Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Q: Why so many clergymen?

Expand Messages
  • Brett Conway
    ... I ve been researching LC/CD s life, and his diaries, and I keep ... word gentleman uses to mean. ... a Christian is better than an atheist somehow. The
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Hoyeru Zaharia <hoyeru00@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Brett Conway whiterabies@... wrote: I've been researching LC/CD's life, and his diaries, and I keep
      > noticing numerous people in Carroll's life, including himself, are
      > deacons, bishops, vicars, priests, etc.
      > I'm not expert in English history, so I have to ask. What's with all
      > the clergymen?? <<My original message.
      >

      Hoyeru Zaharia wrote this, not me:

      > Same phony shit as today. Christian = good person
      > Non Christian = without "morals" or a bad person. Same as what the word gentleman uses to mean.
      >
      > gentle+man as opposite to ruffian.
      >
      > Even today, when people ask you: "Do you believe in God?" they imply a "Christian" is better than an atheist somehow. The church was much stronger back then so all those guys HAD to become clergy man while at the same time they had hobbies such as taking numerous photos of nekked little girls and God knows what else we will never learn about...

      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
      > Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
      >
    • Lyon
      Sorry Brett - I made the same mistake - got confused with who wrote wut. Whassup with Sylvie and Bruno anyways? I like reading it better than listening to
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry Brett - I made the same mistake - got confused with who wrote wut.  Whassup with Sylvie and Bruno anyways? I like reading it better than listening to Parliament or counting sheep. :)
         
        KL
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 10:21 AM
        Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Q: Why so many clergymen?

        Asking someone to read Sylvie and Bruno, now that's a non-Christian act.

        Joel
        ------------ -- Original message ------------ --------- -
        From: Lyon <lyon@paradise. net.nz>
        > Just as a reply to Brett - the idea of Christian = good and non-Christian= not
        > good wasn't actually part of CLD's philosophy. It's interesting when you read
        > Sylvie and Bruno - the hero, in fact is Eric. Now Eric is not a "Christian" and
        > I use the word in inverted commas to prove the point. Eric exhibitis values that
        > in those days were normally attributed to "non-Christians" if you read the book.
        > So CLD is really saying what you are saying Brett, if I have got your meaning
        > right. There are many "Christians" - or those who call themselves Christians,
        > should I say, who go to Church and then lie and cheat and steal. This is NOT
        > restricted to Christians, but to people of any faith who talk loudly about how
        > religious they are and then go out and do awful things. This was CLD's point.
        > Eric never called himself anything, but he loved his neighbour. FD Maurice,
        > CLD's friend, also wrote "Do not divide yourselves into sects and schools. . ."
        > and CLD had the same view. But why surrounded by clergymen - I think second sons
        > were usually expected to enter the clergy, weren't they? The eldest inherited
        > the title, the second entered the clergy, and the third sons came to New
        > Zealand, because their families couldn't think of anything else to do with them!
        > :)
        >
        > Kate L
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Brett Conway
        > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
        > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:03 AM
        > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Q: Why so many clergymen?
        >
        >
        > What was offensive in my comments?
        >
        > --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, "pleasanceone" <pigbaby@... > wrote:
        > >
        > > Please let's not marginalise the vocation of the clergy. There are
        > > STILL many highly educated and philosophical people who are members
        > > of the clergy today. Theology and religious study are STILL
        > > legitimate fields of study today. It was and still is an important
        > > part of human endeavour and human culture.
        > >
        > > Don't forget that Charles Dodgson didn't just carry the title
        > > Reverand, he also had a devout personal faith. He himself was
        > > offended by people making fun of religious things. Dodgson wrote a
        > > number of letters and articles which speak of what he believed. He
        > > believed in having a sincere faith and he took his own faith, and
        > > that of other people VERY seriously.
        > >
        > > So in that vein, please don't mock the religious beliefs of others
        > > in here. Jessica is right, this IS a shared space and there are
        > > people of all nationalities and faiths who are members here. I am a
        > > Christian,and frankly I found some of Brett's comments offensive.
        > > The topics in here should be centred about Lewis Carroll, and not
        > > the merits of particular religious groups.
        > >
        > > Ciao for now
        > > Deb
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Many highly educated and philosophical people were members of the
        > > > clergy in those times. There were limited career opportunities
        > > for
        > > > those who craved education.
        > > >
        > > > I agree that Mathematics and writing were Carroll's primary
        > > > intellectual persuits.
        > > >
        > > > Since this is a shrared space could we watch language, please?
        > > > I am a retired secnd grade teacher. I think crude language lessens
        > > ones
        > > > use of more interesting adjectives.
        > > >
        > > > Thank you,
        > > > Jessica
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >

      • pleasanceone
        Brett, I see that I owe you an apology. The quote below is what I found offensive but I attributed it to the wrong person. I do apologise. Ciao, Deb ... word
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 15, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Brett, I see that I owe you an apology. The quote below is what I
          found offensive but I attributed it to the wrong person. I do
          apologise.

          Ciao,
          Deb

          Hoyeru Zaharia wrote this, not me:

          > Same phony shit as today. Christian = good person
          > Non Christian = without "morals" or a bad person. Same as what the
          word gentleman uses to mean.
          >
          > gentle+man as opposite to ruffian.
          >
          > Even today, when people ask you: "Do you believe in God?" they
          imply a "Christian" is better than an atheist somehow. The church
          was much stronger back then so all those guys HAD to become clergy
          man while at the same time they had hobbies such as taking numerous
          photos of nekked little girls and God knows what else we will never
          learn about...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.