08 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere are some religious zealots who are deluded about control, reality, and in denial to such an extent that religion serves the purpose of their drug.
Are you telling me that you see an equivalence between fundamentalists and junkies? That, in your mind, one is as badly off as the other?
Let me give an example from a lady that I heard just last night. She went to a tiny pentecostal church. Her pastor was a loud flamboyant man who ruled this church and the congregation with such punitive authority that all decision were made by him. There was no congregational leadership. He was abusive in his demeanor. He embezzeled money, but I don't know that you could call it that since he had sole authority to make decisions for the church. If you said something he didn't like, he would say, "You need to find another church." At the end of my conversation with her I asked if he had any issues with alcohol. She said, "Oh yes, in the past, but he quit drinking about 20 years before all this."
So why would you not see parallels between his alcohol abuse and his brand of religion? We have denial. We have delusion. We have lying. We have control and cohersion.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957Mere denial, delusion, control etc. does not addiction make. Indeed, the last of these (control) is precisely what is absent in addiction.
There are some religious zealots who are deluded about control, reality, and in denial to such an extent that religion serves the purpose of their drug.
Let me give an example from a lady that I heard just last night. She went to a tiny pentecostal church. Her pastor was a loud flamboyant man who ruled this church and the congregation with such pun ...[text shortened]... igion? We have denial. We have delusion. We have lying. We have control and cohersion.
In the example you've given, the only "parallel" I see is that he appears to have moved from one extreme to the other. Even there, there is a significant difference in terms of volition.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat you are missing is that there are behaviors that go along with the substance or chemical. Recovery programs go beyond addressing the mere ingesting of the substance to deal with addiction. The behaviors, attitudes and distorted thinking are very much a part of the disease of addiction.
Mere denial, delusion, control etc. does not addiction make. Indeed, the last of these (control) is precisely what is absent in addiction.
In the example you've given, the only "parallel" I see is that he appears to have moved from one extreme to the other. Even there, there is a significant difference in terms of volition.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957How do you distinguish fanaticism from enthusiasm? Zealotry from energy?
What you are missing is that there are behaviors that go along with the substance or chemical. Recovery programs go beyond addressing the mere ingesting of the substance to deal with addiction. The behaviors, attitudes and distorted thinking are very much a part of the disease of addiction.
Or are you saying that people should be neither enthusiastic nor energetic about their religion? Or, in fact, anything at all?
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerBy all means be enthusiastic and energetic. Let me give you one example of the difference between fanaticism and enthusiasm. Let's say I am a "born-again" exercise enthusiast. I have had a heart attack and lived a not so healthy life. However, I found a new lease on life by changing my diet and exercising regularly and I find I am much happier and fulfilled in all aspects of life. I am so proud of my "new life" that I recommend others exercise as well. I find friends that I like to exercise with and this only adds to my enjoyment. I learn to pay attention to the needs of my body that I had never considered before.
How do you distinguish fanaticism from enthusiasm? Zealotry from energy?
Or are you saying that people should be neither enthusiastic nor energetic about their religion? Or, in fact, anything at all?
The fanatic has also had a health crisis and out of fear has vowed to change his life and lifestyle. He exercises every day. He finds that he is judgmental of his friends who do not exercise. His typically excerices alone as people don't like his aggressive personality. He pays little attention to his body when it is tired and needs rest. He feels the compulsion to drive harder and harder.
Do you see the difference in these two people?
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957I see a stylistic difference between the two - I'm not sure I see that much of a substantial difference.
By all means be enthusiastic and energetic. Let me give you one example of the difference between fanaticism and enthusiasm. Let's say I am a "born-again" exercise enthusiast. I have had a heart attack and lived a not so healthy life. However, I found a new lease on life by changing my diet and exercising regularly and I find I am much happier and fu ...[text shortened]... ompulsion to drive harder and harder.
Do you see the difference in these two people?
Let me explain. Both in this analogy and the case of the pastor you seem to be more concerned with the fact that they are rude/offensive than with the question of whether they are correct and whether their intentions are right. A polite falsehood is still a falsehood; a rude truth is still a truth.
Try the following two cases. Person A had a heart attack and lived a not so healthy life. However, he found a new lease on life by changing his diet and exercising regularly. He sees many former friends of his who live a lifestyle similar to the one he once led and wants to help them avoid the same mistakes he made; but, since he isn't the most, shall we say, diplomatic of persons, his comments are often interpreted as being judgmental. He knows the limits of his own body and does not push himself too hard.
Person B, likewise, had a heart attack and lived a not so healthy life; he too found a new lease on life by changing his diet and exercising regularly. While he occasionally recommends his friends to adopt a similarly healthy lifestyle, he feels that his former friends will not readily do so and decides to disassociate himself from them. He finds new friends who share his enthusiasm; together they often find themselves excercising beyond healthy limits. He is never rude nor judgmental.
Who would you say is the fanatic here? As a Christian pastor, which person displays more charity and concern for his neighbour?
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe one that " shook the dust off his feet and moved on."
I see a stylistic difference between the two - I'm not sure I see that much of a substantial difference.
Let me explain. Both in this analogy and the case of the pastor you seem to be more concerned with the fact that they are rude/offensive than with the question of whether they are correct and whether their intentions are right. A polite falsehoo ...[text shortened]... here? As a Christian pastor, which person displays more charity and concern for his neighbour?
08 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957You mean the guy who went around preaching, healing, chastising and forgiving for three years? The one who Christians believe died for our sins? Who supposedly came back from the dead and preached the gospel?
No, Jesus
Yep, great job that was of shaking the dust off one's feet and moving on.
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, he is indeed a complicated and ambiguous character at times isn't he.
You mean the guy who went around preaching, healing, chastising and forgiving for three years? The one who Christians believe died for our sins? Who supposedly came back from the dead and preached the gospel?
Yep, great job that was of shaking the dust off one's feet and moving on.