Russell Moore & Theocracy
Sir, I read Russell Moore’s article regarding theocracy that you linked to, and I am a bit aghast. How can anyone who has read the Bible make any such blanket and universal condemnation against theocracy in any and every form (i.e., his critique “also is true of every theocracy.”)? Does Mr. Moore actually intend to so condemn the theocracy of King David, or is he so clueless as to recognize that his blanket condemnation would also apply to the laws God gave to Israel? Sure, this is the kind of error a Baptist (or any dispensationalist) could be prone to, but it seems to me an atrocious and egregious error. It demonstrates at worst a downright hostility to the Old Testament; at best a complete disregard or ignorance of it. Also, I must compliment your distinction between theocracy and ecclesiocracy—that I found especially insightful and helpful. Additionally, I appreciate your observation that every government is a theocracy to their own god. Back my Freshman year in college I laughed out loud when I first heard someone use the phrase “you can’t legislate morality.” I was new to such discussions, but I recognized that instantly as meaningless jargon . . . my classmates were tongue-tied when I simply asked if we should rescind laws against rape and murder, as these were also legislating morality. It was obvious to me even as a neophyte in such discussions that the question, logically, can’t be whether or not we legislate morality, but rather whose morality we will be legislating.
Daniel
Regarding “A Primer on Theocracies,” there has always been something about Russell Moore’s political theology that strikes me as odd. In one sense, I appreciate the work he is doing in certain areas (e.g., advocacy for marriage and the pre-born), but at the same time, essays like this come off preaching a different message. I don’t think its high-handed hypocrisy, but there is a sense in which his actions and theology do not align. I have often tried to put my finger on the disconnect, but I think you nailed it. One other thought—which I think you have mentioned before—it seems as much of this is done in an effort to be considered part of the cool kids group. It’s sneaky, but I think at the end of the day it robs Christianity of its “otherness” from the world. The Kingdom we preach is in this world, but it is completely “other” in a sense. The “hot take” culture of the internet doesn’t help, either. I’m sure others have suggested this, but I wouldn’t mind seeing you and him debate political theology sometime. The evangelical church is really confused on the issue.
Kyle
Kyle, I would love to be able to interact with him some time on these issues.
I read your “Primer on Theocracies” with interest. I had previously read Moore’s article that you were responding to, and enjoyed it as well. As I read over your piece, it seemed to me that there was something both of your posts took for granted, so that you ended up talking past one another. Allow me to take a brief aside for illustration before coming back to the main thread. I have seen the issue of rules and where they come from play out in a different environment. I am part of an extremely conservative, Arminian connection of churches. Ostensibly, all of our rules are strictly Biblical. However, a rule was recently added that insisted all our men where full length pants (I had nothing to do with this, I just found out about it after the fact.) On what authority can they make such rules? Well, they would say, in a sense, our group is a democracy that can make whatever rules they see fit. I respectfully disagree, but that is beside the point. I have recently stumbled onto Reformed perspectives on this question and saw profound power in the idea of the church as the steward of Christ, without the authority to simply “make things up as they go.” It is only then that we can claim transcendent authority for the church. Now for how this relates to the issue of Theocracies. If a Theocracy is simply allowing God to rule, that’s a great idea, and obviously a requirement for every Christian, whether politician, preacher, or a parking lot attendant. But the question I would have is, since the Bible is not written as a political constitution, what does a Theocracy do about all those things that God has not spoken on? And this is where things get sticky. And I suppose it’s also where you set off across the butterscotch in your snowshoes. Because if, at this moment, the leaders of a Theocracy decide to come down on a particular side of a question, did they do so because God demanded such? Are all who oppose them also opposed to God? I said earlier that the church is bound not to go beyond the rules where God has not spoken. On the other hand, I believe that the government is bound to not go against the rules that God has given with clarity. So far, so good. But there is going to be dramatic disagreement, even among serious Christians, about what God has and hasn’t given as universal guidelines. What about working a field with a John Deere tractor and an International drill? What about building codes? What about tax rates? If a Theocracy means that our political leaders simply do their best to rule in a way that brings glory to God, while exercising wisdom in those areas where Scripture is not clear, I’m all in on this project. But if Theocracy means that God’s Word will be used a defense for every decision made and law passed, no matter how questionable, and those who question the leaders question God, I’m not so keen on that idea. And believe that is what most people have in mind when they think of a Theocracy. I think some people mean this when they defend their version of American exceptionalism. However America does it is obviously the Biblical way. As a product of the ACE Christian curriculum, I frankly grew weary of that kind of thinking. So my question, if it not clear by now, would be this: If we are going to have a Theocracy, it will not be the kind of Theocracy we find in the Bible, because Yahweh has not descended in visible form on Mount Rushmore or the Washington Monument or Capitol Hill to give us His commandments for the U.S. We have no Moses to lead us, through Red Seas and Wilderness wandering, to our Promised Land. God will not be settling any leadership disputes by striking troublesome women with leprosy. Without that visible leadership from God, exactly what kind of Theocracy are we to have? You comment at one point that our country’s leaders are committing great offenses against God. I agree. But wouldn’t it be an even greater offense if their defense for their evil laws were that they were not in charge at all, that these laws were from God? If you do print this somewhat rambling letter, kindly remove either my reference to my church connection or my name. I don’t care which.
Some Fellow
Some Fellow, this is precisely why I call myself a theocratic libertarian. I believe that we should have laws where the Scripture expressly requires them, and I believe we must strive for minimal coercion (which is what the law is) everywhere else.
Pastor Wilson, I am extremely appreciative of all of your ministry, and this post (A Primer on Theocracies) is no exception. I have never written before, but have many of your resources. And so I imagine the number of your followers are much, much greater than you know from just those who write. In brief, I’m a 8-year believer, who began in the muddled world of Calvary Chapel, Dispensationalism, Antinomianism, and Pessimillenialism, and then after not being able to reconcile the Bible with these things, found the Reformed faith about 4 years ago through Bahnsen’s materials on CMFNOW, and although I read widely now, I have yet to find anything that he or you have put out that I disagree with. So I count myself in your theological camp. But one of the biggest struggles I have is reconciling the ignorance of our church leaders with having the Spirit and reading the Bible. How can such a bright, highly educated, Calvinistic, prominent and influential leader of the church make such a hash of what I consider the plain truth of the Bible? This is not a difference of opinion about how we baptize or what songs we should sing. Although those things are VERY important, I can love my brother in Christ even though he is wrong-headed in his baptism ideas, his ideas about music, eschatology, and other matters. I am Presbyterian at heart, but the only reformed church with what appears to be spiritual life in it within 1-1/2 hours of Ellensburg, WA is Baptist. So there I am. I will live with that. But this article by Moore is so damaging to the church! He should know better should he not? It is right up there with Dispensationalism or Easy-Believism or not preaching about sin and repentance. Throughout the OT, God’s people were either blessed or cursed depending on how they handled the revealed word of God in their lives. And God used it to punish them even by a famine of the word of God. They died for lack of knowledge. So how can a man such as Moore miss such obvious things? Does he not read his Bible? Can he really have the Spirit? This idea of thinking we just need to preach Jesus and not worry about what law standard we then follow or ask others to follow is just blindness. Is not a person who reads the Bible with a broken and humble heart, seeking to know the Lord and His character and will, going to conclude that the whole purpose of the gospel is to glory God BY bringing obedience and worship, and subsequently peace to the nations? Moore’s writing is just sad, and really discouraging. You exhibited such grace by your post. Seems like there must be such a fine line between being so graceful, or being more hard-lined and calling these men to repentance for their misrepresenting God’s word to the watching church and world. If you have any thoughts on this, it would help me. It is hard to know how much regenerated hearts should be expected to understand about these things when they are people like Moore, with such light given them. It is one thing for the layman I suppose, but another for someone like him. He does so much damage. I know God deals to each one a measure of faith or grace, but still. It angered me to read Moore’s article. Is that anger wrong? Or do I just “be angry, but sin not?” Perhaps when it comes down to it, I’m just asking, at what point do we move to a harder stance against what someone is saying or doing and tell them they need to repent? In this church climate, a person could either find themselves feeling guilty or unsure because they are either enabling way too many things, and being too soft; or they could find them against most everyone. Tough times these are. Blessings to your family and ministry, we pray for you,
Chris
Chris, we all have our blind spots. And God, in order to keep us on our spiritual toes, has enabled us to see everyone else’s.
A Primer on Theocracies: Saying that Russell’s stance is due to Baptist experience under Protestant theocracy is akin to Obama’s claim that Israel has a right to Palestine because of the Holocaust. Pastor Wilson has a wonderful way with words but his arguments are always at their weakest when he defends his post-millennial, theocratic beliefs. He argues past his opponent. And of course the reason for this is his replacement theology. He argues from the OT (given to Israel) while Russell would argue primarily from the NT (given to the church). The desire for the Church to reign is why so many Christians are willing to hold their noses and back ungodly leaders who promise to do things that resonate with Christians. Although Pastor Wilson did not back Trump, he gave a great deal of support to Moore. There will be a theocracy one day under the direct rule of the only One qualified to hold that scepter, Jesus Christ. Not under fallible, sinful Christians and the weeds so often in their midst.
Marc
Marc, if that were so then how would Moore argue from the New Testament that the civil magistrate is required to pursue racial justice?
Hello there Mr. Wilson, (This is in regards to A Primer on Theocracies) Let me first say how much I appreciate your ministry and writing. I read your blogs regularly, listen to the Plodcast, and I have been greatly helped and blessed by it all, even when I disagree! I liken it to how you are fond of mentioning C.S. Lewis and the Psalms and even amidst disagreeing I understand why we disagree and appreciate it. I am a seminarian at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and therefore hear much of Russel Moore, obviously. This last election brought a lot of things to the surface being on campus at SBTS and listening to Mohler, Moore, and other professors. Though many were like you in their denunciation of both “candidates,” the foundation was different and I found a home more in your thought than theirs. I told a friend recently that I could deal with the foundation differences between Moore and my own politically this past election because our house looked the same: in that we both could not vote for either candidate. Now, with this theocracy stuff, our houses don’t even look the same and it makes me wonder who the home association owner is, because it is not the Christian suburbia I hoped for! When I say I think I agree with you more despite saying the same thing I believe it is because of the issues you touch on in this primer article. From the Nashville Statement, to Roy Moore, to Trump/Hillary, to theocracies etc. Even when Moore and other Southern Baptists (I use southern baptists for the sake of clarification and in tying into your article, since this is indeed a mistake you’d expect baptists to make) are saying the same thing as I (or you at times) I am left feeling uneasy with their presuppositions. I feel like we are making small compromises and stepping into a snare. When I listen to Moore I am left feeling like he is portraying a form of Evangelicalism that desires to be liked and respected in the public square, not one that proclaims “thus says the Lord” even if the public square despises each word. I was going to make a Jehoiachim reference about cutting the scroll we read, but the modern adaption would look more like Don Lemon or Jake Tapper hitting backspace, which is far less dramatic, though just as disobedient. I say all that to say, I am sympathetic and daresay even agree with you (don’t tell my fellow congregationalists) on much of what you write in Empires of Dirt and in your blogs. I was wondering whether you have read/interacted with Jonathan Leeman’s “Political Church?” I have been working through it, and have been pleasantly surprised with much of what he is writing as an avowed congregationalist. He argues for the necessity of institutions, the reality that politics is really a war of the gods and no matter what we are bowing to someone/something etc. He seems to me to be far closer to where you are coming from than Moore. Which I find hugely encouraging. I was just curious if you have interacted with his writings at all and where (if you do) you and he would differ in your understanding of the church and state and its responsibilities. I ask all this because it seems quite pressing that we get our ducks in a row because if we don’t Trump won’t be the only lame one in the next few years. I pray for you and your ministry and am thankful for it. May God grant wisdom, discernment, and well-timed wit and banter for years to come!
Michael
Michael, I love it when people give me an excuse to add a book to my list. No, I haven’t interacted with Leeman yet.
