Monday, February 26, 2007
Following Hunger
An interview with a beautiful spirit. She progressed from atheism to her chosen Christianity as part of her own path. Some of us go the other way. Lots of people go one way, then another, then yet another. So long as you seek to be true to your own heart, there is no wrong way to go.
25 comments:
I can't see any reason she became a Christian. Asked why she converted, she says she believes the story is true. Well, okay, but why did she start believing that?
Her explanation of why it's okay to be gay is facile. God makes it clear that he hates queers.
This is wrong: "Christianity is a religion that over the centuries has adapted to incredibly different cultures." Yes, but not generally. She is not a Brazilian, after all, and she would probably consider those who have adapted Christianity to their culture to be outside the communion.
This is wrong too: " also don't feel like once the last pages of the King James Bible were assembled that God stopped talking to Christians. The conversation between God and the church is not finished." God transcends time. This woman needs to think about what that means. Among other things, it means he does not have second thoughts.
Just another boring brighteyed convert, cluelessly parrotting a credo.
I can't see
Your black and white interpretation of Christianity prevents you from understanding her journey. True, she doesn't follow or seem to understand the traditional interpretations. But in truth, few Christians do. Few Christians really know enough about it. They just go with what works for them, and part of the unintended genius of Christianity (and some other faiths) is this in-built flexibility. She reached a stage in life when she needed a shift -- in paradigm, in spiritual connection, whatever. She happened to find a constructive place for that shift in a liberal Episcopalian church in San Francisco. Could have happened in a number of environments, I suppose. Whatever you narrowly think of her, presuming a disaqualifying ignorance on her part, what she has found is working for her, and that's what matters (and she's feeding the poor while she's at it). That you're habitually dismissive of people you can't understand is already well established. Maybe you're envious of her peace.
To be fair, it's very easy to be peaceful when you've given up the struggle to achieve some understanding of the world and of mankind. Kids with Down's Syndrome are some of the happiest you could ever come across.
So it's no reflection on the religion to say that one person, or a hundred thousand one-persons, have found what they need there because of this inbuilt "flexibility". In the first place, anyone standing outside can see that Christianity doesn't have any flexibility unless you start chucking great lumps of doctrine out. So in the second place, it's questionable that what this person has found solace in is Christianity at all.
It may be she's found a community of like souls in an Episcopalian or a Unitarian church or whatever. Some churches are notoriously undemanding of their adherents, not wishing to scare them off by asking too much. Others are fiercely demanding in some ways, like who you have to hate, while allowing you to misbehave in almost every way imaginable. I have a picture of a born-again evangelical Christian of a particularly American sort who only has to follow three rules to get to Heaven: Declare ostentatiously your faith at every opportunity; hate abortion; hate homosexuals. Other than that, no demands.
So which of the two is a Christian?
I dunno about following your heart: some people's hearts are pretty twisted! But I don't mind others' religion if it's not in my face, and if peeps can find peace there (without hurting others), then cool. I belong to a reform temple - it's one of the undemanding type places that SG describes (except WRT your wallet) - and for me it is all about being with the community, music, and dessert. I try to tune out any god stuff.
You know, I don't disagree at all with SG, I think he's generally right. I don't care who is and who isn't a Christian, I just care that this particular person was open about following a good path. I'm sure that her church would be considered a travesty by many others (including many Epicopalian / Anglican) across the country.
And SG said pretty much the same thing as dr z, but I like tweaking dr z because he so loudly asks for it.
I've never known any hateful Christians anyway, so I have a soft attitude.
ugh , this is so painful. (bear with me, i'm very stream of consciousness)
on one hand, i find it very unenlightening for someone to tell me they changed their entire life by eating a flat tasteless wafer and drinking some grape juice.
i've had PLENTY of communion in my life and it did absolutely zero for me. does that mean i'm some closed minded disconnected person who can never hope to have a connection with a higher power? i doubt it, i think it just means that it's a closed minded let someone else be in charge of your life gesture that holds zero meaning for me and my beliefs.
if she had a spiritual moment, good for her, but i'd have rather read about her "spiritual" conversion than her "christian" conversion. being a good person is non-denominational...but being a christian <> being a good person a lot of the time.
hell, i used to be christian and i was far from perfect. i know that many times i was only a christian on sunday's....and frankly, i've never, EVER, met a Christian who I would want to role model...but i have sure as heck met a SPIRITUAL person that I would want to role model.
i'm just very anti organised religion...it's too restrictive to life.
