you're obviously trying to get this thread locked, or make me erupt in anger so I get banned,
You can 'win' this argument by the age-old tactic of infuryating the opponent so he just walks away. So I'm walking.
Marc, you obviously have a point, a possible valid point. Where you failed was showing that the protesters in any way tried to physically bar BBC worker or people who had business there or did anything else illegal during the protest. From all the evidence you provided Chris's argument holds more validity on this matter. However, if it was shown that the protesters stepped beyond their rights to prohibit another's then I think Chris, I, yourself and the Judicial System would full agree that such action was wrong.
As for the threats, does the BBC have recordings and records to verify and prosecute with?
Marc, you obviously have a point, a possible valid point. Where you failed was showing that the protesters in any way tried to physically bar BBC worker or people who had business there or did anything else illegal during the protest. From all the evidence you provided Chris's argument holds more validity on this matter. However, if it was shown that the protesters stepped beyond their rights to prohibit another's then I think Chris, I, yourself and the Judicial System would full agree that such action was wrong.
And so would I.
And (BTW) the threats of violence (if true...I haven't seen any news reports of this) are clearly over the line (and there are laws about that).
But that's my point. I find it depressing to have to spell it out but what the hell - obviously it's necessary:
There is nothing controversial about being gay.
There is nothing controversial about belonging to a specific ethnic grouping.
These things become controversial when faced with bigotry if - and only if - that bigotry is given equal weight (which of course is what the bigots always lobby for, consciously or unconsciously).
There can be controversy though about claiming either of those to be true when certain groups put the facts about them into dispute and thus claim they aren't true.
You seem to confuse approval of homosexuality with someone claiming a party is homosexual when they may or may not be so.
I saw a book review yesterday that dealt with an author who claims Abraham Lincoln was in fact homosexual.
The book doesn't have to be controversial because people are arguing about whether homosexuality is proper. It would be controversial because people are making claims that cannot be proven are go against the previous claims of most or all regarding that person and their sexuality.
You don't have to believe a certain races or sexual practices are right or wrong to have something controversial. If I claimed you were both black and homosexual and you were in fact white and hetero, I would hold a controversial position.
Im reporting all this as soon as it is broadcast on the TV, expect to find copy of it in a few days.
That's fine. I didn't really doubt the veracity of the threats. But let's be very careful here...because this is where you (MarcUK) I think make the following leaps:
1. Protesting (marching, picketing, etc.) is not threatening or violence. Even burning the TV licenses (as I have seen repotred) is fine (like burning draft cards, American flags and bras). It is a form of protest (assuming of course it doesn't physically harm someone).
2. The folks threatening violence (calling themselevs Christians or not) do not reflect on me (or even most Christians that I know) I don't know these guys. I might think that the play (sounds) offensive...and even hate the idea of it...but I am not going off threating violence towards anyone. They are breaking the law and should suffer the consequences for it.
Finally, let me say this, as a Christian (this is a view that I recently expressed in my small Bible study group actually)...I, personally, think that as Christians, we ought to turn the other cheek on this kind of thing more often than happens. I think these kinds of "artistic expressions" say more about the expressers than it does about God/Jesus Christ, Christianity or the Bible. I think these people will have to answer to God for their actions (as will I for mine). I think it is fine to release a statement that says..."Hey, we think this is in poor taste, insulting, even blaspemous...but hey...We don't need to answer to God for their actions. We think it is sad and unfortunate."
Segovious, I agree with much of what you're saying. I do disagree with 'fundamentalists' being possible engineers of the problem. It's just their flavor of blinders, without even knowing that they are blinding themselves to the problem.
The real problem is hinted at your statements dealing with commercials coopting music that was originally meant to be a part of the counter-culture or be a message of individuality. The real problem is the dissolution of the worth of community and individuals for the benefit of the market. We feel something missing, have a faint idea of what it is and then we are presented with idols labeled as the missing pieces. But inside we realize it's a lie. We feel disillussioned and turn to nihilism. We have our indivuality and our sensce of community sold to us through products. We've lost sight. We all know there is a cancer but can't find the reason, and point in different directions. Then we fight, not over to do the right or wrong thing, but over what is the right thing to do.
