|
 |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:14:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net>
wrote:
>In article <a30ju3p36qteeban2l1htfmffh7fafb443@4ax.com>,
>mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom says...
>> >Hence we can all be part of both the clueless majority and enlightened
>> >minority ;-)
>>
>> Why should the majority be clueless and the minority enlightened?
>>
>Show me a time in history that this wasn't the case. lol Seriously,
>*everyone* is clueless about some things, a small number though rise
>above the majority, to varied amounts, due to upbringing, or natural
>talent, and often have, in some areas, a far clearer understanding of
>the world than the vast majority. The majority though, tend to look for
>those that confirm their opinion, not those that challenge it (which is
>one of the main traits that distinguish that other minority).
But the knack is not to think or treat them like that or you end up
"knowing what is best" for them. Then becoming one of the oppressors.
>This is
>what priesthoods are based on, the careful catering to the
>*expectations* of the parishioner.
True IMO
>When churches have, on rare occation,
>gotten uppity and told people they didn't want to hear, the result where
>usually not too good for the church. Though, its a toss up whether this
>has been worse than the cases where they told their followers what they
>wanted to hear, only to have those people later discover it was a lie
>(like a number of fun scandals the US has seen recently, of which the
>Catholics are but one in a broad membership).
Well you are on a hiding to nothing if you try to say that you are
infallible.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
