Near the final scene of the 1993 Joel Schumacher film, Falling Down, Robert Duvall has cornered Michael Douglas, who plays a laid-off defense-contracting engineer who has gone on a murderous rampage. Douglas looks at Duvall and asks incredulously, “I’m the bad guy? How did that happen?” And he really doesn’t know.
I’ve been corresponding with a Christian minister who asks a similar question. He’s genuinely puzzled as to why humanists in general or gays in particular would associate Christianity with bigotry and prejudice. A few excerpts:
Who should I hate? In the end, it seems that I must either hate them all or none of them. The word of God and the inward testimony of God both tell me that I must hate none of them – even when it is necessary for me to oppose them…
And I think you have correctly perceived that I do not hate you. And, I find that the ability – the necessity – to love my opponents and to wish always for their best good, is tied directly to having placed my ultimate hopes beyond the present reality. If I thought this was all there was or ever would be, I think I would be decidedly more capable of hate. If I thought it was all about evolution – which,it seems to me, hinges on the quest for momentary advantage – I believe I could hate – that being after all, only a chemical phenomenon that is either useful or not at the moment and virtually immune to concepts like virtue or morality…
In the meantime, I hear from folks on your side of some issues that I do hate. I am prolife and therefore, ipsofacto, I hate women. If what they mean is that if I had my complete way, I would restrict certain freedoms even though it places certain barriers and limitations before individuals and classes of people who would like to operate without that restriction, then we don’t have the same definition of hate. I could introduce you to several women who have had abortions, who either previously were or currently are pro-choice, who yet would sign any affidavit you cared to craft swearing that I love them. (Emphasis mine)
And,
Please believe, it is not a matter of hurt feelings. I don’t have any particular desire to be obnoxious to you or your compatriots. I am not afraid of spirited debate. But part of my agenda is both to understand and confront the (to me totally upsidedown seeming) notion that Christianity breeds hate, contempt, and ignorance. If I am not yet skilled enough to communicate across this great divide without fostering the impression of ignorance and hatred despite my own clear conviction that I hate none of you (whether or not I’m ignorant may be more in question), then it is probably best to keep my mouth shut a while longer. (Emphasis mine)
And,
I feel that homosexuality is a moral problem. I do not, for what it’s worth, feel the need to take that issue to law and regulation. I don’t think the moral problem of homosexuality is worse than my own moral problems. I am not – at heart – a legalist. And I’m not trying to start a new issue between us on either abortion or homosexuality. And I know that presenting a similar list of homosexual people who would sign the ‘He does not hate me’ affidavit wouldn’t make any real difference. The assertion seems to be that I hate a class of people regardless of my relationship to any particular individuals.
I suggested throwing his agenda open to the community at SEB for response and he replied:
I don’t mind if you post the paragraph. I would be interested to see what would happen. I don’t really think you misundestood this – only a product of a quick communication – but to clarify, I’m only partly worried about offending anyone. I’m more worried about the cultural divide. I have seen missionaries do harm because they were eager to impart the gospel before they understood the target culture. This is not what you would call a missionary venture, but the same principle applies.
Really, Christians are the bad guys? How did that happen? Aren’t Christians, by definition, the good guys? Can anyone explain?
He’s all yours, folks. He wants to know. Can you help him understand?
Huh. Weren’t you the guy getting huffy for someone presuming to speak for you a few posts above?
Certainly. That’s true for the arrogant leaders (claiming the moral authority to attribute natural or man-made disasters on particular local moral failings, or suggesting that condoms are more harmful to Africa than AIDS) as well as unsubstantiated claims of miracles as a basis for donations, acquiescence, or, again, authority.
I think the more that Christians claim moral authority over others actions, and certainly without clear evidence of that moral authority, the worse their reputation.
That actually raises another factor that goes to Terry’s questions. While Christianity was the overwhelming majority, they couldn’t be seen as the bad guys (as a whole) because “they” were “us.” The increasing diversity of faiths—and non-faith—in the US has created a substantial enough number of non-Christians to allow that perception to reach a critical mass of people who have both the perception and the safety to voice it.
At which point, the many sins of the Christian community suddenly stop being swept under the carpet, and become voiced criticisms.
And, honestly, I think that’s a good thing. And not in a self-righteous “blessed are you when you are persecuted in my name” kind of way, but in a “hey, let’s put ‘our’ house in order before we think we have the moral high ground over all those ‘other’ folks” kind of way.
If that means Christianity becomes a minority religion, I really don’t think that’s a bad thing, if it means the people who are just Christians because that’s sort of their default stop being so, and if it means that folks who are into the Christian thing because it’s a great way to make money and exercise power … find some other banner to operate underneath.
But the internecine arguments are usually based on doctrinal differences over what it means to be Christian. Whereas I thought your position was that Christians were all fundamentalist Biblical literalists, and anyone who wasn’t wasn’t really a Christian, regardless of what they called themselves.
I do agree that the actions of the Christians you mention are certainly the basis for all Christians being tarred with the same brush.
(And some of that intolerance and violence was, itself, part of the internecine arguments—the whole Protestants vs. Catholics, not to mention the inter-denominational conflicts in this country at its founding—are part of that bad rep.)
From my perspective, honestly, were I looking at Christianity from the outside, I’d be going to Yellow Alert whenever Christians entered the conversation. Because, frankly, there are a lot of intolerant, ignorant, prejudiced (and self-righteously so) Christians out there. Indeed, when folks identify themselves as Christians, unless it’s part of a discussion talking about belief systems, it sure seems a lot of the time it’s a preliminary to Asserting Righteous Authority in some really obnoxious fashion.
To be honest, I act that way even as someone who calls himself Christian. But, then, there are a lot of folks who think the Episcopal Church isn’t really Christian, so maybe I’m an outsider from that perspective.
So, for the very reasons you’ve mentioned earlier, DOF, the perception is not, as a whole, wrong. Yellow Alert. It’s arguably to the point where folks who are “good” Christians need to wave white flags and walk out with their hands empty, shouting out their Non-Authoritarian Street Cred, in order to not start out on the wrong foot.
And that’s not the fault of the Nassssty Atheists or anyone else. It’s “our” fault, the fault of the Christians who have been dicks.
How “should” people perceive Christianity? As a movement of people who work in service to others, regardless of who those others are. People who are good neighbors. People who seem interested in the happiness of others, and of themselves. Yeah, they’ve got some goofy metaphysical beliefs they’ll share with you if you ask … but “you will know they are Christians by their love.”
That’s the “should,” but, honestly, the onus is not on others to perceive “us” that way, but for we Christians to manifest ourselves that way, as individuals and corporately.
Tyler:
I’m not sure how you are, as ***Dave puts it, “huffy” about what I have said. Frankly, I don’t see anything I said as presumptuous; especially not towards you in particular.
That said, if you find dismissing my statements to be adequate interaction, that’s fine. Do not fault me for the thoughtlessness of said interaction.
Tyler,
As noted, you see the view of mankind as fallen as hateful at core. I see plenty of evidence that mankind is fallen. The long history of killing, injustice and oppression that you cite stems from a lot of groups besides Christians. If mankind shows itself to be inherently cruel, greedy, and selfish it is no more hateful to recognize that fact than to diagnose cancer.
DOF
Give me a little time to work on the requested elaboration. I am dissatisfied with the preachy tone of my earlier explanatory and need to work on it.
As a warm up – ‘branding’ and subsequent credibility issues are not (of course) exclusive to Christians. You are on record as saying that Bill Maher is an idiot and his documentary ‘Religulous’ an ‘utter piece of crap’.
And yet, I almost guarantee you that if I assembled a hundred people, a mix of believers/non-believers, men/women, conservatives/liberals, etc. and had them view Religulous and then read your posts ‘A Letter to Republicans’, ‘Betting Against the House’, perhaps a few more, the vast majority would conclude that you are in lock step with Maher (if not Maher himself under an assumed identity).
Our interactions have shown me that this is not so. I guess that’s part of the answer. Especially those who are concerned that Christians cast the rest of the world in stereotypes ought not to view Christianity as or by means of a sterotype.