I know a bit about this Springer musical actually as a friend of ours is in the chorus. Mrs Segovius is an opera singer and could have made 200k doing the West end stint but wouldn't do it.
I'll explain her reasons - which are more or less my own view - and which are nothing to do with religion:
Springer (and particularly this musical) and what we call the 'fundies' are part of the same malaise (as well as many other things). Let's call this 'dumbing down': ie it is a reducing of the intelligence levels across the board, an atrophying of the critical faculties and a general brainwashing.
This is done consciously and one of the forms it takes is an assault on 'moral values'. Now I am not a moralist - nor do I give a flying fuck about swearing or blasphemy. I care about it to the degree that it is used as a tool of disempowerment of the populace - and this IS what is happening.
I believe it is also more sinister than that. I have observed a structured plan to 'turn things into their opposites'. This is particularly obvious in advertising - the meme is you (say) have a symbol of non-materialism (a zen monk say) and his meditation is on a car or other 'desirable'.
It happens a lot with music. You get classic tracks as backing with themes such as 'free me' or proclaiming individuality when the actual effect is slavery or conformity. The classic here was 'All along the watchtower' being played over scenes of mindless drones pouring into their place of work, as it got to 'there must be some way out of here.....too much confusion....' the ad revealed itselff as for a car. A generic, souless, cookie-cutter car that was indistinguishable form any other. Hendrix......
So to me this is an organised assault on the thinking capacities. Disempowerment. Mrs S takes a slightly different view as she is an artiste and see is it as lowering of cultural standards - which it is.
I, however am not convinced that it is not something far more sinister.
Re protesting: quite simply I don't believe in it. I have never known it to work. And after all it is just another means of getting what you want - allegedly. I prefer to get what I want more directly if you catch my drift - armed revolution springs daily to mind. But I digress....
In this case I believe the protesters are right to protest. Fundies or not. There is a disease sweeping the west now and it is not the disease of 'fundamentalism' - they spread it for sure (or perhaps more correctly, they are 'carriers' of it - maybe even 'engineers' of it but they are not the root problem).
I have seen this country (the UK) deteriorate from this disease for decades - not that I care, never was much of a nationalist, but it does impinge on one's movements. And I am not ordinarily resident here so it's not so bad. But in a discussion such as this one must tell it like it is.
The UK is being turned into a sheep like populace who will gobble up any foetid BS and beg for more - just like the US. Everyone here complains about Blair but they will vote him in again - just like they did Bush - and he will continue his (and Bush's) agenda.
This will happen because people can't think anymore. They don't know why they can't think because they can't think about it.
Those of you who CAN still think should use that faculty to ponder how things got like this (and this thread gives you all the data you need) before it's too late.
Seriously.
If you keep this up, you'll owe Victor Hugo royalties.
Not sure what I think about the commercial co-opting of the cultural items you guys have suggested, but one thing I do think is that the lack of a few things seems to be a root cause:
1. Rational, critical, focused thinking.
2. Gray thinking.
3. Listening.
4. Civil discussion.
Number 4 will never really happen without the first three.
And without number 4, it seems we spiral out of control into grunting, animalistic behaviors.
So why don't we have 1-3? Because these don't seem to be honored much these days (or even taught in our schools?)
Perhaps this boils down to laziness? I don't really want to read/see/hear/find things from multiple sources/viewpoints and compare and contrast them against one another?
I don't know. It almost seems like a sports team model has taken over...winning is all that matters. That's fine for football (whichever flavor you choose) or whatever...but for some of the important issues of our day it seems quite inadequate.
You forgot to mention number 5. Having a sense of humor (especially about yourself)
Humor is very important! Good catch.
