Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Whirled Views 1.4
Good morning!
Today’s quote is from a political commentator/operative: “The Democratic Party opposes tax cuts but it cannot say so publicly. Thus, it is forced to support the idea of lowering the tax burden but using class warfare rhetoric to dispute the allocation of the relief.”
Topic: Watercooler Chatter, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top110 Comments to “Whirled Views 1.4”
Oh, it’s some conservative.
Fred Barnes?
Report comment to moderator
Good morning all. How many of you are already worn out and it is only the 4th day of the new year. I posted late yesterday about my grandmother’s funeral. She had 12 red roses for each of her children, 21 yellow for each of her grandchildren, and 34 pink for each of her great-grandchildren as her casket spray. The service ended with one of the hospice nurses singing I’ll Fly Away. It really was pretty…if you can describe a funeral that way.
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for tax cuts but I’m as much or even more for politicians willing to cut spending. (”Do we really want this done by the Fed govt? Is it constitutionally permissible??” Find me a politician who could ask and answer those questions. Frank in Phoenix you neednt reply here)
My understanding of deficit spending is the debt will be paid off by future generations.
Meaning of course if you’re for deficit spending you dang well better be AGAINST Roe v Wade since it eliminates a future generation.
Report comment to moderator
If you know any Democratic men in the Bell County Area of Texas, please have them go to meetup dotcom and join the Christian Hetero Anglo Male ProLife Democrats.
It will be a slim demographic in today’s Democratic party, but those dudes need a voice as well!
Report comment to moderator
Kim: My condolences to you. The funeral did sound lovely and very meaningful. I pray the rest of your year will be much better.
Report comment to moderator
When I realilzed I was ineligible to join La Raza Democrats, or other Hispanic political clubs I felt it necessary to form the CHAMPs
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure who said the quote, but it reminded me of an editorial article yesterday by George Will on Charlie Rangel’s take on taxes. He also wants to rearrange the system, but doesn’t want to ruin the economy. I’m not endorsing Charlie Rangel or George Will. I did think the article was interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Kim, you can describe a funeral that way. And what a lovely tribute that floral spray was to your grandmother. My condolences on her loss. I never knew either of my grandmothers, so I envy you that you did. Keep the memories close to your heart.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of interesting articles. The editorial pages of today’s Wall Street Journal have a fine piece by Michael Barone on the “16-year itch” in American politics. All kinds of interesting insights, not least reminding that voters age — we all vote in part based on our memory. People like m daughter and her husband who really have no memory of Reagan at all. Ah, aging…
Report comment to moderator
Kim, so sorry for your loss. But it does sound like it was a beautiful funeral. The death of someone we love always brings grief, but we can also celebrate their lives, their love, and our love for them. I’ve been to some very lovely funerals. What a beautiful idea those roses were!
Report comment to moderator
The quote has got to be Dick Morris, that brainy rogue! I never pass up a chance to see him interviewed. He’ll say stuff no one else will say because they have something to lose. He doesn’t, and knows a tremendous amount about both parties.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I dreamed about you last night. Since I don’t really know what you look like, I dreamed that you won a doll on the blog, and you’d learned how to use your mind to make it walk and move (like ventriolquism, only better).
It was a pretty doll with curly black hair. It sat in a chair and talked to me (in what I assume was your voice), gestured, blinked. I guess naybe it was a new and improved smiley.
And no, I don’t remember anything we talked about–just the doll, and that you were the one animating it.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
Can you give us your position regarding chemical birth control please?
Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Freaky. WV is starting to sound like a Stephen King novle.
Report comment to moderator
#14 refers to #12.
Freaky.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D 12,
Now I don’t know but it sounds to me like you need to lay off the hot chocolate before bed. To the rest of you, I have never nor do I intend ever to channel through dolls. And with that sort of response, I may never make another smiley face. Ah, the loss of yet another newly acquired talent..
Report comment to moderator
Ajisuun from yesterday WV 113,
How exciting! Though I am sure from your perspective it is more along the mundane and challenging. Do you work mostly with Africans or with expats from other countries? Are you able to see how the Lord is working in the people? Is He bringing brothers and sisters into your life to offer fellowship? Are you amazed at how He uses people in their own culture to glorify Him? I would love to hear more and I am sure others on here would as well. We have many lurkers as you once were.
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
Check out my lastest post where I show evidence that Ben Franklin believed in 1) bodily resurrection, and 2) turning water into wine at Cana. However as I note:
I show that these Founders rejected enough tenets of traditional Christianity that they arguably ceased being Christian in a meaningful sense. For instance, some of them accepted Jesus’ resurrection. But this was not of an incarnate God who atoned for man’s sin’s ascending to Heaven, but the act of a benevolent God doing for the most moral man (Jesus of Nazareth), what He may one day do for all good men, perhaps for all men.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline-
I was just on your blog to read the Iowa Caucus post. A little long for my time now, I’ll catch it later.
I noticed our friend on sabbatical visited to say hi. I guess he is still alive out on the island.
A suggestion: link to your blog from here by clicking on your user name above the comment box, then adding the URL. It would make it easier to get to you when you mention something you have posted.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I am part of a missionary team, but only 2 of us are involved in the literacy aspect of the work. I have a staff of 26 Africans who teach the literacy classes, write the books, teach in the nursery school etc.
Most of them are not Christians, so the Bible teaching is done by missionary expats primarily. We have seen some come to know the Lord and many have heard the gospel clearly. It’s a predominately Muslim country so the approach is slow and steady, live your faith before you speak it. Isn’t that the way it should be everywhere?
Right now, there are only 3 missionaries at my location. We live in a rural village. We work together, play together and worship together. We have nicknamed ourselved the “Sisters of Perpetual Togetherness”. We occasionally get out to the “big city” where there are others to fellowship with. Other than that we have each other and a handful of African believers. See why the blogging world attracts me? Anyone who wants to know more can check out my blog at http://gambiathoughts.blogspot.com/
Report comment to moderator
Whoops, ourselves not ourselved
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe:
Regarding the status of the souls of the Founders of the country:
It is very difficult to ascertain whether someone is a ‘true believer’ (however muddled their thoughts might be on particular issues on particular days during particular crises).
As far as I am aware, the only information source which would unambiguously give that data about any particular individual, whether deceased, currently operative, or not-yet-released, exists in the form of a sort of Big Book. This Big Book is reported to be located on the podium which stands just in front of the Pearly Gates. Unfortunately for you, this Book is traditionally said to be guarded by one Saint Peter. Saint Peter is a big burly fellow (ex-fisherman, you know), at least if all the medieval artists have him right, and is probably not easily intimidated (although he was once, you know, by a mere chicken, but he has since gotten over that).
Anyway, I am pretty sure that he (Peter) is not likely to be willing to let you sneak a peak at that Book, no matter how much you yearn to poke your be-spectacled nose there and scribble off some notes for your latest Journal article.
For instance, I have known some HIGHLY unorthodox Christians. One that comes to mind was an elderly and very stout lady (long since gone to her reward) who looked vaguely like Winston Churchill, except Winston Churchill was distinctly more attractive.
This lady, bless her, believed firmly, if unbiblically, that the Devil, Old Scratch himself, was a CAT that belonged to a neighbor of hers; said unfortunate cat endured no end of hot water, shoes, and umbrellas thrown at it, constant high-volume sermonizing from the back window, and occasional vigorous pummeling with a broom, if unlucky enough to be caught in her yard.
Very unorthodox. Embarrassingly unorthodox. Elders, deacons, ministers – they washed their hands of HER.
But I like to think, being a sort of optimist about such things, that when she trudged up to the Gates with her broom ready, no doubt keeping a sharp eye out for the Cat, that her name was found there in the Big Book by old Peter (who never misses a trick), and that the Gates swung open and in she popped like a cork out of a bottle. Now, I suspect that once she was in, someone would have to had taken her aside and kindly explained about the cat, etc., and she would have to lose the broom. She may have even have had to go through some remedial classes in theology, I don’t know.
