Re: pessimist
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:43:41 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 98-02-06 17:46:06 EST, you write:
<< Specifically? But Christ's point was "don't worship me, you don't need me,
you
only need each other" and unfortunately that is the perspective I was sharing
which you obviously missed. It is the concept of worshipping one person above
others which completely destroys spirituality. Love is a concept, not a
celebrity.
You don't need to be a Christian to serve Christ. Get it? And if you have to
be a
Christian to serve Christ, then you don't get it.
>>
My bottom line complaint about the last paragraph of your original post was
that you made broad, sweeping statements about Christians that were
unflattering, to say the least. Make those kind of statements about Blacks
and you'd be called a racist. You know that kind of reasoning is wrong, and
you demonstrated that in this post. But you sure didn't act like it in the
previous one.
As for the above paragraph, this isn't really the place to argue this, because
it'd be a theological debate not directly relating to Salinger. When you say
over and over, "you just don't get it," all you're saying is, "my theology is
right and yours wrong, nanny nanny boo boo." Your statements are consistent
with a Vedic view of the teachings of Christ--taking the theology of the Vedas
for granted as truth and interpreting Christ's words in their light. But you
haven't established--or even attempted to--that this theology is correct.
Christian theology is another view of the teachings of Christ. It reads them
in the light of different assumptions. To say one of these two theologies is
right and the other wrong simply demonstrates the content of your faith, not
the strength of your argument. We would have to argue the two theologies
against one another, but again, this ain't the place, and those arguments
usually don't lead anywhere unless both parties are in it for good reasons.
Jim