An Absent Theos and Theocracy
Re: I Will Be Brief If I Can (Updated) The term “Theocracy” has come up a few times of late in your posts. In your reckoning, how would said theocracy work if Theos is not tangibly present? To clarify; who is the proxy for God, and what safeguards would be in place so that history does not repeat itself—where the theocracy degrades over time (like it did in certain other churches throughout history) if the Lord tarries? Thanks!
Bugs
Bugs, in brief, I would want acknowledgement of the Lordship of Christ in the Constitution, along with an acknowledgment of the authority of Scripture, and no established church.
Immigration and Theocracy
Your response to the theocratic admonitions of Christian leaders, who reject theocracies in principle, theocratically admonishing Trump for an allegedly crude and inappropriate phrase about certain countries was excellent. But it begged the question, then what is the biblical position on immigration? Because I don’t believe the plain teaching of Scripture on immigration is strictly from passages caring for Sojourners and refugees to draw an open borders, globalist view of immigration. But also don’t believe the plain teaching of Scripture of Nehemiah building walls and God sovereignly determining national boundaries of nations and kingdoms to conclude a closed borders, nationalist immigration policy is the complete biblical position either. And I was wondering if you might be willing to write up a primer of sorts on biblical immigration? Since immigration is probably the number one issue driving Evangelical support for Trump, and the Evangelicals who don’t support Trump and his vulgarity seem to be swinging in the SJW globalist direction on immigration. I don’t think Christian leaders are addressing this issue biblically, but instead emotionally. Thanks.
Trey
Trey, yes. Someone needs to write about immigration and biblical law. I hope to, but no promises.
What About Trump?
Okay, for us dummies can you explain? Are you saying that those Christian leaders who won’t say anything about the morality of the elective officials should not say anything about what Trump said, (or not)? And if they are going to say something, they should always say something about everyone?
Tammy
Tammy, I was saying that many of the Christian leaders who are morally indignant about Trump are also morally indignant about those who would apply biblical standards to politics. And I am saying that you can’t have it both ways.
This is pathetic. Your condemnation of him was basically “well, non-Christians talk like that.” Look, of you can’t condemn someone who is not a Christian for doing something unchristian, then no one is going to hell. Everyone is held to the same standard, Christian or not, this is one of the most basic Christian premises. People can condemn him, and they don’t have to use the Bible to do it. You can use the Bible, and that would be perfectly fitting. I would love a Christian in the White House, that doesn’t mean I want a theocracy. I can hold a non-Christian to a Christian standard. From your logic it is unfair for someone who doesn’t want a theocracy to complain about a president murdering someone in the dead of night, because hey, he isn’t a Christian so you can’t expect him to act better. Also, for all your involvement in politics you are really good at never strongly condemning conservatives no matter what they do. Roy Moore, well no one knows what happens. Trump says something horrible, well, unless you want my theocracy you have no right to complain. But the left does anything and you are all over it. Come on, wake up!
James
James, I am afraid that you have radically misunderstood the point. And if you had been around here long enough, you would know that my criticism of compromised conservatism has been unrelenting.
Theocracy Simpliciter
Regarding Theocracies: I have long regarded the notion of a God-fearing theocracy as the very best form of government. Looking at Scripture, we see God giving us a moral Law by which to govern ourselves. This is what the Law does; it tells us what sin is. But it also tells us what to do about certain sinners who threaten to unravel the fabric of society, which we call “criminals.” Some pay restitution, some are imprisoned, and some are executed. I’ve always thought, “If God Himself devised a system of law and punishment, why do we think we can come up with anything better?” And so I am theonomic, and the very next and most natural step is to be theocratic. Of course every society is essentially a theocracy in that every society has a “god” at the helm calling the shots and meting out lashes. But why not a society that self-consciously, purposefully, admittedly theocratic with the God of the Universe at the helm? I dunno . . . makes sense to me. What doesn’t make sense is why a Christian would fear that.
Malachi
Malachi, I understand why a Christian would fear that being done wrong, but I agree with you that there is no reason to fear it done right.
If only the thousands of Christians in public office had the same theocratic vision of that simple Kentucky Clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses . . . one can only wonder.
Jeff
Jeff, right.
Three thoughts: One—As I read I keep thinking of Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh (or was it Pharaoh before God?) saying “Let my people go . . .” And Pharaoh responds “Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice . . .” In other words: By what standard? Or in the parlance of my home, populated by grade-schoolers: Who says?! This is a very old question and, as you say, a reasonable one. Two—I find it surprising that many find it surprising that all societies have a “god of the system” or are innately religious. I’m reminded of an article which you have likely read but if not would likely find interesting. It’s called The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas by Joseph Bottom (or Bottum?). It’s probably 3-5 years old and is a good read, though not a brief one by typical internet conventions. Maybe denial is a river in Egypt . . . Third—Why are these liberals so upset? What standard have they? Game of Thrones—good. President using an expletive to describe the third world—break down and cry on national tv. Its right for a Christian to call leadership to account, but most of what is being said is just the same old Rules for Radicals theatrics. It gets old.
Nathan
Thank you for this primer. I hope that this is the first of several posts on this subject, and so far, the butterscotch only seems to be sticking to the bottom of your shoes. Where it gets more sticky, in my mind, is when we ask what sort of theocracy we are talking about, and in particular, what parts of God’s law ought to be enforced by the state. The second table is easy enough, with the exception of such questions as whether homosexual behaviour ought to be criminalized (as used to be this case in this country—and some have argued it ought also to be punishable by death). The first table is tougher. The reformers supported laws against blasphemy, as did both the USA and Canada until the not-so-distant past. Is that part of the theocracy we are seeking? You defend religious freedom as a Christian value that would be enshrined in this ideal Christendom. My questions would be: how far does that liberty extend (e.g., may people blaspheme God? may non-Christians hold public office?), where do you differ with the Reformers on this, and most importantly, on what Biblical grounds would you defend this pluralism as a feature of the ideal Christian theocracy? It would be shame for our country to go theocratic on the assumption that everything’s going to be hunky-dory and nobody’s going to get persecuted, and then discover, once we get there, that we haven’t made a very robust defence of this pluralist position, and now there are bunch of folks with Bibles in the government who think maybe the other religions aren’t so tolerable after all. I would appreciate your further thoughts on this and the Biblical grounds that you give for them.
Jon
Jon, I agree that the First Table of the Law is the real challenge—how to implement it without overshooting (and thereby breaking the First Table). But too many do not recognize that there is no Second Table without the First.
Re theocracy The inevitability of theocracy is there because Jesus is Lord. The fact that Jesus is Lord necessarily means that Caesar is not and we are already in a theocracy and also should not go around trying to establish a theocracy. Rather we are to disciple the nations to acknowledge the existing theocracy.
Christopher
Christopher, and therein lies the task.
Thank you pastor Wilson. You made me think and ponder this subject. I think the problem with Dr. Moore and a lot of Baptist (by the way, I’m a Reformed Baptist/ Postmillenialist/ Theonomist in progress) is the two kingdom theology which does not arrive to the Gospel’s logical and biblical conclusion in society. Again, thank you very much for fueling the Gospel fire into my heart. God bless. PS: Have you written any book that treats this same topic?
Pedro
Pedro, the closest so far is Empires of Dirt.
I hope you get a chance to spend more time on this subject. For what it’s worth, I am a convinced baptist in terms of subjects of baptism, but I am also convinced that 1. The greatest civil law ever given is what God provided Moses in Scripture, and so all people are obligated to look to it as they develop laws and societies, 2. The Word of God is the absolute authority over all things whatsoever, government included, and so governments should submit to the authority of every word of Scripture as proper, 3. Jesus is Lord of all without exception, and so every government and politician is obligated to confess Him as Lord and submit to him pronto, 4. The ideological divide posited by Christians between the religious realm (church and private life) and the non-religious realm (everything else) is an abomination, and maybe the greatest reason for the present castration of the church. Question: What books other than Scripture are best for dealing with the myth of neutrality? Thanks, and as always very grateful for you. You are pastoring far more people than probably you know.
Dave
Excellent article Doug. Well said. Since you’re writing on the subject of theocracies, and are a postmillenialist, (which is right!), care to write an article explaining what America will (eventually) look like as a nation won to Christ? Would love to read it!
Dominick
Dominick, as soon as I know, I would be happy to write about it.
As a Baptist all I have to say is, “Amen.”
Levi
Re “A Primer on Theocracies”: Going by the stats reported on this page, and taking into account that another full year has passed, I think it’s time to revise that abortions-since-Roe estimate to 60 million.
Valerie
Thanks for this very well written critique. But I have to say, I don’t think you go far enough. Moore wants to take away the authority of God from the state, and hand it to who knows? He clearly hasn’t thought this through. But in your Theocratic Libertarianism you want to take away much of the authority of God from the individual. Libertarianism is simply autonomous self-rule, and as Christians we simply cannot grant that to sinful hearts. Why feel the need to notch out a libertarian space? While you are willing to acknowledge the big picture authority of God’s Law, why are you so hesitant to acknowledge it all the way down? Thanks again, Reverend Wilson.
Kilgore
Kilgore, by “from the individual,” did you mean for the individual?
In response to “A Primer on Theocracies,” It’s especially ironic that Moore says all this as the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission—which purports to advocate for public ethics. But how can they effectively do this when their president is effectively denying Christians the authority to approach the government with “Thus saith the Lord” on their lips?
Carson
Carson, amen.
John 19:14-16 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered. Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So . . . #2 it is then.
Jason
Jason, the point gets grimmer every time you think about it.
Regarding your article about the dog chasing the firetruck, I continue to appreciate your thoughts on theocracy here. The greater irony in all this is that these same evangelical leaders . . . so quick to call out our politicians for such things as offensive language . . . have all but capitulated on far more weighty matters. Politicians who support the murder of unborn infants, the redefinition of marriage, “hate speech” laws to censor Christian thought, persecution of the Church, or those who openly live a homosexual or drunken life themselves, do not receive the kind of disapprobation we hear from such evangelicals as when a politician says something that offends the god of the secular system. The former are grudgingly acknowledged as the reality of the secular system. But if a politician says something that dare sounds remotely racist, sexist, or simply uncouth . . . now that is something truly vile and demands obloquy. It seems such evangelical leaders have largely, if unconsciously, bought into the values of the world in these areas. Reading this article, the image of Bridge on the River Kwai repeatedly came to my mind . . . With Colonel Nicholson (politely) chastising Colonel Saito’s construction methods, chastising his own men for not being more cooperative with their captors . . . never realizing that by making these issues his battleground, he was slowly capitulating and effectively supporting the cause of his enemy.
Daniel
Margaret Atwood and #MeToo
I’m afraid I can’t remember which post it was exactly, but you wrote a typically well reasoned argument in favour of due process in the me too furor, pointing out innocent until proven guilty. I thought it would amuse you to find Margaret Atwood agreeing with you on this point
Emma
Emma, it does amuse me.
What Happened to Femina?
Thank you for this . . . article. I really appreciate it, and many, many of your others. Wondering if I might inquire about the Femina link. It seem the most recent Femina article is dated 4/4/2017. I miss it. Respectfully,
Andra
Andra, the Femina blog is not discontinued, but the women involved are very busy practicing what they teach.
Pastoral Duties and Chasing Ants at the Picnic
Without calling it a problem, you identified the real biggie: “. . . if we haven’t seen someone at church in a few weeks, one of the questions we have to ask . . .” The first thing your elders need to hear at that meeting is your bark: “WEEKS??!! Did you just admit out loud that it has been WEEKS since any of us have contacted the Smiths??!!” If you folks are pastors—and let’s stipulate the “if” there—then you ought to blush red a bit that it has been WEEKS since you’ve seen some of your sheep. (A moment ago, I just got through a making telephone call to a good customer (I work a sales job), asking why they hadn’t placed an order recently.— Hello, why hadn’t I called earlier?! That’s my job!!) If God hath made thee pastor, you be a pastor indeed, regardless of the multitudinous clubs/quasi-business we call “denominations” in which the sheep sometime congregate. Yes, of course, you may have to be working with (or around!) other supposed or real pastors who post themselves under shingles of a different font. But your elders’ job is reach out, touch, heal, cajole, love—is it not? Not wait for sheep to assemble meekly at your feet.
