Love the Christian, hate Christianity

[pldennison]

I think jmullaney needs to brush up on his English.

“Ye must be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

This isn’t in the present tense. It’s a command, an imperative, and implies ongoing action. If it was in the present tense, it would say, “Thou art perfect” or “You are perfect,” not “Be perfect.” It’s “Do this,” not “You are this.”

“All men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

This isn’t in the past tense, it’s in the present perfect, and again implies an action not yet completed. Otherwise, it would read, “All men had sinned, and had come short of the glory of God.” See, they come short–it’s still going on.

Nice try, though. Really. I can recommend a primer or two if you find yourself in need.

Therefore:

We are all doomed.

[Jodi]

PHIL, may I suggest you go outside, find a large rock and bang it into your forehead a few times? It will be as productive as using logic on JMULLANEY and yield you the exact same results, both for you and for the rock.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
Nice try, though.

Whatever the grammatical quibbles – what Polycarp was saying is the same as “It is impossible for anyone to be hungry because all have eaten.” I have eaten every day of my life, yet I can still be hungry today.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
This isn’t in the past tense, it’s in the present perfect, and again implies an action not yet completed.

(also – I don’t think that one sentence is past perfect. I have jumped fences, but that is hardly a yet to be completed action.)

[erislover]

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?

You do not know what “human morality” means. It is an empty statement, like “lines exist”, and tells us nothing about them. Much like the term Christian would to you, tell nothing other than “A follower of Christ” or however you put it. Now, you are also saying that that implies a starting point for morality: the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the term Christian does tell us something? No way. Those teachings don’t reconcile, as you’ve been laboring to point out to me, and so “christian morality” means as much as “human morality”; ie-they come from some source. Christians’ source, in this case, is Jesus. Right? Every single person who calls themself Christian gets his morality from Jesus. Right? This is a fact, hard, rock-solid, cold-as-granite fact, not a generalization/stereotype?

Well, needless to say this is wrong as well, that statement is only a generalization in itself. You have noted that some Christians choose to follow much of the Old Testament as well, whatever doesn’t outright clash with Jesus’s teachings(which are largely interpretive to you), and that’s where much of the Anti-Gayness comes from. That means they don’t get their morality strictly from Jesus, your statement is a generalization, and I was right, originally, in stating that one CAN make a Christian stereotype. You did it for me. I feel it can be even more specific and still maintain a larger than 50% accuracy, but that’s for another time, this thread is almost up.

Now, this pertains to the OP in the following manner:
Can you love the Christian but hate Christianity?
Answer: yes, because “Christian” and “Christianity” are generalized cases not necessarily attributed to each individual who claims they are “Christian.” That neither invalidates the generalization nor affirms it. Non-mathematical (meaning,not strict a priori mathematics) generalizations are called generalizations and not facts because there are exceptions. It is not a “rule” because they are not meant to replace actual, individual facts. It is not “bad” or “good” because it is an amoral, statistical statement.

OK? Or, do we need to go around the tree one more time?

Other question, Can you love the sinner but hate the sin? Still not resolved between us. I say no, you say yes. Potato.

[Jodi]

You do not know what “human morality” means. It is an empty statement, like “lines exist”, and tells us nothing about them.

It is an empty statement because you, who first used it in this conversation, have failed to define it. In contrast to the affirmative declaration “lines exist,” which conveys the information that . . . follow me carefully here . . . lines exist.

Now, you are also saying that that implies a starting point for morality: the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the term Christian does tell us something? No way.

Yes way. It tells us precisely that: that the morality in question comes from the teachings of Christ.

Those teachings don’t reconcile, as you’ve been laboring to point out to me, and so “christian morality” means as much as “human morality”; ie-they come from some source.

Note from some source, but from the source of Christ – hence the term “Christian.”

Every single person who calls themself Christian gets his morality from Jesus. Right?

I never said this. What I said was that a Christian is defined as a person who believes in the divinity of Christ and who has a duty to attempt to follow His teachings. This, to me, in almost every case, implies extrapolating some (not all) morality from those teachings. Because this is true in almost every case, IMO, I think it is a valid generalization to make – because I think you’d find precious few self-declared Christians who would say that their religion did not in some way influence their morality – even if other things did as well, as other things inevitably do.

