Kevin's Watch

Lord Mhoram wrote: Okay then. Christ said (not an imaginary person, right?) "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Christians, like everyone else, violate that every day of their lives. By your logic, none of them has the right to call themself a Christian. See what a slippery slope you've created here?

I don't see any slippery slope.

Either you live up to the demands, or you don't call yourself something. I hate it whenever, living in the South, I hear someone say, "I live a Christian Life," or "Christian Lifestyle."

They try to live one. But they're never going to suceed.

Emotional Leper wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote: Okay then. Christ said (not an imaginary person, right?) "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Christians, like everyone else, violate that every day of their lives. By your logic, none of them has the right to call themself a Christian. See what a slippery slope you've created here?

I don't see any slippery slope.

Either you live up to the demands, or you don't call yourself something. I hate it whenever, living in the South, I hear someone say, "I live a Christian Life," or "Christian Lifestyle."

They try to live one. But they're never going to suceed.

Your argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, though...

Let's see. Humans aren't perfect, we all know that. Whether you're a believer or not, I doubt you can point at any single human being, knowing everything about him/her, and say "that person is perfect, he/she has no flaw".
Therefore claiming that "either you live up to the demands, or you don't call yourself something" sets up an inhuman standard, because since no human is perfect, no human can live up to all demands of their religion/philosophy/what-have-you in a perfect way. People will always slip, make mistakes, accidentally hurt someone else.

And since no human being can live perfect lives in accordance with their religion/philosophy, the closest we can get is to strive in order to reach that perfection. We'll never make it in our lifetime, but it is the striving, the struggling, the recognition we should improve ourselves, and our willingness to do so that really matter. It's the path that matters, not the destination, because the destination cannot be reached no matter how hard we try.

After all, if we're trying to live up to a philosophy, we are the only judges of whether we're striving hard enough that we can call ourselves followers of that philosophy; and if we're trying to live up to a religion, given that all religions claim that mankind is not perfect, we can safely assume that the deity/deities will have a measure of leniency towards our mistakes, as long as we admit them and do not continue performing them.

Emotional Leper,

Fair enough. But nothing in that post disproves what I said. According to you, everyone must obey all of the rules of their religion in order to call themselves members of that religion. That is impossible.

I didn't set the inhuman standard. The bible did.

Emotional Leper wrote:I didn't set the inhuman standard. The bible did.

In Judaism it doesn't matter if you observe any commandment or not. As long as you are born of a Jewish mother, or convert halachically (lawfully), you are a full fledged member of the tribes and count as such in minyans or wherever.

Even if you "convert" out. Once a Jew, always a Jew.

...even Messianics, despite what others say...

Emotional Leper wrote:I didn't set the inhuman standard. The bible did.

The Bible never mentioned that if you can't stand up to all the laws and regulations, you cannot call yourself a follower. In particular, it seems to me that nowhere in the New Testament (since Mhoram spoke about Christianity) is there Christ saying, for example, "if you can't avoid eating meat on fridays, then you can't follow me". Yet not eating meat on fridays is a "regulation", so to speak - although one most people don't follow anymore.

You either follow Christ's teachings, and are a Christian, or you don't and you're trying to live a Christian lifestyle. Or you try your best to be a Christian. But you're not one.

Emotional Leper wrote:You either follow Christ's teachings, and are a Christian, or you don't and you're trying to live a Christian lifestyle. Or you try your best to be a Christian. But you're not one.

It seems to me that you're basically implying that, by the standards you yourself have mentioned before, nobody has the right to call himself a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim, or any other religion), because no one can wholly and perfectly adhere to all regulations and teachings in their religion. However, I ask - who says that if you try your best it's still not enough to be a Christian (in the case of Christianity)? Who has the moral authority to judge? To try one's best is all you can ask from anybody, in any circumstance; in fact, is it not even said that no human can go one whole day without sinning? And, just because you mentioned the Bible, did Jesus not tell the men who were about to stone a woman guilty of adultery, "he who is without sin throw the first stone"?
In fact, hey, since saints and apostles and disciples were humans too, chances are they were not perfect either. Chances are they committed sins, no matter how small, throughout their life. It all depends on the point of view... for instance, the story goes that St. Francis of Assisi repudiated his father's wealth by stripping naked in public, to denounce it and begin his ascetic lifestyle. Well, one could just as easily say that this could have been considered a breach of a Commandment ("Honor thy father and thy mother") - since his actions certainly did not honor his father (indeed, his father still comes across as a "bad" person in all these stories).

