Thought for the day

He he, I guess Big-G got the last word in...huh?

Asha, that wasn't a post about love and forgiveness. It was a recruiting poster. I'm always happy to discuss religion but it's never easy. There's an assumption among believers that any dissenting point of view is inherantly "bashing" and impolite. No other form of speech on any topic employs this kind of tactic to discourage dissent (with the exception of calling someone who's against a war and says it "unamerican". Your reaction to people offering their own counterpoint to the original post is a perfect example. It's a conditioned behavior, and it's unfair. If people are going to discuss religion or post devotionals then they are opening up a dialogue among people of various beliefs. If that dialogue is unwelcome then they are simply preaching.

One of these days you have to stop making sense...its making everyone else look bad

My thought for the day?

"That which does not kill me had better do enough damage to keep me from firing back!"

Is that a good thought?

Bye bye for now,
Alexis

To Rose and all others who have posted,

First, I apologize for not fully completing my post. I was at work, and got a rescue call prior to being able to finish it. In the 2 seconds I had to make a decision, I decided to post an incomplete post, rather then no response at all and risk loosing all the work I did so far. Perhaps that was an error on my part.

Since that time, I injured my back at work, and am a little loopy between the muscle relaxers and the pain, so I'll try to answer some of the issues posted previously in a day or so.

Rose, I also have studied this subject, and hold a degree in it as part of my ministerial studies. I suppose I could be lumped into the group known as evangelical Christians, but prefer just to be called a Christian.

To the rest, I can honestly say that there is absolutely no self rightousness in me. Dirk Kennedy, and his real life counterpart is a sinner, saved only by the love and grace of God through believing Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. No only am I a sinner, but the worse of sinners, in that I know the truth, yet still sin anyway because of my fallen nature. It's only by God's grace that I am saved....

I wanted tell you all that, because the last thing that I want proclaimed is how rightous Dirk is or thinks he is. I hope you see my heart here- it is not one of being holier then thou, but one of love and compassion for all people.

Give me a day or so, and I'll try to get back to this again

Love and blessings Dirk

Dirk - Personally, I didn't take your post as a deliberate representation of yourself as the quintessential example of righteousness and/or piety. In fact, I can very much appreciate the spirit in which you are/were offering this story of forgiveness. For me, it's more a matter of context and timing. Had this story been posted on a Christian forum or presented during a testimonial hour at church, we obviously wouldn't be having this discussion.

Given, however, that the SL forums are frequented by a diverse international audience that represents just about every faith and culture out there, I personally think there is a more effective way of openly sharing one's faith without eliciting wide-spread defensive reactions on the part of those within earshot. As Chip, Liona and Seth have expressed (in one way or another), there seems to be a clear distinction between openly living and sharing one's faith vs. what (for lack of a better term) is perceived as pulpit preaching. Without a relational context, I can certainly empathize with Chip's perspective that the original post at least comes across as a form of street-corner preaching, even if that was not your original intent.

Thank you for remaining engaged in the discussion, Dirk. I hope that back of yours heals up soon -- I can certainly empathize.

PS: I recently ordered this book, so I am not yet able to provide a thorough review or recommendation. Still, it seems to me that U2 (a group I have followed since 1982, when you could only buy their albums at Christian bookstores) is perhaps the most radical example of the type of atypical, non-stereotypical faith lifestyle I am vaguely referring to (and of which I am woefully incompetent at living out). Nonetheless, I thought I'd make mention of it for those who might be interested in an interesting detour related to this discussion.

Walk On: The Spiritual Journey of U2

Question: Is it even possible to say something positive about Christianity on these forums without having that view met with hostility and negativity?

I held my tongue... errr fingertips.

Good point, Billy. I think there is somewhat of a negative pre-disposition toward Christians. My question (OK, make that plural) back to you would be: Is this condition self-inflicted? Has the ding-dong-ditch style of evangelism that I've critiqued produced anything more than a sentiment of resentment and/or cynicism?

In my case, my father hired a sweet, elderly lady to do light housekeeping and cooking after my mother's death. This wonderful lady didn't attack or pressure me with the Chick-style hellfire and brimstone approach to Christianity (not that I'm implying Dirk has, either). Rather, she took a personal interest in me, and over time, she shared her faith. Furthermore, she stuck with me after the fact. I guess the larger question relates to how that personal style of evangelism can be replicated in a rather impersonal, public forum environment such as this.

