It’s a matter of degree.
They give degrees in being homosexual?
Kabbes, i’m confused. The full phrase, any time I’ve ever seen it is “No Jesus, No Peace, Know Jesus, Know Peace” Which, in my basic translation means, for chrisitians, before they knew jesus they knew no peace, now that they know Jesus, they know peace.
I mean, cripes, the thing is printed on bumper stickers and you guys are taking it like they stamp it on all of your foreheads.
I’m sad that gobear perceives us as blowing him off or hating him. I believe he’s suffered at the words and actions of extremist, ridiculous Christian blathering…I was just trying to show him that a great many of us love, accept and embrace him.
j
Please forgive the delay in my response Libertarian. I wanted to give the proper thought to my reply to you, and I felt that a knee-jerk response would have been inappropriate.
Firstly, I want to thank you for the compliment. Knowing that people expect a certain “quality” to my posts (you must have expected a certain quality in order to feel let down by my previous post) means alot to me. I know that there are posters here (we won’t go into names) of whom nothing but flames and nonsense is expected. The fact that you expect more of me means alot to me and I thank you. [sub] Yeah, yeah, I know. No niceness in the Pit. I’m sorry, but I felt I had to.[/sub]
As to the substance of your post, the answer is probably yes. If people were to go around massacaring whole communities in my name, perhaps it would have been better had I not existed. I’m not stating that this makes me personally responisble, but I can certainly tell you that the friends, family, etc. of those killed would certainly agree with the sentiment that the world would have been better without me.
Zev Steinhardt
Jarbaby, I have absolutely no problem with the “know Jesus, know peace” part. Whatever floats your boat. But whether it stands alone or as part of a greater phrase, “No Jesus, no peace” is offensive.
Tell me how else I’m supposed to parse “No Jesus, no peace”? It means that if we do not have Jesus then we cannot create peace. Atheists cannot be peaceful. Hindus cannot be peaceful. Motherfucking Zen Buddhists cannot be peaceful!
Well let me tell you - I do not “have Jesus”. I’m about as peaceful a man as you’ll come across. Well - IRL anyway. On the Dope I can occassionally let my hair down.
Also, if I may reduce the phrase to symbolic logic, we have ¬J => ¬P (No Jesus implies no peace), which can be rearranged to P => J (Peace implies Jesus). Wherever there is peace, there must necessarily be Jesus. I’m not sure that the Tibetan monks sitting on their rock refusing to harm a beetle would agree with that. Though they’d probably be too peaceful to actually, y’know, argue or anything.
The phrase says nothing about “No Jesus means, for some people, no peace, though maybe they could have achieved peace through some other means”. It is a blanket condemnation of anyone who does not accept this ancient teacher as their spiritual leader.
Imagine if the phrase said “Know Jesus, no peace; no Jesus, know peace”. Syllogistically it has the same form, but with the complementary meaning. Now - do you find it offensive?
pan
As one of the Christians that gobear said he was not talking about, I have to say that, statistics to one side, he’s got a point. Without getting into the “no true Scotsman” point of view, it remains the case that the vast majority of Christians seem not to care whether the statements made in their name hurt gay people, and that only a vocal minority speak out for including them in the Body of Christ. At the same time, I need to point to the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ as two denominations that emphatically do not (again except for a vocal minority) take an anti-gay stand. (Yeah, if you dig, you can find the occasional statement that can be read as anti-gay – but you don’t rebuild Rome, to hijack an entirely apropos cliche, in a day.)
At the same time, there is a third stance held, I believe, by a majority of people who consider themselves Christians (and which is not my own) that is worth considering – that, trying their best to follow Christ’s commandment to love all men and women as they do themselves, and seeing in the Bible strictures against homosexual acts and those who commit them, try, in love rather than judgmentally, to dissuade people with gay orientation from exercising their sexuality in what they consider sinful ways. With sincere apologies to JayJay for bringing it to public notice, I link to a thread in which this sort of view was projected at him specifically, and of course caused him great hurt. I draw everyone’s attention, though, to the (I am certain sincere) stances taken by two posters there who were speaking from their heart in love to him, trying to reconcile their understanding of God’s will as they read it in Scripture with JayJay and Christina25’s hurt from being abused with these same verses.
