gobear and Christianity

[FinnAgain]

@Homebrew

On some reflection it seems that y’all have spent six pages arguing over a lack of qualifiers like some, many or most.

Seems to be a pretty important distinction to me.
“Some Christians are bastards.” vs “Christians are bastards.”

@Homebrew

I’d be willing to concede that we could be a little more specific, if you could acknowledge that the “theocratic Christians” are the ones controling the public political face of Christianity.

Of course, they’re the small but vocal minority who hog all the press.

@Homebrew

Now the question is, are you willing to allow that to continue to be the case or are you going to do something about it? (Ironically, fundamentalists were once seperatists and eschewed political activity.)

I thought I’d been doing something about it: arguing against 10 commandements statues, fighting for secular humanism, etc… I don’t think I need to do anything different, and like I said, if it bothers Christians that their religion has been hijacked, they should take it back. But it’s their house, and their affair. I’ll just fight against the theocrats no matter what.

[gobear]

Of course, they’re the small but vocal minority who hog all the press.

What evidence do you have that the theocratic Christians are the minority in this country? I grant you the point they do not speak for all Christians, but I’ve seen the Left Behind sales figures and the membership stats for Focus in the Family, and they’re pretty damn huge.

The unquestioned assumption around here is that malefactors are inevitably a tiny minority in any scenario, from Nazis in Germany (tiny minority), anti-Jewish sentiment in Arab nations (tiny minority), to promiscuous gays (tiny minority). I’m not wholly convinced, based on the evidence I’ve seen, that any of those are true. Why are we not allowed to question that assumption?

[FinnAgain]

Well, I suppose that the issue for me was one of scope and broad-brushing from the very beginning. I’ve tried to be respectful gobear and I’m sorry if I’ve failed.

But, I believe that the phrase “Christians are not _____ and are _____”, if the variables are set up in a pejoritve manner, is needlessly inflamatory.

First, if you’re not talking about all Christians, but Christians in/from America, that’s another distinction you need to make. Then if you’re not talking about all Chrstians in America but those who are theocratic, that’s another distinction to make. So I retract my claim that they’re a vocal minority, since I thought we were still talking about Christians, and not some-Christians-from/in-America-who-are-theocrats

I’m honestly not up to date on statisics of divisions amongst Christians in America. And if you’re talking about those Christians, then your OP would be valid. But I do think your painting a picture of “Christians” rather than “Theocratic Christians in America.” is a needlessly divisive and argumentative phrase.

I think it would be far easier to join forces with non-theocratic Christians if we’re not busy “usin’ fightin’ words” when we talk to them.

Theocrats are scum, in any nation. I think that Christians in this country whose theology doesn’t match exactly with their theocratic brethren have much more to gain by protecting the seperation of church and state, lest there be one enforced state version of Christianity.

I really do think we’re all in the same boat here, and we should identify the folks who’re rocking it and toss them overboard… without casuing a scuffle with other folks who’re dressed in similar garments.

[gobear]

@FinnAgain

Well, I suppose that the issue for me was one of scope and broad-brushing from the very beginning. I’ve tried to be respectful gobear and I’m sorry if I’ve failed.

Why do you say that? You’ve been fine, and I have no problem with you whatsoever.

But, I believe that the phrase “Christians are not _____ and are _____”, if the variables are set up in a pejorative manner, is needlessly inflammatory.

Tell me about it. OY!

First, if you’re not talking about all Christians, but Christians in/from America, that’s another distinction you need to make. Then if you’re not talking about all Chrstians in America but those who are theocratic, that’s another distinction to make. So I retract my claim that they’re a vocal minority, since I thought we were still talking about Christians, and not some-Christians-from/in-America-who-are-theocrats.

At this point, I’m going to not even use any collective nouns, but only address people by name, like Miss Sally did on Romper Room with her magic mirror: “I see Donald and Jerry and Pat and James . . .”

I’m honestly not up to date on statisics of divisions amongst Christians in America. And if you’re talking about those Christians, then your OP would be valid. But I do think your painting a picture of “Christians” rather than “Theocratic Christians in America.” is a needlessly divisive and argumentative phrase.

The funny thing is, my original comment had NOTHING to do with politics; it was about theology, and the primacy of obedience over virtue. But some people on this forum decided to interpret my words as an insult, and my insistence on being understood was intepreted by them as intransigence, and attempts to alter my thesis to conciliate them was interpreted by them as backpedaling.

I think it would be far easier to join forces with non-theocratic Christians if we’re not busy “usin’ fightin’ words” when we talk to them.

True, but I’m not sure if there’s anything, apart feom 100 percent agreement you can say to them that won’t infuriate them.

