <MPG.178d14361...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
>
> >> ...Story?
> > What the hell, I'm bored and feeling inflammatory.
>
> [...]
>
> > To sum up, my friend had offered up his life as a sacrifice to the Lord,
> > and the Lord had taken it, so that dozens more might hear The Word at his
> > funeral.
>
> Well, that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
> Yes, I do believe I'd have gotten up and walked out, and let the whole
> congregation listen to the sharp clack of my dress shoes on the marble
> floor.
Like I said, if I'd have actually digesting what I was hearing, that
would have been my course of action.
And wacko Protestant churches are _always_ decorated in ugly orange or
teal carpeting, not marble, which takes something away from a dramatic
exit. Take my advice: if you're shopping for a church, walk in, and see
orange or teal carpeting, run away very fast.
> >> Don't introduce the little tyke to me, then.
>
> > Ha. You've just pretty much guaranteed yourself a introduction to him,
> > there. My self-imposed injunction against speaking ill of the father or
> > his beliefs to his son doesn't extend to friends.
>
> Bear in mind that my vestigial sense of fair play would probably
> prevent my trashing his father in front of him. Especially given I've
> never met the guy.
Well, seeing as how the guy is only worth trashing in the context of
marriage, which is a pretty narrow field, I'd be surprised if you would.
But the point was, I need to introduce him to people that don't tiptoe
around the subject of religion, like I have to.
> And I don't think that discussing the finer points of theology with a
> two year old is my cup of tea. If I want to have that discussion, I
> have Flunkie and GITNO at work.
Hey, I bet my son could work voicemail.
--
Anne
John S. Novak, III
>> Bear in mind that my vestigial sense of fair play would probably
>> prevent my trashing his father in front of him. Especially given I've
>> never met the guy.
> Well, seeing as how the guy is only worth trashing in the context of
> marriage, which is a pretty narrow field, I'd be surprised if you would.
> But the point was, I need to introduce him to people that don't tiptoe
> around the subject of religion, like I have to.
Bring the boy to me when he's about fourteen.
If he's too devoted to any one religion, we'll have a chat.
>> And I don't think that discussing the finer points of theology with a
>> two year old is my cup of tea. If I want to have that discussion, I
>> have Flunkie and GITNO at work.
> Hey, I bet my son could work voicemail.
"Rugrat has Thirty! Seven! New messages!"
Michelle J. Haines
j...@concentric.net says...
> In article <MPG.178d04223...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
>
> > Speaking from experience, at least in the evangelical Protestant subset
> > of religious people, nearly all of them think the way you just described.
> > It's a brainwashed-in belief that they're in a "war for souls" and any
> > tactic is sanctioned as long as it produces results.
>
> Oh, yeah.
> "The end justifies the means," is a good descriptor, and many are so
> dead to irony that they'd just nod eagerly if you said that to them.
When Xander was terminally ill, a JW woman came to the door, and I
chatted with her a bit, mostly because she offered some sympathy.
But she apparently thought this was a good foot in the door (rather
than just a charitable act of comforting a grieving mother), because
she kept coming back for MONTHS, until I flat out had to tell her not
to come back, period. *sigh*
Michelle
Flutist
--
But when the morning comes, And the sun begins to rise, I will lose
you
Because it's just a dream, When I open up my eyes, I will lose you
I used to believe in forever, But forever's too good to be true
I've hung a wish on every star, It hasn't done much good so far
I don't know what else to do, Except to try to dream of you
And wonder if you are dreaming too, Wherever you are
-- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]
Michelle J. Haines
j...@concentric.net says...
>
> Well, that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
> Yes, I do believe I'd have gotten up and walked out, and let the whole
> congregation listen to the sharp clack of my dress shoes on the marble
> floor.
I loved all the "well meaning" people (on-line and off-line) who told
me things like:
"Oh, don't listen to what the doctors are saying about your son's
terminal brain damage! If God wants to, He will heal your son in an
instant!"
So, I'm supposed to take away from that that Xander wasn't worth
God's time, or what?
"It's all part of God's Plan, and you'll understand when you get to
Heaven, too!"
If having an infant suffer and die such a death is part of His
"plan", He can take his plan and blow it out His ass.
Our nun offended most of my in-laws with this one:
"Well, I know it's sad he's going to die, but since he's going to
Heaven sinless, he will be a Saint!"
This one didn't bother me TOO much, but my brother-in-law had to get
up and leave the room.
See, I just don't believe that God plans these things or let's them
happen or miraculously stops them, so I don't get all pissed off at
Him about it. We have a pretty good relationship as it is; and when
I was trying to grasp that "God plans all things" attitude when I was
younger, it was more of a hate-hate relationship.
Laura M. Parkinson
<Ya gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith! *strums guitar*>
>Mark, I know kinda what you're going through. I came out as an atheist
>to my family about two years ago, and it's been a rocky ride at times.
>My parents have been pretty good about it - better than they were about
>my moving with my fiance' before marriage - but one or two of my younger
>sister's have been shook up. I used to get a number of "presents" of
>christian music, bible quotes, and what not when I would visit. I was
>occasionally cornered and asked - plaintively - why I didn't love Jesus.
>This has fortunately slacked off as she approaches high school.
>
>It was tough. I was honest with her - I didn't believe, and I wasn't
>going to in the future - but I didn't feel I could really explain myself
>well. I don't think I could have without ending up trying to convince
>her, and that would have *really* caused a rift in my family.
Atheism. The new "gay."
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
P. Korda
Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>That's because you were Catholic. The Catholic Church, despite its bad
>rep these days, is pretty easygoing. You only really get the terrible
>stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
>nutball loons.
You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
clue what you're talking about. [1]
>The Church should have had Luther killed while it had the
>chance.
If it wasn't Martin Luther, it would have been somebody else. Not even
the Pope can stem the tide of history.
[1] I have attended numerous Protestant churches and services in my
life, and I can easily say that the 30 minute Catholic wedding service
(not even a Mass) I attended last month contained more
God-sayeth-thou-shalts and God-sayeth-thou-musts than any of them.
