monk222 | Some Blue Defiance

~
It has been disheartening watching the news and reading the commentariat since the election. If I hear one more host or analyst speak of his own faith.... It is painful to see people detouring their analyses through the framework of "What Would Jesus Do?"

Mr. Michael Kinsley, in his column, takes on the charge that liberals have gotten their just desserts for being elitist and arrogant. We know how humble and unassuming conservative Evangelicals can be in the political field.

"There's just one little request I have. If it's not too much trouble, of course. Call me profoundly misguided if you want. Call me immoral if you must. But could you please stop calling me arrogant and elitist?

"I mean, look at it this way. (If you don't mind, that is.) It's true that people on my side of the divide want to live in a society where women are free to choose abortion and where gay relationships have full civil equality with straight ones. And you want to live in a society where the opposite is true. These are some of those conflicting values everyone is talking about. But at least my values -- as deplorable as I'm sure they are -- don't involve any direct imposition on you. We don't want to force you to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same gender, whereas you do want to close out those possibilities for us. Which is more arrogant?

"We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don't claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?"

-- "Am I Blue?" by Michael Kinsley for The Washington Post

Closing on an administrative note, Monk is now going to attempt his first computer clean-up with some defragging. Although his fears usually prove to be grossly exaggerated, don't be surprised if Monk goes dark for some time to come... forever?

Just in case, it's been fun! 'bye!
.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

You'll be back, I'm sure. :)

This is a very interesting argument, and I would start by saying that though my own beliefs in places may seem similar to those espoused by the evangelical wing of the church in the USA, you can expect me to disagree with them in unexpected places, and to be appalled by their reasoning and motivations when I superficially 'agree' with them on policy.

For a little background, I was already a graduate Physicist before I believed anything at all, and continually find it strange when people with little or no science background tell me my beliefs are unscientific. That won't cut much ice with me. :)

There may be a variety of different motivations involved in making superficially christian statements. Pharisees are as much alive and active today as ever they were in the Bible, and just like then, they are found in churches, dictating what others should believe, without any attempt to help others live the lives they advocate; they have no solutions, only condemnation. Such people have a deep need to be justified in terms of rules they make (or twist) themselves. They will ignore any part of the Bible that they do not like, and viciously campaign for the parts that they do, in order that they can feel better about themselves. They would happily crucify Christ all over again if he came in a guise that threatened their hold over the church, or to take up the cause of the poor.

There is another viewpoint. I cannot say how much it is found in the USA today, as I have never been there. But it runs rather like this; the individual believer come to belief for whatever reasons of their own. They discover that as time goes by, they find the Bible challenges areas of their own lives, and that they have to respond by making changes in their own lives. This is difficult and painful to face, and it is likely to last all of ones' life. However, those on this road find that the benefits they experience through doing so, exceed the pain of the loss; and so each step gives them the courage to take another. Out of that experience, they are bound to have a concern for various factors in society.

In this country (the UK) that concern is traditionally associated with left wing causes; the labour party and the trade unions have strong roots in the non conformist churches (though these barely exist today), whereas to find a conservative politician with a deep rooted faith that was evident to others, as opposed to privately expressed, well, actually Tony Blair is the only one I know of in recent times. :)

The position of the latter group - those who change themselves to meet the requirements of the Bible, rather than using it to find excuse for what they already want to do - is that they are not trying to force others to do something they themselves thought up or necessarily found easy at first, but advising others to follow the course advocated by a wise God who thought it up. These people would be ready to think of themselves as sinners, and you can identify them because they will always be able to tell you how wrong they have been before meeting God. A Pharisee will have no good answer to that.

Thus, is it arrogant to tell people, out of concern for them, that they would do well to conform to a God who has done his advocates good against their own inclinations, and despite their failings?

I am sure you can find examples of those who are using Gods name both arrogantly and without concern for others. But I don't think that you can just tar very different people with the same brush. And be sure, if you hate what I call Pharisees, that you will have difficulty exceeding my own hatred for them; they are the one category of people that Christ got angry with; and today, they make everythign that was ever called Christina abhorret to many people who are genuinely principled and have never met those who are glad to be called sinners.

Monk, did you put this one up just for me? :)

:'(

I want to marry Michael Kinsley and have his babies.

Don't worry about the defrag, Monk! It'll be okay!

"We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don't claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?"

Crippled by reason and open-mindedness! I love it. Fucking brilliant. Pretty much nails it. Sounds a lot like what I just wrote the DNC today in a feedback request about the election and campaign efforts. I think the liberal position has pretty much won out among the educated, the intellectual, anybody objectively viewing the issues.

The key is to win over the (unfortunately now majority) who seems to be guided by emotion and something a little more tribal. In a way, Democrats are facing the same hurdle the US faces in the Islamic world...how to win over people who hate you. I think Democrats will be rather short-sighted if we play the centrist card.

We need to focus more on how whoever is in charge needs to unify the nation and flat out demand inclusion for 55 million people who thought this administration needed to be fired.

The future of the nation and the Democratic Party rests on how well we can combat the rise of the fundamentalist. Really civilization is itself at war with that mindset.

It seems to me that there is plenty in the Bible to cause people to have a Democrat position, although not being American I must accept that you know far more about US politics than I. When I heard Kerry mention the level your minimum wage is set at, I almost fell off my chair. Here (the UK) it is equivalent to $8.75, and has caused no trouble at all. I am appalled at the thought of single mothers trying to cope on that basis.

'Fundamentalists' are not going to stop being believers, whether I see them as sinners or Pharisees. Since there are many areas of the Bible - concern for the poor, for instance - which would appear not to involve the Democratic party in changing its position to do so, why not appeal to the fundamentalists on the basis of what they ought to believe? Just as it makes sense to appeal to Moslems on the basis of less selective readings of the koran than they have been choosing. I'm interested.

Absolutely. As the Dean of the law school at Berkeley was saying last night on Bill Moyers' PBS show--and I agree--I think Democrats are just as religious in our deeply held core beliefs. Our stances on healthcare or gay rights come from spiritual conviction but the key is that we don't beat you over the head with it. We've long labored thinking we need to have a "policy plumbing" discussion is the phrase he used. We talk details. Conservatives have gained an edge here because they talk gut reaction, emotion, and boil things down.