Anyway.
The point being, you know, that it is a sort of exercise in futility to worry over the status of the souls of the Founders.
Now, worrying about the specific status of YOUR soul, that seems a bit more relevant, although probably not all that relevant to the more high-brow journals.
Report comment to moderator
Theselittleones (13) — I’m about to leave town, so this’ll be quick.
I could go on for pages about my ambivalence regarding contraception, but I won’t. In summary, and guessing at what your points of interest might be:
–I don’t believe that any oral or injectable contraceptive routinely causes a failure of implantation. That is, they aren’t primarily abortifacient.
–In the case of IUD’s (Mirena and Paragard), prevention of implantation is probably a significant component of their mechanism of action. The manufacturers are cagey and won’t answer direct questions about it, which makes me even more suspicious.
–Oral contraceptives are protective against cancer of the ovary and uterus. As little as two years’ use may confer a lifetime of reduced cancer risk. They also (generally) give women shorter, lighter, and more predictable periods.
–I’m totally sympathetic with the anti-contraceptive line — denying God’s blessing of children, etc. However, if you really oppose contraception, you’d better oppose Natural Family Planning, too. I know of no one who is this consistent.
–”Blessed is the man whose quiver is full. . .” doesn’t necessarily mean “have as many children as you physically can conceive.” “Full” means there is a maximum. ISTM that it’s an area of freedom, determining the capacity of your own quiver.
I gotta run, and I’ll be gone till Sunday or Monday. Email stubob214 at aol dot com if you want.
Report comment to moderator
AJISUUN,
Thank you! Somebody new to pray for. Keep us apprised of your concerns and there are several on here who will pray. Chas is on the lam for a few days but he will probably add you to his list.
Working with the Muslim community would be fascinating. Such kind people and so misled (cowife?). Your place looks beautiful. I, too, have frogs. One is in an aquarium (an African clawed frog) and one is wild and probably a toad and living under the house, we think.
Do you get mail? Do you want mail? Is it worth it to you or do you have to work too hard to get it and end up paying customs on packages? Does your name on here have some meaning?
Report comment to moderator
Just curious…how many WoW readers are also Perez Hilton readers?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Drill.
Report comment to moderator
Janie wins again! Dick Morris is correct. Please enjoy your digital hot chocolate…
~@)
Report comment to moderator
How do we get to Pauline’s blog???
Report comment to moderator
Pauline’s blog:
http://paulinege.wordpress.com
Report comment to moderator
Note for KRM: a while back you asked me about the world junior championship. You can watch it on broadband http://www.tsn.ca Or if you are close to the border try CBC radio, on TV its the cable network TSN. Right now its the semi-finals Canada vs USA 2-0 for the good guys in the third period.
Report comment to moderator
Why thank you for that Drill. As far as I can tell my soul is doing just fine. I can’t imagine St. Peter not letting a nice guy like me through. But if he doesn’t I’ll share a drink with America’s first 4 Presidents, Ben Franklin, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, John Lennon, Jerry Garcia and everyone else who died not a born-again orthodox Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Well I can’t resist: final score 4 – 1 for Canada
Report comment to moderator
hrw – Thanks for the reference (I am too far away to get any CBC).
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, drill. A very pertinent reminder that the status of our own soul is the only one we can affect or experience assurance about one way or the other.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: Well, I admire you for being a nice guy. That is certainly relevant, I think, to your everyday life, and I salute your inherent niceness, and am always happy to know about such inherent niceness in other people, suffering as I do from a somewhat chronic shortage of it (niceness) in my own nature, sometimes, lamentably.
However, I am not so sure about the sufficiency of niceness, when it comes to the Creator of All Things. Sufficiency in that forum may have more to do with the true and final desire of your heart, rather than how many old ladies you escorted across the street or how many times you said ‘please’ and ‘thank-you’ or how many journal articles you published or whether or not you always took regular showers and washed your hands after using the restroom or never pulled any pigtails or kissed the wrong kind of girls or unfortunate stuff like that.
The thief on the Cross comes to mind. Arguably not a nice guy, up to the bitter end.
Finally I am not sure of the present whereabouts of ANY of the individuals you list (see my first post), nor of their present inclination for having drinks with you, or with anyone else.
They may be too occupied with the business of Paradise for all I know (although I would be somewhat startled, but not displeased, if that were true for a couple of them you mentioned.)
Or perhaps they may be too busy trying to avoid the inevitable and unpleasantly intense attentions of Old Scratch.
But – from your last post, I take it you think you have an inside line on knowing who is and who is not a born-again Christian. Exactly who is your informant for that sort of knowledge? Pray tell those of us less well-connected.
Report comment to moderator
And that, dear friends, is why we need not fear that the departed Random and newly returned Drill are one and the same.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I do the best I can with the historical record. Absent evidence of a born-again confession I assume they weren’t, though in reality who knows. Alexander Hamilton evinces such shortly before his death (though not during the years he was active as a founder). Ditto with John Marshall. But not the others.
Whatever bad I’ve done I’ll take responsibility for knowing they are my OWN sins (not Adams’ for whose sins I am NOT reponsible) and accept whatever punishment I deserve. We all have an inchoate sense of justice and know when the punishment exceed the crime or when someone gets off too easy. If I stole a lolly pop I might deserve to spend a night in jail (if that) pay a small fine, do community service. I certainly don’t deserve execution, to have my hand chopped off or to be waterboarded for that. Any judge who would impose such we would rightly call a tyrant.
You also have to consider that some folks deserve no punishment in the afterlife for their sins on earth because they are punished on earth for them. For instance, if I robbed a bank and got away with it, I’d expect God to punish me for it. However if I got caught and served 20 years in prison I’d look God straight in the eye and answer I PAID the price IN FULL for that one.
Some folks suffer (or pay a price) that goes beyond what they’ve sinned on Earth. The ICU for instance. You should consider there are some folks (not saying that I’m one of them) who God OWES big time when they die. Those starving Africans with flies flying around their face and the bloated gas bellies, many of them should they live long enough get killed in tribal warfare. I’d imagine when they die — whatever their religion — God will thank them for their undeserved suffering and reward them with what they deserve.
This is cosmic justice. Don’t you believe in cosmic justice?
My sins are finite and whatever temporary punishment I might deserve after balacing what I’ve already paid on Earth I will accept with humilty.
Report comment to moderator
#19
Thanks for the suggestion, Peter. I had forgotten that I had a different wordpress profile here than at my own blog.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe:
You ASSUME? I may ASSUME that I am the spawn of alien bugs from the 34th dimension, but what does that mean in terms of what is really true or – false?
The truest thing you have said, however, then followed: ‘Though in reality, who knows?” Exactly my question to you, due to your incessant and compulsive categorizing of men dead two centuries and more as ‘born-again’ or ‘not born-again’. Mostly ‘not born-again’, as it seems to fit your world-view better.
You have a relentlessly Pharisaical view of sin, i.e. you seem to view the accounting of sin as a sort of ledger-type activity, presided over by a grim-faced and implacable Accountant-God.
However, I don’t think the curse of sin – or the lifting of the curse of sin – is in ‘something you do’, or ‘something you don’t do’, for all that matters.
Sin, as I have tried to state, is rooted in the heart and in the intentions and in the desires and intentions of your heart. With all the superficial stuff stripped away, including the desires and distractions of your life, what is it that you really desire? When your ego (better and more accurately your soul) is laid bare (and I think it will be for all of us, one day), when all the window-dressing and the pretend junk are ripped away, what exactly does it (your soul, the essence of who you really are under all the extraneous ego-stuff) strain after? What, or better – Whom – do you REALLY desire?
