Tony--
Maybe I'm a little reactionary this week. It wouldn't be the first time.
We both know that I can never, even with the best divinity, know the whole of your experiences.
Aside from that, where my dander raised slightly was, well ....
Now, there are a couple of things that I will go figure.
* go direct and find out for yourself who [God] is
You mean like the half of my life I spent trying very hard to believe?
* But I guess knowing you guys then that would be like asking a mouse to be a lion or a brick to be a log
Well, if I've escaped the guillotine, should I really stick my neck back in and see if it's as sharp as it seemed? Or should I let the executioner cut my head off because it's unfair to assume that's what he's up to?
* Not wanting or trying to see things from a different perspective, walk a mile in my shoes mate and things will look different mentality
It sounds to me, then, like people aren't being fair to Christians if they don't spend their whole lives living as Christians.
And, understanding that I have excerpted a portion of the sentence,
* hey I don't doubt that but its strange how we point that finger yet somehow the tag fits each of us as well - go figure hey?
So what you're saying is that because I'm not willing to go back to what I empirically know is a bad experience, I have no idea what I'm talking about? If you're wondering about that derivation, hold on.
Now the money question: When did you ever be something else?
That's like asking me when I last considered what a Christian believes: this morning, when I checked in to see the posts.
Now, when did I last try to be a Christian? Officially, I stopped when I was fourteen, maybe thirteen. It's been a while, I admit, but I at least was there. When was the last time you forsook your Christianity and undertook Wicca, Satanism (essentially Christianity, which is what makes it an easy transition), Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, or any such religion, or any philosophy? Christianity can tell me not to kill myself; so can Camus. Guess which philosophy makes more sense about why?
So walk that mile, if you haven't. Ask Moon for a broomstick. Take the trip to Mecca. Sit in quiet reflection of the world that is perceived, and the mysteries of God are not quite as mysterious.
You talk about people walking miles in shoes; I well appreciate the perspective. However, what I fail to understand is what miles you've walked other than Christianity.
Does your religion have a mandate to go forth and bring the world to your God? It seems to me that Christianity does. Now, perhaps I'm utterly mistaken in that, but history whispers a few things in my ear at this moment, and I see the twinkling of an evangelical church.
Why, then, do the churches evangelize? If it's for post-mortem glory in God, then what in God's name is so important about maintaining Christian standards in the world? What, then, is evangelism for if not to attain god's reward?
On the other hand, if evangelization is supposed to have any effect on society at the same time, well ... there's where all of the nasty politics become important. The Communists were so set on their plan of equalization that they would let hundreds of thousands starve in misery while implementing; at no time did that Revolution raise the quality of living to a satisfactory level. So I also see in Christian history. Much of the damage Christians work to repair in their missions happens to be a direct result of Christian influence. Sad but true. Given that historians estimate that between 90 and 95% of the American indigenous population died off in the first ... century, as I recall ... one might come to the conclusion that Spaniard encomienda was, in fact, merciful.
A contemporary example? Domestic violence. I've said before and I'll say again that women's shelters are a wonderful thing in this country, except for the fact that they're necessary. I'm quite happy the local diocese will take care of battered women; I also wish the local diocese would do something to dispel the misinterpretations of faith which can contribute to domestic violence. How about violence against children? Strangely, I can't recall ever meeting someone who believed in "spare the rod, spoil the child" who also belonged to a sect of the faith which works on behalf of battered children. Geez, maybe some of those fundamentalist churches could, I don't know, break the rhetorical cycle by which "Chrisitans" commit the wrongs that motivate their charity?
It's very simple: Christianity is supposed to be a good thing for the world, by its own perception of itself; history however demonstrates that Christianity, by its very nature, allows its faithful to simply destroy everything they come in contact with. Would you like to be a little more recent than the 16th century? Try the British in India. There's a nightmare that almost can't be described without exacting detail. And that debacle ran until 1947.
Christianity has proclaimed salvation, has demanded authority, and has largely complicated everything beyond necessity or acceptability.
For some, the "drawback" is simply too heavy a premium to exact from their neighbor.
Christianity, however, advocates a better human condition. It does not, generally, create one. Take the Wiccan need to improve the world: it's a little strange, and often respects the Golden Rule in the, "Do not do unto others ...," form. The best way to improve the world is to keep your own house in order first, and communicate what you know. In fact, the article I cited in the Disorganized thoughts thread reflects an aspect of this idea.
