Act Like Christians

[seebs]

Wow, no offense to those people, I'm sure they meant well, but... That's fucked up.

Lemme borrow a story, posted on ChristianForums once.

Those Pharisees. Man, always playin' games with the ice cream.

First, they're all like, "Free Ice Cream." But then they're like, "But first you have to watch this educational video." And you're all like, "But you said 'Free Ice Cream.'" And they're all like, "But we can't just give away ice cream. It is too yummy and delicious." And you're all like, "Man, that's a rip off. You lied to me." And they're all like, "It wasn't a lie. We're not charging any MONEY for the ice cream." And you're all like, "That doesn't seem right." And they're all like, "Looks like you're too dumb if you can't understand a simple thing like ADVERTISING." And you're all like, "I just wanted some ice cream." And they're all like, "Go away.
No ice cream for you."

And then you look and they don't even have any ice cream. All they have is that crappy Italian Ice stuff that isn't anything like ice cream.

That's what I think of Pharisees.

On the topic of "extra money"... I think the theory is that, if the government has $1M that has been allocated to spend on "feeding the hungry", that spending it on a religious program full of volunteers who really believe in that might get more people actually fed than doing it through an essentially commercial entity run by people who have decided to make a living at it.

I am not sure this reasoning is sound. I think it could be in principle, but in practice, it works badly.

Anyway... Making you listen to a sermon to get fed is a slap in the face to the entire concept of the Gospel. In Matthew 25, when Jesus talks about feeding the hungry, He never even hints at imposing requirements on them!

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Wait, you mean slapping a metal fish on the back of your car isn't enough to get you into heaven? You actually have to do stuff too?

Aw, gee... That's a bummer, man.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by seebs

Wow, no offense to those people, I'm sure they meant well, but... That's fucked up.

Lemme borrow a story, posted on ChristianForums once.

Those Pharisees. Man, always playin' games with the ice cream.

First, they're all like, "Free Ice Cream." But then they're like, "But first you have to watch this educational video." And you're all like, "But you said 'Free Ice Cream.'" And they're all like, "But we can't just give away ice cream. It is too yummy and delicious." And you're all like, "Man, that's a rip off. You lied to me." And they're all like, "It wasn't a lie. We're not charging any MONEY for the ice cream." And you're all like, "That doesn't seem right." And they're all like, "Looks like you're too dumb if you can't understand a simple thing like ADVERTISING." And you're all like, "I just wanted some ice cream." And they're all like, "Go away.
No ice cream for you."

And then you look and they don't even have any ice cream. All they have is that crappy Italian Ice stuff that isn't anything like ice cream.

That's what I think of Pharisees.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by seebs

One thing I would love to have is more detailed information on neo-cons. My mom is a near-libertarian atheist, but she generally likes neo-cons, because their rhetoric (when they're pitching it to general audiences, not Rapture Ready folks) sounds fairly similar to her positions. I think that, if the various claims about these people and their end times beliefs could be substantiated clearly, it would erode their support substantially among people like her.

Pesonally I feel that even at face value the ideas of the neo-cons are imperialistic, warlike, and un-American. And from a purely practical point of view, installing friendly dictatorships overseas in order to increase our security and access to natural resources is what we did during the Cold War and it didn't exactly turn out so well: the mujihadeen turned on us, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Saddam Hussein turned on us, Central and South Americans fled their US-supported dictators to become illegal immigrants in the US, our support for the Saudis bred resentment that was exploited by the mujihadeen who we had trained in terrorist tactics. Aside from any moral objections to a free nation pursuing a military-driven imperialist foreign policy, chickens always eventually come home to roost.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by seebs

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

And yet another is to evangelize with the goal of conversion.

godfry

[seebs]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

And yet another is to evangelize with the goal of conversion.

Yes, but... Making service conditional on listening to evangelism is very bad evangelism and very bad service.

The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by seebs

The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.

Your analogy fails, as people do not need evangelism (and this is because I do not need evangelism).

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Pesonally I feel that even at face value the ideas of the neo-cons are imperialistic, warlike, and un-American. And from a purely practical point of view, installing friendly dictatorships overseas in order to increase our security and access to natural resources is what we did during the Cold War and it didn't exactly turn out so well: the mujihadeen turned on us, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Saddam Hussein turned on us, Central and South Americans fled their US-supported dictators to become illegal immigrants in the US, our support for the Saudis bred resentment that was exploited by the mujihadeen who we had trained in terrorist tactics. Aside from any moral objections to a free nation pursuing a military-driven imperialist foreign policy, chickens always eventually come home to roost.

GD, I don't know how you continue to do it. It's like you have the ability to express my opinions. Uncanny.

I have only one quibble with this statement: the term "un-American." What you have described seems to have been the American imperialist mode since they focused their attentions on the indigenous peoples populating North America. I'd say what you describe is "very American."

godfry

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Pesonally I feel that even at face value the ideas of the neo-cons are imperialistic, warlike, and un-American. And from a purely practical point of view, installing friendly dictatorships overseas in order to increase our security and access to natural resources is what we did during the Cold War and it didn't exactly turn out so well: the mujihadeen turned on us, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Saddam Hussein turned on us, Central and South Americans fled their US-supported dictators to become illegal immigrants in the US, our support for the Saudis bred resentment that was exploited by the mujihadeen who we had trained in terrorist tactics. Aside from any moral objections to a free nation pursuing a military-driven imperialist foreign policy, chickens always eventually come home to roost.

