|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BNP make a good point?
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Hosting
That's enough, nonpropheteer and JimT. If you want to fight - take it to Hell.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
Sorry Duo - I'm done.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Thank you, nonpropheteer and JimT.
Looking back at the OP, there is a point about moral authority and the role of the Church in commenting on elections and the political process that could be usefully explored.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
I can see the Catholic church being in a weak position to criticise a country club for letting blacks play on the golf course but not them eat in the dining room given its stance on closed communion. I can see the Catholic church being in a weak position to criticise homosexual advocacy groups on the basis that they promote and protect pedophiles. That I can handle. But any religious group is in a position to tell its members not to vote for the BNP because it is divisive.
I think JimT sums this up well. All sorts of criticisms can be levelled at the Catholic church, or indeed any other Christian communion on any number of grounds. (Whether or not you accept the specific instances Jim cites or not). But it seems to me that the equal worth of every human being in the eyes of God is a fairly fundamental Christian doctrine. Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.
NP - there are a number of well attested cases of politicians actually reversing previous policies on either pragmatic or moral grounds. In the UK, for example, there is the Labour party's abandonment of socialism or more recently the Tory party's attempt to divest itself of some of the ideological baggage of Thatcherism. For this to work, or to be accepted the previous policies have to be unsaid. Labour were finally elected in 1997 because the electorate trusted Tony Blair not to immediately nationalise the economy the day after the election because he had gone to great lengths to distance the party from this position. Tory attempts to distance themselves have been rather more equivocal and, therefore, somewhat less successful. Even your own hero, Mr Thurmond, must at some point have said during an election campaign "I no longer support segregation, events have moved on and so must I" or words to that effect.
Now it is by no means clear that the BNP have materially shifted their position. It is quite clear that members of ethnic minorities are still not welcome to the UK, as far as the BNP are concerned, nor are members of said minorities considered 'British' despite the fact that many of them are now third or fourth generation (and a continuous black presence in this country predates the initial movement of commonwealth immigration by some years). What the BNP have done is distanced themselves from the rhetoric of a)violence and b) overt National Socialism. Now obviously this constitutes an improvement on what went before, but falls well short of a change of heart or even a pragmatic abandonment of their most offensive policies ("I no longer support repatriation, events have moved on and so must I"). It appears to me (and to most other citizens of the UK, judging by the BNPs election results) that they have changed their presentation but not their core policies or the beliefs that motivate their policies. Frankly in a democracy I'm not obliged to give them the benefit of the doubt. Black people in Britain are here to stay. A shift from "we're facists and we hate black people and want to deport them" to "we're not facists and of course we don't hate black people, but we still want to deport them" is not, frankly, adequate.
On the subject of hatred. Jesus said: "He who hates his brother in his heart is a murderer". I mention this not as a proof text (although in this context it's a bloody important one) but as an example of popular usage. Hatred does not constitute an explicit intention to harm someone. It constitutes the emotion which motivates this harm whether it is acted on or not. So it is not adequate to ask for a smoking gun or a blood stained knife as evidence of hatred. It can be evident and should be condemned long before that point.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.
Christian doctrine (inclusive of all christian faiths) or Catholic doctrine (which some christians feel is inerror)?
quote:
Even your own hero, Mr Thurmond, ...
Now it is by no means clear that the BNP have materially shifted their position.
A shift from "we're facists and we hate black people and want to deport them" to "we're not facists and of course we don't hate black people, but we still want to deport them" is not, frankly, adequate.
Jesus said: "He who hates his brother in his heart is a murderer". ...Hatred does not constitute an explicit intention to harm someone. It constitutes the emotion which motivates this harm whether it is acted on or not.
Strom is not, nor ever has been my hero. The only 2 senators I have ever liked is "sheets" Byrd and Jesse Helms. Both with a racist background, but both with a good sense of humor and character. Not necessarily "good" character - but I appreciate strong willed figures, whether they are my friend or enemy.
As I understand (from limited exposure obviously) one new BNP doctrine, they want to stop immigration to stabilize the economy, and pay (through "Homeward Bound" grants)current immigrants to return home Also, their allegedly have been no BNP marches since Nick Griffith took over. From what I've read he seems to be more reasonable and peaceful than Tyndall. But that may just be an act to increase electability.
I'm not opposed to offering immigrants money to leave a country. I'm not opposed to stopping further immigration. I'm not even opposed to someone desiring to deport non-citizens. I am, of course, opposed to using violence to achieve these ends. I also totally disagree with their policy towards British citizens whose ancestory can be traced to another country (blacks for example). I figure if you are born in a country, thats your home, whether its your parents home or not. Under new BNP policy (at least, so they say) they would be allowed to stay as "permanent guests", but would lose their citizenship.