And for further thought, are we simply breeding greater resentment by dropping Christian-ese catch phrases and cliches into this type of pluralistic venue?

NO WAY DUDE!

I am atheist. Many atheists find such religious talk offensive in the same way christians find anti-christian talk blasphemous and offensive.

Jesus Christ, I missed Darko!

Without a doubt. The difficult part is respecting these individual differences, and supporting each person's right to free expression. In a thread over in General, someone posted what I thought was a helpful set of guidelines regarding what is and is not "hate" speech. This quote seems appropriate:



/120/f1/38209/1.html#post410344

Expressing contrary opinions to Chritianity is neither hostile or negative unless it's expressed with disrespect. Labeling any dissenting view as such is hostile. It's a bullying tactic meant to silence those who find evangelism innapropriate or offensive and have the courage to say so.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

Or are you so convinced that those who do not have faith in [the one true] god and accept the bible as their life’s guide are all possessed by satan and it is your christian duty to educate the ignorant savages?

Yes.

Personally, I promise that I will try never to meet a positive view of Christianity with derision.

However, I would ask that adherents of any faith need to be careful not to taint public statements of their beliefs, or their arguments, with the impression of moral superiority. It's especially hard for certain Christians, Muslims, and adherents of a few other religions, because they believe they possess "one true knowledge or faith" that no one else has.

In other words, it's tough not to come off as superior when you feel you are given faith that you are. And since you have that certainty, that knowledge, it's completely understandible that you would want to share it with everyone.

But it won't work. You'll probably turn away far more people than you attract. As Dirk perhaps has, and again, I mean no disrespect for him or his beliefs. So, if you want to share your beliefs in a public forum such as this one, you'll probably have to take another, more careful, and always respectful and tolerant approach. An approach not based on a statement of faith in unique, true, and special knowledge, but on the reasonableness of your faith, and the tolerance of your attitude. In other words, preach by example, not statement.

Fair? Maybe not. Practical? Sure.

Otherwise, shed, dynamite soaked in gasoline, match, light up, throw.


edited for clarity

If you undo your bellybutton will your bum fall off?

To answer your question in short, no it is not self-inflicted by the vast majority of Christians. What I believe is happening is that the actions and words of a few extremists are being projected upon all Christians. This is a hurtful form of intolerance and prejudice. These tactics have been used by bigots throughout the history of mankind. African Americans suffered the same kind of labeling as have Jews, Italians, and yes… even Caucasians.

The difference is that in today’s society it has become “politically correct” to stereotype Christians and spew all kinds of generalities that do not apply to the masses. Bigotry in any form is wrong. It is just too easy to try to blame the victim and say he/she deserved it or whatever but there really is no acceptable excuse for the kind of hatred that comes at Christians practically every day.

As far as evangelism, we totally agree that the most effective way to bring others to Christ is to lead by example. The thing to remember however is that Christians are no better than anyone else. We all fall short and wallow in our sin. Nobody is exempt. We are all in the same boat. The only difference is that as Christians we have accepted the forgiveness that became available when Christ died on the cross. That’s it.

I disagree with Dirk because I view myself as the worst kind of sinner, not him. I am a believer and still sin. I know the truth, yet I fall woefully short. I know that there is a God yet I put my will before His. These forums are a good example. When I look back upon some of the things I have said, I am ashamed. I use language that a Christian shouldn’t use, I get mad, I get pissed off, I fight back and I say hurtful things at times when I should respond with Love as Jesus commanded. When I go meet my maker some day I pray that God will forgive me of my reachedness.

