Methodists wouldn’t riot. They’d be afraid that someone might think they were dancing.
That’s exactly what it means! You have a group of people who disagree about a point. What does that point mean? Nothing!! It only means something to you. The more people that disagree on something, the less it means, see? What good is a language that only you speak?
Yes. However, there are seperations because of what Jesus taught as well. Incidentally, the point you brought up about communion wafers is interesting, and entirely supports my accusation of the arbitrary nature of religion. Thank you. It has nothing to do with Jesus! Couldn’t have found a better example myself.
Let me put this in a different light. “A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.” Does that clear things up a bit? I find myself arguing two different points just to keep up with you. Christianity either implies morailty or it doesn’t. By my standards, it wouldn’t. Its just a term. By your standards, it would, but it shouldn’t, but it should. Which? If no one can agree what the morality is, then what sort of moraily is that? Why even mention it? It is clearly outside the scope of the term. If we add gnosis and other more bizzarre lines of thought into it, then there are even morals which downright contradict all the morals!
MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Can we say that morality is implied or not? Can we say that the new testament is involved or not? And you wonder why I am still here…my goodness. Obviously we can say much more than that! There is a lot one can say about christians. Why do you refuse to see this? It is all I am saying!
Was I somehow unclear in my definition of stereotype? A generalization cannot be made from a single case. Even assuming that it could, I clearly and repeatedly explained that I do not stereotype based on things one is born into. The argument on stereotypes is whether or not I am justified in doing it. So long as you misrepresent me, you will find it easy to disagree with me.
Of course it extends to individuals. The stereotype I use is based on what I know. The feelings I get from it are how I view the stereotype. I do not use the stereotype to judge individuals that I meet. I use it to ascertain my opinion on a group of people. I do not use it to gauge how I feel about a person I just met. They are a brand new person, a tabula rasa.
Millions of who? Millions of people in a group that doesn’t exist in itself? It is appropriate. Come on. Unless you are suggesting that 50% or more of all Christians think homosexuality is ok, it is clearly appropriate to generalize. Not that that’s even what I’m trying to generalize about…sigh
Again, it is not a matter of applying anything to every single Christian. Not one person in this thread has said anything so preposterous.
Not to belabor the point, but again, no one ever said that ALL Christians did anything (meaning, as you imply, 100%). I would think that was obvious from the very beginning.
thanks,
arl
We dance! We are bermuda-shorts-with-dress-socks-wearin’, high-ball-drinkin’, JayCee-attending, Lawrence-Welk-watchin’, terminally-rhythm-impaired groove machines.
Just put on the Macarena at a wedding and watch all the Methodists . . .
. . . head right for the buffet. 
AYNRANDLOVER:
Huh. So the Constitution is meaningless as well. And the Koran. And the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the Torah. Disagreement about meaning = meaningless. Oooo-kay.
Which, of course, does not mean that the separate denominations are not all following Christ as they understand that duty.
Sigh. You really don’t know anything about Christianity, do you? The schism over the body and blood of Christ, in the minds of those arguing over it, went to the heart of His divinity and the nature of His sacrifice. Just because it didn’t involve His teachings doesn’t mean it didn’t involve Him. How can you leap from “A” to “up”?
How about this: A point from which many lines eminate is still a point – it is, in fact, a starting point or, to speak in terms of geometry, a center. Or do you argue that there is no such thing as a center point?
It “implies” a person follows Christ. Tha in turn ought to imply morality, though whether it does or not depends on who you talk to, and what you’re talking about. I think even Esprix would acknowledge that while he does not believe the fundamentalist Christian anti-gay is in fact a moral one (meaning right or correct), it is nevertheless a moral stance (meaning a stance on an issue of morality).
Because, unlike you, I do not believe that disagreement over meaning or application invalidates a premise. The fact that SOMEONE is obviously wrong – as must be the case in “gay sex is a sin” v. “gay sex is not a sin” – does not mean EVERYONE is wrong. Disagreement on morality is not the same as immorality. Or amorality.