Does Jesus make an exception for hating racists or murderers such as (from another thread) Harold(?) Shipman? Isn't being filled with hate for them just as sinful as being hating the IRS, George Bush, or (no offense intended Marvin) martians?
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do here, NP, or what your point is.
Are you trying to enlighten us as to the BNP's true nature? What makes you think we've got the wrong idea about them?
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.
But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
I'd agree that as Christians we should not hate anybody - something which is obviously really hard to do though, especially if someone has hurt or harmed you, or really hates you first. But if we believe this surely that means racism is always wrong. As far as I'm concerned not wanting to live with or interact with people of different 'races'sounds a lot like hate to me, so racism always involves hate. It's certainly not only Catholics that condemn racism - I'd like to think it's a very small minority of Christians who strongly condone it.
On a tangent, 'race' is a very iffy term anyway. Genetically there is no basis for it - there is as much genetic difference between 2 people of the same 'race' as between 2 people of different 'races'.
As for the BNP, it sounds to me like they have been forced to change their approach due to the greater unacceptability of racism in British society today. To gain mainstream acceptance, they can no longer be openly proud of their racism. Instead they claim not to be racist, but only to be protecting the 'races' of the world, who are of course far to unique and different from each other to ever coexist!
Personally I wouldn't care if somewhere down the track there were no white people left on Earth, despite the fact that I am white myself. People are people and God created all of us.
As said above, I don't think it's right to ever hate anybody, but I find it much easier to comprehend why someone would hate an individual person or group with views they find very offensive, than hate people based purely on the amount of melanin in their skin.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
The only person I've heard from here that has some kind of "right" to "hate" the BNP is Papio - having suffered abuse from its members.
I've been verbally abused by them. As have loads of people I know.
But that isn't really the point.
First, it is right - morally right - to hate racism. It's a sin. I'm not one of these liberal moral relativists - God hates sin and so should we. If someone is talking the kind of vile racist nonsense that Peppone so helpfully quoted then we shoud lbe prepared so stand up and say no, that's not right, is wrong. Evil.
Second, opposition to extreme conservative political parties like the BNP is not just a matter of hate, its perfectly rational.
If these people got into any kind of political power they would imprison, murder, or persecute, large numbers of people, perhaps including myself and members of my family; certainly including many of my friends, neghbours, and work colleagues. And an actual majority of the members of my church.
They are not just people with whom I disagree, they are my enemies. (Much more so than the Palestinan terrorists whom you love to despise so much - they are doing nasty things but not that threaten me or mine).
As they are my enemies I have a Christian duty to love them and pray for them - but I am also entitled to defend myself and my neighbours against them. And ome of the ways of defending ourselves is to educate others as to the real nature of such fascists, and to have zero tolerance for fascism and racism wherever we come across it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.
But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?
Yes. As a matter of fact, Aren't we to strive against sin?
Bongo: No. My point is that, at least from a religious perspective, hating someone because they are racist is still hating. And hate is wrong. You can't forgive someone if you hate them, and as I understand it, thats what Christ's message was all about.
Milli: YES! It does mean racism rooted in hate is wrong. I don't even really know what a "white" person is. There are many tribes of native Americans that are just as "white" as I am. Of course, I am 1/4 native so that may have something to do with it. What is a "pure breed" white person - or black person, for that matter?
Ken: I'm not in opposition to anything you said, except I would edit one sentence to read: "Second, opposition to extreme political parties is not a matter of hate, its perfectly rational. Oh, and I don't love to despise the Palestinians. I hate what they do and refuse to support them in any way until they stop doing it.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Don't you mean the Palestinian terrorists, old chap?
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.
Christian doctrine (inclusive of all christian faiths) or Catholic doctrine (which some christians feel is inerror)?
Is there any way in which BNP policies on race could be said to be consonant with either Christianity or Catholicism? Should all Christian churces and the Catholic church take a strong position in support of the BNP because the BNP policies on race typify Christianity and Catholicism in some way? Is it more proper for churches to take a neutral position and say, "BNP support is a matter of personal conscience to our members and they may freely support or not support them?" Or is it proper for churches to say, "We have no comment on political parties at all because we are religious organizations and not political ones."
I would say that on the basis of BNP policies toward race, the BNP stands in opposition to all Christian thought because Christian thought stresses universal brotherhood of all humankind, Jews and Gentiles, as one people, all the children of one God. Therefore, I would say that it is the duty of all Christian churches to urge its members not to support the BNP. I would further say as a matter of personal opinion that it is the duty of all professing Christians to show BNP policies on race to be anti-Christian and indefensible as "Christian." I would go so far as to say that even atheists who care about peace have a duty to attack BNP policies on race. I would go even further and say that anyone with respect for the American system of democracy, which outlawed segregation 50 years ago, has the duty to attack BNP policies on race. Defending BNP policies on race in any way disrespects American democracy, atheistic humanism, Catholicism, and Christianity in my personal opinion.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
Don't you mean the Palestinian terrorists, old chap?
