What the hell is wrong with me?

[toddaa]

There seems to be an uptick on DU, both here and elsewhere, of posts in which Christians try to distance themselves from people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Why are you doing this? I get it, you're not Jerry Falwell. So what? You're both Christians but you have different opinions. Why is this news? Dorothy Day was a Christian. So was J.N. Darby. I think I understand the difference between the two, why keep bringing it up? I know this is probably going to offend some of you, because a small group of you seem to wallow in taking offense to everything posted here, but I consider the most fire and brimstone right wing fundamentalist to be every bit as much a Christian as the most liberal UCCer. Arguing that the other is not a True Christian(c) seems to be the fundamental point that all Christians can agree on. Apparently, Islam shares tenet as well, thus branding itself True Islam(c).

If every one of you is crazy and I am the only normal person, then I must conclude that I am crazy. I need some help here because I think I'm losing my mind. Are there any Daoists or Zen Buddhists on here? I need someone who doesn't talk crazy talk to explain why people feel persecuted over their attachments to meaningless abstractions.

(DU needs a heavy dose of perspectivism. It's Nietzsche for the lot of you.)

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. I'll step my toe in this water...

I'm not sure you and they do actually believe the same things. You believe Christ was the Chosen One, and you believe in a God, but you probably don't agree on how to manifest that belief here in the world of humankind.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. hypocrisy

Falwell and the like tout christianity as they say and espouse and condone the most un-christian-like things. They are christians like GW is a republican. They use the title, and the mantra for their own selfish reasons, while not truly acting in a christian fashion.

[jbnow]

3. I am a

well nothing religiously speaking but I am spiritually inclined.

But I do get what they are saying. As the name Christianity implies, it was based on Jesus the Christ and his teachings. People who followed his teachings would be very pleasant to have around. I'm sure you know what those teachings are.

The Robertson/Falwell do and preach the opposite of Christ in the name of Christ. I guess that would make them more anti-Christian than Christian.

[RC]

4. A 'True Christians" follows the teachings of Christ.

I know atheists and agnostics That are better "Christians" than some Christians I know. Belonging to a christian church or saying you are a christian does not make one a "Real Christan".

[okasha]

5. Allow this pagan to explain it to you.

There is a coterie of posters in this forum that attempts to broad brush all Christians (and most other believers) with the sins of the Falwells, Dobsons, Robertsons, etc.. (I thought that was against the rules, by the way.) Since most of the Christians who post in this forum have little or nothing in common with Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, etc., they find this offensive and attempt to make rational distinctions between their beliefs and those of Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, etc.. Unfortunately, this seems to be a very difficult concept for some folks, who go right on broad-brushing.

See? Not hard at all.

[Rose Siding]

7. Well put, dear pagan

Thanks

[toddaa]

10. For me, it's hard. Christian is just a word

I don't get it, don't want to get it, and would just as soon I never heard of it, as it seems to be used to divide people. I don't understand why people have such attachments to words. Pagans don't seem to have this problem. You've got the most eclectic collection of mish mash beliefs as any religious practice and what's more you are proud of that. To me, that's healthy.



Language is a virus from outer space. -WSB

[okasha]

13. But words matter

I don't get it, don't want to get it, and would just as soon I never heard of it, as it seems to be used to divide people.

Okay, let's try another word: "Democrat." Under this word we have Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman as well as Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, John Conyers. If we did the second grade thing and asked everyone to put their heads down on their desks and raise their hands if they thought Miller and Lieberman weren't "real" Democrats, my guess is there'd be a forest of hands in the air, including mine and possibly yours. And there wouldn't be anyone loudly proclaiming that "A Democrat is anyone who says s/he's a Democrat" or demanding that those who stand with Feingold et alia specifically denounce Miller and Lieberman to demonstrate their bona fides.

It's called a double standard.

Pagans don't seem to have this problem. You've got the most eclectic collection of mish mash beliefs as any religious practice and what's more you are proud of that. To me, that's healthy.

Thanks, I think. :)

But the fact is that Christians have just as great a variety of beliefs as pagans do. Unitarian or Trinitarian? Two sacraments or seven, or kind of fuzzy on some number in between? Hierarchic structure or independent congregations? Creedal or not? Biblically inerrant or not? Sola scriptura or three pillars? Open and affirming or homophobic or scared of the whole question? Social gospel or calvinist I've-got-mine-because-God-loves-me? Women in the clergy and hierarchy or women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen? Infant or adult baptism? Charismatic or not? And on, and on, and on. And that doesn't even get to some of the odder practices like the polygamist cults and the snake handlers.

Taking Falwell as somehow the template for all Christians is, to put it at its kindest, uninformed. The plain fact is that Falwell is a megalomanic con man who uses the trappings of Christianity to run his scam because in American culture Christianity gives him access to the maximum number of pocketbooks. In some other culture, he'd would be the same megalomanic con man if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist--or even, dare I say it, atheist.

[toddaa]

19. I'm a secular Daoist

Does that mean anything? To me it means that I find practical meaning in the writings of Zhuangzi and Laozi. Words only begin to convey meaning and usually rather poorly. From a Daoist perspective, words are simply poor substitutes for the things they supposedly represent. Like the Dao. The word "Dao", translated roughly as Way, loses its meaning once you start using language to describe it. When someone says they are a Christian or a Pagan or a Democrat, I take their word for it. I have nothing else to go on. But judging people by the words they use to describe themselves is a rather poor substitution for judging a person by their actions.

