Re: pessimist

Malcolm Lawrence (malcolm@wolfenet.com)
Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:55:28 -0800 

AntiUtopia@aol.com wrote:

> 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.

There's a difference between a label one is born into and IS and a label one
willingly applies to oneself or discards like clothes. I utterly respect one's
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, that sense of identity that is rooted in
their own particularly concrete reality, (you referred to "drunken Englishmen" on
this list not too long ago and I had to point out that you were being racist) but
as far as beliefs are concerned....I don't believe in beliefs. I believe in
practice. The "Christians" I rebel against are those who simply believe in him and
endlessly debate their meanings as opposed to those who practice his teachings.
Ever see Monty Python's Life of Brian? Incredibly brilliant illustration of how
(and the Catholic church, at least, missed this by banning the film) Christ
himself was never mocked, only the followers and how thick they were when trying
to read meanings into everything and completely missing the point of what he was
saying.

ARTHUR:  He has given us a sign!
FOLLOWER:  Oh!
SHOE FOLLOWER:  He has given us... His shoe!
ARTHUR:  The shoe is the sign.  Let us follow His example.
SPIKE:  What?
ARTHUR:  Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our
    foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.
EDDIE:  Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER:  No, no, no.  The shoe is...
YOUTH:  No.
SHOE FOLLOWER:  ...a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.
GIRL:  Cast off...
SPIKE:  Aye.  What?
GIRL:  ...the shoes!  Follow the Gourd!
SHOE FOLLOWER:  No!  Let us gather shoes together!
FRANK:  Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER:  Let me!
ELSIE:  Oh, get off!
YOUTH:  No, no!  It is a sign that, like Him, we must think not of the things
    of the body, but of the face and head!
SHOE FOLLOWER:  Give me your shoe!
YOUTH:  Get off!
GIRL:  Follow the Gourd!  The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
FOLLOWER:  The Gourd!
HARRY:  Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!
ARTHUR:  It is a shoe!  It is a shoe!
HARRY:  It's a sandal!
ARTHUR:  No, it isn't!
GIRL:  Cast it away!
ARTHUR:  Put it on!
YOUTH:  And clear off!
SHOE FOLLOWER:  Take the shoes and follow Him!
GIRL:  Come,...
FRANK:  Yes!

Monty Python's Life of Brian - (c) 1979 - Python (Monty) Pictures, Ltd. :)


> 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.

Fair enough