Eric
Eric, while taking your central point (and agreeing with it in principle), I do want to say that our elders here are among the most pastoral elders I have ever heard of, and not having seen someone for a few weeks is routinely not a sign of dereliction of duty at all. People go on vacation (without having to get permission from the elders), they attend the other service, they come in through a different door, etc. When the elders meet weekly, and one of us says that “I haven’t seen the Smiths for a few weeks . . . has anyone else?” If no one else has, then it is time to check in with them.
Okay, Baptism
My take on baptism is simple. There was no sign upon infants before Abraham, and it was actually a sign upon all males. It was related to the coming of the promised seed and ended between AD30 and AD70. The “covenant” not only grew up in Jesus but He is actually the covenant—a person. To put a sign upon an infant is to unwittingly testify that Christ has not come in the flesh. Things have shifted from sons of men (earthly fathers like Abraham) to sons of God (obedience and testimony to the heavenly Father), or from being put under guardians (such as godparents) to being invested or knighted in baptism as a sword bearing guardian. So baptism isn’t the boundary of the realm, but the staff uniform of the voluntary keepers of the realm. So not only is paedobaptism redundant, it robs Christians of a rite of passage intended to be a first step of obedience and public testimony of allegiance. But I can’t see you gents giving up this superstitious security blanket in large numbers any time soon. You’re fixated on the womb instead of the tomb, i.e. the wrong passage.
Michael
Michael, how can Abraham be an earthly father when he is the spiritual father of us all? “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).
The Image of God and the Sexes
Regarding “The Image of God and Life Between the Sexes”: Lots of good stuff here about the design for marriage in the original creation. Not sure, though, that marriage is the image of God, even in part. The first Adam, the original son and image of God, failed. Christ is the faultless son and image of God, despite never marrying. Or, rather, Christ married his people. Marriage therefore has to do with the divine-human relation. It is not an image of God. I find John Frame’s brief discussion helpful
John
John, the fact of it seems pretty straightforward to me. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).
The Doubts of John the Baptist
The idea that John the Baptist had doubts while in prison has always bothered me. You telling me that the baby that leapt in the womb of his mother when the in utero Messiah came near, the same man who admitted that he knew the Messiah when he saw him and was not worthy carry his sandals, the one who said he needed baptized by Jesus rather than the other way around . . . also doubted just a few short years later? I don’t buy it. Convince me.
T.F.
T.F. these things are complex. Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God right before Jesus rebuked him as Satan (Matt. 16:15-23). Most of it had to do with Christ fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies while messing with many of the pious Jewish expectations of how those fulfilled prophecies would actually look. It is not hard for me to picture the faithful John in prison trying to figure out how it was supposed to look.
There is a disturbing lack of condemnation for Trump’s comments from Wilson.
This coming from the guy who openly bragged of his friend cussing out a commenter on this board.
Yes, after bdash made racist comments about my friends race over and over. Are you trying to paint this as me against racism? Cuz thats good for me, as well as accurate.
Oh, so it’s okay for your friend to cuss out a total stranger to further his own self-interest, but it’s not okay for Trump to allegedly use (because we don’t know if he actually used that word) one cuss word to describe the third world in relation to looking out for America’s self-interest. Because God forbid the President of the United States actually look out for the interests of the United States first. Got it. Of course, you were the first to stand up and loudly condemn Obama when he bombed third-world countries, weren’t you? And if, when you hear… Read more »
???????????? looks things up before you argue. They were talking about Africa and hati before he said that and then he said that he wanted more immigrants from Norway. Sounds racial. And I wasn’t in politics when Obama did the bombings, but I would probably not support them, idc that it was Obama. And he was cussing only to me, it wasn’t like he cussed at the person. And if someone said those things to him I wouldn’t blame him for cussing at them. ???? This is a joke
So Africa contains only black people, Malik? Norway contains only white people?
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. You might want to check the mirror before you go calling other people racist.
???????????? come on. I think you get the point and Trump doesn’t care about facts.
I’m lots of things, racist is not one.
Do you support Affirmative Action?
I don’t have a yes or no answer to that. I think that it is a bad system for a lot of reasons, and that it does a bad job fixing the problem. It’s also a problem in that it hurts Asian kids chances to admission etc. That being said, until we fix the actual problem (in my opinion you need to fix the primary and secondary education system in poor areas, and then college affimitive action wouldn’t be a problem) there is a need to do something, and though this isn’t what I would choose, and I think that… Read more »
“(in my opinion you need to fix the primary and secondary education system in poor areas”
You can pour all the money you want trying to “fix” that, but until we have more stable black families with both parents in the home, it won’t help. Oh, and the parents aren’t supposed to be the same sex, either…
Stable families are incredibly important but not the only factor at work. You have swallowed a narrative. Also there are things people can do to help families stay together. Also yes, there needs to fundimental change that can’t be caused by a government program, but some programs can help, a lot, some policies need to change, and if we reduced systemic racism to allow black families out of poverty that would make a huge difference. Studies show that poverty not race/culture is the problem. And sufficient funding would also help. Furthermore I highly doubt you have first hand expirience in… Read more »
“Studies show that poverty not race/culture is the problem.” You can design and cherry-pick studies to “prove” whatever you want. However, the data is more conclusive for 2-parent families. And honestly, with the number of contradictions and fallacies you’ve displayed in comments for this post alone, interpreting scientific studies is above your pay grade, harsh though that may sound. You need to go back to the basics of reading comprehension and elementary logic first. I’m done here. It’s clear that no matter what you claim, your religion is found in pop culture and leftist dogma, not the words of Scripture.… Read more »
My religion is founded in the Bible, not Christian tradition. If you’ve taught me something it’s that I have no place in your church, and few do. Your faith will apeal to a choice few, hopefully you find those, because you aren’t able to speak or shine light to the rest of us.
And there is nothing pop culture about me or my faith.
Unless it’s those parts of the Bible with which you happen to disagree.
Classy
“Classy”
And accurate. You pick and choose what parts of the Bible you’d prefer to believe, rationalizing anything away that you don’t like by making up new theology on the spot. Go ahead, ask me for evidence of this. Please do.
Yeah, that’s the bottom line. If Malik were a Bible-believing, heterosexual Christian in the 1930s (or most any other decade), there’s no way he’d conclude that homosexuality isn’t a sin. Malik has clearly been conditioned (even brainwashed) by his culture. He scoffs at the idea that adultery, bestiality or incest could be defended Biblically. Yet he has no more exegetical support for homosexuality than any of those sins. And no, it’s not compassionate to tell someone enslaved in sin that they’re okay. It’s very non-compassionate. Here’s a good interview with someone who’s spent much time ministering to homosexuals, yet takes… Read more »
I’m done. I’m tired of not being welcome in churches or other Christian circles for my beliefs. Idc if people disagree, but being unwelcome to express what I think, and unwelcome to be somewhere after I have is getting old. Even after saying I support welfare and most Christians won’t look at me for a while. You love to twist my words, pretend I mean stuff I don’t, intentionally misunderstand etc. So have fun pretending you won, you made up the opponent, and beat that one. Your the types who chased a friend of mine out of the church years… Read more »
” You can pretend to be holy, but the way you treat people who disagree betrays you.” This is the crux of the issue Malik. With the exception of a few (bdash has a reputation), for the most part people have been treating you perfectly respectably. They take your ideas seriously, engage with your ideas, and give you thoughtful and honest replies. The problem is your idea of “treating you respectfully” is “not pointing out that you’re saying terrible things”. If I walk into a room and say that black people are unintelligent, it isn’t that people are disrespecting *me*… Read more »
Whoa there zealot
That sure is a weird spelling. I don’t think it’s the same “Jonathan” who used to post here…
I’m new
Malik, I have first hand experience, and I do think stable families are the important predictor of school success. Children from two-parent homes are better fed, have better access to medical care, and experience much less of the upheaval that interferes with learning. Of course, I support adequate funding for schools. But the most academically successful school I ever taught in was a woefully underfunded Catholic school which did not have selective admissions. But it did have the right to expel disruptive students, and that is huge. A teacher who does not spend her time managing impossible children can actually… Read more »
I totally agree. And that is quite the insight, I have very little experience in this field. It sounds like you do support a school policy change as well as family change,which is the same view is mine, you have a much better idea of the kind of school change needed
https://open.spotify.com/track/0hL8yBivUahlm1rhQ1a0Xx?si=QT0ShdrqTI23GGhpjI0qmg
A semi-literate “song” filled with profanity. You hit a new low, as surprising as that seems.
Look, you can be as high and mighty as you want but you’ll never understand people. That’s why it’s absurd to you that I’m okay with homosexual marriage, or why I want to help people in the inner city. I care about people, and try to understand them. This song isn’t supposed to be literate, it’s supposed to show you the side of the other people, the people you won’t meet living in your middle class neiborhood. You can keep living in your dream world, when you are ready to try to understand others, come out. All this white ideological… Read more »
…you’ll never understand people. That’s why it’s absurd to you that I’m okay with homosexual marriage. No, Malik. You’re okay with ersatz marriage because you’re in rebellion. It’s absurd to us because you claim to be a Christian, yet you defiantly disregard the Bible’s plain teaching on marriage and homosexuality. For one who claims to understand and care about people, you certainly show a contemptuous attitude and lack of understanding toward your Christian brothers (who, in case you haven’t noticed, are people) who have been repeatedly trying to warn you and help you regarding your errant views on the subject… Read more »
fp said: “For one who claims to understand and care about people, you certainly show a contemptuous attitude and lack of understanding toward your Christian brothers ….”
Some might say that more strongly. That is, “Malik, you are a hypocrite!”
Probably.
You can’t ignore the way I have been treated either
Malik, I have a natural fondness for young people, and I don’t expect to find old heads on young shoulders. I can clearly remember a time when I was pretty certain I was right about just about everything–people who like to tease me would point out that this time was maybe ten minutes ago. Nonetheless, the people with whom you disagree are sentient and valuable human beings just as much as are the poor, the gay, and the racially oppressed. It would be charitable (and productive of results) to assume that they may have compelling reasons for how they see… Read more »
Okay, for sure.
Honestly, I wish I would get that respect here as well though. People seem quick especially about homosexuality to go on the extreme offensive very quickly not giving I thought that I too have a reason that I believe what I do.
Not to qualify what you said, which I will do my best to take to heart.
“Honestly, I wish I would get that respect here as well though.”
You aren’t showing respect towards others to begin with. Your entire argument is predicated on you being a fundamentally more wise and open minded person than everyone else here. People aren’t going to respond to that by treating you with kid gloves.
What seems to actually be happening is everyone including you and me are acting as if they are right. Now for the record I am pretty securely of the fence on this issue, I think there is a huge possibility of me being wrong. But most people I would think are pretty much 100% sure they are right, and that being the case there is little helpful conversation to be had here. No one is actually going to think about what I am saying fairly, probably most of you can’t concieve a world where I am right. For my part,… Read more »
“For my part, nothing you say will really change my mind, for one thing I’m not listening well enough, but also the types of things that will change my mind is talking to people that I know,”
God’s clear word on this should be all that’s necessary to change your mind.
You haven’t heard what I have been saying, clearly
Malik, “… from my point of view every time that I say anything suggesting that homosexuality might be okay, people don’t respond well let’s talk about that but instead like I’m just a rebellious, unthoughtful kid.” I pointed you to some sources who discussed various arguments about homosexuality using the Bible. You dismissed them for some reason(s) that I thought were rather shaky. In my opinion, that does not suggest you are “on the fence on this issue”. Instead, it seems you are on the side of the fence where homosexuality is okay, and you are willing to look over… Read more »
I’m not sure I’m right. Who are you to tell me what I think. You can trust what I say I think, or you have no idea at all, you don’t decide. The root of the problem, may be that when I suggest that we shouldn’t worry about gay people, and let them be while spending that time and energy witnessing to them or the poor, people jump to telling me why it’s so wrong. And at the end of the day, idc. I’m in the prosses of figuring out what I think, and that prosses is independent of wat… Read more »
“when I suggest that we shouldn’t worry about gay people, and let them be while spending that time and energy witnessing to them”
So you witness without telling them of their need to repent of what God calls an abomination? Until you come to grips with that, you’ll never get it. I gave a link for a podcast earlier. I suggest you listen to it instead of just shooting from the hip and rationalizing your beliefs.
