Take Christ out of Christmas
I have a suggestion for Christians.
Please take Christ out of Christmas. Now.
I don't think he would want to have anything to do with it to be quite honest.
While you are at it, take Christ out of the word Christian. Why? Because you suck as a representative. You really do.
So starting now, if I was you, I would begin to work really hard at disassociating Christ from everything you hold so dear... and you might as well start with Christmas. Oh, and your church...that would be a good idea to.
He's really better off on his own without you.
Please take Christ out of Christmas. Now.
I don't think he would want to have anything to do with it to be quite honest.
While you are at it, take Christ out of the word Christian. Why? Because you suck as a representative. You really do.
So starting now, if I was you, I would begin to work really hard at disassociating Christ from everything you hold so dear... and you might as well start with Christmas. Oh, and your church...that would be a good idea to.
He's really better off on his own without you.
posted by Steve at
12/16/2007
59 Comments:
Steve,
Wow! I think you just nailed it. The manifesto of SCP typed out in white letters on a black background. You may as well stop blogging now that you have reached the pinnacle of revelations. :-)
It needs to be said!
Dave
ps Um, don't stop blogging, okay.
Dave: LOL!
BTW, Steve, don't you mean we should take Christ back out of Christmas and return it to the pagans? ;)
I was about to bug you about not blogging, and here you go.
By the way, I went to church today. It's awkward.
Yes yes, now mock the Jews as well! Of Course, any and all "Buddhists" that have not yet reached enlightenment should do the same. How dare they claim to be followers of the Buddha?
Come on; Grow up! You think we're surprised that we don't live up to a prefect standard? Are you kidding me with this sophomoric crap? Steve, I've come to expect more from you.
This seems like a response to something. It's as if some "stupid church person" said something ignorant to you for the first time in your life and you just vomitted out the first thing that came to mind.
What happened? (Or am I way off... I'm not perfect after all so it wouldn't exactly be the first time.)
Isn't this just a more aggressive way to say, "Don't call yourself a Christian if you can't act like one"? I would expect that message to come from a more fundamentalist voice. Normally, you (Steve) would correct those who question the "Christianity" of others.
That's just an observation, not to be taken as a hostile comment in any way.
In fact, my thoughts are very similar to yours sometimes when I see people who call themselves Christians do things regularly that the Bible speaks against.
I wonder how many people are turned off by these lukewarm "Christians." Jesus is more of a fad and label than a real God to be worshiped and served.
And as you suggest, I wonder how bad a representative I am myself, and should I even point fingers.
It would be better to let someone else label me a Christian, than for me to give myself that title.
"He's really better off on his own".
I'd be inclined to agree with you Steve, except for the fact that He doesn't seem to think so. Thank God I'm accepted on His terms not yours.
Brad - Yes yes, now mock the Jews as well! Of Course, any and all "Buddhists" that have not yet reached enlightenment should do the same. How dare they claim to be followers of the Buddha?
Now that's sophomoric. Or moronic. Not sure which.
And yes, this is in response to years of hearing people (including myself) say "Keep Christ in Christmas" and a push to "return" Christmas to some glorious meaning. Why? Just take him out of it. If you believe in Christ, don't you also believe he's above such "sophomoric" holidays like this and Easter. Largely Christians use this holiday to manipulate people with guilt anyway... and that's very un-Christlike isn't it?
Jimmy Bob - It would be better to let someone else label me a Christian, than for me to give myself that title.
Agreed JB. Well said.
Sheildsy - Thank God I'm accepted on His terms not yours.
Are you certain about that?
<3<3<3
I agree, I disagree, I was hurt by your accusations, You make me angry, That was so honest it was amazing.
You are all gay. Why even respond to a petty ignorant rant.
I mean, c'mon, the only person who had something decent got called a moron by our resident ranter, "Steve- the insane, angry kinda-christian guy".
