I'm Pitting Something, And I'm Not Sure What

The BBQ Pit
21

Polycarp, you seem to have no problem getting across this simple point of view. After reading that thread, I (think I) understand exactly what you are trying to say. It’s not that what you are saying is not clear, it’s that I think you are wrong (not necessarily in the above statement; there are other statements you’ve made which I disagree with, as well as your application of the above statement).

As far as I can see, you are communicating perfectly well. But looking at the history of Christianity, it becomes obvious that disagreements (trivial or not) will not be resolved by lucid communication between parties but by a change of heart brought on by the Holy Spirit. We will all be in agreement when we reach the shores of paradise (that is, if I persevere in my own struggle). Until then, we have Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Non-denominational Evangelical Fundamentalist, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

22

Polycarp, I’m sorry that you are struggling so hard with this. I think you explain better than anyone. That’s what you are known for, friend. And it does make a difference, but it usually takes a little while.

Peace be with you.

23

Ein wort: Schadenfreude

I think we’ve become a lightning rod of sorts for a lot of unnamed anger, fear and frustration. So, if they’re not pissed off about being pissed off, they want to make sure we’re more pissed off than they are, hence the delight in our troubles. A lot of absolutes that people have held onto are being challenged, so they defend what they have by any means necessary. That doesn’t make it right; it only makes it worse.

Vlad/Igor

24

Anpression? Denger?

25

That’s just brilliant.

26

Hmmm. I must admit, there are days when it’s grimly satisfying to watch religions eat their own tail. But those are rare.

The reason being that faith has such an influence on those who govern and policy. Typically, progress in eliminating scriptural literalism (ignoring the issue of how “literal” the translations really are themselves) elicits paroxysms of backlash. Unfortunately, the consequences of such strident theological debate can rarely be contained within a particular sect. Two guys get too overtly queer over here (like getting married or something), and the next thing you know, somebody is amending a state constitution over there.

So, no, there’s little joy to be had in your particular debate. Rather, there’s cringing pain that there’s a debate at all, as well as a sense of dread over when, and how, the other shoe is going to drop.

27

sigh There’s your potshot, lel.

28

So in essence, Loopydude, what you’re commending to me is that I give up suggesting that there are grounds in Jesus’s teachings for treating your fellow man with respect and love, sit back and let the people who prefer to arrogate to themselves the right to judge their fellow man in His name, despite his specific teachings to the contrary, continue to dump on decent people like gobear and Priam and Sol Grundy and Hamish and andygirl and matt_mcl? And adopt your attitude of snickering in your shirtsleeve at their internecine fights? And just plain stop trying to do right by other people?

Perhaps. But it seems to me to be a pretty sick philosophy of life. I’d explain to you what I think of you for doing so, and for putting me down for standing up for what I believe to be right. But that would be buying into it, and I’m commanded to try to do better than that.

29

Poly, I hope you’ll understand that I try to spend my days as a compassionate man. But I can’t possibly agree with this. If I don’t stand up against what I perceive as injustice when I’m not involved how can I expect someone else to stick up for me when I am involved?

Apart from that I understand your frustration. But where I think the disconnect is coming from is the overlap in American society of religion and society. Far too many people (of all faiths) believe that their religious beliefs are required by God to effect other peoples behavior. And that’s where I fall off the religion bandwagon right there.

I’m not a religious man in any sense. I was raised a jew but don’t practice. I am curious about faith and would have liked to join you in your thread on the subject but by the time I got there it was too involved for me to want to participate. But where faith and public policy meet there’s too much potential for trouble for me to be comfortable with the too meeting.

30

Where on Earth did you come up with that? You do whatever you like, and, if you read my post at all, you’d see there’s no cause for snickering, as the internicene fights never seem to remain so for long. Perhaps there would be cause to snicker if the poison could be contained, but clearly it can’t. It’s great that some people believe Christianity is only about these wonderful moral precepts, but clearly that’s not the whole story, or there wouldn’t be a debate at all. The Bible does contain a fair diversity of information, after all, and for all those who are informed by it in their faith, they may easily find in that bound volume whatever information they need to justify even wildly opposing viewpoints. From the outside, Christians of your bias strike me as no more or less “correct” in regards to the content of canon than many others whose personal morals I admire far less. How you pick and choose what to believe or not is entirely your affair.

Commentary and interest on the part of concerned outsiders is entirely theirs. If you take a negative assessement of some portion of the whole of the Anglican Communion or its traditions as a personal affront, I’ve no remedy for you. The issue is, appropriately, a subject of public discourse. The reason there is external interest is clear: What Christains do with their faith affects us all, whether we wish it to or not. It is precisely because some of us want nothing to do with the potentially unavoidable repurcussions of such debates that we find ourselves wishing occasionally that it all would simply go away. Like I said, the satisfaction in glimpsing the prospect is grim, if ever it is to be had, and only out of a sense of self-presevation.

Your response is a wild extrapolation, at times completely contradicted by what I’ve posted. You clearly already do expect the worst of some, so don’t lecture me about your Christian reservations. You’re no different or better than any other person with a basic sense of morality, and as far as I can tell, gain no special claim to moral integrity or anything else via your personal position on what Christians should or should not, or, more relevently, ostensibly do or do not believe. Your concerns are yours, and mine are mine. The mere fact you don’t like my position gives you no cause to suggest I’m not entitled to it, as evidence in the OP.

