A retelling of Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, roughly verbatim but with some more modern imagery thrown in for good measure...
And on that day, all the nations shall be gathered before God. And God shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.
And indeed God shall set the sheep on the right, but the goats on the left.
Then the Creator shall say to those on the right:
“Come, blessed ones, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was from a foreign land, and you took Me in; I was your enemy and you befriended Me; I had my clothes torn from me, and you clothed Me; I was wounded, and you tended Me; I was in a prison camp, and you came to Me. I was oppressed, and you sought to relieve My oppression with Justice.”
Then the righteous shall answer, saying:
“Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You? Or thirsty, and give You drink? When did we see You a foreigner, and take You in? Or naked, and clothed You? Or when did we see You sick, or in a prison camp, and came to You?”
And the Creator shall answer and say to them:
“Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these in My family, you have done it to Me.”
Then God also shall say to those on the left:
“Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire and hatred!”
“For I was starving, and you did not feed me; I was thirsty, and you blew up our water companies; I was from a foreign land and you mistrusted and jailed Me; I was clothed, but you dropped bombs that shredded both body and clothes; I was well, but you invaded My land, poisoned My water and My food. You caused My sons to die from dysentery! I was whole, and your weapons of mass destruction blew off My arm and crippled My daughter!”
Then they will also answer, saying:
“Lord, when did we cause You all this misery and destruction and did not minister to You? Surely there is some mistake, here?”
Then God shall answer them, saying:
“Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. Inasmuch as you waged war against the Iraqis, you did it to Me! Inasmuch as you poisoned the land of the Colombians, you did it to Me! Inasmuch as you stole money from peacemaking and educational efforts, spending your wealth instead on weapons and bombs, you stole from Me!”
And these shall inherit the world they created – much to their dismay! For those who live by the sword die by the sword, and those who reap the wind will sow the whirlwind.
But the righteous departed into a life of everlasting Peace and Justice, for thus is the world they worked towards, by God's good grace.
With apologies to King James
73 comments:
Personally, I would be hesitant to put words in our Lord's mouth, particularly words that are (at least arguably) slanderous against our fellow man.
I would be even more hesitant to do this to one of His teachings if I showed an unwillingness to accept at face value all of Christ's teachings, such as His own explanation for why He must die, that His blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sin.
I would not be quite so quick to invoke one of Christ's teachings about the day of judgment if I had so recently implied that there is no judgment for sin beyond its immediate, natural consequences.
And I would surely pause to put words in the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself if I were so insistent that other people allow my own words to stand for themselves.
You familiar with Keith Green? Singer/preacher?
He did the same kind of thing with this passage. Preachers and teachers oftentimes explode the scriptures to help consider it in greater detail.
I'm not saying Jesus said those things. Clearly, Jesus said these kind of things. I just expanded on them a bit.
Which ones do you suspect Jesus wouldn't buy into? Do you suspect that Jesus WOULDN'T want us to support those in prison camps the way that he commands us to support those in prisons? Especially if the prison camp were an unjust prison camp?
Do you reject the notion that Jesus wouldn't embrace someone from a foreign land or even an enemy?
Do you suppose that Jesus supports blowing up civilian water companies and dropping poison on civilian populations?
Are you really saying that adding a few words to a pretty strong passage gets you more riled up than these sorts of actions?
Where have I gone wrong, do you suppose?
The problem, I think, that you're having is that I DO EXACTLY take Jesus' teachings at face value, and it's a problem with the teachings you have, not my adaptation - could that be it?
Dan, my problem with this is that I believe you should also leave the judging up to God. He knows the whole story and looks upon hearts, whereas man can only see part of the situations and can also be prejudiced. Mom2
Dan, I think it's clear that you clearly do not take all of Jesus' teachings at face value. He taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, and you think that Jesus' death has nothing to do with God's provision of forgiveness. Even here, Jesus warned about eternal life and eternal judgment, and you pervert what He taught to argue that supporting particular government policies would usher in a quite literal utopia of earthly Peace and Justice.
Some of those "kinds" of things, Jesus did not say: you're fabricating them out of thin air, and even opposition to what you consider immoral government policies doesn't justify twisting what Jesus taught to turn it into propaganda for your pet causes.
You are mistaken, Bubba. I DO take Jesus' teachings at face value. I DON'T take all them literally. Neither do you.
There is a difference.
And so, now that I've addressed that misunderstanding, tell me, where did I go wrong?
Which statement did I add to the existing do you think is wrong?
I can't see a single one of the statements that I added in there that isn't also echoed elsewhere in the Bible.
Are you saying you think Jesus would object to my being opposed to the targeting of civilian populations? I am honestly at a loss to know what in the world in that list any reasonably moral person could possibly object to.
And, for what it's worth, you still don't get my position on the death and resurrection, but we've covered that enough.
If I misunderstand your position on the relationship between Christ's death and our forgiveness, you can and should elaborate.
As it is, I believe it's clear that you don't believe Christ's death purchased our forgiveness. If that's a misunderstanding on my part, you certainly haven't explained what you really believe so I could be corrected.
I have a couple problems with your pastiche posing as a paraphrase.
First, you do replace Christ's emphasis on eternal judgment with a promise that human actions can bring about a quite literal utopia.
Second, I believe you implicitly slander people with whom you disagree by suggesting, for instance, that we support waging war "against the Iraqis" and by implying that people "stole money from peacemaking and educational efforts" when it's likely that their offense isn't theft or even a fraudulent misappropriation of funds, but a simple disagreement on spending priorities.
Third, it strikes me as very hypocritical for you to put words in Jesus' mouth when you complain so frequently and adamantly when people draw conclusions from your writing: that preachers and teachers "explode" a passage doesn't make you any less hypocritical for doing to Jesus' words precisely what you forbid others from doing to yours.
Fourth, and most fundamentally, you argue from your own conception of Jesus Christ, not from how the Bible portrays Him.
According to your conception of Jesus as the revolutionary hippie, He would never support or advocate war. But Jesus did uphold as authoritative Jewish Scripture, affirming it to the smallest penstroke, and there are passages there in which God commanded the ancient Israelites to go to war. You don't consider those passages authoritative; instead, in direct opposition to what Jesus taught, you've speculated in the past that wicked men inserted those commands in an attempt to justify atrocities by dishonestly attributing them to God's will.
Some of Jesus' teachings -- about the meaning of His death and the authority of Jewish Scripture -- you seem to disregard entirely: at best you say you take them seriously but not literally, but you never get around to explaining your alternative, figurative interpretation. Other passages, you invoke and often pervert, not in an attempt to understand what Jesus actually taught, but to use that teaching as a bludgeon against your political opponents.
Forget King James... you should apologize to the Lord for putting words in His mouth. Shameful, Dan.
"explode the scriptures" is right. Obliterate them to the point that you can then piece them back together in such a manner as to say what YOU want them to say...
Shamefully done, Dan, ESPECIALLY after recent posts. Shameful and hypocritical.
And just because some singer/preacher's done it, doesn't make it right.
Furthermore, stop trying to justify yourself by asking which of your "additions" Jesus wouldn't have "bought into." I shouldn't be surprised or shocked by this post considering the revelations you offered up recently, for once offering a glimpse into your personal belief system.
For the record, I reject your entire argument here. And NO, I don't intend to get caught up in another one of your pointless discussions.
I can't believe how angry you make me! All I see here is a man seeking to justify his own political beliefs by raping the words and, OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE BUT YOU AND YOU MYRMIDONS, clear teachings of Christ.
Our spirits DO NOT agree, Dan. And I have to say, I am deeply saddened by this.
If I had to point to one verse in the entire Bible that sums you up in my and many others eyes, it would be Romans 1:22... and it's not my place to make such judgments; but if you're content to butcher scripture I'm content to continue earnestly contending for the faith.
I am totally aghast at your arrogance! But obviously NOT without the ability to castigate your shameful mangling of scripture.
Furthermore! JESUS is the one who will separate sheep from goat. You call Him "Creator" in your smarmy version, and Jesus IS creator... John 1:3 says as much, but you've denuded the beauty of not only this text, but Christ's role as Judge. You also fail to consider the time when this takes place... at the end of a great war! No sheep were working to build a paradise, they were struggling to survive. You've taken the job of creating a world of peace and justice OUT of the hands of the LORD Jesus Christ and put it into the hands of sinful men.
And NO, I don't intend to get caught up in another one of your pointless discussions.
If you'll forgive me for saying so, I suspect that's a good thing, as I'm not sure how many comments might appear, should ELA actually be willing to discuss this topic.
Had a feeling that this post would strike a nerve... It kinda reminds me of this old ONION article: God Angrily Clarifies "Dont Kill" Rule | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
1) Warning: Not completely family friendly, so if a "bad" word or two is likely to offend, please don't click that link.
2) For the rest, I believe this to be one of the finest and most meaningful pieces ever put out by a satirical "news" source. Dated 16 days after 9/11/01, it said what I felt then, and the last line still brings me to tears to this day...
What I'm saying in my own, less spiritual, less biblical way is I'm with ya, Dan. While I understand why some may be offended, I happen to think He wants us asking WWJD, and coming up with answers, too... ...as often as necessary.
Wow. Dan, I'm standing here behind you.
It's astounding that these guys are totally ignoring what you're trying to say and are literally choking, and spitting, and gasping, on their own Scriptural literalness! They'll fight for the shackles they wear -- or those oversized phylacteries (tomayto, tomahto) -- until the last dog dies.
Contending for the faith? Hardly. Contending for a certain dispensationalist, sensationalist, literalist view of Scripture. That's all.
I have no problem with WWJD, what I do have a problem with is ANYONE who deliberately mangles scripture.
ER, your biblical Kung Fu is NOT strong.
No, ER, we can see exactly what Dan is trying to say:
"Opposition to Dan Trabue's political beliefs is immoral; Jesus Christ practically said so Himself."
If Dan objects to this summary of this -- what did he call it? -- "retelling" of Matthew 25, he should keep in mind that preachers and teachers "explode" what other people write and say all the time, and they do so only to consider those words in greater detail. :)
I with ya too Dan.
I wonder what Bubba and ELA think about the Cotton Patch Version.
Wow, I hope these guys never stumble across any Christian Contemporary Music. About half of it ends up "putting words in Christ's mouth." (Not to mention all the craptacular, schlocky evangelical pulp fiction that's out there.)
Dan, you could have written what follows and I would not have objected; I would have applauded you. But you chose to cram your politics into Jesus' mouth...
When Jesus comes in His glory, at the end of this age, with all the holy angels, and his bride, to put an end to war, and to cleanse the earth, He will sit upon His throne of glory: And what remains of the nations which have been drawn to Israel by antichrist to once and for all wipe Israel off the face of the earth, will be separated by Him; one from another, as a shepherd divides his flocks; sheep from goats. He will set His sheep to His right, but the goats will He set to His left.
Then shall our King, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, say to His sheep on His right, “Come ye, blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. I was hungry, and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink, I was a stranger, and ye took me in, naked, and ye clothed me. I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came to me.”
Then the righteous sheep will look about bewildered and confused, and ask aloud, “when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick or in prison, and did as you say we should unto you?”
And King Jesus will say, “Truthfully I say to you, inasmuch as ye have done these things unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And who are my brethren? Whosoever has done the will of my Father, which is in heaven.” [Matthew 12:48-50]
But to all those goats on His left the Lord will say, “depart from me, ye who are cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye gave me nothing, I was thirsty, and ye gave me nothing, I was a stranger, and ye left me out in the cold, naked, and ye gave me nothing with which to cover myself. I was sick and ye never visited me, I was in prison and ye left me to rot.”
And the goats will look about bewildered and confused, and ask aloud, “when did we see you hungry and not feed you? or thirsty and not give you something to drink? a stranger, naked, sick or in prison, and fail to do as ye say we should have?”
And King Jesus will say, “Truthfully I say to you, inasmuch as ye have failed to do these things unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have failed to do it unto me. And who are my brethren? Whosoever has done the will of my Father, which is in heaven.” [Matthew 12:48-50]
And those goats will, because of their failure to do right by the least of the Kings brethren will be sent into everlasting punishment, but the righteous sheep will enter into life eternal, prepared for them by Jesus; their King of kings and Lord or lords. They will spend months burying the dead, and repairing the hurt done to the earth. And by the will and power of their King they will make the earth a garden.
Had you posted THAT, there would have been nothing of great consequence to object to. You might wonder, however, just who Jesus was referring to when He said, "the least of these"
Might I suggest a Jude 1:14-15
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Sorry, still having computer problems.
