I appriciate "Christian" in Quotes

this seems to be a new trend on DU... when pointing out biggoted religious officials, DUers are calling them "Christians" (notice quotes).

As a liberal Christian, this is inspiring to me to know that everyone knows that these asshats are only hiding behind the facade of Christianity, not representing the majority of its followers.

Thank you, DU, for being open minded enough to embrace everyone here.

that the majority of Christians in the US are liberal?

I'm just saying that not all Christians are crazy fundies.

are much better people than the Bush cabal, although they may support many of its policies. They do so out of more ignorance and naivety than the cabal which I feel is quite cynical and dishonest.

And I appreciate real Christians speaking out against the asshats.

:toast:

to be sure..... lol!!!

to go with my poor choice of words.

I like the little donkey. And lol on asshat.

and u make a good point. soooooooo..thanks for pointing it out. it will reduce the confusion...and also certainly more respectful.

Especially the knuckledragging freepers. :spank:

Earlier today, I noticed a thread started by Bluebear in this forum that had "Christian" in quotations. That was a first for me!

Thanks!!

you don't think right-wingers are "real christians" and they don't think YOU'RE a "real christian".

How do those of us who are not religious evaluate the competing claims? I can certainly find enough backing evidence in the Bible to support either claim.

Was Jesus a peacenik? Some quotes indicate so, but others don't. How about "Think not that I have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) or "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-2) or "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)?

I don't know how I'm supposed to determine that liberals are "real christians" while conservatives aren't.

I'm saying that the general conception of a fundie Christian is someone like G Dub who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. I don't think that's a real Christian. You can be friggin James Dobson for all I care, and as long as you are honest in your beleifs and are not using religion as a political tool or weapon, God bless you, go for it.

Just because I vote democrat doesn't make me a "better Christian" or a better person, for that matter. I'm not trying to give that impression.

there can be found biblical authority for either liberalism or conservatism, depending on what one cherry-picks.

As a non-believer, I have no way to judge whether your claims are true or whether James Dobson's claims are true. If I have to respect YOUR conclusion, I have to respect the fundies' conclusions, too, since their based on the same premise.

How about this: don't use the quotes when you are talking about someone you don't mind so much, do use them when you are talking about someone who gets your bile up.

It isn't rocket science that you should try to be polite to your allies and your enemies won't care either way.

my concern goes deeper than a desire to insult my opponents.

I see no benefit to claiming that liberals are "real christians" and conservatives aren't. It's a ludicrous distinction, imo. The Bible clearly DOES back up a lot of conservative viewpoints. Yes, they cherrypick what they want. So do liberals.

I'd prefer to see the whole friggin' book thrown in the trash so we could have a rational discussion about issues, instead of trying to find answers in an ancient tome.

Liberals demonstrate more of the tolerance and brotherhood attributed to Christ than conservatives do: Turn the other cheek, Give your cloak also, Go the extra mile, etc. Picking the Bible apart to bolster one view or another isn't always helpful.

That doesn't spark any interest/concern?

If you were a, oh I don't know, science fiction literature fan and people ran around calling people who only watch reruns of "Automan" science fiction literature fans, wouldn't you prefer to see them use quotes?

when referring to fundies, I'll be insulting liberals?

It's so hard to keep up these days....

Not when using the term generically, but specifically when attributing the hate-based actions of the fundies to their religion. Their warped fundamentalism/literalism is what should be attributed blame for those actions (though to be precise that aspect is just a tool used by hatemongers and it's the hate itself to blame, and there are probably some fundamentalist-leaning sects that are actually sane) not the religion as a whole.

It is common practice to excercise alternative terms to avoid making sweeping generalisms. (Personally I prefer to use the term Xstians for the pharasee fundimentalists over the quotes.)

I know it's not entirely fair to expect non-Christians to tae the time to understand the difference between fundamentalism and the more gnostic-oriented Christian philosophy, but part of being a participant in a diverse society is to understand the other people in the society at a more than cursory level. That applies to all the various races/nationalities/ethnicities/religions/etc, and it's why, for example, it's considered crass not to be able to distinguish between different Asian ethnicities, etc. Not that it is ever possible to perfect this, but it is a worthy goal to strive for, and helps build bridges to keep us civilised.

is knowing how to properly insult your opponents. Or is it "opponents"?

Sorry, I'm not gonna play the game. I already think religion and politics are too intertwined - I'm not going to add to it by judging whether somebody is a "real christian" by evaluating their political beliefs.

The only people reading THIS board that are going to be insulted by calling hate-based fundimentalism fake Christianity are people that are only here looking for trouble.

You know, the kind that tend to put up straw-men to avoid serious discussion.

why this upsets you.

My position is simple, and I have stated it here a few times - I see no conclusive evidence in the bible stating that liberals are "real christians" and conservatives aren't, therefore I think it's inappropriate for me, or anybody, to claim some people aren't christians based on their political beliefs.