So if Christianity cannot agree on every contour of every moral premise, then it must be free from morality, as opposed to larded with many (sometimes contradictory) moralities? I don’t think so. But then, I disagree with your entire premise, which appears to be that anything less than complete agreement means that principle evaporates.
Name me three things you can say about ALL Christians that exceeds “they believe in the divinity of Chris” and/or “they have a responsibility to follow his teachings [as they understand them].” That’s shouldn’t be too hard, since there’s apparently lots to be said in your generalized world.
Oh, it’s easy to disagree with you anyway, since you retreat to the indefensible position that it’s okay to negatively stereotype characteristics voluntarily assumed but not characteristics beyond your control – as if voluntary assumption is more important than the question of whether your stereotype is or is not factually correct. And how many “cases” do you personally need to see before your stereotype is okay? Five? Ten? Twenty? And when I tell you that 25% to 40% of 8 million people (you do the math) disagree with the Methodists anti-gay stance, you can dismiss all those cases . . . why?
No, it’s apparently based on what you experience or feel. You appear to consciously choose to limit what you actually know in this area, I surmise so that you won’t have to abandon your precious stereotypes.
If you do not use the stereotype to judge any individual, then one wonders how you ever concluded it was applicable to the whole group in the first place.
- Millions of Christians.
- Christianity exists as a religion – see above, belief in divinity of Christ, following Christ. That does not make it a cohesive whole; it makes it a category.
- I never said a majority of Christians think homosexuality is okay; I said it a significant minority (in the U.S.) thinks it is okay.
- IT IS NOT OKAY TO GENERALIZE ABOUT AN ENTIRE GROUP IF YOU KNOW OR OUGHT TO KNOW THAT A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF THE GROUP DOES NOT FIT THAT GENERALIZATION. For the thousandth time. I mean, really: What part of this are you not getting?
On the contrary, that premise – or apparent premise – started the entire thread. “Love the Christian, hate Christianity” necessarily implies ALL Christianity. Just like “hate Californians” implies hate all Californians and “hate desserts” implies hate all dessert. The whole POINT of this thread is to answer the question of whether it is appropriate to generalize that ALL Christians do any one thing (like hate gays) when many Christians do not do that thing. And I am not saying that you cannot say “all people do X” unless you can prove that EVERY SINGLE PERSON does X. BUT if you know or ought to know that MANY people – not just one or ten or a hundren but LOTS, meaning a statistically significant percentage – in the group don’t do X, then you shouldn’t say that.
Don’t knock it, Jodi. Following the argument to its logical conclusion, if we confront her with Libertarian, the Objectivist Christian who posits atheism as an unnecessary component to Objectivism, she’ll disappear. 
That you feel this is my premise is very amusing.
CASE #
- If there was complete agreement, it wouldn’t even be a stereotype/generalization, it would be a fact.
- If there were large portions of agreement, then it is appropriate to generalize/stereotype, obviously.
- If there are medium-to-large portions of agreement, then it is appropriate to generalize/stereotype, but with caution.
- If there are medium portions of agreement, the stereotype must be carefully created, but is still acceptable though much more limited in scope.
- Anything less would be uncivilized.
Now, where are we? Ah, if–as you claim–we are in situation 5, let us consider what this “morality” is.
-
It exists: false. What exists? Morals in general? OF COURSE. Jeez. Everyone has their own set of morals, things they think are wrong. The term “human” belies that just as much as “Christian.” In other words, it says nothing about the morals themselves. It doesn’t matter if you start all “rays”(not lines) from a “point” or not, they are clearly all going seperate directions and their existence implies only one thing: disagreement. Thus, “Christian morality” as a term is as meaningful as human morality.
-
“Christian moralilty means something more that human morality.” This about gives me the argument for stereotyping, but clearly violates the condition we set above. In other words, we have reached case 4 or above, and we can now form generalizations.
{fixed coding. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-14-2000 at 11:19 AM]
“Do not even the Pagans do all those things?? You must, therefore, be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” – Jesus of Nazareth
See what happens when you compromise the perfection demanded by Christ?
Ah, a logical sequence!
“Ye must be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
But…
“All men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Therefore:
We are all doomed.
I had not realized the Divine Weasel was a Catholic. Thank you for the clarification.
I don’t know if its been mentioned, but I just realized: LTSHTS does not correspond to LTCHChristianity. LTSHTS can be stated as “Love the actor not the act.” LTCHCh can be stated as “Love the individual but not the group.” Two different premises.
Now I really agree with Esp. Love the individual hate the group is easily practiced since, as every single poster on this board has stated, the individual does not necessarily reflect all opinions of the group. They are (unlike act/actor) seperable.
Neat.
I think this thread has wandered far afield, but I wanted to make one last statement:
Jodi, Poly, Daniel, et al; I’ll concede the point that the term Christian needs a qualifier. However, I think you need to direct your arguments to the people who abuse it the most; your fellow Christians. They’re the ones who keep using it as a general term, never with a qualifier. You’ve taken me to task on it, I expect you to do the same with them.
I’m sure the Vatican, the Archbishop of Caterbury, the Partiarches of the Orthodox Chuches, and the governing bodies of the other denominations will be very interested in hearing from you.
I didn’t know you couldn’t read. Thanks for the info!
Well, I’m off to lunch. But, wait, I can’t be hungry, since yesterday I have eaten. Guess it is my imagination!
I know I promised to keep up, but this is just wild. I am reading it, though.
One thing:
Er, not necessarily. “Christians” are not the same as “Christianity.” In other words, LTC/HC is more “love the individual, hate the religion that individual believes in.” In a sense, since believing in a religion is a choice (therefore a willful act), LTS/HTS (love the actor, hate the act) could be a parallel to LTC/HC (love the actor, hate the act). Of course, then again, religion could also be viewed as faith, which isn’t so much an action as something more esoteric.
Either way, I would not ask a Christian to give up his/her faith just as I would not ask a gay person to give up either being gay or having gay sex.
Esprix
Good point. Previous comment withdrawn with regards to OP. 
Sure bring 'em on into Great Debates and we’ll mix it up.
Oh you mean have I contacted all the religious and political leaders that I disagree with…um no…have you? :rolleyes:
Can you just “contact” the Pope or some archbishops? Or is it more like contacting secretaries and getting form letters,
"Dear AynRandLover,
Thank you for your interest in [insert relevant faith-based church here]. We are always looking forward to hearing from our attendees! The points you bring up are very important, and I promise you we will address them as necessary.
Regards,
[some guy]"
now that deserves a :rolleyes:
I never even get that much from the president or any congressment when I write, so at least we’d know someone read it!
What would the pope’s address be?
The Pope
Vatican
It is its own country. Hmm. Well, not like they would get confused with some other pope, I suppose.
[/hijack]
When I read the OP, I interpreted it as Esprix saying he likes certain people, (maybe all people, a la Will Rogers), it’s their beliefs he has trouble with.
Being an atheist while having many Christian relatives, I know exactly what this means. I love all my family, but I just can’t agree with their philosophy. But I wouldn’t go so far as to hate it.
well, the Vatican has a website. You might be able to get in touch with a lackey from the Curia or something… No sign of the Pope’s e-mail addy…
***Freyr wrote:
Jodi, Poly, Daniel, et al; I’ll concede the point that the term Christian needs a qualifier. However, I think you need to direct your arguments to the people who abuse it the most; your fellow Christians. They’re the ones who keep using it as a general term, never with a qualifier. You’ve taken me to task on it, I expect you to do the same with them.
I’m sure the Vatican, the Archbishop of Caterbury, the Partiarches of the Orthodox Chuches, and the governing bodies of the other denominations will be very interested in hearing from you.*
BeagleDave responded:
Oh you mean have I contacted all the religious and political leaders that I disagree with…um no…have you?**
sigh The point I’m making is that if Jodi and the others want to jump on my case about using the unqualified term Christian, then they ought to do the same to their fellow religionists. THEY are the people who use it liberally and without a qualifier and who are doing the most damage, especially with regard to secular legislation dealing with homosexuality.
