About Questions for Christians - understanding the Christian Right Midst a Preponderance of Wrong
This blog was created by Robin Supak as an attempt to understand the Christian Right’s hypocrisy on a wide range of political and social issues including war, life, death, the environment, government control, civil rights, and reproduction. Categories at the moment include death, euthanasia, the death penalty, the environment, and gun control. Robin likes to see comments that wrestle with these issues in terms of Christian ethics.
Robin writes many articles, some of which appear in her environmental blog, SAVE US NOW - an Environmental Mental Saving the World One Brain at a Time, Starting With Mine.
Robin is the married mother of two children in whom she has instilled basic environmental virtues and a strong sense of moral values based on the idea that doing good is right in and of itself.
Robin’s husband Scott Supak owns and operates Bald Mt. Press, an internet marketing company that gets his clients higher search engine ranks. Scott and Robin’s main site, supak.com free stuff, was created in 1996. They can be contacted here.
One of the problems with labels is that they tend to group us sometimes in groups in which we don’t really belong. You have narrowed the focus to the Christian Right which is helpful. In dialogues with fundamentalist Christians (another label though I think another term for Christian Right) they eventually get around to asking me if I am a Christian. A simple yes/no answer does not suffice.
Am I a Christian?
If by Christian you mean someone who believes Jesus was God incarnate, no.
If by Christian you mean someone who believes Christ’s words in the Bible are a good guide to living one’s life, yes?
If by Christian you mean someone who thinks believing in immaculate conception or walking on water or faith healing are more important than what Christ said, no.
If by Christian you mean someone who is guided by Christ’s words, yes.
If by Christian you mean someone who uses the Old Testament to guide his or her life, no.
If by Christian you mean someone who strives to love all other people as one loves one’s self, yes.
If by Christian you mean someone who can condone any aggression; one person against another, one nation against another or one religion against another, no.
If by Christian you mean someone who loves one’s self, yes.
Comment by mkm — 3/19/2005 @ 8:44 am
Here is one question I want to ask “right-wing” Christians.
Do you believe that the Bible is all “literally true”? Supposedly many right-wing Christians do. If so, how do you justify this, given the masses of literal contradictions in the Bible? And how do you reconcile it with the promotion of genocide in several places in the Old Testament?
Comment by Nathanael Nerode — 4/21/2005 @ 11:32 am
Having stumbled upon this blog as I was surfing the web, I was struck by the blatant anti-Christian tone of it, since it presupposes that Christians are at heart hypocritical.
I submit, that the exact opposite is true.
If liberals call themselves “open,” and “tolerant,” wouldn’t that also mean that they’d be open, and tolerant of other’s sincere Christian beliefs? Why the hostility? Could that mean that in fact, you secretly wish to be proven wrong?
Comment by ALFPerrin — 7/1/2006 @ 11:36 am
Dear MKM -
In case anyone is reading this, I want to note that neither you nor I can define Christianity.
That is defined by only God Himself. In order to define it to our benefit, we must break the first
commandment. He is the Lord our God, and we are forbidden to worship another, including any personal
ammendments we make to Him and His Word.
Jesus was God incarnate. He told us this many times in the Bible.
Christ’s teachings are the ONLY guide to live our lives.
True Christian’s believe all of the word of God, and that everything in it adds up (perhaps not in our minds).
Are you guided by ALL of Christ’s words, or just the ones that make you feel good?
The Bible is the authoritative word of the Almighty God. All or none.
Christ said the second most important commandment (numbers 5-10 on Moses’ tablets) was to love your neighbor as yourself. The most important is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your sould and all your strength. (this refers to commandments 1-4).
If you do not condone protecting yourself or others from the hostility of another, then you are condoning their aggression by default.
Christians do not love themselves. Self righteousness iss an oxymoron. If we were so great, what would we need Jesus for? It is our own self loathing that Christ redeems us from when we first believe.
In Him
Comment by Caniac — 8/1/2006 @ 6:59 am
Doing good is right in and of itself?
Maybe. But who defines “good”? Is that biblically defined or is it more secular?
Some on the left (see my other posts) have stated that leaving starving children to die would be
a good thing for the “earth”.