You speak of judgments and punishments as though the very essence of the Creator and the warp and woof of His relationship with us men and women is a matter of petty moral transactions, like buying and selling acts of ‘niceness’ and ‘not-niceness’ and then laboriously toting up the budget at the end of the day. What kind of God would THAT be? Not mine, I can assure you.
We have NO transactions with God, in that sense. Indeed, there was a ‘transaction’ beyond yours – or mine – imagining or understanding that took place at the Cross – and in the Tomb. That was a ‘transaction’, if we stoop so low to call it that, that spanned more dimensions and infinities and eternities and absolutes than we will ever know. I suspect.
And I don’t know about human (or other creatures) suffering and pathos or exactly how or why God ‘allows it’ or even ‘causes it’ or exactly how He sorts out things at the end of the play. I have to trust that He will, because He is who He is. I chafe at what I see, which I should. As you do as well, apparently.
But those questions (and others equally hard) have been debated a long, long time by much better people than I. I can only tell you that your need will either become greater than your questions, or it won’t.
Report comment to moderator
KRM — Tomorrow bronze medal game 10:00AM EST USA vs Russia, Gold medal to follow Sweden vs Canada. All games on http://www.tsn.ca The games are in Prague hence the early start.
Report comment to moderator
I stand amazed…
Report comment to moderator
And Mumsee, I think we are quite mistaken in thinking Drill is Random. Unless Random, or Drill is some rare person who can imitate a persona from both sides of an issue as it were. Although I must say, Random displayed a grasp of the opposing side quite well….
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Random gave the appearance of having a grasp, but it was only an illusion. Part of the happy mediator persona. Wisdom is found in knowing God, not in trying to understand the other side so as to give the impression of being evenhanded.
Drill knows that of which he speaks and presents it clearly and well.
Report comment to moderator
I will never believe that Drill is Random!
Random could never have written that story about the Aerostar.
Report comment to moderator
Well a God who would burn everyone in Hell simply for being born of the sins of another man (and indeed a God who burns folks for flunking his theological exam, i.e., dying without having figured out the “right” answer) is far more ridiculous concept than the one I offered.
Sorry there is not a soul that ever lived who deserves eternal punishment or misery. Even Hitler’s sins were finite. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a moral fact.
As for appeal to a theologian I guess Paul McCartney will do. “And in the end….” I think you know how the rest of it goes.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, when 20,000 people die from a tsunami, we don’t question it. God had a reason for letting all those innocent babies die, and we have no business asking Her about it. Our job as human beings is to smile and say “Thank you God! May we have another?”.
Not.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
‘Hell’ does not exist as a physical place – scripturally speaking, it is spiritual isolation from God.
Anlir,
I suggest that God does not ‘micro-manage’ the earth. According to the Bible, he gave us up to our own devices long ago – the existence of natural evil is the result of the ‘withdrawal’ of God’s protection. We made our beds, so to speak, and now we must lie in them and nature will take its course. But the Bible also states that it won’t be forever…
Report comment to moderator
Vynette. Dream and hope on. Meanwhile consider Pascal’s wager.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt
How is Pascal’s Wager relevant to my comment #46?
Report comment to moderator
Drill:
Your posts in this thread should be printed, and framed.
I don’t think that it could be said any better.
Report comment to moderator
Usually I don’t read Jon Rowe or the responses, but Drill is the best at answering him. Jon Rowe’s responses to Drill actually make Jon seem human.
A plea to everybody: Next time J. Rowe posits his theories, let drill answer.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that God does not ‘micro-manage’ the earth.
Vynette,
How do you know? The Bible says he deliberately flooded the earth. And I recall correctly, he made the earth (sun) stand still one time. He sent locusts and all sorts of other plagues on Egypt. He damned up the Red Sea so people could cross over. He rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gamorrah (sp?), and He caused a storm to throw Jonah overboard. He seems pretty intimately involved in the earth/nature to me.
Report comment to moderator
I love internet poker!
I’ve been getting away from the tournaments lately and playing regular cash games. An hour ago I sat down at a table where the blinds are .50/1.00, so the pots can get pretty big. Brought $100 to the table (the table maximum), and after an hour I was down to about $50. Couldn’t catch a card. When I did catch a card, the other guy had better ones. I was about to call it a night when I was dealt a pair of tens in the pocket. Bet $3, got a few callers, and the flop was 10/2/6! I had a set. I was first to act, and I checked. The other two guys bet big, and I raised them all in! One folded, one called, and my set of 10s held up. And, on the very next hand, I was dealt pocket queens! The third best of 169 starting hands. Played it the exact same way, and got me a third queen on the flop! I pulled the same checkraise move, and they fell for it again. My set of queens held up, and in 2 hands I went from $50 to $150.
And these are tourney chips – this is real, cash money. It was wild enough getting pocket 10s and making a set, but when I got Siegfried and Roy on the very next hand, and hit my set again, I was starting to think somebody up there likes me!
Report comment to moderator
Should be:
And these are NOT tourney chips – this is real, cash money.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train I am a horrible gambler. I was once at a video poker machine when someone had to walk away and asked me to play for them until they got back. I went from 50 something to 0 in no time flat. So I will stick with Will Rogers that the best way to double your money is fold it in half and put it in your pocket.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry there is not a soul that ever lived who deserves eternal punishment or misery. Even Hitler’s sins were finite. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a moral fact.
Jon, this is the second time that I can remember where you actually “defend” Hitler. Be careful; folks might start to think ill of you!
A couple of observations. First, you have demonstrated either a poor understanding of Christianity, or you are deliberately trying to introduce a fallacy by stating “God .. burns folks for flunking his theological exam”. No one has suggested such. Secondly, you have demonstrated a low view of the nature of sin and, consequently a low view of the nature (specifically, the holiness) of God. Sinning against one’s Creator does not consist of tiny infractions that one can personally atone for. Even a cursory reading of the Bible should make this clear.
Of course, if you reject the Bible, then you actually demonstrate the real problem. If the Bible is what it says it is (the Word of God), then you are rejecting that revelation, which, by consequence, means you are rejecting God. That act of rebellion, you understand, is no small matter. It has been called (not original with me) “cosmic treason,” and that is a fair assessment. I’m sure you would agree that any monarch or government that failed to punish a treasonous individual was corrupt. The problem is that you have moved the transgression from the earthly realm to a universal, spiritual, even infinite one, since the act of rebellion is against an infinite Being.
I am also confused by your use of the phrase “moral fact.” Where does this “moral fact” come from? If it comes from individuals, it is meaningless. If it comes from societies, then it is likewise meaningless, since societies do not agree and, interestingly enough, are composed of individuals. If it comes from God, then you have a problem, since you are opposed to God. In essence, you are indicting yourself by your own statement, and proving what Drill (and others) have sought to explain to you.
You also use the term “cosmic justice” (kind of goes well with cosmic treason, no?). I like the term, but I think you are all wrong in its use (because of the misunderstanding of sin and God mentioned above). Cosmic justice would be something along the lines of God obliterating humanity for daring to sin against Him. That would be just. He would not owe them anything, and justice would served because the crime had been punished. Furthermore, because of the seriousness of the crime (it would be, in essence, the worst crime that could be conceived, it would seem), it would be difficult to judge (if one of the rebel criminals had to audacity to do that!) the punishment as unjust or excessive (and just where do these concepts of just and unjust come from anyway?). If God saw fit to withhold said judgment, even just for a few minutes or a few thousand years, that would be merciful. And if the same being actually sacrificed Himself in place of the lawbreakers and took their punishment upon Himself (while standing righteous in their place), then this would exceed all human understanding of moral excellence, it would seem.
The judgment is just and deserved. The pardon is undeserved and gracious. A 19th century minister named Charles MacIlvaine often asked the question, “Have you fled to Christ and have you trusted in Him as all your refuge and righteousness?” That is the question that all of us need to ask ourselves and others daily.
