Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Whirled Views 10.31
Happy Reformation Day!
On this day in 1517: Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, marking the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
Welcome to our daily (except Sundays) open thread, where you, the commenters, choose the topics of conversation.
Topic: Watercooler Chatter, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top277 Comments to “Whirled Views 10.31”
“Alas to be
Mortal, and know our sad mortality!
To earth we come
Thinking no evil, deeming we are free:
We gaze too long upon the sky and sea,
This sweet life darkens into mystery,
And we grow dumb.
We can no more
On the compelling wings of rapture soar,
And of no choice
Sing to the gods a hymn unsung before:
Our song, the echo of a storm that’s o’er,
A dying ripple on the beaten shorte,
But feigns a voice.”
Report comment to moderator
Has the reformation now succeeded? Is it time to start thinking about reunification, along the lines of the Catholic – Anglican developments in the last few days?
Report comment to moderator
Last evening, in the vincinity of your “Whirled Views 10.30″, as I was meandering through this cozy little borough, offering verse for the evening, commenting on the topic at hand in playful seriousness, this interant muse was slighted by a villager who apparently was hoping I would soon tire of my “extended soliloquy”.
It greated my soul with melancholy as the words were read, over again, to ensure understanding. And then a jab with a rapier! Shakespeare of all things! Upbraiding this bard’s posts with “Words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart” as if to say my offerings fell short of enigmatically transcending the confines and limitations of this forum.
Tis a wonder.
Report comment to moderator
From the Southern Paiute
The Traveller’s Rest
“In the red valley I sleep
On my way to a far distant land”
Red clay. We are made of clay. We sleep here, we groan, we are weary, we press on to our “far distant land” sojourning here for a time, in the vale shadowed by death.
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR, I think we are already united to the extent that we believe Jesus is the Way. The odds of my praying to a saint or Mary for intercession are slim.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER
Protestants, it could be argued, think there are a lot of other “ways”. Self has become a predominant saint of post modernity, for example. We rely on ourselves, commend ourselves, enrich ourselves, entertain ourselves, think of ourselves, indulge ourselves, etc. far greater than any of our Catholic brethren venerate the Saints.
Report comment to moderator
If you think I exaggerate, consider the four-letter word above gas pumps or on the shelf markers of book retailers, on the covers of magazines, of all the terminology that freudian psychology has given us – self-examinations, self-inflicted, self-concious, self-agrandizement, self-help, self-made, self-induced, self-awareness, and of course, self-esteem.
Self is the patron saint of modernity. We pray to him, exalt him, promote him, post him, publish him, sell him, advocate him. What is this blog but a platform of self? Here is what “I” think!
Report comment to moderator
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther got angry because indulgences were being sold in order to build St. Peters church in Rome. In anger, he posted 95 theses, as stated in Documents of the Christian Church , edited by Henry Bettenson.
As he says, “These theses were posted on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. This was the usual procedure for giving notice of such disputations, which were a regular feature of University life, and there was nothing dramatic in the action. Luther was confident that he would have papal support when he had exposed the evils of the traffic in indulgencies.”
What Luther didn’t count on was the printing press. Some students copied and distributed these theses.
There are 95 of these, and they are largely repetitive. But I have copied and pasted some of the key ones. With a link to the source.
Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.
5. The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
7 God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
8 The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
27 There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
28 It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
32 All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33 We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them. 33
37 Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
43 Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
45 Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope’s pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
46 Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
79 It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
82 They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter’s church, a very minor purpose.
86 Again: since the pope’s income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
91 If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92 Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace.
93 Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross.
94 Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.
95 And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
This from: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm
Luther was a loyal monk. It was not until the Diet of Worms in April 1521 that he issues his famous “Here I stand” and broke ties with the Roman Church. Actially, he was excommunicated.
“Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen.”
Lots of Baptist preachers At Southwestern Seminary didn’t like Luther. And there was much not to like. But he was a great man.
Brave Reformer
Theologian
Song Writer
Report comment to moderator
RRBAR: Well, in 1999 representatives of the RCC and the Lutheran World Federation met in Augsburg, Germany, to sign a “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (JDDJ) which was rejected by the LCMS in an evaluation by Concordia Theological Seminary:
“…the document does not resolve the classic question whether such grace is God’s undeserved favor (Lutheran) or whether it is a spiritual power poured or ‘infused’ into the soul that enables one to love God and merit salvation (Roman Catholic).” among other problematic and unresolved issues.
Reasons for the Reformation continue and I don’t see how reunification is possible without denying sola gracia. Why would you want reunification?
Report comment to moderator
NJL: Yes, one of the many unresolved and unresolvable critical problems!
Report comment to moderator
NANA
“Why would you want reunification?”
Because Jesus desires it. It is a worthy goal and with Christ’s grace, by His mercy and strength alone, it is possible.
Iambic Pentameter
Report comment to moderator
IAMBIC, you must be speaking for yourSELF
Report comment to moderator
How long from the time Christianity began until it was realized that it had been in error for hundreds of years? Recently, people were talking about evolutionary theory here and pointing out what may be an error in a theory about a possible ancestor of human beings.
There was much crowing and jibing about science. How long did it take for evolutionary scientists to say, We collected evidence; we made a mistake; let’s acknowledge and move forward as best we can; let’s collect more information; let’s learn about this amazing world we live in as best we can?
I started reading worldmagblog about five years ago, I think.
I was startled when evangelical Christians told me that Western Christianity had supported and maintained science and civilization as human beings crawled out of the “dark ages.”
It’s a very selective appreciation.
If anybody reading this needed a heart transplant–a very amazing feat of medicine and science–and could pay for it–a very expensive process–you would accept it in a flash–would you not?
If you could not pay for it, then you would meekly say, My bad–and meekly wait to meet Jesus, would you not?
Because the other alternative would be to let government–the monstrosity imposed on you by leftists and liberals–to force other people to pay for your transplant.
However, the science that indicates that human beings are animals–of which there is abundant evidence–and that we all evolved over millions of years from ancestors of our genetic cousins–that science you reject with passion and fury–like peasants wielding pitchforks and waving burning faggots marching on the castle where you hope to burn witches and faggots.
Good job of preserving civilization, folks.
Report comment to moderator
Who is Iambic Pentameter?
Is this a sock puppet?
Is it a former denizen of worldmagblog who “went away” and then came back under a new screen name? Or is it a new person who is going to show us the way?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you CHAS, for posting some of Luther’s objections, a handy reminder of how the RCC caused division among Christians. Despite the Popes’ and Luther’s sinful natures, he was indeed brave and loyal to Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Evolutionary scientists do have divisions and disagreements. For example, there is a fairly large split between those who are inclined to believe in sociobiology and those who are not.
In the heyday of Stalinism, there was a heretic named Lysenko. There was little scientific evidnce to support his ideas, but Stalin decided, like a kind of atheist Pope, declaring his Bull, that Lysenko’s science was better than Mendel’s science.
A lot of Russians died of starvation. A lot of Russians died in prison camps. A lot of Russians were shot. Stalin showed that atheists could be as bad and as dumb as religious fanatics.
We are all Fallen. It’s a good description of human beings, as long as you realize it is a metaphor and not the “Word of God.”
None of us knows for sure if there is a God or not. Some people think they know what He says and what he wants and that even though he is mysterious and incomprehensible, they know what He says we should do and how we should behave.
It is odd to me when people talk of God as a He, or as a few people do, as a She. If there is a God (which I very much doubt) I would think God would be an It and beyond sex and gender.
I think some people here have a few hangups in regard to sex.
Report comment to moderator
so if none of us knows for sure if there is a God or not, so are there any absolutes? can we be sure if there is any right or wrong?
Report comment to moderator
IP does sound a lot like RPN.
I think Nana has hit the nail on the head in #12.
Report comment to moderator
Reasons for the Reformation continue and I don’t see how reunification is possible without denying sola gracia. Why would you want reunification?
Here is Ben Franklin on salvation:
Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.
Note: There is not a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that George Washington held to a salvation scheme that differed in any meaningful sense than Franklin’s. As GW put it on the death of a loved one, suggesting she merited salvation through her good works,
“She is now no more! But she must be happy, because her virtue has a claim to it.”
As the point relates to the discussion, whatever differences Roman Catholics and Protestants may have on issues like justification and other things, they believe FAR closer to one another than EITHER do to the religion of George Washington, Ben Franklin and the other “key Founders.”
Report comment to moderator
If traditional Christianity fell into error as the Catholic church developed, it took hundreds of years for the errors to be corrected by Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
If genetics and agronomy fell into error based on Lamark in the 1800s and reached a peak of error with Lysenko, it took science a couple of hundred years to correct its errors.
Not really much difference, really. Religious belief and scientfic research are not really that different. Good enough for government work, as the saying goes.
For that matter, the myth of Darwinism may be overturned yet; perhaps after a few thousand more comments are posted on worldmagblog.
Report comment to moderator
Sansend
so if none of us knows for sure if there is a God or not, so are there any absolutes? can we be sure if there is any right or wrong?
Be very careful here. You have engaged in a major SIN by asking such questions.
People have been burned at the stake, or sent to the Gulag, for less.
Flash mob of peasants forms in front of the castle at 3 pm. Bring your own burning faggots.
Report comment to moderator
so RANDOM,is there any absolute right or wrong?
Report comment to moderator
95 Theses – The Rap Video
If you havin’ Church problems then don’t blame God, son…
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Listen up, all my people, it’s a story for the telling
’bout the sin and injustice and corruption I been smelling:
I met that homie Tetzel, then I started rebelling
Once I seen the fat Indulgences that he been selling.
Now the Cath’lics of the world straight up disgracin’ me
Just because I waved my finger at the papacy.
My people got riled up over this Reformation…
That’s when Leo threatened me with Excommunication.
I warned y’all that Rome best agree to the terms.
If not, then you can eat my Diet of Worms!
You think you done something spectacular?
I wrote the Bible in the vernacular!
A heretic! [What?] Someone throw me a bone.
You forgot salvation comes through faith alone.
I’m on a mission from God. You think I do this for fun?
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Save me!
One Five One Seven… that’s when it first went down.
Then the real test was when it started spreading around.
Sixty days to recant what I said? Father, please!
You’ve had, what? Goin’ on fifteen centuries?
“Oh snap, he’s messin’ with the holy communion.”
But I ain’t never dissed your precious hypostatic union!
“One place at one time.” Well, thank you Zwingli.
Yeah, way to disregard that whole “I’m God” thingy!
Getting’ all up in my rosary… you little punk.
Your momma shoulda told you not to mess with no monk.
What you bumpin’ me for? Suddenly you sore.
Keep that up, you’ll have yourself another Peasant War.
You blame common folk for the smack they talkin’…
You ain’t even taught them proper Christian doctrine.
With my hat, my Bible, and my sexy little nun,
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Save me!
When I wrote the ninety-five, haters straight up assailed ‘em.
Now they only care whether or not I nailed ‘em or mailed ‘em.
They got psychoanalytic. Now everyone’s a critic,
And getting on my case just because I’m anti-Semitic.
I’ve come back from obscurity to teach y’all a lesson,
Cuz someone here still ain’t read their Augsburg Confession.
I said Catholicism brings a life of excess,
And we all remember what went down with Philip of Hesse!
But you forgot about me and my demonstration?
Like you can just create your own denomination?
“We don’t like this part, so we’ll just add a little twist.”
Now we Anglican, Amish, and even Calvinist.
I gave you the power, you gone and abused it.
I gave you God’s truth, you just confused it.
Don’t you never underestimate the s*** that I done…
I got 95 theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Save me!
Report comment to moderator
Sansend,
Are you a sock puppet for yeah?
I don’t know if there is any absolute right or wrong. I act as if there is such a thing, but I don’t believe there is.
What do you believe in this regard? Why?
Report comment to moderator
I really worry about Travis.
Report comment to moderator
95 Theses in 1507? Actually, I prefer 96 Tears in 1966.
96 Tears – ? & the Mysterians (1966)
Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin’
Too many teardrops for one heart to carry on
Youre way on top now since you left me
Youre always laughin way down at me
But watch out now, I’m gonna get there
W’ell be together for just a little while
And then I’m gonna put you way down here
And you’ll start cryin ninety-six tears
Cry, cry
And when the sun comes up, I’ll be on top
You’ll be right down there, lookin up
And I might wave, come up here
But I don’t see you wavin now
I’m way down here, wonderin how
I’m gonna get you but I know now
I’ll just cry, cry, Ill just cry
Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin’
Too many teardrops for one heart to carry on
Youre gonna cry ninety-six tears
Youre gonna cry ninety-six tears
Youre gonna cry, cry cry cry now
Youre gonna cry, cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears
Report comment to moderator
Travis, I don’t think that would be approved for Luther League or any other church youth groups, for that matter. Where and why would that possibly be “sung?” Clever, though, I suppose.
Report comment to moderator
Always liked that song. However, you can see why I worry about Travis.
Report comment to moderator
A lot of correct history in #23. But I can’t imagine a tune to go with it. i.e. I don’t like the song.
Report comment to moderator
I recently watched the film “Luther”. Was it completely accurate history? I can’t say, but it was very moving.
Report comment to moderator
The may be trying to undo the part of the Reformation instituted by Henry VIII
By Julia Duin Washing Times
The Vatican took the bold step Tuesday of announcing a new and simplified process for thousands of disaffected conservative Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church en masse.
In a news conference held Tuesday in Rome, Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, announced that Pope Benedict XVI had approved an “Apostolic constitution” to streamline the conversion of Anglicans.
Report comment to moderator
From 10-30 whirled views #188:
The day the Christians take Random up on his “offers,” is the same day he says “see, I told you the Christians are mean,” — cruel, or whatever word floats his boat. What a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is his safe bet, just like the “artist” who urinates on a picture of Christ knows he won’t get his head chopped off.
This comment is as inappropriate as the comment I posted that was deleted not that long ago. The person who posted the comment should be warned and the comment should be removed.
I have never urinated on a picture of Christ and I should not be compared to such a person. More to the point, wmb should maintain similar policies in regard to posting comments whether the person posting the comments is a Christian or not.
