posted
Having witnessed the participation of both Scott and kat in multiple homosexuality threads over the past four years, I'm willing to bet that they don't agree with my views on this matter.
Which is all I said in that post.
(Edit: Actually, I might be mistaken about Scott. Homosexuality threads on Hatrack all blur together after a while.)
posted
Well, no. You've only got 18 posts, most of which aren't on this topic. Compared to Scott and Kat who've got a huge number of posts on the subject, most of which are along the lines of "I think ...". I don't think it's unreasonable at all for him to take a stab at what they're thinking, considering they've told everyone their thoughts on it countless times already.
Edit: Beaten by the man, the myth, the legend himself.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever I see a screen name I don't recognize, I always wonder whether it's really a new person, or just another incarnation of Jon Boy or Pat.
Multiple screen names are really annoying. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think that accidental children are worse off than planned children? My older brother and I were accidental, and I think we turned out better than my two younger, planned siblings.
Twinky, that's not me or Pat. Pat's been sticking to Pat and Trogdor, and I've been sticking to a few that are (I hope) recognizably me.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I don't like these discussions.
A very clear bias is shown by the authors of the study.
Earlier, it was stated that opponents of homosexual marriage need not supply statistics (I think I used secular arguments rather than statistics), because their bias invalidates their argument.
Apparently, the same requirements are not required of proponents of homosexual marriage.
posted
No, Scott, that isn't what was said. There's a difference between colouring and invalidating. All that was said is that it's important to know where a person is coming from. How that got turned into this monstrous, taken-to-heart, insulting thing is beyond me.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They cite, with full journal references, 23 studies with statistics. That's a fair amount of statistics. I'm still waiting for the first statistics that support your position.
And I do think statistics matter from you, however that doesn't much matter as you haven't supplied any.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Earlier, it was stated that opponents of homosexual marriage need not supply statistics (I think I used secular arguments rather than statistics), because their bias invalidates their argument. << (Scott)
Scott, that's not what I said. I said that their bias influences their views. In fact, I said that the biases of both opponents and proponents of homosexual marriage affect their views. I also said that it affects the judgment of anyone listening to the argument, subconsciously or otherwise, and that while these things can be mitigated they can't be fully compensated for.
In short, I said that bias is always going to be a factor for everyone who participates in this debate. I think it's important to be aware of that.
Additionally, I said that I think homosexuality and homosexual marriage need to be considered in tandem, though I did not suggest that a person can't disapprove of one while supporting the other.
>> My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish. << (Polly)
How is it trolling if I do in fact know? Or even if I have a fair idea? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me, particularly if you take the post you quoted in context.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinsey's studies were highly restricted by the attitudes and postal regulations of the time. Also, though he occasionally generated statistics, his primary interest was in uncovering new aspects of sexuality, which is likely why he applied methodologies generally known to be statistically flawed -- because he wasn't very interested in the statistics. None of his work asserts that such studies were statistically authoritative, but instead presents the studies as collections of individual accounts.
Edit: this is just a side remark; Kinsey's research was fascinating but is often misconstrued. It was cited for a long time, however, because there simply weren't any other sources of statistics on those subjects. This is not surprising, as he established the modern field of sexual research.
Are you seriously arguing that the researchers in the study are not biased?
Twink-- I agree with you. I don't think a study CAN be done (by either POV) without the taint of bias.
However, the view that I am seeing (as was seen in the Legalize Prostitution thread) is that conservative think tanks are NOT allowed to do studies; while liberal think tanks are praised for their bias.
Fugu- Kinsey and his researchers were monsters. I don't know a better way to put it.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> However, the view that I am seeing (as was seen in the Legalize Prostitution thread) is that conservative think tanks are NOT allowed to do studies; while liberal think tanks are praised for their bias. <<
I mostly missed that thread, but I would certainly be annoyed if I saw the opposite trend in a debate I was invested in. That's fair enough.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, is your "undiagnosed OCD" a disability which we all have to put up with? If you are in a thread, are we not allowed to comment on what you say? Are you just allowed to announce that you know what you know and nothing we say will change your mind, but not be allowed to respond to it?
quote: One thing I learned from the pre-marital sex thread was that if I came up with a good argument, I'd just hear "You only believe that because you believe Y, and you believe Y because of X, and all people who believe X are wrong." And every jump, every assumption was wrong.
