Chilling

[Guest TheProudDuck]

An interesting e-mail to an online columnist:

Jay, I live in the East Bay suburbs of San Francisco — Walnut Creek, to be exact. The Kerry-Edwards clipboard patrol is often soliciting donations at the local supermarket. I ignore them, except this one time. A very young, very pretty college-coed type asked as I passed by, 'Will you help defeat Bush with a donation?' I replied, 'No thanks, but I am glad to see some younger citizens getting involved in politics.' Since I'm over 50, I felt it was an okay remark, without condescension. Her reply was quick and chilling: 'Bush's concentration camps will be filled with the Jews, then the blacks!' Her eyes had become dark flint and her expression was pure malevolence. For only the third time in my life, I was left utterly speechless. [The letter-writer does not say what the other two times were.] I shook my head and walked slowly to the car. What in G*d's name had been poured into that young lady's head? Did she even know what she was saying?

That's pretty extreme, but I've encountered some of this myself on Internet sites like Democratic Underground and in the "Boondocks" comic strip -- people seriously talking about moving to Canada to escape the coming fascist purge.

I sometimes wonder whether the rise of the New Left post-1972 had anything to do with the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill (sending all the paranoid schizophrenics out into society) at around the same time. Seriously, this is disturbing. You don't lose an election to a man you think will bring back concentration camps, and just wait quietly until 2008. If Kerry loses, I am seriously afraid we're going to see a left-wing Oklahoma City. ("Terrorists: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!")

I think Kerry is a thin-skinned poseur whose heart isn't in the war on terror (or any war), and accordingly will botch it, but I don't think he's going to put me in a camp, and I don't know any Republicans who think so, either. (I'm sure you could find some nutcases in some backwoods fundamentalist church, but they're keeping a low profile.)

[Ray]

Have you noticed common traits in people who are for a certain candidate… either candidate? I sometimes wonder if my gift of discernment is just getting better or that it’s just so clear that anybody can see it. More than any other presidential campaign I have ever witnessed, this is clearly a choice between good and evil.

And btw, I made an effort to avoid using names or clearly indicating anything about particular people, and I would appreciate it if we could all continue to do the same. We should not bash anybody.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Ray]

I wasn’t referring to the fanatics, I was referring to more common people. In other words, I can pretty much tell who people are going to vote for once I know something about them, and I don’t really need to know a whole lot about them either. The way they act and the way they groom themselves and the way they say things pretty much makes it obvious.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Oct 28 2004, 12:26 PM

Others may think he is too religious to be in a position of power.

Thats really sad, and embarrassing since our founding fathers we're all very religious men.

We've become what we fear the most. A Godless country. Lots and lots of lip service though.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Ray]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 28 2004, 01:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 28 2004, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 28 2004, 01:54 PM

I wasn’t referring to the fanatics, I was referring to more common people.  In other words, I can pretty much tell who people are going to vote for once I know something about them, and I don’t really need to know a whole lot about them either.  The way they act and the way they groom themselves and the way they say things pretty much makes it obvious.

I was commenting on Proud Duck's post which shows the opinion of a fanatic.

Heh, since what someone calls a fanatic isn’t what someone else calls a fanatic, how do you go about deciding what a fanatic is? Shall I call someone a fanatic simply because I don’t understand the reason they can’t see things the way I do? Or am I a fanatic too?

[Faerie]

hmmm....the last "non christian" president was?

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Ray]

*** RED ALERT – HIJACK IN PROGRESS – RED ALERT ***</span>

Originally posted by Unorthodox@ Oct 28 2004, 02:58 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as that president was a good person.

Well, considering that Jesus said nobody was good but God, I think that would be GREAT!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 28 2004, 01:39 PM

hmmm....the last "non christian" president was?

Well, you could argue that John Adams, a Unititarian, wasn't "Christian," if you define "Christian" as one who, at minimum, believes that Jesus Christ was divine.