You go witness to a gay person with a sign saying God hates fags and tell me how well that goes down. You can make your view clear without being a jerk. ND their are other ways to witness than the you are going to hell method.
Where did I say to use the Westboro method? On the flip side, your “God doesn’t care whom you’re attracted to or marry” is a far, far cry from the Sodom and Gomorrah account or how Paul addressed the issue in Rom. 1.
So what view do you make clear, anyway? You’ve already said it’s not a sin and praised Obama for “fundamentally changing” the U.S. to a society that’s ultra-confused and pro LGBTQ.
“What seems to actually be happening is everyone including you and me are acting as if they are right. ” No. That’s not it at all. People having a disagreement where both think they are right do not have to go about their argument the way you are. Your premise is “I believe in X, Y, and Z, because I’m a more compassionate person than you”. That’s not just thinking you’re right. That’s thinking you’re a fundamentally better person than everyone else. ” No one is actually going to think about what I am saying fairly, ” Why do you… Read more »
You twisted just about everything I said to mean something else. I admitted to not listening as well as I should. That was supposed to mean I see an area I need to work on, it wasn’t a middle finger to you all,I’m pretty sure you knew that. And reason is what will sway me, the people speaking reason know what I think, why I think it, and therefore they know what reason need to be presented much better than you do. That was the point. Also I would disagree that homosexuality is the most clear thing in the Bible,… Read more »
Malik, “Another thing I’ll add, I have reasons I believe what I do, and they aren’t things I share on the internet, that’s the #1 reason other people can talk about it better with me, because I can talk openly with people I trust.” If you won’t share on the internet your reasons for what you believe, or you aren’t willing to listen to people on the internet, then how do you expect anyone on the internet to be able to have a reasonable discussion with you? It’s quite immature on your part to act like you want to be… Read more »
I’m done here, but I’ll explain a little bit. First I made lots of side arguments, I still don’t see the unthoughtful part. But as for the reason I won’t share? A friend of mine a long time ago was having lots of doubts, and he couldn’t talk about it because he was greeted as you greeted me. So he stopped asking, pretended to be a normal Church Christian, but because no one could actually talk to him without running him off he stopped believing. I had a friend my age who I could talk to, and she kept me… Read more »
And for people who point so much, church people are pretty messed up, and are more inconsistent with the Bible than homosexuality oftentimes
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Much of the church doesn’t respond to homosexuality in a remotely acceptable way. I’ll agree with you there. But the church’s failing to follow God’s path does not change what God’s path is. Just because plenty of Christians are rotten to homosexuals doesn’t change whether or not homosexuality is wrong.
Malik,
Ah, yes, the old argument that Christians are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Please stick with the issue, rather than deflecting.
” No one in the church can talk about it, as you have shown. ”
We’ve been doing nothing BUT talking about it. You’re the one constantly insisting it’s a waste of time to discuss it.
Malik,
” That’s why I hate how you act to people who don’t agree with you. Because that runs people out of the church or into silence until their faith dies.”
You often strongly remind me of a former commenter (again, not a compliment). I do not miss her.
You’ve effectively said that there’s no point to commenting here, so why don’t you spend your time and effort on ways to help the poor, etc.? I’m not trying to run you off, but don’t you want to use your limited resources in the most effective way to help God’s kingdom?
Malik, compassion is wonderful but it has its limits. Try this as a thought experiment. A few years from now, an unhappily married Christian friend says to you, “I’m having an affair with a woman at work. I love her, she is the only woman in the world who can make me happy. You know what hell my marriage has been, and now for the first time in my life I feel whole and alive. And the two of us volunteer at soup kitchens together. Do you think I have to give her up?” What then, Malik? Does your compassion… Read more »
“You twisted just about everything I said to mean something else. ” No, I displayed what you said by what the text actually says. What you might have meant as opposed to what you actually said could be something else entirely, but I’m not responsible for reading your mind. I’m dealing with what you actually say. ” I admitted to not listening as well as I should.” The problem wasn’t you admitting to it, the problem was your present progressive tense. It wasn’t, “I haven’t been listening to you, I’m sorry, can we start over?”, instead, you have declared multiple… Read more »
Malik, what you are getting is the respect of being taken seriously and having fellow Christians be concerned about your views. I think you know this, or you would spend your time on an Episcopalian board where your statements about the rightness of gay sex would be greeted with Amen! As I see it, the issue isn’t with your saying you don’t see why God has such a problem with gay sex; lots of people wonder that, including me. The problem is with reinterpreting scripture and disregarding millennia of Christian teaching to come up with the view that God didn’t… Read more »
” lots of people wonder that, including me.” I file this under “God can see outside the scope of linear time.” Knowing the effect of every cause as God does pretty radically alters moral decision making. Going back to the introduction of tobacco, you would be kind of a creep for admonishing anyone who promotes it or sells it. If, like God did at the time and we know now, the outcome of promoting tobacco, it’s the only sensible thing to do. Even disregarding the obvious pitfalls of homosexuality in society, we can’t see the future. God can. If God… Read more »
“That’s why it’s absurd to you that I’m okay with homosexual marriage, or why I want to help people in the inner city” ” I care about people, and try to understand them. ” The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I care about people and try to understand them. That’s why I oppose homosexual marriage and why I think welfare is poison for the inner city. You aren’t listening to the actual arguments. This is just brainless bigotry. You’re applying negative motivations to people who disagree with you simply because you have no other way to justify the discrepancy in our… Read more »
No I understand that. Im actually saying they are doing exactly what you said I’m doing. They aren’t thinking about the fact that wrong or right it’s not that I’m in rebellion,that’s not why I think what I do, I just am compassionate and this is where that led me in some ways. And I fully understand it could take others in other directions, they could be right, I’m only taking issue to people acting like I’m such a horrible person for thinking what I do. Trust me that my motives at the least are good.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
You don’t go to hell for not believing that homosexuality isn’t wrong.
I assume you know the gospel and how salvation actually works.
You don’t go to hell for not believing that homosexuality isn’t wrong. I assume you know the gospel and how salvation actually works. Malik, why don’t you try interacting with what I actually say? You know, just to change things up a little? The Bible, upon which you allegedly base your religion, says explicitly that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. However, you would rather see a homosexual die in his sin rather than accept the plain Word of God all because of your “good intentions” and “compassion”. If an unrepentant homosexual won’t inherit the Kingdom of God,… Read more »
Malik, I think you meant to say You don’t go to hell for believing that homosexuality isn’t wrong. I suppose that would be true for a person who does not practice homosexuality. However, that belief does put a Christian on dangerous ground. Take this example: Suppose a person becomes a Christian, and then regularly practices homosexuality, believing, like you seem to do, that homosexuality isn’t wrong. I do not believe that person has salvation. 1 Cor. 6:9 says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. In effect, they will “go to hell for believing that homosexuality isn’t wrong”.… Read more »
I don’t think anyone doubts your good intentions. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It isn’t your intentions I was criticizing, but your arguing under the premise that others lack those same good intentions. You don’t get to assume the worst in people without evidence and keep the moral high ground.
If I didn’t assume you had good intentions I wouldn’t be having this conversation
Then don’t make arguments that directly state the exact opposite.
FP, tell me your thoughts about this. My first reaction is that, in any publicly funded institution or hiring program, privileging one group over another is unjust. I tutor minority kids to get them ready for college, and I think that is where the real work lies. But, the city I grew up in is dealing with the issue that if a state-funded university accepts students based only on grades and test scores, it is likely to have a 90% Asian student body. I struggle with this. From the point of view of justice, I have no problem. But is… Read more »
Admittedly this question wasn’t poised to me, but I’m to enthralled by ethics to resist. “if a state-funded university accepts students based only on grades and test scores, it is likely to have a 90% Asian student body. I struggle with this. From the point of view of justice, I have no problem. But is it in society’s best interest overall?” The issue here is that effectiveness has no relationship to morality unless you’re discussing the effectiveness of a moral imperative. It’s a moral imperative to not allow people to be murdered, so effectiveness is a moral argument in police… Read more »
How come you’re, like, debating a black guy?
Ben,
Ignoring your implicit racism, Malik says he is a white guy. Get your facts straight!
Comments like that gave me my views.
So your views are shaped by how others have offended you? Maybe Ben got his views by being called racial slurs or physically attacked by someone of another race. If that’s the case, your views are no more valid than his…they’re just more PC.
Malik, while your response is understandable, it is not an intelligent, reasoned basis for your beliefs. You need to rise above it.
So, if Wilson does not speak or behave exactly as Malik thinks he should, then Wilson obviously must be wrong or, at least, ignorant of the proper response. Sounds like something MeMe would say. That’s not a compliment.
And if I disagree with you then I am wrong and sinful right?
Malik, Disagreement with me (or anyone) does not in itself make one wrong or sinful. Disagreement with God does. Your statement about Wilson suggests that you strongly believe he is failing to behave as you think a Christian should. If I understand correctly, you are a very young man. I regularly perceive your attitude to be arrogant. That is, you know all the answers about how a Christian should believe and behave. If you really want to influence others to behave differently, I suggest you change your approach to be far more humble than you are today.
Makes sense. Ig in arguments I come across like that partly because I’m arguing at 100%, I think about the facts on other time, I’m not trying to decide here. And also I try not to spend all my time, and brevity makes it even more exacerbated. I will definitely be mindful. And yeah, I think Wilson can be soft. He is strong on condemning the world, but that’s easy as a pastor from the safety of a Church. What is hard is making a strong statement about something that a politician that is possibly supported by some of his… Read more »
Bullfeathers.
Is your assertion that anything that doesn’t receive a specific condemnation is automatically endorsed? I find Trump’s comments distasteful at best, but have had no reason to comment. What you’re doing is an inherently unfair method of criticism Malik. Why, I must say there’s a disturbing lack of condemnation of the Armenian genocide from you Malik. You’ve also curiously been silent about the recent California family having been discovered as keeping 12 children and adults hostage in their basement. What might we conclude about you as a person from that…… Of course, if we’re being fair and using Biblical standards… Read more »
In response to your response to James, I have been around for a little while, and I have heard defenses of horrible conservative politicians’ actions, and plenty of condemnation on left politicians. If you really have unrelenting criticism of compromised conservatism than your definition must be very different than mine, not taking overt racism and sexual misconduct as serious compromisation.
For anyone who still has a doubt that Trump is unfit. This story would have broke the internet if it was about Obama. Instead you find it more tucked back in news sites. If he is doing so many worse things that this is minor news than something is wrong.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2UNYrk2HKnXWwj5FecZGeV?si=vU5PW7USS1uvaZJH7o3uHA
Exactly 180 degrees from the truth. Pretty much everything negative about Obama’s past and administration was 18th page news (if it made the MSM at all). True or not, anything negative about Trump is on the front page of Yahoo, Newsweek, CNN, etc., constantly. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity can see this…
Obama put his feet up on his desk and it was front page news on Fox for two weeks. Trump settled a 130000 cover up with a porn star and I didn’t see it in the news, someone told me about it and then I found the article in the news after I went looking. Come on man, look at all of the crazyness that Trump does, how does it not bother you. It’s every single day. He isn’t a leader, I’m just really hoping that he doesn’t have dimentia, it seems like he does, and there isn’t even a… Read more »
I think it got more than minor coverage. The WSJ isn’t exactly a small news outlet. I expect that other networks are doing their own investigations–as they should. This is not something they can afford to be wrong about.