What’s more, in previous threads, I’ve been careful to address complaints to fundamentalists and I still got into trouble. One person said that she was a fundamentalist who didn’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, not knowing that belief in Biblical inerrancy is one of the Five Fundamentals. You cannot be a fundamentalist if you do not accept that tenet of faith; I didn’t invent it, it’s in the bloody book!

I guess part of the problem is that I strongly believe that words have specific meanings, whereas other people accept much more fluid definitions to the point that words like “Christian” have no meaning. Certainly, none of the people here who claim to be Christian can come up with a universally applicable definition.

[FinnAgain]

@gobear

Why do you say that? You’ve been fine, and I have no problem with you whatsoever.

Just a personal quirk, but you accused me of being dishonest towards the start of this thread. I’m rather serious about my integrity and my honor, so I stayed away for a bit.

@gobear

At this point, I’m going to not even use any collective nouns, but only address people by name, like Miss Sally did on Romper Room with her magic mirror: “I see Donald and Jerry and Pat and James . . .”

To a degree, that’s much safer. “I hate Theocrat X and his legion of braindead zomboids.” That way, at least you only offend those who you want to offend

@gobear

The funny thing is, my original comment had NOTHING to do with politics; it was about theology, and the primacy of obedience over virtue. But some people on this forum decided to interpret my words as an insult, and my insistence on being understood was intepreted by them as intransigence, and attempts to alter my thesis to conciliate them was interpreted by them as backpedaling.

Well… I haven’t watched over this whole thread, but I’d question whether or not you made a specific apology. Not saying you had to, but sometimes tensions can be diffused by a timely “I’m sorry to have sounded like I was lumping all you Christians into one group, blah blah blah.”

If, for instance, you’d said the same statement about Jews as you did Christians, I’d probably feel offended to a degree. It’s nothing personal, just when you paint with too broad a brush you end up getting paint on a lot of people who’d rather remain clean.

@gobear

True, but I’m not sure if there’s anything, apart feom 100 percent agreement you can say to them that won’t infuriate them.

Some people are unreasonable. But I do think that sticking to specifics (eg. those who believe X,Y, Z are thus and such…) helps to reduce unintentional conflicts. I’m sure you can see how saying “Christians don’t do (good thing) they do (bad thing).” would piss off a lot of Christians who’d done no wrong, other than perhaps not take back certain memes?

@gobear

What’s more, in previous threads, I’ve been careful to address complaints to fundamentalists and I still got into trouble. One person said that she was a fundamentalist who didn’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, not knowing that belief in Biblical inerrancy is one of the Five Fundamentals. You cannot be a fundamentalist if you do not accept that tenet of faith; I didn’t invent it, it’s in the bloody book!

But that’s why talking about individuals and actual actions is so much more profitable. People self identify as all sorts of things. Memetics is tricky too, it isn’t beyond the pale to think that more than one group is attempting to ‘gain control’ of the fundies. There’s a lot of potential power there.

@gobear

I guess part of the problem is that I strongly believe that words have specific meanings, whereas other people accept much more fluid definitions to the point that words like “Christian” have no meaning. Certainly, none of the people here who claim to be Christian can come up with a universally applicable definition.

That might not be a problem. Any definition is a good place to start, but it’ll have exceptions, right? If you say “A Christian belives thus and such…” and I find a church where they do not… then what? What about groups which do ‘thus and such’ but also add ‘this and that’, and are considered out of bounds for proper Christianity? Past a certain point we can debate whether their self identification as Christian is no longer enough to counterbalance ‘fellow’ Christians’ objections to their inclusion… but I think that’s missing the central point.

There’s also a whole linguistic rant I could get on about words being multiordinal… but I’ll spare you

Suffice it to say, I believe one can win more friends and be more effective in dealing with their enemies if they are as specific as possible as to just where they’re throwing punches.

[Kalhoun]

When I refer to Christianity, I’m generally referring to the brand that insinuates itself on Americans in everyday life. Yes, there are other christians that don’t do this, but if THESE christians refer to themselves as christians, I have no choice but to refer to them as christians too. I think it’s the responsibility of the person who adopts the label to drop it if they feel they’re being wrongly associated with a negative faction of that group.

[JRDelirious]

@Kalhoun

When I refer to Christianity, I’m generally referring to the brand that insinuates itself on Americans in everyday life. Yes, there are other christians that don’t do this, but if THESE christians refer to themselves as christians, I have no choice but to refer to them as christians too. I think it’s the responsibility of the person who adopts the label to drop it if they feel they’re being wrongly associated with a negative faction of that group.