It was so ignorant and so close-minded on every level that I'm not going to waste my breath.
So, because whoever was in that thread was ignorant, you are publicly stating in this thread that you won't participate? Are we the ones being ignorant and closed minded? Or was it someone else and you are taking it out on us? And isn't it rather silly to state that you aren't participating and then still participate? Or is that the OCD disability that we need to ignore? It seems more like tourettes. You know, you just have to shout out obscenities in a quiet library type of thing. You came into this thread and made the assumption that either the participants or the arguments would be "ignorant and closed minded." It's like a black man walking in the KKK headquarters and telling them they are ignorant rednecks. So, how it got to be fugu who shouldn't be harassing you is beyond all comprehension to me.
Polly,
quote: My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish.
I didn't notice you chiding Katharina when she stated that everyone else would merely dismiss whatever she thought. Isn't that the same thing? Seems to me, she said we weren't worth talking to because she knew what we thought.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you think that accidental children are worse off than planned children? My older brother and I were accidental, and I think we turned out better than my two younger, planned siblings.
Not in every case, of course. But I do think that, in general, parents who sit down and decide that now is a good time to raise a kid, and are willing to go through a lot of bureaucracy to get one, are generally better prepared than a lot of parents for whom childbirth was an unexpected consequence of sex.
In other words, even if a lot of "accidental" children are well-raised by responsible adult, a lot aren't. With gay couples, accidental childbirth is not even a possibility. Gay couples with children made the conscious decision that they wanted children. AND had to undergo screening to ensure that they met the basic standards for adopting a child! That's a lot more than you can say for a lot of kids born to heterosexual couples.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm arguing that they're both forthright about their bias and there is no reason to suggest they let their bias influence those conclusions which they do not explicitly mark as biased (notice that they are quite scrupulous about saying things like "we believe" and "we don't think" when its a not fully supported conclusion).
Show me a study (in anything, but particularly social science) where the researchers were unbiased and I'll show you a blank sheet of paper.
Aren't you the one saying any statistics you produce should be considered despite your bias? Show these researchers the same respect you ask for. You aren't arguing about the facts of the study at all -- for instance, where I showed that they had very broad criteria for inclusion and included all studies meeting those criteria.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any evidence to support such a claim, Ayelar? Even Suneun's article doesn't claim that children of gay parents are better off than children of heterosexual parents.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's not so much that gays make better parents than heterosexuals - it's that one class of bad parent (unprepared parents who end up not coping well) is not represented in the gay population.
Just to be clear, you're making no statement about inherent parental ability, right?
posted
They specifically cover all 23 studies that met the above mentioned criteria:
quote:The typical outcomes in the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review were emotional adjustment (12 studies), sexual preference (nine studies), stigmatization (nine studies), gender role behavior (eight studies), behavioral adjustment (seven studies), gender identity (six studies), and cognitive functioning (three studies).
All 23 studies are on the chart they include.
They include their very specific methodology (just under the inclusion criteria) for discovering the studies to be included -- if you have access to a research library with appropriate subscriptions, such as at a University, feel free to replicate their searches.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
After looking at the table, I have to say I was kind of hoping that more of the studies would be blind at at least one stage. About half of them were blind on the researcher's end in some way.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yes, the component studies are far from perfect, as this study repeats numerous times (if they were letting their bias get to them, one might expect them to, perhaps, ignore such problems instead of stating them straight up). This limitation is hardly their fault as by their criteria blind studies are perfectly acceptable -- its just there weren't any. As for it resulting in potentially bad results, yes, that's possible. However, they note that while all the studies had problems, some minor and others bigger, the problems and methodologies varied greatly and still resulted in the same basic results.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it's not so much that gays make better parents than heterosexuals - it's that one class of bad parent (unprepared parents who end up not coping well) is not represented in the gay population.
Yes, Dagonee, that's what I was trying to say. Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was re-reading MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail and thinking about this issue. To get it out of the way, I've stated repeatedly that I'm sure that it is possible to be against homosexual sex and marriage without being a bigot. I've still been accused of thinking otherwise, but that's what I've said.