No.
Again ... No.
Undoubtedly. However, you seem to find it a tad more acceptable a human condition than I.
I don't mind taking two steps back if we get a chance to take three steps forward. I will not, however, take two steps back just because someone says God thinks it's a good idea.
You are very correct. I'm trying hard to find another philosophy to compare to the effort of Christianity as regards its own history. Certes the Communists blanched their history. Indeed, Islam is subject to its own cultural errors.
When, pray tell, was Christianity illegal in the British Empire?
I can't recall it ever being illegal in the US.
Zsusanna Budapest, however, was charged with witchcraft as late as the 1970's. In the US.
I don't recall, while living in Oregon, ever being asked to approve a ballot-attack on civil rights based on any holy book of Islam, Wicca, or Buddhism. I know I've voted on the basis of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and a few other political isms, but I think Christianity is the only religious philosophy I ever have to reject at the ballot box.
The world's tiniest violin ....
Then it was never about the Communists, or the Nazis. It seems that our efforts to stop those machines were just our personal hatred of individuals we had no right to judge.
I know it's nice to puff up your own chosen label; I'm quite prone to it, in case anyone thinks I didn't notice. But if we measure results ... Christianity isn't cutting it.
Your individual faith-relationship with God is your own. And you can treat it any way you want. But you identify yourself as a Christian, which word conjures many associations. One of the quick defenses Christians often employ has to do with walking miles in others' shoes. As I've heard it explained before, and as I have complained before, that is absurd. Despite the fact that I already know well from experience what Christian faith is worth in human terms, I'm not joining to prove any points. In the same vein, I'm not going to shoot you in order to understand that murder is wrong. I can work it out on my own.
And what are you going to say when you're standing before him and he asks, "What the hell were you thinking?"
The use of such a patriarchal God is, in fact, pointing fingers and finding excuses. We do things because the Bible says it's right. Not because we actually know it's right. We believe it's right because God says it's right. But not because, quite simply, it's the right thing to do. It really saps the credibility of the faith. It's all about "me" and God.
That's why I love the spectacle of millions of Christians re-enacting the same mistakes of the past in the here and now. As Bowser apparently failed to understand, just because we aren't holding an open inquisition in the public square does not mean we're treating people right.
Fine, indeed. That's why it's easier just to say that God wills it.
And we might even take the logical consequence of death from a more Bolshevik perspective so that we can eliminate the sentiments attached to it for the moment of discussion. At the heart of what's wrong with the Inquisitions is the idea of purging society of those who do not neatly fit the prescribed class system. We can do it in the modern day with fire, with rifles, or even with laws.
Down in Oregon people have generally learned that burning the sinners to death generally isn't the best idea. It doesn't mean they're not still persecuting for arbitrary reasons.
But, in the end, you're still dwelling within the confines of that God. Take my own "departure" as such from Wicca: It stopped working for me because it taught me how to make "religion" unnecessary in my life, and takes no offense when I employ the processes I learned within it without praising, citing, or otherwise crediting the Goddess.
Your sympathies are still bleeding from your Christian heart. When did they ever bleed from your Buddhist heart? Or your agnostic heart?
You model your compassion after Christ? (I'm guessing, but since you do seem to consider yourself a Christian ....)
I like Christ's compassion. I like Emma Goldman's compassion. Both were Jews, but nothing about anything means either one of 'em was "God".
It's not that you have no compassion. But your standard for compassion often brings you to different conclusions than I about what is proper and what is detrimental. (I feel secure enough in that declaration, but if we need to enumerate, let me know.)
What I generally accuse Christianity of is assuming that its compassion is correct. History definitely backs me up on that.
I've been a Christian. When I see a Christian in naked fear of God's wrath, based solely on Christian ideas of propriety, I know what that moment feels like because I have felt it myself.
You may hear and feel every bit of doubt and pain and confusion, but have you ever felt it with your Buddhist, Wiccan, Muslim, &c. heart?
You are still within your Christian context.
I will forego the last couple of paragraphs in citation; my response is the same as the prior sentence.
I would never accuse you of not feeling. I would, however, accuse you of not making much of an effort to extend your sympathies outside your own context. But that is based only on our present debate.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
Maybe I'm a little reactionary this week. It wouldn't be the first time.
