Peanus, Err, Peanut Gallery For Checkmate's Cino

[white_raven23]

OM in Post 16:

 

OK - White Raven - to review - I thought this was pretty common knowledge - but I guess not....

 

I'm involved in interfaith dialog, my name is commonly associated with interfaith dialog in my local community. Not just my own suburb but also in the larger metro area's paper. So.... when I get into discussions with fellow Christians it is most often about interfaith dialog. And - yes - there is a discussion about my beliefs as compared to theirs.

 

She must be on some kind of committee or board or association that does formal meetings with other church leaders. This would be lots heavier dialogue than you and me happening to meet in the grocery store and comparing notes from our church service on Sunday--you maybe Anglican and me Mennonite, or whatever.

 

 

I'm surprised and a little flattered that she was concerned enough by my post to pull it out of the peanut gallery and respond to it In Thread.... BUT, and you highlight it wonderfully RubySera, HER "situation" is unique in that area compared to the average run-of-the-mill "Christian In Name Only" person. So while my post may not have applied to HER specifically, I still would consider it a valid criticism for CINOs at large.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Pulling the fact that they HAVE to have meetings on 'interfaith dialogue' between Christians indicates that it's usually ignored... thus the 'interfaith' ego frot is special event in the turd polishing calendar of the mindless zealots who try to pedal their insanity to masses... and what it a debeter doing responding to the Peanutters? Is this WWE?

 

If you look at the top of that post you will see that it was taken from the debate and posted here for discussion. This is the Peanut Gallery, after all, so we can discuss the debate. We just happened to get into our own private debate. But discussing the debate is legit I understand. The debater did not post in here.

 

Actually, The Grinch has already broken the 4th wall

 

Oh yeah, right. Not sure why that is allowed. Maybe special priviledges to real old-timers?

 

Calling "Crock of Shit" time on this train of thought. Derailing it NOW. No ONE gets "Maybe special priviledges to real old-timers?" on my fucking watch here. I wasn't aware, nor for once was I sitting at my desk when this post was made. Problem fixed as per the way I treat *everyone* in this House.

 

Pisses me off when someone catcalls "special priviledges".... Jebusfuckingmooseballs.

 

k F L

[♦ nivek ♦]

and as a Point of Order. Mr/Madam Speaker (aka Da Mods)... is it appropriate for a member of the Gladiatorial games to be posting in this thread?

 

 

Taken care of Gramps.

 

Observers and commentators, please remember the basic Group Rule of the Peanutting is to allow outside participants a place to go on with unabated discussion about what the folks in the Debate area are discussing.

 

Gladiators? Please refrain from entering here and tossing sharp edged swords around here, this is the "stands" where we watch from.

 

kFL

[HuaiDan]

What the BLOODY HELL is everybody up in arms about??? And why is no one allowed to post in Checkmates thread? I normally wouldn't give a rat's butt about any of this, but all this chest thumping and scandal-monging over nothing seems way more ego-trippish than anything worthy of a sneeze.

 

 

 

 

That being said, I want a big red "A" next to my avvy.

[Grandpa Harley]

and as a Point of Order. Mr/Madam Speaker (aka Da Mods)... is it appropriate for a member of the Gladiatorial games to be posting in this thread?

 

 

Taken care of Gramps.

 

Observers and commentators, please remember the basic Group Rule of the Peanutting is to allow outside participants a place to go on with unabated discussion about what the folks in the Debate area are discussing.

 

Gladiators? Please refrain from entering here and tossing sharp edged swords around here, this is the "stands" where we watch from.

 

kFL

 

Cheers... don't want them tracking blood and brain matter near the concessionary stands!

[Grandpa Harley]

What the BLOODY HELL is everybody up in arms about??? And why is no one allowed to post in Checkmates thread? I normally wouldn't give a rat's butt about any of this, but all this chest thumping and scandal-monging over nothing seems way more ego-trippish than anything worthy of a sneeze.

 

 

 

 

That being said, I want a big red "A" next to my avvy.

 

You'll always be a big red A to me, dear...

[HuaiDan]

[HuaiDan]

I WAS KIDDING!!!!!!

[HuaiDan]

Really I mean it I was kidding, as evidenced by the " ". I was making light of the attitude going around, thought that might lighten it up. Please take the big red "A" away, sorry for wasting your fine efforts. I'm not a fan of badges of any sort.