So you see, by making the claims you make, you are implying that:

1) Humans have the moral authority to tell other humans whether they are or not followers of a religion (that is, by your reasoning I could go to a devout Muslim and be absolutely justifying in telling him he's not a Muslim, as long as I knew of even the smallest mistake he made in following his religion);

2) No human was ever a follower of any religion, because no human could perfectly follow all the regulations of every religion.

Oh, I'm sorry. This is 12A. Did you want abuse? That's 12, next door.

Lord Mhoram wrote: Okay then. Christ said (not an imaginary person, right?) "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Christians, like everyone else, violate that every day of their lives. By your logic, none of them has the right to call themself a Christian. See what a slippery slope you've created here?

Amen! Halleluia! Do ya feel the SPIRIT!!

I find this fact quite amusing. I just don't get it.

Then again I was the one that did not realize that my brother's fiance (now wife) was of Mexican decent. He had to point it out to me. I tend to be racially and theologically dense.

Pardon me as I go drool now. Not as in Rockworm... that's just nasty.

Lord Mhoram wrote:russ,

Do you really think that Islam is portrayed and treated more favorably in the West, especially the United States and western Europe, than Christianity? I would seriously dispute such a claim.

I think moderate Islam can be fairly included in this claim. I am not such a dunderhead as to make such a claim about Islamic extremists, but I most certainly AM talking about the 'peaceful' versions of the faith presented in American academia (including public schools).

I wouldn't say this specifically about your post, LM, but it seems that the responses in general seem to be avoiding my reference to a rule in the seeking of exceptions. The RULE is that Christianity 'enjoys' a special status of disfavor in comparison with other faiths and philosophies (I am speaking of philosophies in the broadest sense) and the exceptions, both in Donaldson's literature and real-life attitudes on these forums are just that - exceptions.

duchess of malfi wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

duchess of malfi wrote: Yes, I believe Dr. Berenford says that he is a regular church attender in The Wounded Land. And he is certainly a very positive character - perhaps the only truly positive character in the "real" world.

I do not think that Donaldson has any problems with the Christians who care for the hungry, sick, and poor like the little pastor in Mordant's Need or in Dr. Berenford.

It is the people who are all loud talk about Christ and no positive action towards other people that he seems to have issues with.

Actually, I said "actively practicing their faith". Saying you go to church is not that. Actually portraying a church revival (did y'all forget about that chapter in "The Power That Preserves"?) does, as do the cultists.

I quite agree with your sentiment (all talk and no action), and don't doubt that SRD shares it as well. But nevertheless, his portrayal of people who take their faith seriously enough to live it as an expression of their faith, rather than just to be nice guys, is what I have a little problem with - and that only because those are the ONLY instances of actual portrayals of Christianity. They are negative. In general, if we talk about Buddhism, moderate Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, or other neo-paganism it is pretty much all respect and acceptance. What I perceive is a specific bias that sees Christianity as LESS deserving of respect, and Hoslety's posts make my point. If it's Christianity, the focus is always on the whackos, and NOT on the quiet ones living their faith.

Just out of curiosity have you ever actually read any books by Stephen R. Donaldson? In particular, the Mordant's Need duology?

Because the little pastor in Mordant's Need has his whole life revolving around helping others as an expression of his faith. And he is the only character with enough balls to stand up to a wealthy bully named Mr. Morgan. So you have a wonderful and very positive character whose entire life is an expression of love, courage, and faith.

