Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [RELIGION] Defining a Christian act... was Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Christian M. Cepel wrote:
> I don't see where you're supporting this below.  Belief in absolutes has 
> nothing to do with the super-super-super majority of those in the 
> anti-abortion camp and the presence of a few wackos who've taken a great 
> step away from all morality whatsoever.
>
> There is no equivalence here.  I'll restate it below, but belief in 
> absolutes has no correlation with fanaticism of the type you are 
> attributing to clinic bombers and the Muslim extremists (I won't say 
> Islamic here as I don't believe these people represent Islam both as a 
> doctrine or as a high percentage of adherents to that faith.)

If we saw more Islamic clerics condemning the acts of violence, I might 
agree.

> I can believe all day long that for one person to premeditatively take 
> the life of another is murder and that it is morally wrong.  I can 
> believe that as a moral absolute.  This does not make me a fanatic. 
> There is no correlation here, and it's dishonest to keep alluding to one.

While I don't know that I entirely disagree with you that there are some 
things that are, without exception, morally wrong, I don't see killing 
someone as one of them. i.e., if someone were to ever sexually molest 
one of my children, I can assure you that the only way that person will 
survive is in the custody of the state.

Barring universal acceptance of a "live and let live" policy, there will 
always be someone willing to kill you for some reason or another.

> I don't know that you'll find many Christians, if they are really 
> thinking clearly, who would NOT cede these points.  These points are 
> brought up by those who oppose the faith as arguments against 
> Christianity thinking that Christians would argue vociferously against 
> them.  They never really bother to ask what the Christians feel about 
> the topic and just assume they've pulled a zinger.   It's exactly this 
> lack of understanding on the part of opposition that really motivates 
> these arguments.  It's also the same lack of understanding that causes 
> many Christians who aren't thinking clearly to get embarrassed and feel 
> guilty and backpedal when accused of being 'intolerant', 'judgmental', 
> and 'condemning'.  There's nothing to be embarrassed or guilty for.  
> They believe in a moral absolute dictated by the omnipotent creator of 
> the universe.  If that makes others uncomfortable, then that's just too 
> bad.  That's not meant to be an 'unkind' attitude, especially when 
> tempered by the love and compassion I mentioned before.  Unfortunately, 
> love and compassion cannot change those absolutes.  That's why they're 
> absolute.  It's not like there's a choice.

I believe that you truly do try to temper your intolerance and judgement 
with kind eye. However, I see you, among other's that I've shared some 
of these discussions with, as the exception to the masses. Furthermore, 
I think that very few people who consider themselves religious, really 
put the amount of thought into that decision as has been poured into 
some of these threads.

> Belief in moral absolutes does not make one a fanatic.  Fanatic behavior 
> by one who believes in moral absolutes makes one a fanatic.

No, a person who irrationally clings to a belief, such as the belief 
that you'll be granted 72 virgins when you die in the service of your 
god, makes a fanatic. I neither believe nor intended to imply that you, 
or many of the others that I've had these discussions with, are fanatics 
(at least not dangerous ones =)

> I'd be very grateful if you'd no longer try to link the two.

I'll try to be clearer.

> To use the existing example, there are a almost complete majority of 
> anti-abortion advocates who oppose the practice due to their belief that 
> it violates an absolute moral truth.  The fanatics are the infinitesimal 
> percentage of that group that attack and bomb.  You do your argument no 
> favors to lump these together and label them all 'fanatic'.

Personally, I like your suggestion of just 2 or 3 people that offer 
alternatives. Unfortunately, I don't think that sort of protest would 
ever get national headlines, so no one would ever see it.

> I believe I already addressed this.  I think it safe to say that both 
> Christians and Muslims believe that their God (oh  goodness.. really... 
> the same guy....  the God of Ishmael AND Issac) has dictated certain 
> moral absolutes.  This makes neither Christian or Islamic fanatics.  
> Now, you take those who are bombing innocents in the name of Allah, or 
> those horrid people who are pushing the "God Hates Fags" agenda (or 
> those bombing clinics), and you have the fanatic of both groups.

If it's the same God, then why the different books and the thousands of 
years of killing?

> It is a doctrine.  It was modeled by the entire life of Christ.  As 
> such, you could say the doctrine is WWJD.   It's a shame that WWJD has 
> been so sorely abused that it's now almost a bad word.

Darwin fish > WWJD =)

> I'll concede that I don't really have numbers on this, and I have a 
> vested interest in this number being a very high percentage.  The people 
> you mention need to be lovingly reprimanded and reminded of the love of 
> Christ for all his children.  I don't deny that they are out there, and 
> I am saddened because these people portray a God that doesn't exist 
> within the true faith of Christianity.  It's always the case that the 
> lowest minorities are the most loud and vociferous and end up doing so 
> much more damage to the perception of Christianity than can really be 
> fixed by the majority quietly showing the love of Christ to those around 
> them.

Well, the Christians must be doing something right, because it doesn't 
look like the numbers are dropping.

> I must say that I really believe that these "God Hates Fags" guys and 
> the lunatic family that comes to campus once a year or so have made 
> themselves willing tools of Satan.  Satan's priority one goal is to 
> destroy God's following and to separate man from the love of God.  
> Whether they believe it to be true or not is not the issue, but rather 
> that their behavior works to separate man from God.

I guess I'm not familiar with the lunatic family...what's that about?

> Now Rick.  If I was a fanatic, I might possibly take it upon myself to 
> strike these people down and kill them as they are clearly preaching a 
> false doctrine, which the new testament lists as a far greater 
> transgression than simply keeping one's mouth shut (I.e., if you're 
> gonna preach, it had better be correct).  However, I am not a fanatic 
> and can only mourn the damage they do both to Christianity, but more 
> importantly to every soul they turn away from Christ's gift of salvation.

But, here's another contradiction. If a Christian feels compelled to 
protest at an abortion clinic, why does that same person not feel 
compelled to tear down graven images or picket businesses that are open 
on Sunday? Are different commandments more important than others? i.e., 
you imperil your soul by breaking *any* of them, correct?

> I cannot speak for others, but to my mind the best 'picketing' that 
> could be done of a place like PP would be a small discrete group of 2 or 
> 3 people who say nothing more than, "we can offer you alternatives and 
> love".

Yeah, I'd like to more of this and less screaming and hollering.

> My objection to them being funded by public funds is not something I 
> would ever picket outside of the clinic where it would cause discomfort 
> to the women visiting.  There are other forums to oppose this that are 
> more appropriate.

I wasn't aware that PP was publicly funded...

> I don't really understand how anybody can so readily try to group those 
> who believe in absolute moral truth with fanatics.  I can believe in 
> moral relativism and act fanatical about it.  The two have no real 
> correlation.

Because those same absolute truths are the mantra of the fanatical...

Rick
--
Millions of dollars from various governments, business and NGOs spent on 
developing hardware, protocols, software and you people use it to 
pretend to fart at each other...
----

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion