As other people have already said, neither did we. You're inclusion of that is no more appropriate than throwing up a kkk web site to booster arguments that opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities.
The left has been accusing the right of hate on a myriad of issues - opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities, opposition to abortion means Republicans hate women. And they've been doing it since before I went to college in '88, in explicit language.
posted
Dag, you post yards and yards of text, and expect people to read your arguments, but you can't read a 3 line post? What part of this don't you understand?
quote: It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
quote:Dag, you post yards and yards of text, and expect people to read your arguments, but you can't read a 3 line post? What part of this don't you understand?
I think you're the one with the comprehension problem here.
quote:It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
First the political party limitation was not put on the hate/angry distinction proposed by Dan, which is what I was originally refuting, so, I fail to see how that's relevant.
Second, in the cases I mentioned on the post on this page, yes, it was between political parties. At least, it was between liberal activists who were also afiliated with the Young Democrats, attacking specific policy planks of the Republican platform.
You had no knowledge of this, so I'm wondering why you think it wasn't related to political parties.
As I understand it, this phrase is accusing conservative of hypocrisy by promoting family values, while preaching hatred of (gays, abortion doctors, etc.)
It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
You seem to be missing the fact that I was commenting on one bumper sticker. Or do you automatically assume that your words must be the only ones here worth commenting on?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's really not that important. I had a question about whether this nation or any nation could truly call itself Christian and illustrated it with one of the most difficult aspects, for most of us, of Christianity -- the idea of actually LOVING your enemy!
I'm quite convinced that a nation that tried to follow the precepts of non-retaliation and pre-emptive KINDNESS (when sued for the shirt, give the cloak too!!!) would not survive.
Then, I asked if that meant that no nation could call itself Christian.
So far, we've had some apologists for Christian justifications for war or violence make a decent case (following Augustine) that there are just causes for war, or that the balance between pacifism and protecting the weak is such that sometimes war is the only Christian response. And others have made a decent case that what's true for the individual Christian may not apply to the Christian state.
I don't really agree, but at least the arguments are well presented and make logical sense, even if I personally believe that the scripture can't be twisted far enough to support the position that Augustine ended up with.
This business about who hates the most is just not interesting, IMHO. I mean, once you've started it, where can it go? YOU hate the most, NO, YOU DO!
Great. Big. Yawn.
Jesus said "don't hate." Not "don't hate relative to how much the other guy hates."
Right?
So we're all screwed.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To put it simply, you often accuse me of being in disagreement with you, when I am not. You assume we are on opposite sides of an argument, when we are not.
Those assumptions are prejudices. When I point them out to you, you continue the argument as though my pointing them out was intended to be a continuation of an argument, when in fact what I was trying to do was to point out that we don't need to be arguing in the first place.
With respect to the statement about hatred, you (or perhaps I should say Annie, since the quote is hers) are making a converse error. That is, the bumper sticker doesn't say: If you are a conservative, then you preach family values and hatred.
I wasn't disagreeing with anything you might or might not have said about about anybody hating anybody. I was only pointing out that the scope of the bumper sticker was more limited than people seem to think.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
anyway, not a problem. I'm just bored with this temporary line of discussion. It wouldn't be the first thread that went somewhere not intended by the original poster.
Now maybe I have done something I just accused you of. This quote came right after my bumper sticker post, and seemed to be referring to my post.
quote: Right - they recast the religious and political beliefs of their opponents as hate.
If you were referring to an earlier post from Dan (it doesn't look like it to me, but I concede it's possible) then I am guilty of assuming that my words were what you were responding to.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the tough call is whether a nation is different from an individual. Can a nation go to war to defend its members? I think so, because it is not fighting to protect itself, but to protect others. When a soldier goes to war, he does not go to defend himself, he goes to defend those back home (or those in the country he is fighting in). I think this is different than fighting someone for personal reasons. Of course not all wars are just, but I think some can be.
That being said, you should still not "hate" your enemy. Personally, I don't hate Bin Laden, or Saddam. I think capturing them and putting them behind bars where they can't hurt others is important, but I don't feel hatred towards them. In a way I feel sorry for them. I can't imagine living with the hatred that they live with. Making it your life's work to kill and terrorize other people cannot be something that leads to personal happiness.
