NO MATTER WHO WINS THE ELECTION

" Even you, a person fairly moderate in your judgments of others, said you would be leery of a non-christian as your neighbor."

That is a mischaracterization and I await your apology. I forgive you and will not hold it against you, but I will correct you.

I said that I would expect a Christian to be a good neighbor and am disappointed when they are not. I never said anything of a nonchristian being a bad neighbor. I have said repeatedly that I have non-Christian friends who I like very much, and I will add that I have neighbors on both sides that I like very much who are not Christians.
You have added a corollary to a point that I made, and it is either offensive or dishonest or both.

SheikBen wrote:Hi Zig,

I would say, without hesitation, that it is more important what God thinks of us than what our neighbors think of us.

HOWEVER (in bold just for emphasis)

I believe that the more we appreciate God's kindness and goodness to us (the rain falls on the wicked and the just), particularly those of us living in the US, the more compelled we will feel to love our neighbors and do well by them. A natural outgrowth of my Christian faith should be to quickly forgive others, as great forgiveness has been shown to me; and to exercise mercy, as great mercy has been shown to me.

A neighbor who quickly shows mercy and quickly forgives is a good neighbor. Love for God leads naturally to love for one's neighbor, and if the latter is missing one fears for the former.

This is what you are mischaracterizing, and in case you didn't bother reading it Terry I'd like to explain it to you.

Someone who has been shown mercy in the Christian religion is expected to show it to others. Someone who has been forgiven much is expected to forgive. "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" is the direct quote (perhaps your Catholic version says trespasses or debts).

I am saying that Christians are expected to live out virtues that also make them good neighbors. You added to that statement what you wanted to.

TerryRC wrote:And the good book says pretty much the same thing Terry. You really should give it a read. Some of the most beautiful writing in history can be found in there.

And people were doing it BEFORE the Big Book of Myths came out. What is your point?

And who knows, maybe you'll find a bit of tolerance in there as well.

I've seen examples of "christian tolerance". I'll pass, thanks.

Who said anything about "Christian" tolerance?

And if nothing else, read the books credited to Solomon. Truly beautiful.

SheikBen wrote:" Even you, a person fairly moderate in your judgments of others, said you would be leery of a non-christian as your neighbor."

That is a mischaracterization and I await your apology. I forgive you and will not hold it against you, but I will correct you.

I said that I would expect a Christian to be a good neighbor and am disappointed when they are not. I never said anything of a nonchristian being a bad neighbor. I have said repeatedly that I have non-Christian friends who I like very much, and I will add that I have neighbors on both sides that I like very much who are not Christians.
You have added a corollary to a point that I made, and it is either offensive or dishonest or both.

.

Now, TerryRC, a fair corollary to draw from my statements would be that a Christian can be expected to be a better neighbor THAN HE WOULD HAVE HAD HE NOT BEEN A CHRISTIAN, which is something far different (I fear I'll have to explain) than saying that CHRISTIANS ALWAYS ACT BETTER THAN NON-CHRISTIANS.

You see, Terry, some people are just nice people. Two of my favorite people on earth, Jeff and Kasey, are agnostics leaning toward atheism. I would rather spend time with them than the Baptist preacher I knew in West Virginia.

However, I believe that Jeff and Kasey would be that much more agreeable should they become Christians, and the Baptist preacher that much more of a yutz (I mean that as lovingly as I can--I intend to spend eternity with him) if he were not a Christian.

The idea that someone's actions should be consistent with their professions is one that incurs charges of arrogance by you. May I ask what the devil you are about?

A neighbor who quickly shows mercy and quickly forgives is a good neighbor. Love for God leads naturally to love for one's neighbor, and if the latter is missing one fears for the former.

Your words.

If there is no love for god in someone (your christian god, I can only assume), you fear that they will lack mercy and forgiveness.

Never mind the fact that many professed christians show damn little of either.

What did I mischaracterize?