As noted, that’s only a warm up to the requested elaboration. More later.
Terry
Maher was making points that other atheists have made much better. And the points themselves are correct. He’s an idiot because he’s an antivaccinationist, because as far as I can tell he knows no science at all, and because his interviews were shallow “man on the street” cheap shots (which is why Religulous was a piece of crap).
If someone who saw Maher but hasn’t read much Sagan, Dawkins, Russell, Myers, Park, Plait, Asimov, Paulos or Gould, reads my stuff and thinks I’m channeling Maher, no surprise. If Maher is your main exposure to atheist media I can provide you with a reading/viewing list that would keep you busy for a while.
I’ve said upthread that the Christian™ brand has been defined by ignorant, intolerant leaders. That has filtered down to the “Christian™ Soldier” in the field. In our “Christian” nation, why are gay teens bullied to the point of suicide? Why can’t schools teach science without fighting a pitched battle against ignorance? Why is it such a struggle to divest our “Christian” nation of the shame of torture, and why do Christians™ back candidates who defend it? Why do they elect representatives who support “abstinence-only” sex education that does not work? What’s with all the guns and ammo and violent talk?
Popular Christianity™ calls to mind the tagline of this site.
I understand that there are many different types of Christians and that there are some Christians that are actually decent people. I have never believed in religion but I was sent to Sunday school and when I was young I was coerced into going to church with my mom and dad.
From my experiences at my parents’ church, I saw genuine love and charity. The difference is that my parents went to churches that accepted everybody, especially the UCC (previously Congregational) churches. I never once heard anybody say anything bad about abortion or gays. While in Sunday school, I learned about other religions and they were presented as simply being what some other people believe, they were not presented as being wrong or inferior in any way.
As an adult I used to help at church dinners at my mom and dad’s church. The church dinners were mostly attended by church members, but many people and families in the community were given free or greatly reduced price tickets. Nobody was turned away for lack of money. Church members even provided transportation when it was necessary. I never saw any judging or any attempt at ‘converting’ or proselytizing guests at the church dinners, guests were simply welcomed to the dinner.
I find it very difficult to reconcile the actual love that I saw at my parents’ churches with the hate and lies that other Christians and Christian churches are spreading regarding gays. The recent Proposition 8 campaign is a very good example of Christian deception, lies, and hate.
Going back and rereading this I realize I was unclear in which “that way” I act. I ought to have said: To be honest, I act in a wary way toward other Christians, esp. ones I don’t know and who seem to be gratuitously raising their religion into the conversation.
I think people (well, I—let me speak for myself) don’t resent the recognition of the imperfection of humanity, but the assumption (from the Genesis narrative) that this is a “Fall” from some higher state which only Christian teaching can “Save” us from. The imperfection becomes the result of a specific sin (in a story that comes across as pretty unfair upon examination) for which we are being punished, rather than the state of things above which we should try to rise.
Exactly. By the same token, it’s up to Christians to demonstrate that the stereotypes are unfounded, or how they are too limited (ditto for Republicans, Americans, gamers, progressives, executives, labor organizers, teabaggers, and everyone else … because we are all subject to stereotyping, usually for identifiable reasons, and both sides of the stereotypes need to think of how those stereotypes are limited, and how they can or should be corrected.
As DOF points out, if the Christian community as whole wants to fight the stereotyping, they have a lot of work to do. And if they don’t, then, yes, the stereotype only becomes more established, even if there are exceptions to the “rule.”
Dave,
Agreed. All sides must fight the sterotypes and it is incumbent on Christians to act in a way that rises above the stereotype. It is an uphill battle – I’m not complaining about that. In this venue, I’m only asking for the necessary cooperation. The drift of the conversation is drawing me away from what I wanted to say today but I guess that’s OK. I can’t expect the dance to proceed according to my agenda.
Let’s try this. One of the complaints I hear throughout this thread is that Christians do not denounce their own when they do bad things (Haggard, abortion clinic bombers, et al.)
First comes the problem of venue. Ted Haggard, abortion clinic bombers, child abusing priests, and the rest have been denounced from thousands of pulpits to millions of listening Christians. This is where (aside from all the above named national christian leaders) most of the communication takes place for Christians and where – I gather from most on this thread – it ought to stay – except of course that all of you need to hear the denouncements and you aren’t there when we give them. This is obviously something we (Christians) need to work on.
But, let me hasten to add, there’s going to have to be some work on the other end as well. For instance, James Dobson is a name that seems to come up often as an example of a national Christian leader who perpetuates the hate. And yet, I went back and read the transcripts of a few interviews conducted with Dr. Dobson on CNN and FOX.
In the course of those interviews Dr. Dobson said
*homosexuality is not a choice.
*Andrea Yeates, should she not be found mentally incompetent should be subject to the full penalty of the law.
*9/11 should not be thought of as an act of divine judgment against the United States
*Those who bombed abortion clinics and/or shot doctors who provided abortions should also be subject to the full penalty of the law – Dr. Dobson affirmed at this point that he is a believer in the death penalty and would find it appropriate in such a case.
Dr. Dobson also said a lot of things most on this thread would find objectionable. But when it is asked – Where are the press releases and statements from the national leaders denouncing evil actions taken by or inappropriate ideas held by Christians, well, why didn’t those statements count?
I know that the humanist atheist community is aware of the transcripts because there were pages and pages of humanist atheist comments on them with links to more blogs and web sites than you can shake a stick at. I checked several. Not one said – ‘Well at least Dobson thinks abortion clinic bombers are wrong and should be punished.’
On the contrary; in one Larry King Live interview (in which the subject of bombings did not come up) Dr.Dobson said, ‘But I also must speak for the underdog. And that little baby out there who doesn’t have a voice, you know, that is going to be killed in the eighth month of gestation without anesthetic, somebody has to speak to that. And I guess I’m elected. Yeah, partial birth abortion.’
Here is a quote from and a fair representation of the humanist atheist blogger take on that statement by Dr. Dobson. ‘(Dobson) wanders into a minor rant on the topic of abortion, stopping just short of endorsing clinic bombings and the killing of doctors who perform abortions.’
Not only did Dr. Dobson not come close to that, the comment and many like it totally ignore other public, nationally televised comments from Dr. Dobson to the effect that those who killed abortion providers in whatever manner were wrong and should be subject to the full penalty of law.
It seems to me at least that this low level of receptivity – and high level of inaccuracy – makes it a little difficult to rise above the perceived problem.
Terry
DOF
I have read some Dawkins, Asimov, and Russell and a little Sagan. I’m sure you’re already familiar with Christian authors I might name that you would find more credible than say, Ralph Reed.
The point is that you would still be identified with Maher (whatever either of us might perceive his shortcomings to be) in exactly the same way I would be identified with Reed. Or, we could pick some humanist atheists who have done horrible things as opposed to just being stupid.
It seems to me that you maintain several mysterious reasons for which identification shouldn’t be a problem on your side but should on mine.
Terry
Nothing mysterious about it. I can think of worse things than being identified with Maher – I agree with almost everything he advocates. Freedom from religious oppression, an end to violence as a way of running the world, an end to torture, socialized health care, and regarding the natural environment as an infrastructure to be maintained instead of a treasure to be plundered. But he is, as one might say in academia, a tertiary source at best. In addition to being a very poor documentarian. And having stupid ideas on vaccination.
If you look at my list of names above, the common thread is that they are/were working scientists or engaged in science education. (Many people don’t realize Asimov was an emeritus professor of biology and wrote hundreds of nonfiction books on scientific and other topics.) They are either primary or secondary sources.
That is why identification is not a big problem for me. Christians have the problem of being identified with – having voted for – leaders who openly advocate torture, who try to sneak religion into our secular government, who oppress gays, who are openly scornful of environmental protection, and who start wars with the approval of their god. (“I consulted a higher father” – George W. Bush)
Since I’ve mentioned Dobson a few times, I will come back in a few minutes with some very unkind things to say about him.
