This
is a group art project from my church several years ago... the Star of
Christmas, created using a collage of Christmas season/Black Friday
advertisements encouraging people to buy more junk they don't need.
Subverting commercialism for a remembrance of the story of poor immigrants being guided to a safe sanctuary in the midst of dodging a government out to harass and kill them.
Happy Subversive Holy Days, all you subverts!
Subverting commercialism for a remembrance of the story of poor immigrants being guided to a safe sanctuary in the midst of dodging a government out to harass and kill them.
Happy Subversive Holy Days, all you subverts!
207 comments:
1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»Christmas isn't "the story of poor immigrants being guided to a safe sanctuary in the midst of dodging a government out to harass and kill them." But you go right ahead and subvert what it is truly about.
And how you exalt yourselves with your clever project, thankful that you are not like other people and so self-righteous in deciding what constitutes junk (and what of those evil people who feed their families creating that junk!) as well as deciding for those other people what they should consider need. Let me ask you: have you absolute need for every gift given to you? Does every gift you give satisfy only absolute need of the person to whom you give it?
How arrogant.
It literally is that story, Marshall. They were literally threatened buy deadly and irrational government. They literally escaped from that thread by moving to another Nation, making them immigrants. They literally had people like the three wise men who lied to the government to Aid in their sanctuary and Escape.
Can you point to any part of that that is not literally part of the story? Perhaps you're just not aware of it...?
First, there's a vast difference between the story, as you put it, and "part of" the story. Christmas isn't about J, M and J moving about after the birth. It's about the birth and why it took place.
I'm well aware that Jesus was in danger after the Magi spoke to Herod. I'm well aware that they were forced to flee. Possibly you don't know what an immigrant is. An immigrant is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. You can call them "refugees", as they were seeking refuge from Herod's intentions. But they were not looking to resettle in Egypt and make it their home. This is affirmed by the fact that they returned to their home.
Glad I could clear up your misunderstanding of the Christmas story.
Point taken. Jesus story is a refugee story for today. I'll make the edit. Thanks. I don't think that helps your punches, that I'm fine to make the change for clarification sake. Thanks.
As to your other comment, if you look at my words, there is nowhere where I decided what is junk for someone else.
The point is, if YOU (the individual) think you have enough and don't need more crock pots or dishes or fancy soap or whatever it might be, then telling your friends and loved ones that you don't need things is just a matter of Simplicity and being reasonable.
In my circles, we still give things to one another. The point is, being less consumerist minded. Do you think this is a bad idea?
Of all the uplifting, wonder-filled, mystery love between God and human themes the Christmas story is about, Marshall shows he gets none of it.
"Point taken. Jesus story is a refugee story for today. I'll make the edit. Thanks. I don't think that helps your punches, that I'm fine to make the change for clarification sake."
No. The fact is that it doesn't help YOUR position. The Christmas story isn't "about" JM&J fleeing Herod, even though that happened. Trying to make Christmas about refugees in order to bolster your irrational position on open borders is to exploit a small detail in the Gospels' Christmas narrative for political purposes in a manner that distracts from the real message. I was merely clarifying terms. You're still subverting Christmas as much, if not more, than those you believe are doing it to sell the products upon which their livelihoods depend.
Christmas is a gift-giving time. It is not "commercialism" for manufacturers and retailers to encourage consumers during the time of gift-giving to consider their wares for the purpose. The problem is on the part of gift-givers and gift-getters should they let the giving and getting get in the way of the true message of Christmas...which is in no way about refugees, immigrants or any of that. However, by choosing to focus on that as if it is what Christmas is about, you and your fellow misguided Jeff St. congregants are as guilty as the "commercial-ists" of forgetting, ignoring or distorting the meaning of Christmas and the Reason for the season.
"As to your other comment, if you look at my words, there is nowhere where I decided what is junk for someone else."
Your first sentence:
This is a group art project from my church several years ago... the Star of Christmas, created using a collage of Christmas season/Black Friday advertisements encouraging people to buy more junk they don't need.
