Exerpted from an article in the Christmas Day Washington Post about Catholic Relief Services--an organization that traces its origin to Saint Francis of Assisi in the 13th century--now working in Afghanistan:
The faith of its employees is inherent in what they do, not something they wear on their sleeves. [Local manager] McGarry says his co-workers are not in the field to preach Christianity, even if the fact that they are there bears witness to their faith. The group avoids preaching and its Afghan staff is overwhelmingly Muslim. McGarry explains: "We're not in the business of getting people into heaven. We're in the business of getting them out of hell."

In a country that has been ravaged by war for three decades, their passions are invested in highly practical undertakings: how to staff a school and protect its children; how to dig wells; how to improve production on small family farms; how to form cooperatives; how to market crops.

Underlying much of his work, McGarry says, is improving the status of women, both by empowering them in the economy and by offering them educational opportunities they had been denied. He is struck, above all, by the passion of Afghans for the education of their children. When a threat arose to one of the Catholic Relief Service's schools, the villagers were indignant. "We don't care if they kill us. We don't care if they kill our children. Nobody's closing our school," they told him. The school reopened.

It is strange how a faith that traces its origins to a stable, preaches love and demands good works is so often invoked to condemn, to divide and to denounce. "We tend to forget that charity comes first," wrote Thomas Merton, the inspiring monk who died forty years ago this month, "and is the only Christian 'cause' that has the right to precedence over every other." McGarry and his co-workers understand those words and live by them. They represent, I suspect, what Saint Francis had in mind 800 years ago.

Typical Christian arrogance/hypocricy disguised as 'good cause' and 'humility'.

Thre is NOTHING that gives right to Christian precedence over any other religion.
There is NOTHING that makes Christianity anymore believable than any other religion. Anyone who thinks so is either deluded or arrogant or both.

Typical Christian arrogance/hypocrisy disguised as 'good cause' and 'humility'. There is NOTHING that gives right to Christian precedence over any other religion.
There is NOTHING that makes Christianity anymore believable than any other religion. Anyone who thinks so is either deluded or arrogant or both.So sorry, I obviously didn't do an accurate job of excerpting. He was not saying that Christianity is the good cause which has precedence over every other religions. He was saying that charity is the good cause which has precedence over all other Christian causes. Including, as he clearly indicated, the evangelism that drives us all nuts.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Most of you have read enough of my posts to know that I'm no apologist for Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion.

So sorry, I obviously didn't do an accurate job of excerpting. He was not saying that Christianity is the good cause which has precedence over every other religions. He was saying that charity is the good cause which has precedence over all other Christian causes. Including, as he clearly indicated, the evangelism that drives us all nuts.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Most of you have read enough of my posts to know that I'm no apologist for Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I did read the article, I guess I just misinterpreted it. Plus I'm kinda on a rampage against religion right now because I got banned for a week from my NFL team website for mentioning someone being a 'church girl' when countless other members are saying 'thank god' this and 'god bless' that. Double standards.
/rant & hijack

But yeah, now that you've 'splained it. I have to concur with him then.

See, the problem with religion is good ideas get tagged with unacceptable ideas, then they get packaged as a whole. Just take a look at these two ideas.

1. do charity for people, care for your neighbour etc..... <- good idea
2. only 1 god, all other gods are false, etc... <- unacceptable idea to certain other religions

The unaceptable bad ideas get tagged with the good ideas and get spread as a package under the religion Christianity. This is why sometimes there are polar opposites, i.e. some people accept christianity as a whole, accepting the good ideas, but taking along the bad ideas, or people totally rejecting christianity, rejecting the bad ideas and the good ideas along with them.

Simply because in our minds we forget it is possible to separate the bad ideas from the good, then reject the bad ones and only accept the good ones.

Which brings us to another problem. How central are the bad ideas to the religion? Can the religion still be called that if all the bad ideas are taken away? Or put another way, are the good ideas exclusive only to that religion? Or can people carry out those good ideas without being part of that religion?

Which brings us to another problem. How central are the bad ideas to the religion? Can the religion still be called that if all the bad ideas are taken away? Or put another way, are the good ideas exclusive only to that religion? Or can people carry out those good ideas without being part of that religion?Most of the good ideas are widespread. Charity, the Ten Commandments, etc. I think you see them pop up in many religions.

But I suggest that the truly bad ideas in the Abrahamic religions, the ideas so bad that they actually make them bad religions, are unique to Abrahamism, or at least unique among the major world religions with enough followers to show up on an atlas.