The idea that someone's actions should be consistent with their professions is one that incurs charges of arrogance by you. May I ask what the devil you are about?

That wasn't my tack. My point was that you discriminate against non-christians. That is based upon arrogance and hubris.

However, I believe that Jeff and Kasey would be that much more agreeable should they become Christians.

See what I mean?

Where have I ever implied that it was arrogant to avoid hypocrisy?

First of all, Terry, for all of your pompousness you need a lesson in logic.

If A then B. If not B, A (while not disproven) is less certain.

If someone loves God, the expectation is that they will love their neighbor. If they do not love their neighbor, it becomes less certain that they love God.

Which, you may note, is different than saying, if not A, then not B.

If someone does not love god, that does not mean that they do not love their neighbor.

Not from anything that I said.

I said that my friends would have their already exemplary lives improved should they become Christians.

You found that arrogant.

I will again ask what the devil you are about. Some people disagree with you without being bigoted or arrogant, we just disagree with you, that's all. I'm sorry that like Stephanie in her heretical libertarianism that I too have fallen short of the latest secular Papist encyclical.

"Never mind the fact that many professed christians show damn little of either."--TerryRC

If you weren't so consumed with your hatred of Bible believing Christians you would have noted from my post that I hold such people in low regard, fearing that if they are not themselves merciful that something may be wrong with their souls.

That you could not see that point just shows that you wish to speak ill of the Christian faith rather than challenge those who do not live up to it. I can show you a lot of mercy and forgiveness in action by Christians, who credit their mercy and forgiveness to Jesus Christ. Of course, when I try to make that case, you call me arrogant.

What you have done is a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario. If Christians do not live up to their calling, they are hypocrites (Terry wins). But if they do (and credit their faith), they are arrogant (Sheik loses).

If people are Christians, one should expect them to be good neighbors. If one is not a good neighbor, it follows then that they are not being good Christians. Your mistake, Terry, is a basic one.

If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A.
HOWEVER, Not A, therefore not B, does not follow!!!!!!

If I drink poison, I will die.
I have not died, therefore I did not drink poison. That follows.
I did not drink poison, therefore I will not die, DOES NOT FOLLOW! I could be hit by a bus, have a heart attack, fall off a cliff, etc.

THEREFORE

If someone is a Christian, I expect them to act like one in extending mercy and forgiveness.
If someone is not extending mercy and forgiveness, I suspect they are not a Christian. (not B, therefore not A)

HOWEVER IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THEN

That someone who is not a Christian therefore cannot show mercy and forgiveness (which would be not A, therefore not B, and a FALLACY).

SheikBen wrote:If you weren't so consumed with your hatred of Bible believing Christians...

Terry in a nutshell and no amount of reason or logic will work Mike.

Well true enough, Aaron, but I can expose the myth of the wise, learned secularist vs. the slack jawed yokel Christian. No doubt there have been secularists who have carried themselves better than the Christians they have debated; however, the regular caricature is most unfair.

I just don't understand why we all can't have some mutual respect. Is that so hard?

I'm talking all....a little bit of respect. No attacking the Mormons or the Catholics or even those Sri Krishna people. You know, live and let live.

I think it depends on what you mean by mutual respect.

If by that you mean that you should not think yourself better than those with whom you disagree, I agree wholeheartedly.

Tolerance, however, is a word that has unfortunately lost it's meaning. It used to mean that you thought someone was wrong but treated them well anyway. Today it means that you cannot think someone else wrong, unless they are a monotheist of some sort.

Tolerance and acceptance are not synonyms. I do not believe in my brother in law's choices, but I do not think myself better than he is. I do think he should make better choices. Unlike my neighbors, I am a Christian, but I do not think myself better than them, no matter what Terry would tell you. I had coffee Sunday afternoon with an Obama devotee, who I like very, very much. We laughed, we spoke about theology, we yelled at old friends walking by. I did not condemn him for his Obama bumper sticker.

