|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2007 18:53:31 GMT -8
9/13/06:
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam" - Rosie O'Donnell
Talk about a loaded comment. The quote's gotten a lot of press this week- from all sorts of angles.
Rather than just join in with one perspective, I thought it might be interesting to just investigate how loaded each of the words in this statement are:
radical Christianity=
apocalyptic Koresh-like militia groups stockpiling weapons in Idaho and Texas? staunch fundamentalists preaching fire and brimstone? the "God hates _____________" corner preacher? Christians who take orthodox Christian beliefs seriously? Christians who live out the sermon on the mount to the best of their ability?
threatening=
Suicide-bomber kind of threatening? Abortionist-assassin kind of threatening? threatening to turn the country into a theocracy? intimidating in a conversation? threatening because the truth is difficult to hear? threatening because Christians "shine like stars" in a dark world?
Pick one of each of these sets of definitions and the sentence completely changes meaning. We can speculate which one she was thinking and argue with it (Rosie's definitely no political/ religion expert), but I just thought it might be good to ask ourselves what we mean and what the rest of the world might mean when they use those terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 7, 2008 17:37:25 GMT -8
9/13/06: but I just thought it might be good to ask ourselves what we mean and what the rest of the world might mean when they use those terms. I'll try ;D I would second that statement made by Rosie. And what would I mean? Radical Christianity = Christians who can't accept other people's choices and opinions and want to restrict everybody to a set of moral values they think is righteous. Willing to do whatever it takes in order to achieve their goals. Abortionist-killing is a good example. threatening = Jesus-Camp kind of threatening!! note especially the quotes beginning at 0:30 seconds SCARY! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 7, 2008 18:38:40 GMT -8
Scares me too, Mo. Christians (and others) should be free to hold their beliefs and even attempt to persuade others, but the measures that these kind of folks take just brings more harm than good, imo, and only fosters an insane kind of us vs. them mentality. My only caveat is that I feel that to Rosie and others, even the idea of attempting to persuade others that something is or isn't true or is or isn't right is something they think is dangerous. This is a symptom of an extremely relativistic culture. This is part of the reason why I appreciate atheists in a very key respect. They understand that some issues are worth convincing others of. Even if we happen to disagree, we at least acknowledge that on some issues, only one side can be right. But even if they're wrong we don't have to declare jihad on them  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 8, 2008 6:20:19 GMT -8
Scares me too, Mo. Christians (and others) should be free to hold their beliefs and even attempt to persuade others, but the measures that these kind of folks take just brings more harm than good, imo, and only fosters an insane kind of us vs. them mentality. My only caveat is that I feel that to Rosie and others, even the idea of attempting to persuade others that something is or isn't true or is or isn't right is something they think is dangerous. This is a symptom of an extremely relativistic culture. This is part of the reason why I appreciate atheists in a very key respect. They understand that some issues are worth convincing others of. Even if we happen to disagree, we at least acknowledge that on some issues, only one side can be right. But even if they're wrong we don't have to declare jihad on them Well it IS indeed dangerous if you come to think of it. Dangerous doesn't mean that something bad is actually going to happen, but that there is a danger that something bad can happen. First of all, the words "radical" and "fundamentalist" need a definition. Because there is a big misunderstanding. Some Christians, Steve is one of them (and maybe you too) call themselves fundamentalist. What they mean by this is that religion is the fundament they build their whole lives on. Fair enough. But for people like me the word fundamentalist means something more. It means that you don't say you believe but that you know. What a difference. The fundamentalist sees not even the slightest possibility that he could be wrong. Hence no other worldviews are acceptable or tolerable. What logically follows is radicalism including the killing of nonbelievers and theocracy. From this perspective, nobody in his right mind would ever call himself a fundamentalist unless a radical theocracy is what he wants. Radicalism equals fanaticism in my book. It's the opposite of reason. It's an ideology that goes against the constitutional state and above all against democracy (because if you don't accept other opinions, why vote?). Whenever we deal with each other we must keep one thing in mind, Neither you nor me know the truth. We are guessing, assuming, searching, but there's always the possibility that we are wrong. Do you agree? This reasonable last doubt is the right to exist for every other concept in life. If we think that our worldview is so important, that we have to convince other people in order to achieve an improvement, than it is only fair to try it. But if somebody doesn't want to be convinced, doesn't want to discuss or hear anything about your worldview, then that's the border where you have to stop it. You can through all your arguments at me and do your missionary work. I'm seeking the truth. I want to hear about it. It is possible to convince me (not easy though). That's what separates me from being a fundamentalist atheist or agnostic. I really hope that you are aware that you could be wrong too. Now is Radical Christianity just as threatening as Radical Islam? If you use my definition, clearly yes. And I think this is what the statement wanted to say, although I haven't got the slightest Idea who Rosie O'Donnel is. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 14, 2008 9:05:56 GMT -8