I tend to agree, however... There are a number of different presentations, and so far as I can tell, the neocons have plausible deniability on a lot of the nasty stuff, so it's hard to nail down exactly what they really think or believe.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by seebs

Yes, but... Making service conditional on listening to evangelism is very bad evangelism and very bad service.

The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I have only one quibble with this statement: the term "un-American." What you have described seems to have been the American imperialist mode since they focused their attentions on the indigenous peoples populating North America. I'd say what you describe is "very American."

I agree. The question of US as symbol of freedom vs. US as imperial power is a long-standing cultural tension, but looking at the history of American military deployments empire dominates, I think.

• 18th c. operations
• 19th c.
• Early 20th c.
• Cold War
• Post Cold War.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

I don't see how that follows. If I think a rude customer service rep is not doing a good job that doesn't mean I'm saying she's not a customer service rep.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

I wouldn't say that. I'd just say they're doing their jobs badly. Sometimes, tasks don't combine well, and you just have to do 'em separately to do 'em well.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't see how that follows. If I think a rude customer service rep is not doing a good job that doesn't mean I'm saying she's not a customer service rep.

Well, it was a question. Two, actually.

So, liv, do you answer for all christians? I would hardly have guessed.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Yes, five fucking posts while I was writing mine... sorry folks, nothing to see here.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So, liv, do you answer for all christians? I would hardly have guessed.

If I'm to take your question literally then no, I don't answer for all Christians, but afaik, no one person answers for all of any group, so I don't really get the question, I guess.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by seebs

I wouldn't say that. I'd just say they're doing their jobs badly. Sometimes, tasks don't combine well, and you just have to do 'em separately to do 'em well.

Thank you, seebs.

It is something I run into a lot these days....I'll describe one set of christian beliefs to another self-described christian, who will respond that those I described are not "true christians". Orthodoxy about the most mundane of things seems to be the order of the day, month and year.

Qualification as christian seems to often be a matter of dispute.

godfry

[seebs]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Thank you, seebs.

It is something I run into a lot these days....I'll describe one set of christian beliefs to another self-described christian, who will respond that those I described are not "true christians". Orthodoxy about the most mundane of things seems to be the order of the day, month and year.

Uh-huh.

Qualification as christian seems to often be a matter of dispute.

Yes. I find this very offensive. If being wrong about something, or not being good enough, disqualified people from being Christian, there wouldn't be any at all. I figure, if they can let me in, I can't see how I could complain about anyone else.

[Adora]

Wow, you mean someon wrote an article telling Democrats to pull their fucking fingers out and actually act like POLITICIANS?! Who woulda thunk it.

[livius drusus]

Howard Dean's been listening.

That word—'values'—has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values.

We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party—and the vast majority of Americans—together.

Not that he has a chance in hell of getting the chairmanship, but still, it's nice to see.

[maddog]

1) Yes, it was an interesting article.

2) I purely hate OP's which consist of barely anything except a link that you have to go somewhere else to read so you'll even have a clue what the OP is supposed to be about. GIMME A HINT please, confound it!!

3)

Originally Posted by seebs

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.

That's one of the things that REALLY REALLY bothers me about the label "Christian" -- it's as if Christians claim to be in exclusive possession of all or any virtue, when, in fact, it's almost impossible, for, as Godfry points out, the equi-balancing "tenet" of their religion or faith is prosyletization with the goal of conversion.

Whoever gives the lunch TRULY FREELY -- THAT's the virtuous person. And I believe there is/can be a "free lunch." Parents do it for their children all the time. And plenty of people do it for plenty of other people all the time. And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.

more thoughts later perhaps; I'm tired and going to sleep now. See y'all later.

#156

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I have only one quibble with this statement: the term "un-American." What you have described seems to have been the American imperialist mode since they focused their attentions on the indigenous peoples populating North America. I'd say what you describe is "very American."

Well, natch. What I meant was "contrary to American ideals" not "contrary to American history".

Now if you'll excuse me, a bunch of Ojibwe Indians want me to get the hell off their land.

[viscousmemories]

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.

That's not how I read that comment at all. I don't see how saying "charity is one of the tenets of the Christian faith" is anything like saying "only Christians 'get' charity".

And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.

Are the efforts of the Salvation Army and the Red Cross not virtuous, then?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by maddog

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.

Right.

My point isn't that no one else can or should do this, or that no one else does... But that it's absolutely sickening for Christians not to, because that teaching is really fucking clear.

Whoever gives the lunch TRULY FREELY -- THAT's the virtuous person. And I believe there is/can be a "free lunch." Parents do it for their children all the time. And plenty of people do it for plenty of other people all the time. And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.

I don't know that I'd go that far, but I agree strongly with the basic sentiment. I mean, we never tried to hide that people were sleeping in "a church basement" for Project Home, but... Preaching? That would be rude.