I guess what bothers me about all this is that people seem to be apologizing for Christianity because of people like Jerry Falwell. I don't understand this. Part of the problem is that I see someone like Jerry Falwell having to exist within Christianity because there are also people like Dorothy Day (who I admire very much). This is yin/yang to me. Once you define good Christianity, there is evil Christianity.

<i>Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever. </i>

[ulysses]

81. ?

I don't understand why people have such attachments to words.

...(s)he wrote...

[trotsky]

22. And I of course think you are completely mischaracterizing.

I am not in any way blaming all Christians for the "sins" of the religious reich. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and no one else's. All I have ever done is point out how any Christian is simply picking and choosing parts of the bible to base their faith on, which is no different than what the Falwells and Robertsons do. Certainly there are versions of Christianity that are more friendly to the liberal agenda, and I'm grateful for them, but I do not see any objective classification that can make any one version of Christianity more "true" than any other.

Unfortunately, there are some folks who go right on misrepresenting this as some kind of sweeping attack on all Christians.

[okasha]

32. Of course you do.

All I have ever done is point out how any Christian is simply picking and choosing parts of the bible to base their faith on, which is no different than what the Falwells and Robertsons do.

And no different than what you do, either. Pot, kettle.

[CarbonDate]

37. I don't follow.

trotsky picks and chooses parts of the Bible to base his lack of faith on? :shrug:

[trotsky]

40. No, here's how it works.

A Christian makes an absurd statement based on a literal interpretation of the bible.

I use a further literal interpretation of the bible to show the absurdity of doing so.

Bing! I'm a "fundie atheist" because I was trying to combat Christian fundamentalism.

At least I think that's how it goes. :eyes:

[trotsky]

39. So are you the pot or the kettle?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Inland]

42. And showing, again, why some christians insist on making distinctions

again and again and again. Posts that make easy and facile comparisons between the Falwells and Robertsons and all christians.

But this thread is about a new set of rules: making the association is fine, but disassociation is unnecessary, boring and probably protesting too much--something to the effect of "why are christians so defensive, because they are the majority religion, do we really need to hear from THEM again, maybe it's guilt?"

Not very fair.

[trotsky]

45. Sheesh Inland

Do you have any reading comprehension whatsoever?

Let's analyze these two statements:

1) Persons A and B are exactly alike.

2) Persons A and B make different claims based on the same holy book.

Are those statements the same, or different?

Far too many Christians on here apparently think they are.

[Inland]

46. Um....too bad that's not what was said.

I guess it's easier for you to make a point when you say something different....and then pretend like I somehow misread something.

Fact is, the statement of commonality with Falwell and Robertson was made in the precise preceding post, if only in the technique of picking and choosing, illustrating why someone might just want to distance themselves, again.

Your pretense that there's something being imagined is simply false. There's no reason to specifically mention Falwell and Robertson, is there, except for the purpose of drawing parallels, just as there's no reason for you and the OP to discourage anyone from disagreeing public ally and often with Falwell and Robertson, except to leave the parallel out there and unchallenged. As far as I can tell, there's no person on DU who is told that their statements contrary to conservatives are unnecessary, boring, redundant, or just plain unwelcome besides the occasional christian. Huh. Could it be the christianity?

But feel free to name another purpose of all this BS that's credible. I keep asking for one, and nobody ever quite comes up with it.

[trotsky]

49. LOL

I guess it's easier for you to make a point when you say something different....and then pretend like I somehow misread something.

What, do you think I'm trying to rip a page out of your playbook now?

Falwell & Robertson are the prototypes of the fundamentalist right. Their names sub for several million people who happen to read the bible and hold political views that are very similar to those two men. What separates those folks from the nice liberal Christians?

I argue that it's something OTHER than the bible, because the bible contains fragments that can be used to support literally almost any position. It's also something OTHER than a god, because you'd think a god would try to steer his creations toward the correct interpretation of his will instead of guiding them to wildly different interpretations.

What do YOU suppose it is, Inland? Or, in your tried-and-true fashion, will you refuse to offer up your own analysis and just continue to piss all over those viewpoints you don't like?

[Inland]

54. See? You don't accept the difference between Falwell and other christians

"What separates those folks from the nice liberal Christians?"
Well, the fact they are nice and liberal. THat's good enough for me. Why isn't it good enough for you? Because for you, it's not about being nice and liberal, because you are looking to score points against christianity, so your answer is.....nothing separates falwell and robertson from other nice liberal christians, if indeed, you really accept the premise there is such a thing as a liberal christian. (No, I don't expect a straight answer on that or any other question I pose to you). So you pretend to be asking the question while joining in a thread that tells us the posts giving the answer are unnecessary because we already know the answer.

Or for more answers that were considered illegitimate and unnecessary when given, you can see what caused the OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=63071&mesg_id=63071


It's pretty clear that I was right. The associations are made, and that's fair, but dissassociation has got to stop. Pretty unfair to christians.

[trotsky]

56. What's pretty clear is that you will twist things, even...

rhetorical questions, to make it appear as if someone is taking a position or has certain motives that they really don't.