Terry, you said,
You forfeited the right to speak with any sort of meaning on this matter when you called homosexuality, not that mealy mouthed bullshit about “homosexual acts” but homosexuality itself a moral failing.
Let me give you a hint, asshole: homosexuality isn’t about behavior it’s about identity. I could have sex with 1,000 woman and you know what? I would still be gay.
You have said that my relationship with my husband, which will soon be entering it’s fifth year is a “moral failing.”
However, the focus on behavior rather than identity is a telling one. I guess Christians are more worried about looking like Christians than actually being Christians.
I know you would probably tell me that this sort of character flaw in me is due to mankind’s fallen nature, but have you stopped to consider that the Christian view that the world is a dark and miserable place has made the world a dark and miserable place?
Have you ever really thought about the impact of hundreds of millions of people tacitly hearing things like that?
What’s the difference between what you say and Sally Kern calling me and every gay person a “cancer?”
Furthermore, it’s not just that they let those false statements stand. They created them.
Right now, Tony Perkins is spreading the usual lies about a new hate crime bill. The only places I’ve seen countering those lies are GLBT sites.
I don’t want your apology. I want the entirety of Christianity to get down on it’s knees and beg for forgiveness for the way it’s treated not just GLBT people for the last 1,500 years, but everyone. Not a single person has been untouched by the hate and bigotry that seems to flow more easily outward from this religion (gee, I wonder why what is? Could it have anything to do with the view that mankind is fallen and unworthy of redemption?) than anything else.
No, they shouldn’t, but not because Christians “shouldn’t act that way,” but because lying about anyone for any reason is wrong.
Don’t act surprised about this. People have been lying to promote Christianity for decades (probably longer) about everything that disagrees with them.
It’s not my job to hold your hand and tell you things you should already know.
Seriously, you wonder why non-Christians have such a dim view of Christians then say stuff like this?
I don’t have to rely on secondary sources for an understanding of James Dobson. A few years ago when I was commuting across town to the gym for physical therapy, my drive time happened to coincide with his radio program on the local Christian station. His take on social issues, while hardly relaxing, was interesting to say the least. So I have spent many hours listening directly to him saying what he wanted to say to his primary audience.
I’m pretty sure I understood him correctly, as he is a very clear speaker and has a way with words.
He wields his political machine very consciously. Candidates know they have to account for him one way or another. He is against contraception, against sex education, against gay marriage, in favor of anti-gay discrimination (public school teaching, etc.), characterizes all abortion as murder, constantly brings up late-term abortion, but seems to be in favor of capital punishment. He reckons women should be submissive to their husbands. He’s in favor of prayer in schools, but against teaching evolution and against public education generally. In fact, he urges Christians to “pull their children out”.
Oh, and he once beat the living crap out of his little dog, who had the temerity to want to sleep in a warm place. But I digress.
Late-term abortion is a code-word, and also a canard. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, before the fetus’ cerebral cortex has even begun to develop. But the placards waved at unfortunate young women at clinics will have pictures of late-term abortions on them. This is deceptive and evil, and Dobson does it rhetorically every time he describes late-term procedures.
Thing is, most late-term abortions (which are themselves quite rare) are for cases of dire medical necessity, as Dobson is probably quite well aware. It doesn’t stop him from using it as a rhetorical bludgeon. He also endorsed Randall Terry. The fact that he doesn’t say; “Be sure to enclose black powder in a strong container, like pipe, to get the most effective explosion,” doesn’t absolve him of whipping up hatred over a debatable issue.
But the worst violence surrounding abortion isn’t shootings or bombings. Even Dobson has a moral center that tells him not to do such things. (It’s a human ethics thing; the Bible itself offers only minimal resistance to putting sinners to death.) But worst of all is the guilt piled on young women about abortion – on top of guilt about sex and contraception in the first place.
My biggest complaint about Dobson is his discriminatory approach to gays. He is quite happy telling outrageous lies about gays and gay marriage. (see videos, Quicktime required) He says gay marriage would destroy the family and has his own ex-gay ministry. Such ministries, if you don’t know, are not all that constructive. (I tried to link to TruthWinsOut there, but the system rejected the link.)
Sure, on a national secular news program, he can make conciliatory sounds. But if he really believes being gay isn’t a choice, then demonizing gays, denying them civil rights, is just… evil.
James Dobson isn’t wrong about everything; he does (most of the time) inhabit the same space-time continuum as the rest of us. So he’s bound to find an acorn once in a while. If you want him, you can have him. I’d take Bill Maher’s values
Bachalon- on my knees and begging for forgiveness.
I agree entirely with your point about the idea of homosexuality as a moral failing being completely ridiculous.
The problem with Christianity is not that there are people within the religion who are bigoted, but that there are not enough of us ready to stand up and tell them to STFU. There are a few, but even those who disagree tend to remain silent as they feel that ‘no-one could believe Christians think that’. That is worse to my mind than the actions of the lunatics who hate others- because these people know that these ideas are wrong.
Dave, you said,
Not necessarily, it’s hard to work up the motivation for something if you feel nothing.
Sort of like how moderates are always so quick to point out, “hey! we don’t all believe that!” yet do nothing to stop a belief they disagree with?
The tragedy is that Christians must be told this.
Actually, you have a point here. I’ve read in more than a few places that the Greeks had, at the time, different words for love that meant different things.
You know how the saying goes right? All translation is mistranslation.
I don’t think the point isn’t just what he did; I always saw it as also being about who he was. Samaritans were about as reviled at that time as gays are now. People went out of their way to avoid Samaria. Thus a Samaritan acting in a way that Christians are “supposed” to act was sort of a way of guilt-tripping them into doing it.
Well, to be fair, it’s hard to take seriously a firm but polite suggestion.
A lot of people would avoid doing that had that been the turn of phrase used. Of course, a lot of people ignore it now, so I guess it’s a moot point.
Indeed.
Yes they do. And Christians have struggled hard against women’s suffrage, de-segregation, and now, gay rights (among many many other things).
And no, not all of them thought that, but enough did that it took decades to overcome popular thought.
We are in agreement. But then, one of the big things of Christianity, is the belief that everyone is fallen, so how is that sort of statement surprising?
How do we differentiate between the two?
There was some kind of system error that chopped off my last comment at the end, in the middle of an em section. So here’s a close-em tag
The sentence was; I’d take Bill Maher’s values over Dobson’s values anyday.
Terry, according to a brochure titled “Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right” distributed by Dobson’s Family Research Council: “The notion that “people are born gay” is nothing less than the “Big Lie” of the homosexual movement.”
Among the other hateful things in that brochure, Dobson’s group also claims that gays have a higher rate of child sexual abuse; there are several studies that say that is not true.
“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.” —James Dobson, in The Daily Oklahoman, Oct. 23rd, 2004
Dobson also distorts research regarding gays, some examples are at http://christiangays.com/articles/besen20.shtml
Yes, very much like that. Though that may be less apathy than cowardice.
Certainly who/what he was was a key component of the story. It could be guilt-tripping—or it could be a wake-up call, pointing out that an Other like a Samaritan can be your neighbor, and you can be his, and that this, not shunning, is what’s in keeping with God’s will.
It’s a pity that more Christians don’t see the applicability of the sermon to their treatment of gays.
And all have quoted Scripture to the purpose, no less.
I would feel better, then, if the folks who make such statements continued on with, “But, then, in the eyes of the Lord, we are all sick, perverted, evil, and disgusting, so I am going to work on getting my moral act together before I dare to judge others on theirs.”
In a way, the statement from an idea of “fallen” humanity is less a surprise than the implication that the folks making the statement have sufficiently overcome their fallenless to pass judgment. I’m pretty sure Jesus warns about that sort of thing in a passage here or there.
I honestly don’t know. Part of it has to come from the actions they take—which are both more telling and have greater implications than what feelings motivate them. (That in turn touches on hate crimes, a topic for another discussion.)
