Well, now that I’ve done my bit to break the tension in this thread… 
'Sprix, we’re still waiting for your reply to all of this… (sucks when they actually want you to work, doesn’t it. :))
Polycarp:
Your point about the rabble rousers getting all the attention is well taken, and I apologize if my comments caused you any bad feeling. In addressing these issues here I am trying to speak about the Christian community, or segments of it, not any particular individual. As I indicated before, you personally have educated me on many occasions, (Although I don’t post so much in the purely theological threads, I do read 'em.) and when I am tempted toward a knee-jerk stereotype of all Christians, it is most often your name that pops into my head as a warning against it. So do not disparage of your efforts to communicate to others, 'cause you’ve helped change at least one mind on several points.
Let me draw a parallel between politics and religion for a moment in addressing the “national debate.” In politics there is a lot of right wing partisan radio. There are lots of magazines and newspapers that lean right. On the other hand, there are a lot of distinctly leftward-leaning publications as well, and there are shows like “Crossfire” that pit one side against the other in vigorous debate. When I turn on CNN, I see partisans from both sides being asked to deliver their take on whatever the issue of the day is.
When it comes to religion, I hear a lot of fundamentalist radio. I see religious programming of the same sort as well as the occasional religious tract. Whenever a fundamentalist group takes on public matters, like gay rights, sex ed, creationism V evolution, abortion rights, or whatever, they are vocally opposed by various secular groups. There doesn’t seem to be any large presence within the Christian community willing to publicly counter the fundamentalists, at least not in a vocal, visible manner. One unfortunate upshot of this is that it paints a false picture of Christianity to others. After a while, it sure seems like it’s “Christians against gays, evolution, sex education, and abortion.” Now, perhaps it is unreasonable for me to expect or hope for religious organizations to rise up and actively counter their fundamentalist brethren, especially given that the liberal Christians would tend to tolerate the fundamentalists as well as the homosexuals/abortion providers/whomever.
It sort of boils down to a not uncommon perception: Some vocal and organized fundamentalists are making the rest of the Christians look bad, and those other Christians aren’t taking very strong steps to correct those impressions in any organized way. When battles are fought primarily between fundamentalist Christians and secular groups, it seems to leave a void that more moderate or liberal Christians should fill. All in all, I think the secular groups are doing all right in these arenas, but I think if there were an equivalently active counter to fundamentalist groups within Christianity, that society and Christianity would both be better off.
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all else charity.
Althought not chapter and verse, this is probably what the moderates within Christianity feel, and that doesn’t sell well on O’Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, wot not.
Seems that when Christians actually turn the other cheek, they get badgered into taking on the affront. I may have misread your point.
I’m not sure which thread you are talking about there. By the way, I am not claiming those particular perceptions as my own. I have a problem with LTS/HTS’s effects, and I am somewhat unsure of its foundations. But I don’t find it to be logically inconsistent. So I won’t say LTS/HTS is a cop-out, but that it can be one. I find myself unable to definitively resolve how I feel about it, at least to date. While it seems very reasonable on the one hand, it also seems somehow inherently contradictory when put into practice.
Very nice take on it, Pt. I gotta admit, it sounds like you’re right.
What I wonder is how Christians view the inherent contradictions presented in their philosophy, but I guess that would be a major hijack. It just seems to me that the philosophy of christianity itself is it odds with itself. Not that there is a “one true philosophy,” either, but there are far less contradictory ones. In accepting a blatent contradiction as a philosophy there are always going to be problems, and you will find that people are speaking “for” you even when you don’t want them too.
Meaning: I’m sure some fundies “hate” the tolerant Christians, too.
In order to “hate the sin love the sinner” or “Hate christianity but love the christian” implies that one can exist without the other…that Christianity or sin is a concept that can be divorced from people. I don’t see it as such. Sin itself is a meaningless concept…in fact, TNT made it even worse with the implication that even thought of a sin was a sin, because you’ve already done the deed in your heart. Man, if that wasn’t a guilt trip, I don’t know what is. This removes the sin from the action, essentially, but still cannot remove the person from it.
A less charged example might be, “Can you divorce the cops from the laws they enforce?” The issue here is the same; one has the force of the government behind it and IS the force of the government, our christianity point is that christians have the force of god behind them, and ARE the force of god on earth (else there would be no need for a bible, or preaching, or spreading the word, see?). In the case of law enforcement officers, it is irrelevant whether or not they chose to personally enforce a set of laws; they agreed that this was the set they are defending, the end. Christians must accept the fact that, by inheriting an openly contradictory system, that other opinions on said contradictions will reflect on them regardless of personal opinion. It truly isn’t a matter of whether or not it is right to do such a thing, because “right” presupposes a standard practice. Stereotyping, when practiced, is not self-refuting or contradictory but bashing stereotypes is. ESPECIALLY bashing stereotypes on moral grounds as opposed to logical ones.