However, I think that it's clear that, if not a majority, than at least a very large minority of people are invested in this issue specifically because they are bigots. I think, as I've said, that the bigotry and hatred that they demonstrate are the real fundamental causes of immorality, both in my view and in that of the Bible (and I'll throw in MLK, arguably the best Christian our country has ever produced, too).
However, from my view, instead of identifying these bigots as the bearers of hatred and sin, people are at the very least condoning them, and, in many cases actively embracing them. Like at the rally we're talking about, people are walking arm in arm with obvious bigots and calling them brother. They meet bigots and call them Christians. Is it any wonder that other people think that Christians are bigots?
I don't define what it means to be Christian. You, as a Christian, do. When you support hatred and call it Christian, you may not yourself be a bigot, but you're certainly a supporter of bigotry. When you place thinking homosexuality is a sin over the fundamental rule of love, you are saying that Christianity is first about being anti-homosexuality and, if there's room, then about loving others. You bear a responsiblity for what people are doing in your name.
In the midst of the civil rights movement, when people (many (most more likely) of them calling themselves Christians) where behaving horribly towards him and his people, Martin Luther King constantly stressed the need to love your enemies and condemned violence and hatred, no matter what the reason. He, the leader of the powerless, specifically emphasized these points. Now it seems that the preeminence of these virtues has been forgotten by the powerful in their struggle against the weak.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, What would the point of me using a specific you? Of couse I meant a general you. I describe general conditions I see. It's up to the individual people whether what I say exists and whether it applies to them. I don't really care.
So, what do you (specific there, because no other religious people here will address my points) think of my analysis? Am I wrong about any of the important parts of it? If I'm not wrong, why is this situation ok? If it's not ok, what do we do about it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would the point of me using a specific you? Of couse I meant a general you.
I couldn't tell, especially with some of the goings on in this thread (not by you). So I thought I'd be sure before replying.
quote:So, what do you (specific there, because no other religious people here will address my points) think of my analysis? Am I wrong about any of the important parts of it? If I'm not wrong, why is this situation ok? If it's not ok, what do we do about it?
I don't have time to go in depth right now. Let me address one point and see if I can get back to it tomorrow.
quote:When you place thinking homosexuality is a sin over the fundamental rule of love, you are saying that Christianity is first about being anti-homosexuality and, if there's room, then about loving others.
You know from previous discussions I have difficulty with this characterization. As far as the people in the article that started your thread, I'd say your probably right in characterizing them that way (although judging anyone else's true motives and heart is hard).
I personally don't think I would participate in a rally to condemn a particular type of sin. I think it's presumptious, given that I've got my own set of sins I struggle with, and I think it's counterproductive in the sense that a large group of people can't really convince anyone of anything. The only exception I can think of is for a sin that produces human victims (racism or abortion, say) or when I feel associated with a group that has committed a sin and need to stand up and say, "I don't condone this."
Even then, I think one-on-one action is better. For example, to satisfy my anti-abortion stance, I helped out at a home for expecting mothers who would otherwise have likely aborted.
Let me see if I can present a plausible possibility how the actions described in Lalo's link (misguided though I think they are) might arise from love.
(In the following supposition, these beliefs are NOT my own, although they could be characterized that way in a gross oversimplification). Suppose the people in the crowd really do think that there are only two alternatives after death: eternal bliss or eternal damnation. Further, suppose they believe that practicing, unrepentant homosexuals will definitely end up with the latter. Further suppose that these people honestly think that standing around with a "Repent or Perish" sign will actually cause some of them to repent. Wouldn't doing something that seems so hurtful then actually be an act of love? Or, at minimum, be an act motivated by love?
Ignore the practical question of whether holding up a sign like that could actually make someone repent - if the person doing it believes it might work, can they be motivated by love?
Let me emphasize that I agree that some, if not most of the people at that rally were there out of hatred or, more likely, a strange mix of hatred and love. But I'm unwilling to write off the whole crowd as having "place[d] thinking homosexuality is a sin over the fundamental rule of love."