I wish my neighbors were Christians and my friend didn't like Obama, but that does not change the way I treat them nor does it change how much I enjoy them.

Mike,

I just mean showing a little bit of common courtesy and decency. I mean treating people as individuals, and not just slapping a label on them and expecting they are a particular way.

Collectivism is killing us. It is every bit as dangerous as socialism, perhaps more so.

I know a number of atheists who would tar and feather anyone who discriminated against a person because of the color of their skin, yet they shun and/or ridicule Christians. I've encountered plenty of Christians who want nothing to do with my family because we are agnostic. I know a number of Christians wouldn't let a Muslim pet their dog, much less play with their children. I have asked a couple of them, "Is that how Jesus would want you to treat others?" The reactions can be hilarious.

My little boys' best friend is being raised Baptist. Those boys love each other. Wouldn't it be tragic if I his parents took leave of their senses and decided playing with Loyd is hazardous to his spiritual well being? Would it be any less tragic if I one day decided I didn't want to risk the chance that Loyd might some how be influenced by that family's belief in Jesus Christ?

Why would either scenario be less offensive than not allowing our children to play with kids who are black or yellow or brown? There are many Christians who shun families like mine.....or Muslims....or Mormons.
I can't tell you how many atheists I have encountered who go to great lengths to limit the contact their children have with Christians. It's all just so stupid and all it does is perpetuate fear and hate.

I just don't know what's wrong with these people.

Stephanie wrote:I just don't understand why we all can't have some mutual respect. Is that so hard?

I'm talking all....a little bit of respect. No attacking the Mormons or the Catholics or even those Sri Krishna people. You know, live and let live.

"Live and let live" is fine.

"Live and convert others" is not fine. And therein lies one of the biggest problems. People should let each other go to heaven or hell on their own terms.

Think about what you are saying, Ziggy. It is easy for you to say that let whoever believe whatever and go wherever, because you do not believe in an eternally bad "wherever." If you believed in hell you would not be idle.

I think Christians must be civil and loving, and when people have heard the Gospel they do with it what they will. It does not excuse Christians from being kind friends, good neighbors, or civil hosts. Stephanie's story of segregating kids from those who are religious (or irreligious, depending on the direction) is heartbreaking.

But a Christian is obligated by our faith to say so, and atheists and agnostics "say so" also. If all Stephanie ever talked about was her agnosticism it would be dull indeed, and if my only coherent thoughts were about my Christian faith I'd be on "ignore."

It's the censorship that I oppose, not the quite reasonable call for civility.

Incidentally, Zig, dont go to the "this world is hell" retort (I hear it often in Unitarian circles:)

Anyone from WVA who says that they presently live in hell hasn't had to pay property taxes in cook county.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I just don't understand why we all can't have some mutual respect. Is that so hard?

I'm talking all....a little bit of respect. No attacking the Mormons or the Catholics or even those Sri Krishna people. You know, live and let live.

"Live and let live" is fine.

"Live and convert others" is not fine. And therein lies one of the biggest problems. People should let each other go to heaven or hell on their own terms.

I agree with Ziggy here.

It is one thing to share your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. It is another to browbeat people and its done by people of faith and people with no faith.

Ziggy, I want you to stop and think about posters we've had in the past making reference to "supernatural beings" and other such stuff. I can't remember who it was (WVHillbilly, perhaps) but somebody used to go on these rants about supernatural beings in the sky and all that. I fail to see how that is any better.

It's insensative. It's rude. When you know your audience is predominantly Christian it's down right offensive.

Terry in a nutshell and no amount of reason or logic will work Mike.

This coming from a man that has trouble NOT using logical fallacies in his arguments? How many times have I called you out on that? Four times? Ten times?

Shut up and go play with your alphabet blocks, Aaron.


That someone who is not a Christian therefore cannot show mercy and forgiveness (which would be not A, therefore not B, and a FALLACY).

