“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
-- Modified on 1/5/2007 5:04:04 AM
...that he had in the '70's with a NBC weekend news anchor ("Weekend"), Lloyd Dobbins. Dobbins mentioned that he was educated at a Catholic military school, and Shalit replied: "What were they training you for, the Crusades?"
Little did Shalit know that the U.S. would celebrate the millenium by executing our own, 'War of the Cross' in Iraq.
-- Modified on 1/5/2007 6:14:54 AM
No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel, and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own.
He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.
- Hunter S. Thompson
That's the first time I've seen interesting and Gene Shalit used in the same sentence.
... And anyone else who'd care to answer:
What was "Christ" like?
This is an honest question, I'd request serious answers only...
This question transends whether he was "real" or not...
I can give a reasonable decription of what "Superman" is like, and what his various atributes were, even though he was not real, (Sorry Bizarro, Superman is NOT real, lol!) I'd think by the same reasonings that even athiests, pagans, Jews, Muslims, ect. could give a brief account of what they "think" Christ was like...
-- Modified on 1/5/2007 11:05:53 AM
I'll riddle you this: Why are there 60 gazillon sects of Christianity? What aspects of Christianity do you think appealed to Gandhi and what aspects of its followers, presumably the British in India, led him to make that remark?
If the Pagan-rooted, pompus, Imperealistic, war-mongering Brits were the only "picture" of Christians that Gaundi had, then he had every reason to reject the supposed followers of Christ.
However "Anglo-Prodestants" barely resemble a "Christian" in any sense of the word! And their history shows that they were a imperealistic, savage, brutal, blood-thirsty group of PAGANS that adopted Christianity vie it's westward push over a 600+ year migration from it's source... Thus they "Imperealized" Christianity, Spread a tainted Gospel and brought much of the misunderstandings and ritulistic practices to the faith that are often still blended into worship now!
If that were the ONLY view of Christianity that I had, I'D HATE CHRISTIANS TOO!!
I don't "blame" Gaundhi for his view, I just realize he spoke out of his "ignorance" which was "force-fed" t him rather than having a fair opportunity to evaluate the beliefs without experencing the mis-application of scriptures by one of the most pompus and self-rightous cultures ever to live on earth! (Brits!)
Why are there so many "denominational-divides" within Christianity?? Because, many "converted-cultures" prefered to maintain their old customs and "hybred" them into Christianity when they adopted the Gospel's truth into their societies.
Most all in-fighting within Christianity is based on the practice or non-practice of cultural ritual rather than disputed interpretation of the actual words of the Gospel...
Why can't we Christians all just get along? Because some will always insist that their rituals or para-scriptial protocals are equally as Holy as what is written in the Bible, then all hell breaks out when anyone with in the "body" objects... Then you compound that with mixing "Government leaders"(Kings and Queens adopting the faith) And what happens to the twisting of scripture by the "Nobles" to suit and justify their quests and and agendas and you get these HYBRED religions where the GOVERNMENT has control over the CHURCH and thus the CORUPTION of govenment spoils the PURTY of the Gospel!
Why do you suspose that the Founding Fathers were so careful to make sure that Government was limited and "seperated" from the Church?? It was so that Gov. would not be able to taint "The Message" with it's ever-shifting whims of fancy!
(Sadly Government has snuck it's finger up the ass of the Church through the evil IRS and via 801C3 policy, are now able to CONTROL what is spoken from the pulpit!!! THAT IS A DAMN ABOMINATION!!!
So far so good, except for the last paragraph. I think you mean 501(c)(3) rather than 801(c)(3). In any case if the church wishes to go forgo the nonprofit status it can say whatever it damn well pleases, can't it? However if you want the nonprofit status then you abide by the IRS regulations. It's that simple, no? The churches aren't required to be non-profits, are they?
... NOR SHOULD THEY BE TAXED!
"Seperation" mean just that, "seperated"!
How can a government "tax" a body yha it is SEPERATED from??
Churches should NOT be required to file a 801/501 or what ever the IRS wants to call it! CHURCHES have a SPECIAL right to opperate SOVEREIGNLY!
(Notice I say "Churches" and NOT "Pastors"... They are employees of the church and should pay income tax, not be given a "parsinege" to live in, but own their house and pay for it with their "SALRIES" just like the rest of us do!
There is no reason that a "Pastor/priest/Bishop/Cardnial/ect/ect should not be held to the same standards as anyone else! This would ELIMINATE all of the abuse and mis-trust that the jet-set teli-evangilests have indulged in for so many years! It's a FUCKING LOOP-HOLE just like a Nevada-corp is!!!
I disagree, if they don't want the nonprofit status then tax them just like any other individual or orginization. Why shouldn't they pay their own way just the rest of us? Let the members of the church pay the taxes rather than letting their church be some version of a corporate welfare-queen by leeching off the rest of us. And what legal basis do you have for saying that "CHURCHES have a SPECIAL right to opperate SOVEREIGNLY"?
The phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the bill of rights, nor in any other founding document..
It is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the "Danbury Baptists"... In that letter, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
The other "founder" who used the term was James Madison, who wrote; "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (Quoted from an 1811 letter to the Baptist Church.
Personally, I'd give up the churches 501c3 Tax-free status to return to the attitude of the founders reguarding their "seperation"... How can you tax or give the right to tax-free status to an organization that you have NO athority over??
Methinks you are splitting the hairs a little too fine. Depends on what "authority" you speak of. Yes, the government has some civil authority over the churches from a physical point. Nowadays they are subject, for example, to zoning laws and building codes. Pastors and their minions are not exempt from the criminal or civil code. Taxation is just another of form of civil authority. Otherwise if a church burns or is vandalized, I'm just fine with the police and fire departments sitting on their hands saying "Tough sh|t".
I don't consider it "splitting cunt-hairs" to focus on the true meaning of "seperation" of which the erosion of the founding intent has produced both a government-over-church paradox as well as opened the door to all of the abuse of 501c3 that teli-evangelists commit when they buy private-jets and gold plated grills for their fleet of RollsRoyces they bought with the "tithe & offering" of poor old farmer's widows who tooned into their weekly broadcasts!
If the "Church" were left out of government control, but the people OPERATING and ATTENDING the church were scrutenized under the law and tax-code as citizens of the US which they are, then I think it would stop much of the abuse before it starts...
If "evangilists" were not able to direct funds and use the church for their own personal candy-store, they would soon leave the church and go sell insurance or some other scam-based occupation where "shmoozing" and tugging on heart strings produces wealth...
The "church" was a unique instatution where in monies could be collected and distributed for "feeding the poor" and "care of the widow and orfan", but it has been subverted into the gawdy, circus-like "show" in which people are trapped by their emotions and give only in hope of it "prospering" them to a greater degree in return! Sad and greedy condition of the human heart...
Reguarding "building codes" and "vandalism"... God can handle those details, where's your faith?? lol!
-- Modified on 1/6/2007 9:51:28 PM
But it does make me say this about Gandhi; that he has some nerve "judging" Christ what-so-ever!
Who was Gandhi but some peacenik in a robe "protesting" for his cause... I've never really found him to be that "inspiring" to be honest... He's written some thought-provoking quotable-quotes, but so have I... And I ain't shit! LOL!
You were looking for a serious discussion were you not? Asking what Gandhi may have found admirable in Christ is not a trival question to be dismissed out of hand.
But I still owe DocGonzo 2 "serious replies" and I owe stamina4hours 1, then I'll give it some solid effort... Plus, I'll bring it to the top of the page when I do... You are right, it is a good and serious question.