Of COURSE I accept that there are liberal Christians. Tons of them right here on DU! Of course I know what makes them different than the Falwells of the world!

My point is that what makes them different is not found in the bible, or in what they decide the bible says.

If they (and you) can figure what it is, you get bonus points.

But I imagine you will just continue to spew hatred at the strawman of my position you've created. Have fun with that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. What I think you're missing

Is that most Christians who don't believe that all of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally believe that it's possible to *deduce* from context which bits are and which bits aren't.

As I understand it, the usual line of thought I see liberal Christians follow is that all the bits Jesus himself says are but most of the OT isnt; some of the OT commandments were once, but other bits in the NT specifically explain that they don't any more; other bits of the NT specifically imply that other bits of the OT do still apply. I'm neither a Christian nor an expert on the Bible, though; someone who was could doubtless summarise it better.

Whether or not what many Christians are doing *is* simply "pick what you want and discard the rest", that's certainly not what they're *intending* to do, or what they think they're doing.

So saying "if you're going to interpret this bit literally then it must be just as valid for me to interpret that bit literally" isn't a necessarily a valid approach.

[trotsky]

44. I'm not missing that at all.

I fully understand that some Christians believe that. But again, they're deciding what the context means - they're picking and choosing too. In a different way, sure, but ultimately each individual is extracting from the bible what they want to extract. It is my opinion that good Christians would probably be good without their bible. Bad Christians would likely be bad without it, too. (Though they might find it more difficult to fleece the flock.)

So saying "if you're going to interpret this bit literally then it must be just as valid for me to interpret that bit literally" isn't a necessarily a valid approach.

To someone who isn't a literalist, or at least viewing the passage in question literally, no, it's not. Fortunately I've not tried to do that. I engage a literalist, and then someone like okasha jumps in to attack me for using literalism, when I was simply responding to a Christian who did in the first place. How about we correct the bible-believing literalists, instead of attacking the atheist who is using a literal reading to make a point to the literalist? Oy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. No, I think you're still misunderstanding or misrepresenting.

You say

"extracting from the bible what they want to extract".

I think that's a fundamental mischaracterisation. They're extract from the bible what they think *ought* to be extracted. "Want" implies personal choice, with the connotation that they pick passages that they want to believe more often than ones they don't, rather than picking the ones they think they're logically constrained to. The two processes are sufficiently different that I think using the word "want" is worth correcting.

With many Christians, of course, that's what they are in fact doing, but it's by no means true of all of them.

[trotsky]

51. What they think "ought" to be extracted?

Odd how what they think "ought" to be extracted so often lines up perfectly with what they "want" to be extracted, don't you think?

rather than picking the ones they think they're logically constrained to

So, they're approaching the bible because they "want" to find positions within a logical framework.

Tell me again how I'm so wildly off base here?

[Inland]

48. Well, only two types insist on literal interpretation of the Bible.

Fundamentalists and people looking to score points against religion.

In a sense, the fundamentalists and those others are simply fighting each other on a battlefield nobody else thinks is legitimate, and coming up with conclusions nobody else thinks is valid. It's really got nothing to do with either beleivers or non-believers in general.

[trotsky]

50. You forgot the third type.

Someone trying to demonstrate the absurdity of a literal interpretation of the bible.

Naw, you probably didn't forget, it's just that doesn't fit in with your prejudices.

[Inland]

52. And to whom were you making this fine demonstration?

Why, other people who want to score points on religion, and those who you think have to defend a literal interpretation. Because there's nobody on DU who believes in a literal interpretation, that's your purpose.

You're type number two.

[trotsky]

53. "Because there's nobody on DU who believes in a literal interpretation"

Baloney, Inland. Pure unadulterated baloney.

[Inland]

55. Feel free to name one.

After all, if you were arguing with them about it....

I've never met anyone who insisted on a literal interpretation of the bible on DU besides Type No. 2. But there's eighty some thousand screen names, and I guess you are . Let's have a poll?

[trotsky]

57. I even remember you agreeing with one of them.

You know it's against DU rules to call people out, Inland. You're not going to bait me into breaking a rule, since you can't silence me any other way.

[Inland]

58. ROFL!~

Yeah, we're all secret literalists. Who knew.

[trotsky]

59. Not what I said, of course,

but that's never stopped you in the past.

[Inland]

60. So what did you mean by "you agreed with him?"

a) You thought it really, really material that I and a fundamentalist agreed on the day of the week or

b) you were engaging in more guilt by association or

c) something that's for you to know and for us to assume is a legitimate purpose.

[trotsky]

61. You agreed with him on whatever the topic was.

Probably bashing atheists or one of your other favorite activities. The thread itself though made it clear he was a believer in a literalist interpretation of the bible. I just remember pointing it out to you - maybe you still had me on ignore back then.

[Inland]

62. But I asked your purpose in bringing it up.

I'll take your answer as (c), and we all have to pretend you've got some bona fides in the entire matter. Not.

[trotsky]

63. The purpose in bringing it up was to point out just one particular example

of a biblical literalist on DU. There are several more, but that one came immediately to mind because I knew you had taken part in the thread. Too bad you don't remember.

[Inland]

65. Of course, it wasn't.

Because it didn't "point out" anything at all.