That makes sense
There’s no question in my mind that Obama was a narcissist as well, just a more subtle, passive-aggressive one…which is worse, IMO. As for not being a “true leader,” we haven’t had a statesman in office in decades. Obama was a skinny-jeans-wearing, leg-crossing-at-the-knee metrosexual if I ever saw one. He’d never win the respect of a platoon or football team…unless maybe it’s a modern one, with girls, homos and trans included. “look at all of the crazyness that Trump does… It’s every single day.” You’re making my point. There was plenty of craziness in the Obama years–Van Jones, weekly scandals… Read more »
People who say there is no doubt/question in my mind for some reason tend to make the statement and then give no back up. Obama never did anything merely for him, his feel good, unlike Trump, ie desertifying the nuclear deal against the advice of every national security advisor, merely to look good. This was when people started calling the white house a day care center because everyone had to minimize his actions which is not what we want for a leader. Now I’m not arguing that Obama was better, though I think he was, only that Trump is awful.… Read more »
“Obama never did anything merely for him, ”
He lied about the Bush administration to foster racial hatred to create support for his presidential campaign. This is objective fact. The Senate voting record shows as much. https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony-in-chief-n1368078
Do you think some degree of narcissism is inevitable? When I think of the presidents who might not have been narcissists (Gerald Ford, maybe), were they able to manipulate people to the extent necessary to actually get things done?
I think realistically it is probably partially inevitable, though not to this degree.
Again, that is child’s play, and has very little effect of the presidency compared to the crap that Trump does. Actually you just made one of my arguments for me. Sounds like you are against letting gay guys play football. That’s the kind of discrimination that I think necessitats that we legalize gay marriage. Also your standards for president are rediculous. You don’t seem to mind how well he actually did as president, only that you don’t think he was a “real man” because he crossed his legs and wasn’t intimidating. Sorry, I’m interested in real leaders, not fake “real… Read more »
“Again, that is child’s play, and has very little effect of the presidency compared to the crap that Trump does.” No, Obama set out to “fundamentally change” America (for the worse) in the WH and he did exactly that. The groups he invited (and those he didn’t) were extremely significant…much more that 99% of Trump’s tweets. Very few thought homosexual marriage was a serious possibility in 2007 (Obama claimed to be opposed to it). By 2016, we didn’t even know who was supposed to go to what bathroom any more. Most of the stuff with Trump is surface-level stuff that… Read more »
well sure, if you are more interested in homosexual marriage than the handling of the north Korean crisis, sure Obama was worse. I support it, so i would disagree. Obama was more devious, though I think he changed the country for the better, Trump is just dangerous to the country. I disagree with his policy which is a moderate problem, but the sever problem is that his ability to handle crisis is zero to none. That is the danger, not that the tax plan was bad, that’s a problem but not the big issue. The big issue is that he… Read more »
I don’t think JP has a problem with gays playing football. I think his point was that Obama was metrosexual in a way that typical football players are not. Living where I do, the white men I know are pretty metrosexual, and it is the more traditionally rugged man who would feel out of place. I was reflecting on this the other day when a young man postponed a date with my daughter because he was having a panic attack. I grew up among men who would rather have had a finger cut off than admit that to a young… Read more »
Yeah, you’re right, I wasn’t by any means trying to say I’m smarter than anyone. I was trying to make a point that we don’t necessarily need that type of man in office. What is important isn’t how conventionally tough they are. The other part of that is sometimes the guys that try to look the toughest aren’t. My first hand expirience with that is I’ve had experiences where people (usually that type of guy, a southern tough guy) thought that they were so tough and picked a fight with me and lost. All I’m saying is you don’t need… Read more »
Interestingly, in times of crisis, like the Houston floods, it’s the rugged men–truck-driving, boat-ridin’, shotgun-totin’, Trump-voting–that do the bulk of the work and sacrifice. It’s never the “League of Heroic Amazon Lesbians” or “Limp-Wristed SJWs Who Support Gay Marriage and Helping the Poor (just not with our bare hands)”.
Our society hates “toxic white males” until we need them.
https://tinyurl.com/y9magxht
Again I have no problem with those people. Just when they are fake tough. And those aren’t the only type who helps. The tough no shotgun hate Trump inner city gospel Church is another group.
“The tough no shotgun hate Trump inner city gospel Church is another group.”
is another imaginary group that never shows up when times get tough. It’s interesting that such a tolerant, “gospel” group thrives on hate, too.
I’m gonna call bull on that. My whole life contridicts that, as well as every single expirience which I have had in inner city churches. They do incredible work that you are unaware of, which is unsuprising, I would assume you live in a pretty white area, definitely probably lacking inner-city church expirience. And they are the least hateful people I’ve ever met. I don’t want to say it this way, but for emphasis, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, at all. Come to STL or Chattanooga and I’ll show you. Every weekend their congragation works… Read more »
Not all of us, though I am sure it must seem that way. Even with my sometimes liberal tendencies, I appreciate competent men whose response to finding a possum (or an intruder) in the garage isn’t to have a therapy session about it!
Therapy session, in a safe space, with a Rainforest-Certified Alliance coffee in hand. I think I posted this link on another thread, but I can’t resist doing it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96s
Some of it sounds so much like a former commenter here that it’s downright scary.
That was brilliant, especially Demand that others be the change you want to see in the world. I would probably have laughed even more if I didn’t have so many people in my immediate environment who think and talk like that! Lack of humility and lack of humor are a deadly combination.
????????????????????
(Side note, I’m sure you know this but this isn’t mainstream left)
I beg to differ.
Malik, the problem is that mainstream left has been co-opted by new agey, snowflake left. The working class left of the past may have been mistaken on some of the issues, but they didn’t invite ridicule by demanding safe spaces and talking about their feelings.
Hahahaha
He isn’t a leader, I’m just really hoping that he doesn’t have dimentia [sic], it seems like he does, and there isn’t even a question of if he is a narcissist. Careful, Malik: Practicing psychology without a license is illegal. Practicing psychology with a license from a distance without having met with the patient is not only unethical, but illegal. You also might want to bone up on the DSM-5, as you’re not going to find “dimentia” in the literature. (dumb ass tweets) Says the guy getting the vapors over Trump’s alleged use of a term that isn’t much worse… Read more »
????????. I don’t like MS-13. I do like Latino immigrants. Idc that Trump cusses, you can too, idc, I care about his racism. And lol to the psychology thing.
Since racism is apparently the unpardonable sin in your book, how many times does God condemn it compared to homosexuality and other sexual sins? And why can’t someone rationalize it away like you do with sodomy? And to be clear, racism = “whites being racist to some other group,” correct? Because the kind of stuff on this site
http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/
isn’t racist and we can pretend it doesn’t really happen, right?
Racism is the in group discriminating against the out group. The key is power, and in the US that’s white people. That’s one definition. I’ve experienced a little of what some people would call reverse racism, the thing is the situation made it so the people who were doing it had power in the situation and that’s what made the difference. If a black guy calls me a cracker it’s not really racist in that it doesn’t cause harm because there isn’t a group power imbalance. And another way to define racism is judgment or discrimination based on race, anyway,… Read more »
“The key is power, and in the US that’s white people.” So when Obama was president, and Holder was AG (a guy who wouldn’t even prosecute baseball bat-wielding New Black Panthers at voting places), then affirmative action, black-on-white violence, etc. were very egregious racism, i.e., blacks were “in power.” “I’m pretty sure you aren’t arguing that God doesn’t hate racism. I have reasons to thing that homosexuality isn’t necessarily a sin, ” Wait, so we absolutely know God hates racism, but can brainstorm up some pretty dang good reasons why homosexuality isn’t a sin…regardless of what God says. This is… Read more »
JP, I’m almost ready to put Malik on my personal list of commenters that are not even worth reading, much less replying to them. I may campaign for others to do the same. He reminds me too much of MeMe.
Yep.
À black president is not enough to change power from 300 years over to black people.
And yeah, we aren’t going to get anywhere on homosexuality. Racism we should be able to agree that it’s wrong but you don’t seem to want to say which is odd.
And my explanation of racism comes from years of talking and thinking about it, not vox.
Your definition of racism is clearly shaped from pop culture, academia and the mainstream media–and I’m sure that’s true of many people you’ve talked to as well. My definition of racism is based on Luke 6:31. I grew up in the South and almost every racial incident (violence or threat of violence) I experienced or knew about first hand were black-on-white….contrary to Hollywood and your narrative. And yes, these were as sinful as any other type of racism…your asinine stuff about “300 years of power” notwithstanding. Whether we’re talking the KKK in the 1920s, or a black-on-Latino incident today, racism… Read more »
Ofc, I agree that it’s a sin no matter who is committing the racist act. I think that there is more and larger issues with white racism in America, but that wasn’t to say other kinds aren’t bad. I didn’t include the other types in my definition because in some cases it’s helpful, but that’s not to say it isn’t a sin or anything. Ofc everyone should be treated as equal regardless of their skin color and discrimination is wrong.
“I think that there is more and larger issues with white racism in America”
You can “think” that based on the narrative you’ve been fed and selective media coverage, but the crime statistics don’t support it. And while not all black-on-white crime is racially motivated, some is but doesn’t get reported as such.
If a black guy calls you a cracker with the intention of making you feel bad about your race, he is being racist whether or not he has the power to harm you in an economic sense. The fact that you have enough self-confidence to ignore the insult doesn’t make it less racist. Even assuming a power imbalance, I can’t imagine that God is on board with hurling race-based insults at individuals who have done nothing to harm us.
Not according to Merriam-Webster, which is, you know, an actual dictionary:
Third time, Malik: Do you support Affirmative Action?
I responded above, yes and no and that’s rediculous
I responded above, yes and no and that’s rediculous [sic] Give me the number of the other comment where you responded to my inquiry about Affirmative Action. And no, it’s not “rediculous” (for the upteenth time, Malik: Learn to spell this word. You ought to be embarrassed that you attended college and you still routinely make this mistake) to ask you whether you support an institutional system that is designed to give preference to minorities based solely on the color of their skin, especially when you make it your life’s mission to point and shriek at everyone you judge to… Read more »
I’ll let him give the comment # but a Cliff Notes summary: he doesn’t really like AA, but we have to do something, because, you know, wacism. So we need AA and other gummint programs.
Go read it yourself, it’s like 10-20 comments from the top. Basically yeah, it’s not a good system,but since Republicans would block better solutions so it’s what we have. And since you Republicans can’t come up with a better solution you can leave us alone for trying to fix a really bad problem in America that has no good or odvious answers. If you don’t like it come up with something better.
So every possible solution is political: a government program. Again, the religion of an SJW.
Yeah, sorry I forgot, government programs are clearly unchristian and condemned in the word of God. ????????
And no, ofc the solution isn’t political. But people in the chruch are often too busy hurling insults at the states way of handling things to go do something. Maybe if you got up and went and did something you could make the argument, but as is you can’t. The church isn’t doing its job, and the state is doing a bad job at it’s job. No Christian can make the argument that the Church should be doing something not the state when they are a part of the church and doing nothing.
You’re making a pretty big assumption that these gentlemen are not Doing Something. I have often been amazed at how often people in conservative churches give countless hours of practical help to the young, the sick, the pregnant, the poor, the orphaned, and the elderly.
” But people in the chruch are often too busy hurling insults at the states way of handling things to go do something. ”
Not if actual statistics are to be believed. Christian conservatives, statistically, give more money, time, blood, and hair than leftists to charity. You have some pretty far off reality faulty assumptions going into this.
I know that, that wasn’t my point. I actually responded to this argument somewhere below, it addresses this exact thing. I responded to a comment of yours that was along the same lines
“. And since you Republicans can’t come up with a better solution you can leave us alone for trying to fix a really bad problem in America that has no good or odvious answers” We have better solutions. School vouchers for a start. I’m a hardcore limited government guy and even I would be fine with government funded classes and job training in legitimate economics and actually useful trades. The left refuses at face value to hear them, because the unions which funnel so much money into the Democratic party depend on limiting the skilled work force to whom they… Read more »
Okay cool, I’ve actually never heard those ideas from any Republican, I’m glad they exist. And I don’t line up perfectly with the left agenda just fyi
That Welfare is bad , rather than good, for the people it’s trying to help has been the conservative line of argument for the better part of a century. Not being aware of that says striking things about what you actually know about conservatism. Milton Friedman would be a good place to start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_q_Y0U1QcI
And also I said that is one definition. Fighting over definitions is worse than useless
Then quit trying to redefine words.