We both know that I can never, even with the best divinity, know the whole of your experiences.
Aside from that, where my dander raised slightly was, well ....
Now, there are a couple of things that I will go figure.
* go direct and find out for yourself who [God] is
You mean like the half of my life I spent trying very hard to believe?
* But I guess knowing you guys then that would be like asking a mouse to be a lion or a brick to be a log
Well, if I've escaped the guillotine, should I really stick my neck back in and see if it's as sharp as it seemed? Or should I let the executioner cut my head off because it's unfair to assume that's what he's up to?
* Not wanting or trying to see things from a different perspective, walk a mile in my shoes mate and things will look different mentality
It sounds to me, then, like people aren't being fair to Christians if they don't spend their whole lives living as Christians.
And, understanding that I have excerpted a portion of the sentence,
* hey I don't doubt that but its strange how we point that finger yet somehow the tag fits each of us as well - go figure hey?
So what you're saying is that because I'm not willing to go back to what I empirically know is a bad experience, I have no idea what I'm talking about? If you're wondering about that derivation, hold on.
Now the money question: When did you ever be something else?
That's like asking me when I last considered what a Christian believes: this morning, when I checked in to see the posts.
Now, when did I last try to be a Christian? Officially, I stopped when I was fourteen, maybe thirteen. It's been a while, I admit, but I at least was there. When was the last time you forsook your Christianity and undertook Wicca, Satanism (essentially Christianity, which is what makes it an easy transition), Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, or any such religion, or any philosophy? Christianity can tell me not to kill myself; so can Camus. Guess which philosophy makes more sense about why?
So walk that mile, if you haven't. Ask Moon for a broomstick. Take the trip to Mecca. Sit in quiet reflection of the world that is perceived, and the mysteries of God are not quite as mysterious.
You talk about people walking miles in shoes; I well appreciate the perspective. However, what I fail to understand is what miles you've walked other than Christianity.
Does your religion have a mandate to go forth and bring the world to your God? It seems to me that Christianity does. Now, perhaps I'm utterly mistaken in that, but history whispers a few things in my ear at this moment, and I see the twinkling of an evangelical church.
Why, then, do the churches evangelize? If it's for post-mortem glory in God, then what in God's name is so important about maintaining Christian standards in the world? What, then, is evangelism for if not to attain god's reward?
On the other hand, if evangelization is supposed to have any effect on society at the same time, well ... there's where all of the nasty politics become important. The Communists were so set on their plan of equalization that they would let hundreds of thousands starve in misery while implementing; at no time did that Revolution raise the quality of living to a satisfactory level. So I also see in Christian history. Much of the damage Christians work to repair in their missions happens to be a direct result of Christian influence. Sad but true. Given that historians estimate that between 90 and 95% of the American indigenous population died off in the first ... century, as I recall ... one might come to the conclusion that Spaniard encomienda was, in fact, merciful.
A contemporary example? Domestic violence. I've said before and I'll say again that women's shelters are a wonderful thing in this country, except for the fact that they're necessary. I'm quite happy the local diocese will take care of battered women; I also wish the local diocese would do something to dispel the misinterpretations of faith which can contribute to domestic violence. How about violence against children? Strangely, I can't recall ever meeting someone who believed in "spare the rod, spoil the child" who also belonged to a sect of the faith which works on behalf of battered children. Geez, maybe some of those fundamentalist churches could, I don't know, break the rhetorical cycle by which "Chrisitans" commit the wrongs that motivate their charity?
It's very simple: Christianity is supposed to be a good thing for the world, by its own perception of itself; history however demonstrates that Christianity, by its very nature, allows its faithful to simply destroy everything they come in contact with. Would you like to be a little more recent than the 16th century? Try the British in India. There's a nightmare that almost can't be described without exacting detail. And that debacle ran until 1947.
Christianity has proclaimed salvation, has demanded authority, and has largely complicated everything beyond necessity or acceptability.
For some, the "drawback" is simply too heavy a premium to exact from their neighbor.
Christianity, however, advocates a better human condition. It does not, generally, create one. Take the Wiccan need to improve the world: it's a little strange, and often respects the Golden Rule in the, "Do not do unto others ...," form. The best way to improve the world is to keep your own house in order first, and communicate what you know. In fact, the article I cited in the Disorganized thoughts thread reflects an aspect of this idea.