This is the second time I have been subject to a double standard in this regard, though the previous case involved Lynn Vincent, who is probably not going to return to this sad forum, perhaps out of shame.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM NAME
I don’t know what you mean by the first part, but yes believe their is an absolute truth.
Report comment to moderator
Iambic @ 3
Tis a wonder indeed!!! But that is only what methinks.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t know if there is any absolute right or wrong. I act as if there is such a thing, but I don’t believe there is.”
Well then it’s strictly academic then. If you act as though there is absolute right and wrong, then what difference what you say you believe?
Actions talk louder than words…
Report comment to moderator
For those of you who remember my story from Monday about the non-denominational pastor in Colorado who slammed the Lutheran church in his teaching–I wrote him an e-mail and including the introduction to my memoir, which discusses how God used many denominations to good spiritual effect in my life.
Anyway, five days later, I heard back from his assistant, writing for him: “He loves the Lutheran Church! He’s even spoken to ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America–the liberal end) conventions on church planting!”
As my husband commented–”he missed the point completely.”
Sad.
But I did my part.
My Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (the conservative end, but not the wooden end of Lutheranism) celebrated Resurrection Sunday last weekend. They’ll show the Luther movie on Tuesday night.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
If you click on the link – “The Rap Video” in post #23, you can hear the tune, and watch the musical video of the song.
WARNING: no flat-top guitar, banjo, or high harmony to be found.
.
Report comment to moderator
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the really big news is the Bay Bridge–which links San Francisco proper with the East Bay just south of Berkeley–has been closed since Wednesday. They have been working on post-earthquake repairs/retrofitting (from the earthquake TWENTY years ago), and put in new cables over the Labor Day weekend.
We had “high winds,” about 35 mph, earlier in the week and one of the new cables snapped. I don’t ever remember hearing that happen before on a bridge of this type. Anyway, CalTrans (California Transportation Board) closed the bridge for repair. They’re working all weekend and hope to have it open by Monday, but are not sure . . .
My resident mechanical engineer commented that once CalTrans determined it was not metal fatigue (day 2), it meant a design flaw–which puts all the other cables at risk, and thus the bridge.
This is a really big deal in the Bay Area, and you can imagine what has happened with the traffic. Folks may still be out there from yesterday’s commute . . .
Report comment to moderator
For the record, Random Name is parodying himself in #32. He’s not really upset.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
I can not even imagine the headache this is causing. I have never–even late at night–been on the Bay Bridge when it wasn’t bumper to bumper.
Take your patience, and some good CDs, with you for awhile, eh?
Report comment to moderator
so if none of us knows for sure if there is a God or not, so are there any absolutes? can we be sure if there is any right or wrong?
******Random,
This is the same question that you and SteveG could not answer last night (and over which you started to get downright rude to TJS).
It is not a question specific to Yeah. It is a deep, important question that you have been unable to answer for months and months and (likely) years on this blog.
Normally, you side-step it completely. Yesterday, you started getting angry and rude. But, I have never seen you even begin to adequately deal with this particular question (in its many formations from many different people.)
Report comment to moderator
Sansend.
Don’t worry about the first part.
I don’t believe there are absolute moral laws. I think there may be absolute physical laws of the universe, such as the Law of Gravity or the Speed of Light.
Believing that there are absolute moral laws indicates to me a confusion between laws of science and laws of morality. As I indicated to TJS Catlover, my moral/ethical beliefs are a function of my upbringing and my genetics. All cultures as far as I can tell have rules of morality, though they differ quite a bit. They probably arose because of our physical evolution and our cultural evolution.
We don’t know the exact details, but it seems likely that morality arose through the evolutionary processes. Priests and tribal leaders worked together to control and guide the societies of their times. Most cultures prohibit murder, for example, because a culture where people murder each other all the time would be at a disadvantage where people work together without murdering each other. However, people work together and cooperate all the time to murder people from other cultures and from scapegoat groups.
It’s not rocket science, though rocket scientists have helped develop rockets for the purpose of murdering people.
Report comment to moderator
There is a diffence between an “absolute” and a moral rule contained in the Bible. As I read the Bible, there very few absolutes in there as regards fundamental moral issues.
For instance, we all know the prohibition against killing is not an absolute (justified self defense, just wars, perhaps the death penalty) and I’ve learned on this site that most evangelicals believe that lying is sometimes justified.
The Bible arguably doesn’t prohibit slavery as an absolute, arguably not at all.
So what are we left with? Certain sexual matters are absolutely prohibited.
And my friend Gregg Frazer claims that subitting to government (that is not revolting, rebelling against, trying to overthrow any government no matter how just or tyrannical) is one of those absolutes.
As a matter of morals we could probably do better than Sola Scriptura.
Jefferson recognized this when he invoked God and tied him to a moral formula to outlaw things like slavery that the Bible doesn’t prohibit.
But that method is problematic because Jefferson also invoked God to justify things that the Bible clearly prohibits (i.e., armed revolt against government).
Report comment to moderator
Random Name, SteveG, and, by the looks of it, Jon Rowe, don’t understand what TRS, TJS and others are getting at. SteveG mentioned that out there somewhere, there’s a “best” moral climate attainable. Jon Rowe writes that we can “do better.” And Random is just clueless about the whole thing so he doesn’t really count. But the point is, it makes no sense to claim there are no moral absolutes, then make statements about moral codes that are ‘better’ or ‘best,’ since such terms assume an ideal or standard. As Random would say, it’s not rocket science.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – 18
It sure does sound like the same person – who would have ever guessed?
Report comment to moderator
Well here is Jefferson’s theistic argument against slavery that relies on God but not what’s written in the Bible.
As Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia [1785]:
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”
Again, sounds nice. God indeed is necessary to the formula. It’s just not what’s written in the Bible. It’s tacking on a specific moral norm that doesn’t exist in the Bible to God.
Report comment to moderator
You folks aren’t confronting me with anything I haven’t already heard and thought about. It’s actually a pretty elementary or sophmoric concern in philosophy. Most philosophers recognize that all moral assertions including those that are written in the Bible rest on unproven and unprovable moral premises.
So what, it doesn’t make the Bible provable or true just because you claim it’s your book of moral absolutes. I do recognize the argument from higher authority, higher power or transcendence. All good people recognize you don’t harm innocents, steal from them and so on and so forth.
If we need to tack such concerns onto God to make them non-negotiable in an ought sense; fine go do it. Or if you need to assert things as though they were metaphysically true, i.e., commanded by God, even if you don’t believe in God, again, fine go do it.
Problem solved.
Report comment to moderator
Travis, I listened to about half of it. I don’t like rap, even the good kind. As I said, the history is good.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, that is a terrible situation. We used to travel that bridge to and from San Francisco all the time.
One night we were driving the Richmond-San Rafael bridge in very high winds from our home in Marin County, the worst we’ve ever been in, the bridge swayed and we prayed all the way. I’ve never been so grateful – we would never have left home that night if we had known how bad it was….. they should have shut the bridge down, and turned people away.
Report comment to moderator
#8 – Thank you kindly, CHAS!
The printing press was a huge factor in the profound socio-cultural change that was set into motion in the early 16th century. But the printing press is a bit like television. TV is also a profound factor in socio-cultural change but too often for the worst; culturally!
The difference between the 16th century and the 20th & 21st centuries was that the awesome communication resources that developed in those times were, by and large, used for very different moral and cultural purposes. they carried very DIFFERENT messages, overall. The printing press first focused mostly on Bibles and got them into the hands of far far more people than before and THIS, not merely the printing press itself, was why the Western world changed profoundly for the better.
Report comment to moderator
Getting more Bibles into people’s lives led to more free and independent thinking in more people.
Getting more televisions into people’s lives has, unfortunately, led to far less free and independent thinking in masses of people, generally speaking.
Report comment to moderator
The Protestant Reformation represented a bold step forward in motivating people to dare to think (and read their Bibles) for themselves.
This rise in independent thinking led to the Enlightenment, and to the rise of science and technology and to other ideologies of freedom that might not have come were it not for the Reformation. Spiritual reform always lies at the root of real constructive change (healthy political, scientific and aesthetic reform almost always come later on the heels of healthy spiritual refgorm).
Report comment to moderator
Well, it’s not rocket science at all. What they’re doing is making the case for relativity. They dismiss God with a simple “problem solved” because they think their pitiful human reasoning gets them somewhere. How arrogant.
Report comment to moderator
“How long from the time Christianity began until it was realized that it had been in error for hundreds of years?”
Meaningless question. Being in error is a constant among us all as human beings. None of os (except Jesus) has EVER enjoyed the status of being free from error. We are flawed. We are sinners. We can do well to repent and reform, but we must all live on with some level of sincere or insincere error around us and in us.
Christianity, however, is defined by the profound personal RECOGNITION that we are personally in error and are sinners. Admitting that is what sets Christians apart and brings God’s forgiveness into our lives for good.
None of us are Christians because we are right about everything. Such has never been the case and never will on earth. Being right is not even what saves us. Being honest about being sinners is what puts us on the road (by God’s sovereign grace alone) to salvation.
There have even been errors committed AFTER Martin Luther. But thank God for Luther, because he had the honesty to admit the error he saw and call us to higher levels of honesty as a culture.
Report comment to moderator
#43 – Jon Rowe wrote; “…we all know the prohibition against killing is not an absolute…”
I don’t think this is correct Jon. I know of no absolute moral rule against “killing” in the Bible but I do know of moral absolutes against “murder.” In Hebrew, there are very different words that distinguish between the two. It is incorrect to blend them in our minds. The sixth commandment is rightly translated: “Thou shalt not murder.” It is simply a bad and unscholarly translation to say; “Thou shalt not kill.”
Sola Scriptura is a fine principle to follow when developing godly morals (godly morality is far far more than just following absolute rules too–but it may include following some absolutes).
Report comment to moderator
And btw, for those of us who celebrate this wonderful Holiday (most self understood Christians in America do; not sure about most folks here) Happy Halloween.
Report comment to moderator
“The abdication of Belief
Makes the Behavior small –
Better and ignis fatuus
Than no illume at all -”
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, but I think “kill” is the correct word in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5.
“Thou shalt not kill.” Ex. 20:13 De. 5:17
xur ratsach raw-tsakh’
a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:–put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).
The word “murder” is used a handful of times in the OT. This is one of them below.
“He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor.” (Ps 10:8)
grh harag haw-rag’
a primitive root; to smite with deadly intent:–destroy, out of hand, kill, murder(-er), put to (death), make (slaughter), slay(-er), X surely.
In the NT epistles:
Murder:
“Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” (Ro 1:29)
jonoV phonos fon’-os
from an obsolete primary pheno (to slay); murder:–murder, + be slain with, slaughter.
Kill:
“For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Ro 13:9)
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (Jas 2:11)
Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. (Jas 4:2)
joneuw phoneuo fon-yoo’-o
from 5406; to be a murderer (of):–kill, do murder, slay.
It seems that the words are used interchangeably, although we make a difference today.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Random Name in box number 14.
Who really “knows” anyone in here?
Report comment to moderator
#8 Chas. You are a definite blessing to me. Thank you so for posting that of the 95 Theses. I’ve carried a couple copies downloaded from the internet for a few years now, in a special binder used just for theological research. Too much of society wasting their time and head space on Halloween.
Report comment to moderator
#23 – Travis: Ok, I realize I’ve congratulated you on some very pertinent and interesting lyric choices , but this one, my friend, takes the cake!!!! The 95 Theses RAP ????
Sir, I sit here amazed at your being able to find the always appropriate set of lyrics. I have not laughed at a song in my 48.777 years of life as I have to this one.
by the way…….I’ve posted the link on my facebook page. I don’t know where you find these things!
http://www.facebook.com/Justus331
Report comment to moderator
“Problem solved.”
It’s so easy to declare problems solved by misstating the problem.
I can hit a bull’s eye every time if I first toss my dart and then paint the target around where it lands.
No one is arguing that Scripture and its divine revelation are proven true by admitting that there are absolutes. On the other hand the recognition of moral absolutes destroys the necessarily reductivist ontology of atheistm. There is no way to get to a should from what merely is, and if all you have is what is, you can not ultimately explain the presence or applicability of universal moral sentiments. Random Name’s weak evolutionary hypothesis merely pushes the problem back one level of regression. Why is it good that people should survive by practicing altruism or that we should will that we continue to survive by doing the same? And then there’s the self contradiction in stating as an absolute that there are no absolutes.
A better choice of word is that it is an elemental rather than elementary concern of philosphy. Sophistry inheres in pretending that is of no consequence. It is also sophistry to limit “rest on unproven and unprovable … premises” to moral ones. All premises moral and otherwise rest on unproven or unprovable premises, even the ones we simply accept as axiomatic. Premises can be justified, but cannot be proven because any first premise is in fact posited as an absolute.
Chesterton made a memorable quote (that I confess I don’t remember perfectly) in his book, Orthodoxy in which he asserts that the “organ of conviciton” has changed for modern man from the transcendent to the individual. The result diminishes us in our self absorption. Instead of the humililty that declares, “There is an absolute truth,” which I might only dimly perceive and haltingly obey, we have the narcissistic, “There is no absolute truth unless I am convinced and approve!” We have no true atheists, only auto-theists.
Happy Halloween. I have no problem with observing a modern festival that has been stripped of its pagan, Druid roots to become simply a children’s celebration. I expect the same latitude from non-Christians when they see public displays of Nativity scenes, whose main arrangements are similar borrowings from folk tale and culture while portraying non-Biblical elements like stables and animals, and contra-biblical elements like kings appearing before a manger. Likely? No.
Report comment to moderator
Ken,
I feel the same way about Christmas that you feel about Halloween. Put the Baby Jesus next to all of the wonderful secular and pagan symbols of Christmas and we can all get drunk and have a merry freakin’ Christmas. If we ever celebrate together I will INSIST that you drink my special eggnog.
Report comment to moderator
Ken –
You write above – “The result diminishes us in our self absorption.”
It is the nature of the blog to be diminished with self-absorption to some extent. It requires it. We post because we love what we have to say and think others should, too.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m sorry, but I think “kill” is the correct word in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5.”