Jeff Huo
"John S. Novak, III" wrote:
> In article <MPG.178cea713...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
>
> > Being an non-religious parent now, I want to go back in time and smack
> > every teacher that ever said that. And I'm sure they still do encourage
> > that behavior. There's nothing like harping on the parent-child bond to
> > get a few more conversions. But I digress.
>
> One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
> subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying to
> save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness, underhandedness,
> psychological warfare, and the like are not only acceptable but
> *encouraged*.
>
> Oh, how I hate that.
So do I. That whole problem and the issues around it
have been a major part of my life as a Christian. It's a
problem pretty obvious to any Christian who sits down
and honestly thinks about it. Certainly to any Christian
who ever spent much time on a college campus. It was
--is-- a fundamental problem that both my pastor from
college and my pastor here at Michigan --neither particularly
radical preachers; just your ordinary Presbyterians-- talk about a
great deal; namely, if the folks who claim to be Christians
act like self-righteous, selfish jerks the other six days
of the week they're not in church, then what reason
should anyone have to believe in the power of a religion
that claims to be about the love of God?
That's right, none.
That fact is certainly obvious to non-Christians, and it
ought to be obvious to us Christians, too. But, as pointed
out by many, it apparently is not.
Put the other way, if Christians expect anyone to take our
religion seriously, then we have got to walk the walk and
*live* lives of service, sacrifice and kindness, live in the
footsteps of the Christ we claim to follow. That's the message
I had been taught my whole life, by my family and my
pastors, its the message said over and over again in the
Gospels and the letters. At root, Christ spent his earthly ministry
befriending the lonely, feeding the hungry, helping the
sick, caring for those noone else would care for. If we
as Christians *don't* do that, everything else doesn't
matter. You could preach as loudly as you want, pull all
the psychological tricks you want, all the social pressures
and all the browbeating and laws and everything else, if
at the end of the day there's a disconnect between what we
profess and what we *do*, we're not going to convince
anyone. Period.
It's when, and only when, people ask how on earth
one can give and serve and love so much, where one
finds the strength to give and serve despite the cost
to themselves, and the answer is "Because God
gives me strength," *that's* the only place from where people
can begin to believe that this God thing might, just might,
be for real.
N'er mind me, I'm just rambling here.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Huo | je...@spundreams.net.nospam (remove nospam)
U. Michigan Med | http://www.spundreams.net/~jeff
New to the group? Welcome! Please read
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/sf/robert-jordan-faq/
http://www.spundreams.net/~jeff/rasfwrjians2.html
Jamie Bowden
> In article <afvttq$lnt$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>
> >That's because you were Catholic. The Catholic Church, despite its bad
> >rep these days, is pretty easygoing. You only really get the terrible
> >stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
> >nutball loons.
>
> You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
> clue what you're talking about. [1]
>
> >The Church should have had Luther killed while it had the
> >chance.
>
> If it wasn't Martin Luther, it would have been somebody else. Not even
> the Pope can stem the tide of history.
>
> [1] I have attended numerous Protestant churches and services in my
> life, and I can easily say that the 30 minute Catholic wedding service
> (not even a Mass) I attended last month contained more
> God-sayeth-thou-shalts and God-sayeth-thou-musts than any of them.
I need only point to Falwell, Robertson, and the Bakkers (all from VA,
Robertson and the Bakkers from Hampton Roads). If you haven't seen
Pentacostals or Southern Baptists in action, you just haven't seen the
wacky side of protestant. And they aren't even the worst, just the most
ubiquitous.
John S. Novak, III
>>That's because you were Catholic. The Catholic Church, despite its bad
>>rep these days, is pretty easygoing. You only really get the terrible
>>stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
>>nutball loons.
> You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
> clue what you're talking about. [1]
Kozlowski has a remarkable flair for overgeneralizing.
And there are nutball loons a-plenty in both the Catholic and the
Protestant branches.
> [1] I have attended numerous Protestant churches and services in my
> life, and I can easily say that the 30 minute Catholic wedding service
> (not even a Mass) I attended last month contained more
> God-sayeth-thou-shalts and God-sayeth-thou-musts than any of them.
...That was tame.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
Amy Yost
> In article <afvttq$lnt$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>
> >That's because you were Catholic. The Catholic Church, despite its bad
> >rep these days, is pretty easygoing. You only really get the terrible
> >stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
> >nutball loons.
>
> You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
> clue what you're talking about. [1]
<>
> [1] I have attended numerous Protestant churches and services in my
> life, and I can easily say that the 30 minute Catholic wedding service
> (not even a Mass) I attended last month contained more
> God-sayeth-thou-shalts and God-sayeth-thou-musts than any of them.
Hrm. I haven't attended many Catholic wedding ceremonies, but all the
"Jesus at the foot of the bed" speeches have been at Protestant (or
Anglican) ceremonies.
Than again, Arizona seems to have a tendency towards frothy religion,
and the Protestants outnumber the Catholics, so it may just be chance.
--
Amy Yost (Cassandra) UIN: 49226347 fai...@yahoo.com
"Your ineptitude gives hope to all of us further down on the food chain."
- _Sam & Max Hit the Road_
Frank van Schie
"Michelle J. Haines" wrote:
>
> When Xander was terminally ill, a JW woman came to the door, and I
> chatted with her a bit, mostly because she offered some sympathy.
> But she apparently thought this was a good foot in the door (rather
> than just a charitable act of comforting a grieving mother), because
> she kept coming back for MONTHS, until I flat out had to tell her not
> to come back, period. *sigh*
Reminds me of a story involving JW's scanning obituaries looking for
likely conversion targets. At least, one family got in the paper or on
the news because they kept being harassed by JW's (even after telling
them not to come back) who kept talking about their son's death for
months after he passed away.
I don't recall precisely what happened, there, but it taught me that
JW's can be nasty people.
--
Frank
David Chapman
buttocks:
> In article <afvslb$i0fa5$3...@ID-100778.news.dfncis.de>,
> j...@concentric.net says...
>>
>> Well, that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
>> Yes, I do believe I'd have gotten up and walked out, and let the
>> whole congregation listen to the sharp clack of my dress shoes on
>> the marble floor.