This is a fact, hard, rock-solid, cold-as-granite fact, not a generalization/stereotype?

No.

Well, needless to say this is wrong as well, that statement is only a generalization in itself.

Obviously it’s a generalization – and, I would argue, a valid one. “Most practicing Christians derive some part of their moral system from Christianity” – well, duh. Every religious system that I am aware of carries some some degree of morality in it, and often quite a lot.

. . .That means they don’t get their morality strictly from Jesus, your statement is a generalization, and I was right, originally, in stating that one CAN make a Christian stereotype.

Oh, for the love of God. I NEVER SAID NO ONE COULD EVER STEREOTYPE CHRISTIANS AT ALL. What I said – and said multiple times – is (a) negative social stereotyping is always a bad idea; and (b) if you know or ought to know that the stereotype you are employing is not valid for a significant minority of the group you are generalizing about, then you should not use it. Frankly, I can’t imagine how you have missed this point since I’ve made it a dozen times.

Now, this pertains to the OP in the following manner: Can you love the Christian but hate Christianity?
Answer: yes, because “Christian” and “Christianity” are generalized cases not necessarily attributed to each individual who claims they are “Christian.”

Can you love the Christian (individual) but hate Christianity (the religion)? Answer: only if you hate ALL of Christianity. Just like if you say you hate desserts, you are implying you hate ALL desserts, and if you say you hate Californians you are implying you hate ALL Californians. The fact that “dessert,” “Californian,” or “Christian” is a label or what you call a generalization does not change the fact that if you do not qualify your statement “I hate [this set]” it may reasonably be inferred that you hate the ENTIRE set and, by logical extension, every subset contained entirely therein.

Non-mathematical (meaning,not strict a priori mathematics) generalizations are called generalizations and not facts because there are exceptions.

So in your mind if you hear someone say “I hate desserts,” you think “Oh, that person must mean he only hates some desserts, because by implicitly including all desserts, he’s generalizing.” That reasoning is so tortured that at this point I say, whatever. Which is precisely what I say when I discover myself arguing with someone who asserts that “down” really means “up.”

It is not a “rule” because they are not meant to replace actual, individual facts. It is not “bad” or “good” because it is an amoral, statistical statement.

For the fortieth time, social stereotypes are not “amoral, statistical statements.” They are sometimes indefensible value judgments made about a whole group of people based upon the observer’s opinion of a few.

OK? Or, do we need to go around the tree one more time?

As often as we need until you get it. OK?

Other question, Can you love the sinner but hate the sin? Still not resolved between us. I say no, you say yes. Potato.

Except that this is not the question presented in this thread, and I can’t really say I care whether you agree with that statement or not.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Jodi

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 would go so far as to say that I have trouble with most of their beliefs, but I do agree with The Biggie, that being, simply, “love.” The details, even many of the ones that cross over denominations, I still have problems with, including The Biggie, that being Jesus’ divinity.

If Esprix had posted “love Christians, hate fundamentalist Christianity,” he wouldn’t have heard a peep from me.

Do you still say this now knowing what I just said?

Esprix

[erislover]

**

“Most practicing Christians derive some part of their moral system from Christianity” – well, duh.

**

For the fortieth time, social stereotypes are not “amoral, statistical statements.”

What I said was that a Christian is defined as a person who believes in the divinity of Christ and who has a duty to attempt to follow His teachings.

---

**

For the fortieth time, social stereotypes are not “amoral, statistical statements.”

**

…if you know or ought to know that the stereotype you are employing is not valid for a significant minority of the group you are generalizing about, then you should not use it.

[emphasis added]

---

Now, onto more refutations.
ARL:“Now, you are also saying that that implies a starting point for morality: the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the term Christian does tell us something? No way.”
Jodi:“Yes way. It tells us precisely that: that the morality in question comes from the teachings of Christ.”
To which I repeat, it tells us nothing about that morality. Methodists disagree with Catholics. Lutherans disagree with Baptists. To say that morality exists and comes from the teachings of Christ still doesn’t tell us anything about the morality. If it did, then we would be making, by your definition, an invalid generalization.