I used to think your posts were thought provoking and meaningful. Sarcasm surely has a place in critical thinking about the church. But for me, anyway, this post is just too filled with vitriol and unkindness. The church makes an easy target at Christmas, especially from the outside. This was just mean and will finally force me off the list. I hope some day you can make your peace with us Stupid Church People.
Steve, you had me at "take Christ out of Christmas"!
But then you lost me at taking Him out of the church. Though I do not argue the fallacy of the "church building" disease we are all plagued with, how do you remove Christ from the Church? And why would you want to?
I have been saying for years that all these titles, not the least of which being "Christian" (BTW I second JB's comment about naming), are way overrated and abused, but are you simply bucking a tag, or are you forsaking the presence and relationship with Christ?
Maybe I'm reading a little to deep into your words, but I'd rather work to keep Christ at the center of a broken church (building and body) than to remove Him from our lives. I think I understand that is addressed to Joe SCPerson, but don't you think that Christ has enough love for him too?
Merry X-mas 2ya...ughh...I just threw up in my mouth a little!
Marc - I didn't call Brad a moron, I called what he said moronic. And by that I mean that his "now mock the Jews as well" line of reasoning is a logical fallacy plain and simple.
But if you'd like, I can say something about how stupid I think my Jewish neighbor is for not letting me put lights on her house to make our connected townhomes look uniform. Her reason: I am Jewish and we don't celebrate Christmas. Oy vey!
Rev. Wayne - If this is the post that takes you "off the list" then I am glad you stuck around this long. This is hardly vitriolic. This is hardly unkind. This (to me at least) is clearly in defense of Christ (nothing more or less).
Do you think Christmas as it stands is worthy of Christ? Do you think that churches in most of their forms is worthy of Christ? Do you think that many Christians that claim Christ when it's convenient or comfortable or when he just happens to fit their mold of who and what he should be - do you think they are worthy of Christ? Nothing and no one is actually worthy of him, so why do we constantly have to label or define things or try to capture them as uniquely "Christian".
The church is an easy target because it wants to be. It likes being the center of attention as do many pastors. Christ usually takes a back seat in most local churches... wouldn't you agree? This is a thought provoking post... if one is willing to think. I was intentionally vague and general in order to invoke discussion. Rev. Wayne, I thought you liked to dialogue, but maybe I was wrong. I guess we will find out.
LowEnd - See above for my response... but in addition... if you believe in Christ, my question is can you truly take him out of anything? You can't take him out of anything more than you can "keep" him in anything.
Christians spend so much damn energy trying to "keep" God and Christ in things.... schools, government, entertainment, all of the holidays, etc. The culture will never accept the things it cannot understand...so relax. Just let it be. Let him be.
This sounds a lot like what I posted about a month ago.
I think the capilism that is Christmas today would be more aptly called Walmart day or Capitalism day.
Happy Fourth Quarter Profits to all. May your sweatshop elves in China be blessed.
I went to Church Sunday. Big mistake. No depth just Christmas cookie theology. If Pastors are supposed to feed you, then at this time of year, they only feed us junk food.
Enjoy Christmas however you want but please dont associate Jesus with this abomination of money worship
I thank God that Christ is my savior, God is my judge and Steve Chastain is a frustrated Christian blogger with an opinion.
The Church (as in the body of all believers) is in Christ. The problem is people who put Christ in the church (the buildings and earthly organizations). Clearly those in the church are not all in the Church.
Steve - If I understand this post correctly, I definately see your point. I would suggest we could discuss this without such a high level of sarcasm and double speak.
I agree with what you've said except for one thing. I don't think Christ is in most churches so how can He be removed? At least none of the ones I've ever attended.
Christmas is what you choose to see in it. No more, no less.
I love the wide sweeping generalizations this blob always posts.
It's as if EVERY Christian is a fraud, fake, mega-church, self righteous, ass.
Thanks for the encouragement SCP. I'm sure you are doing God's work...
