From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 16:48:17 BST
[Arlo]
Yeah, you see... Platt isn't just expressing love of Judeo-Christian
morals in gratitude that they are out there for other people to have. He
is making the argument that everyone in this nation should be subjugated
to that code. Then, he says that he only wishes certain aspects of the
moral code to be written into law, namely those parts that are about
controlling the lives of others.
For example. Gay marriage. Platt feels it should be illegal because it
violates the Judeo-Christian moral code. But, don't even think about
making a law stating business was illegal on Sunday/Saturday.
ERIN: Do you think you have to have a literal interpretation of the Bible to be a non-hypocritcal Christian??
ARLO: As for what is Platt like in his daily life, hell, I'd bet he's a good
guy. He's loving, considerate, and obviously has great insight into
aesthetics. If I knew him, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him from
time to time. If you think I argue with Platt out of dislike of Platt,
you are quite wrong. People I dislike I ignore. We may battle vehemently
and vocally on this list, but I consider Platt a Good man.
ERIN: Yeah I get that but what I hear on the list is how brilliant he is on interpreting MOQ, aesthetics, etc. and then you act like he becomes retarded when talking about politics. It doesn't make sense how that could happen. I don't understand his viewpoint but I do wonder if it being misunderstood by uppity people on this list
[Erin]
Ok so you want to talk a part about a particular sect of the wealthy
that bother you....Christian wealthy. Now if you are going to put
Amish and Christian ascetics as examples that! Platt shows disdain for
you are going to have show me examples because I missed that. Maybe
Platt has disdain for particular sects of the low-income too?
[Arlo]
Actually, no, I have no particular interest in discussing the christian
wealthy. They don't "bother me" really except when they get all upity up
about how "moral" they are.
Erin: sigh...what? I thought the very idea of a Christian being wealthy bothered you...it was hypocritical you said. So hypocrasy doesn't bother you now?
ARLO: Mostly, I ignore the lot of them. It's their
religion, and if they want to justify being wealthy and being followers
of Jesus, hey, I could care less. But when they start talking about
forcing their so-called "moral code" on me, well... I respond. But
that's as far as I need to take it, personally.
ERIN: see above....if you call them hypocrates and hypocracy bothers you then I just don't see how they wouldn't bother you
ARLO: Does Platt have disdain for the Amish. No, of course not, because they
aren't on social welfare. That's really where the crux of the dilemma
is. I think Platt, and many, many so-called christians are quite content
to ignore the poor. Its when they have to help, that they get all angry.
And that's another time I laugh at the hypocrisy. It's easy to "call
yourself a christian" (or a "this" or a "that"), but its another thing
to be called to action.
ERIN: right so don't hold up the Amish as examples if that is not really part of the issue
ARLO: But to clarify, the Amish aren't poor. They reject material wealth.
There is a difference. The same is true of asceticism. If the Amish
accepted social money for healthcare, you can bet they'd be on Platt's
radar.
ERIN: I don't know a lot about the Amish but I got the impression of that part of it was dislike of technology.....similar to the issues discussed in ZAMM.
[Arlo previously]
Isn't religion supposed to provide a sense of duty greater than "saving
one's own skin"?
[Arlo now]
Yes, I think that is what it was supposed to do (among other things).
Spirituality is at its core a means of finding connection and
commonality between the self and others, and the self and a
transcendent. Through these relationships, the individual would emerge
with an understanding and acceptance of life as something greater than
"his own skin".
ERIN: Well yes but where I was exploring this was when helping another person involved putting your own life at risk like the New Orleans hitchiking example. Personally I think but it is pure speculation that in this type of situation people would be more similar than different. Do you think a rich person be more likely to stop for a hitchiker than a poor person? Do you think a Buddhist be more likely to stop for a hitchiker than a poor person?
Also I think there are different means in finding those connections and some of them might not be "doing" something in your eyes.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 27 2005 - 17:23:23 BST