Yes. Sorry. Should have specified.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
... the BNP stands in opposition to all Christian thought because Christian ... it is the duty of all Christian churches to urge its members not to support the BNP. ...it is the duty of all professing Christians to show BNP policies on race to be anti-Christian and indefensible as "Christian." ... has the duty to attack BNP policies on race. Defending BNP policies on race in any way disrespects American democracy, atheistic humanism, Catholicism, and Christianity in my personal opinion.
I agree.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Voting for the BNP is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with Christian doctrine and every Christian church has a right, indeed an obligation to say so.
Christian doctrine (inclusive of all christian faiths) or Catholic doctrine (which some christians feel is inerror)?
What kind of distinction are you trying to draw here, NP? Why on earth would opposition to political motives such as the BNP's not properly be a matter of agreement between all the churches? You seem to suggest that there would likely be only Catholic disagreement to such political agendas, and that this would be likley to be deemed "erronious" to "Christians". Why?
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
As I understand (from limited exposure obviously) one new BNP doctrine, they want to stop immigration to stabilize the economy, and pay (through "Homeward Bound" grants)current immigrants to return home [...] I'm not opposed to offering immigrants money to leave a country.
Do you mean that you see nothing wrong with first generation immigrants who have attained citizenship/permanent residency from their new country being offered money to return to their countries of origin? I, personally, can see plenty wrong with that. Why should they be made to feel unweclome in this way? Why would this in any way be a good thing?
Apologies if I've misunderstood anything you've said.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I wonder how many white English people would take 20 grand to relocate to Barbados or Spain or Brazil?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wonder how many white English people would take 20 grand to relocate to Barbados or Spain or Brazil?
Quite. And I imagine that Scotland would beconme dangerously depopulated overnight if such offers were on the table.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What kind of distinction are you trying to draw here, NP? Why on earth would opposition to political motives such as the BNP's not properly be a matter of agreement between all the churches?
Do you mean that you see nothing wrong with first generation immigrants who have attained citizenship/permanent residency from their new country being offered money to return to their countries of origin?
CB
Well, frankly because it is not an agreement between all churches that racism is wrong. And I'm sure you wouldn't have to scratch to deeply under the surface to find catholic racism. I do agree that racism has no place in the christian faith, I'm just saying it does exist in the christian religion.
I believe that in a democracy, if the majority of citizens do not want non-citizens in their country, then they should have the option. Though it would be kind of ironic for that to happen in America - seeing as how 98% of the population are a result of immigration. I'm not saying it would be the right thing to do, if the population wants to get rid of immigrants, "homeward bound" grants sound like the best idea.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wonder how many white English people would take 20 grand to relocate to Barbados or Spain or Brazil?
Quite. And I imagine that Scotland would beconme dangerously depopulated overnight if such offers were on the table.
CB
I can't wait till the native Americans start offering us money to leave. But do I go to Germany, Ireland, or Kentucky?
...and if you've ever been to Kentucky, you'll agree its a foreign country.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The moral equality of human beings before God is a basic tenet of Christianity which is shared by all reputable churches including the Catholic church. I'm sure that some Catholics are racist, human sinfulness being what it is, but Catholic teaching clearly, and in conjunction with with the witness of the majority of Christian churches, condemns racism. Galatians 3:28, if you want chapter and verse.
Are you adding vulgar anti-Catholicism to your list of prejudices?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The moral equality of human beings before God is a basic tenet of Christianity which is shared by all reputable churches including the Catholic church. I'm sure that some Catholics are racist, human sinfulness being what it is, but Catholic teaching clearly, and in conjunction with with the witness of the majority of Christian churches, condemns racism. Galatians 3:28, if you want chapter and verse.
Are you adding vulgar anti-Catholicism to your list of prejudices?
Sure. Why not? I don't typically trust organizations, especially religious and political ones. But are you saying the RCC has never been racist? To be honest, I don't know if they have or not, so I'll withdraw that claim. I was raised to believe that catholics were in "league with the devil", a belief I have since pushed aside...but still some remains. I apologize.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Are you adding vulgar anti-Catholicism to your list of prejudices?
Sure. Why not? I don't typically trust organizations, especially religious and political ones. But are you saying the RCC has never been racist? To be honest, I don't know if they have or not, so I'll withdraw that claim. I was raised to believe that catholics were in "league with the devil", a belief I have since pushed aside...but still some remains. I apologize.
NP, you're making it too easy for me - you're confirming all my worst suspicions about your whole argumentative stance here. Where's the challenge for me in that?
But, since I've got the reply window open ... One of the main problems for me is not, as you claim, that you "don't typically trust organizations, especially religious and political ones", but rather that you seem to save your contempt exclusively for the Catholics. It's not a general cynicism that your expressing here - it's a very partial and jaundiced one.
