Wayward Christian soldiers

Hardly rises to the term blackmail. This is more along the lines of “pressure” and is commonly used by all sorts of groups to shape policy. C.f. boycott. I suppose it’s only blackmail when one disagrees with it.

By the way, what’s the horror of opposing abortion, thinking that homosexuality is wrong, and opposing blasphemy?

Look at the upside. There is still justice in the world.
You can’t tune it in on the television though.

David,

You need a lesson in basic Christian theology. Your entire argument demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance and immaturity. First, you can never prove God does not exist so don’t waste your time. Even vehement atheists admit that one.

Second, although Christianity does require faith in one god, God does not force anyone to have faith. You have free will to do as you please. Unfortunately, for you anyway, the choice to not have faith has consequences. If you are comfortable with the consequences then so is God.

Good parents give children rules to follow while they are growing up. Their rules are usually much harsher and all encompassing than God’s. By your convoluted logic this would mean that they do not love their children. Setting rules is a demonstration of love not a contradiction to it. Perhaps if more parents set some rules, or more people followed the commandments, our world wouldn’t be such a mess.

I can give you an extensive reading list if you like. That way you can educate yourself and make logical and coherent arguments in the future.

John,

You seem to devote an awful lot of your posts to bashing Christians of one sort or another. Why? There are extremists for every issue, religion, gay rights, abortion, anti-abortion, you name it. Why the constant negativity about Christians who happen to feel strongly about their religious views? Maybe you ought to target some of the ani-religion zealots for a while for some balance.

RFB

What can you say? You got people on the take, you got some boiler room operation in LA, people screamin and makin all kinds of racket and weird porn. You got blackmail, junkmail, sideshow Bob and the whole works. And people are lookin for proof from God. Look in the mirror, if somebody else is lookin back and it ain’t you look out. Some people you can’t give a break. Some people can’t give, they’re on the take. There was a song about it. Gimme back my bullets, put ‘em back where they belong. God doesn’t need to prove anything, that’s how he got to be God. God doesn’t need bullets either, just to make another point if you know what I mean. You have cops out there without guns, these guys have microscopes and DNA scanners, all kinds of stuff. They have some big lab and will bust you with a strand of hair and piece of lint. What were we talking about here again? Blackmail. You ought to stick to writing about things you know about John. Backmail doesn’t pay very well and the benefits suck. You could end up becoming a guest of the federal government messing around in that kind of crap. Springer is just a showman. What’s the problem here? In God We Trust pal. This post is getting wayward here. If we got to pay you a visit, make it worth our time. You don’t want to waste our time. Forget about it. Remember, it’s a free country, thank God for that. This post could get lost someplace on the Internet with all of the fake ads for your sexual aids, loan scams, unFDA drugstores and what not and so fourth in Googleland. Play it safe and don’t be sorry. God isn’t sorry, that’s why he is God.

There is no question that this blackmail. Christian Voice, a group with apparent political sway, threatened the charity with withdrawal of funds unless they refused donations from another donor. That sounds like blackmail to me. It is, however, entirely legal. Yep, Christian Voice organization is well within their right to choose with whom they donate money. It is also clearly within their right to tell the charity that why they are choosing not to donate their money. Were it not legal, we’d all be in trouble.

RFB
The reason that Christians are the general target for ridicule these days is that they (in general) are the ones attempting to slide in policies that give their religion favored status amongst other religions. Further your comments about the ten commandments is entirely illogical. If the commandments are really sort of “parental-like” guidelines, that does not explain the various harsh penalties given out for breaking them. It is hard to argue that you have an “all loving” deity when that deity meshes out punishments like killing the first born of their enemy, wiping out entire towns and in general killing thousands of people. Imagine how it would go over if a “parent” killed one of their children as a lesson to the other children.