Good is too subjective. Good is interpreted by each one of us. Many share the same views on good and bad, right and wrong at a base level. Where does inate knowledge come from? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Comment by Caniac — 8/2/2006 @ 10:32 am
In a world we have to share, I think it would be fair if we define “good” secularly. After all, our constitution says you can’t shove any religion down my throat. That doesn’t mean there can’t be overlap. In fact, the left and liberals are inherently more adherent to Jesus’s teachings than the right. In fact, the “some on the left” to whom you attribute an extreme environmental position such as allowed mass death of children, are as few and far between as an anti-war Republican. It is a ridiculous position, and you should be ashamed of your attempt at stringing up all liberals with this straw-man argument.
In reality, it is the right-wing of America that seems to think it’s OK to let lots of Children die (Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Lebanon), but that’s for national security’s sake, not the “earth’s.”
Maybe we share the knowledge that it is “bad” to let children die because we got to that conclusion, regardless of the path we used to get there. There is nothing innate about ethics. We each have to reason our way through the philosophies and arguments (or in your case, theologies and denominations), and come to our own conclusions. For you to insinuate that all that comes from God is fine for you and yours, but we secularists can come to the same conclusions as you do through our own logic and reasoning.
In fact, I would argue that I can come to a less relativistic position ethically than you can. The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” Very absolute. No wiggle room for fighting Nazi’s, for collateral damage, or for killing people who are trying to kill you. My ethics allow for self-defense. That doesn’t mean I’m any more relativistic than you are. It means that I’m not bound to one over-arching rule. The bible never says a life for a life. And as for he who sheds blood, it doesn’t say that a human can shed it back. In fact, the bible states very clearly that justice is for God, not you.
So, do us all a favor. While you’re on this planet, try to get along with the people who don’t believe like you do. Let’s come to some understanding of justice. Personally, I think your religion has come to some very good conclusions on ethics. Too bad you and George Bush don’t adhere to them.
SCOTT Supak
Comment by supak.com — 8/3/2006 @ 10:27 am
Again, you want to take the subjective on your terms, which is totally one-sided. The constitution reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Furthermore, Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation. Notice that it does not use the term “separation between church and state”. That was in a letter written separate from the amendment.
The bill of rights gives me the right to fully practice my religion (although I do not believe that God likes religion). I also believe that it gives you the right not to practice as I do, or at all. It clearly gives me the right to practice as I please.
You call this “questions-for-Christians”, and that is very appropriate because you don’t want answers.
As you can imagine, but fail to accept, we all think differently. That’s what makes this all so interesting. One blatant difference is the anger that you have. You resort to name calling and removing posts you don’t agree with.
If you don’t want to have a discussion, please tell me and I will stay away.
Best
C
Comment by Caniac — 8/7/2006 @ 10:34 am
Oh, poor baby. Puleeeeze. First of all, notice that you completely dropped the argument at hand to go into some tirade about the first amendment, in which you ramble on about some convoluted reason why you should be able to establish state religions. I’ve heard all this crap before. Good luck. Once your right wing supreme court kills the establishment clause, you’ll be able to have your state religion. Move to Alabama and you could have the Alabama State Methodist Church, or the Mississippi State Baptist Church. I’m sure that will be real popular with all those other Christian denominations. Or, with all those other people who just don’t believe in Jesus. Like the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Budhists, and others who you think are going to hell.
But, back to the point. Notice how you set up another straw man without discussing the one we were on? Notice how you avoided the ethics you’re stuck with about NOT KILLING (no wiggle room on that one).
Of course we want answers. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t. I have yet to pull one of your posts. I only said I would if you keep clogging up the work with bullshit. But then, you tracked that in on your boots, didn’t you?
Scott Supak (my real name, you chicken)
Comment by supak.com — 8/8/2006 @ 8:51 am
Scott,
Signing your real name doesn’t make you any braver. Your name is all over the place, its your blog! Even a dumb red neck like me could work that one out. I will not give in to your name calling (I have grown up) and give you my real name to manipulate.
If you re-read my “tirade” (actually a well needed history lesson for you), you will note that I do not suggest that the constitution would (or should) allow establishment of a state religion. On the contrary, I do not believe that we should “force religion down your throat”. That would be pointless. Constantine made the same mistake when he “converted” his entire city to Christianity. The decision to give yourself over to Christ is a personal one. It is not about religion or denomination, it is about a relationship (which we addressed a while back). If its not your decision, it means nothing to Him. It might make some self righteous people feel better, but is an exercise in futility.