I am amazed at how sensitive some of us are to what is intended at an opportune reminder that we do not 'own' Christ. We might be a part of the life Jesus, but Jesus is not owned by the Church, or by Christians! Jesus is to be found wherever life is lived - much of which is outside of the Church. Perhaps is is more helpful for those of us who are Christ-followers to leave the confines of the church to find out where Jesus is active in our world.
Church: people gather in fellowhip, because it is in our nature to spend time with one another. To laugh, to cry, to worship, and to grow.
Christ: the invisible synapse that exists in and around all of us. The trick is choosing to reckognize and embrace Him. And then, understanding that He is the very purpose for the gathering (for existance).
People get toghether all the time (with or without stained glass), and Christ will always be there. The real question is, are we there for us, or for Him.
Much of today's church has found a million other things with which to concern itself, other than the one thing that it was designed to be: the Bride.
We love to talk about "enviting" Christ, or "removing" Him...as if such a thing were even possible. God has made it as easy (and as seemingly impossible) as simply acknowledging Him. He takes care of the rest, once we are willing to loosen our grip on that which we can not control.
Becky - Most churches want Christ in the church. Some just want to keep him in the closet.
People threatening to leave, emotional rants about faith, and defenses on both sides playing a great game - wow – that is just a statement y'all.
I am not sure what Steve said actually offends me – maybe Christmas is not Christ-like? Maybe the church is not Christ-like? Maybe some people that claim this faith are not acting Christ-like?
We all know aspects of each of those statements are true. I love Christmas but not because anywhere in my faith it’s a requirement. I think church has some of the greatest ability to be one of the strongest, most caring communities on the planet – but is it? Does he church even reflect that early community in Acts? And I call myself a Christian – yet even this term was not invented by people that followed this faith – but by observers of the faith (according to Acts).
I think the points are valid – we may not agree with Steve about it all – but we also need to ask ourselves the same question ‘why did he say it’? I think it is easy to get defensive about the claims made – and maybe it is leveled at us in the faith – but so what – is there no problems with our faith? Well, maybe that’s the point – there is and maybe we can address that – in a civil manner – not in a civil war manner.
I think they are claims worth addressing (although I did not really address them myself).
During my rare church visit this Sunday, the pastor suggested that for the Christmas service, since it was God's birthday, that everybody should bring a "gift for God." Which meant an extra donation to the building fund.
Donation to building fund = gift to God.
I don't know, man. Draw your own conclusions. If you love church, love it with all your heart. I used to as well. Just don't pretend that your local church is "God's House," is all I'm asking. Don't conflate your congregation or your building with the invisible, universal, transcendent Church.
I'm just really, really done with church and Churchianity. I don't find the slightest thing wrong with this post. If it helps just one believer to get his or her head out of cultural Christianity long enough to think that Yeah--something may actually be really wrong around here--then bless Steve for saying it.
But the post doesn't really talk about church, except as an afterthought. The post speaks directly to the individual believer's inability to live up to Christ. In my reading, it says that if you can't get it right, stop trying.
Yikes.
Soceityvs
I don't see too much civility coming from Steve on this one. So if some of the responses have been harsh, it's to be expected. He could have been civil about this, but chose to be harsh. Probably that's what he was feeling when he blogged. A statement such as: "He's really better off on his own without you" is a harsh statement and on that suggets Steve knows what's good for Jesus, moreso than Jesus does.
Zeke
I have more problems with the pastor's statement that it's God's birthday, for two reasons. One it says that God was born and has not always existed eternally. Second, if he'd read his Bible he'd see in the scriptures that the shepherds were tending their flocks by night. It's way too cold to tend to flocks by night this time of year in the Middle East. So a spring time birth for Jesus is more likely. Maybe I'm reading too much into it or examining his statement too closely, but that's just what jumped out at me.