I do think that is where the nation will be gained back, sadly. One analyst was saying the pattern is very much like civil war even if we're not openly at war. You don't win a civil war on intellectualism...you win it on propaganda and raw rallying people to your cause. Sadly.

I don't know precisely where I stand in my own party, but with a religious background, I want to see Democrats of faith step up...people who are comfortable with faith language, if you will. Clinton and Carter could do God-talk. Barack Obama seems comfortable with spiritual messages. Certainly the progressive cause has a history of being able to frame issues that way...Thoreau and Emerson, MLK, the JFK and Bobby. That was one thing that made me happy about this campaign is that the G-word did come up on the left. I'm not sure Kerry and others were comfortable with it and I think it was too little too late, but it showed hope for what could come. I think liberal religion needs to come back and not surrender all things moral to evangelicals so easily.

But part of the problem here is that our mainline churches are declining in population...I think, speaking as someone looking to a career in theology possibly, that is the big hill right now. Reform so that churches become relevant again outside of Biblical inerrancy and the infallibility of "Christianity." And I use that word loosely because I think what we see as Christianity in the US bears little comparison to anything Jesus-like. What we deal with here is dogmatic soapboxes for reactionaries to preach from rather than places where as you say we're looking out for the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc..

Thank you for that. I find the situation in the USA confusing. Here there is almost nothing eqivalent to 'your' (sorry!) religious right, but there are evangelicals labelled 'charismatic' who are similar to the Vineyard grouping in the USA - is that a name you are familiar with? But there are nowhere near as many churchgoers.

From here it seems like the analogy of a Civil War is apt. Looking at the map (and seeing 'blue' for Democrat is really strange, because here 'red' is the colour of the left!), the geographic divide is obvious. Pretty much anyone living near water votes Democrat. And the intensity of the split is clearly very deep.

"people who are comfortable with faith language" - that would make a big difference.

I have come to believe the Bible in much the same way as I believe the Laws of Physics. That might sound bizarre, but I have had to put my faith in it again and again when I had nothing else to rely on. Nevertheless I find some of the things touted by the religious right to be astonishing. I have difficulty with people who invent science to support their beliefs. My own take on seven day creationism is that the Bible talks of no such thing - the Hebrew is ambiguous, and the sun turns up too late to talk of the first few days as meaning anything we can understand as a day. The author of Genesis would have known that a day is a sun-based concept (!), so I am sure when they used the words they did, they were using them in one of the many other ways that that word is translatable. So struggles between creationists and evolutionists are completely irrelevant. One can believe both the Bible and science without any real struggle. But there are groups on both sides who invent things to suit their purposes.

The trouble with that mentality getting into religion - inventing facts - is that it introduces a concept of faith that is misleading, and which is disgusting to those who are well educated. So I believe the Bible as I believe the Laws of Physics - but not as the beserk tale spinners who seem to have run riot in parts of the US do.

Liberalism as a political belief is a separate matter, but I suspect that liberalism as used to desribe a form of religion is essentially dying, probably both here and in the USA. it has the appearance to me of taking the Bible and believing whatever one prefers it to mean. That is to me equiavalent to taking the laws of nature and changing them to whatever one wishes they were to prove a point. The approach to the Bible that seems natural to me for a believer, is to look and find out what the Creator meant. And that can be done experimentally. Unless one puts the Bible into practise, the words are never going to mean anything; they will remain pretty words. When you rely on them, you find out what they mean; it gives a better indication than just reading them. This is an experimental physicists approach, but it has served me well.

I have read that Clinton advised Kerry to approve of votes on gay marriage. That sounds to me like good political advice, ignoring for a moment ones' own position, because it makes the subject apolitical, and removes the possibility of losing out on account of ones' own position. Similarly Tony Blair is pro the Euro, but promised that there would be no entry to the Euro (currency) without a referendum. The weak side of that is that he will never, ever win that referendum now. I'm glad of that, but Tony will not be.

BTW a recently declassified document shows that 1970's Prime Minister Harold Wilson flirted with the idea of making Britain the 51st state of the USA !!!!!!!! (are we any further away than Hawaii?)

Personally I used to be very left wing, but began a move toards what surveys tell me is the center a long while ago. The thing that changed me was when a Conservative MP pointed out that no Labour government had ever reduced unemployment. That made me furious, but the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it was true. Then I had to wonder why. And in time I concluded that the policies associated with Labour to that point had beeen tried, and they didn't get the results I wanted. So I reshaped my thinking, and said, these are the results I want; how do we get them? And hence I have changed the kind of policies I support. So did the Labour party. I suspect that this may be an approach that will serve the Democrats well in the face of a fundamental change in the nature of their electorate. Do you agree?

I think Britain and the USA are on opposite sides of the ideal. There is genuine and appalling poverty among people who wish to work in the USA, and it hurts me even to think about it. Over here we have council estates where the smart thing for a girl to do is get pregnant really early, get a free council house and livable benefits for as long as she has children, keep having children to keep qualifying for benefits as the others grow up, and never do a days work. The problem can be over emphasised, but now that I have lived near to it for a while for the first time in my life, it appals me. These people have opted into a sustainable long term lifestyle that reduces them to no options outside petty criminality in order to advance themselves. I could show you three genreations of women in one family living side by side doing this. It seems to me we have created one kind of hell, and in trailer parks in the USA you have quite another. I'm interested in your respose to this.

Hmm, you've given me some things to think about definitely. Thanks. Not sure I can respond to everything you said, but I'll start at least.

Esp. with regard to religion, I do think in the US our religious conservatives have done a very effective job in painting anything other than Biblical inerrancy as what you hit on with "it means whatever you want it to mean." Which, with non-fundamentalist religion on the decline, there are fewer and fewer to really combat that claim here. I think liberals of faith are left dumbfounded and speechless when we should be countering with the point that morality and the Bible and religion don't just "mean whatever one wants" but that there is a balance between being overly dogmatic and still keeping some guiding principles tested by, as you say, experiment in a way. Which reminds me a bit of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason in some ways. At least so far as talking about a natural religion that needs to look at the world and assume that God put the good earth here for us to analyse and make sense of with our brains. I know I've argued with some more conservative folk who see that as modernist mumbo jumbo because it elevates humankind to God-like status. I disagree, of course, hence the name "antilapsarian."