Just don’t go about defending Hitler daily in the process.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, poker involves luck, but it also involves a great deal of skill, so it really isn’t gambling, at least not in the same way that playing craps and roulette and buying lottery tickets are.
I don’t know anything about video poker.
And poker players know better than to believe in luck. They know they should play their cards and the averages. But after someone goes on a big winning streak, they get scared. You should see my table now. I can play any two cards, and then, no matter what comes down on the flop, place a bet the size of the flop, and they all fold! I’m stealing pots left and right. They’re all scared to mess with me after those big hands.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, this is the second time that I can remember where you actually “defend” Hitler.
What a disgusting load o crap, TJ. Jon didn’t defend Hitler at all, nor “defend” him, and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself for having to resort to garbage like that.
Report comment to moderator
You might want to back off there a bit, NT. You don’t even know the context of that comment. It dates back to a previous discussion I had with Jon, where I commented that given a subjective view of morality, Hitler might actually have been right. Jon, without a whole lot of qualification, agreed.
But, now that I think about it, you should know this, since I actually remember you commenting on that thread. Besides, I was only half serious, as my used of the “” and the emot-icon should make clear. Besides, I’m not the one who raised the Hitler card.
Report comment to moderator
But, now that I think about it, you should know this, since I actually remember you commenting on that thread.
I think you’ve mistaken me for someone else. I don’t recall taking part in any such discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Here is the previous discussion I had with Jon, from the Whirled Views thread on December 15, a thread which you, NT, actually posted on after the exchange.
I wrote: “There is also a “chronological problem” inherent in [the idea of the evolution of morality]: it would mean that an immoral institution would have to have been morally acceptable at one time. By this logic, in the right time and place, Hitler might have been a saint.
”
Jon replies: “If all truth is historically determined, as many philosophers think, then indeed, this might be the case. Doesn’t sound pleasant. But the Truth isn’t necessarily pleasant.”
To which I reply: “But, if someone wants to argue that … Hitler might have been a saint, I’m not going to stand in his way. That speaks better than anything I could possibly say.
”
As the smiley faces indicate, I was ribbing him a bit, as I was above. But the quotes do speak for themselves. I don’t actually think that Jon believes Hitler was “saint” for an instant, but I was just trying to demonstrate inconsistencies in his worldview.
One thing I have always admired about Jon is that even he and I disagree on a great many things, he has never been anything less that friendly toward me. Sometimes, when a certain rapport is established, people can take cordial liberties with one another. But certainly it would be beneath him to suddenly start posting using phrases like “disgusting load o crap” and “garbage.”
Report comment to moderator
Oh, you poor thing. I had no idea you were so very sensitive. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
And, BTW, posting on a thread, a Whirled Views thread at that, that’s over two weeks old, hardly means a person read every single post or discussion on there.
Report comment to moderator
But you read enough to actually comment on our discussion. I’m sorry you didn’t remember it.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette – 46
God went on vacation?
God knows what is going on here. What Scripture do you have to prove that he doesn’t observe every single thing we do?
Report comment to moderator
I commented on your ignorant and tendentious claims about slavery and the Bible. I didn’t even notice, nor have any interest in, you talking Hitler.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, more insults I see. Not always the best form of argument.
But, what you have demonstrate, more than once now, is that you prefer to comment without actually reading everything that has been posted. Not a good tactic, I’m afraid.
Report comment to moderator
LOL, TJ has NT by the tail and is spinning him around and around and around . . .
Report comment to moderator
Night Train,
It’s amazing how much you remind me of my brother! This is not going with you might think it is.
I love my brother. Oh, he’s a Christian. I mean, he’s a true believer in Christ. I know you are not but other similarities abound.
He loves poker. Well, he did. He hasn’t mentioned it in awhile, but he really was into it some time ago. We would have talks about gambling. He would defend his love for the game, of course, and say that it’s not gambling since it takes skill to win and he was thereby just earning wages. Not any different than being an athlete, was his comparison. I think I can understand why my brother would not want to view poker as gambling. He’s a Christian, after all. I commend you for saying that poker involves “luck”. Very good. Maybe you’re not that similar to my brother after all.
He does seem to have a lot of Bible knowledge and that really reminds me of you.
I’m not really sure how prideful he is, however, because he does admit that he can be prideful, especially when we are discussing biblical issues and he tells me that his grasp of doctrine is far superior to mine.
Thinking about it some more…maybe it’s not pride. I know it! It’s cockiness! That’s why I like you, Night Train!
Seriously, I really do. I believe that the fact that you post here must mean something. I’d like to believe that God is tugging at your heart. Or I could be wrong. He could just be making us more patient.
Report comment to moderator
NT,
Thanks. Not only did I not defend Hitler today, but I also didn’t defend him in the Dec. 15 thread either. I was actually using Hitler as a reductio ad absurdum. I am positing arguendo Hitler as great an example of evil that one can muster to make the point (even though Stalin and Mao killed more in terms of number of millions).
On today’s thread I accurately pointed out that as evil as Hitler was (or Stalin, Mao) his sins are finite and he doesn’t deserve eternal damnation (nor do Stalin or Mao). Considering what they’ve done, those three certainly deserve greater punishment than anyone other human being, but even they don’t deserve eternal damnation. One problem with the traditional Christian view of Hell is that it is a form of moral relativism. It relativizes sin such that the simple stealing of a lollipop by a child merits the same eternal damnation that the slaughter of millions by Hitler does. Indeed, Hitler, Stalin or Mao could have a deathbed conversion — a “born again” experience and be in Heaven according to this theory, while good people who happen to not be Christians like Ghandi burn in Hell forever.
Report comment to moderator
Once you realize that there are no “good” people, you will begin to see God’s grace.
Report comment to moderator
theselittleones – 70
There are good people, Jesus spoke about them, about their hearts, and the treausre they bring forth from their heart.
An evil man brings evil treasure forth.
Thonk about it!
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Matthew 12 :35
Report comment to moderator
TJ also deliberately distorted or misunderstood the point I made during the Dec. 15 thread. The Bible simply does not outright forbid slavery or genocide as universal moral wrongs. Indeed, God commands in certain passages in the Bible both genocide and slavery — not as a form of indentured servitude (that’s the form that God permits Jews to practice on Jews) but outright buying and selling of other human beings — Jews treating non-Jews as property just as was done in America until 1865. And no, American slavery was not a form of “man-stealing.” Man-stealing was illegal according to American and Western European slavery law. Western Europeans legally bought slaves in Africa who were usually in that position as the result of being losers in tribal warfare. If Westerners kidnapped free humans from Africa, they violated legal regulations of the slave trade. The same rationalization used for biblical slavery — it was either that or death — could also have been used to justify the position of the African slaves the Western Europeans bought (they’d either be killed or enslaved; as slaves at least they were alive; and hey Western slave masters provided food and shelter for their slaves from cradle to grave; some scholars have argued African slaves had more economic gaurantees as slaves than they would have had as free blacks living in non-civilized Africa. See for instance, the book “Time on a Cross”).
I simply pointed out that if we believe slavery and genocide always wrong, every time, every where, such a moral norm does NOT come from the Bible, parts of which clearly endorse those practices.
One has only two other places to construct a moral argument against slavery (or anything else) 1) “Reason” or looking to “Nature” for some sort of immutable moral norm apparent to every man, everywhere, every time, unaided by biblical revelation (this is also known as “the natural law”) or 2) “History” where truth is historically determined. And such conventional historically determined morality can be as simple as what a majority of folks believes at any particular time and place.
The context which TJ either didn’t understand or refuses to share today with the Hitler quote was I pondered what serious philosophers ponder that Truth really is historically determined or what a consensus of folks at a particular time and place determine as moral truth. Accordingly, slavery could be moral one day, but immoral years later (indeed for a thousand and some hundred odd years Christians thought slavery was just fine and only at a particular period around 1600 or so did Christians begin to even question the morality of slavery).