"I don't see too much civility coming from Steve on this one. So if some of the responses have been harsh, it's to be expected." (Zecryphon)
Okay - why? Are these not the same people of faith that are biting at him (Steve) that have directly in front of them the teachings of Jesus on 'not fighting back' and 'being peacemakers' - who are filled with God's Spirit (ie: so they know God really good) - and follow the teachings of Jesus? So, why should any Christian respond to this in a manner of anger?
If you ask me, anger is an easy one to do - acceptance and love are not - so we always jump for the lowest common denominator first. But that ain't very Christian now is it? So take the Christ out of Christian - get it?
Hey, just a reminder, this is a site called Stupid Church People. You get what you pay for. Sometimes I am naughty and once in a while I am nice. The rest of the time I am always right. Heh!
Sometimes it pays to be civil and sometimes it doesn't. (See Jesus throwing people out of the temple and overturning tables... also see Jesus calling the Pharisees names).
And Dorsey... The post speaks directly to the individual believer's inability to live up to Christ. You nailed it.
In my reading, it says that if you can't get it right, stop trying. Uhhh... and that would be YOUR complete interpretation of what I wrote. Maybe you should look at that.
Zec: A statement such as: "He's really better off on his own without you" is a harsh statement and on that suggets Steve knows what's good for Jesus, moreso than Jesus does.
Again... that's your interpretation.
Jesus is better off on his own without me that's for sure... for some reason though he insanely continues to invite malcontents, whiners and doubters to accompany him in the gospels. Wasn't Jesus constantly "thinning the herd" so to speak. His statements were so harsh that the gospels say that many stopped following him because of his hard teachings. I didn't make up the idea.
So I said it "harshly" and was straight to the point in my post. I was vague and general and wanted to create a dialogue (which we have been having and I enjoy it). I left the interpretation up to you. Sometimes things mean what you want them to mean irregardless of what the person says. You hear what you want to hear.
If it means to stop trying and you really believe that...then go stop trying. If it means you think this site is a bad influence in your life and you shouldn't read it anymore... then remove me from your "list". If you think it is sophomoric crap and you want to ignore it... ignore it. If it means that you think I am wrong in what I wrote, but are challenged to keep Christ in Christmas, more at the center of your church and your daily life... then go for it.
I don't see any of the above conclusions wrong. It is what it is.
Zec: A statement such as: "He's really better off on his own without you" is a harsh statement and on that suggets Steve knows what's good for Jesus, moreso than Jesus does.
"Again... that's your interpretation."
Yep.
"Jesus is better off on his own without me that's for sure... for some reason though he insanely continues to invite malcontents, whiners and doubters to accompany him in the gospels. Wasn't Jesus constantly "thinning the herd" so to speak. His statements were so harsh that the gospels say that many stopped following him because of his hard teachings. I didn't make up the idea."
I know you didn't make up the idea. Yes the herd thinned when Jesus challenged them with a hard teaching or a truth they didn't want to hear. Also, when they found out there was more to Jesus than a free meal, alot of people left. But the things Jesus said were true, the things you say seem to be generalizations of the church at large, and mainly the non-denom, mega-church at large.
"So I said it "harshly" and was straight to the point in my post. I was vague and general and wanted to create a dialogue (which we have been having and I enjoy it). I left the interpretation up to you. Sometimes things mean what you want them to mean irregardless of what the person says. You hear what you want to hear."
The statement really speaks for itself Steve. You've said "that's my interpretation of it", good. Now, what's yours?
"If it means to stop trying and you really believe that...then go stop trying."
What is it I'm supposed to be trying to do as a Christian? This isn't a religion based upon works, as you know. So what is it I'm supposed to be doing, that you feel I, or in the more general sense, Christians as a whole are not?
"If it means you think this site is a bad influence in your life and you shouldn't read it anymore... then remove me from your "list"."
