Link for Fascinating Post article April 15, 2006Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Stupid Party vs Evil Party.
Now we're gonna break it down:
If I were Christian, I'd have to guess that Christ doesn't care what the heck you call yourself, Republican, Democrat, Boy Scout, Muslim, Hindu or even atheist; it's your deeds that count, your actions that matter, and your character that defines you.
Well, that seems dead on. Jesus was quite clear in saying that everyone was welcome at his table, regardless of affiliation. I might question the validity of Muslims and Hindus having quite so easy a time of it, but no question they too can find what Jesus' early followers called "The Way."
Good people are identified as good by the good deeds they do, while evil people are identified by doing evil deeds.
By your fruits, you shall determine the value of the tree. OK. HOWEVER, we must remember that evil deeds do not make for evil people. All people in the end are good. Yes, even Lucifer himself started out at least as good. So a bit of editing needs to go into this paragraph.
I'd point out clearly that arguing for the cult like worship of any human being, in any nation, as an inerrant God like leader, praising warfare or terrorism, the repression and bombing of innocent civilians, arguing that torture or murder or genocide is a good thing, and defending the wealthy and powerful, is completely at odds with what Christ clearly taught.
Also sounds very solid. Also seems to be a rather scathing indictment of some of the actions of the Bush Administration. And I would not disagree. For further commentary on this, go see Catholic and Enjoying It, the Mark Shea blog. Wander around some. There you will see a consummate follower of Christ tilting at all kinds of crazy windmills, especially the torture windmill. Shea does not stint in his loathing of this practice.
If I was a Christian I'd thank God for including me in this Cosmos in all its resplendent majesty. I'd study every branch of science I could and hunger for more every day. I'd be teaching biology and chemistry and astronomy in Sunday Schools along side Biblical verse to eager young Christian children who would learn reverence for those fields of knowledge. I would note the truth that molecular biology has revealed: We are all one family, every man a brother, all women sisters, and each of us is our brother's keeper. They would "ohhh" and "ahh" at the pictures of God's cosmos from powerful telescopes. They would be fascinated with God's intricacies found speck of blood under the microscope. They would be inspired assembling a model of life's DNA double helix, or an atom. And they would look in fascination at the image of Creation itself borne across an ocean of space and time on the gossamer wings of invisible light. All part of God's infinitely artistic Universe.
In philosophy, this is known as at least on argument in favor of the existence of God, one of Aquinas' "Five Ways", the Design Argument. You might also say it is part of the Aesthetic Experience Argument. And it make WONDERFUL sense. Again, nothing wrong here.
Rather than trying to deceive people about God's prowess, I'd work to reveal it to them. Because science inspires mankind with precious insight into the mind of the Creator of all that exists. Far from being something to fear, science is the most powerful testimony to any Creator who crafted our natural world. And freed from the confines of politically expedient dogma, who knows what further wonders those young people might uncover to one day teach their children?
To some extent, this backs up the previous paragraph, but there is a codicil that requires further attention: Rather than trying to deceive people about God's prowess, I'd work to reveal it to them. . .freed from the confines of politically expedient dogma, who knows what further wonders those young people might uncover to one day teach their children? This is fine IF you are also not using this argument for either of the two following purposes:
- To give a carte blanche to all scientific inquiry. THere are some avenues that ought not be explored. There is ample precedent for putting the breaks on here. Such as "human endurance testing" as was done by the Nazis in the '30s. subjecting test subjects to extremes of pressure and cold. Just because one CAN examine an area of scientific inquiry, does not mean that we SHOULD do so.
- This argument must not be used to forward the belief that God CANNOT exist. And it is often used in just that fashion right now.
If I was a Christian, I'd guess Christ wouldn't really give a hoot about gays or abortion,
Here, we run into our first real, obvious problem. I agree that Christ doesn't care about gays anymore than he cares about straights. What he DOES care about is whether or not we follow Him. And that means, do we attempt to avoid sin? If so, then all is fine. If not, there is a separation. And straights are just as likely to fall into the trap of sin as any other group, including gays.
On abortion, the author is dead wrong. How can a Christian square the notion of "love thy neighbor" with the killing of an innocent? This is an obviously monstrous contradiction. Does Christ sympathize with the plight of the pregnant woman? Of course. Does he think that killing is a good means of showing sympathy? I cannot find even a hint of that anywhere in any of His teachings.
and would in fact minister healing and grace to those people in God's name, and shower them with His love. There's only one or two verses in the entire Bible even mentioning homosexuals or abortion, as opposed to so many telling us to help the poor and sick and even those we might not approve of if we want to honor His Name.
Just because the Bible makes few mentions of abortion and homosexuality does not lessen the validity of them. God and Christ did not say; "OK. This is the 27th time I've told you DO NOT KILL, so you ought to figure that I really mean it this time." The Bible speaks out against abortion and active homosexuality? Then they are wrong.
So if I was a Christian, I'd also shower anyone persecuted by religious opportunists with all the love they could stand, and tell them God loved them deeply and forever, no matter what they do or did. I would tell them that nothing they can do will ever stop God from loving them dearly.
Eloquent. Wonderful. Just so long as we remember that it requires repentance as well as being open to His love. It requires a bit more than saying; "Whoops. My bad!" and simply expecting that there might not be a mess that needs to be cleaned up. When we sin, there is always a mess requiring cleaning. Repentance is part of that cleaning.
If I were Christian, I'd have to guess that Christ, who was after all beaten to a bloody pulp and then nailed to a cross to die a horrible, lingering, death, for our sins, wouldn't think very highly of a party, a faction, a group, a pharaoh, a Caesar, or a President, that thinks they should be able to legally whisk people off to torture chambers to foreign shit-holes run by despots, with no trial or charges ever held for them! And were I a Christian, I'd have to guess that any beliver would and absolutely should be very nervous about being associated with torture in any way, shape, or form.
Yeah. We already covered that. If you missed it earlier, awnder around this site.
Then again, maybe it's easy for me to say what I would do IF … if I was a Christian. Maybe I have this all wrong. Or maybe it's much harder than it all sounds. But honestly, much of what I've written above doesn't sound that hard to do, does it? It begins with common decency, common sense, and common courtesy, that we all learned by the time we left kindergarten. I'm already doing a lot of it now and I bet most people are.
I can't tell if the author is trying to oversimplify here or not.
But I'd also have to guess there is one huge difference between Christ and me: I have little patience for folks that use religion as a tool of manipulation. And for the mad bombers and their enablers, whether they justify their killing sprees with passage's or sura's, I wouldn't mind if they spent the rest of their days in prison mumbling holy hatred to themselves while strapped to a gurney in a straitjacket. Christ was an inspiring example, and that's true regardless if the underlying theology is accurate or not. But I'd have a hard time living up to His standard.
It is at times the easiest thing and the hardest thing to live up to His standard.
It would be challenging for me to forgive some of those people, including I'm sad to say those that are destroying this nation from within and without. But I'd pray for the strength to do so, if I were Christian.
And herein lies the political bias. The only thing I can say in response to this is that the reader is objecting to the Stupid Party's work in fouling us up these past few years.
And they would have a point.
However, the solution is not in castigating the Stupid Party, and replacing it with the Evil Party (for meanings, go see Mark Shea again.), just as castigating the Evil Party and saying the Stupid Party has all the answers is equally misleading. The solutiions are not in thought, reason, science or politics.
The solution is in the love that God taught us through his son, Jesus.
Still want to know where the link came from? You might hardly believe it. Right here.