The Requirement of Hatred
You can probably tell by the title that the vein of this post is a bit more on the serious side. As such, I suggest that you skip past it for just a moment to check out the pictures of Emily and the caricature drawn by MC before you return to this more serious work.
I am watching a lot of the big issues going on in our region and in the world and realizing that there is an underlying aspect of one of the primary issues of the last few months both regionally and nationally that many people may be missing.
The issues in mind? Locally, the banning of a book by our local school district that was originally an optional part of the reading list:
Also locally, a science teacher is undergoing transgender surgery and the parents are in an uproar. Nationally, there are many issues, a primary one being the marriage ban. This is where you all collectively feel shocked that I am talking about gay rights again. Guess again. I am talking about religion. More shocking.
Why is it that this issue can be so huge? Because of the nature of man. To the best of my knowledge, man is the only creature that hates. Man is the only creature that kills its own species for their own amusement. Man is the only creature that tortures its own species for its own amusement. Man is the only one that does either of these things to other species for the same reason. Examples of our higher level of evolution.
We have hate people for being regionally removed. We have hated them for skin color or ethnic background. We have hated them for many reasons. However, most of these wouldn't hold under normal circumstances. The crossing of borders and intellectual development would present the fallacies and prevent any but the most ignorant to hold to these positions. Why then does great hatred continue? Religion allows it to be so.
Some of you may feel bashed, but I focus on that which I know well, and I haven't had the in depth studies into others quite to the level of the one which I reference. My understanding is that many major religions follow suit, but you Christians get to feel pinned to the board again.
Why? Because Jesus preached hatred. Maybe not intentionally (although whether he could have done so unintentionally is a whole other debate) but he did, and I will tell you how.
He taught that there was a heaven. When you are done with the crap you have to deal with here, there is an afterlife where it will be all better. How can it be better if it involves all of the same people whom I deal with now? (Unless God steps in as a referee up there to make everyone happy, but that begs the question of why He doesn't do so now.) This isn't the case, though. This is the crux of the teachings. Not everyone gets to heaven.
Well why not? Why do some go and others don't? Is it pre-ordained that some of us are deficient? That we play here and then we are done? If that is the case, can you at least tell us which ones it is, so those of us who are screwed can at least have fun now?
No, the thing is that we have the good people and the bad people. The good people make it, the bad don't. Oh, and that whole teaching about good people despising evil ways, even as God despises the evil actions of those who are not fit.
So there is good and there is evil. In order for the good to be comfortable they have to be able to point to the evil. The problem is that there is no decent bastion of evil to point to. Yeah, we have murderer's and rapists, but they are so few and so hard to peg. We need a group of people. The Christians are running out. Race isn't a good reason anymore. They aren't even allowed to hate those pesky muslims that hate them. But who are they still allowed? The gays. They certainly are going to hell. It says so clearly in the bible. Thou shalt not lie with a man like you lie with a woman. Means the lesbians are safe, but the gay men are screwed. Wait, that comes from the same writings that ban pork, shellfish, and going to temple on the same day you take a shit. Yet, some of these have been declared outdated. Sorry, you can't pick and choose. If the laws have been retracted, they have been retracted. Unless you can point to better specifics. Jesus did say not to worry about what you put in your body. So the food thing isn't an issue anymore. Nor is who you have sex with.
In reality Jesus abolished the old and brought the new rules. But I am not even trying to teach whether he approves of it. Whether this is the one thing that held from the old testament just because a deified letter writer (first commandment anyone? Oh, right, the abolished law...) declared it was still horrible, while none of the rest of it was. Maybe he was the wise one, seeing the problem that now exists well after his time.
You see, they are the only ones left to hate, and hatred is an important teaching of the Christian faith. If we don't have some evil to hate, it dilutes the appearance of Satan in this world and folks might think, maybe I have him licked and don't have to pay for the new church wing after all.
How does the church hold this hatred going strong? Because it doesn't have to be rational. No rational being can present a complaint against the homosexuals. Except abstracts from some biblical teaching which their own example shows should be disregarded. No, they hold against it because with God at their back they don't have to be rational. "I may sound like an idiot, but I am just going by what God says. He's the idiot. Not me."
But it isn't that. You see, God's ways are a mystery. The fact that following a God who's rationale is compromised and unreadable from our point of view is pointless and futile isn't important. Why? Because He said so.
And so circular logic allows us to hate and destroy our fellow man. To be divisive, when the alternative would be a cohesive relationship where we could focus our hatred more productively. We could hate those who shelter a fugitive who has now shot three of our state troopers, and the latest two may not survive. We can hate the mentality that allows people to prey on the weak. We could focus this hatred into a fight to end it. We could hate poverty and hunger, and focus on these. We could put the hate aside and just focus on betterment of ourselves. None of this works for the Christian church though. It doesn't point us clearly to those sinners that we are better than. It doesn't give a warm fuzzy feeling, because we know who is going to hell by the people they love.
No, the fight rages on because the church could not survive an acceptance of homosexuals. Not because of the breach in morality. (I still challenge you to find a verse that points to this being a breach without making you hypocritical or heretical.) No, because if you didn't have anyone to hate, any evil to point to, the great and powerful Oz, um, church wouldn't have a purpose anymore. It couldn't point the way to heaven. If there were no staunch evils for you to feel better than, you would spend too much time wondering if you made the cut, and the church couldn't help you answer that.
Here is a novel idea. Whether real or not, drop the afterlife hopes and bullshit. Drop the hell threats and related bullshit as well. Live for now. Defend your fellow man. Consider humanity first. If your God can fault you in the end for being defensive of your own race, your God sucks. He condemns you for being what you are, and this is not someone you are liable to win with no matter what you try. Care for those around you and make this world better for everyone. Won't it be a surprise when you realize that the summerlands aren't somewhere ethereal, but here waiting for you to create them?
Just some thoughts about the fucked up side of life, or something close to it.
I am watching a lot of the big issues going on in our region and in the world and realizing that there is an underlying aspect of one of the primary issues of the last few months both regionally and nationally that many people may be missing.
The issues in mind? Locally, the banning of a book by our local school district that was originally an optional part of the reading list:
Also locally, a science teacher is undergoing transgender surgery and the parents are in an uproar. Nationally, there are many issues, a primary one being the marriage ban. This is where you all collectively feel shocked that I am talking about gay rights again. Guess again. I am talking about religion. More shocking.
Why is it that this issue can be so huge? Because of the nature of man. To the best of my knowledge, man is the only creature that hates. Man is the only creature that kills its own species for their own amusement. Man is the only creature that tortures its own species for its own amusement. Man is the only one that does either of these things to other species for the same reason. Examples of our higher level of evolution.
