So then, I recently received an (indirect) question about my use of language that “demeans.” Why do I speak, for example, about “gay activists” as though they were the enemy, the adversary, the foe?
And the answer is that in a very important sense, they are the enemy — as testified by their unremitting onslaught against us. But I need to qualify this before I proceed. In another sense, they are not the enemy but rather what we are fighting over. The ultimate enemy is the devil. The evangelistic endeavor is therefore a war of liberation. Our goal is not to destroy our human enemies, except in the way that making them friends in Christ would destroy them as an enemy. When an enemy is converted, he is just as destroyed as if he were dead.
“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will” (2 Tim 2:25–26).
We are to interact with those who oppose us with true meekness, in the hope that God will give them repentance. So in that sense, they are the captives we are seeking to set free, not the jailers we are seeking to destroy.
Now some might say that my robust adjectival missile launches are in no way “meek,” and that I am getting the way of the gospel by being so rambunctious in my opposition to things like the homo-jihad. But meekness is to be defined by the Bible, and not by your sainted great aunt Milly.
“Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3).
We are told this right before the Lord struck Miriam with leprosy for challenging the authority of Moses — meaning that Moses was not some pencil neck standing in the corner. Moses was meek, not a milksop.
And the Paul who told Timothy to lead with meekness is the same one who told Titus that he needed to deal with the Cretans sharply, and how he had to shut the mouths of certain vain talkers (Tit. 1:11). “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).
In another place, he tells the Galatians that the whole law is summed up in this one thing, one word, which is that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Gal. 5:14). Isn’t that wonderful? But two verses previous he had said that those who were so zealous for circumcision really ought to overachieve and, as he devoutly wishes, cut the whole thing off. The world would be a better place if they cut the whole thing off (Gal. 5:12). And in yet another place, he dismisses his circumcising opponents as, and I quote, “dogs” (Phil. 3:2).
Now one of two things is true. Either the apostle Paul was a thundering hypocrite, with that hypocrisy on display within the pages of Scripture itself, which no believing Christian can accept, or the Christian world at large has a really screwed up view of what love is supposed to look like.
This latter option is what has actually happened, and it was our redefinition of love that gave the opening to our enemies to take the next step and redefine marriage. Love and marriage go together, right? We were doing tranny experiments on what love means long before the bad guys were doing their number on marriage.
The river where we are stinks pretty bad. But there are more polluters upstream than anybody is letting on, many of them ostensibly conservative and evangelical. Pastors have been cross dressing in the pulpit for just a short time now. But multitudes of sermons have been cross dressing for decades now. Depending on the text, especially that one from the Old Testament somewhere about footprints in the sand, quite a few of them have been getting homiletic hormone shots. The church in North America needs to see a good part of the travesty we are now dealing with as the fruit of their own quietly accepted corruptions.
So this helps explain why I periodically use language that some say they find grating or offensive. I have actively sought to avoid the approved and sensitive terms (like gay). Now is that approach really in keeping with the high drawing room tone that we want our civil discourse to have? Well, no, it isn’t, but this is not that kind of situation. If we successfully create the kind of society where we can politely agree to disagree about such things, then we have abandoned our own principles, and have settled for advocating a lite version of the enemy’s principles. Don’t keep surrendering and wonder why we are constantly losing. Why do we never win any battles? Well, for starters, we should perhaps fight some.
So back to our foes. When a movement has formally adopted the tactic of being offended at EVERYTHING, it is not within their rights to then present themselves as experts on drawing the line between offensive and inoffensive disagreement. They have defined all disagreement as ipso facto offensive, and have resolved to shout down anyone that varies from their decrees. Here is the case of the Colorado baker who has done nothing offensive (as would be interpreted by normal people), but who must submit to “re-education.” Why are you hauling off the inoffensive guy? The answer is that anything short of enthusiastic North Korean mob-applause is considered offensive. So anyone who is okay with that kind of thing (which virtually everyone on the other side of this issue is) ought not be considered by us to have anything sensible whatever to say about what constitutes offensive language.
So with all that said, there are a couple of other factors to consider when it comes to this question.
The first is that in any given situation, the rhetoric ought to match the content of what is being said. To refuse to do so invites the people to disbelieve and disregard what you are saying because you obviously don’t believe it yourself. If you sit down in the back row of the theater and whisper to the person next to you something like, “Psst! The theater is on fire. Pass it on,” this means that you are not serious. Whatever it is you are saying, people should know that you mean it.
A good deal of the “sensitive” opposition to the fatwas emanating from our newly-established sexual tribunals is way too coy. There needs to be less of “at the end of the day, with all perspectives taken in consideration, reflecting on the fact that we too are sinners, we should want to retain, if at all possible, a small carve-out where traditionalists might be allowed, again at the end of the day, to think that some of our currently accepted behavior might be thought by some to be unseemly,” and more of “I would rather be dead in a ditch than go along with this demento-approach to sexual definitions.”
Second, I have been flamboyant in my opposition so that I can serve as a canary in the mine. In some respects, this might be a futile gesture, in that the floor of the mine is already littered with hundreds of dead canaries, but I am still hopeful. When I finally say poofter one time too many, and I am boarding the cattle car set to take me off to one of those new democracy camps, where I and my fellow writers will learn the true cabalistic meaning of the First Amendment, perhaps a handful of onlookers might whisper among themselves that somebody perhaps should have listened earlier.
What will it take? One imagines the thousands of Christian parents who have their kids in the educational equivalent of Obamacare finally rising up as one and saying, “That’s it! No more, we have had it.” This will happen ten years after all the discriminatory and separated restrooms and locker rooms have been outlawed in the gummint school system. Lots of folks tried to make their peace with that. But the straw that broke the camel’s back was when the Supreme Court decided that the junior high girls had to be willing to lather up the boys in the shower when requested.
Fix it in your minds. America can be straight, or it can be bent. The one thing it cannot be is both.
2 Corinthians 11:18-21
“The church in North America needs to see a good part of the travesty we are now dealing with as the fruit of their own quietly accepted corruptions.” ….exactly right!
By all means, let’s have straight talk.
Let’s also remember that judgment begins at the house of God. The problems I’ve personally encountered in my ministry called for some pretty harsh words, which means… more preachers need to be prepared for being unemployed (and maybe unemployable) when they call out unrepentant Old Uncle Coot, and Coot’s relatives mobilize for war. Because that’s where the fight has to be won before we can make any progress in the wider culture.
But being employed seems to be the main thing for most preachers.
You get a stage, twenty hours a week to prepare for the “studies.”
What’s not to love about that job?
Who wants to rock that boat?
The redeemed people in the pews, who love their Lord by obeying Him, as best they can!????????
If that’s your experience of how preachers think and what their job involves, you need a better sample.
Aint that the truth.
How many of the pharisees weren’t feeding the sheep, according to Jesus?
It’s a continuing problem.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of pastors who aren’t even saved themselves.
I’d like to know what “a lot” and “many” represent in people’s minds.