“Racism is the in group discriminating against the out group. ” No. It isn’t. That’s not what the word means, and this is a perversion of its meaning created by racists. You’re spreading racist propaganda. “in the US that’s white people. ” By what measure? By every measure I’ve seen attempted, Asians are even more prosperous. ” If a black guy calls me a cracker it’s not really racist in that it doesn’t cause harm because there isn’t a group power imbalance. ” This is a fundamentally anti-Christian statement. What level of earthly power you possess does not change your… Read more »
Okay,that’s fine. Again the definition isn’t important at all, it’s just language.
This from the guy who got all bent out of shape because of the language Trump may have used describing third world countries?
It’s “just language” when leftists like you can’t control the definitions, Malik.
But thanks for beclowning yourself yet again. Cheap entertainment for the rest of us.
If you had read my comment you would know that I said idc what kind of language he uses, I care about the racism it shows. Your beclowning yourself by forgetting what I said by the time you write the comment.
It’s *extremely* relevant if you’re morally condemning people for racism obviously. Further relevant if you’re pushing for public policy based on what’s “racist”, both of which you do.
Clearly. But it doesn’t matter as long as you agree on a definition before you make a law or condemn something. And I condemn both definitions, so it doesn’t matter that much anyway. My definition was just a subset of yours, we can both agree that it’s wrong, then you want to add some things, and that’s fine. Look how freaking useless this is.
Malik, you’ve complained more than once about people either not listening to you, or not understanding you properly. How can you possibly not think it’s worth it for the sake of conversation to understand what we’re even talking about? It looked *very* strongly like you were suggesting that it isn’t possible to be racist against white people in the US. As someone who’s walked past grafitti on the street calling for me to be killed on the basis of my skin color and religion, I find that an outstandingly despicable position. Don’t you think it important that we clear up… Read more »
Malik likes Latino immigrants.
MS-13 is comprised of Latino immigrants.
Therefore, Malik likes MS-13.
Careful what you say there, Malik. I wouldn’t want you to end up on any government list.
That’s a formal fallacy
Malik, I don’t think it is fallacious. The problem lies with the first term, which I myself wondered at. You can’t possibly like every Latino immigrant any more than you could like every Canadian. I think what you meant was, I like law-abiding Latino immigrants, or even I think the immigration of law-abiding Latino immigrants is a good thing. Then you would have wiggle room on MS-13, about whom even Pollyanna here cannot find one good word to say. Well, maybe that they speak better Spanish than I do.
Malik, there’s a difference between asserting that a premise is untrue, and asserting that the logic of the argument is faulty. What you saw above was classic deductive logic, otherwise known as a syllogism. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news (for you), but the logic is sound. In order to prove me wrong, you must dispute either premise. The fact that you didn’t is telling. Didn’t your mama ever tell you not to bring a knife to a gun fight? In addition to boning up on the DSM-5, you might consider taking a class in logic, if indeed… Read more »
The problem is that I didn’t say all Latino immigrants, then and only then would your conclusion be valid. You need the all a premis for this to work, which it’s absurd to think I meant, and I definitely didn’t say it.
I actually took plenty of logic.
Oh, so there are Latino immigrants you don’t like? Strange how that works, Malik. Apparently, you on the left are allowed to not like certain Latino immigrants, yet when conservatives make the argument against illegal immigration using examples such as Kate Steinle’s murderer (not to mention the sanctuary cities that aid and abet these criminals), your ilk scream to high heaven that conservatives are xenophobic, racist, and hate ALL immigrants. And spare me the whole “he was let off” routine. The guy was already a felon, by virtue of the fact that he was deported multiple times and kept coming… Read more »
The problem we have is when you use a few examples to condemn a group. Should we banish white middle age men because of los Vegas? I know tons of illigal immigrants who are amazing people. And I’ve seen xenophobic tendency in America that makes me ashamed of this country
The problem we have is when you use a few examples to condemn a group. Oh, you mean like how you condemn conservatives, and especially evangelicals, because of Trump? I know tons of illigal [sic] immigrants who are amazing people. I’m sure Ted Bundy (charming, volunteered at a suicide hotline), Jeffrey Dahmer (thoughtful, active, supported the “rights” of guys to sodomize one other), and John Wayne Gacy (active in his community, entertained children as a clown) were amazing to the people who knew them. Didn’t make them any less criminal, though. And I’ve seen xenophobic tendency in America that makes… Read more »
It’s worth noting that John Wayne Gacy and Jim Jones were staunch liberal Democrats. In fact, Jones was an SJW before it was cool: bisexual, all about social justice and “fighting racism,” friend of many California Democrats, a closet agnostic who used his pseudo-Christianity to draw followers in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones “In September 1977, California assemblyman Willie Brown served as master of ceremonies at a large testimonial dinner for Jones attended by Governor Jerry Brown and Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally. At that dinner, Brown touted Jones as “what you should see every day when you look in the mirror in the early… Read more »
I never condemned all Evangelicals, I am one.
I’m sure Ted Bundy (charming, volunteered at a suicide hotline), Jeffrey Dahmer (thoughtful, active, supported the “rights” of guys to sodomize one other), and John Wayne Gacy (active in his community, entertained children as a clown) were amazing to the people who knew them. Didn’t make them any less criminal, though.
Is this supposed to be an argument?
And oh so because I support minorities I’m no longer welcome in America either? Land of the only white people and home of the only people who agree with you?
Malik, put on the dunce cap and go sit yourself in the corner. That flaming strawman you just erected indicates you’ve learned nothing from those logic classes you supposedly took. If you’d rather project your own racism onto me, then be my guest, but I’m no longer inclined to take you seriously if all you’re going to do is beclown yourself.
How about you look back at your own comments, you like one of those people who has the sticker if you don’t like America leave. Come on, you have a hella high standard for being cordial until you write a comment.
And the logic classes that I actually took were actually Doug’s, And I aced them, kind of humorous ????
Please post your transcripts. I’m not buying that at all without proof.
???????????????????? ig that’s a gocha. Odviously I’m not posting my transcripts online. Ig you don’t think a classically educated guy with Doug’s logic course would think the way I do. It’s fun to poke holes.
“ig that’s a gocha. Odviously I’m not posting my transcripts online. Ig you don’t think a classically educated guy with Doug’s logic course would think the way I do. ”
If what you said is true (again, I’m not buying it), the above quote would be the worst testimonial ever for a classical (or any other) educational curriculum.
How so?
And just because you doubt it doesn’t change anything ????. I still graduated from a small classical Christian School and took his course. It’s not on me to convince you. It’s also funny that all your accusations seem to fall apart now.
I’ve had zero accusations fall apart, unlike you, who once claimed I was some random guy making a Youtube comment.
Your grammar and logic (or lack thereof) alone make many of your claims very unlikely.
Whatever man. What should I do, spout the Trivium or quadrivium in Latin? Translate some old Latin works? Talk about Augustine’s confessions or Cicero’s on obligations? I read the fairie queene how about a synopsis? Look you can’t just be like I don’t agree with your views but I like the classical Christian module so you must by lying, because no one with that education would think differently than me. Come on, I don’t have to convince you, and idc
That’s interesting. Did you study the FQ as poetry, or as religious and political allegory? I had a very hard time getting my young men to take an interest in it, whereas they loved Sidney, Marlowe, and Shakespeare. I always found that a little Glorianna went a long way!
Mainly as religions allegory. Ofc we studied the other aspects but that was the main lens we used. Unfortunately sophomore me was your students, saying that I didn’t enjoy that book would be in understatement hahahaha, ah well.
“The problem is that I didn’t say all Latino immigrants”
Grammatically, the lack of a qualifier on the statement strongly suggests that you meant all immigrants. An understandable mistake, though a mistake nontheless.
I like prostitutes.
Oh, did I forget to mention that I meant virtuous and repentant prostitutes? How completely *absurd* for you to think I liked prostitution in general.
Gee, fp, could I argue that using the pachyderm as its symbol is making the GOP seem irrelephant?
Jilly, you just made my day. I’ll never forget this.
Don’t your Christian morals object to the president having an affair with a porn star? And don’t answer with saying my morals are off, it doesn’t matter what I think about another issue, it matters what God says. Is having an affair with a porn star wrong? And is it bad enough to disqualify someone from office?
Malik, if the story is true and Trump had sex with a porn star while married to someone else, the porn star part is irrelevant. It would be equally immoral no matter with whom; the suggestion that he is attracted to unladylike ladies is hardly news. If he committed adultery with a porn star since the inauguration, I would think it legitimate to raise questions about his fitness for office (as I did with Bill Clinton). If it is before the inauguration, then I would say no, not in itself. Not unless I am prepared to apply that standard even… Read more »
Right, and I agree, I think it’s just yet another stroke on his record, and that he is far past the grace period.
If God calls something an abomination and you can’t even call it a sin, you have no basis to talk about other “sexual misconduct” in any Biblical sense.
And yet, as a supposed Christian, you make no bones about your full-throated endorsement of homosexuality, a type of sexual misconduct severe enough to not only warrant the “abominable” modifier to its status as sin, but to rain down destruction on two cities.
Malik, I’ll give you this: When you talk of serious compromisation, you certainly know of whence you speak.
I had a real conversation about this with one of my friends from church the other day. I think that the morals of the situation are more complicated than they are made out, and I think it’s incredibly insignificant if it is wrong. How many times did Jesus talk about the poor, and how many times did he talk about homosexuality? Now, how many times a week do you make a full throated support of helping the poor, or better yet how many times do you actually do something?! Now how much do you talk about homosexuality. That’s out of… Read more »
How many times did Jesus talk about affairs with porn stars, and how many times did he talk about the poor? The Bible uses some of the strongest language possible to describe sodomy in the Old and New Testaments. That doesn’t make other sins less important, but your thinking here is totally off. Let’s play around and see how this sounds with other sexual sins mentioned in the Bible: “What frustrates me about bestialiity is people who attack it with full force, in a holier than thou way, while ignoring actual important issues” “What frustrates me about incest is people… Read more »
Give me a break????????????????. That’s not even a serious argument. It’s not like I’m not against those things for one thing, tho poverty is still in my opinion a more important issue to actually do something about. And I do and know that poverty is more important than affairs with porn stars.
It certainly is a serious argument. You simply want to pick and choose which sins are “serious.”
As I found out having a real conversation with someone, the problem is fundimentally that I don’t think gay marriage is a sin. Furthermore I think that sins that don’t effect others are bad, awful, terrible etc, but that Christians aren’t called to just walk around condemning people. Are position should be clear, and other than that we should serve God, help the poor, do positive things, and worry about the sins in our lives, the lives of people we are close to, and those that affect others. Ofc I think substance abuse is wrong, but I don’t go on… Read more »
“As I found out having a real conversation with someone, the problem is fundimentally that I don’t think gay marriage is a sin. Furthermore I think that sins that don’t effect others are bad, awful, terrible etc, but that Christians aren’t called to just walk around condemning people.” “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” “And even as they did not… Read more »
Malik, you sound an awful lot like that other fellow who was so concerned about the poor that his poor little heart just about bled out of his chest: “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” But I digress. Your feeble attempt at deflection and virtue-signaling notwithstanding, it still doesn’t erase the fact that you actually think yourself fit to sit in judgment of God’s Word. When God calls homosexuality sin, then it is sin. God could have only condemned it only once and it would still be sin.… Read more »
First I know that I’m not in charge and God is. I’ve told friends when I have this conversation that it’s a place where I well could be wrong, God has the ultimate say, and I want to know what he thinks in the end. My point of view is a lot more complicated than yours. And ofc it isn’t what bothers me that matters, just like no one cares that gay people gross you out and you don’t think it is “natural.”. Not an argument. No one cares what “bothers” anyone from an objective argument standpoint. Also your first… Read more »
“The point is why are you pointing at others? Speaking of all people are sinful, so are you, so who gave you the authority to judge.”