Isn't it funny how the reasons and the purposes provided aren't really credible? Leaves one to wonder what the real agenda is behind the continuing association combined with the declarations that disassociation is unnecessary or boring or somehow unwanted or downright lies.

It's unfair to liberal christians, as long as they are christians. I think that's the intent, but I dont' need you to admit it. It's enough merely to point out how unfairly, if not bizarrely, liberal christians are treated on DU, and let you flounder around for some sort of reason why that's a good idea and not mere bigotry.

[trotsky]

66. Why do you have to keep dodging and twisting around?

You said there were no people on DU that believed in a literal interpretation of the bible.

I said there were. Since DU rules prohibit me from "naming names," I tried to refresh your memory of a thread in which one of those literalists posted.

So twist away, distort and manipulate, all the while accusing your opponents of doing the same. That's all this little exercise was about, and since you realize I answered your challenge, you have to turn it back around into an attack on what you perceive my motivations to be.

[Inland]

67. ROFL!

Yeah, that's me. Dodging and twisting. You can't name your agenda, and I can, but it's all my dodging and twisting.

All I wanted was fairness to liberal christians, but oh no. Let's talk about a thread nobody but you remembers and you think you can't refer to.

Well, I still don't remember it, amazingly enough. So I guess you have nothing more to say.

[trotsky]

68. You've made up an agenda for me.

Coincidentally enough, it's a nice handy strawman for you to attack.

I've pointed out where you're wrong, and you ignore that and instead continue to beat the poor strawman.

I can only assume by your actions that it's YOU with nothing more to say.

[Inland]

69. Unfair is unfair.

I don't have to prove the motivation for it. But I came up with one more credible than yours.

[trotsky]

70. In your mind, I'm sure it is.

It just doesn't match up with reality all that well.

[Inland]

71. ROFL! nt

[trotsky]

72. Dang.

You have no idea how much I was hoping for one of your "whatever"s. :-(

[Evoman]

73. They should make a smilie

that does a drive by pissing. Then you could just post it whenever you got into one of these arguments.

[CarbonDate]

36. To me....

...an individual's personal belief system has no bearing on the relative merit of whatever point they're trying to make, so I'm not sure why it even comes up.

I can tell from what a person says or does whether or not they're like the neo-fascists of the religious right; they don't need to tell me.

[Warpy]

6. The sillier the belief, the more closely it will be held and the more

defensive a person will get when it's challenged.

As for determining "true Christians," why not look at what they actually do? Falwell is an obvious glutton who sits in front of a TV camera and spews hatred. Dorothy Day was a tireless crusader for people who were worse off than she was. After all, their own bible says something about knowing who is a Christian by their works. Those ancient Jews knew how cheap talk was.

Personally, I find it convenient to separate them into Christians and Calvinists, the latter being determinists who think lip service alone will punch their ticket for heaven without all that stuff about giving to the poor and tolerating people they don't approve of.

I'm a Buddhist, have been since my teens, but I claim to be a bad one because chanting in Pali and haggling over interpretations of ancient interpretations of Buddhist teachins always seem counterproductive to me.

Good luck on your journey.

[neuvocat]

8. Because it is important.

The bible says to beware of false prophets and that by their fruits (that is, how christians conduct themselves as opposed to those who merely profess) one would know them. Falwell, Robertson, and Tom DeLay are the sorts who simply use christianity to get what they want. They don't believe in christianity. There are many seemingly subtle nuances that exist with religion and the body politic right now and the more said about it the better.

[William769]

9. Christian & proud of it!

I am just sad that some others have lost their way of the teachings of Jesus.

[daveskilt]

11. falwel is to christianity as fascism is to capitalism - non xtian opinion

Capitalism can be an egalitatrian system of equal opportunity (it of course never is) the further you get from that the closer you are to fascism where only a few control all power and diversity is not tolerated.

fascism must be fought as must falwels brand of religious fascism. The folks who try to distance themselves may not fully appreciate this as they are inside the big picture here (all christians i mean) yes falwel is a christian like bush is a capitalist. Im sure the christians would disagree with me on my take on them but I agree they need to make a distinction to make falwel and the ilk something other that can be identified and opposed.

christianity has lots of good points but it has potential for abuse of power. this is not just christians with different opinions (like DLC and leftist democrats) it is not even christians with different opinions on what the highest ideal of their belief system is (democrats and republicans - both capitalist) but people claiming the same name to advance diametrically opposed viewpoints (democratic, free, responsible capitalist economies vs fascist dictatorships)

Since the religious fascists are gaining power and working in unison with the economic fascists (PNAC) who are likewise gaining power - it is entirely appropriate for the christian DU'ers to post on this topic and draw the lines to differentiate and oppose the fascists who use religious belief to advance their agenda.

[madrchsod]

12. falwell and others are the people who christ was pissed at

the money changers in the temple..the pharisee who grew rich by allowing the romans to tax the people but not the temples. the romans who wanted nothing to do with the execution of christ but had to act because the temple leaders called christ a "king" and forced their hands.
i have no problem with pople who view the bible as the word of god if they accept that i do not see the same thing from the same words.

[beam me up scottie]

14. Nothing at all.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy has been used for quite some time by christians who seek to disown other christians for one reason or another.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. I really don't care if someone

compares me to Falwell or Robertson because we're all Christians. If that is the extent of their discernment ability, too bad for them. I can't help it if they're stupid.