Basically, social stereotypes are OK if they

1. don’t characterize a non-statistical significant portion of the populations
   and
2. Aren’t bad(immoral) or (amoral).
   The only social stereotypes that are allowed are ones that imply morailty, must be “good” relative to the population being stereotyped, and must cover an arbitrary majority.

In other words, “I can only use stereotypes because I’m nice.”

Thanks for the semantic workout. Maybe you should join the epistemology thread? Everyone is contradicting themselves in there.
:rolleyes:

[Esprix]

Or what if I’d said, “Love the Christian, hate stereotypical Christianity?” One can hate a demonize a stereotype, regardless of how true vs. how untrue it is (and I still maintain that stereotypes exist because they’re true, just never all at once).

I dunno, I’m just throwing that out…

Esprix

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
To which I repeat, it tells us nothing about that morality. Methodists disagree with Catholics. Lutherans disagree with Baptists. To say that morality exists and comes from the teachings of Christ still doesn’t tell us anything about the morality.

Exactly my point, before it got bogged down in an English lesson. Once you get into “cafeteria” Christianity – especially to the point where your moral system is the same as most any other culture – the salt has lost its flavor – and it is only fitting for HTC to come along and trample them underfoot.

Thanks for the semantic workout.

Nice try aynrandlover, but once you let Jodi drag you down the path of semantics, debating her is like nailing jello to the ceiling. She definitely has the makings of a good lawyer of course!

[Polycarp]

Christian Belief:

Though I personally have no problem with what Jodi has said, for the sake of people like Esprix and J.S. Spong and others who cannot with integrity accept the deity of Christ (yes, Jodi, I switched terms on you, because “divinity” has a bit too much interpretive license, and I’m pinning down a negative here), I would use the early Church concept of “accept Jesus as Lord” – “When they look at Jesus, they see God in Him.” As I’ve pointed out several times, the entire Dogma of the Trinity is an attempt to pin down exactly what relationship exists between Jesus of Nazareth, the God He called Father, and the Holy Spirit which He promised to send, within the confines of Aristotelian categories. And it needs an A.E. VanVogt to Null-A it into relevance to modern thought. This does not mean that I personally disbelieve in the Trinity; quite the contrary! It means that I consider the metaphysical categories it uses to analyze the basic truth of One God revealing Himself in Three Ways to be sadly lacking for today’s intellectual systems. It’s a “wavicle,” m’kay?

Christian Morality:

Whatever concept you use to interpret the idea of one supernal God acting through the person of Y’shua bar Mariam, commitment to Him means doing what He says. Specifically, living your life in a way that lives out His teachings as rules for your own existence. Now, since He was fond of teaching in superlatives, parables, and other verbal tropes, you need to read His comments with an eye to what He appears to be really saying. But there is not a Christian of whatever stripe who would not give particular credence to the Summary of the Law (“love God with all…love your neighbor…”), the Great Commission, the Golden Rule, and one or two other particularly pithy comments.

That constitutes “Christian Morality.” Pure and simple. Anything else is simply interpretive, reading out that set of basic commands into particular circumstances. Like the old “women should wear a hat to church” bugaboo of my youth. Paul simply told the women of Corinth that if they, in their freedom as Christians, didn’t want to be mistaken for whores and so bring obliquy on the Church, they ought to wear headwear in public, not because “God said so” but because “a woman with loose, uncovered hair is looking for sex, or for money in exchange for sex.” According to Paul, “We are free from the Law” – all the O.T. moral commands, like the dietary and ritual ones, are simply guidelines to be used when appropriate and ignored when not.

And that same comment that you need to read Jesus’s comments in context and with an eye to what tropes He was using applies both to a literalist reading of any Bible passage for prooftext purposes, as conservative Christians are fond of doing, and to Joel’s ironic remarks about giving everything to the poor and being perfect. I probably owe him an apology for being snide back, but his irony in the midst of this discussion, throwing what little common ground had been reached into fresh mud, really irked me. Obviously, as he well knows, this is a moral absolute that Jesus is calling us to strive for, not a particularist command. Just as every teacher wishes all her students should get 100% on every test, but sets her standards high enough that they should strive for it as a possible goal, but most of them and nearly always fall short of reaching it.