"Gray thinking"...a phrase I picked up from a book I have been reading recently ("The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership")...the basic idea is really about trying to not lock into some hard assumptions/ideas/pre-conceived notions about the things you are making decisions about. Delay decisions (on certain things) as long as possible...allowing for new facts/ideas/views to come in. he talks about realizing that you don't always need to make a decision. For example...on God (and the trinity)...
I don't need to make any decisions/commit to any assumptions/etc. about how this works. I can believe it...but I might not know how/why it works.
Or...some play that might mock Christianity or Jesus Christ...I can wait to make any decisions about it...maybe I never have to (as in this example...I don't really need to make any decisions about that play).
It's really about breaking out of the "rule" that we have to have a solid, defensible opinion/view on everything.
Though it is not necessarily a license for indecision. It is something different than (as I read it anyway). Maybe it is a "purposeful indecision"...or "purposeful procrastination on decision making".
( I have done a terrible job explaining this...the book is better )
2. The folks threatening violence (calling themselevs Christians or not) do not reflect on me (or even most Christians that I know) I don't know these guys. I might think that the play (sounds) offensive...and even hate the idea of it...but I am not going off threating violence towards anyone. They are breaking the law and should suffer the consequences for it.
But that's where you are missing the point.
It's not that every time I see someone do/say/express something stupid in the name of Christianity, I want it to reflect on how I view Chris Cuilla, or other Christians in General.
It's because every time one of the afforementioned acts happens, then it does reflect badly on Chris Cuilla and Christians, because however much we try to be politically correct or non-bigotted, that is just how it works in real life.
And thats why I think that rational, sensible Christians, need to stand up and be counted, before the mindless trainwreck of 'fundeism' reflects badly on all of you, and the ensuing backlash occurs - however much of a 'nice' person you are.
It's not that every time I see someone do/say/express something stupid in the name of Christianity, I want it to reflect on how I view Chris Cuilla, or other Christians in General.
It's because every time one of the afforementioned acts happens, then it does reflect badly on Chris Cuilla and Christians
Isn't that the choice the person viewing events? I'm not being naive. But as I have said before, I cannot protest every protest or dumb statement or evil thing that other Christians do. Just not enough time in the day to be honest.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
And thats why I think that rational, sensible Christians, need to stand up and be counted, before the mindless trainwreck of 'fundeism' reflects badly on all of you, and the ensuing backlash occurs - however much of a 'nice' person you are.
Stand up how? I mean...first there are those that do. They have pulpits of their own (my own Pastor is an example). They speak against such silliness and stupidity.
Second, none of us can force anyone to do anything.
I know you think (you've said it) that I don't have the time or convictions to do what you think I should be doing about this. Fine. You're entitled to that opinion (even if it is not based on truth). But can't you accept (as I stated before) that there are different strategies and tactics for dealing with hatred, evil, ignorance, sinfulness, etc.?
You have yours...and you seem to assume that shouting the loudest might be the best approach and that is why I (and other "right thinking" Christians) ought to do. Yet you decry the shouting that the "wrong thinking" Christians do. Perhaps the shouting is the thing to stop first.
Whenever I get into these kind of controversial discussions I try a few things:
1. To genuinely consider the other ideas (that I might not agree with).
2. To avoid making assumptions about people/statements/etc.
3. To not raise the temperature of the conversation by using deliberately inciteful language.
4. To try to lower the temperature of the conversation if at all possible.
Now...in all fairness...I am imperfect (as are you) and I sometimes fail in one or more of those goals (please be kind enough to forgive me when I do). The point is...back to the shouting thing...shouting is not something I think is very effective. I agree that sometimes it is the only thing some people will ever hear. Well, okay. But I think most people listen/hear better without it.
In this case I believe the protesters are right to protest. Fundies or not. There is a disease sweeping the west now and it is not the disease of 'fundamentalism' - they spread it for sure (or perhaps more correctly, they are 'carriers' of it - maybe even 'engineers' of it but they are not the root problem).
