This rant is only marginally related to Zhubin's latest post. Or rather, it's a continuation of the comment I left on that post.
I've noticed a disturbing inability of many adults to make the smallest of decisions for themselves. It seems that much of the time these people would much rather be led by the hand like a child than make up their own damn mind about anything. This is something I've noticed in particular at my work, a certain coffee shop at a certain mall. I couldn't tell you how many people have come to my window and prefaced their order with, "I don't know what I want." This was even more infuriating when I worked at the movie theater. I was dumbfounded by the number of people who would walk in the place without having the slightest idea what movies were even showing, let alone what they were going to see.
My instinct in both these instances is to ask, "What are you doing here? Do you even like coffee/movies? Do you know where you are?"
Often these people expect me to decide for them.
This stupid customer came in a week or two ago and asked Bone which was the best type of cookie. This happens a lot, people want to know what the best flavor of Freezer is, or (for some reason) which is the most popular. As if they'll be accepted into some exclusive club for ordering it.
So this guy asks Bone what the best cookie is, and Bone's response is along the lines of a hesitant, "Well, it depends..."
I use this response myself, because it does depend. I have no idea whether you prefer chocolate over caramel, or some other thing. If you have no preference, than it doesn't make any difference which cookie/Freezer/latte you order, because (imagine this) they're all good.
But this response wasn't good enough for the idiot customer, who begins backing away with his arms up saying, "None of them? None of them are good? Okay..." in this smug, passive aggressive way that seems to say, "Well, I guess you don't want my business."
So I chime in, "I like the peanut butter," good salesman that I am.
The customer comes back toward the counter and eyes the peanut butter cookie.
Bone says, "They're all good." Again, a valid statement. But one that would lose us the customer, who suddenly had his selection of cookies knocked back up from one to eight.
And he walked out.
I was absolutely pissed. Not because we lost his money (really, I could give a shit). But I felt personally insulted by this man's inability to decide which type of cookie he wanted. An indecision that ran so deep it not only hinged on someone else's opinion, but apparently a unanimous decision by everyone who happened to be on staff at that moment.
So how does this relate to Zhubin's post? Well, it's more of a stream-of-consciousness, synaptic connection more than anything. Something about cultures that stress the importance of following orders blindly, actually encouraging people to emulate sheep and children. Plus, I just like the cut of Zhubin's jib.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is a response to the comment you left on Zhubin's blog and not neccessarily about this post.
The Catholic Church has never held Limbo as doctrine. The concept had never been discussed before St. Augustine and was only a popularly held notion by catholics who studied him, and subsequently most catholics began to believe it was something the Church taught. This, however, isn't true.
The Catechism says, "1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."
You've got me on the historical aspect.
However, I'm kind of confused by this quote. On the one hand it states that we should hope that there is salvation for these children. But then it goes on to say that this makes the call for Baptism even more urgent.
But that seems to be contradictory. If there is indeed salvation without Baptism, then it would seem that the urgency for Baptism would actually be lessened.
Of course, it's difficult to discuss such a brief quote since it is so easy to take Bible passages out of context.
The reason baptism is still important is because Jesus put it on the list of things neccessary for salvation. The Church does not guarantee salvation for anyone except the saints, however. Nor does it condemn people. (Excommunication is not condemnation, it just means someone has done something to separate themselves from the Church. There are ways of returning to the Church if the person desires absolution.)
The recent document from the vatican states (in great length) that the vatican leans more toward the thought that these babies are entrusted to God. No one really knows what happens to them just as no one really knows what happens to the souls of any man. And therefore they don't claim to know. Yes, it's convenient, but it also does not assume God's will.
Post a Comment