Happy Birthday, Saint Wendell

Words of wisdom from a favorite saint (whose birthday was this week), Wendell Berry.

“We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world. ... We have been wrong. We must change our lives, so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption that what is good for the world will be good for us. . . We must recover the sense of the majesty of the creation and the ability to be worshipful in its presence. For it is only on the condition of humility and reverence before the world that our species will be able to remain in it.”

“As I have read the Gospels over the years, the belief has grown in me that Christ did not come to found an organized religion but came instead to found an unorganized one. He seems to have come to carry religion out of the temples into the fields and sheep pastures, onto the roadsides and the banks of the rivers, into the houses of sinners and publicans, into the town and the wilderness, toward the membership of all that is here. Well, you can read and see what you think.”

“Some of the best things I have ever thought of I have thought of during bad sermons.”

“It may be that when we no longer know what to do,

we have come to our real work

and when we no longer know which way to go,

we have begun our real journey.

The mind that is not baffled is not employed.

The impeded stream is the one that sings.”

“Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.”

“Healing is impossible in loneliness; it is the opposite of loneliness. Conviviality is healing. To be healed we must come with all the other creatures to the feast of Creation."

“I take literally the statement in the Gospel of John that God loves the world. I believe that the world was created and approved by love, that it subsists, coheres, and endures by love, and that, insofar as it is redeemable, it can be redeemed only by love. I believe that divine love, incarnate and indwelling in the world, summons the world always toward wholeness, which ultimately is reconciliation and atonement with God.”

“Especially among Christians in positions of wealth and power, the idea of reading the Gospels and keeping Jesus' commandments as stated therein has been replaced by a curious process of logic. According to this process, people first declare themselves to be followers of Christ, and then they assume that whatever they say or do merits the adjective "Christian".”

"When despair for the world grows in me...
I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars waiting with their light.
For a time I rest in the grace of the world,
and am free."

Read more (and more, and more...)

https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/mayjune/feature/excerpts-the-writings-wendell-berry

https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/wendell-e-berry-biography

etc, etc.

 

Says Who, Part II

I asked Craig at his blog a very rational, very appropriate question. It's one he said he'd answer.

I asked him:

IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS about any moral questions dealt with in the Bible, how do we objectively determine who is understanding it correctly?

Craig responded NOT with an answer but with links to three different people. Fair enough. I have long said that these guys don't have to do the work themselves. This is a big, important question and if conservatives HAD an answer to it, it'd be readily available, out there in the blogosphere, easy to find and reference. His first link (the one I deal with here) was to a Dr Craig.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god

After reading and re-reading this post, TRYING in great good faith to find an answer to that question, here is my response to Craig:

My very brief response to your first source (Dr Craig, in a conversation with Kevin Harris) is this: Do you think he is making the case that he has objectively proven his specific moral opinions? Or that he's objectively proven that God has provided objective proof of morality or the answer to SOME moral questions? Has he answered the question of, when people of good faith disagree, how do we objectively determine who is understanding biblical text correctly, specifically as it has to do with moral questions?

If you think he's provided something like objective proof to ANY moral questions, please point out where. I've read and re-read. I don't see it. He makes claim upon claim but he never even tries to objectively prove that we have authoritative objectively proven answers to any subset of moral questions. 

I think what he's clearly doing is making his rational case for why a person might reasonably conclude that morality IS, at some level, objective... what he doesn't do is provide any objective proof of ANY moral questions.

Understand: I allow that there may well be objectively moral right and wrong. I think, clearly, that it is wrong to abuse babies, for instance. I think it is obvious. I don't think there is any question about it... BUT, I don't see how I can objectively prove it beyond claims to "it's self evident, duh!" I am not arguing - have never argued - that morality doesn't have definitive right and wrong answers. What I've consistently said is that we can't objectively prove our moral opinions, EVEN IF some action is objectively immoral. 

Do you understand what I've been saying all along?

Moving on...