[white_raven23]

Really I mean it I was kidding, as evidenced by the " ". I was making light of the attitude going around, thought that might lighten it up. Please take the big red "A" away, sorry for wasting your fine efforts. I'm not a fan of badges of any sort.

 

 

I think the bars and clusters look cooler than Big Red A (that looks kinda orange to me).

[Alice]

That being said, I want a big red "A" next to my avvy.

 

ooooh - words have power!! be careful what you wish for!! Now look what you've gone and done!

[Grandpa Harley]

Like I say... he'll always be a big, red 'A'-somthing to me...

[Alice]

I just love the Grinch's latest response to Open_Minded on a personal level. He just shows so much plain speaking respect for O_M as a person that one can't elp but smile when reading it.

 

The thing is - I'd guess that outside of these forums and her interfaith work, O_M is actually unlikely to use the label 'Christian' but this post does come across as quite a rallying cry to those CINO's that do.

 

However - like any label, does the poor behaviour of another label wearer always rule out its continued value for another? Nationality would be one such label. There are some examples and understandings of englishness that I wouldn't want to be confused with - but I still describe myself as 'English' when asked.

[white_raven23]

However - like any label, does the poor behaviour of another label wearer always rule out its continued value for another? Nationality would be one such label. There are some examples and understandings of englishness that I wouldn't want to be confused with - but I still describe myself as 'English' when asked.

 

Worse.

 

It's thanks to being able to claim genuinely GOOD people like O-M in their ranks that continues to give christians as a whole a "good" reputation.

 

The old adage of one rotten apple spoiling the bunch seems turned on its ear when it comes to the dominant religion. It doesn't seem to matter how many ministers, pastors or priests take advantage of children. It doesn't seem to matter how many wives and kids suffer at the hands of an abusive husband with the implied acceptance of their churches. Doesn't matter how many women's clinics are firebombed, or how many homosexuals are persecuted and murdered as a direct result of church condoned intolerance. And it doesn't seem to matter how many times a church authority is caught embezzling church money.

 

No matter WHAT or how damaging christian behaviors can be and are, they are still viewed in a POSITIVE way!! The shit don't stick! And it never will so long as they can claim positive contributors (like they try to do with Albert Einstien), and deny negative ones (like claiming Adolph Hitler was an atheist).

[R. S. Martin]

White Raven, I suspect you are saying some of the things Checkmate wanted to say in his twenty deleted posts over the weekend. I respect him very highly for saying what he did in his thread and I am glad you expressed it so well here for me to get the other side of the message. It's a side of the coin I didn't realize existed.

 

It made me ask some hard questions of myself, but from the opposite direction than I have been asking in the past.

 

When I first read Alice's post about label wearers I was sure I wear none because I NEVER talk about religion unless someone asks very specific questions and even then I tend to avoid straight answers. Then it hit me. I wear the traditional Mennonite dress and that shouts for all to see.

 

HOWEVER, I don't wear the head-covering and that really mixes the message. One former classmate who comes from the same culture told me when he saw me he assumed I'm a mainstream person who is trying to imitate the Mennonite tradition. Fine with me.

 

So there! I'm not really a label-wearer after all. Just what accident of birth did to me. Plus some seriously messy psychological stuff that would make a mental mess of me if I had to change my dresss right at this time. I'm not sure what's all involved; I just know I can't do it and I think it's stupid to force myself because I am perfectly comfortable as I am.

 

The question I struggled with a LOT was: Am I bringing a bad reputation on my people by doing things they would never do? I discarded the head-covering so that I am not so distinctly Mennonite just so it won't have such a definite impact on their reputation.

 

And now, white raven, your post made me ask, Am I making them look bad enough if I discarded the head-covering?

 

Did some thinking on that one. I concluded that I gotta live with myself. Let the chips fall where they will. I've been their scape goat too many years. (I changed the animal in there. At first I had sacrificial lamb. But I think scape goat fits better.) I will no longer take responsibility for their good reputation. It's not that good, anyway. They just think it is and the public is no help when it makes them a tourist attraction and praises them for living as they do.