The other major thing I picked up on above in your posts is Britain and the US on opposite sides of a certain sliding scale perhaps. You make a good point. I'm often left defending Europe to my American friends, but honestly haven't had as much opportunity at defending America to my European friends. I guess my own Eurocentric view tends to be that, like freedom, if you are going to error it is better to error on too much than too little though having never lived under those conditions I do realize that it would bring its own host of problems. But I see your point about opposite sides of the ideal. Is there a better balance ahead at some point? Honestly, what are European views on that sort of situation you described with council houses?

Listened to PM's Questions on our govt. cable station here last night late and got to thinking about the cost-benefits analysis of healthcare. Blair was talking about NHS wait times--which Americans fear deeply with staterun medical care. But is this not a decent tradeoff for taking care of the citizenry? Not to somebody who needs treatment but has to wait, I suppose, but we're talking about the greatest good for the greatest number...or at least I am. I'm not sure we Americans think that way generally...we're very individualistic.

Which brings up the Democrat's need for facing the new electorate. In short, yes I agree. I think that is one school of thought emerging right now is that we've spent too much time about the method of the message rather than the message itself. We need to start talking more about what exactly we want rather than sticking to old ways of how we think we're gonna get it. I'm very skeptical of those that are crying for centrist positions and personally favor something on par with a radical shuffle in attack angle so we keep the core of the philosophy stable.

Part of that, I think, is actually an irony about something a Republican strategist said about Democrats becoming used to being the "minority" party. He meant it as an insult, but I think Democrats need to come out swinging with OUR mandate as well. 55 million people want change compared to 59 million happy with how things are. We have a block of voters behind us that needs served and we should go about serving them with confidence. I think on that level we need to explain ourselves better and more instead of letting the GOP paint us whatever color they want. We need to tell the American people quite bluntly, "look, we're left with no choice but to (for instance) be obstructionist in order to protect the minority from harsh majority rule." Create some empathy out there instead of hatred for our tactics. I think downright cross-aisle communication may be in order. Democrats speaking in a historical perspective to Republicans saying "great, you won the vote, but we represent a huge segment of Americans who need to have a voice in government if we are to not break down as a nation." I think that's the step to healing is recognizing on both sides that we are headed for disaster with the currect partisan situation.

This is where you get to define 'antilapsarian' for me :)

Thank you for spending time in replying. It is interesting to me.

I think that God's hands are as honest as His words. A quick reference to a concordance with a Hebrew lexicon would give any reasonable person cause to suppose that my analysis of Genesis is appropriate, but mostly people come with established ideas and an agenda for keeping them - from both sides.

I often defend America to almost everyone. But since I got a US gf in a trailer with kids, I have found out the other side of the coin.

Europe is going into a closed loop of insanity. The EU is a kind of counterfeit USA with everything wrong. Because of the language differences there is no effective means of political debate between countries direct to their citizens; there are unelected commissions running things that are known to be corrupt and yet there is no mechanism for dealing with it; the accounts haven't been passed by the auditors for over a decade; the menntality of the key states is a kind of secular liberalism gone mad; the USA, Europe's best friend and protector of old, is a hate figure without any just cause at all; the Euro is administered by a committee on a political basis rather than on the basis of sound money; interest rates cannot be set to suit all the members of the Euro because their economies are radically different. Socially, they are by and large downright mad. They pursue policies that do not work and never have worked, and propose this will be solved by the British joining in more. But as long as voting is involved, it will never happen; there is probably now a prospect of a natural majority for the UK leaving the EU in the next ten years, if it's not here already. Sadly the USA is even less popular - except with me.

As for the won't-work; the mood is slowly changing here; it moved re all but mothers some time ago. The real problem is that the situation encourages it in the first place. A few years of US policy here and a few years of our policies over there, before a reversion, would probably do a lot of good. Here the problem is the certainty; in the USA the problem is the uncertainty. There are two different well-meant philosophies in use, but neither is a panacea. One ought to look at a problem, and say, what will solve this? There seems here to have been a long term refusal to relaise that when you change the rules, you change the way the game is played.

Here there is nothing to stop the citizen from taking out additional medical insurance if they so want. So the poor get a service - eventually - and the rich get the service they pay for. Emergencies are well handled by the NHS, so much so that the insurance never covers them. Most of the trouble is not the principle of free service, but 1950's Stalinist model administration. A free service that was responsive to internal market forces in a PRACTICAL way would solve the problem. But there is never choice without the possibility of over-supply; and hence unless the government is ready to pay for more resources than can get used, it is hard to have choice, and without choice it is hard to get a mechanism for improvement.

I think the 'rationing' argument used by Bush is sincerely held, but a misdiagnosis; health care is rationed by price in the USA, whereas here it is rationed by availability. The world's richest country can afford to give its citizens the knowledge that when hard times come they won't have to starve or suffer in pain. I am sure the USA can afford it. I am sure a real difference could be made. But there seems to be such a terror of taxation that it is hard for you to make progress; whereas in Europe the opposite applies, and the UK is somewhere between.

I think the Democrats can appear to be radical; it is a question of being radical for a cause, rather than using a sacred method - that is what had to be learnt here. What the sacred methods would be in the Democratic party I dont know. But I think that the way things are going one will have to recognise that moral issues are going to have to be addressed; so address them, but provide a compassionate viewpoint.

Controversial statement meant to induce response from an interesting correspondent ;p
"There must have been a lot wrong with the 1950's, but when one views the world today, everything that is badly wrong, was not a significant problem in 1950."

I didn't put this up specifically for you, but you did cross my mind.... You and Antilapsarian seem to be having an involved discussion, and I may just leave you two at it for now, as I need to catch up on my blogging, save for a couple of remarks.

Thus, is it arrogant to tell people, out of concern for them, that they would do well to conform to a God who has done his advocates good against their own inclinations, and despite their failings?

My problem with our Christian Right is the desire and will to legislate their substantive and doctrinal views on the rest of the population. If these are your Pharisees, then I suppose we don't have a disagreement. Rather than 'tell' us that we would do well to conform to any sectarian doctrine, I'd prefer that they content themselves with merely advising us and leading by example.

