next »

[dark_globe]

I'm sure you were clear; I'm seriously challenged when it comes to interpreting those kinds of references.

[gennidad]

That's OK. I have problems with not understanding why everyone else doesn't understand my logic.  Even when I only leave one step out instead of just leaping to the end.  :) 

Which brings me to another question (in all seriousness)... can someone explain the concept of a "conservative Christian" to me? Because, although I am not Christian,  I always viewed Christ to be pretty liberal himself. I mean, the whole "it's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle" malarkey sounds pretty downright Communist to me, and I've never heard a political Conservative with that kind of view.  Is it some kind of selective Conservatism, or what?

I don't live in the USA, and I must say that as an "outsider" I've always looked at the American Fundamental and Conservative Christians with a bit of confusion and curiosity. How can someone who believes in sharing, love and forgiveness as their basic tenets be so full of hate, vengeance and selfishnessness? Can anyone explain this to me?

The rich man "malarkey" is referring to the two deadly sins most closely tied to money, Pride and greed. 

As for how Christians being so full of hate, vengeance and selfishness; the are no perfect than any other human being.  The goal is to be full of love and forgiveness but we often fall short of that mark.  It is extremely hard to love when all you receive back is hatred or ridicule.  And then there is the problem of the loudmouths who claim to be Christian but usually trigger the aforementioned hatred and ridicule with their unchristianlike behavior.

On the other hand, I so agree with your last point here. The overwhelming majority of Christians I have known have been the most wonderful people--as have the overwhelming majority of Muslims I have known. The loudmouths in both faiths are, unfortunately, loud, and certainly do give these faiths reputations they most certainly do not deserve.

Unfortunately that seems to work across religions, political stances, and just about everything else.  The loudmouths tend not to be the one that the majority of people would choose to speak for them.  But, because they are so loud people have no choice but to hear them.

[larryc]

In every faith there are those who believe because they think that God hates the same things as they do.

[infopri]

Does anyone remember the movie Oh, God! with John Denver and George Burns (the original, not the sequels)?  God has come to earth (in the form of George Burns) and revealed himself to grocer John Denver because He's unhappy that people have sort of forgotten about Him.  John Denver is to be His new prophet. 

There was one exchange I just loved.  Denver is asking Burns questions that he knows that, as God's messenger, he'll be asked.  Forgive me for not remembering the exact words, but this pretty much captures the point:

-----------------
JD:  God, there is one thing I know everybody is going to want to know.  There are so many religions, each claiming to have exclusive claim to Divine Truth.  They can't all be right.  So which one is it?

GB:  Which one is what?

JD:  Which religion is right?  Which comes closest to Divine Truth?

GB, taking a thoughtful pull on his ever-present cigar and shrugging:  They're all cute.
-----------------

I'd like to think that, if God exists, that would be Hus take on the different forms of formalized religion.

[hcx100]

Thanks for the replies. I didn't mean "malarky" in an offensive way--I just always think of those old over-the-top Biblical movies when I hear that quote, and so I guess it feels "over the top" as well.  Sorry for any offense. It does seem, however, that this particular idea (to give away your riches, share with the poor) is not often espoused--particularly by George W., who has made welfare more difficult, etc.  And what is the position of most Christians on Bush's claims that invading Iraq was an order from God?  I realize there are loudmouths and nutters in every group, and that the tenets and morals that are followed cannot always be followed because we are imperfect, but I guess I find it difficult that people can be so awful and still claim that the bible justifies it.

[crazybatlady]

JD:  Which religion is right?  Which comes closest to Divine Truth?

GB, taking a thoughtful pull on his ever-present cigar and shrugging:  They're all cute.
-----------------

I'd like to think that, if God exists, that would be Hus take on the different forms of formalized religion.

Amen, sister.  Amen.

[drsyn]

case_insensitive:

I doubt these days that any reasonably intelligent folk believe that the Bible (taken as a whole) teaches us to condone slavery of any kind.

