Couple of things
- Last night, some potential commissioners squared off in a debate, so I took a look at it.
- Also, I've got some of Mayor Heidi Davison's answers to the Athens Grow Green Coalition's scorecard.
- The third podcast for The Cover Two should be up soon enough this morning.
- Greg Benson used to work at the ole musee ... oh, and guess what, he's an idiot.
- One of the four greatest golfers of all time died yesterday as Byron Nelson passed away at age 94. Tiger Woods is ridiculous, but consider this ... Nelson won 11 straight tournaments in 1945, 18 overall that year and 31 of 54 from 1944 through 1945. And then what? He retired at the peak of his game at age 34.
- Dude, they are after Wesley Nash up in Madison County.
- Pete loves misguided hyperbole (again). Again, it's not that I don't consider myself a political progressive, but I think when you try to be so uber-specific, particularly on things like whether or not you think our public schools are doing good or bad, you miss the point of what defining ideology really is.
- Also, I've got some of Mayor Heidi Davison's answers to the Athens Grow Green Coalition's scorecard.
- The third podcast for The Cover Two should be up soon enough this morning.
- Greg Benson used to work at the ole musee ... oh, and guess what, he's an idiot.
- One of the four greatest golfers of all time died yesterday as Byron Nelson passed away at age 94. Tiger Woods is ridiculous, but consider this ... Nelson won 11 straight tournaments in 1945, 18 overall that year and 31 of 54 from 1944 through 1945. And then what? He retired at the peak of his game at age 34.
- Dude, they are after Wesley Nash up in Madison County.
- Pete loves misguided hyperbole (again). Again, it's not that I don't consider myself a political progressive, but I think when you try to be so uber-specific, particularly on things like whether or not you think our public schools are doing good or bad, you miss the point of what defining ideology really is.
posted by Jmac at 7:46 AM
20 Comments:
"Christianity as currently practiced has no business using the name of a man who taught love and peace." - You disagree w/ that? If so, I'm surprised.
His wording could be a little better. The way it is now, it could be interpreted as painting ALL of Christianity with the same brush, although I think it's pretty clear that that's not the intent. Still, he should have worded it better. But... yeah. Invading countries and killing people hardly says "Christian" to me.
My problem was not so much with that line, though I agree that it was painted with a broad brush to give the implication that all Christians act this way.
My contention is with his call, however tongue-in-cheek, for churches to apply for permits to be Christian, but more importantly his belief that religion is 'doing little to serve the world.'
That's patently false for a variety of reasons.
From a spiritual sense, it provides comfort and reassurance to those who need it (and this is true of all religions). While there are those who dismiss religion as shamanism, it's impossible to suggest it doesn't make the lives of individual people better.
From a realistic sense, particularly with regard to Christianity, people of faith are doing many things to assist those in need and live a life of service. Even the most conservative churches - with whom I may disagree with ideologically and theologically - dedicate their missions to service (for instance, I've got some disagreements with Southern Baptist theology and interpretation, but you can't refute their mission and works, particularly with regard to the response of Hurricane Katrina).
I've never gotten this whole 'exclusion' thing. Religion is open to all who wish to embrace it, though, if they do, they will have to follow the principles and teachings of the faith that calls them. Should we work to understand each other better and find ways to live in peace? Absolutely. That's one of the primary reasons I'm so passionate about IHN of Athens, as well as the interfaith efforts of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and local efforts (such as the work done by Milledge Avenue Baptist Church with local Muslim organizations and Jewish organizations on Habitat for Humanity).
However, each faith is different, and it's those differences which may them unique and help give them meaning for their followers. If I simply believed that Christ was another man, than I wouldn't be a Christian. Instead, I do unabashedly admit that he is the Son of God, which puts me at odds with other religions which don't believe the same thing.
Does it mean I respect them any less? Surely not. Does it mean I don't wish to work with them? Definitely not. However, it does mean that their belief systems fail to align with mine, which means our faiths are different ... meaning unless one of us conformed our beliefs, we'd be 'excluded' by the other.
And I don't think this is wrong. I'm not sure why Benson does.
Amber, there is nothing necessarily "unChristian" about "invading countries and killing people". It just depends on the reasons and circumstances under which it is done. And Jesus himself pretty clearly would agree with this.
And, no, Iraq does not qualify as an acceptable case (by my lights).
Xon, how can that be so?! God is LOVE. Now let's get back to holding hands, braiding each other's hair, and making leather wallets with crosses stamped into them.
(This is no way supposed to be Amber's comeback to Xon -- it's supposed to be those Christian folk who believe that God is our buddy and that's that; nevermind the death and smiting that happened; and nevermind Christ himself kicking arse in the Temple)
But, uh, didn't most of the death and smiting happen in that book y'all aren't supposed to follow anymore otherwise you'd be Jewish?
You've been talking to too many "anabaptists" and "mainliners", Hillary. Not that I blame you, they're everywhere...
Jesus clearly affirms that the Old Testament Law is meant to be kept, for everyone all the time. But Jesus himself fulfills that Law on our behalf, and thus brings in a new covenant. This new covenant involves some "modifications" to the Old Testament Law, mostly in terms of the ceremonial provisions no longer needing to be performed (because Jesus is both the perfect High Priest and the perfect sacrifice, and His people make up the new Temple...i.e., all the ceremonial stuff has been fulfilled by Christ, and we now fulfill it ourselves by being united to Him).