Why should any of us engage with your self-confessed prejudices (inherited or otherwise)? None of is free from prejudices, but most of us at least try to keep them checked in open debate. It's just embarrassing not to.
On the other hand, please do point out where I misrepresent your stance - apologising in advance if I do.
CB
[ 14. January 2004, 18:32: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
I believe that in a democracy, if the majority of citizens do not want non-citizens in their country, then they should have the option. Though it would be kind of ironic for that to happen in America - seeing as how 98% of the population are a result of immigration.
The population of Britain is also 98% the result of immigration, if not more. You'd be hard pushed to find a Pict, if even they were the original inhabitants. Over a longer period of time, granted, but to such an extent as to make any talk of 'native british' a complete nonsense.
Plus, they are not talking about asking non-citizens to leave, but about taking citizenship away from a set of people, then asking them to leave. Hardly the same thing, and not acceptable on any level.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
NP, you're making it too easy for me - you're confirming all my worst suspicions about your whole argumentative stance here. Where's the challenge for me in that?
I've been thinking about it and realized I've been talking out my arse about the catholic church. I apologized. Most of my attitude towards catholics (I realize now) stems not from experience with catholics, but as a result of crap I've been told from childhood. The research I did looking for telling "racist" catholic doctrine only produced anti-catholic sites. Hardly the kind of sources to base an opinion on. Sorry to make your job easier and rebut my own posts...
quote:
Why should any of us engage with your self-confessed prejudices (inherited or otherwise)? None of is free from prejudices, but most of us at least try to keep them checked in open debate. It's just embarrassing not to.
True all around.
My stance on the catholic church is probably in error. However, if I had the time, I could easily point you to several "christian" web sites that promote racism. I think the christian identity movement is one.
I was raised to despise the RCC, but not the people themselves. The theory being that the members of the church were victims of devilish deception adn we should pray for their forgiveness. I guess this attitude has transferred itself to other organizations such as BNP: The organization and its policies are bad, but the members are victims of deceptive doctrines/ideologies and ignorance so should be forgiven. A 'There but for the grace of God go I' kinda thing.
I'm not saying I think the process of forgiving hateful people is wrong, I still firmly believe that is true and good. I am saying that the views I was taught about the RCC are at best exhaggerated, at worst total lies.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Plus, they are not talking about asking non-citizens to leave, but about taking citizenship away from a set of people, then asking them to leave. Hardly the same thing, and not acceptable on any level.
I agree with you on that, as I said above.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
I should have put white in inverted commas. As I said in my previous post, 'race' does not actually have any scientific basis - it's a human construct. But people who do class people into 'races' would certainly describe me as 'white'. As you say NP, what is 'white'? or for that matter 'black'? or 'Asian'? Does it depend on your bloodlines? Your appearance? Your perception of yourself? Other people's perceptions?
This is a big issue in Aus when it comes to Indigenous Australians, most who have some European ancestry, and some who in appearance are white, but would still identify themselves as Indigenous. There are debates about who has the right to identify themselves as Indigenous. By law you can if you have Indigenous ancestry, and are recognised by other Indigenous people as Indigenous. But some Australians (both indigenous and non-indigenous) disagree with this definition.
Of course extreme racists would identify anyone with a 'non-white' ancestor as a mongrel, in their simplistic and narrow minded view of the world.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
from Callan
What the BNP have done is distanced themselves from the rhetoric of a)violence and b) overt National Socialism. Now obviously this constitutes an improvement on what went before
Not "obviously". It depends on whether or not they are sincere in their rejection of National Socialism and Peppone's post seems to indicate otherwise.
On another matter - this thread, together with an unrelated hell thread, has made me realise just how easy it is to hate people, esp when said people have committed extremely evil acts or espouse an equally evil philosophy. I agree, really, with the people who have said we have no right to hate other people. I agree with that idea, yet I know in my heart that there are people whom I hate and would like to see suffer.
Perhaps I ought to have a serious thunk* about that.
*deliberate misspelling.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
simon 2
Shipmate
# 1524
|
Posted
Up until recently the RC church was responsible for many gross acts of anti-semitism, including in some sections support for the Final Solution. European anti-semitism has its roots in "christian" teaching, drawn from the gospel of St John and the writings of St Paul and based around the idea that the Jews murdered Jesus and are no longer God's chosen people. Phrases such as "synagogue of Satan" and the characterisation of Jews in John's gospel being at the core. Many of the great men of church history have been violently anti-semitic at some point.
Even today I feel (some) churches are too quick to (ignorantly) characterise Jews negatively when refering to the NT, to the point where the only frame of reference given to the NT Jewish religion is that Jesus was in a constant struggle with it. And that the pharasies were blind, hard hearted and murderous, without virtue. To me this appears as quite an insiduous reincarnation of old "christian" racism, tolerated because we are so used to hearing it.
