ADVERTISMENTS:
call us:
206-350-1082
support killoggs!
|
 |
| |  |
 |
|
 |
|
 dianne 
|
Hope for the future
A man called me at the ungodly hour of 11 this morning and said, Is this Leslie Davenport?
I said yes.
He said his name was Somethinrnother and he was in the 17th, and he was trying to give people hope for the future based on the Bible.
I said I wasn't interested and hung up and made coffee.
How did this fucktard get my name and number? Is no place safe from these people?
The NYT ran a story Jan. 22 (which I would link to if the cheap fuckers weren't charging to read it) about missionaries descending like flies upon the vulnerable survivors of the tsunami, in Sri Lanka and Indonesia. It begins:
"A dozen Americans walked into a relief camp here [Sri Lanka], showering bereft parents and traumatized children with gifts, attention and affection. They also quietly offered camp residents something else: Jesus. ... The Americans, who all come from one church in Texas, have staged plays detailing the life of Jesus and had..."
You get the picture. The story I read had a great quote from the Web site of this Texas-based church saying that Aceh was "ripe for Jesus!!" It called this an "opportunity" to get into an area that was usually closed to foreigners.
Bleah.
[ posted by dianne at 01/29/2005 03:26:34 PM ] [ trackback ]
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
 | rick [email] said at 3:49 PM 01-29-2005:
I wonder if there are any of these people in Iraq right now . . . |
Neilbert said at 4:08 PM 01-29-2005:
"showering bereft parents and traumatized children with gifts, attention and affection. They also quietly offered camp residents something else: Jesus." Yah, this is FUCKING TERRIBLE!!! It --MUST-- be stopped. Get fucking real. Just because some guy called you on the phone asking if you "know Jesus" there is no excuse to attack all Christians and Christian missionaries. At least they are doing something to HELP other people. |
Darryl X. said at 4:49 PM 01-29-2005:
Oh God. I agree with Neilbert. Kinda. I mean, I don't think you were attacking all Christians. But at least the Christians that are over there aren't FORCING anyone to convert. Christians aren't so forceful as they once were. (I'm thinking here of the crusades.) But Muslims still kill infidels pretty regularly.
Christians have the Muslims beat on this one. Do they still suck? Yeah. But not as bad as Muslims. |
|
| rick [email] said at 5:01 PM 01-29-2005:
Christians may not kill many infidels nowadays but they have historically and the fact that they do not do so nowadays is not due to any virtue of Christianity but rather because people nowadays are able to ignore some of the uglier sides of the faith. |
 | ed [email] said at 5:47 PM 01-29-2005:
Two and only two options, here.
Christians who kill either aren't Christians at all, or are following human leadership that isn't Christian but pretends to be.
Period. End of story. |
 | jake [email] said at 6:54 PM 01-29-2005:
That's really nice from a spiritual-feel-good-semantics perspective.
But it glosses over the ease with which the Christian philosophy has been used to justify horrible behavior. You can choose to ignore the aspects of Christian philosophy that make that usage convenient, but that only makes you more vulnerable. |
|
| ed [email] said at 9:53 PM 01-29-2005:
One could insert any word in the place of "Christian" and the statement would still be true.
So what's your point? |
|
| jake [email] said at 3:31 AM 01-30-2005:
Well, no. You can't insert just any word/philosophy/religion there.
Judaism, for instance, has been used far less often and far less easily to justify torture and genocide. Coptic Christianity has not been used that way at all.
But more to the point, there are particular aspects of Christianity that are prone to misuse, and I think it's dangerous to gloss over those by calling perpetrators "false christians." Personally, I think those aspects include:
1. The emphasis on the immortal soul as abstract and separate from the material person.
2. The preoccupation with sin and redemption.
3. The positioning of the church in between divinity and the laiety.
Obviously I'm not a Christian and these are not studied positions...My point is that there are some specific things worth understanding about Christianity that leant itself to the Crusades, the American Indian genocides, the Inquisition, etc...and those things are different from the aspects of, say, judaism that lends itself to the oppression of Palestine, or Islam that lends itself to the oppression of women and suicide attacks. |
|
| jake [email] said at 4:24 PM 01-30-2005:
I would add to that list:
4. The evangelicism which permeates most Christian movements and churches. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:33 PM 01-30-2005:
I would agree with this and if I may I should like to use a recent example: Antonin Scalia's defense of the death penalty as being no great matter for a Christian seeing as there is an Afterlife. |
 | myriam [email] said at 5:51 PM 01-29-2005:
the uglier sides of the faith I wouldn't say that killing is part of the Christian faith. It may have historically been a tool of people proclaiming themselves to be Christian, but in that case you should say, "the uglier sides of the history of people proclaiming to be of the faith" or even "the uglier sides of politics." |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:02 PM 01-29-2005:
I am not sure about that. There has long been provisions for "just war" with theologians.Then there is the concept of everlasting life which a lot of Christians use to assuage themselves of the implications of death. In fact, Scalia used it to argue for the death penalty. I have read of Spaniards who would baptize persons right before they executed them. Then there are passages like 13:12-13:16 Deuteronomy which are right nasty. Perhaps one could argue that Jesus through his "Sabbath Day for man, not man for Sabbath Day" made all the stuff from OT not wholly needed for Christianity but I think that misses a bit. |
 | josh [email] said at 6:09 PM 01-29-2005:
I wouldn't say that killing is part of the Christian faith.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 20:10-15 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. ... This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:16 PM 01-29-2005:
as you know, christianity means "followers of christ." show me where christ tells someone to kill.