Briefly, to my detractors, I will re-ask: WHICH specific addition do you object to?
Do you suspect Jesus DOES endorse the bombing of civilians or the poisoning of their water?
What have I got wrong?
If you will not answer this, then neither will I address your objections.
I see. Invoking the 'Baptism of John' ploy.
It doesn't look good on you.
I see. Invoking the "idunno" ploy.
Complain in good health, brother.
If I misunderstand your position on the relationship between Christ's death and our forgiveness, you can and should elaborate.
Bubba, I've done so for over 200 comments-worth (and countless hundreds of words, I'd guess). If you can't understand my position by now, why do you think my adding yet another explanation would help.
And Eric, if all you're going to do is whine without telling me why you're whining, take it elsewhere. Until you are willing to answer my question, your nasty, negative comments are not welcome on this post.
MYRMIDONS - good word, thanks for increasing my word power. Although I don't think it really applies here. Thanks, nonetheless.
Dan, I don't think another explanation of your position would help, as I explained in the other thread. I think your explanation is still not as clear as it should be, but I understand that it's as clear as it's going to get.
About this pastiche of yours...
Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, including (presumably) those passages in which God commanded the nation of ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation. Yet you seems to think that Jesus Christ would object to all war, no matter how pressing the circumstances and no matter how conscientious the tactics.
If you wants to put words in Christ's mouth, I believe the burden rests with you to justify your pastiche.
As it is, your argumentation is fundamentally unfair, but easy to see through:
1) Paint your political opponents' position in the worst light imaginable. It's not that their spending priorities are simply different, they "stole money from peacemaking and educational efforts." It's not that they understand that civilian casualties are predictable and regrettable but cannot always be avoided; they deliberately target civilians. It's not that they support a war to remove Iraq's Baathist regime and then contain the resulting terrorism that is largely being funded by enemy nations; it's that they support waging war "against the Iraqis" themselves.
2) Give this smear a veneer of respectability by saying that Jesus wouldn't support these caricatures of your opponents' position.
3) Refuse to answer any honest and reasonable objections to this smear with the same question: do you think Jesus approves of such evil actions?
This is different from the loaded question of "when have you stopped beating your wife" in only two significant ways. It's a little more complex, as it's a loaded pastiche rather than a single question.
And, it's arguably blasphemous because -- to hell with His commands to love your neighbor and even to love your enemy -- you're invoking the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to score cheap rhetoical points against your political opponents.
And you're clearly more concerned with continuing to score those cheap points than to deal with substantive criticism of this approach, criticism that includes (but is not limited to) your replacing the reference to the Son of Man with references to God and the Creator, and your replacing the promise of eternal judgment with the consequence of a merely earthly utopia.
I believe you should be ashamed of your behavior.
Believe it all you want, brother. I'm not the one going to other people's blogs and casting shameful and unsupported allegations against a brother.
Eric said:
I see. Invoking the 'Bearing False Witness' ploy.
You are so predictable.
Or, in other words, committed another unsupported attack against a brother. I'm guessing he'll wet his pants.
I deleted it as irrelevant. I believe that is the first thing I've ever deleted here. (or maybe the second?)
Re, "And, it's arguably blasphemous because -- to hell with His commands to love your neighbor and even to love your enemy ..."
LOL! Bubba you will reget those words. You lost it! I knew you would! For all your pretense at calm reflection. For all your faux humility. You're just as full of your SELF as the rest of us! You're a screw-up! LOL. Now, we might get somewhere!
EL, too. You willing to admit you don't know S--T, EL? That we eat dirt and think it's Grace because to us dirt IS GRACE??
Re, "you're invoking the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to score cheap rhetoical points against your political opponents."
Holy crap! Has the bar for blasphemy been brought that low? On whose authority?
Then James Dobson is riding a black charger, trumpets blaring, guidons flapping in the winds from his own lips, into the very maw of hell.
Eric had more off-topic attack posts to make. They're gone.
I'm generally quite patient with such nonsense, as all of you I expect would agree. But these are totally unrelated and posted only for the purpose of attacking and so, they're gone.
If Brother Eric ever wants to comment on-topic again, he is more than welcome to.
repsac said:
If you'll forgive me for saying so, I suspect that's a good thing, as I'm not sure how many comments might appear, should ELA actually be willing to discuss this topic.
Thanks, repsac, Marty, ER, Alan for your support.
And I think you're right, repsac. As it was, it took Eric some 15-20 posts to tell me that he wasn't going to respond to my post.
Bubba, too, is not answering my questions, but at least he toyed around with them, so I'll toy around with his responses a bit, for clarification purposes. He said:
Give this smear a veneer of respectability by saying that Jesus wouldn't support these caricatures of your opponents' position.
What I've done is to suggest that some actions (attacking innocents, destroying their water supply, blowing off the limbs of children) are just wrong. It doesn't matter who is doing them or what their "noble" reasoning may be. I'm suggesting it is always always always wrong to attack civilians.
Those who appear to be opposed to my position - I'm guessing (since they won't directly answer them) - do so because they cling to the moral relativistic answer of "Well, sometimes it's wrong to target civilians and sometimes it's okay. It all depends."
I reject such a wishy washy answer and say, No. It's always wrong. Just to clarify. This is not a caricature of their position BUT RATHER a statement of MY position.
A couple of other clarifications:
you do replace Christ's emphasis on eternal judgment with a promise that human actions can bring about a quite literal utopia.
Not replace, add to, expound upon.
As Jesus and others do in the Bible. ("Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," for instance.)
And not a literal perfect Utopia, but a more perfect kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
And not human actions but Godly actions. We are God's hands, we are God's feet. We are God's voice to speak truth to power, to do good, not evil, to live within our means so that others may also live. To do justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God.
Third, it strikes me as very hypocritical for you to put words in Jesus' mouth when you complain so frequently and adamantly when people draw conclusions from your writing
Wrong. I complain when people misrepresent my positions drawing incorrect conclusions from my writing.
Seriously, bubba, you'd do well to stick to what people have said rather than guess at what they mean. You have a pisspoor track record of doing so.
you argue from your own conception of Jesus Christ, not from how the Bible portrays Him.
At least partially correct. I do argue my conception of Jesus based upon my interpretation of the Bible. We all do.
None of us have had Jesus appear to them and say, "This is my exact thinking on topics A, B, C, D and E. Do me a favor and represent my positions word for word so people get it right."