Granted, there is some number, far higher than it should be. I am not pretending the problem of false shepherds is anything less than what Jesus and the apostles have told us it was/would be.
But throwing around vague words that make it sound like a large percentage comes perilously close to slandering the large numbers who don’t fit either description.
Best wishes with Clan Coot!
I wonder what the Clan Coot tartan is?
Tie dye?
One thing that keeps cropping up in any such discussion (usually from “Christians” who should know better) is that “all sins are the same.” If that’s true, why then would God have declared capital punishment for some sins but simple restitution for others. While every sin is worthy of damnation in its own right, it seems clear from Scripture that in hell there will be differing levels of suffering. Otherwise someone’s sainted atheistic grandma who wouldn’t harm a flea would be subject to the same type and amount of God’s wrath as someone like Stalin or some other damnable despot.… Read more »
What about taking a paper clip deserves hell forever & ever?
Same thing as taking a piece of fruit: the rebellious insistence that I must have the place of God.
Exactly. It’s wanting God to not be God. It’s wanting him dead, which is the opposite of our one great moral responsibility to love God totally. The paper clip of course is unimportant. The sin is to fail as a human being and making oneself worse than useless.
God forbids stealing.
my First conscious sin was obtaining a penny by lying when I was 4 years old. According to Romans, the first time you sin, you deserve hell. If that is so, and it is, how many times had I multiplied the offense in between then and the time I was saved? Each sin alone worthy of Hell. If you don’t have an appreciation of the evil of your sins, you won’t have an appreciation of what Jesus did to square up that stolen penny.
And I don’t.
I can understand why eternal hellfire seems excessive for a small child who steals a penny. My own faith tradition teaches that a child that young is actually incapable of serious sin because he lacks full knowledge of its gravity and he lacks full consent of the will (although I agree that he is born with original sin). I think it makes more sense not to focus on sins such as stealing pennies and paper clips, but rather to think about the awful sins we ourselves have committed. Almost all of us can look back on actions that make us… Read more »
Hi jillybean, Interesting stuff. When you say a young child is incapable of serious sin — just how bad does it consider those less serious sins to be? If the act is less-than-full-serious BECAUSE the doer lacks full knowledge of its gravity — who among us can be fully guilty? I mean, who has such full knowledge of the gravity? Wasn’t Eve correct in claiming to be tricked, rather than devising the dastardly deed herself? Should she get a break there? But you’re right that looking at our own inexplicable determination to feed the self regardless of consequences helps me… Read more »
Exactly. I see the theological/philosophical point of the paper clip question, and it’s a valid question, but when it comes down to the individual, the paper clip is never in isolation anyway.
Good questions, and ones that I come at from a Catholic rather than a Reformed view. I believe a four-year-old can understand that she should obey her parents, including their orders not to lie and steal. That child, if instructed properly, knows that God values obedience. But I think a child that young is too egocentric, too intellectually undeveloped, to appreciate that theft, lying, and disobedience are offenses against justice, honesty, and consideration for others. She may understand that her parents will be angry, but I don’t think a four-year-old thinks of hellfire, or even of grieving God, as a… Read more »
I take Conserbatives’ point, although actually, we are not born with a clean ballot sheet, to enter the ballot box for ourselves. That chad was already punched. We don’t have to steal even one penny or paperclip, or do anything to be on the way to hell. Mankind was cursed as a race. For as in Adam, all die. Adam and Eve fell on behalf of us all. We are born in the hole they fell into; born needing redemption. Even so, in Christ (the second Adam), we shall be made alive.
Romans 7:9 says otherwise. The point is, that you will sin very early on and then you die, needing a savior. You will sin because you are Adams descendant. If Katecho’s position is true, then every aborted baby, miscarried baby and infant who died throughout history is in Hell.
“If Katecho’s position is true, then every aborted baby, miscarried baby and infant who died throu out history is in Hell.”
Unless God decides to interveine.
Technically, I’m sure katecho means “conceived” rather than “born,” as per Psalm 51:5. Either way, little people get saved the same way big people do — God grants them faith, which is not merely a function of the intellect.
Again, we are not born in a position like Adam and Eve, deciding for ourselves whether to fall or not fall. Mankind fell, together, through our representative head, Adam. He represented us all when he rebelled against God. If we refuse the principle that we can be represented in sin by the first Adam, for sins we did not individually commit, then neither can we be represented in righteousness by the second Adam, for righteousness which we did not individually commit. Thankfully, since God does treat mankind covenantally and representationally, as families (see Noah), cities (see Sodom), tribes (see Judah),… Read more »
“When I finally say poofter one time too many, and I am boarding
the cattle car set to take me off to one of those new democracy camps,
where I and my fellow writers will learn the true cabalistic meaning of
the First Amendment, perhaps a handful of onlookers might whisper among
themselves that somebody perhaps should have listened earlier.”
Isn’t it more significant that this has never happened? It can’t be right around the corner forever.
Just because our founding Fathers were wiser than those of many other countries and set up boundaries not easily overcome doesn’t mean it can’t eventually happen here. Of course, I believe the Left has found that it is much more sustainable if they don’t ship dissenters to camps but rather just trick them into shipping their own children to government camps, otherwise known as schools.
So what’s your timescale? “Eventually” covers tomorrow to infinity.
True, but considering our current trajectory, I would guess between 5 and 20 years. If you had asked the average Rwandan in the summer of 1993 if his country was capable of mass genocide, I’m fairly sure the answer would have been no.
I don’t believe he said it was right around the corner. He acknowledges it as a category and one this is likely sometime given the trajectory. What we need is a good analogy. The one I propose is the “Canary In the Coal Mine” analogy. Why didn’t Doug think of that?
But the canary has been flying around for decades, doing its canary thing. At some point the mine is declared safe, right?
Actually, the canary was fined $125,000 and run out of business. Safe?
Jane, I keep trying to wrap my head around this. When you get a business license in a state with discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation, are you implicitly agreeing not to discriminate against gays who want wedding cakes? If it can be argued that the Kleins were in business before gay marriage came along and should therefore be exempt, what about a Christian baker who opens a cake shop now, knowing that the state views such discrimination as illegal? Should I think twice before opening a business which will demand I commit actions which I regard as sinful? If… Read more »
Rolling over has been the Christian way on many fronts. However, it was a tiny handful of Christian parents who challenged the government’s education monopoly and refused to render their children to caesar. That eventually won a certain level of liberty for homeschoolers in some states. Amish refused military service and retained their protection as “conscientious objectors”. I actually believe that even a slight amount of principled, organized, and peaceful refusal on the part of Christians to glorify homosexual mirage would elevate the controversy such that the (increasingly impotent) government would flinch and remember the Constitution and provide an exception… Read more »
Katecho: That is a *very* good point. Our sexual revolutionaries — “Great is Orgasma of the Californians!” — have proven themselves to go quite flaccid when faced with actual opposition that doesn’t immediately fold.