But the moral "principles" of the Old Testament? Yeah, those still stand. This is the dominant historical view of the Christians since the first century. FYI. :-)
Oh, right, the death and smiting part.
Christians are not generally called to war in the way that old covenant Israel was. We cannot take the battles in Joshua, for instance, and turn them into some kind of pattern for "conquering the heathen" today.
Wars of conquest only happened for a very particular purpose in the Old Testament (the estabilshment of God's covenant nation). We don't "repeat" that today. But there are other wars, that are not about taking over land and "smiting" people for God's special purpose. These wars are sometimes morally okay, based on the moral "principles" that are found in the Old Testament law. (Deuteronomy 20 being one place where some of these principles about war are located). Essentially, wars have to be defensive, women are forbidden from fighting, and it's okay to fight on the day of rest (for Christians who still hold to a "day of rest:" I believe this is one of the ceremonial things rendered obsolete by Christ). There are other principles in the Old Testament as well, but the point is that these principles are meant to govern us when it comes to "normal" wars. Wars of genocidal conquest are what we might call a "rare" case (as in, only happened once, at God's direct instruction).
Yeah, the death and smiting are often forgotten parts of our Christian history -- didn't mean to give the impression that we are still supposed to do those things or that God still does those things. But, like Xon covered, fighting is not outlawed like some "Jesus is a pacifist and would never ever fight or get physical" folks would like to think. He is a pacifist, but he also kicks booty when he's mad (see that Temple passage I was referring to -- it's in the first three chapters of John). This is righteous anger and defensive of His Father's house.
Well, now that "Xon" has "explained" this "t"o us, that o"ugh"t to settle "it".
Of course, I think Johnathan has an interesting take on it. Religions are not exclusive, so much as there are so many that one can find any number of them into which one can be included. Perhaps it's analogous to families: they are not so well-defined as we take them to be, and the borders are always shifting through marriage, association, kinship, and loving effort.
As for me, I am of the thought that God is love, and that ought to greatly affect how people choose invasion, war, or killing. I did try to braid my own hair once.
Dirty Hippie.
I think it would be interesting to hear your definition of the love that God is, because I bet it's different from what others reading this might think. Especially relating to your thoughts on Paul's writings.
Dudes, I'm just saying that Charles has a far better chance of converting me than you smiters.
Doesn't matter anyway Hillary. We're all predestined, right Xon? ;)
JMac, yup, but that doesn't mean that we're not responsible for what we do. It's a mind-bender, man!
Hillary, I actually take your claim to be turned off by what I say very seriously, as despite my generally-sanguine demeanor I'm really pretty somber about representing the faith well. I don't want to create a scandal that keeps people from believing the Gospel. It's scandalous enough telling people that there is another king, this Jesus whom was crucified like a criminal. I don't want to add to that with my own oafishness.
But, that said, the obligation of Christians is to "speak the truth in love." It's a double obligation. I have to be loving, yes. (And I hope nothing I've said here is unloving.) But I also have to tell the truth as I understand it. And the Christian faith has, for the most part, historically always been committed to the idea that certain killing is okay. Absolute pacifism is not the Christian position (and absolute pacifism, I would argue, is an unloving ideology). I don't want to turn anyone off by saying this (please believe me), but it is what it is.
I don't want to turn anyone off by saying this (please believe me), but it is what it is.
Dude, that's fine. I don't have a problem with you believing in it, but this whole "some killing is okay" thing is not an acceptable precept for any religion I would consider believing in. Of course, I also have that whole "there's an omnipotent dude in the sky" thing to get over. I haven't signed on to that part yet. And it's pretty crucial. So, probably, secular humanism's where I'll stay.
Hillary, it just occurred to me that I don't know for sure, so why don't I ask? Do you believe that killing in self-defense is wrong?
Yes.
I'm not saying I can't see myself doing it under any circumstances, but yeah, I kind of think it should carry the same penalties as other kinds of killing. At least manslaughter.
That's a totally insane position and you're welcome to call it such, but I just can't justify condoning it. Especially when "self-defense" is pretty slippery.
Wow. Why do you think that self-defense killing is/should be punishable?
Let's pretend that there is no question that it was self-defense, too.
Hillary, I know I have perhaps given a different impression in the past, but I actually didn't ask you that so that I could get on your case about it. I was just genuinely curious.
Yours is a pacifism that has been held by a number of serious thinkers throughout history, including a number of Christians. It is, indeed, the only way (I think) to consistently be a pacifist, and for that I salute your logic.
You are daring to think a different world into existence, even when others tell you it is impossible, and I really do think that is admirable. Go in peace.
As Xon pointed out, I agree that your consistency is lauable, by the way. And you keep good company in the secular humanism domain what with Vonnegut being right there with you.
Damn. I had another comment, and I guess it didn't post yesterday. So, anyway, I appreciate the compliments about consistency, but it's not like I feel the need to maintain it at all costs. There are plenty of areas where my morals are inconsistent. Remember that while I believe all that stuff about not killing people, I am in favor of abortion pretty much on demand.
Basically, I think you can probably disable someone's ability to harm you without killing them most of the time. That's what I said in the disappeared comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home