Man. It's like the Twilight Zone sometimes on FB. So a friend posts about the Westboro Baptist "church," an organization I detest. I agree that they are pretty repugnant. Another comment on the post calls them "jackasses" but infers that so are all of the other 1 Billion people who believe in Scripture. So, trying to show him how ridiculous and offensive that is, I turn his terminology (including the "jackass" comment) back on him.
Backfire.
The person posting immediately digs into me about being rude and having the opportunity to show the love of Christ and "blowing it." So, aside from the fact that this person does not conform to any orthodox version of Christianity (not sure if she's a Christian, really), she is a very nice person and I want to make sure I don't blow up her page unreasonably. I delete my comment but challenge her with how my use of his bigotry against him somehow is more offensive than his crass, prejudicial commentary against all Christians - essentially lumping them all in with the Westboro crowd. No joy. I'm supposed to be the one who simply plays dead and lets stand the smear against the masses.
It's hard to challenge people in their ideologies when being a "jackass" is okay for the side that is "right," according to popular thought. Christians will ever be told to simply suffer in silence, be the punching bag or doormat, and never defend a Christian view of culture - because that, of course, is what is meant by "the love of Christ." No table-turning, or calling people broods of vipers or telling them about groups destined for Hell. That wouldn't be Christ-like. No calling down fire on the prophets of Baal. No shouting, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" No telling people who give a false gospel that they should have their testacles removed and go to Hell. No one in Scripture would ever say such inflammatory things.
Unfortunately, many pastors today have bought into the "say nothing controversial" mentality - and our churches are filled with people making it up as they go along for that failure to speak out. The few that get noticed speaking out always seem to be the fringe idiots, like the Westboro crowd or the nutball who wanted to burn Qur'ans. The rest of us are just expected to go quietly into that Western Civilization goodnight.
Heel, Christian. Heel!
You got your ass handed to you in a debate, resorted to name calling, then got told not to do any name calling so you cry and claim your being oppressed. Quit with the stereotypical I am the victom in all of this and turn the other cheek. Also, while you may think that all liberals want to force our way of belief on you, you are far from correct.
ReplyDeleteExtremist exist on every side, and while I don't consider you a super far right extremist, you are a bible thumping extremist. You are free to believe what ever it is you want as long as it stays a belief. When it interfears with a persons life (and I mean really interfear not ZOMG two guys holding hands I find that offensive) and denies them rights that other people have is when we as the sane liberals have a problem with things.
Keep your beliefs to yourself and whatever group of people share them with you, quit crying and claiming to be a victom because its a real old stereotype for christians and gives the decent honest christians a bad reputation.
Just a note about Mike for my readers. He is obviously strongly in disagreement with me. His approach to dealing with the Westboro Baptist lunatics was to lump all Christians in with them and call them all, along with all other Christians, anti-gay "jackasses." I gladly post his comment, though he is offensive in his approach, to fulfill two ends. First, I have stated that a dialogue is important - and this includes such opinions as Mike has expressed. Second, it sorta proves the point of this and the following post on liberal bias. Pray for Mike.
ReplyDeleteActually that wasn't Mike on Facebook, it was me.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're still misunderstanding what I said there.
I wasn't lumping all christian as anti gay jackasses, I lumping all anti-gay Christians as jackasses; equivalent, if perhaps more polite, then the WBC.
I don't know about you but I remember how all the major conservative christian groups in America have had to slowly lower the volume on their bigotry in order to be listened to on their anti-gay message, they and the WBC were all on the same page in the 1980s regarding the "God Hates Fags" message.
Its a common trend on the conservative christian front keep watering down the message so enough of the public will accept it (creationism, becomes creation science, becomes intelligent design, becomes teach the controversy; no abortions to no abortions except for health exception, to no abortions except health exception and cases of rape or incest; no sodomy, no public gay activities, no gay marriage)
Its either a noble rearguard or a pathetic attempt to cling to the past depending on your point of view.
Hell mike #2 here is still only on "I guess gay is OK so long as I don't have to see it" (and to answer his question explaining it to kids is exactly as easy or as hard as you make it, I personally have an answer to that question regardless of whom is kissing: "its something people who like each other do"
Mike: In essence, you are castigating the vast majority of Christians as biggots, since they are, by your estimation, "anti-gay." That kind of label, while accurate for your feelings, does not help dialogue. Christians are anti-sin. Homosexuality is, by Biblical definition, sin. It does not mean that people who believe in the Bible hate people who struggle with (or who don't struggle with) their sexual identity. Thus, the label of biggot is unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteWe have strong disagreements with calling homosexuality a societal norm or seeing homosexual marriage gain equal footing with heterosexual marriage. The traditional and most functional status for marriage is the one man, one woman formula, evidenced not only in our Creation beliefs, but in historical context as the ideal and only functional basis for society. I know you will differ, but the ad hominem use of "biggot" cuts any dialogue.
I tried to express this with Laura, but she already had in her mind that I was insulting you, rather than seeing the ironic turn of your own denigrating term. Laura is as much an ideologue as you are, which makes it impossible to discuss the issue, since you have decided who I am in advance. Your only method thereafter is to browbeat people into submission with your ideology and with derogatory labels.
I do pray that you will moderate your vitriol and engage in a discussion, rather than simply yelling with your posts. I won't post any more of your comments if you cannot do this. However, note that, unlike you or Laura, I am willing to post differing (even offensive) remarks of others. It seems conservatives believe in freedom of expression much differently than liberals. You have chosen the path of using it to beat others up and quiet them. I have chosen it in the traditional American sense - to allow ideas to collide and discussions to pursuade. I believe you and Laura will ever remain within your own cloister, with no input from people of differing ideologies. That is sad and I do pray that God will open your heart to hear from others who may not agree with you.
