http://rantsnraves.org/blog.php?u=310

I see Mike arguing for his position by picking and choosing those displays of religiosity that he thinks are positive (e.g., Wilberforce’s, King’s, etc.), which only goes so far since we can all find as many or more negative displays as positive ones.

Oh c’mon Darryl, cut me some slack. I represented both sides, both the good and the bad. I mentioned Robertson and Phelps in the same comment that I mentioned Wilberforce et al., didn’t I? And in my further explanation didn’t I also say:

And in the case of the people I listed, they did in fact derive their beliefs and values from their Christian faith, whether for good or for ill.

I deliberately tried to acknowledge both the good and the bad done in the name of religion, so how can you accuse me of “picking and choosing” only the positive?

Sheesh, I can’t win for losing around here.

So… who decides what’s good and what’s evil? hmm… (okay. just one more poem.. then I’ll leave it alone.) I don’t know what’s wrong with me – maybe it’s allergies.

Good versus evil
Right against wrong
Justice according to whom?
The battles rage on
Our future soaked in blood…
Yet from a distance
Earth remains unaffected
Constant. Calm. Blue…

I’m glad when people don’t keep it private when their faith (i.e. the beliefs and values derived from their faith) leads them to work for social justice in the world.

I wonder if the Phelps clan think that they’re doing noble social work. I’ll bet they do.

For myself, I don’t see how public discussions of faith ever help. If they’re doing good works then let that speak for itself and if they’re doing harm then no amount of religious salve can soothe it.

Darryl,

On the other hand, Mike is right about this: one of the primary concerns of religion and religious people is justice, ethics, morality, compassion, care for the poor, etc.. When you want to know what institutions concern themselves with these things you really have to begin with the religious ones. It’s a fact.

Is it a fact? How do you know? What facts are you drawing upon and where is your data?

Looking around, I see a mind-boggling amount of money being spent on aggrandizing the church rather than on any of these things you list. No doubt some money is being spent that way, but how much, what percentage of their income, and how does it compare to the money spent on proselytizing?

I don’t think you have any way of answering any of those questions because the churches the world over are secretive and do not willingly disclose how their funds get spent. A few do, but the great majority do not. You may speculate, but it must be just speculation.

On the other hand, secular charities do open up and disclose their financials and their work. Curious, no?

But we cannot deny that the intention of almost all of them is to do good, not evil.

Unfortunately, evil is often committed by those with good intentions but poor understanding. Intention isn’t enough.

Look, your argument is that spiritual people should not remain silent about their spiritual side because that is intertwined with their social side. But we are not talking about people not using their sense of spiritualism to guide their lives. It is just we don’t see any necessary connection between being spiritual and being good.

I’m going to cut this thing both ways: I see Mike arguing for his position by picking and choosing those displays of religiosity that he thinks are positive (e.g., Wilberforce’s, King’s, etc.), which only goes so far since we can all find as many or more negative displays as positive ones. As a result we have to conclude that religion is a mixed bag when it comes to outcomes. Mike would agree with this conclusion, but since he is working on the good side of this matter, he takes the position he does.

On the other hand, Mike is right about this: one of the primary concerns of religion and religious people is justice, ethics, morality, compassion, care for the poor, etc.. When you want to know what institutions concern themselves with these things you really have to begin with the religious ones. It’s a fact. Christians and others do indeed see a necessary connection between being spiritual and being good. Wasn’t this one of Jesus’s main teachings? You can’t say you’re spiritual and be an asshole, and being spiritual is, in part, doing good. “By their fruits you will know them.” But, as you said, Chris, not all churches and Christians are on the same page when it comes to this. I applaud those ministers in our country who suffered for the civil rights of blacks and others and I denounce the Robertsons and Falwells. So it goes. But we cannot deny that the intention of almost all of them is to do good, not evil.

Thank you, that’s a great verse.

I don’t mean to be nitpicky, but didn’t this whole “delusional” thing start because the word could be taken as offensive?

I would put “annoy the hell out of me” in that same category. I was not questioning what and why of what was said. Only that it sounded very dismissive and condescending coming from a person in your position.

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

That part “to everyone who asks you” is key here I think.

So… dodging the questions, when they are asked, claiming they are “too personal,” “offensive,” “rhetorical,” “too big,” or “inappropriate,” would be okay then?

I’m sorry, Mike, please tell me if I’m out of line, but I can’t help but notice these inconsistencies. I’m only pointing out what I observe. Not to say that I’m all that consistent myself…

“Chris, I don’t personally make any distinction between the two [spiritual/social].”

Sure you do. You want to hear the spiritual/social side of those you agree with but not those you don’t (I am not implying that you are trying to ban people from speaking).

No, what I meant is that I don’t make any distinction between the spiritual and the social, between the spiritual and the “here and now” as you put it. I don’t subscribe to that kind of dualistic dichotomy.

Let me put it this way: each of us has a set of beliefs and values that influences our actions in the world. How we live is affected by what we believe and value. This is true both of religious and non-religious people. So no, you don’t need religion to be good, but you do need some sort of beliefs and values, wherever you happen to derive them from. And in the case of the people I listed, they did in fact derive their beliefs and values from their Christian faith, whether for good or for ill.

At any rate, my point, in response to Claire’s statement that she wishes people would keep their faith private, is that I’m glad when people don’t keep it private when their faith (i.e. the beliefs and values derived from their faith) leads them to work for social justice in the world. But you’re reading your own issues into my comment if you think I was implying that you have to be “spiritual to be good” or whatever. I didn’t say anything like that.

It was mainly the “inappropriate times” part of what Claire said that I was agreeing with. I have no problem if a person wants to go on about their passion for Jesus in a church setting, or even if they’re in a conversation with someone who is genuinely interested. But it’s when people go on and on about it to strangers, coworkers or friends that really don’t want to hear about it, that I tend to cringe inwardly and wish they’d stop making Jesus look bad. A lot of Christians I have known feel like it’s their duty to insert Jesus into every conversation, or to talk breathlessly all the time as if Jesus was their hot new boyfriend, even when no one was asking and it’s making everyone around feel uncomfortable, even other Christians. (And no, no one wants to hear newlyweds go on and on about each other either… nor do they want to hear about your real new boyfriend. Those people are equally annoying.)

1 Peter 3:15 says “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

That part “to everyone who asks you” is key here I think. I’m fine with people talking about their passion for Jesus, but not when they force it on people who aren’t interested. I don’t think that does any service to the mission of the gospel.

My question was to a Christian pastor who indicated that he is annoyed by those who are obsessed with Jesus. I was not defending anyone, nor am I trying to determine right or wrong. I was just confused as to who’s who, that’s all.