So, the guy leads with an unsupported set of claims:

1. I think of God as the embodiment of the moral good. 
2. He is the paradigm of goodness. 
3. He defines what goodness is.

I certainly agree that God is good. That phrasing is not how I would put it though.

But on a larger scale: At this point, it's just a subjective claim. He hasn't proven objectively that there IS a god or that this God is good or that this God defines what goodness is. Nor does he explain what HE (the author) means by defining what goodness is.

He continues with distinguishing between values and duty, again with no support, just empty claims.

Values concern the moral worth of something – whether it is good or bad. Duties concern whether something is obligatory for us – whether it is right or wrong. I see moral duties as rooted in the commandments, moral values is rooted in the nature of God.

Says who? Why is it not also reasonable and perhaps likely that morality is simply that which IS good, itself. It's GOOD to offer a hand to someone who has fallen to help them up... it's kind, helpful, something that we appreciate. Just because it is, itself, a good thing to do. WHY is it good? Because it's how we would hope someone would treat us... it's a positive impact on human rights and concern in the world.

At any rate, that's another theory as to why something is good, but, nothing that he objectively proves. Continuing to read...

He also makes clear that he's not one of the people who say something is good or bad, just because God whimsically defined it that way. Or at least, appears to.

if God just made up what is right and wrong arbitrarily, then I would agree with you. That would be the ultimate in subjectivity. 

So, good for him, as far as that goes. He continues:

His commands to us are expressions of his will, but these are rooted in the divine nature – in his essential moral properties like justice, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, and so forth.

And on and on I read. And re-read. So, as far as I can see, this guy doesn't - doesn't even TRY to - objectively prove morality. The closest that I can see that this guy comes to a serious claim about morality is this:

I think to say that moral values are objective is not to say that they are always clear. Certainly there can be areas of gray. 

Some things are clearly right or clearly wrong but in between there can certainly be difficult moral questions that are hard to discern what is right and wrong. To say that there are objective values and duties is to say that in any moral situation that you find yourself in there is a right thing to do and there is a bad thing or a wrong thing to do. But it is not to say that that is always easy to discern. 

So we must not confuse epistemology (which is how you know moral values and duties) with ontology (which is the reality of the moral values and duties). I am not making a claim that because these things objectively exist that they are always easy to discern.

Duh.

That is, he acknowledges it's not always "clearly right..." But then, that seems to be just what I'm saying. That there may indeed be objective moral realities, but do we have any objective way to objectively PROVE our opinions about objective moral realities? I don't think so and this guy doesn't answer that question. Instead, he just says, "it's not always easy to discern..." Yeah? So? CAN YOU or can you not objectively prove your moral opinions about specific actions/ideas?

He simply does not say. That's as far as he goes with it. Right? I don't see ANY answers to that question, do you? If so, please provide them.

He goes on to say:

Exactly. If there were no God, I think there would be no objective moral values.

"I THINK... if there were no God, I THINK there would be no objective moral values..."

Where is the authoritative, objective proof of anything in that? Is he not admitting it's a subjective opinion, not a proven fact? 

It looks like to me that this guy, like all the others before him, is simply offering his reasoned opinions which are not objectively supported.

How am I mistaken?

We'll see if Craig tries to answer.

As Always, Says Who?

 

angry sinners in the hands of a loving God 

I can't help myself sometimes. I just have to ask questions that always - always - go unanswered and even unacknowledged. Stan, at his blog, was pontificating about how we know morality (in Stan's opinion, which he claims is God's opinion):

So "good" is not determined by your standard versus my standard. It is determined by God.

Another way of asking the reasonable questions that won't get an answer is this:

Rational failure 1: 

YOU, mortal and fallible human that you are, have a THEORY... a guess, that "morality is determined by God."

You haven't proven that theory, you and folks like you just promote it as if it's a given and as if you don't have to even TRY to support it. 

AND given that you are a mortal, fallible human, why is your collective theory impervious to being mistaken?