I know what my beliefs are, and that's what matters.

[beam me up scottie]

16. I agree.

Anyone who compares you or any other liberal christian to Falwell and the other members of the Talibornagain is stupid.

Very stupid.

And I will be the first one to let them know it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Thank you, dear

And I'm actually rather sober. So far. But the Sopranos are on tonight and we do Italian, so when that chianti is open I'll be there. But then again I'd like to stay up to watch Big Love instead of cheating and watching it on Wednesday at 8.

I'm fascinated with that show. Like sneaking a look at roadkill. Morbid.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Shows like the Sopranos

sometimes make me regret my decision to kill my tv.

Then again, shows like American Idol make me do the macarena on the empty space created when said tv was removed.

I do, however, download my favorites from BitTorrent clients-it's the best of both worlds.
I get to watch the shows, sans commercials, when I have time.

Well, enjoy your evening, it sounds wonderful.

And don't give an inch to anyone who insults you.

That's one of the reasons I like you so much.

:patriot:

[daveskilt]

21. TALIBORNAGAIN!! - okay that was worth a spit take. very funny

[toddaa]

20. Now that's what I call confidence

You are quite possibly the sanest, most rational person on DU.

[Inland]

29. That might be good enough for you

but there's political ramifications. If Christians are told that they aren't owned by conservatives or repubicans: and nonchristians are told that christians shouldn't be driven away by over-association with the right wing nuts: and christianity and religion aren't made second class ideologies:

well, that's good for me and liberals and democrats. So I'm all for it.

[Inland]

23. Maybe it is that you don't want to hear from christians period

This is R/T section of a political board, and it IS a little silly for someone to call other poeple's religions meaningless abstractions. Abstraction is the name of the religion game, and meaning is the name of the political game.

If you are bored or offended by other people's religions and don't find the political ramifications interesting, maybe you really should find a DU Group consistent with your own positions and do without a wide ranging discussion.

[Goblinmonger]

24. Yeah, that's what the OP said.

He said that Christianity offended him. Come on, man, give me a break. He asked a legitimate question about people distancing themselves from others. Yet another time when you come in to piss on a thread.

[Inland]

28. It's not what he said, but it explains something, so I asked.

After all, it can't because the distinctions between christians is meaningless abstraction. The fact that christianity is a majority religion is neither here nor there. So somebody has to ask if it's the christianity.

As for people distancing themselves from others, it was stated that he already got it. So he already gets it. You think that's worth a new thread? Really?

After all, it's not pissing on a thread if it's a thread asking why other threads exist.

[catbert836]

25. What would it be like

if people who are bored or offended by other people's beliefs left this forum? Hmmm...

Bye-bye, Inland.

[Inland]

27. Feel free to ask for new rules.

I don't remember any threads declaring other religions to be to abstract or too meaningless for discussion here. It's not a group.

[catbert836]

31. Well, your reply seemed to insinuate

that the OP was disrespectful of Christianity. I merely pointed out that your track record for respecting the beliefs of others wasn't the best around.

[Inland]

34. Actually, you didn't point out anything of the sort.

Because then I would have know what you are talking about.

[catbert836]

78. You said...

"If you are bored or offended by other people's religions and don't find the political ramifications interesting, maybe you really should find a DU Group consistent with your own positions and do without a wide ranging discussion."

I replied:

"What would it be like if people who are bored or offended by other people's beliefs left this forum? Hmmm...
Bye-bye, Inland."

As far as I can see, the reply made perfect sense. I responded to your assertion that people who are bored/offended by others' beliefs should leave the forum. I replied that if people were to follow your position, it would fall on you to leave as well. One poster said that her "irony meter broke" after reading your reply. I am saying almost the same thing. Does THAT make any sense to you? :eyes:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

26. My irony meter just broke.

:crazy:

[toddaa]

30. Let me make this simple for you

Yes or no, is Jerry Falwell a Christian?
Yes or no, is Dorothy Day a Christian?

[Inland]

35. I thought that was a subject you didn't care for.

Is it on, or is it off?

I would say that they are both christians, but admittedly I am using superficial criteria. People looking for deeper levels of religious meaning may come to a different conclusion, and I'm not going to give them a spanking for giving the issue a lot of thought.

[kwassa]

41. The simple answer

IMHO:

1) Jerry Falwell is not a Christian
2) Dorothy Day is a Christian

Happy now?

[catbert836]

79. Oh, and how do you know that?

How can you declare that Jerry Falwell is not a Christian?

[godhatesrepublicans]

33. defining "Truth" is what religion is all about.

I could chew your ear off on why Falwell et. al. aren't Christian, but the question was "Why the debate?"

There's the old theory that Truth can be found by reasoned debate of course. That's why Jewish, Christian and Islamic history resembles one long Internet flame war.

There's also little points such as from my Preterist, Postmillenialist Social Gospel perspective, most self-proclaimed Fundamentalists are Satan's little minions and must be stopped. And to be fair, I suppose they think I need to be burned at the stake in order for their "Rapture" to occur.

Sorry, that's just the fun of Monotheism.