I think trying to out-christian the conservatives is the wrong road to go down. The question is NOT who's a better christian. That's a pointless argument. I'd much prefer to leave religion out of it altogether. We're right because our policies are more fair and work better - not because Jesus would like them.

Your method of argument is circumlocuitous and you should look into changing that, because it draws discussions out with no merit.

But here's the crux: "I think trying to out-christian the conservatives is the wrong road to go down."

... which tells me you didn't get the "values" memo.

Not that the hype about values voters is true -- it was exagerrated. However, it did play a part. As such, this being an electorate which is heavily Christian, and values being something which most people tend to attribute as coming from their religion, "out-christianing" the conservatives is precisely what we need to be doing. Believe it or not, we are not playing to a completely divided field, but a range of perspectives, opinions, and ideologies.

There are Bush voters out there who voted (wrongly) on the basis of religious values, but who are not the hate-filled fear-mongers of the radical fundies. Now read that last sentence again. There are voters out there that voted on the basis of religious values. These types of people are not going to be convinced by "our policies are more fair and work better." They have already demonstrated as such by voting for Bush. Noone in their right minds could have watched the policy debate and done so without being extremely prejudiced in their information intake. Ergo, some people vote without watching the policy debate.

Sorry, you are stuck with the audience you have. You can't just wish they will change the way they do things and make it so. Maybe some day, but not by 2006 and not by 2008 for sure. Life doesn't work that way (oh, and BTW it is far from "fair" either and never will be.)

rather than trying to convince christian conservatives that they should be Democrats (which I think will never work) I'd rather Democrats explain WHY religion doesn't belong in the public/political sphere.

I think a LOT of people are actually uncomfortable with these public displays of religiosity, and there's a strong case to be made by Dems that government AND religions are all better off when we keep them separated.

Becoming the "other" christian party is a losing proposition - it won't attract any conservatives, and it will lose a lot of liberals.

I'll have to leave you to your own devices, then.

Your badly wrong, it will never work that way. But you seem to be wedged into that mindset pretty rigorously and I don't have the time or the can of WD-40.

isn't it just as likely that you're wedged into a mindset that needs a little lubrication?

I know you think my failure to agree with you is something of a character flaw on my part, but I still believe a compelling argument is to be made that trying to out-christian the fundies is a losing strategy.

And what I think. The Bush family, for example, might believe and all that but they surely do not walk the talk. Only thing I'm not sure of is how can you call yourself a Christian and do something hateful towards someone?

properly labeled??

Why the need to have everyone in an "either/or" box?

Maybe you aren't supposed to determine who is what at all?

Ever think of that? :shrug:

just sayin'....:evilgrin:


edit...word correction

the need to label christians as "real christians" or not is silly. It's also a discussion that's been going on for centuries, with no resolution in sight.

Thanks for agreeing that it's a silly pursuit.

Please don't do that. Don't put your words in my mouth.

I was only questioning why people feel it is important to label people or fit them into categories....not the same as saying its silly. Just because some things are not able to be easily resolved to everyone's satisfaction, doesn't mean they won't try or that its silly to do so.

I was attempting to address your concern ...
"I don't know how I'm supposed to determine that liberals are "real christians" while conservatives aren't."
...by stating that maybe its not up to you to judge or determine these things.....

:shrug:

so it's OK for the original poster to judge who's a "real christian" or not, but when I ask for clarification, you feel compelled to call me on it and accuse ME of doing what the OP is doing.

If I understand you correctly, if I question how somebody "labels" people, I'm accused of "labeling" people. Very interesting, but stupid, as Arte Johnson used to say.

but i do see one kind that is anti-tolerance, pro-war, pro-inequality, pro government regulation of personal lives, pro corporate deregulation, etc.
And i see another kind of Christian that is the opposite - guess which i like better?

Are you a Christian? If so, which kind?

weather your a new testament or old testament christian...old testament is a god of wrath who smites anyone who is not holy; whereas new testament tends to be a god of love and understanding and feels that a camel can pass through the eye of a needle as easily as a rich man can enter the kingdom of heaven ....greed and bigotry are not liberal values, and liberal values tend to be more toward the teachings of Christ...old testament Christians seem to be consecrative and wait for a judgment day so that they will be rewired for their faith... new testament Christians tend to live their religion each day....both are Christians.

:shrug: (I think it repudiates Jesus' own words.)

were not revealed at that point. So, there really is no such thing as an "Old Testament" Christian. I just think that different people have different needs and gravitate to the parts of the Bible that reflect their inate nature. For example, I was born with a Christian heart and nature. Which is to say that I never believed in judging other people and I always believed that but there for the Grace of God, go I. I always believed in doing unto to others as I would have them do unto me.