If you do not want to have that relationship, it is, in the end, your decision. If you do not beleive, then what I know will become of you at judgement day is irrelavent, isn’t it? I mean, muslims think I amd an infidel and am going to hell, but it doesn’t bother me because I know them to be wrong. The bible tells me to tell you “spread the word”, and I have.
Let’s go back to the Lord’s commandments. The one you like to address, and many english translations fail to capture, is the word “kill”. Thou shalt not kill would indeed be very absolute. No wiggle room for Nazis, child molesters, cows, cute furry animals, houseflies or broccoli. But we kill vegetables all day long, and don’t get me started on the atrocities with fruit. Have you ever been to a juicing plant?
The truest translation of the original text is actually “murder”. Exodus 20:13 (New International Version) “You shall not murder.” I believe that we have discussed this in prior posts, but “kill” and “murder” are two VERY different things. ie: You can only murder another human. Fur, biblically speaking, is not murder. Murder involves the “unlawful” killing “of one human” by another, especially with “premeditated” malice. (Blame dictionary.com for that tirade.) Self-defense is OK.
Now, when I noted that some nut jobs on the left suggest letting starving children die, I do not go on to infer that this is part of the overall ideology of the left. You, however, turn that around to suggest that all right wingers do. In fact, you blame right wingers for all the wars in the world. Good solid right wing zealots like LBJ and FDR.
C’mon, even have to see the hollowness of that statement. You can hate W for the war in Iraq, or Afganistan, or where ever, and you can hate both of us for being a Christian, but be honest with yourself. Jesus said that we would be hated by the world. I realize that now, thanks to you. All kidding aside.
Loving my neighbor as myself until your next post,
C
Oh, by the way: Clogging up the work??? Are you kidding me? There’s no one else here! Until I happened upon this site, you hadn’t had a post in months. You want us to “try to get along with the people who don’t believe like you do”. Look in the mirror.
Comment by Caniac — 8/9/2006 @ 10:24 am
Found this and thought you might find it enlightening. Great American leaders speak about the Bible:
“Here is a Book worth more than all the other books which were ever printed.” Patrick Henry
“That book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests.” Andrew Jackson - Father of the Democratic Party
“The more profoundly we study this wonderful Book, and the more closely we observe its divine precepts, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be our destiny as a nation.” William McKinley
“The best religion the world has ever known is the religion of the Bible. It builds up all that is good.” Rutherford B. Hayes
“There are a good many problems before the American people today, and before me as President, but I expect tofind the solution of those problems just in the proportion that I am faithful in the study of the Word of God.” Woodrow Wilson
“The whole inspiration of our civilization springs from the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the prophets. To read the Bible for these fundamentals is a necessity of American life.” Herbert Hoover
“I say to you, Search the Scriptures! The Bible is the book of all others, to be read at all ages, and in all conditions of human life; not to be read once or twice or thrice through, and then laid aside, but to be read in small portions of one or two chapters every day, and never to be intermitted, unless by some overruling necessity.” John Quincy Adams
“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
“I have read the Bible through many times, and now make it a practice to read it through once every year. It is a book of all others for lawyers, as well as divines; and I pity the man who cannot find in it a rich supply of thought and of rules for conduct. It fits a man for life —it prepares him for death.” Daniel Webster
Hope you are well,
C
Comment by Caniac — 10/26/2006 @ 7:03 am
And these:
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” - George Washington, 1st President
“I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” - John Adams, 2nd President
“The bible is true. Upon that sacred Volume I rest my hope of eternal salvation through the merits of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” - Andrew Jackson, 7th President
“In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.” “Now let us treat the Bible fairly. If we had a witness of the stand whose general story was true, we would believe him even when he asserted the facts of which we have no other evidence. We ought to treat the Bible with equal fairness. I decided long ago that it was less difficult to believe that the Bible was what it claimed to be than to disbelieve it.” - Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
“My advice to Sunday Schools, no matter what their denomination, is: Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this must we look as our guide in the future.” - Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President
“The more profoundly we study this wonderful Book, and the more closely we observe its divine precepts, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be our destiny as a nation.” - William McKinley, 25th President
“A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.” - Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President
“I am sorry for the men who do not read the Bible every day. I wonder why they deprive themselves of the strength and of the pleasure.” - Woodrow Wilson, 28th President
“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” - Calvin Coolidge, 30th President
“The whole inspiration of our civilization springs from the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the prophets. To read the Bible for these fundamentals is a necessity of American life.” - Herbert Hoover, 31st President
“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd President
“The Bible is endorsed by the ages. Our civilization is built upon its words. In no other book is there such a collection of inspired wisdom, reality, and hope.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34thPresident
“My views- - - are the result of a lifetime of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference of all others—” Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush On April 21, 1803
C
Comment by Caniac — 10/26/2006 @ 7:08 am
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed;”
Apparently, you weren’t really reading what you were posting, there, Braniac. The Iraq war, and more generally, the Bush Administration, is indeed a corruption of Christianity, amoung other things.