[ 15. January 2004, 08:04: Message edited by: simon 2 ]
--------------------
sorry for my spelling and bad gramma
Posts: 495 | From: in a forest | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.
But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?
Yes. As a matter of fact, Aren't we to strive against sin?
Indeed.
Given your view that persons should not be judged for what they think but only for what they do, how do you respond to Jesus' words in Matthew 5:22?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Ok, NP, you have point - you shouldn't "hate" anyone.
But are we allowed to oppose their vile policies with every fibre of our being?
Yes. As a matter of fact, Aren't we to strive against sin?
Indeed.
Given your view that persons should not be judged for what they think but only for what they do, how do you respond to Jesus' words in Matthew 5:22?
I believe that what a person thinks is between them and God. Its totally okay with me for God to judge someone based on the content of their heart, but another person can easily misinterpret your actions or words and believe they know what and how you think.
When I speak of not judging someone on how they think, I am generally using it in the context of society, particularly the law. I do not believe we should have any laws (such as hate crime legislation) that make your punishment worse because of the way you think.
In America, everyone is supposed to be equal. We should strive for that in our laws. Murder is murder. I don't care what group of people you hate or love - if you murder someone only the circumstances of that murder should be taken into account. If you hate blacks and murder one, how is that different from murdering some rich white guy so you can steal his tv? Or killing someone else for hitting on your lady in a bar?
The concept of "Thought police" is offensive to the extreme for me. It is book burning, it is censorship, it is fascism. Plain and simple.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I am not talking in terms of civil or secular law (otherwise, of course, you'd have to believe that Jesus was a book-burning fascist). Your comments on "hate" and striving agaisnt sin are within the context of Christian ethics and behaviour, and it is within that context I am asking the question.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I am not talking in terms of civil or secular law (otherwise, of course, you'd have to believe that Jesus was a book-burning fascist). Your comments on "hate" and striving agaisnt sin are within the context of Christian ethics and behaviour, and it is within that context I am asking the question.
I'm really not sure where you are going with this. I think it is wrong to hate and feel that belief is justified by that verse. I dont think that gives us permission to hate others who hate, nor do I feel it means we are supposed to do (physical) battle with and condemn those who hate. The crux of Jesus' message seems to be to take care of the beam in your own eye before worrying about the splinter in someone else's. So if we are to battle hate and strive against sin, we are to do so in our own lives first. Once we get ourselves straightened out then we may (I assume) have the moral authority to condemn someone else. But since I don't have my own sinfulness in check, who am I to condemn someone else? The only authority I have been given (to my understanding) is that of forgiveness - and I'm encouraged to use it as often as possible.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I think (and I am making no guarantees that I undertand this myself, yet) that what I'm trying to work out is this:
On the one hand, you appear to be holding a position where you were unprepared to acknowledge that members of the BNP actually hate people because the organisation itself had not organised/committed/endrosed acts of (fatal) violence against other persons.
At the same time you expound, in response to many posts here, that it is wrong to express hate of people's views.
Now, you have acknowledged that Jesus teaches that hatred within one's heart is still hatred - therefore, do you now consider both that members of the BNP can hate others despite not having committed acts of violence, and that the same rule - no hatred - should apply to them as well?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Not wishing to get in the way of your interesting exchange with Dyfrig, NP, but I just wanted to thank you and slap you on the back for your frank backdown on the Catholic-bashing back there.
We're still, I intuit, light years aapart on this issue, but that apology in the face of considerable tetchiness was gracious of you. Nuff respeck, etc.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think (and I am making no guarantees that I undertand this myself, yet) that what I'm trying to work out is this:
On the one hand, you appear to be holding a position where you were unprepared to acknowledge that members of the BNP actually hate people because the organisation itself had not organised/committed/endrosed acts of (fatal) violence against other persons.
At the same time you expound, in response to many posts here, that it is wrong to express hate of people's views.
Now, you have acknowledged that Jesus teaches that hatred within one's heart is still hatred - therefore, do you now consider both that members of the BNP can hate others despite not having committed acts of violence, and that the same rule - no hatred - should apply to them as well?
Okay - I was actually withholding judgement that BNP was violently or criminally racist until someone showed me some evidence that didn't come from an obviously anti-BNP source. Which they did, more or less.
As an aside, this is what led me to discover my own unreasoning prejudice (which I didn't even realize I had till Callan brought it to my attention) against RCC - all of my "facts" about RCC were coming from obviously anti-catholic sites and people.
I admitted somewhere upthread that I have become convinced they are villianously racist, but that we still shouldn't hate them, because hate is wrong. You are judged (IMO) by who you love, not who loves you back. Disagree, vote against, etc - fight the sin, punish any violent actions, but not allow ourselves to become filled with hate. Doing so makes us no better than them from a religious perspective.