Rational failure 2. Let's ASSUME that your human theory/guess is factually correct (again, something you absolutely haven't proven... it's literally a human theory you and other humans like you promote from your own reasoning...): 

How do fallible humans rightly determine what God has determined about morality?

Presumably, he would answer (with no support), The Bible! as if that were some sort of infallible proof (that is, his human theory that the Bible has God's answers to moral questions, objectively proven). But okay, IF the Bible is the "source" for understanding God's perfect rulings system (the one that humans like Stan theorize about), how do we fallible humans understand the "moral rulings" given by God as found in the pages of the Bible (as you theorize)?

By reading it? But I read it and you read it and we come to differing, sometimes totally opposite conclusions.

At that point, how do we determine who is understanding it correctly?

The human people who agree with you?

That's hardly objective proof, right?

Don't you see the huge hole in your human theory that you're just openly ignoring?

More questions that will remain entirely unaddressed.

The Crazy Marches On

There is no end to the crazy. Musk now alleges that the Felon is in the Epstein files. A few thoughts, if that were to turn out to be true (and truly, the crazy thing is, it's just as likely to be true as false!)

1. This doesn't make Musk a "good guy." IF he knew about this information (IF it's even real) and kept quiet, he is a co-conspirator to egregious crimes.

2. No one rational ever doubted that the Felon and the Elon would eventually have an explosive break-up, because these are crazy times we live in.

3. The craziest part of this all is this: EVEN IF it turns out to be factual - that the Felon took part in the sexual assault/abuse of women and children along with Epstein - we do not know if EVEN THEN, his base would turn against him... that the GOP would turn against him. Maybe they would, but who knows?

They didn't turn against him when he boasted of sexual assault ("grab 'em by the..."),
they haven't turned against him with two impeachments,
they didn't turn against him with dozens of felony indictments,
they didn't turn against him with over 20 women accusing him of sexual assault,
they haven't turned against him for all of his profiteering off of the office,
or of putting his image on $5 million "gold" green cards
or profiteering off his bitcoin scams,
or selling pardons to serious criminals
or any of literally dozens of awful actions that would have, in normal times, ended a politician's career.

Conservatives, you tell me: IF it's shown to be the case that the Felon engaged in sexual predation of women and children with Epstein, will you THEN finally demand he step down or be removed?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/musk-unleashes-wild-epstein-claim-against-trump-booted-doge

And WHY do we have to even ask this question?

The Great Hero, Harriet Tubman

 Words of wisdom, timely and vital, from an actual hero, someone worthy of praise and emulation.

The Biden Case Demands Cognitive Testing

So, we see in the news the new book saying that Biden's closest advisors kept it a secret (or tried to) that Biden was losing his competency to do the job. Of course, this is abundantly clear in Trump's case, as well, and has been for years.

Nonetheless, because conservatives may be likely to agree when it's a Democrat president, I'll lead with Biden. It is becoming increasingly clear that Biden's closest advisors kept his cognitive decline as much a secret as possible.

As someone who has dealt with multiple family members and friends who've entered into cognitive decline in their last years, this is, in some ways, understandable. Loved ones want to support, defend and prop up their friends and family who are suffering from decline. I, for instance, let my father drive way longer than he should have been as he lost his ability to drive safely. I did, eventually, "take away the keys," but I waited way too long.

We want to believe in the best of our loved ones and give them the benefit of the doubt.

And THAT is why, in the case of high level politicians and other important roles, it is vital to have a neutral, fair assessment of people when any signs of cognitive decline start to emerge. Probably, at the least, beginning at somewhere between 60 and 70 years old.

Now, this is of course potentially unfair to the many wise elders who are on top of their game into their 80s and 90s. But that's why we should just institute it as a rule. There's no harm intended, just the recognition that as we age, some good portion of us will start lacking in cognitive ability.

It sure appears that was the case with Biden and it is clearly the case with Trump. This isn't a partisan thing. It's just a rule to gauge capacity for these vital roles.