"We are special!" That's a pretty Bad Idea. Of course many of the Stone Age religions stress the uniqueness of their people. You were born here, your people have always lived here, we are your gods and goddesses, you're part of this wonderful place. But Abrahamists aren't just unique, they're special. The Jews are so special that they alone have a Covenant with God! Of course that has worked out just terribly for them; being weak mortals they've never been able to live up to the agreement and keep the Covenant, so God keeps dumping crap on them, from the exile in Egypt to the Holocaust. But hey, any attention is better than no attention (the philosophy of the dog, if I'm not mistaken) and the fact that God keeps dumping that crap on them (see any recent newspaper headline) proves that they're special.

The Christians are just as special, they follow Jesus and the rest of us are dismissed as "heathens," even their fellow Abrahamists the Muslims. The Muslims feel the same way about Mohammed. The Jews, Christians and Muslims are not just unique, like all human beings are, they're special.

Which naturally leads to their next Bad Idea: "We're better than you!" Here's where Abrahamism parts company with many other major religions. It isn't just that their religion is better, and therefore they have an obligation to get in our faces and proselytize it... as if that weren't bad enough. Heck, the Buddhists have done that. But no, it's that they themselves are better than everyone else. We're dog shit on God's lawn and if we become too inconvenient they can just kill us. The Jews don't feel this way, to their credit. The Covenant is just for them, so Judaism cannot be proselytized to non-Jews, and since there's no way to give us the choice to become Jews, it would be unfair to punish us for making the wrong choice by killing us. Still, there's a suspicious amount of killing of non-Jews going on around the borders of the Holy Land these days.

We are special. We are better than you. Those are two absolutely rotten ideas, and they are central to the philosophy of Abraham.

Fraggle Rocker,


We are special. We are better than you. Those are two absolutely rotten ideas, and they are central to the philosophy of Abraham.

I don't think these qualities come from scriptoral religion. I think they come
from inflated egos. You will find this kind of arrogance and eliteism in human society, religious or not.

jan.

Fraggle Rocker,

I don't think these qualities come from scriptoral religion. I think they come
from inflated egos. You will find this kind of arrogance and eliteism in human society, religious or not.

jan.
Jan,

What you fail to understand is that if god is so big on humility, then he's not going to allow his people to act like that. Likewise, if the Jews/Xians/Muslims were 'so favored' by god, then those three would have much better lives than non-believers, which isn't the case. You said it yourself, you'll find arrogance in religion or out of religion.
You made the statement in another thread that this religion 'makes sense to you'. I would LOVE to know how any of the abrahamic religions makes sense to you.
At best, god is sadistic for allowing his people to not only, 1.disagree to the point that a different religion entirely was created (both Xianity and Islam from Judiaism) AND, 2. within those religions, sometimes staunchly disagreeing denominations.
I was raised baptist. I was baptized in the 'name of Jesus' when I was a kid.
I went to a Pentecostal church when I was stationed in Okinawa. When I told them about my baptism, they were adamant to get me rebaptized because they said I needed to be baptized in the 'name of the father, son and holy ghost.' I eventually stopped going to that church, but my first thought about that was, 'who gives a shit? there is no difference. and if you people are going to 'split hairs' over some bullshit trivial difference like that, you guys have much bigger problems'.
I'll use an analogy here, metaphorical representations in parenthesis:
Let's say you (God) have two children (humanity) who are arguing about something, of which they are both wrong (Jews are right. No, Christians are right). You know the answer. Are you going to sit back on your ass and let them continue to bicker about who is right, or are you going to be the parent you should be and help them both understand the right answer?
Likewise, if those two bickering children of yours escalated into a physical confrontation (any war created by religion), are you as a parent going to sit back and let them beat the shit out of each other (like god does), or are you going to intervene and put a stop to it?

So the bottom line is, while god may have not caused the arrogance* of his followers, he allows it to continue unpunished, which IMO is just as evil as causing it to happen. If you disagree, do explain why.

*which has apparently enabled arrogant Christians to think their cause has the right to precendence over any other...yeah that makes a whole lot of sense, jan.

More of the same BS.

"Everyone else has the problem accept for me"

stick my finger down my throat and throw up all over my screen.

duh- that sposed to be EXCEPT.

We are special. We are better than you. Those are two absolutely rotten ideas, and they are central to the philosophy of Abraham.

I think the Abrahamic religions take it one step further by adding that not only we are special and better than you, we are going to heaven and you will burn for an eternity.

And yet further: You are a blasphemer, hence we are justified to kill you.