>
> I loved all the "well meaning" people (on-line and off-line) who told
> me things like:
<snip the usual mindless platitudes of "the faithful">
These people use religion as a crutch for the mind and soul, Michelle
- and as we all know, you only need crutches if you're crippled, sick
or weak. Don't confuse them with the genuine article.
Next time you hear some of these mealy mouthed self-righteous
faux-Christian shits passing on their delightful messages, remind them
that when Christ saw people who were sick, hungry, wounded or
dying, he didn't say "Don't worry, things will be better in Heaven" - he
rolled up his sleeves and did what he could for them in *this* world.
Then feel free to inform them that they can cram their each and every
patronising word up their asses and stop pretending to love their
neighbour when really they're saying these things so they can feel good
about themselves, because if they don't do it now, the demons in Hell
will take great pleasure in doing it to their wretched, deceitful,
faithless, Pharisaic souls for all eternity.
--
"Pack it in, you're acting like kids."
"Well, he started it!"
David Chapman
> "John S. Novak, III" wrote:
>> One of my many, many problems with religion is that a measurable
>> subset of religious people seem to think that, since they're trying
>> to save your soul, any conceivable amount of rudeness,
>> underhandedness, psychological warfare, and the like are not only
>> acceptable but *encouraged*.
>>
>> Oh, how I hate that.
>
> So do I.
<snip a load of stuff>
> N'er mind me, I'm just rambling here.
Keep on doing it, then, Jeff. There was more sense in that than
I got from the last 20 Christians I spoke to.
Ben Ryan
> Ben Ryan <mob...@core.binghamton.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
>
> <Ya gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith! *strums guitar*>
>
>>Mark, I know kinda what you're going through. I came out as an atheist
>>to my family about two years ago, and it's been a rocky ride at times.
<snip>
> Atheism. The new "gay."
Heh. I'm not sure how they would have reacted to *that*. In some ways it
would be better - I might still be a Believer, just with a few
modifications to the moral code - but I don't know.
--
"Many say that DOS is the dark side, but actually UNIX is more like the
dark side: It's less likely to find the one way to destroy your
incredibly powerful machine, and more likely to make upper management
choke." -- The Brunching Shuttlecocks
P. Korda
Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, P. Korda wrote:
>> Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>> >stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
>> >nutball loons.
>>
>> You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
>> clue what you're talking about. [1]
>I need only point to Falwell, Robertson, and the Bakkers (all from VA,
>Robertson and the Bakkers from Hampton Roads). If you haven't seen
>Pentacostals or Southern Baptists in action, you just haven't seen the
>wacky side of protestant. And they aren't even the worst, just the most
>ubiquitous.
This speaks more towards the nutball looniness of Southerners, rather
than Protestants.
My point, which I guess I didn't make very well, is that the phrase
"Protestants, collectively speaking" is a sign of poor cultural
education, unless you're saying something tautological like,
"Protestants, collectively speaking, do not believe in
transubstantiation." And that might not even be true for all of
them. "Protestant" covers a huge range of religious
beliefs. Conflating an easy-going Lutheran with a whack-job follower
of Pat Robertson is just stupid.
Emma Pease
> Ben Ryan <mob...@core.binghamton.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
>
><Ya gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith! *strums guitar*>
>
>>Mark, I know kinda what you're going through. I came out as an atheist
>>to my family about two years ago, and it's been a rocky ride at times.
>>My parents have been pretty good about it - better than they were about
>>my moving with my fiance' before marriage - but one or two of my younger
>>sister's have been shook up. I used to get a number of "presents" of
>>christian music, bible quotes, and what not when I would visit. I was
>>occasionally cornered and asked - plaintively - why I didn't love Jesus.
>>This has fortunately slacked off as she approaches high school.
>>
>>It was tough. I was honest with her - I didn't believe, and I wasn't
>>going to in the future - but I didn't feel I could really explain myself
>>well. I don't think I could have without ending up trying to convince
>>her, and that would have *really* caused a rift in my family.
>
> Atheism. The new "gay."
new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
I guess I'm fairly lucky in that my family on my father's side has
mostly been non-believers for generations so being a non-believer is
nothing notable and is in fact assumed unless there is evidence to the
contrary.[1] On my mother's side the only one I know is a believer is my
grandmother but she certainly is not outspoken about it. I haven't
the faintest idea about my mother now (she was an episcopalian and
took us children to church when we were very young [but we were never
baptized]; she hasn't gone to a regular church service for years). We
got childrens bibles; we also got books of other mythologies; we were
encouraged to read widely. I had my stint of considering myself a
christian (but never baptized and never orthodox, probably somewhere
between UU and Quaker in beliefs) until I realized the lack of
supporting evidence.
Emma
[1] and the believers tended to be Quakers or Unitarians.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Johan Gustafsson
em...@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
> In article <3d23afc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Laura M. Parkinson wrote:
> > Ben Ryan <mob...@core.binghamton.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
> >
> ><Ya gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith! *strums guitar*>
> >
> >>Mark, I know kinda what you're going through. I came out as an atheist
> >>to my family about two years ago, and it's been a rocky ride at times.
> >>My parents have been pretty good about it - better than they were about
> >>my moving with my fiance' before marriage - but one or two of my younger
> >>sister's have been shook up. I used to get a number of "presents" of
> >>christian music, bible quotes, and what not when I would visit. I was
> >>occasionally cornered and asked - plaintively - why I didn't love Jesus.
> >>This has fortunately slacked off as she approaches high school.
> >>
> >>It was tough. I was honest with her - I didn't believe, and I wasn't
> >>going to in the future - but I didn't feel I could really explain myself
> >>well. I don't think I could have without ending up trying to convince
> >>her, and that would have *really* caused a rift in my family.
> >
> > Atheism. The new "gay."
>
> new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
> hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
Yeah, what the hell was that? I can understand politicians abandoning
all shreds of decency to pander to the masses, but you'd think there'd
be at least *some* standing up for a ruling that is perfectly correct?
Or did I miss them?
I just don't understand the mindset of a person who thinks the phrase
"Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
atheistic.
*shrug*
Some people are just stupid, I guess.