"Your black and white interpretation of Christianity prevents you from understanding her journey."
My suggesting you didn't have a sophisticated view of the world really cut you, didn't it? Because you've taken every opportunity since to claim (entirely falsely) that I take a B&W view of this, that and the other.
What I couldn't see, and you are very dishonest in your snipping so that you could imply I said something different, was the reason for her conversion. Maybe you understood it mystically.
"True, she doesn't follow or seem to understand the traditional interpretations."
I didn't have anything to say about that. Again, you misrepresent me so that you can shoot at a strawman.
I said she was wrong about Christianity's adapting to other cultures. Am I wrong? Explain how.
I said she was wrong about God's changing his mind about queers. Don, I don't know what your conception of God is, but he is almost universally conceived as transcendental. It's possible this woman thinks God is bound by time and space, but this would make her a heretic in her own church. I don't make the rules, man. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. Let me explain. If God transcends time, a statement he made 2000 years ago is *to him* the same as one he makes today. There is no linearity to his existence, and no difference between the times. Are you not clear on that?
"But in truth, few Christians do."
Quite. So they talk shit. As I said. What's your point? Mine was that you found a run-of-the-mill, emptyheaded convert and sold her as a "beautiful spirit".
"Few Christians really know enough about it. They just go with what works for them, and part of the unintended genius of Christianity (and some other faiths) is this in-built flexibility."
You have to be kidding. That is hilarious.
"She reached a stage in life when she needed a shift -- in paradigm, in spiritual connection, whatever."
She needed to give up.
"She happened to find a constructive place for that shift in a liberal Episcopalian church in San Francisco."
Even liberal Episcopalians don't believe that God changed his mind about queers. The church has changed, yes, but God, never. It is impossible. They have a better understanding of their theology than you do, clearly.
The word of God, as revealed in the Bible, is good for all time, Don, because God is transcendental! Do you not get that? Truly?
"Could have happened in a number of environments, I suppose. Whatever you narrowly think of her, presuming a disaqualifying ignorance on her part, what she has found is working for her, and that's what matters (and she's feeding the poor while she's at it)."
Well, that's lovely for her, Don. What was your point?
"That you're habitually dismissive of people you can't understand is already well established."
LOL. I've reduced you to an IKYABWAIbot. You could have taken the path of lessening your ignorance, but this one is funnier.
"Maybe you're envious of her peace."
As it happens, I have mixed feelings about ignoranti who find God. On the one hand, I'm sure it would be nice to give up. On the other, I'm not sure I'd like to have my brain sucked out through my nose.
"My suggesting you didn't have a sophisticated view of the world really cut you, didn't it?"
No.
"Because you've taken every opportunity since to claim (entirely falsely) that I take a B&W view of this, that and the other."
Only twice, I think. True, a little bit of a cut-back for fun, but also I perceive, here as elsewhere, your own particular dogmatism.
"What I couldn't see, and you are very dishonest in your snipping so that you could imply I said something different, was the reason for her conversion. Maybe you understood it mystically."
I snipped for economy of space, as I'm not doing now. And oh yes, to extract a second meaning, I admit that. I did understand her conversion mystically. As you've illustrated, I did not take her conversion very literally.
"I said she was wrong about Christianity's adapting to other cultures. Am I wrong? Explain how."
How you were wrong that she is wrong? I don't know about that. I know that Christianity adapts well. That it adapts by altering the message, if indeed it does, means nothing to me. I don't think it does, except in those areas that only the dogmatists really care about, e.g. homosexuality. Oh, and there are violently different interpretations of Grace and so on. But so what? As I said originally, she progressed "to her chosen Christianity." Not any of the others, just the one she chose, i.e. the church that was in Alan's words, "a community of like souls," one of those places that are "notoriously undemanding of their adherents." You disrespect her for it, and me for being loosey-goosey enough to think well of her. Maybe it's that peculiar dogmatism of yours, that black-and-whiteness that I've always seen but never adequately illuminated, that causes you to place such high demands on people and their grasp of the philosophy they have taken a but a corner of for their own comfort.
"As I said. What's your point? Mine was that you found a run-of-the-mill, emptyheaded convert and sold her as a "beautiful spirit"."
