a meditation on favoritism...
Friday, June 8, 2001 by kenray | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
firstly, don't get me wrong.
as a practicing Nazerite, i would love it if i could show my Bible at teh QT Mart and get half off my cigarettes...
Whilst browsing the coolplayer section, i notice a subset for "Christian"
does this not invite the question,
"If we subset for one religion, should we not subset for all?"
why not a "Hindu" section, or a "Buddhist" section, or a "Jewish" seciton?
Are we Christians so prevalent and artistically active that we deserve a subset?
Or is this a nod to the English speaking, Western Hemispherical crew who dominate this side fo the planet?
Don't get me wrong. I practice, adn i pray, and I love the special treatment.
Still, soemhting about that just doesn't strike me as fair.
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Yep, thats what HE said.
as a practicing Nazerite, i would love it if i could show my Bible at teh QT Mart and get half off my cigarettes...
Whilst browsing the coolplayer section, i notice a subset for "Christian"
does this not invite the question,
"If we subset for one religion, should we not subset for all?"
why not a "Hindu" section, or a "Buddhist" section, or a "Jewish" seciton?
Are we Christians so prevalent and artistically active that we deserve a subset?
Or is this a nod to the English speaking, Western Hemispherical crew who dominate this side fo the planet?
Don't get me wrong. I practice, adn i pray, and I love the special treatment.
Still, soemhting about that just doesn't strike me as fair.
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Yep, thats what HE said.
 |
|
Page 6 of 6 | |
|
|---|
Third Eye
Reply #102 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:50 PM
Reply #102 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:50 PM
jcg - its done all the time. McVeigh died because we all agree that what he did was wrong, unless you feel his execution was just another example of a senseless persecution of his equally valid viewpoint.
Personally I do not agree with what McVeigh did. I think that the "eye for an eye" view is very "fare".
But, for arguments sake, what he thought he was doing was right and, for arguments sake, who are we to tell him he was wrong? To him, he was at war. We go to war all the time and kill mass numbers of people, is that not wrong? Is not slaughtering thousands of people in the name of God not wrong? We dropped the Atom bomb on Hiroshima for crying out load... was that not wrong? Or was it just "smoothed" over and "justified" because we were just "defending" our country? Who are we to say that this, or any, is "our" country? One could argue that in all actuality that this land belongs to the Native Americans... oops, we just about committed genocide with that one... Hey didn't that German guy with the funny mustache do something like that? I'm sorry, I digress.
If all things are created by and in being for God then are we not being arrogant in placing any boundaries across this world what so ever? And if we are being "arrogant" is that not a sin? So then truly can anyone actually say that they believe that they are going to go to, for arguments sake, Heaven?
Again, just a thought, for arguments sake.
Personally I do not agree with what McVeigh did. I think that the "eye for an eye" view is very "fare".
But, for arguments sake, what he thought he was doing was right and, for arguments sake, who are we to tell him he was wrong? To him, he was at war. We go to war all the time and kill mass numbers of people, is that not wrong? Is not slaughtering thousands of people in the name of God not wrong? We dropped the Atom bomb on Hiroshima for crying out load... was that not wrong? Or was it just "smoothed" over and "justified" because we were just "defending" our country? Who are we to say that this, or any, is "our" country? One could argue that in all actuality that this land belongs to the Native Americans... oops, we just about committed genocide with that one... Hey didn't that German guy with the funny mustache do something like that? I'm sorry, I digress.
If all things are created by and in being for God then are we not being arrogant in placing any boundaries across this world what so ever? And if we are being "arrogant" is that not a sin? So then truly can anyone actually say that they believe that they are going to go to, for arguments sake, Heaven?
Again, just a thought, for arguments sake.
jtfolden
Reply #103 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:03 PM
Reply #103 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:03 PM
Phar0e, considering the number of atrocities that have been committed in the name of the bible, we could probably call it even. 
jcg
Reply #104 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:51 PM
Reply #104 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:51 PM
Moral relativism is the bane of the twentieth century. It is born of intellectual laziness and the inability or unwillingness to differentiate between knowledge and mere opinion. While, this is hardly the place to go into philosophical proofs of the exitence of good and evil, suffice it to say that McVeigh was under the opinion (subjective and therefore prone to error) that he was at war, I doubt anyone here would argue whether or not we were at war with Japan.
How can one feel morally outraged about anything if it is all just opinion? To hold that morality is subject to the opinions of the actor means that there is no basis for doing anything moral. Moral relativism would hold that dropping the bomb, bombing a building full of innocents, dividing the world into nations, displacement of the American Indian, are all neutral acts, neither good nor bad, subject only to how the individuals responsible felt at the time. Sincerity becomes the only guage for the morality of an act. Does anyone doubt that Hitler was sincere? How far into depravity must one go before someone says beyond this line lies immorality?
