Easter story

You're forgiven. (Heh, heh, heh. ) Seriously, I would just rather not get involved, but this kind of issue deserves either both points of view or neither. I vote neither. But I appreciate you taking my little jibe as you did. Thanks.

Russ and I have tangled a couple of times in a minor sort of way. This in no way diminishes my deep appreciation for all he contributes to this board and this field.

(For the record, I was baptized Roman Catholic and was married in the Episcopal Church. I am a "Doubting Thomas," not to be lumped in with the atheists. But even a Christian can be put off by the careless tossing about of others' faiths, values and beliefs as if it is understood that all others feel the same way. I used to get equally offended when, as an Air Force officer, everyone would bash Democrats, assuming we were all Republicans. Well, we weren't, and most of us kept quiet. You can guess whether or not that included me.)

Rich Douglas

 

I think that here, and in the larger culture, we misemploy the word "offended." How and why should someone be offended by another's beliefs? Disagreement, to me, is the very soul of intellectual discourse, and I don't think we need to avoid it here quite so energetically. If anyone does not share my beliefs, then fine. But religious beliefs are not a matter of opinion. THEY ARE EITHER RIGHT OR THEY ARE WRONG. And the stakes are very high.
It is fair for Russell, or anyone else to express their belief, even in a missionary or evangelical tone. It is fair, because no one else is prevented from doing the same. If we were to agree to avoid the subject of religion entirely, particularly Christianity, then anti-Christian thought prevails, simply by default. This is and has been the strategy of secular humanism, itself an IRS registered religion, all along: Hush all God-talk in favor of Man-talk.
But education in this country began as a Christian enterprise, and many of the schools we discuss are explicitly theological. To say religion is an out of bounds subject in a board devoted to DL is to profoundly limit the range of what we talk about. Has PC so dominated our thinking that a group of highly educated persons must agree on a range of subjects NOT to talk about? Why should we avoid a real subject, so as--what--to not offend someone?
If we disagree on factual issues, then someone is wrong and someone is right--no offense taken. If someone says that night is day, I can ignore him or her or point out the error. If they do not see that it is night, then they are wrong. I just go on my way. I would be amazed, that someone appears to hold that night is really day, but not offended.
These days Christians are told that any mention of Christ, outside a whisper at home or in the safe confines of church, is evangelism and is thus "unfair" to others. It infringes on their space. But how invasive, honestly, is a simple evangelical question or statement?
It does not serve our purpose to be too easily offended when NO OFFENSE IS INTENDED. A Christian will only mention Christ because he or she is convinced that without Him we are lost. It is exceedingly unpopular, but the Christian is concerned about the eternal soul of his fellow man. If that concern is unappreciated, or scorned, so be it.
For the record, I am not offended by anything I have read so far at Degreeinfo, and I relish good conversation about education and other things with people who are obviously well educated and intelligent. There is a lot I don't agree with, but it is enriching to read. I like it when things are slightly contentious; that is when we learn and grow.
But I don't think any topic, intelligently presented, need be avoided. I do respect the beliefs of others and am very willing to read them. But as a Christian I will never be quieted, and never present as opinion what I know to be fact.

Happy Easter All

Craig

 

You're probably thinking of Peter Singer, Princeton University; I didn't know he'd advocated retroactive abortion, but I can't say it would surprise me. He represents the academic equivalent of the sideshow freaks who used to bite the heads off of chickens to sell tickets.


Cheers,

 

Academic sideshow freaks at Princeton! And I thought they were all at Lincoln Park. Aint life grand?

Craig

 

Okey, dokey. I was going to leave this alone, but every comment deserves an answer.

To equate religion and Christianity is to ignore about 5/6 of the world's people. Welcome to the minority.

You ARE responsible for speech that offends others, as long as it is reasonable to expect such speech to be offensive. Guess what? Most people simply don't want to hear your crap. Keep it to yourself. That's why it is usually good policy not to talk about religion and politics among people you don't know. The problem with zealots is that they lump the world into two basic groups of people: those that believe and those that will. I guess they've resevered a third group who die before they catch on; it's off to hell for them.

Well, it's more complicated than that. There are people who share many of your religious beliefs, but recognize that there is a time and place for them. And brother, this ain't it.

Religious opinions such as yours are either right or they are wrong? Okay. They're wrong! There. We've each had our say. Shut up, already.

Oh, and your "facts" don't add up to a supported hypothesis for your particular creation myth. Or is that an opinion? Who knows? But as Chip pointed out, you'll never change anyone's mind here. But if you lead off with that drivel, expect others to answer.