To you, most people appear to be empty-headed. But I love people for all kinds of faults.
""Few Christians really know enough about it. They just go with what works for them, and part of the unintended genius of Christianity (and some other faiths) is this in-built flexibility."
"You have to be kidding. That is hilarious."
Perhaps, but true. To my mind, part of the genius of Christianity is the creation, through Jesus, of a very personal and loving guide in the mind of the believer: a brother-figure who comforts, teaches, loves without judgment, and strengthens. Of course it is the mind that does this, not Jesus; but belief in Jesus lends the mind tremendous ability many people otherwise cannot find in themselves. What I've just (poorly) described is hugely flexible. Not so different from some forms of Buddhism, of course, or other faiths, but again, so what? So what, if it works?
"She needed to give up."
No, and you only say that because you're mean. Or you're entirely of the intellect and out of touch with your heart, whichever. She needed a change and her heart was open to it. This is in no wise a bad thing.
"Even liberal Episcopalians don't believe that God changed his mind about queers."
Correct, they believe he never meant to exclude them in the first place. Which is her take as well. Thus, I don't know why you go on about God being transcendental. If you mean her statement about Scripture being remade everytime someone reads it, then your comprehension disappoints even me.
"What was your point?"
That she's happy, and proceeds without judgment, and helps others. Got me beat on one count at least, and you on all three, I imagine.
"nice to give up"
Well, I haven't either, but I don't value being judgmental nearly so much as you do. There is a difference between being smart, and knowing more than others.
I'm really, really confused.
I just don't see how God and any kind of religion really have anything to do with each other.
I thought God existed irrespective of religion - despite how everyone wants/doesn't want things to be (assuming "God" indeed does exist - I, for one, happen to *suspect* that "God" exists) .
But everyone keeps trying to stuff God into or out of their own religious/non-religious experience.
Jeezits.
There is a very good chance that God doesn't have anything to do with any of our notions of what is and what isn't. To quote Pooh - a very unsuspectingly wise soul:
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you sometimes find that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."
Isn't God just God, and religion just made up by people - just like any other dogmas or laws or rules or cultures or even fashions (short-lived that they are) - that once we get them out in the open and have other people looking at them is when we start to disagree? But it seemed so Thingish when we thought it up?! How can this be?
Are we all truly not simply of "Very Little Brain" in the great vastness of all that is? How could we truly know what God is - or for that matter - anything that "exists" really is?
Wiggy, your comment was the most confusing so I'm going to be on your side. No, really, I was going to say more or less the same thing. Religion is a human institution and as such eventually becomes just another tool for control--something we humans like to do. It is so obvious...
The older I get, the less I can bring myself to care about the details of anyone's particular religion. Whether this is because I am wiser, or because I am older and tireder and dumber, doesn't matter to me because either way I enjoy life a little better without "religion" in it for me. Religion is intellectual fashion and I'm happiest in my rumpled clothes.
Wiggy, your comment was the most confusing so I'm going to be on your side.
You are always so understanding of my confusion/confused state, Roy. ;-)
Religion is intellectual fashion and I'm happiest in my rumpled clothes.
Me too.
Interestingly, all the painful thought(s) arising from my jumbly, confused thoughts/thought processes always brings me back to the same peaceful conclusion:
If there is a God (I hate saying "if" because with my little ego infested Pooh brain, I actually *think* God cares whether or not someone believes in God) God would make no judgments regarding all of our little (and big, to us) squabbles about particulars concerning who is "doing it right" or "wrong" or "being right" or "wrong" or whose "Book" says it "All".
If God would want anything for us, would God not just wish us goodness and light and gaiety (no pun intended, but no pun not intended either) and love?
Then with this conclusion, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside and I smile at the next person I see on the sidewalk and hug my dog and chat with a child, and then they go off and smile and hug and chat...
Until I "Think of Things", and then I stop smiling for a while and forget to hug my dog and chat with a child.
I have forgetten, and yet once again, to love the world while (and because) I am thinking so much...
If God would want anything for us, would God not just wish us goodness and light and gaiety (no pun intended, but no pun not intended either) and love?
I've heard similar sentiments many times, but I don't see why, IF there is a god, this would necessarily follow at all. Perhaps there is a god, and it intends for us to destroy ourselves as part of some scheme we'll never understand.