Then you stand against the majority of translators and Hebrew scholars. Word studies are useful, but contextual studies are more useful than isolated words that are vulnerable to diachronic fallacies. Words are used differently in different eras, and even by different contemporary authors.
Witness the English words “allege” and “prove” that have essentially swapped meanings over a few centuries. Or the common teaching on agape love as unconditional and divine love, that might be true of its use by church fathers, but the word was used in the Septuagint to describe Amnon’s obssession with Tamar that led to his rape of her and then rejection in 2 Samuel 13. In fact agape eventually was pressed into its current understanding because it was less defined than other Greek words for love and the other candidate, “phileo” in some tenses was a commonly used to denoted sexual activity.
The Commandment prohibits “murder” not killing, which was permitted or even commanded in war and as a judicial punishment at the same time the Ten Commandments were given.
Report comment to moderator
Also Ken,
If you read my argument on this thread and others carefully, you’ll see that I did concede tying things to “God” does help to make things binding in an “ought” sense, at all times, everywhere (it solves the problem of relativism). However, not everyone believes in the same revelation that you do. Some folks believe in God, not the Bible. Some believe the Bible is partially, even if it’s most of which, inspired (that is parts of it are the Word of God, parts are interpolations). Some add additional Holy Books (i.e., the Mormons and Muslims). Some take the biblical canon and add rules discovered from the natural law (i.e., Roman Catholics and some other non-RC Christians). Some (the Jews) believe in your first Holy Book (the OT) but that your second book (the NT) is not the Word of God. And even among evangelicals, they interpret the same words, verses and chapters to mean different things. And, reading the same Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God, they differ on moral matters of such great import that they fight (or have fought) bloody wars over the matter.
We’ve discussed this matter in particular, say what you want about and disagree if you will with what Drs. Gregg Frazer and John MacArthur believe, but they are as intelligent, biblically learned, and devout evangelical-fundamental Christians as ANYONE on this site. And they, in good faith, with COMPLETE biblical knowledge of the relevant verses and chapters of scripture, believe revolution is absolutely forbidden, the moral equivalent of witchcraft. And this includes the American Revolution. And indeed, a bloody war (the American Revolution) was fought with evangelicals, believing in the same inerrant, infallible Bible on both sides but differing in their interpretations.
We could say something similar about the Civil War with Abe Lincoln — a man who though he believed in God, most certainly did NOT believe the Bible inerrant or infallible, leading the victorious side.
In short, if you want to connect your favorite moral issues to God to make it binding, fine. However, trying to connect your absolute morality to verse and chapter prooftexting raises more problems than it solves.
It’s a non-starter — the equivalent of spitting in the wind — in the modern society that we live in where we are not all of the same religion and where ecclessiastical authorities do not rule politics from the top down.
That’s the only potential way for your divine command theory of political morality to work; and it arguably didn’t even work when tried; it led to the persecution of minority sects and burning of heretics at the stake.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Jon Rowe
I read your post number 66 with great interest. Is “law” absolute? Not specific laws, but law itself. It’s presence among the catacombs and canons of history suggests a necessity. Law, or a sceptre of it, the idea of it, seems to be something man knows tacitly, a haunting reality. Shaping it is a technological process, of course, but the impulse, the hunger and thirst for societal order, the need for an ordered magnus codex, appears to satiate the human race. From where do you think this impusle arises?
Iambic Pentameter
Report comment to moderator
Good question, IP!
Report comment to moderator
“a merry freakin’ Christmas.”
Just a phrase like that shows the reader just how you really feel about Christ and Christians. It’s insulting.
Report comment to moderator
I correct my grammatical error above. I said “sceptre” and intended to say instead, “spectre” as in a shadow or form, etc.
Report comment to moderator
IP:
“From where do you think this impusle arises?”
I think you answered the question when you wrote:
It’s presence among the catacombs and canons of history suggests a necessity. Law, or a sceptre of it, the idea of it, seems to be something man knows tacitly, a haunting reality. Shaping it is a technological process, of course, but the impulse, the hunger and thirst for societal order, the need for an ordered magnus codex, appears to satiate the human race.
This is a reason why, I think, just about every culture, even those that had utterly no connection with Jews or Christians have moral, “ought” norms and consequently legal norms against things like murder of innocents, theft and property rights. It’s part of human nature.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
You owe me an apology for your disgraceful, nasty and sinful remarks on the previous thread. I won’t address a damn thing you say and request that you shut your mouth and don’t address my posts until you render said apology.
Report comment to moderator
It is a philosophical conundrum, law. If it evolves, it is still law. It never becomes something else. The technical aspects of it may change, like the difference in model years of Mustang automobiles, but the law as an a priori paradigm, never changes, no matter where we find it. There are governing principles in the most remote and primitive societies of all times and places and people known to man. While the conditions and statutes may differ in time and place, law as law does not.
Why not? That is what “haunts” me.
Iambic Pentameter
Report comment to moderator
Mac at #44: Random Name, SteveG, and, by the looks of it, Jon Rowe, don’t understand what TRS, TJS and others are getting at. SteveG mentioned that out there somewhere, there’s a “best” moral climate attainable. Jon Rowe writes that we can “do better.” And Random is just clueless about the whole thing so he doesn’t really count. But the point is, it makes no sense to claim there are no moral absolutes, then make statements about moral codes that are ‘better’ or ‘best,’ since such terms assume an ideal or standard. As Random would say, it’s not rocket science.
It is you who is not understanding.
My answer, at least — I’ll let Random and Jon speak for themselves, although I think they’re on the same track — is that if there are no moral absolutes, then societies develop moral codes conducive to their survival.
What you all can’t seem to grasp is that a moral code does not have to be an “absolute” one, validated by appeal to divine ordinance, in order to be seen as an objective good. A culture that enforces the kinds of laws and social mores that lead to peaceful coexistence, economic prosperity, personal liberty within limits and a variety of other things is better than one that is violent, contentious, prone to exacerbate poverty and restrictive of liberty.
If there is no absolute morality, then relative, subjective morality is all there is, and people tend to prefer those moral ideals that let them live happy and peaceful lives. The obsession with asserting that you can’t say it is “right” in an absolute sense misses the point entirely.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Jon Rowe –
“It is part of human nature” is not satisfactory in my estimation simply because there are many human impulses which are capricious. Why is this impulse so universally adhered to? Nothing in human nature dictates that we “must” retain law. It persists despite the inummerable violations against it. Why make anything forbidden, of limits or illegal? Why have law if it is merely a human impulse? Why have impulse curbing impulse? It seems senselessly contradictory. From whence arises the implicit and obvious necessity that we “ought” to “obey” “law” if it is only an “impulse”? That isn’t a strong enough precept to explain why it has persisted as it has so universally or why it “ought” to be retained. It only provides me with conflicting impulses with no rationale as to why I should obey one over the other.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
What’s the point of a society’s survival? Surviving? We all lose that game. Why strive to survive when death is inevitable?
Also, you mention that there is some sort of “objective good” to which a society would appeal in constructing their “mores” if there is no appeal to an absolute.
How is it possible to reject the notion of absolutes and yet retain this thing you call “objective good”?
Report comment to moderator
“Why not? That is what “haunts” me.”
It could be that law is part of some metaphysical moral truth that is applicable to everywhere evertime. That notion used to be termed a “brooding omnipresence in the sky” where “law” was “discovered” not “created.” The legal realists or positivists disagreed with said notion.
However, among the anti-positivists, I should note, proof texting the Bible ISN’T the only way to discover “law.” Indeed, one would argue that’s not the best way at all to discover “law” because so much of what the Bible teaches is NOT properly part of any given civil legal code.
Rather, the naturalists like Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, James Wilson argued that the, what later folks term, “brooding omnipresence in the sky” was better discovered by “reason,” not particular verses and chapters of scripture. (Though the Bible could be used to confirm “reason’s” discoveries.) Indeed, it was precisely by appealing to such universal concepts of “reason” that natural law Christians could translate their arguments to the pagan world that didn’t accept their particular scheme of special revelation.
The Roman Catholics continue to do this to this day. Not as many Protestants do however. And that’s also perhaps why most of the conservatives who make a difference in “law” are Roman Catholics not evangelicals.
Report comment to moderator
We must now “open the books” and see of what this “objective good” consists if we are to aim for it.
You see my point?
Report comment to moderator
IP,
What say you of the “book of Nature”? That is what man discovers about God’s law from reason alone, unaided by scripture. (How scripture comes into the picture is a topic for later discussion.)
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Jon Rowe –
You write: “It could be that law is part of some metaphysical moral truth that is applicable to everywhere evertime. That notion used to be termed a “brooding omnipresence in the sky” where “law” was “discovered” not “created.” The legal realists or positivists disagreed with said notion.”
It appears to me that law as law is a discovery – Law, capital “L”. For because of the remoteness and disconnectedness of peoples, through language barriers, time periods, primitive and advanced natures, socioeconomics etc. the “mechanism” seems to be universally understood from time and place immemorial. There has been no human transmition of technological achievement in this area. It’s always “there” wherever you go.
Naturalists still have their codex in “Reason” but that hardly sweeps away the ambiguity. Countless societies outside the cradel of Western Civ never heard of the term but nevertheless have similar statutes about adultery, killing, stealing and the likes. It’s not a Western invention. Some of the details of “Law” might be, but Law as Law is not.
Report comment to moderator
Parodying myself is not a violation of Terms and Conditions. Double standards do irritate me, however. As I against capital punishment, I am will not demand capital punishment for the offense, though I will run it into the ground, which may qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
None of this is based on absolute laws of the universe. By the way, the claim that they exist, besides being nonsenical, is an example of circular reasoning. God is good because God defines Itself as good.
Report comment to moderator
IP: What’s the point of a society’s survival? Surviving? We all lose that game. Why strive to survive when death is inevitable?
The question assumes that there needs to be a “point” as judged by some outside arbiter. It is a false assumption.
People, by and large, prefer to live rather than die. Yes?
And people, for the most part, live in close proximity and necessary interaction with other people. Yes?
And people generally are not capable of producing everything they need, making them interdependent on others, beyond their neighbors. Yes?
So people realize that if they can obtain other things they need from other people, they benefit. Yes?
And people also realize that if the people they’re getting things from are not getting something in return, they are less likely to continue laboring to provide what they can. Yes?
And because these goods — both the necessities and luxuries — are not automatic, people desire to keep them and not allow them to be taken other than in trade. Yes?
Unless you disagree with any of the above, then I have just given you a framework for a moral code that include fairness in trade, everyone pulling his own weight and respect for private property, all without need to call it “absolute” or appeal to divine ordinance.
Mind you, I do believe there are moral absolutes, but to argue that without belief in a God there is no basis for any sort of moral reasoning is simply ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
80,
One of the interesting things I’ve discovered is that the hard core relavists — the post modernists — don’t believe in “reason,” they believe in the radical relativity of Truth, the will to power and so on.
The “modernist” (America’s Founders who disputedly may be on a track consistent with Aristotle, Aquinas, and today’s Roman Catholic Church) idea is that “reason” without the help of the Bible discovers essences found in “Nature” applicable to all times everywhere.
This is a reason why you almost NEVER see devout Catholics like John Finnis, Robbie George, and Gerard Bradley cite the Bible when they argue their religious conservative political moral claims.
The idea that we turn to the Bible alone to find “Law” with a capital L is a particularly Protestant notion that predates the American Founding and is part and parcel of a system that burned witches at the stake along with unitarian heretics like Servetus.
If folks want to go back to the early 1600 theocracies, be my guest, but it is as Un-America a system of “law” or “Law” that one could imagine.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also note that the “modernist” (that is the American Founding) idea of “Law” does respect the Bible as a source of “Law,” but one that supplements the discoveries of “reason,” not vice versa.
Report comment to moderator
There was no such thing as the “Bible” as we have it today for centuries, but yet man nevertheless certainly “knew” things prior to its canonization. So from whence comes man’s knowledge? There has to be a source not only of what I know but of who I am. My very existence and subsequent knowledge dictate that my nature is dependent and is ill-suited for “independence” – it is not good that man should be alone. From what then, upon what then, should I depend? From what or from whom do I seek “independence”?
The postion in into which “Reason” posits man suggests, in my estimation, he can “be like God, knowing good and evil” and the manifold temptation to order his world the way he wants it once more confronts him. I don’t think its much more difficult than that. Reason takes the fruit once more and says “Mine!”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
I’m not suggesting there needs to be an arbiter. I’ve only asked who or what said that surviving is the best I can do for myself. Death seems horribly contrary to survival. Why work so hard against it?
There plenty of people who believe that life is better after death, so your first question is sort of moot.
What I still do not understand SteveG, is that in your questions, it assumes the existence of absolutes. People acting in accordance with what they believe. Man’s outward behavior is the best indicator of what he believes to be “absolute” and true. You posit a purely economic scenario where the individual’s self-interest is the center of their existence. Reality in your posts is a purely economic one, but there is a “bottom line” nonetheless. If survival is the highest ideal, then your village of self-seeking consumers is living in accordance with their concept of absolute reality.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
I’ve never mentioned turning to the Bible to find “Law”. My captialization of the term was in relation to the universal existence of it and my fascination with the concept itself being so pervasive throughout human history. I know what Protestants have done to it. I thought such a powerful, tacit human impulse for societal order had to be much more than just a capricious human “impulse”.
Nor have I ever suggested I was hinting at the creation of a theocracy. People may malign the notion, but “Reason” has spilled its share of blood, too.
Law has a transcendent quality to it. That is my point.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=114248029&m=114282846
The NPR program Fresh Air hosted by Terry Gross provides excellent interviews. If the link above works, it takes you to an interview with a Muslim from Pakitstan who might be characterized as a Pakistani “SteveG.”
Most of what I read here at wmb seems to be a silly stereotype of Islam, just as most of what people here write about atheists and homosexuals are silly stereotypes.
I have no hope that anyone will clear their mind of clutter enough to listen to something that presents a different view of things then they have already decided on, but the show on Fresh Air (about 15 or 20 minutes long) is worth listening to.