So, the “good” Christians should just quit, and let the “bad” Christians have it all?

[FinnAgain]

@Kalhoun

. I think it’s the responsibility of the person who adopts the label to drop it if they feel they’re being wrongly associated with a negative faction of that group.

This would have to be the least effective strategy for memetic combat that I’ve ever seen.

[Polycarp]

@Kalhoun

When I refer to Christianity, I’m generally referring to the brand that insinuates itself on Americans in everyday life. Yes, there are other christians that don’t do this, but if THESE christians refer to themselves as christians, I have no choice but to refer to them as christians too. I think it’s the responsibility of the person who adopts the label to drop it if they feel they’re being wrongly associated with a negative faction of that group.

Right. So John Corrado or Bricker, for example, should stop referring to themselves as Republicans, since there are right-wing-extremist theocratic idiots who have coopted the name? Please persuade them to do so.

Would you please draft a letter to John Paul II, informing him that since you feel that “Christian” has become an insult owing to late-20th-Century American evangelical protestant political activists, he and the Catholic Church should stop calling themselves “Christian”?

And when you’re through with that, explain to me and Siege, to whom the name means something important, why we should forfeit it to those we consider are abusing it?

[Metacom]

@Polycarp

And when you’re through with that, explain to me and Siege, to whom the name means something important, why we should forfeit it to those we consider are abusing it?

And when you’re done explaining it to Polycarp and Seige, explain it to the 29% or so of this boards membership that also identify as Christian, and probably consider the name important as well.

[Andros_X]

@lno

Me, I’m saved by F5 or Ctrl-S, depending. Sometimes even :wq.

Infidel! C-x C-s is the One True Save!

[Siege]

@Kalhoun

When I refer to Christianity, I’m generally referring to the brand that insinuates itself on Americans in everyday life. Yes, there are other christians that don’t do this, but if THESE christians refer to themselves as christians, I have no choice but to refer to them as christians too. I think it’s the responsibility of the person who adopts the label to drop it if they feel they’re being wrongly associated with a negative faction of that group.

I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that perhaps Polycarp and I think those people are the ones who’ve hijacked the name “Christianity” and we’re trying to reclaim it?

The bigots, the hate- and fear-mongers, the “Repent or ELSE!” crowd don’t speak for me and never will. I won’t hesitate to tell them that I’ve seen that behaviour drive others from Christianity and it nearly drove me away. I’ve even accused some of doing evil and wanting people to burn in hell because, by their beliefs, when they drive someone away from Christianity, that’s what they condemn that person to.

My faith is a key part of who I am, and a part of my life which gives me a lot of joy and comfort. I get angry when I see it corrupted into a bludgeon used to harm others, especially since part of what my faith requires that I do is undo some of the damage done. If I renounce my faith because of the evil some do while using its name, that’s giving those folks one more victory. As you may have gathered from my handle, I won’t do that, and I don’t surrender.

Siege

[Kalhoun]

@JRDelirious

So, the “good” Christians should just quit, and let the “bad” Christians have it all?

“A rose by any other name…”

[Kalhoun]

@Siege

I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that perhaps Polycarp and I think those people are the ones who’ve hijacked the name “Christianity” and we’re trying to reclaim it?

The bigots, the hate- and fear-mongers, the “Repent or ELSE!” crowd don’t speak for me and never will. I won’t hesitate to tell them that I’ve seen that behaviour drive others from Christianity and it nearly drove me away. I’ve even accused some of doing evil and wanting people to burn in hell because, by their beliefs, when they drive someone away from Christianity, that’s what they condemn that person to.

My faith is a key part of who I am, and a part of my life which gives me a lot of joy and comfort. I get angry when I see it corrupted into a bludgeon used to harm others, especially since part of what my faith requires that I do is undo some of the damage done. If I renounce my faith because of the evil some do while using its name, that’s giving those folks one more victory. As you may have gathered from my handle, I won’t do that, and I don’t surrender.

Siege

(responding here to both Seige and Poly)

I’m saying that faith and labels are two different things. You can continue to be the people you are, and worship as you do without identifying with the label that causes so many so much pain.

Siege, it’s not a matter of surrender (although one less holy war would be a good thing from where I sit.) The term “christianity” means something different to you and Poly than it does for the vast majority of people who claim the title. You are the minority. A split from the label does not make you any less devoted to the work. And after all, isn’t that what it’s about?

