|
| At revelife, I read a story about a Catholic mystified by Baptists who thought Catholics were going to hell, and who refused to attend a wedding where alcohol would be served. My response:
I was a Baptist, and I can tell you there are many types of Baptists. A lot believe in abstaining from alcohol, but not all believe in staying away from anyone else who is drinking. And some, even pastors, do drink, but drinking to the point of drunkenness is definitely off the table for "good" Baptists.
I find it hypocritical for the Baptists in your story to refuse to attend a wedding where there is alcohol. The first miracle Jesus performed was at a wedding where wine was served, and he even made wine after the guests had consumed all of the host's wine. From the context of the story, it is clear that people were definitely getting drunk, and apparently, Jesus did his part to keep the buzz going.
Certain conservative Protestants believe that Catholics aren't real Christians, and are therefore going to hell unless they are "saved." In my experience, those Protestants are in a tiny minority. I do not recall running into any Baptists who insisted that Catholics were going to hell, though I know they exist. But then, I was under the relatively "liberal" wing of the American Baptist denomination (notice I said relatively).
No, not all Baptists are judgmental, anti-Catholic, teetotaler jerks like the ones in your story. There are American Baptists, Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Free Will Baptists, and just plain Baptists, to name a few of the varieties. Some focus on grace, some focus on hell, and some focus on arcane points of scripture that have nothing to do with anything at all relevant to living a good life.
From what you say in your story, it looks like your Catholic upbringing didn't focus so much on hell. But I do know that doctrine is accepted by the Catholic church, and at the risk of sounding as judgmental as these Baptist parents, it's a ridiculous and harmful doctrine, no matter whether it's accepted by a Baptist or a Catholic. Is God not good, loving and just? If so, then no person who lives a good life will be condemned when they die, and certainly no person deserves to burn in hell forever. The doctrine of eternal damnation by a loving God defies all logic, perverts attitudes about justice and morality, and strains relationships between people of different beliefs.
| | |
| I just read something that made me mad. A parent was complaining about how long the list of school supplies was for her daughter. In the post, this parent demonstrated not only ignorance of everything that goes into educating children, but a pretty uncharitable attitude. Here is my response:
Ok, so you admit that schools' budgets are tighter these days. So my question to you is, if the taxpayers and the parents do not meet the material needs of students in public schools, then who will?
I know the answer. The teachers. I am a teacher, and in my experience, and the experience of peers with whom I have spoken, we are the ones who pick up the slack when school districts or parents cannot or will not cover these costs. It's either that, or let the students' education suffer, and most teachers I know would rather reach into their own pockets than allow that to happen. Now where is the fairness in that, especially since most teachers are not payed what they deserve, and it is your children who are being educated?
I notice among your list of "no's" are the disinfecting wipes. Since you are a parent, I'm surprised you don't recognize the importance of preventing the spread of communicable diseases in schools. These diseases (the common cold, the flu, etc.) are a tremendous drain on productivity and resources (teachers, students, and the parents who have to stay home with sick kids), not to mention a menace to health, the most precious thing anyone can have. Disinfectant lotions and wipes are not an optional supply, but an essential one. The mission of educating cannot be accomplished when kids are ill. There many other "no's" on your list that, for anyone who has ever educated children, are known to be indispensable, but disinfectant is the most important one.
You complain about how extensive the list is, but did you stop to consider that many other families might not even be able to afford any of them? It is common for such lists to include more than any individual student will need, because teachers know that some kids' parents simply cannot afford any of it, and in hopes that any excess can be distributed to those less fortunate. Ask yourself if you're really in such a bad spot financially that you cannot afford to be one of those charitable parents who goes above and beyond the call of duty. If your kids do not get free or reduced lunch at school, then you should seriously consider the possibility that you can afford to be so charitable, even if it is "unfair."
After all, it's certainly not fair the additional obstacles to a good education that a child of poverty must face not only at school, but at home. I've taught children whose families couldn't even afford pencils or crayons to keep at home, or who didn't have a single book at home, let alone a dictionary or internet access. If these kids' need for exploration and expression aren't met at home, where will they be met?
| | |
| In response to revelife's "3 Ways That Christians Can Approach Atheists Better," I wrote: "One of the big reasons that I see the Atheists giving for not wanting anything to do with the Christians is just how downright MEAN the Christians can be. Condemnation, punishment, damnation, burning in Hell fire, and similar vocabulary needs to be replaced with the words love..."
But, according to Christian doctrine, are atheists not going to hell unless they change their unbelieving ways? No amount of language softening changes the hard fact that, according to (non-liberal) Christian doctrine, atheists are headed to eternal damnation, and they deserve such punishment. The problem is not just that Christians are too mean in these discussions, it's that their god is too mean. What good is a change in language if the belief itself remains? I find what you suggest to be dishonest. "The core of the Theism vs. Atheism debate has moved past the simple question 'Is there a God?' Really, this key question really can't be answered definitively by either side."