How can one feel morally outraged about anything if it is all just opinion? To hold that morality is subject to the opinions of the actor means that there is no basis for doing anything moral. Moral relativism would hold that dropping the bomb, bombing a building full of innocents, dividing the world into nations, displacement of the American Indian, are all neutral acts, neither good nor bad, subject only to how the individuals responsible felt at the time. Sincerity becomes the only guage for the morality of an act. Does anyone doubt that Hitler was sincere? How far into depravity must one go before someone says beyond this line lies immorality?
migellito
Reply #105 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:27 AM
Reply #105 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:27 AM
moral relativism.. hehe
i've always found it odd that, knowing what archaeology and history can tell us, people are aghast that hernan cortes let the 20,000 previously subjugated people who decided to follow him to tenochtitlan decimate the aztecs.
how many 8 year old kids need to have their hearts cut out and eaten by priests before it isn't relative anymore? more than several hundred on a big holiday apparently.
i've always found it odd that, knowing what archaeology and history can tell us, people are aghast that hernan cortes let the 20,000 previously subjugated people who decided to follow him to tenochtitlan decimate the aztecs.
how many 8 year old kids need to have their hearts cut out and eaten by priests before it isn't relative anymore? more than several hundred on a big holiday apparently.
Third Eye
Reply #106 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:37 AM
Reply #106 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:37 AM
jcg spoke - How can one feel morally outraged about anything if it is all just opinion?
I ask you this. If you were seriously asking that question, why does one need to feel morally outraged at all?
What defines outrage? What defines war? What defines right and wrong? Who are we to define anything?
IMHO, my answer is knowledge. We know what is right and wrong but we, as the human race, are so self-indulgent and self-centered that we cannot handle our own egos. As an examlpe, why does it take so much effort for one to take constructive criticism when that is all it is, constructive criticism? I mean someone might say to another wow I really like that but that part over there is a little to small. What is our "first" impulse? It is offensive. We might step back and see the forest for the trees at that point, but the first reaction is to retaliate in one form or another.
jcg spoke: To hold that morality is subject to the opinions of the actor means that there is no basis for doing anything moral...
In a since you are correct but what defines morals? I believe that it is just the basic understanding that if you help your neighbor more than likely he will help you in return. And with that logic you will come to understand what is wrong with most of this world. Is it immoral to hate? Or is it just not what another believes at that given moment? Hate has not ever solved anything except the answer to why not to hate. Think about it.
jcg - How far into depravity must one go before someone says beyond this line lies immorality?
Honestly, IMHO, that is for each and every individual to define for his or her self. And again who are we to tell them that they are wrong? Are we wrong for telling them that they are wrong? What makes us so right?
JMO
I ask you this. If you were seriously asking that question, why does one need to feel morally outraged at all?
What defines outrage? What defines war? What defines right and wrong? Who are we to define anything?
IMHO, my answer is knowledge. We know what is right and wrong but we, as the human race, are so self-indulgent and self-centered that we cannot handle our own egos. As an examlpe, why does it take so much effort for one to take constructive criticism when that is all it is, constructive criticism? I mean someone might say to another wow I really like that but that part over there is a little to small. What is our "first" impulse? It is offensive. We might step back and see the forest for the trees at that point, but the first reaction is to retaliate in one form or another.
jcg spoke: To hold that morality is subject to the opinions of the actor means that there is no basis for doing anything moral...
In a since you are correct but what defines morals? I believe that it is just the basic understanding that if you help your neighbor more than likely he will help you in return. And with that logic you will come to understand what is wrong with most of this world. Is it immoral to hate? Or is it just not what another believes at that given moment? Hate has not ever solved anything except the answer to why not to hate. Think about it.
jcg - How far into depravity must one go before someone says beyond this line lies immorality?
Honestly, IMHO, that is for each and every individual to define for his or her self. And again who are we to tell them that they are wrong? Are we wrong for telling them that they are wrong? What makes us so right?
JMO
Jafo
Reply #108 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:52 AM
Reply #108 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:52 AM
Society creates the boundaries, not individuals....they just often overstep them and are punished for it by society....hence mad-bomber gets snuffed...
Probs arise when various physical and arbitrary borders are created....defining more than one 'society' which tries to exert its ideals regarding 'boundaries' upon others...
Probs arise when various physical and arbitrary borders are created....defining more than one 'society' which tries to exert its ideals regarding 'boundaries' upon others...
craeonics
Reply #110 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:25 AM
Reply #110 Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:25 AM
Yep, it's all just group behaviour. The group defines the standards and those that do not comply with them are cast out or dealt with.
But where did this turn from poking at religion into a social discussion?
But where did this turn from poking at religion into a social discussion?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 6 of 6 | |
|
|---|
Reply #101 Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:44 PM
One thing (among many) the Bible does give us is a set of absolutes. I don't think we are better off now that those absolutes have been largly discarded.