So it appears you must also correct that sentence to say, "encouraging people to buy more junk for Dan that Dan feels he doesn't need." Without doing so, you're deciding for others what constitutes "junk" they don't need.
"The point is, if YOU (the individual) think you have enough and don't need more crock pots or dishes or fancy soap or whatever it might be, then telling your friends and loved ones that you don't need things is just a matter of Simplicity and being reasonable."
Then you should have stated it as such because it clearly doesn't in any way imply such. Your project, as described by you, assumes you know that manufacturers and retailers intend to encourage people to buy "junk" they don't need. Now you dance away from that arrogance to say something different from the perspective of the receiver of said "junk". Still, that dodge doesn't answer the questions I'll now re-submit:
Have you absolute need for every gift given to you? Does every gift you give satisfy only absolute need of the person to whom you give it?
Absolute need is the only way one can escape "consumerist minded" giving and/or receiving. If absolute need is not attached to the giving/receiving, then you're no better than those you'd hold up as an example of that "consumerist mindset" saving your rationalizing your own giving and receiving in order to presume you're truly standing apart.
I don't waste my time with it. Just as most, I take my cues from the Magi for the practice of giving gifts on Christmas. If I can meet someone's need in selecting a gift for that person, that's great. But simply bringing joy with a frivolous gift is good for another person has its own value as well. But through it all, I don't let it get in the way of what Christmas is all about, which is neither "consumerism", giving/getting gifts and certainly not refugees and immigrants.
Marshall gives tree resin as his gift. Because that’s what the Bible says. (But really because it’s cheap.So much has he learned from the incarnation.)
When Jesus began his ministry, he said clearly that he'd come to preach good news TO THE POOR, the outcast, the sick, the imprisoned. Jesus made it clear that welcoming the stranger and siding with the poor was a core part of his message. He repeated the oft repeated message from the OT that we are to welcome strangers. If preaching good news to the poor strangers is what JESUS said he'd come for, who are you to disagree?
Also the birth narratives present to us God’s Mission in the Son: as you point out, Dan, And clearly the three synoptic gospels present God incarnate from the very beginning as identified with the poor, the outcast, the marginalized. Born in a feeding trough because the family was not made welcome. The innkeeper could not sacrifice space. They were a long way from home and soon to be in exile. The government was murderoudly anxious to keep change from happening.
These elements are not extraneous to the story of God coming to us. They are the central themes of God’s love and our calling: sacrifice for others.
Yes, yes, yes.
No, no, no. You continue to read the Bible with a Marxist point of view...a very superficial point of view...preferring to make it mean what feels good to you to have it mean. Christ's birth was the coming of the Messiah...God on earth to save us from ourselves and the consequences of our sin. That's what the "Good News" is. And though it is indeed good Christian behavior, as well as a reflection of our God, to serve others, such as the physically needy, it is the spiritually impoverished to whom Christ preached. It is inane to suppose that there were no wealthy people that were worthy of Christ's concern...that His ministry was based on financial need. It. Was. Not.
This, again, is not to say that we who are Christians (actual Christians, that is) are to ignore the physically needy...those financially poor, physically hungry and physically sick. But Christ's concern was for our souls and it was for the saving of them that He came and that was the point of His ministry. And while no doubt there were those among His followers who hadn't two denari to rub together, that was not necessarily descriptive of every last one of them.
Here's a little something I think will help understand who the "poor" were:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6481/11318032e0fb5e0436e23716486d8b2ecb51.pdf
I would also point out that simply because there was "no room at the inn", that doesn't mean they were not made welcome, nor that it was even possible for the innkeeper to make space for them. Don't forget why they went to Bethlehem and don't presume they were the only ones who were from that town. The place was likely crowded already.
Our calling is to repent and turn to Christ. Doing so will result in our doing good works...service to others...but our calling is Christ. Maybe you guys read a different book. I read the Bible.
Jesus beginning his ministry said...
"‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because God has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor." [ie, Year of Jubilee, the restoration of the poor and marginalized]
Jesus, when John the Baptist asked him if he were truly "the One..."
