Think Celestially, Act Locally: a Politics and Religious Controversy Catch-All

For derails that might not belong in the threads where they pop up.

Wow.

For what it's worth, this is sort of the same tangent that got me to post the "Multitudes and Monoliths" thread.

wordsmythe wrote:

For what it's worth, this is sort of the same tangent that got me to post the "Multitudes and Monoliths" thread.

The tangent there made me think of this for a well-portioned (with some cropping) hero image.

Nomad wrote:

Maybe I don't belong in this thread because my views are different than yours and you don't want to hear it? According to the mob think, there are only two sides. You either accept a person's actions as morally right and affirm them, or you hate them and are working toward their murder.

Many don't fit in either category. We mourn the tragedy in Orlando. We reject violence in any form against the LBGTQ community. Most importantly, there is no one morally right. Everyone is guilty according to the gospel, no matter what your skin color, bank account size, Facebook friend count, or sexuality, but God in his mercy and at great personal expense has provided a way out, the greatest rescue plan in all of history.

Ok, setting aside the point that homosexual behavior IS morally right, without question, and that stating or implying otherwise tends to make me simmer...

My earlier post on this stated that if one teaches that a group of people is vile, performing perverse, abominable acts, it's only natural that this group of people be targeted with hatred. Saying you reject violence against that community just sounds to me like someone trying to avoid responsibility for the inevitable end result of their hateful teachings. You can't teach that actions are 'perverse' and not expect some people to feel justified in acting violently against those who perform those actions. It is inevitable.

And yes, I know that you'll drag out the tired 'hate the sin, love the sinner' excuse next, but you know what? That's still not a solution. Hating the sin, in this case, is a real problem, because sin and sinner are inextricable because the sin is biology.

Mormech wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Maybe I don't belong in this thread because my views are different than yours and you don't want to hear it? According to the mob think, there are only two sides. You either accept a person's actions as morally right and affirm them, or you hate them and are working toward their murder.

Many don't fit in either category. We mourn the tragedy in Orlando. We reject violence in any form against the LBGTQ community. Most importantly, there is no one morally right. Everyone is guilty according to the gospel, no matter what your skin color, bank account size, Facebook friend count, or sexuality, but God in his mercy and at great personal expense has provided a way out, the greatest rescue plan in all of history.

Ok, setting aside the point that homosexual behavior IS morally right, without question, and that stating or implying otherwise tends to make me simmer...

My earlier post on this stated that if one teaches that a group of people is vile, performing perverse, abominable acts, it's only natural that this group of people be targeted with hatred. Saying you reject violence against that community just sounds to me like someone trying to avoid responsibility for the inevitable end result of their hateful teachings. You can't teach that actions are 'perverse' and not expect some people to feel justified in acting violently against those who perform those actions. It is inevitable.

And yes, I know that you'll drag out the tired 'hate the sin, love the sinner' excuse next, but you know what? That's still not a solution. Hating the sin, in this case, is a real problem, because sin and sinner are inextricable because the sin is biology.

Just for my own understanding, is "morally right" that you are righteous morally or you have a moral right?

lunchbox12682 wrote:

Just for my own understanding, is "morally right" that you are righteous morally or you have a moral right?

In my context, I meant that there's nothing morally wrong with it. I guess "not morally wrong" isn't exactly the same as "morally right", but it's close enough for me.

Mormech wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Maybe I don't belong in this thread because my views are different than yours and you don't want to hear it? According to the mob think, there are only two sides. You either accept a person's actions as morally right and affirm them, or you hate them and are working toward their murder.

Many don't fit in either category. We mourn the tragedy in Orlando. We reject violence in any form against the LBGTQ community. Most importantly, there is no one morally right. Everyone is guilty according to the gospel, no matter what your skin color, bank account size, Facebook friend count, or sexuality, but God in his mercy and at great personal expense has provided a way out, the greatest rescue plan in all of history.

Ok, setting aside the point that homosexual behavior IS morally right, without question, and that stating or implying otherwise tends to make me simmer...

My earlier post on this stated that if one teaches that a group of people is vile, performing perverse, abominable acts, it's only natural that this group of people be targeted with hatred. Saying you reject violence against that community just sounds to me like someone trying to avoid responsibility for the inevitable end result of their hateful teachings. You can't teach that actions are 'perverse' and not expect some people to feel justified in acting violently against those who perform those actions. It is inevitable.

And yes, I know that you'll drag out the tired 'hate the sin, love the sinner' excuse next, but you know what? That's still not a solution. Hating the sin, in this case, is a real problem, because sin and sinner are inextricable because the sin is biology.

Here is the main point. Everyone is the sinner according to the gospel. Whether you have taught Sunday School faithfully in your local church for 20 years, or you are sitting on death row for murder, no one gets to say I am better than you. That is the gospel found in the Bible.