Now crawl back under your Republican rock. Time for the investigations into this corruption to begin.
Comment by supak.com — 10/27/2006 @ 7:52 am
It’s good to see you are reading this. I will note that you picked only one sentance out of several huge posts to come back. That is your opinion, and I welcome it. However, are you not able to respond to anything else? How about “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” - George Washington, 1st President
How is the Iraq War a corruption of Christianity.
Why do you have to be such a jack-ass? You and your ilk always want to “talk”, but you are incapable of having an intelligent and non-hostile conversation. Trust me, I’m a big boy and I have had alot worse than you can dish out, so my feelings are not hurt. I just have to wonder what a pile of crap your life must be for you to be so damned ornery all the time. I feel bad for you.
Comment by Caniac — 10/27/2006 @ 12:33 pm
I know, I have spelling issues…
Comment by Caniac — 10/27/2006 @ 12:34 pm
Jack-ass? Did I support a war based on lies that killed, so far, almost 3000 Americans and 600,000 Iraqis, creating a terrorist haven where there wasn’t one, and throwing what was a secular country led by a madman into chaos led by madmen? Hostile? FUCK YOU. You bet I’m hostile. Your hero, GW Bush, has ruined this country, made us hated in the world, and created more terrorist than he has killed. What a joke. You keep on posting. Between you and Rush Limpbaugh, it’ll be a wonder if Republicans ever get elected again. Ornery? Yeah, you expect me to be nice after the world of shit your beloved leader and decider and his cronies have gotten us into?
Washington was wrong. If the burn in hell bible thumpers like you are all we get in charge of the country, I guarantee we’d be better off with atheists in charge. Or at least the kind of Christians who actually follow the teachings of Christ. Can’t wait to see your heros in front of a Grand Jury…
Comment by supak.com — 10/27/2006 @ 1:15 pm
You have certainly shown yourself to be an ignorant and angry man with whom an intelligent conversation is impossible. I am sorry that I was unable to talk some sense into you. There is no anger, hostility or otherwise hard feelings here.
When my time comes I will be asked only if I truly tried.
I did.
Until then,
Caniac
Comment by Caniac — 12/13/2006 @ 2:29 pm
Well, I’ll be glad to see you go. Throughout your ignorant tirades, you have ignored my questions and provided lies as proof for yours. You ask ignorant crap like “how is the Iraq war a corruption of Christianity?” And, apparently, you’re actually serious. Just once I’d like for jerks like you to quote where Jesus said killing people is good. But, forget Jesus for a while. I can ethically argue that sometimes war is neccessary, and even good, like when we stopped the Nazis. But you have made no such argument for why the Iraq war is good. You are blindly following your lying jerk of a President, who has called me a terrorist, while you support the killilng of innocent civilians. You and your chimpanzee leader have lied at every turn. Your attempt to equate Islamist extremists with Nazis is a sad joke. You just can’t face the fact that you and your glorious leader have been wrong about EVERYTHING. So, suck it up and get lost. This country is finally on a path back to REASON and SCIENCE, and your pitiful attempts to debunk global warming with EXXON funded bullshit has been exposed for the dangerous, murderous lie it is. From the environment, to the war, to Katrina, to the deficit, to the attack on science, your glorious president has made this world a more dangerous place. Millions will die as a result. You should be ashamed of yourself. And to have the balls to call me ignorant after the display you’ve provided on these pages is the height of Hubris. Why don’t you go see what your Bible says about that…
Frankly, if someone who pays attention to the evils you and your ilk have perpetuated isn’t as angry as I am, there’s something seriously wrong with them. So long, and thanks for all the death, destruction, and deficits. We’ll clean up your mess, but you’re not allowed to play here anymore.
Comment by supak.com — 12/13/2006 @ 3:04 pm