——-
On a complete tangent, my first encounter with Dobson’s Focus on the Family was in the early 90s while they were headquartered in Pomona, Californina, in an office park I drove past every day (at the 10 and 57). I noticed when the big “Focus on the Family” sign went down (when they moved the HQ to Colorado Springs), and it was only years later that I found out what sort of organization they were; I’d assumed it was a family photography outfit.
Bachalan,
Neither in my original comments shared by DOF nor in my comments directly to you did I make the alleged distinction between behavior and nature. Sorry you understood it that way. All the best to you and your husband.
Terry
DOF
As to your critique of Maher, you might have included the thought from your original comments to me to wit; Maher tars all Christians with the same brush – you would at least grant some other consideration to your local Mennonite congregations. Interesting ommission.
Canard: it’s a good word. I think of it every time I see a placard bearing the image of a rusty coat hanger.
Another word I like is ‘deflection’. I had no expectation that you or the larger humanist community would come to a broader consensus with James Dobson. My point was simple. The humanist community asserts a deafening silence of Christian leaders on Christian misdeeds – citing things like abortion clinic bombings and child abusing priests. That silence, they further assert, is a tacit condoning of the evil acts.
When one of the very leaders they cite by name speaks out in a national forum against the very issues they have cited, the statements are ignored, misrepresented, or, as in your case, dismissed since we all know James Dobson is too evil for the statements we asserted would show him less evil to count. Yes, I think I perceive the mechanism by which progress can be made.
Incidentally, on issues like the bombings or the abusive priests, Dobson is 100% consistent, regardless of audience. Randall Terry? I wouldn’t vote for him. Obviously neither would most Christians. I hope Dobson regrets the endorsement.
Off topic – but you started it! (There’s maturity for you.) When late term abortions are medical necesities, I know how to weep for the poor people backed into such a miserbale corner and offer no condemnation. And perhaps, Singer is correct in saying that the fetus (and even the newborn) do not have the developed cognitive wish for continued existence as the mother. One thing I find admirable in Singer is that he avoids the cowardly sophistry of trying to assign a non-human status to a human fetus. But there is significant evidence that the late term fetus can feel pain.
When you’ve exhausted your crocodile tears over James Dobson’s poor spanked doggie, perhaps you might shed a few real ones for those tiny human beings who – though there was medical necesity for their death – were not given the simple dignity and mercy of anesthesia before someone dismembered them or punched a hole in their skull and sucked their brain out.
Tell me again about your pro-human aversion to torture. I like that part.
And you were right. No mystery at all.
Terry
Dave,
Thanks for all the kind nudges. You are probably more helpful to me than you know. Obviously, I was correct in thinking that the whole ‘fallen’ status of mankind was a central issue. I have appreciated your thoughts on that issue.
Let us set aside for a moment the Genesis account of the fall. Above and beyond that aspect of the story I think you and I agree on the basic premise that all of us are messed up and that genuine love does not require the acceptance of the specific messed upness of the individual or class loved. In fact, love often mandates some sort of response to that messed upness.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems much of the disagreement hinges on what might be viewed as a sliding scale showing where the messed upness starts – i.e. I’m OK but all the people to the right of me on the scale are not!
Certainly, some folk on this thread see me as occupying a position on that scale. ‘I’m OK but homosexuality is a moral problem!’
For what it’s worth, I perhaps (and probably mistakenly) see the gay community in a similar vein. Most gay organizations (and such individuals as I personally know) distance themselves from groups like NAMBLA. (EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE: I am not equating homosexuality with the adult/child theme of NAMBLA.) This would represent an area of agreement between us.
Yet, the NAMBLA folk don’t seem to think ‘We’re evil and we just need to engineer a means to get away with it!’ They also argue that theirs is a natural and beneficial desire – an expression of nurture and love – with a long and honorable history in various societies and that it is only the prejudice of extremeists……
Everyone finds a place to set the bar on the scale. ‘That’s not OK – even if you were born that way!’
Classic sociopaths are, many studies assert, born that way. It’s still not OK. There may be genetic factors to alcoholism but we still recognize the moral problems of alcoholism. I myself find that there are tendencies that have been with me from my earliest memories that are decidedly not OK.
Perhaps, in one sense, Tyler is correct – at least about me. I slide the bar all the way to the left and say, ‘We were all born this way – have probably intensified the problem since, and none of it is OK. There is none righteous, no not one, for all have sinned and ‘fallen’ short of the glory of God.
This may be interpreted as a generalized ‘hatred’ for humanity. Hatred is not the term I would choose, but I can see the perspective given the assumptions.
Patness, and others speak of the larger body of human values in which Christian values takes a place. I guess I think of the larger body of human moral problems in which groups like the gay community take a place. Their place in it is no worse than mine.
I know this is not the way all Christians feel. I know self righteousness is a present and terrible danger and can lead to meddling of the most non-loving sort. And, I know, there is limited value to someone like me trying to say “Not me.” I agree that Christians like you and I have to live in such a way that others will point to us and say “Not them.”
I hope that is why I could actually produce the signers of the hypothetical affadavits in my original correspondence with DOF. I certainly see you fighting that particular battle of the good fight despite our doctrinal differences.
At the end of all this rambling, I come down to just a couple of things.
1. As to those doctrinal differences; I don’t think that ‘Christian teaching’ is the thing that will save us from our fallen state. Christian teaching has it’s own function but only the grace of God can save us from our fallen state.
2. Despite my own shortcomings in these communications, I hope others will understand, I know that my own hands aren’t clean enough to be their judge. That is not what I meant to imply when I referred to the things God has accomplished in my own nature to date. That process does not make me feel judgmental. It makes me feel humble that God should care about me at all. It does not lead me to hold others in contempt. They are just sinners like me and if God loves me – He certainly loves them too. As one forgiven much – I have no right to grudges and can afford to love.
3. I am not so stupid as to think that I beyond the danger of the above mentioned self righteousness. It creeps back in when we aren’t looking. One of the things I am most grateful to you and all the others on this thread for, is that reminder.
God bless,
Terry
Terry, I see you’re getting the hang of this. I’m at work right now but will respond this evening.
I’m taking this from the top, rather than reading the whole thing first.
To clarify some of the terminology, I think genuine love does not let messed-upness get in the way. That said, love often mandates some sort of respose to messed-upness (thinking of interventions with an alcohol abuser here), lest love becomes enabling.
From a Biblical perspective, Jesus loved and accepted and engaged with people, but he was willing to point out what he felt were there faults and sins. He rejected the legalistic stoning of the adulteress, while noting to her that she had sinned.
It’s worth noting this is a slippery slope, however, for we mere mortals—as “simple” as “hate the sin, love the sinner” sounds. What constitutes a sin, or being messed up, has very gray, fuzzy edges (regular drunkenness? occasional drunkenness? drinking more than the observer prefers to drink? drinking at all? drinking the wrong brands?). The stereotype of marrying someone with the intent of “fixing” them may be driven by love, or may be driven by power, or by a combination of those and other things, but not only is what we consider to be “messed up” subject to debate, it’s often part of what we love about someone.
That seems to be at the core of concerns over homosexuality. My heterosexuality is a core component of my life and my personality. My romantic love for my wife is hugely important to me, and our enjoyment of our sexual activities aren’t anything to sneeze at, either.
So while I’d be gratified, I suppose, to discover that someone didn’t think that our marriage should be illegal, or our sex criminal, I’d probably be a bit miffed if they said that my marriage was “morally troubling,” or that it was a sign that I was somehow “messed up” and should, with love, helped, or at least admonished.
If someone doesn’t think their actions or beliefs are “messed up,” how do those who think that they are act on it, or justify their actions? “Who made you the judge of me?” Respect for others’ autonomy, and their judgment, and who they say they are, is very important. And, yet, we still feel the need and responsibility to do act on others being “messed up,” sometimes to the detriment of relationships with those people … because to not do so is to be apathetic toward someone see in trouble, which it itself messed up.
Yup.
I’ll add another fillip to the complexity. Not all “messed-upness” is the same. Someone who spits on the street is arguably messed up (impolite, crude, a health hazard, a bad example for my kid), but doesn’t require the intervention that, say, someone selling drugs does.