No doubt, there are many conservatives who will be rejoicing to note that it appears true that Biden WAS in decline. The question is, will they be willing to institute some sort of series of assessments and abide by them when their own candidate is shown to be in clear decline?

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/14/nx-s1-5397210/biden-trump-election-original-sin-book

A "Different Gospel..."?

Replying to a post on Stan's "Winging It" blog today. Stan was talking about the concept of a "different gospel," as Paul spoke of in Galatians. Paul was warning some in the early church of following different traditions rather than Jesus' actual teachings. Speaking of that, Stan says:

So this "different gospel" was not a gospel at all. It was only masquerading as one. It was a distortion...

In all of this, I don't think Stan and the more modern evangelicals (including me, once upon a time) see the problem they have. They have lifted portions of Paul's letters and you humans have created this theory that's come to be known as Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (PSTA) - a literally human tradition - and they have made THAT set of human opinions the "Gold Standard" of understanding the gospel - the literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized, as Jesus put it - THE ONE TRUE WAY.

The problem with the PSTA? It's completely absent from Jesus' sermons/teachings. Yes, there are approximately TWO times where Jesus used a phrase that PSTA theorists point to - once, when Jesus referred to a ransom and a second time where Jesus spoke of breaking his body and shedding his blood.  But those were in two sequestered meetings with a few disciples and they are more rightly understood symbolically (because they make no biblical or rational sense to try to take them more literally).

The problem? Jesus story and teachings are recorded throughout the four Gospel books and he is clear that he is out preaching the GOSPEL to the crowds, to the poor and marginalized, throughout the Gospels. But in the recorded sermons of Jesus, we have a very grace-centered set of teachings about the beloved community, the "kingdom of God," of standing in opposition to the deadly legalism of the Pharisees on the one hand and the welcoming, grace-full realm of God on the other hand.

This PSTA is quite literally a completely different "gospel" than what Jesus taught.

Stop and understand that:

This PSTA is quite literally a completely different "gospel" than what Jesus taught.

It's completely absent in Jesus' sermons to the crowds. IF Jesus were actually teaching this more modern, revisionist "gospel," wouldn't it have appeared in his sermons? OF course it would! It's literally a different Gospel than anything Jesus is recorded as having taught in the four Gospel books.

Further, as have long been pointing out and as the PSTA crowd keep ignoring, it's HORRIBLE news, this human theory/tradition of theirs. God HATES most of humanity? God created them to be sent to eternal torture?? THAT is supposed to be good news?

It's a literal different gospel and, hell (literally), it's not even a "gospel" at all. It's a nightmare.

So my question to the PSTA theorists of the world - those who hold to this gospel different than found in Jesus' teachings and, I would say, is a corruption of Paul's teaching is this:

Even if you can't find it in you to agree with this more Jesus-centered notion of the gospel, can you at least see how irrational and, on-the-face-of-it, contrary to any notion of Good News to the Poor and Marginalized that Jesus himself spoke of? Can you see how you have to REALLY go into rational and textual contortions to make your idea of Paul's "gospel" fit with Jesus' actual gospel?

One of the other things I've pointed out is, one MIGHT consider this PSTA theory reasonable IF one begins with the assumption that Paul is THE ONE who most correctly represents God and what God wants. Clearly, Paul does use language that can be (incorrectly, I'd say) cherry-picked to create this PSTA.

BUT, if one begins with the notion that Jesus is the best representation of God and God's ways and then read Jesus' actual teachings and THEN read Paul, but through the lens of Jesus, you won't get PSTA. You'll get grace and find that Paul is agreeing with Jesus on the notion of the beloved realm of God as a realm of grace and love and welcome.

To me, this is where the PSTA theorists go wrong.

Fiddling While the World Burns

The Implosion of Irrelevance in the white conservative (and many moderate) church is afoot.

Are any of y'all conservatives gonna talk about the swath of destruction this conservative administration is wreaking upon the US and the world?