> I guess I'm fairly lucky in that my family on my father's side has
> mostly been non-believers for generations so being a non-believer is
> nothing notable and is in fact assumed unless there is evidence to the
> contrary.[1] On my mother's side the only one I know is a believer is my
> grandmother but she certainly is not outspoken about it. I haven't
> the faintest idea about my mother now (she was an episcopalian and
> took us children to church when we were very young [but we were never
> baptized]; she hasn't gone to a regular church service for years). We
> got childrens bibles; we also got books of other mythologies; we were
> encouraged to read widely.
Now that's good parenting. Quite excellent parenting, actually.
> I had my stint of considering myself a
> christian (but never baptized and never orthodox, probably somewhere
> between UU and Quaker in beliefs) until I realized the lack of
> supporting evidence.
I did my stint as an obnoxious little fundie, but I got better. The
funny thing is, what set me on the path to atheism was reading the bible
(although, that seems to be the case for many).
-Johan
--
"The light was sweet for her, delight was spread over her,
full of abundant beauty was she.
As the light of the rising moon,
she too was clothed in enchantment."
- Enheduanna, "Nin-me-sara"
Jamie Bowden
> In article <Pine.SGI.4.44.020703...@dragon.wdc.photon.com>,
> Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, P. Korda wrote:
> >> Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> wrote:
>
> >> >stuff in Protestant churches. Protestants are, collectively speaking,
> >> >nutball loons.
> >>
> >> You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
> >> clue what you're talking about. [1]
>
> >I need only point to Falwell, Robertson, and the Bakkers (all from VA,
> >Robertson and the Bakkers from Hampton Roads). If you haven't seen
> >Pentacostals or Southern Baptists in action, you just haven't seen the
> >wacky side of protestant. And they aren't even the worst, just the most
> >ubiquitous.
>
> This speaks more towards the nutball looniness of Southerners, rather
> than Protestants.
>
> My point, which I guess I didn't make very well, is that the phrase
> "Protestants, collectively speaking" is a sign of poor cultural
> education, unless you're saying something tautological like,
> "Protestants, collectively speaking, do not believe in
> transubstantiation." And that might not even be true for all of
> them. "Protestant" covers a huge range of religious
> beliefs. Conflating an easy-going Lutheran with a whack-job follower
> of Pat Robertson is just stupid.
Mike was over generalizing, which as Novak pointed out is something he's
good at, but the point still stands that that sort of shit is rare within
the Catholic church. One of the few Priests I liked had a mantra that
went: "We're Catholics, not Fundamentalists." And he meant it.
John S. Novak, III
>> Atheism. The new "gay."
> new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
> hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
It will vary from place to place.
My family and I just don't talk about it, and I'm fairly sure other
than my mother and my father, it's just generally not known. If
anything, they probably consider me as fallen away, not a complete
and active apostate.
At work, it usually takes a year or two until the types of
conversation that lead to that little revelation tend to come up. And
since I don't prosletyze without reason, it tends not to come up.
When it does, it can be awkward. I would expect this to be more of a
problem in Virginia, say (where people I knew to have MSEEs and
training in thermodynamics cited the second law as a reason why this
evolution nonsense was all a bunch of hooey) than on a campus in
southern California.
I'm not going to compare it to the stigma that can come from being
gay, but the social pressure to either not be an atheist or to go
along with the crowd, can be considerable in some places.
Laura M. Parkinson
>In article <slrnai94k...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU>, Emma Pease wrote:
>
>>> Atheism. The new "gay."
>
>> new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
>> hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
>
>It will vary from place to place.
>
>My family and I just don't talk about it, and I'm fairly sure other
>than my mother and my father, it's just generally not known. If
>anything, they probably consider me as fallen away, not a complete
>and active apostate.
I'm much the same actually. My parents both used to go to a Methodist
church, which is where I went when I was younger (ie: around 5 or 6,
maybe up to a year or two later actually). They just eventually
dropped off their church attendance however, and as I didn't have the
hooks into me yet (luckily), I stopped along with them. I suppose when
I was younger I would have labelled myself as Methodist Just Because,
but I never really had a strong religious identity so to speak, and
realized that I was not really what I'd consider Christian fairly
early on.
I've never really said that to my parents, however, and they've never
brought it up. I suspect that although they no longer attend church,
if asked they'd still label themselves as Methodist, and "believers,"
although I have no idea how strongly so. I also suspect that, if
asked, they'd say that I was Methodist as well, despite evidence to
the contrary, and even though I certainly wouldn't consider myself
such. I'm hoping actually to just avoid ever having this conversation
with them.
Nathan Baker
> In article <slrnai94k...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU>,
> em...@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
>>hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
>
>
> Yeah, what the hell was that? I can understand politicians abandoning
> all shreds of decency to pander to the masses, but you'd think there'd
> be at least *some* standing up for a ruling that is perfectly correct?
> Or did I miss them?
>
> I just don't understand the mindset of a person who thinks the phrase
> "Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
> atheistic.
>
> *shrug*
>
> Some people are just stupid, I guess.
And here, folks, is a perfect example of why atheists as a whole are
despised in the U.S. The atheists who are visible to the public eye are
the ones who are outspoken arrogant pricks who belittle the cherished
beliefs of religious people and call them variously "stupid," "mindless
dupes," and "misled sheep." Try applying some logic here--if somebody
accepts the basic premise of religion, namely that one's eternal
happiness or lack thereof depends on how faithfully one follows their
religious beliefs in this life, doesn't it logically follow that said
believer would hold his religion to be one of the most important factors
in his life, and that they would resent anyone who belittled something
of such importance to them? Here's a wake-up call--if you want to
improve the public image of atheism, you need to start respecting the
beliefs of theists and stop calling them stupid. There are a lot of
polite, respectful atheists who are getting tarred with a bad image
because of the visible ones--just like the way Christians are tarred
with a bad image in the atheist community because of the outspoken
fanaticals who vocally condemn atheists to hell because of their beliefs
(or lack thereof). In my experience, atheists, Christians, Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. get along just fine if they merely
respect each other's beliefs and agree to disagree. It's when one or
the other starts trying to impose their personal values on someone else
that the ugliness starts. -I- don't understand the mindset of someone
who can't just ignore what other people around them are doing and simply
omit saying the two words "under God." That doesn't mean I'm going to
call that person "stupid" though.
Ken Gerrard
>In article <MPG.178cea713...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
[...]