 

Just in case any of you like to tour Amish country and tell the Amish how much you respect their way of life: DON'T. They will preach your words in every sermon. They take it as concrete evidence that they really are a light to the world, just like Jesus said they are, because a person with conscience from the world said thus and so. You can be sure there will be silent and pious prayers for your soul to come to full realization of Christ's redeeming love, prayers that this will be followed by fruits of repentance and conversion. All the time these people will feel warm fuzzies that God is using them as a light to the world; it will strengthen them in their faith, etc. Just don't encourage them, okay?

 

If you want to hassle and disrespect them and disrupt their schedule, that's one thing. But just don't tell them what a good example and shining light they are or how much you respect their way of life. Of course, don't persecute them either because they love being persecuted as much as the next xian over. But pushing a camera into their face isn't persecution; it's being a disrespectful nuisance. For a lot of the horse and buggy people, having their picture taken is against their religion. I guess some people might love posing for, or being forced into, a photograph. I'm just not that kind of person. They had a rule that posing for a photograph was not to be tolerated and if people had photographs of themselves or their children they had to destroy them.

 

Well, my sister babysits for a RC family. The parents got a calendar made with pics of the girls and my sister hung it in her livingroom where she hosts her horse and buggy visitors and that was okay. That's a calendar; it's not a photograph by definition. She can't carry it in her wallet or set it up in a frame on her furniture. The pics are lots larger than most photos are because calendar pictures are larger. I was really scared for her when she said what she was going to do but she said it worked just fine. People ask if those are the girls she babysits, and take the calendar down to look at the pictures that are on the other pages. Are we talking about CINO behaviour? Maybe Christians-Against- Photography-In-Name-Only.

[R. S. Martin]

I responded to OM's post here because the point I wanted to bring out was being discussed there.

[FirstInTheDance]

I hate most of the Bible. I personally don't see much value in any of the Abrahamic religions, and I would wholeheartedly love to see them (the religions, not the people) die a long overdue death.

 

I grew up with a fundamentalist mindset. The all or nothing approach. I could never understand the "Christians" who could pick and choose the parts of the Bible they liked, yet throw away the parts of "God's Word" they didn't like. But of course, that lack of understanding came from my belief that one couldn't be a Christian unless the person believed in the Christian mythos as literal fact.

 

That said, time away and study of various mythologies has changed my perspective. If one DOESN'T view the Bible as the literal, inerrant "Word of God," but finds meaning in the mythology (understanding that it IS mythology), and is inspired by Jesus and tries to emulate him, I see nothing wrong with that person self-identifying as a Christian.

 

While I understand Checkmate's frustrations about her being too good for them, it isn't up to anyone else to say what she or anyone else "can" or "should" call him/herself. If her spirituality is centered on her understanding of Christ, I do not see it as "dishonest" to call herself Christian. Some people might not LIKE it. Some people might not AGREE with it - but ultimately, she doesn't need permission to define her beliefs in whatever way makes the most sense to her, and she owes no one an explanation or apology for seeing things the way she does.

 

I enjoyed Open_Minded's explanation of her beliefs, and if the world has to have Christians, I hope for more like her.

[Deva]

While I understand Checkmate's frustrations about her being too good for them, it isn't up to anyone else to say what she or anyone else "can" or "should" call him/herself. If her spirituality is centered on her understanding of Christ, I do not see it as "dishonest" to call herself Christian. Some people might not LIKE it. Some people might not AGREE with it - but ultimately, she doesn't need permission to define her beliefs in whatever way makes the most sense to her, and she owes no one an explanation or apology for seeing things the way she does.

 

Thought Checkmate did a fine Opening post, but am sorry to see he has departed from it and is now saying the label doesn't fit because Open_Minded because she is "too good" for it. Maybe he had something in those 20 posts he didn't write that we wish he would have come out with.

 

Agree that people can call themselves whatever they want to. In regular life out on the street, we wouldn't question them about their beliefs at all unless they brought it up. That would be rude. However, if they want to come on a discussion site that says "ex-christian" seems like they ought to be prepared to defend or explain why they continue to call themselves "christian," in whatever sense.

 

You are right, we don't have to like it, or agree with it -- and we don't. We think ALL forms of xianity are poison and we still think it is a bit dishonest to identify oneself with a church with accepted tenants of belief and not agree with them.