you know as well as anyone here that the OT deals with the history of the Jews, pre-christ, pre-christianity. |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:23 PM 01-29-2005:
"Think not that I have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Jesus' own words) Matthew 10:34
That above stuff is still in the Bible, and Christians make use of all aspects of the bible, to this day, to justify their actions. YOU might say that makes them "not Christian", but honestly, that's simply your opinion. Those you deem to be not Christian probably have a differing one. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:27 PM 01-29-2005:
This is true and some Christians believe God wants them to make war for He/She/It has chosen them. Constantine was likely the first one. |
|
| rick [email] said at 6:28 PM 01-29-2005:
Slavery, in the Antebellum South, was justified in part by a reading of the Bible. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:31 PM 01-29-2005:
Josh, the definition of "Christian" is "follower of Christ." That is the point I am making. |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:51 PM 01-29-2005:
The point is I'm making is that many people call themselves Christian who don't believe exactly the way you do, have wildy differing beliefs/interpretations from other Christian sects, and that many of them take inspiration from, and follow, elements of the Bible that are not direct quotes of Jesus.
You are, of course, free to say that "people who do ______ aren't REAL Christians", just know that they might feel the exact same way about you. |
 | kiche [email] said at 9:06 PM 01-29-2005:
well, the point i am trying to make is a bit more complex than that.
i am drawing a distinction between christian ideology and christian practice.
if you read the christian bible, it's a pretty unambiguous book philosophy wise.
there's pretty much only one exemplary person in the entire book and that guy tells you that you are supposed to behave as him.
in practice, though, this is used as a sort of con-game.
church leaders (of different churches and/or nations in different time periods) convince people to operate by this philosophy. "turn the other cheek", forgiveness, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", etc.
then those leaders take advantage of the good faith of their flock. this can be seen in the past as christian nations convincing natives to take up this ideology, then stealing their land and killing them. also, the feudal system used this ideology.
today the republican party convinces much of the lower classes to take up this ideology then brutally takes advantage of them. taking away government resources, steep penalties for victimless crimes, defunding their schools, etc. all while convincing them that they are doing this with the best of intentions and an attitude of forgiveness. |
|
| ed [email] said at 10:09 PM 01-29-2005:
Sadly, this is the truest thing ever written on Killoggs.
People are naive.
Christians, moreso.
I tend to be more cynical, having been 39 at the time of my conversion. I see what is done in the name of Christ, and I weep.
Don't hate the playa, hate the people who take advantage of his naive followers. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:52 PM 01-29-2005:
"Think not that I have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Jesus' own words) Matthew 10:34
there are many interpretations of this.
you must remember that you are talking about someone who spoke entirely in parables.
most people would site jesus' chasing the money changers out of the temple as an example of this quote. |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:11 PM 01-29-2005:
Jeremiah 18:21 Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 6:20 PM 01-29-2005:
to be honest, though. all of those are old testament quotes.
much of jesus's teachings outright conflict with the old testament. in judaism, these quotes can be used on their own. christianity however is different from judaism in that jesus (aka christ) is considered the final authority on all matters. jesus said plenty of things that conflicted with these statements. if you hold the view that jesus was just a prophet, then you can dismiss his statements and say that he was incorrect. but if you say that jesus was the messiah, then everyone that disagreed with him (yes, including leviticus, deuteronomy and jeremiah) are flat out wrong. |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:23 PM 01-29-2005:
see my above response. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:52 PM 01-29-2005:
please, see my above response. |
art said at 8:53 AM 01-30-2005:
that's what i was thinking, too |
 | brandonA [email] said at 7:39 PM 01-29-2005:
But at least the Christians that are over there aren't FORCING anyone to convert.
I saw a news story that had some guy in india talking about a supply truck rolling into town a week after the tsunami, driven by missionaries. When they couldn't get any quick converts, supposedly they packed up the goods and went on to the next town. I don't know how well substantiated this story is, but I have heard of this kind of thing happening before... |
|
| myriam [email] said at 4:54 PM 01-29-2005:
I don't really see a problem with Christians going places, helping people out and telling them about Jesus. The Thais, etc. have minds of their own and can make their own decisions about religion. And, actually, I think the more religions you hear about, the more informed your personal decision will be, therefore its a good thing to hear about Christianity.
Anyway don't you think most of the other aid groups out there have agendas, too? Would the US have sent any money at all if for some reason nobody would know or hear about it? |
 | dianne [email] said at 5:08 PM 01-29-2005:
I should've found the whole article and posted it. It's just ... gross. These people have just lost everything, their children, families, homes, livelihoods. And these "aid workers" just see an "opportunity." It's not like the objects of their proselytizing have a whole lot of leisure for weighing the pros and cons of different worldviews right now. |
|
| dianne [email] said at 5:21 PM 01-29-2005:
And you're right, most aid groups do have an agenda, mostly just PR for their country, and that doesn't negate the good things they do.
I'm just imagining, in an alternate universe, some Muslim aid group ministering to Californians in the wake of one of their numerous natural disasters: "Hello, sorry about your wife and four children. Here's a blanket. Have you heard about Allah?" |
 | mary [email] said at 5:55 PM 01-29-2005:
That would go over real well, I bet!
Sure it's great that they are helping these folks. The problem is, their gifts aren't exactly coming with no strings attached. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:15 PM 01-29-2005:
what gift DOES come with no strings attached? and as i pointed out above, the string here is... having to listen to someone. they have minds of their own, they don't have to believe in christianity if they don't want to.
and for my part, choosing to believe in a faith because some of its followers came a long way to help you out in a time of need is not the worst reason to choose to believe in something. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:19 PM 01-29-2005:
I distinguish between helping people because you think it's a moral thing to do, and giving something to people because their tragedy presents you with an opportunity to sell them something--whether it's religion, Dove soap or crack. |
|
| ed [email] said at 6:23 PM 01-29-2005:
The difference here being the cynical "selling" of something that you beleive is happening, vs. the "sharing" of something that Christians believe.
Don't presume to know the difference until you've felt the difference. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:29 PM 01-29-2005:
I would imagine most of those people are helping because they think it's the moral thing to do. People don't raise lots of money, leave their regular lives, and cross an ocean to a ravaged 3rd world country simply to sell something they receive no profit from.
Once again, it's a strange word choice, but I don't think it's a bad thing that these people have gone over there to help. It's more than many of the rest of us do. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:29 PM 01-29-2005:
I've seen plenty of openly Christian charity that didn't strike me as crass, Ed. This isn't it. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:39 PM 01-29-2005:
And also, while I might not know what it feels like to be the giver of "Christian" aid, I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of it. And I have to say, even to a kid, it feels like coercion. And it did not endear me to the Christian faith. In fact, it took me *years* to shake myself of the knee-jerk aversion to even the word "Jesus" that those "gifts" instilled in me growing up poor and therefore the target of such materially oriented conversion efforts. "Want this food? Only if you'll let me tell you why you're headed straight to Hell?" *Vomit*
I assume this is not the effect the missionaries are going for? If so, they might want to rethink their strategy. |
|
| ed [email] said at 10:00 PM 01-29-2005:
If someone placed a condition on the aid they offered you, they were not offering "Christian" aid - regardless of what they may have said.
I'm sorry that you (and so many others) have had bad experiences with people declaring themselves to be Christians.
Their actions just make it more difficult for those of us who truly do our best (and fail often, it's true) to follow Christ. |
|
| jake [email] said at 3:38 AM 01-30-2005:
Honestly, Ed, this disavowal of "christians" seems ridiculous. Absurd even. Look, I don't like some of what the ADL does, and I am horrified by many of the actions of the Israeli government. But I'm not gonna take the easy out and say "They are not true jews." I'm not going to wash my hands of any responsibility for the actions they take in the name of my culture and religion...and more to the point, in my name. I think the ease with which many Christians, yourself included, will wash their hands of other Christians, is disconcerting to say the least. |
|
| ed [email] said at 7:42 AM 01-30-2005:
In what way should I be responsible for the actions of others, Jake? I'm not following you. |
|
| dianne [email] said at 8:50 AM 01-30-2005:
I don't think he means responsible for their actions, but that it's not plausible to say all these other people who call themselves Christians are not Christians because their version of Christianity contradicts yours.
Don't get me wrong, Ed, yours is the only kind of Christianity I have any respect for. So many religious people, Christian or not, seem to view it almost like a team sport -- we're right, you're wrong! we're better than you, we know the REAL truth, and you're gonna get what's coming to you!
Very self-congratulatory. Very smug and exclusive. Not very Christian in the way I interpret most of Christ's teachings.
But... this doesn't make them not Christian. Maybe it's semantics, but they certaintly see themselves as Christian. It seems to mean something entirely different to them than it does to you, but to just dismiss them as "not really Christian" is a bit of a cop-out.
Like being an American. There was a lot of hand-wringing in Europe about how W. didn't represent the "real" America, the open-minded, democratic America that shares the same values as Europe. Except ... well, he does. A big part of it, anyway, for better or worse. You can hate what he stands for -- I do -- but you can't say he's "not American."
You have every right to say, there are parts of what has been called Christianity that I don't accept as such. That's not MY Christianity. George W. Bush's America is not MY America. And you do your own little part to make your religion and your country more as you would like to see them be.
But first you have to seem them whole. With anything or anyone you love. You gotta take the bad with the good, and look the Ugly straight in the face. |
|
| ed [email] said at 3:07 PM 01-30-2005:
I look the Ugly straight in the face every morning when I shave. :)
See, I agree with almost all of what you're saying, but the central defining issue (in my mind) is this: I would never say W isn't a "real" American, because being an American either means you were born here, were born abroad of American parents, or applied for citizenship. I wouldn't say Condaleeza Rice isn't a "real" black, even though - well, I won't open that can of worms again. But the way one becomes a Christian is to accept Christ as their savior, and then try their very best to be like Him. Yes, we all slip, but invading Iraq (for example) is not an "oopsie." W has repeatedly and almost gleefully exhibited a long history of non-Christian behavior.
To use my previous analogy, I can say I'm an antelope all I want to, but that doesn't make it true. |
|
| jake [email] said at 4:37 PM 01-30-2005:
Ed, it's an unfortunate fact that the history of Christianity is dominated by insular, hateful, oppressive people who use Christian religious doctrine to justify inhuman behavior. The term Christan refers to all those people, as well as the caring, humble, selfless and self sacrificing people who use Christian religious doctrine to justify their incredibly noble behavior.
If you want to qualify your kind of Christian, as "non-affiliated american revivalist christian" or "humanist christian fellowship" or whatever, and tell us those other groups (obviously) aren't that, then you'd have no objection from me.
But, again, its disingenuous to write off the thousands of years of very morally-mixed history of christianity by saying those folks weren't true christians. |
|
| ed [email] said at 4:59 PM 01-30-2005:
I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
Yes, historically, the cause of "Christianity" has been horribly used and abused.
And no, I don't think that the people who have used and abused the cause down through the years were in reality Christians, despite their claims. |
 | zack [email] said at 3:20 PM 01-30-2005:
i agree with this. |
art said at 3:49 PM 01-30-2005:
excellently said |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:40 PM 01-30-2005:
jake, please see my comments below. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 5:56 PM 01-29-2005:
This does happen, and it shouldn't bother anyone either. If they're helping, what's the harm? It's sad that they phrased it as an opportunity, but everyone has her own viewpoint, and it seems like their actions would show that they really did have compassion. They are, after all, travelling all the way over there to help, which is more than most people do. So... I guess I see how it's saddening that most people have agendas, but I think in this kind of case the help outweighs the good. And I also think it's in human nature to act generally in self-interest, thus helping people when there's some kind of personal goal served as well (in this case, they'd say it was in the interest of saving souls, thus helping the souls, but... yeah.) |
|
| kiche [email] said at 5:23 PM 01-29-2005:
ok guys, let's step back for a moment and take a look at this.
this was "a texas christian group". these were a bunch of republicans who voted bush into office and applauded when bush cut government aid to people and said this was the province of religious organizations.
cutting u.s. funding to help people also included such things as aid for the tsunami trajedy. bush spent more on his innaugural ball than he spent on tsunami aid.
the united states gave only a fraction of the money that countries that are nowhere near as wealthy as us gave.
enter the "christian based charity" that bush thinks should take the place of formerly "american charity". firstly, the christian charity will not be the equal of u.s. government charity nor the equal of large government donators to the aid fund.
the big winners out of this will not be america or christianity. they will be the big losers. the big winners will be homicidal jihadis. i can guarrantee you that they are presently pointing out to everyone who will listen that the u.s. doesn't give a fuck about the tsunami victims and that the only aid coming from the u.s. is in order to convert people to christianity. |
|
| ed [email] said at 5:53 PM 01-29-2005:
George W. Bush is as much a Christian as I am an antelope.
Just because he says it does not make it so.
Deeds, not words, are the proof, and that sonofabitch has proven many times over that the god he worships has dollar signs imprinted on it. He is the worst sort of person, because he (and his ilk) make the people who truly believe in the God he pretends to believe in look like idiots. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 6:06 PM 01-29-2005:
and you will get no argument on me for any of these counts.
my statement was about perception and effect. the perception of this will be that this was the action of christians. the effect will be less aid for the vicitms and increased hostillity towawrds christianity.
if you don't like it, do something about it. you are much stronger than them. |
|
| ed [email] said at 5:03 PM 01-30-2005:
if you don't like it, do something about it. you are much stronger than them.
I am trying. Honestly.
But I am a fumbling newbie. They have 2000+ years of entrenched hijacking of the true meaning of the word "Christian." This might take me (and people who feel like I do) a while.
Bear with us. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 5:59 PM 01-29-2005:
These are good points. The inaugural festivities, however, apart from security, were paid for by private donations. All $40 mill. But I like your comparison anyhow. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:14 PM 01-29-2005:
Except the part D.C. taxpayers were forced to foot the bill for ... |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:20 PM 01-29-2005:
apart from security |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:24 PM 01-29-2005:
apart from security, traffic control, clean-up, etc, etc... |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:26 PM 01-29-2005:
Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security.
right. I agree, it's pretty shitty. But it's not anywhere near the amount going to the tsunami.
So, we can say that somehow, tax dollars in some way are contributing to $17mill of inaugural festivities, and supposedly $350 bill (for lack of ability to find a more accurate figure) for tsunami relief. |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:48 PM 01-29-2005:
im not comment about the tsunami, just the inauguration. i didnt even read kiche's comment.
$17 + $66 million for paid holidays for government workers.
So the inaguration cost Americans at least $83 million. That is pretty stupid. |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:28 PM 01-29-2005:
as a d.c. taxpayer, i can't really see those numbers as separate. sorry. I just filed my taxes yesterday, so I'm taking it a little personally ... |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:33 PM 01-29-2005:
I can understand. It's a digression from my point (a response to kiche's point), that's all. It's always good to learn about shit like that, and I hadn't heard of it yet. I'm sorry for you DC-ites. |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:18 PM 01-29-2005:
D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects. - link |
|
| mary [email] said at 6:21 PM 01-29-2005:
thank you. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 6:24 PM 01-29-2005:
I'm trying to find info on us tsunami aid, and all i can find is that govt. pledged 350 billion (which i'm sure won't all get there in the end). but regardless i wonder what you mean by more on the inauguration than on tsunami aid? |
|
| josh [email] said at 6:26 PM 01-29-2005:
Also from the article:
As of June, the cost of giving federal workers in the capital area a day off was about $66 million.
$66 in tax money spent to give government workers that day off. |
art said at 3:55 PM 01-30-2005:
..and giving governement workers the day off is new? - why include it? it is the cost of doing business'
as a side note, it seems kind of stupid for people who live in DC to complain about the impact of government on their lives. It like moving next to an airport and complaining about the noise
or moving next to a shit pile and complaining about the smell |
Bob [ url ]
said at 2:05 PM 01-30-2005:
I heard an interview a few months back on PFW with Cornel West, and he made a very interesting distinction between prophetic Christianity and Constantinian Christianity. Prophetic Christianity is more related to the actual works and words of Jesus, standing with the despised and the outcasts. Constantinian Christianity is the religion of Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and used it as a tool to maintain power. I think it's an important distinction to remember in discussions like these... |
|
| jake [email] said at 2:12 PM 01-30-2005:
No, it isn't.
First of all, an academic distinction from a respected but radical professor is by definition not "important," never mind that you haven't explained it or your intended application near well enough for anyone to "remember" it.
Second, that's exactly like me saying, you know, those Israeli soldiers beating the shit out of Palestinian kids are zionist Jews, whereas I'm a pansy ass Berkeley liberal unaffiliated Jew.
You can't just disavow your fringe by calling it fringe--it's still yours. Even more so when really, they're the mainstream, and you are the fringe. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 3:56 PM 01-30-2005:
Just because somebody says he is part of a group, or a certain set of beliefs, doesn't mean he is.
If a man starts throwing feces out of car windows, and puts up a big banner saying I'm a Christian and I Throw Feces, must that suddenly change the meaning of Christianity to include Men Who Throw Feces, because it must "include the fringe"? No. |
|
| ed [email] said at 4:12 PM 01-30-2005:
EXACTLY... |
|
| jake [email] said at 4:22 PM 01-30-2005:
Yes, a lone crazy person throwing feces out of car windows is a perfect analogy for the prevalance of religiously motivated torture, oppression, and genocide in christian history.
Are you kidding me? |
|
| ed [email] said at 5:07 PM 01-30-2005:
Are you kidding me?
Yes, Jake.
I find it hilarious that people who claim to be Christian, all of whom are under my personal control, have spouted lies and hatred since long before I was born.
It's pure hilarity.
Why aren't you laughing? Why am I not laughing? This is COMEDY GOLD!!1! |
|
| jake [email] said at 5:55 PM 01-30-2005:
What is funny to me,
and that's disturbing smell funny,
not ha-ha,
is the trouble you have with taking ownership for the good and the bad of the history of your religion. Again, to go back to what I think is a meaningful analogy, I don't like the fact that I go to synagogue and sit next to people that blindly support Israel's actions, but I do. And they may not be Jews that are just like me, but they are indeed Jews, just like me. |
|
| ed [email] said at 7:07 PM 01-30-2005:
How is it, exactly, that I am supposed to "take ownership" of "my religion"?
Stop blowing smoke, dude.
Screaming "I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew, I'm a Jew" before raping 79 and a half three-year-olds does NOT mena that all Jews rape three-year-olds.
Can you at least admit this?
If being a Jew means (whateverthehellitmeanstoyou), then can you not admit that people who proclaim themselves to be Jews, but who are obviously contradicting the definition of Judaism are not - in fact really Jews?
Get real. |
|
| jake [email] said at 8:31 PM 01-30-2005:
Sure, Ed, your straw man kid-rapist argument is correct, just like Myriam's shit flinger.
Without trying to be annoying, I think #3 here explains what I mean by ownership, and in turn refers to the response way up above where I spelled out what I personally think you are glossing over when you simply write off Christians you disagree with as >
Alright, I'm really supposed to be in the penalty box until Dianne says I can come out, so you can have the last word. Maybe. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 8:18 PM 01-30-2005:
You can't just disavow your fringe by calling it fringe--it's still yours.
Except when it's not part of your group at all. Just because somebody claims to be part of a group doesn't mean they are. |
|
| dianne [email] said at 6:20 PM 01-30-2005:
Christ, Jake, he was just throwing an idea out there, not defending a dissertation.
Despite what I said earlier about not disavowing the uglier sides of your religion or country or whatever, I still think there's a point to recognizing that large movements have different factions, some contradictory.
You seem to be saying ... I'm not sure what you're saying. That there is no point to it, that those distinctions are meaningless? That you're somehow complicit in beating up Palestinian boys? By that logic I suppose I'm complicit in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, by being American. |
|
| jake [email] said at 7:14 PM 01-30-2005:
1. Jesus Christ indeed.
2. Trying to apply West's distinction to some part of these threads might have been interesting. Just tossing it out as "important to remember" is annoying. To me anyway.
3. I'm saying that when you buy into a religion, philosophy, or other doctrine, you buy the whole history, and it's disingenuous to write off the bad parts as "untrue" or "impure." Turning a blind eye can make you complicit, depending on the circumstance. I think the intellectually honest thing to do is actively try to understand the specifics of how the faith/idea/belief you adopt is susceptible to misuse. I put my own speculations on Christianity up here.
4. It's your post, so if you've seen enough of my arguments, I'll call it quits. |
lylyin said at 2:54 PM 01-30-2005:
trying to convert someone in the middle of a tragedy or fucking with their own spirituality (which is all they really have left in the world) is just WRONG. I don't care if they bring a god damn toy store to the kids. They already have enough shit to deal with, without stupid white texans throwing bibles in their faces (no offense stupid white texans). God spits on people like that. |
|
| jake [email] said at 3:10 PM 01-30-2005:
Yore an idjit.
Nobdy sed the texens wer dum or actally throew bibles at anyon.
dumas. |
|
| ed [email] said at 3:09 PM 01-30-2005:
They already have enough shit to deal with, without stupid white texans throwing bibles in their faces (no offense stupid white texans).
Quotes database, here I come! Hahaha! That was awesome. |
|
| ed [email] said at 3:13 PM 01-30-2005:
Doh! It won't fit. Oh, well... I still thought it was a great quote. |
art said at 5:27 PM 01-30-2005:
just leave off the apology... |
|
| ed [email] said at 7:00 PM 01-30-2005:
Ahh, but the apology is what clinches it! |
art said at 10:16 AM 01-31-2005:
true dat |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:49 PM 01-30-2005:
jake, your statement:
Honestly, Ed, this disavowal of "christians" seems ridiculous. Absurd even.
doesn't really apply.
christianity and judaism are different religions and have difference core belief systems. yes, i realize that christianity is an offshoot of judaism, but the reason they are different religions instead of sects of the same religion.
one of these key differences that seperates them is that christianity has a core philosophy. if someone claims to be a practitioner of christianity and violates that core philosophy, it is in fact possible to question whether someone is in fact adherent to that philosophy.
this simply does not exist in judaism. there is no "core philosophy" in judaism that if a jew violates, other jews can question if that person is really an adherent of the core philosphy of judaism. |
|
| jake [email] said at 9:04 PM 01-30-2005:
Alright it was stupid of me to offer to quit this thread. I can't resist.
Judaism is absolutely concerned with "core philosophy." However:
1. You're right, we have traditionally kept conceptual room for Jews that do not adhere to that core.
2. Jews traditionally don't believe that humans can ever perfectly interpret divine law. Christianity tends to suggest the humans can. This difference, if you ask me, accounts for the far more authoritarian discourse in Christians pursuit of the philosophical core.
Jews traditionally believe that final judgment is for God alone, and so we have a robust history of debate and dissent that very rarely involves the losing parties getting killed.
3. Jews have lines that cannot be crossed, but far far fewer.
4. Just to be clear, I am not in any way claiming superiority for Judaism. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 9:14 PM 01-30-2005:
serious question, b/c I don't know: isn't someone jewish if their mother is? |
|
| jake [email] said at 9:22 PM 01-30-2005:
Yes, but:
1. You can be disavowed if you commit certain crimes. Homosexuality is, unfortunately, on the list, along with some actual heinous crimes.
2. If you violate the first commandment by taking up another religion, you're out.
3. It is possible, but really quite difficult, to convert into Judaism. We discourage it. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 9:26 PM 01-30-2005:
Yes, I read about #3. Don't you think this type of group, then, is hard to compare to Christianity, which is defined by beliefs alone and not heredity? |
|
| jake [email] said at 9:36 PM 01-30-2005:
1. Until all Christians start raising their kids as secular humanists and giving them the choice of whether to convert to Christianity when they're old enough to support themselves, Christianity in general will be defined by beliefs and heredity.
2. I already said, anybody who wants to say "the Crusaders/Torquemada/the Missionaries may be Christians but they're not Revival/New Humanist Reform/Snake Handler Christians like me" will get no argument from me.
3. The underlying point that I'm trying to make is that I think there are aspects of the "core Christian philosophy" that make it vulnerable to the misuses we've seen through history, and it behooves anyone that subscribes to that philosophy to examine and understand those vulnerabilities.
4. The Jewish philosophical core has distinct vulnerabilities of it's own, which I bring up simply to make clear that I'm not trying to bash Christianity. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 9:31 PM 01-30-2005:
1. hmmm... i don't think you really get what i'm saying. christianity rises and sets on jesus. jesus espoused a philosophy (this is why he was big with the greeks). that philosophy is easily understood. you can sum it up in a few words "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "love thy neighbor" or "turn the other cheek". if someone claims to espouse a philosophy of living (especially one of this nature) and then obviously don't even try to follow that philosophy in their life, then it is fair to level the accusation at that person that they are a con man. even if you don't buy into the philosophy this is a relatively easy concept to understand.
2. this is a good but vaguer illustration of what i'm talking about concepts in one religion don't necesarrily exist in other religions, even ones which share a common heritage.
3. again, you aren't getting what i'm talking about. in jesus' philosophy you are to try to live your life according to a specific principle. this is different than a collection of "lines you don't cross" or "taboos".
4. just to be clear, i am not in any way claiming superiority for christianity. i am not a christian and think that the entire concept of religion is pretty dumb in our present age. |
|
| jake [email] said at 9:46 PM 01-30-2005:
4. Alright we're clear on this.
3. I get the difference...Just trying to clear up that Judaism is not simply "in by birth or not."
2/1. I think we are in agreement...I just think the positioning of Jesus and by extension the clergy as divine authority on earth is an important distinction in explaining why Christianity became the religion that the Roman Empire/European continent adopted for all it's feudal barbary. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 9:58 PM 01-30-2005:
Feudal barbery has been adopted in the name of all the major religions. It seems to me that these excesses and bad things of which you speak are common to human beings, period, and should be understood as such, rather than attempting to parcel them out to particular religions.
The disgusting things perpetrated by humanity in general should never be downplayed or ignored. But to say that the fact that they happened somehow proves, in reverse "logic", that therefore these religions must breed that behaviour... it's a false connection. Human beings behave awfully. In all situations. Even if I took your argument of "core beliefs", ascribing some of those awful actions specifically to the "core belief" of Christianity is simply wrong, because the core beliefs of Christianity are the teachings of Christ, and if you study his teachings there is absolutely no way you will believe that he is encouraging feudal barbarism. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 10:07 PM 01-30-2005:
Perhaps the power-hungry clergy of the Roman Catholic church claimed to be "Christian" and to be acting in God's name, which contributed to the rise of feudal barbary, yes. (I suppose here you are ignoring the feudal barbery that existed in those same european lands before Roman Catholicism moved in, but I'll go with along with you for a bit.) But don't you think the very fact that those clergymen refused to allow commoners to read the Bible (containing, of course, the teachings of Christ, and the history of the prophets before him, and thus containing the word of true christianity) perhaps proved that they weren't in fact Christian? If there really were a basis for their actions in the Bible, do you not think that the commoners would have practically been forced to read about it? |
|
| jake [email] said at 11:28 PM 01-30-2005:
1. I never said that Christianity had a monopoly on Feudal Barbary, or any other crime.
2. I never said that Christianity, or any other religion, breeds certain behavior.
3. Every philosophy contains particular vulnerabilities. Darwinism gave rise to Social Darwinism and Eugenics; Communism gave rise to Stalinism; Islam gave rise to the Jihad; Christianity gave rise to the Inquisition. These are just examples, but it is worth noting that none are "fringe" or anomalous.
My point, again, is that when you subscribe to a particular philosophy/religion/belief system, it behooves you to understand the particular ways that your belief system has given rise to atrocities or just mischief in the past...and I can't believe I haven't said this yet...SO THAT YOU CAN BETTER AVOID MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES.
I guarantee you that the Christians who conducted the Salem Witch Trials had their own ideas about "false" Christians who had come before. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 9:42 AM 01-31-2005:
To say that "Christianity", or whatever religion/faction/greek sorority/neighborhood watch organization is responsible for specific acts of barbary is to ignore the role that all humans play in these tragedies. It is to deny everyone's culpability as a human being. I agree, no one should forget these things, or try to escape from them. But neither should anyone say, "oh, it wasn't me--it was those guys, they're awful!" We need to collectively take responsibility for the tragedies of our history, and learn from that. The fact is, most people, no matter what their belief structure, would probably have voted Hitler into power and averted their eyes when Jews were carted away. Most people, living in Rwanda in 1994, would have picked up a machete and started hacking down their neighbors. We know this because it is true, it happened, over and over again, bad things happen constantly, years and years and millenia of shitty behaviour has perpetuated in the names of all kinds of beliefs or men or arbitrary boundary lines or what-have-you, and the point is, no one should forget ANY of that. And ALL of us are responsible, and EVERY MAN has to figure out his own way of helping to prevent more of the same in the future. |
|
| jake [email] said at 11:18 AM 01-31-2005:
Yes, and every woman too. We all have lessons to learn from the failure and successes of our predecessors, regardless of circumstance or creed.
Myriam, you keep arguing against a point that I am not trying to make.
I didn't say that Christianity caused, was responsibly for, is culpable for, or bred atrocities like the Inquisition.
I said Christianity "gave rise" and was used to justify those things. It was also used to justify the Civil Rights Movement, and that was a good thing.
Again, I say, (and nobody except Rick has really even engaged this) every philosophy has vulnerabilities, and when you subscribe to a particular one (especially with religious fervor) you should study the bad directions the philosophy has been taken as well as the good. |
|
| myriam [email] said at 10:04 PM 01-30-2005:
4. Jesus did not establish the church, Paul did. Jesus made no claim that specific men would be "divine authority on earth." This was made up by power-hungry clergy. |
|
| jake [email] said at 11:32 PM 01-30-2005:
It doesn't matter who introduced it--it's a pillar of mainstream Christianity today. And it doesn't go away by claiming that the organizations of Christianity that espouse it today are all "false" Christian.s |
Amanda G. said at 9:59 PM 01-30-2005:
Seems to me that a significant difference here is that most people who are Jewish were born and raised Jewish, and that Judaism is a culture/ethnicity as well as a religion. Thus, you don't have to do anything in particular to be Jewish, and it's not usually an active choice, as it can be for Christians.
I believe that charity should be given without strings attached, without proselytizing. Why is this such a hard thing to do?
As an aside, Judaism has the following levels of charity, in descending order from "least to most meritorius":
1. Giving begrudgingly
2. Giving less that you should, but giving it cheerfully.
3. Giving after being asked
4. Giving before being asked
5. Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity
6. Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient doesn't know your identity
7. Giving when neither party knows the other's identity
8. Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant
[from http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm] |
Oona Goosepimple said at 10:31 AM 01-31-2005:
Prothlytizing is part of the Christian religion. I believe Jesus said to go out and spread the word to every living creature or something like that. They are supposed to spread the "Good News". If they don't try to (witness) they aren't practicing their religion as instructed. Dervishes whirl. Christians witness. I don't know why it's such a surprise to people, or they think they are doing it just because they are overbearing, or obnoxious or whatever. They are supposed to do it. And they will do it. So know they are snakes, or scorpions or whatever, when you get on. I'm not Christian BTW, so don't blame me. | |
| |