Mormech wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:

Just for my own understanding, is "morally right" that you are righteous morally or you have a moral right?

In my context, I meant that there's nothing morally wrong with it. I guess "not morally wrong" isn't exactly the same as "morally right", but it's close enough for me.

Totally understand either way.
Thanks.

Everyone is the sinner according to the gospel.

So God declares everyone sinners, but has the grace to forgive you if you devote your life to doing exactly what the church says. He damned you, but he can save you if you're subservient.

Nice catch-22 there. How about not damning people to hellfire in the first place for being how they're made?

It's a manufactured problem. It's a created need, just like most marketing.

Christians in general account for less than a third of the world population, ones that think the Bible is inerrant account for even less. Expecting the rest of the world to follow their beliefs is a special kind of arrogance.

I wrote this on my Facebook page just now.

Religion is, by its nature, a subjective experience and no one follower has any monopoly on what constitutes a "true x" (see "no true scotsman" for understanding of that logical fallacy). It can literally be anything you want. It can be an unquestionable reinforcement of your basest prejudices or an inspiration to seek or create meaning in your life. It is precisely what you choose and what you choose is not the fault of some ancient text or fictional sky friend. It is a perfect reflection of who you choose to be.

So for all the folks now trying to find meaning in this latest tragedy in Orlando, I challenge you all.

Choose to be more like Fred Rogers and less like Fred Phelps.

Paleocon wrote:

I wrote this on my Facebook page just now.

Religion is, by its nature, a subjective experience and no one follower has any monopoly on what constitutes a "true x" (see "no true scotsman" for understanding of that logical fallacy). It can literally be anything you want. It can be an unquestionable reinforcement of your basest prejudices or an inspiration to seek or create meaning in your life. It is precisely what you choose and what you choose is not the fault of some ancient text or fictional sky friend. It is a perfect reflection of who you choose to be.

So for all the folks now trying to find meaning in this latest tragedy in Orlando, I challenge you all.

Choose to be more like Fred Rogers and less like Fred Phelps.

I would agree with your last sentence, but Fred Rogers, an ordained Presbyterian minister, would be the first to tell you the reason he was able to be the person he was had everything to do with the God he worshipped.

Nomad wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I wrote this on my Facebook page just now.

Religion is, by its nature, a subjective experience and no one follower has any monopoly on what constitutes a "true x" (see "no true scotsman" for understanding of that logical fallacy). It can literally be anything you want. It can be an unquestionable reinforcement of your basest prejudices or an inspiration to seek or create meaning in your life. It is precisely what you choose and what you choose is not the fault of some ancient text or fictional sky friend. It is a perfect reflection of who you choose to be.

So for all the folks now trying to find meaning in this latest tragedy in Orlando, I challenge you all.

Choose to be more like Fred Rogers and less like Fred Phelps.

I would agree with your last sentence, but Fred Rogers, an ordained Presbyterian minister, would be the first to tell you the reason he was able to be the person he was had everything to do with the God he worshipped.

Why that word? You appear to be agreeing with his entire post.

EDIT: I took it that Paleo knows Fred Rogers was a minister, and is comparing Freds and Freds.

Anyone making such a declaration about Fred Rogers never watched his show.

Each episode ended with the affirmation, "You've made today a special day by just your being you. There's no person in the whole world like you. And I like you just the way you are."

A less Christian message about humanity, I could not conceive.

Christianity tells us that we are nothing without god, that we are the lowest of the low until we come to Jesus, and only through faith in him do we escape eternal punishment by torture in fire.

Fred Rogers was a better person than your god.

NSMike wrote:

Anyone making such a declaration about Fred Rogers never watched his show.

Each episode ended with the affirmation, "You've made today a special day by just your being you. There's no person in the whole world like you. And I like you just the way you are."

A less Christian message about humanity, I could not conceive.

Christianity tells us that we are nothing without god, that we are the lowest of the low until we come to Jesus, and only through faith in him do we escape eternal punishment by torture in fire.

Fred Rogers was a better person than your god.

Fred Rogers was what I'd call a disciple/follower of Christ. The difference is obvious.

I'm not excluding Jesus from that. Jesus was capricious and vengeful when he wanted to be. Just ask a certain fig tree, or the merchants and money changers at the temple.

Fred Rogers would find a fig tree without fruit, and go find a farmer who owned a fig orchard, learn about their seasons, how figs are harvested, and teach it all to his viewers. Jesus just cursed the poor tree for functioning the way he supposedly designed it to.

Fred Rogers was just a hair away from the priesthood; that in fact was his preferred career. He *absolutely* credited his approach (and his success) to God, and his belief in Christianity. He viewed his show as his ministry to the world. The fact that he did not have to make it openly Christian, that it was a beautiful example of inclusion, speaks to his commitment to Christianity's message, rather than it's dogma.