Some people read the Old Testament and admire the harsh judgements of God, KNOWING full well that the purpose of Jesus was to remove the harsh judgements in favor of forgiveness, mercy and salvation. Jesus said that eveybody who thinks they are a Christian will not receive their heavenly reward because he never knew them. So, Dookus is right. It's useless to speculate about it. That's God's job.

Jesus never uses the word "Christian." He does refer to "my followers, my disciples, my sheep." The term Christian appears a few generations later.

Jesus did not repudiate the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible was HIS scripture.

What Jesus did do was to open the minds and hearts of people to see the loving God WHO EXISTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE. Jesus stands up against the narrow-mindedness of "some" of the Pharisees and Scribes, who were using scripture to oppress the people, while living hypocritical lives.

I once had a great discussion with a Jewish campus minister, who told me, "I think the only good thing I can say about Jesus is that he was a very good rabbi...but nothing more." To his surprise, I replied "I could live with that, if you are willing to accept me as an adopted child of the promise (because for me, it is through Jesus that I am adopted into the lineage of God's chosen ones). He liked that answer.

is that Christians are followers of Christ. Christ wasn't around in the Old Testament. To real Christians the Old Testament is mainly a history book.

While the argument can be made whether Christianity supports a liberal or conservative point of view, I have a problem with those who refuse totake part in the discussion. Right now, without recognizing that those who disagree are still Chrsitians, the conservatives in this country have hijacked the Bible, Christ and Christians teachings and used it as a guise to spread hatred and violence.

Therefore, until everyone is allowed back to the table of public discourse, I appreciate using "Christian" because the general understanding of what Christianity is is completly null and void.

I happen to believe that Christ didn't believe in waging war for personal gain. He cared for the poor and underprivledged. It's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.

However, I also happen to believe there is a spiritual connection between all the religions of the world, be they Hindu, Pegan, Islam or whatever... Christianity is only one way that spirituality manifests itself. It falls in line with the culture in which it thrives, as Buddism falls in line with the culture in which it first thrived. "Religions" merely manifest themselves in the nautre of the culture in which they thrive... but their core concepts tend to puch the same ideas of love and kindness and a look forward to the next world/life/ect.

Peace and Strength,
T

"Fer Shizzle." Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Fer shizzle! :)

Whatever happened to that show he had on MTV? That was great!

I'm sure that Conservatives feel that greed and bigotry seem to work well within capitalism and feel the next step is to incorporate it into their religion...thus the binding of government , religon , and capitalism together in the persona of W.works very well....but I think this was done in the thirties and came to a bad ending

politics at all. I heard Falwell say once that he knew that getting so wrapped up in politics is wrong but that he just couldn't help himself. Surely even Falwell and Robinson remember what Jesus said about, 'man not being able to serve God and mammon.' So, Falwell and Robinson have made their choice. And according to their professions, they have made the wrong choice. And they know it.

They liked the power possibly. Power can be a hungry thing I'm sure. All the attention and everything.

yes INDEED

I'm glad too to know that true Christians out there aren't like those on the right who are extremist.

insane is useful, in that to use the term Christian, at par, in a perjorative way is one of the more divisive practices here on DU. The use of the quotation marks is a clear and simple way to show the difference.

To me, there are two types of Christians.

There are the ones that follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and usually try to live by the "Golden Rule".

Then there are those who believe that accepting Jesus is the only necessity to salvation. They think that you can treat other people however the hell you want, they concentrate on themselves and advancing themselves without a thought about the rest of the world, they treat people like shit, and they are convinced that no matter how they act they will get to go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus as their savior.

The first is a good way to live, while the second is just a bunch of thinly veiled bullshit wrapped in phony compassion to disguise bigotry, hatred, greed and self-importance.

The first is the way Christians try to live.

The second is the "Christian" way.

But I didn't mean to say liberal Christians are better than Conservative Christians. Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm well aware that most Christians aren't of the "God hates fags" ilk , I can't put quotations around anyone's professed religion.

Religion is interpretation, not all Christians believe the same thing, some believe that being a Christian absolutely means opposing abortion, others don't, some believe it means always turning the other cheek, others don't.

This applies to ALL religions:

I'd like to think that the Prophet Muhammad was more in line with the Imam at my local mosque than Osama but how do I know.

I'd like to think Judaism is better represented by Rabbi Arik Ascherman than by Baruch Goldstein but how do I know

I'd like to think that the Hindi gods prefer Gandhi to the folks from Vishwa Hindu Parishad but again I do not know.

It's not my right to claim someone is not a "real" Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim etc etc

When they mix their religion with RW politcal stands &/or Fascism, racism, homophobia, or mysogony I do not wish to be around them.

and writing "Christian" or "so-called Christian" in reference to these folks is IMO a good way to avoid tarring all Christians with the same brush.

Although I am not a Christian (I am a Buddhist), my political activism flows directly out of my faith, and I can appreciate very much the liberal Christians who feel the same way. It's all a unity. :hug:

or i put "so-called" in front of it (NOT in quotations).