Since most of the Protestant world wants to read Mormons out of Christianity, based on a misconception that we don't believe Christ was God, I won't put Adams on the "non-Christian" list. Although that does raise an interesting question -- What does one have to think of Christ, at the minimum, to be a Christian? I mean, Muslims, like Unitarians, believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher. (Actually, they go beyond that and classify him as a prophet.) But Muslims aren't Christians.

Maybe the most generous definition of "Christian" is whether a person identifies himself as a Christian -- takes upon himself the name of Christ.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 28 2004, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 28 2004, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 28 2004, 04:23 PM

Maybe the most generous definition of "Christian" is whether a person identifies himself as a Christian -- takes upon himself the name of Christ.

I agree with that definition. In my opinion, a Christian is one who follows Christ's teachings, regardless of what they believe about his nature.

Yeah, the more I think about it, I think that's the only proper definition. We may have to accept that some people's Christianity may be a bit loopy (as others might think ours is), but I'm reminded of when Jesus told his disciples not to forbid other non-ordained people from casting out devils in Christ's name, saying "he that is not against us is on our part." (Of course, he said elsewhere that if you're not for him, you're against him. I'm thoroughly confused.)

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Ray]

Maybe the most generous definition of "Christian" is whether a person identifies himself as a Christian -- takes upon himself the name of Christ. – boldness added

Generous to who? If someone calls himself a Christian, would you then accept him as a Christian? Both of our presidential candidates consider themselves to be Christians, but I wonder how Christ feels about that.

if you define "Christian" as one who, at minimum, believes that Jesus Christ was divine.

I think a Christian is someone who sincerely and honestly tries to live their life as Christ lived His. There are many people who consider Jesus to be divine yet do not follow his example.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 28 2004, 03:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 28 2004, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Oct 28 2004, 04:18 PM

*** RED ALERT – HIJACK IN PROGRESS – RED ALERT ***</span>

<!--QuoteBegin--Unorthodox@ Oct 28 2004, 02:58 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as that president was a good person.

Well, considering that Jesus said nobody was good but God, I think that would be GREAT!

Do I have to keep changing my words?

Ok...

"as long as that president was a MORAL person."

Much better. Don’t get frustrated now. I’m just jousting with you. :)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 28 2004, 03:36 PM

Maybe the most generous definition of "Christian" is whether a person identifies himself as a Christian -- takes upon himself the name of Christ. – boldness added

Generous to who? If someone calls himself a Christian, would you then accept him as a Christian? Both of our presidential candidates consider themselves to be Christians, but I wonder how Christ feels about that.

if you define "Christian" as one who, at minimum, believes that Jesus Christ was divine.

I think a Christian is someone who sincerely and honestly tries to live their life as Christ lived His. There are many people who consider Jesus to be divine yet do not follow his example.

Generous to who?  If someone calls himself a Christian, would you then accept him as a Christian?  Both of our presidential candidates consider themselves to be Christians, but I wonder how Christ feels about that.

Don't know. Which is why I'll leave it to Him to sort the matter out.

I think a Christian is someone who sincerely and honestly tries to live their life as Christ lived His.  There are many people who consider Jesus to be divine yet do not follow his example.

That means they're poor Christians, not that they're not Christians at all. Would you call Christian an atheist who decided to model his life after Christ's, believing Jesus to have modeled best how a human being should live?

C.S. Lewis wrote that the word "Christian" was losing its meaning, transforming to a reference to a person who followed a particular religious tradition to a reference to a good person generally. He said the same thing was happening to the word "gentleman"; today, he'd probably say the same thing about the way the meaning of the word "racism" has lost its ability to communicate a particular meaning. (Now it's just a bad word for people to throw at those they disagree with.)

[Ray]

Would you call Christian an atheist who decided to model his life after Christ's, believing Jesus to have modeled best how a human being should live?

No, because that person would not be following the example of Christ. The atheist would be leaving some things undone, like praying to God with Faith that God would answer him.

