Oh, temptation.
Nov. 23rd, 2004 12:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptWell, the important bit first. Final Look tomorrow, for the Rose Bowl. Need luck and skill to make bowl block. Hope I've got the stuff for it.
Second, yay for Women's Basketball - they rallied, and the crowd got energized, and even though they threw bricks from the charity stripe for a large part of the second half, they were victorious.
Third, The Ancient Goddess Barbi, Don't throw a Brick Straight Up, folk singers may be mare raunchy than you thought, and Bradbury says we need more madmen.
The thesis works. Well, for now, anyway. More thought to arrive eventually, but I can't dig in full-force yet because I have a Greek Sport paper that needs to get done as well.
Last, I've been irked. And it was a good irk, too, being simple and not too long. Here it is, in its entirety:
You guys do know the first tenant of chivalry don't you? Honour the Lord your God with all your soul and All your might. Without this even the best intentions are meaningless.
Now, knowing what you do about me, and hopefully, the organization that would provide an appropriate context for such an irking, can you understand why I might be just a tiny bit put out at such a remark? The urge to snap back something somewhat vicious was quelled, of course, by the very nature of the thing that's taking a hit. Besides, I can understand his point of view, and my thesis research actually supports that religious activity is a necessary component of creating the ideal knight.
And for the medieval period, when there really wasn't much in the way of religious diversity or tolerance in the Latin world, the religious component would naturally be assumed to be Christian, or at the every least monotheistic. Since the organization wants to promote a chevalerie moderne, the substance of the argument stays valid. A religious (even atheism is a religion IMHO) component is necessary to the ideal. However, I reject (rather forcefully) the implication that Christianity is the only acceptable component to the ideal. I would like to explain as much to the person who sent the mail, but I have suspicions that it may be misinterpreted and some sort of flame will arise from attempted explanations.
Can someone suggest wording that would allow me to drive the point home with a minimum of margin of error? Or would it be best simply to let such things pass on by?
Second, yay for Women's Basketball - they rallied, and the crowd got energized, and even though they threw bricks from the charity stripe for a large part of the second half, they were victorious.
Third, The Ancient Goddess Barbi, Don't throw a Brick Straight Up, folk singers may be mare raunchy than you thought, and Bradbury says we need more madmen.
The thesis works. Well, for now, anyway. More thought to arrive eventually, but I can't dig in full-force yet because I have a Greek Sport paper that needs to get done as well.
Last, I've been irked. And it was a good irk, too, being simple and not too long. Here it is, in its entirety:
You guys do know the first tenant of chivalry don't you? Honour the Lord your God with all your soul and All your might. Without this even the best intentions are meaningless.
Now, knowing what you do about me, and hopefully, the organization that would provide an appropriate context for such an irking, can you understand why I might be just a tiny bit put out at such a remark? The urge to snap back something somewhat vicious was quelled, of course, by the very nature of the thing that's taking a hit. Besides, I can understand his point of view, and my thesis research actually supports that religious activity is a necessary component of creating the ideal knight.
And for the medieval period, when there really wasn't much in the way of religious diversity or tolerance in the Latin world, the religious component would naturally be assumed to be Christian, or at the every least monotheistic. Since the organization wants to promote a chevalerie moderne, the substance of the argument stays valid. A religious (even atheism is a religion IMHO) component is necessary to the ideal. However, I reject (rather forcefully) the implication that Christianity is the only acceptable component to the ideal. I would like to explain as much to the person who sent the mail, but I have suspicions that it may be misinterpreted and some sort of flame will arise from attempted explanations.
Can someone suggest wording that would allow me to drive the point home with a minimum of margin of error? Or would it be best simply to let such things pass on by?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-23 06:30 pm (UTC)With regards to a reply, now that I've thought a little bit about it, I think it would be interesting to invoke the passage about the separation of the people at the end of time. You know, "When I was hungry, you gave me food", etc, "When did we do these things? Whenever you did these things to the least of my people, then you did them to me." (Matthew 25:33 to 25:46) There's no specific reference to needing to be a Christian to perform those deeds and be welcomed into heaven, only that those deeds need be performed. Good idea, or bad idea?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 06:37 pm (UTC)Regarding quoting the New Testament and that bit in particular... good idea, if presented more as a question than a challenge (picking holes in someone's ideas by quoting something they regard as authoritative but you don't being a good way to irritate them). Matt. 21:28 also suggests deeds are more important than declared loyalty without deeds; might be brought up in any protracted exchange. Romans 2:12-15 likewise.