FB friend R.W. posted this:
Study: Red states more charitable www.politico.com
Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday. The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Oba...
S.H.: You see, this is one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in giving *their own* money to help the less fortunate. Liberals believe in forcing other people to give theirs - except it gets funneled through the government so that a lot of it gets eaten up by administrative costs along the way.
And for those who go on and on about the morality of helping the downtrodden: Jesus taught that *we* were supposed to care for the poor, not that we were supposed to set up government agencies to do it - and I think the reason is very simple: When you spend your own time and money on charitable activities, you reap spiritual rewards. You don't get the same spiritual rewards when the government forcibly takes your money and gives it to someone else whether you like it or not.
For extra credit, compare the percentage of his income that Mitt Romney gave to charity to the percentage of income that the Obamas, or the Bidens, or, say, the Kerrys - who are closer to the Romney's income bracket - gave to charity. (The PERCENTAGE, not the dollar amount.)
R.W.: So well put S.H. And yet my friend B.R.would find fault with it. Probalby because you mentioned Jesus.
B.R.: No I don't find fault with it. I think these are great perspectives you're sharing, even if I feel differently. Lest we forget, Jesus also had a saying about accusing others of doing wrong, ya know.
B.R.: I love Christ, and yes, caring for the poor is important. But where many Christians lose sight of Christ's message is not entitlement programs or charity support, but social issues and human rights.
Me: Christ's message was that everyone is a sinner and he is the only way to God.
As far as Jesus not accusing others of doing wrong, try Matt 3:7, Matt 23:27, John 5:14, John 4:18, just for starters.
B.R.: Christ has many messages for each of us, and thank you for the biblical references.
R.W.: What Sid was saying is charity should not be forced but come from the individual. You believe it should be forced. So you do find fault with his perspective.
Me: Yes, he had many messages. However, the subject of discussion is the claim you made, a specific claim you made in correction to Rick. We are not talking about many messages, we are talking about a specific message, which you elevated above what Rick said.
You were in error about "accusing others of doing wrong," a specific message, not one of many.
B.R.: Is there another way to have these discussions besides having words FORCED into my mouth? I lose all interest in hearing your opinion as soon as you start regurgitating your assumptions and calling them my thoughts. I don't find fault with someone else's perspective, even if I disagree with it. I may be a Liberal, but I do not speak for all Liberals, and you have no cause or benefit to lump me in with your judgments of all Liberals, except your own satisfaction. I do not elevate any message above any other message. I was not in error by reminding you that Jesus says it's senseless to call out one person for a sin when they are guilty of another themselves.
Me: B.R., your rhetorical contortions are the issue here. Please be honest. Of course you elevate messages. You did that very thing. And you compound things by revising your claim to "Jesus says it's senseless to call out one person for a sin when they are guilty of another themselves." And this claim, like your prior claim, is a misrepresentation and patently false.
B.R.: My rhetoric has become the issue. I've been honest. If you want to think of me sharing my opinion as elevating one message above another, go ahead. What I actually did to what Rick said was to deny its truth, because it's untrue. He said I'd find fault because Jesus was mentioned, and that was incorrect. Does that mean I elevated my message above his? Okay...I didn't revise my claim, I made it more specific. Both of my statements about Jesus' words are referencing John 8:7, "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" How is this claim a misrepresentation and patently false?
Me: Making your claim more specific is by definition a revision.
Sigh. I suggest you read the entire passage, which starts at 8:1. You will first note that the adulteress was not simply stoned as Jewish law perscribes, she was brought before Jesus. But because of the Roman occupiers, they could not stone her anyway, which of course is why Jesus himself experienced both a trial before the Sanhedrin and a trial before Pilate.
So they intended to trap Jesus, which they frequently tried to do. The whole situation was a set-up. He unmasked the situation and every one eventually left. He alone was left to kill her, but showed his mercy by telling her, "“Go now and leave your life of sin.” So tell me, what does this have to do with accusing people of doing wrong?