And I think much of that idea of leading by example. Should they succeed in outlawing abortion, it will be vexing to know that those who worked for that will still be securing abortions for their daughters and others while subjecting the common people to the repression of their laws.

For a little background, I was already a graduate Physicist before I believed anything at all, and continually find it strange when people with little or no science background tell me my beliefs are unscientific. That won't cut much ice with me.

Well, I'm not sure what are the tenets of your belief, whether you believe in the Rapture, a literal Heaven and Hell, an eternal and personal soul along with a humanity-focused god. I would doubt it. But when it comes to such belief, it has been my understanding that a clear majority of those who have the full scientific background do reject such beliefs.

I would only emphasize that I don't have any personal problems with anybody's supernatural beliefs or faiths. It's only in their drive to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us that troubles me. For instance, it has been maddening in recent days to read how educator across the nation are going full steam ahead with creationism over evolution.

Yet, we are a democracy and we also have been hearing about how Democrats need to pursue what you suggest - using the Bible and Jesus to argue for liberal causes. I wish that we could do so without having to go through such metaphyscial routes, but whatever works, if it can work. I'm afraid our Christians are hard on the poor and the weak, seeing their condition as a mark of God's disfavor.

I apologize if I'm not doing justice to the discussion, but I see Antilapsarian is giving you better than I can, and I am soooo behind in my blogging...

Those who require things of other people, but have no concern for them, are the Pharisees I speak of; they use law to subjugate others, and exalt themselves.

That does not mean the laws concerned are either right or wrong; that doesn't matter to them as much as being seen to be lawful, and to get to criticise those who are not. At the same time there can be other who may advocate the same laws (I am not saying anything about specific laws here) who do so out of a sense of concern for others, without wanting to exalt themselves. The result can easily be that the arguments about the merits of the law become bound up with the vicious hatred that some, but not all, are expressing through it.

Pharisees make my life very difficult. In the areas where we superficially agree, they bring the motivations of my opinions into disrepute. However, I am already finding that this journal will give me a fair hearing and an intelligent one. Having chosen to talk to people who seem to be 180 degrees opposed to me, I have found them reasonable, and not to occupy the caricature positions they could be accused of by some.

Should they succeed in outlawing abortion, it will be vexing to know that those who worked for that will still be securing abortions for their daughters and others while subjecting the common people to the repression of their laws.
If they are doing that, that's as good a definition of 'Pharisee' as I know. If you catch me doing that sort of thing in argument, tell me; I would want you to. The name that goes with Pharisee is 'hypocrite'. The one example that has crossed the Atlantic to me is those who condemned Clinton for doing the same things they did. I had a lot of sympathy with Clinton as sinner as opposed to his opponents as hypocrites.

Well, I'm not sure what are the tenets of your belief, whether you believe in the Rapture, a literal Heaven and Hell, an eternal and personal soul along with a humanity-focused god. I would doubt it. But when it comes to such belief, it has been my understanding that a clear majority of those who have the full scientific background do reject such beliefs.
Being in a majority has never struck me as vindication of a faith position. I don't know how the figures vary between the general public and the scientific in this country. I was in part drawn to science by being anti-religious - and I have seen plenty of others in it for the same reason.

It's a rather archaic word: a noun signifying denying of the doctrine of the Fall of Man. I use it more generally to stand for a more positive outlook on life and humankind's place in the universe.

Not sure I would say "without any just cause at all" regarding the US being hated more globally or from the European perspective in particular. Monk often notes that I am downright anti-American in my critique of my homeland, but I think the "just cause" is a key debate point for some time to come in that it involves larger philosophies about government and the role of government to other governments. I tend to take the view that just as Bush has squandered a lot of goodwill and leadership post-9/11, the American glory that came post-WWII and Cold War has quickly faded and we've been taken down a peg or two. Not that, from my personal point of view, I expect the United States to be perfect...far from it...but I do see our potential wasting away as we seem to be going from idealistic youthfulness to a mid-life crisis overnight with just what it means to be American and the best uses of American power and influence.

But you speak smartly of the EU...I've been following Blair's comments always w/ regard to those that are skeptical of full participation in the EU. Europe is no beacon to the world for the moment...but I think given its rise following WWII's destruction and the possibility--perhaps--that exists there over and above what possibility for greatness still exists here, I'm more worried about the US figuring out our problems than the EU figuring out its problems--which has a hint of irony there given the history of each.

No doubt, however, that each side could use a little of the other's medicine. I dead on agree about the medical care situation and your thoughts about the differences here and there.

Then again, maybe Monk should sweep in here with his deprecating analysis of the human condition so that there is no hope for any of us and we should all get used to it!

Speaking to sacred methods in the Democratic party, I'd point in the direction of some commentary yesterday about the old ways being dead in that trying to get the union vote, the machine politics vote, the black vote...what worked for FDR is not going to work for the modern DNC. Particularly, I am worried about the trend in latinos towards a more conservative outlook after going something like 70% for Al Gore down to only 57% for Kerry. Honestly, despite the criticism over the failure of the youth vote that was expected, I'm still pleased with the 9% jump we did see. Something like 20 million voters under the age of 30 voted 2-1 for Democrats. There are more out there to tap if we can bring them into the process. But as somebody said to me: "New Deal Democrats are dying off and nobody is replacing them." I'd like to see a study of how that affected the election. But it is true. We need a New Deal on the New Deal...all those people who believed in and then became jaded by the Great Society need brought back into the shelter of a compassionate party rather than a bitter one. Because right now the conservatives are plenty curmudgeony...we don't need to try and fight that--they're so good at it already!

The Rapture; I believe that those who are there at the time will get to find out. Those who want to be specific about it now are going to be in for surprises. Empty speculation about the particulars will get no-one anywhere.

Heaven and Hell; the supposed characteristics of these are so established in people's minds that it is hard to engage in meaningful discussion with people about these issues without first debunking what is already assumed. Providing one believes that there is a spiritual reality, then heaven is there already; and the believer enters into it when they have contact with God in any form. What changes, is that on death one is wholly in that reality. Science begins by excluding discussion of what may exist in such realities; it does not in any way disprove them. It is mistaken to say that what has been dismissed as an assumption has been disproved. I'll gladly talk about that sort of thing as much as you want, but there is only so much room.