No.
Again ... No.
Undoubtedly. However, you seem to find it a tad more acceptable a human condition than I.
I don't mind taking two steps back if we get a chance to take three steps forward. I will not, however, take two steps back just because someone says God thinks it's a good idea.
You are very correct. I'm trying hard to find another philosophy to compare to the effort of Christianity as regards its own history. Certes the Communists blanched their history. Indeed, Islam is subject to its own cultural errors.
When, pray tell, was Christianity illegal in the British Empire?
I can't recall it ever being illegal in the US.
Zsusanna Budapest, however, was charged with witchcraft as late as the 1970's. In the US.
I don't recall, while living in Oregon, ever being asked to approve a ballot-attack on civil rights based on any holy book of Islam, Wicca, or Buddhism. I know I've voted on the basis of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and a few other political isms, but I think Christianity is the only religious philosophy I ever have to reject at the ballot box.
The world's tiniest violin ....
Then it was never about the Communists, or the Nazis. It seems that our efforts to stop those machines were just our personal hatred of individuals we had no right to judge.
I know it's nice to puff up your own chosen label; I'm quite prone to it, in case anyone thinks I didn't notice. But if we measure results ... Christianity isn't cutting it.
Your individual faith-relationship with God is your own. And you can treat it any way you want. But you identify yourself as a Christian, which word conjures many associations. One of the quick defenses Christians often employ has to do with walking miles in others' shoes. As I've heard it explained before, and as I have complained before, that is absurd. Despite the fact that I already know well from experience what Christian faith is worth in human terms, I'm not joining to prove any points. In the same vein, I'm not going to shoot you in order to understand that murder is wrong. I can work it out on my own.
And what are you going to say when you're standing before him and he asks, "What the hell were you thinking?"
The use of such a patriarchal God is, in fact, pointing fingers and finding excuses. We do things because the Bible says it's right. Not because we actually know it's right. We believe it's right because God says it's right. But not because, quite simply, it's the right thing to do. It really saps the credibility of the faith. It's all about "me" and God.
That's why I love the spectacle of millions of Christians re-enacting the same mistakes of the past in the here and now. As Bowser apparently failed to understand, just because we aren't holding an open inquisition in the public square does not mean we're treating people right.
Fine, indeed. That's why it's easier just to say that God wills it.
And we might even take the logical consequence of death from a more Bolshevik perspective so that we can eliminate the sentiments attached to it for the moment of discussion. At the heart of what's wrong with the Inquisitions is the idea of purging society of those who do not neatly fit the prescribed class system. We can do it in the modern day with fire, with rifles, or even with laws.
Down in Oregon people have generally learned that burning the sinners to death generally isn't the best idea. It doesn't mean they're not still persecuting for arbitrary reasons.
But, in the end, you're still dwelling within the confines of that God. Take my own "departure" as such from Wicca: It stopped working for me because it taught me how to make "religion" unnecessary in my life, and takes no offense when I employ the processes I learned within it without praising, citing, or otherwise crediting the Goddess.
Your sympathies are still bleeding from your Christian heart. When did they ever bleed from your Buddhist heart? Or your agnostic heart?
You model your compassion after Christ? (I'm guessing, but since you do seem to consider yourself a Christian ....)
I like Christ's compassion. I like Emma Goldman's compassion. Both were Jews, but nothing about anything means either one of 'em was "God".
It's not that you have no compassion. But your standard for compassion often brings you to different conclusions than I about what is proper and what is detrimental. (I feel secure enough in that declaration, but if we need to enumerate, let me know.)
What I generally accuse Christianity of is assuming that its compassion is correct. History definitely backs me up on that.
I've been a Christian. When I see a Christian in naked fear of God's wrath, based solely on Christian ideas of propriety, I know what that moment feels like because I have felt it myself.
You may hear and feel every bit of doubt and pain and confusion, but have you ever felt it with your Buddhist, Wiccan, Muslim, &c. heart?
You are still within your Christian context.
I will forego the last couple of paragraphs in citation; my response is the same as the prior sentence.
I would never accuse you of not feeling. I would, however, accuse you of not making much of an effort to extend your sympathies outside your own context. But that is based only on our present debate.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