[CarbonDate]

38. I don't know.

But I think liberal Christians need to stop trying to convince liberal secularists that Chrisitianity is more in line with liberalism than conservatism and start trying to convince their fellow Christians of that. The former is trying to meaninglessly seek our approval and the latter is actually moving forward toward common goals.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

64. 'Cause we're all supposed to be looking for answers.

Truth is, the search for spiritual "truths" seem to be more fulfilling than the answers.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

75. Time for Evoman and stuff that never did happen. My review.

Anyone who thinks enough of Evoman to read my review of his plays, which would be called propaganda if that wasn't a ten dollar word for a five cent skit, can go to my journal. Like Lethal Weapon 4, the issue isn't merely that the sequel is bad. It's that the original was bad, and that nobody with an ounce of sense would have even wanted to make another one.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Inland/38

And this "play" from someone who would give christians a hard time for paying attention to a bunch of made up stories. Too funny.

[Evoman]

82. Lol

Geez, thats swell. There is your review, but my play is absent. Its hard hitting and true to life...no wonder it got erased.

Its hard being a literary genuis, let me tell you!

Oh, and anyone who wants to read MY excerpts, I've put most of them in my journal (though I did not place this one sadly enough :( )

[Evoman]

85. I still cant believe you dont like me and my stories

"And this "play" from someone who would give christians a hard time for paying attention to a bunch of made up stories. Too funny"

Lol..I would never give people a hard time for "paying attention" to my stories or any stories. I would, however, start thinking its rather suspicious if people started worshipping the great peace moderator Evoman character. Evoman: A Jesus for the Future.

On second thought, that would be kind of cool.

Anyone who wants the buy a copy of my play..um..I mean Gospel, please send 1000 dollars in small, unmarked bills in a stamped envelope to the following address:

The Gospel According to Evoman
PO BOX: YOUAREGULLIBLE
Believe Anything, Montana

[Inland]

86. Of course you believe people don't like you, Evoman.

After all, your play doesn't accomplish anything else besides letting everyone know your contempt for your targets. There's nothing for me to like, lots to hate, and that's the way you wanted it. In the end, your plays are all about you and who you don't like and how far you are willing to go to praise yourself and, well, make up a fictional play about everyone else.

They don't say much about any debate of substance, but they do say a lot about you, and nothing good. Like Rush Limbaugh or Andrew Dice Clay or Ann Coulter, you have this pretense to humor as an excuse and cover for knownothing hostility. There audiences respond well, too, not because there's actual humor, but because Rush and Dice and Ann hate all the same people. Why am I not surprised that you make more "jokes" to me?

As my earlier reviews stated:

"All in all, people who enjoy seeing christians (or anyone who disagrees with the playwright) portrayed as rude and cartoonishly evil, and enjoy seeing the playwright portrayed as a long suffering victim, and have no interest in any substantive issue or reality, have a play that speaks to them. Of course, you have to enjoy it through several acts of the same, so its appeal is going to be limited, thankfully. The reviews from people who have stated that they don't like christians and have no interest in hearing constructive things about religion have, unsurprisingly, given it a big thumbs up, so the audience, although small, has been found."

[Evoman]

88. And you, my friend?

Do you really think there are more people on here that hate me than ones that don't like you? I know YOU don't like me, but I don't think anyone else here hates me. There are even a couple of theists who chuckled at my plays....cuz they are supposed to be funny, if not completely true to life. I mean...look at the censored version of this play...there is no hostility there. I am not saying all christians are the same. What is your complaint? Even my uncensored one was the same with the exception of the ...ahem..other character. Sure, the Evoman character is perfect...lol, hes my perfect protagonist. And I think the Pat character is tasteful, compared the real life jerk off that hes based on. Characterizations are simple because...well...I wrote this in about two minutes heh.

But this is a waste of time. I can't talk to someone who doesn't even have an opinion. You just shoot down the rest of us. Just know that I have no hatred for you. I really can't even say I don't like you, because I don't feel I really know you. I have absolutely no hatred to any of the theists here as well. A lot of them touched me on a thread I recently started here. Most of my good friends and my girlfriend are liberal christians (my best friend since grade 5 is a fundie christian and I still love him like a brother).

But you won't take me on my word. After all, doesn't Falwell and Rush claim they have black friends? And I am like Rush and Hannity and the rest of them, aren't I?

[Inland]

89. Well, if no one else,

it's not for lack of trying on your part.

Characterizations are simple. False characterizations are simpler yet. All one has to do is value simple falsity above all else, and sure, it all makes sense. You have a list of things and people for which you feel contempt, and it all boils down to some pretty simple little skits, where the stand ins for what you don't like are simply maniacs and the reader is supposed to simply hate them. Thought is complicated, and what you are doing is simple and abhorrent.

As for my opinions, I've got plenty. I don't have a mere 280 posts, all of them in R/T because I think that it's the sum total of the world's problems. As for what I believe, that's plenty well documented, too. I have a nice big journal. Feel free to peruse it.

But because I don't conform to your predetermined stereotypes, you can't figure it out and don't have any interest in it. Like a dog that sleeps through everything except the can opener, you won't pay any attention. Too bad.

[Evoman]

90. HOW ARE THEY FALSE CHARACTERIZATIONS!!!!

Let me break it down for you.

A good person argues that the Bible supports his interpretation and that Falwell is misinterpreting

A bad person argues that the Bible supports his interpretation and that Liberal Christians are misinterpreting.