Dagonee P.S., I realize I've rambled all over the place here. So let me reiterate - attending such a rally is something I would not do, and I think the rally was a bad idea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, My specific concern is about those people at the rally who aren't there out of hatred. They don't hate, but they are supporting the hatred of the people standing right next to them. They are at a rally to combat a smaller sin right alongside people violating the central commandment of the Christian religion and they seem to have no problem with this.
Read MLK's speaches. The man always goes out of his way to emphasize that love is the only justifiable Christian attitude. If you gave such speaches at an anti-homosexuality rally, I think that you'd lose maybe half of the audience.
These people, the non-haters, are abandoning their responsibility, not just towards the homosexuals, but towards the hating Christians as well.
edit: I'm focusing on the rally because it is a very concrete example, but I believe that this attitude goes far beyond the anti-homosexual rallies or even the anti-homosexual issue.
posted
My problem is loving and caring about another human being is putting yourself in their place. Trying to understand how difficult it is to be gay in a society that hates you, that tells you your love or attractions are wrong and evil without really giving a clear reason why. What do they do if their child turns out to be gay or a best friend? Or even, much to their shock, a parent?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My post was all about putting yourself in the place of the other - in this case, those who think that homosexuals need to repent. Based on their basic beliefs, they think that the difficulty in "being gay in a society that hates you" is not nearly as bad as the difficulty to be faced in eternity if the morality of homosexual actions is not addressed.
I'm not saying that this view is correct. I'm saying that it's way too simple to say "love implies never telling someone that what they do is wrong." You have to take into account the percieved harms to the individual of doing the wrong thing.
Dagonee
Edit: changed "worse" to "not nearly as bad as" in first paragraph.
posted
Dagonee, I've got two problems with that view of things. First, I've been there. In my youth, I went to a couple Catholic pro-life marches/rallies. I'm still anti-abortion, but I would never associate with the blatant hatred I experienced at those rallies.
Second, I believe that people are a lot more purposive that people seem to give them credit for. That is, there's a definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think this is extremely applicable to the astounding bad conversion strategies that many religious movements use.
I don't think that these people have any reasonable expectation that their attending this rally and the attendent activies are going to presuade any homosexuals to stop being homosexual. This is not to say that they are insane, but rather that they go to these rallies for reasons other than trying to convert homosexuals. If there paramount concern was to convince homosexuals not to sin, I would hope that they'd use some other tactic that has a success rate of over say 1%.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Love also implies giving freedom to choose. These rally people want to prevent homosexuals from having the option of marraige, not to convince them not to marry.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He re is a photo of the first gay marriage. The Mayor of SF didn't want Mass to get all the publicity, so he decided to make it legal.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I really would like answers to my questions. To restate, I think that the many of the Christian anti-homosexual stuff movements ally or even embrace bigots. I think that some of them even deliberately try to inflame bigotry against homosexuals. From my perspective, some Christians aren't just throwing their pearls before swine, they're dressing the swine up in a pearl necklace and telling everyone that it's their date. Do you think that this is an accurate description?
If it is accurate, isn't it a much bigger problem for Christians than homosexual marriage (I'm not saying you should just say that homosexuality is ok because you have bigger fish to fry.)?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give me a little credit, Scott. Of course I am. I'm against bigotry no matter what it's source. However, even the 10 year olds I work with know that the "I can do bad stuff because he does worse stuff." defense is both stupid and immature. In our culture, we reerve stuff like that for adults in politics.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
and I still think it's a very cute photo that I linked to. But no one's ever commented on that historic first couple but me.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:To restate, I think that the many of the Christian anti-homosexual stuff movements ally or even embrace bigots. I think that some of them even deliberately try to inflame bigotry against homosexuals. From my perspective, some Christians aren't just throwing their pearls before swine, they're dressing the swine up in a pearl necklace and telling everyone that it's their date. Do you think that this is an accurate description?
I think this is an accurate description of some of them. However, I think many more of them inflame bigotry against homosexuals unintentionally than do so intentionally – I still think many of them are motivated by love. I’m not denying that the effect of their actions is to inflame bigotry. That being the case, it is the duty of Christians’ who think such rhetoric is hateful to argue against it. However, such arguments should take place not in public, but in private. (Frankly, that’s my main argument against many “anti-homosexual” or “anti-anything-else” rallies, anyway.)
quote:If it is accurate, isn't it a much bigger problem for Christians than homosexual marriage (I'm not saying you should just say that homosexuality is ok because you have bigger fish to fry.)?