And yes, I can understand grammar. Ignoring Phil’s point for the nonce, both Joel’s quotation and my riposte are generally understood in a broad sense. He was not telling the Twelve Apostles or the crowd on the hillside to be perfect; he was telling all men to be perfect, or, in more precise terms, to strive for perfection. And nobody with any common sense reads the epistle passage as “all men up until the time I write have sinned and fallen short…, but nobody from here on is likely to,” but as a broad brush covering all humanity. None of us is quite all that we would wish ourselves to be; all of us try to do the best we can. (And that “us” is ultra-inclusive, in case you were wondering.)

And in saying things like “God loves gays, just as they are” and “Believe in the God who is somehow three in one, not in the doctrine that tries to explain how” those of us who try to take the broad view and be Christian humanists are, in fact, outspoken, and get called heretical for doing so. (By implication, quite recently, I was by a moderator over on the Pizza board; he called a Bishop of my church with whom I agree in most parts a heretic, and by his lights he was right.) What’m I supposed to do, go out and finance a TV show about liberal Christians, a la Wildest Bill’s thread of some time ago? (Hmmm… “Touched by an Anglican”? ;))

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
his irony in the midst of this discussion, throwing what little common ground had been reached into fresh mud, really irked me.

I’m offering a solution to the problem this thread presents, whatever you might think of my own interpretation of Jesus’s teachings.

What’m I supposed to do, go out and finance a TV show about liberal Christians[?]

Don’t forget Jesus’s message about power and the use of power. You may think you are powerless, but, perhaps, you are simply not powerless enough. It is obviously difficult to beat those right wing evangelists at their own game, but it can be done. But unless your righteousness exceeds theirs, they win. They’ve got the power, the recognition, the money, and the cunning to twist Christ’s message into knots – and people listen to them. Someday, it might be too late to do anything about it.

this is a moral absolute that Jesus is calling us to strive for, not a particularist command. Just as every teacher wishes all her students should get 100% on every test, but sets her standards high enough that they should strive for it as a possible goal, but most of them and nearly always fall short of reaching it.

I can see your angle. But I think your analogy needs fleshing out to be accurate. Let’s say the test was given everyday. Can not you be perfect once? God is perfect, and yes, God does get a 100 everyday. Everyone has gotten a bad grade at some point, and fall short of God’s GPA. That doesn’t mean you can’t score a 100 today. Might you fail tomorrow? Sure, but don’t worry about that. As Jesus said, today’s test problems are trouble enough. Get a perfect score. Jesus didn’t say try no matter how much you would like to believe that he did.

[Jodi]

ESPRIX:

I would go so far as to say that I have trouble with most of their beliefs, but I do agree with The Biggie, that being, simply, “love.” The details, even many of the ones that cross over denominations, I still have problems with, including The Biggie, that being Jesus’ divinity.

But, Exprix, surely you can see a difference between doubt and disagreement. I mean, I recognize that you forcefully disagree with the position of anti-gay Christians because you think their position is unsupportable – which, IMO, it is. Do you disagree with the divinity of Christ, meaning take a particular position on the issue and conclude they’re wrong? Or do you just doubt the entire proposition? There is a world of difference between being convinced people are wrong and doubting they are right.

“If Esprix had posted “love Christians, hate fundamentalist Christianity,” he wouldn’t have heard a peep from me.” Do you still say this now knowing what I just said?

Sure. Why wouldn’t I? Again, I am assuming that your doubt of the correctness of the major tenets of Christianity does not lead you to “hate,” the entire religion, but merely to doubt it. (In contrast to the anti-gay tenet, which you do hate.) This seems clear from what you just posted above. Again, my position has always been that you would only be justified in saying “love a Christian, hate Christianity” if you truly hated all of Christianity. I don’t think you do. You may doubt it, but you do not appear to despise it. So you could as legitimately say “love Christians, doubt Christianity,” and get no argument from me – because it would be an accurate statement. “Love Christians, hate Christianity” by your own admission is not.