Report comment to moderator
While racing it’s Ferrari through a small town, Google got caught in a speed trap.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/01digi.html
Report comment to moderator
HOPESPRINGS wrote; “I’m sorry, but I think “kill” is the correct word in Ex. 20 and Deut. 5.”
I’m sorry, but you are ‘dead’ wrong (okay, please know that I am just using a friendly pun here–but I do disagree with you, Hopesprings).
Firtst see KEN’s excellent post at #65.
Second: “Rasah” is the basic form of the Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13. It normally refers to an unlawful killing of a human being, often clearly distinguished (in context) from a lawful putting to death (as in Numbers 35:16 where ‘rasah’ and ‘mut’ are combined to say that a “murderer” should be “put to death.” An “accused murderer” (rasah) could flee to a city of refuge but the word itself is usually distinguished from words that describe killing an animal, or an opponent in war or other forms of just punishment by killing.
“Mut” is the Hebrew term used most often for the lawful putting of a person to death (capital punishment, which the OT supports) and to the killing of enemies in war. ‘Mut’ may also be used to speak of dying of old age. It often describes the death of animals too.
“Naka” is the Hebrew word used to describe the violent act of killing, more literally, to strike down. It is often translated (in context) ‘defeated’, ‘attacked’ or ‘killed.’ “Naka” can also refer to striking objects or water (like the Nile River with a staff). If could refer to a flogging too.
“Harag” does complicate matters because it is a more versitile word than the others. One must pay close attention to the context to translate it well. It is translated at ‘kill’, ’slay’, ‘put to death’, ‘destroy’, ’slaughter’, or ‘murder’. But “Harag” is also often used for the destroying acts of God in punishment (killing the firstborn in Egypt, etc) so it could not rightly be used in the context of the Ten Commandments where absolute laws are issued. “Harag” could refer to destroying a nation too and to killing an animal, but it usually referred to people.
Decide for yourself. But I agree with the vast majority of scholars who translate Exodus 20:13 as “You shall not murder.”
Report comment to moderator
The Latin Vulgate reads:
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. – non occides
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Respectfully, can you understand how posts like #47, by you, can come off to us with a tone of superiority on your part? Just a word to the wise.
Example: “You folks aren’t confronting me with anything I haven’t already heard and thought about.”
Well, excuuuuuse us!
JR wrote; “It’s actually a pretty elementary or sophmoric concern in philosophy.”
In other words, to see it differently from you is “sophmoric?”
Jon, to say that a moral premise is “unproven” is not necessarily to prove that it was not delivered in the Bible as a moral absolute. You referred to this with regard to how you interpreted the Bible, so I for one was not arguing philosophy with you (which you apparently presumed, t seemed to me). Rather, it is your interpretation of the Bible (generally stated) that I disagree with.
Jon Rowe wrote: “Problem solved.”
A bit presumptuous, wouldn’t you say?
Report comment to moderator
IP wrote at #64;
“We post because we love what we have to say and think others should, too.”
Can you please speak for yourself? This is judgmental. I enjoy reading these threads and I enjoy posting to engage with a rather bright batch of people of deeper than usual conviction (by and large). I actually like to read poits of view that differ with mine too. But I sincerely don’t expect others to love what I have to say. If I ever had that notion, it has long since been drimmed out of me.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Joel, it had to be said.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Joel Mark
It is judgmental? My “we” is a rhetorical flourish as I thought it would be understood. There is a degree of truth in the statement by which I shall stand. It is an indictment upon our sinful natures and our tendency for self-agrandizement and wanting to be right, wanting to be heard, wanting the last word, etc., nothing more. Not a specific ad hominem directed at anyone in particular. I was simply responding to Mr. Ken with a generalization about man’s propensity to promote himself.
I shall be the first to speak for myself and say my motives for writing on a blog are tainted. Judge them as you see fit, of course. But I take your comments to heart and recognize your point.
Thank you.
Iambic Pentameter
Report comment to moderator
Respectfully, can you understand how posts like #47, by you, can come off to us with a tone of superiority on your part? Just a word to the wise.
Example: “You folks aren’t confronting me with anything I haven’t already heard and thought about.”
Yes. And that’s because, like Stu Jaimison, I am a man of noble intelligence.
Well, excuuuuuse us!
You are excused my son.
JR wrote; “It’s actually a pretty elementary or sophmoric concern in philosophy.”
In other words, to see it differently from you is “sophmoric?”
Nope it has nothing to do with what people subjectively “see.” It has to do with the serious questions the philosophic academy has dealt with.
Jon, to say that a moral premise is “unproven” is not necessarily to prove that it was not delivered in the Bible as a moral absolute. You referred to this with regard to how you interpreted the Bible, so I for one was not arguing philosophy with you (which you apparently presumed, t seemed to me). Rather, it is your interpretation of the Bible (generally stated) that I disagree with.
The Bible as Truth is unproven and unprovable; that was my only point.
Jon Rowe wrote: “Problem solved.”
A bit presumptuous, wouldn’t you say?
The problem of relativity of Truth, yes. You simply tie your moral assertion to God and “problem solved.”
Haven’t you heard the Roger Waters’ tune on the matter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH-4eIsjo3s
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Joel Mark
For you a question. Why post then if you do not believe others will think highly of what you write or at the very least consider them against their own perceptions of truth and reality? You must have a relatively sound opinion of what you write and what others will think about it otherwise you wouldn’t post. My point was directed at the part of “self” which takes this impulse beyond its reasonable bounds. I am not saying you do this Mr. Mark, I’ve merely brought the question to the forefront in my comment box number 64.
I think the Beatles sang about when they were 64. But I’ve forgotten what it was all about.
Iambic Pentameter.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I have no idea what Jon Rowe was talking about at #72 but I can say that I have never read anything by you that was “…disgraceful, nasty and sinful.” Never. Not even close. That sounds severely judgmental but this is not new. Your posts here are valued, NJL, whether JR wants to address them or not.
For that matter, Jon Rowe’s posts are welcome too, but the gratuitous 4-letter explitives are not.
Report comment to moderator
“A Word made Flesh is seldom
And tremblingly partook…”
Report comment to moderator
“Tell all the Truth but tell it slant –
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb suprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind – ”
Emily Dickinson
Report comment to moderator
IP, I never saw your comment as ad hominem directed at anyone and I appreciate that. You are thoughtful! And you are right about our sin nature. And sure, there is always some “self-absorption” in all we may say or do.
But I think in general, I just felt like stiking up for the value of communicating openly on this blog, in general, without haveing our motives presumed unduly. Fair enough?
Report comment to moderator
Well Joel, before you EVER AGAIN SPEAK ON THIS matter, YOU put your money where your mouth is.
See what NJL shamefully said in post 208 on this thread:
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/whirled-views-10-30/#comments
It was a sin on her part. God will judge her and YOU for that matter if you decide to go there and defend her breaking of the 9th Commandment.
I think you all understand what the Bible teaches about unconfessed, unrepentant sin.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Joel Mark
Fair enough!
Report comment to moderator
One more thought IP:
I post with many motives: to influence, to interact, to learn, and yes, sometimes to react or to vent. But as a 55 year old man, I communicate with less presumption over how others will react to my words than in my younger years. Other people’s reaction do not dictate my thoughts as much anymore. Different people react very differently. Some people even seem to hate my comments. Fine. That is their right just as it is my right to let my voice be heard.
On this blog, people who do NOT like what you say tend to be the ones who respond to you, and people who love what you say tend to just read it with satisfaction and feel glad that somebody said it. So you cannot judge the opinions of all by the reactions you get.
One of my mottos is: ‘Let a sane voice be heard.” I hope I live up to that, at least slightly.
Blessings to you, IP.
Report comment to moderator
Ditto Joel Mark – John Rowe is deserving of NO apologies from ANYONE here. He begs for whatever remarks he inspires with his hostile challenges and slurs.
John, I suggest you grow up, man up and try being a gentleman for a change.
Report comment to moderator
John Rowe, that’s nonsense and you know it. I think you are the only one who doesn’t understand. Calm your ego down and listen.
Report comment to moderator
I did read it, that’s why I needed to comment. Don’t be so offensive.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Mark
Your explanation is gracious. Many thanks for your candid and courteous reply.
Iambic Pentameter.
What do you think of Ms. Dickinson’s poem about truth up there?
I like it.
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
I hope you DIDN’T read it, because if you did, you are engaging in just as disgraceful, 9th Commandment breaking behavior as NJL and owe me an apology as well.
Folks know that I have a high tolerance for taking ad hominent attacks on this website; but what NJL wrote was truly insulting. And you are following in her sinful tracks as well.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – 18
I have changed my mind. It’s a more recent poster – CLUE: changeable and in need attnetion – a different slant this time around.
Report comment to moderator
111 SHOULD READ:
I have changed my mind. It’s a more recent poster – CLUE: changeable and in need of constant attention – a different slant this time around.
Report comment to moderator
No thank you, Jon Rowe. And I will again speak on any matter I so chose, whether you judge it one way or another or not. You do not rule as god, Jon Rowe. Sorry. I take your harsh judgment of NJLawyer in the same way I take past dogmatic judgments you have made on me (and other human beings in history too)–with a heavy grain of salt.
Jon Rowe, you often make intelligent and knowledgeable comments. But I am not interested in your beef with NJLawyer. She and you are both valued posters here, for different reasons.
I addressed her at #98 and stand by that too.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
That’s fine enough. But if you aren’t interested in that particular matter then you have a moral obligation to be silent about it.
If you want to know why I so harshly judge NJL on that matter, you have to inform yourself of her gruesome insult she directed against me.
Look, I’m a man of my word. I’m willing to drop the entire issue and wipe the slate clean if she apologizes to me either publicly OR privately via email.
Report comment to moderator
Look,
You folks have seen me at my best over the past few years. But what NJL did leaves me feeling exactly as William F. Buckley felt against Gore Vidal.
This is not a point I’m dropping until I get an apology.
http://tinyurl.com/yc4yqox
Report comment to moderator
Jon – If you are so upset, you should “report comment to moderator”, if you haven’t done so already. Mickey doesn’t have time to peruse all the comments.
Report comment to moderator
For those who don’t know what transpired last night, the starting post is #205, 3rd paragraph – LINK to thread below:
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/whirled-views-10-30/#comments
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t reported the comment to the moderator because 1) I’ve never done so; and 2) it’s just not my style. If Mickey wants to get involved in this, let him.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria caught me. I’m shameful Old Hickory. Melancholy and needy as ever.
Hello everyone.
Tried to return with a new name so I could start afresh and leave all my personal stuff off of the blog and stay with the discussions. Alas, my conscience would not permit it.I could neither stay away or prentend to be someone else.
I suppose that’s deception, isn’t it? Let’s see who’ve I talked to today? Joel Mark, Ken, Jon Rowe, TRS and TJS last evening, NJ Lawyer – my apologies for the deception, folks. I was only trying to start a new and shed the personal stuff everyone “knows” about Old Hickory. Didn’t work.
You are right Victoria. Thanks for the sleuthing. Pricked my conscience. Sigh.
Old Hickory
Report comment to moderator
See, it is me! There is my eagle. I am Iambic Pentameter. I chose that name because, like syllables in poetry, I go from being stressed to unstressed, just like the iambic emphasis in poetry. Pentameter because this is what, the fifth time I’ve left and come back?
Report comment to moderator
Should be “unstressed to stressed”. duh DUH – like that.
Report comment to moderator
OH,
You are good. You remind me of a particular conservative co-blogger of mine with whom I am close in an “Internet” sense.
He’s also a musician and quite artistic. I should hook the two of you up.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
I am shamed. Forgive me, brother.
OH
Report comment to moderator
It was kind of fun being a sock puppet.
Report comment to moderator
SO transparent – sock puppets aren’t clever -
Report comment to moderator
OH,
If you are interested email me at rowjonathan@aol.com. I’ve got an Internet conversation (a public one; you click to my name) and you’ll see it involving conservative Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons and atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, religious right, secular left, all over and in between.
Report comment to moderator
But I couldn’t continue to deceive people, no matter the fun. Victoria caught me.
Report comment to moderator
Never said I was clever, Victoria. Just wanting to discuss stuff and erase my previous slate of what people knew of Old Hickory. Really that’s all.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Jon Rowe. I wouldn’t mind it. I could ask you things about U.S. History from time to time.
I’d recently discussed the Whiskey Rebellion with the kiddos and the similarities between the Pennsylvania farmers and the Sons of Liberty and how both were supressed by a man named George who needed revenue to pay a war debt. They thought that was interesting.
Report comment to moderator
“To Tell the Truth” was a good TV show.
Report comment to moderator
I think Jon and Oldhickory68 would make a great little team. Have you two met on other blogs, etc? – there are a few posts on other Whirled View threads that have some interesting posts.
Report comment to moderator
We have never met. I think we just share an interest in History as shaped and informed by Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Whatever!
Report comment to moderator
Truth always makes things interesting. Good piece on death tonight. Makes me a bit fearful I might not see tomorrow. I have plans tomorrow, but the Lord may direct my steps elsewhere. Perhaps eternity. I am a year away from the age of my dad when he passed away.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Travis on “To Tell The Truth”: Orson Bean, Kitty Carlisle, Peggy Cass, Tom Poston – fun, clever and suitable for children even the commercials
Report comment to moderator
I take it you’re making fun of us.
Report comment to moderator
Will the real Travis Birkenstock please stand up.
Report comment to moderator
JR, I can decide for myself what my moral obligations are, thank you. You are not my Judge. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Profanely taking the Lord’s name in vain will not be tolerated on this website, no matter what. It results in an automatic banning.
For everyone else, including NJLawyer, if you cannot behave and treat each other with respect, you may soon be on the outside looking in, too.
And Victoria, it is completely unnecessary for you to involve yourself and stir things up further on here by linking back and drawing attention to a previous thread. Mind your own business.
Commenting here is a privilege granted by WORLD Magazine, and is not a right. We desire to provide an environment where we can have civil conversations on the issues of the day and if you cannot contribute in a positive manner, action will be taken. There are likely a lot of people out there who would like to contribute to this forum but do not because of the bickering and name-calling and attacks that go on, many that have been involving the same commenters for years.