Now, “History” might not be a satisfactory basis to argue against the universal immorality of slavery or genocide (and indeed, the Hitler/ reductio ad absurdum example I used shows such a historicist/nihilist understanding of reality can justify anything) but neither is the Bible sufficient to argue the universal immorality of slavery and genocide, because the good book, in certain passages, approves both practices which today we regard as universally wrong, everywhere everytime.
To tie this back to ETERNITY. The “historicism” view of truth/morality is usually posited by atheists. They would argue (after Nietzsche) just because you don’t like the RESULTS of such reality (i.e., if God doesn’t exist, anything is possible) doesn’t make it UNTRUE; it just makes the TRUTH unpleasent. Just wishing God or the natural law into existence won’t make it so. But this is exactly what you do, the atheist philosophers would note: You make up religious myths to make yourselves feel better.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
Do you believe ’slavery’ to be of God from the NEW Testament- If you do, please give me Scripture where slavery is of the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
“Slaves, obey … your earthly masters” (Col. 3:22).
Note also when Paul said “for freedom Christ has set us free … do not submit to the yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1) he was not contradicting himself. When Paul spoke of “inner freedom” he meant, as Dr. Robert Kraynak of Colgate University explains, “freedom of the soul from sinful desires–rather than ‘external freedom’–the freedom from external political controls, including the controls of a repressive state or the institution of slavery. Thus, when St. Paul spoke of Christian freedom, he meant inner freedom, not the external freedom from the state protected by natural rights.”
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT04C02
Jesus did not abolish one social institution: Not slavery, not tyranical govt. Whatever was Jesus’ mission, it was not as a social revolutionary.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, why don’t you save everyone a lot of time and trouble and show us in the New Testament where it says it’s a sin to own another human being. Not “manstealing”, but owning slaves.
You can’t do it. There’s nothing like that in Old Testament or the New Testament.
Report comment to moderator
My #70 post is in direct reference to #69 “while good people who happen to not be Christians like Ghandi burn in Hell forever.”
Report comment to moderator
TLO,
Cool. I’m glad I remind you of your brother.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
When I arrived in West Africa, I was named after an older woman in the village. So Aji Suun is part of my African name. The Aji refers to someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca. I obviously haven’t, but the woman that I was named after did, so I inherit the title Aji as part of my name. I also “inherit” her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, all referring to me as their mother or grandmother. She was the matriarch of the village, so by default I have some impressive family connections.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t mind me, just playing while the rest of you sleep.
Report comment to moderator
Nope, didn’t work. Back to the drawing board.
Report comment to moderator
John Rowe wrote: “Jesus did not abolish one social institution: Not slavery, not tyranical govt. Whatever was Jesus’ mission, it was not as a social revolutionary.”
I agree with this 100% which is why I always say that the “social gospel” misses the point of the Gospel. It’s not about politics in any way, shape or form.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Jon, my whole point of posting on that December 15 thread was because of a quote you posted that refused to distinguish between forms of slavery (a sweeping generalization fallacy). Also, you claimed that it was only until the time of the Quakers that Christians opposed slavery, which is historically wrong. I gave sources, both to address the historical error and the errors on slavery, but it seems that no follow up was done. That is disappointing.
But, I am glad there is the desire to distance oneself from the sins of Hitler. That is good. But one wonders why this is done. Accordingly, we only need to muster up just over 50% of the population to declare Hitler to be right in order to turn his immorality into morality. Perhaps you only need to wait a while and see what the winds of popularity deem to be moral (it’s bad, it’s good, oh, I see it’s bad once again!). Of course, this is absurd (not to mention the ad populum fallacy applied to ethics), but it is position that those who have no moral basis (other what society tells us) wish to believe, and you are defending them. It is pure subjectivism, whichever scale, and it ends in meaninglessness.
Report comment to moderator
AJISUUN,
Now that I have read your blog, (and your husband is cute), I have learned a lot of the answers to my questions. You give a clear picture of a lot of aspects of your life there and I appreciate that. You must be working on your little picture thing. Have fun. Some have suffered long and hard at it while for others it was a snap.
Report comment to moderator
Although this might have little to do with the subject at hand, I try saying it anyway.
When Onesimus became a Christian Paul sent him back to Philemon and asked him to receive Onesimus as a brother, rather than as a slave.
Whether or not that is against slavery I am not going to say, although mostly in the Bible where there were slaves of the Jews, they were voluntary to pay off a debt, and they would be released after 7 years.
Report comment to moderator
#71 Victoria, “there are none righteous, no, not one. When the Bible speaks of good people, perhaps it is speaking of the believers, because God sees his Son’s righteousness, since “our righteousness is as filthy rags.”
Report comment to moderator
John Rowe:
You could not be more wrong about moral issues such as slavery, etc. in regards to Christ. You need to actually read what Christ says – and what He did and how He lived: He says that if you love Him, you will do as He commands. He commands that we love one another and give our lives for one another; that we are servants to each other; that we are to be like Him. This teaching is completely and inarguably incompatible and totally antithetical with slavery or bondage (physical, mental, or spiritual) between humans in any form. In other words, a Christian who owned or supported slaves was simply not living the creed, at least in that area of his or her life. However, humans, Christians and non-Christians alike, often manage to convince themselves of many things, not least being that they are ‘okay’ when they really are not. That was true two thousand years ago and it is true today. You blame the Standard when people fail to hold to the Standard? That is useless and unproductive, both presently and ultimately.
In any event, attempting to avoid the central question regarding YOUR relationship with your Creator because you are unable to understand apparent contradictions and present anomalies (bad things happening in Africa, etc.), is regrettable – we (you and I) have brains contained in coconut-sized skulls and are and will be inherently UNABLE to fathom the complexities of a struggle between absolute Good and absolute Evil within the reality of infinite-dimensional, out-of-time-and-space ‘What Really Is’. We are not called to understand everything, nor to right everything – just what we can.
The other thing is that Christ did not, as you said yourself, come as a social revolutionary. Christ thought and thinks in terms of eternity. If we are immortal spiritual beings, this life is just a gnat’s eyelash, measured against eternity. Less than that. Infinitely less.
So He came to address the issue, to break the back, of your and my spiritual bondage to evil, to sin, to Death, to anti-Joy, to soul-eating Ego. He was in that sense the true Wilberforce of the Ages.
Your body and your brain will eventually die and rot, and return to dirt to feed the grass. Your spirit/soul will not. Which of the three, then, is more important?
Report comment to moderator
Still following up. Let me note that the consensus among historians is that the Quakers were the first group to challenge the institution. Your pre-Quaker sources might be accurate but it is a revisionist claim. Not that “revisionism,” is necessarily a bad word. It simply means that new facts or understandings are uncovered that change the way historians view things.
I do know this — whatever the accuaracy of the pre-Quaker anti-slavers — they were likely dissident forces within Christendom and if I dug up the official position of Christian leaders from all of the Popes to Luther to Calvin, etc. on slavery I’d imagine I’d find they all supported chattel slavery.
Report comment to moderator
It should be an easy matter to find that slavery was virtually eradicated in much of Western Europe around the turn of the first millenium. Have you considered that your sources might be guilty of revisionism.
Actually, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. One form of slavery was nearly eradicated in Europe, but another form arose (primarily with the Spaniards and Portuguese and then mainly because of Islamic influences), and then the Quakers were the first to resist (perhaps in American at least) after the “rebirth” of the practice. This seems far more likely.