Never said that. Never implied that. This must be your interpretation of what I said. LOL
"If you think it is sophomoric crap and you want to ignore it... ignore it. If it means that you think I am wrong in what I wrote, but are challenged to keep Christ in Christmas, more at the center of your church and your daily life... then go for it."
Whoa, the words "sophmoric crap" never came from me and never will. I don't know where you're getting this from, but I don't think it's from anything I wrote.
"I don't see any of the above conclusions wrong. It is what it is."
I'm not saying you're wrong. Perhaps you're just overgeneralizing or maybe you're suffering the effects that come from analyzing everything the church does. I get this way too, so I know it's not how you generally are.
As for Jesus being better off without us, if that were true, why would He die on the cross so we could be reconciled to God if He is better off without us? That doesn't make sense to me.
Zec... you don't read other people's comments do you?? I was summing up a lot of what people wrote in the comments above. Not just you.
Maybe you want to delete this and do it again.
As for my interpretations of what I wrote... read the comments. I think I am pretty clear on some points.
No, I did read the others comments and figured that you might be referring to their comments. Nah, I don't feel like going through this again. Do you have an answer to my question though? If not, that's cool. I don't have a lot of time here so I'll just wish you and all the people who read and post at SCP a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
I think...Zec won? LOL
In word count, for sure
That was interesting. When I was new to blogging, I would probably have taken this whole post negatively and wondered why any "Christian" person would write such things.
But, through a few battles and bruises (thanks to Ninjanun, my friend now) and even some emails from you (Steve), I've learned to stop and read through your posts several times before responding. I also needed to learn the art of "the benefit of the doubt."
I asked myself the question, "Why am I quick to judge and assume the worst?"
You know what I figure? It takes swallowing your pride to participate in this blog in a constructive way. Because most of the time, Steve calls out the worst in all of us. And I have seen him include himself in the comments many times. It took me awhile to realize this.
Thanks for being patient and forgiving toward me. Especially Dorsey, Ninjanun, and Steve.
Now back to the subject...
What was interesting JB?
And your welcome. Back at ya.
JimmyBob,
You are the man. Who looks out for his sista-man. Or whatever.
Anyway, awwwwww, and thanks for...um.....still being my friend, even tho' I was hard on you. :) It takes a big man to take public criticism about the content of his comments, and learn and grow from it, rather than getting super-defensive and buckling down and refusing to take into consideration someone else's sincere point of view.
One thing I've always admired about you, JB, (and Steve) is that you aren't afraid to stand corrected when someone logically refutes your stance. I only hope I can do the same.
Okay, now back to the regularly-scheduled program of Easily-Offended Christians and Their Knee-Jerk Reactions....
I just realized something:
If you take Christ out of Christmas, you're left with mas. In Spanish, mas means more (at least according to the local spanish newpaper from when I lived in CA). I guess that means we all need more for Christmas! So get out the credit cards people, it spending time. (/sarcasm off).
i'm with shelly on this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
read up on a holiday built on the repression of other peoples. Christ, i'm sure, is very proud of the crusades and the conquering of the "promised land" as well.
Happy Yule!
Is it too late to take the blue pill?
This comment has been removed by the author.
If you think making your townhouse look uniform is so important that a member of a minority with a history of severe persecution is "stupid" for not conforming to the culture of a majority with a history of intolerance, discrimination and persecution you are a major asshole.
There are people who would be alive today who are in fact dead today only because they were jewish in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every single jew alive today has every right to refuse to forget that and refuse to conform to the majority even if it causes the dire consequence of a gap in the seasonal holiday lights for the holiday you don't even believe has any significance on your incredibly important homogeneous Orange County suburban town house.
Wow, blind guy.
As long as we're sucking up to persecuted minorities, happy kwanzaa, everyone.
(btw, just about every culture on earth has a history of of intolerance, discrimination and persecution)
Steve - I thought it was interesting that zecryphon couldn't admit he read your comments wrong the first time. What you intended as responses to other people's comments, he replied as if you were speaking to him. Then, he refused to try again and signed off suddenly with a Merry Christmas.