(My father was a minister, and growing up I saw and read a number of interviews Rev. JRogers did in the professional press.)

Edit - Thanks NSMike!

I'll presume you made a serious brain fart by typing Phelps there instead of Rogers.

I don't doubt what he credited. He was still a better person than his god.

Here's something I was linked too in another forum, it's a Facebook post from a Christian author/blogger in Dallas. Apologies if this isn't the right thread for it.

Jen Hatmaker wrote:

Can we have an important discussion together? And can we do it in love and respect?

I've been listening to my gay friends and leaders the last two days (Listening! It's so 1991), and this is what I am hearing:

It is very difficult to accept the Christian lament for LGBTQ folks in their deaths when we've done such a brutal job of honoring them in their lives. It kind of feels like:

"We don't like you, we don't support you, we think you are a mess, we don't agree with you, we don't welcome you, we don't approve of you, we don't listen to you, we don't affirm you. But please accept our comfort and kind words this week."

Anti-LGBTQ sentiment has paved a long runway to hate crimes. When the gay community is denied civil liberties and respect and dignity, when we make gay jokes, when we say 'that's so gay', when we turn our noses up or down, when we qualify every solitary statement of love with a caveat of disapproval, when we consistently disavow everything about the LGBTQ community, we create a culture ripe for hate. We are complicit.

We cannot with any integrity honor in death those we failed to honor in life.

Can you see why the Christian outpouring of compassion toward Orlando feels so disingenuous? It seems like the only harm toward the LGBTQ community that will overcome Christian disapproval is a mass murder. We grieve not publicly for your dehumanization, suicide rates (individual deaths have failed to move us), excommunications, denial of liberties, hate crimes against you, religious exclusion, constant shame beatdown.

Christian love has yet to outpace Christian disdain.

I've seen Christians everywhere promising to pray for the victims and their families and their communities. I wonder what might happen if everyone actually does? What might God do if millions of Christians begin praying for comfort and love toward the LGBTQ community? Relational healing? Crazier things have happened.

Perhaps instead of saying "we're sad" this week, we should begin with "we're sorry."

Not: We're sorry but...
Not: We're sorry if...
Not: We're sorry as long as...

Just: We're sorry. Full stop.
I believe glory would inhabit that sort of humility and repentance, like it always has. NOBODY should be able to out-love God's people. We should be Grand Champion Lovers of People, and everyone, everyone, everyone, everyone, everyone should know it, see it, feel it, experience it, bask it in, and be drawn to it.

I largely agree with this ; however. I want to say something in particular. PRAYER DOES NOT MEAN sh*t! Deeds mean something. Stop praying. Start doing sh*t to back those sentiments up or it doesn't mean a damn thing. It is just a feel-good exercise for you and once this is all in the past, life will be back to normal for you and you can pat yourself on your back for being "Supportive."

BoogtehWoog wrote:

I largely agree with this ; however. I want to say something in particular. PRAYER DOES NOT MEAN sh*t! Deeds mean something. Stop praying. Start doing sh*t to back those sentiments up or it doesn't mean a damn thing. It is just a feel-good exercise for you and once this is all in the past, life will be back to normal for you and you can pat yourself on your back for being "Supportive."

Prayer for a lot of people puts them in the mindset to look for something they can do, as well as be ready for the opportunity to do something. This is a good reminder for those who don't, though. The Dalai Lama and the Pope agree with you too.

BoogtehWoog wrote:

I largely agree with this ; however. I want to say something in particular. PRAYER DOES NOT MEAN sh*t! Deeds mean something. Stop praying. Start doing sh*t to back those sentiments up or it doesn't mean a damn thing. It is just a feel-good exercise for you and once this is all in the past, life will be back to normal for you and you can pat yourself on your back for being "Supportive."

IMAGE(http://thisisindexed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/card4916-380x223.jpg)

Though I would say that "prayer" needs to be below the 0 mark on the Y axis.

If there was no God, at very least, prayer would be people wishing the best for you.

The Bible does take great issue however, with people who use prayer as an excuse not to help others they have the means and opportunity to.

People are free to rage against God all they like, but if He does indeed exist according to the Bible, it is a testament to His amazing love and grace that He allows it for so long. Shaking the fist He designed, and breathing the air He created, when humanity rails against the Divine, it's like walking into a movie for a single second before walking back out to complain about the director. We cannot see all ends. We barely see what's right in front of us.

Nomad wrote:

If there was no God, at very least, prayer would be people wishing the best for you.

The Bible does take great issue however, with people who use prayer as an excuse not to help others they have the means and opportunity to.