31

If the attitude I (and a few others, based on some posts) derived from what you’ve said is wrong, Loopy, then forgive my taking offense at the misreading of it. But I got the distinct impression that you were taking a "It figures – those dummies! :: chuckle :: " attitude towards Christians trying to take what they, variously, conceive to be the proper moral stance towards a divisive issue.

Your point about the Bible containing wildly diverse material that is selectively chosen to endorse quite different viewpoints is 100% correct. Supposing, however, that you decide not to throw the thing out altogether, can you isolate a particular element that can guide you in evaluating and applying all that diversity of material? For a Christian, it’s the idea that the sending of Jesus, and His life and ministry, death and Resurrection, are key to the story – and therefore what He said and did is of higher ontological priority than (at random) an account of how to fashion the High Priest’s breastplate, the account of the deeds of King Jehoshaphat of Judah, or Paul’s views on the Last Days as sent in a letter to Thessalonika. And I encapsuled that in the “THREE requirements” thread in GD.

What I’m complaining about, more than anything else, is the idea that my church, according to its own rules of how to govern itself, decided to elect a gay man as a Bishop, and suddenly that is grounds for All Hell to break loose, denunciations by Southern Baptists and Catholic Bishops, editorials by newsmen who don’t know a Cathedral Canon from a Priestly Absolution as to what we should have done in their politically-motivated eyes, and the sort of backlash from people like Bishop Duncan and the folks at Skammer’s church. And quite frankly, what this seemed to do is amuse you.

Bottom line to me is, we were given marching orders on how to treat other people, and it didn’t include kicking people out – especially for something they never chose. And man, does the fur fly when you say something like that. People whose last exposure to the term “sinner” was in a Billy Joel song suddenly become experts!

Perhaps that comment in the OP here to which Jonathan Chance and others have objected was intemperate. Quite simply, I’m saying – “we – the majority of us – are trying to do the right thing, in a manner we’ve been practicing for 225 years or so without making news, and in accordance with the most fundamental of Christian principles. So knock off the criticisim, OK?”

And, as I said to gobear in a quite different context, Loopy, my disagreeing with how you may choose to express yourself on an issue is not intended to be denying you the right to express your views. It’s merely saying, “Smile when you say that” or the equivalent. Whether or not it’s your intent, it seems like you’ve been taking potshots at anybody motivated by religious concerns – and bluntly, that can get annoying. You want respect for your views? Give the same back. Simple as that. If I offended you, sorry – be aware that you did the same to me first. OK?

32

I’d hate to say it’s intemperate, Poly, other than the fact that you’ve been a little tempery lately! :wink:

But this is, in the end, a debating society. To ask people not to participate is sort of contrary to what we do.

Plus, for well and good, in the United States there is sure as shooting a vested interest in non-Christians staying plugged in and involved in the activities of the Christian majority.

Now let me advance something else for consideration. I’d be interested in your take on it…

The problem that I think you’re driving out is a variation on Gresham’s Law. While it is possible that the majority of Christian’s in the United States have a quiet, non-intrusive fate (as I’ve found yours to be) the majority of those who make their faith public are not that sort. They’re the sort who use their face for their own advancement, or make public displays of piety to increase their social standing (yes, I’m looking at you, pro athletes!), or they’re the sort who wish to use their faith to bludgeon others in behaving in ways that they believe are right.

In short, the one’s who wish to stand in judgement on their fellow man. Those are the ones who are the ‘public face’ of Christianity in the United States. The ones who proclaim this to be a Christian nation are the ones with the highest profile.

And that’s what sets people off. What we need is more reasonable Christians with the ability to get ink. Sound familiar (in joke, folks).

33

Hmmmm…now, why would you close with that comment? :wink:

I think you’re probably right. Certainly the majority of Christians I know personally (and not just Episcopalians) feel quite differently than the “public face” people you describe.

34

While I’m not privy to this in joke, and hopefully I’m not misinterpreting this then, I get the feeling that having moderate, reasonable Christians in the press wouldn’t play because, well, they’re not terribly exciting.

“Love God and your fellow man.” Well, okay, good idea.

“Spongebob is pro-homosexual.” People think that’s stupid and they react to it.

I also agree with Jonathan Chance that well, given the role of Christianity as a majority religion in the US, it is reasonable that even non-Christians stay informed about said religion and debates within it, and also throw their few cents in from time to time.

35

That’s not the joke…trust me when I say it’s nothing bad or cynical. Just that I’m not able to share yet…or possibly ever…so don’t hold your breath.

It’s true that peace and love doesn’t play as well as ‘SpongeBob is gonna make little Johnny a homo!’ And the blame for that lies in many directions…the reactions of the viewing public, the sensationist nature of the media, etc.

But it also belongs at the feet of the soi-disant ‘reasonable’ man. If someone like that would come forward with some charisma and make a campaign of some fundamental truths it would help loads.

Then again, it’s like politics. The extremes of right and left has forced out the middle.

I swear if we could get a charismatic politician to found the ‘Middle America Party’ based on reasonableness, moderation and such we might be able to upset the applecart. There’s clearly a thirst in the United States for a third party that isn’t populated by screwballs.

And I think the same is true of how America views religion.

36

Gotta tell you, as a person who does not practice any religion, more than half of my exposure to religion has been from, well, nutjobs. For example, when I hear the word “fundamentalist” my brain shows me a photo of Jim Bakker. This is why I count on folks like you, Polycarp. I may never embrace your faith in God, but YOU give me reason to embrace my faith in humanity.