Re Christianity/transcendentalism. Can one not be a Christian (in the strictest sense), and also believe that the New Testament was not completely or even partly divinely inspired and consequently reject all or parts of it?
Re stuffing god into religion. Many people feel that "connection" - to god, themselves, or whatever - in the company of other people. Not all, of course; some go off alone to get connected. So it only makes sense that separating yourself from the usual home/work routine and doing something different - going to a special building, listening to special music, etc. - helps you relax and get in touch with whatever it is you're seeking. Or give you the illusion of same. This is just my experience of religion "lite" anyway. Others hang out at houses of worship for different reasons, such as to make business connections.
Wiggy my dear, no need for confusion. You are right that God and religion are two different things. But religion helps a lot of people find ways to Him, or to themselves, whichever it is you believe they are doing. I believe the lady in question has taken a big step towards her own truth, and is subconsciously using liberal Episcopalianism to light the way. As Zen points out she's hardly being a true and dogmatic Christian, but that never concerned me. I just had a warm fuzzy moment seeing someone brave enough to take a leap. Really didn't mean to start a big long comment stream.
But I'm confused too. Why do I feel like I'm the only person around here who's known people who considered themselves to be Christians yet who completely agreed that religions and churches and rules were not what God, and worshipping God, is about?
(I wish you had a blog so we could read more about dogs and children and Pooh Bear.)
Perhaps there is a god, and it intends for us to destroy ourselves as part of some scheme we'll never understand.
Perhaps. Sometimes we do seem headed in that direction - if that is what God wants, that may be what God is getting - with all of our negativity and cynicism and judgments and fear and hatred of each other to propel us along.
Wouldn't that be just dandy, then.
I do note that when I think of "God" I tend to ignore the "classical" types - Zeus and Hades and such. They seem so "human".
And you do have a point - God could be no better than us - perhaps even far worse - in the "do no harm" sort-of-way.
However...
I've heard similar sentiments many times, but I don't see why, IF there is a god, this would necessarily follow at all.
It doesn't "necessarily" follow at all. But maybe it just does follow?
We humans, as a whole, seem pretty bent on either using our God to punish those who we are afraid of, don't understand, or who we clearly see as doing wrong. Or, if that doesn't fit, we are bent on proving that God must not exist at all, because for heaven's sake (emphasis only - I'm not saying there is a heaven) how could there possibly be a God with bad things happening to good people and good things happening to bad people.
GOD NEEDS TO FIX THINGS YA KNOW. OR I'M NOT PLAYING ANYMORE.
I'm just suggesting, perhaps God doesn't really have anything to do with our messy little world here at all (other than, say, providing us with the capacity for love) - egocentric that we are thinking that God's only reason for existence would be for US (no pun intended).
I'm a dreamer. I wish that we could all believe as we want or don't want and allow that for others.
You see - if God didn't *care* what we believe in or didn't believe in - we wouldn't have to care so much what each other believes in. Then our own faiths (or non-faiths, doesn't matter) could do their greatest (meaning "highest") good by providing us with the comfort that we may or may not need.
Ooh! Sorry, didn't see your comment, Don.
Really didn't mean to start a big long comment stream.
Oh, but it is SO much fun, though, isn't it?!
Why do I feel like I'm the only person around here who's known people who considered themselves to be Christians yet who completely agreed that religions and churches and rules were not what God, and worshipping God, is about?
I do consider you to be very fortunate to have come across such a group of people. I *feel* as if I've mostly come into contact with Fundamentalist Believers and Fundamentalist Non-believers - but the truth o' the matter is, I just may be "in tune" to their truths - and ready to put up my fists to duke it out because I don't understand (what I feel is) their intense need to have everyone believe as they do. (<--The Mother-of-All-Run-Ons)
(I wish you had a blog so we could read more about dogs and children and Pooh Bear.)
I've tried. And frankly, I think I am just plain ol' too lazy. I tell ya, it's hell to be so lazy (oh - and crazy).
I found this statement by Miles to be very wise and inspired:
...God's truth was not revealed once and for all at a single historical moment and now it's just a matter of cracking the code. Listening for the stirrings of God on earth, watching for God's presence among us, means asking questions, doubting, praying. It means listening to others' experiences with the kind of humility that is painfully lacking in much religion.