Personally, when people do things that are hurtful to me, I just try to shrug it off. It helps me get along with most people, because I don't hold a grudge. I'm not saying that this make me a better person than those that do hold grudges...or feel hatred, heck I've got plenty of my own flaws. Its just that I think holding a grudge against someone is a waste of energy. Being mad at a person doesn't effect them, it only effects you. If someone has already done something to hurt you, do you really think they care if you are pissed at them? The only person you are hurting is yourself.
My main flaw in this respect is with my sister. I am very protective of her, and if someone does something hurtful to her, I do hold a grudge. I realize that it is not better than holding a grudge against someone who hurt me directly, nor is it more productive...it is something I struggle with.
I do think it is important to love your enemies, even if it is difficult. Everyone (Christian or not) has flaws. It is easy to point out the mistakes that Christians make...but it is important to remember that while everyone has flaws, the important thing is the journey...or the attempt to better yourself.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I don't know what the hell is going on. here's the sequence of what I was responding to:
Glenn: "As I understand it, this phrase is accusing conservative of hypocrisy by promoting family values, while preaching hatred of (gays, abortion doctors, etc.)
It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se."
Dag: Right - they recast the religious and political beliefs of their opponents as hate.
Glenn: We didn't make up "godhatesfags.com".
Dag: As other people have already said, neither did we. You're inclusion of that is no more appropriate than throwing up a kkk web site to booster arguments that opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities.
The left has been accusing the right of hate on a myriad of issues - opposition to affirmative action means Republicans hate minorities, opposition to abortion means Republicans hate women. And they've been doing it since before I went to college in '88, in explicit language.
Glenn: Dag, you post yards and yards of text, and expect people to read your arguments, but you can't read a 3 line post? What part of this don't you understand?
quote: It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se.
Dag: First the political party limitation was not put on the hate/angry distinction proposed by Dan, which is what I was originally refuting, so, I fail to see how that's relevant.
Second, in the cases I mentioned on the post on this page, yes, it was between political parties. At least, it was between liberal activists who were also afiliated with the Young Democrats, attacking specific policy planks of the Republican platform.
You had no knowledge of this, so I'm wondering why you think it wasn't related to political parties.
Glenn: It's manifestly not true that Fred Phelps is a conservative? Or it's not true that Fred Phelps claims to support "family values"?
Or is not true that the bumper sticker is NOT aimed at everyone who preaches "family values?"
How about this one? Is it not true that Dagonee has not examined his own prejudices?
Here's my current mental state: WTF??? I have no idea what this last post of yours mean.
posted
I identified your prejudices in the post right after Bob's "snark o meter" post.
Based on your sequence in the last post, I see that your comment about recasting beliefs as hate WAS in response to my post, so I didn't make an invalid assumption.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Nothing there indicates that I didn't read or understand your "It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se" quote.
You posted godshatefags, not me. If you had some other reason for posting it, you have utterly failed to make that case. Certainly, "It doesn't refer to hatred between political parties, per se" is irrelevant to my response to that post.
posted
You didn't respond to what I said. You simply reposted a series of posts as though rereading them would make it obvious that your view of my original post was accurate. And you stopped before the post that describes your prejudices.
And yes, it's clear that you made no attempt to understand my post.
Your claim seems to be that my statement makes a blanket accusation of all conservatives, when it only accuses conservatives who BOTH preach family values and hatred. Fred Phelps doesn't need anyone to recast his beliefs as hatred, he states it explicitly.
You are conflating my explanation that the bumper sticker accuses him (and his ilk) of hypocrisy with a broad accusation that all conservatives are like him, which is precisely what I was not doing.
So as I said, you are creating an argument where there doesn't need to be one.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You didn't respond to what I said. You simply reposted a series of posts as though rereading them would make it obvious that your view of my original post was accurate. And you stopped before the post that describes your prejudices.
The reposting wasn't the response I was speaking of.
quote:And yes, it's clear that you made no attempt to understand my post.
No, it's not. Saying it don't make it so. It may be I misunderstood your post, and I'm willing to accept your explanation. But it's ludicrous to pretend that a cryptic, one-line inclusion of an inflammatory site, which came into existence AFTER the bumper sticker in question, is so clearly meant to be used in the way you suggested that any failure to understand your meaning makes it clear one did not attempt to understand the post.
quote:Your claim seems to be that my statement makes a blanket accusation of all conservatives, when it only accuses conservatives who BOTH preach family values and hatred. Fred Phelps doesn't need anyone to recast his beliefs as hatred, he states it explicitly.