* He's plunging the world into economic chaos.
* Mind you, he inherited a solid economy with the promise of making things better, but he appears to be clueless as to what his actions will do. Or how to do so.
* Mind you, that was clear during the election process. He made clear just how corrupt, inept, irrational and dangerous he would be. Half the voters voted for him anyway.
* Mind you, the US average wage for all wage earners is in the top five of all nations in the world. But that's not enough for him??
* Mind you, this was never about making things better for working class and poor people.
* He's ignoring judges. That, or he's attacking and threatening them.
* He's establishing an authoritarian stronghold, firing people he deems not loyal enough to him and putting in their place spineless sycophants.
* He's willy nilly deporting people, slandering them with no support accusing people of being terrorists and yet giving them no due process. He's clearly already deported several (at least) clearly innocent people "by whoopsie accident," he says... AND he's not going to try to fix his mistakes.
* He's slashing the services that US citizens, children, students, veterans, disabled people depend upon.
* He's doing this slash and burn process in theory to make the gov't "more efficient" and save money, but he's clearly doing it in a thoughtless, unmeasured, "destroy them all and see where it lands" approach. No one is opposed to reasonable efforts to create efficiencies and save money, but THIS is not THAT.
* He's placing clearly incompetent people in charge of departments they're just not qualified for.
* He's releasing villains convicted by a jury of their peers who had assaulted and caused harm to dozens of police officers in an effort to undermine our elections.

On and on, the dim-witted, malevolent chaos continues.

To reasoned observers of the election, this is no surprise... again, he TOLD us clearly what an agent of corruption and chaos he would be. This chaos was expected by most of us. What's so strange and what I'm talking about HERE is, WHERE are the conservatives even acknowledging that we're in a crazy, dangerous moment? Outside of the few Liz Cheneys and other purged martyrs to the Felon's chaos, there's an eerie silence in conservative world.

Frankly, NO conservatives are speaking out against it... Not even a tepid, "well, now, dearhearts, maybe he should slow down just a bit and be a bit more rational and decent in his responses..." Just crickets.

Now I know how decent, rational, moral Germans felt in the 1930s!

Free Mahmoud Kahlil

 ...and all those being criminally detained by US jackboots. A message from Mr Kahlil...

I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use of administrative detention — imprisonment without trial or charge — to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace...

The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all...

I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the U.S. has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand U.S. laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/a-letter-from-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalil

You Are the Light of the World!

In this Lent season, we remember the Teacher, Jesus,
who came saying
"I come to bring good news to the poor
healing for the sick
freedom for the captive
the Day of Jubilee!"

And who said we'd know his people because
"I was hungry and you fed me
I was thirsty and you gave me drink
I was lonely and in prison
and you visited me..."

While at the same time noting that
the ones who were not helping the least of these
were not His followers

And this same Jesus who said
WE are the light of the world
the salt of the earth
who make the world better, brighter, more tasty!

and who said that
WE would do even greater works than even
Jesus

!

And remembering THAT Jesus
(who was eventually killed in an act of capital punishment
because he was considered a threat to the powers that be)...

In remembering THAT Jesus,
I take some comfort in knowing
we - mere mortals that we be -
HAVE done many great things
and our world IS a better place
in so many ways

We had the Enlightenment and the notion of
human rights for all became a Thing that
is more and more commonly accepted and defended
and we developed scientific methods and
have experience vast leaps in making the world healthier
and extending life spans,
even for the poor and marginalized
and at least in the freer parts of our world
women, those with disabilities,
the marginalized, LGBTQ folks
have more rights than ever before

And at the same time,
with every time of advancement and improvement and
social justice advances
there comes push back and
resistance against improvements
resistance in improvements in human rights

and then
the pendulum swings back.

Let's be the resistance pushing the pendulum
in the right way
in favor of health care
in favor of the poor and marginalized
in favor of science and education
in favor of a better world for all
for welcoming and justice for all.