A person like me reads the bible and sees that both of them are right, and both of them are wrong. Its supports both of them. And by doing so, supports neither of them.

I still make the distinction: Pat sucks, Liberal christian good. But its not the bible that is responsible. AND IF YOU ARE ARGUING THAT IT IS THE BIBLE RESPONSIBLE, THEN IT IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAT BEING A DICKWAD AS IT IS FOR DORIS BEING A GOOD PERSON.

There is no TRUE christian.

I mean....where am I getting it wrong here? TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY PLAY!

Moroever, what Doris is saying is almost exactly many christians HERE ON DU say! If I had been smarter, I would have written some stuff out verbatim and this shoved that in your face when you inevitably chewed me out. But alas, I am not smarter.

Evoman

[Inland]

91. You mean, aside from a character made special

for me showing up drunk and taking a piss? Yeah, nothing unfair or hateful about that. Just basic debate, just like you see in GD or on PBS. Really, do you even pay attention to what you post, or are you in such a hurry to insult and have a kumbaya moment?

I suppose Robertson and Dorothy Day having a shouting match over issues, not as they would say them, but as two stupid, rude people would do so. Why? Because all you wanted to do is to show Christians as rude shouters.

Of course, if it was what christians do here on DU every day, you could appear in those threads, but all you really care about is being able to depict them in a hateful manner, and even silly debates don't get you where you want, which is to accuse them of having those hateful characteristics that, really, are your only point. You don't want to look at any of those questions, or have anyone else look at them, either: you want everyone to turn away because christians are so repulsive. So you depict them that way.

And because you have now met my sole criteria for being on ignore--being a repetitive bore--you are going to ignoreville.

Read my full review at:


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Inland/38

[Evoman]

92. Okay

First, I want to apologize for the characterization of the skInland character. Upon thinking about it, I fully realize that it was the wrong thing for me to do and I'm sorry Inland. I should be glad the moderators erased that version. Arguments aside, I was stupid for posting that part...and your right, I did not show restraint. If I could offer an excuse, it would be that I have been having a rough time lately.

However, apart from that, I did not depict anyone in a hateful manner except Pat. Doris was argueing with him, she was not being rude, and she was being nice to me (in the original just as much as the censored version).

Again, I simplified things, but not falsely. I could have the characters saying complex, wordy arguments, but it wouldn't change the argument one iota. Once you take away all the fancy words, all the back and forth scripture quotes, you end up with, "Your wrong, the bible shows this. No, your wrong, the bible says this".

And let me tell you, as an outsider who has read the bible, I can see that neither side has any more support than the other. Your an outsider too, Inland....I don't understand why you can't see that simple point. Hateful characterizations are NOT my point. My point, although, you don't seem to see it, is to show, by parody, that calling someone else a "false christian" because there "interpretations is wrong" is bullshit hypocrisy. Jesus spoke in parables and stories for a reason..it takes out the excuses and shows us how he saw things. And yes, this is a simplified version of how I see things.

And since Inland put me on ignore, he won't see my apology. If someone here could please send a copy of JUST that part to him in PMS or quote JUST THE APOLOGY, I would appreciate it.

[trotsky]

76. Hey, that Blotsky guy sounds familiar.

I think I've met him after a few beers now and then.

Thanks, Evoman. Nothing like a nice parody play to illustrate the point. Sadly some will still insist that we're saying something we are not.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

77. Damn, I missed it.

x(

[Evoman]

83. It was my best work ever.

Oh well...I suspect this entire sub-thread will be deleted.

[ulysses]

80. you tell me.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable distinction for DU Christians to make, given that they tend to be pilloried for the actions of the Falwells. I don't understand why this is difficult for you.

[Evoman]

84. My play...the censored version

Okay, okay...I'm gonna try to do this again. Hopefully this time, my post doesn't get tombstoned. Mods....I'll play nice.

*start play*

*two Christians, Pat and Doris, are walking down the street arguing theology*

Pat: Your twisting christianity to suit your version of the truth. Your leaving out the important parts!

Doris: WHAT DO YOU MEAN! Your twisting christianity to suit your version of the truth. YOUR leaving out the important parts!!!

*Evoman is walking down the street and hears the two fighting*

Evoman: Hey Doris. Whats the problem here guys?

Pat: Maybe you can help us out heathen. This liberal commie *expletive* is taking the bible out of context. She just takes the parts out of it that support her and her *expletive for homosexual* friends.

Doris: Evoman. He's being a right wing nutjob. Its obvious that it the god and the bible is telling us to love one another. You know I love you Evoman and I don't think your going to go to hell or anything like that. He is taking the bible out of context.

Evoman: Doris, ya know your a good friend of mine, but in the case, I don't see the difference between what you and pat are doing. That book supports BOTH your positions. Your both twisting it to your beliefs. Ya know I would rather support your version, but calling out Pat for doing the same thing your doing is intellectually dishonest.

Pat: @#!%$% WE ARE NOT THE SAME. HOW DARE YOU TELL ME I'M DOING THE SAME THING AS HER YOU *intense expletive*

Doris: How could you say that all of us are the same!!