You've never been offended by what you read? Good. Then you won't mind if I say this: I wonder if, given all the wars, violence, death, persecution, and misery wrought in God's name, religious zealotry might not have anything to do with God. Perhaps it is the Devil's own work. Enjoy the last word. I've just had mine.

Rich Douglas

 

Let's see..."crap," "shut up," "you are wrong," without explanation, because you can't offer one....intelligent discourse, don't you think? You argue well. I'm impressed.


Craig

 

There have been an unfortunate number of those on all sides. Of course from a statistical point of view the murder of atheistic states such as in China, the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany grossly outweigh the number those killed by Christianity (somewhat debatable whether those were natural outworkings of Xian faith as Ravi Zacharias would point out). That old saw implying more people killed in the name of religion is not accurate from a factual basis.

Last point is that this is an off topic forum. He expressed an opinion among others that Christians are one of the few groups for whom there is little protection of their rights to free expression. You cannot malign people of the basis of race on television without getting into a great deal of hot water or one's sexual preference. On the other hand Christians are fair game and any expression of their faith or a persons belief in schools on the part of students or people in the work place is often a case for denial of rights. There have been a large number of cases taken to court of absolutely ridiculous violations of Christian civil rights. Certainly they pale in comparision to those involving the mass murder of Christians in the Sudan.

So, Rich I do not know what happend that has made you so volitile on this issue but reeeeeeeeeeelax. Peace dude!

North (who is also finished)

 

He simply shared an opinion. I realize that politics and religion usually set people off but give me a break, people can express opinions ranging from issues of degree mills to
accreditation. Chill out my friend!

Tolerance means accepting others right to believe the way they want NOT that everyone
has to believe that everyone else's beliefs are equally true. That is where intolerance &
injustice comes in.

 

If in the off-topic discussion forum one finds a thread entitled Easter Story, what would be a reasonable assumption about the subject matter of the thread? It would be reasonable to think that it is about Easter, a Christian religious topic.

If I were offended by this topic, I would not feel compelled to open the thread. If I opened the thread in spite of my propensity for offense at the topic, it would be reasonable to then bend over backwards not to act on the offense, since I had walked into it knowingly.

"Freedom of religion" is a U.S. constitutional mandate. "Freedom from religion," if it is anything, is some recent case law affecting only a portion of the metes and bounds of "freedom of religion," primarily having to do with certain types of religious activities at public schools and other publicly-funded institutions.

This isn't such an institution; this is a private bulletin board and the tossing about of "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion" is simply irrelevant.

The owners of the BB have the right to ban the topic of religious expression entirely if they wish, in which case I would NOT claim that they were violating my freedom of religion since "freedom of religion" has little to do with private bulletin boards (considering present case law). Similarly, the mention of religious content on a private bulletin board is NOT a violation of anyone's "freedom from religion" (all the more so considering the title of this thread).

I think there is plenty of room here for both/many opinions about religious expression. It would be unreasonable to evangelize in every thread, no matter the topic. I also believe it is unreasonable to take extreme offense of religious subject matter in an off-topic discussion with the title "Easter Story."

 

What a long, strange thread it's been.

I think we should feel free to express our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) here, and I think it has the potential to be a very productive thing; but what I keep going back to is that Russ respects Rich, Rich respects Russ, North respects Rich, Rich respects North, and Craig respects Russ and North, but doesn't respect Rich, who in turn doesn't respect Craig. So the only real conflict here is between Rich and Craig; everything else is peripheral to that.

I'm in an interesting position, being religious enough to fall within the boundaries of what Rich is criticizing and secular enough to fall within the boundaries of what Craig is criticizing. So perhaps I can at least provide you with a common enemy.


Cheers,

 

I knew that deep within Rich's psyche lay the potential for good. He has already begun to utilize the jargon of a believer.

Blessings to you, Brother Rich!

 

In the house of the rising son...

John Bear writes:

"And then Jesus came out and saw his shadow, and they had six more weeks of winter."

And I chuckled. Later, North writes:

that the whole resurrection thing was a myth

I'm not to be labeled a "Christian" (or anything else for that matter - as I told one degreeinfo regular a while back, I have no need for belief systems of any kind). However, I can't help but think about the shroud of Turin. This amazing artifact was "debunked" by carbon-14 dating years ago as being from the wrong period of history to be the burial shroud of Christ. Still, the technology necessary to create the image on the shroud was not to be invented until this century, and the shroud was still calculated to be hundreds of years old.