If you can’t tell, my patience is wearing extremely thin. There are a lot things I’d rather be doing on a Saturday night than babysitting this group.
Report comment to moderator
An interesting wikipedia comment on Reformation Day.
Luther may have been shrewd in his choice of when to post his theses. The fact that it coincided with Halloween may not be mere coincidence. As the Eve of All Saints’ Day, Halloween might have been entirely appropriate for Luther to post his 95 Theses against indulgences since the church would be open on All Saints’ Day, specifically for people to view a large collection of relics, the viewing of which was said to promise a reduction in time in purgatory similar to that of the purchase of an indulgence.
Report comment to moderator
I heard that on a Hallowheen couple of years ago, I heard that some kids in our neighborhood were robbed at gunpoint of their candy. The thief must have been desperate…
Maybe they were too lazy to go and trick or treat themselves. Ha.
It seems interesting to me that Jon Rowe calls the behavior of certain posters “sinful,” but since he isn’t a Christian and doesn’t believe in the Bible and what it calls sin (correct me if I’m wrong here), he’d be more consistent with his beliefs by saying something along the lines of “what you believe is sinful behavior…”
Or what is perhaps more likely, I am just misunderstandinf Jon Rowe. He seems to be an interesting character, due to the fact that he is apparently at least somewhat well-versed in knowledge of the Bible and its teachings which, to my knowledge, he mostly uses to tell Christians what they’re saying or doing is unbiblical. However, he doesn’t seem to believe the Bible he refers to and quotes from all the times.
Jon Rowe,
Am I mistaken in anything I said about you? If so, please tell me. I am not desiring to get into a verbal conflict at the moment, or anytime soon. I used to love to argue, but that desire has just about disappeared.
Adios, everyone.
[sound of Ferrari 599 GTB HGTE's V12 revving as car accelerates while driving away, going from 0-60 in about 3.2 seconds]
Ferrari 599 GTB: profile photo car. (minus HGTE package, which wouldn’t be really be noticeable from the outside anyway, certainly not from the front)
Report comment to moderator
Old Iambic Hickory Pentameter -
I knew that was you! I didn’t “out” you like Victoria did, but I knew it.
Welcome back.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, I still don’t get this sock puppet thing. I thought one person could only have one “handle” and one email address to comment. How could OH change back and forth like that?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah right, you knew –
The Bible and its message isn’t a joke, or something to play with. When ANYONE does it, they aren’t being real – sock puppet or not, it’s a fscade, and it’s not right.
Report comment to moderator
OH, I’ve only been here a few months and wasn’t clued in on your game. And still don’t completelly understand your going from unstressed to stressed (duh-DUM) five times only to “come clean.” Is it somehow related to Reformation Day and I’m missing that, too? I ask sincerely – this has been so confusing.
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
Do you give out your email address?
Report comment to moderator
OH: I suspected Iambic Pentameter was a sock puppet. I didn’t expect that it was you. Nice to see you.
Report comment to moderator
IP at #86: What I still do not understand SteveG, is that in your questions, it assumes the existence of absolutes. People acting in accordance with what they believe. Man’s outward behavior is the best indicator of what he believes to be “absolute” and true. You posit a purely economic scenario where the individual’s self-interest is the center of their existence. Reality in your posts is a purely economic one, but there is a “bottom line” nonetheless. If survival is the highest ideal, then your village of self-seeking consumers is living in accordance with their concept of absolute reality.
Well duh. I didn’t say otherwise.
The first question is, is there a God who defines what is right and what is wrong?
If the answer to that is yes (not what people believe, but what the actual answer is), then there is a long list of additional questions; but what if the answer is no?
The underlying thrust of the theistic argument is that in the absence of a divine Lawgiver there can be no right or wrong … as TJS Catlover said, without God, lifelong heterosexual marriage, homosexuality, bestaility and necrophilia are all the same.
But that’s not the case. With OR without a God, human beings develop rules, codes and principles to make it easier to live together, in interrelationship with others. We do this without needing a God to tell us what to do; and we do it because we do it. It isn’t even a matter of consciously thinking about whether we should. We just do, and if we didn’t, our species would have gone extinct millenia ago.
You ask, why try to resist death, as if you are surprised to learn that humans have a survival drive.
I do believe in God, so perhaps I am not the best person for you to challenge; but really, the case is exceedinging weak. While there can be no absolute morality in the absence of the divine Lawgiver, it is not true that this means there can be no morality at all.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, that is the point. Our species should have gone extinct millennia ago, according to atheistic views. Their view is baseless, circular, and it doesn’t make sense even according to its own definitions. “We do it because we do it” “it makes sense because it happened” … this is the definition of a circular argument.
Humans created morality to survive… why is morality necessary for survival? Why would humans care about hazy concepts like “continuance of the species?” Why should “Nature” dictate such a thing? Why could they not overcome it, even assuming it did? Did they somehow have less free will than I do? I could kill myself now. I could kill my brother now… I could go on a murderous spree. I could start a life mission to destroy civilization. There is no magical force stopping me and urging me to continue the species. There is only God’s moral law, and my choice to follow it.
Morality without absolutes is meaningless in the end. I could just choose to ignore it, and I don’t see why I wouldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
OH: I am sorry that you felt it was necessary to have a clean persona to continue debating. You and I started at roughly the same time, I thought? (I seem to remember you saying you were new.) I have certainly had some negative things, probably both deserved and undeserved, attributed to TJS Catlover, but you notice I am still here.
What do I know about Old Hickory?
He has a bad habit of thinking I don’t like him.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
There isn’t a single society that I know of which doesn’t attach some transcendence to their law code. The very laws themselves are considered to have originated from folks considered to be either a god incarnate or have some sort of mediating connection between the gods and the people; i.e. the pharaohs, the kings, the great spirits, the village elders, the wise men, the astrologers, the priests, etc. There are no people, times or places of which I’m aware which do not equate their moral code to some “divine” existence apart from man himself.
It is the mindset of the “West” which attempts to divorce transcendence or some divine lawgiver from its moral imperatives.I believe the history of man and his culture demonstrate quite the opposite of what you suggest to be a “weak” argument.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
For your information, Madam, I was not playing with the Bible. I was playing with my blog identity.
Nana – Victoria wants to email you to “warn” you that I “play games” and perhaps to some extent I’m selfish, self-centered and emotionally manipulative and that I’ve got some sort of top-secret agenda which she feels is necessary to expose from time to time. I believe she thinks I’m out to turn people away from the truth of Scripture is what I get.
What’s funny is that I always admit when I’m at fault in here, know that I’m selfish, self-centered and enjoy the attention of posting and struggle with it. I figured yesterday if Victoria already knew I was Old Hickory posting as Iambic Pentameter, others could already figure it out. So I revealed my “true” identity. (what is identity on a blog anyway? And who is Victoria for that matter?) So even as “Old Hickory, my “true” blogself, Victoria still thinks I’m someone with a secret agenda. I have been continuously assailed by her, telling me that I am a “sock puppet” someone with a secret double-identity for the purpose of deceiving people and taking them away from the truth of Scripture.
My own defense is that I’m fairly convinced that those with a strong enough disposition about their own beliefs are not going to be swayed one iota by anything I say. So in essence Victoria’s concerns are really nonsensical. She obviously doesn’t think much of what I write. So either she thinks she’s immune to my “tricks” and everyone else is gullible or she really thinks I’m able to deceive people, like yourself.
Anyhow. That’s where I think we stand. She’s free to correct me or assail me some more, of course.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, see the end of our discussion where you said that you knew nothing of the differences in church’s coffees
Report comment to moderator
Nana –
I have multiple email addresses. That’s really all one needs for another posting identity.
I wanted to “start over” and shed the Old Hickory persona and try to engage in discussion without being assailed for simply being Old Hickory. Case in point for one I wanted to “hide” from Victoria whose posts are some of the most graceless, caustic and legalistic writing I’ve ever read. Her constant barage of acidic correctness can be infuriating. I was tired of NJLAWYER telling me I needed thick skin. I was sorry that I ever brought up so much personal information on the blog about myself for it just opens up a can of worms. I was, and perhaps still am, taking blogging way too seriously. I love to write. It’s a prideful thing. So I thought with a new screen name, I could “start over”. Nope.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH, I doubt anyone wants to warn me or assail you. I just read many comments that show genuine concern. Honest! That’s the way I read it.
Report comment to moderator
As far as I’m concerned, OH is what he is, beginning today
Report comment to moderator
And yet I will say that I have had some pleasant exchanges with Victoria in the past. I say nothing of her person, of course. I don’t know who he or she might be. I only judge the writing. She can write light-hearted fun things and is accepted by the regulars here, which I’ve likewise tried to do. I do not hate her, for I do not know her. I don’t like what she writes most of the time, but that’s not a judgment against her person, just her prose.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Well, Nana, I was just giving you the explanation before you got one from her. She’ll probably come back with something to the extent that because I’ve commented about her in this way, this demonstrates how self-centered I am, thinking its all about me and how I must have all this attention. Or she’ll mention something to defend her spotless record of never being wrong. She has never in all my time reading her posts since July, ever admitted she was the least bit wrong about anything.
I harbor no unforgiveness, but only state the facts of the past and what I’ve dealt with and what others can attest to as well. She’s a smart person, has a passion for having the facts straight, is a staunch defender of the unborn (I mean that seriously and respectfully), and likes to be heard herself. I have not a mean bone in my body toward her at all.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH, I’m loathe to read your mind on specifics when you speak of falling short of enigmatically transcending the confines of this blog or being a sane voice to be heard. And after the poetic prose you posted, to be or not to be (duh-DUM) on a blog left my mind bouncing around as to where you were coming from. I think I have it now though. OK?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
My apologies to you for the identity deception. Thanks for sniffing me out and pricking my conscience. I forgive you for any and everything. I have no arguments or bitterness against you and have only related factually the history of our interaction on this blog to Nana. Your writing can be extraordinarily graceless at times, as mine can be gratingly self-righteous at times. So we are both flawed. Ok. But can I just ask you one favor? Can you stop insisting that I’ve got some sort of game-playing, secret agenda? It’s making me think you’ve got a low view of your fellow bloggers if you think I can actually fool anyone besides yourself.
Thank you, Victoria.
Old Hickory
Report comment to moderator
Maybe we’re writing at cross purposes, so I’ll ponder more of what you’ve said this morning and wish you a blessed Lord’s day as we begin November afresh.
Report comment to moderator
Nana –
I love poetry. Few folks do because it is difficult to follow. I’m not saying I can follow it myself precisely, but I like the enigmatic nature of it. It shows how carefully selecting words can create a vast experience within our minds, hearts and souls. It always makes the reader work a bit, like climbing a mountain. But once you get to the summit the view is always worth it. Poems can juxtapose contradicting words, phrases and things and tie them together in a way few have ever conceived. It that sense a poem is somewhat like Scripture. The words themselves invite further inquiry.
Anyhow.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH, have you ever read, “The antiseptic baby and the prophylactic pup were playing in the garden when the bunny gamboled up. He wasn’t disinfected and he wasn’t sterilized…” Just a fun rhyme from an anthology I used in high school.
Report comment to moderator
My apologies for the confusion, Nana.
OH
Report comment to moderator
No, I’ve never heard that one. I like it!
Report comment to moderator
“Come, read to me some poem,
Some simple and heartfelt lay,
That shall soothe this restless feeling,
And banish the thoughts of the day.”
H.W. Longfellow
Report comment to moderator
OH, I thought you might. The rest, s/apologies to all:
They looked upon the creature witha loathing undisguised;
It wasn’t disinfected and it wasn’t sterlized.
They said it was a microbe and a hotbed of disease;
They steamed it in a vapor of a thousand-odd degrees;
They froze it in a freezer that was cold as banished hope
And washed it in permanganate with carbolated soap.
In sulphurated hydrogen they steeped its wiggly ears;
They trimmed its frisky whiskers with a pair of hard-boiled shears;
They donned their rubber mittens and they took it by the hand
And elected it a member of the fumigated band.
There’s not a microccus in the garden where they play;
They bath in pure iodoform a dozen times a day;
And each imbibes his rations from a hygienic cup-
The bunny and the baby and the prophylactic pup.
Report comment to moderator
I must recant what I said above about poetry. There are a great deal more than a “few” folks who enjoy it. My comment arises from the fact that I think too highly of myself. Saying “few” puts myself in an elite category. I’m really not that elite. I’m rather average, if not below it most of the time.
OH
Report comment to moderator
All poems, like ideas, are not equal
Report comment to moderator
That’s a wonderful poem, Nana. Lots to say about our modern condition.
Report comment to moderator
OH, have you read Scott Lamb’s excellent column: “Lovers Surprised by Death” by Burgkmair? So much to say on that I haven’t known where to begin, so I haven’t yet.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, to clarify; worship wars seems to have ended.
Report comment to moderator
Nana
Yes, I read it last evening. I think about my death all the time, however. When, how, if, etc. I live in Texas, am single and have no immediate family around. I have a brother in California, one in Missouri, and one in Iraq, Dad’s deceased and Mom lives in Tennessee. My Aunt passed away in October of last year in Ohio, my Mom’s sister. She lived by herself, too. All that to say is one of my greatest fears is dying alone. It would take a few days for someone to “find” me.
Plus, the older I get (as today is one of those “official” yearly advances in human chronological existence for me), the more I realize I’m not going to die “perfect”. I’ve come to see death as an act of faith, requiring a great deal of faith to “die well”. Friend of mine is a nurse. She used to do in-home, terminal care. She’d sit by the bedsides of people who died alone. Some she would tell me some of her patients didn’t want to close their eyes because they were so afraid of dying. I can relate. I hear my heartbeat on my pillow and think of how frail I really am. That article was spot-on, though.