-ie: the recent NYTimes article on the new word-of-mouth advertising trend, where people willfully sign-up to become spreaders of information about products . . . . then going out of their way in order to invade any social setting, family gathers for instance, and 'spreading the word' about said product . . .
It is a profound sickness and is growing fast . . . . the irony here is that this discussion is on a board dedicated to a 'product'!!
Isn't that the choice the person viewing events? I'm not being naive. But as I have said before, I cannot protest every protest or dumb statement or evil thing that other Christians do. Just not enough time in the day to be honest.
Stand up how? I mean...first there are those that do. They have pulpits of their own (my own Pastor is an example). They speak against such silliness and stupidity.
Second, none of us can force anyone to do anything.
I know you think (you've said it) that I don't have the time or convictions to do what you think I should be doing about this. Fine. You're entitled to that opinion (even if it is not based on truth). But can't you accept (as I stated before) that there are different strategies and tactics for dealing with hatred, evil, ignorance, sinfulness, etc.?
You have yours...and you seem to assume that shouting the loudest might be the best approach and that is why I (and other "right thinking" Christians) ought to do. Yet you decry the shouting that the "wrong thinking" Christians do. Perhaps the shouting is the thing to stop first.
Whenever I get into these kind of controversial discussions I try a few things:
1. To genuinely consider the other ideas (that I might not agree with).
2. To avoid making assumptions about people/statements/etc.
3. To not raise the temperature of the conversation by using deliberately inciteful language.
4. To try to lower the temperature of the conversation if at all possible.
Now...in all fairness...I am imperfect (as are you) and I sometimes fail in one or more of those goals (please be kind enough to forgive me when I do). The point is...back to the shouting thing...shouting is not something I think is very effective. I agree that sometimes it is the only thing some people will ever hear. Well, okay. But I think most people listen/hear better without it.
I agree, but the problem is the softly-softly intelligent rational debate approach isn't working.
The real problem is the dissolution of the worth of community and individuals for the benefit of the market. We feel something missing, have a faint idea of what it is and then we are presented with idols labeled as the missing pieces. But inside we realize it's a lie. We feel disillussioned and turn to nihilism. We have our indivuality and our sensce of community sold to us through products. We've lost sight. We all know there is a cancer but can't find the reason, and point in different directions.
Wow, nice posts by you and segovius.
What you say here particularly hits home to me. I gave a talk at my church on the psychological research on "subjective well-being" (happiness) and what it relates to. Basically, the research shows that although people are motivated by material things, they do absolutely nothing for well being. Generally speaking, rich people aren't any happier in their lives than poor people. But the things that do make us happier are very non-materialistic. People who are married are happier, people who are spiritual in some way are happier, and a few other things.
One psychologist who's done a lot of research in that area is David Myers, a liberal religious guy, and he has two pertinent books, The American Paradox and The Pursuit of Happiness. They're a little bit self-help-y, if you know what I mean, but he talks about some of the research on this stuff in those books.
Comments
Originally posted by MarcUK
you're obviously trying to get this thread locked, or make me erupt in anger so I get banned,
You can 'win' this argument by the age-old tactic of infuryating the opponent so he just walks away. So I'm walking.
BYE.
I am not trying to get the thread locked.
Sorry if I am infuriating you, but I just don't get how this all so hard to understand.
Originally posted by segovius
Yes, I suppose that there can be little doubt that this movie is an absolute stinker - as indeed so many of Mr Stone's efforts unfortunately are...
Are you dissing Stone's work on Conan?!
Spokesman from Christian Community alliance is calling for the director general of the BBC to be suspended.
...Now is calling for the government to censor the BBC.
...Threating the BBC with a Christian 'fatwa'
...Threatening the BBC with responsibility for the consequences.
Wow, free speech certainly hits home with these Christians.
