Chris ([info]randomchris) wrote,
@ 2003-03-09 20:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:aimless
Current music:Radiohead - OK Computer (just bought for 7.99)

I never know what to put here...
This journal is becoming rather too obsessed with my love life at the moment. This will stop soon, probably when I decide to have another self-enforced period of "not even trying" as opposed to the current "lots of things almost happening, but nothing really happening."

Just had coffee with J (43-year-old guy from church) - managed to get across the message that I didn't want a relationship with him, but was happy to be friends, which was nice.

Feeling quite guilty about the situation with F - I just feel I needed a few days to sort my head out, but I should have told him that. Airse. And I don't have his contact details, I just promised I'd see him at choir next Wed. Aaiirrsse. Anyway, I have now decided that I don't want to start a new relationship now unless it's one that I want to be permanent - I can't do short-term, as a Christian or as a person, it would just feel wrong.

B and I went out with seven American girls last night. Seven very friendly, very tactile American girls. And they all hugged us after we'd walked them home. So that was good. It was all strictly friendly though - again, since they're only here until May, nothing's going to happen from my point of view (probably).

Edinburgh University Symphony Orchestra need a new librarian, and I have been asked if I'd be on the committee. It's tempting, as there's so much stuff that could change, but as a non-student I don't feel that comfortable with it, and don't know if I'll have time - I will probably end up doing it if nobody else from Symphony wants to, though. Grr. (Although it does mean being on the committee with S...)

*mental note: must control scary stalker tendencies*

Well, this is a controversial one. Usually, I like these people individually but don't agree with their views (as with my friend Michael whose wedding I was at.) I don't believe we have any right to force our views upon others - this rules out evangelists. If people seem definitely interested in Christianity, or haven't had a chance to hear about it, then by all means tell them, but you have to give them space to make up their own minds. Christianity should be spread by example, not by rhetoric. I don't get along with people who take the Old Testament and all its prohibitions, bans and outdated traditions more seriously than the New Testament. I don't get along with people who take Paul's meditations on the life of Christ more seriously than the New Testament. There's a theme developing there. The most important thing for me about Christianity is the teachings of Jesus - these are what make us Christians, not the Bible. I hate disagreeing with people, but feel with these views that I have to. Their priorities are wrong.

Otherwise, went to church and sang and had our quarterly communion, then spent most of the day hungover, playing Grand Theft Auto (damn, it's addictive). Got a Radiohead CD for £7.99 and three Bob Marley CDs, £4.99 for the pack, in the HMV sale, which was the week's top bargain.

Dixon's were nice to me - I bought two print cartridges, and they had a three for two offer on, but only the two left that fitted my printer, so they gave me a note saying I can claim the free one next time they have it in stock.




(Post a new comment)


[info]nickys
2003-03-09 02:09 pm UTC (link)
> I don't believe we have any right to force our views upon others - this rules out evangelists.

Something that really annoys me is Christians who think that Christianity is the only way to lead a good and moral life.
It seems to me that there are many different religions and non-religious philosophies and moral systems, and any and all of them can inspire people to live well and to be decent people.

We were discussing this earlier tonight, oddly enough.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-11 02:40 am UTC (link)
I'm glad you were discussing this oddly.  Far too much of this debate is carried out as thought it were the gravest thing in the world!

I'm getting to like the Buddhist teaching that the knowledge of an existence or non-existence of God can only be determined in a state of enlightenment -- I particularly like the Zen approach to this.  I, personally, interpret that as saying that neither those who do believe in God, nor those who don't, really understand what God might be (or what beliefe or nonbelief might constitute) until they attain enlightenment.  Broadly, if God intersects with your soul in some way, the best way to understanding -- and transcending -- the question of His existence or otherwise is to know your soul, and by analogy, the souls of others.

I mean soul here in the sense in which you (the reader -- I am addressing you directly) have one, and not in the sense in which you do not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nickys
2003-03-15 12:04 pm UTC (link)
> I'm glad you were discussing this oddly. Far too much of this debate is carried out as thought it were the gravest thing in the world!

Well, I suppose if one subscribes to an organised religion then it is the gravest thing in the world from that perspective.

I agree with your idea of it not mattering whether or not God is in the spiritual equation or not.
For one thing, if God does exist he's big enough to take care of himself. Other human beings, on the other hand, are fragile in many ways and need help from others, so we should judge behaviour on the basis of how it affects other people, rather than on how it conforms to God's rules.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-16 04:03 am UTC (link)
Organized religion is probably the most harmful oxymoron in existence.

It does matter whether God is in the spiritual equation or not -- it's just not possible to understand why (or whether) right at first.

Is it not possible that God's rules are entirely based around how behaviour affects other people?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nickys
2003-03-16 04:22 am UTC (link)
> Is it not possible that God's rules are entirely based around how behaviour affects other people?

It's possible, but the first three of the ten commandments are :
1. "You shall have no other gods before me."
2. "You shall not make for yourself an idol…You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God!"
3. "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
which doesn't make it look like the rules are made with humanity as the priority.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-17 12:55 am UTC (link)
And the most important commandment is ... ?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nickys
2003-03-17 01:22 am UTC (link)
Well, I'd say the most important was to treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself.

Unfortunately there are some Christians who tell me that even if I do that I'll still be going to Hell unless I attend church regularly, so presumably they think that numbers 1-3 are the most important.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-17 01:59 am UTC (link)
That's the second most important by Christian rules.

Some Christians are not all Christians.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nickys
2003-03-17 03:58 am UTC (link)
> Some Christians are not all Christians

That's true.
I suppose the point is that not all Christians are good, and not all things done in the name of Christianity are good.
People can be good or bad (in terms of their interactions with other people), and whether or not they are Christian, some other religion, or no religion doesn't seem to make a fundamental difference to that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-17 04:03 am UTC (link)
This is largely true.

It's not unusual for people to assume that other people who share their beliefs are better.  This seems to go for all beliefs ... it isn't necessarily erroneous, but it can be.

There's a Raymond Smullyan story about two boys and a cake.  One suggests they share it, but the other wants it all for himself.  An adult comes along and suggests a compromise -- the boy who wanted the whole cake gets three-quarters ....

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nickys
2003-03-17 04:29 am UTC (link)
That story is so like a situation I'm in with my brother-in-law.

He behaved badly towards me over a period of six months, and after several failed attempts to resolve the situation by negotiation I finally said he wasn't allowed into my home again until he'd appologised and promised not to treat me that way any more.
So now I've got a bunch of idiots suggesting that as a "compromise" I should let him back into my home without any appologies from him or guarantees on his behaviour....

Ah well, as the late, great Douglas Adams said "People are a problem..."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-17 04:30 am UTC (link)
That's the summary of the summary of the summary, isn't it?

Ah, Douglas ....

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nickys
2003-03-17 05:10 am UTC (link)
That's the one.

He and Terry Pratchet are my favorite philosophers. :o)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…