[Siege]

I’m starting to think it’s something to do with geography. I’ve lived in England, Hawaii, Japan, and Pennsylvania. None of these areas are exactly hotbeds of Fundamentalism. I never even heard of Creationism until I was a young adult, and the only people I encountered who were the “beat you over the head with the Jesus stick” sort of Christian were nutcases standing on street corners preaching and trying to draw attention. The proper response was to ignore them, although I will admit to trying to mess with their heads a few times. (In retrospect, that may have been a warm up for posting here! )

Most of the Christians I’ve known in real life have been Episcopalians, with Catholics coming in second. Around here (Pennsylvania), you’re still more likely to hear “What are you giving up for Lent?” rather than “Have you accepted Jesus as your Savior?” If you reply “Nothing” to the first, no one’s going to try to convert you, unlike if you reply “No” to the second, based on my experience. On the other hand, the last time someone tried to convert me was over a year ago on a Greyhound bus from Cincinnati to Columbus. It didn’t go well for him. To me, what I practice is majority Christianity, not minority. Now, I admit we Episcopalians aren’t exactly the flashy type, although the next two Sundays we’ll put on the pageantry, but I’ll point out that the majority of Episcopalians in the United States elected a gay bishop, at least as I understand the proceedings.

Christianity gives me a lot of benefits, not the least of which is giving me an excuse to indulge my argumentative streak and my contrary streak and learn more about how people think or do something which vaguely passes for it on a dark night when I’m not wearing my glasses.

Besides, today I’ve had a hard enough time coming to terms with not being able to sing with the choir during Holy Week because I’ve got the flu that never ends. Giving up church completely is a bit much! I also admit that I do have an alternate way I could sing glorious, intricate, multi-part harmony, but frankly, I’ve found the people in the local branch of the SCA are a lot more pretentious and obnoxious than the people at my church. I wish I were kidding!

I freely admit that, in a different environment, I’d probably have wound up one of the more vocal anti-Christians out there. As it is, I sometimes feel like I’m as tough on the more obnxious Fundamentalists as any of the non-Christians around here, and yes, I do like thinking it annoys the daylights out of them when I cite scripture and produce credentials that make me at least as Christian as they are, at least on the surface. (Of course, we don’t have to tell them I had a male Wiccan staying with me for a few months, do we? )

So, I’ve realized I won’t be singing “Drop, Drop Slow Tears” on Maundy Thursday (and I’m still puzzled and a bit appalled by the thought that the Christians you’re objecting to may have no idea what “Maundy Thursday” is), but for now, I’m still planning on going to church anyway. Of course thanks to this accursed flu and the accompanying back aches, it’s been over a month since I’ve made it to church. I don’t suppose that will do?

CJ

[Polycarp]

@Kalhoun

(responding here to both Seige and Poly)

I’m saying that faith and labels are two different things. You can continue to be the people you are, and worship as you do without identifying with the label that causes so many so much pain.

Siege, it’s not a matter of surrender (although one less holy war would be a good thing from where I sit.) The term “christianity” means something different to you and Poly than it does for the vast majority of people who claim the title. You are the minority. A split from the label does not make you any less devoted to the work. And after all, isn’t that what it’s about?

I take your point. But here’s ours:

1. They are not in the majority. Perhaps they are in Buttwhack, MS, or Selfrighteous, NE. But nationally and worldwide they are not. What they are, is noisiest. And that’s because they make good news. We get press when we conduct a gay church wedding, or ordain a gay bishop, or acquit a gay pastor charged with heresy. They get press when they denounce anybody or anything. And they do a lot of it.

2. We were there first. The denominational church Siege and I belong to became an autonomous American church in 1784, separated from Catholicism in 1547, and was founded as a national church before 600 AD – how much before is a matter of dispute.

3. We’re doing what the guy whom everybody says deserves the title Christ said were the most important things to do. No subordinate clauses about moral codes to be abided by, no second class Christians not entitled to be ordained or married.

They don’t have a right to preempt us. It’s as simple as that.

[Kalhoun]

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on what the majority of christians carry in their . I live in the Chicago area and grew up in a predominately Catholic neighborhood. They didn’t march or picket, but when you get into a conversation about (!!) homosexuality (!!), no one pulls any punches.

I personally believe that the quiet ones with black hearts are the ones you really need to look out for. Know thine enemy and all…

[Kalhoun]

…carry in their HEART. HEART, damnit!

[Malacandra]

@Polycarp

<snippage>
3. We’re doing what the guy whom everybody says deserves the title Christ said were the most important things to do. No subordinate clauses about moral codes to be abided by, no second class Christians not entitled to be ordained or married.

They don’t have a right to preempt us. It’s as simple as that.

What, no moral code? And no Christians not entitled to be married - even those whom Jesus himself said committed adultery by so doing? Fascinating.