The topic being discussed is Dan's contention that accusing people who disagree with one of hatred is a tactic solely of the right. All my posts stand within that topic very well.
quote:You are conflating my explanation that the bumper sticker accuses him (and his ilk) of hypocrisy with a broad accusation that all conservatives are like him, which is precisely what I was not doing.
So as I said, you are creating an argument where there doesn't need to be one.
And you are assuming a clarity of expression you have not achieved in this thread, and making accusations you can't back up.
quote: The topic being discussed is Dan's contention that accusing people who disagree with one of hatred is a tactic solely of the right. All my posts stand within that topic very well.
No it's not, the topic being discussed is the meaning of a bumper sticker.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The topic that led to the introduction of the bumper sticker was "Dan's contention that accusing people who disagree with one of hatred is a tactic solely of the right." The bumper sticker was being discussed within that context.
Edit: Annie's post makes this clear:
quote:---------------------------------- quote:The new buzz word coming out of the far right is "hate". They claim that anyone disagreeing with the president or another favored politician must hate them. They say it with a wrathful hateful intensity. ----------------------------------
In all fairness, that's been the buzz word out of the "left" for years. Remember the "Hate is Not a Family Value" bumper stickers?
I interpreted your comments as being relevant to that topic.
Context. It's all about context. If you don't provide enough of your own, it will be absorbed from the preceeding thread of discussion.
Especially with the chronological relationship of godhatesfags and "hate i not a family value."
I get very confused about what our country is supposed to be. I mentioned the "religion of legacy" because it seems to be the only belief that is consistent with most of our governments honorable actions.
Though I have a very strong set of Christian beliefs myself, I don't know if I'd want the country to act in a Christian way. There is such an powerful evangelical component to the religion that it would seem impossible to encourage acceptance of other beliefs, while holding true to Christianity.
When Bush talks about the US' relationship and hope for the world, he seems to think of the terms Democracy and Christianity as interchangeable ideas. But, IMO, they aren't.
I actually like the idea of living in a country that is concerned with its legacy. I'm proud that we stepped in and fought Hitler even though he wasn't at our door. I'm proud that we as a country continue to be embarrassed that we were the first to use atomic weapons.
Though, on a personal level, I can choose to never seek justice through violence. I don't think that the same can be said for a nation if it expects to guarantee the security of its citizens.
I think that it is dangerous to try and be a Christian nation, but it is imperitive that we be a moral, ethical and honorable nation.
Maybe I'm too naive, but my understanding of being a Christian doesn't require a violation of my moral or ethical codes.
What frightens me right now is that we have chosen a President who is pushing an evangelical, conservative Christian agenda, yet, IMO, does not appear to be using honorable means to enforce his beliefs on the rest of the world.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You seem to be missing the fact that I was commenting on one bumper sticker. Or do you automatically assume that your words must be the only ones here worth commenting on?
As far as backing up my accusations, I accused you of not bothering to read or understand my posts. And you also missed the fact that the (non)issue of your discussion with Dan had already been addressed. Apparently you failed to read or understand it. Yet you continued to assume that your "context" somehow played into the crux of the argument, while accusing me of not being clear.
This isn't the first time you've accused me of not being clear. It also isn't the first time I've accused you of intentionally misunderstanding me.
I can say that among my professional and educational relations I have a reputation for being very clear. That's part of why I try to keep my posts short, to deal with only one issue at a time.
But I see a pattern here, because you often ignore parts of my posts, and accuse me of saying something I haven't said. Then you accuse me of not being clear, rather than admit that your perception of my posts is colored by your assumption that I must be your opponent. Sorry, but your arguments are starting to smell of intellectual dishonesty.
You know, the funny thing is, my recollection of the first time I discussed something *with you* (as opposed to merely being in the same thread with you) I pointed out that although we are on opposite sides of the issue as far as religious belief goes, I side with you on your school publication case. Yet it seems that was the starting point at which you began to make these accusations. Why is that?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I see a pattern here, because you often ignore parts of my posts, and accuse me of saying something I haven't said. Then you accuse me of not being clear, rather than admit that your perception of my posts is colored by your assumption that I must be your opponent. Sorry, but your arguments are starting to smell of intellectual dishonesty.