We have hate people for being regionally removed. We have hated them for skin color or ethnic background. We have hated them for many reasons. However, most of these wouldn't hold under normal circumstances. The crossing of borders and intellectual development would present the fallacies and prevent any but the most ignorant to hold to these positions. Why then does great hatred continue? Religion allows it to be so.
Some of you may feel bashed, but I focus on that which I know well, and I haven't had the in depth studies into others quite to the level of the one which I reference. My understanding is that many major religions follow suit, but you Christians get to feel pinned to the board again.
Why? Because Jesus preached hatred. Maybe not intentionally (although whether he could have done so unintentionally is a whole other debate) but he did, and I will tell you how.
He taught that there was a heaven. When you are done with the crap you have to deal with here, there is an afterlife where it will be all better. How can it be better if it involves all of the same people whom I deal with now? (Unless God steps in as a referee up there to make everyone happy, but that begs the question of why He doesn't do so now.) This isn't the case, though. This is the crux of the teachings. Not everyone gets to heaven.
Well why not? Why do some go and others don't? Is it pre-ordained that some of us are deficient? That we play here and then we are done? If that is the case, can you at least tell us which ones it is, so those of us who are screwed can at least have fun now?
No, the thing is that we have the good people and the bad people. The good people make it, the bad don't. Oh, and that whole teaching about good people despising evil ways, even as God despises the evil actions of those who are not fit.
So there is good and there is evil. In order for the good to be comfortable they have to be able to point to the evil. The problem is that there is no decent bastion of evil to point to. Yeah, we have murderer's and rapists, but they are so few and so hard to peg. We need a group of people. The Christians are running out. Race isn't a good reason anymore. They aren't even allowed to hate those pesky muslims that hate them. But who are they still allowed? The gays. They certainly are going to hell. It says so clearly in the bible. Thou shalt not lie with a man like you lie with a woman. Means the lesbians are safe, but the gay men are screwed. Wait, that comes from the same writings that ban pork, shellfish, and going to temple on the same day you take a shit. Yet, some of these have been declared outdated. Sorry, you can't pick and choose. If the laws have been retracted, they have been retracted. Unless you can point to better specifics. Jesus did say not to worry about what you put in your body. So the food thing isn't an issue anymore. Nor is who you have sex with.
In reality Jesus abolished the old and brought the new rules. But I am not even trying to teach whether he approves of it. Whether this is the one thing that held from the old testament just because a deified letter writer (first commandment anyone? Oh, right, the abolished law...) declared it was still horrible, while none of the rest of it was. Maybe he was the wise one, seeing the problem that now exists well after his time.
You see, they are the only ones left to hate, and hatred is an important teaching of the Christian faith. If we don't have some evil to hate, it dilutes the appearance of Satan in this world and folks might think, maybe I have him licked and don't have to pay for the new church wing after all.
How does the church hold this hatred going strong? Because it doesn't have to be rational. No rational being can present a complaint against the homosexuals. Except abstracts from some biblical teaching which their own example shows should be disregarded. No, they hold against it because with God at their back they don't have to be rational. "I may sound like an idiot, but I am just going by what God says. He's the idiot. Not me."
But it isn't that. You see, God's ways are a mystery. The fact that following a God who's rationale is compromised and unreadable from our point of view is pointless and futile isn't important. Why? Because He said so.
And so circular logic allows us to hate and destroy our fellow man. To be divisive, when the alternative would be a cohesive relationship where we could focus our hatred more productively. We could hate those who shelter a fugitive who has now shot three of our state troopers, and the latest two may not survive. We can hate the mentality that allows people to prey on the weak. We could focus this hatred into a fight to end it. We could hate poverty and hunger, and focus on these. We could put the hate aside and just focus on betterment of ourselves. None of this works for the Christian church though. It doesn't point us clearly to those sinners that we are better than. It doesn't give a warm fuzzy feeling, because we know who is going to hell by the people they love.
No, the fight rages on because the church could not survive an acceptance of homosexuals. Not because of the breach in morality. (I still challenge you to find a verse that points to this being a breach without making you hypocritical or heretical.) No, because if you didn't have anyone to hate, any evil to point to, the great and powerful Oz, um, church wouldn't have a purpose anymore. It couldn't point the way to heaven. If there were no staunch evils for you to feel better than, you would spend too much time wondering if you made the cut, and the church couldn't help you answer that.
Here is a novel idea. Whether real or not, drop the afterlife hopes and bullshit. Drop the hell threats and related bullshit as well. Live for now. Defend your fellow man. Consider humanity first. If your God can fault you in the end for being defensive of your own race, your God sucks. He condemns you for being what you are, and this is not someone you are liable to win with no matter what you try. Care for those around you and make this world better for everyone. Won't it be a surprise when you realize that the summerlands aren't somewhere ethereal, but here waiting for you to create them?
Just some thoughts about the fucked up side of life, or something close to it.
posted by Wanderer at 1:15 AM
27 Comments:
Steve, you wrote, "If that is the case, can you at least tell us which ones it is, so those of us who are screwed can at least have fun now?"
Okay- I'll bite. What fun thing is it that Christianity would keep you from doing that you want so much to do?
Is this another angry drunk rant, or just an angry rant? ;-)
I agree that far too many Christians define themselves by who/what they are not rather than who/what they are. That process requires comparison and judgements that not only aren't necessary, but are sinful.
If teaching that there is a heaven is equivalent in your eyes to teaching hatred, then most world religions would be guilty of such hatred. Muslims, Buddhists... they teach of somewhere better that you have a shot at, if you mind your p's and q's, but no guarantee. At least not in the forseeable future. I guess in Buddhism there is something of a guarantee of Nirvana, but you could spend 5000 years as a dung beetle before you see that happen. Heck, if you're Hindu, you're lucky if you can even figure out what it is you have to do to get to that better place, much less actually accomplish it.
If you want to talk about relgious teachings on the afterlife, Christianity is one of the most hopeful and least exclusive of all. You don't have to be born into it. You can't earn your way into heaven; all you have to do is believe. The penalty for the sin that would keep you out of heaven has been paid already. And as for rules, Christ boiled them all down to: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. The two most important commandments of Jesus had nothing whatsoever to say about the afterlife. How is that hatred? No- I'm not asking if stupid people use the bible as an excuse for hatred, of course they do. People will use anything as an excuse for hatred. I'm asking how is the actual teaching of Jesus a form of hatred?
Finally, shame on you. I know you know the Bible well enough to know it doesn't say anywhere there are good people and bad people. It says, essentially, that everyone is "bad" so christ died for us all. There are sinful people who believe in Christ, and sinful people who don't believe in Christ.
BTW, the photo (book?) isn't showing up.