I think I am losing the clarity I previously had…
Are you saying that moderate and liberal Christians should let their conservative brothers and sisters speak out against gay rights and say nothing publically against them? That is the impression I got from your post. You are not “turning the other cheek” when you do not confront those who warp the message of Christ–you are turning away from those who the misguided persecute and sneer at. WWJD?
Mithras the Sun-God
Is a solar myth they say,
But the Gnostics know
He obeyed the crow
And he killed that bull one day.
No, I was saying, the Christian response to those loud mouths like Fred Phelps wouldn’t get much play on the networks.
When Fred Phelps does get called on his hate-filled message, his retorts reflect further the blackness of his heart, and makes his real status more evident.
What we see on TV is often, not the quiet voice of love and reason, but the loud voice of hate and illogic. Be it politics or religion.
See, the other question this prompts in me is what, precisely, you expect more conservative Christians to do.
Assume you are dealing with someone who believes the engaging in homosexual behavior is morally wrong. This person truly believes this: MM or FF sex = bad. What do you want or even expect that person to do?
It seems to me that if a person truly believed this and simultaneously believed that God asked him (or her) to love his or her neighbors, maybe the best he or she could come up with would be “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I mean, since “love the sin” is a non-starter for hypothetical moral reasons, the only other alternative for this person is “hate the sinner, hate the sin.” I fail to see why that would be an improvement.
And GAUDERE, the problem moderate Christians run into is that the very nature of their moderation dictates they allow people to believe as they deem best, and further dictates that they NOT try to show their faith down others’ throats. So at what point do you then loudly say “Wait a minute – you believe WHAT? But that’s RIDICULOUS!” There is a fine line between respecting the Christian beliefs of others (which dictates you should be quiet) and avoiding having people presumes those beliefs are yours, too (which dicates you should speak up). I have never been able to identify precisely where that line is.
What did you mean here, then?: “Seems that when Christians actually turn the other cheek, they get badgered into taking on the affront. I may have misread your point.” I thought you were taking exception to Pthalis’ comment that he hears of secular groups vocally opposing Fred Phelps, et al (Didn’t he rescind his gaybashing, or was I imagining it? godhatesfags.com is still connected to his church), but he rarely hears of moderate or liberal Christians doing so. I’m not sure what you meant by being “badgered to take the affront.”
Personal anecdote:
I am an atheist, as has been previously determined in this thread. On my keychain I have an infamous “WWJD” thing. Those who know me usually choose to ignore such an obvious breech in common sense, though some have asked. I reply:
“Well, Jesus ended up nailed to a tree for preaching the beliefs he held true. If I do everything opposite of Jesus, I can be assured that that fate does not happen to me.”
::pauses for laughter::
[exit]
And this should not be construed to mean I can’t identify things that are WAY over the line. If I ever met Fred Phelps (God forbid), I would have no compunction in telling him that he is an agent of Satan (assuming Satan exists) who perverts Christianity and who, if he is judged by the standards he judges others, will certainly fry in Hell (assuming there’s a Hell).
So you should disavow your own beliefs and lie about them when asked. Well, that certainly sweeps away of those pesky problems of personal integrity. Good plan!
Forget I brought it up.
Yes, yes. There is a flaw, a mote to use the Biblical term, in the works. It is very difficult for people to figure out right from wrong. And people may think they are right about what is right and what is wrong, and be in the wrong none-the-less. Which is why, even when you think you know someone is doing something that is wrong, aside from discussing it and pointing it out to someone so they might change their ways (i.e. hating the sin), it is a bad idea to do something which is an act of hate against that person (hating the sinner).
The secondary flaw is that pretty much allows people to get away with whatever they want to do. But, that presumes there aren’t others who, in some bizzare immoral food chain, don’t take it upon themselves to fix people who act immorally and won’t stop.
I had a friend for a while named Karl, and we had a mutual aquaintance who, was – yes – gay. But, not merely gay, but on top of that, he was a pedophile. He’d frequently go out trolling for young boys, and by plying them with liquor or other offers, take them home and… well, I shudder to think. I know this because, looking young for my age he picked me up one time myself and I was lucky to have gotten out of there. But, two other mitigating circumstances: I don’t think any of his victims would come forward in a trial, and he was also a powerful beurocrat in the IRS and I don’t think anyone wanted to triffle with him. I don’t know all the facts here exactly – but I do know that my friend Karl killed our mutual aquaintance. I don’t know why, and yes, Karl was very mentally unstable. And the newspaper (I have the link on my computer at home) said something along the lines of: prominent IRS official murdered in his home, beloved former aid to Ollie North killed by homeless man, etc.
Now, does raping little boys deserve the death penalty? Many would say something along those lines would be appropriate. Should Karl have taken matters into his own hands? No, but what does that mean? I think it means some people would rather not be the ones to get their fingers dirty.
As a rough summary: love the sinner, and hate the sin. I don’t think anyone, whether individually or collectively as a group, has the right to perform acts of hate upon others.