[Alice]

I think much of this might come down to the meaning and intent we attach to the use of labels.

 

After reading Antlerman's latest post in his arena discussion with Kat I felt so inspired by Humanism I found myself doing a quick internet trawl of Humanist symbols so that I could label myself accordingly. Amoungst the descriptions of what it means to be a humanist I found aspects that I do not agree with - in fact to me they sounded not entirely in the spirit of of what I think it means to be a humanist.

 

My definition of humanism is unlikely to tick all the boxes for the next Humanist. Is there such a thing as a 'true' humanist and if so how does one decide?

 

The purpose of a label is to project a particular identity. I think the conflict here is that there are multiple understandings as to what constitutes a 'Christian Identity'. This brings me back to nationhood - is it dishonest for me to identify myself as English when I don't ascribe to some attributes others believe are part of 'being English'?

 

Deva,

 

I found myself agreeing with this part of your post,

 

 

While I understand Checkmate's frustrations about her being too good for them, it isn't up to anyone else to say what she or anyone else "can" or "should" call him/herself. If her spirituality is centered on her understanding of Christ, I do not see it as "dishonest" to call herself Christian. Some people might not LIKE it. Some people might not AGREE with it - but ultimately, she doesn't need permission to define her beliefs in whatever way makes the most sense to her, and she owes no one an explanation or apology for seeing things the way she does.

 

but I didn't understand your last paragraph, who is the 'we' in this respect - were you signalling agreement with Checkmate by using 'we'?

 

We think ALL forms of xianity are poison and we still think it is a bit dishonest to identify oneself with a church with accepted tenants of belief and not agree with them.

 

I think I'm possibly a bit slow today - can you help me clarify my understanding in respect of what you regard as dishonest. The switch from saying that you don't regard O_M as dishonest to call herself a Christian but then seem to say that you think identification with a church with accepted tenants of belief is a bit dishonest.

 

Are you saying that it would be dishonest for O_M to join a church whilst believing that literal beliefs were essential to Christianity but not believing them personally - this would be dishonest - but that because O_M does not accept that literal beliefs are essential to Christianity - she is not being dishonest?

 

Or are you saying that calling herself a 'Christian' is not dishonest but identifying with a Church is?

 

Outside of fundamentalism there are many streams of christianity strectching back over the past two thousand years, where literal beliefs have not been the 'accepted tenants' of vast groups of people calling themselves 'Christian'.

 

There are many forms of Christanity that I don't regard as poison.

[Deva]

While I understand Checkmate's frustrations about her being too good for them, it isn't up to anyone else to say what she or anyone else "can" or "should" call him/herself. If her spirituality is centered on her understanding of Christ, I do not see it as "dishonest" to call herself Christian. Some people might not LIKE it. Some people might not AGREE with it - but ultimately, she doesn't need permission to define her beliefs in whatever way makes the most sense to her, and she owes no one an explanation or apology for seeing things the way she does.

 

That is what Firstinthedance wrote, I was just quoting it to explain why I disagree and think maybe people do need to be prepared to explain why they are "christians".

 

but I didn't understand your last paragraph, who is the 'we' in this respect - were you signalling agreement with Checkmate by using 'we'?

 

I basically agree with Checkmate, but I don't think I would go with the line of argument he recently began.

 

We think ALL forms of xianity are poison and we still think it is a bit dishonest to identify oneself with a church with accepted tenants of belief and not agree with them.

 

I know we disagree, Alice, but I still don't understand how the above statement is unclear.

[Alice]

I know we disagree, Alice, but I still don't understand how the above statement is unclear.

 

 

Ahh part of it is because in responding I'd somehow lost sight of the fact that the first bit I quoted wasn't you - really sorry for the mix up.

 

(I erased the 'quoted by' details by mistake and thought both voices were you- so I was replying as if you'd said you thought liberal christians are not dishonest and then later that they were a bit dishonest. Thanks for clearing this up for me, I knew I was slow today but I hadn't grasped quite how slow!)

 

I'll try and explain myself a little clearer now that I am! damn this is hard to word!

