You're not a good Christian...

Great Debates
141

Whoosh…did anybody happen to notice the thrust of the OP, in our thorough analytic of what Brian, Jodi, Temujin, and for all I know the Dalai Lama thought the other one was saying?

Item…fundaloony pastor says, and gets press for saying, “You can’t be a good Christian unless you…” (fill in your particular shibboleth here; Glidden, the guy that Brian quoted, said “Creationism”).

Dex picked up on the particular quote that suggests that God condemns evolutionists to be gay, which I hadn’t noted originally, but which cracked me up.

The issue is not whether Brian can write clear English posts (yes, IMHO) or controversial ones (the fact we’re on P.3 of this one should answer that question), or whether Jodi can (a) read clearly, (b) reason logically, or © argue selectively. (IMHO, she can do all three, all good traits in a lawyer, and simply misread Brian’s post (something I think we’ve all done), argued herself out on a limb, and then was unwilling to climb back off that limb.

Now:

  1. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the offbeat has more story value than the everyday thing. If Jodi’s minister preaches a sermon suggesting that Christianity calls for giving to the aid of those in need, the only way that’s going to get coverage is if the local weekly shopper needs a filler item. If he suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a wild affair, that’ll be all over the papers, and provoke a letter-writing campaign that would make this thread and the ones in the pit look like the Tuesday Morning Ladies Sewing Circle.

Monty: I read your post, and thought I understood what you were saying. Let’s review the data, and see if we are in agreement, because it sounds like one of us misunderstood the other, and I’m not sure which.

I said, in essence, Jesus spent a lot of time condemning judgmental, self-righteous types (the Pharisees), and tended not to condemn sinners quite so much as those who thought they were “holy.” So do his followers. (That is, committed mainstream christians condemn, or should condemn, fundaloonies who arrogate Christian to only their beliefs, and condemn everybody else, MS Christian and nonbeliever alike.)

You said, “only the judgmental, self-righteous ones.” This I took to mean that someone who truly tries to practice what Jesus did and taught would not be judgmental and self-righteous, even against those who are themselves judgmental and self-righteous (i.e., the fundaloonies). Since I do stand in judgment over them (WWJD? Well, in this case, He did!), I took that personally, and was zapped for it.

Hey, I’m only human. Maybe it’s possible to condemn their viewpoint and still feel brotherly affection towards them (i.e., the fundaloonies). On a one-on-one basis, e.g., my RL friend Brian and Adam (ARG220),I can do this. As a whole, when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or the not-so-reverend Terry Glidden condemn whole groups of people of whose relationship to God they have no concept and whose shoes they have never even looked at much less walked in, I get outraged. It is a failing in me. It’s one I don’t plan repenting any time soon, because somebody has to get mad and speak out, and it should not be just outraged atheists and agnostics who do so. But your line, whatever you meant by it (and it appears you were condemning the fundaloonies, not me, by it), did strike home because of this. I may owe you an apology for my reaction, and if so, you have it gladly. But you did zap me, however inadvertently.

Kayla’s Dad: I’m a bit confused. The fact that I am an active churchgoing Christian and Brian (Satan), AFAIK, i not, did not surface here, and otherwise we seem to be in general agreement on the issues at hand in this thread. On what particular issues relative to evangelical Christians do you tend to agree more with him than with me? This is not a subdued flame, just trying to figure out where I may have misrepresented myself or failed to see a nuance Brian pitched and I didn’t catch. Thanks.

142

Polycarp:
Thank you for making a response to my post, and congratulations on the sharp eyes that caught the ambiguity where I took your name in vain. Upon re-reading my post, I realize that my wording could have been clearer. I will endeavor to clear up your confusion.

Regardless of whether your level of activity in Christianity was brought up in this thread, you have identified yourself as an active churchgoing Christian in other places on the SDMB. Similarly, Satan (or Brian, if you feel that his choice of screen name tends to trivialize a decidedly non-trivial entity/concept), has pretty effectively identified himself as a non-churchgoer.

As to my choice of terms, I said:

Probably less confusing would have been:

“. . .my outlook on evangelical Christianity (etc.)”

As to my making any assumptions with regard to your outlook on evangelical Christianity, I feel safe in assuming that whether you identify yourself as an evangelical Christian or not, you share many core beliefs with them; e.g., the existence of Heaven, the necessity of salvation for entry into Heaven, the acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior as the necessity for obtaining salvation, etc.

Satan, on the other hand, has not struck me as a person who believes in any of those things. I will say right here that I don’t share those beliefs in any literal sense.

You have pointed out that you were in general agreement with Satan regarding the content of this particular thread, yet unless I am misremembering, you were among those who entreated him to be a bit more gentle in his responses to jodih’s “attacks.” In making the statements I presume you were alluding to, I was trying to back up that general effort, and at the same time make it clear that my motivation in backing up those efforts was not born of any belief system that I share with jodih, or Temujin, or you.