Cindy - Where to start? How about the innocuous? Yeah, I know the picture of the book isn't working. I know why. I am working on your comments today, so today isn't when it gets fixed.
Second, somewhat less deep: "Is this another angry drunk rant, or just an angry rant? ;-)"
It might surprise those who don't know me, certainly not the ones who do, that I was not drunk when I wrote this. Completely 0.0 sober actually.
"Finally, shame on you. I know you know the Bible well enough to know it doesn't say anywhere there are good people and bad people."
I didn't say the bible speaks of good people and bad people. Here is the point in question: "No, the thing is that we have the good people and the bad people. The good people make it, the bad don't. Oh, and that whole teaching about good people despising evil ways, even as God despises the evil actions of those who are not fit."
I said we have the good people and the bad people, one group makes it, another doesn't. This part is understood. The church does preach that not all get to heaven, doesn't it? Some Willy Wonka group of squirrels picking the good nuts from the bad nuts? You may not like my choice of wording for the dividing line, but it is presented.
As for the reference to the hatred of evil itself, I don't think I was stretching it:
Psalm 97:10
Proverbs 8:13
Amos 5:15
Romans 12:9
If you note, it's in there.
"Okay- I'll bite. What fun thing is it that Christianity would keep you from doing that you want so much to do?"
First, I will point out that there is much that would fall under this category that I wouldn't do now anyway. But I will touch on an example. If my morals and ethics were base on this afterlife view point, and I wasn't going to make it, I would definitely rob a couple of banks to make life easier for my wife and child. If I knew that the true measure was the Christian teaching, and after I died the penalty was so severe, nothing would dissuade me from these cheap ways of making it work well now.
On a little less drastic note, while it wouldn't apply to me, you did notice the focus on homosexuality again, didn't you? "Fun" cheapens many of those relationships, but the core applies. Why not do, if damned anyway, and why not have God throw at least that little bone, since he pre-ordained this damnation? (Based on the theory from which this particular comment originated)
"If teaching that there is a heaven is equivalent in your eyes to teaching hatred, then most world religions would be guilty of such hatred."
I don't mean to deflate here, but I said this already: "Some of you may feel bashed, but I focus on that which I know well, and I haven't had the in depth studies into others quite to the level of the one which I reference. My understanding is that many major religions follow suit, but you Christians get to feel pinned to the board again."
"And as for rules, Christ boiled them all down to: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. The two most important commandments of Jesus had nothing whatsoever to say about the afterlife."
I point to this teaching on a regular basis: "In reality Jesus abolished the old and brought the new rules." Of course if you point to this teaching as you have, you see no sinful association with my (female) cousin marrying another woman, do you? There is no deficiency of love for God or neighbor in this relationship, after all. Still, there are all the attacks. Did Jesus' words only have so much weight with the Christians? I mean, doesn't he hold a position near the top of the food chain?
"I'm asking how is the actual teaching of Jesus a form of hatred?"
Let's see.
Matthew 10:34
Luke 12:49
Those don't seem peaceful. They seem to point to a divide, through which this hatred is fueled. Thus my point. Jesus says he came to bring a sword. He makes it clear that the division is to be made.
I appreciate your points, and there is a great deal of validity to them. The late hour may lead to a slight lowering of judgement, but I think you may have forgotten (or in truth, knowing me only through the blog world not really known) that I rarely fly off the handle unfounded. Whether we agree or not, I hope you see through the above that there were no unfounded attacks here. Perhaps as you see it misunderstood positions, but nothing unfounded.
No shame on me. I didn't attack out of hand, you folks just get the brunt of it, because you are the greater audience and I do know your books well.
Not to mention the whole irony of a Creator god creating evil people and them damning them for being evil.
It's kind of like when I draw something crappily and then I tear it up for being crappy. Whose fault is it that the drawing is so crappy, the drawing's, or thr artist's?
So I say: "Screw you, God."
Brands of the Jesus-related cult teach a literal meaning to all the Satan and hell stuff, and they teach that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God. Doesn't the first chapter of the bible say that angels didn't have free will?
Wouldn't that mean your god forced Satan to rebel and then punished him for doing it?
What kind of mean-spirited asshole does that?
If you believe in this god then you must believe the same about me. Your god made me intelligent, according to your beliefs, he also made me a skeptic, and he made the conditions suich that I would not believe in any gods. How could I be punished for being an atheist? He made me be one.
Nertz to that.
Good points, MC. Particularly about the angels.
Hey Steve, I'll try to respond to everything, or most as I have time. First, believe it or not, I didn't feel bashed. Maybe I should have. I was just responding. Second, the thing about the angry drunk rant was a joke. Obviously not a good one. sorry.
Again, on your point about the good and bad people, the verses you referenced allude to evil itself and never once identify a person as evil- only actions. The closest is the reference to NOT avenging wrongs ourselves. Yes it does say that God handles that. But not how God handles that.
And yes, best I can tell, the Bible says not everybody goes to heaven, but it never implies that is an arbitrary decision. (Willy wonka squirrels?- I don't know what that means. Really.)
Do you really think that the only reason God doesn't condone robbing banks is that it's wrong- and that it has nothing to do with our well being, ie. staying out of jail? I don't think that before the 10 commandments people were okay with it when folks came in and stole their stuff. Not all distinctions of right and wrong came first from God. We actually came up with a few on our own. How do you explain that? If, as you seem to say, the distiction of evil vs. good is a bad thing, can you blame it all on God?
About Matt 10:24- yes it does talk about hatred. Go back 2 verses and see who Jesus said would be hating whom.
On Luke 12- You're right, there is talk of division and, possibly judgement in the preceding verses. Jesus used symbols here and it's not totally clear what he meant. It's pretty obvious that there is division on account of him now as there was then. I don't really see a reference to hatred of evil, though. Division and hatred aren't necessarily the same thing, are they?
Yes, I saw that your argument originated with the treatment of homosexuality, and I have to assume there was a precipitating event that spurred your comments. I know what the NT says about it. I don't understand everything in the Bible and this is one of those things that I think may take us a really long time to sort out. I don't disbelieve the words of Christ, but neither do I stand up and rail about homosexuality as if I have all the answers. I would not condemn your cousin. I don't know her, and most importantly, she doesn't answer to me. IF i knew her, and IF she wanted my opinion, my only question to her would be, "are you at peace?"
Steve, I did see that you qualified your statments about Christianity by saying other religions might be similar in stance. It just confuses me why you single out Christianity and the Bible as being wrong and judgmental without ever referencing other religions. I guess you have your reasons.
MC- Where does the Bible say angels don't have free will? To anwswer your question, no, my bible doesn't say that. Nor does it say people don't have free will.