Soul Not only a soul, but a separate spirit. Jesus was not kidding when he said 'flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit'. Only when you accept God does your spirit really come to life. Afterwards you wonder how you lived without it.

Evolution - see my chat with antilapsarian. There isn't anything to dispute. However though it doesn't matter to me at all whether God created life through evolution or any other method, I would point out that biologists have a fair time on explaining a number of features of evolution. The most comprehensive answer to 'why believe in evolution' remains 'we haven't got any other theories and we reject creationism'. I have a micro-biologist friend who points out the areas still being researched with great glee. The idea that evolution is a complete and well understood explanation of the living creatures around us is simply fallacious; it may become one, but at present it is not. I don't care. But I do care if the religious start making up false 'facts' to contradict evolution, and I care if scientists overstate the strength of their position, or dismiss problems as if they were not there.

Whatever political parties do in the USA, they will have to address the electorate they have, not the one they want. The christian vote may be more fragmented and complex than is generally assumed, but I think all agree it is now significant, just as many other key groups were previously considered significant. What is the difference between formulating policy to attract the black vote, the Jewish vote, or the Christian vote? They are all Americans, and the parties are all in competition to get their vote and to represent their requirements, not to ignore them.

Is that statement meant for me to affirm or refute? lol

My feeling regarding the 1950's is that we've come a long way since then, but have also taken some steps back for whatever reason. Perhaps the change was too dramatic and too fast so that this is all a reactionary attempt at balance? I dunno. But I think most of what is badly wrong today was a problem in 1950 though perhaps masked or not at the surface. Depends on specifically what we're talking about.

When you change the rules, you change the way the game is played.

Purely as an example: there was a time when there was no divorce (or little)possible. There were people trapped in unhappy marriages they couldn't get out of. So it was a natural thing to see if people could be happier if divorce was easier. Now divorce is almost the norm. Divorce is never a happy thing for anyone. Is it the case that there would be just an many people wanting out of marriage today if it had not been made so easy?

In this country, you can make any assertion within a range of formulae about why you think you should be able to terminate a marriage, and the facts will never be questioned. So if you're not prepared to make the effort or spend the time to get along with your spouse, nothing exists to make you try.

Is it really the case that the knowledge that marriage is trivially easy to get out of, doesn't affect the way people approach being married, and how they choose who they will be married to? I think it would be extraordinary to say that it did not. So in principle, wouldn't people be happier if divorce was harder?

I'm not saying that there is a perfect society to go backward (or forward) to; just that when thinking about supposed improvements to society made in the last half century, it would be good to look at all the effects they have had, and not just the ones that we expected; then we can analyse whether they were a good thing or not, and whether the bold assumptions underlying them were in fact anything more than assumptions.

As I say, being controversial to get a response from an interesting correspondent :). Why should I assume we will find each other unreasonable if we risk talking about such things? Two days ago I couldn't imagine agreeing with you, today it appears practical to have a darned good talk as one human being to another (though my schedule is suffering somewhat!) :)

LOL Yes, my response will be short because my schedule is suffering somewhat as well.

My reaction to the divorce issue is that people today are displaying on the surface what becomes a more latent issue when you make divorce tougher to do. People are going to suffer to whatever extent they will via a relationship. Thus making all the "save marriage" crap by conservatives, I believe, hopeless and pointless. There are more foundational relationship issues at work underneath that must be changed no matter what the marriage laws are. Perhaps fewer people will get married with tougher divorce laws, for instance. Just a thought.

Thanks for the definition; though I must admit it is hard to envisage what kind of Christian doctrine incorporates this. I can see why someone might doubt Eden etc., though if one reads what is said carefully, the impression I gained is not the one normally touted to infants. For the moment let's say we can consider Eden as being a pretty story that explains a deeper truth (without me saying that is my position or you that it is yours).

If there is no fall, there is no need for mankind to be raised. And in that case there is no need for Jesus. If there is no problem with sin, there is no need for crucifixion, resurrection, or indeed almost all the rest of the Bible. The point about the Fall is that one can opt out out it. And when you do, there is indeed cause to be positive about the human condition. I could tell you about any number of people who have had as dramatic an example of that fall and restitution being enacted in their own lives as any in the New Testament. I'm not in any doubt that in my case something had needed fixing, and everyone who knows me can see that something that wasn't working has been fixed. Have you never met anyone who has experienced that? Or did you mean something else entirely?

When you enter into a contract with an employer, do the nature and terms of that contract affect the way you interact with them? If you had to get six months notice before you got out, would you take more care about who employed you? If not, then I might agree with you. But I very much doubt that anyone would find a change of terms in an agreement did not affect the way they approached entering into it. Make the same argument and call it anything but divorce, and does it sound the same?

I am one of the principle beneficiaries of divorce, though it was not me who did the divorcing; and I know people who I am glad have been able to divorce. But I do believe that if you change the rules, you change the way people play the game. Is it really right that someone can walk out of a marriage on the basis of a blatant lie, without the possibility of this being challenged, because they have no patience and the dice are loaded in their favour?

BTW 'Blue Defiance' is a great phrase. :) It may end up in a poem.

No, I agree with you to a point...that was what I was saying about a possible backfire in the way marriage is viewed though. I think tinkering with the rules brings up changes in the way people play the game--ones that cannot always be anticipated. Making six months notice the general rule, for instance, would encourage a whole culture of employees who shop around to find an employer who has rules more in their favor. Or perhaps they go into business for themselves.

If you ask me, personally, I think marriage needs to be left to the churches and consenting adults should be allowed to draw up their own government contract with whatever terms inside that they wish.

Just another thought here in the US relating to my own situation...I know my girlfriend and myself would like to get married but don't have the money. Perhaps the govt. should give out grants for weddings for those who need a little money to get started in their marriage? LOL

We were discussing last night and my girlfriend and I both were saying the answer lies not in marriage itself but in people having better relationship skills and being able to work through differences. People are going to cheat and fight and lie and whatever no matter whether they are married or divorced or single or whatever. The best policy is probably one that recognizes the "facts on the ground" offering incentive for those that stay together as a family unit while allowing for the fact that many if not most are going to fall short of that.

Similarly if the commitment to marriage is seen as hard to escape, and we are talking about a lifetime and not six months, people will select partners who will last the course, rather than having less lasting qualities. QED, as far as I am concerned.