At this time, I would also like to say that my referring to jodih’s departure from the field as a “victory” for Satan is not intended to be construed as meaning a “victory” that should be celebrated. Indeed, if Satan is half the debater I think he is, he’s seeing it as a forfieture (in the sense a victory being granted to one whose opponent has failed to show up, or quit the playing field without acknowledging a loss). This type is not viewed by the victor as a triumph of any kind. I am very distressed to think that Pickman’s Model was influenced by phraseology in my post to withdraw himself from the Great Debates forum. More importantly, my prayers are with him, his partner, and the people involved in the incident he reported to us in his farewell post, as they deal with the new reality they face today.

Polycarp, If I have not left you any less confused regarding my previous post, or if any of the assumptions I have admitted to in this one are faulty, please feel free to correct me. This is, after all, the place to witness, if you feel you must. :wink:

Maype I should just stick to smart-ass remarks.

143

Make that religious belief system.

144

Okay, I get it. Or rather, to quote a college professor I thought a lot of, I’m still confused, but at least I’m confused on a higher plane! :slight_smile:

Warning: “witnessing” follows. For me, the essence of faith is a radical commitment to a relationship with God, particularly as he (as I believe) showed himself through the person of Jesus Christ. It does not necessarily involve the sorts of things you outline, though I think they do “come with the territory.” My “faith” in (=commitment to) God has resolved a lot of personal-integration issues that were leaving me a troubled and unhappy person and made me the sort of person that I’ve tried to show myself as being through my posts. I feel “saved” not in some fundamentalist sense but in the same sense that Gwyneth Paltrow’s character in [iTitanic refers to “having been saved in every possible way” by Leonardo diCaprio’s character. There’s a wholeness and sense of fulfillment (not to mention a sense of purpose!) there that wasn’t present before. Heaven? I believe that life continues after death. I leave it to God’s goodness to work out the details. The necessity for salvation? Well, let’s just say that I think that salvation is generally a good thing, unless it becomes a badge to show who’s “in” and who’s “out” as it has for some fundamentalists. The acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior? Well, I did. And He did say, “No one cometh to the Father except through me.” But no, I don’t believe in a God that will take Fred Phelps into heaven and keep Chaim Keller out because one recited some dumb-ass formula and the other didn’t. I think God’s grace is sufficient for anyone who is willing to accept it, and his omniscience is working through us all in an imperfect world. Certainly Kayla is being cared for because you love her, and there is not a one of us who would see God’s will as being other than she be cared for and loved. So in that sense, you are certainly doing God’s will. David and Phil were, IMHO, doing God’s will a few months ago in opening Adam’s eyes to the fact that there’s more to life than reading the Bible, and that good will is possible in people who don’t happen to adhere to your particular creed.
End of witness

I confess that I do have the shortcoming that I (nearly) always try to be a peacemaker, even when what is needed is a good thunderstorm to clear the air. But I stand with him on the idiocy of the statements he quoted in his OP. I have no personal interest in any dogmatic statement regarding the Prince of Darkness, and the only reasons I didn’t refer to Brian as Satan in these posts are (1) when something gets theological in nature, it could be unclear whether you’re ascribing a given attitude to the Prince of Darkness or the Prince of Music Promotion, and (2) I feel like a friend to Brian and like him as a person, and therefore used his name rather than his username as a way of implying that. FTR, my ward had a nickname of “Evil” when we took guardianship over him, and we used to joke about my “trying to bring good out of Evil.” (It will be fun sometime in the future to introduce Satan to Evil! ;))

145

Satan, while I too think the original post may have been a little unclear, the actual thrust of the point was driven home today as a browsed through the website for Kevin Smith’s soon to be released ‘Dogma.’ They have a section devoted to hate mail they have received by people who could not have possibly seen the movie yet. Although some of the authors generically posted as Christians, some specifically identified themselves as Roman Catholics.

As a RC myself, I was truly appalled and embarassed by the close-minded and ignorant rantings of some of the authors. Keeping in mind this current thread, I wrote an e-mail myself, begging the web site people to provide my e-mail an equal forum as the hate mail. I am not holding my breath for them to post it, which I recognize as a very big problem with holding moderate views. I think it is an overwhelming task for the moderates of groups to counter the extremists because of the fact the media at al are quick to provide a forum for those whose views are inflamatory, and therefore newsworthy. They are slow, however, in providing equal time for those of us who represent the views held by the majority of the group.

I would like to thank you, Satan, for helping me recognize a problem I really didn’t think much about.

Jodih, if you are reading this thread still, please recognize the points I have made. I initially understood your point that an intelligent person shouldn’t be susceptible to believing in stereotypes. But IMO, even if 1% of the population is persuaded into believing them because of fringe members who aren’t representative of the whole, then it is our duty to try to at the very least make it known that the fringe views aren’t the pervading views. I think we are capable of doing this without looking like we have so much internal disagreement that our underlying principles are shaky.

146

Well I’m glad SOMEONE got something out of my post other than heartburn…

147

Yeah Satan. Nice of you to start this thread. By the looks of your user name, we know where you’re going.