So I really question once again if you have any clue as to what you are talking about when you make these blanket statements about Donaldson's writing and Donaldson's characters.

Hello, Duchess!
I most certainly have read his books - multiple times - or I wouldn't even be here.
"There is wild magic graven in every rock..."
"Stone and Sea are deep in life..."
"Melenkurion Abatha! I defy you, Raver!"
"The champion appeared in the mirror..."
Joyse: "WHERE IS MY DAUGHTER???"
"Adept Havelock giggled and made an obscene gesture as spittle drooled down..."

(Quotes from memory and not exact)

Is that sufficient proof that I have indeed read and enjoyed the books?

I had been limiting my references to TC, so MN was not included in my comments.
As I said in the other post, I am talking about a general rule and not exceptions to the rule.
Did you notice my signature? (The one by Chesterton)

Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain stream!

Emotional Leper wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. This is 12A. Did you want abuse? That's 12, next door.

Oh no, I didn't want abuse... but you've been making blanket statements with an air of finality about them, and the purpose of an argument is to challenge them.

Well...

...as long as it's not contradiction...

Is!
Is not!
Is!...

...sorry...

Xar needs help with his Monty Python references, eh?

rusmeister wrote:The RULE is that Christianity 'enjoys' a special status of disfavor in comparison with other faiths and philosophies...

It also enjoys a special status as the world's most dominant religion, so it's scarcely surprising to me that it should come in for more flak.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The RULE is that Christianity 'enjoys' a special status of disfavor in comparison with other faiths and philosophies...

It also enjoys a special status as the world's most dominant religion, so it's scarcely surprising to me that it should come in for more flak.

--A

Well said.

Anyway, any religious person that takes criticism to heart displays a fundamental weakness in faith; if one's path is right, then any attack should mean nothing. And any one dissuaded from taking the same path due to said criticism does not deserve to walk it.

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The RULE is that Christianity 'enjoys' a special status of disfavor in comparison with other faiths and philosophies...

It also enjoys a special status as the world's most dominant religion, so it's scarcely surprising to me that it should come in for more flak.

--A

Hey. Hey. Islam should be getting more than christianity in that case. They got the most people.

And us jews should be UTTERLY beyond any reproach

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The RULE is that Christianity 'enjoys' a special status of disfavor in comparison with other faiths and philosophies...

It also enjoys a special status as the world's most dominant religion, so it's scarcely surprising to me that it should come in for more flak.

--A

Haha, good point. Its why I hate the Yankees. No one cares about the Royals.

Plus, Jesus said the world would hate you b/c it hated Him, so don't be surprised. I guess what is surprising to some American Christians is that this country could do such a 180 against its religious heritage. We're just not used to the hate in this country, but I think its good. The church got too comfortable.

Cybrweez wrote:

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The RULE is that Christianity 'enjoys' a special status of disfavor in comparison with other faiths and philosophies...

It also enjoys a special status as the world's most dominant religion, so it's scarcely surprising to me that it should come in for more flak.

--A

Haha, good point. Its why I hate the Yankees. No one cares about the Royals.

Plus, Jesus said the world would hate you b/c it hated Him, so don't be surprised. I guess what is surprising to some American Christians is that this country could do such a 180 against its religious heritage. We're just not used to the hate in this country, but I think its good. The church got too comfortable.

True.

This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, but Menolly, I just love your dragon!!!

Anyway, any religious person that takes criticism to heart displays a fundamental weakness in faith; if one's path is right, then any attack should mean nothing. And any one dissuaded from taking the same path due to said criticism does not deserve to walk it.

I can actually agree with this statement to an extent. There does seem to be, however, an insinuation that pointing out bias against Christianity equals taking criticism to heart. I assure you, attitudes on these forums do not touch my personal faith. If you saw self-satisfied Christians sneering at ignorant and backwards agnostics and congratulating each other on their cleverness you might feel peeved without feeling your conviction of the correctness of agnosticism (or pantheism or whatever) threatened and might even want to express how you feel.