That is not what YOU said, and not what I said.

You said that you FEAR that a neighbor will LACK MERCY AND TOLERANCE if the HAVE NO LOVE OF GOD IN THEIR HEARTS.

Tell me you didn't say that. Tell me that wasn't the meaning of your statement.

Do coloreds make you nervous also?

If you weren't so consumed with your hatred of Bible believing Christians...

I'm tired of this, also.

Just because I sometimes ridicule your religion does not mean I hate it or you.

Keli ridicules many things, including islam. You don't accuse him of hating.

Is it that your religion must be treated sacredly, held to different standards than everything else?

Show me where I have hated on you because of your beliefs. Pony up.

"You said that you FEAR that a neighbor will LACK MERCY AND TOLERANCE if the HAVE NO LOVE OF GOD IN THEIR HEARTS."--Terry

Show me exactly where I said that.

I said that I fear a neighbor who lacks mercy and forgiveness does not have the love of God in their hearts.

Not "if" they have no love of God in their hearts.

I was responding to charges of Christian hypocrisy, rather than trying to exalt Christians over non-Christians.

The challenge is set, Terry. Show me where the quoted statement was made by me. Otherwise admit that you read my post incorrectly and that I have never made the statement you accuse me of making.

TerryRC wrote:Terry in a nutshell and no amount of reason or logic will work Mike.

This coming from a man that has trouble NOT using logical fallacies in his arguments? How many times have I called you out on that? Four times? Ten times?

Shut up and go play with your alphabet blocks, Aaron.


That someone who is not a Christian therefore cannot show mercy and forgiveness (which would be not A, therefore not B, and a FALLACY).

That is not what YOU said, and not what I said.

You said that you FEAR that a neighbor will LACK MERCY AND TOLERANCE if the HAVE NO LOVE OF GOD IN THEIR HEARTS.

Tell me you didn't say that. Tell me that wasn't the meaning of your statement.

Do coloreds make you nervous also?

No, neither my adopted brother nor both of my sisters in law nor my nephew or nieces make me nervous. Neither did my wife's grandmother.

But of course as a Bible-believing Christian, I must be some sort Klukker.

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I just don't understand why we all can't have some mutual respect. Is that so hard?

I'm talking all....a little bit of respect. No attacking the Mormons or the Catholics or even those Sri Krishna people. You know, live and let live.

"Live and let live" is fine.

"Live and convert others" is not fine. And therein lies one of the biggest problems. People should let each other go to heaven or hell on their own terms.

I agree with Ziggy here.

It is one thing to share your thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. It is another to browbeat people and its done by people of faith and people with no faith.

Ziggy, I want you to stop and think about posters we've had in the past making reference to "supernatural beings" and other such stuff. I can't remember who it was (WVHillbilly, perhaps) but somebody used to go on these rants about supernatural beings in the sky and all that. I fail to see how that is any better.

It's insensative. It's rude. When you know your audience is predominantly Christian it's down right offensive.

Sorry Steph, I don't think you do agree with Frank here. He doesn't even want anyone sharing their feeligns, thoughts or beliefs. He considers THAT browbeating, imho.

TerryRC wrote:Terry in a nutshell and no amount of reason or logic will work Mike.

This coming from a man that has trouble NOT using logical fallacies in his arguments? How many times have I called you out on that? Four times? Ten times?

Zero Terry.

None.

Nada.

Like I told Frank, just because you keep telling the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.

And I was merely pointing out that your hatred of christians runs so deep that you will never listen. It's true and your refusal to admit the truth doesn't change that simple fact.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy, I want you to stop and think about posters we've had in the past making reference to "supernatural beings" and other such stuff. I can't remember who it was (WVHillbilly, perhaps) but somebody used to go on these rants about supernatural beings in the sky and all that. I fail to see how that is any better.

Oh, you mean about that Flying Spaghetti Monster Creator?

Yep, right up there with that ole' supernatural God the Father hisself.