I see what you did there! (:
I think you are right about that. In the absence of religious belief, refusal to make wedding cakes does seem unkind for no valid reason. I am surrounded by gay-tolerant young people who think the Christian viewpoint is simply cruel. My own dear special snowflake thinks it is unconscionable for me to be Catholic when the pope is “mean about gays.”
I’m jumping around here, but I found the text of the California state law:
51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary
language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in
all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
I have amended my original statement to add “except for California”. Thanks jillybean.
I’ll bet dollars to donuts (I take my payoff in donuts please) most of these people ain’t never seen mean.
I think it is indiscriminately applied by my Special Snowflake and her friends. Pol Pot? Very mean. Calling a transsexual a tranny? Wickedly mean. Enforcing laws against texting while driving? Just mean beyond words.
oh good, I get my donuts.
You can have the Special Snowflake as well if you like.
There is really “no valid reason” to refuse to render your time and talent for the celebration of an abomination before God? These aren’t off the shelf cakes, they are cakes that are special ordered, and generally involve artistic effort.
Well, of course, I can see a valid reason. But if a young person does not believe in God and has no innate repugnance toward homosexual conduct, they are not going to understand the Christian baker’s point of view. As well, I have noticed that their sympathies are almost entirely with the gay complainants.
I just wish that, having prevailed at the Supreme Court on gay marriage, the gays who are targeting bakers and florists would just stop. It would be good to have a cooling off period.
I have listened to quite a few of those who refuse to stand, and invariably the arguments are posited as “principled”. Now being one with scarred knuckles from where they drag, I have also for the most part “smelled” fear when they are really backed into a corner with “principled” refutation. Methinks they wind up faced with the discomfiting realization that they might actually have to, well, do something. And it might be something ouchy.
My experience as well.
Of course the following does not carry the weight of scripture, but I do for the most part agree with it:
“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay; and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
…which raises the question as to why exactly making wedding cakes is regulated.
There are multiple issues here. One is, they were not discriminating against persons, but simply refusing to offer a service they did not normally offer simply because someone demanded it. If I walked in there and demanded a cake with a same sex theme on it, they wouldn’t make it for me, either. Does it really make a shred of sense that anyone can walk into your business and demand you offer some particular service on the argument that because it fits somewhere in the broad definition of your business, you are discriminating if you don’t offer it? Secondly, at… Read more »
I appreciate your helping me to work through this. As I understand it, the issue is not the cake but rather it is about requiring the baker to participate in celebrating a wedding he regards as sinful and unreal. So even if the cake had nothing on it to indicate it was for a gay couple, the baker would still object to making it. If this is correct, would it follow that a baker might refuse to provide plain doughnuts to a gay wedding? Would that be discriminatory in light of the fact that the baker provides people with doughnuts… Read more »
Plain doughnuts are not an artistic expression of an idea, that he is being compelled to engage in. It’s just not the compelled use of his time, it’s the compelled use of his time to participate in a message. That’s both compelled speech and a compelled religious declaration. The second paragraph again misses the point — it’s not the people who are being discriminated against. Nobody checks to see if people are gay or Scientologist when they walk in and order doughnuts. It is a refusal to take a certain kind of contract, not a refusal to take a contract… Read more »
Many cultural changes are like weather patterns. You can forecast conditions by examining past events with similar conditions. Weather is also predictable, in a fashion, by watching it progress across a geographical area. What happened in one place will travel and continue in other places.
The rhetorical morass and the pun were made for each other.
Matt, could your comment be the first ever instance of :
“poof-texting”?????
I think that what is significant that even when it is happening daily, you will still be denying it.
Ask that to Aaron and Melissa Klein. And they didn’t even say poofter.
Uh-oh Now you are poof-texting!????
Give it time. A few years ago, getting fined by the state for declining to bake a cake was still just around the corner. Now, that type of thing is cropping up in some quarters. This constant retort about particular scenarios that have not yet occurred misses the point. Pay attention to the trajectory. If one accurately observes the trajectory, then they won’t get caught up in the irrelevancies of which “not yet’s” haven’t yet transpired. Pay attention to the “already’s” peg the trajectory, and if the direction and pace are problematic, then you have an answer to how much… Read more »
Yeah well. Attempting to redefine bigotry does not make you any less of a bigot any more than trying to sadly redefine slavery did you any favors re your racism. You are quite personally distracted by homosexuality aren’t you? (rabble rousing underage hetro sexual fantasy at the end there aside…) The way other people express their own sexuality and love for one another is a real problem in our society. It is leading to all kinds of awful things… like acceptance of one’s self and others… oh, and happiness.
It leads to happiness? If you want stats from BJ, I think you should provide some for this bit of nonsense. Granted, I suppose if you redefine happiness as something akin to a heroin-induced stupor, you might get some statistical confirmation.
You’re a dreamer. Time to wake up, RandMan.
Well JH, Do I really think facts would change your mind? No. But some studies show a correlation between disclosing one’s sexual orientation and less stress. I would call less stress conducive to greater happiness. One such study: Sexual Orientation and Disclosure in Relation to Psychiatric Symptoms, Diurnal Cortisol, and Allostatic Load,” is published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine. There is another University of Rochester study showing greater well-being for those no longer clostedt, but only in supportive environments. In it, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals who were out and open about their sexuality showed fewer signs of anxiety, depression, and… Read more »
In hell, there is no self-esteem.
Is that because self-esteem is the gate-way to Hell?
In Hell, there is not self-respect, which is a very different thing from self-esteem.
RandMan: Those are studies in the new era where people stuck in sexual sin are trying to avert the (rightful) shame by making it a cultural norm. Call it what they like–in fact, even have a parade about it–but the guilt (and shame) cannot be assuaged apart from repentance. And when you consider that underpins the whole thing, a reduction in perceived stress cannot be considered increased happiness.
Keep trying. Or better yet, quit trying and surrender to the truth.
While we all certainly suffer from the human tendency toward delusion, I do not get my truth from revelation. One doesn’t need to ‘surrender’ to truth. One merely needs to be honest about it. Follow actual evidence. As Feynman so aptly put it. The first principle is: don’t be fooled. And the easiest person to fool is yourself. Slavery likely decreases happiness does it not? Does;t the bible tell us how to treat our slaves? And while everyone’s intellectual hero here thinks it is an example of a ‘mutually beneficial’ arrangement (by force,) I think we can all agree in… Read more »
Unlike you, we do not believe in the Cult of Science in which white lab coats can determine moral right and wrong via peer review. So no, we reject your assumptions out of the gate.
Nice straw man.
But follow your own logic and don’t drive a car or get on a plane. Turn off your computer. Don’t vaccinate your kids. Take antibiotics. I’ll mail you a smallpox blanket… you can pray over it.
Why sneer at the scientific method while sitting high atop the mountain of peer review and testable repeatable hypothesis? Funny that it is hidden to you.
CULT of Science. C’mon, man, you gotta keep up. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just say so.