You know, the funny thing is, my recollection of the first time I discussed something *with you* (as opposed to merely being in the same thread with you) I pointed out that although we are on opposite sides of the issue as far as religious belief goes, I side with you on your school publication case. Yet it seems that was the starting point at which you began to make these accusations. Why is that?
Frankly I think the answer is likely to reside in your mirror.
In other words, I think you're making it up. Intentionally or not, I have no idea.
In fact, you've intentionally picked fights with me before - posting a thread to call me on my suspicions about a news story you posted.
quote: quote: You seem to be missing the fact that I was commenting on one bumper sticker. Or do you automatically assume that your words must be the only ones here worth commenting on?
As far as backing up my accusations, I accused you of not bothering to read or understand my posts. And you also missed the fact that the (non)issue of your discussion with Dan had already been addressed. Apparently you failed to read or understand it. Yet you continued to assume that your "context" somehow played into the crux of the argument, while accusing me of not being clear.
You seemed to have missed the fact that I don't have to limit my responses to the single things you wish to discuss. The post was made in conjunction with the topic Dan brought up. The bumper sticker was posted as a counterexample to a phenomenon Dan brought up. At least one other person has posted saying they didn't intepret that post the way you apparantly meant it. They seem to have deleted the post for some reason, but this isn't a Dagonee issue. Frankly, you're the one continuing this.
You accused me of intentionally not trying to understand your post. You have no standing to say this, nor any credibility. Now you've accused my of intellectual dishonesty.
So basically, I have no reason to speak with you any longer.
posted
No, Storm Saxon posted the article. I posted a another article after you had said that you were suspicious of the first. Given that you had declared your suspicions, that seemed like a reasonable thing to do.
So again, you accuse me of picking a fight, which I did not do.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A thread I did begin was the one about Jim Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, in which I asked if anyone could provide a legitimate news source.
Whe you stated your position that the story isn't a story, I sayed out if it intentionally, because I knew how you'd react if I questioned your skepticism again.
As it turned out, others here questioned your motives. So I didn't have to.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the pettiness of this arguement stands as the best answer to Bob's question about whether or not we are Christian.
Christ said we would know his disciples by their works. He commanded his followers to "turn the other cheek". If we can not have peacable discourse, can not ignore an insulting word, how can we ever expect to exhibit patience when face with physical attack.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I would say there is a distinction between "anger" and "hate", which is why I think it possible to do violence without hatred.
And again, to all, clearly "turn the other cheek" is not the whole of the situation or there would never have been any Christian fighters... and, well, if you want to argue that perhaps there shouldn't have been, perhaps we should also get rid of laws and police forces since Jesus said to give your shirt away when a robber takes your jacket (since we're already not supposed to fight back when attacked)?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to Bob's original quesion, I would add that Jesus said
quote: Matt 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Which suggest that the real question Christians should be asking themselves is not "What would Jesus Do?" but "What would I do if this were Jesus?"
If you knew that Jesus were living on the West Bank, or in Falujah, or Bagdad, if you knew that the mines might blow of Jesus' leg, or the shratenel might fly into to his home, how would that influence your attitude toward war?
I still struggle with the concept of pacifism. I am uncertain whether it is justifiable to use violence to protect the innocent. But I do know that as long as we keep war on the table as an option, we make less effort to resolve conflicts peacably. The US has spent trillions of dollars preparing to fight wars, when we have invested that much in non-violent conflict resolution I will have a better idea of whether or not war can ever be justified.
[ February 17, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say there is a distinction between "anger" and "hate",
What is that distinction? They feel very similar in my heart. Why is the distinction important to you? Did not Jesus condemn both?
quote:Matt 5:21-22 You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
[ February 17, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am uncertain whether it is justifiable to use violence to protect the innocent.
How else do you propose to protect them? GKC responded better than I about this:
quote:There is a corollary to being too proud to fight-- it is that the humble have to do most of the fighting.
and
quote: the soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.
Going back to Ender for a second, why did he fight? for Valentine. Because he loved what was behind him.
As Jesus himself got both Angry and Violent on at least two occasions (though, I will grant you the second one I have in mind was against a Fig Tree) I'm going to go ahead and say that there's a little more to the equation than the scripture you quote. He also said, concurrent with your quote, that any man who looks at a woman lustfully is in danger of hell... should we therefore make sure every woman never shows herself, like some Islamic countries?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He also said, concurrent with your quote, that any man who looks at a woman lustfully is in danger of hell... should we therefore make sure every woman never shows herself, like some Islamic countries?