And are you saying that you haven't used your intellect to make choices? That you've given up all your rights and let somebody else direct your life? I sure haven't done that. God gave me intellect, too. And I've made choices. some of them have been stupid and terrible. Some, not so terrible. I take full responsibility for all of them.
I'm saying that my conscious thought and reasoning processes - borne of the intellect - are what make me disbelieve, and if you assume a creator god, it's the thing that gave me said intellect so it made me not believe in it.
Doesn't the bible say something like "And the most beloved creature of god was ma, and god chose to honor him by giving him free will and a coupon for a small fries at Wendy's" or something to that effect, which would imply that angels did not receive said gift?
MC, I guess when you say, "it's the thing that gave me said intellect so it made me not believe in it." is when I would say, God gave me a brain and the ability to make choices. My personal belief is that being made "in His image" means, in part, being made with intellect and the ability to choose our actions/beliefs.
Wendy's fries aside, I have no idea what passage you're referring to. I'd be interested in what that is, though. Could be I interpreted something differently than you.
I'd like to first commend Cindy for her logical and well thought our comments. She's done a fine job and I don't need to rehash the arguments.
It is true that Human Beings are hateful creatures, and it seems when left on their own they behave wickedly toward one another and that every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts are evil continually - the preflood condition described in Genesis 6. Surely the hate and violence that prevails, that is protrayed as entertainment, that is committed by gangs and punks and angry greedy beings is not the result of the teachings of Jesus. God knew it would happen, just like a father knows that the little one will fall if she climbs to the top of the bookcase, or get sick if she eats too much junk, or grow up to be afraid of clowns if she watches IT. Never mind, it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.
As far as homosexuality goes, yes, the Bible is pretty clear, both in the old and new testament that it is considered a very serious sin. But then, the Bible says that Sin is Sin. We've all fallen short of the glory of God. We all need a Savior. Divorce is a pretty serious sin too. God hates Divorce.
Humans involved in these two sins, Divorce and Homosexuality, often use love as an excuse, as justification. We can add pornography to the mix if we like. And the new defense becomes, it doesn't hurt anyone, if I'm just watching it. A lot of the Christians who are so vocal against the sin of homosexuality, accept or participate in other sexual sins that are just as severe in the eyes of the Creator. Like any good father, who cares for the welfare of his children, he set up guidelines, built fenses, gave warnings. Saten fell - that is what my next post will be about - and God had not developed a plan by which fallen angels could be redeemed. Man, created in his own image, male and female, were destined to fall too. Not predestined, it was just going to happen. leave a kid alone with a bag of candy, it will most likely get eaten. leave a kid with a closed box, and the kid will try to open it. Before God set this whole human race in motion, He set up a plan, a way to help, a way to guide, and a way to pay the consequences of man's sin, so that man would not have to be forever banned from Kingdom Come, as Saten was when he/she and the other 1/3 of the Angels rebelled.
I think it is important to understand those who choose a gay life style. I think it is important to reach out to them in love. In our goddless society, I think homosexuals should be free to marry. I also think prostitution should be legal. But when I hear homosexuals speak out, when I see their marches, I sense a lot of hate, resentment, and perversion. Don't put all this hate on the religious, on the Christians. You know better. Honsestly. And if Public Schools can ban the Bible, and public prayer, and Huckleberry Fin, then let them ban Rainbow Boys as well. I think it was our friend (and brother) John who was told that he couldn't share a Bible story with his first grade class. Where's the difference?
thanks maryellen. :-)
Steve, I've been thinking a lot about your comments.
This comes to mind. Since your morals and ethics aren't based on the Christian view of the afterlife, why don't you go ahead and rob those banks? You make it clear that you don't hold the same views of heaven, so what's stopping you? I'm serious; (this isn't a rhetorical question.)
Wow. Quite a bit of response this time. I am glad to see it. Lets see what I can do about addressing these responses.
Cindy - "Again, on your point about the good and bad people, the verses you referenced allude to evil itself and never once identify a person as evil- only actions. The closest is the reference to NOT avenging wrongs ourselves."
Point taken. Let me clarify that my point was that people are given the need to identify and personify those evils. It is the people who feel the need to be better than others, and thus guaranteed their ticket. Not to say that God ever said these people themselves were evil. Otherwise I would be trampling predestination grounds, and given how many times I have held the ground against that theory it would make me a bit hypocritical.
"And yes, best I can tell, the Bible says not everybody goes to heaven, but it never implies that is an arbitrary decision."
I did not mean to imply that there was anyone flipping a coin. More a measurement standard you matched or didn't. The throne and the book of life and judgement and all that? (The Willy Wonka reference was to the new movie version with Johnny Depp.)
"Do you really think that the only reason God doesn't condone robbing banks is that it's wrong- and that it has nothing to do with our well being, ie. staying out of jail?"
No, I don't think that. Nor did I mean to convey that I did. But if you follow the thought process that God has a reason, it follows to consider what that reason might be. If you point to the reasoning being based on harm, then that points back to things like the homosexuality question I have posed several times.
"If, as you seem to say, the distiction of evil vs. good is a bad thing, can you blame it all on God?"
I do not say that the distinction between right and wrong is inherently a bad thing. (Good and evil if you choose to call it that.) Just that labeling groups of people as such is problematic. Teachings or not, that is what a lot of these people are doing. Greater examples include the zealots who claim God wants us to kill homosexuals, or muslims, or vegetarians, or whomever they point to. Lesser extents include the caste system within the churches that you were referencing earlier.
"About Matt 10:24- yes it does talk about hatred. Go back 2 verses and see who Jesus said would be hating whom."
How about three verses:
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death."
Of course the one you point me to says: "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
This doesn't set up some serious division? All of mankind will hate you, but they will get theirs in the end? This doesn't build to this divisiveness and hate I have been pointing to?
"Yes, I saw that your argument originated with the treatment of homosexuality, and I have to assume there was a precipitating event that spurred your comments."
Um. You actually don't have to assume. I pointed to the events precipitating this latest post right back at the beginning. Right after the reference to MC's artwork and Emily's pictures.
"IF i knew her, and IF she wanted my opinion, my only question to her would be, "are you at peace?"
And if she or any of my friends that this would apply to answered that the only lack of peace originated from the second class citizenship imposed upon them by the bigots around them, what answer might you offer?
"It just confuses me why you single out Christianity and the Bible as being wrong and judgmental without ever referencing other religions. I guess you have your reasons."
Two reasons why I single out Christians and the Bible in such posts. One, because I am highly familiar with their paths. Moreso than any of the others. Two, because I am not familiar with any significant muslim, Jewish or hindu readership. My readership is primarily Pagan, atheist or Christian. I have never had anyone point out to me that they were other. (But if this applies to any of you lurkers, feel free to comment and give your perspective, I will work at understanding your positions as well.) As such, there is no sense for me to approach these other view points that none of the readers associate themselves with, is there?