Respectfully,
Chris
My first reply appears to have been lost. If this second one doubles up, I apologize, but Blogger said it lost my first one...
ReplyDeleteMike: What you miss is that ideas and actions all have consequences. The traditional view of marriage and what is societally acceptable is at stake, not just what you or anyone else would like to do with your lives. It is particularly interesting that you have the freedom to share on a conservative's page, while conservatives are apparently not welcome on yours or Laura's.
When you throw out the "biggot" label, you make tremendous assumptions - and even redefine the term itself to suit your own angry needs. The vast majority of Christians view homosexuality as a sin. In a free society, the majority decides the extent to which it is accepted, including whether outward displays of one's sexuality are acceptable or whether the religious institution of marriage is conveyed to them. At various times homosexuality has gained more or less acceptance in these areas. It does not mean that it is de facto a positive thing for society. Only time, not popular opinion, will reveal whether it is good or bad.
However, for you and Laura to beat others over the head with your derisive language and labels, and to have you shut down conversations with complete ad hominem deingration, then to claim we are the "-thumpers," is, I find, the height of irony. I have allowed both of you to post freely on my venues. I will continue only if the language cleans up and the attitude is a bit more deferrential, but your approach thus far has been quite illustrative of the bias I find when discussing these things with liberals.
I won't try to anger you by telling you I'll pray for you, and thereby make such a statement trite and meaningless. However, I will be praying for you. If you believe I am so clearly deceived, I hope you will pray strongly, as well, for my "salvation," whatever form that takes for you. You will ever have to contend with a biblical worldview when talking with Christians, so rather than demanding that they change their beliefs to suit your fancy, I pray you will at least temper your remarks to make the conversation worthwhile.
It's still Marc not Mike (unless you're posts are actually both in response to him (mike #1) not me).
ReplyDeleteAssuming you are speaking to me though, I'm not sure where you think I worked to either quash any debate, or am yelling at people. I specifically told Laura that your post did me no harm and invited her to leave it up, she just didn't want what she viewed as a personal attack on her FB page (that being her space we ought to respect her opinion on regarding what is on it).
You seem to be conflating me with other folks you're in dialog with (see confusion about my name above).
Aside from all that, I judge no ones beliefs, only their actions, folks of any religion can view what ever they want as wrong under those strictures and that matters to me not in the least, only the actions they take following those beliefs. For example Sin is also defined as disobedience or rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7), but in the US our constitution enshrines the right to blaspheme and make graven images in direct contradiction of that ideal.
You also seemed to take issue with my use of the term "bigotry", I do not think I have misused it, bigotry is the act of prejudice, which means having a preconceived opinion and if you, as you say, think the bible has judged this issue and no other arguments matter, then that is indeed prejudice and thereby bigotry.
Marc (sorry about the confusion, which derives from the first comment on my post):
ReplyDeleteThanks for the much more useful tone in this last post. I am not sure if the phrase "you got your ass handed to you in a debate" belongs to you, but that comment is attributed (not by me) to Mike, and it appears to answer your post on Laura's page.
Bigotry is well-defined in Wikipedia (and other sources) as going one irrational step further: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion."
I think you hit it on the nose when you called the Westboro folks bigotted (although I don't think you used the term). However, to extend that to me or to other Christians, as if we exhibited "intolerance, irrationality, and animosity" toward homosexuals or any other group is a stretch. You must redefine intolerance, irrationality and animosity to get there. However, your perspective of what those terms mean is up to you. It is my belief that liberals are Orwellian in their ability to change definitions and create spin. That is largely what has been done in the last 40 years concerning religion, homosexuality and many other issues. Don't believe your own press - it's not always "true" just because part of society defines it as such. Consensus is never proof of verity.
Everyone has a "preconceived opinion," Marc. Do you really believe you are the only one with an open mind, or who has rationally reviewed the facts of these matters? We certainly have differing opinions, but you do grave injustice to me by assuming I do not have a mind of my own to review what I believe are truths in Scripture and discern whether or not they are valid for today.
Finally, yes we should honor what Laura wants on her own page. Mine was not a personal attack as much as it was a turn of your phrase back on you - a use of irony, not really meant to demean you. She missed that, and it appears you did. I apologize if you felt I unjustly attacked you. It was not my intent. However, it was the height of irony for Laura to then show up on one of my posts and call one of my commentors an idiot. That was not a use of irony or an attempt to turn a phrase - it was just nasty and mean. She subsequently unfriended me when I called her on it. Now THAT is a great example of intolerance.
Regarding your expansion on 'bigotry', I still think my position is well founded. If you are as serenely devout in your belief in the bible's judgment of homosexuality, as you seem to be, nothing I can offer, no matter how rationally posited or argued, is likely to change that.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to fit with Wikipedia's take on it to me, but perhaps, when seen from the inside your beliefs have less surety then I realize.
I will agree that I have my own preconception regarding basing ones ethics on religious works, as you note we all have some basis for our thinking.
As to truth, or 'Orwellian' overtones, I make no claim to any concept of objective truth. I will note that consensus's do change over time and I suspect that in fifty years or so the current debate on gay rights, will simply be seen as a book end to the earlier civil rights movement, the parallels being so clear. History often places things in far different contact then those there at the time might appreciate.