No I would suggest, as Jesus did, that men learn to control their desires and passions. That is the point of that entire section. If you do not believe that is possible, then you do not believe Jesus.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As Jesus himself got both Angry and Violent on at least two occasions.
And he command us to do neither on multiple occasions. Once again, he did not ask us to do what he would do (He has perfect understand of situations and the outcomes of his actions). He command us to treat others as we would treat him.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you do not believe that is possible, then you do not believe Jesus.
I thought that the Christian tenet was that it was impossible for even the best of us to be perfect... which, I think you will find, is the widest (both in terms of latitude and acceptance) interpretation of the passages you cite.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
quote:Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
quote:John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;
I think you must be thinking of some Christianity other than the one preached by Christ. I have always understood his teachings to mean that through him, all of us may become perfect and should be striving toward that end.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, if you can find me an example of a perfect Christian outside of (for Catholics) Mary, I will gladly concede.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it intriguing that the "liberal cabal" (tm) have suddenly gone all fundamentalist, choosing to quote a few lines of scripture and insist it's the whole truth, as it suits their point, and then turn around and question my devotion to my belief system.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, I think you're missing a huge point: not all liberals are atheists. And the liberals here who're questioning your adherence to your belief system are not the SAME liberals who think that belief system is silly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you had been around long enough, you would know that I have always been devoutly religious and that Bob is about to marry a minister.
I honestly believe that the few lines I have picked of scripture accurately represent the teachings of Jesus. They are fairly unequivocal and yet many conservative Christians choose to equivocate on them regularly. I have yet to see any of the words of Jesus that would justify that when they are taken in context. If you have, please post them.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all the brouhaha, this post has been ignored, and it's
1: more relevant to the thread, and
2: The comment that I really wanted feedback on.
So:
quote: Quote: The left is angry, but does not hate anyone on the right.
I definitely fall into the left. This may sound weird, but part of what bothers me about George Bush is precisely that I DO hate him. No politician has ever made me feel this way before. In effect, I hate him for making me hate him, because I don't like the feeling of being a person who is full of hate.
BTW, I don't believe for a second that this war was preemptive, because I don't believe that Saddam had any intention of attacking us. If being Christian means obeying the instructions Christ gave, then Bush is not a Christian (IMO).
Also, Anger and hate are obviously related, but it seems to me that hate must be directed at something, whereas anger can be a generalized emotion. I know this doesn't really solve the discrepancy, but...
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are fairly unequivocal and yet many conservative Christians choose to equivocate on them regularly.
More accurate version of that statement: "They are fairly unequivocal and yet many Christians choose to equivocate on them regularly."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anger: The active feeling provoked against the agent; passion, rage; wrath, ire, hot displeasure.
quote:hate (verb): To hold in very strong dislike; to detest; to bear malice to.
hate(noun): An emotion of extreme dislike or aversion; detestation, abhorrence, hatred.
hatred (noun): The condition or state of relations in which one person hates another; the emotion or feeling of hate; active dislike, detestation; enmity, ill-will, malevolence.
There is a difference between hate and anger, but it is subtle and in the context of this discussion rather irrelevant seeing that Jesus condemned both emotions.
One might be able to be angry with ones enemy without hating them, but Jesus commanded us not to be angry with them at all.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jim-Me, I think you're missing a huge point: not all liberals are atheists. [Smile] And the liberals here who're questioning your adherence to your belief system are not the SAME liberals who think that belief system is silly.
And for that matter, not all atheists think the Christian belief system is silly.
There's a difference between not believing in the divinity of Jesus, and thinking his teachings are silly. Same thing goes for other non Christians, Jews for example.
Which brings me to this question: Can Christianity be defined as adherence to Jesus' teachings, even if you don't believe in God (or Jesus)?
Because if it can, then "A Christian Nation" doesn't have to base its law in the Christian religion, it only has to have laws that parallel the teachings of Christ, regardless of the source of those laws.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
have suddenly gone all fundamentalist, choosing to quote a few lines of scripture and insist it's the whole truth, as it suits their point, and then turn around and question my devotion to my belief system.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And the liberals here who're questioning your adherence to your belief system are not the SAME liberals who think that belief system is silly.