Feel free to research away. You might be surprised by what you find. For instance, many popes began protesting this new resurgence of slavery as early as the fifteenth century (this, I believe, would have preceded the Quakers, btw). In 1639, for instance, Pope Urban VIII condemned slavery absolutely. In the 18th century, Pope Clement XI demanded an end to slavery. That’s just two cases I could find rather quickly. So, it would seem, the assumption that all supported chattel slavery is erroneous.
Report comment to moderator
“Revisionism” isn’t something that one is necessarily “guilty” of. There is good revisionism and bad revisionism. The “all” referred to every pope and religious leader before the movement the Quakers started.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
“If we are immortal spiritual beings, this life is just a gnat’s eyelash, measured against eternity. Less than that. Infinitely less”
Humans are not “immortal” spirit beings. God alone has “immortality.”
Report comment to moderator
The “all” referred to every pope and religious leader before the movement the Quakers started.
Since the Quakers were not founded until 1660, your “all” would, therefore, be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Vynette: Semantics, I suppose. Our souls are eternal, as I understand it, in other words will exist forever. They do not die in the sense that they do not cease to exist. I suppose they have a beginning (when God breaths life into the being) but not a end. Where they spend eternity is yet another thing. I was using the word ‘immortal’ in that sense. ‘Immortal’ as in not having an end. But you are correct, I think, insomuch as we are generally considered ‘mortal’ and the definition of ‘immortal’ is reserved for God (or in other religions, gods).
Do you disagree with that?
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I suppose it’s a fine point whether it is appropriate to say that souls that live forever are immortal or not, but I did have a theology professor who challenged that view based on his understanding of the Bible and what it teaches about us and God.
I had learned as a child that souls are immortal (not “taught” that exactly but everyone just kind of “knew” it to be so; I don’t think anyone ever addressed whether they had a beginning or not), and it wasn’t really questioned at the fundamentalist church I started attending as a teenager. (Though I did find out there than angels were not people who had died, which I had grown up thinking also.)
This professor, however, considered immortality to be an inherent quality of God, and not of any being God has created. He taught us, based on Hebrews 1:3 “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact represnentation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word,” that the entire creation depends from moment to moment on God to continually sustain it. If God for one moment stopped sustaining it, all creation would blink out of existence.
Thus, he told us, even throughout eternity, though we will live forever, it will still be a life that depends wholly on God. The result may be the same as if our souls are considered immortal, but he felt that it was important to always remember than only God is self-existent.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
It might help (your claims might be more convincing) if instead of just asserting a fact you also link to reputable primary source.
Your claims may be right, but they are revisionist. That is, the consensus among historians was that such institution was accepted as “moral” by Western Christian society and everywhere else until sometime around the late 1600s. And even then, with the movement the Quakers started, they were dissidents such that it wasn’t until the 1700s that a sizable number of folks became anti-slavery. (Again, your sources that predate the Quakers may be accurate; but I get the feeling that they were less than dissidents but lone voices in the wilderness.)
There may be much to disagree with the following article by Michael Medved, but his first point accurately represents the general consensus among historians who have studied the issue.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery
Report comment to moderator
The problem, Jon, is that I did give you at least two sources back in December. One was a book that you should be able to get through your local library; the other was a link that you apparently didn’t bother to investigate (this is why I used the word “disappointing” earlier). If you had, you would have found this quote, taken from the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, vol 4 (emphasis is mine):
“Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term “Slavery” is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films…From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features…In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom…”
As far as the Medved article goes, he is talking about the existence of New World slavery and the antiquity of the slave practice, which is not really a dispute. However, if you read the entire article, you would have found him make this comment: “As early as 1646, the Puritan founders of New England expressed their revulsion at the enslavement of their fellow children of God. When magistrates in Massachusetts discovered that some of their citizens had raided an African village and violently seized two natives to bring them across the Atlantic for sale in the New World, the General Court condemned “this haynos and crying sinn of man-stealing.” The officials promptly ordered the two blacks returned to their native land.”
1646…and the Quakers were not founded until 1660. Since this was an official action of the Puritan colony, the “lone voices” comment does not carry much weight. That Quaker argument is still not holding, even from the sources you provided yourself.
The book I referenced back in December is Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870. The webpage I linked back in December is here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Report comment to moderator
Here is another article dealing with the issue of slavery in the Bible: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/368
Even Wikipedia, in its article on slavery, acknowledges the end of slavery in Western Europe before it’s later revival:
“In the West, slavery ended during the Medieval period, only to be revived after the Renaissance and its appreciation of the organization of classical society (i.e. ancient Greece and Rome).”
Source: Regine Pernoud, Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths trans. Anne English Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), pp. 85-96
And here’s another quote, relevant to the discussion:
“But, you might say, medieval Europe was not a free society, was it? What about the serfs and oppressed peasants? True enough, but the Romans thought of their slaves as animals. The Roman slave-owner had absolute power over his slaves and could torture them to death for the fun of it if he wished, without anyone suggesting that he was doing something wrong. In medieval society, every man and woman was regarded as a unique creation of God and as the possessor of a soul which was the gift of God. Throughout the medieval period, people became more and more convinced that slavery was evil and against divine law. The passage from the gospel according the St Matthew was often quoted: The laborer is worthy of his hire, which people understood to mean that work had to be purchased, not simply taken away from an individual. By the close of the Middle Ages, slavery had virtually vanished from Western Europe.”
http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/nelson/medieval_achievements.html
Report comment to moderator
Pauline:
I think you (and Vynette’s observation) are correct, technically from the theological standpoint; your professor no doubt had it right, from the standpoint of theological terminology.
However, I will have to backtrack and say (rereading my own original post) that I think I had it right, within my particular style and my usage of the word, as it were.
An acceptable definition of the word ‘immortal’ is something or someone who ‘lives forever’. So, for instance, the ancient Greeks called the heroes of the one of the more doomed battles, the ‘Immortals’ (I think, if I have my history correct, either way the point stands.) They meant that their tale of heroism would ‘live forever’ so to speak. Even the Greek and Roman and other pagan gods were known as ‘immortal’ throughout history and literature, even though they were themselves created or born. Simply because they would never die.
I am no theologian (most on this blog would agree heartily with that) and actually have no desire to be a theologian. I tend to write (about things that I am not an expert in) non-technically to describe or to get the point across; poorly often, but that is my style.
So I think my original usage was okay in the context and purpose I used it. But I respect the correction Vynette gave and the information you provided – and tend to agree with it, in terms of precision. I was not after precision in nomenclature, originally, however.
I am more Irish than not, after all, and precision in speaking or writing is a bit too insufferably English, to expect from such as me.
Report comment to moderator
The Puritans to whom Medved refers were by no means antislavery. This link sheds more light on that incident. Mass. in 1641 legalized slavery. And Mass. back then was a theocratic Christian Commonwealth.
http://www.slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm
And the Quaker Church originated in 1647, not 1660.
http://thorn.pair.com/earlyq.htm
I’ll check the links; I’m on vacation and I wasn’t when initially cited those sources. In any event no one is reading that thread so the sources needed to be cited again.
Report comment to moderator
Drill and Pauline,
Just to clarify my position a little –
An ‘immortal soul’ is a Platonic Greek concept. In the Hebrew mind, such ‘immortality’ of soul was unknown because there was no such thing as a body without a soul. If there was a body, it had to be animated by a soul (nephesh).
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being (nephesh).” (Gen. 2:7) It is unfortunate that the ‘living being’ (nephesh) is commonly rendered ‘soul’, which introduced Greek ideas about the separation of soul and body.
It is the ’spirit’ (ruach) which differentiates us from the animals, who also have bodies and souls. It is the spirit of God in man that is the ‘imago dei.’ Without this ’spirit’ we would be unable to communicate with God, as we see in I Corinthians 2:14 –
“But the natural (psuchikos) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him: nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
This ’spirit’ returns to God upon death and does not exist outside of God. The only post-mortem ‘life’ that man has is in the ‘mind’ of God. When the Bible talks about those ’sleeping in the dust of the earth’ awakening, it posits a re-embodiment of man’s spirit on this earth.