Even as a former Christian, I can't help but say "Amen" to that.
" So long as you seek to be true to your own heart, there is no wrong way to go."
I don't think so. Ghenghis Kahn was "true to his own heart" when he wrote:
Man's greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, use the bodies of his women as a nightshirt and a support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are sweet as the berries of their breasts.
Not all paths are equal, and judging them on the basis of being "true to your own heart," makes Jeffrey Dahmer and Florence Nightengale morally equivalent.
billo
It's like the good old days. I have a wingnut fuckwit who doesn't know when they're whipped and I keep whipping them. To business:
'Don said...
"My suggesting you didn't have a sophisticated view of the world really cut you, didn't it?"
No.'
Then why are you whining like a puppy with his nose in the poo?
'"Because you've taken every opportunity since to claim (entirely falsely) that I take a B&W view of this, that and the other."
Only twice, I think.'
If only. More than twice, but even so, if twice were every opportunity, that would be every opportunity.
'True, a little bit of a cut-back for fun, but also I perceive, here as elsewhere, your own particular dogmatism.'
No, you don't. On account of my not being in the least bit dogmatic about this. How could I be? I'm not a Christian. However, I do have a good understanding of the theology of a transcendental God, which you do not, to the point that you're seemingly unclear that that is in fact what Christians worship.
'"What I couldn't see, and you are very dishonest in your snipping so that you could imply I said something different, was the reason for her conversion. Maybe you understood it mystically."
I snipped for economy of space, as I'm not doing now. And oh yes, to extract a second meaning, I admit that.'
"To extract a second meaning"? Is that what we're calling building a strawman these days?
'I did understand her conversion mystically. As you've illustrated, I did not take her conversion very literally.'
So what exactly is your objection to my not seeing why she had converted? It seems entirely unexceptionable. I simply cannot see what made her convert.
'"I said she was wrong about Christianity's adapting to other cultures. Am I wrong? Explain how."
How you were wrong that she is wrong? I don't know about that.'
No, I know you don't. I suppose it's unfair to bait you with questions about entirely groundless assertions you make on your own blog, but if you're going to insist on being completely FOS, that's going to happen.
' I know that Christianity adapts well.'
No, you don't. I'm saying it does not, and asking you to explain how it does. You agree that you cannot and repeat the dose. No, dude. Explain how.
'That it adapts by altering the message, if indeed it does, means nothing to me.'
I said, clearly, that it does not in general adapt to other cultures. There are a couple of hybrid religions that would barely pass as Christianity, but they are more a case of the local faiths' adapting to Christianity rather than the other way round.
'I don't think it does'
So you cannot explain how it adapts itself but you claim that the adapting does not involve changing its message. Boy, are you wrong! In the instances where it has adapted, the message has been entirely warped.
'except in those areas that only the dogmatists really care about, e.g. homosexuality.'
You need to step outside your door a bit more often, son.
' Oh, and there are violently different interpretations of Grace and so on. But so what?'
So how are "violently different interpretations of Grace" or even changes in views on homosexuality adaptations to culture?
The story of Christianity at the moment, Don, is pretty much how badly it has adapted to a change in culture. It has been left behind, in disarray, by the shift to progressive values that has happened in the States, and elsewhere, in the past century.
'As I said originally, she progressed "to her chosen Christianity." Not any of the others, just the one she chose, i.e. the church that was in Alan's words, "a community of like souls," one of those places that are "notoriously undemanding of their adherents."'
"progressed" is an odd word to use. I consider her to have regressed, and not even to have the fibre to do it properly.
'You disrespect her for it'
I think you need to read what I wrote.
' and me for being loosey-goosey enough to think well of her.'
I disrespect you for being FOS and proceeding to blather without any thought. And I further disrespect you for fighting over it still without engaging any brain.
'Maybe it's that peculiar dogmatism of yours, that black-and-whiteness that I've always seen but never adequately illuminated, that causes you to place such high demands on people and their grasp of the philosophy they have taken a but a corner of for their own comfort.'
My "dogmatism" stretches only as far as not considering boring belief magpies to be "beautiful souls", Don.
' "As I said. What's your point? Mine was that you found a run-of-the-mill, emptyheaded convert and sold her as a "beautiful spirit"."
To you, most people appear to be empty-headed.'
Well, true enough. If I was to meet this moron, I daresay I'd struggle not to spew. I'm surrounded by the halfwits here, although my halfwits at least have the decency to stick to the doctrine.
'But I love people for all kinds of faults.'
No, I don't think you do. I think you do not bother to know them well enough to love them. I think you devalue "love" by this kind of patronising attitude. I think you ignore the responsibility loving someone brings.
'""Few Christians really know enough about it. They just go with what works for them, and part of the unintended genius of Christianity (and some other faiths) is this in-built flexibility."
"You have to be kidding. That is hilarious."
Perhaps, but true.'
It doesn't even begin to be true.
' To my mind'
Except maybe in that one place.
' part of the genius of Christianity is the creation, through Jesus, of a very personal and loving guide in the mind of the believer'
How is that a demonstration of "flexibility"?
This isn't even close to the "genius" of Christianity, which is much more easily pinpointed.
'a brother-figure who comforts, teaches, loves without judgment, and strengthens. Of course it is the mind that does this, not Jesus; but belief in Jesus lends the mind tremendous ability many people otherwise cannot find in themselves.'
Your Jesus is entirely fictional. And this is not the power of Christianity for most Christians. I'd say it's far more important that the religion has an explanatory message and offers a reward, not to mention a marvellous framework for avoiding thinking. Most believers I know struggle with the Jesus aspect, presumably because it's such fucking nonsense.
'What I've just (poorly) described is hugely flexible.'
LOLlermost! Yeah, right. But you can't explain how.
' Not so different from some forms of Buddhism, of course, or other faiths, but again, so what?'
What teh fuck?! What form of Buddhism has a brotherly figure type thing?
' So what, if it works?'
It might work towards the end of making thinking unnecessary, which you might consider a good thing, given your hatred of rationality, but it has other outcomes that are harmful. Have a little think to yourself about what they might be.
' "She needed to give up."
No, and you only say that because you're mean.'
No, not at all. I recognise the temptation.
' Or you're entirely of the intellect and out of touch with your heart, whichever.'
I love the notion that "spirituality" (what you are calling "heart" here) is only expressible through organised religion, or by believing in fairy stories.
' She needed a change and her heart was open to it. This is in no wise a bad thing.'
Oh. My. Lord. See, the thing is, I can go with "if it works for her, whatever". But "hey, it works for her, and she's brilliant" is the problem. You are making out that she is some kind of wonderful for giving up on her responsibility for her own life and letting Jeebus take the blame, and for refusing to work out what teh fuck it's all about and letting Gahd take the credit.
Dude, it's "poor woman", not "she's a beautiful soul".
' "Even liberal Episcopalians don't believe that God changed his mind about queers."
Correct, they believe he never meant to exclude them in the first place.'
Yes, true, some do. They do that by entirely ignoring his saying that that is precisely what he did mean. And some simply accept that they are defying God.
' Which is her take as well.'
No, I'm sorry, it is not. She says that God's conversation with mankind is not ended. That he's changed his mind.
' Thus, I don't know why you go on about God being transcendental.'
I know you don't know. It's like putting you in a boat in the middle of the Pacific and having you rely on your own paddle. Sadly, you've only been equipped with a toothpick.
' If you mean her statement about Scripture being remade everytime someone reads it, then your comprehension disappoints even me.'
"I also don't feel like once the last pages of the King James Bible were assembled that God stopped talking to Christians. The conversation between God and the church is not finished."
In any case, the thing you quote is bullshit too. Because obviously people read into the Bible what they want, but God was awesomely clear on queers, and it's not a mistake in translation.
My point remains that the conversation *is* finished from God's end. He said what he has to say *for all time*. Take it or fucking leave it.
' "What was your point?"
That she's happy, and proceeds without judgment'
for which read "discretion".
' and helps others. Got me beat on one count at least, and you on all three, I imagine.'
It's lovely that she helps feed the hungry. Me, I'm too busy feeding my own hungry to have the time to spare. Besides, I live in a country that doesn't fuck the have-nots as hard as yours, so it's not such a problem.
' "nice to give up"
Well, I haven't either, but I don't value being judgmental'
for which read "employing your mind"
' nearly so much as you do. There is a difference between being smart, and knowing more than others.'
Is there? What is it? (Hint: this is where you blather about not having the time for this discussion because you've hit rock bottom with that, dude.)
Whoa, baby.
I thought *I* was a "warped, frustrated old (wo)man"*...
*borrowed from It's a Wonderful Life
Whoa. For a minute there I thought I was back in MW.
billo said, Not all paths are equal, and judging them on the basis of being "true to your own heart," makes Jeffrey Dahmer and Florence Nightengale morally equivalent.
I never meant that to stand as an entire philosophy. Whether or not you remember, I believe in certain inalienable rights. If you follow your heart and don't violate the rights of others, then it could be said you will not go wrong.
Whoa. For a minute there I thought I was back in MW.
:-D
doesn't know when they're whipped and I keep whipping them
Seems to me, if a person doesn't know when he's whipped, then there's a good chance he isn't.
Z: My suggesting you didn't have a sophisticated view of the world really cut you, didn't it?
D: No.
Z: Then why are you whining like a puppy with his nose in the poo?
Heh. Yeah, okay, sure.
not being in the least bit dogmatic ... I do have a good understanding of the theology of a transcendental God, which you do not ...
All right. Neither apparently does Ms. Miles. I do not believe in such a thing and care not that some people believe His Word as delivered 1,935 years ago or so is unchanging. But she claims to be a Christian, Maybe you should take your superior understanding of theology up with her. It just looks like dogma to me, i.e. you proceed as if the question is settled and allows no argument. Put that down to my sometimes imprecise use of language if you wish.
So what exactly is your objection to my not seeing why she had converted? It seems entirely unexceptionable. I simply cannot see what made her convert.
I had no objection to your not seeing why she converted. I merely pointed out that some people -- her, myself, etc. -- are less, um, certain (for lack of certain other terms now deemed objectionable) than you as to what it means to be a real live Christian.
I guess I've always had a problem with Person A deciding for Person B what Person B really thinks, believes, or means to do.
So how are "violently different interpretations of Grace" or even changes in views on homosexuality adaptations to culture?
How else do you explain them? I see no other significant influence. Even the "revelation" of Joseph Smith is really a culture-driven adaptation, in that case the peculiar spiritual culture of 1840s America. Now, you say these adaptations have warped the message and that may be so; but try telling the adherents. They will surely disagree. Corrected the message, more likely.
The story of Christianity at the moment, Don, is pretty much how badly it has adapted to a change in culture. It has been left behind, in disarray, by the shift to progressive values that has happened in the States, and elsewhere, in the past century.
This statement of course explains your viewpoint. It's true in many instances. But the increasingly dismissive positions of news organizations such as commondreams etc. do not necessarily provide a balance. Though I am not active, nor do I wish to be an apologist, the truth remains that Christianity continues to evolve and to drive people to serve all around the world. The story I linked serves as an example, whether or not her conversion makes any theological sense to you.
You've never lived in the U.S. It is an anomaly in that it is the only major industrialized nation to retain a strong religious sense. When I've walked past churches in England, the spiritual and physical death that they exemplify very clearly indicates why someone such as yourself would offer the above opinion. What you need to do is
step outside your door a bit more often, son.
Not to make your closing prophecy come true but I have to stop here. Life calls.
"Seems to me, if a person doesn't know when he's whipped, then there's a good chance he isn't."
LOL. It's almost the defining characteristic of the born spanktard that they don't know they're whipped even as they nurse their red raw bottom. I have always believed that the best thing about the Uselessnet is that everyone wins a prize, and the worst that the prizes are entirely worthless.
"I do not believe in such a thing and care not that some people believe His Word as delivered 1,935 years ago or so is unchanging."
Whether you care or not, that is what Christians believe. It is what "transcendent" means.
Unfortunately, the point has sailed over your head. Let me nutshell it for you: if God is transcendental, his word is for all time. The simple reason is, being outside time, he cannot be bound by it, or even experience it. For God, the universe does not evolve or unravel. It is already all there from the first moment.
"I merely pointed out that some people -- her, myself, etc. -- are less, um, certain (for lack of certain other terms now deemed objectionable) than you as to what it means to be a real live Christian."
It must mean something, Don. Words have that habit. Clearly, there's a ragged fringe, but there are core ideas that all Christians share.
"I guess I've always had a problem with Person A deciding for Person B what Person B really thinks, believes, or means to do."
