We are all hypocrites in some things. We all fall short of walking our talk.
The quote was: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39
If you are harmed by someone, it usually makes you feel powerless, anxious, and afraid it will happen again. But using the above principle will take back your power, and lessen your fear and anxiety. This is a solid principle of coping with life.
Whatever.:rolleyes:
I am basically a Christian who makes moral judgments based on religious beliefs and I advocate to make my moral judgments into law. Some people will get pissed and fight back, but they will learn to live with it in time. For example, I believe that same sex marriage is to be celebrated. I would like more laws changed to recognize this marital love. No one who is actually concerned in the relationship is going to be harmed. Other people may harm themselves by allowing their emotions to become unloving. But that is their responsibility.
I don’t know anything further from the truth. All of the people that I met in my Sunday School class two years ago are Pacifists. That includes a Vietnam vet.
Your words indiciate confusion about the whole of Christianity and the good work that is done just through Catholic charities alone. (I am not a Catholic.)
You are aware that churches helped to resettle Katrina victims aren’t you? Many fed and houses them until permanent places could be found.
I could give you thousands and thousands of examples.
I too sponsored a child for a while through World Vision. I believe that it was Alex Trebek who was promoting the program at the time.
The problem with judging Christians by the measure of Christ is that none of them measure up. “No, not one.”
The problem with judging Christianity by the measure of Christians is that you never know who is one, and who is pretending to be one. And you never will.
Perhaps judging Christians is a task best left to others. Let us, rather judge ourselves, each of us.
I find equally admirable the actions of every person who struggles to aid the injured, the weak, and the poor, whether those people are Christians, or Muslims, or Atheists, or simply not interested in religion. It is not their philosophies I admire, but their acts. It is not their organizations that do good, it is themselves. Generally, when I look closely, I find my own acts inadequate to my own philosophies.
Charity is an act, not a policy. That’s why governments suck at it.
Tris
I’m sensing some irony here.
Taxation is a policy yet the government is very good and screwing me over.
Back in 2002, when we were planning to invade Iraq, evangelicals were the strongest source of support for the war.
In 2008, when support for the Iraq war was in the toilet, Evangelicals were still the largest source of support for continued military involvement.
In fact, I dare you to find a source that doesn’t show Evangelicals in greater support for ANY military action done by the United States than the general population, under a Republican president. Your congregation is a minority among evangelicals.
I do know that evangelicals are particularly involved with charities. I never claimed otherwise. I think it’s important to demonstrate that this does NOT mean that evangelism = good for society. I also made my post in response to a specific claim by a Christian which I often hear among other Christians. Basically, he said “My Christianity is the REAL Christianity, and other people who say they are Christians are not REAL Christians.” It’s a no true Scott argument that Christians use to distance themselves from the indefensible positions the majority of Christians have, like establishing Christianity in the government, teaching creationism is schools, obstructing stem cell research, obstructing sex education classes, anti-abortion, pro-war, nationalist nonsense. Christians are a guaranteed source of support for denying or interfering with politically controversial science. Whether you and your particular batch of Christians are an exception is just an amusing anecdote which does not affect the thrust of the argument.
But Christians do some good through charity. Not necessarily a disproportional amount of good compared to non-Christians, considering I haven’t heard of a strong link between the largest charities (Red Cross, UNICEF, etc.) and evangelical Christians, but still a positive contribution nonetheless.
Absolutely. This is the kind of charity work that evangelicals are best at.
Yeah, but there’s a distinct difference between people who are trying but falling short (as we all must), and people who are doing pretty much the opposite of what any reasonable reading of the Gospels would tell you Jesus would do.
Two things:
It’s fair to judge people and organizations by the standards they set for themselves. If Pat Robertson claims to be doing what he’s doing out of zeal for the Lord, it’s fair to point out that his work and the Lord’s seem to be polar opposites.
If an entire religion seems to have been taken over by a particular flavor of that religion, it’s entirely fair to the religion to condemn it on the basis of the evil that flavor of that religion is doing. Like it or not, the followers of Christ in America have lost this war: Christianity, as a brand, belongs to James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and their ilk.
Making value judgments is an inevitable part of life.
Actually, governments are quite good at “aid[ing] the injured, the weak, and the poor.” This is what bothers me most about evangelical Christian opposition to government programs that do those things: they should rejoice that the government is stepping in and aiding the needy, because it can meet their needs on a scale that no charity could match.