Rather, we read the Bible, prayerfully, seeking to understand who Jesus is and what his teachings are for us. As such, yes, we each have our own concept of Jesus.
But I have gained my concept of Jesus from 40 years of reading the Bible and five years of having it read to me before that.
I did not read Marx or "the hippies" and then look at the Bible and say, "Hmmm, where can I find biblical passages that support my hippie belief system?"
No. Quite the opposite, brother.
And now that you know, you need no longer misrepresent my position.
You're welcome Dan.
Dan, I'm not sure why you deleted ELAshley's comments. It cannot be that you forbid unsupported attacks against one's fellow Christians, because you have been guilty of the same thing in this very thread, in accusing ELAshley of not knowing how to respond to your loaded question, and making that accusation without a shred of evidence.
I see. Invoking the "idunno" ploy.
It cannot be that you forbid snarky comments that are utterly irrelevant, because just as you deleted ELAshley's comment for the first time, you inserted an irrelevant personal comment of your own:
I'm guessing he'll wet his pants.
And it can't be that your concern is keeping the discussion focused on substantive disagreements and misunderstandings and not personal attacks. You could have simply explained how you think I have misunderstood your earlier request not to draw any assumptions at all. Instead of stopping there, you decided to make it personal by saying I have a "pisspoor track record" of drawing conclusions from what other people write.
I would love to focus on the substance of our disagreement, starting with your claim that civilian casualties are "always always always wrong." The Old Testament clearly records that God occasionally commanded the nation of ancient Israel to engage in total war. You have previously speculated that these passages were inserted by wicked men in order to justify atrocities by deceitfully attributing them to God's will, and I have never seen you renounce this theory in the face of Jesus Christ's clear affirmation of the entire Old Testament to the smallest penstroke. You claim to be constructing your conception of Jesus Christ from what's recorded in the Bible, but this affirmation of Jewish Scripture -- in the Sermon on the Mount you claim to revere -- flies in the face of your claim about what is "always always always wrong" and I have never seen you adequately address this discrepancy.
I would love to focus on that, but I will not do so here, at least so long as the standards for what is permissible here remain so unclear.
This is your blog, and you have every right to moderate it as you see fit. But not every excerise of one's rights is morally right, decent, honorable, or even comprehensible.
Your stated reasons for having deleted ELAshley's comments directly contradict your own behavior toward us. Because it is impossible to ascertain what comment you will delete next, or what other behavior you will permit for yourself but deny others, there is no reason for me to trust that even my most measured arguments here will remain undeleted, much less be allowed to "stand for themselves."
"MYRMIDONS - good word, thanks for increasing my word power. Although I don't think it really applies here. Thanks, nonetheless."
I guess that makes you Achilles, Dan. Cool! LOL
"And, it's arguably blasphemous because -- to hell with His commands to love your neighbor and even to love your enemy -- "
Wow.
Since Alan has apparently joined ER in misconstruing my statement, in part by not quoting the entire sentence, I will repeat the sentence in full:
"And, it's arguably blasphemous because -- to hell with His commands to love your neighbor and even to love your enemy -- you're invoking the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to score cheap rhetoical points against your political opponents."
I would have thought that the last clause would not have been ignored since it was in boldtype even the first time I typed it.
But to make myself absolutely clear: I am not saying that I'm dismissing God's commands to love your neighbor and love your enemy. I'm saying Dan is possibly guilty of dismissing those commands with his attempt to score cheap rhetorical points against his political enemies.
I stand by that position. I wish I had worded it so that it was less likely to have been misconstrued.
Ah, right... caring for the poor is "attempting to score cheap rhetorical points".
Gotcha.
I really don't get the problem here. Nearly every sermon I've ever heard anywhere involves the minister preaching and expanding upon Scripture, describing what those passages mean for us today. We hear the parable of the Good Samaritan retold with different modern characters, we hear stories retold with modern elements in order to make them more understandable, etc.
So then what's the problem? Seems to me that:
1) First of all, these arguments are appearing to me more and more like Bibliolotry. "Don'tcha dare mess with the words of the Bible!" Feh. We do it every time we translate. And before you deny that we do it every time we translate, don't waste your breath. We do it every time we translate which is why we require our Ministers to learn Greek and Hebrew. It is also why every Scriptural argument ends up with people describing the original meaning of some Greek or Hebrew word. I for one have read far freer translations of Scripture than this one. (eg "Don't hide your flashlight under a basket.")
2) Good, Reformed orthodox Scriptural interpretation relies on two important ideas: a) Scripture interprets Scripture, and b) our interpretations today cannot mean anything that they couldn't mean to the original hearers. There's nothing in Dan's exposition that violates either of those rules. So stop grousing.
3) No where does Dan claim his retelling IS Scripture.
Once again, the so-called defenders of orthodoxy prove they have no idea what real orthodoxy actually is. (Here's a hint fellas, orthodoxy isn't just the opposite of whatever Dan, or ER, or I say.)
I was simply clarifying my comment, Alan, I'm not interested in defending the comment further -- at least not here, and probably not with someone who wants to pretend that all Dan was doing was advocating "caring for the poor."
That clarification was a footnote, but thanks anyway for the response.
What was Dan trying to do if not advocate caring for the poor and oppressed?
Tell me this, Bubba, how is it that of the six or so people who've commented on these last few posts, that all but you and Eric have been able to understand my points? While you and Eric have found fault with most of what I've said - found fault to the point that Eric has said he rejects my Christianity?
Even though what I'm saying is fairly orthodox Christianity?
We hear the parable of the Good Samaritan retold with different modern characters, we hear stories retold with modern elements in order to make them more understandable, etc.
I suppose they might have a problem with those cute little Veggie Tales (TM) characters, too? Since there were no major vegetable characters in the actual Bible, those kids' cartoons must be in the wrong, too?
No, I'm certain that Eric and Bubba have no problems with expanding upon the Gospel.
They could never reach an opposition to gay marriage if they didn't. Bubba could never find support for dropping an atomic bomb on civilians if he didn't (Eric, I believe, joins me in being opposed to at least Hiroshima). These things are not mentioned in the bible so they have to draw extrabiblical conclusions to have an opinion. They do it all the time.
As do I. No problem there.
It seems to me the problem might lie in that Bubba and Eric want to pretend that most of their positions have been chiseled in stone in their Bibles.
Their problem is that they disagree with my biblically-based conclusions, just as I disagree with theirs.