The Bible as a whole? Old Testament approves acts that are inconsistent with Christ. On the other side, Christ said that He did not come to violate the Law (i.e. Old Testament), but to uphold the Law. On the third side, Christ clearly did not respect the Law when He said that what is coming to your mouth is not as important as what is coming out of your mouth. And so on and on.

I would say that Christ may be meant this: what was in the past was good for the past, but not good for the times to come.

After His Earthly life ended, Orthodox Jews became even more radicalised, but some Jews adopted parts of Christian custom and ideas never, though, admitting this. They were scolded by the Orthodox Jews. Christians also differ in the degree of acceptance of Old Testament. Now, fundamentalists/conservative Christians in US make it a huge point to support Israel, as they say, from Biblical viewpoint. But, I think, - it's political.

I think when taking the Bible as a whole we should admit the fact that in the beginning, it, indeed, approves acts that today are crimes. And, the two parts of Bible are not without a bridge: the prophets at the latter parts of the Old Testament (not recognized as the holly text by Orthodox Jews) made grim predictions about the future of Israel, seeing in their own way what Christ later preached.

As a child, I was taught that we study the old testament in order to understand the new testatment, but that we follow the new testament.  So, I have always thought that people who quoted the old testament in order to justify their views or actions did not understand what christianity was all about.

[gennidad]

I realize there are loudmouths and nutters in every group, and that the tenets and morals that are followed cannot always be followed because we are imperfect, but I guess I find it difficult that people can be so awful and still claim that the bible justifies it.

The ones that do this, IMHO, are just using another version of the old "the devil made me do it" line.  They are simply searching for some way of evading the blame for the evil things they do/feel.  The easist way for them is to do this is to say it justified in the Bible, a book that the religions that use it cannot even agree on what it means and says. 

[infopri]

I guess I find it difficult that people can be so awful and still claim that the bible justifies it.

Some of the worst atrocities in all of history (ancient and modern) have been committed in the name of religion.  I think larryc said it best:

In every faith there are those who believe because they think that God hates the same things as they do.

[case_insensitive]

case_insensitive:

I doubt these days that any reasonably intelligent folk believe that the Bible (taken as a whole) teaches us to condone slavery of any kind.

I would say that Christ may be meant this: what was in the past was good for the past, but not good for the times to come.
 

Thank you. That's exactly what I meant.

[marymorris]

It's obviously a satire. The biggest tip-off? That line about the Roman Republic being a "pristine... flawless government." You know, the Roman Republic that spawned Julius Caesar.

Just as obviously, the satire is not funny, not witty, and often not coherent.  I would question the guy's suitability as the opinion editor, because he publishes bad, incoherent satire just because it's his.

But deliberate hate speech? I'm not convinced.

And an extended unfunny joke about raping drunk women forms one sequence of the film THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN. Are they going to not allow that film to be shown at the college? Have they ever produced ROMEO AND JULIET - which has a "joke" about rape in the first lines?

I AM a feminist - but this is a slippery slope, really.

[crazybatlady]

Um, a slippery slope to what, romola?

[marymorris]

To having a precedent for censorship of something that is NOT *intentional* hate speech and NOT intended to provoke people to commit violence.

[marymorris]

To having a precedent for censorship of something that is NOT *intentional* hate speech and NOT intended to provoke people to commit violence.

Logically, if he loses his editorship for publishing that *because it is a satire praising rape*, then if Nutmeg's theater department produces ROMEO & JULIET, the editorialist would have a precedent for demanding that they cut the Sampson & Gregory scene, because one of those characters (I forget which, sorry) makes a joke praising rape of the women of the other household in the feud. In that play, the rape "joke" is told for a good reason - to show how the feud is destroying Veronese society by giving its men apparent justification for, among other crimes, rape. That's a point worth making, so the right to express it needs to be protected.