>> I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
>> that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
>> equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
>> weekends.
>I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
If you want an open-minded child, yes. Just because *you* think you're
right doesn't mean you are.
[...]
--
Ken Gerrard
k...@nubule.nu
http://nub.nubule.nu/
Laura M. Parkinson
>Johan Gustafsson wrote:
>> In article <slrnai94k...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU>,
>> em...@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
>>>new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
>>>hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, what the hell was that? I can understand politicians abandoning
>> all shreds of decency to pander to the masses, but you'd think there'd
>> be at least *some* standing up for a ruling that is perfectly correct?
>> Or did I miss them?
>>
>> I just don't understand the mindset of a person who thinks the phrase
>> "Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
>> atheistic.
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>> Some people are just stupid, I guess.
>
> And here, folks, is a perfect example of why atheists as a whole are
>despised in the U.S. The atheists who are visible to the public eye are
>the ones who are outspoken arrogant pricks who belittle the cherished
>beliefs of religious people and call them variously "stupid," "mindless
>dupes," and "misled sheep."
Or how about "knee-jerk reactionists"?
Where, oh WHERE above did he say "Christians are stupid"? Or even
imply it? Hrrrm? Well, other than in your own little world where
apparenly anytime someone says anything negative that's even remotely
dealing with Christianity, it's cause for a lynching?
To repeat, since it apparently didn't really connect the first time -
he was saying that people who find the phrase "under God" *religiously
neutral* are stupid. Not people that believe in God, themselves. And
the people that believe that if they don't plug in a prayer to God at
any given second, in any phrase, and that if they don't try to force
others to do so as well, they're somehow bad Christians.
And yes, these people are in fact stupid, thankyouverymuch.
Laura M. Parkinson
>j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) writes:
>
>>In article <MPG.178cea713...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> I don't know how I'm going to react, I really don't. I think, perhaps,
>>> that the best I can do is demonstrate a conviction and sense of morality
>>> equal to or better than the religious teaching he receives on off
>>> weekends.
>
>>I suppose a simple, "They're wrong," is out of the question?
>
>If you want an open-minded child, yes. Just because *you* think you're
>right doesn't mean you are.
Well, unless you're me. Or unless you agree with me.
Naturally.
Johan Gustafsson
says...
> Johan Gustafsson wrote:
> > In article <slrnai94k...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU>,
> > em...@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
> >>new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
> >>hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, what the hell was that? I can understand politicians abandoning
> > all shreds of decency to pander to the masses, but you'd think there'd
> > be at least *some* standing up for a ruling that is perfectly correct?
> > Or did I miss them?
> >
> > I just don't understand the mindset of a person who thinks the phrase
> > "Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
> > atheistic.
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> > Some people are just stupid, I guess.
>
> And here, folks, is a perfect example of why atheists as a whole are
> despised in the U.S. The atheists who are visible to the public eye are
> the ones who are outspoken arrogant pricks who belittle the cherished
> beliefs of religious people and call them variously "stupid," "mindless
> dupes," and "misled sheep."
[snip rest]
That's a nice little rant you've got here. Hell, one of these days you
might even use it where it's actually related to the discussion at hand.
Let me know, okay?
Johan Gustafsson
says...
Reading comprehension: Reason #42 why Laura is way cool.
-Johan
(agreeing with me is #17)
Christopher Tong
Jamie Bowden wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, P. Korda wrote:
<snip>
> > My point, which I guess I didn't make very well, is that the phrase
> > "Protestants, collectively speaking" is a sign of poor cultural
> > education, unless you're saying something tautological like,
> > "Protestants, collectively speaking, do not believe in
> > transubstantiation." And that might not even be true for all of
> > them. "Protestant" covers a huge range of religious
> > beliefs. Conflating an easy-going Lutheran with a whack-job follower
> > of Pat Robertson is just stupid.
> Mike was over generalizing, which as Novak pointed out is something he's
> good at, but the point still stands that that sort of shit is rare within
> the Catholic church. One of the few Priests I liked had a mantra that
> went: "We're Catholics, not Fundamentalists." And he meant it.
It's rare within the Catholic Church in America (and Canada, I guess).
Elsewhere, however, the Catholic Church tends to be much stricter. Did
you notice what the reaction of the Catholic Church at large to the
whole paedophile sex scandal thing was? In case you missed it, it went
somewhat along the lines of "Ah, it's just those American marginal,
liberal Catholics whining again."
The Catholic Church behaves very differently in America than it does
elsewhere. "The Church can do no wrong" still is a truism in many parts
of the world. And when you get down to it, that's where the Church is
run from.
--
Chris
Emma Pease
> Johan Gustafsson wrote:
>> In article <slrnai94k...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU>,
>> em...@kanpai.stanford.edu says...
>>>new? Admittedly considering the reaction to the pledge ruling I
>>>hadn't realized how much we were despised in the US.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, what the hell was that? I can understand politicians abandoning
>> all shreds of decency to pander to the masses, but you'd think there'd
>> be at least *some* standing up for a ruling that is perfectly correct?
>> Or did I miss them?
>>
>> I just don't understand the mindset of a person who thinks the phrase
>> "Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
>> atheistic.
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>> Some people are just stupid, I guess.
>
> And here, folks, is a perfect example of why atheists as a whole are
> despised in the U.S. The atheists who are visible to the public eye are
> the ones who are outspoken arrogant pricks who belittle the cherished
> beliefs of religious people and call them variously "stupid," "mindless
> dupes," and "misled sheep."
I don't think Johan was calling theists in general stupid, and, I
certainly don't think they are. What he was calling stupid was
>> a person who thinks the phrase
>> "Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
>> atheistic.
I'll note that the person who wrote the decision is an elder in a
Presbyterian church; he certainly had no trouble in seeing that it is
not religiously neutral. I've also seen other theists who have no
trouble seeing this.
> It's when one or
> the other starts trying to impose their personal values on someone else
> that the ugliness starts. -I- don't understand the mindset of someone
> who can't just ignore what other people around them are doing and simply
> omit saying the two words "under God." That doesn't mean I'm going to
> call that person "stupid" though.
But it is not just other people around them but the government.