As I said (and I hope is made clear in that thread) I do not agree with this stance. If anybody wants my advice, I suggest that the intended use of sex is within a committed relationship (which can include such a relationship between two people of the same sex), and that exercise of sexuality outside such a relationship is, not necessarily evil, but not the fullness of what God intended it to be. “Sin” in the sense of falling short of what one’s best can be, not in the sense of “violating some hoary precept of what somebody calls Divine Law.” However, I try not to urge my understanding on people where I know that all it will do is hurt them – out of caring and respect for who they are.
kabbes, what I’m asking you to do is ask yourself this:
Did the guy making the 25 cent glittery blue button that says No Jesus No Peace Know Jesus Know Peace, go through a fucking logic theorem before throwing it in the bin? I DOUBT IT. IT LOOKED GOOD AND SYMMETRICAL ON A BUTTON PEOPLE. NJ, NP, KJ, KP is not a phrase intended to explain all the delicate intricacies of christianity. On Easter, I drove past a church that said “For All You Do, His Blood’s For You” You know what I did? Laughed out loud and drove right by. There are 6,000 more things in the world for me to be offended by. The ladies at Walgreens wear buttons with crosses on them that say “Too Blessed To be Stressed” Do I take from this the inference that they are of some master race, blessed by the Gods and now they have no problems? No, I take it as a quick statement of faith.
And no, I don’t find it offensive. Because I translate it as a personal peace, rather than a world peace. I HAD NO PEACE within myself before Jesus, and now I do. One of the first things Christians learn is that every human is born with free will. Jesus doesn’t MAKE PEOPLE ACT a certain way. He doesn’t start war or end it. People do.
And finally…if anyone is perceiving the Salvation Army to be representative of the Mainstream Christian faith…they’ve got to settle down and get a hold of themselves.
j
Hey - I didn’t say that I was losing sleep over it or anything. Just that, yes, it is offensive.
Your argument is the same that has been used since time immemorial to justify racism, sexism and every other form of petty prejudice. “There are other things to worry about”. “But that thing there is even worse”. “Can’t you take a joke?”
And when the problem is pointed out to them they take refuge in anti-intellectualism, yelling and bluster.
I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it from the racists or the sexists and I I’m certainly not going buy it from the Christian blue-rinse brigade.
If you want to celebrate in your little slogans and pat on the back those who - wittingly or unwittingly - offend, well then you go to it. But don’t be surprised if I think less of you for doing so. Or when I use you as an example when discussing the problems of religion with others.
pan
Did I say that I celebrate my little slogans? Not at all. Cut and paste where I said I celebrate or even support it. I just don’t find it ‘offensive’. I think it may be because i’m not easily offended.
I’m just saying if you think that the friggin’ Salvation Army sat around and strategically planned a four word phrase to rile up all of the unwashed or indeed even to lure in non-believers, you’re giving them a ton more credit than they deserve.
Also, I’d like to know why you’d use me as an example of the problem of religion. Seeing as it takes a lot for me to even discuss my religion with people since it’s such a personal thing.
j
No - I think that you’re not offended because it doesn’t affect you.
But put yourself in the position of gobear. Marginalised, villified and even hated by a large section of society. Now see if you find offense in the idea that you cannot be a peaceful man.
I’m not suggesting that the Salvation Army thought through the implications of their slogan (though frankly they should do, given their influence amongst large sections of society). I’m suggesting that you should think it through. And if you don’t like what you see, then you should point out to them where it may offend. Or at the very least not support them in their slogan, suggesting that it is a positive thing.
Why am I going to use you as an example? Because you’ve provided me with a perfect example of how someone benefiting from a majority position can ride roughshod over the feelings of the minority and not even realise that they are doing it. You can rationalise the hurt away - if they don’t like it then it isn’t your problem. Well damn right it isn’t your problem. You’re not the one being hurt.
pan
Or, perhaps, you aren’t offended because you view yourself as part of the “in” group. I am always amazed at how people who aren’t part of an offended group telling those who are what they should be offended about. The point is, jarbabyj, that people should think about how their slogans will come across to others. If they cause offense, even if unintended, then apologies and changes are in order - unless the offense is intended.
Why does this make it any less offensive? It’s still saying, “Hey, you, Agnostic/Atheist-type. You are wholly incapable from having inner peace.” That doesn’t strike you as the least bit… off?
