Re: Magic Menstrual Mummies

On May 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Karl Swenson wrote:

>> Well, challenge him on the specifics then. Don't just act all  
>> offended
>> that he believes differently than you do, trying to get him to back
>> down and apologize.
>>
>> **I didn't say anything of the sort.  My only personalization was my
>> saying that I felt his tone was arrogant since he implies that anyone
>> not similarly enlightened as himself is ignorant.
>
> No, I suggested there were 2 groups of evangelicals.  1.) The ignorant
> - those who are uneducated to the knowledge or *ignore* the  
> knowledge.  and
> 2.) The educated  leaders - who are knowledgeable enough to know,  
> but for
> whatever reason refused to teach us.
>
>
> ***Only two groups?  Nice

Sure, there are others, but for the purposes of this argument, I only  
wanted to make a distinction between who I believe Frank is actually  
addressing (group 2).  and some of the rest of the evangelical world  
(the ignorant) in order to shield them somewhat from his rebuke.

Would you prefer I use a different the word, uninformed, misguided, ?   
I think ignorant fits - a lack of awareness or knowledge.

> Group 1.) has an excuse, group 2.) does not.
>
> ***Not by your standards.   if Group 1 *ignores* the knowledge they  
> are no
> longer blameless, are they?

I don't think I said they were blameless, but perhaps *less* blameless  
than group 2.  And I don't think Frank is mocking the ignorant, but  
rather group 2, as represented by his parents.  If the ignorant take  
offense, then that is another issue, but not what Frank is getting at,  
I don't think anyway.  I shouldn't speak for him.
I just can kind of relate to him, given my upbringing.

>> **he wasn't implying opinion, he was implying a factual ignorance of
>> God and Christianity in general, not just of a sect.
>
> Yes, you are correct, I was implying ignorance of God and  
> Christianity in
> general.
>
> ***and as such I think you have stepped beyond opinion to  
> arrogance.  Hubris
> even.  I think you do an unfair disservice to many evangelicals in the
> process, something moderately unchristian.

I'm not being intentionally arrogant.  I'm just stating the facts as I  
see them.  I think most evangelicals are ignorant (unaware,  
unknowledgeable) of the nature of God and Christianity in general.   
And their leadership has done them a great disservice by taking them  
in the direction they have.
How many evangelical Christians know about the 2 natures of Christ,  
know the heresies of arianism and gnosticism are, even know what the  
word "catholic" means...these are fundamental (and FWIW are implicit  
in the Nicene Creed).   How many even know what a sacrament is, what  
it should mean to us as Christians?
I submit very few do.  Or if they do, they know in knowledge only, and  
not experientially lived out in the life of the church.

> ***each has their own criteria, we make our own choices.   I at this  
> point I
> live in a more gray area as I cannot see why any particular sect is  
> any
> better than the others.

How about Mormon?

regards,
-Lance

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot