You know, I’m secular and I don’t find myself worrying about whether or not someone deserves aid if they ask for it.
Look, I’m not saying that anyone worries about whether someone deserves aid or not, I’m just saying that, for me, Christ’s command to love one another has been a blessing in my life. Instead of getting worked up over some slight someone has done to me, I love them. Instead of thinking disparaging things about those in dire straights, I love them. Instead of caring what sexual preferences someone has, I love them. Christ’s teachings of love have brought me peace, and probably lowered my blood pressure. And compared to the characterization that “Satanists believe you should love your neighbor as he deserves,” I can’t be happier that I love my neighbor as myself.
What if you can’t stand yourself and wish all sorts of harm on yourself? Then can you hate your neighbor? (Sorry, was that in poor taste?)
It always amazes me that every Christian you talk to says this, and yet… there’s all this intolerance on the part of Fundamentalist Christians as a group.
Like I said, Fundamentalist Christians have perverted the teachings of Christ. Here’s a starter, Christ never taught people to bomb abortion clinics.
The problems with fundamentalist christianity are more an issue of the scottish hill culture-influenced Southern US than they are of fundamentalist christianity.
Jason, you’re mixing up the worst aspect of Southern culture (the scottish hill culture crap) with fundamentalism. Historically, fundamentalism has existed independent of the scots… in fact, the fundamenalist movement developed in parallel in two places: Scotland and Switzerland. The scottish heritage is responsible for much of the South’s reactionary and/or violent politics, but it isn’t the sole cause, nor is it the only possible source for such behaviour. Remember, the Salem witch trials happened in the North, and that had nothing to do with the Scots or the South.
And even if you try saying “Fundamentalism in its present form is a result of the Scottish heritage”, that still isn’t accurate because you’re missing a very strong thread of dogmatism that has existed within Christianity ever since its conception. In fact, in the ancient world, Christianity’s dogmatism and fanaticism was one of its defining characteristics.
This doesn’t mean that all Christians must succumb to dogmatism… but to ignore it or to blame it on the Scots isn’t fair to either the Scots or Christianity itself.
That’s not quite accurate either, SK. Christ never taught that, but Paul certainly came close. Christ didn’t create a cohesive world view that could sustain an organized church. It’s thanks to Paul and similar early Christians that Christianity as we know it today still exists… but it’s also thanks to them that it has its unfortunate propensity for intolerance, violence, and fanaticism. Without the violent and/or intolerant wings of the church, Christianity would have fallen apart after any number of early (or not so early) heresies. But thanks to certain assholes in the Church, the Church still exists. It’s kind of a weird conundrum, actually. Do you hate the jerks that saved your church, or do you accept them as a necessary evil?
That’s an easy one. I love them, although I wish that they hadn’t been jerks. :wink:
That’s an easy one. I love them, although I wish that they hadn’t been jerks.[/quote]
Bravo!
Whoa, I’ve never heard that before even from active violent Christian haters (not you, BTW). Link?
Only if 1) the unborn child is “alive” in the sense of having a human soul and 2) the name is written in to, as opposed to blotted out from, the Book of Life (referred to in Revelations as the book holding the names of those who go to heaven) .
Of course, I don’t go along with mainstream Protestantism anyways, so…
Whoa, I’ve never heard that before even from active violent Christian haters (not you, BTW). Link?[/quote]
I don’t have a link… this is just stuff I’ve picked up from readings. I could cite books if you like, but no one seems interested in that, unfortunately.
Which part had you never heard before, BTW? I didn’t think anything I said anything particularly new or controversial… maybe I said something wrong?
Paul being a source of the intolerance, violence, and fanatacism was the part I hadn’t heard before. Books are OK as long as I can read them online. :P
I thought it was generally accepted these days that Paul was a bit of a dick.
It’s overstating it a tad to say that Paul is responsible for the intolerant streak in the church. It bears reminding that Paul was the one who championed preaching to non-Jews and including them in Christian rites. Peter and James wanted a Jew-only club for a long time.
Paul does recommend that slaves be respectful of their masters and women of their men. Christianity did break down a lot of slave/master barriers, of course, since the brotherhood of Christ meant that all ate together. The male/female barriers were there, though Acts of the Apostles and some of Oaul’s letters place women in important leadership roles in the church. Paul is very condemnatory of homosexuality and other “unnatural” sexual acts.
He has a lot of resentment towards the Jewish establishment - an establishment he had been a big part of in his early career. I think you can see as much, if not more, intolerance in his pre-conversion persecution of Apostles than in his letters, but I’m one of those people who thinks stoning is a pretty intolerant act.
Theologically, there is nothing in Paul any more exclusionary or intolerant than Christ’s reminder that he himself is the only light, way and path and that the truest follower is he that abandons his family to walk alongside him. I guess he’s allowed to have a God complex, though.
It’s common and too easy to paint Paul as some guy who took good-Jesus stuff and perverted it to make himself popular. I certainly don’t find everything in the Epistles palatable, but a lot of the Gospels are disturbing too. From Paul, Christianity gets the whole “faith, hope and charity” thing and his letter to the Romans is a great work no matter how you look at it.
Troy
Jason, you’re mixing up the worst aspect of Southern culture (the scottish hill culture crap) with fundamentalism. Historically, fundamentalism has existed independent of the scots… in fact, the fundamenalist movement developed in parallel in two places: Scotland and Switzerland. The scottish heritage is responsible for much of the South’s reactionary and/or violent politics, but it isn’t the sole cause, nor is it the only possible source for such behaviour. Remember, the Salem witch trials happened in the North, and that had nothing to do with the Scots or the South.
And even if you try saying “Fundamentalism in its present form is a result of the Scottish heritage”, that still isn’t accurate because you’re missing a very strong thread of dogmatism that has existed within Christianity ever since its conception. In fact, in the ancient world, Christianity’s dogmatism and fanaticism was one of its defining characteristics.
This doesn’t mean that all Christians must succumb to dogmatism… but to ignore it or to blame it on the Scots isn’t fair to either the Scots or Christianity itself.[/quote]
Sure, but today where are all the bad parts of it coming from?
I always suspected Tammy Faye was into devil worship. If not devil warships.
The problem with loving everyone equally is that you have to love your girlfriend’s rapist as your girlfriend. You may see that as something to aspire to, some ethereal separation of emotion from reason that allows you to love the man while hating the brutal act, but a Satanist would tell you that you are denying an essential facet of your humanity, in this case possibly causing a psychotic breakdown from the cognitive dissonant stress, and that to hate the bastard is not only rational, emotionally fulfilling, and natural; but it is the only correct moral choice.
I think I’m closer to the Satanist view than the Christian on this one.
Ok, now all the Christians are giong to pray for you Mike.
Sure I could hate the perpetrator. In fact, should my wife or daughter ever be raped, I certainly would hate the perpetrator with every fiber of my being. But what does that get me? A dark knot of venom and hate in the pit of my stomache. Higher blood pressure. A sense of helplessness.
In such a situation, however, I could only aspire to emulate Pope John Paul II’s forgiveness of Mehmet Ali AÄŸca (note: I’m not Catholic) or the various stories that seem to pop up on the TV news magazines every few weeks where some victim/victim’s relative forgives the perpetrator. I can be a slave to my hate and become a bitter old asshole, or by denying my natural, legitimate anger, perhaps I can get closure on an event that cannot be undone.