Bob, Bob, just kill file him and get it over with.
I have and life is sweet.
You're not going to change his mind, (I almost added if he has one, but that would just be fueling the fire so to speak).
Oh that's right I did. Let me apologize in advance.
Bob Blakely wrote:
Yea, Antonio, I'm a Nazi. Go revel at the wondrous name you've tacked onto me. All the others on the list will be proud of you, send you many accolades, etc. Naw, they'll just be silent.
Regards, Bob...
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bob,
The Protestant Church and the Third Reich
http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/church/ keithpage/protesta.htm
Antonio
On 14 Jul 2004, at 20:23, Bob Blakely wrote:
This post appears intolerant, prejudiced and bigoted.
Every group of prople believe their "standards" are correct, and every group has some (group or self) proclaimed representatives who attempt to impose their standards on others, or "[by] seeking to persuade". Democrats, Republicans, Torys, Labor, Greenpeace, Socialists, Anarchists, Comunists, Parent Teacher Associations, Home Owner Associations. Some do this by advocacy, some by force of law, some by advocating law. Being that you are part of the human condition with us all, this includes your groug(s) as well. It's just that more groups are "more noble" than the ones you dislike.
You use terms like "often by very crude methods" thereby claiming the methods are "very crude" - a judgement from your own set of "standards" and most likely those of those groups and peoples with which you choose to associate because they espouse your stanards to form your own self reinforcing circle. You further characterize the frequency of these occurances which you do not wish to tolerate as "often." Really! Out of all the encounters you have with Christians (or other groups you hold in lesser regard) exactly how often are they seeking to "impose their standards on [you], or "seeking to persuade [you]"? What's the measure here?
"Christianity is advertised like soap powder in America"? Really! Exactly which shelf is it on?
As for "trying to impose their standards on others, or 'seeking to persuade'", isn't that exactly what you're attempting to do here? No? Just expressing your views? Can Christians do the same? If so, exactly how can they do this without violating your "standards" that define "imposing"?
Here you are "seeking to persuade" Collin, and by virtue of your public post, all on the list that Christians trying to impose their standards on others. Perhaps, but your post is an example of the same thing.
Thanks for this post. It's good to know where people stand, what they think of others. You might say that I am tolerant of tour intolerant post.
Regards, Bob...
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:21 AM Subject: Re: apologetic
Perhaps, Colin, if Christians weren't trying to impose their standards on others, or "seeking to persuade", often by very crude methods (Christianity is advertised like soap powder in America), people would be less likely to "make light" of some of their more bizarre hang-ups.
And as for not demeaning people like Moslems, a few months ago you posted a signature which was so pregnant with zenophobia that it took my breath away. And that of many others.
You reap what you sow.
John
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:36:25 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the most part discussion has been good. Most of the dissenting and various opinions have been civil and that is good. I also consider this to be "on topic" because we're discussing what we do with our cameras and why, what defines "art" and its appropriateness in various situations, and what is suitable and civil on PDML.
The issue of offense and motivation was an important. A couple of individuals seemd to think it humorous to offend with intent and with an antogistic tone. But most were more civil, voicing a variety of divergent opinions, and without hostility.
Art, as can words, be used to discuss issues. That discussion can be used to communicate history with a point, as one would see in the drawings from the Spanish Revolution. Sometimes its philosophical, with the supreme expressions of humanity from the religious humanists (the statue "David") or secular humanists (Rodan's "The Thinker"). The work of Maplethorpe is fascinating. He goes from some of the most beautiful stills I've ever seen to some very homoerotic material that isn't suitable for public display, well-suited to the term "obscene".
In the theological circles where I "hang out", it's a standard teaching and practice that when reaching out to other world views that one should not demean the contrary views. We're free to debate and discuss and seek to persuade but the principle is in place that we are never to deman by belittling or humiliating people or the position being held. We never make light of another person's sincerely-held beliefs.
When using art to communicate a thought, hardly anyone here would accept as suitable a photograph (in the same manner as we would assess word) composed in such a manner as to deman or ridicule blacks, homosexuals, moslems, jews, or anyone else for that matter. Nor would we accept as suitable any material which would do so less directly by making light of cultural or faith characteristics of any group.
Unless it's Christianity.
________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