Let's be the light of the world we're called to be.

Eternal Torture is Loving and Just...? Really?

A series of attempted conversations at Stan's blog (Winging It). He won't actually post my questions and concerns, but he will sometimes reply to them without mentioning them. The problem is that he inevitably misunderstands/misstates what I'm saying and so his answers are always missing the point of the problems his personal human opinions have. He's been dealing with the theory/tradition about an eternally angry god who, by design, loves some humans and literally hates others and that, indeed, he creates MOST people for the purpose of sending them into eternal torture/torment for the sake of "glorifying" god's own self.

That is the theory that Stan is operating under. Or at least appears to be and I'm pretty sure it is, but since he doesn't answer direct questions directly, I could be mistaken. I believe that other conservative religionists (Craig and perhaps Marshal) disagree at least in part with that, but there again, it's hard to say. I think they ALL hold the theory that God will send most of humanity to hell. But any one of them can clarify if they do so directly and clearly and respectfully.

Before I go further, I'm not coming down on this side or that side of "Is this human theory/tradition a correct understanding of the Bible...?" I'm saying it's missing the point (and yes, of course, IF we only had the written text of the biblical passages to know and understand ANYTHING, then I'd come down on the side of Hell no, hell doesn't make biblical, rational or moral sense).

To Stan, I said and asked:

I could be mistaken, but I'd be willing to bet that there is only ONE (or perhaps a handful) of places where a passage offers words that COULD be taken to suggest that most people will be condemned to eternal torture (uggh! What evil news, literally as far apart as possible from actual Good News!).

I'd guess the main place that SOME might interpret that way would be from Matthew 7, the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says (in context):

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Now, I can certainly see how, if that last part was THE ONE AND ONLY INFORMATION that was told to you to be about God and an afterlife, that some might say, "well, wait, does that mean most people are heading towards "destruction..."? And if so, what does that mean?"

But it doesn't perforce demand a "hell" of eternal torture for most of humanity. There are many ways to be destroyed. A town may be destroyed and then rebuilt, after all. This could be more temporal and in this life, in intention. It could also be hyperbole, could it not? Also, keep in mind, the Greek word there might best be translated as Ruin or Loss or Perdition... or other words suggest the notion of "destroy" (of course, destruction/be destroyed). But that would raise another problem. A thing destroyed has ceased to exist. It is not kept alive in torment, it's gone.

Then again, consider the context. The verses right before it assure us that (or course) a Good God knows how to give good gifts and WILL give good gifts because that is the nature of a good human and a good God. Heck, the passage says, even "bad" people know to give good gifts.

Presumably then, the person who finds themselves in torment or torture may well ask for relief - it's a perfectly human thing to do, after all. AND, according to the text in this same proof text of yours, a good God stands ready and willing to give good gifts, to give relief to that torment.

Because, of course, that's what being perfectly good, perfectly loving and perfectly just beings do, right?

So even the ONE text that you're most likely to point to as "proof" of "most" people being tortured for an eternity undermines that theory. And, of course, does not insist upon that theory. That is reading INTO the text something it doesn't demand. Who says this is a text about an afterlife? Not the text. Who says this text is intended to be understood literally? Not the text.

So, beyond that one text which doesn't say directly at all what you think it says and which, in context, undermines the notion of a cruel and evil eternal torture for most people, what OTHER passages would you look to in order to even TRY to make a consistent, rational and biblical case for the theory that most of humanity will be tortured forever, per "god" and, indeed," that this "god" created most of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them forever - AND, for the purpose of bringing "glory" to that little devilish imp-godling? (And God have mercy, what an awful, belittling way to speak of God. "god" as the Eternal Bully. I guess I just have a high view of God, that way!)

Here's what the conservatives at the Gospel Coalition offer as the ten most compelling ("foundational") passages for eternal torture...

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/

Look at them with an objective eye. Can you see that they do not even begin to point to the notion that these passages insist upon the bad news of eternal torture... and certainly not for MOST of humanity? If not, can you at least see where decent rational people of good faith would object to these theories?