"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard:
The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised,
and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."
Jesus, in one of his most famous sermons...
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.
“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep."
Jesus in one of his most well known parables...
"Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in..."
And of course, I can go on and on. I could cite the clear and unmistakable calls throughout the OT to welcome the poor, the stranger, the marginalized. It is not an incidental, "Oh, this would be nice if you could do this some times" sort of message in the Bible or Jesus' teachings.
It is, according to Jesus, why he came. It is our Calling, just as much as repenting (including repenting for our maltreatment or ignoring of the poor and marginalized), to follow in these steps of Jesus and the OT.
If you want to take the Bible seriously, you simply can't wipe away the message to specifically the poor and marginalized and "spiritualize" it away by saying "oh, he meant poor IN SPIRIT..." That is an ugly stab at the very heart of the message of Jesus.
Marshall doesn’t know the Bible. Marshall doesn’t know theology. Marshall is ignorant of the church. St John Chrysostom, 1,400 years before Marx:
Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not scorn him in his nakedness, nor honor him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting him outside where he is cold and naked. For he who said: This is my body, and made it so by his words, also said: You saw me hungry and did not feed me, and inasmuch as you did not do it for one of these, the least of my brothers, you did not do it for me. [Mat 25:34ff].
What we do here in the church requires a pure heart, not special garments; what we do outside requires great dedication.
HONOR CHRIST AS HE DESIRES
Let us learn, therefore, to be men of wisdom and to honor Christ as he desires. For a person being honored finds greatest pleasure in the honor he desires, not in the honor we think best. Peter thought he was honoring Christ when he refused to let him wash his feet; but what Peter wanted was not truly an honor, quite the opposite! Give him the honor prescribed in his law by giving your riches to the poor. For God does not want golden vessels but golden hearts.
Now, in saying this I am not forbidding you to make such gifts; I am only demanding that along with such gifts and before them you give alms. He accepts the former, but he is much more pleased with the latter. In the former, only the giver profits; in the latter, the recipient does too. A gift to the church may be taken as a form of ostentation, but an alms is pure kindness.
CLOTHE YOUR BROTHER FIRST, THEN CLOTHE THE ALTAR TABLE
Of what use is it to weigh down Christ’s table with golden cups, when he himself is dying of hunger? First, fill him when he is hungry; then use the means you have left to adorn his table. Will you have a golden cup made but not give a cup of water? What is the use of providing the table with cloths woven of gold thread, and not providing Christ himself with the clothes he needs? What profit is there in that?
Tell me: If you were to see him lacking the necessary food but were to leave him in that state and merely surround his table with gold would he be grateful to you or rather would he not be angry? What if you were to see him clad in worn-out rags and stiff from the cold, and were to forget about clothing him and instead were to set up golden columns for him, saying that you were doing it in his honor? Would he not think he was being mocked and greatly insulted?
Apply this also to Christ when he comes along the roads as a pilgrim, looking for shelter. You do not take him in as your guest, but you decorate floor and walls and the capitals of the pillars. You provide silver chains for the lamps, but you cannot bear even to look at him as he lies chained in prison.
ADORN THE CHURCH; DON’T IGNORE THE POOR
Once again, I am not forbidding you to supply these adornments; I am urging you to provide these other things as well, and indeed to provide them first. No one has ever been accused for not providing ornaments, but for those who neglect their neighbor a hell awaits with an inextinguishable fire and torment in the company of the demons. Do not, therefore, adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother, for he is the most precious temple of all.
And St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also 1400 years before Marx, Oration 38, On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ:
One thing connected with the Birth of Christ I would have you hate...the murder of the infants by Herod. Or rather you must venerate this too, the Sacrifice of the same age as Christ, slain before the Offering of the New Victim. If He flees into Egypt, joyfully become a companion of His exile. It is a grand thing to share the exile of the persecuted Christ. If He tarry long in Egypt, call Him out of Egypt by a reverent worship of Him there. Travel without fault through every stage and faculty of the Life of Christ.