148

Kameryn:

Gee, three whole posts to this board and not an iota of info on who you are.

It must take real convictions to be so trollish and anonymous.

Hey religious friends - Here’s SOMEONE ELSE making you look bad…

149

You know, Satan, that’s a perfect example of the way that I think you often read too much into what people write on this board.

Kameryn has made all of one post that made any reference to religion at all in a different thread. She stated, “I believe like she does” (referring to another poster).

Now, it could be that what you’ve assumed is correct, namely that Kameryn doesn’t like you because of your screen name, and because you “bashed” a fundie in your OP.

With so little information to go on, however, I think it’s equally likely that the first statement, which was in response to your post in which you accepted a “thank you,” was sincere, and that she’s glad you made the OP. The last statement could very easily have been a joke.

There are obviously a lot of people around here who like what you contribute. In general, I’m one of them. But here you’ve made an assumption based on too little information. Even if you’re right, you come off looking like you’re overreacting by calling Kameryn a troll, and attacking the anononymity that many around here make use of.

Lighten up, man.

Yer pal,
Rich

150

Well VegForLife, what have we here!

I, like jodih, made an interpretation of a post. I do this with evidence that, while purhaps is all circumstantial (low posting history, no contact info, lack of ability to find the shift key, poor punctuation skills, lack of smiley face that would denote humor), is still prevalent.

I, unlike jodih, will gladly retract the commentary if said poster is to clarify what (s)he means by the post.

But until then, I stand by it.

Maybe I should lighten up, and maybe i get too wound up over shit like this. But don’t tell me that I can’t interpret a post and make a comment on it… Especially after all I’ve been through.

151

Well, I have it on good authority that Brian intended to take the screen name “Santa” and portray a jovial old elf from the North Pole. Unfortunately, he made a typo in signing up. :slight_smile:

There. Kameryn, ball’s in your court. One suggestion: don’t jump to assumptions. I think every flame war I’ve seen on this board has come from somebody misassuming something. And I believe I could get a lawyer to back that one up! :slight_smile:

152

I don’t really have anything to add, and could’ve handled this in an e-mail, but he (she?) doesn’t have e-mail so I’ll post it here:

TEMUJIN: Your posts are correct, both in the attempt to explain what I was trying to say and in criticizing the way that I said it. I’m sorry all you got for your troubles was someone else jumping in to label you “willfully deluded,” but I deeply appreciated all your posts.

I hope we’re about done with this in any case.

153

Kameryn’s username was just registered today. (S)He has made precisely three posts so far; I haven’t found the other two yet, but the one to this thread consists solely of pithy condescension.

At this point, it appears that Kameryn is either 1) trolling for flames, or 2) a reg wanting to take an anonymous dig at Satan. Either way, the poster deserves no respect until (s)he proves otherwise.

Laugh hard; it’s a long way to the bank.

154

For some reason this thread is acting screwy… Just a quick test-post to see what happens…

You may now go back to flaming me, trolls and/or organized religion…

155

Yeah, the whole board’s acting screwy for me too. It’s showing no posts since 1:41 until I get in the thread, then half the time it can’t find the page. Think I’ll wander over to “about this message board”…

156

Just for the record, I did just what Gaudere is saying, for the reason that shortly after Jodih’s post on page 4 was added, all of page 4 disappeared. My post to About this Message Board showed up, then disappeared. I’m not sure what’s going on, but I’ll leave this message here so David can alert TD, in case the alert stays gone.

Sheesh…I was beginning to doubt my own existence there for a minute!

157

Well, that’s your perogative. Personally, I tend to think a quick, “hey, Kameryn, haven’t you read any of my posts yet? Don’t take the ‘Satan’ name so seriously!” makes you look reasonable, while a sharp, “yo, troll, piss off!” makes you look unreasonable, when it’s in response to a post with questionable intent.

Maybe it’s just me, but tend to think that asking for clarification is better than over-reacting and then having to retract something. Your mileage may vary.

Oh, I’d never do that. I was simply making the observation that you might want to lighten up in order to appear more reasonable. You might think you always appear reasonable; you might disagree, and not want to appear more reasonable than you already do, regardless of how reasonable that is; and you might specifically want to appear unreasonable. Naturally, it’s all up to you. I was just making an observation, nothing more.

Sorry, whining will get you nowhere.

Rich

158

Oh, and FTR, I’d actually love it if you were right, I’m sure the exchanges between Kameryn and others who have been participating in this thread would be loads of fun!

Rich

159

Rich, that sounded reasonable. So why are you posting it in this thread? :wink:

160

I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but dammit, I was scrolling through the thread about Kansas ( http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000219.html ) and I came across a post jodih made on the subject. On August 12th, which was way before this thread was started by yours truly. Here it is:

Compare this to the working in my OP and tell me that they’re not saying the exact same thing, just about a different issue.

You can say you’re sorry anytime you want, jodih… Hypocrite!