Well fantastic! This means you won’t be hijacking any more threads with anti-Trump comments, right…because “why are you pointing at others (like Trump)…who gave you the authority to judge”?
I think politics are different. Or are you going to stop bad-mouthing Obama?
1) I didn’t make the saccharine, self-righteous statement about being non-judgmental. So I’m not holding myself to it (but you should).
2) Why are politics different? I hope this will be better than your attempts at making homosexuality a non-sin (even though God says it is) that’s somehow different from adultery, fornication, bestiality, etc.
It isn’t that important, but because politicians are responsible to the people it is our place to criticize. As with parents and their children, a boss and an employee.
Not me and unnamed person not bothering me or anyone else.
Trump isn’t harmless, nor are other politicians.
“It isn’t that important, but because politicians are responsible to the people it is our place to criticize.”
We’re all responsible to the people. Don’t you think it’s your responsibility to serve others? Nobody is harmless. Their being in power only makes the outcome more noticeable, it doesn’t make anyone else’s actions less significant. King David wasn’t beneath the law, just as he wasn’t above the law.
First I know that I’m not in charge and God is. I’ve told friends when I have this conversation that it’s a place where I well could be wrong, God has the ultimate say, and I want to know what he thinks in the end. Jesus, AKA God: “Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has… Read more »
Malik, when Nathan confronted David and said ‘Thou art the man’ I’ll bet he pointed his finger. Point being, if you’ll pardon the pun, that we are called to different things. We can no more ignore the truth that God condemns certain acts than that He commands other acts. Everyone loves a soup kitchen, but spare a thought for those who take on the unpopular task of telling unbelievers crucial truths they don’t want to hear.
Malik, here is the problem. If the writers of scripture were wrong about God’s condemnation of certain sexual acts, why can’t I say that they were wrong about my duty to the poor? We are told to do justice. How do I know that wasn’t a mistake? We are commanded not to oppress the poor. How do I know that this commandment still applies today, especially if it is in my personal best interest to oppress some poor people? I am familiar with the standard arguments about how God didn’t mind the gay sex, only the lack of hospitality, or… Read more »
Malik, “How many times did Jesus talk about the poor, and how many times did he talk about homosexuality?” A little research puts my estimate of how many times Jesus talked about the poor to be four (ignoring some duplication in the Gospels). So, really, not nearly as often as you imply. “That’s out of line with the word. What frustrates me about homosexuality is people who attack it with full force, in a holier than thou way, while ignoring actual important issues, chief among them poverty it bother me to no end.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone… Read more »
I think you partially missed my point. And also you could add all the times Paul talks about it.
And its the primary focus by far.
Malik,
“And its the primary focus by far.”
What is “the primary focus by far”? Helping the poor?
If that is your answer, then I challenge you to read the entire New Testament (you can skip Revelation) with the sole aim of determining the primary focus of Christianity. If, after that, you still think helping the poor is the primary focus of Christianity, then you definitely qualify as a Social Justice Warrior.
No, when helping the poor, the gospel is the primary focus. Sorry, I should have clarified.
Hey, you know what else Paul talked about that, according to you, Jesus didn’t?
Homosexuality!
Malik’s pseudo-snarky comeback in three…. two…. one….
“How much do you emphasize the gospel in your ministry to the poor?”
And if it’s a gospel that ignores certain sins (“it’s okay to remain gay and even get married”), what kind of gospel is that?
???????? it’s the same as yours. I have one point that I interpret differently. And I don’t talk about it to anyone, especially not when sharing the gospel. I’m not sure enough about my view to do that.
Well that’s cool I guess, as long as you extend the same courtesy to others. Of course their “one point to interpret differently” might be murder or adultery. However, as long as their other ducks are in a row, their gospel (give or take an abominable sin or two) is pretty much right.
JP, I presume your last sentence was sarcasm. It’s hard to tell in print.
Yes. If Malik can remove his pet sin (one that is abominable according to God) from the Gospel, why can’t someone else remove adultery, murder, theft, etc.?
It’s not a pet sin, I have a girlfriend and am straight. At most what I am at fault for here is poor theology and too much compassion for my own good.
I didn’t say you were a homosexual, just that it was your pet sin to rationalize and defend. It’s not “poor theology” to deny something that God calls an “abomination” is a sin. It’s a denial of God’s law and thus the Gospel. And it’s not a complex, sophisticated issue like you’re making it out to be. As for compassion, I’ve seen more bad theology in the name of compassion than anything else. And it’s funny, people always want to be be compassionate about PC issues (like homosexuality). They never have compassion for heterosexual adulterers (unless they’re Democrat politicians), rednecks… Read more »
” At most what I am at fault for here is poor theology and too much compassion for my own good.” There is only one sin, disobedience. What’s at stake here is you taking your own pride to redefine what God told you is right. It doesn’t matter if it’s about homosexuality, downloading movies, or eating too many chocolates, you owe God your obedience whether your like it or not. Openly defying him creates a hole in you that only widens as you incrementally justify more and more until you’re your own God. Deciding good and evil based on however… Read more »
“or better yet how many times do you actually do something?! ”
For a guy who complains about people walking around condemning others, you’re certainly comfortable with it, having absolutely no idea what anyone here does for the poor. I bought Christmas gifts for four families, and thanksgiving dinner for three. I’ll measure up with you who’s doing more to help any day of the week. Think these things out before you type them. Half the things you complain about in Christian conservatives you do on a regular basis.
First of all, let’s stay as far away from a who helps the poor more war as we can, that’s the opposite of what we are supposed to do. Now I believe the argument was something along the lines of Christians complaining that the state needs to step down and the church step up because the church is a better vehicle to help the poor. And I fully agree that the church should do a better job, but as I said I don’t think the church does enough to make this argument. Now if this isn’t what you were responding… Read more »
“First of all, let’s stay as far away from a who helps the poor more war as we can, that’s the opposite of what we are supposed to do.”
You’re the one who kept bringing it up and accusing others of not being compassionate! I really wonder if you’re trolling sometimes.
” However most people are alergic to this idea, and something of this scale would be required from most everybody of you really want the state to step down from this role.” Completely fascinating. You really don’t think there’s *any* solution other than just handing out free food one meal at a time. Don’t you like God’s version of charity? “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner:… Read more »
You don’t listen. What I think is you don’t hand out a meal at a time, you hand out a meal and help not needing help simltaniosly. Help them get a job etc. Until then, we keep people alive etc, and that’s where the government helps. 120 something people died in Chicago last week from the cold snap because they were homeless. How many if there were no shelters? That’s what the government helps with, in a simplified version of my view. This is what I’m talking about, nothing I say has any merit to you. You take the worst… Read more »
“Another thing that I’m talking about. You don’t consider things, or give any “left” ideas dignity.” What haven’t I considered? What ideas haven’t I evaluated and given due dignity and consideration? The only basis I can see for this claim is you don’t like my conclusions. Casting aspersions on my ability to listen just because you don’t like my response is not a failing on my end. “You don’t listen. What I think is you don’t hand out a meal at a time, you hand out a meal and help not needing help simltaniosly. ” How is this statement a… Read more »
Another thing that I’m talking about. You don’t consider things, or give any “left” ideas dignity.
Doug, thank you for responding to my immigration question. I look forward to reading your piece on the subject, IF time allows and you are so inclined to address it.
Can something be awful (vulgar, unprofessional, unbecoming) without necessarily being sinful? In other words, aren’t there legitimate grounds other than scripture to expect a president not to use coarse language in meetings or to refrain from unnecessarily insulting nations which might be our allies? I was not appalled by Trump’s language; anyone who listened to the Access Hollywood tapes knew we could not expect gentlemanly conduct. I was much more troubled by the wish that our immigrants come from Norway–which is quite different from wishing that we take only highly skilled applicants, regardless of where they come from. But even… Read more »
This is a great point. While I think what he said was sinful or revealing of something sinful, it could well not be. And the idea that there are things unfitting for a president to do that we should criticize that are not sinful is I believe a great point.
“I was not appalled by Trump’s language”
Nor was I. When Obama reportedly referred to Libya as a “sh*tshow” (similar to Trump’s alleged remarks), I don’t recall Russell Moore & Co. getting all sanctimonious.
Hello Jill, From scripture, anything less than perfect holiness is sinful. Outside of scripture or other religion, people seem to rely either on pragmatism or on their feelings to decide what’s legitimate. Either model taken to its conclusion would make a dystopia worthy of Margaret Atwood. That’s why we say that Christians ought not to depend on appeals to emotion or pragmatism when they prophesy (so to speak) against earthly rulers. In scripture’s histories of rulers and kingdoms, I notice that many actions taken are related neutrally with no moral footnote. That is interesting to me, and I take it… Read more »
Hi Indighost, I think I see your point. But aren’t there also grey areas where a deficiency doesn’t imply sin? For example, we expect of a president that he demonstrate a basic grasp of domestic and foreign policy, that he react calmly to emergencies, and that he have social competence–that he doesn’t, for example, eat steak with his fingers at state dinners, or deliver public speeches dressed in his track suit. Yet a failure in these areas would disqualify someone from being president without any of them being innately sinful. But you are right about not putting our whole trust… Read more »
I agree there are qualifications a president ought to have that are set by agencies other than God Himself. I must have misunderstood your original question, but I quite agree that the system seems designed to make the worst liars and charlatans rise to the top.
Also, did you get my email a week or two ago?
I think Doug is trying to address a larger point, a larger theocratic point, that the Church has continuously missed that is much bigger than Trump’s vulgarity at any given moment. While most Christian leaders are stuck in the here and now, condemning what just happened, Doug is taking a longer and bigger view of history to address an ultimately more serious transcendental problem that Christian leaders have been so unbelievably bad at in recent memory. And because most Christians and most Christian leaders cannot see past their nose, out from the here and now, any “hot take” addressing a… Read more »
Off Topic:
How in the world do we have two of the biggest evangelical organizations in America, the ERLC and The Gospel Coalition, lionizing a theological heretic, a communist, and a rampant adulterer and there is no push back?
http://mlk50conference.com/
Am I missing something?
It seems the SJW contingent is winning. It’s similar to how Al Mohler & Co. are getting softer on homsexuality.
https://warhornmedia.com/2017/10/24/grace-shame-homosexual-orientation-error/
If you want to appear tough/masculine and take a stand on something, you become a staunch #nevertrump/#nevermoore type, or constantly bash Christian husbands and tell them they have to earn sex from their wives (Mohler again).
I guess I do get why this happens over and over. Churches are built on the conviction of people who aren’t swayed by the culture. They get big and influential and they turn their back on the very principles that brought them to that level of influence.
Correction: I guess I do NOT get why!
No, you are seeing the true colors of other major “Christian” churches/ministries. They’re unwilling to even point out the hypocrisy of it. Of course, there may be exceptions who do object but do not have resources or visibility to be noticed.
Totally agree. Many people do oppose this, but I just wish there would have been a bigger push back by some the louder voices.
I wish Doug would more. If last week shows anything, he is not afraid to go after the ERLC and Moore. Why not this area?
Maybe he is afraid because he has a reputation for being pro-slavery and this would just stir that up.
As soon as I speak, the good reverend addresses this topic. I love this guy. We need more like him.
Remember he’s got a church to pastor and other affiliated ministries to oversee, and while his public voice is important and needed, other matters may at times be more pressing in Northern Idaho. :-)
Of course all of that is true, but he runs a blog and I think this topic is worth using some of that time he is already going to use. But it is his blog, his choice.
And then there is the fact that he just did address it today. So, perhaps I just need more patience.
I wish I could remember where I found this, but one of the most racist arguments I have ever seen was a white guy defending MLK’s adulteries on the grounds that black guys need more sex than white men do!
Wow.
That level of intellectual gymnastics is ridiculous. It is comparable to the intellectual gymnastics Moore uses to justify his claim that the church has something to learn from this man.
Remember, MLK’s perversions run far deeper than just road trip affairs. The depraved things he was involved in are too controversial to even speak about in public.