Then, lo and behold, it turns out that a layer of bio-matter was throwing the carbon-14 dating off, and all other scientific evidence puts the shroud in the right place at the right time to be Christ's. (Interesting note: Before the shroud re-appeared in the world hundreds of years after the crucifixion, there were many widely varying artistic representations of Jesus. After it was made available for viewing, many images of Jesus bore a striking resemblance to the man of the shroud.) So what energy made the ghostly image on the shroud? My theory in brief: Anyone capable of being imprisoned, tortured, and crucified without bearing enmity towards his murderers - instead entreating others to forgive them for their mistake - is an unusually enlightened being indeed, and upon death might very well release the "supernatural" energy required to produce this phenomenon.

Anyway, later Rich responds to Craig's rant with his own:

Religious opinions such as yours are either right or they are wrong? Okay. They're wrong! There. We've each had our say. Shut up, already.

Which, after some more chuckling, I respond to thusly: Of course, Craig's belief in Christ as his savior isn't necessarily "wrong", no matter how unpleasant his prosyletizing is. From India came the analogy of the cat and the monkey - when a mother cat crosses the road, she carries here kittens by the scruff of the neck because they don't yet have the power to do anything for themselves. However, when mama monkey carries her babies across the road, they are able to grasp her fur and hang on for the ride. Those who feel they need saviors for spiritual redemption are of the kitten variety - however, there are a few people able to find it for themselves without burdening someone else further.

North writes a strange response to Rich's rant:

Rich I do not know what happend that has made you so volitile on this issue but reeeelax

Um, North - Rich isn't exactly the "reeeelaxing" type. If you don't believe me, go back and read some of his 1400+ posts here.

Then Russell says:

He has already begun to utilize the jargon of a believer.

To which I might reply: Russ, I'm pretty sure that the term "brother" (in whatever language) was used before Christianity existed. Get some perspective, amigo.

Peace to all.

-Rablution

P.S. This post isn't to be presumed an attempt at a religious, science, history, or psychology lesson. I just had a few extra minutes to tap on the keyboard.

 

Re: In the house of the rising son...

My statement, Rab, was made in jest. I was keenly aware that Rich was not speaking as a believer, only that it had a good sound when he used the term.

BrotherMan Russ

 

Ah, but I've not spoken about my beliefs, except to note that I've been a member of first the Roman Catholic church, then the Episcopal church. (Gotta love the liturgy!)

My objection was not the introduction of religious discussion. Rather, it was the proselytizing nature of some comments, as if there were not other, reasonable, points of view. That's it.

Personally, I cannot discount the existence of God. Nor do I wish to try. The evidence is not sufficent to support such a hypothesis. But it is my judgment that the evidence does not support His existence either. I accept with good cheer that others feel differently. It is a matter of faith. That's one thing I love about America. People can pursue their faiths unfettered by sanctioned dogma. But I resent it when some people speak as if everyone else agrees with their dogma. We don't.

Regarding the term "brother," I would offer that we are all brothers. There is so few genetic differences between humans that it is really insignificant. (Especially for O.J.!) But get this: the closest species to humans in terms of DNA is the chimpanzee. What is the closest to the chimp? Humans! Yes. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to any other species, including other apes. It's humans, chimps, and everything else. So if God made us in His image, that image must've been a bit more broad than some have assumed.

Anyway, I have no desire to refute what others feel and think regarding religion. But I also think that some people should show some restraint about leading with such comments. It's okay to discuss these things, but don't make pronouncing statements that assume others think along the same lines. We do not.

Respectfully,

Rich Douglas

 

Re: In the house of the rising son...

Yeah, this wouldn't be worth debating. He won't even admit that if he sees a coin in his palm that he believes the coin has an obverse side (never mind the physics of it). "Belief" is undefinable for him; that is how he manages not to have any.

 

Never argue religion or politics. As for me, I've managed to heed exactly one-half of my own advice.


Bruce

 

What is ironic about the bulk of this thread, is that one can discuss any topic on the planet [even religion/politics, i.e., most religions] with a great deal of tolerance. Actually, the more liberal one's view is on a particular issue, the more tolerance is lauded as the best paradigm for effective dialogue and interaction. That is, until one's view is challenged or one feels somehow threatened.

To expand this thesis further, if I had used a mythical story from the canonical writings of Islam, Hinduism, Scientology, etc., I don't think the response would have been the same. If I had quoted from the Koran or Dianetics, the response would have been minimal. Certainly, there would have been those who disagreed, but they would have--for the most part--brushed it off.

But I didn't! I used a narrative from the Bible--Christianity's sacred text--and presented it as though it was the truth, absolute truth, which I believe it to be. It is the postulation of the biblical text as truth which seems to be offensive to some who cry for tolerance.

Do I feel threatened when someone speaks of their religion, or lack thereof? Certainly not! I respect each person's right to believe/disbelieve, and will continue to do so. I also respect my own right to do likewise.

Blessings,

Russell, who is neither ashamed nor intimidated about being a Christian, but not arrogant about it either.