Evoman: I'm NOT saying your the same. Doris is still my friend and Pat your still a f'ing nutjob @$$hole. I'm just saying that it is not the bible, nor GOD or jesus for that matter, that makes you two different. Doris, if you threw away the bible and religion, you would still be a good person. Pat, if you did the same, you would still be taking money from the blood diamond mines. Its not the bible that decides what you think, its YOU that decides what the bible says. Right blotsky?

Blotsky: *eating his hot dog happily and drinking his beer* This censored version sucks ass. And your still plagiari.....

Evoman: Thank you, Blotsky.

*end scene*

Okay. My other version was waayyy better. But here you go. C'mon mods...leave this one up!

[trotsky]

87. Hey, that version isn't bad either.

Though of course I preferred the original. :)

[beam me up scottie]

93. BRAVO !!! ENCORE !!!

:applause:
:woohoo:



Hey.

When am I going to be in one of your plays? :evilfrown:

[godhatesrepublicans]

94. Toddaa, you've inspired my latest sermon, here's part of it.

I'm always looking for ideas for material on my web site and my street preaching, and this thread gave me a doozy. I'm only a few pages into it, but it forms a great reply to most of the posters in this thread, so I'll post the early draft of what I have so far.

I'll have to look up your other posts, you may give me enough ideas for a tome!

Brian Davis, webmaster www.godhatesrepublicans.org


There was in interesting question posted recently on the discussion boards of democraticunderground.com that got me to thinking. In a lengthy post, the main point was this; “There seems to be an uptick on DU, both here and elsewhere, of posts in which Christians try to distance themselves from people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Why are you doing this? I get it, you're not Jerry Falwell. So what? You're both Christians but you have different opinions. Why is this news?”

That’s a fair question, and I can see why a lot of people would ask it. It cuts to the core of the question of religion, faith and belief by asking “What’s the point you’re trying to make?" I hope this will clarify the issue, boiling it down to the essentials.

Consider this my first attempt at “Christianity for Beginners.”

RELIGION IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING A SPORTS FAN.

There’s nothing sadder to me than a football super-fan. You know the type, the ones who never miss a home game of “their team,” and make it to most of the away games. You have one where you work, like the guy who always has “his” team colors on display, or the woman in the office with a collection of autographed photos in her cubicle. They spend far too much money and thought on people playing a children’s game, following the “careers” of people they don’t know, memorizing statistics that have no meaning to their daily lives.

These are people so unhappy with their own lives that they’re trying to fill that void with an obsession with a pointless activity that makes millionaires out of functional illiterates.

I’ve heard some Atheists compare religion to sports occasionally. I can see how the two may look similar to the casual observer. But there actually is a difference.

No matter what a football super-fan’s opinion may be, the Quarterback doesn’t care about what the guy in the 50 yard line seat thinks the next play should be. The Team owner won’t call the guy with the team logo painted on his face to ask about the next round of player trades. The stadium groundskeeper doesn’t want the fan’s input on when to water the turf. Also, no matter how far back the super-fan can remember the scoring records, he’ll never figure out how to give his life meaning. The Super-fans only lie to themselves, pretending they gain something when “their” team wins.

No matter what, the super-fan just isn’t on the team. Being obsessed with something and leaching self importance from it isn’t the same as letting yourself be a part of something bigger than you are.

What’s my point? There are people who may CLAIM to be Christian, but they’re really just Christianity super-fans. They have the silver fish on their bumper, the Jesus sculptures and paintings, the WWJD t-shirt. They can quote obscure lines from the Book of Leviticus and the Second book of Corinthians to suit any purpose. But they aren’t really on the team.

A large part of Christ’s message was that the Hebrew people were being led astray into just being on the side lines and away from playing the game they were supposed to play. (Obviously this is an oversimplification; I’ll get progressively more complex as I go along, building up to the whole “big picture.” Be patient, this is complicated stuff!)

In the 23rd chapter of the Book of Matthew, Jesus makes it quite clear that his message is about actually being a part of the whole human race, and not just putting on a pretense of holiness. The people of his time were obsessed with rules, rituals and achieving a sort of personal “purity” and would completely ignore the truly important parts of their religion. Striving for justice, aiding the poor, valuing wisdom over brute force, forgiveness are all heavily stressed by the various prophets, and yet somehow the Jews had instead decided to focus their attention on the trivial details. The ministry of Jesus was about getting people focused on the important things again.

Two thousand years later some of the people who are obsessed with the trivial parts of Scriptural law and ignoring the important parts are calling themselves “Christians.” This is kind of hilarious to people who actually have read what Jesus had to say and then put some thought into it.

It’s also maddening in the same way as it is when people like Zell Miller of Georgia and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut call themselves Democrats and then do everything in their elected power to hand the country over to the Rabid Right Wing of the Republican Party. No wait, it’s like having a fundraiser call you up soliciting donations for the United Negro College Fund, and then finding out your check was cashed by the Illinois Nazi Party. Or even better, it’s like dropping your children off at their day care, and finding out later your children were shipped to China to make Nike sneakers.

I’ve had people ask me, “If it upsets you so much, why do you insist on calling yourself a Christian?” Well, I’m not the hypocrite here, why should I change?

Variations on this struggle have been going on for a long time. Google “Martin Luther” and you’ll get some idea of the scale of this debate.

Now to expand on Christ’s message, and where many people are missing the whole point.

… to be continued…