Confirmed. Christian alliance 'wants it pulled from the schedule"
originally posted by MarcUK
you're obviously trying to get this thread locked, or make me erupt in anger so I get banned,
You can 'win' this argument by the age-old tactic of infuryating the opponent so he just walks away. So I'm walking.
Marc, you obviously have a point, a possible valid point. Where you failed was showing that the protesters in any way tried to physically bar BBC worker or people who had business there or did anything else illegal during the protest. From all the evidence you provided Chris's argument holds more validity on this matter. However, if it was shown that the protesters stepped beyond their rights to prohibit another's then I think Chris, I, yourself and the Judicial System would full agree that such action was wrong.
As for the threats, does the BBC have recordings and records to verify and prosecute with?
Originally posted by LiquidR
Marc, you obviously have a point, a possible valid point. Where you failed was showing that the protesters in any way tried to physically bar BBC worker or people who had business there or did anything else illegal during the protest. From all the evidence you provided Chris's argument holds more validity on this matter. However, if it was shown that the protesters stepped beyond their rights to prohibit another's then I think Chris, I, yourself and the Judicial System would full agree that such action was wrong.
And so would I.
And (BTW) the threats of violence (if true...I haven't seen any news reports of this) are clearly over the line (and there are laws about that).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And so would I.
And (BTW) the threats of violence (if true...I haven't seen any news reports of this) are clearly over the line (and there are laws about that).
Im reporting all this as soon as it is broadcast on the TV, expect to find copy of it in a few days.
[edit]apparently hundreds of them have burned their TV licences, so at least they can be fined £1000 if they watch it.
Originally posted by segovius
But that's my point. I find it depressing to have to spell it out but what the hell - obviously it's necessary:
There is nothing controversial about being gay.
There is nothing controversial about belonging to a specific ethnic grouping.
These things become controversial when faced with bigotry if - and only if - that bigotry is given equal weight (which of course is what the bigots always lobby for, consciously or unconsciously).
There can be controversy though about claiming either of those to be true when certain groups put the facts about them into dispute and thus claim they aren't true.
You seem to confuse approval of homosexuality with someone claiming a party is homosexual when they may or may not be so.
I saw a book review yesterday that dealt with an author who claims Abraham Lincoln was in fact homosexual.
The book doesn't have to be controversial because people are arguing about whether homosexuality is proper. It would be controversial because people are making claims that cannot be proven are go against the previous claims of most or all regarding that person and their sexuality.
You don't have to believe a certain races or sexual practices are right or wrong to have something controversial. If I claimed you were both black and homosexual and you were in fact white and hetero, I would hold a controversial position.
Nick
Originally posted by MarcUK
Im reporting all this as soon as it is broadcast on the TV, expect to find copy of it in a few days.
That's fine. I didn't really doubt the veracity of the threats. But let's be very careful here...because this is where you (MarcUK) I think make the following leaps:
1. Protesting (marching, picketing, etc.) is not threatening or violence. Even burning the TV licenses (as I have seen repotred) is fine (like burning draft cards, American flags and bras). It is a form of protest (assuming of course it doesn't physically harm someone).
2. The folks threatening violence (calling themselevs Christians or not) do not reflect on me (or even most Christians that I know) I don't know these guys. I might think that the play (sounds) offensive...and even hate the idea of it...but I am not going off threating violence towards anyone. They are breaking the law and should suffer the consequences for it.
Finally, let me say this, as a Christian (this is a view that I recently expressed in my small Bible study group actually)...I, personally, think that as Christians, we ought to turn the other cheek on this kind of thing more often than happens. I think these kinds of "artistic expressions" say more about the expressers than it does about God/Jesus Christ, Christianity or the Bible. I think these people will have to answer to God for their actions (as will I for mine). I think it is fine to release a statement that says..."Hey, we think this is in poor taste, insulting, even blaspemous...but hey...We don't need to answer to God for their actions. We think it is sad and unfortunate."