Report comment to moderator
There is no mourning period in our culture for death. We go to Uncle Joe’s funeral and are back in time for the football game or go shopping afterward or whatever the case may be. It is unheard of in our time to take a month off to “mourn”. Nope. In a short period of time, we’re back at whatever it was we were doing before so and so died. We rob ourselves of the time we need to grieve perhaps because we don’t know how or in our confused times, haven’t a clue where the dearly departed are and don’t really want to face those existential questions. Consequently, we don’t really “mourn” as we see in Scripture. Even Jesus wept. I have rarely shown any emotion at funerals of people whom I’ve known or loved. I don’t know why. But that’s me. My view of death even for me as a Christian has been infected with this world’s shallow, unreflective attitudes toward it, in part. But let’s face it, death is a bugger.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – I read what you think is “disgraceful, nasty and sinful” and I believe you owe NJL an apology, not the other way around. Your posts are often filled with an attitude that suggests you are far superior to any other person on this post and if you find the post in #208 of that WV offensive, you are a lot more thin skinned than I thought. Your comments to both NJL and JoelMark on this subject were the ones that were disgraceful and nasty, can’t say whether they are sinful or not.
OH – great to see you back.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, as a lawyer, I would have thought you’d have prepared the case for the other side before you demanded an apology in this thread. You called me a “Christian pedophile” in that same thread, yet you demand an apology? You do remember that phrase “unclean hands” from law school, right? That’s a rhetorical question.
Old Hickory, the only way to overcome depression is to stop thinking in a morbid, depressed way, i.e., ” I think about my death all the time….” That change, if you ever decide to make it, is internal to you. You are right — it is not my job to interfere.
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory, please stop beating up on yourself in public here. I am starting to get irritated with your incessant self-criticism. I wonder if you are secretly proud of your humility and great respect for other participants.
When you started to criticize Victoria, I thought Hey, he’s just like the rest of us. After all, who hasn’t criticized Victoria? But then you immediately sprang to her defense, perhaps defending her against your other hand.
Does your family have a coat of arms? I would presume it would show a lot of hands on it, indicating people in your family are expected to say, “On the other hand…” at all times.
Report comment to moderator
#132
That’s my line. You do not have permission to use it.
Report comment to moderator
I think Mr. Rowe’s comments, especially taking the Lord’s name in vain, are way out of line. Yet at the same time, without making excuses for him or his comments, there is a provocative nature to NJLawyer’s comments from time to time which have an air of condescension about them. I know this from first-hand experience and interaction with him/her myself. It can make for difficulty in holding the tongue. On both sides of this are posts which suggest the superiority of each person’s arguments and their unwavering commitment to what each perceives to be the truth of reality.
As mentioned to Joel Mark earlier in this thread, ego/self is at the center when things become this volatile. Scripture says that “knowledge puffs up.” As a teacher and a blogger, I can attest to this! I can understand why NJL said what he/she did and I can understand why Mr. Rowe responded as he did. I’ve secretly harbored similar sentiments toward others who’ve angered me in the past. That’s the reality of my sinful, prideful nature. I nicely exhorted NJLawyer in the past to treat others as he/she would want to be treated but it was received coldly. I’ve been belittled by NJL at times and it has angered me. That’s why I step away from this thing now and again.
I do not harbor any unforgiveness or grudges toward NJL or others. It’s merely my own detatched observation that both parties involved in this situation are similarly tenacious and passionate about what they think is the truth but like all of us are still in the process of sanctification. Apologies on both sides would be refreshing to see.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#138
I have argued that the main problem facing the modern world is how people with differing World Views can manage to live together with each other in peace.
Now I am wondering if people who supposedly share the same World View can live together with each other in peace.
Also, why are people posting here on worldmagblog on Sunday morning, before they even go to church? Is this respectful of the Sabbath?
Report comment to moderator
OK, this is getting to be ludicrous.
Jon Rowe pointed out that in the past, people were considered adults and ready for marriage — including sex and parenthood — by their early teens. He used the Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah rituals as his example.
This is undeniably true and should not be controversial.
NJL reacted to this by accusing him of being an apologist for NAMBLA who should not be trusted around small children.
And so far, Joel Mark, Victoria and now IAF have sided with NJL.
Do you three really believe that pointing out the historical reality of the earlier age of adulthood in Biblical cultures is a sign of support for a pedophilia organization, or do you just feel obligated to side with a conservative Christian in a disagreement?
Based on Jon Rowe’s history of postings here, writings on his own blog or any other information you may have about him, is there any reason to suspect he is a pedophile?
If not, then why do you defend NJL’s leap to that incredibly hurtful and false line of attack?
Report comment to moderator
OH, I’m glad you’re here in whatever cyber-incarnation it is. And for the record, I *loved* the Iambic Pentameter persona (I love your ‘persona’ as well!).
I wonder, have you ever read a work by Walter Marshall entitled The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification? Marshall lived in the 17th century, so his doctrine is not suspect! (Half-kidding there). The work is a wonderful treatment on the doctrine of sanctification, and provides great words of comfort to Christians.
Regards!
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Random Name
“Old Hickory, please stop beating up on yourself in public here. I am starting to get irritated with your incessant self-criticism. I wonder if you are secretly proud of your humility and great respect for other participants.”
Greetings to you sir. First, with all due respect, it is refreshing to see you irritated.
And secondly you do not have to wonder if I am “secretly” proud of my humility and “great respect for other participants” because I shall declare it openly. Of course. My life is a mixed bag of writing and commenting for the glory of God and for the glory of myself and my pride. When you fling open the doors of the interior thoughtlife of a soul for all to see, such as I do for good or for ill or for self or for the glory of God, the best day will only ever be an odd mixture of flesh and spirit. I refer you to Romans chapter 7 for an even better explanation of my titanic struggle between humility and pride.
Thanks!
OH
Report comment to moderator
NJL’s commentary about Mr. Rowe being a pedophile is indicative of his/her pride. Mr. Rowe’s blasphemy is indicative of his. Both require repentance. Both are forgivable.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Random –
Church doesn’t start until 11 a.m. for me here in Texas. I cannot speak for anyone else.
OH
Mac –
No, I’ve never read that. It sounds wonderful. Thank you for the suggestion.
OH
Report comment to moderator
NJL at #175: Jon Rowe, as a lawyer, I would have thought you’d have prepared the case for the other side before you demanded an apology in this thread. You called me a “Christian pedophile” in that same thread, yet you demand an apology? You do remember that phrase “unclean hands” from law school, right? That’s a rhetorical question.
You refer to post #212 in that thread. There are two points here:
1. Jon said it AFTER you accused him of being a NAMBLA sympathizer in #208.
2. After Jon made the comment you reference here, he concluded, in the same post: [I actually don't believe this; I wrote it to illustrate how OUTRAGEOUS NJL's comments were in 208.
So this pathetic excuse is belied by the facts.
The fact remains, you said a horrible and entirely unjustified thing. It’s hardly the first time you’ve done that and, true to form, instead offering an apology to the other person, you’re digging in your heels, making excuses and try to justify the unjustifiable.
Report comment to moderator
NJL 175
Thanks for the advice.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t it strange how throughout this thread, and just this morning, Random Name and SteveG continue to make posts that assume absolute morality? If there were no absolute right or wrong, it wouldn’t *really* be bad if the world did not live in peace, or if people said unjustified things. Such conditions are just *things*, devoid of actual moral character and subject to the preferences of individuals. Maybe NJL doesn’t *prefer* the same moral code SteveG is trying to push on her. Well, there ya go! End of controversy!
Report comment to moderator
Mac: To be clear, I’m a Christian who does believe morality flows from God. It’s just that I find the argument that without God there could be no morality to be weak, and I have an inability to resist taking the contrary view for the purposes of debate.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Just another thought. Melancholy has been around for centuries, going all the way back to the Greeks who were the first to attempt a categorization and cause of it. One of the cheif characteristics of the melancholy soul is a heightened awareness of one’s own mortality. I think it is an inescapable and uncurable reality. You cannot simply rid yourself of it, you must work through it, but it is never going to go away. Licolon often thought about his own death.
For the Christian it is not a ceasation of thinking of death which is necessary but thinking of death in light of Christ. And even and perhaps especially because of what is at stake eternally, the necessity of contemplating one’s own mortality becomes paramount. I may be a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, but so be it. I take it from your commnets you’ve never experienced melancholy or depression yourself.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Happy Birthday, Old Hickory!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
Just an addition to our discussion. I would say that in the absence of a deity, a “godless” system of morality nevertheless is often sanctioned as though it flows from a divine source. In essence morality of any stripe posits this necessity of it as originating from a godhead of some type. It is inescapable. The ultimate moral imperatives have divine sanctions built into them.
While you say you can have a system of morals apart from God or a god, I would simply say that the notion of morals themselves has a transcendent quality to it which indicates one cannot have such a system without some sort of reference to divine transcendence, try as much as you like. Something like a god inevitably emerges from the forray.
Report comment to moderator
MUMSEE! SHHHHHHHHHHHH!
But ok, thanks anyhow.
OH
Report comment to moderator
That’s what I thought. Happy Birthday to you, OH.
Now celebrate!! Please.
Report comment to moderator
OH, you already said it in an earlier post
Report comment to moderator
TJS at #148: SteveG, that is the point. Our species should have gone extinct millennia ago, according to atheistic views. Their view is baseless, circular, and it doesn’t make sense even according to its own definitions. “We do it because we do it” “it makes sense because it happened” … this is the definition of a circular argument.
Not at all. Living organisms have a drive to survive. Evolution ensures this because any organisms that don’t have such a drive don’t survive, and aren’t around to serve as examples.
In the absence of divine decree, it would still be entirely possible to see morality as simply an articulation and codification of entirely natural behavior traits that make species survival more possible. Consider wolves or other predators that hunt in packs. They share their kills amongst members of the pack. If they didn’t, the two or three strongest individuals might survive but the rest of the pack would starve and then the two or three survivors would be without the help. That could be said to be part of wolf morality, to share one’s kill, if wolves were the kind of reasoning animals that wrote moral codes.
Humans created morality to survive… why is morality necessary for survival? Why would humans care about hazy concepts like “continuance of the species?” Why should “Nature” dictate such a thing? Why could they not overcome it, even assuming it did? Did they somehow have less free will than I do?
Why would you want to overcome your own drive to survive? Why do you imagine that human beings, even in the absence of God, would want to overcome it? You ask why they couldn’t as if there’s any reason they should try.
I could kill myself now. I could kill my brother now… I could go on a murderous spree. I could start a life mission to destroy civilization. There is no magical force stopping me and urging me to continue the species. There is only God’s moral law, and my choice to follow it.
Are you saying that if you didn’t believe in God you would be a suicidal murderer?
Morality without absolutes is meaningless in the end. I could just choose to ignore it, and I don’t see why I wouldn’t.
Again we’re back to pondering, “meaningless” in what regard? Meaningless in that no external force looks at how you live to judges it good or bad, yes. But if abiding by certain principles gives you a happy life, that’s pretty meaningful.
Report comment to moderator
#182
Your postmodern religious belief trumps my nihilism.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
Godless principles become the “Principal”. You suggest morals can be achieved objectively without any sort of view or appeal to divine transcendence. I suggest morals themselves have within them innate and tacit assumptions that the originate “outside” of man rather than “inside” of him as you seem to suggest, and that this “outside” source is unavoidably chock full of divine connotations.
It is the mindset of “westerners” who think it’s “easy” to divorce imperatives from a divine source.
OH
Report comment to moderator
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
Especially for TJS Catlover. Do not look at the People of Walmart picture in the link below. It contains offensive language. Why does Walmart permit people such as these to shop in their stores?
However, it is pertinent to a question you have asked me a zillion times.
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=5918
Report comment to moderator
It is not the post-modernist which trumps, RN, but the Incarnate Godhead, the Word Made Flesh, the One whom you persecute with your jejune lamentations and diatribes.
My best to you this day, sir.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Nevertheless RN your comment in box 196 is duly noted. May the Lord in His infinte mercy continue to smote your nihilism in love.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory #150: There isn’t a single society that I know of which doesn’t attach some transcendence to their law code. The very laws themselves are considered to have originated from folks considered to be either a god incarnate or have some sort of mediating connection between the gods and the people; i.e. the pharaohs, the kings, the great spirits, the village elders, the wise men, the astrologers, the priests, etc. There are no people, times or places of which I’m aware which do not equate their moral code to some “divine” existence apart from man himself.
I think that’s true. And at the same time, many societies that knew nothing of Yahweh developed moral codes that, at least in their main points, are similar. That points to a universality of human nature that is not limited to any one religious tradition. Whether it is God’s imprint on all of us, or a purely natural evolutionary development or some other explanation, it is a fact.
Report comment to moderator
And a birthday present from WMB to me! #200! YEsssss!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
Its not “Human nature” which triumphs as the supreme “universal” impulse, but it is the origin and source of human nature which is supreme. The divine Logos from whom comes the “universality of human nature”. The universal existence of moral codes is not indicative of man’s creative genius, but the divine essence God gave to everyone, the inner hunger and thirst for morality, of which Romans 1 so suscintly attests. Man has a vague idea of God and of basic tacit do’s and don’ts. But they come from God, not man, so there is always a divine stamp on them to some limited extent because God put it there. Evolution wouldn’t give us the impulse for an abstract ideology. All evolution does is give us the urge to rise, procreate, kill and eat, not “get along”.
Bottom line, morality is inextricably bound to divine nature. It cannot be otherwise.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Above at 200 – continue to “smite” I think is the right way to say that. With all due respect to you, of course RN.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: And at the same time, many societies that knew nothing of Yahweh developed moral codes that, at least in their main points, are similar.
Ditto to OH’s comments in 203. It’s referred to as common grace in the Reformed tradition, God’s knowledge imparted to all creation whether they know Him as its source or not. That’s why there is some truth that can be found in all religions, though missing the mark a greater or lesser degree.
Report comment to moderator
Good to see you back OH.
Report comment to moderator
“Yeah right, you knew – “
Victoria – Are you intimating that I lied when I said I knew that Iambic Pentameter was indeed Old Hickory? I certainly hope I am misreading this.
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory – I know you told me you don’t read Andree Seu’s commentaries anymore, but I’m going to mention something she said in a recent one.