And still further: Our religion will engulf the world, hence you ALL will join us or die.

I think the Abrahamic religions take it one step further by adding that not only we are special and better than you, we are going to heaven and you will burn for an eternity. And yet further: You are a blasphemer, hence we are justified to kill you.Yes, Abrahamism feeds on our atavistic tribal instinct. At a point when we're desperately struggling to unite our entire species in one global community, the Christians, Muslims and Jews treat each other (and the rest of us) like rival tribes with whom they couldn't possibly be expected to share their hunting and gathering territory.
And still further: Our religion will engulf the world, hence you ALL will join us or die.Be careful to recognize Judaism's one saving grace: it is not evangelical. They believe their ancestors made a Covenant with God which (only by Stone Age law but that's how religions work) their hapless descendants are obligated to uphold. Therefore it would be unfair to accept outsiders into the tribe and subject them to the same punishment that God dumps on the Jews for breaking the Covenant, from the Exile to the Holocaust.

mikenostic,



What you fail to understand is that if god is so big on humility, then he's not going to allow his people to act like that. Likewise, if the Jews/Xians/Muslims were 'so favored' by god, then those three would have much better lives than non-believers, which isn't the case. You said it yourself, you'll find arrogance in religion or out of religion.

"Jews/Xians/Muslims" are nought but titles, they don't actually mean anything other than names to identify bodies. If I told you I was muslim, then you would respond to me as such without needing to know if i actually muslim.
The OP gives a good idea of what you term people "so favoured by god.

Now if those people were atheist they would still be favoured by god.
The question is; would atheists do what McGarry and his co-workers do, for the same reasons.


You made the statement in another thread that this religion 'makes sense to you'. I would LOVE to know how any of the abrahamic religions makes sense to you.
At best, god is sadistic for allowing his people to not only, 1.disagree to the point that a different religion entirely was created (both Xianity and Islam from Judiaism) AND, 2. within those religions, sometimes staunchly disagreeing denominations.

Mike, I also said I wasn't referring to any religious sect or sub-sect.
If all I had to go on was the Christian, Islamic, and Judaic institutions, I would be atheist.


I was raised baptist. I was baptized in the 'name of Jesus' when I was a kid.
I went to a Pentecostal church when I was stationed in Okinawa. When I told them about my baptism, they were adamant to get me rebaptized because they said I needed to be baptized in the 'name of the father, son and holy ghost.' I eventually stopped going to that church, but my first thought about that was, 'who gives a shit? there is no difference. and if you people are going to 'split hairs' over some bullshit trivial difference like that, you guys have much bigger problems'.

I agree with you. To me, that is not what religion is about.



I'll use an analogy here, metaphorical representations in parenthesis:
Let's say you (God) have two children (humanity) who are arguing about something, of which they are both wrong (Jews are right. No, Christians are right). You know the answer. Are you going to sit back on your ass and let them continue to bicker about who is right, or are you going to be the parent you should be and help them both understand the right answer?
Likewise, if those two bickering children of yours escalated into a physical confrontation (any war created by religion), are you as a parent going to sit back and let them beat the shit out of each other (like god does), or are you going to intervene and put a stop to it?

Obviously this conflict is more than bickering, and
it is more than just being about who is right. It would appear that the whole bible is more or less dealing with this conflict. I doubt it is as simple you would like to believe.


So the bottom line is, while god may have not caused the arrogance* of his followers, he allows it to continue unpunished, which IMO is just as evil as causing it to happen. If you disagree, do explain why.

His followers aren't arrogant, if they are, then they cease to be his followers.
This can be understood by reading the OP.
A doctor is a doctor on two counts, one, he is academically qualified, two, he cares about healing the sick. If the doctor decides to murder his patients what happens, he is struck off, meaning he is no longer a doctor, despite being academically qualified. He could still practice his skill, he could still call himself a doctor, but he is not a part of the medical proffession, that which he strove for. He is now independant.

jan.

Hmm... it occurrs to me that to subscribe to any religion is to abandon all rational and logical thinking and disconnect from our true heritage, to overwhelmingly fail ourselves as a species and to commit to texts that have been corrupted over centuries.
Is it such a horrible notion to accept ourselves as a sophisticated species that has evolved from apes? Animals that dream, emote, socialise and display forms of civilized behaviour... I am convicned that though we are a highly evolved species, we are all connected to something bigger, but something that is not anchored in any religious institute.

Fraggle Rocker,


We are special. We are better than you. Those are two absolutely rotten ideas, and they are central to the philosophy of Abraham.