Note that it is the government via public school teachers which is
teaching and leading the pledge. Note it is also the government that
enacted the exact words of the pledge including adding 'under God' in
the 1950's. Note that the government by the first amendment is
prohibited from establishing religion. How is adding the words
'under God' to the pledge not dictating a religious position?
Note also that though children can't be legally forced to say the
pledge,[1] I suspect they are very rarely told this.
Non-governmental groups (e.g., a church, a scout troop, the local
freemasons) are perfectly free to invoke God's blessings on the United
States or to state that the US is under the special protection of this
or that Saint or to pray for God's guidance for government officials.
A non-governmental group can also use the pledge with the words 'under
God' or even change them to be 'under our Lord, Jesus Christ' if they
so desire.
Perhaps if we turned the tables slightly you might understand:
If instead of
One Nation, under God, Indivisible
the pledge as ordered in a public school classroom was
One Nation, not under God, Indivisible
would you simply omit saying the three words 'not under God'?
Emma
[1] This was legally decided back in the 1940's even before the
addition of 'under God'.
Laura M. Parkinson
>In article <3d24b9e0...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, lpark...@mindspring.com
>says...
>> To repeat, since it apparently didn't really connect the first time -
>> he was saying that people who find the phrase "under God" *religiously
>> neutral* are stupid. Not people that believe in God, themselves. And
>> the people that believe that if they don't plug in a prayer to God at
>> any given second, in any phrase, and that if they don't try to force
>> others to do so as well, they're somehow bad Christians.
>>
>> And yes, these people are in fact stupid, thankyouverymuch.
>
>Reading comprehension: Reason #42 why Laura is way cool.
*bow*
I do try.
And there are just so many ways that I'm way cool. Heh.
Mike Kozlowski
>> My point, which I guess I didn't make very well, is that the phrase
>> "Protestants, collectively speaking" is a sign of poor cultural
>> education
I'm just being insufficiently discriminatory. There are plenty of sane
Protestant churches -- Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans are all
well-adjusted folks, on the whole. But you get your Southern Baptists and
your Free Methodists, and things get a bit scary.
Really, I said it backwards. It's not that most Protestants are nutballs,
that almost all nutballs are Protestants. You can narrow it down from
there -- Anglicans and Anglican-derived churches are fine, Lutheranism is
okay; but Free Methodists, Southern Baptists, and any of the little cults
are freaky.
>Mike was over generalizing, which as Novak pointed out is something he's
>good at, but the point still stands that that sort of shit is rare within
>the Catholic church. One of the few Priests I liked had a mantra that
>went: "We're Catholics, not Fundamentalists." And he meant it.
When anyone talks about "fundies", they're instantly talking about
Protestants, because fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
John S. Novak, III
>> I just don't understand the mindset of a person who thinks the phrase
>> "Under God" is religiously neutral and the lack of said phrase
>> atheistic.
>> Some people are just stupid, I guess.
> And here, folks, is a perfect example of why atheists as a whole are
> despised in the U.S. The atheists who are visible to the public eye are
> the ones who are outspoken arrogant pricks who belittle the cherished
> beliefs of religious people and call them variously "stupid," "mindless
> dupes," and "misled sheep."
A fine rant, Mr. Baker, but I am left with a question:
Is it an article of your faith that the phrase "under God" is
religiously neutral?
John S. Novak, III
>>Mike was over generalizing, which as Novak pointed out is something he's
>>good at, but the point still stands that that sort of shit is rare within
>>the Catholic church. One of the few Priests I liked had a mantra that
>>went: "We're Catholics, not Fundamentalists." And he meant it.
> When anyone talks about "fundies", they're instantly talking about
> Protestants, because fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
You don't get out much, do you?
Karproxid
Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote in article
<MPG.178d42406...@news.Qwest.net>...
> In article <afvdu5$hkfvo$1...@ID-100778.news.dfncis.de>,
> j...@concentric.net says...
> > In article <MPG.178d04223...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Anne Willick
wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking from experience, at least in the evangelical Protestant
subset
> > > of religious people, nearly all of them think the way you just
described.
> > > It's a brainwashed-in belief that they're in a "war for souls" and
any
> > > tactic is sanctioned as long as it produces results.
> >
> > Oh, yeah.
> > "The end justifies the means," is a good descriptor, and many are so
> > dead to irony that they'd just nod eagerly if you said that to them.
>
> When Xander was terminally ill, a JW woman came to the door, and I
> chatted with her a bit, mostly because she offered some sympathy.
> But she apparently thought this was a good foot in the door (rather
> than just a charitable act of comforting a grieving mother), because
> she kept coming back for MONTHS, until I flat out had to tell her not
> to come back, period. *sigh*
>
They do that to any and everyone that gives them any kind of positive
response.
P. Korda
Karproxid <karp...@FearMESpammer.nota.net> wrote:
>Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote in article
><MPG.178d42406...@news.Qwest.net>...
>> When Xander was terminally ill, a JW woman came to the door, and I
>> chatted with her a bit, mostly because she offered some sympathy.
>> But she apparently thought this was a good foot in the door (rather
>> than just a charitable act of comforting a grieving mother), because
>> she kept coming back for MONTHS, until I flat out had to tell her not
>> to come back, period. *sigh*
>
>They do that to any and everyone that gives them any kind of positive
>response.
I remember when I was little, the JWs who trolled my neighborhood were
so persistant and annoying that there was a neighborhood warning
system-- when they came to somebody's house, they'd call all their
neighborhood buddies to warn them to not be home...
John S. Novak, III
> I remember when I was little, the JWs who trolled my neighborhood were
> so persistant and annoying that there was a neighborhood warning
> system-- when they came to somebody's house, they'd call all their
> neighborhood buddies to warn them to not be home...
We had dogs.
First a German Shepherd, then a German Shepherd/Great Dane cross.
Dogs are cool.
Mike Kozlowski
>>rep these days, is pretty easygoing. You only really get the terrible
>>nutball loons.
>
>You are either trolling, or you have absotively-posulutely no fucking
>clue what you're talking about. [1]
I'm just being insufficiently discriminatory. There are plenty of sane
Protestant churches -- Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans are all
well-adjusted folks, on the whole. But you get your Southern Baptists and
your Free Methodists, and things get a bit scary. And when anyone talks
about "fundies", they're instantly talking about Protestants, because
fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
All I'm saying is, if you want an evolution-denying, hellfire and
brimstone, dancing-is-evil, wildly evangelical kinda place, you're
probably not looking at the Catholic Church.