Hey Mo, Dang, that video is scary. But that’s not Christianity, only a tradition within it. Jesus was/is a radical fundamentalist, but not in the way those words has come to mean today. His radical ethics were/are (see Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7): 1. Laying down your life for others. 2. Not fighting back when persecuted. 3. Forgiving people who’ve offended you. 4. Resisting unjust anger against your neighbor. 5. Doing to others as you’d want done to you. 6. Loving your enemies. 7. Counting yourself blessed when you suffer. 8. Doing more than what is required of you (going extra mile) 9. Avoiding hypocrisy, greed, and other selfishness. 10. Treating people fairly and keeping your word. Jesus was a “radical” in the real sense of the word (from Webster):
1: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1): of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2): growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b: of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c: of or relating to a mathematical root d: designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
Jesus brought a Kingdom ethic that went back to the "root" or origin of God’s morality and His nature. That is, love. Love is radical and it does things that don’t make earthly sense from a mere naturalistic standpoint. Jesus was often encouraged, and provoked to begin a political revolution because people mistakenly thought that was what Messiah was supposed to do. But He refused to take the bait and said “My kingdom is not of this world”. I agree that “radical” and “fundamental” in the way you are using them is unhealthy and not helpful to anyone. But we must be careful of misinterpreting or misrepresenting someone who claims to be such because they may mean something different than we do. I’m guilty of this myself because I often refer to some closed-minded Christians as “fundamentalist” and I mean it in the same sense you do. But that isn’t always fair assessment of people who wear that title. You wrote: I’ll take you at your word on this because I really don’t know your true motives. I’m glad you have this attitude because this is what we have in common and is the common ground to begin with…an honest search for truth. You may not be aware of this from other Christians you’ve spoken with, but I believe the bible indicates that if what you are saying here is true, you are closer to God than you might think. God grants favor to those who do not suppress the truth, and chastens those who do. But I want to say that I don't think persuasive arguments will (or even can) win you over. I'm of the opinion that one must have their own personal encounter with God to be completely persuaded. So for my part, I have no intention of changing your mind or selling you on Christianity. I'm just open to discussing things honestly and leaving the results to God (or random chance, whatever the case may be ). That's my version of "sharing the gospel" I guess. And it works both ways. If someone convinces me that Jesus is a farse, than why would I want to follow Him? His radical self-sacrificial way is not a life that most people (including me) would logically choose. But if His claims are true (and I believe He demonstrated very convincingly that they are), than it makes all the sense in the world to buck conventional wisdom for the real truth of the Kingdom of God IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 14, 2008 9:19:01 GMT -8
Chris, well put. I was thinking more about this thread and wanted to say something more because to me "radical" is a way I would want my faith to be described, but for the reasons you stated, not others.
The one overlap I see between "scary" radical and "Jesus-ethic" radical that I think Rosie O'Donnell and others are still angered/ afraid of is that Christians really do think that in Christ the absolute truth for all mankind has been found. That's another aspect of radical I'm not ashamed to stand by. It's what one does with that belief that can turn it "scary". But the last thing I want to see encouraged is a neutered Chrsitianity devoid of any real truth-claim bite just because we don't want to be perceived as narrow minded or threatening.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 10:50:30 GMT -8
Hey Mo, Dang, that video is scary. But that’s not Christianity, only a tradition within it. Jesus was/is a radical fundamentalist, but not in the way those words has come to mean today. His radical ethics were/are (see Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7): 1. Laying down your life for others. 2. Not fighting back when persecuted. 3. Forgiving people who’ve offended you. 4. Resisting unjust anger against your neighbor. 5. Doing to others as you’d want done to you. 6. Loving your enemies. 7. Counting yourself blessed when you suffer. 8. Doing more than what is required of you (going extra mile) 9. Avoiding hypocrisy, greed, and other selfishness. 10. Treating people fairly and keeping your word. Jesus was a “radical” in the real sense of the word (from Webster):
1: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1): of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2): growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b: of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c: of or relating to a mathematical root d: designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