People are free to rage against God all they like, but if He does indeed exist according to the Bible, it is a testament to His amazing love and grace that He allows it for so long. Shaking the fist He designed, and breathing the air He created, when humanity rails against the Divine, it's like walking into a movie for a single second before walking back out to complain about the director. We cannot see all ends. We barely see what's right in front of us.

Yeah, but He is responsible for making us such that we cannot see all ends. This is on Him.

Jonman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

If there was no God, at very least, prayer would be people wishing the best for you.

The Bible does take great issue however, with people who use prayer as an excuse not to help others they have the means and opportunity to.

People are free to rage against God all they like, but if He does indeed exist according to the Bible, it is a testament to His amazing love and grace that He allows it for so long. Shaking the fist He designed, and breathing the air He created, when humanity rails against the Divine, it's like walking into a movie for a single second before walking back out to complain about the director. We cannot see all ends. We barely see what's right in front of us.

Yeah, but He is responsible for making us such that we cannot see all ends. This is on Him.

I don't understand. In order to understand anything, you must first understand everything?

Any god that got it wrong on slavery and genocide doesn't get to judge me or anyone about our sexuality.

I just want to call out the "Fred Rogers" angle as a strong tradition within Christianity and Christian culture, but a quieter tradition inherently and a less vocalized tradition in modern America—especially since Falwell, et al. I'm not going to deny that the loudest and seemingly most populous voices of Christianity are hateful and harmful regarding a lot of issues, especially gender and sexuality issues. But there is a Christian Left, and I hope they can be an increasingly active voice in Christianity and politically.

Those familiar with christian (especially evangelical) culture over the past decade or so will recognize the hokey cliche from Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz (note: it was re-spun in the movie version). I struggle not to roll my own eyes at myself, but I'll join in from Zona's quote. It's something I think I should do more often.

To everyone who might read this: I'm sorry. I'm sorry for what christianity has done in making the world worse, both directly and indirectly – now and in previous generations. I'm sorry for all the ways that God and the church and folks claiming the title of "Christian" have hurt you and others. I'm sorry for not fighting against that tide as strongly or as vocally or as often as I could.

Nomad wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

If there was no God, at very least, prayer would be people wishing the best for you.

The Bible does take great issue however, with people who use prayer as an excuse not to help others they have the means and opportunity to.

People are free to rage against God all they like, but if He does indeed exist according to the Bible, it is a testament to His amazing love and grace that He allows it for so long. Shaking the fist He designed, and breathing the air He created, when humanity rails against the Divine, it's like walking into a movie for a single second before walking back out to complain about the director. We cannot see all ends. We barely see what's right in front of us.

Yeah, but He is responsible for making us such that we cannot see all ends. This is on Him.

I don't understand. In order to understand anything, you must first understand everything?

No idea where you got that from.

OK, let me paraphrase what just happened.

YOU: The Divine is ineffable, so don't bother trying to understand it.

ME: The reason (according to you) that we can't understand the Divine is *because* the Divine made us that way. It is literally the Divine's fault that we are incapable of understanding the Divine.

Nomad wrote:

when humanity rails against the Divine, it's like walking into a movie for a single second before walking back out to complain about the director. We cannot see all ends. We barely see what's right in front of us.

I see that he considers homosexuality to be an abomination, at least according to popular Biblical translations, and that's enough for me. There is no 'bigger picture' which would make this a non-issue. I also think that anyone who agrees with that belief is part of the problem, and those who preach/perpetuate that belief are an even bigger part of the problem.

Nomad wrote:

Shaking the fist He designed, and breathing the air He created, when humanity rails against the Divine, it's like walking into a movie for a single second before walking back out to complain about the director. We cannot see all ends. We barely see what's right in front of us.

Can God see all ends? Are you arguing for predestination?

Also, human knowledge of God's creation is continually not just increasing, but accelerating it's rate of increase. If this tells us about God (through the investigation of His work), then we are learning more and more about His world, and thus are better able to think about His interactions with the world (like the Bible). If this does *not* tell us more about God, well, that implies deception and Gnosticism.

To me, the more we learn about the world, the more we can literally ask "Did this need God to come about, or could it have been simply a result of a system set in motion, or even emergent behavior?". These are fair questions, not criticisms.

At the same time, if we accept God's morality, why is God excepted from it? In that question, "Because we can't understand" is simply an authoritarian brush-off. It does not answer the question; it asserts that it can never *be* answered.

Which, if true, means that investigating God's Creation to learn from it is ultimately useless in telling us about God, which to me is a paradox. Either we are constantly learning more about God through scientific investigation, and are better able to judge whether He's real or a human creation; whether He takes a personal interest, or just set the universe in motion and slouched off somewhere; and so forth; or our investigations of His world using the tools and skills He gave us will be fruitless, which, again... The Church has frowned on that interpretation for centuries.

These are hard questions if one is set on the existence of a God.