Again with the strawman. I discussed her beliefs purely as she stated them. I haven't twisted or misrepresented them. I used her own words. The truth is, she wants into a club but doesn't want to abide by its rules.
In any case, I do not prescribe for her what she should believe. I merely point out that her grounds for belief are unsound. I can do that without being in the least prescriptive. In your haste to paint me as "dogmatic", you ignored that in fact I haven't suggested there's any particular way to be Christian, only that her conclusions are not supported by her premises.
"How else do you explain them?"
In the case of views on grace, I explain them by differing interpretations of what the Bible says. But this woman's beliefs are extra-Bible. I suppose that that might not exclude her from being a type of Christian, but which type is certainly discussable.
You are wrong about Joseph Smith entirely.
Common Dreams is not "dismissive" of Christianity. You should try reading it, Don. It rarely has a thing to say about religion per se (although plenty to say about religiously motivated charlatans or those who ride on the back of religion). You have come perilously close to suggesting that you have to be religious to have a social conscience (having already suggested that one can't have a heart if not religious). But as in all things, different people take what they believe and use it in different ways. For every food bank operative, there's a Prayer of Jabez, smite the unholy type.
You are of course wrong about the "strong religious sense" of industrialised nations. What a fucking ridiculous thing to say! You have clearly never been to any of the Catholic countries of Europe, in particular, Poland, Spain, Ireland; nor to Denmark for that matter; nor have you ever met anyone from the former Yugoslavia or Northern Ireland. It's true that our nations are more strongly secular. It's one of the ways we are better than you. Don't be making out it's not. Your religion is a sickness, a wellspring of hatred; our secularism is the foundation of our tolerance, our best hope for dealing with the difficulties of a globalised world.
nurse their red raw bottom
As if. Where do you get this stuff?
the point has sailed over your head
No. Your explanation is not news. What is relevant is that our Ms. Miles doesn't meet your standard in regard to accepting God's trancendance and I don't have a problem with that, whereas you do. Of course God, if He were real, would be trancendant. But human beings and their creations (i.e. religion) are not. Though the Word is always regarded as unchanging, the interpretations thereof really are not. Every generation thinks they've got it right. Only the less arrogant profess that everyone (most, anyway) is right in their way, or right enough.
Me: ... some people .. are less ... certain ... than you as to what it means to be a real live Christian.
Thee: It must mean something, Don. Words have that habit. Clearly, there's a ragged fringe, but there are core ideas that all Christians share.
I never said it didn't mean something. You have a peculiar habit of arguing against things I did not say. You accuse me of the same. Maybe we are the same, and that's why we get along so well.
Anyway, yes, there are core ideas, and Ms. Miles shares many of them. Others, perhaps not. As I said, you may take it up with her.
I discussed her beliefs purely as she stated them. I haven't twisted or misrepresented them. I used her own words. The truth is, she wants into a club but doesn't want to abide by its rules.
The rules, you mean, that you understand so much better then she. Bully for you; and for her, for not caring what you think of it.
Skipping ahead, for though I've let myself get sucked in again, I have to get going:
You are of course wrong about the "strong religious sense" of industrialised nations.
That's good to hear. I only repeated what I've read somewhere, added to my own observations, which are very, very sparse and nonrepresentative. Americans are far more church-going than most Northern Europeans; but maybe to you this is not relevant.
It's true that our nations are more strongly secular. It's one of the ways we are better than you. Don't be making out it's not.
I accept that in your sense of "better", this is true. In a few of my own as well. Those things that *I* prefer have naught to do with secularism, however. I like that Europe isn't so manically profit-driven and uncultured, indeed anticultural, as the U.S.
Your religion is a sickness, a wellspring of hatred; our secularism is the foundation of our tolerance, our best hope for dealing with the difficulties of a globalised world.
However, the U.S. was founded in part to be a secular refuge from the religious madness of Europe. Times have changed, but the pendulum has not stopped its swinging. The current influence of narrow and odd religions in U.S. discourse will prove temporary.
Considering the path they are on in contrast with the rest of the world, I wouldn't be too smug about European cultural superiority. Much of it is bound up in the entitlements you are so fond of. But my European colleagues are seeing their jobs go Far East as well, and when the entitlements are no longer affordable, things will change, and it won't be pretty. (This being a change of subject, I'll not address responses to it.)
Post a Comment