Sure, to deal with one objection I’ve heard dozens of times over the years, it deprives the giver of a multitude of opportunities to be charitable, but it’s not about the giver. It’s about whether the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, and all of that. Besides, anyone disposed towards charitable giving will quickly find that there are still a plethora of unmet needs out there.
No disagreement, but what’s he debate? Sounds like MPSIMS.
It seems a bit like “atheist baiting” to me.
I read Kristof’s article before the OP was posted. I’m a bit ambivalent about the column.
I’m not sure why Kristof highlighted World Vision. Undoubtedly, WV does a lot of good. However, I have a lot of experience in this area and there are other large international relief organization that, in my estimation, are more effective and far more efficient. Two that immediately come to mind are Catholic Relief Services and MSF/Doctors Without Borders.
First, do a Google search for the images of their headquarters. CRS and DWB operate out of very spartan facilities while WV is almost luxurious. DWB in New York operates on one floor of an office building where they get a huge break in the rent.
Second, do some research into the CEO salaries. WV, about $400k,- CRS, about $200k, - DWB, less than $100k. (In the world of private industry CEO salaries, for the competence that is required to run organizations this big, they are all underpaid. I just present this for comparison.)
Third, the sponsorship of a child is a great fund-raising tool but is not really the best use of resources. For instance, if you can’t sponsor every child in a village, it is better off to just help the village. A $500,000 water project that transforms a region and makes it self sufficient can be far more effective than making sure some number of children get fed and receive medical care.
This is not to dump on WV. Certainly, they do a lot of good things. Also, thankfully, these days there is a lot of cooperation between relief organizations that may not have existed in the past. Kristof probably chose WV to shine a light on the goodness of many people that see themselves as evangelical. He may have also wanted to embarrass those evangelicals that rarely demonstrate a social conscience.
This is a delicate topic for me so don’t think I’m taking on Kristof or World Vision. Nothing should be construed as an excuse not to give. It is important to give more, not less.
Note: Proselytizing connected to relief aid is becoming a thing of the past. For instance, CRS, despite the image that many would assume about it, does not proselytize. The amount of work they do in countries, areas and villages that are not “Catholic” would amaze you. No money goes through the Vatican. Many of their employees are not Catholic. The LDS church is a benefactor to CRS. Evangelical organizations cooperate with them all over the world. In Cuba for instance, the government has no interest in caring for AID’s patients, that’s left to organizations like Caritas Cuba which is largely supported by CRS. I use CRS as an example. There are multiple other fine organization out there that are similarly working in the same manner.
Thank you for a good post. I support the Shrine Hospitals. It is not the ideal use of resources and I am concerned about their overhead, but gosh darn it, the Shrine is important to me.
Hooray for the Evangelicals mentioned in the op!
Let me expand and clarify. Everyone makes moral judgment based on some belief system and a religious one is no better or worse than another. Of course our moral judgments will be reflected in how we vote.
The problem I see is the mind and hearts resistant too new considerations, new ideas, and sadly, even factual information, in order to protect and defend a belief system. That can occur in people without religious belief systems but I think because of the indoctrination present in certain religious belief systems we see it there more often. I certainly wouldn’t put you in that category Zoe.
So a religious point of view is no better than (insert you least favorite political opinion)? Darn faint praise.
So a belief system built on facts and logic and one built on errors and irrationality are just as good as each other? Aren’t you basically saying that all belief systems are worthless? If they are all equal; if their truth and internal consistency doesn’t matter, then that amounts to calling all belief systems empty and meaningless.
Yup…the logical conclusion is that all “belief” systems are worthless.
The only reason some people think their “belief system” is based on logic and rationality and opposite “belief systems” are not…
…is because of the “belief system.”
Or at least…that is my guess.
No that’s not what I’m saying. You’re implying far too much that I did not imply.
Each belief system is a combination of our intelligence and our emotions and the balance of which rules what facets varies immensely.
That means and I believe we’ve seen demonstrated that a religious {or spiritual} belief system can contain a lot of facts and logic,{or not}and a non religious one can harbor a lot of bullshit memes and personal opinion presented as facts {or not}
The value of the belief system IMHO is in the balance and how the unique balance of the individual moves them in life and their chosen course of actions.
IOW it’s not meaningless.
So a belief system that pushes you to save lives is as worthy as one that encourages you take lives? How doctrinaire of you.