I've heard the one about consenting adults drawing up contracts before. This is fine if we are all able to represent ourselves properly. However we are least able to do so in matters of love. In practice it would mean that abusive contracts would become quite common. There are plenty of people out there with low self esteem who would accept being bargained down into 'contracts' that were practically ownership. I can see that the idea is well-intentioned, but in practice it might qualify as one of the worst changes to society that has ever been made.

If contracts were negotiated between two people, they would have to be enforced. By who? How? Or else they would be meaningless. And every different contract would be a legal precedent involving huge legal fees. Hence in practice they might be unenforceable except for the super rich. Is that what you wanted?

I can agree with comments about taxation. Whatever tax regime relates to marriage also changes the rules of the game, and clearly changes how it will be played. Parties that wish to encourage marriage (and child rearing) had better go so far as to propose that taxes reflect what they say they want to happen.

Personally I would say 'what is getting married for?' If my ex wife and I had been looking at money, we would never have got married. As it was, things worked out for us, and we never went short, even having two children before we split. Sadly we were in the appearance of going short, permanently, when she left. Just after the finalisation, things cleared up for me. I work for God, as I see it, and tell him he has responsibilities as an employer. Three times I have received a home on the basis of the claim. The first two cost me nothing, and the second increased in value by 500% in five years to fund the third. Can you see why I like my employment contract? Now I'll be needing a fourth, because I'm intending to marry a mother of four (who would certainly have suffered from an abusive contract if she had agreed one with her ex husband). Given this history, how can I doubt there will be a home when I need it?

But even without any experience of God providing for you, I'd say, get married. It isn't about achieving a certain status and then getting married when you have it, it is about commitment and love. But of course you are free to approach it how you like, and I wish you every happiness however you approach it. :)

offering incentive for those that stay together as a family unit
Absolutely! Because from a purely secular point of view, broken families cause the most tremendous strain on governments, let alone the broken families. It is one thing to say, that one should not condemn single mothers and their children, which I agree with. It is another to suppose that one parent families are anywhere near as good a way of caring for children as a stable marriage. Best wishes to all who have to try.

And if it is thought that incentives will keep families together, which I agree with, why is it not appropriate to provide also disincentives to divorce? My ex wife was able to walk out using a blatant, provably untrue lie as the basis for her divorce. However once the statement is made, the courts in this country will not have any investigation. If she had had to face investigation of what she had to say, wouldn't that have stopped her? And if she had known that a future marriage was precluded unless she had meaningful grounds for leaving me, might she not have made some effort to reach agreement with me, instead of leaving the very first time I stood up to her?

So using my marriage as an example:
- Assuming one off contracts were enforceable, I dearly hope my ex wife would never have married me, as she would never have stood for the usual conditions, which do not include getting her way on every occasion. Would you have anyone suffer that, btw?

- if we had had to wait to marry until we could have afforded it, we would never have done so (perhaps you have a point!)

- Relationship skills are only as relevant as the rules of the game make them; if you don't have any incentives to stay or penalties for leaving, and can leave on a whim taking practically everything, then why bother to use those skills?

- we would have been better off if we had had our marriage recognised in taxation, which was withdrawn whilst we were married; if that had been so, the financial aspect of our difficulties would have been less, and perhaps we would be married today.

- I had no means of enforcing the 'standard' contract, which ought to be subject to the same safeguards as any other contract. Supposing two people get married on the basis that one of them has lied about something to bring about the others consent? Should that contract not be void? And yet I guess that that would not be one of the lamentable excuses accepted for a divorce.

I remember a different world in which divorce was rare, children born out of wedlock were rare, and as a result society needed far fewer houses (but bigger ones). There was prejudice, and that was the thing that should have been changed. To enact 'tolerance' by introducing the freedom for people to ruin their lives, and to give them no tax incentive not to do so, is crazy; but that is exactly what has happened, and I am quite certain that it is precisely the cause of this complete change in society.

Well, you may well not agree with my analysis greatly or at all. But perhaps we can consider this: have I, in the course of opposing easy divorce or inappropriate tax rules, hit you with a Bible, called you some kind of degenerate pervert, or ceased to appeal to the concept of reason? If not, then please remember that it is possible to be associated with this cause without having done so. I will remain thankful to God, and you can have your own view, whatever it is. But at least I hope you can see that views such as mine on divorce are not inevitably hate driven or illogical.

Ooh, a theology conversation...I'll try restrain myself though it's one of my favorite topics.

It depends on your eschatology and Christology...how you view the person of Christ in relation to why He was here and where this is all headed sort of determines a lot about one's Christianity. And there are all sorts of Christians doctrines that incorporate various mixes though I agree that few children are going to hear this in Sunday school. It's a long way from Bible stories to complex theology.

But to the substance: If there is no Fall (or for the sake of argument even sin since that is open to debate about what it means to "miss the mark" theologically) Jesus becomes in low Christology or low eschatology a figure to copy as divine rather than something outside of us. As my professor used to ask: "is Jesus different from us in kind or degree?"

Which is not to say that Jesus must become a non-savior if he is different only in degree from humanity. One can be transformed by the power of his person and closeness with God and look to the metaphor of his death as an Easter symbol of rebirth and renewal.

So, in my own case, I'd say there is a problem with sin but mainly that people fall short of our ability to love others...no *need* for crucifixion and resurrection as a teleological event. There is a fall of humanity though not a Fall, if that makes sense. We need saved, but not Saved. We error, though we're not all going to burn in Hell for our error or need saved from eternal punishment. I'm more of a universalist who sees a better life on earth as the main goal for the arrival of Jesus onto the scence. To teach us to live more Godly lives to enjoy the life that God has given us.

I'll agree readily that the degree to which an individual has fallen, seen in human terms of sin, varies considerably. However 'all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God'. The qualifying conditions for entry to eternal life (starting here and now!) are to be separated from sin completely, which I affirm no one can do for themselves.

If we assume there is no hell (I will accept that there is room for discussion as to what is meant by the phrase) then what is Christ referring to in the eight passages of the Gospel that refer to it? Either he knew the subject from the perspective of being God, in which case, he is right; or he didn't, in which case, why bother to take any notice of his impossible requirements anyway?