Mrs. Seu was writing about how we can tend to get into the mode of thinking “I’m so weak” or “I’m a coward” or such. She referred to this as the “idolatry of guilt”. I thought that was an interesting phrase, & shared it with my husband, who has a tendency to get into that mode of thinking (though not nearly as often as he used to).
Here is a quote from the beginning of a different commentary Mrs. Seu wrote, that also touches on this…
“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
I used to think this verse was talking mainly about the formal and philosophical business of apologetics in defending the Scriptures against heresies. That suited the devil just fine, since I hardly ever do formal apologetics.
But God has been showing me that the “arguments” the verse is referring to—those that I am to “destroy”—are first of all my own “arguments.” They are the cacophony of voices that I hear in my head all day long that tell me that I am worthless or that I am better than someone or that I cannot be happy unless X, Y, and Z are in place.
And here is the comment I wrote about how God has helped me…
When God helped me decide to put away negative thinking, there was then a process to get from one point (negativity) to another (positivity).
First, I would find that I had expressed in my mind or attitude, some kind of negativity. Recognizing this (through the counsel of the Holy Spirit – what I think of as a spiritual tap on the shoulder), I would admit it & ask forgiveness, then try to think of something positive to replace that thought.
Example – 1st thought – “My messy husband left the such-&-such out again.” (Or some such thing.) 2nd thought – “Okay, he may be messy, but he’s a really good man, a good provider, & he loves me so much, & it is my privilege to clean up after him.” (And yes, this does take some practice to say it & mean it.)
After a while, the thought would not be fully formed or finished before I would feel that Holy Spirit tap on the shoulder, & I would choose to change my thinking/attitude in mid-thought.
Then, after a while longer, I found myself seemingly-naturally thinking in more positive, grateful terms.
I still do have to get a tap on the shoulder from time-to-time, but I am quicker to respond when I do.
I hope these thoughts are helpful to you.
Report comment to moderator
—Why I Am Not in Church This Fine Sunday Morning—
My husband has taken our older daughter, Emily, to the emergency room (at the hospital in her town). I don’t drive anymore (eye problems) so I’m here at home, waiting for news.
Emily has had a fever for a few days & a pain in her right side. Of course, with the position of the pain, we are concerned that it may be appendicitis. But she also recently had a urinary tract infection that she tried to “flush out” by drinking a lot of water, but didn’t go to a doctor.
So I’m hoping it is merely a matter of getting a prescrip to knock out an infection, & not anything more serious.
Prayers appreciated.
Report comment to moderator
Praying, Karen O
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Karen O.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, my stomach tightens thinking of your wait. I’m trusting in prayer for a simple diagnosis and Rx.
Report comment to moderator
I like this quote of John Milton:
“Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the prayers, y’all.
(That’s a Yankee “y’all”. Doesn’t have quite the tang of a southern one.)
Report comment to moderator
I think I meant to say “twang” not “tang”.
Report comment to moderator
It is simply a bad and unscholarly translation to say; “Thou shalt not kill.”
(Joel Mark)
Ridiculous. The KJV translators would chuckle at that one.
The bar is raised even HIGHER in the NT, for the regenerate….
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.” (Php 4:8)
Note, nothing like, “think on killing”.
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” (2Co 10:5)
And remember, rabbinical criticism on the NT is always N/A.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, I’m praying for Emily.
Glad to see you back Hickory, I was getting tired of Iambic.
Mickey says he can think of better things to do on Saturday night than babysit this bunch. I hope that didn’t include watching the SC/Tennessee game. That was a real Haloween nightmare.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
Silver lining – it was better than the Purdue game?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Chas. How are you & your lovely Elvera doing?
Report comment to moderator
Karen
I appreciate the insight but I cannot do it. To me it’s just “one more thing” amidst a thousand other little “religious sticky notes” in my brain of which I’m somehow supposed to obey in decent, orderly fashion on my own. Mrs. S has told me her take on sovereignty and in other ways what she believes about Reformed theology and I simply cannot warm up to the foundational theology which informs her counsel – “Do this and live”it appears (the Law) as though I am able to do anything on my own apart from Christ. No way. Can’t.
“Live and do this!” is what God must command to my deadness, like He did with the bones in Ezekiel (unmerited favor, grace and supernatural ability to do what is impossible). The difference is profound. One is man-centered behavior which earns it’s way through the process of sanctification. One is Christ centered which “draws” one through sanctification by grace alone, not anything we do. In other words, God commands life into existence and provides the ability to walk in His commands. That is what has to happen. My mind simply does not work Mrs. S’s way. My desk at home, at school is always cluttered. My laundry always undone. My mind is constantly filled with things it knows it doesn’t do but “ought” to do. I don’t need “helpful hints” I need Jesus, with all due respect to both you and her. Thank you. I know your intentions are sincere.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Karen, We are well, except that Elvera won’t let me get away without putting those drops in my eyes. I hate it. My reflex is to close my eye, so she pryes it open. I understand most people don’t have the problem I have with that.
Travis, it wasn’t really better than the Purdue game. The Purdue game was the result of a bad football team playing their game.
The Gamecocks gave the game away. The announcers blamed it on “freshman mistakes”, but three deadly fumbles and a recalled touchdown due to a holding penalty are just Haloween jinxes. And I don’t blame KBells for this one. Maybe Anlir has been around.
Report comment to moderator
For the sake of not spreading one conversation too far over multiple threads, I’m quoting part of TJS Catlover’s final comment on the WV 10/30 thread here:
I have tried to make it clear that the arguments I am using (to prove the ultimate meaningless of morality, or the uselessness of discriminating between sexual lifestyles) work only without God, and are designed to show that the atheistic position is baseless and inconsistent.
This reminded me of another interesting aspect of the issue that hasn’t been touched on. I think there are some people who find themselves having to oppose some things — such as homosexual relationships — that they really do not understand the problem with. They feel obligated to hold an opposing position because their religious beliefs teach it, even though they really don’t feel it.
Many Catholics feel this way about birth control as well, which is not an issue for most Protestants now — although it was in past generations.
So, is it truly moral to take a position against something you really aren’t opposed to, because of a religious requirement?
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee, we had an “Orphan’s Day” in church today where we recognized, in all three services, those who were adopted, had adopted, or were foster parents. We also had s short video clip.
I thought of you. I mentioned before, a family in our church has 16 childred, three of whom are biological. Most of the children have a disability of some sort. Many are foreign children.
He owns the Ford dealership here.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Random Name in post box number 176
I have no knowledge of a coat of arms in my family’s past, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one at some point. I hail from hardy German ancestry – Winklers, Wiemers and Stricklands all intermingle in my blood. One of them was bound to have a coat of arms, I am sure.
As far as my “on-the-other-hand” propensity, it comes from Jesus and makes me recognize the only real “side” in the matter is the one that was pierced for me.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Steve, I don’t know that it’s moral or immoral to take a stand about something you aren’t opposed to. But it isn’t wise. In my short life, I have learned not to argue any position I don’t understand. I have often voted one way or another due to someone’s influence, but not-in many years- tried to argue a point I didn’t understand. And never a point with which I didn’t agree.
Report comment to moderator
Chas
What was wrong with Iambic? To erudite?
OH
Report comment to moderator
That should read “Too erudite?”
Report comment to moderator
Hickory, yes, I’m not smart enough to keep up with complicated things.
Report comment to moderator
Okay,
It’s Sunday. I don’t feel all that well. But, I am going to first ask a question:
When did Jon take the Lord’s name in vain? I read all the comments. I didn’t see it. Was his comment removed?
I saw that he used a word many people don’t like, but he didn’t use it in connection to the Lord.
Secondly, NJL DOES owe him an apology. She simply does. She made a false, unfair accusation based on a FACT that Jon posted. (Although, someone later clarified that fact in a way that I think makes its interpretation more valid.)
Thirdly, I think Jon Rowe is a searching person. I think he would dearly love to believe and be a Christian. This is my personal opinion from reading his posts for many years, but I think it is true.
I think people like US are what is keeping him from that decision. Christians who insult him. Talk down to him. Accuse him of things that aren’t true.
If he doesn’t confess Christ, and this blog and its members are to blame, we certainly will feel great shame and sorrow when standing before our Lord.
If he has been permanently banned, and others have not, then I think it a real shame, and a negative blot on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
#226
Yes, too hard to read. Didn’t sound real, but rather like someone attempting to be erudite.
Report comment to moderator
Emily has a kidney infection from the untreated urinary tract infection. That’s not great news, but it certainly is better than having to have her appendix removed.
Meanwhile, my younger daughter, Chrissy’s, best friend, Allie, has the flu! And Chrissy has spent a lot of time with her right before & after she got sick.
Report comment to moderator
Oh no, Karen!
I have friends with the flu, and I wanted to take their daughter some Halloween candy (because she was too sick to have fun yesterday), but I’m thinking of doing a “reverse trick” and dropping the gift package at the door and running!
I don’t want the flu! Praying for you.
Report comment to moderator
OH: Martin Lloyd-Jones has a book out about Depression in some Christians. He also had a problem with it, I believe. I read it years ago, but just thought maybe you would find it interesting.
Karen, I hope your daughter’s infection clears up quickly!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, 222,
May I ask what is your understanding of sanctification?
Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
Report comment to moderator
Oh dear, Jon hasn’t been banned, has he?
TRS was right in 229. And OH was as well in 178.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, TRS. I’m going to keep a close eye on Chrissy.
Old Hickory – If you look again at what I wrote, you’ll see that I was describing the process that God, through His Holy Spirit, took me through. If I didn’t make that clear enough, I’m sorry.
It is not in my own power that I can overcome or change anything. Maybe I should have said that the first step is the Holy Spirit’s conviction in my spirit that I need to change. You obviously (I think) are under conviction in some areas.
I understand what you say about needing Jesus to do the work. I absolutely agree!
But I do have a question for you. And for anyone else who wants to chime in…
On one hand, the Bible is full of commands. Jesus even said that if we love Him, we will obey His commands. On the other hand, we also know that we cannot keep His commands in our own power.
But on the other other hand (yes, I’m borrowing another hand – or I’m back to the 1st hand), there are times when we need to take a step of faith, when we have to make an effort to obey.
So, the question is, how do we know when we should make an effort to obey, & when we should rest in the Lord & wait for Him to do the work?
I suspect there is not one answer to this. I will share my thoughts on this later.
Report comment to moderator
And, TRS, here’s praying you feel better soon, & don’t get the flu.
Report comment to moderator
I assume you mean “drive to survive” as a species. Otherwise, individuals would still be killing each other, etc. I don’t see that this drive should have worked at all. Humans have the power to choose actions.
Humans have reason, and that makes all the difference. As I said, there is no magical force dictating our actions in the name of “Nature.” Why should I share if I don’t want to? If it helps me, why should I care if it hurts someone else?
I can tell you why I might want to commit suicide. I reason that there is no God. I see that life was brought about through chance and I-can’t-know-what-else. Morality is only a social construct. There is no point to following it: I don’t care about the human species. When I die: nothing. Life will inevitably include joy, but also pain and sorrow. Lots of pain, sorrow, trouble, and stress. I will get nowhere meaningful: nothing is meaningful. The truth of the matter is, momentary joy will only be subsumed by ever-present sorrow. Even the good things in life: marriage, friends: these are not worth the stress they bring. Especially in the end: so what if I live 10 years or 80? It will be just as meaningless, and I just as dead. Why bother? Cue bridge.
However, Steve, my main question was why humans could not overcome whatever flimsy moral concept of “helping the group” “Nature” may have “dictated.”
Almost certainly. It’s an interesting question that I’ve posed to myself: upon whatever revelation that God doesn’t exist that I may have, (like, an astounding piece by Random…
) would I immediately kill myself? Quite probable, considering my thought process goes like the above reasoning of life’s meaninglessness. Assuming I staved off the suicide, would I become totally hedonistic? Certainly. Corrupt? Absolutely. Murderous? Why not? It could be fun. Serial killers think so. Would I try to destroy civilization? Probably. I could decide to go for absolute control first, though. Then I’d destroy it as I die, in a last laugh. For obvious reasons, I don’t intend to run trials.
The fact remains that I’d off whatever ridiculous “principles” there may be. I understand that they’re only mortal constructs, and I’m not going to waste my life deluding myself into trying to live by them. I’d give in to every temptation. Why would it even be temptation? That word has a negative connotation. There would be no reason not to do anything. Sin appeals to us, Steve. We want to sin. The unpleasantness, the guilt, comes of the understanding that we’ve failed God yet again. Congratulations, though: with atheism, you never have to deal with that again. If you do feel some silly conscience, you just understand that it’s social conditioning, and you overcome it and squash it like the pointless backwards fluke it is.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, I have thought about this a lot. You said that Jesus said that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments. (Jn. 14:15, and this concept of keeping Jesus’s commandments is only found during the last supper.) So, What are Jesus’ commandments? I have searched the Bible and only found one commandment that Jesus gave.
Jn. 13:34, “A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
John 15:10f “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
These things have I spoken to you that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.”
The Bible is full of commandments. But we are free from the law. That is, Paul says in Galatians 5 & elsewhere, that “the flesh lusts after the Spirit and the Spirit the flesh.” I suspect that’s what you are referring to, rather than the above issue of love.
As for questions about certain actions, as stepping out of faith to do something. I could tell other stories about that. But that may not be what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Chas – Thanks for your input.
My question comes from an on & off exchange between Old Hickory & me. My comment #208 & OH’s reply to me in #220 touch on some of what we’ve discussed.
To what you wrote, I would maybe also add what Jesus said were the 2 greatest commandments – loving God with all our soul, mind, heart, & strength, & loving our neighbor as ourselves – which of course, go along with loving one another.
But since Jesus is God, the Word made flesh, would the other commands in the Bible “count”?
Re-reading the quote in #208, leads me to ask this – Is “taking every thought captive to obey Christ” something we “just do” (or rather, train ourselves to do & practice doing), or do we wait for God to take those thoughts captive for us?
Old Hickory – Regarding my question to Chas in the last paragraph, what do you say?