Mike Kozlowski
Sandy Pratt
"Johan Gustafsson" <j...@e-bostad.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.178ec033f...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> I did my stint as an obnoxious little fundie, but I got better.
The
> funny thing is, what set me on the path to atheism was reading
the bible
> (although, that seems to be the case for many).
Indeed.
Funny how God comes across like a mob boss in the OT, isn't it?
"Sacrifice fifty sheep or the village gets it! Kapiche?"
Mike Kozlowski
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <ag2i1v$e94$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>> When anyone talks about "fundies", they're instantly talking about
>> Protestants, because fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
>
>You don't get out much, do you?
I have no idea what you're getting at.
John S. Novak, III
>>> When anyone talks about "fundies", they're instantly talking about
>>> Protestants, because fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
>>You don't get out much, do you?
> I have no idea what you're getting at.
Don't be obtuse.
"There are such things as fundamentalist Catholics," would be the
obvious message, here.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
Mike Kozlowski
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <ag41ts$olq$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>
>>>> When anyone talks about "fundies", they're instantly talking about
>>>> Protestants, because fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
>>>You don't get out much, do you?
>> I have no idea what you're getting at.
>
>Don't be obtuse.
>"There are such things as fundamentalist Catholics," would be the
>obvious message, here.
Well, no kidding. That's exactly what I was saying.
John S. Novak, III
>>>>> When anyone talks about "fundies", they're instantly talking about
>>>>> Protestants, because fundamentalism is a Protestant movement.
>>>>You don't get out much, do you?
>>> I have no idea what you're getting at.
>>Don't be obtuse.
>>"There are such things as fundamentalist Catholics," would be the
>>obvious message, here.
> Well, no kidding. That's exactly what I was saying.
What the fuck are you talking about, Koz?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
Mike Kozlowski
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <ag48tg$qib$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>>>"There are such things as fundamentalist Catholics," would be the
>>>obvious message, here.
>
>> Well, no kidding. That's exactly what I was saying.
>
>What the fuck are you talking about, Koz?
Just what you said: Fundamentalism is a fundamentally (heh) Protestant
movement. Catholicism may have its own hard-core loonies and looninesses,
but they're not fundamentalists. Keep in mind, here, that
"fundamentalism" is an actual concrete set of theological beliefs, and not
just a catch-all derogatory term for religion.
Bob Jones University is fundamentalist; Southern Baptists are
fundamentalist; Catholicism isn't.
Johan Gustafsson
It would appear you're only familiar with one definition:
"fun搞a搶en暗al搏sm n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a
return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those
principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition
to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement
originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th
century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism,
insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement. "
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fundamentalism
Definition 1. allows for fundamentalist catholics. They may be rarer in
America, but we've got a bunch in Europe.
-Johan
Jeff Stockwin
> In article <R99V8.80$Z4.2...@news.uchicago.edu>, P. Korda wrote:
>
> > I remember when I was little, the JWs who trolled my neighborhood were
> > so persistant and annoying that there was a neighborhood warning
> > system-- when they came to somebody's house, they'd call all their
> > neighborhood buddies to warn them to not be home...
>
> We had dogs.
> First a German Shepherd, then a German Shepherd/Great Dane cross.
>
> Dogs are cool.
Sometimes they are just wonderful. My grandfather is 93, and getting
up to answer the door is quite an effort for him. A couple of years
ago he had a big drool machine of a boxer named Major. This dog was
worthless except for one day of his life, and he made up for it. The
front door to my grandfather's house is mostly window. It used to be
glass - great, thick old leaded glass. All of his dogs that I
remember greeted visitors by running full bore into that glass,
planting their 2 front paws on it to stop themselves, then barking
themselves silly. Major was no exception, and it held his
considerable weight for 2 or 3 years, but when it gave way more than
100 pounds of loud, drooling, toothy boxer landed all but on top of
the 2 JWs that had come to call that day. A neighbor saw the whole
thing, so we were treated to fun descriptions of their facial
expressions, and their hasty retreat.
It's plexiglass now.
--
Jeff Stockwin
Mike Kozlowski
Johan Gustafsson <j...@e-bostad.net> wrote:
>In article <ag4a1p$rak$1...@reader2.panix.com>, m...@klio.org says...
>> Bob Jones University is fundamentalist; Southern Baptists are
>> fundamentalist; Catholicism isn't.
>
>It would appear you're only familiar with one definition:
No, I'm just using the most precise one.
>Definition 1. allows for fundamentalist catholics. They may be rarer in
>America, but we've got a bunch in Europe.
They may be conservative, they may be loony, but I think that calling them
fundamentalists confuses matters unnecessarily.
Ken Gerrard
>In article <ag498u$iahju$2...@ID-100778.news.dfncis.de>,
>John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>>In article <ag48tg$qib$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>"There are such things as fundamentalist Catholics," would be the
>>>>obvious message, here.
>>
>>> Well, no kidding. That's exactly what I was saying.
>>
>>What the fuck are you talking about, Koz?
>Just what you said: Fundamentalism is a fundamentally (heh) Protestant
>movement. Catholicism may have its own hard-core loonies and looninesses,
>but they're not fundamentalists.
Read what John Novak said again. I think you inserted a word.
Mike Kozlowski
Ken Gerrard <umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> writes:
>>Just what you said: Fundamentalism is a fundamentally (heh) Protestant
>>movement. Catholicism may have its own hard-core loonies and looninesses,
>>but they're not fundamentalists.
>
>Read what John Novak said again. I think you inserted a word.
You're right, I did mentally insert a "no"; which had to have made that
response of mine largely incoherent. Oops.
Frank van Schie
Do not read a 'no' where there is no 'no'.
There *are* such things as fundamentalist Catholics. What you are saying
is that fundamentalists are all Protestant.
Either you believe Catholocism to be a Protestant religion, or you
misread what he said.