Am I missing something? Yes. MLK was also a plagiarist. It’s a pretty safe bet the academic types who raked Doug over the coals for plagiarism (which Doug wasn’t even guilty of himself, but nevertheless corrected) are the same ones bowing and scraping before a guy that, were he to run for office, would “not meet the ethical and moral requirements of the United States Senate”. Yeah, let’s give this guy his own holiday instead. Not even George Washington himself — who definitely was NOT a theological heretic, a communist, a rampant adulterer, nor a plagiarist — merits that honor.… Read more »
I didn’t know about any accusations or evidences of plagiarism toward MLK. But Washington was certainly questionable on orthodoxy and even some questions about his marital faithfulness. I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to say he was an adulterer, but he was certainly in love with another woman. His blatant refusal to partake in the Lord’s Supper ever is enough to make me doubt his faith. But a communist he was not, and for that and for his great battlefield exploits and for his establishment of a nation as great as ours, he most certainly does deserve at least… Read more »
I know this is getting into the weeds — because bringing MLK down a peg or two is really the point here — but when it comes to orthodoxy and heresy, I tend to think of heretics as those who reject one or more primary essentials of the faith, i.e., the deity of Christ (more accurately, the Hypostatic Union, as Jesus is both fully God and fully man), salvation by grace, the resurrection of Christ, the Gospel (as it’s defined by the Bible, not lefty limp-wrists), and monotheism. The essentials are defined as those doctrines that one must believe in… Read more »
For that matter, FP, I don’t even care if George Washington was a heretic (for the sake of his soul I hope he believed of course). He totally deserves an American holiday.
However, I doubt the Gospel Coalition would have a conference in his honor. In fact, I know they wouldn’t. He owned slaves, you see.
Yeah, and never mind the fact that he struggled with institution of slavery and openly spoke of his desire to end it, or the fact that he freed his own slaves at the end of his life.
Nothing is ever good enough for the left, who constantly agitate for the slavery known as socialism.
Which was why I was surprised and pleased that the musical “Hamilton” presents Washington as not merely virtuous but practically saintly! During his farewell song my daughter was nudging me to control my sniffles!
Well said, overall.
Your point really interested me, Kilgore, so I did some reading (anything is preferable to housework!). It sounds overall as if Washington was a fairly typical Enlightenment Anglican before evangelicalism entered the Anglican church. He reminded me of the kind of 18th century Anglicans who thought religion was necessary for public virtue but was intensely private, and that talking about our Lord was vaguely bad form. He was chided from the pulpit for skipping out before communion, and although he apologized, he stopped attending on the four Sundays a year that communion was celebrated. One historian thinks that his extremely… Read more »
That has been my basic understanding of him. We tend to want to place modern categories onto the founding fathers. While I am quick to criticize them for not being enough like John Knox to make me happy, and while I am also quick to hammer the Enlightenment influence that underpins much of the thinking of the country, I would also be quick to add that he is not a secularist of any sort. The modern atheists that want to turn him into their Enlightenment predecessors are simply not on solid historical grounds. Whatever disagreements I have with his ideas,… Read more »
Kilgore, something I really like about Washington is that even in the thick of war he used little bits of his spare time to write to his wife discussing fabrics and wallpaper for Mount Vernon. What a guy! Would you believe that some modern scholars actually have an issue with this, seeing it as excessive indulgence in something called consumer culture?
I too like the way he went back to his farm. Just like Cincinnatus.
I’ve been listening to McCullough’s 1776 and just came across this tidbit about the domestic arrangements at Mount Vernon!
Those modern scholars need to get a life. In those days, in Washington’s class, a home was a long-term investment that you expected your grandchildren to live in. That wasn’t consumerist, that was tending his garden.
Kilgore, you miss nothing. Here’s the deal. Trump=white guy with loose sexual morals. MLK=black guy with loose sexual morals. Guess which one is acceptable?
A group like the Gospel Coalition (you know, Gospel is in there) promoting someone who, as you said, was a rank heretic, is beyond parody and satire.
JP Stewart is correct. The Left is winning, and is on the march in the church. The fact that there are (not to be controversial) alt-right heathens who see this, and Christians who do not, is highly disturbing.
Agreed. This should be scandal. Regarding the Alt-Right, I tend to agree with your point. I don’t affiliate with them in any way, but some of their criticisms of both the church and the culture are spot on. I don’t think they are a society building movement of any sort. They seem more like sophisticated trolls who are very adept at noting and ridiculing inconsistencies. That, I guess, is pretty consistent with what they advocate with women. They are good at manipulating women and then exploiting that for their own sexual use. It is a skill, to be sure, but… Read more »
Kilgore- I mostly agree Re: the alt-right, myself, although I think a handful of true believers might be therein. I, myself, started noticing all of this “politically correct race stuff” from nominally conservative organizations like TGC…right after the whole Black Lives Matter stuff in Missouri 3.5 years ago. If there was ever a time to say that the issue was garbage, and that we didn’t have a race problem in America, by and large, that was the time. Instead, many of these Christians shamelessly chased the world. Looking at everything through a race prisim, which, furthers the divide (how shocking).… Read more »
I agree that there are true believers in the Alt-Right ranks, no doubt. There were a couple of posters here a while back who seemed to affiliate with them, but seemed to be relatively traditional Christians. The thing I like about the movement, as I said before, is that they are good at spotting inconsistency. Now, to be fair, spotting inconsistency in secularists is not hard. It is wired into their worldview. But they are also good at seeing it the church and in the conservatives. If nothing else, they have been valuable to read to help highlight our weaknesses.… Read more »
Kilgore-
I agree with your last line that Christians don’t see the problem with a conference for MLK. My question: why? Are we to believe that the Alt-Right Gamers are just smarter when it comes to spotting inconsistencies? Is the Holy Spirit’s discernment not being rightly used?
I occasionally have opinions on these matters, but I am generally curious why Christians don’t see.
I expect I score 9 out of 10 on any naivete scale, but I still don’t understand how any woman of sense (or virtue) can possibly fall for Game.
Not defending the use of Game for scoring one night stands, but Game done well means the person does not realize they are being gamed.
Plus, part of their MO is that they target women who, unlike yourself, are more likely to be into the hook up culture.
Some also recommend “married game” for husbands who have been henpecked and bossed around by their wives. This could range from being manipulative to being “wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove,” depending how it’s applied. I think the idea of women giving fitness or loyalty “tests” is pretty undeniable. How men should Biblically respond is a different matter.
http://wildmanproject.ca/?p=898
I can understand that there might be uses for this idea but the article does paint a depressing picture of marriage as a constant power struggle.
I can understand the idea that insecurity can be demonstrated through things like being quieter than usual or trying to be more attractive. Something I don’t get is why these would be considered ‘bad behaviour’ or why a husband would insist on an apology for them.
“the article does paint a depressing picture of marriage as a constant power struggle.” I see this as the problem. In a healthy marriage, preserved with a Christian attitude of service, there is no power struggle. Everyone’s focused on serving others. If you have a power struggle going on, the question is in how to end the power struggle. What I see as the common response by men to this problem, or ways to try and “win” the power struggle. The goal isn’t winning the power struggle, the goal is for there never to be a struggle in the first… Read more »
I’m sure even a healthy marriage has a little power struggle from time to time. How we know they should be resolved is by both parties bringing their thought and behaviour into conformity with Christ and with God’s instructions for holy living. Because of the headship role God has given to men, this would often look like the man ‘winning’. But I agree, in a healthy marriage there ought to be no manipulation or this bizarre, elaborate role play they describe.
I’m not defending the article or all of the solutions, BTW. It just had a reasonably good explanation of fitness/loyalty tests. I think that’s an area “game” has defined and identified well–it’s something I see pretty often. In this age where many women claim to egalitarian–but still want their men to be “men”–I think we’ll see more and more fitness tests.
Do you think that kind of testing is usually a conscious or a sub-conscious thing? I’ve never heard of it before and don’t recognise it from my experience. Perhaps that comes of not being egalitarian.
Well this has made me feel thoroughly out of touch. I’m younger than most, perhaps all of you, and I had no idea what “game” was until this conversation started. Learn something new every day I suppose.
My daughter offered to put my profile on Senior Mingle, or some such site, and I looked at her in horror. I am eternally grateful that I was young before the advent of hook-up culture!
Jill-
I think some women like being gamed, to be honest. Mileage may vary of course, but some of these sites by married guys who recommend game…their wives know, and it’s part of their relationship, with the banter and so forth. So, it’s not really game, in that sense, which means some readers may be getting duped.
Jill,
You may be right, but you’re ignoring the possibility (likelihood?) that many women in Western society do not have sense or virtue, or discard it temporarily when it’s “convenient” to do so.
I wonder if the nation had similar fits of apoplexy when Teddy said “bullfeathers?”
We knew this guy was crude when we elected him. We chose that over the polished glitter and feather boas of a “self-identify-as-any-gender-you-care-to-make-up” society as the lesser of two evils.
I believe it’s also significant that vast numbers of the actual people living in dunny (Australian slang. Google it.) countries would not contest Trump’s characterization of those countries and would flee from their situations in a heartbeat if given the chance.
So if Teddy could say the inoffensive bullfeathers and be a straight shooter, why is unnecessary crudity beyond question?
Real unnecessary crudity or alleged crudity?
Unnecessary crudity, insofar as it happens. My question does not depend on whether it occurred in a given instance.
Jane, my point was that, in his day, “bullfeathers” was probably considered crude. I would rather that Trump would not use scatological terms, but I would also much rather have Jesus Himself running the country. As I said, we chose Trump as the lesser of two evils, knowing what we were getting into the whole time. When all is said and done, I praise God we have Trump instead of Hillary!
Bullfeathers could not possibly have been considered crude. Neither bulls nor feathers are inherently crude concepts, and the phrase is meant to indicate “something that is absurdly unreal” like feathers on a bull. It’s just a variant on horsefeathers. It might have been considered rough language you’d never expect from a lady, but that’s not the same as being an offensive term.
“Neither bulls nor feathers are inherently crude concepts, ”
This has never been a requirement for something to be considered crude in a society. Asking how much you paid for your car is crude, and does not inherently mean anything positive or negative at all.
Though if you don’t like bullfeathers, another example could easily be used.
Not “crude” in the same sense. Asking how much you paid for your car is vulgar in most social situations but it is not crude language. If your banker or your wife asks you that, you will not feel that their mothers should have washed their mouths out with soap more often. Could another example easily be used of TR actually using language that was considered unacceptable in every public situation? If so, then Dan Jones’s point is made. If not, then my point is made — an innocuous term is not a good comparison to one clearly vulgar and… Read more »
” to one clearly vulgar and unacceptable in polite speech.” But that’s the point, nobody gets to decide what’s “clearly vulgar and unacceptable in polite speech”. Everyone has different ideas. What is and is not vulgar changes as the culture does. If we were to use some sort of objective measure, like if the language was perverting the meaning of the word, I would agree. But whether or not most specific examples of words are “unacceptable” is entirely a subjective point that changes depending on when and where you’re standing. Any cursory google search will give you a cornucopia of… Read more »
Thank you, Justin, for removing another word from the list I can say without having an impure thought. I think that Teddy’s use of bullfeathers, coming at the tail end (oops) of an era that insisted on white meat, rooster, and male cow, was probably offensive. I agree that appropriateness is shifting rapidly, and the young people I know do not understand why those of us raised in a gentler time are not wholly on board. For me, context is key. If I had been the unfortunate person who launched the false nuclear alert, I would probably have said more… Read more »
Jane, I think its crudity lay in what it suggested, the fact that it was clearly a euphemism for what was then unspeakable in polite society. I can tolerate the real thing much more readily than I can tolerate the direct and unmistakeable euphemism. “Bovine poo” in particular excite savagery in this otherwise gentle breast. “Do you mean bull**** and are you too mealy mouthed to say it? Then why are you choosing a phrase that will make everybody think it? At least have the courage of your lack of convictions.” Even the NYT did better with ‘vulgar barnyard epithet’.