That’s why it gets messy, and something of a judgment call. There’s a wide spectrum of relationships (sexual and emotional) that, at various times, have been accepted as preferred, okay, as dubious but acceptable, as not okay, and/or as requiring intervention by the state and/or mob rule to stop.
So how do we decide? We (societally and individually) establish some moral/social ground rules, some tests, and apply them to the case. In our society, one of those ground rules is, “it should be allowed, unless you can come up with good reasons not to allow it.” In the case of NAMBLA, for example, to the extent that we overcome trying to set as a rule “That is so incredibly icky so it should be illegal” (that rarely ends well), we compare it against the rule “sexual relationships require informed consent.” Based on that, pederasty becomes unacceptable.
The rules are, themselves, always subject to reexamination, since none of them (you will forgive the metaphor) are engraved on stone tablets. One of the rules in Western Society, for some time, has been, “Does Scripture allow/forbid it.” That rule has been increasingly challenged as valid for some time, for a variety of reasons (not least of which is that Scripture can be construed to allow or forbid any number of things, so then the trick becomes whose interpretation gets to prevail).
I do agree, though, that “even if you were born that way” is not considered an excuse by society, and probably rightly so.
Which is where many folks wonder why so many Christians are vocally concerned over gay marriage when the venerable institution of straight marriage seems so much more harmed by straights than gays these days.
I’m inclined to agree (subject to some quibbling over terms and discussion of the role of the individual within God’s grace).
All,
In addition to the thanks extended to you in my note to ***Dave for the reminder of the danger of self righteousness, thanks also for causing me to do some research on a variety of issues. The state of things is never as simple as you think before you look into it!
I said I would work on some sort of statement about how I thought you should look at Christians. I have decided that is probably not a productive exercise. How you look at Christians is going to be the product of your interactions with them. Dave is right. If I can’t show you, it is no good for me to tell you.
For some, I am sure my comments have confirmed your worst fears and deepest suspicions. I can only assure you that if I found you hungry, I would feed you. If I found you hurt, I would tend you. If I found you heart broken, I would attempt to comfort you. But I readily admit, DOF would do the same thing and he is no longer a Christian – our world view – worlds apart.
In fact, so far apart that all my real hopes are in a different world than this. The apostle pegged it when he said ‘If there is no resurrection of the dead, my preaching is vain – your faith also is vain.’
Again, Tyler has this right. If what I believe about Jesus and trust Him for isn’t so, then someone like me, who conducts himself according to the hope of a life to come, represents a terrible danger to millions of people who may be persuaded to set aside more worldly values for the course of the only life or world they will ever have. The danger increases if I gain power. There was a reason the more worldly minded and politically astute class condemned Jesus to death.
The same reasons exist for the great divide between Christianity and Humanism today (or, as some of you have noted, between Humanism and all non-worldly religions/faiths/philosphies).
This is not to say that we cannot find some common ground. As noted above, we all ought to feed the hungry, etc. We will all be happier on any occasion in which kindness prevails over cruelty. And, it does none of us any good to perpetuate untrue stereotypes. I’m happy to work on those issues with you and ready to admit that you’ve taght me some things.
As to one other issue of (sort of) common ground; among ourselves, believe it or not, we Christians think Jesus encouraged us to better citizens of our community and world than we would have been otherwise. Admittedly, we don’t always live up to the mandate very well. I would argue we’ve done a little better at it than your perception.
Nevertheless, I agree with many of you about the nature of one of our biggest failings. This understanding has grown in me over the years. The gospel of Jesus Christ wasn’t about political power and Christians were not politically empowered in their original setting.
In western civilization, that changed. In some ways, the change has proven positive. The freedom, security, and prosperity we all enjoy cannot be completely separated from the Judeo-Christian elements of our heritage.
But, there’s a lot of bad stuff too. At least in America, the largely theist founders understood the wisdom of a constitutionally secular government. I told DOF I wouldn’t vote for Randall Terry. I meant it. He represents some of the worst aspects of the failing I’m talking about.
The more Christianity becomes ABOUT worldly power, the less it remains itself. It can, obviously, be transformed into a horrible parody of the values espoused by Christ. One of the greatest dangers for Christians is the prospect of becoming worldly.
Perhaps the time is near for a sea change. I admit that reform of existing institutionalized power is extremely difficult. Christianity could lose political influence and it would not affect my faith or (from my perspective) God’s control. I can only warn you that history has seen humanists/atheists in charge before. Be careful what you wish for.
Thanks again to all.
Terry
It’s not clear to me that the rise of Christendom (post-Constantine), as part and parcel of state and society made a substantive difference from what the world would be like without Christianity being the “official” religion of the Empire and the West since then. I’m sure there’s been some speculative fiction on the subject. I’d be curious to know some of the area where folks think it might have made a positive (or negative) difference.
This is why, when I see Christians seeking power for Christianity—or for themselves as ostensible reps for Christianity—it drives me batty. Church intermingling with state ends up harming both—and a lot of people in the process, too.
This is why the “secularization” of society really doesn’t bother me (aside from its specific benefits). Christianity is better off as a personal religion than a political force, and is more effective (and more true to its roots) in seeking individual change than legal imposition.
But, as you said, it’s all about power, and fear. Which is why, as the Religious Right faces so many problems at present, its rhetoric gets more and more apocalyptically shrill.
I think anyone “in charge” brings risks. The lust for power is non-denominational, and its abuse is one of those great human failings. And power usually draws ideology around it, and ideological tyranny is a superset of theocracy; if you’re being executed for heresy against God or against the Party makes very little difference. It’s not a matter of theists vs atheists; it’s a matter of humanity.
Most pro choice folks I have come across, I can’t speak for all, are not necessarily “FOR” abortion, but rather for giving women the option. Telling a rape victim she can’t abort a baby she never wanted in first place and didn’t have an option to have or not have is pretty sick. Regardless of how horrible the abortion process is Terry, I suspect even you would not be against such allowances. If not, then what would be your solution for the rape victim?
Secondly, I think anyone against abortion should be an open advocate for contraception, morning after pill, and sex ed. It makes no sense to want to lesson or abolish abortions in general and not support such topics. Because the only way we will ever truly get rid of abortion is by supporting such practices.
Terry, looking back at what DOF posted as an email from you, you stated:
Note the section in bold…
So unless DOF mis-posted what you wrote in email, you did in fact make a distinction. As Bachalan states, framing homosexuality as a moral problem does imply such a distinction. If I’m missing something please elaborate.
Now I certainly don’t feel you should comply to Bachalan’s request, but I think it’s a shame that you wrote him off so quickly without any explanation.
Please pardon the delay, Dave. Beautiful weather here in the pacific northwest over the weekend trumps Jesus.
Dave wrote:
You wrote, “And as I’ve said, I don’t consider the Bible to be the be-all and end-all of my faith or how I see a Christian as requiring.”
That is not a coherent sentence, so I’m taking stabs at what you meant to say.
If the bible is not the be all end all – “the quintessential or all-important element” – of christianity, what is?
Put another way, please explain, without using the bible, where someone who’s never heard of christianity would learn what it means to be, or what is required of, a christian.
No shit? Where have I been all this time? It’s almost like I didn’t spend the first 8 years of my life attending a baptist church, the parking lot of which sat separated by a six foot wide strip of grass from the parking lot of the presbyterian church next door, wondering, even at that woefully ignorant age, why we went to this church rather than that. “They don’t believe the same things we do,” I was told.
Thanks for clearing that up, Dave. You make me feel like a kid again, constantly having brush off non-answers thrown in my face, to questions regarding my alleged eternal fate.
There’s a difference? What is it?
Why are you concerned as to what your god thinks of how you live your life? What do you have to lose or gain according to god’s opinion of how you’ve lived your life? Most importantly, by what standard is your god going to judge how you live your life?
Thanks, Dave, for yet another non-answer.
But since you went there, “you can be commanded to act in a loving fashion” loosely translates to “you can be commanded to lie with your actions by acting in a loving fashion toward someone you don’t love.”