--
Frank
Ken Gerrard
Emma Pease
Call the specific movement Fundamentalists, call the others
fundamentalists (note F versus f).
John S. Novak, III
>>Read what John Novak said again. I think you inserted a word.
> You're right, I did mentally insert a "no"; which had to have made that
> response of mine largely incoherent. Oops.
Good thing I read all the way to the end of the thread.
'Cause basically, you're wrong-- there *are* fundamentalists Catholics,
whether they meet your personal muster as fundies or not.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
Ian Hurst
> In article <01c223d1$f5cf3650$c011ba3f@cooper>,
> Karproxid <karp...@FearMESpammer.nota.net> wrote:
>>
>>They do that to any and everyone that gives them any kind of positive
>>response.
>
> I remember when I was little, the JWs who trolled my neighborhood were
> so persistant and annoying that there was a neighborhood warning
> system-- when they came to somebody's house, they'd call all their
> neighborhood buddies to warn them to not be home...
The father of a friend of mine used to keep a can of "bullshit spray"
handy for those occasions. It was *rank*, and used liberally. Nice guy ;)
--
Ian Hurst
Emma Pease
III wrote:
> In article <ag4cod$o3$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>
>>>Read what John Novak said again. I think you inserted a word.
>
>> You're right, I did mentally insert a "no"; which had to have made that
>> response of mine largely incoherent. Oops.
>
> Good thing I read all the way to the end of the thread.
> 'Cause basically, you're wrong-- there *are* fundamentalists Catholics,
> whether they meet your personal muster as fundies or not.
It isn't just his personal definition though.
Fundamentalists (with a capital F) are a particular group of
christians whose beliefs would be incompatible with being a Roman
Catholic in good standing.
The term has been used to refer other groups who claim to be going
back to the original or fundamental version of their faith (in almost
all cases those claims are false).
Admittedly he should have been clearer on which definition he was
using especially since he was using lower case word, fundamentalism.
Emma
Linkname: The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth
URL: http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/
Mike Kozlowski
John S. Novak, III <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In article <ag4cod$o3$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>
>>>Read what John Novak said again. I think you inserted a word.
>
>> You're right, I did mentally insert a "no"; which had to have made that
>> response of mine largely incoherent. Oops.
>
>Good thing I read all the way to the end of the thread.
>'Cause basically, you're wrong-- there *are* fundamentalists Catholics,
>whether they meet your personal muster as fundies or not.
Well, I meant everything I meant; I was just agreeing with you one place
where I should have been disagreeing.
I'd almost consent to allow ultra-conservative Catholics be called
fundamentalists, except that I really think it mixes things up, because
they're still different from the Fundamentalists in their core beliefs.
Sure, in some contexts it makes sense to group them together (and maybe
throw in Islamic extremists, ultra-Hindus, and so forth, too), but there
are enough differences that I think it's worth noting.
And besides, a key point is that the Church itself isn't Fundamentalist,
while there are Protestant churches that straight-up are. Whatever
individuals might profess to believe, there's not an official Catholic
hierarchy that disbelieves in evolution and thinks dancing is sinful;
there are official Protestant hierarchies where that's the case, though.
Leah S.
news:3D23F07C...@spundreams.net.nospam...
<snip>
> Put the other way, if Christians expect anyone to take our
> religion seriously, then we have got to walk the walk and
> *live* lives of service, sacrifice and kindness, live in the
> footsteps of the Christ we claim to follow.
I'll second that. Very nicely put.
Leah S.
news:mloy-02070...@134.68.134.43...
> In article <afsi11$l3g$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Ken Gerrard) wrote:
>
> > "Paul Evans" <p...@prje.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian
> > >any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
> >
> > That's good, because I don't *want* to be a car.
>
> Does this imply that you want to be a Christian?
>
> I ask because there's a part of me that wants to be a Christian,
too.
I've been reading this thread with interest and figured I'd insert my
two cents.
It sounds like despite your objections to religious indoctrination and
such, you feel that Christianity has some real benefits in that local
churches can help create a sense of community and family. But you
don't want to be preached at by fundamentalists. You might try
exploring Christianity on your own by reading works by the better
Christian intellectual writers. I would recommend "Mere Christianity"
by C.S. Lewis. Not meant to be a rigorous proof for the existence of
God, it shows some of the thought processes that Lewis found
compelling in his transition from disbelief to faith. IMHO, it's an
interesting and carefully written book.
(Interesting side note: C.S. Lewis' friendship with J.R.R. Tolkien, a
devout Christian, played an important role in Lewis' path to
Christianity.)
> And Eric...I think I told you that he "found" Christianity on
> his own when he was quite young (three or four) as a way of dealing
with
> the issue of death and recently he and Deb have been attending a
truly
> excellent neighborhood church. The thing is he now asks me why I
don't
> attend. He even went as far as to ask me if I believe in God. Not
> wanting to utterly destroy his belief system with a sustained volley
of my
> doubts/objections I just decided to be honest and say that no, I
don't
> believe in God. To which he replied, in complete and honest
sincerity, "I
> hope I get to see you in heaven, anyway, Dad."
He sounds like a sweet kid. I hope you two can find a mutually
satisfactory solution to your disagreement.
Leah
David Olsen
"Emma Pease" <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnai9hc...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU...
Note that the government by the first amendment is
> prohibited from establishing religion. How is adding the words
> 'under God' to the pledge not dictating a religious position?
And what religion is being dictated by saying 'under God'? I don't think any
religion is being dictated or promoted by saying this. Establishing
religion, and dictating a religious position isn't the same thing.
Chris Hammock
There may be a multiple-choice batch of religions that could fit
(although I think we all know that Christianity is the intended goal),
but the fact is that all the other religions that don't worship God
(or Allah) are excluded. As are those who worship nobody at all.
--
Chris Hammock zal...@nocturne.org
Ken Gerrard
David Olsen
"Chris Hammock" <zal...@nocturne.org> wrote in message
news:ag4s9s$i7ktr$1...@ID-59100.news.dfncis.de...
But there still is no establishing of any religion. And as noted before that
children at schools can omit 'under God' while saying the Pledge. Any parent
who is up in arms enough to care if their child is going to say it should be
able to take 5 minutes to talk to them and explain that they don't have to
say it.