MC - Unfortunately can't help you with the passage you refer to at this point. It is common mythology about Angels not having free will, but I am not certain whether it is actually in the bible or not.
MaryEllen - "Surely the hate and violence that prevails, that is protrayed as entertainment, that is committed by gangs and punks and angry greedy beings is not the result of the teachings of Jesus."
Perhaps not the result, as men have a tendency to do horrible things to them, but as I pointed to in some of the above verses, He did help set a continuous division and point out targets to a species that is very much looking for some.
"As far as homosexuality goes, yes, the Bible is pretty clear, both in the old and new testament that it is considered a very serious sin."
No. It isn't.
"Saten fell - that is what my next post will be about - and God had not developed a plan by which fallen angels could be redeemed. Man, created in his own image, male and female, were destined to fall too. Not predestined, it was just going to happen."
Did God fail to make a plan the first time around? Did He learn from His mistake?
"But when I hear homosexuals speak out, when I see their marches, I sense a lot of hate, resentment, and perversion."
The folks who fought against other prejudices such as racial or gender inequality were of course all full of sunshine while calmly explaining that they were considered sub-par?
"Don't put all this hate on the religious, on the Christians. You know better. Honsestly."
Again, I didn't say that all hatred originated from the Bible. I just said that some of the teachings and their interpretations helped man's desire to hate and be superior to thrive.
"And if Public Schools can ban the Bible, and public prayer, and Huckleberry Fin, then let them ban Rainbow Boys as well."
Um, lets see. To the best of my knowledge many people have opposed those other bannings (the book related ones) as well. As would I. With some exceptions.
First let's get public prayer out of the way. We are talking about a summer reading list. Hardly the same subject as public prayer. (Well, if they can ban smoking in the workplace, why not ban Grand Theft Auto too?)
The Bible would be problematic if it was part of the summer reading list as a required book. (Rainbow Boys wasn't required reading by the way.) Insisting that someone be forced to read the scripture of any religion is just wrong.
The difference in sharing a bible story in school? Again, questionable ground. I suspect many people who disagree with such a ban would be a lot more vocal in complaint if my kid followed up and shared the Charge of the Goddess with their kids.
While generally not very problematic, I don't blame anyone for sticking to safe ground. Afterall, it didn't hurt John any to not be able to share it. It wasn't like he was banned from being a Christian.
More to the point of the question. The difference between sharing a Bible story and allowing Rainbow Boys on the reading list as optional reading? For one, the word optional. Second, Rainbow Boys doesn't teach religion. It explains homosexuality in a positive light, which conflicts with your religion. What's next? Jewish parents flipping out about books in which kids eat bacon? In one case you have "God says" and in the other you have "the author says." I think the supposition that your kids are more likely to trust their parents over another human, versus over a God might come into play among other things.
You don't want your kids to think it is okay just because they read the book? Well, in that case, now I see the problem. You would have to talk to your kids. Explain your positions and ideals to them. This book would force parents into dialogue with their children. Hmm...I am sorry, but this revelation doesn't make me reconsider my position.
In point of fact, one of my summer reading books that I recall involved a kid who got into drugs, got stabbed in a gang fight and even had a detailed scene about a neighbor woman who masturbated with a crucifix. That was a very dialogue related book too. It also wasn't a problem provided the teacher didn't take a stance advocating these actions. The same would be true with this book.
I wish parents would do their jobs in taking care of their own kids. Mine is not yet at an age where this has a direct impact, but if she was, I would point to the optional part again. You have the right to protect your child. So do it. You ban the book for your child. You have no right to "protect" my child while you are at it from something she will never grow to think she needs protecting from.
Steve, we'd go around and around forever on this if we wanted to. My last question on good vs evil is this: You said, "Just that labeling groups of people as such is problematic." Does that also include your labeling of Christians
as bigoted, unthinking, and hateful?
On homosexuality, I expected that response. I would say I'm sorry. It wouldn't fix anything, but it would be sincere.
I wholeheartedly support banning public prayer in schools.
I also wholeheartedly support banning murder in schools.
The difference between that and books is that one set of them are hurtful activities against the law, and the other is just books.
Cindy - "My last question on good vs evil is this: You said, 'Just that labeling groups of people as such is problematic.' Does that also include your labeling of Christians
as bigoted, unthinking, and hateful?"
Of course it does. Then again, I didn't. I questioned the teachings. I questioned the impact it could have on naturally hateful people. I pointed to examples of people who have acted as such. I never said anything to the tune of "All Christians." In fact the point was to get the response from some of you whom I respect. To get you to point out where I might be mistaken. The fact that the accusations might seem a little harsh should be expected. Do you suppose a faithful young man turned away because he didn't like the Kool-aid?
Lisanocerous asks: "What if your god said that heterosexual intimacy was a sin? How would that affect your marriage, assuming you'd listen to him?"
An interesting question, though I doubt that there is any real response that would be given to this beyond the fact that "What if" games are pointless. He said what he said, right? He was clear, right?
I would twist it a little bit more to turn back to the point I was originally driving at. What if your God said that it was a sin in the same paragraphs where He banned pork? What if the cry was taken up by one man in his letters to the early church, a man whom the latter church violated their own commandments in deifying? What if it wasn't banned anywhere that wasn't contradictory, or the words of a man who never actually met Jesus?
Would any of those serve as good excuses to you to decided that your heterosexual relationship wasn't sinful after all? That it was a misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of the Bible?
MaryEllen - I hope you take note, too, of the comments of Lisanocerous. She caught onto something I glossed over when I read your comments. Love is never just an excuse. It is one of the most important things that we have. Important enough to get those silly little comments like "God is Love" and such that I complained about months ago. Can you tell me what is more important than love?
lisanoceros, you wrote, "My understanding of god, at least the kind I would follow, is that he wants us to bring joy into the world. How can we do that if we live a life so sad?"
That's a good question! Some of the most meaningful (and joy infused) Christian writings, biblical and extra biblical, have been from people who lived in misery yet managed to praise God in spite of and even through those circumstances.
I find great hope in a God who desires to give us joy in the midst of joyless circumstances, because we live in a world that will inevitably bring us suffering. Some people choose to remain in such joyless circumstance even when they could remove themselves from it. Others feel led to move on; but, both can look to God for solace and strength in the struggle. If Jesus Christ knew anything in this life, it was what it felt like to be hated and rejected and isolated.