Very moral.
Please explain how someone can demand your love for anything other than their own benefit and/or an exercise of their power.
Would you call yourself a Confucianist rather than a christian? Why or why not?
What does this even mean? Why is it important for something to be hard? What happens to the people who can’t be a christian because it’s too hard?
Regardless, your faux christianity is easy enough for a moron to understand. It’s all the butchering you have to do to get the thing sliced down to something you can tolerate that’s giving you insurmountable difficulty.
(As if the religion is built upon anything that actually makes sense…)
Why bother? Why bother clawing and scratching through the haystack of immorality that is the bible for the needle of trite morality you’ve gleaned from it? Why Jesus? Why not Confucius? Buddha?
Hell, why not just you? Is your own moral compass irreparably dysfunctional? If you didn’t have your imaginary friend Jesus whispering trite moral sentiments in your ear, would you be out acting like, say, your god, killing and maiming and generally terrorizing and brutalizing anyone who doesn’t do what you tell them to do?
Dave, I’m not interested in what other christians think of your “christianity.” I’m interested in what YOU think of your “christianity.”
So please, pretty please, stop insulting my intelligence with these insipid statements about what other “christians” think.
Thank you in advance.
Doesn’t matter what I say, Dave. If I never open my mouth again, the fact will remain that you have butchered the words of your imaginary friend into minuscule pieces, none of which in and of themselves resemble the whole they began as parts of. You then cherry picked and latched onto a couple of relatively insignificant bits, and you think that makes you a “believer in christ” or a “follower of Jesus.” It doesn’t, any more than appreciating Hitler’s artistic ability would make you a Nazi.
The heroin addict is typically the last to agree he’s addicted.
I don’t have a definition of what constitutes a real christian, Dave. I simply don’t accept your cartoonish definition of what constitutes a real christian. Why should I? Why should anyone?
And your solution is to try and convince people that the 800 pound gorilla you brought into the room with you is really a cute, cuddly little bunny rabbit?
So you’re not a christian – you’re a “universalist.” Why didn’t you just say so?
Oh, silly me. You’re probably being disingenuously vague again, and you mean to say you’re a christian universalist.
Well, why a christian universalist? What is it about christianity that compels you to attach that qualifier to universalism (read: Rice Milk for the Lactose Intolerant Soul)? Why christian universalism over, say, islamic universalism, or hindu universalism, or jewish universalism, or unitarian universalism?
Look, Dave. You disbelieve a core tenet of the christian religion – something that separates it from every other religion – that being eternal punishment for not submitting to Jesus’ authority. You then turn around and demand that you’re a christian. It’s absurd.
Let’s take a quick look back into recent history: You, in so many words, stated that, as you see it, the core teachings of christianity are “Love god with all your heart” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.” You then state you don’t believe in eternal punishment.
“Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart” appears in the Old Testament. So too does “love thy neighbor as thyself” (again with the COMMANDS to love, as if…). There is no eternal punishment in the Old Testament.
What does all that mean? It means you’re a jew (or at least Noahide) if you’re anything relating to the judeo-christian superstition.
In other words, you’re here to demonstrate that you have justifiable reasons to argue against what you perceive as a blanket assertion. Of course, no one, least of all me, said you were here to justify yourself to me, but I am a part of this discussion, so yeah, you are here to justify yourself to me.
By the way, that blanket assertion you’re saying people make? I’m not making that assertion, so arguing it with me is nothing more or less than a straw man.
Did I say I was looking for “the Platonic Ideal of christian,” Dave?
No, I didn’t. Thanks for yet another non-answer.
That just means any old dipshit can write his own license to drive the Jesusmobile.
But that dipshit is going to be held accountable for whether or not he follows driving guidelines, is he not?
What are the guidelines Dave?
Help me out here, Dave. Please tell me what I’ve said that gave you the impression that I’m even remotely interested in utterly futile endeavor of finding agreement amongst christians about what it means to be a christian. I want to avoid giving that impression from here on out, because I don’t give a shit. Honest.
How would/could they justify it, Dave? By what standard are you going to determine whether or not their justification is justified? What is your opinion of their justification worth, if anything, and why?
See where this is going yet, Dave? What was that you said earlier? That you’re not here to justify yourself?
And here you stand, stating, in so many words, that a chocolate ice cream christian is required to justify his use of the term “christian” before you’ll “not have a problem with that.”
That is one blinding double standard there, Dave.
Further, you’re looking for justification, which, of course, necessitates the existence of some sort of “objective” standard (of what constitutes a christian) – a standard you’ve been explicitly denying exists the entire thread.
My inclination is to give you the benefit of doubting you’re a “bad guy.” My inclination is to see you as a good guy who has chosen to pin an arguably “bad” label on his chest, who then runs around crying when people rightfully associate you with a bad label.
You’re not making it easy to maintain that doubt. (Terry, on the other hand, made it ridiculously simple. There’s no doubt – he’s a bad guy.)
I didn’t define christianity, Dave. And it’s you who’s decided you’re not a christian by disbelieving a core tenet of the religion.
I get my information from the same source you do, and you’re arguing with me as if I’m the one who’s misrepresenting that source when it’s you who butchers that source to pieces and tries to pass it off as something it isn’t. So stop acting like I’m the one who’s just all willy nilly making shit up, Dave. It’s as pathetic as a five year old standing there vehemently denying he took a cookie out of the jar while crumbs are falling out of his mumbling mouth.
Again with this jumping to conclusions canard.
Yeah, Dave. You and I have never sat down for coffee or a beer and gotten to know each other. I know nothing to little more about you than you’re someone who calls himself a christian. If I were jumping to conclusions, I would have already concluded that you’re a bad guy (who rightfully calls himself a christian), rather than a good guy (who unjustifiably calls himself a christian), and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I’m not interpreting anything, Dave. I’m simply carrying an idea to its logical conclusion.
Jesus. Never mind moving the goal posts – you just switched from baseball to basketball on me mid-pitch.
Nowhere in the golden rule is your neighbor’s wants and desires mentioned. You are, according to your own words, to treat him the way you expect him to treat you – not the way he expects you to treat him.
That’s not morality. That’s narcissism.
If by “huffy” you mean pointing out someone’s presumptuousness, then yes.
Are you claiming I’m speaking for Terry? I’m not. What was it you said? “1. Actions speak louder than words.” Terry’s actions speak louder than Terry’s words. My opinion of those actions may very well be incorrect, and if you can find that crow and cook it, you’re more than welcome to serve it to me. I’ll eat every word.
Yeah, I know, Dave.
You’re not agreeing with ME by agreeing to such a sentiment, because I hold no such sentiment.
The basis for all christians being tarred with the same brush is christianity. You trim all but a few hairs from the brush and still call it christianity.
It’s not.
I’m going to end this novel here and address more of your statements in another post.
DOF wrote:
Of course, that point has been rendered meaningless several different ways by pointing out that not everyone who calls himself a christian qualifies as a christian, and should hence not be lumped in with real christians. Christ, even Jesus said that.
Or, to quote another fictional character, “Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.”
Dave wrote:
We are, in fact, imperfect according to what standard of perfection?
Hard to dispute something that hasn’t been defined; which means it’s ridiculously easy to say something that hasn’t been defined hasn’t been disputed. And you’re not in this because it’s easy, are ya Dave?
If it’s our nature to be imperfect, then we perfectly follow our nature. Hence, we are perfect.
How’s that for a dispute? Of course, it’s all semantic juggling of terminology used to represent an utterly vacuous idea, and that’s all it can be short of some sort of objective definition of perfection.
Webs,
Thanks for your thoughtful questions.
On the abortion front – no I would not deny a rape victim such a choice. I – personally – would not advocate choosing an abortion in the case of rape. I agree the woman didn’t get a choice about the pregnancy and the consequences are bad at best and possibly dire. Still, I have a hard time thinking it’s the baby’s fault. I realize that begs the question of baby/zygote/embryo….. But, as I say, I would not limit all people to the choice I would make. And it’s easy for me to say anyway, being a guy and very little likely ever to be pregnant as the result of – well, anything.