B.R.: Alright, you're correct, I revised my claim. Thank you for the retelling of the story, though I knew it when I referenced it. Though my love of Christ is not solely derived from the Bible, I try not to indulge in inaccurate representations of him or his teachings. So he "unmasked the situation" by reminding them that we are all sinners. Right? Am I wrong about that? I referenced this story to indicate that it's not my intention to fault anyone, because any wrong I accuse them of may be matched by a wrong I am doing in their eyes. I don't find fault in Sid or Sid's perspective. I disagree with it, but I respect it. The assumption that I would find fault in it or in him feels to me like an assumption that I place my own righteousness above others', which I don't. And why don't I? Because I may be just as guilty in others' eyes and they are in mine. This is very similar to my personal interpretation of Jesus' meaning when he said 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' I ask you again, how is my personal interpretation of Jesus "a misrepresentation and patently false"?
Me: Of course we are all sinners, but what he unmasked was their attempt to trap him. He also accused them of sin, didn't he (a judgment)? Then, he reiterated her sin (a judgment), and told her to stop sinning (another judgment). So, if we also include the first set of scriptures I cited, we see that he was very judgmental. And there are many more.
This means that you are incorrect in your view regarding judgments. However, I need to point out that I misunderstand the nature and character of God on a regular basis, usually by limiting him. It's a flaw in my thinking that is being revised.
Me: Also, there is a big difference between executing Judgement, that is, what God does with sinners, and discerning of injustice/falsehood/evil. The second requires judgment that doesn't involve the passing of sentence.
B.R.: Rich, my personal interpretation of Christ cannot possibly be incorrect...just different than yours. For that and more, I really appreciate you.
Me: My personal interpretation of Christ is that he doesn't like personal interpretations and other meaningless, amorphous statements.
B.R.: Well, tell your Christ that mine says hello.
Me: Yours speaks? How do you know?
B.R.: Because he lives inside my heart! He is a guide, a counselor, a coach, a commiserator, and a friend. He has come to me in great times of need and deep introspection, and other times has remained a silent conscience behind my thoughts. I believe that his spirit is alive in each of us, regardless of whether we embrace or ignore him.
Me: "I try not to indulge in inaccurate representations ...of him or his teachings." "...my personal interpretation of Christ cannot possible be incorrect." Hmm.
B.R.: Yes, I can see how difficult it may be to comprehend my relationship with Jesus, and that's why it's such a personal thing in nature. My first statement refers to my practice of only using his documented words and actions in ways that are accurate; for instance, it upsets me when people claim that Jesus would support their hatred or warfare, when he clearly stated that loving God and loving your neighbor are more important than anything else. However, it's not for me to decide that those hateful people have an incorrect interpretation of Jesus - he is in their hearts and minds, which I do not and cannot fully understand, and he is more than just the words that other men wrote about him. Based on MY interpretation of Jesus, I believe that these hateful people are incorrect in THEIR interpretation of Jesus, but there's no way to actually prove it, so why would I waste my time? I don't focus on who's got Jesus right and who's got him wrong. Instead I focus on my own relationship with him, and I let that guide my actions. When Jesus points, I don't look at his finger, and I don't look at others to see where they're looking. I look out toward the direction he's pointing. I hope this helps you understand me.
Me: Your Jesus is whatever you want to make up about him, but you're certain that he doesn't judge. You don't want to misrepresent him, but he is whatever happens to be convenient for you. He's rainbows and unicorns, comfortable and non-threatening. If it's unpleasant, confrontational, or violates liberal orthodoxy, well, then in can't be Jesus.
I have no reason at all to question your belief that he lives in you. That's between you and him. His presence in you ought to bear fruit in your life and change you. That means that he is not your personal Christ, he makes you in his image, not the other way around.
But most unfortunately, your claim is one of those conversation killers, where no evidence is required to assert it, and as a result it cannot be discussed rationally. the rhetorical equivalent of shutting someone up. So, taking your cue, I throw up my hands and rue the wasted time.
No comments:
Post a Comment