One of the key figures in the future of the Democrats.
Amen.
Me: He's right, but there's a catch. He wants people to show him their compassion, but as soon as anyone does it becomes bragging, not compassion. People who are out there in the trenches do not do it because Cory Booker wants proof.
B.R.: I don't think it has to be bragging. The Dalai Lama shows his compassion every day, in words, actions, donations, etc. He's not bragging; he's exemplifying his compassionate beliefs. I think Cory's saying that if someone wants their personal religious beliefs to be part of a public discussion or decision, they've got to demonstrate compassion.
Me: What do you think the reason is behind his remarks? He's calling Christians hypocrites! He's framed the issue so that he wins either way. Christians believe the scriptures that say to not let your good deeds be shown. Millions of Christians are giving sacrificially to help the poor and the hungry, and they labor in anonymity in keeping with their faith. If someone stood up and showed Booker what they do, then Booker (or someone like him) would jump all over them for their lack of humility.
You don't know what the dalai lama donates. You don't know if he's compassionate. You simply look at some superficial things and think you know his heart. You've made your decision by appearances. He may well be a compassionate man, but you don't know.
B.R.: Your assumptions about Christians are no more relevant than mine, or Cory's. Not all Christians believe their good deeds shouldn't be shown, and I'm pretty sure Cory's issue is not with the "people out there in the trenches". Additionally, you telling me that I can't determine if anyone is compassionate is another example of framing the issue so you win either way.
Me: Ben, I respect your intellect too much to let you get away with that. If all our opinions are irrelevant, why did you post Booker's, and why did you express yours?
So are you telling me that you do know for a fact that someone is compassionate as opposed to making a show?
Me: "Not all Christians believe their good deeds shouldn't be shown..." Irrelevant. The exception does not establish the rule.
B.R.: Thanks, I appreciate that. I've obviously displayed my intellect with enough consistency that you have come to understand me as an intellectual person. Similarly, it is possible for individuals to display their compassion with enough consistency that others may come to understand them as compassionate.
As for what some or all Christians believe, I think it IS relevant. Neither of us can know what even a majority of practicing Christians believe when it comes to the visibility of their compassionate acts. It's pretty hard to base a defense of all Christians on something so indeterminable.
Mr. Booker is illustrating a point: he wants people to show, not tell, their personal convictions. I like that point. I posted Booker's opinion because I want people to keep track of him as a political leader in the coming years, and because I respect his call for accountability.
Me: By that measure, he wants Christians to violate their beliefs, simply for the sake of proving to him that they are compassionate.
No, my take is that he's simply laying out damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario. His motivation is political.
B.R.: I appreciate your points; this topic needs more dimension, not less. I will maintain, however, that many (percentage unknowable) Christians' reluctance to SHOW their universal compassion rather than just talk about it may have as much to do with their lack of a pragmatic track record as it does with their dogmatic humility.
Me: If they are not showing you, then your statement is a product of lack of information and your conclusion is specious.
T.K.: Who gives a shit if people brag about being compassionate? Being compassionate is a good thing to brag about. It's a good quote, not a conspiracy. Settle down.
Me: T.K., you and I disagree, which does not make me wrong or a conspiracy theorist. I give a shit about bragging, and I don't really care if you don't like it.
O.F.: The point of being compassionate is in BEING compassionate, not in being perceived as compassionate. I totally understand Rich's point. The desire to be recognized for one's virtue is the seed of spiritual pride that has the ability to undermine entirely one's real character. That said, I don't necessarily believe that the above quote is an exhortation of Christians to "show off" their compassion but a reminder that one can talk a good game about loving their neighbor without doing anything to demonstrate it. Love is active. What is the context for this quote?
B.R.: I don't think there is one. He Tweeted it and put it on his fan page. A search revealed no larger quote or discussion, just links to see the words on different pages. However, that search did reveal more about how he personally has shown rather than simply tell: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/cory-booker-food-stamp-ch_n_2167027.html
"Not content to simply rescue neighbors from burning buildings and invite cold Hurricane Sandy victims into his home, Cory Booker has a new plan to connect with his constituency. He's going to live on food stamps...."
Me: B.R., you'll have to forgive me for being cynical regarding politicians and their statements. And their photo-ops. I don't trust a thing he says as a result, and I also don't think that him living on food stamps is anything other than a calculated political opportunity.
O.F.: I'm gonna have to side with Rich on this and say that I'm no more impressed by this at face value than I am by Paul Ryan and his family showing up to be photographed in a soup kitchen.
No comments:
Post a Comment