My attitude in such a case would be the same as in the case of true medical necessity. I would weep for the poor people backed into such a corner and offer no condemnation. I would give further help if I could.
I realize, as you pointed out, that not all prochoicers are actually proabortion. By the same token, not all prolifers are against abortion or other forms of taking life in every circumstnace. If all abortions were performed in cases of real medical necesity, rape, incest, etc., then abortions would be pretty rare and (I think)the Christian opposition would largely dry up.
One problem with late term abortions, even when medically necessary is that, assuming even a baseline consciousness for the fetus, barbaric. And yet the move to get anesthesia required is said to equal a return to rusty coat hangers.
I don’t know if that helps much.
Thank you for showing me what Bachalan probably meant about the behavior/nature distinction. At least I think I see what you meant. Let’s make sure before I elaborite. Are you saying that because I said ‘homosexuality’ instead of of ‘homosexuals’ I implied behavior rather than nature? If not, cue me again. I don’t mean to be dense. I’m just pretty good at it naturally!
I’ll wait for your next.
Terry.
Patness wrote:
Me neither.
That doesn’t mean it’s not there. It just means your yardstick is either too crooked or too short for an accurate measurement.
That said, I dismissed your statements because they were presumptuous (whether or not they were thoughtlessly so). If you don’t agree, that’s fine. Do not fault me for your presumptuousness in said interaction.
Thanks again.
Sure that would make sense if the anti-choice fundies actually cared about the embryos. The fact is they don’t. For them it’s all about control. The anti-choice movement is nothing but a misogynistic attempt at controlling women and especially about controlling women’s sexuality.
No group who are so ashamed of their evil satanic dangling bits could fail to be misogynists.
Some here have stated that they believe all humans are “fallen,” or “imperfect.” By what rationale could you arrive at that belief? Blindly accepting a third-party statement that “God” said so? Let’s look at what a human being is. A human being is an animal with slightly superior intelligence than other animals, though he/she does not always exhibit nor follow such intelligence. We are all on a learning curve in this life. When we make mistakes, if we are truly trying to be the best human we can, we learn from those mistakes and try not to repeat them. That is a “perfect” human being. If you bring in some definition of godhead to show perfection, you have already left the realm of human beings and are arbitrarily defining “perfection.”
Is anything in reality “perfect?” All things and phenomena are constantly changing, so even if you arrive at “perfection,” you can only do so for a fleeting moment of time. It is this authoritarian viewpoint that gives “Christians,” “Muslims,” etc, the direction that others call evil, or bad.
So, yes, Christians (and Muslims, etc) are the bad guy, when you insist that you have the only way to live a perfect life, or return to a perfect after-life. You are also clueless as to what life REALLY is.
And worse: under that late-developing cerebral cortex is the old lizard-brain. It’s in yur cranium, messin’ with yur perceptions. Oh yeah.
Terry wrote:
Yes I do, Terry, and you’ve certainly done nothing to dispel the idea. On the contrary…
Fallen from what, Terry?
We’re not talking about groups besides christians. Stop trying to change your own subject, asshole.
Mankind also shows itself to be inherently kind, generous, and selfless.
According to this faulty rationale, the entirety of humanity is cancerous, rather than parts of the whole, or, more properly, parts of the parts of the whole.
You can deny it all you want, but that’s a pretty fucking hateful outlook there, Terry.
“Do you want to improve the world?
I don’t think it can be done.”
Tao Te Ching Ch 29
““And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”
Gen 1:31
So, Terry, you are second guessing God, here, and saying that man was not created perfect? Was not man’s ability to sin a part of the “perfect plan?” Ramana Maharshi said, “Wanting to reform the world without discovering one’s true self is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.” (Tao Te Ching translated by Stephen Mitchell, p104)
The psychological trick of transference will not work. If you see imperfections in yourself, you are welcome to work on self-improvement. If you see imperfections in others, STFU. As your Book states, Matt 7:5, “. . . first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;”
I’d like to expand a bit on what I said earlier about the brain, because it speaks to the idea that we are “fallen”. Observations of brain anatomy are quite secure but neuroscientists are not unanimous as to what it all means. I’d like to propose that it has some bearing on ideas of humans as “fallen”.
Just above the brainstem (autonomic functions) lies a structure (colloquially known as the ‘lizard brain’) that is strikingly similar to the top-functional brain of very primitive tetrapods. Surrounding that is another structure that we humans have in common with more intelligent tetrapods like dogs and cats. And surrounding that, heavily reticulated to fit inside a cranium that is about as big as it can possibly get while still passing through the opening of a female pelvis, is the neocortex, or “new brain”. They’re not common in the animal kingdom; we have one, dolphins have them, elephants have them. Chimpanzees to a much lesser extent. There appears to be an upper limit: Neanderthal man had a bigger brain cavity than we do, but ain’t around to tell us about it.
One way of interpreting these structures is that we have a “triune brain”, representing three distinct personalities within each person. And some of that holds up well enough to be practically gospel among marketing experts. But in humans the three structures are quite well integrated; there’s a lot of crosstalk. So the net result is hardly a simple equation.
Nevertheless, different parts of the whole brain do light up (which is to say, consume more glucose and oxygen) in different situations. This is not entirely outside our control. It is possible to train the use of your brain for different results, which is the reason that the Dalai Lama likes to hang out with neuroscientists.
The integration of these structures raises many puzzles about human behavior. It means that a person can use rational faculties in the service of naked fear, or perform acts of self-sacrifice in spite of it. Modern neuroscientists were not the first to observe those puzzles. Legends arose long ago to explain them.
One of those legends, I think, is the notion that we are “fallen” from some primordial state. But the observable structure of our brains suggests it may be the other way ‘round. A capacity for planning and analysis confers some reproductive advantage on the genes of the one holding that capacity, and is selected over time. We have much more neurological infrastructure for delayed gratification, altruism, and rational thinking than our distant ancestors. It depends on what kind of world we want to live in, and how hard we’re willing to try and overcome our lizard brains.
Or maybe a talking snake beguiled the woman, and we got thrown out of the garden, our single inherent nature forever corrupted. In which case there’s no point trying, and we should appeal to a capricious deity for salvation; your call.
I didn’t get much sleep last night, will come back to Terry’s specific points later.
Terry wrote:
Yes, I know, you idiot. I said you didn’t even try to make it seem like you don’t hate homosexuality, you know how some people say “I don’t hate homosexuals, only homosexual acts.”
My point is that while that statement is bad, what you said is much worse.
Are you stupid because you’re a bigot or are you a bigot because you’re stupid?
Bachalan,
Re-read your original comment and I did indeed misunderstand. Thanks for correcting me. All the best to you and your husband.
Terry
Can you at least get my name right?
Congratulations on avoiding the issue.
Have you even considered what I wrote?
And last thing: I don’t need your well-wishes. We’ve been getting along just fine without the approval of people like you.
Webs,
Sorry, looks like no need to elaborate on the distinction between nature and behavior so far as Bachalan’s comment goes. If you still have any interest in the subject apart from the misunderstanding with B., let me know.
Terry
Terry, you stated the following in email…
Emphasis on morality. Bachalon and others here are not going to be too fond of you for stating that homosexuality is a moral problem as such a statement is derived from the idea that homosexuality is a choice. This is the root idea people have a problem with. While I don’t care for Bachalon’s tone, if you read his last few comments he explains this quite clearly. Although I can quite understand his frustration and anger and empathize with him.
Terry, perhaps it would help you to look back at this post I wrote here on this site. It might help you understand where others are coming from.
It may take you awhile to read the comments, but the gist is that there a quite a few readers that are homosexual and some have struggled through life. Being a part of any minority means struggle, oppression, and having to deal with bigotry. Coping is not always easy and hearing from the media and people like yourself that homosexuality is a lifestyle difference, moral problem, and/or disease (or any other hateful explanation) doesn’t help much.