I dunno–I don’t think it’s disrespectful to someone’s beliefs to say clearly, “we don’t believe that.” You don’t have to say “that’s a load of crap.” (I might, but, well, that’s me. :D) They’re saying what they believe loud and clear; fine for them. If the liberal/moderate Christian groups would do the same in response to any gaybashing, etc., I think it would be a good thing. If the secular opponnents to conservative Christians can get press, I would think a Christian organization could join in and at least get mentioned (I’m sure they do this at times). It might make the conservatives less cocksure that they have this (mythical) monolithic unspoken support from the Christian community, which is a definite impression I get from reading their bits in the press.
(BTW, I dislike using “conservative Christians” as a synonym for those Christians who are loudly campaigning against gay rights and abortion based on religious beliefs. All Christians that I have seen speak against these are conservative, but that doesn’t mean all conservative Christians are against these things, though I daresay most are.)
[test]
[aside]
Watching FOXNEWS lastnight I heard Rev. Falwell state that if all Christians would’ve voted the way they should have, Bush would have won Florida by a large margin.
I’m a Bush partisan, but I found this to be over the top, and if you had been in my living room, you would have heard me say so to the TV.
Or as my daughter asked me, ‘Daddy, why are you talking to the TV again?’ Maybe I should turn the darn thing off…
[aside]
Gaudere, my prose wasn’t very well worded, but I think I’m more confused now, than I was then…
Peace.
GAUDERE –
We DO say that. Among other ways, we say that by participating in fora where some people are saying “Christians believe X, Y, and Z” and we say “WE do NOT believe that and WE are Christians.” I have never advocated silence.
We DO this. People don’t hear us, because it isn’t inflammatory.
Yeah, you’d think so. But the fact is that if Fred Phelps says “God Hates Fags” and Polycarp says “God Loves Everyone,” people are not going to be talking about what Polycarp sayss. This is not a phenomenon limited to religion, BTW; moderation in ANYTHING doesn’t get press because it isn’t interesting. Extremism is interesting.
It also might help if people refused to assume that “monolithic unspoken support” exists at all. I see no reason for people to assume that “silence means consent,” especially when it is obviously in their own interests to assume that silence means a lack of support.
Well, I would like to draw to your attention that we’re not talking about just plain believers here, who should be allowed to entertain whatever beliefs they have, on any humanistic ground. I mean, I no more have a right to tell Matt or Hastur his beliefs are full of Oscar Meyer processed animal tissue than either of them does to tell me the same thing. We can debate it, learn from each other, but we should not impugn each others’ beliefs.
However, the next item on the agenda is what kind of believers these people are. And the answer is, Christians. I.e., they adhere to a belief in the divinity of one Jesus of Nazareth, subject of four biographies by gentlemen named Matthew Levi, John Mark, Lucanus (M.D.), and John bar Zebedee. They are, individually and as a group, sworn to follow Him and to do His will.
Now, if He teaches something, that implies they are to abide by it. And, IMHO, the core of his message is that love of God and charity towards fellow man is the heart of what the Jewish Law was all about, and the only part of it that truly matters, when the rubber hits the road. One’s own moral system is to be one that shows the above, subject to one’s own human frailty, which is to be bolstered by divine strengthening (“comfort” in the old, more literal sense of the word) from the Holy Spirit. Such love is to preclude judging one’s fellow, the only allowable negative being to strengthen one’s brother or sister in the faith by gentle guidance where he or she seems to be falling astray.
Which means, at rock bottom, that if a given Christian feels that gay sex, or anything else, is a sin, he or she is to abstain from it. But beyond that, it’s not any of their business.
Naturally, this is a “difficult saying” given the human propensity for meddling. But it’s what seems to be called for.
Lukewarmness has always been a problem. But that’s the problem with Christianity – anyone can claim to be a Christian, the extremely bad “Christians” get all the attention – the people in the middle don’t do anything – and no one wants to be on the extremely righteous side because they, as history shows, eventually get themselves killed. Unless they have safety in numbers, which they don’t, because no one wants to do so without safety in numbers.
(and of course, trying to paint it in two-dimensions isn’t exactly right either, just like in the political realm.)
“About this whole ‘Liberty or Death’ thing, Mr. Henry – isn’t there some reasonable position in between?” – J. W. Smith
No way. You cannot do this. You cannot seperate a person from their actions. If you condemn the actions, you condemn the person who does them. I don’t see a way around that. It may be more appropriate to say, “We forgive the tresspasser but not the tresspass” but it is a meaningless statement unless you intend to do something about the tresspass itself. If you do, any way you choose to do this will affect the tresspasser. In fact, I think supporting this is a cop out and avoids the issue entirely. “We don’t want to do anything bad to you.” Consider, for example, if the general population found prostitution bad(which we do, I guess, since its illegal). We don’t attack people, we attack the act. But, since you cannot divorce the person from the act, any attack on the act will attack the person.