Each of these passages are built upon unspecified/vague claims that "the evil" ones or those who "worship the beast" or those who reject God... and none of them insist that this is the majority of humanity. That would be reading INTO the text something that isn't there. Right?

Is it the case that your one and only verse for theorizing that "most" of humanity will suffer the bad/evil news of eternal torture is the Matthew 7 one... which does not say that directly at all? Or, at the very least, can you see why reasonable people throughout church history have, in good faith, disagreed with that human theory?

And also, can you even acknowledge that this IS a human theory, not something God has told you? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, that it's a foregone conclusion and those who disagree with this human theory disagree with "god." But you all tell me.

Stan:

...completely ignore the vast numbers of verses regarding judgment and hell...

I know this "vast number of verses about hell" is accepted dogma amongst some conservatives, but have you counted that? Did you know Jesus seemed to address something like Hell about maybe, six or seven times in the gospels (not individual mentions, but passages - in Matthew 5, for instance, in the space of three or so verses he uses the word three times, but that's really one instance of teaching)? And really, it's probably closer to three to five separate, distinct instances/teachings.

FIVE entire times that Jesus brings it up... AND without clarifying if he meant it literally or figuratively or otherwise.

Perhaps it's not something Jesus concentrated on as much as you have been taught to believe? (I was certainly indoctrinated to believe that wholeheartedly until I read more closely.)

Poverty was spoken of (by Jesus) more like 20-30 times (at least - even more, when considering context), by way of comparison... and homosexuality, Zero times, by way of comparison).

And as to "Jesus speaking more of hell than heaven," that would depend upon interpretations, but I'd say you'd really have to stretch the meaning of the texts to reach that conclusion.

Jesus spoke endlessly of the realm of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. These ARE passages of heaven, I'd say and that would equal way more than the five Hells that Jesus mentions. There are 31 distinct mentions of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew alone (and again, some of those are repeats of the word within one passage/teaching, but still).

Kingdom of God, on the other hand, shows up 54 times in the four gospels.

Jesus certainly did not talk more about hell than heaven and he barely spoke of hell. Just fyi.

The Greening of the Spirit

Uncle Ralph (Waldo Emerson) reflected, "The creation of a thousand forests is in one acorn." And we can see that in the fall and winter times... a single oak can produce thousands of acorns. They're still out there on the ground, even now.

And here's the thing: The oak is not stingy about it. The oak does not try to hoard all those acorns, growing thorns around them so no one can get to them.

The oak is gracious and generous. And IF a squirrel (or hundreds of squirrels) "steals" an acorn for its own nourishment, the oak doesn't take offense. It is generous. It is gracious. It is giving.

Nature is like that. God is like that. The Beloved Community can embrace that, as well.

And to be sure, it can be hard in these cold winter times, when the stingy and graceless try to hoard and hoard, taking for themselves and unwilling or fearful to think about sharing with others. They demand "efficiency," not grace. They push away rather than gather in.

Nonetheless, the way of sharing, abundance and grace is the right way to go. There is a place for wise use of resources and "efficiency," but that really should be as a subset of grace and abundant sharing.

As various biblical writers and wise people have long noted, what happens to the stingy and the hoarders when they push others away and try to take it all for themselves, perhaps in the name of "efficiency" and with false claims about "They're all a bunch of lazy thieves!" ...what happens to these hoarders? They end up with a bunch of rotten, useless acorns. This is because acorns were meant to be shared and spread with careless abandon.

The greedy farmer said, "This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain."

But God replied, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

And when the Manna ("what is it?") fell to the ground so that there was enough for everyone... what happened to those who greedily tried to store more than they needed away? It rotted.

And when the rich business people refused to pay their laborers for the work they had done? God lashed out at them...

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.

May we embrace grace and grow into abundance and grow into sharing. May the season of the Greening of the Spirit begin soon and take deep roots.