The rule of "no hatred" does apply to everyone, but I don't think any of us has the right force it upon someone. One stumbling point here is that we (shipmates, not just you & I) have been discussing this from two or more almost incompatable positions. What should I do as a Christian? vs What should I do as a member of society? As a member of society, I am free to hate them, hate the organization, or hate anything else I want and all I have to do is justify that hatred to myself.
As a Christian, I am still free to hate, but I have to justify that hate to God, and he (she/it) finds hate dwelling in your heart rather offensive.
I've often heard, and repeated: Hate the sin, not the sinner. I'm not sure how that applies in this case, or even if it is biblically supported. If it is okay to hate the sin, then I suppose it would be okay to hate the organization and its policies, but we would still have to (try to anyway) love the members themselves and pray for their enlightenment.
While I agree that one can hate without being violent, I don't believe society should be able to act on that hate alone. It must be followed by something tangible, such as violence before I believe society has a right to take action against it.
The problem, as I see it, is that when people allow themselves to hate -whether a person or a sin, they bcome blinded. I'm by no means a racist, but I've been accused of it many times just for questioning the validity of racist accusations against other people (both here and IRL). Its very hard to have a quiet debate with someone that has an entrenched view. NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.
Chester: ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) The apology was owed, thank you for your gracious response.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time
Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.
Jesus would also:
1. Take JimT off his ignore list so that JimT can give Jesus precisely the guidance for which Jesus humbly asks.
2. Make it more a personal responsibility to control his own behavior rather than to warn others that his behavior is likely to be inappropriate and that others should recognize it as such, not become inappropriate in response, and simply inform Jesus that he is (once again)...and again, behaving inappropriately.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Friendly Hosting Voice
Jim, that's a personal swipe.
Cut it out, will you?
[ 15. January 2004, 16:34: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Thanks for your clarification, NP.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Friendly Hosting Voice
Jim, that's a personal swipe.
Cut it out, will you?
I will cut it out.
At the same time, I want to make a serious, calm, rational and non-personal point about NP's comments regarding "Thought Police." I can agree that it is fruitless for governments to make laws that say "Hate is an illegal emotional state." With respect to Churches, I think they should be free to tell their members what kinds of thoughts they "ought" to have. But in this case, I don't think that the Churches who told their members not to vote for the BNP on the grounds that it is "divisive" were engaging in any kind of "thought control." Also, the Churches did not say that their members should not vote for the BNP because BNP members hate and promote violence. Nick Griffin attempted to imply that, but it's just not true.
I also do not think that the US government was engaging in "thought control" in a fascistic way by outlawing segregation. Even though segregation is not in and of itself violent nor hateful from a philosophic point of view, psychologically it has been found to lead to animosity that in some cases can grow into hate and violence. Therefore, I do not hold with the opinion that it should be legal for political parties to support segregationist racial policies. I do not feel as though I am living in a fascist state because racial segregation is illegal. I see the present discussion here, regarding the Church's criticism of the BNP to not be about "hate crimes" but the legality of racial segregation.
Can the lawyers here tell me if it is illegal in the US for a party to have segregation on its platform? Obviously, it appears legal in (I'm going to get this wrong) Britain or the UK or the whatever the right jurisdiction is.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
At the Manchester Against Racism meeting tonight at Manchester Town Hall, (Tony Lloyd MP in attendance), the BNP were outside by the main door making sure that everyone who went in felt and heard their presence. Some were taking photographs of attendees and those of us marshalling. This is a usual ploy which not only intimidates (or tries to intimidate) but allows them to put us up as targets for disdain on their nasty little web sites. Nothing illegal of course and it's a free country ... but it was not a pleasant experience. Julie Hesmondalgh (Corrie star, Hayley) spoke excellently. There were Jews, Muslims, Christians, secular humanists, left and centre ... poets, performers, young and old ... a real spectrum and a great encouragement.
How would you like Nick Griffin to represent YOU in the European parliament. If you're in his constituency, get voting.
BTW ... their posters said:- "Ban the ANL" (Anti-Nazi League), "Hands of our democracy" and "Free Speech."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
There is just so much sophistry I can take.
Can we not tell the difference between a privately held thought known only to a person and God and organizing a political party with a view to inacting laws to limit the rights of a racial group or groups?
Is disliking a person for their expression of offensive views really the same thing as disliking a person because of a physical aspect of that person?
Is advocating free speech really the same thing as demanding protection for your right to limit the speech of others?
Is calling for the state to enforce racial segregation really not harmful?
Leaving all this offensive chaff aside, and getting back to the OP, I am somewhat shocked that the question in the OP about the legitimacy of the BNPs claim has been given as much play as it has... The BNP "argument" is twaddle.
