doug, you're all about analyzing the sado-masochist aspects of catholicism... ya think there's something to it?
speaking of which, I read this come across a coworker's facebook SU. It reminded me of Doug's fascination with the sexualized character of some christian rhetoric:
"God is not a puppeteer. He is not forcing us to do anything, but rather, he desires us to use our free will for his purpose. To surrender our will to his. This is true love and shows that we really desire him."
And there, throughout, there was discussion of the importance of suffering, etc. Great stuff to read to understand at least one strand of evangelical thinking:
"In the natural, we still have to do things to survive in this realm. Even though we have surrendered to God, we are still subject to this world. Though we are not of the world, we are in the world and we must meet the requirements of this realm to survive."
I love how they set themselves up as "in Christ" versus the rest of us "in the World." I also love how this exegesis OKays being pigs: gotta do what ya gotta do to survive "in the World."
"Adam and Eve were punished by work and pain. These things are still in play and we must work jobs and suffer pain in this life because of man's fall. We cannot avoid these things because we are saved, but we must endure and comply with these things in the natural to live this life.
The difference between us (God's people) and them (the world)
is spiritual. 1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and
the whole world lieth in wickedness. We still have to work, eat,
sleep, take care of ourselves, etc. just like the world. The only
difference is our will should be surrendered to God and not
ourselves. We practice self denial daily because of this and we
do not seek to do our own thing."
<http://www.true-church.org/bs2.pdf>http://www.true-church.org/bs2.pdf
At 02:20 PM 8/28/2011, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>At 02:05 PM 8/28/2011, Joseph Catron wrote:
>>On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:01 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
>>
>>It creates a hiearchy of who is more oppressed
>> >
>>
>>But being affected by a hurricane, or any other natural phenomenon, ISN'T
>>BEING OPPRESSED in and of itself. I don't know how much more self-evident a
>>statement could be.
>
>
>I understand that, but carrol's talking about your method. you've already
>said that you agree that some people are more oppressed and it is with
>those groups we should engage in political struggle.
>
>I'm saying that your response is like a rorshach test: if you sympathize
>with that view of course you're going to mock your privileged western
>friends for being wusses. you're saying to them, "jeez. if you had clue
>about the suffering oppression of others across the world, you wouldn't
>complain and realize you sound like babies."
>
>this sounds like mothers who say, "finish your beer. there are sober
>children in india..."
>
>wait, I mean they say, "eat your broccoli. there are starving children in
>ethiopia you ungrateful little snot!"
>
>LOL
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)