To suppose that there is a God, but no life after death, makes him in my eyes a sadist unconcerned with his creations; to assume that life after death involves everyone entering a state of blessedness without consideration of their former lives seems, well, unfair doesn't even begin to describe it; are we all going to live next door to an unrepentant Saddam, Hitler, and Joe Stalin and just get along? And if there is a divide according to our lives, then who are we to say what it is? We don't make the decision.

Either Christ came from heaven and knows his stuff, or he has nothing to say. Anyone who wants to take up his promises and live the life of a disciple can heal the sick, and so forth. Read the terms and conditions, apply, and then if you find that you don't get the results Christ did, think him a fraud. That's the approach of an experimental Physicist. I have been taking that approach for 17 years. So far I'm not accusing Jesus of fraud. Why spend time exchanging opinions about things that can be tested in practise?

I tend to take a middle ground that God is neither a sadist nor unfair. I would say that when Jesus speaks of heaven and hell he was using late Second Temple mythic Jewish language and being metaphorical often. As a human being he--and the people who later wrote his words--were subject to flawed methods we humans use to figure out what exactly the ineffable God says and means.

I think he is concerned with Creation, but largely leaves us to our own devices (and our natural sense of love for each other and brainpower) to try to make the best and achieve happiness for all. And when we die, I think heaven becomes a rather shifting idea...Hitler may be there since I cannot judge his soul and only his actions here as lacking compassion and enlightenment. Who is to say, however, that what is "essence" of human beings is not something more cosmic? I'm agnostic when it comes to being reborn as other matter with a person's energy...will Hitler one day go to Heaven? I'm confident. Will Hitler have to realize compassion, love, and illumination first? Absolutely. Does this all take place in a time void so that time breaks down for the divine? Yes, but now we're getting complicated. LOL

We don't make that decision indeed. I think we're left to use logic and assume that God is good, we're here for a reason (to enjoy life as a gift), and that after that gift is taken away we'll return to whatever infinite form energy takes when it returns to God.

So my own policy is that I don't think Jesus a fraud, but I don't think he was all about terms and conditions per se. He's an example of God's love, but in the end even Jesus or the Bible or Christianity itself stretches the limits of what we can understand about God. In the end, I think that's a mystery to be experienced rather than talked about. ;-)

Hate driven? No. Illogical? Maybe a bit. I do disagree on a whole host of the above, but let's look at it from a wider angle, as it were, to make a little more sense where I'm coming from.

Because I do agree with *some* of what you say. But I tend to have a libertarian streak in me. I think, assuming people are not harming anyone, they should be left to do as they will. And that abuse by the few does not justify taking away the rights of the many. I think you're going to get system abuse whether we deal with contracts or current marriage laws or tightened marriage laws.

People largely need to be left alone to have whatever relationship they will have without much government interference. What is getting married for, indeed. I'm a bigger fan of devotion and a strong relationship without dragging the law--govt. or church--into it. I think in a natural state people will pair off and have families and we should for the most part let it happen however it happens. Marriage is a sort of formal tuxedo to put on the jeans and t-shirt everyday living of society.

We've had a long conversation, and that's good in that we can both see the other is being genuine. I am quite sure there are a lot of pepole out there who aren't. I too think that people should be free, but what freedom is, is such a fascinating subject.

Yes you do get system abuse either way; the question is, whether you get more abuse in the old model of marriage or the new. I am quite sure that there is more marital misery now than there was, say, 40 years ago. I am quite sure that the reason for this is that the way marriage has been changed has caused it. There is the possibility that some other thing which has emerged over the same period is the true cause. In which case, what? I think many other things have contributed, and I find them reprehensible too; not because I hate the idea of them, but because they cause misery. The way to find out would be to reverse the changes in the divorce laws etc., see if the trends in marriage are reversed, and then we would know.

Or we could just say, that if there is a 'right wing' backlash against changes in my lifetime, that it is actually because people have real feelings about what they perceive as real problems, and that they have found a home for those feelings in Christianity and in the right that they have not found in the left. Are they going out to hear maniacs because they themselves are mad, or because they are desperate, and more recognised sources of aid are not sensitive to their needs or providing solutions?

As long as marriage or any other social matters are subject to any form of legislation, the question arises what it will be, and what it is goes on to control the way lfe is lived. If we cannot have NO legislation, we must be very careful about what; and those who make that legislation must live with the consequences.

Best wishes with your own marriage, but honestly it has been made as hard for you to make it work as possible by people of your own opinions. I sincerely hope that your own experience is never a reason for you to change your mind.

Well you can believe what you want, of which I am glad; but that's exactly what you're doing. It isn't what Christ believed, and therefore isn't Christianity, in the same way that Thatcherism isn't about society ('there is no such thing as society'). The definition of any set of beliefs does not include their direct contradiction. Nothing could usefully be defined on that basis.

I keep to my point; that what Christ offers is testable, and the only way of finding the truth or otherwise of what he says is to do it and find out if you get the same results. One concerned for others and society in general might find that this gave the the capacity to do something about the causes that matter to them. I certainly have.

I will only add that it is quite difficult to know what Christ believed given that He wrote nothing in his lifetime and had His message often twisted and corrupted--given the split between, say, Paul and James over gentiles or the Jerusalem church as an example. We're left to decipher what Jesus believed and left to construct Christianity not in His image but in our own. You might disagree with my analysis, for instance, that Paul misunderstood the message...but the fact that there is disagreement at all signals deeper problems in that I think more people need to find a home in Christ without being told as you just did "it isn't what Christ believed and isn't Christianity." Nothing against you, it is widespread.

But I think Christianity in general needs to be more focused on letting Christ work through each individual as He will rather than try to convince humanity at large of whatever doctrine the Church wishes to advance. Again, not a complaint with you but with the faith in general. I should largely be left to believe as I will...it is between my Maker and myself in the end. As it is with all Creation. My own feeling is that had Christians over the years been better at understanding the message, so many would not be rejecting the message now. But I'm on a different topic and will stop.

I'm curious, perhaps, as to some final thoughts of yours on how Christianity can become more inclusive of diversity in opinion about Christianity. I say this because I respect as you say below that we come at this genuinely and it is room for dialogue.