As I said, I'm convinced it takes swallowing pride to really handle this blog.
cieco - Your comments seem a bit misguided. Jewish or not, any person has a right to not put up Christmas lights simply because he doesn't want to or even because of religious beliefs. However, I think Steve is getting at a different point.
If it were the other way around and involved blue Hanukkah tinsel garland, would Steve allow it? Probably. Why?
Because the tinsel is harmless, it makes his neighbor happy, the building doesn't look half decorated, and it gives him opportunity to establish a better understanding of and appreciation for his neighbor's traditions.
Perhaps if lights were destinct religious symbols, I would have a different opinion.
Steve - My father-in-law managed a Jewish Federation apartment building for quite a few years. He put lights in the fake trees in the foyer at Christmas time. The tennants objected and he told them they were Hannukkah bushes. They started liking them and the lights increased over the years. They never had a manger scene, of course, but it was pretty.
Hey Jimbob, I'll admit I read Steve's statements wrong, when I actually have. Go back a few posts and read what Steve wrote to me. He started off the post with a quote from me and replied to that. Then he said he was also replying to everybody else, not just me, but where's the sentence that should be present to let me know that Steve had stopped addressing me and was addressing the comments of others in this thread. Find me that sentence and I'll apologize. However, if you can't find that sentence, I'll expect you to swallow your pride as well and apologize to me.
Yeah, Jimmybob, didn't you know that when Zecryphon speaks, no one else's opinions matter? And when you don't use proper grammar and punctuation somewhere a kitten is eaten? Keep up here!
Oh wait, none of Steve's comments start off with quotes from Zecryphon the Smug.
Zecryphon, because I have proven your comment inaccurate, I expect you to bend over and kiss your own ass.
Okay, zecryphon, let me give this a shot. I'm gonna try this in a very simple way first. I hope you will understand why Steve's final paragraph was not directed toward your comments only, nor should he have had to state it in order for you to see the obvious.
I don't think you're being completely honest about this whole thing, (and I'm worried I'm wasting my time with this) but I am willing to apologize for my accusation against you.
Let's just look at one statement of yours in response to Steve. You said:
"Whoa, the words "sophmoric crap" never came from me and never will. I don't know where you're getting this from, but I don't think it's from anything I wrote.
Now, by saying you don't know where that phrase came from, you admit that you did not read Brad Childs' comments when he wrote:
"Come on; Grow up! You think we're surprised that we don't live up to a prefect standard? Are you kidding me with this sophomoric crap? Steve, I've come to expect more from you."
This is why Steve said you don't read other people's comments. You responded by saying you had read them. Steve was directing his comment toward Brad Childs (obviously) and anyone else who might feel the same way.
But, you still feel like he was directing that entire last paragraph at you?
That doesn't make sense. You're either lying (holding onto pride), thinking this will somehow make you seem smarter than misunderstanding Steve, or you simply haven't communicated enough with people to understand the flow of thoughts and language.
Seriously though, if I have now offended you, I'm sorry and I'll say no more about it. I'm grateful for those who had patience with me along the way.
Hey Pete, where did I say other people's opinions don't matter? Show me where I've said that. If you can't, I'll just have to conclude that you've got a bug up your ass that causes to make up lies about other people. While it's true that none of Steve's comments start off with a quote by me, I am the last person he quoted before supposedly addressing everybody else who had commented.
Here's what I read:
"Zec: A statement such as: "He's really better off on his own without you" is a harsh statement and on that suggets Steve knows what's good for Jesus, moreso than Jesus does." My quote.
Steve's resone to me: "Again... that's your interpretation.
Jesus is better off on his own without me that's for sure... for some reason though he insanely continues to invite malcontents, whiners and doubters to accompany him in the gospels. Wasn't Jesus constantly "thinning the herd" so to speak. His statements were so harsh that the gospels say that many stopped following him because of his hard teachings. I didn't make up the idea.
