Sorry for a slow response -- I've had a midterm and a programming project which needed to take first priority.
> Loving God before loving real people is the problematic point. In fact, it's the whole point of this blog post. If you re-read it in that light, you might get what I mean.
Having re-read (at least once) I'll try to restate what I think you're trying to say. In general, there are two ways to think about something: abstract and concrete. Abstract thinking looks at ideals and generalizations. Concrete thinking looks at specific things that actually happen to real people. So the danger of too much abstraction is that you lose track of the concrete. Which can lead to actions with (bad/negative/etc) concrete results. Because a person only considered them in the abstract, while they can be justified/explained in the abstract, the concrete reality is the opposite.
If that's what you were trying to say, I agree. Abstraction is only useful as long as you can still consider what actually happens, and the abstract way of thinking gives you the same conclusion. I have not seen it as a huge issue in the past though.
> You can't cherry-pick from Jesus' teachings and still call yourself a Christian-- you then may as well call yourself a "loveist" if you do that.
[.ie] This problem is often called "Cafeteria Catholicism" when people discuss it, although that term also includes the idea of picking and choosing the Church teachings that you like.
> But even if we get past that problem, you've fallen for a bait-and-switch tactic. [...] Jesus was very specific about what he thinks it means to love God, and what he thinks it means to love your neighbor. A lot of it was unhealthy.
I'd really like to ask what teachings you find unhealthy. But that will likely lead either me contradicting that (a) it's not actually a teaching, or (b) it's not unhealthy. And I hate having to say "you're completely wrong & that's a load of crap" in the middle of a discussion. Bearing that in mind, I'll ask anyway, and do my best to explain and to understand you, without having to contradict you.
> That's why Jesus put God before your neighbor. Because he's God. The cult leader always comes first. Not that this is what you vere saying, but this got me thinking along the lines of the opposite of The Moral Atheist (MA) -- the MA loves other people and in general lives a moral/good/blameless life. But the MA doesn't love God because MA denies that any such thing exists.
That's pretty simple. But the interesting side is the opposite -- the Amoral Theist (AT), who truly loves God but has no such love for other people. AT's life looks a lot like how the Atheist's life is demonized -- indifferent, callous, and generally nasty.
While I know the MA is a reality -- which makes good sense too, there's nothing about loving other people that depends on a love of God -- I can't conceive the idea of the opposite, the AT. It's simply not possible to have a genuine devotion to God, while at the same time carry around hatred & indifference for other people.
The hinging point here is the word "genuine". I have seen people who have deluded themselves into thinking what they are doing is good and is "God's will". Most of these people come from the very edges of what can even be called Christian, but their values give them away. When someone stands on the sidewalk and shouts that "God hates gays!" and "All of you are going to hell!" and tells the sinners walking by to turn away from their evil ways, it doesn't take an expert theologen to tell you that they do not act out of love, but out of hate. And hatred has no part in a genuine devotion.
On a completely unrelated note, is there a Michigan Lojbanist meeting anytime in the near future scheduled? I saw a Meet-O-Matic for January a while back, but never saw the results of it. (Rather too late for a January one anyhow.) I still have that book for you sitting on my shelf too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 11:05 pm (UTC)> Loving God before loving real people is the problematic point. In fact, it's the whole point of this blog post. If you re-read it in that light, you might get what I mean.
Having re-read (at least once) I'll try to restate what I think you're trying to say. In general, there are two ways to think about something: abstract and concrete. Abstract thinking looks at ideals and generalizations. Concrete thinking looks at specific things that actually happen to real people. So the danger of too much abstraction is that you lose track of the concrete. Which can lead to actions with (bad/negative/etc) concrete results. Because a person only considered them in the abstract, while they can be justified/explained in the abstract, the concrete reality is the opposite.
If that's what you were trying to say, I agree. Abstraction is only useful as long as you can still consider what actually happens, and the abstract way of thinking gives you the same conclusion. I have not seen it as a huge issue in the past though.
> You can't cherry-pick from Jesus' teachings and still call yourself a Christian-- you then may as well call yourself a "loveist" if you do that.
[.ie] This problem is often called "Cafeteria Catholicism" when people discuss it, although that term also includes the idea of picking and choosing the Church teachings that you like.
> But even if we get past that problem, you've fallen for a bait-and-switch tactic. [...] Jesus was very specific about what he thinks it means to love God, and what he thinks it means to love your neighbor. A lot of it was unhealthy.
I'd really like to ask what teachings you find unhealthy. But that will likely lead either me contradicting that (a) it's not actually a teaching, or (b) it's not unhealthy. And I hate having to say "you're completely wrong & that's a load of crap" in the middle of a discussion. Bearing that in mind, I'll ask anyway, and do my best to explain and to understand you, without having to contradict you.
> That's why Jesus put God before your neighbor. Because he's God. The cult leader always comes first.
Not that this is what you vere saying, but this got me thinking along the lines of the opposite of The Moral Atheist (MA) -- the MA loves other people and in general lives a moral/good/blameless life. But the MA doesn't love God because MA denies that any such thing exists.
That's pretty simple. But the interesting side is the opposite -- the Amoral Theist (AT), who truly loves God but has no such love for other people. AT's life looks a lot like how the Atheist's life is demonized -- indifferent, callous, and generally nasty.
While I know the MA is a reality -- which makes good sense too, there's nothing about loving other people that depends on a love of God -- I can't conceive the idea of the opposite, the AT. It's simply not possible to have a genuine devotion to God, while at the same time carry around hatred & indifference for other people.
The hinging point here is the word "genuine". I have seen people who have deluded themselves into thinking what they are doing is good and is "God's will". Most of these people come from the very edges of what can even be called Christian, but their values give them away. When someone stands on the sidewalk and shouts that "God hates gays!" and "All of you are going to hell!" and tells the sinners walking by to turn away from their evil ways, it doesn't take an expert theologen to tell you that they do not act out of love, but out of hate. And hatred has no part in a genuine devotion.
On a completely unrelated note, is there a Michigan Lojbanist meeting anytime in the near future scheduled? I saw a Meet-O-Matic for January a while back, but never saw the results of it. (Rather too late for a January one anyhow.) I still have that book for you sitting on my shelf too.