Report comment to moderator
I think if Jesus’ answer to the lawyer who asked which is the greatest commandment? (which we recited in church today): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
God’s moral law is still in place, it is still our standard. No, we cannot obey it perfectly and need Christ’s righteousness. But followers of Christ are to bear fruit, they are to at least have the desire and show a bit of progress toward obeying God’s law.
Report comment to moderator
think “of” that first line should have read.
Report comment to moderator
I meant to comment also on Nana’s #213 — excellent quote.
Report comment to moderator
And I’m so glad to hear Emily’s condition is so treatable.
Report comment to moderator
There does seem to be a lot of depression in the air at this time of year. I hope everyone is getting enough sunlight.
Yes, being a kind person, once in a while, I realize I am playing straight man here.
Report comment to moderator
NANA, here’s another great quote on truth:
* “Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it.” Blaise Pascal (1623–62), French scientist, philosopher. Pensées, (1670).
Report comment to moderator
Personally, I considered Jon Rowe’s comments about Jews to be offensive, and I reacted emotionally to that because I have Jewish friends. No Jewish person I know would consider their kids fair game just because they’d been bar/bat mitzvahed. Coupled with his defense of NAMBLA, I concluded that I would not want Jon Rowe around my kids. Indeed, I would not knowingly let any NAMBLA member or defender — homosexual or not — around my kids, but you are all free to try to convince me why I would want to do that. In any event, that’s what I was thinking when I made the post in the other thread. Jon Rowe understands the doctrine of unclean hands, so his “outrage” above is a bit overdone. I will, of course, not communicate with him as he has asked.
OH, we all have a “fatal flaw” — something about us that is what it is throughout our lives. On the program “Homicide,” one of the characters once said “People do not change” — and there is truth in that statement. Our nature is what it is, but it can be controled and even altered if we re-educate ourselves to think in other ways so that we don’t succumb to our fatal flaw. You can romanticize depression all you want, OH, you can nurture it like an old friend, but it will do you no favors. You will be its slave. Or you can get in there and fight. I fought. I chose to master the situation rather than have the situation master me. And I can honestly say that when I was confronted a few weeks ago with something from decades ago that did great damage, I slipped for a day or so, but I picked myself up. If you want to waste your life romanticizing and nurturing the thing that holds you back, it’s a free country, knock yourself out. I told you above, I’m not involved. I only answered you now so that you wouldn’t be able to use the old “she doesn’t understand how I feel because she’s never been there” excuse. That’s horsepucky.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, my friend – your post is honest and straightforward. I too have many many friends who are Jewish, and I agree with you.
I agree with your second paragraph as well.
GOD bless you
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I did not see that Jon made any “defense of NAMBLA.” Please quote the exact language you believe constitutes such a defense.
Report comment to moderator
Can’t you let this go Steveg, hasn’t there been enough harm done already?
Report comment to moderator
I strongly second Victoria’s thoughts, NJL.
Joel Mark, the Milton quote is from WMB’s own policy on our comments.
Report comment to moderator
I’m the one who was defending NAMBLA. It was a devil’s advocate: I was pointing out the inconsistency of the atheistic view of sexuality. Jon, if I interpreted correctly, was a bit annoyed, and tried to say that Christians are the ones with the inconsistent view of pedophilia. I think he was wrong, but I don’t think he was trying to say anything derogatory about Jewish culture.
Report comment to moderator
In 208, Karen said: “taking every thought captive to obey Christ” something we “just do” (or rather, train ourselves to do & practice doing), or do we wait for God to take those thoughts captive for us”?
From II Cor. 10:4-5. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ”
In context, Paul is talking about warfare with the world. He is defending his ministry. I didn’t read Andree’s article, but I would hesitate to apply Paul’s quote out of context. In that sense, I would say, we “just do it”. I would take Paul’s admonition to live by the Spirit in Galatians 5:16 rather than taking another burden upon ourselves. That can lead to the problem Hickory has. I have a feeling, just judging from his posts, that he is trying to fight his battle alone.
Hickory once said, “Thus the hellish “warm air” of my sin, rising up and choking off my Christian nature swirls around and tears through anyone or anything around me at the time.”
I said: I realize that depression is a difficult condition, and that advice it “snap out of it is totally useless. However, I would like to comment on the statement you made about sin.
I was once teaching Romans chapter six, and came to verse 14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace.”
I said to the class, “This is a great verse. I don’t know what all it means, but it means at least two things.
First, in context, Paul is saying that we are not under the dominion of sin. That is, we do not yield ourselves to sin, being dead to sin.
The second thing it means it that sin has no power over us. That is, our sin is forgiven, and Satan can’t beat us over the head with it, because it is forgiven and forgotten. That’s the power of redemption. And even in the turmoil that Paul describes in Chapter 7, summed up with: v 15. “For that which I do, I understand not; for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate that I do.
16 If then, I do what I would not, I consent to the law, that it is good. 17 Now, then, it is no more that I do it, but sin that dwells in me.” And “O wretched man that I am!”
Paul had it pretty bad, didn’t he? So, what’s the answer. Some rightly point to his conclusion in v. 25. But the one I like most is 8:1.
“There is, therefore, no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
There’s a saying, “Christ is the answer”. Some wise guy said, “So, What’s the question?” It doesn’t matter what the question is, Romans 8:1 is the answer.
Someone will say, that doesn’t answer my physics or calculus problem. But 50 years from now, it won’t matter what the answer to your physics or calculus problem is.
This is getting to be a long post. I may have more to say about this at a later time.
Report comment to moderator
I have a friend who is Jewish. I see him every time I look in a mirror. I am a little annoyed at people who are taking it upon themselves to speak up for Jews or be offended on their behalf.
Of course, this raises some questions about what is a Jew?
None of much seems to have much to do with an unpleasant and perhaps useless conversation taking place at the moment.
Report comment to moderator
However, I agree with Steve’s comment #249.
Report comment to moderator
OK again … Jon Rowe made the point that SOME of what is considered pedophilia today — when it involves teenagers (and he excluded pre-pubescent children specifically) would not have been considered so in past ages. He offered Jewish rites of passage that take place in the early teen years as his example.
He did NOT say anything disparaging about Jews.
He did NOT defend NAMBLA (and #252 confirms this).
And yet NJL felt entitled to accuse him of likely being a pedophile and defending pedophiles.
And now NJL and her reliable suck-up Victoria want to pretend that NJL is the one who was wronged!
NJL: You continue to owe Jon Rowe an apology.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, Jon could have turned to many other time periods as examples. It was common for teenage girls to marry men in their 20s or even 30s in most of Europe and America as recently as the 18th or 19th centuries.
This is simple historical fact. I really don’t understand how any sane person could construe a defense of pedophilia in it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, that is just wrong for you to be so nasty. You don’t prove anything when your tone is so abrasive. This is not a war to the death; it’s a discussion – eh?
Report comment to moderator
I’ll be praying for your daughter and your other daughter’s friend, Karen O. And I’ll do the same for all others who are sick.
I wonder what would happen if somehow, all WorldMagBloggers could meet each other (maybe in a virtual setting, like in Tom Clancy’s Net Force books). Provided everyone looked how they really do, what would everybody find out?
Would many on here turn out to be a he, she, or it?
Ok, enough of that for today.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: I should be ashamed? You are defending a person who accused another person of supporting the sexual abuse of children and defending a pedophile organization, because he made a factual and accurate observation about history.
The problem with being polite and courteous is that it allows people such as NJL — and you, for that matter — to say horrible things about others and then, when called on it, act shocked and offended as if YOU were the one who was wronged.
And normally I go along with that because it is easier and doesn’t put me at risk of causing a problem or incurring the wrath of the moderators.
But not this time. NJL went way too far this time. It’s not the first time she has done this, but it is probably the most offensive.
Now you, Joel Mark, Nana and ItsAboutFreedom have all decided to defend NJL’s vile accusation rather than the innocent person she wrongly accused. That’s your business. If that’s what you want to defend, go ahead. But I’m tired of politely smiling and not speaking up. She was wrong. She was wrong in an incredibly offensive way. And you who are defending her are just as wrong. And I will say that without apology because it is true.
Report comment to moderator
Nana: SteveG, that is just wrong for you to be so nasty. You don’t prove anything when your tone is so abrasive. This is not a war to the death; it’s a discussion – eh?
Uh huh. I’m “abrasive,” but I didn’t hear you speak up when NJL said that Jon Rowe was defending NAMBLA and shouldn’t be allowed around small children.
Report comment to moderator
Rio,
I believe you would find some to be the real deal, and others to be the faux/fakes they project on this blog –
Names aren’t important, but BELIEFS are, and giving your gender as either male or female.
When people play both ends against the middle they don’t receive respect, why would anyone waste their time playing such wasteful, silly games? – because they want to make sport of the Christians, it’s a GAME, nothing more. It’s what they do to pass the time.
Report comment to moderator
I am hoping that Mickey will bring order to what is becoming an increasingly disorderly discussion.
Report comment to moderator
“Be excellent to each other.”
Report comment to moderator
TJS Catlover:
As I’ve said, the most serious problem facing humanity is how people with different worldviews can live in peace.
I try not to say I will say never, but I am very unlikely to believe that there are eternal moral laws that come from God, no matter how many times you explain to me that you are sure there are.
On the other hand, I have about given up convincing you that there is nothing wrong with adult humans who otherwise behave ethically (by standards we probably both agree on, if not for the same reasons) who engage in homosexual relationships.
You have stated that you will not kill homosexuals. I believe you. So perhaps there is a tiny bit of common ground. But perhaps not much on anything else.
The only consolation I find in this is that we live in a country where most issues such as these are decided by legislation, by courts, and by public opinion. Even when these choices are made peacefully, there are winners and losers.
I think you are losing, not in the court of my opinion, but in the society in which you live. On the other hand, just out of curiosity, I have said that I think civilization will collapse by the end of the century. What is your opinion on this, and why?
If homosexual marriage becomes accepted throughout the United States, which seems quite likely, how can civilization survive such an abomination?
If not, do you think Jesus will come in time to set things right?
Report comment to moderator
The problem, Random, is that you’d either have to convince me that God didn’t say homosexuality was wrong, or to give up Christianity. Do you really want to do that?
I think there are a multitude of ways that civilization could collapse. I think there are many more ways America specifically could collapse. Heck, forget centuries: America might very well collapse in the next decade. In the end, what I know is that I don’t know when the end of the world will be. But I do know it will happen. End of the century sounds as reasonable as anything else. The biggest difference between us there is that I think Jesus will return then, and the end of this world won’t be the end.
Random, homosexuality won’t be nearly the biggest sin civilization or America is committing. Not even close. Abortion, for example.
Jesus will come: that is all I know.
Report comment to moderator
Jon did NOT defend NAMBLA, and he said nothing but facts about Jews and the bar/bat mitzvah thing (and I worked for orthodox Jews and I have Jewish friends too, so don’t try to tell me it was an insult to bring up facts).
He even explicitly said that Jews don’t interpret it that way now-a-days, but did then. (Although, I agree with another poster that it is/was more “spiritual adult” at 12 — for girls, and 13 — for boys, because men had to have a trade and women to be menstruating before marriage. And, both of those things happened later than twelve and thirteen.)
Still, Jon is owed an apology. It is the Christian thing to do. Period.
I am truly appalled that Christians don’t know when to humble themselves and apologize. I expect it of non-believers, but it is always a shock with believers.
Report comment to moderator
#239
Jn. 13:34, “A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
EXACTLY. Very good post, all the way through.
Report comment to moderator
#239
And, the two greatest commandments?
“And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This [is] the first commandment.
And the second, like [it, is] this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Matthew 12:30 & 31.
And, if we take Jesus at His word, those who do not follow His commandments (which are bound up in these and in what Chas posted) are not His followers, no matter what they say.
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.”
1 Corinthians 13:1-3
Report comment to moderator
Morning
Chas – Eek! My words staring back at me. I shouldn’t write when I’m prideful or depressed.
The verse you quote – “Sin shall not have dominion over you” I thought about this morning. It’s a declarative statement, not an imperative. In other words its telling us the way it will be for a Christian, not what a Christian must “do” but what has been done in Christ.
Perhaps I am wrong about that. I dunno.
Karen O – I don’t mean to crush your genuine compassion and concern with my wanton mannishness and sin. I just know that whenever it is I “obey” – take that step of faith, I know “I” didn’t do it. Something happened this weekend which reinforced this. The Holy Spirit wanted me to do something and even though I was reluctant in the flesh at first, there was gradually a willingness which was not initially there that I know did not come from “me”. Then the circumstances so aptly fell into place, the timing was a wonder, all “I” had to do was “open my hand”, basically. And even that “opening” was of Him. Jesus says that apart from Him I can do nothing. I believe that.
NJL – Perhaps I do “romanticize” the melancholy condition. Sure. It has been a lifelong roommate. I do not deny this. I’ve just come to a point where I know in this body it’s not going to “go away” entirely. Even on my best days, it lingers. I shall always “groan” as Romans says. So, I try to make the best of it in light of what I know and what I have not yet become. Much repenting, resting, trusting, hoping and wainting.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Nana – Regards to my birthday and Mumsee’s comment, I know I’d mentioned it above. I was having a bit of fun with Mumsee and simply being silly. I think she knows that.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Uh, “wainting” should be “waiting” in 272.
Report comment to moderator
TRS at #269: Still, Jon is owed an apology. It is the Christian thing to do. Period.
It’ll never happen. Certain people are convinced they are never wrong.
But I’m glad to see at least some people here recognize the nature of the offense.
Report comment to moderator
I actually wrote a comment very similar to TRS’s about the Jon & NJL situation, but my computer did something weird & I lost it, then had to shut down the computer.
I like NJlawyer, & love her as a sister-in-Christ, but still feel she crossed a line with that particular comment. I am assuming that she misunderstood what Jon was trying to say.
Report comment to moderator
Mental illness diagnosis and treatment is not very precise. At one time, people were described as “manic-depressive.” Now a distinction is often made between “bi-polar” and “depressed.”
Sometimes people in their “manic” phase will stop taking their medication and then do something rash. I have seen this happen to someone.
I am not sure that posting comments on wmb should be considered rash.
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!