In the acknowledgements to Charles Murray’s book “Human Accomplishment” he writes that that the Catholic thinker Michael Novak had gently prodded him that the pivotal role in the history of the advancement of the arts and sciences was Christianity. Murray was sure it was the Greeks who had done it. Part 4 of his book* is devoted to this subject.
Therefore, your assertion that Jon Swerens faith is incompatible with science is disproven by the historical record. If not for Christianity, you would have none of those things; furthermore, it is Christendom who has done them.
* http://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Charles-Murray-ebook/dp/B000OVLJSC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461957977&sr=1-1&keywords=human+accomplishment
Why is happiness important?
So we can be highly functioning enough to espouse our weird 19th century confederate ideals without spiraling into depression when we realize there are only about 10 of us.
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger…
“What do you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?”
40 percent of Americans still say they oppose gay marriage, for example. Your side constantly presents itself as unstoppable and unanimous because it helps your “right side of history” media blitz, but you’re far from your goals of eradicating the opposition.
However, 74% of millennials support gay marriage. What do you think would need to happen to change that?
You need to persuade them that marriage, inasmuch as God is concerned, is marriage, and that marriage, inasmuch as government is concerned, is a framework for protecting those who are most vulnerable–and that homosexual “marriage” violates both premises. Not a gimme, but doable.
Age and a sense of the divine order.
It is the right side of history. I wonder what the percentage of regular americans opposed the civil rights act? This blog would likely have been one based on Wilson’s slavery apologism. The current younger generation correctly understands gay rights as a civil rights issue. As the older generation dies off we will see that percentage decrease dramatically. I have no goals there to eradicate any opposition. I do not kid myself: there will always be the those who feel compelled by ideology to police the lives of others… especially macho christian men and their obsession with homosexual sex practice.… Read more »
Sorry, I know you believe in some sort of secular postmillenialism based on … well, I really don’t know where you get your confident faith from. Certainly not from birth rates.
RandMan wrote:
Recognize? Where are these rights found in nature, such that one might encounter and recognize them?
This is the moral dilemma that RandMan’s materialism has always excused itself from, when pressed.
History doesn’t have “sides.” It is simply the aggregation of human actions. You have absolutely no reason to think that it continues in a given direction, and still less that the direction at any given moment in time has any moral value.
To make one example, from my vantage point not subjecting non-whites to second class citizen status and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 looks like a pretty ‘right’ side to be on. Even if your guru Wilson would have had their grandparents remained enslaved in a mutually beneficial arrangement. You might be interested in reading Steven Pinker’s book on the history of violence. “The Better Angels Of Our Nature’. It has actual facts and statistics in it. The conclusion is that violence is in world-wide decline and has been steadily over history. Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade,… Read more »
“Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we “increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.” RandMan It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that RandMan has not walked around at night in SE DC, parts of East LA, around LAX, near the MIA airport or some other garden spots in the USofA. If you are walking around there at night, you will be dead in only a short time. Cosmopolitanism doesn’t help when you are held… Read more »
I have lived in ALL of those cities as an adult actually! You just brought back some memories. It was the best of times it was the worst of times!!! In my early 20’s I spent the least amount of time in Miami, about a year but I was there in the mid 80s and my pre-sober former life was chemical-fueled so I got deep quick. I’ve ridden the bus all over LA at nite. Made it home numerous times from LAX late nite to sketchy Venice. Lived for a time in the gang-ridden valley, DTLA, pre-gentrification Mar Vista. Back… Read more »
“Happiness”.
Do you suppose the Pharisees developed PTSD after meek, mild Jesus called them a brood of vipers?
“A brood of poofters.” Sounds mild by comparison.????
The true test of any adjective lies in its motive and I try to give you the benefit of the doubt in these things; so I don’t mind the missiles.
Perhaps, we will meet, someday in one of those “camps” or a “ditch” somewhere.
Keep launching Reverend, I doubt it will usher in some golden age but this world needs some sharp reproofs.
I just assume any “Christian” putting up qualms about mockery and descriptive adjectives don’t read their Bible. Otherwise they’re just inconsistent and are clueless as to what “love” actually is.
Better is open rebuke than hidden love. The wounds of a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
Prov?
And in yet another place, he dismisses his circumcising opponents as, and I quote, “dogs”. I always get a chuckle at how Lewis kinda-sorta snuck the word “bitch” into The Last Battle: “And since then, O Kings and Ladies, I have been wandering to find him and my happiness is so great that it even weakens me like a wound. And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me Beloved, me who am but as a dog—” “Eh? What’s that?” said one of the Dogs. “Sir,” said Emeth. “It is but a fashion of speech which we have… Read more »
You can’t blame the LGBTetc movement for debauching marriage. That happened decades before they gained ascendancy in the national discourse. How long has the straight world been hooking up with a giggle, splitting up with an eyeroll, and leaving the resulting children to blunder along as best they could? As a society we decided to skip our spinach and eat cake frosting straight out of the can, and that’s no one’s fault but the former mainstream’s, from the early Sixties onward.
And yet the “Greatest Generation” gave us the kids of the sixties…and the flappers of the Roaring Twenties gave us the WWII heroes…where do you want to stop with this?
Democrats?
Each generation is the fruit of the previous one, and the seed bed of the next.
Well, what with God being the Father of humanity and all,…… I guess God’s got some ‘splainin ‘ to do!????
(Would spinach frosting eliminate this problem?)
????
I’m glad you brought that up.
Funny how especially the last couple generations we’re afraid to say that question out loud.
It’s something that’s really helpful to ruminate & meditate & pray on.
Reminds me of a lot of David’s complaints in the Psalms.
Even Jesus’ out loud pleadings to Him.
Perf’, I was joking of course! In spite of The Sanity Inspector’s suggestion, some of us ate our vegitables and did our homework. (except maybe for spelling!) God explains some things but leaves others as mysteries. One thing that has struck me recently, is Jesus in the garden, knew what was coming. His Father did not take the cross away, but instead sent……. Luke 22:41-43 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel… Read more »
I’d say “when romantic love became the primary purpose for and justification of marriage”.
I haven’t found Wilson’s language to be demeaning or offensive at all, but I do know others who are, I do know some who are flagrant and abusive and full of hatred. I find that to be unfortunate and unproductive, because that does turn people off to Christ, not the words, but the hatred behind them. Why is there a far left? Because there is also a blatantly abusive far alt right. Cause and effect. And often the reason why people reject faith itself is because of some horrific experiences with other Christians, experiences that help to confirm their biases.… Read more »
As others have argued, it’s time to ditch the left-right horizontal paradigm and lift our eyes to recognize the vertical paradigm. We are not in a left-right battle, but in a heavenly vs earthly battle.
So very true. That’s where it starts. “Right worship is the key to world history”DW.
Ridiculous to blame “abusive far alt right” for the crimes of the left; leftism has been murderous and blasphemous since its rise to power in the English and French revolutions.