I addressed the concept of your question rather than the specifics, because marriage is such a personal and permanent commitment. But you're right -- that would have to be one of the most difficult decisions a person could face in life.
wow. so much here. I don't believe (in fact most christians don't believe) God made then a certain way and then are punishing them for it. Some of us believe that God took a risk and created being with Free Will. So that the choice was theirs to make.
the whole determinitive thing, blue print universe blah.
also, not all 'christians' respond to gay folk the same. I'd even go so far as to say Jesus is missing from most Churches and versions of Christianity. See these responses:
http://love4theword.blogspot.com/2005/05/just-how-shocking-is-gospel.html
Also, alot there are some really good books out there about Grace. Some even say that all will make it unless they absolutely refuse to. Almost any of Fr. Robert Capon's books, but esp "They Mystery of Christ and why we don't get it"
LYB
Seraphim
oh. one more thing. alot of us don't believe that heaven and hell start in the afterlife. But here in this life. We can begin to live in either.
LYB
Seraphim
Except for that science has proven that homosexuality is a biological pre-disposition, not a choice.
So if you believe your God gave you, say, red hair, then you must believe your god made you gay (assuming you're gay) because they're caused the exact same way.
Re: some of the most joyous bible verse are from people whose lives sucked: That's what we call escapism. It's the exact same thing when a leper or beggar or what have you sings all the praises of his god and what he assumes he'll find in the afterlife, as it is when me and the rest of the tank crew would talk on the intercom at 2am or whenever our tank had radio watch when we were in the field about how much great it would be if we all had chicks in the tanks to warm up with and beer helmets for the dismounted training.
You discuss something fantastic (in the sense that means 'borne of fantasy') to take your mind off the depressing reality that is.
So that's not your god at work, that's human nature.
Love4theword - "Some of us believe that God took a risk and created being with Free Will. So that the choice was theirs to make."
And some of us believe that some of you applying that theory to the question of homosexuality are both asinine and unwilling to put your brains to work on the question. I will lay out some simple questions to look at whether this is a free will issue:
1: Do you, said asinine heterosexual, believe that you could make the choice to sleep with one of your own gender and sexually function?
2: Do you, said asinine heterosexual, believe that these people could possibly be so tormented after all of the shit you people throw at them about their sexuality if they could simply make the choice not to be?
3: Have you, said asinine heterosexual, looked at the scientific evidence of the chemicals in the brain that react to gender specific pheromones to create sexual arousal? Or the fact that creatures out there with no free will are demonstrating homosexual tendencies, thus pointing to biology, not choice?
No. Any God who could condemn a man for being homosexual could also condemn a man for being non-aryan. We didn't like it so much when Hitler suggested that one, did we? It is the same thing though. Biology. As it is biological, it can only be pointed back as caused by your God. Which means that if He takes issue with it, He either pre-damned certain individuals, or at least stacked the deck against them, making them defy their own nature just to attain an afterlife that may or may not exist.
No. Any God who chooses that this one particular group of people gets to suffer just because they are what I made them to me is a mean, underhanded son-of-a-bitch. Tithe to Him if you want to. Even if it meant eternal fire, I wouldn't bow to that shit.
Steve,
Do you understand everything your goddess does and says?
First, wow. 2nd. I am attracted to men and women equally and choose to sleep only with my wife, and not 'give in' to the desire to sleep with attractive men.
And you may not bow to him here, but one day you will.
Have a great life.
Seraphim
upon further thought: And even if he did incarnate himself and tell me to stop gambling and smoking, I'd reply "I have every right." and continue doing them. It's like when your father tries to make you do something as an adult, just because you "made me" doesn't make me your subordinate.
MC- I don't like it when people say, "Our god works in mysterious ways" either. But, I don't see where anyone has written that here. Perhaps your perception is so clouded by your stereotype of Christians that you - and Steve- don't see that you're the ones spewing the hate here. I don't know, but I suspect you won't effect much of a reduction in hatred in the world if you won't let go of your own.
I'm really sorry- Steve. I thought you wanted to have a dialogue here. You've clearly put an end to it-- intentionally I assume, since you say you take seriously what you write here. Or was your original intention an ambush disguised as dialoge?
No matter.
Cindy - While not getting yet to the part where you said this, I will start by saying that I have closed nothing down. I find it odd that you say I have right in the middle of what I see as the conversation. I might mirror others when I ask the next, though:
"Do you understand everything your goddess does and says?"
From which point of mine does this specifically originate? Or at least, where does this question go? There are many places we could extend to from the original and expected answer. No. I don't. Presuming the most logical instigator and course of this question, I must add, this doesn't mean that I don't understand the trend.
Do I understand the reasons for all of Her choices? All of Her actions and words? No. Do I understand the explanation She has offered. Yes. Far enough to be comfortable. Do I understand the pattern? Yes. Far enough to be comfortable.
What She has said and directed has withstood scrutiny, even if not completely understood. Here is where I differ from you, specifically in regard to this question among others. I have proposed that the claims people make about what your God said don't withstand scrutiny. In defense of Christians in general (although few interpret as I do) I will reiterate that there is no clear indication that God has stood by any such condemnation, but if He did, it would not stand.
There is a difference between something being so far out that I can't even think of the right questions to address it, and being able to propose not only questions and counter proof and there being no argument that God can be. In one you have the mystery of a superior mind. In the other you have a claim that God transcends the logic derived of the laws He created. It is the latter that can't stand. It is the concept of the latter that has led me to ask of you and your brethren to shed light sufficient to sustain your position.
"Perhaps your perception is so clouded by your stereotype of Christians that you - and Steve- don't see that you're the ones spewing the hate here."
This I take exception to. If we hit on too close of a nerve, I am sorry. But point to where I spew hate here. I simply asked a question and when you folks responded, I engaged in conversation. I give great credit and honor to informed discourse. Is there anger here? Hell yes. Is there an issue at the core of this? Hell yes. Is it revolving around that "nasty homosexual question" again? Hell yes. Do Christians as a whole take a stand against these people? (I will let you take the chorus up here.)
Is this spewing hatred? No. This is your doctrine, not mine. I am asking a question and presenting what I see. That you people are subhumanizing those people. If I am wrong, show me. You haven't yet. Most in your churches won't, because they agree with it. They see nothing wrong? Am I spewing hatred or speaking the truth.
It is easy for you to call me a hatemonger because I believe differently, because I support those you call a sinner. But I never accused you. I never said Christians as a whole were a problem. I certainly never said Cindy was a problem. Yet you call me a hatemonger. Point to the verse. If you have a reason to say this, point to where. At least then I will give you credit. If you can't point to where and simply respond to my discourse with assault rather than a simple, "I believe but I don't know the answer" then you are less than I have given you credit for. Disagree with me from the bottom of your heart if you must, but don't lie about me. Certainly not on my own blog. Point to my hatemongering, or back off of the insult. I deserve more from you, and if you feel that all that has happened in discourse between us can be limited to this baseless attack, then say so, and I will say screw you. It's about time I banned some asshole anyway.