Which is fine. I could be wrong. I'd just suggest that we could disagree and have conversations about these important topics without the rancor.
For they will know we are Christians by our love. Or not. I could be wrong there, too...
I just don't think so.
Once again, you've shown that you're far more charitable to these folks than I am, Dan.
Dan, I reiterate:
Your stated reasons for having deleted ELAshley's comments directly contradict your own behavior toward us. Because it is impossible to ascertain what comment you will delete next, or what other behavior you will permit for yourself but deny others, there is no reason for me to trust that even my most measured arguments here will remain undeleted, much less be allowed to "stand for themselves."
Feel free to return to your discourse about how others will know us by our love, amidst your comments about other people wetting their pants while you delete their comments for their irrelevant, personal content.
Once again, we see the MO of these folks. They stop by, take a crap on Dan's front porch and expect him to call it a gift. ("Raping the words", that was the phrase used early on in a comment Dan did keep around. I would have started deleting way back then, quite frankly.) Nope, Dan puts up with it, but then, when he demonstrates (on his own blog, no less) that he's clearly less than pleased, they climb up on their cross and play martyr. Sheesh, I've seen less petulant behavior from my 3 year old god-daughter.
And once again, when their little diatribes get smacked back at them for the un-Biblical, un-orthodox foolishness that they are, they start complaining about being mistreated, rather than taking their lumps and admitting they were wrong. You can always tell when these guys have decided they've lost, they start complaining about the rules, and the style of discourse, etc., etc.
Just an aside, but can anyone imagine what would happen if Bubba spent even half the time writing his own blog as he does telling everyone else how to run theirs? I think the internet would be full by now. ;)
And oh gee, someone's comments got deleted? Boo frakin' hoo. First of all, it's a blog comment, not Holy Writ. Second of all, how about acting like adults and learning to deal?
Repeat after me: It's. A. Blog. Comment.
Third of all, how many of us have been *banned* from your cronies' blogs, Bubba?
So get down off your high horse, I for one am not buying your phony indignation.
Truly, Alan, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Thanks again, Alan. You make great sense.
Bubba, the topic was Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. To which I added some extrapolations.
Since I don't think you or Eric are opposed to scripturally-based extrapolations, I don't believe the comments directed in that vein are noteworthy.
I said as much to Eric, asking him to comment on the topic or not, but to quit with the attacks based on something no one disagrees with. (Like this: Obliterate them to the point that you can then piece them back together in such a manner as to say what YOU want them to say...
Shamefully done, Dan, ESPECIALLY after recent posts. Shameful and hypocritical.
If you or Eric wanted to address commentary to the additions, you could feel free to. You did, at least a little. Although you didn't answer the questions that I asked of you first per the blog host's request.
I am very interested in dialog. But dialog means I answer your questions, you answer mine. It's a two way street. Eric was having none of it, instead repeating clearly the same non-complaint over and over, even after I asked him to quit.
I have not repeated the same non-answer to y'all. Are you saying that I somehow failed to see an answer (an answer to the questions I asked) in Eric's rants in a way similar to your failure to see an answer to my polite responses earlier?
Again, I fully understand the notion of clarifying a question. If you thought my question was somehow unfair or wrongly stated, you could have said so. And I guess you did, Bubba.
But Eric didn't. He carried on with the same rudely stated non-response over and over and THAT is why I deleted them and THAT is not something I've done.
In case you have missed them, some of my unanswered questions include:
Which ones do you suspect Jesus wouldn't buy into? Do you suspect that Jesus WOULDN'T want us to support those in prison camps the way that he commands us to support those in prisons?
And so, now that I've addressed that misunderstanding, tell me, where did I go wrong?
Which statement did I add to the existing do you think is wrong?
What was Dan trying to do if not advocate caring for the poor and oppressed?
Tell me this, Bubba, how is it that of the six or so people who've commented on these last few posts, that all but you and Eric have been able to understand my points?
Bubba, you also said earlier:
he should keep in mind that preachers and teachers "explode" what other people write and say all the time, and they do so only to consider those words in greater detail.
And that is an excellent representation of my intent here. Do you understand that?
Those are the questions I've asked. If you think they are wrongly phrased or unfair somehow, then feel free to say, "When you ask_____, it is phrased in such a way that I can't respond because ______."
If you just don't want to answer them, fine, but then quit making comments. At that point you're only ranting, not conversing. Start your own blog for that.
This one's off topic too, Dan...
Alan said: "boo, frakin' hoo"
Dude! You must watch "Battlestar Galactica"
Coolest show ever!
"Dude! You must watch "Battlestar Galactica" .... Coolest show ever!"
Indeed I do and indeed it is. And Lee Adama is the 5th Cylon.
"impersonal discourse when you say that Alan makes a lot of sense, not for adding anything substantive to your extrapolations"
Actually I did, pointing out that such extrapolations are commonplace. Otherwise a preacher would be reduced to being simply a lector.
I also pointed out that, unless Dan had violated good, orthodox, Reformed ideas about Biblical interpretation (which he did not) then your opinions are anything but good, nor orthodox ones. You have not demonstrated that I'm wrong on that, so who exactly is the one who isn't adding anything substantive to his "arguments"? Oh, right... that would be you.
"but you seem rather fond of Alan's use of rancor in your defense."
Rancor: Bitterness or resentfulness. Nope again, I realize that you find it impossible to refrain from personalizing these discussions, but I have no more bitterness toward you or anyone else than I have friendship toward Dan or anyone else. I did not make a single ad hominem attack, I simply attacked your style of "discourse" as foolish and hypocritical, and I wrote my opinion about your MO, which as we've seen, there is plenty of evidence to back up. Rancor? Not a bit. But I'm not going to buy this phony indignation anymore than I'm going to buy the foolishness of faux-orthodoxy you try to promulgate here. I'm not defending Dan, I'm defending orthodoxy from the foolishness you trot out, comment after comment.
Nasty? Negative? ROFL. Yes, "raping the words" is a totally civil comment, isn't it? LOL. What rank hypocrisy! Once again you conveniently gloss over the fact that such rancor was started by you folks. Do you apologize? No of course not. Do you chastise the other person? No of course not. But Dan should chastise me for much less offensive comments. You ignore the fact that your cronies regularly delete comments and ban commenters. Do you apologize? No of course not. Do you chastise them? No of course not. But you complain to Dan because your buddy had some comments deleted. Hypocrisy... rank hypocrisy.