Jesus brought a Kingdom ethic that went back to the "root" or origin of God’s morality and His nature. That is, love. Love is radical and it does things that don’t make earthly sense from a mere naturalistic standpoint. Jesus was often encouraged, and provoked to begin a political revolution because people mistakenly thought that was what Messiah was supposed to do. But He refused to take the bait and said “My kingdom is not of this world”. I agree that “radical” and “fundamental” in the way you are using them is unhealthy and not helpful to anyone. But we must be careful of misinterpreting or misrepresenting someone who claims to be such because they may mean something different than we do. I’m guilty of this myself because I often refer to some closed-minded Christians as “fundamentalist” and I mean it in the same sense you do. But that isn’t always fair assessment of people who wear that title. You wrote: I’ll take you at your word on this because I really don’t know your true motives. I’m glad you have this attitude because this is what we have in common and is the common ground to begin with…an honest search for truth. You may not be aware of this from other Christians you’ve spoken with, but I believe the bible indicates that if what you are saying here is true, you are closer to God than you might think. God grants favor to those who do not suppress the truth, and chastens those who do. But I want to say that I don't think persuasive arguments will (or even can) win you over. I'm of the opinion that one must have their own personal encounter with God to be completely persuaded. So for my part, I have no intention of changing your mind or selling you on Christianity. I'm just open to discussing things honestly and leaving the results to God (or random chance, whatever the case may be ). That's my version of "sharing the gospel" I guess. And it works both ways. If someone convinces me that Jesus is a farse, than why would I want to follow Him? His radical self-sacrificial way is not a life that most people (including me) would logically choose. But if His claims are true (and I believe He demonstrated very convincingly that they are), than it makes all the sense in the world to buck conventional wisdom for the real truth of the Kingdom of God IMO. Thanks for the reply Chris. I pretty much agree with everything you said. It's important to keep the confusion about "radicalism" and "fundamentalism" in mind. Maybe one can think of a word that expresses the fundamental and radical belief in Christianity without using these particular words? Something that is equally powerful but without the luggage the other words carry with them. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 10:52:50 GMT -8
The one overlap I see between "scary" radical and "Jesus-ethic" radical that I think Rosie O'Donnell and others are still angered/ afraid of is that Christians really do think that in Christ the absolute truth for all mankind has been found. Does that mean that you don't think you could be wrong too? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2008 14:20:56 GMT -8
No, there is always some degree of doubt, as in all things. Still, it's a strong enough certainty to speak of "knowing it" for me at this point.
That might seem strange at first glance, but we live in utter confidence of all sorts of things we don't have total proof for all the time. It's just that some things have so much evidence in their favor that we believe them with confidence and minimal doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 16:00:57 GMT -8
No, there is always some degree of doubt, as in all things. Still, it's a strong enough certainty to speak of "knowing it" for me at this point. That might seem strange at first glance, but we live in utter confidence of all sorts of things we don't have total proof for all the time. It's just that some things have so much evidence in their favor that we believe them with confidence and minimal doubt. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 14:07:23 GMT -8
I think it has to do with the USA being the largest Christian nation who at the time of the release was lead by an administration composed almost entirely of evangelical Christians, including a president who invoked God in nearly every speech he made and who basically started a crusade against radical Islam and started bombing a country called Iraq (which is funny because most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens and the ringleader lives on the Afghan Pakistani border.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 24, 2009 15:21:52 GMT -8
I think it has to do with the USA being the largest Christian nation who at the time of the release was lead by an administration composed almost entirely of evangelical Christians, including a president who invoked God in nearly every speech he made and who basically started a crusade against radical Islam and started bombing a country called Iraq (which is funny because most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens and the ringleader lives on the Afghan Pakistani border. I would like to point out the Iraq war was not only authorized by a bi-partisan vote in Congress, but that the removal of Saddam, even by force, was the official US position going back into the Clinton administration. 9-11 was simply the catalyst that propelled us to consider the reality that we have been at was with radical Islam for some time, and just had not realized it. In order to engage and win this war it would take more than a defensive posturing, and in fact it was decided by our President (Bush) along with Congress, and with the vast approval of the American population that we must take the offensive. Iraq included a greater war on terror. It was not simply a reaction to 9-11. How shameful it must be for those who cheered on the war and approved of our actions in 2003, and now find themselves condemning those that they encouraged. I believe that would account for about 30-40% of out population. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 17:12:03 GMT -8
Indeed, and if you look at a breakdown of Congress, even democrats, its overwhelming Christian. Bill Clinton, sexual liabilities not withstanding, believes himself to be a follower of Christ.
|
|