The real problem is hinted at your statements dealing with commercials coopting music that was originally meant to be a part of the counter-culture or be a message of individuality. The real problem is the dissolution of the worth of community and individuals for the benefit of the market. We feel something missing, have a faint idea of what it is and then we are presented with idols labeled as the missing pieces. But inside we realize it's a lie. We feel disillussioned and turn to nihilism. We have our indivuality and our sensce of community sold to us through products. We've lost sight. We all know there is a cancer but can't find the reason, and point in different directions. Then we fight, not over to do the right or wrong thing, but over what is the right thing to do.
I have no intention of watching it, purely because Springer and what he represents is just fucking anal.
But that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to air the show, because fundies demand it.
Originally posted by segovius
My take on the Springer issue and 'protesting':
I know a bit about this Springer musical actually as a friend of ours is in the chorus. Mrs Segovius is an opera singer and could have made 200k doing the West end stint but wouldn't do it.
I'll explain her reasons - which are more or less my own view - and which are nothing to do with religion:
Springer (and particularly this musical) and what we call the 'fundies' are part of the same malaise (as well as many other things). Let's call this 'dumbing down': ie it is a reducing of the intelligence levels across the board, an atrophying of the critical faculties and a general brainwashing.
This is done consciously and one of the forms it takes is an assault on 'moral values'. Now I am not a moralist - nor do I give a flying fuck about swearing or blasphemy. I care about it to the degree that it is used as a tool of disempowerment of the populace - and this IS what is happening.
I believe it is also more sinister than that. I have observed a structured plan to 'turn things into their opposites'. This is particularly obvious in advertising - the meme is you (say) have a symbol of non-materialism (a zen monk say) and his meditation is on a car or other 'desirable'.
It happens a lot with music. You get classic tracks as backing with themes such as 'free me' or proclaiming individuality when the actual effect is slavery or conformity. The classic here was 'All along the watchtower' being played over scenes of mindless drones pouring into their place of work, as it got to 'there must be some way out of here.....too much confusion....' the ad revealed itselff as for a car. A generic, souless, cookie-cutter car that was indistinguishable form any other. Hendrix......
So to me this is an organised assault on the thinking capacities. Disempowerment. Mrs S takes a slightly different view as she is an artiste and see is it as lowering of cultural standards - which it is.
I, however am not convinced that it is not something far more sinister.
Re protesting: quite simply I don't believe in it. I have never known it to work. And after all it is just another means of getting what you want - allegedly. I prefer to get what I want more directly if you catch my drift - armed revolution springs daily to mind. But I digress....
In this case I believe the protesters are right to protest. Fundies or not. There is a disease sweeping the west now and it is not the disease of 'fundamentalism' - they spread it for sure (or perhaps more correctly, they are 'carriers' of it - maybe even 'engineers' of it but they are not the root problem).
I have seen this country (the UK) deteriorate from this disease for decades - not that I care, never was much of a nationalist, but it does impinge on one's movements. And I am not ordinarily resident here so it's not so bad. But in a discussion such as this one must tell it like it is.
The UK is being turned into a sheep like populace who will gobble up any foetid BS and beg for more - just like the US. Everyone here complains about Blair but they will vote him in again - just like they did Bush - and he will continue his (and Bush's) agenda.
This will happen because people can't think anymore. They don't know why they can't think because they can't think about it.
Those of you who CAN still think should use that faculty to ponder how things got like this (and this thread gives you all the data you need) before it's too late.
Seriously.
If you keep this up, you'll owe Victor Hugo royalties.
Nick
1. Rational, critical, focused thinking.
2. Gray thinking.
3. Listening.
4. Civil discussion.
Number 4 will never really happen without the first three.
And without number 4, it seems we spiral out of control into grunting, animalistic behaviors.
So why don't we have 1-3? Because these don't seem to be honored much these days (or even taught in our schools?)
Perhaps this boils down to laziness? I don't really want to read/see/hear/find things from multiple sources/viewpoints and compare and contrast them against one another?