They list the signatories of the anti-BNP statement. They are representatives of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu organizations.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Can the lawyers here tell me if it is illegal in the US for a party to have segregation on its platform? Obviously, it appears legal in (I'm going to get this wrong) Britain or the UK or the whatever the right jurisdiction is.
You can have anything you want on your platform. I suspect that there are, shall we say, minority political candidates that have racist proposals as part of their agenda. But according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution prevents the government from engaging in segregation. Therefore, though JimT, a free citizen, may practice segregation by having or not having Presbyterians or Asians or racists as guests at his home or club, and any political party can (under the First Amendment) stand for almost anything, as a legal matter it's pretty empty. To repeal an Amendment requires the same supermajority as passing one, so I don't see any Constitutional changes in the near future.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Can I say how extraordinary I find it that in the UK, which has been held up so many times as so much more liberal than the US, a party such as the BNP can get any mainstream following at all, or at least, can get so much support that there is a need for a "Manchester against Racism" rally! Here, publicly racist groups are pretty much pariahs. They get permission to do their pathetic little marches (First Amendment says we get to hear their disgusting views and so we can all hear how horrifying they are), and what typically happens is about 100 pathetic losers turn up for the march, while about 50,000 people turn out to express disgust at them.
[ 15. January 2004, 23:20: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
...the BNP were outside by the main door making sure that everyone who went in felt and heard their presence. Some were taking photographs of attendees and those of us marshalling. This...allows them to put us up as targets for disdain on their nasty little web sites.
And not just disdain, unfortunately. If your photo appears on Redwatch (along with your address, if they can get it, or an appeal for further "intelligence" on you) then there is at the very least the danger that your home (or workplace, or church) will be visited by a BNP leafletting team. This is another of their tactics- to arrive team-handed at the doors of anti-fascist campaigners, post BNP material through the letterbox, then hang around outside for an intimidatingly long time.
And this is where I probably differ from the majority of posters here. If the BNP were photographing me at a meeting, I'd have no objection to an ANL team beating the shite out of them and smashing their camera equipment. I'd swing a pickaxe handle myself, if I thought I could stay out of prison.
And I still don't hate them, any more than my grandfathers and great-uncles hated the nazis they killed in Europe in 1944.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
[I was cut off in mid-post]
The BNP site puts the bold headline "Hypocrites and murderers" immediately after this list of names and then goes on to discuss the very worst violence associated with these religions all over the planet.
What is the implied argument? That each of the signatories is a hypocirte and a murderer? That because some people who practice the same faith as the signatories engage in violence, all people who follow those faiths are participants in murder and will be guilty if they make any public statement regarding ethics or morality?
Utter nonsense.
They then go on to extol the virtues of the BNP:
Never been involved in any political violence (false).
Dedicated to democratic political processes (false)
Those falsehoods are all they can come up with as virtues--the rest of that part of their statement is just raising hot-button bugaboos (Blair, IRA) to divert attention from their own ghastly nature.
The final bit that Nightlamp quoted comes next:
"each of these religions are merely fascistic structures based on enslaving their adherents and ensuring their own increased power."
This is a dead giveaway that no one in the BNP has ever attended the Church Council at my UMC church... or has a clue about the Annual Conference structure of the United Methodist Church. Seriously, while I'm sure you can find some followers of every religion who really are fascists dreaming of enslaving their fellows, this is not a point that can be taken seriously, let alone qualified as "good."
While I understand the tendency toward self-flagelation in Christian circles, and the appeal of martyrdom, taking any part of this spew of feeble sophistry from the BNP as legitimate is just beyond the pale.
Taking it as being about the Catholic church is just silly, if you look again at the list of signatories to the anti-BNP.
Re: the appropriateness of wishing ill on one's enemies, I can only look at the stark emotional truths laid bare in the psalms... While we are called to love and forgive even our enemies, we are not expected not to have emotions, even very strong and nasty ones. We are not to let the sun go down without releasing our hatreds, but that is a far cry from not having any at all. God made us with a full compliment of emotions and I don't think he did it by mistake.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
My God. Thank you so much, Fr. Gregory. Your post is right out of the pages of history in the US. A subject too many find boring and useless. That saddens me. Laura is right that a serious pro-segregation movement is no longer a political possibility in this country. I am surprised the BNP is not on the US nightly news, nor is it being picked up by presidential candidates eager to show their knowledge of foreign policy and the superiority of The American Way.
Laura, to clear up the legal side of things, I recall the 14th Amendment as the one that guarantees "equal protection under the laws," passed after the Civil War in order to get slaves the vote, get counted as a full person in the census (instead of 3/5 or some ridiculous parody of sanity). Is the legal argument that whereas "separate" could be "equal" in the eyes of the law prior to 1950, but "separate" could not be "equal" afterwards, by Supreme Court precedent.