The same sentiment can be seen through the modern atheist movement.


Hmm... it occurrs to me that to subscribe to any religion is to abandon all rational and logical thinking and disconnect from our true heritage, to overwhelmingly fail ourselves as a species and to commit to texts that have been corrupted over centuries.

Apologies, commonsense, for using you first post like that, but it does present itself as an elitist and arrogant stament, even though you yourself may not be arrogant or elitist.

jan.




jan.

I think the Abrahamic religions take it one step further by adding that not only we are special and better than you, we are going to heaven and you will burn for an eternity.

And yet further: You are a blasphemer, hence we are justified to kill you.

And still further: Our religion will engulf the world, hence you ALL will join us or die.

In the Abramic tradition, the selection of the Jews has a more mundane origin centered in a deep mix of tradition, mythology, and authority. Everyone petitioned the favor of the gods.

But with Christianity, the notion of the elect took on a different context. When orthodoxy won out over gnosticism, the supremacy came in the form of salvation: We are saved, everyone else is not. Over time, this idea infected much of the Christian worldview, mutating and evolving in response to the challenges of the times. Islam, reinterpreting salvation and God's kingdom, has stuttered and stumbled for centuries over the proposition that there is only one right way to live. Orthopraxy trumps orthodoxy in Islam, which alters tremendously the foundation of supremacy derived from salvation or redemption. The problem of orthopraxy is that anyone participating in the pillars of the faith is a Muslim, even the complete idiots. This idea has come around in Christian circles insofar as redemption now seems to revolve around a profession of belief. Thus, even the completely hypocritical idiots are now saved; nobody has to walk in the footsteps of a Muhammad or a Jesus. Some would say you can blow up schoolchildren and go to Heaven as a reward. Others say you can live in constant sin—although only certain "lifestyle" sins are covered by this—and go to Heaven anyway because you believe Jesus will save you. The difference between, say, Catholicism and fundamentalist evangelism is that the latter is a lot easier. I mean, as stupid as confession and penance seems to us, someone is still confessing to cheating on his wife, or lusting his daughter. That process may be either humbling or desensitizing, but it is a far different engagement of the faith than simply saying, "I believe in Jesus" and believing yourself cleansed of sin.

In the case of charity, we might observe that it is sad when one must be cajoled into decency and dignity by a promise of Heaven and a threat of Hell, but such belief among the faithful, while often apparent in the present, is a doctrinal error. It is easy enough to read Matthew and think we must do good things for other people in order to get into Heaven, but it is also spelled out plainly that it's not just about doing good things, but about not doing bad things. And we should do them because these things are the right things to do, or not because they are wrong. Impressing God should be about the last of a Christian's concern, and until that idea is brought once again to the fore of the faith, the problem you note will continue to plague Christianity.

With Islam, the wise voices need what wise voices have always needed: a political situation that empowers their argument. In a day when many moderate, and even wise, Muslim leaders are drowned out by the deathly bray of the extremists and the spectacular focus of the headlines, we see in particular relief the scars of history within the human endeavor.

Judaism's one saving grace: it is not evangelical. They believe their ancestors made a Covenant with God which (only by Stone Age law but that's how religions work) their hapless descendants are obligated to uphold. Therefore it would be unfair to accept outsiders into the tribe and subject them to the same punishment that God dumps on the Jews for breaking the Covenant, from the Exile to the Holocaust.

Friggin' ridiculous, isn't it. I don't see the lack of evangelism a saving grace with Judaism, so to speak, as that condones it's divisiveness over mankind.

Orthopraxy trumps orthodoxy in Islam, which alters tremendously the foundation of supremacy derived from salvation or redemption. The problem of orthopraxy is that anyone participating in the pillars of the faith is a Muslim, even the complete idiots.

I suspect Islam is more along the lines of orthodoxy applied to practice since the practice is held to come from doctrine; Shahadah over The Five Pillars of Islam.

The same sentiment can be seen through the modern atheist movement.

Actually, what you're seeing is that the atheist movement claims everyone is equally special in that we are all humans.

Actually, what you're seeing is that the atheist movement claims everyone is equally special in that we are all humans.

So a person who has abandoned all rational, and logical thinking (remember he said ALL), disconnecting themselves from their true heritage (human being), failing as a [human] species because they connect with scripture or some aspect of scripture, is regarded as equal?

Is such a being even human? :confused:
I suppose it's no different than the myth that Africans are a subspecies, not fully human, so do not have the rights granted to humans, which became popular in the non too distant past.

jan.