I don't know. It almost seems like a sports team model has taken over...winning is all that matters. That's fine for football (whichever flavor you choose) or whatever...but for some of the important issues of our day it seems quite inadequate.
originally posted by Chris Cuilla
2. Gray thinking.
????
Not familiar with that term.
You forgot to mention number 5. Having a sense of humor (especially about yourself)
Originally posted by LiquidR
????
Not familiar with that term.
You forgot to mention number 5. Having a sense of humor (especially about yourself)
Humor is very important! Good catch.
"Gray thinking"...a phrase I picked up from a book I have been reading recently ("The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership")...the basic idea is really about trying to not lock into some hard assumptions/ideas/pre-conceived notions about the things you are making decisions about. Delay decisions (on certain things) as long as possible...allowing for new facts/ideas/views to come in. he talks about realizing that you don't always need to make a decision. For example...on God (and the trinity)...
I don't need to make any decisions/commit to any assumptions/etc. about how this works. I can believe it...but I might not know how/why it works.
Or...some play that might mock Christianity or Jesus Christ...I can wait to make any decisions about it...maybe I never have to (as in this example...I don't really need to make any decisions about that play).
It's really about breaking out of the "rule" that we have to have a solid, defensible opinion/view on everything.
Though it is not necessarily a license for indecision. It is something different than (as I read it anyway). Maybe it is a "purposeful indecision"...or "purposeful procrastination on decision making".
( I have done a terrible job explaining this...the book is better )
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
.
2. The folks threatening violence (calling themselevs Christians or not) do not reflect on me (or even most Christians that I know) I don't know these guys. I might think that the play (sounds) offensive...and even hate the idea of it...but I am not going off threating violence towards anyone. They are breaking the law and should suffer the consequences for it.
But that's where you are missing the point.
It's not that every time I see someone do/say/express something stupid in the name of Christianity, I want it to reflect on how I view Chris Cuilla, or other Christians in General.
It's because every time one of the afforementioned acts happens, then it does reflect badly on Chris Cuilla and Christians, because however much we try to be politically correct or non-bigotted, that is just how it works in real life.
And thats why I think that rational, sensible Christians, need to stand up and be counted, before the mindless trainwreck of 'fundeism' reflects badly on all of you, and the ensuing backlash occurs - however much of a 'nice' person you are.
Originally posted by segovius
My neighbour is a member of the KKK. Last week a black man, Mr Smith, moved into our street.
Since then my neighbour has been graffiti-ing the house of the controversial Mr Smith.
-touche
Originally posted by MarcUK
It's not that every time I see someone do/say/express something stupid in the name of Christianity, I want it to reflect on how I view Chris Cuilla, or other Christians in General.
It's because every time one of the afforementioned acts happens, then it does reflect badly on Chris Cuilla and Christians
Isn't that the choice the person viewing events? I'm not being naive. But as I have said before, I cannot protest every protest or dumb statement or evil thing that other Christians do. Just not enough time in the day to be honest.
Originally posted by MarcUK
And thats why I think that rational, sensible Christians, need to stand up and be counted, before the mindless trainwreck of 'fundeism' reflects badly on all of you, and the ensuing backlash occurs - however much of a 'nice' person you are.
Stand up how? I mean...first there are those that do. They have pulpits of their own (my own Pastor is an example). They speak against such silliness and stupidity.
Second, none of us can force anyone to do anything.
I know you think (you've said it) that I don't have the time or convictions to do what you think I should be doing about this. Fine. You're entitled to that opinion (even if it is not based on truth). But can't you accept (as I stated before) that there are different strategies and tactics for dealing with hatred, evil, ignorance, sinfulness, etc.?
You have yours...and you seem to assume that shouting the loudest might be the best approach and that is why I (and other "right thinking" Christians) ought to do. Yet you decry the shouting that the "wrong thinking" Christians do. Perhaps the shouting is the thing to stop first.