RFB,

I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist, I’m just saying it is not a personal god as is believed in many religions, Christianity being one of the greatest offenders. As soon as someone speaks for God, that is not God. Putting it in words is impossible, you just have to experience God. Probably Buddhism has the best interpretation of what God really is. I was a believer in a Christian God for half my life. I’ve read enough, and mostly have experienced enough to know what is Christian theology. I’ve taken communal showers with priests, for crying out loud– I think I’ve seen and read enough.

The consequences of not having faith in God? I know, hell. I’ll tell you one thing: If there is a Christian God in front of me after I die, I’m punching him in the nose. I can live with whatever consequences lie ahead.

Setting rules is fine. But after my kids leave my home when they turn 18, they are on their own. No more rules. If I continue to impose my rules on them after they become adults until they die, then I am no longer an all-loving father, but rather a bastard with nothing better to do. I don’t love them; I love myself more in that case. Being a father means letting go one day. The greatest LOVE a soul can give is giving another soul its freedom. Commandments for life is Bondage to a Selfish Creator.

Robert wrote: “First, you can never prove God does not exist so don’t waste your time. Even vehement atheists admit that one.”

Sure, it’s quite easy. It all depends on how you define God. In the west God is defined as being both omnipotent and omniscient. I.e., all powerful and all knowing. But if he knows what will happen, he’s powerless to change it. And if he can change it, he didn’t know it. Thus, any being that is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist. And since that is the way Christians define their God, that means that God cannot exist. Christians have essentially defined God out of existence.

Now if you happen to define God as a being who created the universe. Or as a being who runs our afterlife. Well, that’s out of my expertise.

Thomas,

If you want to talk about blackmail, why don’t you read up on Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

I didn’t say that the Ten Commandments were parental guidelines. I merely used parental guidelines as an analogy. The Ten Commandments are the law in the Old Testament. And the God of the Old Testament punished law breakers. He was not a “loving god”. In case you didn’t know, Christians aren’t bound by the Old Testament. Therefore, criticizing them based on Old Testament philosophies is ludicrous.

David,

You too are confusing the Old Testament with the New. The gospels tell people they have to believe and that Jesus died for all of their sins. If you accept Jesus then you are saved regardless of your sins. It also states that Christians shouldn’t force others to follow their viewpoint. Instead, they should lead by example. I’ll be the first to admit that many Christians don’t follow these views. However, don’t lump 2 billion people in with a handful of idiots.

Punching God in the nose after you just found out he is for real might not be the best idea.

RFB

> I don;t think you can because anti-religious zealots are generally crackpots who never hold themselves up to a higher standard and force their narrow beliefs on others. They are mostly complainers.

I don’t think the anti-religious commenters on this Blog are “crackpots”. Many of them seem like reasonable, logical people. In fact my lack of religiousity points to something I have in common with them. But some go too far and attack all religion as illogical and evil. That’s their opinion, fine, but it does add to the overall tone set by this blog.

You can’t choose your audience, and you shouldn’t censor them to create “balance”, but the comments do contribute to the tenor of this Blog. I happen to agree with RFB.

But there’s not much you can do about it, because Thomas is correct that the [religious] right is on the offensive. Considering they’ve been thrown on their back heal for most of the 20th century, during the rise of Communism and government/civil paternalism (New Deal, Great Society), this seems inevitable.

> who never hold themselves up to a higher standard

This portends a race to the bottom for our entire society.

“People who hold themselves to a higher standard” probably includes most of the people posting on this site, but perhaps not in the religious and moral area. In fact most probably do have high moral standards, but they feel like meetsy that they should keep it to themselves. Yet when we fail to acheive the goals and standards we set for ourselves, does that make us less honest or worthy than the people who didn’t even try in the first place?

Essentially what you are saying, John, is that you only attack hypocrites. But we are all hypocrites. Just because you’re a hypocrite doesn’t mean you aren’t right. Even though you may not be able to live up to that higher standard yourself, it may be right logically and right for our society.