To which I repeat, it tells us nothing about that morality. Methodists disagree with Catholics. Lutherans disagree with Baptists. To say that morality exists and comes from the teachings of Christ still doesn’t tell us anything about the morality. If it did, then we would be making, by your definition, an invalid generalization.

Still wrong, and not likely to get any more right by your repeating it. It tells us that the morality in quesiton springs from the Christian tradition, from which certain broad moral tenets may be found, like “love one another.” It gives us the starting point for the morality embraced by each denomination. And it tells us (a) that a central starting point does in fact exist and (b) where that starting point is (in the precepts of Christianity). This is not, by my definition, an “invalid generalization;” it is a recognition that by acknowledging a starting point from which morality springs, you are implicitly acknowledging that morality does or can exist and spring from that source. Does it tell us more than that? No. But it does tell us that.

Basically, social stereotypes are OK if they

1. don’t characterize a non-statistical significant portion of the populations and 2) Aren’t bad(immoral) or (amoral).

What do you mean by “bad”? IMO, social stereotypes are “bad” if they are not supportable – precisely because they do not survive scrutiny in the light of day. I can say “the non-assimilated Hmong practice animal sacrifice” and this would be a legitimate stereotype because (a) most non-assimilated Hmong do practice animal sacrifice. Is animal sacrifice “bad”? Depends on who you ask, doesn’t it? In contrast, when you say “blacks are thiefs” or “Christians are bigots” or “Jews are cheap,” you don’t need to ask around to find out if “thief,” “bigot,” and “cheap” are negative labels. Everyone agrees they are. And since you are choosing to negatively label an entire group of people, you had better be damn sure that your label is justifiable. Otherwise you shouldn’t use it.

The only social stereotypes that are allowed are ones that imply morailty, must be “good” relative to the population being stereotyped, and must cover an arbitrary majority.

Wrong. 1. Social stereotypes that do not imply “morality” or value-judgments are less likely to be objected to. This strikes me as obvious. The fact that some social stereotypes may be value-neutral does not mean that every social stereotype is value-neutral – your assertion that they are notwithstanding. 2. Again, the question in my mind is not whether the social stereotype is “good” or “bad” but whether it is objectively defensible – i.e., true. But “bad” stereotypes are more likely to be objected to by the person being stereotyped. Again, this strikes me as obvious. 3. It must not cover an “arbitrary” majority but rather an clear and BIG majority – not a 60/40 split, in other words. This goes back to the assessment of whether the social stereotype can objectively be said to be accurate or true. If it is not applicable to a large minority, then it is not accurate or true for ALL (or even most) of the group.

In other words, “I can only use stereotypes because I’m nice.”

Wrong for the reasons set forth above. IMO, social stereotypes should be used with great care, because they are so often likely to fail to stand up under reasoned scrutiny – to be, in other words, justifiable or “true.” This is certainly the case with stereotyping American Christians as being anti-gay, IMO, because – for the thousandth time – there are millions of American Christians who are NOT anti-gay.

Thanks for the semantic workout.

Oh, you’re welcome. Any time you need any more help clearing up the meaning or applicability of terms you like to throw about, you just let me know.

For the rest of it, and as usual, “I agree with Polycarp.”

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
Now, since He was fond of teaching in superlatives, parables, and other verbal tropes, you need to read His comments with an eye to what He appears to be really saying.

That’s another thing that bugs me: Why didn’t Christ (or God or Whatever) just come right out and say what he meant? Why do we have to read between the lines? Why all the ambiguity and the confusion and the contradictions? Could it be that MEN wrote the “Word of God?” Could it be that Jesus was a mere mortal?

Paul simply told the women of Corinth that if they, in their freedom as Christians, didn’t want to be mistaken for whores and so bring obliquy on the Church, they ought to wear headwear in public, not because “God said so” but because "a woman with loose, uncovered hair is looking for sex, or for money in exchange for sex."

What about that part that says women should keep silent in the church? Do they have to obey that?

According to Paul, “We are free from the Law” – all the O.T. moral commands, like the dietary and ritual ones, are simply guidelines to be used when appropriate and ignored when not.

Okay, so why does (or did) an All-Knowing Diety change the rules? Either God changed or human nature did. Raise your hands, those who think human nature has changed. Raise your hands, those who think God has changed. I say, God CAN’T change and human nature never has. (Well, not since homo sapiens evolved, anyway.)

Obviously, as he well knows, this is a moral absolute that Jesus is calling us to strive for, not a particularist command. Just as every teacher wishes all her students should get 100% on every test, but sets her standards high enough that they should strive for it as a possible goal, but most of them and nearly always fall short of reaching it.

Here, I agree. If you shoot for a very high, even impossible-to-attain goal, you’ll probably accomplish more than if you tried for something much easier to reach.

(By implication, quite recently, I was by a moderator over on the Pizza board; he called a Bishop of my church with whom I agree in most parts a heretic, and by his lights he was right.)

I remember that.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**Jesus didn’t say try no matter how much you would like to believe that he did. **

And Yoda said, “Do, or do not. There is no try.”

[Esprix]

Jodi, please don’t put words in my mouth. It bugs the shit out of me.

Originally posted by Jodi

Do you disagree with the divinity of Christ, meaning take a particular position on the issue and conclude they’re wrong? Or do you just doubt the entire proposition? There is a world of difference between being convinced people are wrong and doubting they are right.

If I’d meant “doubt” I’d have said “doubt.” I disagree because I think they’re wrong - I don’t think Jesus was the son of God. There’s no doubt in my mind about that.

Now, do I doubt myself? Sure - I admit I could be wrong. But until I’m proven so (and that’ll probably have to wait until I die), I will maintain that they’re wrong.

I do not, however, advocate every Christian bowing to my will and changing their minds. We believe what we believe, regardless of whether people think we’re right or wrong (science v. religion aside, for the sake of this discussion, however; i.e., Creationism v. Evolution).

Again, I am assuming that your doubt of the correctness of the major tenets of Christianity does not lead you to “hate,” the entire religion, but merely to doubt it.

See where assuming gets you?

This seems clear from what you just posted above.

Evidently not as clear as I intended to be.

I don’t think you do. You may doubt it, but you do not appear to despise it. So you could as legitimately say “love Christians, doubt Christianity,” and get no argument from me – because it would be an accurate statement. “Love Christians, hate Christianity” by your own admission is not.

It is not “by my own admission,” so, again, don’t put words in my mouth. It’s not my fault you assumed you knew my intent without asking for clarification first.

Esprix

[Jodi]

ESPRIX – You said:

As a Unitarian Universalist, I recognize Christianity’s value and worth as a valid belief system.

You also said:

I would go so far as to say that I have trouble with most of their beliefs, but I do agree with The Biggie, that being, simply, “love.”

Now you say that I am wrong in assuming that from the above statements that yu do not hate all of Christianity.

Imagine my confusion. You want me to ask for clarification, fine: I’m asking for one. Since you started this entire thread in reaction to “several posters ponder[ing]the reasons for my alleged ‘anti-Christian stance’,” what possible problem could you have with anyone taking issue with your anti-Christian stance if you hate all of Christianity? And why bother to qualify that stance as “alleged”? You either hate all of Christianity or you don’t. If you do, why do you care whether people discuss that or not, or lay it at your feet or not? It’s true. Or, maybe it’s not – at this point I can’t tell.

So do you “hate Christianity” or not? If you do, I can’t imagine why it would bother you in the least that people notice that, or why you would bother to start an entire thread on the issue. Or why you didn’t bother to post “it’s true – I do,” five pages ago. All I can say in my defense is that it certainly didn’t appear you hate Christianity from any of your posts except this last one. So I do apologize – both for putting words in your mouth, which I never intended to do, and for wrongly assuming you meant what you said.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
That’s another thing that bugs me: Why didn’t Christ (or God or Whatever) just come right out and say what he meant? Why do we have to read between the lines? Why all the ambiguity and the confusion and the contradictions? Could it be that MEN wrote the “Word of God?” Could it be that Jesus was a mere mortal?