I appreciate where you are coming from. It is a concerned and loving place. While I do not agree with faith and revelation. I do agree with loving kindness and compassion. I feel yours here. And that may be true (horrific experiences.) But in my experience as a christian apostate, I have found most people (most of the dozen’s of atheists I know) reject faith because it doesn’t make any sense once you drill down. You need to be deeply indoctrinated as a child and what religion you are born into is mostly an accident of world geography. One need… Read more »
“it doesn’t make any sense once you drill down. You need to be deeply indoctrinated as a child and what religion you are born into is mostly an accident of world geography”
Nonsense. Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in many regions of the world, not because poor kids are being indoctrinated, but because many people in adulthood (including well-educated such as myself) find both faith and reason in the Gospel. Dozens of former atheists I know would concur.
You are an english speaking christian because you were likely born into an english speaking christian area of the world. It is quite simple. If you were born in India, you would likely be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Your place of birth determines the religion foisted upon you culturally. It requires much of a modern educated adult to discard reason for a burning bush. There is no reason in the gospel. Merely revelation. Christianity may be increasing in poorer less educated regions of the world yes. But what does that suggest? Nothing really. Islam is also in ascendence in much… Read more »
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Human knowledge may be limited jilybean, but respectfully, that is not the place to step back and say… god. We both know the endless examples where that got rolled back throughout history.
Ah, that’s what Africa needs: benevolent re-education by the West.
“…it doesn’t make any sense once you drill down.”
Really?
What “sense” is there in postulating arbitrary rules and sentiments in an accidental, purposeless universe?
Atheism says something/anything is wrong? Why? Answer: Because happy.
And that is not senseless?
Atheism says nothing about human ethics. Merely that it makes no sense in the face of reason and evidence to postulate a god to explain anything.
If it says nothing about human ethics (which is not true, since its always yapping about should or should not), then it cannot tell anyone what they should or should not do. Since that is the case, any appeal to should or should not is then not based upon a premise of good or evil. It is only based upon power. You say that it is wrong to discriminate. According to what set of rules (beyond raw power) does that “should not” have any “sense” of being authoritative. In other words, you say that discrimination is wrong. Sez who, and… Read more »
RandMan wrote:
Yet, above, RandMan was praising the courts for “recognizing the rights” of homosexuals. If atheism has nothing to say about human ethics, then why is RandMan still typing? Where are his pronouncements about human ethics coming from, if not his atheism? I hesitate to guess since RandMan, hovering in midair, might accuse me of being crude and contrary to human ethics.
And yet we’ve gone over this a dozen times katecho. Just because you cannot conceive of morality and ethics being an emergent property of something else i.e. evolution does not mean that it isn’t. I am disappointed in your inability to do anything other than default to ‘god did it’ in the face of any kind of difficult problem. If we as a species had remained on that on that plank we would still be in the caves.
RandMan defaults to “evolution did it”. However, this is not the same as explaining how evolution managed to emerge something from matter which is completely immaterial. Recall that morality and ethics are not properties of matter. They are not even extended in space. So how could they be emergent properties of matter? RandMan doesn’t say. Unfortunately, that’s only the first problem. The second problem is that, even if we grant that an accidental explosion could accidentally produce other accidental things, like moral awareness, why is it that anyone should actually care about such accidental byproducts? If mere happenstance produced a… Read more »
Who says that morality and ethics are not emergent properties of matter? Our brains are matter. We can replicate out of body experiences in a lab with electricity- that is a ‘spiritual experience’ created by manipulating matter. Why am I not bound to believe in gods? Because there is no credible evidence for them. There is plenty of in-group primate reciprocal altruism to suggest morality as emergent property of evolution. Can I prove this? No. But is an interesting idea. Certainly more satisfying than your god of the gaps. Also no one is claiming ‘happenstance’ produced a set of ethics…… Read more »
“Maybe it didn’t… but as always ‘god did it’ is intellectually empty answer.”
So ethics and morality might not be emergent properties of matter but can not have anything to do with God?
You have your causation backward. There is a far left, which keeps telling people that there is a horribly abusive right, and that anyone who disagrees with the far left is part of the horribly abusive right, therefore the far left must be given broad powers to eliminate the menace of the right. They have used these broad powers to attack, shame, browbeat and disemploy many (mostly men) who had done nothing (as defined by the reasonable person standard) that would harm anyone. And in doing so, the far left has convinced more and more people that, since they will… Read more »
Why is there a far left? Because there is also a blatantly abusive far alt right. Cause and effect.
Illogical. That’s like saying there are really good people because there are really nasty, terrible people. You don’t have to have both sides just because one side exists.
You are far to polite.
Jesus loved sinners and the example is how he treated prostitutes, something we should emulate. Yet there are a few things to note. Jesus addressed people where they were at, and what was their issue. So he addressed love of money and covetness in some, lack of mercy in others, immorality in others. Secondly, the immoral women were generally repentant, they sinned in society that called their behaviour sin and they agreed with society about their sin. Jesus and others spoke harshly to evil men who gloried in their sin. Jesus will not break a crushed reed or destroy a… Read more »
Firm speech like this! Matthew 15:15-17 15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? John 9:26-28 26 Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?” 28 Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You… Read more »
There seems to be 2 types of rebukes one can give in the political sphere. One is firm denunciations, the other is satire or mockery. The former is often used by the prophets, yet there appears to be elements of the second frequently in the Bible. Circumcision therefore emasculation; Baal is on the toilet; you will rescue a donkey drowning but not a man drowning; you will loose and animal but not loose a woman. So mockery seems to be permissible; but should be used cautiously. You must be certain of the falsehood you are mocking. Mocking foolishness and error… Read more »
The river where we are stinks pretty bad. But there are more polluters upstream than anybody is letting on, many of them ostensibly conservative and evangelical. I wish to encourage this line of thought and would add that many celebrated occasions and persons in the history of evangelical conservatives are sources of that mess. We should go back up the river a few more bends to be sure of what we’re dealing with. (Some will plausibly retort that you can throw blame all the way back to Adam and Eve, but let’s focus on a single question: we could have… Read more »
To repeat one of your favorite questions: Whose we? No offense intended, but coming from you especially, I’m never quite sure. :)
Worth asking, to be sure. I mean generally the same thing I believe Pastor Wilson is referencing, “Christians in Anglo/Western civilization”.
Spot on here.
Moses’ meekness was his submissiveness to God, not Man. Submission to heaven comes before dominion on the earth, humility before exaltation. That’s where Adam failed. The self-exaltation of Christ’s enemies is an act that puts them on the wrong side of history. But we are no longer in an age of childhood where God steps in immediately to give us a hiding. We are now allowed to see the consequences of our sin and learn from it, or refuse to learn from it. Those who fill up their sins despite the warning signs will be cut off, and those who… Read more »
Thank you, Mike.
I’m down with all this and love a blistering jeremaid that makes liberal heads explode. True tongues of angels stuff. Still, without love I am nothing. Lewis says somewhere that he can imagine a soldier loving his enemy even as he kills him so I guess it’s possible to love the wolf in a dress while metaphorically cleaving him in twain.