So I said it "harshly" and was straight to the point in my post. I was vague and general and wanted to create a dialogue (which we have been having and I enjoy it). I left the interpretation up to you. Sometimes things mean what you want them to mean irregardless of what the person says. You hear what you want to hear.
If it means to stop trying and you really believe that...then go stop trying. If it means you think this site is a bad influence in your life and you shouldn't read it anymore... then remove me from your "list". If you think it is sophomoric crap and you want to ignore it... ignore it. If it means that you think I am wrong in what I wrote, but are challenged to keep Christ in Christmas, more at the center of your church and your daily life... then go for it.
I don't see any of the above conclusions wrong. It is what it is."
Where does Steve stop addressing me and start addressing the site in general? Tell me where you see that. This isn't an issue of punctuation or grammar. But if he wanted to let me know that he was addressing the site at large he could have typed something like: and now to everybody else, or something along those lines. He didn't as far as I can tell.
"Whoa, the words "sophmoric crap" never came from me and never will. I don't know where you're getting this from, but I don't think it's from anything I wrote.
"Now, by saying you don't know where that phrase came from, you admit that you did not read Brad Childs' comments when he wrote:
"Come on; Grow up! You think we're surprised that we don't live up to a prefect standard? Are you kidding me with this sophomoric crap? Steve, I've come to expect more from you.""
No, I had read that, since Steve did not tell me, as far as I can tell, that he was now addressing the site as a whole, I was confused as to why he was using this phrase on me that I had seen another poster use on him.
"This is why Steve said you don't read other people's comments. You responded by saying you had read them. Steve was directing his comment toward Brad Childs (obviously) and anyone else who might feel the same way."
Hence, my confusion.
"But, you still feel like he was directing that entire last paragraph at you?
That doesn't make sense."
Which is why I was confused and reacted the way I did.
"You're either lying (holding onto pride), thinking this will somehow make you seem smarter than misunderstanding Steve, or you simply haven't communicated enough with people to understand the flow of thoughts and language."
I've been on the internet for over 20 years communicating with people, so I really don't think that's the problem. As far as pride, you'd better check yourself out on that one too, as you seem very prideful with your accusations that I'm lying and wanting to be smarter than everybody else. I'm simply here to offer input. I was confused by Steve's comments and him and I have worked this out between us, why is anyone else even involved in this?
"Seriously though, if I have now offended you, I'm sorry and I'll say no more about it. I'm grateful for those who had patience with me along the way."
You haven't offended me at all. You've been very mature about this and have handled it like an adult would. There's no hard feelings here.
Zec, since you want people to spell things out as literally as possible, let me first quote you:
Here it goes:
Are you ready?
I'm going to quote you now. It's going to be in italics:
Where does Steve stop addressing me and start addressing the site in general? Tell me where you see that. This isn't an issue of punctuation or grammar. But if he wanted to let me know that he was addressing the site at large he could have typed something like: and now to everybody else, or something along those lines. He didn't as far as I can tell.
He stops addressing you right specifically and starts addressing the site in general right after his assessment (and I quote): "That's your interpretation." He then addresses everyone else with the line beginning, "Jesus is better off on his own..." He marks this by a paragraph break. It's a pretty standard marker, both on the internet, and in a lot of literature, that the speaker/writer is moving on to a new topic, expanding on a topic, and/or addressing a different person.
I can see, however, how someone more literal-minded would have a problem understanding this, as Steve first addresses a comment of Dorsey's (and quotes him), and then addresses a comment of yours (and quotes you) and then breaks that format by addressing various other people's comments without signifying that he is doing so, apart from that paragraph break.