Once again, you demonstrate that you only want civil discourse when you eventually realize that you don't like reaping what you and your buddies have sown.
Get over it.
It presumes that ELAshley and I haven't been able to understand your points. I think I understand them perfectly well.
And yet when you say, repeatedly, "You must think THIS," and I DON'T think THIS, then it is quite clear that you truthfully, factually do NOT understand my thoughts.
It's quite simple, right?
So, you disagree with my answer, Dan. I did provide an answer to that and a few other questions you've raised.
I'm still waiting for you to pay me in kind.
Alan, if you want to accuse me, repeatedly, of phony indignation, of hypocrisy, immaturity, and foolishness, at least have the decency of admitting that you really are making this personal.
Or explain what you would consider an ad hominem attack.
And, Dan, I didn't say I understood your THOUGHTS. You didn't ask about your thoughts; you asked about your points, specifically to this discussion since you limited it to the half-dozen or so who were involved in this discussion.
I do believe I understand your point here. If you want to say that I don't, fine: persuade me that I don't, and then I'll no longer consider your question to be loaded.
I said "thoughts" because you usually go beyond my points and try to state what you think my motives are. In this way, you are wrong.
I'll get back to the other stuff when I have time.
I dunno... I'm having trouble believing it's NOT Kara Thrace, or Baltar [which I accept is wishful thinking and way too easy].
Bubba asked:
One problem, which I'm highlighting now for at least the third time in this thread and to which you have yet to respond is that your position that Jesus would repudiate civilian casualities as "always always always wrong" is incompatible with A) the Old Testament's record of God occasionally commanding total war and B) Jesus' clear affirmation of the Old Testament to the smallest penstroke.
I hadn't responded because we've already gone through this, you and I. You don't like my answers. But for others out there...
1. Sometimes it does appear that the OT has God commanding what we would now call atrocities. Either by totally wiping out a people (women and children included) or by barbarous, terroristic methods of attack and devastation. Actions that are generally recognized as wrong by nearly everyone today.
2. I explain this in a few ways:
a. The stories recorded reflect the author's/people's idea of what God would want. Again, some of the actions taken in the OT are well-recognized today as beyond the pale. But back then, it seemed a good way to explain the Israeli victories in terms they recognize. People have always assumed God was on their side, no matter how atrocious their actions were.
b. The "Gradual Revelation" theory, which says that people back then weren't ready for a more complete adherence to God's Will (ie, never, never, never killing children) and that the actions taken by the Israelis were always moderate compared to the actions taken by their enemies. The "At least we're not as bad as THEM" defense.
By this model, we can see that the "an eye for an eye" teaching was an attempt to MODERATE violence. In a world where an eye gouging of someone in Tribe A could lead to a massacre of Tribe B (a member of which did the eye gouging), an eye for an eye was a way of moderating violence.
But Jesus has told us NOW we are NOT to settle for an "eye for an eye" sort of Justice. We are to turn the other cheek. It is an improvement upon the teachings back then, not a repudiation of the teachings.
c. I have also allowed that perhaps I just don't know WHY it would appear that God calls for atrocities in the OT, but regardless, such actions are clearly wrong today.
3. Again, my interpreting the OT in these ways in no way means I reject OT. I love the OT teachings!
It is from these teachings we gain a sense of background and, in fact, a great deal of teaching about why actions like attacking innocents is wrong - always wrong - and that God is on the side of the oppressed against oppressive actions.
Regardless, we don't and ought not take the OT literally, word-for-word. And, regardless, those teachings have been added to or improved upon or clarified by Jesus. No longer are we to adhere to the OT teaching of "an eye for an eye" but instead we are to turn the other cheek. No longer is shellfish an abomination, but it can be eaten. Things have changed. Jesus has reinterpreted (not rejected) the Law.
So, EVEN IF, it was God literally telling people to take actions that we call atrocities today, Jesus has given us a better way. And regardless again, we are never commanded to commit those atrocious actions (they are offered as story, but not as command, for the most part) but we ARE commanded to love our enemies, overcome evil with good.
There's a New Covenant in town, and we're to adhere to THOSE teachings first and foremost, and use OT as a resource in understanding the NT teachings, but not as a model to UNDO NT teachings.
"Alan, if you want to accuse me, repeatedly, of phony indignation, of hypocrisy, immaturity, and foolishness, at least have the decency of admitting that you really are making this personal.
Or explain what you would consider an ad hominem attack."
Ah, mind-reading again, eh Bubba? I say clearly this isn't personal, I'm just calling your "arguments" the foolishness that they are. That has nothing to do with liking or disliking someone or making anything personal. But nope, you're sure you know my mind better than I do.
Quite a talent you've got there. LOL Too bad it isn't accurate at least some of the time. ;)
An ad hominem attack would be calling you an idiot, a moron, a fool. I don't believe I've ever done that. Instead, I've pointed out the foolishness of your "arguments". I've pointed out your repeated acts of hypocrisy for demanding a standard of behavior from us that you do not demand from your side. I've pointed out your method of "argument" which is to only become concerned about the tone of the debate when you've lost, never when the tone starts going downhill because of the way you folks "argue".
And I don't think either Kara or Baltar is the last cylon... I think that would be too easy.
Bubba, you will notice I've put up a new post about actions in the Bible that would be called atrocities if someone were to commit them today. I believe you and I both agree that God does not go around commanding us to cut off the heads of those who don't bow down to our God. That we are NOT to kidnap and make wives of the virgin daughters of the enemy we've just wiped out.
Am I correct that we agree on this much?
If that is the case, then why would you gravitate to OT teachings of God commanding the slaughter of innocent people as support for modern warfare? We agree that there appear in the OT some stories/teachings that simply would be wrong, wrong, wrong if we enacted them today. Why is the slaughter of innocents not amongst them?
Nothing personal, Alan, but I find your claim implausible, that your very vocal criticism of my behavior isn't personal just because you say so. And I think your criticism is dishonest.
But, see, I'm not calling you personally dishonest. Just your criticism.
Dan:
1&2. If you do have a different interpretation for, say, Christ's explanation for why He was to die, which He gave in the Upper Room, you have never offered that interpretation.
3. You wrote:
. "you do replace Christ's emphasis on eternal judgment with a promise that human actions can bring about a quite literal utopia."
Wrong. You assume I replace Christ's emphasis on eternal judgment with work for an earthly utopia.