So a person who has abandoned all rational, and logical thinking (remember he said ALL), disconnecting themselves from their true heritage (human being), failing as a [human] species because they connect with scripture or some aspect of scripture, is regarded as equal?

I've read your question a few times but am still confused.

We're all humans, Jan, despite the fact many are indoctrinated into cults that squeal superiority like some greased pig in a rodeo.

mikenostic,

"Jews/Xians/Muslims" are nought but titles, they don't actually mean anything other than names to identify bodies. If I told you I was muslim, then you would respond to me as such without needing to know if i actually muslim.
The OP gives a good idea of what you term people "so favoured by god.
I used the three Abrahamic religions as an example, as they are the ones I'm most familiar with. When I use one of these as an example, they are also representing any theist religion based on worshipping some deity/deities whose existence cannot be proven.
Muslims are just as bad as Jews, Xians, etc. about believing what they believe and sitting on their high horse looking down at anyone who doesn't believe what they do.


Now if those people were atheist they would still be favoured by god.
The question is; would atheists do what McGarry and his co-workers do, for the same reasons.
But if they never accepted Christ as their savior, they would go to hell. I don't see how that and 'god still favors them' can coexist.


I agree with you. To me, that is not what religion is about.
Seems to be the only thing you agree with me on, which is quite suprising given your otherwise adamant defense of faith based religions.


Obviously this conflict is more than bickering, and
it is more than just being about who is right. It would appear that the whole bible is more or less dealing with this conflict. I doubt it is as simple you would like to believe.
Whoa. I never said the bible was as simple as I thought. Far from it. In fact, the complexity, contradicting scriptures and little hints here and there(denoting to me that it was just written by man w/no divine intervention) is the reason I debate against its (and Christianity's) validity as a whole.


His followers aren't arrogant, if they are, then they cease to be his followers.
This can be understood by reading the OP.
Oh yes they are. They just don't realize it. Of course the bible supposedly teaches humility, but I've met very few humble Christians. I've met quite a few ignorant ones, but not many humble ones.



A doctor is a doctor on two counts, one, he is academically qualified, two, he cares about healing the sick. If the doctor decides to murder his patients what happens, he is struck off, meaning he is no longer a doctor, despite being academically qualified. He could still practice his skill, he could still call himself a doctor, but he is not a part of the medical proffession, that which he strove for. He is now independant.


Uh, what does that have to do with in response to what I wrote?

mikenostic,


Muslims are just as bad as Jews, Xians, etc. about believing what they believe and sitting on their high horse looking down at anyone who doesn't believe what they do.

Here is a quote from the OP;

"We tend to forget that charity comes first," wrote Thomas Merton, the inspiring monk who died forty years ago this month, "and is the only Christian 'cause' that has the right to precedence over every other." McGarry and his co-workers understand those words and live by them."


But if they never accepted Christ as their savior, they would go to hell. I don't see how that and 'god still favors them' can coexist.

Where does Jesus or God say this?
I think the point is that if you are truly charitable, then there is an element of pure goodness in your character. That goodness is what you are judged on, not what you believe or don't believe.
In short, action speaks louder than words.

Sometimes as children become teenagers they rebel against their parents, sometimes claiming to hate them. But as they grow older, and that adolescent spirit of rebeliousness becomes pointless and obselete, they realise that they do in fact love their parents, and did do all along.

Belief is futile, if not acted upon.


Seems to be the only thing you agree with me on, which is quite suprising given your otherwise adamant defense of faith based religions.

I'm glad we can agree on something.
My defense is not of faith-based religions, but pure religion as espoused by scriptures.


In fact, the complexity, contradicting scriptures and little hints here and there(denoting to me that it was just written by man w/no divine intervention) is the reason I debate against its (and Christianity's) validity as a whole.

But then your debateing stops when the opponent doesn't agree with your understanding. :)


Oh yes they are. They just don't realize it. Of course the bible supposedly teaches humility, but I've met very few humble Christians. I've met quite a few ignorant ones, but not many humble ones.

You misunderstood me.
From a scriptoral perspective, humility is a qualification.


Uh, what does that have to do with in response to what I wrote?

It shows that you cannot be a proper doctor unless your actions (professional in this case) are in accordance with the gigantic body which governs medical practitioners.

jan.

I've read your question a few times but am still confused.

We're all humans, Jan, despite the fact many are indoctrinated into cults that squeal superiority like some greased pig in a rodeo.

and who isnt?

and who isnt?

Who isn't what?