Terry,
If the woman wasn’t a rape victim then there would be no child. I fail to see how this is the rape victim’s fault?
I am more than willing for such a conversation, as the last I read, babies don’t develop pain sensations till after birth, late term at most. It’s been a couple years, but if that discussion would help it’s fine with me. Keep in mind, as I already stated, I’m not a fan of abortion though. I feel it’s a woman’s choice if she wants to make that decision under medical/expert (non-religious) advice.
Getting ready to turn in early, but a couple things. First, Terry, somehow you got the idea that I’m against anesthesia for late-term fetusus. (Fetii?) I can’t find where I said or implied any such thing. While it generally sounds like a good idea to me, there may be technical issues that I am not aware of. And I wouldn’t put it past some “pro-lifers” to seize upon a willingness to use anesthesia to make some kind of half-assed point, either.
Each side of the abortion argument is trying to zap the other and neither will compromise at all. That’s the obnoxious thing about the whole issue. I am on record supporting third-trimester restrictions. Not a ban. My position hasn’t changed in a decade at least. Some people disagree with me and that’s fine.
Could I assume that you misspoke there, and that you are not of the ridiculous idea that anyone is “pro-abortion”?
What is cowardly to one person may be something else entirely to another. I’m of the opinion that ducking that question, as to the emergence of humanity in the developing fetus, is taking the easy way out. When a lump of cells that has no brain at all receives legal protection to the harm of visible, sentient people, or a first-term fetus that has barely a vestige of any neocortex, it seems as if the religious doctrine of ensoulment has crept into legal thinking.
For me as a humanist, sometimes that means handling profoundly uncomfortable questions and weighing values against each other. With no certainty that I am right. But when no clear answer is in the offing, the religious response is to make one up. Manufactured certainty is worse than no certainty at all, in my opinion.
I explained why I believe what I do about Dobson’s true beliefs. He has a gift for clear language, and I heard him say it, repeatedly over a period of two years. It isn’t all that uncommon for people to say the exact opposite when it serves them.
You expressed remorse that Christians had “allowed stereotypes to stand”. Nonsense; top Christian leaders are the ones promoting the stereotypes.
“Gays don’t want relationships,” says Dobson. “The research shows that a typical gay will have between three hundred and a thousand partners in their lifetime.” How does he sleep at night?
Last week Rick Warren lied right to the camera about making prejudicial statements about gays. Did he forget making those statements to the camera in the first place? Wouldn’t want to be in his shoes right now; both sides are mad at him.
Regarding NAMBLA (which somebody always brings up as if it makes some kind of point) – the “bright line” issue is that of consent. It isn’t rocket science: a child cannot meaningfully consent to a sex act with an adult.
And yes, I am against torture. And cannot fathom how any Christian can defend it, but many do. I sure hope you are not one of them.
I’ll confess that I’ve always found the “not even in cases of rape or incest” crowd in the anti-abortion movement at least more consistent. If you accord to a fetus the same status and rights as a born child, then the circumstances of their conception, while horrible for the adults involved, do not constitute a justification for homicide.
That said, I think the pro-choice folks recognize that forcing a woman to justify the matter not only rubs wrong from a personal (bodily) autonomy perspective, but makes the moral decision contingent on the judgment of others. Further, knowing women who have had abortions, I’ve never known one who was blase or trivial about it, and the implication that it’s an “on demand” and casually approached matter is a level of insult from the anti-abortion folks that is guaranteed to provoke opposition.
I try to make a point of not calling people unChristian, not out of some sort of wishy-washiness, but because it’s the sort of argument that can too easily come back to bite one, either through changes in social acceptance, or as a judgment that I’m not (unlike Jesus) qualified to make.
On the other hand, suggesting that an ostensibly Christian position held by someone seems inconsistent with positions touted by Jesus seems to be perfectly fair game to me.
I suspect the God he claims to serve isn’t too thrilled, either.
“Ricky! You gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do!”
Yes. My secular counterpart to that is that I try not to question someone’s motives without clear evidence. Heard too much “You’re only an atheist so you can live a life of sin and degradation.” (From people who obviously do not know how boring I am.) I’m not an atheist so I can anything; I’m an atheist because to the best of my reckoning, there’s no god.
Terry: before it slips my mind, and pertinent to the subject of this thread. There is a sociological dimension at play. The “upside-down seeming” association of Christianity with bigotry is what you might expect to experience as a member of the powerful majority. That is why it seems upside-down.
When I see Christian leaders telling lies and then in the next sentence proclaiming love, the invectives hurled back start to make a lot of sense. And then Christian leaders complain of unfair treatment, even censorship, when they’re required to comply with the law and not inveigle their religion into state (tax-supported) endeavors.
Terry wrote:
Indeed, more fodder for the apologetic cannon, eh Terry?
Nor is it as complicated as you have to make it out to be in order to defend your religion.
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
Please don’t tell me “how I look at christians is going to be,” Terry, especially when you’re wrong. Bearing false witness and all that shit.
You’re exactly right. Though I for one would prefer you show me that you’re NOT a christian.
From my perspective, you’re (presumably) a negligible part of a gargantuan problem. One virtually insignificant cell in a malignant tumor on the heart of humanity. Small potatoes.
“Worst fears”… there’s nothing to fear, unless you live in close proximity to me and you’re telling your flock they should go out and kill non-christers. “Deepest suspicions”… you were under no deeper a suspicion than suspecting a puppy is going to pee on the floor a few times before he’s house trained.
If you didn’t, you’d likely be seen as a bad guy. Of course, that wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) have anything to do with christianity, nor does it necessarily make you a bad guy.
So would billions of other people. Christ, many species of animals exhibit similar behavior. We’re nothing special. Lots of people just like to think we are.
Only real difference being, of course, that in the end, you think humanity has to be destroyed, and you think that’s justifiable way for the alleged benevolent creator of the universe to fix his fuck ups.
So yeah, you couldn’t be more correct that the average atheist’s and average christian’s world views are, indeed, worlds apart. Of course, that’s like pointing out that shit stinks. Not really a fountain of profundity, are ya, Terry.
What hopes would they be?
No god = no meaning. And you wonder why christians are seen as the bad guys…
Terrible danger to millions of people? Jesus christ you think an awful lot of yourself.
What worldly values are you referring to, exactly?
I for one am not suspicious…
And there was a reason the man behind the curtain didn’t give the Lion courage, the Tin Man a heart, and the Scarecrow a brain.
Again, the only significant difference between you and the humanist values you preach is the idea that humanity has to be destroyed to redeem it from some superstitious curse cast upon it by some monstrous invisible being.
In spite of your anti-human(ist) beliefs.
Not all of us, but certainly most of us. But so what? What does this have to do with christianity and/or why christians are often seen as the bad guys? If all you did was run around preaching the humanist values plagiarized by christianity, few people would consider you a bad guy.
You mean, perpetuating untrue stereotypes like warning us “that history has seen humanists/atheists in charge before. Be careful what you wish for.”?
Pious hypocrite.
I’m suspicious that the only thing you’ve learned is that you bit off more than you could chew when you unintentionally stepped this far out of your league.
Are you, like Dave, implying that without your imaginary friend whispering moral mandates in your ear that you wouldn’t feed a starving man? Or tend an injured man? Or comfort an emotionally distraught man?
Further, you say christians are in danger of becoming worldly, now you’re telling us that Jesus wants you to become better citizens of… the world. Not a fountain of consistency either, are ya Terry.
You run around preaching the the need for the destruction of humanity. You’ll never live up to a mandate to be a “better citizen” as long as you do that.
Who’s “we?” You and Haggard?
What does this even mean? What “worldly” things are you suggesting christians deny themselves?
And?
(And what’s with this asinine coupling of humanism and atheism?)
Meaning what, exactly? C’mon, Terry. Show us you’re not a flaming hypocrite by demonstrating how this is not an untrue stereotype.
You mean like King Ashoka? RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great
Yeah, we’re in for one helluva bad ride if a humanist/atheist ever gets elected.
And, remember, no Godwin. Our friend, Adolf, was a devote Christian.