"I'm really sorry- Steve. I thought you wanted to have a dialogue here. You've clearly put an end to it-- intentionally I assume, since you say you take seriously what you write here. Or was your original intention an ambush disguised as dialoge?"
Again I ask where I put the end to the dialogue here? I am discussing the issue. You point to things and I respond. I have awaited your response, and you even did respond and then claim I put an end to it before I even got back? I know you have some troubles in your personal life. Some hardships I wouldn't wish on anyone, but look at what is happening here. I have put an end to nothing. I am dialogueing and asking for a response. Of all of us here I haven't put an end to anything. It is you who insult me by name and don't even point to whence you pull these claims from. You who seem to be willing to shatter any friendly association we have built so far with baseless accusations and then tell me I have declared an end to the conversation? No, I am not the one who lashed out and personally insulted anyone here. I asked questions that I assumed the adults who came here could either answer or point out they didn't know the answers to. It was you who chose to pick a fight and call me some purveyor of hatred for pointing out that your religion helps to breed the hatred towards these people. That wasn't an attack. It was merely true. As best I see it. If I am clearly wrong then point it out. Responses of such nature are what I clearly asked for. But if you just want to sling insults around, join Chris P. He is in kindegarten too. Maybe you can explain to him how I thought you were able to have a discussion with someone from a different path just to find out that they would resort to baseless insults as he does when there is the slightest dissention.
Seraphim - "And you may not bow to him here, but one day you will.
Have a great life."
Love the "Have a great life part." I take it you join the camp of "I'll take my ball and go home."
The petty part of me (thankfully small) has to reflect on the support I have offered you not only in our short association, but even in the past week. Yet that really isn't me.
You insulted my intelligence, and when I pointed this out you give me this "I am right and you will suffer in the end" speech. Then you wash your hands of me. Good job Pontius.
I have opened up to all of you in the hopes of helping you folks understand me, and trying to understand you even if I don't agree. Yet I see more and more that the stereotypical rift will occur. We disagree, so this doesn't encourage intelligent discourse, rather people walk away.
I brought up a valid point and again I point out, "I don't know" or such indicating silence was an option. Instead you bring out some bullshit that can't stand even under the basic science and logic that God/dess offers us and your response is to further insult and walk away, rather than discuss to the benefit of both of us, and probably others.
If that is the case of you and others who take this stance, it is regrettable, but so be it. There are no politics in saying that I still believe and meant all, particularly the most recent supportive comments that I have offered. And while many others would mean insult in ending as such, I still pray for you and your family. I mean that. I have repeatedly since reading that post. And there is the rub. That which I had hoped to put even the smallest dent in. That enough common ground could be found that this would mean something. It doesn't to you, apparently. It does to me. So even if you walk away. Even if you choose to try to insult me one more time, know that you and your difficulties will always be on my mind, and my prayers, and the only difference is that if you sever connection with me as you suggested here, I will simply never know if I pray for something that has already been accomplished.
Blessings on you and yours, wounded and still fragile brother.
Man, I feel like I'm coming in at the end of a movie or something. That's what limited internet access does though. I wish I had come sooner and offered my two cents, though, as evidenced by my previous comments, and some of the stuff that goes on at my poor neglected blog (part five coming very soon!) I may have just added fuel to a burning fire.
Anyway, I must respond. I must say something here because if I keep my mouth shut, I'll have annoying dreams about it and you'll have a leg up next time we yell at each other over the phone line!
When Maryellen first told me about this post and how I needed to come and say something, I expected something inflamitory and ignorant. Then, based on our recent conversation, I expected us to explode at each other as usual, you getting drunk and me getting tired, and neither of us getting anywhere. Neither was true. I found your post interesting, well thought out, thought provoking, but, obviously to anyone who know me, my writing, and my beliefs, wrong.
Surprised? Didn't think so.
Sorry, Steve, but I am going to repeat here a lot of what I said over the phone, not because I don't think you listened, but because others might be interested in it as well.
First of all, I agree with you that religion has historically been used by hate mongers and bigots, Hitler included, to justify their ignorant beliefs, prejudices, and acts of violence. And, though I know that you both did and didn't mean to pick on Christians, I have to agree with you that, with the possible exceptions of certain terrorist activities aimed at destroying those hated by another religion that shall remain nameless, Christianity is one of the biggest culprits of this hatred. Historically, Christians have used the Bible to justify racism, slaverly, lynching, genocide, war, torture, anti-semitism, and gay bashing. But there is no biblical basis for any of this hatred. There is no biblical justification for dragging a black man behind your pick-up until there's nothing but a bloody stump left, or tying a gay man to a fence post and setting him on fire. There isn't even a biblical justification for holding up the "God hates fags" signs.
To separate myself from the very vocal minority (and it is a minority) of hate mongering Christians (and I say this making a point that disagreeing or even condemning an action does not mean hating the people involved) I share the following: This will sound cliched, but over the years some of my best friends have been gay. Some have been drug users, or even dealers. Some have been murderers or rapists. Some have been of other religions that, according to my belief system, are wrong. I have had numerous discussions, debates, and even arguments with many of these people over the years, including my very good friend Steve Graves, but never once have I been personally accused of hatred or bigotry. I have even had in depth discussions about homosexuality with homesexual people, sticking to the biblical viewpoint (and it is there, cleary, and I have already cited the verses to you) and while we disagreed, my "opponent" in the debate knew that I wasn't attacking them personally, any more than I attack you personally when we "argue". My position and belief was clear, but so was the love that I had for these "sinners". They knew that despite my beliefs, and despite traditionally held opinions associated with those beliefs, I loved them. Wait, scratch that. It wasn't in spite of my beliefs, it was because of them. While there is no record of Jesus ever saying that Homosexuality was sinful (unless you take a full understanding of Scripture with Jesus as Yahweh and therefore He did clearly condemn it in the book of Leviticus), we do have a good idea of what Jesus would have done if faced with a gay person or a lesbian. He would have loved them, and ministered to them, and, (I speak now from the pov of Christian belief and Scripture) He would have done as He did with every other sinner who came to Him. Forgive the person and send them away with the admonition "Go, and sin no more." He would have associated with them as He did with the other sinners who came to Him, even as the cost of His own reputation.
