|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 9, 2010 12:13:40 GMT -8
Elsewhere Moritz wrote:
Moritz, I'm curious about what this looks like to you (examples, please). And I don't intend to approach this defensively. I think it's really important for Christians to understand how they are perceived (postively or negatively)
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 14, 2010 3:41:55 GMT -8
The idea of being served holy communion (The symbolic blood and body of my Lord and Savior by a Sodomite disgusts me beyond belief. ) (...) What stand then, must those of us who follow Gods word, and who do not hate homosexuals, but despise their wicked actions take in the midst of this assualt on mainline protestant Christendom. Do I have to go into analysis or do you see it? It's just one example I happened to run across on this board. There are many many others. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 14, 2010 18:56:02 GMT -8
Name calling is the best way for anyone to lose credibility, agreed.
That said, in the second example, I think it's right to despise wicked actions. But one gets the impression from the statement that certain wicked actions are more despised than others, which also tends toward the "air of assumed moral superiority" I see you're getting at.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jan 14, 2010 21:05:34 GMT -8
I think what adds to the "air of moral superiority" is the fact that it is always so much easier for people to "despise the wicked actions" of others, when we should be concerned with identifying and despising the wicked actions of ourselves. (Mo, I understand there may be a disagreement of the definition of "wickedness", or if wickedness even exists, based on different world views.) Claims of hating "sin" seem hypocritical, since the claimant can him/herself be viewed as a "sinner".
I can see where Moritz is coming from, but I do not think this true of just Christians or other religious zealots, the same could be said of any Obamaniacs, Palin fans, smug environmentalists, 9/11 Truthers, etc. "My knowledge is better than your knowledge, so I'm going to be all arrogant about it and try show you how wrong you are by embarrassing you and pointing out your flaws."
That is frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 15, 2010 0:42:12 GMT -8
Name calling is the best way for anyone to lose credibility, agreed. It wasn't my intention to point out anybody. You wanted examples and I thought real ones are better than fictive or anonymus ones. Perhaps I should have deleted the name of the author. Next time I shall do that. I apologize if offense has been taken. I think what adds to the "air of moral superiority" is the fact that it is always so much easier for people to "despise the wicked actions" of others, when we should be concerned with identifying and despising the wicked actions of ourselves. (Mo, I understand there may be a disagreement of the definition of "wickedness", or if wickedness even exists, based on different world views.) Claims of hating "sin" seem hypocritical, since the claimant can him/herself be viewed as a "sinner". I can see where Moritz is coming from, but I do not think this true of just Christians or other religious zealots, the same could be said of any Obamaniacs, Palin fans, smug environmentalists, 9/11 Truthers, etc. "My knowledge is better than your knowledge, so I'm going to be all arrogant about it and try show you how wrong you are by embarrassing you and pointing out your flaws." That is frustrating. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, kirb. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 15, 2010 12:34:29 GMT -8
LOL. What a misunderstanding!
The name calling I was talking about was krhagan's use of the word "sodomite" to describe someone who identifies themselves as gay.
I don't think you're example was bad. If he's going to say things like that he's going to have to be willing to be called on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 16, 2010 9:54:45 GMT -8
Kirby,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Too often disagreements, debates, and criticisms are just about being "right".
If we don't seek to maintain the dignity of the people we disagree with, than the argument is lost even if it is won.
I freely confess that I have often been guilty of this very thing, but I think (and hope) I'm learning.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 10, 2010 8:21:20 GMT -8
LOL. What a misunderstanding! The name calling I was talking about was krhagan's use of the word "sodomite" to describe someone who identifies themselves as gay. I don't think you're example was bad. If he's going to say things like that he's going to have to be willing to be called on it. Either way, I don't feel comfortable in this thread. All I really wanted to say is that bishop Margot Käßmann seems to be an hostely humble person. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2010 8:46:50 GMT -8
Hopefully not because of me.
|
|