CULTURE WAR
(what this post/thread is really about)

The reason for the cultural war in our society is that the moral common ground we took for granted for so long is slowly eroding away. And we can’t even agree that it’s happening, let alone what to do about it. When you argue in the public sphere, it seems inevitable that the “live and let live” crowd will win, because we want more “freedom”.

But RFB’s analogy to child rearing is RIGHT ON TARGET. There’s a growing realization that many of today’s bratty, undisciplined children are a direct result of their parents not setting strict rules. Essentially, letting the laize faire argument of society and the 60’s inform the way they raise their children. Hence the book “The Epidemic”, a documentary from England I saw recently, and the TV shows “Super Nanny” and “Nanny 911″(?), where setting and enforcing clear rules becomes the number one priority and produces results.

BUT WE ARE ADULTS, you say. However, government does and has for a long time setup penalties and incentives for various behaviors. Not just the criminal code, but through entitlement programs and the tax code. “Owning a house” is a good thing and earns you tax breaks, while having 2 high incomes and then getting married is penalized (and has been “inadvertently” for decades.)

Also, look at the rules for welfare, food stamps, unemployment, social security. Some government programs have created a “culture of dependency”, so at great political cost they are “corrected” to promote returning to work and the boost to self-esteem of a dollar earned.

Government policy indirectly shapes the behavior of its citizens. Not only would adopting an “anything goes” policy be a disaster, I don’t think it would be possible.

Thomas and meetsy imply that we can avoid this debate if people would stop telling each other what to do. But through society and government we tell each other what to do every day, in a thousand different ways.

WHAT WE NEED are institutions and forums for discussing the moral character of our country, without the implicit threat of imposing other people’s rules on society. Without the threat of new laws that would criminalize or discourage “bad” behavior.

To separate our discussion of SOCIETY from our discussion of GOVERNMENT.

How can we encourage “good”, “healthy” behavior, without making the opposite illegal? How can we make a statement that isn’t empty without spending money or creating a government program to support it?

In American society today, I’m not sure it’s possible. The only institution beside government that has ever commanded such attention from its citizens is the Church. Not just the Catholic Church 1000 years ago, but the church you go to every Sunday.
And so we come full circle.

[I'm sorry this is so long, but I've thought about this topic for a long time. If you're too shy to post your thoughts here, please e-mail me at tcmoore4 AT yahoo DOT com. I'd like to know I'm not a crackpot, or why I'm wrong. Thanks.]

-tom

I heard an interesting article on ethics on “On the Media” last week. (http://www.onthemedia.org/otm021805.html)

In the study they mentioned, religious people were more ethical than the general population … UP TO A POINT.

That point appears to be dogma.

This seems true in my observation. Generally, I find religious people (Christian, mostly in my circles) to be generally more ethical, kind, giving, loving, etc.

But only to a point. The HYPER religious among us ( who dwell on dogma, systematic theology, doctrinal statements, etc.) at some point turn off their humanity and go on auto pilot.

Hank

“why waste time on these topics”

Yeah, let’s all be “nice guys” whilst the “not-so-nice-guy” take control of government, budget, education, media and public morality. Pastor Niemuller said it best: “First they came for the Jews….”