The common understanding of ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’ is based on the Greek concept of ‘immortality’ of the soul…I could go on and on…
Report comment to moderator
Anabaptists and then Mennonites predated the Quakers by a long long time in their opposition to slavery. It is interesting how flexible and agenda-determined the study of history is to the modern intellectual.
However, it is even more interesting how Jon Rowe so carefully avoids the central (and only truly relevant) fact; that slavery is glaringly antithetical and hostile to Christ and violates His teaching and works and mission (see post 86).
Instead, he wants to concentrate on Christians, whether actual Christians or not, who have not correctly lived up to that standard throughout history, and then trash the standard accordingly.
But avoid the discussion about the Christ. At all costs. Because it is there that all arguments and subterfuges and rhetoric fails.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Contrary to your assertions in post 86, Christ never abolished slavery in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
And the Quaker Church originated in 1647, not 1660.
Actually, if you go to the actual Quaker website (http://www.quaker.org) instead of a secondary site, it says “Quakers: Religious Witnesses for Peace Since 1660″ at the top. That’s where I got the year from.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: Contrary to YOUR own assertation in post 101, I NEVER asserted that Christ ‘abolished’ slavery ‘in the Bible’ in post 86. He did not abolish slavery. Nor did He abolish bank fraud. Nor pornography, armed assault, jaywalking, lying about your weight or age or cheating on your taxes or not putting the toilet seat down. All of those things have been enthusiastically engaged in in the intervening years, unfortunately very often by people who rightly or wrongly call themselves Christians. Why completely new and creative sins are even thought up all the time; but had He ‘abolished’ them, (slavery being your current target) they would be non-existent, by definition.
But all such things ARE antithetical to His life and His teaching and His purpose and His mission, as I DO assert in post 86. Read the Sermon on the Mount, and then tell me exactly how slavery fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.
Report comment to moderator
Good point Drill.
While the Bible doesn’t exactly condemn those actions, he did say to love your neighbor as yourself, he said that lying is wrong,
and as for armed assault, the Bible says this:
[i][b]Pr 1:10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:[/i][/b]
Of course most non-Christians will not read the Bible anyway, and they don’t really have a reason to, but in many places in Scripture Christ either
does give a command to not do something,
or something like “love your neighbor” which encompasses a lot.
Report comment to moderator
Comment #103 by Drill is simply astonishing. I can’t recall seeing a more atrocious “explanation” of a bilical teaching since Outkast quoted God telling David that He had given him multiple wives as “proof” that God hates polygamy. But this is even more reprehensible than what Outkast did. Outkast’s post was simply the result of his gross ignorance of biblical teachings; Drill’s took artifice and guile to construct. The omissions and distortions and evasions in that comment are simply mind boggling. What’s even more outrageous is that no one’s even called him on in even though it’s been up for a day. Apparently WoW Christians regard Drill post as Christian, when in reality there’s nothing Christians about it. This is how Christians deal with the Bible in the 21st century and they wonder why people don’t take them or their Bible seriously? Drill, if he really believes this stuff, is not an orthodox Christian. Rather, he’s a Marcionite. Marcionism, which used to be considered heresy, is the idea that the Bible is the story of two gods – Jesus, the benevolent and loving god of the New Testament, and Jehovah, the evil, racist, genocidal god of the Old Testament. Historically, Christians have rejected Marcionism and asserted that the racist homicidal genocidal god of the OT and the loving inclusive benevolent Jesus Christ are one and the same being, as morally and intellectually untenable as that position is. But as Drill’s comments, and many other comments on WoW make clear, evangelical Christianity has pretty much morphed into Marcionism in the past few decades, as Christians are increasingly embarrassed by the commands and practices of Jehovah, the OT god, and their inability to reconcile him with contemporary notions of morality. And so they resort to the same type of disingenuous mental gymnastics that Drill engages in here.
Jon Rowe: Contrary to YOUR own assertation in post 101, I NEVER asserted that Christ ‘abolished’ slavery ‘in the Bible’ in post 86.
First, he starts off playing game of lying with semantics. Strong words? Yes, but there’s no other way to interpret it. For the record: in #74, Jon Rowe wrote:
Drill replied in #86:
Comment #103 by Drill is simply astonishing. I can’t recall seeing a more atrocious “explanation” of a bilical teaching since Outkast quoted God telling David that He had given him multiple wives as “proof” that God hates polygamy. But this is even more reprehensible than what Outkast did. Outkast’s post was simply the result of his gross ignorance of biblical teachings; Drill’s took artifice and guile to construct. The omissions and distortions and evasions in that comment are simply mind boggling. What’s even more outrageous is that no one’s even called him on in even though it’s been up for a day. Apparently WoW Christians regard Drill post as Christian, when in reality there’s nothing Christians about it. This is how Christians deal with the Bible in the 21st century and they wonder why people don’t take them or their Bible seriously? Drill, if he really believes this stuff, is not an orthodox Christian. Rather, he’s a Marcionite. Marcionism, which used to be considered heresy, is the idea that the Bible is the story of two gods – Jesus, the benevolent and loving god of the New Testament, and Jehovah, the evil, racist, genocidal god of the Old Testament. Historically, Christians have rejected Marcionism and asserted that the racist homicidal genocidal god of the OT and the loving inclusive benevolent Jesus Christ are one and the same being, as morally and intellectually untenable as that position is. But as Drill’s comments, and many other comments on WoW make clear, evangelical Christianity has pretty much morphed into Marcionism in the past few decades, as Christians are increasingly embarrassed by the commands and practices of Jehovah, the OT god, and their inability to reconcile him with contemporary notions of morality. And so they resort to the same type of disingenuous mental gymnastics that Drill engages in here.
Jon Rowe: Contrary to YOUR own assertation in post 101, I NEVER asserted that Christ ‘abolished’ slavery ‘in the Bible’ in post 86.
First, he starts off playing the game of lying with semantics. Strong words? Yes, but there’s no other way to interpret it. For the record: in #74, Jon Rowe wrote:
Drill replied in #86:
He then goes on to explain how Jesus is a really, really nice guy, and so it’s obvious to all Right Thinking People that he’s against slavery.
Now, when Jon says “Jesus never abolished slavery” and replies “You could not be more wrong about moral issues such as slavery, etc. in regards to Christ”, it’s just a flat out lie to claim that you never asserted that Christ abolished slavery. On top of which, Jon’s point is that in the OT God approved of chattel slavery, and that Jesus never opposed or condemned it in any way, shape or form, and it’s therefore false to claim, as Christians today do, the God of the bible forbids or condemns owning other human being as property. Drill knew that, and yet he completely ignore everything else the Bible says about slavery, both in the OT and the NT, that makes it clear that God in no way categorically disapproves of people owning other human beings. And then proceeds to pretend to “get into Jesus’s head” to “prove” that Jesus hates slavery, even though the entire rest of both the OT and NT make it clear he doesn’t.
In other words, “sure, Jon, slavery was fine in the OT, but that was that old racist homicidal genocidal Jehovah. Of course, a god like that would approve of slavery. But we don’t worship him; we worship Jesus, who’s Good and Loving and Benevolent. Of course, I’m also going to ignore the rest of the NT teachings that make it clear that owning slaves isn’t a sin, because me and Jesus got our own thing going. And what really matters is the spirit of the law, so we can ignore the letter of the law and impute all sorts of things to Jesus when we don’t like what the Bible actually says.
He did not abolish slavery.
No, he most certainly didn’t. Why would he, when he gave slavery his blessing in the OT?
Nor did He abolish bank fraud.
He didn’t? What was that command “Thou shalt steal” all about then? Oh, wait. That wasn’t Jesus. That was the OT god.