Dan,
You can mix passages all you like, preferring to believe they of one kind. They are not. I did NOT suggest that MY helping the poor was to be understood as a matter of my convenience. So you can stow that crap right away. I concerned mysekf with why Jesus came and how the "bringing good news to the poor" or "blessed are the poor" was meant to be and actually was understood at the time to those it was said. Clearly you did not read my link that directly addresses this point you purposely distort. It is a scholarly explanation heavily supported.
So once again, there is a huge difference between "bringing good news to the poor"...as if the lower and upper middle classes nor the well off and wealthy were not worthy of that good news. It's absurd. We know His followers included all sorts of people, not simply the destitute. Further, when thinking people consider what the "good news" was, it's inane to suppose "the poor" to whom He was bringing it were exclusively the destitute. He was NOT speaking of the materially poor, but as Matthew put it, the "poor in spirit".
I concerned mysekf with why Jesus came and how the "bringing good news to the poor" or "blessed are the poor" was meant to be and actually was understood at the time to those it was said.
Why specifically, pray tell, did Jesus come (according to you) and where did he tell you this?
there is a huge difference between "bringing good news to the poor"...as if the lower and upper middle classes nor the well off and wealthy were not worthy of that good news.
What is it with you and Craig? I have not said that the upper and middle classes were not "worthy" of the good news.
Do you understand that this is nothing I've said? Please answer that clearly and directly before commenting further.
We know His followers included all sorts of people, not simply the destitute
Again, I did not say that ONLY the poor were followers. Do you understand that?
He was NOT speaking of the materially poor, but as Matthew put it, the "poor in spirit".
You can believe that if you wish, but you have to torture the text to reach that conclusion. I don't think there have been many traditional biblical scholars who have argued that when Luke records Jesus saying "blessed are you who are poor... woe to you who are rich..." that Jesus was not speaking literally.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, what does "RICH in spirit" even mean, if you try to vanilla its clear meaning away into nothing blandness?
But we've covered all this before. You reject the traditional understanding of the literal text in Luke to favor some shallow pablum prosperity gospel nonsense. That's your option, but you can't act like it's a literal or serious reading the text.
Jesus did not come for the poor. Jesus came poor. And said that the hypocrisy of the “respectable” (Marshall’s middle class) and “rich” by which they ignore the poor and thus make them... is an abomination to God and a corruption of claimed faith.
Marshall’s defensiveness in justifying the existence of the poor and his anxious need to compartmentalize their complaints in order to reduce our accountability is the same corruption altogether.
You Marshall just blocks people to hide his being overwhelmed by truth.
Marshall, I deleted your comment because I asked you to answer some questions before commenting further. No offense, I'm just trying to be orderly and I expect y'all to answer questions when asked.
The problem is, y'all have demonstrated that you have a hard time with understanding words and reality. So I'm trying to help establish that you understand reality. For instance, I never said that only the poor were followers, in spite of what you said. I'm trying to clarify, NOW do you understand that reality?
Before moving on, I just want to make sure you understand reality. If you don't understand reality what's the point of going on?
This is what comes of dogmatic, extremist fundamentalism: Craig and Marshall believe in a dead Christ and rigid laws. That's not what the Gospel says. Craig doesn't think of himself as living in Christ and given the mission of Christ to heal the sick, support the widows, take in the orphan.... and feed and clothe the poor... just like Christ did.
Craig: "You really can’t seriously tell me you’re proud of Jesus’ record in eliminating poverty and disease?"
Scripture: "Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you."
Craig's Christmas prayer: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to cage children at the border; to appoint accused sexual assaulters; to defend the powerful; to count on Christ to do things and give lip service to what he asks us to do in the gospels."
Dan,
Your tolerance for lies, ad hom comments, and personal attacks has grown considerably. It’ll be interesting to see what gets deleted.
If you're talking about Theodore's last comment which just went up sometime today I guess... By all means come out and say that trumps policies are wrong and even evil... denounce forcefully the caging of children that Trump has done and the host of perverts and Liars that he surrounds himself with... Make it clear that Feodor is wrong and I will rebuke him and delete the comment.