Otherwise, that makes Jodi and the other hypocrites.
FREYR:
I sincerely thank you; that’s all I’ve ever asked.
I will and I do, I assure you.
With respect, I don’t think this is true around here. Around here, fundamentalist Christians who spout their version of Christianity without any appreciable application of actual thought tend to quickly find themselves wandering off, dazed and wearing their testicles as an unattractive necklace. Around here, generalizations of all Christianity when what is almost always meant is fundamentalist Christianity tends to come from people who take issue with fundamentalist precepts but who are not careful to distiguish fundamentalism from moderate or liberal Christianity. I assure you that we who are on the moderate-to-liberal end of it are careful to draw this distinction, precisely because we do not wish to be associated with beliefs that we do not hold and often find distasteful.
AYNRANDLOVER:
This of course presupposes that stereotypes and generalizations are always to some extent inaccurate and that you know this – because if they were completely accurate, they wouldn’t be stereotypes, they’d be “facts.” Again, I find it interesting that you are so eager to embrace stereotypes that you yourself know are sometimes, (if not, as in this case, often) wrong.
Correct.
Wrong. If there are medium portions of disagreement, then knowing about that disagreement but continuing to generalize as if it does not exist is intellectually dishonest.
I don’t know what this means. A “carefully created” stereotype, “limited in scope”? If by that you mean the addition of qualifiers, then we are no longer dealing with the same stereotype (X) but rather with a more accurate generalization (X [qualified]) that is far less likely to merit objection.
“Morals” exist, but “morality” does not? Since “morality” is merely defined as “particular moral principles or rules of conduct” – in other words, as a set of morals – I fail to see the distinction you are attempting to draw.
Surely you can see that intersecting lines that radiate out in every direction of disagreement nevertheless intersect at the center and hold that center in common. This is not philosophy; it is seventh-grade geometry. Oh, and if you view the center as a point of intersection, it is perfectly legitimate to call them “lines.” It is only when the center is a point of origination that they are “rays.” Makes no difference to the argument, of course.
Incorrect, because Christians hold in common a starting point from which almost all believe their personal morality originates – Christ. That is the center of the intersecting lines – a belief in Christ and in the duty to follow him. There is no such center point or originating point for the morality of humans as a whole.
Except that you can’t, since I never said this. I do not say that Christian morality is something MORE than “human” morality, but then I do not know what “human morality” means. No human sacrifice? Not to the ancient Aztecs. No incest? Not to the ancient Egyptians. No intentional killing of children? Not to the Celtic tribes and Asian tribes who left unwanted, imperfect, or unsupportable babies to die of exposure on a hillside. Every person’s “human morality” springs from a source personal to that individual – be it humanism, Christianity, paganism, a belief in the rule of law, whatever. None of these is MORE than any other (except as a matter of personally-held opinion), but they are all different. What does this have to do with the OP, anyway?
JAB1:
More specifically, I believe he has trouble with SOME of their beliefs. The point is that “hate Christianity” does not reflect that the speaker does not in fact hate ALL of Christianity – he just hates some of it. Just like he doesn’t despise all Christians; just some of them.
I have Christian relatives I disagree with, too – specifically a virulently anti-choice Catholic aunt, who believes that shooting doctors is justified. How she reconciles that with “love one-another,” I have no idea. As you might imagine, in the interest of family harmony, we don’t talk about the subject much. But if we did, I would not say to her “I love you, but I hate Catholicism,” though I might say “I love you, but I hate the fact you think Catholicism supports homocide.”
Again, all I’m asking for is the occasional judiciously placed qualifier that acknowledges that not all Christians hold the same beliefs. If Esprix had posted “love Christians, hate fundamentalist Christianity,” he wouldn’t have heard a peep from me.
FREYR:
How do you know we don’t? More importantly, why would you assume we don’t?