You assume I was talking about your innermost thoughts and not your little pastich, which is odd, because I made my focus absolutely clear in the sentence immediately prior to the one I wrote: "I have a couple problems with your pastiche posing as a paraphrase."
4. You write:
I have never complained about people drawing conclusions based upon my writings.
Your request in an earlier thread was this:
And a request: Let's let people's words stand for themselves this time. If you think they mean something other than what they've said, then ask ("So by X, do you mean Y, too?"). Let's avoid this assumptions about what they mean, at least for this thread. Thanks.
You didn't single out "wrong" assumptions, just assumptions in general. You requested that no conclusions be drawn. If that wasn't your intent, you should make yourself more clear.
5. You write:
I am pretty sure you are wrong on this one. I don't believe I ever said that the passages were inserted by "wicked" men who "deceitfully" put them in the Bible. Rather, I have said just what I said in the previous post, that the writers (who were human folk with all our foibles and failures) inserted this description NOT deceitfully, but in an attempt to describe God as they understood God.
I didn't say or suggest you used those specific words; I didn't use them in quotes. Nevertheless, I believe I'm accurately summarizing your position, which you first expressed here and never repudiated:
“What does it mean? Well, it could stand as testimony of humanity’s desire to get God’s endorsement on even the most heinous of actions. Or a note that we can justify even the most horrible crimes, if it’s ‘god’s will.’”
Your position is that these difficult passages aren't trustworthy revelations of God's will, even though, in the sermon you esteem so very highly, Jesus Christ Himself affirmed all of Scripture to the smallest penstroke.
I have more to say, in the thread for your latest comment.
Well, there is another criticism I've made that I would like addressed.
Another problem, which I'm now highlighting for at least the fifth time, is that your extrapolation is loaded against -- and arguably slanderous of -- your political opponents. We have not supported war "against the Iraqis" but against the Baathist regime and against subsequent terrorist organizations; and we have not "stole[n] money from peacemaking and educational efforts."
As a taxpaying American, that is a statement of MY position and what I advocate for in national policy. It is only slanderous if you include me in the slander. It is directed towards a people who support spending trillions on WMDs and not having enough left over to tend to the needs of the less fortunate.
It is MY position. If you want to make of it an attack on those who disagree with my position, I suppose you can do so, but that is not the intent. The intent is to express MY position. What I think our policies should be.
By that sort of reasoning, anytime someone expresses an opinion ("abortion is wrong and those who don't oppose it are wrong for not opposing it," for instance) are attacking their opponents. That is a statement of opinion, not an attack.
What I said was:
Inasmuch as you stole money from peacemaking and educational efforts, spending your wealth instead on weapons and bombs, you stole from Me!
That is, it is my opinion that Christians and people of good will ought to be investing much more effort and money on peacemaking and educational efforts than we do on bombs and weapons. I think that is the Biblical position, too. The OT shows repeatedly that even though God allowed a militia, they were NOT to have a large military with lots of weaponry, but rather depend upon God to deliver. Jesus told us even more clearly, overcome evil with good.
It is my position and my understanding as to what Christians ought to be about.
If you disagree with it, fine, but it is not meant to be, nor set up as, an attack on those who disagree with me, but rather a statement of my opinion.
Clear?
"Nothing personal, Alan, but I find your claim implausible, that your very vocal criticism of my behavior isn't personal just because you say so. And I think your criticism is dishonest.
But, see, I'm not calling you personally dishonest. Just your criticism."
Right, because how on Earth would I know whether or not I'm taking this personally? LOL
Alas, you have yet to apologize for your hypocritical statements and requirements. Nor do you present any actual argument for why it's OK for you and your friends to adhere to one set of standards of behavior while requiring a different set for us. Once again you ignore all that. Convenient.
But perhaps that will come in time.
I am pleased, however, that I've finally been able to teach you the difference between a personal attack, and simply going after someone's statements and ideas! Hopefully you're also learning not to be so sensitive. I have much more to teach you, Padawan. :)
For example, if only you had some actual evidence to back up your claim (perhaps FMRI data, that would be pretty convincing) then you'd have an actual argument instead of just an uniformed opinion. ;)
Dan, even requoting the passage in question, you seem to miss the explicit accusation of theft.
If you don't want to be seen as accusing others of theft, don't use the verb "stole."
You write, "it is my opinion that Christians and people of good will ought to be investing much more effort and money on peacemaking and educational efforts than we do on bombs and weapons."
That's fine, but you didn't merely express that particular opinion: by saying they "stole," you suggested that at least some who disagree have been guilty of theft.
Bubba, being a taxpayer and, by extension, a funder of this current war which I believe to be unjust and morally wrong, that accusation of theft applies to me as well as those who support the war.
I believe our leaders have taken our money and applied it to morally wrong causes. I don't mean a literal "theft" as some suggest that all taxation is theft. I'm speaking metaphorically and I'm speaking to myself along with the rest of the US.
It is a statement of my position still.
You're not suggesting I ought not express my biblically-based opinions, are you?
You are truly a master of loaded questions, Dan, considering that one thing we're discussing is which of these opinions really are firmly grounded in the Bible.
I have no problem with your expressing biblically-based opinions. I do have a problem with opinions that aren't based in the Bible but are claimed to have such a basis -- as I should.
Even if the war in Iraq is unjust (and I don't believe it is), even if you include yourself in the charge of theft, and even if the accusation is metaphorical rather than literal, it does not mean that the charge is apt.
Even metaphorically, the charge doesn't apply: even though both unjust war and theft are bad, the fact that they're both bad doesn't mean you can always use one as a metaphor for the other.
I have no problem with your expressing biblically-based opinions. I do have a problem with opinions that aren't based in the Bible but are claimed to have such a basis -- as I should.
Indeed, as you should. As we all should. If someone claims that the Bible teaches that God hates gays or Muslims or whatever, we should state that this is not the case and be prepared to say why.
So, having said that, let me take it one step at a time. Let's set aside the offending paragraph I wrote (where I mentioned two specific cases, instead of generalities).
I think the bible is clear that we ought to stand opposed to actions such as the targeting of civilians (as in the WTC, as in Hiroshima), the poisoning of civilian land (as in Colombia), the destruction of needed water supplies. Would you have had a problem if I stopped there with those general concerns or would you say, "It all depends"?
Let's take it one step at a time, then.