T.C.
I can’t agree on the abortion, and gay marriage points. The reality of pre-marital sex, is that with birth control it’s not so much a baby might be concieved, but what emotional damage can be done — in going too far too soon. But, kids looking for acceptance and love (missing it with dominating, dictating parents, or withdrawn and dismissive ones) are more likely to experiment earlier. Children seek out what they need…we all do…and if they can’t find hugging and kissing and someone taking them seriously at home, they’ll turn to the opposite sex. Talk to some kids….you’ll hear it.
It does have long term consequences, emotionally, which is why it’s not “good”. I won’t go into that.
Marriage..well, most children are in foster homes from MARRIED PARENTS. (Many more than from single moms.) The number one reason is drugs, number two too many kids too soon, number three mental illness.
It’s false that kids in foster homes are from single unwed mothers. And, although there are an abundance of couples looking for babies (hence the anti-abortion stance by a lot of agencies)….the truth of it is, the agencies in the middle are charging, on average 25k to place that child with waiting parents. (And, birth mother expenses are ON TOP of that!!) But, in our odd country, many of our black babies are placed in European and Canadian homes, because the agencies get more $$, and because of the stigma in this culture. But, most of these mothers cite religious reasons for carrying the child to term, in the first place. So, religious groups push anti-abortion, but then don’t follow through and care about the offspring of these mothers. I find that to be exceptionally sad. If you are anti-abortion, then it should be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to raise a child that was unwanted …either at the outset (stayed pregnant because of pressure from religious groups) or a foster child who’s parents had too many children too fast, and broke the camel’s back. So how many children have you adopted/fostered? It is hypocritical to say your beliefs are against a medical termination of pregnancy, but then not support the results.
I favor abortion, when the mother has determined it’s the best choice for her. The emotional, long term consequences of a medical proceedure at 8 weeks, compared to carrying to term (and I do realize that you may have never actually carried a child to term….it’s no cake walk, it’s a very miserable, painful, tiring experience, and it does carry great risk to the emotional well being of the mother….long term).
Meanwhile, I have delt with birth mothers and their issues. I have seen the long term emotional hardship in the decision to carry the child (often because of pressure from peers) and then turn it over to the adoptive parents. It doesn’t end there. It’s a lifelong emotional scar, that doesn’t heal. The anti-aboritonsists always treat it like it’s some little think, like disposing of a litter of puppies. It’s not. It’s caused higher than average psychological problems, drug problems, and depression than the women who made a decision early. More women are destroyed emotionally, and physically by carrying an unwanted child to term…than any damage that has ever happened the medical termination route. It’s more humane for the existing human, in many cases. And, yes, I have met foster kids who wished they had been aborted, instead of going through the 20 or 30 foster homes and the misery that they’ve had in their lives.
And, as I said, one of the leading causes of kids ending up in foster care is tooo many children. When the number of kids under 5 exceeds the number of parents….there is a pretty high likelyhood of 1.) failure of the family (children in foster homes, abused, etc) 2.) poverty 3.) lack of parental support of the children leading to earlier drug use and sex.
So, long term, abortion can be a good option. But, again, it’s personal. Theories are all nice, but really….what happens in real life is the key to us evolving as people. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes kind of thing….
As for marriage…gay or otherwise. Let’s face it, marriage is something we take lightly in this society. How many divorced people do you know? The statistics are something that one out of every two marriages will end in divorce within 5 years. It’s a legal contract….hence why one must go to the courts to disolve it. Only Catholics need to jump through some hoops to also do some hocus pocus through the church (and I’ve BEEN to second and third all white, fluff weddings IN the Catholic Church….how does that work? Must be like fish on friday=hell). So, given we are in a lawyer rich society, one that sues for hot coffee spilled, and slipping on loose grapes on a linoleum floor. We put warnings on kitchen cleanser to NOT PUT IN EYE, nor eat. (Evidently we are either too stupid to figure that out, or the companies need to protect themselves from lawsuits.) So, why NOT let gay individuals have the same legal protections, and the same pain-in-the-ass divorce proceedings, and the same emotional “security”….as anyone else. Heck, it’s not like there aren’t enough lawyers needing the additional money for more divorces. The benefits of allowing the same legal protections — gay or not — only makes sense in this society. I don’t think it demeans straight marriage, because Zza Zza Gabor and Mickey Rooney and Elizabeth Taylor already made marriage a joke. I’m honestly not that interested in being so involved in other people’s business. Let ‘em (and as Will Durst, the comic, promotes “what better way to cut down on gay sex, than gay marriage”. I agree). Heck, if the big fear is that a gay man will want to have sex with your son…better than he be married to another man, and have the threat of a costly, messy divorce for his actions. Seems that the arguments are all wrong on this one. Religious leaders should be embracing this one…..as there is no hell like the court system.