Yes, I know that there are worse things out there. Yes, I know it’s just a cute little phrase. No, I’m not particularly in a huff about it… but if someone else IS, then I can totally see their point.
Quix
OK, I’m being told from outside sources that I’m misconstruing the question.
if the question is: “can this be construed as being offensive?” My answer is YES, it certainly can, and that’s a shame, because I don’t think that’s the intent. But of course, I can see why people would take offense…
if the question is do I, jarbaby take offense to it? My answer is no.
and finally, I never told anyone WHAT they should be offended by, or if that came across as my goal, it was unintended. What I meant to do was offer an alternate translation, giving the benefit of the doubt.
Has anyone called the Salvation Army to ask them what they think it means? Or are you just assuming?
It doesn’t matter what they think it means! It matters what it actually means! And what it actually means is that it is not possible to have peace without accepting Jesus. I’ve shown how it logically parses to that. I and others have explained verbally how it parses to that.
The fact that none of us have personally discussed it with the originator of the slogan shows even more why it is critical that the slogan mean what is intended - a representative of the SA cannot be there every time it is either seen or brandished to explain.
It means what it means. And what it means is unpleasant.
Shorten it to “Know Jesus, know peace” and I will merely retort with those who claim to know Jesus and most certainly do not have peace. But I won’t find it offensive. The full slogan is unwittingly unpleasant and best and downright confrontational at worst.
pan
Okay, now I’m insulted!!! :mad:
Jarbabyj, The Bible says in I Corinthians 8:8-13
For “meat”, read “buttons.”
Think about it: if you wear buttons that make people turn away from Jesus, are you serving God’s will or your own pride? Which do you think is more effective witnessing of God’s power in your life? A button or a humble and contrite heart?
I apologize for my intemperate posts. One reason that I feel as strongly as I do is that the Christians I have met[sup]*[/sup], with very few exceptions, are unpleasant, prideful, bigoted people. They act as if Jesus’s atonement on the cross was earned by their own innate goodness, which is completely contradictory to everything I was taught in CCD. They act as if God’s grace makes them superior to the common run of mortal. It certainly makes me want to aoid anything to do with Jesus or the Christian church[sup]@[/sup]. And I won’t repeat all the antigay crap I’ve run into.
I’m a bad man. I don’t go to church. I have extreme opinions, and I’m gay. I know and accept that, if Christianity is true, then God’s redemption does not apply to me. Frankly, I’d rather burn in Hell with Jerry Garcia and Allen Ginsburg than bask in the Beatific Vision with John Ashcroft and Pat Robertson.
[sup]*[/sup] I’m talking ONLY about the Christians I’ve met. The rest of you people, including **Jarbaby, Jodi, ** and Yosemitebabe are perfect vessels of Divine charity, AFAIK.
[sup]@[/sup] By “Christian church,” I refer to the body of believers in Jesus Christ, of all denominations.
I appreciate your post gobear…but once again, I’d like you to find where I said I agree with or believe these ‘buttons’ to be true or effective.
Indeed, most christian rah rah paraphenalia i see makes me oogy. I don’t like it. I don’t like the WWJD thing, I don’t like No Jesus No Peace, and I don’t like churches that say “You Think It’s Hot Here??” In july.
But I do try to be a charitable, compassionate open minded, understanding, loving person to EVERYONE (except Brett Favre) and that includes portions of the Christian community that I don’t agree with. I try to look for the positive in what they’re trying to say, rather than immediately point out the negative.
I wish I was a perfect vessel of Divine Charity. I’m not. I’m subject to a lot of sin, a lot of vice and very little self control. I just find peace (my own peace) in the fact that I can be forgiven, and that’s what I like about Christianity. YMMV
j
Unfortunately “YMMV” is not a sentiment endorsed by “NJNP”.
And you still seem to think that I follow NJNP philosophy even after I’ve said twice or maybe three times that I don’t.
j
Bull puckey. Though I completely sympathize with the ignorant, bigoted attitudes that have led you to conclude this. Personally, I suspect that there are gonna be a lot of people who had fish outlines and bumper stickers warning you that “in case of Rapture, this car will be unoccupied” on their cars finding themselves among the Goats, with a lot of people who followed God according to their own understanding of Him and did His will as best they were able, among the Sheep.