Whenever I get into these kind of controversial discussions I try a few things:
1. To genuinely consider the other ideas (that I might not agree with).
2. To avoid making assumptions about people/statements/etc.
3. To not raise the temperature of the conversation by using deliberately inciteful language.
4. To try to lower the temperature of the conversation if at all possible.
Now...in all fairness...I am imperfect (as are you) and I sometimes fail in one or more of those goals (please be kind enough to forgive me when I do). The point is...back to the shouting thing...shouting is not something I think is very effective. I agree that sometimes it is the only thing some people will ever hear. Well, okay. But I think most people listen/hear better without it.
Originally posted by segovius
In this case I believe the protesters are right to protest. Fundies or not. There is a disease sweeping the west now and it is not the disease of 'fundamentalism' - they spread it for sure (or perhaps more correctly, they are 'carriers' of it - maybe even 'engineers' of it but they are not the root problem).
-ie: the recent NYTimes article on the new word-of-mouth advertising trend, where people willfully sign-up to become spreaders of information about products . . . . then going out of their way in order to invade any social setting, family gathers for instance, and 'spreading the word' about said product . . .
It is a profound sickness and is growing fast . . . . the irony here is that this discussion is on a board dedicated to a 'product'!!
"the wasteland grows" --Nietszche
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Isn't that the choice the person viewing events? I'm not being naive. But as I have said before, I cannot protest every protest or dumb statement or evil thing that other Christians do. Just not enough time in the day to be honest.
Stand up how? I mean...first there are those that do. They have pulpits of their own (my own Pastor is an example). They speak against such silliness and stupidity.
Second, none of us can force anyone to do anything.
I know you think (you've said it) that I don't have the time or convictions to do what you think I should be doing about this. Fine. You're entitled to that opinion (even if it is not based on truth). But can't you accept (as I stated before) that there are different strategies and tactics for dealing with hatred, evil, ignorance, sinfulness, etc.?
You have yours...and you seem to assume that shouting the loudest might be the best approach and that is why I (and other "right thinking" Christians) ought to do. Yet you decry the shouting that the "wrong thinking" Christians do. Perhaps the shouting is the thing to stop first.
Whenever I get into these kind of controversial discussions I try a few things:
1. To genuinely consider the other ideas (that I might not agree with).
2. To avoid making assumptions about people/statements/etc.
3. To not raise the temperature of the conversation by using deliberately inciteful language.
4. To try to lower the temperature of the conversation if at all possible.
Now...in all fairness...I am imperfect (as are you) and I sometimes fail in one or more of those goals (please be kind enough to forgive me when I do). The point is...back to the shouting thing...shouting is not something I think is very effective. I agree that sometimes it is the only thing some people will ever hear. Well, okay. But I think most people listen/hear better without it.
I agree, but the problem is the softly-softly intelligent rational debate approach isn't working.
Originally posted by LiquidR
The real problem is the dissolution of the worth of community and individuals for the benefit of the market. We feel something missing, have a faint idea of what it is and then we are presented with idols labeled as the missing pieces. But inside we realize it's a lie. We feel disillussioned and turn to nihilism. We have our indivuality and our sensce of community sold to us through products. We've lost sight. We all know there is a cancer but can't find the reason, and point in different directions.
Wow, nice posts by you and segovius.
What you say here particularly hits home to me. I gave a talk at my church on the psychological research on "subjective well-being" (happiness) and what it relates to. Basically, the research shows that although people are motivated by material things, they do absolutely nothing for well being. Generally speaking, rich people aren't any happier in their lives than poor people. But the things that do make us happier are very non-materialistic. People who are married are happier, people who are spiritual in some way are happier, and a few other things.
One psychologist who's done a lot of research in that area is David Myers, a liberal religious guy, and he has two pertinent books, The American Paradox and The Pursuit of Happiness. They're a little bit self-help-y, if you know what I mean, but he talks about some of the research on this stuff in those books.