It is hard, sometimes, to pick up on nuance, implication, tone, etc. in the written word, but it is either disingenuous, or at the very least, ignorant to claim that because something isn't explicitly stated, it is not implied, inferred, or alluded to. Words not only have denotations--that is, "dictionary" meanings, but also connotations--the significance and weight we attach to certain words that color our perception of how the speaker feels as he/she is addressing his audience. Punctuation also plays a role. Paragraph breaks often signify, as mentioned above, a new topic or new audience. Putting things in all caps implies yelling. Using both a question mark and an exclamation mark at the end of a question signifies a sense of urgency.
Since we can't hear tonal inflection, see facial expression, etc., which are the majority of how we communicate in person (words comprise maybe 10%? I'd have to look up the studies again), we rely on these more subtle markers to gain a fuller understanding.
It doesn't appear that you are familiar with this concept, Zec. It was pretty obvious to everyone else that Steve was no longer addressing you specifically, but other people--as signified by key phrases first used by others--in his response. So when you responded to Steve and accused him of putting words in your mouth regarding "sophomoric crap" (for instance) and responding to his comments to others point-by-point, well, quite a few of us wondered why you were taking this personally when it was *obvious* Steve was no longer addressing you.
So, perhaps you're not lying, nor being disingenuous, but I don't think you are as perceptive about internet communication as you think you are. At least, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt about that and not accuse you of being boorish.
Here I am, quoting you again:
I was confused by Steve's comments and him and I have worked this out between us, why is anyone else even involved in this?
Because this is a public sphere, and you were addressing Steve about something he wrote publicly. That makes it the topic of discussion for everyone, unless Steve suggests otherwise and tells the rest of us to "stay out of it." :)
Now I'm going to address everyone:
Merry Christmas, Happy Boxing Day, Happy Holidays, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Festivus, and Happy New Year! God bless us, everyone!
Fine, then I misunderstood. I apologize. I'm so done with this.
A ninjanun by any other name...
...still rocks.
Over 20 years communicating on the Internet? Amazing. Zec, what field of work are you in?
I work at a company that sells and ships piano parts world wide. My first computer was a TRS-80 from Radio Shack. That must have been when I was about 5. I remember being on the internet doing research for school reports back when I was in the sixth grade which was 1984.
You were online in 1984? With a purely DOS-based machine? Wow. What kind of service were you on? That would've been before AppleLink. Hell, that was even before Q-Link, which, I thought was the first online access available to consumers (although they were only up a couple days a week and spent more time crashed than they did up and running). Tell me more.
It might have been '85, the memory is a bit hazy right now. I remember it was an Apple II, and I could dial-in to databases around the world. It was all text-based, not like the internet is now. I remember using a program to talk to other people that was referred to as CB. One of the first people I talked to was in Japan. Here's a webpage about that program.
http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/software/APPLE/II/DIVERSIDIAL/
I am encouraged by the the way this SCP Church cares so much for the congregation that we do not abandon a "lost sheep"... but go after him and help him understand the conversation.
There are too many people today who say "I am too busy to spend time explaining this to you". I see Christmas as the moment when God said - "I will make time to explain it all to you". And so God took thirty three years out of universal timelessness and we get a Godly explanation in human form.
May all of the SCP family be blessed with joy and peace this Christmas - and my 2008 be filled with much vigorous debate and lots of questioning.
Pete G
We were inspired by this post at our church in Sarnia called theStory and we based one of our Christmas installations after it.
http://www.nathancolquhoun.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/26/wondering_if_i_still_believe
In case your interested.
Steve, loved the blog this year and all even for having my back in that whole Gracehead thing (and the NFL pick em was a hoot). Have a great holiday season and a happy new year!
After reading all this, I think I agree with Steve.
I think next year, we should all wish everyone a Merry Krismas, out of respect for the Son of God.
Beyond that, we should immediately refer to churched-christians as "Churchgoers" and non-churched-christians as "Rebel Saints" (or we could bo back to "Christ followers", it's just not as catchy).
I believe these terms are more accurate and honoring of the God-head.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home