Nor pornography, armed assault,
For a couple thousand years, Christians thought that Jesus forbade pornography when he said “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”. And they were all agreed that armed assault was taboo because Jesus told Moses to tell the Israelites “thou shalt not kill”.
jaywalking, lying about your weight or age or cheating on your taxes or not putting the toilet seat down. All of those things have been enthusiastically engaged in in the intervening years, unfortunately very often by people who rightly or wrongly call themselves Christians.
And so has slavery. But there’s one big difference. The Bible encourages slavery, and God blesses it. After he delivers his people from their own slavery in Egypt, he turns around and tells them that they may own other human beings, that they may go to war to acquire slaves, and that they may beat their slaves within in an inch of their lives, and as long as the slave lives a day or two after the beating before dying from it, no harm no foul, because “he’s his property”. Here’s just a few of the many, many verses where God encourages and blesses slavery:
Why completely new and creative sins are even thought up all the time; but had He ‘abolished’ them, (slavery being your current target) they would be non-existent, by definition.
Except that slavery is neither new, nor creative, nor a sin. It’s clearly approved of by God over and over and over in the bible, and nowhere is it condemned.
But all such things ARE antithetical to His life and His teaching and His purpose and His mission, as I DO assert in post 86.
As you can see, the only way Drill’s posts make sense is if he believes that Jesus and the god of the OT are not one and the same being. Because Jehovah approves of buying and selling slaves, even brutally beating them. He nowhere condemns it. And Christians believe in the deity of Christ, and the Trinity, which means that Jesus Christ and Jehovah are one and the same. But Drill, like so many other modern Christians, is embarrassed by and disgusted by the OT god, so they completely ignore him, and treat Jesus as some sort of tabula rasa, with no connection to Jehovah at all (except during controversies over nativity scenes at Christmas.)
Read the Sermon on the Mount, and then tell me exactly how slavery fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.
What would Drill say when a homosexual says to him “read the SOTM and tell me exactly how opposition to gay marriage fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.”
Well, since when did the SOTM become the sum of all Christian teachings? Drill has to do this, and ignore the larger New Testament, with all those nasty verses like “slaves obey your masters” that make it clear that Paul had become enthralled to the evil god of the OT and got him mixed up with the Lilies of the Field/Suffer the Little Children Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
From #104:
Of course most non-Christians will not read the Bible anyway, and they don’t really have a reason to,
Christians are even worse. Most of them don’t read their bible either, and if they do it’s the same old passages over and over in many cases, such as Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, etc. So they’re grossly ignorant of what the Bible actually says in a great many places and about some serious topics, such as slavery. What’s even worse is when these same biblically illiterate Christians argue with those of us who actually do know something about the Bible. A few months ago, when I commented on a thread that Jehovah/Jesus approves of slavery, somebody said I was an idiot who’ve obviously never read the Bible, and that “the Exodus narrative” makes clear how Jehovah/Jesus feels about slavery. I told him that instead of babbling about “the Exodus narrative”, he should actually read Exodus. If he did, he’d read in Exodus 21 about God telling the Israelites that they may own slaves, and it’s OK if a slave dies a day or two after a severe beating my his owner, because he’s merely property. Yes, “the Exodus narrative” really shows how God hates slavery. No, it merely shows that he’s a racist, who didn’t want his favorite race enslaved. He wanted them to do the enslaving of others.
Of course, even worse than these guys are people like Drill, who know plenty about what the bible actually says, but prefer to ignore, contradict, and evade it when it suits their purpose.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the double post. It wasn’t intentional
I was in the middle of trying to survive the late stages of an online poker tournament when I wrote that response to Drill, and I neglected to make something clear.
When Jon Rowe said that Jesus never abolished slavery, he was using it in the legal sense, meaning to forbid something that had previously been allowed. Like slavery. That’s where we get the term abolitionist movement. Rowe was making the point that, because Christians claim to believe that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same being, and since Jehovah clearly and repeatedly blessed and encouraged the owning of slaves in the OT, if slavery is no longer allowed, and is now a wicked sin, it seems that Jesus, as the incarnation of Jehovah, would have said something to that effect. But he didn’t. And Drill knew exactly what Rowe meant, but he can’t admit the truth about the Bible and slavery, and so he tried to derail the argument by being cute and pretending that when Rowe said “abolish” he meant “eradicate”, which is nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me what lengths self described “Bible believers” such as Drill will go to in order to avoid facing what the Bible actually teaches about various subjects.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train:
Thanks for all the posts. I suppose quantity trumps quality in the modern era.
Something good and something bad.
The good: I am sort of a connoisseur of other people’s errors (NEVER my own, of course); and you have generously provided me with a veritable FEAST of errors and misrepresentations within your posts. For that I thank you; you are truly magnanimous and I applaud your generosity.
The bad: I do not have much time today. Hence, though you have thoughtfully provided such a monstrous buffet of errors, I must (lamentably) content myself with merely sampling here and there, like a famous food critic tasting food at a five-star restaurant in Paris during a Master Chef’s contest.
First, a very minor point (like an appetizer). You work up an enormous amount of indignation about the post #103 that Drill wrote. You sputter about it. You shudder over it. You shriek about it. You become discombobulated over it. Unfortunately, Drill did not write post #103. You obviously meant some other post. This is a very small thing, normally not worthy of even mentioning. But you must understand that people like you, who are inordinately fond of Making a Big Stink, must be very careful about all the little odors you produce as byproducts; they can be distracting to the audiences appreciation of the Big Stink you are attempting to manufacture. Just a helpful editorial hint. No charge or thanks necessary.
Second, I am not a Marcionite. I do believe in a sort of temporary ‘duality’ insomuch as Evil has not been utterly destroyed as of yet; however I believe it will be destroyed, as outlined in prophetic language within the New Testament. I do not pretend, as many do, to understand exactly how prophetic and symbolic much of that language actually is or the exact details of how the final victory of Joy and Life over Despair and Death will take place. As I have said frequently in the past, there is much about the OT (and even some in the NT) that I do not understand in the light of the NT (the killing of Canaanite babies in cribs by Hebrew soldiers comes to mind). However that does not make me a ‘Marcionite’. It makes me a ‘Person Who Does Not Understand Everything’. Perhaps you might want to coin a word for that sort of person; best steer away from the four letter words like ‘liar’, as they violate both truth and decorum, neither of which usually concern you very much, but really should. I’ll not hold MY breath, though.
Third, most if not all of the OT Law is concerned with regulating the EFFECTS of sin, ‘Thou shall not kill’, ‘Thou shall not bear false witness’ are all statements regulating the outward deeds that are manifested by sin, which is first and foremost an attitude of the heart. But were we to follow Christ and do as He commands and truly have His heart, as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount and in the whole of His teaching, the Law would be (and is, really) extraneous, since the bad things that emanate from the wayward human heart would cease to have their driving potential. So the evil things like armed robbery and adultery AND slavery would indeed disappear. There would then be no need for the ‘Law’. But as I said, Christ did NOT abolish slavery, or sin. It goes on. And on and on. He gave humans a way out of the slavery to sin and Anti-Joy, however.
Forth, I generally appreciate Jon Rowe; I have learned much from him when he sticks to his primary interest of detailing the ‘degree of orthodoxy’ of the Founders of this country. I flagged on him when he starts deciding who is and who is not a born-again Christian. That is unknowable.
Fifth, I blush and stammer a bit at you’re flattering me that I am so devilishly clever (although not of good character). However, again you are quite wrong about the clever bit (probably right about the lack of character, though). Our brains, yours and mine, are pretty tiny. The universe is pretty huge. And what lies beyond the universe, even bigger.
I would suggest that you spend a bit less time playing poker and a bit more time hitting the books, Night Train. A library, perhaps, would be just the ticket for you to start on a much-needed journey of discovery.
Anyway, thanks for the comments.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!