I recall as a young child private restaurants where the drinking fountains were labelled "white" and "colored." It was allowed in private restaurants prior to the 50's but somewhere along the line a private restaurant that was serving the public in general could not have separate drinking fountains or eating areas. All this was simply a reinterpretation of the existing 14th amendment?
Thanks a lot. I can't believe how much I've forgotten about how segregation was finally dismantled in the US, even though I watched it personally. It was a horrific time in US history.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Yes, it is under the Fourteenth Amendment, that in Brown v. Board of Education and all sorts of other cases the Supremes held discrimination on the basis of race by gov't entities and in public facilities unconstitutional.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Is advocating free speech really the same thing as demanding protection for your right to limit the speech of others?
Hurrah. The point that is so infrequently made when the BNP and their ilk go on about 'free speech' (and I can assure you there would not be much free speech if, God forbid, the BNP ever obtained power). Thank you Jerry.
Fr. G., well done for your meeting.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I cross-posted with the last half of Jerry's post. Right on, as we used to say.
Thank you Laura on the confirmation about the 14th Amendment. I gave a speech on the loftiness of the 14th Amendment and the tragic failure to fully enforce it to the entire student body of my high school in 1971. I received an extended standing ovation from the students and teachers but stone faces from the judges, a group of known racists within the group sponsoring the speech contest. You can imagine that I came in dead last. The local liberal newspaper editor remarked that while I had received a standing ovation, I failed to advance to regional competition. That's the way it was back then. To tell the other side, I went to Cornell University and laughed involuntarily in a psychology class when during a group exercise requiring us to rate the utility of items to someone stranded on the moon, a black woman said in all seriousness that she would want a gun in case there were moonmen. I apologized after the teacher said something about recognizing cultural differences and resulting perspectives, but the Black Muslims caught wind and slipped a copy of Muhammed Speaks under my door saying, "Come the revolution, you first preacher boy." (They knew my father was a preacher and considered me a privileged white even though I told them that my old man was the second shift janitor in high school and the preacher in the local holy roller church. "You're white. You're the devil" was their response.)
Such are the fruits of racial segregation.
Is everyone here aware of the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes experiment by Jane Elliot back in the 60's? We were shown video of it as children and I see on the net that it is still being shown ( Scroll down to "Blue Eyed" ). Children are singled out for preferential treatment on the basis of something completely arbitrary: eye color. Racism emerges before your eyes. Separate treatment, even if it's looking down at your hand in disgust when you shake someone's hand, on the basis of arbitrary distinctions is indefensible. Because of its arbitrariness and separation from reason, the offender can tie anything to it. It's not like telling someone who can't do calculus that they are not allowed to be a physicist. The human mind can respond to reasonable separations. But not arbitrary ones. Down the road, at least some hatred and at least some violence is inevitable. The BNP is against marriages between races on the basis of "bloodline purity." That is actually worse than arbitrary because "bloodline purity" is genetically bad. I suppose they like the ancient Egyptian and Hawaiian systems where the children of the King or Queen were required to marry each other and have children? And check this rhetoric on the FAQ about mixed race relationships:
quote:
"we believe that all species and races of life on this planet are beautiful and must be preserved."
As if species mixing and race mixing are the same. Come on!
Churches in the UK ought to be showing "Blue Eyed" in their education rooms and anti-race rallies in addition to fighting the BNP in the polls by every means possible. Except violence.
No pickaxes, Peppone! As hard as it is, they should be fought with videos, not violence.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time
Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.
Jesus would also:
1. Take JimT off his ignore list so that JimT can give Jesus precisely the guidance for which Jesus humbly asks.
2. Make it more a personal responsibility to control his own behavior rather than to warn others that his behavior is likely to be inappropriate and that others should recognize it as such, not become inappropriate in response, and simply inform Jesus that he is (once again)...and again, behaving inappropriately.
I'm sure if Jesus puts someone on his ignore list, there is a valid reason. Though I do find it interesting that you feel you could show Jesus the error of his ways. I don't think Jesus is in error. Perhaps I am, but certainly not Jesus.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
NOTE: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I know I've been guilty of entrenched views, and probably will be again in the future. Feel free to point it out to me at any time
Forgiveness, I think is WJWD.
Jesus would also:
1. Take JimT off his ignore list so that JimT can give Jesus precisely the guidance for which Jesus humbly asks.
2. Make it more a personal responsibility to control his own behavior rather than to warn others that his behavior is likely to be inappropriate and that others should recognize it as such, not become inappropriate in response, and simply inform Jesus that he is (once again)...and again, behaving inappropriately.
I'm sure if Jesus puts someone on his ignore list, there is a valid reason. Though I do find it interesting that you feel you could show Jesus the error of his ways. I don't think Jesus is in error. Perhaps I am, but certainly not Jesus.
Hosting
More personal swipes. You boys need to stop pulling each other's pigtails.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
End Hosting
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