I think the bible is clear that we ought to stand opposed to actions such as the targeting of civilians (as in the WTC, as in Hiroshima), the poisoning of civilian land (as in Colombia), the destruction of needed water supplies.
Where is the Bible clear on any of these issues in particular? It's one thing to invoke "love your enemy" and "overcome evil with good" and conclude that the targeting of civilians is therefore always morally impermissible. (I think, even then, that argument should be made rather than assumed.) But it's another thing entirely to say that the Bible is clear on the issue of the absoulte immorality of civilian casualties when it really isn't.
Fair enough.
Let me say that perhaps what I SHOULD have said is that it is clear from many sources that targeting civilians is wrong. God's word in our heart tells us that it is wrong (that is, most people would state that they know without being told that targeting civilians is a moral wrong), our God-given reasoning tells us it is wrong to target innocent people unprovoked, and finally, God's written Word tells us that we are to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. This is a universal law common to all the major religions and philosophies.
Doing unto others as we'd have them do unto us - We would not want someone targeting our civilian centers or innocent people for destruction, therefore, we ought not do so unto them.
Additionally, the bible says...
For wicked men are found among my people... Therefore they have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy."
In talking about Jerusalem, the key city in Israel, Jeremiah (6:6) declares: "This is the city which must be punished; there is nothing but oppression within her."
Jeremiah 7:6 calls on Israel not to "Oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow..."
Or Jeremiah 9:6: "Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, says the Lord."
The word "Oppression" occurs 126 times in the Bible (over 110 times in the OT) and it is always a wrong. Something Israel was NOT to take part in and something for which nations were judged. In addition to oppression, just general mistreatment of the poor and defenseless is repeatedly condemned.
So, I suppose I am taking a leap in thinking that something like targeting civilians falls under the same category as oppression, which is definitely opposed biblically. I think it an entirely reasonable leap. AND with the consideration that we are commanded to do as we'd want done, I don't see how you can talk about targeting civilians without calling it always an evil.
How would one possibly find a loophole to say that sometimes we may do unto others what we wouldn't want them to do unto us? And, if you can do it, how can you do it without throwing objective morality out the window? It seems everytime I hear someone justifying their violence - whether it's "terrorists" or "patriots," they all sound the same.
I have more respect for and think one can come closer to making the case for the notion that SOMETIMES, we may find that we need to engage in evil to stop an even greater evil. But it will remain an evil and should never be confused with anything else BUT an evil.
And now, I repeat my question to you:
Would you have had a problem if I stopped there [ie, not mentioning Iraq or Colombia, specifically] with those general concerns or would you say, "It all depends"?
I certainly wouldn't have had the objection that I raised -- namely that your criticism was needlessly partisan and arguably unfair.
I'm still hesitant in attributing to Christ any ethical teaching that cannot be clearly and inarguably drawn from His teachings, but I think the position against deliberately targeting civilian populations is admirable and -- for the most part -- correct.
Circumstances do matter. In the case of deliberately targeting civilians, the only really good argument is that doing so will limit the total civilian casualty rate. That's the argument for nuking Hiroshima -- that a landing and conquest of the Japanese mainlaind would have been far deadlier in terms of civilian casualties -- and I don't know if the argument's valid, but I don't know that it isn't, either. I'm humble enough not to say that I know with certainty that the argument was invalid.
To say that circumstances matter isn't a denial of objective morality. For instance, if I say I was at home last night, it matters whether or not I actually was: that determines whether my statement was a lie and therefore immoral.
Is it moral for me to have sex with So-and-so? Well, it depends on whether I'm married to her.
Is it moral to target civilians in a total war in which the instruments of modern warfare are used? The answer does depend, in part, on the consequences of doing otherwise.
And if, as you state in the more recent thread, you find that you would actually be willing to use violent force to defend a child from a brute (in at least one circumstance in a thousand), then that position also doesn't destroy morality's objective nature.
About your answer to my objection about what the Bible does and does not say, an appeal to "God's word in our heart" does not satisfy.
The heart is deceitful, and we should mold our heart to what the Bible teaches, not judge the Bible's teachings by our own heart.
You say that "our God-given reasoning tells us it is wrong to target innocent people unprovoked." We weren't talking about an unprovoked attack, so ignoring that adverb, I would argue that reason dictates that, if circumstances are dire enough, deliberately targeting civilian population A may be worth it if it saves the civilians in cites B, C, and D, and if the total population of those cities are greater. "Needs of the many," and so forth.
The human heart isn't trustworthy on this issue (or, really, many other issues), and human reason dictates that deliberately targeting civilians should indeed be rare and only in dire circumstances, but reason doesn't deny the existence of such circumstances.
That brings us back to the Bible.
You write, "I suppose I am taking a leap in thinking that something like targeting civilians falls under the same category as oppression, which is definitely opposed biblically. I think it an entirely reasonable leap."
There's one very serious problem: the Bible records that God commanded the nation of ancient Israel to conduct wars of annihilation.
In order to take this "entirely reasonable" leap, you have to reduce the trustworthiness of those passages that render that leap impossible.
And you write, "with the consideration that we are commanded to do as we'd want done, I don't see how you can talk about targeting civilians without calling it always an evil."
This begs the question of criminal justice, which I'm raising in detail in the other thread.
Ahhhh! Truth broke through through Bubba's own words!
"Where is the Bible clear on any of these issues in particular?"
I'm being a little cheeky, but I mean this with all my heart:
"The Bible" -- and those quotes are deliberate because it is foolish to think of it as one thing -- is clear on nothing.
Nothing. Not even the meaning of Christ!
It DOES take thinking. It takes prayer. It takes meditation. It takes faith -- blind, deaf, lame, as well as whole, or at least ambulatory!
It takes walking, stumbling, failing - and cussing and discussing, and it takes letting the sea swallow you up in fear, followed by the desperate grasp for any hand, and blessed as we are, the hand is the hand of the man from Galilee.
You cocksure people really are starting to make me sick.
Well get the barf bag ready, my friend, because Bubba's statement doesn't support your position. As he said, it was those "issues in particular." That ain't the whole Book. The Book gives us clear direction in many areas. Because it doesn't on those "issues in particular" doesn't contradict that. So we are only cocksure that it gives us SOME, even MANY specific directives and teachings on SOME, even MANY issues, even though there are others not so clear. Please don't pretend otherwise, cuz it ain't true.
Post a Comment