I believe Jesus blamed people’s inability to understand him on the devil. See Luke 8:

… Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

Jesus did say what he meant as best I can tell.

[erislover]

What I am saying:
Stereotypes do not impose morality on the population being stereotyped. Now, for one so quick to point out the necessity of qualifiers, you might note that I did not state “All stereotypes do not impose…” Thus, the statement above is a generalization of stereotypes. If you automatically interpret statements that do not state “all” as a qualifier to mean “all” then we are going to have problems 'til the end of time.
My contention is that stereotypes based on a set are valid if they will be right greater than 50% of the time. Population meaning, of course, whatever is being stereotyped about, not who is being stereotyped about(necessarily). You feel 50% is not justifiable. Why? What is the cut-off rate for viability, and why did you choose that figure?
Now, let us continue the morality idea. “It tells us that the morality in question springs from the Christian tradition, from which certain broad moral tenets may be found, like “love one another.” It gives us the starting point for the morality embraced by each denomination. And it tells us (a) that a central starting point does in fact exist and (b) where that starting point is (in the precepts of Christianity),” you say. The example of “love one another” is an abstract idea. Without knowing how this abstract idea is espoused and/or practiced it is, again, a meaningless statement. Is this polygamy? Is this “free love”? Is this a tenent to treat other people with respect(brotherly love)? Without already having generalized Christianity we find this statement, STILL, to be meaningless. That is, it tells us nothing about how a Christian would act. Why is this so hard to see? For your generalizations to be valid we must have already formed other generalizations. My god! Because it tells us nothing about how a christian would act, it can imply no morality. If you interpret morality into it then you are crossing over the line of what generalizations are for.

Any statement of existence, first of all, tells us nothing about the qualities of existence. Secondly, for your part (b), any statement which describes a starting point is meaningless unless we already have a set of generalizations about that starting point. Starting to see the regression here? In the end, for any of these statements to make sense, you will have to make a very broad generalization that will not necessarily apply to each and every individual. For a very broad group like “the set of all Chrisitians” your generalizations must be broad indeed, and must be right greater than 50% of the time. The more one narrows the focus of the stereotype, the more strictly defined the stereotype must be. That a blanket statement about Christians doesn’t apply to a bunch of Methodists is not, IN THE LEAST BIT, surprising. Only when one qualifies the stereotype to say “all” of the members of the set of Christians are a certian way should you interpret the statement as a fact. Semantics indeed. You seem to want stereotypes to be able to replace facts. No wonder you find their usage so intimidating. If you feel that “all” is implied in a stereotype you are either confusing a generalization for a definition or a generalization for a fact. I will not let you do this.

Now, we take a generalization about Christians like, “Christians frown upon (ie-find it wrong) homosexuality.” What does this statement tell us?

1. that Christians themselves are bad? --No.
2. that homosexuality is bad?–No.
3. That all Christians dislike homosexuality? --No.
4. That there if you were to pick a random Christian out of the “set of all Christians” you would have a good chance to find that this person found homosexuality wrong?–Yes.

This is, for the ten-millionth but probably not the last time, a completely amoral statement. If you choose to look beyond the sentence and find some hidden society of Christ-haters feeding this line to atheists and satanists everywhere you are clearly creating a problem. If you see the statement as incorrect for you, you may point that out, but it isn’t implied that you are absolutely a member of homo-haters so I doubt many would be suprised. If you see the statement as incorrect for a majority, then you might feel obligated to correct the errors. If you feel that the standard of greater-than-50/50 is too low, you have every ability to make your standards higher than the rest of the world at large to make your stereotypes more valid to you. However, because ALL stereotypes are statistical statements used to correlate one quality with a set of objects/people, greater than 50-50 odds is good enough. From there it is a matter of accuracy or degree.

[jab1]

Look at Luke 8:10. Jesus says to his Disciples, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’”

So, it sounds to me like he speaks plainly to those he wants to save and in parables to those he does not want to save.

Funny, I thought he came here to save everyone.

And here’s something else from Luke 9:27

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

Here, Jesus tells his Disciples that some of them will live to see the end of the world.

Either Jesus told a bald-faced lie or he was no more a prophet or God in the flesh than any of us.