 

What I was trying to say was - whilst you believe that there are certain 'accepted tenants' that define Christianity, and given that you don't believe the substance of these tenants ... it would be dishonest of you to identify with the church but I'm querying whether this can be said to be true of liberal Christians (and I wasn't sure whether you were saying it was or it wasn't in your view)

 

The tenants that you believe to be the 'accepted tenants that define Christianity' - are not accepted as the 'tenants that define Christianity' by liberal Christians (as I understand liberal Christianity) - therefore they (liberal christians) are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as Christians.

 

If you do think they are being dishonest - I'd be interested in hearing a little more of your rationale.

 

The first time I relayed to my partner a conversation I'd had with a very liberal Christian about the virgin birth - he was horrified that anyone 'calling themselves a Christian' could believe that it was a myth ... we were both of the view at the time that apart from a very small number of heretics, the Christian Church had 'always believed this as a literal truth' - I actullay now think that this a misreading of history perpetuated by fundamentalists and others with a modernist and literal perspective on history.

 

This led me to change my views about what Chrisitanity may or may not have been at different stages in its evolution and thus I do not see dishonesty in liberals calling themselves Christian.

 

If you weren't saying that liberal christians are being dishonest then I'm sorry for being so dense and thanks for your patience!

[Grandpa Harley]

I demand pictures of Kevin in Spandex!

[Deva]

What I was trying to say was - whilst you believe that there are certain 'accepted tenants' that define Christianity, and given that you don't believe the substance of these tenants ... it would be dishonest of you to identify with the church but I'm querying whether this can be said to be true of liberal Christians (and I wasn't sure whether you were saying it was or it wasn't in your view)

 

The tenants that you believe to be the 'accepted tenants that define Christianity' - are not accepted as the 'tenants that define Christianity' by liberal Christians (as I understand liberal Christianity) - therefore they (liberal christians) are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as Christians.

 

If you do think they are being dishonest - I'd be interested in hearing a little more of your rationale.

 

Sorry Alice, I have read the above three times and I can't understand what you are saying. Please rephrase.

[Alice]

What I was trying to say was - whilst you believe that there are certain 'accepted tenants' that define Christianity, and given that you don't believe the substance of these tenants ... it would be dishonest of you to identify with the church but I'm querying whether this can be said to be true of liberal Christians (and I wasn't sure whether you were saying it was or it wasn't in your view)

 

The tenants that you believe to be the 'accepted tenants that define Christianity' - are not accepted as the 'tenants that define Christianity' by liberal Christians (as I understand liberal Christianity) - therefore they (liberal christians) are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as Christians.

 

If you do think they are being dishonest - I'd be interested in hearing a little more of your rationale.

 

Sorry Alice, I have read the above three times and I can't understand what you are saying. Please rephrase.

 

I'll try.

 

In order to do so I'll say what I think you're saying but please bear in mind that I'm not sure I'm hearing you correctly.

 

I think you are saying that you believe ...

 

there is an accepted definition of Christianity that has been around for as long as Christianity has been in existence that requires literal belief in various events/doctrines. Therefore as you do not have a literal belief in these doctrines it would be dishonest for you to identify with a Church that does.

 

It seems you are saying that everyone accepts this definition of Christianity, therefore liberal Christians, in not believing in the literal truth of these events/doctrines are also being dishonest.

 

I am saying - my understanding is that liberal Christians (and many secular historians) do not view history in this way. They do not accept that for as long as Christianity has been around there has been an 'accepted' definition of Chrisitianity that requires literal belief in various events/doctrines - therefore they are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as part of the Christian Church.

 

Does that help any?

[Grandpa Harley]

So effectively they take the orthodox history of the church as dishonst and pick and choose which bits are true to suit them... Looking at the actual history, compared to the orthodox, there is virtually nothing true... the whole thing then tends toward C.S. Bloody Lewis' "One True Myth" crap...

 

Thus, in terms of Liberal Christianity, I have the following questions that I may place over on the other thread where there is the attempted cluster fuck of me simply because I don't think that there are shades of grey when spreading toxic thought...

 

1) What is the point of Christianity?

2) Is it a religion or is it a philosophy?

3) What were we 'saved' from?

4) Why was the crucifixion needed?

5) Was there a physical resurrection? If it doesn't matter, why not?

6) Who was sacrificed to whom and why?

7) It the trinity a required doctrine? If it's a false one, why tolerate it in service?

 

OK, it's not a clean list since there are some a priori assumptions on my part about the nature of the beast...