What I'm about to say will likely offend people so you might want to stop reading now if you don't have a thick skin. The above two quotes perfectly illustrate what I find so distasteful about evangelical Christianity. My objections are to the philiosophy, not individual Christians. It's a belief system based on shame, guilt, and self loathing. Causing people to think of themselves as worthless sinners who must beg forgiveness by indoctrinating them in shame is the opposite of love, and has nothing to do with forgiveness. It's brainwashing just like that used by any other cult. They all work by tearing down a peson's sense of self worth and making it subordinate to the cult. If the kind of self loathing expressed in the above quotes is the "good news," no thanks. Evangelism doesn't empower people. It breaks them and makes them slaves. How does one spread love by teaching people to hate themselves? I'll never understand it. The church should be seeking your forgiveness, not the other way around. Teaching people that pride in themselves is a sin is a crime against humanity in my opinion. If you think my point of view means I hate Christians you couldn't be more wrong. I would never seek to tear people down and make them feel ashamed for being who they are in the way that Evangelicalism does so ruthlessly and systematically. No one deserves that. In my personal opinion, that's the very definition of evil. It has nothing to do with stereotyping Christians as extremists or bigots. It has everything to do with believing that ALL people deserve better treatment than being taught to be ashamed of themselves while pretending that's what love is. My sincere apologies to anyone I've offended but I find it impossible to hear things like what I quoted without wanting to speak out against it. Dirk and Billy, I have no doubt that you're both far better people than your church would have you believe.
Thanks for listening.

Excellent posts, Billy and Chip. I think that the heart of my previous question was really more about what Christians can do to improve "diplomatic relations" with the rest of the world. We can't control other people's behavior and/or opinions, but we can certainly improve our chances by ditching kamikaze evangelism tactics.

To your points, Chip, I couldn't agree more and still remain a believer. I think that the overriding message of Jesus is life and life more abundantly. All of the guilt/shame/subjugation rhetoric, in my opinion, derives from the post-Constantine era of church/state integration. For centuries, the church was used as a means by which to control the masses, and though we've come a long way, there is still a lot of residue from those many years of suppression.

With that, I'll leave you with these thoughts that I posted to my blog last September:

What Dreams May Come [Sep. 15th, 2004|05:08 pm]

What is it about religion, and the American Christian church in particular, irrespective of denomination, that simultaneously attracts and repels? Is it that the emphasis on "winning souls," or any form of proselytization, that has lulled the church into forgetting that the thereafter journey is where the real struggle begins? I cringe when leaders refer to the church in metaphorical terms such as, "intensive care ward" for the un-saved masses. In that context, success is measured only in terms of "numbers converted" over a set period of time. Who, then, is tracking the post-conversion casualty count? Is a war really won if those you sought to protect cease, at some level, to exist?

What about the thereafter?

I have often commented that no community of people "devours its young" as does the church. And, you may find it quite discomfiting that I came to this conclusion years before I ever "came out." So, no. It's not a gay thing. To put it into a larger context, I have over 25 years, in various denominations, of church membership and/or Christian affiliation under my belt. Shoot, I even attended a Christian college. So, you might say that I am familiar with that of which I speak.

It's a Performance Test, Stupid

What it all boils down to, in the end, is how you stack up to the Joneses in the front pew. Church leaders go ape-shit over formulaic, 422-steps to this, that or the other programs to homogenize behavior. You're saved now, damn it. Behave. Next?

I don't get it...


years ago
when i said i'll follow You
i didn't know
what it meant to
take my cross and go against the flow
to deny myself
to lose my life to gain it all

since i've learned
life's a battlefield
and i'm a soldier
when marching through
the evil under fire
You remain my shield
in my darkest hour
yes i know life ain't no bed of roses
so as i go i will hold to You again

--Excerpt from I Believe by The Kry

First off, I'm not trying to be facetious. These are serious questions.

No sane person can believe in Christianity, and then choose "against" it. So belief is the choice. But belief does not determine whether God exists or not, so if one has chosen not to believe in God, yet in the "end", it is revealed that God really exists, then that person is probably screwed. That's kinda silly, isn't it?

Consider the parable of the talents (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:14-30) -- were the servants asked if they wanted to take a crack at doubling their money? Nope, the task was assigned. What if one of the servants was doing an okay job normally, but told the master, "I don't really have financial skills; I'd like to choose to decline this offer." Would this request make him a "bad" servant?

Here's a humorous illustration: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php (and some further reading: http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cetera/hankisms.html )

Granted, Romans 2:14-15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;) should account for those who are not exposed to the Christian message, but if it does -- why bother spreading it in the first place?

I don't think the decision to believe or not can be made lightly, unless trivially.

With all due respect (and this may sound harsh, but meditate on it)...