Here’s what I think is the dynamic here: Up until a relatively short period of time ago, Christians had always been the legal, social and cultural majority, and didn’t need legal protections, so they developed a complete lack of empathy for others who did. If another group found itself at the losing end of law or public opinion because it had an unpopular belief or lifestyle, well, that’s just the way democracy works. So now, fortunes have shifted as they often do, and it’s the Christian baker in Colorado who is on the losing side of both the law and… Read more »
Not whether, but which. The two societies cannot coexist.
Of course they can. You accept as an article of faith that they can’t.
But here’s a simple approach that would accommodate both: Gays can get married; bakers and florists don’t have to provide services for them. Why would that not work?
It will not work for Spiritual reasons that you do not accept. The sinful flesh cannot abide the Spirit. It must desecrate as that is its nature. It thinks that what it is doing is morally right. It will continue along its path to its natural end (death). Christians , having participated in the sins of the flesh , are well aware of where it leads and having repented of it are going another way. These progressions are not static–they go somewhere. As Christians mature they become more like Him, as pagans rebel, they become more like the father of… Read more »
In other words, it hasn’t worked because neither side has demonstrated a willingness to leave the other alone. True enough, sadly. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t work.
Krychek_2 wrote: Of course they can. You accept as an article of faith that they can’t. Speaking of articles of faith… Krychek_2 waxes noble about a peaceful, cooperative society of mutual understanding, without competition. Where does this vision come from? It certainly doesn’t come from Krychek_2’s evolutionism, with nature red in tooth and claw. Fights to the death are how we got here in the first place, according to Krychek_2’s worldview. One is tempted to think that Krychek_2 has some sort of telos hidden somewhere in his accidental universe. I think he is just borrowing from our worldview. Let’s see… Read more »
You’re very silly.
I don’t think the problem is that such coexistence wouldn’t work; I think the problem is you don’t want it to work. You don’t want to have to share the country with people who aren’t like you.
Not sharing a country with people who are unlike us is the definition of a Nation.
The heathen nation hates Christ, the Christian nation loves Him.
And each of them is entitled to their own opinion of Christ, but whether they can live together in peace and harmony is dependent on their willingness to leave one another alone. You’ve repeatedly made it clear that you’re not willing to leave people who aren’t like you alone. Your position only works if you have the necessary fire power and ability to use force to enforce your views on others. You don’t. And since that’s not likely to change any time soon, perhaps you you should opt for an understanding that everyone gets to live in peace and nobody… Read more »
Your definition of a ‘good citizen’ underlies my point. You want a nation of people just like you who will leave people alone. You’ve repeatedly made it clear that you’re not willing to leave people who aren’t like you alone. Yes I am. I am very tolerant of human frailty. I once was what I now deplore, so by the Grace of God go I. I have (a probably misguided hope) that a return to the federalism of the founding would provide space and time for peaceable resolution in a generation or three. Team heathen doesn’t want that. They are… Read more »
I think leaving people alone is preferable to a bloody civil war, which is what we’d end up with if people who think like you ever become a critical mass. And I wouldn’t bet that you would be on the winning side of it.
You are surrounded. Your society is fragile and subject to catastrophic disruption at myriad points. There are millions of ‘me’ out there. Heck, in Orlando, 10% of the staff was arming up in an I.T. firm I was working for. This was 6 or so years ago and the talk then was of civil war. In that time, I have only seen the preparations increase and awareness increase. I have listened to grandmothers discuss it in a grocery store. William S. Lind (google him) suggests that the next phase of politics will be pre-revolutionary, where states and municipalities will do… Read more »
So just to be clear, you would rather have a bloody civil war than learn to live in peace with your neighbors? Try not to take too many innocent bystanders with you.
Quit putting words in my mouth .
All right, let’s go back to my original suggestion, that gays be allowed to marry and bakers not be required to sell them cakes for it. Other than the fact that you don’t like gay people being allowed to marry, if both sides would agree to that cease fire, why wouldn’t it work?
“For spiritual reasons you do not accept” was my initial reply to you. I then outlined the “why” of those reasons. In secular terms I would love a federalist approach that enshrined freedom of association above the use of force (the cease fire you refer to). I believe that God is patient and that His calling on team heathen would change their hearts over time. The above has already worked once in America; the early settlers–the Cavaliers, Scots/Irish, Quakers and Puritans lived in different areas of the country and over generations things smoothed out. They had their own spaces, really… Read more »
But your federalist approach still results in atheists, gays, Jews, secularists and others getting dumped on whenever the Christian majority decides to do so, and they will fight back. As would you if the shoe were on the other foot.
So your solution is that I submit to a pagan government and pagan social norms?
What has the pagan government told you that you have to do that you find so oppressive? I agree with you about the baker; that’s just wrong, but it’s also an exception. The government isn’t telling you that you have to be gay, or that you have to have an abortion, or that you have to look at pornography, or that you have to send your children to secular schools. What it has said is that you can’t use the government to prevent other people from doing those things if they choose to. The distinction I don’t think you’re drawing… Read more »
We have also about 400 years of history in self-government as Christians. Keep your pagan cult, we will keep Christendom.
Surely you know that just the presence of Christ in one of His children sends the heathen into rage. We are squarely in the realm of the spiritual now. We are on different roads going different ways to different places. We will change into different ‘plants’ and will bear different fruit. Team heathen will become more evil and my people will become more Christlike. You don’t like us now, you will hate us more as time goes on. You insist that your state should rule my people. This is not going to happen. We , like our forbears in Rome,… Read more »
OK, just to be clear, you can’t identify anything the pagan government is forcing you to do that violates your Christian conscience.
And no, the heathen are not enraged by the presence of Christ in one of his children, unless that child is trying to pass laws forcing the heathen to live like Christians.
You are blind.
As a Christian, you have far more liberty in pagan America than you did in Nero’s Rome. True, but your conclusion ignores the thousand year history of Christendom. The West due to secularism is moving away from liberty. There are in many ways less liberties that matter now than 50 years ago, and the direction is away from liberty. In the more secular Europe the leaders do want and often insist on Christians sending their kids to the state schools. They increasingly limit the ability for parents to raise their children the best the see fit. They may not be… Read more »
To be fair, though, Europe has no tradition of free speech or freedom of religion the way the United States does. I don’t approve of European suppression of Christian speech, but I also don’t approve of the European tradition of prosecuting any speech deemed a threat to public order. I don’t really see anything new in what is happening in Europe. And I flatly disagree with you that Western freedom owes itself to Christianity. Christianity gave Europe the divine right of kings, religious wars, the Inquisition, the burning of witches, and the genocide of Native Americans at the hands of… Read more »
Are you suggesting that the divine right of rulers, religious wars, genocide of perceived enemies, and punishment of infidels were unknown in the societies of Europe prior to Christianity? I’ve never heard of a society in any part of the world that doesn’t believe in those things, prior to the modern era.
It was the gradual, albeit imperfect, flowering of Christianity that enabled people to entertain more Christian ideas of government and social relations that the secularists later ran with and poisoned.
I’m a former seminarian who has read the Bible in its entirety multiple times, and can quote large sections of it from memory, and I don’t recall anything in it that promotes free speech, religious pluralism, tolerance for opposing viewpoints, freeing slaves, or most of what we would consider individual rights. If it’s there and I missed it, please feel free to cite me to it. And the real problem with all the nasty stuff that Christianity did pre-Renaissance is that they really could find passages to quote to give themselves cover. As I said in an earlier thread, democracy… Read more »
And you compare Christianity then with secularism now. If we look at Christianity compared to the surrounding nations at any time in history, Christianity is always preferable.
The love of Christ has made people’s better than the barbarians that they were without him. Europe, Africa, North America, Pacific.
It’s not quite as simple as all that. Within Christianity there was already some movement toward religious tolerance and recognition of rights before and apart from the Enlightenment, at least in the Anglo world. Furthermore, apparently nothing about Christianity prevented a movement like the Enlightenment in the first place, whether that is a fact to be celebrated or to be lamented. In fact it is fair to ask if the Enlightenment could have come about in any culture other than a Christian influenced one, fair to ask if it could have, because it didn’t. Too, it is worth pointing out… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: You’ve repeatedly made it clear that you’re not willing to leave people who aren’t like you alone. Your position only works if you have the necessary fire power and ability to use force to enforce your views on others. Christ has not given us a gospel of leaving people alone in their miserable condition of spiritual deadness. Christ is King over all, and rules until all of His enemies come to His merciful feet. Christ inherits the nations. Christ is not offering a truce. The meek inherit the earth. So Krychek_2 is slandering us to suggest that Christ… Read more »
Sharing the country? What a noble vision. As byproducts of an accidental explosion, why should we be sharing? Isn’t Krychek_2 one of those evolutionists? What happened to his faith in survival of the fittest? He wouldn’t want this evolution train to come to a stop, would he? We have to get to evolutionist heaven, right?
Krychek_2 has some explaining to do, and he needs to do it from within the confines of his godless materialism. God knows we have asked him to do so repeatedly now.
You’re very silly.
A complete lack of empathy?
Wow. I think you missed the part about the civil war ‘checky.????
The Civil War is an outlier. Most of the history of Christian America has been unrelenting harassment and hostility toward not just gays, but also Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jews, and, depending on which part of the country, Catholics. (In other parts of the country, public school students were going to be eating fish for lunch on Friday whether they liked it or not out of deference to the Catholic majority.) Some of the laws passed against minority religions, just for harassment purposes, are truly astounding in a country that claims to respect religious freedom. I can give you many, many… Read more »
“The civil war was an outlier”?
‘Checky, I thought you would be a better steward of your own credibility than that. (?)
Wow.
If you have any actual analysis to offer I would be interested in reading it.
The most bloody war in US history , and the constitutional amendment that resulted from it, are not “outliers” but perhaps the most significant internal moral effort the country has ever had.
Who, besides you, defines the civil war as an “outlier”?
Outlier does not mean insignificant; it means a rare event, which the Civil War most certainly was. That said, my original point stands, which is that for most of our history, Christians were perfectly happy to use the legal system to dump on people who weren’t like them.
All part of my plan Smithers!
????
Checky, lots of Christian empathy can be found in any period of US history. Not to mention that nondenominational government is a Christian invention. That there are examples of bias by denominational groups, does not prove the majority of Christians are bigots.
Finally, blog and Mablog is nothing if not a monument to the diversity of Christian opinion.
Generally speaking, US Christian culture has a better record of “blind” justice than , say communist culture.
Yes, you’re fine with “nondenominational” government and “diversity of Christian opinion,” which is not quite the same thing as being tolerant of atheists, Jews, gay people, and others not part of the Christian mainstream. By the way, “nondenominational” government was actually forced on Christianity by the Enlightenment, so your claim that it’s a Christian invention is hilarious. Are you even reading Timothy’s comments? He doesn’t even bother to hide the fact that in his Christian utopia, people who aren’t like him would be miserable. And yes, there have always been and always will be Christians who are wonderfully tolerant, but… Read more »
Nondenominational government came by way of the Puritans, who fought against Catholic government, tried Puritan government, and then backed off to nondenominational government.
How could “the enlightenment” “force” anything one anyone? That would just not be “enlightened” now would it?????
‘Check, you still benefit from the Puritan shift to nondenominational government, more than you would a secular communist government or an Islamic government.
And by the way, you are “tolerable ” enough, and kind of funny!????????????
These would be the same puritans that hanged Mary Dyer for being a Quaker?
Yes indeed they were! Like I said, they backed off from denominational gov’t. After an isolated mistake like that.
Oh why could they not be as awesome as those “enlightened” French Revolution guys, who murdered thousands of aristocrats?????
As I told Katecho, the Reign of Terror was in direct conflict with the values of the enlightenment, just as much of what happens in churches has precious little to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Where are these alleged values of the Enlightenment enscripturated, and why are they valuable? Who says? Remember that Krychek_2’s worldview offers no teleology and no prescription. We are accidents adrift in time, headed nowhere. Krychek_2 might suggest that such-and-such a behavior is important toward some goal, and therefore has value with respect to that goal, but he nowhere establishes which goals we ought to have, or that we should have any goals at all. The whole thing collapses into arbitrary unbinding preferences.
You’re very silly.
Are you even reading Timothy’s comments? He doesn’t even bother to hide the fact that in his Christian utopia, people who aren’t like him would be miserable.
You are miserable now.
Why would I be? My side is winning. Your side is being told by the non-theocratic majority that its days of privilege are over. Your side should not be discriminated against, but neither should it be given special treatment. It’s a belief system like any other belief system, and gets neither better nor worse treatment than any other belief system.
Krychek_2 wrote: Yes, you’re fine with “nondenominational” government and “diversity of Christian opinion,” which is not quite the same thing as being tolerant of atheists, Jews, gay people, and others not part of the Christian mainstream. I’m quite tolerant of atheists, Jews, homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, murderers, etc, while they are being drawn to Christ. God is patient. The only thing I’m interested in legislating against are actual crimes, as God’s Word defines them. Unfortunately for Krychek_2, tolerance doesn’t mean acceptance or protection from all consequences. Krychek_2 also wrote: By the way, “nondenominational” government was actually forced on Christianity by the… Read more »
So ‘cho, are you with me, in my very light sketch, of the progression of nondenominational government, from the English Civil war, to the American Revolution, to the American Civil war?
Our government here in the USA, says we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, by our self evident Creator.
Hence our government is God based, but not church based.
a.k.a. “nondenominational”.
Not to worry, I’m only granting Krychek_2’s argument for the purposes of exposing his self-contradiction. I think the so-called Enlightenment was an all-around disaster. As far as the non-denominational topic, I don’t dispute “A” dad’s history of events, but I think it’s important to realize that we are organically and providentially connected to our ancestors. Churches and nations are denominated. They have names; even in Scripture. Those names reveal something of our location or heritage or creed, which is all fine, and, in fact, inescapable. Even the attempt to avoid a denomination and creed still marks us as being in… Read more »
‘Cho, nicely articulated position! As you can tell I often like to go the shorter, “wise guy”
route!