You disagree with me--which is fine--but I suppose I'm asking the larger philosophical question with this as an example of how one can know Truth. You have your method and I certainly have mine. Maybe they are both valid? Could God not have created a range and breadth of human understanding about Him/Her/It? I guess what I'm saying is that by not believing your particular Christian beliefs it doesn't necessarily make me non-Christian. If anything it perhaps makes it all the sadder that if I believe in Christ yet have not found a home among His people that I have done long and hard searching to wonder if I even believe any longer.

If anything it perhaps makes it all the sadder that if I believe in Christ yet have not found a home among His people that I have done long and hard searching to wonder if I even believe any longer.

All of us go through changes in our beliefs, whether we are conscious of it, whether we are trying to, or not. Although I am sure it doesn't really feel like it now, coming to the point of unbelief or disillusionment is often where progress is made; it is where God changes us.

What I don't hear anywhere in your conscientious and learned words is the personal knowledge of Christ as someone with whom you are in contact. Many years ago I believed nothing, but was sure that it mattered whether I did or not. So I tried reading Marks Gospel (the shortest), and used a mathematicians approach; take a true or false postulate, examine one of the alternatives to see if it is self contradictory, and if so, the other must be true by default. This is not everyone's approach, but bear with me. :)

So I assumed that Christ was not resurrected from the dead, not because I was motivated to reach one conclusion or the other, but because it was a proposition that was capable of being examined. I set out to see what I must also believe was true if I believed that. In short, I personally found that in order to believe the actions of the apostles and in particular of Saul/Paul, I had to believe that Christ was risen; no matter how hard I tried to produce a credible alternative, I could not produce one that I believed. And so, astonished, I concluded that I really must believe in Him.

I was also sure (on account of the activities of the Christian Union in my Hall of Residence) that there was a case that Christianity was about knowing God personally. Reviewing Christ's actions suggests to me strongly that his purpose in coming here was to make that possible for us. Possible; but we had to buy in as well. Nothing was being forced on us.

This gave me difficulties, because now I believed in my head that there was a God who wanted to talk to me, but I didn't know how to contact Him. Years earlier I had left the Methodist Sunday School as early as possible on the basis that if there was a God, he certainly wasn't in there. And I had never heard that God wanted to be in contact with me. Now, at 23, I had to think again.

So I decided that whether I could hear God or not, any God that was at all concerned about me could hear me. And I fixed my eyes on a far off point to concentrate my mind, and spoke to the God I could not see, as if I could.

Shortly after, and seemingly coincidentally, I found that some of the things I did were the result of childhood sexual abuse, the memory of which had faded. That made them look very, very different to me. I began to realise that instead of enjoying myself, I was living out what had happened to me. And that made me afraid. I tried to stop, but I could not. And then I knew that my supposed pleasures owned me.

I lived four years in this condition. If you want to know what hell is, try living in the knowledge that you are not able to control your own actions, despite desperately wanting to. And all the time I knew, that what I was doing was not acceptable to this mysterious and distant God that I believed in but could not contact.

Four years later my life had been about as destroyed as a life can be. I was seriously planning to kill someone for motives that seemed good to me. After that, somehow it seemed my life would just be prison and death. There wasn't anything else to look forward to.

I gave someone a lift to a church, and thought, I suppose there is no harm in going in and seeing what all the fuss is about, as my life is effectively over.

When I went in, I experienced things that I had never expected. All my former difficulties with things that troubled me were just not there. And in the course of the singing, I saw the words that explained where I had been missing the point. There and then I gave myself to Christ. And when I went home that night, in an empty house, I said with joy,

I'm not going to do those things any more Lord; I'm going to worship you instead.

It was maybe six months before I stopped to realise the obvious - before that, I couldn't do as I pleased. Seventeen years later, I haven't had the slightest desire to do them again.

I tend not to talk about the details online now because I have children, and one day they might Google me and find out things that they should find out as and when and if they will be helpful to them. But at my baptism, I was glad to tell the whole story to 400 people.

Glad? I have lived 17 years without being controlled by sin. Glad isn't even beginning the words. If I die today, and never achieve any of the things I want to, I'll still be glad, because I no longer have to do what is against my nature because of something that was done to me when I was eight.

Glad? I'm glad because when I meet people all over LJ and Blurty I can tell immediately which ones are in the same mess; and when I earn their trust, I can tell them how to overcome their problems.

And beyond that, the guy I was going to kill is my dearest friend, and we're looking for an opportunity to be in business together right now.

Can you imagine being any gladder that that?

So the Pharisees can keep their holier-than-thou nonsense and their pseudo-science indoctrination and anything else that Christ never gave them. I'm down with the poor and the broken hearted. But we're not staying there.

I don't know quite why I opened up to you about that at this time. I am usually much more measured about things. I don't know that you have any point of similarity in your life at all. But at the least you can now see what faith really means to me, and perhaps see a little of how you could approach finding out if there is a place for you in Christ or not; talk to Him. Just as if he was 'there'. Tell Him what you really feel. It is completely free, and so far you can't be locked up for it.After that, churches are a minot consideration. I have barely been in one for seven years, but Christ has been enough for me.

It is good that you care about freedom, and I don't really care about the fact that we barely agree on a word we say! It is good that you are concerned about politics, and the future of your country. Maybe now you can see why I am glad that America's president is an ex drunk who found Jesus. But I wish he was a democrat.

"I dont' know quite why I opened up to you about that at this time."

But I'm glad you did. I think though we are coming from vastly different places, it is evidence that a discussion can be had that is both meaningful and maybe productive on both sides.

I realize that churches are a minor consideration and I take it with a grain of salt, but being around like-believers is important. Community. But I know what I believe. Or at least I continue to explore what I believe as I feel it is never a finished process.

I realize, too, that I mask a lot of my faith language academically...but that is what I am comfortable with, how I feel God works through me, and is a direction I feel better suits my overall belief system. Which, I suppose, is what I was getting at is that in our searches for answers as human beings we all come up with slightly different methods. I am in no way going to belittle your path that you've found because it seems to work for you. And I, indeed, have what works for me. But I do have a concern for others being able to have that freedom we prize to find the path that suits them in the way that best suits them. I didn't always have that luxury and am damn thankful I now do.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

monk222

May 2019

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Page Summary

Style Credit

Base style: Abstractia by chiming
Theme: Battle Raven by nornoriel

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Dec. 24th, 2025 04:38 pm