Christians who hold up the signs, or even "christians" who kill, beat, persecute, or otherwise harm homesexuals do not understand Jesus at all. His two cardinal laws, "Love your God..." and "love your neighbor", which, btw steve, were not anything new but are both direct quotes from the old law, do not condone murder or violence, or even hate mongering in the name of God. In fact, people who say "god hates fags" are guilty of breaking the 3rd commandment. They are misusing the name of God. On the other hand, people who use the "God is Love" argument to preach a message of so-called inclusiveness and tolerance, and acceptance of something God clearly condemns by citing his love are just as guilty. That is why, when it comes to homesexual rights and marraige, and all that other stuff, and I say this as a Christian too, God should be taken out of the equation. At least in the political realm. Some Christians would be shocked at this, and I hated writing this, but Steve, you know where I stand. It is wrong, but it should be legal. I agree with Maryellen that prostitution should be legal as well. It is a different principal, but the same rule "my body, my choice" which many people believe is in the constitution somewhere, applies.
Either we are a Christian nation, or we are not. If we are a Christian nation, then we actually go against what the founding fathers, many of them Christians, worked to build here. They had seen what happened when a government sought to pass laws based on an interpretation of Scripture. They also saw what happened when a government tried to change a churches beliefs and practices to suit their opinions. America is not an atheistic country, as your money, our national anthem, and all of those God Bless America slogans show, but we are equally sympathetic to atheists as we are to Mormons as we are to Buddhists. If we are not a Christian nation, then there is no reason whatsoever to ban gay marraige. Though there may be some dire spiritual consequences down the line, America has been duely warned. We can say "we chose to do this apart from Christianity and their God," which, if you don't believe in that God is fine, and if you do, should scare the living crap out of you. Either way, the law is the law, and we have rejected Christianity's version of it many times. Legalize gay marraige. I won't vote for it, but I won't campaign against it.
Enough of that. Homosexuality was only part of what you talked about, so it will only be part of what I talk about too.
Now, remember when we talked and you said that without religion much of the hate would be gone. That religion was a big supporter of hate? Or something to that effect, let me know if I misquote you, but do it nicely.
I agree and disagree. Religion is a tool of hatred, such as a hammer can be a tool of destruction. But, like the hammer, religion has been twisted to do the exact opposite of what its intentions were. Take away religion, and many mongers of hate and fear will be without their weapon. but the hatred will remain, and new tools will be utilized. There are atheists who hate. White supremists routinely use the theory of evolution (something many religious people would never stoop to using) to say that they are superior and that all other races are less evolved. Educated people use their education, financial status, or social standing to hate the lesser people. Religion wouldn't change that.
Religion may be a tool that is used and misused by many, but it shouldn't be singled out. Human nature is to hate. You said so yourself. You also said that it wasn't fair of our God to try to make us change our nature. But if that nature is hatred, shouldn't God change it? Shouldn't a religion that teaches love and forgiveness and reconciliation be a major weapon in the battle against hatred?
I am against homosexuality only because I believe it to be a sin and I am against sin. I am also against bigotry, prejudice, and hatred. You know better than most how I have to deal with people's presupposed ideas on an almost daily basis. Such attitudes are also sin. I am a Christian, who believes in the veracity of the Bible, every book, every verse (and If I were to get into the apparant contradictions and Christ's supposed irradication of the old law, this post would never end.) I do not hate. I disagree, and I debate, and I have intelligent discourses with people without resorting to the very things you took issue with. You know this personally, knowing how the two of us are at opposite ends of the spectrum, yet still respect and love each other.
I do love you, my misguided friend (and that was a joke, don't call me on that one!), not only because my God tells me too, but because of who you are, and because you married into what I consider my extended family, and because we can have discussions like this and not end up hating each other. Our discussion will not end. We owe to each other and to our own belief systems to keep it going until we both die and one of us is proved right, or maybe we're both proved wrong and as a punishment are damnned to have an eternal religious discussion on who was more wrong by the ever vengeful Papa Smurf.
God Bless, Arthur B Roberts
Arthur - "or maybe we're both proved wrong and as a punishment are damnned to have an eternal religious discussion on who was more wrong by the ever vengeful Papa Smurf."
I look forward to it. :)
You see. This particular Christian saw what I wrote, and he agreed with some, and he disagreed with some, and still we talk. I like his points and will get to a couple of them shortly, even though, as he indicated, he and I have already covered them. Yet, look what happens. I bring up deep issues and he discusses or points out where he thinks I am wrong. No juvenile claims of insults not there. No insults to my intelligence from pithy scriptural viewpoints that don't even apply. Discussion. On a blog. Fancy that.
Good words, Arthur. Thanks for speaking so well.
Steve, I'm glad you have someone to converse with who meets your standards. Aruthur is clearly a better debater than I. I concede. Fancy that.
Cindy - "I'm glad you have someone to converse with who meets your standards."
My standards? I must admit, I raise them to be so insurmountable:
1) Discussion of the topic at hand, whatever it might be and whomever might be the one who originated it.
Tough one.
2) Recognition that if we have deep felt, yet potentially conflicting spiritual and moral positions, we will disagree strongly at times.
Tougher.
3) Recognition that one shouldn't take insult unless they have actually been insulted.
Are we sweating yet?
4) Maturity to realize that disagreement is not the bar to intelligent discourse, but is actually the catalyst.
I know. I pushed it way too far here. My only question is how this much time has passed before you realized that not only would we disagree, but the conversation out of that disagreement was what I was looking for.
I didn't ask for debate skills. I didn't even ask for proper grammar. Look at some of the other commentors. All I proposed was that intelligent people talk about things from both sides of the fence.
The funny thing is that by this point I would have sworn that you were not one of the people that required a pat on the back and a politically correct, cuddly form of conversation. That we could actually discuss our differing view points to the betterment of both.
In point of fact, I thought this is precisely what was happening all of the way along until your spontaneous declaration about me spewing hatred and ending the conversation.
You still leave me confused, and while I have been wrong before, I sit here and see you nursing a non-existent wound.
Look at all of the conversation preceding the "spewing hate" comment you made. You and I had a decent question and answer thing going on. You challenged my position, and I defined or explained. Yes, I did respond somewhat insultingly to Seraphim, as I indicated, I feel his preceding comment was an insult to me. You took offense to me insulting your God, which I did not do, nor did I have any intention of doing so. Then it degenerated.
You still hold this accusation against me, including your latest comment that I don't hold you up to conversational standards, as I obviously do, as you can see we had a fine exchange going up until I responded to Seraphim. I responded to his questions in the same tone he offered me. My comments were directed at him, and him alone, in regards to the insult he offered me. The only connection you could make was that you worship the same God, but I did not insult his God, or yours I stated the problem with the theory he was foolishly attributing. Then you attacked me.
What happened between my last response to you in this wonderful conversation that we were having that led you to borrow insult from my comments to him and decide to lash out at me?
Post a Comment
<< Home