Notes Around
Sandy said:
I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion.
And yet you cling to your identity as a "CCR", which is in itself a form of organized religion despite the fact that its connection to Christian faith is merely nominal.
I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God
Oh, come now, Sandy. We've been through this so many times. Look, I know you think of it as a personal attack, but you really
do seem to carry your Christian identity around like a club. I mean, I'm just not sure what part of the Bible licenses your mean spirit and vicious tongue. And that whole thing with faith vs. acts seems, as it is with so many of your CCR and evangelical neighbors, a calculated "misunderstanding" that licenses their claims of Christianity despite very un-Christian behavior. Of course, I may have simply missed that part of the Bible. Where does Jesus say we should go around calling one another losers and pieces of shit? And where does Jesus say that the divisions of people instituted by men trump the promise of God's kingdom?
A couple of notes from Matthew:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ...."
(
Matthew 5.2-10, RSV)
• • •
"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
(Matthew 5.22-24)
• • •
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matthew 5.43-48)
• • •
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
(
Matthew 25.31-46)
We've been through this before. A few times at least. And, although your response, when you deign to give one, is to whine and complain about personal attacks, the issues of faith remain.
The short list:
And these, like the above citations, involve doctrinal perceptions and understandings. You've done
nothing over time to address the actual Biblical issues. In December,
I also noted that, "
I thought part of the point of Christian faith was to walk a path set by Jesus, not to exploit your forgiveness and treat the world like shite."
And that last is interesting to me because you recently
brought it back into focus: "
Born-again Christians know the only way to Heaven is by 'accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior'. It has nothing to do with works/good deeds/charity."
I found it interesting that you would raise that point without having resolved the outstanding issues from the December issue about walking the path set by Jesus. I mean, you
did argue that Jesus wants you to keep sinning, which is absurd.
You know, back in November (see link above), I suggested some possibilities of what you might be instead of a genuine Christian. And here's the thing, Sandy. You are willing to make general statements like the one about accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or that Jesus doesn't want a break from your constant sinning and wants to be part of your decisions to sin and the sins themselves, but you never really do get any deeper than that. The superficiality of your expressions of faith are part of what people find so damnably offensive about you.
And so when you pop up to reaffirm your "Christianity" with a vapid post like
#5 in the current topic, I really do wonder if you expect people to see your "contribution" as anything more than trolling. You consider yourself Christian, which is part of an organized religion. You follow the Bible, which is a product of organized religion. I really do think it would be interesting and helpful if you could give us something a little more genuine than self-affirmation tailored to avoid the more general discussion taking place.
To take your neighbor, Lori 7 as an example ....
• • •
Lori 7 said:
it's a shame when someone does the right thing that it's so unusual they're labeled a hero isn't it? what does that say to our children?
I'm going to flip a coin on this one. Part of me agrees, but another part of me says things aren't so dire, and that it's this particular congregation, or a mentality shown by a limited number of people that think like them. I don't think we're entirely out of heroes, although I'm hard-pressed to name any right now. I don't think we're out of role models, either. In fact, of the latter, I would say we've many among us to the point that I wouldn't know where to start.
And none of this should suggest that Inman's story is without value. Even after we do wrong, there
is a right thing to do. A number of questions do arise, though, and some of them may not be fair. I think of when his time is served and he is back in the community; would his neighbors be any more or less comfortable if the confessed murderer living next door was black or Hispanic? And, you know, that's really a question for when and if it ever actually comes up.
I do find the standard unsettling, though. Does Ms. Graham, for instance, really mean to imply that confessing to God is enough that his neighbors should feel comfortable? I mean, if one confesses to God, but not to the police, does that mean enough, and everything's okay, and that's all that is required for justice? Because there's a fourteen year-old murderer in California who could really use that kind of a standard right now.
And how tragic is it that Ms. Thac should be compelled to make this about "men" instead of people? We might read a few things into that, and perhaps some of those would be reasonably accurate, but is the unusual nature of confession and accountability representative of a general dearth, or is it a community thing?
Instead of worrying about what this particular occasion says to the children, part of me wants to worry more about the conditions that lead to such a state, and the effects those conditions have on the children.
My two cents, for now.
• • •
Jayleew said:
Kelley Graham, as in Billy Graham's daughter??
I'm going to doubt it on this one.
And, from the Christian perspective, once he has served his time and paid his dues, he would be accepted as if he had not committed the crime.
Would they let him take care of their kids? Okay, much like I noted to Lori, that's probably not a fair question right now. Although I would go so far as to suggest that American prison systems, in general, might complicate that outcome, as well.
• • •
A general note on the topic
A couple of our neighbors have noted that they are of faith, yet dislike organized religion. As I noted in one of the prior sections of this post, Christian faith is itself part of organized religion, and the Bible, which is the primary source for defining that faith is a product of organized religion.
Additionally, around Sciforums, there is much hostility shown toward Christianity, especially within a political context. Denigrations of "Jesusland" and "the Christian right" often sting, and it is not unusual that some Christians view this as a bigotry against Christianity in general. And while in some cases this might be true, what we have in this case is a very acute representation of something that so many of us who are not of the faith are aware of. There is something askew about the Christian voice in the public discourse, whether in heated political debates about abortion or homosexuals, or in attempting to define and explain the Christian phenomenon.
The age of the internet has presented me with a face and voice of Christianity that is leagues removed from the faith my grandmother tried to instill. It is so different from what they tried to teach us as youths in the Lutheran church. It is unrecognizable compared to the sentimental beauty of Catholic yearning, or the well-intended faith of the Quakers I knew. What the Digital Age has brought us is an ugly face of faith. It is well enough to accept that any moron with a connection can be published digitally. And for some reason, the discussion has drifted significantly in that direction. Has faith really changed so much, or has Christianity simply been hijacked by bad faith? Are we finally seeing the fruits of ignorance? After all, I might speak well of Christian faith in my youth, but it wasn't enough to keep me in the flock. Rather, while I disagreed then, at least the faithful didn't seem so ... well ...
stupid.
Thus, to give my neighbor Lori 7 the faith and credit of being genuine—and is there a reason I should not?—we need to understand that even those two paragraphs
appear the aberration.
Like a guy I met over the weekend. He wanted to talk for a few moments about religion in light of an exchange he had witnessed (that involved me giving someone else practical advice about their outlook on religion). He explained that he was a man of science who believed in God, and would not have faith except that he thought it could be proven. And while some might attack Christians as naive or deluded, he believed the opposite was true. Non-Christians, he explained, were deluded and ignorant ... but, as he put it, "I'm not attacking anybody". An associate and I exchanged a glance, and let the point go. We were representatives, in that specific moment, of someone else's good name. And that's the thing. I don't doubt that it stings to be called naive or deluded for believing and submitting to a fairy-tale that can't be shown true. And yet it's
not supposed to sting to be called ignorant and deluded for
not believing what
cannot be shown true?
I understood the guy's point about as well as I'm capable. He was generally very well-spoken. But that bit about not attacking anybody struck me. If someone says something about him, it's an attack. If he says it about someone else, though?
And
this, even, is part of what confuses the infidels. I expect to hear from this fellow in the near future, so instead of forming a set judgment, I should look forward to further enlightenment about his perspective. Nonetheless, there are certain eccentricities about the faith that we infidels perceive, and while it may seem a leap to go from one removed discussion to a bizarre situation in Texas, the elevation of a confessed murderer as a hero and role model is emblematic of the dangers many of us perceive abut the faith.
For many, this is also about as benign as it gets. This particular manifestation is tragic at best, but other expressions of the convergence of circumstances may well only get worse from here.
Time will tell.