Do you suppose ‘chekmiester will be compelled to take a broader view than he has now?
I bet he’ll let us know!????
This summary of Albion’s Seed http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/
is illuminating.
The original ‘denominations’ where:
A: The Puritans
B: The Cavaliers
C: The Quakers
D: The Borderers (scots/irish)
The article touches on the differences in theology and Christian practice between the groups. This shows that your statement:
. A civic denomination may differ in interpretation from another in
the modern application of certain crimes under the old covenant, but
this would be the case in Christian governments with or without
denominations. Denominations just help us know where we are on the
landscape.
Has happened in our history. Which is pretty cool!
:) I read the book a long time ago, but that was an entertaining summary, thanks for the link. I wouldn’t take Fischer’s interpretation as THE explanation of American history, but I wouldn’t dismiss it either.
Please, whatever you do, don’t call him Kate.
The deists who wrote and ratified the First Amendment would probably disagree with you.
Whoops! Wait! Deists?
I thought you said the US gov’t. Was Christian until just recently?
Oh, I get it! It was those deists with their institutionalized deisim who were the problem!????
I said that Christians have used government to impose their values on others and to harass those of other sects, which is not quite the same thing as saying that the government itself is Christian. I’m not sure the US has ever had a Christian government as I understand your definition of the term.
So,……what “values” do you think are “neutral”? Or even awesome? Yours?
That people should be left alone to the extent that what they’re doing isn’t harming anyone else. Gay marriage may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but it’s not for the state to make that choice. It just records the paperwork for gay couples same as it does for straight couples.
Why would deists disagree with what A dad said? Which part? On what basis?
The part that implies, if it doesn’t actually state, that the self evident Creator is the God of the Bible. “There’s something out there” that deists espouse (and I note that “something” doesn’t even have to be a person) is about as far removed from where A dad is trying to get us as I can imagine.
Whew! So Thomas Jefferson, and his case for slave ownership in the south was a deist problem and an enlightenment problem, not a Christian problem?!
Those pesky, ever so enlightened desists and their slaves!
How dare those desists impose their values on Gov’t and slaves.
It was a problem of enlightenment principles not yet being fully developed. The Southern slave owners had reached the point of understanding human dignity and human rights, which was a huge step forward from the Christian middle ages. They had not yet come to understand that blacks were included within that.
‘Check, while one of us is a comedian, you remain hilarious!????????
If you have any actual analysis I would be interested in reading it.
I rest my case!????????
You lose on a directed verdict.
Not to mention, an “enlightened” verdict!????
Off with my head next, right?
It was forced on Christianity in the same manner in which being ejected from my house is forced on a would-be burglar. There is defensive force, and offensive force, and what the Enlightenment did to Christianity was decidedly the former. As in, stop telling me that I have to live my life in accordance with your theology. And the Reign of Terror was so completely divorced from enlightenment values that blaming the enlightenment for it is like blaming the Bible for priestly pedophilia. Yes, the French Revolution gave lip service to enlightenment values, just as priestly pedophiles give lip service… Read more »
Stop telling us that we have to live according to your secularist world-view. In your “name one thing” comment where I replied “you are blind” I replied that way because a laundry list of particulars (similar to the one in the Declaration of Independence) while true did not get to the root of it. After a nights rest and this mornings prayer and reading the one particular that matters came to mind. The ONE thing that we disagree on is the relative place of Jesus Christ in our lives–to include politics, law, culture, etc. You subsume Him to your wishes,… Read more »
Ah, but I have no desire to rule over you. I just don’t want you to rule over me. As far as I’m concerned, you can live your life as you see fit, so long as it doesn’t impact on me.
You can live your life as you see fit, so long as it doesn’t impact on me.
Try this.
We will live our lives as we see fit.
Or better!
We are ordering our lives as we see fit.
Stop us if you dare.
Fine, what goes around comes around.
Or better!
They that take the sword shall perish by the sword.
I thought you didn’t believe Scripture.
No but you do.
And I wouldn’t say everything in Scripture is false. Just that inot everything in it is true.
Yes I do.
The commentary on your quote is quite good.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/26-52.htm
When you brandish the sword because we will not submit to your rule, then remember your words.
The only circumstance under which my side is likely to brandish the sword is if you try to make us live like Christians, in which case we will be doing so defensively.
Like I said, just try not to take too many innocent bystanders with you.
The only circumstance under which my side is likely to brandish the
sword is if you try to make us live like Christians, in which case we
will be doing so defensively.
We disagree on this. I hope you are right, but I think not.
You should read your history a little deeper – the Enlightenment was enormously influenced by Biblical Christianity (there’s a reason why it started in Western Europe about a century after the Reformation and not in any other time or place). If you’ve seen my comments here I’m hardly an “America is a Christian nation!” ideologue, but you can’t make the comment you just did without denying the facts. John Lilburne was one of the first to articulate a freedom of religious belief, and was a huge early influence to both that freedom and the government granting of individual rights in… Read more »
Of course, there is truth in what you say. But I think you should not overlook the good that has been done by organized Christianity in this country. My own Catholic communion has, over the centuries, provided free or low cost education to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It built hospitals which were often the only source of medical care in a community, and which absorbed costs for people who could not afford to pay. Even today, one in six Americans receives health care from a Catholic hospital every year. Catholics were among the first to build orphanages, soup kitchens, settlement… Read more »
They made at least one astounding jillybean as well!????
You are so nice!
I wouldn’t say Christianity has done nothing good; I would say it’s been a mixed bag of both good and evil. But my central point is that Christians and gays need to adopt a cease-fire whereby they each allow the other to do their own thing and don’t attempt to use the legal system to harass the other.
The gays and their enablers can take the first step as a gesture of good faith., since they’re the ones doing the harassing.
Wonder how Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses will react when they find out you lump them with “gays”. :)
K2, we live in what used to be a constitutional republic but is now is easily characterized as a fascist regime. I thought long about your post and don’t really agree. Christians were sitting back at their Bible studies and not interacting in the courts, the secular or political world because many preachers stood in the pulpit and denounced those professions and interacting in those arenas. In the late 60s living outside Washington, D.C., the preacher in the largest Southern Baptist church warned me against going into a political career because it was dirty and not befitting a Christian. There… Read more »
In Dallas, the Judeochristians are hassling women for using the women’s restroom. A man barged into the women’s restroom to confront a woman who had entered it. He assumed she was a man because she was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and has short hair. http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/collin-county/man-follows-woman-into-restroom-after-mistaking-her-for-a-man/160568442 A Dallas woman says she had an unsettling confrontation this week after a man followed her into the women’s restroom at a Frisco hospital. ***** Rush, who keeps her hair in a bleached-blond faux-hawk, told WFAA-TV (Channel 8), “I’m clearly a woman. I was just in basketball shorts and a T-shirt. Nothing out of the… Read more »
Wow