It’s like asking that since Jesus was humble, would a humble person be a Christian if they only acknowledged that Jesus was the best example of humility. To me, a Christian is a whole lot more than that. To me, a Christian is someone who tries to be like Jesus, as honestly and sincerely as they know how.

C.S. Lewis wrote that the word "Christian" was losing its meaning, transforming to a reference to a person who followed a particular religious tradition to a reference to a good person generally.

A great quote which helps to make my point. Or did you think this was supporting your idea?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Un,

Similarly, there are a minority of Republicans who consider Kerry a traitor to his country (Ann Coulter, for example). There are a minority of Republicans who would like to convert the world to Christianity. There are a minority that want to merge church and state.

Maybe I'm just being a partisan hack (hi, Scott!) but I don't think the two "minorities" are equivalent, either in number or in connection to reality.

Take Ann Coulter and the "John Kerry is a traitor" argument. While I don't think John Kerry is a traitor (because the Constitution sets a specific definition for that crime: "adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and Comfort"), I think it's at least possible to construct a plausible (if wrong) argument for it. It's a matter of record that, while the Vietnam War was in progress and while Kerry was an officer in the naval reserves, he met with North Vietnamese diplomats in Paris and returned to advocate their negotiating position (unconditional American withdrawal from Vietnam before release of American POWs would be discussed) before Congress.

Now, that looks like Kerry was taking the other side in a quarrel to which his country was a party. A simplistic definition of treason might cover that. On the other hand, Kerry would say that his anti-war conduct, even though it tended to benefit the enemy, was actually an act of loyalty, because it was intended to benefit the United States by extricating it from a costly and immoral (he believed at the time) war. Any benefit to the enemy, in other words, was incidental.

On the other hand, is it at all possible to make a similarly reasoned argument that George Bush is going to put Jews and blacks in concentration camps?

*crickets chirping*

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Oct 28 2004, 03:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Oct 28 2004, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Unorthodox@Oct 28 2004, 03:25 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 28 2004, 04:23 PM

Maybe the most generous definition of "Christian" is whether a person identifies himself as a Christian -- takes upon himself the name of Christ.

I agree with that definition. In my opinion, a Christian is one who follows Christ's teachings, regardless of what they believe about his nature.

Yeah, the more I think about it, I think that's the only proper definition.

Do not concur.

That denigrates religion to the level of philosophy and elevates, oh say, the epicureans to the level of Christians. Not that I have anything against Epicurus, I just don't think that following him has much salvific benefit.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 28 2004, 03:36 PM

Generous to who? If someone calls himself a Christian, would you then accept him as a Christian? Both of our presidential candidates consider themselves to be Christians, but I wonder how Christ feels about that.

Some may wonder but I am relatively certain that you, Ray, don't wonder.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 28 2004, 01:42 PM

Have you noticed common traits in people who are for a certain candidate… either candidate? I sometimes wonder if my gift of discernment is just getting better or that it’s just so clear that anybody can see it. More than any other presidential campaign I have ever witnessed, this is clearly a choice between good and evil.

And btw, I made an effort to avoid using names or clearly indicating anything about particular people, and I would appreciate it if we could all continue to do the same. We should not bash anybody.

I wasn’t referring to the fanatics, I was referring to more common people. In other words, I can pretty much tell who people are going to vote for once I know something about them, and I don’t really need to know a whole lot about them either. The way they act and the way they groom themselves and the way they say things pretty much makes it obvious.

Boy, I'm glad you made that effort not to indicate anything about particular people, and refrained from bashing people. However, I'm pretty sure that you have said:

1 - People voting for Bush are good; people voting for Kerry are evil.

2 - People who vote for Kerry don't groom themselves to Ray's satisfaction.

3 - And darn it, those Kerry supporters just act weird and say funny things.

Very nice! (By the way, correct me if I'm wrong.)