I think the error was in posting from work in the first place. You are at work to work, and not to post on the forum. Have I ever been unfocused in my job? Hell yes! But I am not an ambassador for an entity that claims to have cornered the market on morality. You must realize that your admission of posting from work hurts your (and your "boss"'s) credibility greatly.

In any case, if you had posted on your "own" time (I don't know the nature of your work, and if you can be called even when on break/lunch/etc), you could have completed your posting at your leisure.

Remember, I'm pointing this out so you can consider how your actions must reflect your beliefs if you're to be a good ambassador for your cause (I Tim 4:16).

Hope your back gets better soon! (Mmm... muscle relaxers.. rlgllglglgl )

I’m truly sorry that you do not understand Chip. Just because I believe that the sin in me is reached in no way means that I “loathe myself and believe that I have no worth. Quite contraire. God loves me so why should I hate myself? I shouldn’t and most Christians do not either.

This is exactly the kind of prejudice that I am talking about. Neither Dirk nor I said that we hate ourselves. You quote us and then use the preconceived stereotype that you have of Christians to say something completely different. What is truly sad is that you do not seem to even be aware what you are doing.

What I will say is that I hate the sin within me and frankly so should all of us. Surely you are not saying that you are without sin so given that I pose a question. What is wrong with hating that sin?

If you took the worst ten things that you have thought about this year how would you feel if it were written and shown a full auditorium which would include the people you may have been thinking about? How about the worst ten things you have thought about in a month? Perhaps a week then? I know I would not be proud of what I would see. God knows what all of these things are. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with disliking, yes even loathing the sin that is inside of all of us.

Christianity is NOT about self-loathing, fear tactics, hate mongering, prejudice, etc… Heck, it is not even about the Church itself. It is about God, the love and forgiveness that He shares with you and expects you to share with those you come in contact with.

Luke 23:34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

I don't think either side is truly hearing the other. It seems that each "camp" is trying to make the other wrong for distinctions in paradigm and/or worldview.

On the one hand, you have someone like Chip providing a very intimate overview of what he finds objectionable about the faith, or better stated, the philosophy. The underlying theme of the ensuing rebuttals is essentially an attempt to prove his assumptions false.

On the other, you have someone like Billy explaining in relative detail how a precept such as "hate the sin, love the sinner" applies to him, personally. The underlying theme of the ensuing rebuttals is essentially an attempt to discount the validity of a faith-based belief system.

Neither side is patently right or wrong; they're just missing eachother. What is really happening, IMO, is a crisis of the imagination. Wouldn't it be an amazing thing to view this discussion as a unique opportunity to broaden one's understanding? Hell yes, it's scary to consider an opposing view, but with risk comes reward.

As for the posting at work admonition, I suspect that 98.999% of the regular posters here post during work. To make a blanket statement about one's credibility, based on the premise that posting from work is inherently "wrong," seems rather preachy and assumptive. In my job, I have periods of down time and periods of frantic busy-ness. My boss would only take issue with my posting here, during work hours, if it interfered with my ability to complete my deliverables and tasks on time.

This is of course, only a sentiment that is applicable - IF - you believe in God.

Your question "What is so wrong with hating sin?" is subjective and dependent on how "Sin" is defined.

It the narrower definition of what constitutes "Sin" that is of concern to individuals that do not rely on the Christian Bible as a moral compass. Particularly when the definition of "Sin" is formally judicated.

For example, peyote is plant used in a Native American sacrament. To outlaw peyote is to deny Native Americans their right to practice their religion. Christians, on the other hand view the use of peyote as a sin because it alters the conscious state, consequently a law against the use of peyote was enacted. This is an actual issue that was put before the supreme court.

What I don't understand about this is that if someone believes something is a sin, like peyote or pre-maritial sex, just don't do it. Why try and control, dictate or judicate what others choose to do within the confines of current laws?

At one point in history - Christians actually made it illegal for Native Americans to learn their own language or practice their religion. They took their children from their homes and put them in boarding schools where they were taught about god, the bible and christianity.

In my view, the campaign on behalf of the fundamentalist christians to prevent same sex couples from marrying or adopting is a classic example of more of the same.

Why do Christians think that they are entitled to this power over others?