Well, of course it is, especially since I don’t think homosexual marriage is a big problem for Christianity. Christianity has lived with numerous compromises of the sanctity of marriage with civil authority, the two biggest being the lack of any precautions that marriages not be entered into lightly and the corresponding rise of no-fault divorce. Civil marriage of homosexuals is not any more damaging to marriage as sacrament than these are.
However, the situation here has been complicated by two factors. First, you may have noticed I have reiterated on several occasions here that I think homosexual actions are wrong. This is not normally something I go around doing with regard to this or any other sin. The reason I have done it in these threads is that I am making other arguments that could lead a person to believe that I don’t think homosexual actions are sinful, and I do not want to be put in a false position unintentionally. In other words, I don’t care if the average person doesn’t know my stance on homosexual actions. But in a situation where a different belief than the one I know may be inferred from my actions, I have an obligation to clarify that possible misunderstanding. I honestly think many Christians oppose allowing civil unions because they see it as “condoning” homosexuality, which they see as a repudiation of their faith. And frankly, it’s a hard, hair-splitting argument to arrive at the opposite conclusion – luckily I like hard, hair-splitting argument, so this wasn’t a problem for me.
The second complicating factor is the almost continual blurring of the lines between “homosexual marriage is OK” and “the civil benefits of civil marriage should not be denied to homosexual couples.” This is why I haven’t signed any petitions on this subject – not one has made this distinction clear. It’s also why I’ll probably never go to a rally on the subject – my opinion on the matter is not expressible in pithy sign. I’ll write to my representatives and consider the issue when voting (although it won’t be a litmus issue) and continue to make reasoned arguments where it might possibly do some good. But I won’t be grouped in with the ancillary arguments that often accompany political events related to this issue.
The actions of the protestors must be viewed in the context of people claiming that thinking homosexual actions are sinful is automatically a bigoted position. This is a direct attack on their faith. As a Catholic, I painfully remember ACT-UP desecrating the Eucharist to protest Cardinal O’Connor’s stance on condoms. This is not a reason to hate homosexuals (there is no valid reason to hate homosexuals). But it is a reminder that there are people in direct opposition to our faith. Check out this link for an understanding of the context. The link also demonstrates some of the pitfall in responding to such rhetoric. Do you stop after every sentence condemning their actions and say, “but we still love you.” I don’t know – I think the article gets a little too strident at the end and doesn’t emphasize the need for helping AIDS patients because they are sick, regardless of how they got that way. “I'm not saying we shouldn't be helpful, loving or sympathetic” isn’t quite enough in that regard.
Frankly, anyone who wants to convince a Christian to support civil unions for all couples is never going to succeed by trying to convince them that holding a belief about somebody’s actions as sinful is bigotry. Moral standards are part and parcel to the Christian faith. Under such a fundamental attack, I have a hard time faulting people who go entirely defensive rather than parceling out the issue into separate little packages. Do I wish they would? Yes. Do I try to convince them of that? Yes, either in private or in forums where my view on such matters is, if not solicited, then at least expected.
To get back to your final question after such a winding road, actions that demonstrate hate in the name of Christianity border on blasphemy. But mere condemnation of a particular action is not necessarily showing hatred. I think that actions that give implicit or explicit approval to oppression of homosexuals need to be publicly repudiated. But that repudiation must be clear enough that any aspect of the message that is accurate, even if uncomfortable, is not repudiated, either implicitly or explicitly. And frankly, I don’t know how to do that effectively.
posted
Dagonee, I'm beginning to fear that I'm harping on the same thing long past its due. I think you and I basically agree, although we're approaching it from very different angles.
I'm going to sum up. While I'm concerned about the gay rights issue, that's not my primary concern with this line of reasoning. I'm a big believer in the bsis of morality that I've been harping on, love for another. Or, as I like talk about it, love combined with understanding that we call empathy.
I tihnk that Christian morality has historically diverged widely from this idea and that it is still sufferring from a lack of importance or an outright denial of this concept. For far too many people, Christian morality is concenred about following a list of rules and not about the underlying concepts behind those rules. Thus, for them, it is perfectly acceptable to hate as long as they are supporting so-called Christian causes.
A lot of Christians are bigots. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, Christians are more likely to be prejudiced than non-religious people. However, from that earlier thread, a small minority of Christians are even less prejudiced than the non-religious. To be honest, I think that a large part of the responsiblity of the linking of bigotry to Christianity falls on these people. For various reasons, they haven't really opposed this. MLK, who I regard as probably the best Christian this country has produced, constanly fought against the idea that you could be acting as a Christian and hating. I honestly don't see this message being pushed today. Rather, I see the current conception of Christianity as being largely a matter of whether you go to church and how you stand on certain issues.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I understand what you're saying here. What I haven't seen you address is what you consider the "proper" Christian response when it becomes necessary for a Christian to assert his beliefs in some of those rules.
In other words, without diminishing the primacy of love in Christian doctrine, how does a Christian go about making it clear that the "rules" do matter? Or, that the love and tolerance being shown is only being extended to the people, not to the rule-breaking?
posted
That's an interesting question. I'm starting to understand our diffrences from the beginning of this in Bob's thread. I wonder, is it posssible to teach a semi-absolute list of rules of right and wrong without reference to how they relate to the underlying principle of love and still maintain love as the primary objective?
It's difficult for me to come up with a good answer for this because 1)I've never had kids and 2) perhaps because of this, I don't believe in teaching rules without meaning.
I really don't know. With children, you can make the meaning a trust in your parents and you'll understand later type thing, but I don't know how well this works in a religious sense. I mean, you can trust in God, but, excepting the after-life, which is kind of a black hole as long as living people are concerned, I don't know about understanding later. I mean, if you can't understand why a person who genuininely loves everyone would never be homosexual, I don't know how you could link it to love. And yet, from certain Christian perspectives, there is a need to regard this as a sin.
I can see how this is a matter of balancing like you were saying before. The best answer I can come up with is teaching the two things in tandem, but always emphasizing the focus on love over all things. I feel like that's a cop-out, but it's the best I can come up with now. I'll think about it some more.
edit: I should add that I'm an idealistic anarchist, which makes the whole rules thing sort of a slippery concept for me. I don't believe that a perfect human society would need rules. Rather, they'd rely entirely on empathy and responsibility/ That's one part of me that intially grew out of Paul's decription of what a Christian community should be like and by Josephus's description of the socialistic early Christian communities.
edit the second: One thing I should emphasize is that I strongly disagree with what I see as the current method of teaching sins without meaning, which is the use of a punishment/reward system. Not only am I philosophically opposed to such a thing, but psychological research has shown to far beyond my satisfaction that such systems don't actually work and pervert whatever they are attached to.
posted
I think that's fair, MrSquicky. This has been an interesting intellectual journey so far.
Xaposert, I think it's pretty clear that Christians can do things antithetical to Christian teachings. Then it becomes a question of how much someone can deviate from those teachings and still be a Christian.
posted
We've argued on this board before whether certain groups can be called Christian, despite substantial deviation from the norm; the consensus is that it's merely polite to consider those who self-identify as Christians to be Christian, even if their beliefs are not entirely consistent with the mainstream of the faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm coming at it from a group dynamics perspective, so when I say Christian here, I mean people who self-indentify as members of a group and are in turn indentified by that group as a member. I've tried various ways to distinguish this group from people who actually actively follow Jesus' teachings, but I haven't really come across a clear way of doing this. Actually, now that I think of it, that fits in pretty well with my point. People in general are doing a bad job of making this distinction or, in many cases, not acknowledging that there is a difference.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, making that distinction becomes judgmental at the most basic level. Looking at a single act and saying, "I think that's wrong" is one thing. Looking at a person's actions over the course of their life and saying, "that person is really living as a Christian" is quite another. So who should make that distinction?
Besides, ultimately Christians believe that anyone who receives salvation does so via grace, not because anyone actually deserves it. This does not excuse anyone from trying to live as a Christian should. It just means no one is above reproach.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