Not so, at least when it comes to the question of whether a standard Christian conception of God is congruent with reality. The Christian doctrines of God's perfect justice and love, and God's eternal damnation of unbelieving sinners, are irreconcilable. This Christian God is definitively disproven by the incompatiblity of these beliefs about God. I wonder, if you really believe that this question of God's existence cannot be definitively answered, why you are not an agnostic. One final niggle: capitalizing "Atheist" is non-standard, and not done by most atheists, as it is suggestive of the notion that atheism is a belief-system. It is not. It is merely dismissal of belief in any gods. | | |
| I pretty much despise local news, for many reasons. They always brag about being the first to report something. They sensationalize weather, often over-interrupting shows to give you the latest on some developing storm system, but usually not telling you anything they didn't tell you when they last interrupted 5 minutes ago. They supplanted the entire season finale of The Office recently with their storm coverage. Sure, they provide a valuable service by informing certain residents in their broadcast area who may be in danger from tornadoes, high water and winds. But they can perform this service just as well with a few updates and a constant screen crawl. They do this extra, repetitive nonsense just so they can brag about how they have the best local weather coverage. Another annoying thing they do is saturate their nightly broadcast with teasers about some story, typically with such stock phrases as "the answer may surprise you," or the ominous, self-congratulatory "you won't believe what we uncovered." The story, of course, isn't presented until the very end of the broadcast, and it is invariably not nearly as interesting or important as they made it out to be. Another thing that irks me is the poor spelling and grammar that crops up all too often in their graphics. One would hope that a team of journalists would have the education and dedication to their craft to avoid letting boneheaded errors make it into their broadcast, especially when such tools as instant grammar and spell check are so readily available these days. Yet I see, on an almost daily basis, such errors as this: extraneous apostrophes on pluralized words, or "Babtist" instead of "Baptist." Yes, this misspelling actually occurred on the local news, and in a region where Baptists are the religious majority—I drive past about a dozen of their churches to get to mine. Just last night, there was a story about how recent graduates are having difficulty finding jobs. The title: "Where's the Jobs?"! Hmmm… good question. Where is the jobs? Is they in journalism? If they is, a college degree in a language arts-related discipline is clearly optional. I guess I'm just some sort of language strict-police guy (<==very funny video!). | | |
| One of the bloggers to whom I subscribe posted on this subject. His post was a chain thing, but I'm doing it independently, just because it seems interesting. 1. When seated at a desk or table, I rearrange pens, pencils, scissors, knives and other pointy objects so that they point away from me. I do not believe there is any appreciable improvement in safety as a result of this activity, but I do it anyway. I imagine these objects spontaneously traveling toward me and jabbing me, and it makes me uncomfortable. I pride myself on being a generally rational, un-superstitious person, but this is one of those things I have trouble shaking. I know it makes no sense, but the thought is present and strong, and it affects my actions. At least it is harmless. If you think this is weird, consider that even into my early college career, I would disarrange pairs of shoes so that they were not lined up with each other. I would do this, because if I didn't, I would imagine Satan or a demon standing invisibly in the lined-up pair of shoes. It made me very uncomfortable, so I would mix up the shoes, "just in case." I even stopped hanging up my red graduation gown in the closet, because I would imagine Satan hanging out in it. If it were rumpled in a heap on the floor, Satan could not "inhabit" it, according to my imagination. I had these thoughts, even as my personal Bible studies and philosophical explorations drew me inexorably toward materialism, naturalism and atheism. 2. One habit of thought of mine is a "what-if" semi-compulsion regarding heights. When near the edge of a high drop-off with little or no safety barrier, the thought of just jumping off the edge, or at least creeping as close as I can to it, becomes attractive to me, and does battle with my instinct for self-preservation. I do not desire death, and I'm so scared of rollercoasters and other such rides that I won't even go on the "tame" ones. I have the thought in my mind that this would be the ultimate test of reality. I think "Would I really die if I jumped? There's only one way to find out..." I've experienced these thoughts since early elementary school, when the roof access to the six-story apartment building we lived in was left open, and I crept with a friend to the edge and peeked over it. Related thoughts and activities include a semi-compulsion toward dropping my keys or wallet through a grate (again, to "test reality"), and tossing various knives in the air to see if I can safely catch them by the handle after 1, 2 or 3 rotations. The latter activity I recently discontinued after a close call (I still have all 10 fingers and all 10 toes, and I'd like to keep it that way). 3. Speaking of knives: I use my fork and knife in a way that, in my experience, is unique. I suppose you could call it a semi-American, reverse-European style. I always use my right hand to operate the fork, using it as a skewer, a shovel and a cutter, much as many Americans do. I always use my left hand to operate the knife for sawing items such as meat. I never switch knife and fork between hands, as Americans do before and after making a cut. I've tried cutting with the knife in the right hand, and it just feels wrong, and I get clumsy. I've tried always using the fork in the left hand, as the Europeans do, but it again feels wrong and clumsy. For me, the European way seems backwards for a right-hander, and the American way seems needlessly complex. I think it bizarre that more people do not use my method, but I suppose I'm the bizarre one. 4. I find it hard to sleep without earplugs. I've used them ever since taking the GRE, when I acquired a pair for the sake of concentration. I used to sleep just fine without them, but now I find them indispensible. In the past decade, I can only think of 1 night when I slept without them, and that was not by choice. 5. Speaking of sleeping, I've developed a very particular arrangement for that activity. I sleep on my left or right side--never on my back or stomach. I have three pillows (sometimes four), each of them of different size and density, and each with a specific function. The thin pillow goes between my knees, the middle pillow goes under my head, and the thick one I hug. The fourth (optional) pillow is a dense one filled with feathers, and sometimes goes over my ear, for extra noise blocking. I sleep with a pillow case or T-shirt over my eyes, to block light. I've tried face-masks, but they are uncomfortable, and still let in too much light around the edges. I prefer my sleeping area cave-like, with light-obscuring blinds, glowing clock displays and other such light sources minimized, and no draft or fan wind unless it's really really hot. I also hate being touched while sleeping, especially my feet. I've been known to say very mean things and physically threaten people who try to wake me, and I remember none of this when I do get up. What are your weird habits? Can you top my weirdest? | | |
|