That ball is in your court. As it stands now, you appear to be a half-hearted milquetoast Defender of perversions and liars. That you sort of wish that maybe perhaps Trump wasn't the president kind of sort of not that he's that bad really but still... That sort of bland and cowardly non-stance is not convincing.
I especially love how Craig uses dodges, diversions, and deletions at his own house in an attempt to control narratives that reveal his shallow intentions and now tries to get you to cover for him as well.
Is the gospel of John the lie, the ad hominem, or the personal attack? Craig neglected to say.
Craig, you can clear it up by coming out and clearly denouncing what Feodor says you believe. But given that you appear to be, if not an ardent supporter of Trump, at least a flaccid passive acceptor of his perversions and atrocities, it just remains to be seen if you can stand with your more sturdy conservatives and clearly denounce CAGING CHILDREN. Clearly denounce TEAR GASSING women and children. Clearly denounce his unending and stupid lies, call them what they are and be done with it.
But you never take that opportunity. So, I just don't know that Feodor is mistaken or, at least, far off from mistaken.
YOU can clear it up, Craig, by making it clear that Feodor is "lying," if that's what he's doing. The ball is entirely in your court.
And, just as a point of fact, you have an endless parade of dodges and diversions and deletions on your blog. That's just a demonstrable fact, so he's not mistaken there.
Craig, I GET that you generically and vaguely say he is wrong, but HOW is he wrong?
DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UTTERLY CONDEMN the separation of children from parents and putting them in tents and cages as Trump has done with the migrant children and their parents. Condemn it clearly and it will be clear that Feodor is wrong. But I need you to say it specifically and clearly.
Why?
Because you deal in vague and bland inanities without ever being specific about things you can be specific about.
If you DON'T condemn the caging of children that Trump did at the border, say that! But you opt to not say either and just say it's wrong/false.
Milquetoast denials don't buy you much credibility, especially given your long demonstrable track record of dodging direct questions, evading points and when you do attempt to answer, giving the aforementioned vague and unclear responses, rather than direct and clear answers.
The ball remains in your court.
It is wrong and evil to forcibly and permanently separate children from their biological parents no matter who does it.
Craig, if you CAN'T condemn the caging of children as Trump AND Obama have done, then say that. I just need you to man up and take SOME FUCKING POSITION, you lightweight ball of pablum.
Say, "Yes, I condemn the separation of children from their parents as Trump has done. It was clearly monstrously horribly wrong. He is an awful man implementing awful policies as it relates to immigration. And as a Christian, I am especially appalled not only at this anti-Christian behavior, but at other evangelicals and conservatives who are supporting these actions. Both when they were done by Obama AND by Trump."
Or say, "I can't say that I condemn that. Maybe it's RIGHT to separate and imprison people seeking asylum and their children."
Just take a stand. For once in your life, take a stand.
There! You're HALFWAY there. Now, Trump and his defenders (like yourself, way too often) will say, "Well, we're just TEMPORARILY separating these refugees from their children." I need you to condemn the action THAT TOOK PLACE, if you can. Or admit that you can't condemn it.
It doesn't matter if it's for one week or forever, it's WRONG to forcibly separate children from their parents, especially and specifically when you have already traumatized immigrants seeking refuge. Can you condemn THAT?
Lord have mercy.
Not "demonize," him, Craig. Call a fucking racist perverted lying piece of shit a fucking racist perverted lying piece of shit. Call him out for his constant and stupid lies that are dangerous. Call him out for his arrogance and greed and bullying and perversions, for his attacks on the media and fellow citizens falsely calling us an "enemy of the people." This is dangerous stuff, act like it.
Take a stand like Cal Thomas, Russell Moore and other conservatives with integrity. This shouldn't be difficult.
The truth is that love requires us to protest the treatment of the children and families at the border. Loving them means believing all psychological testimony that forcable separation and housing toddlers, young children, and teenagers in cages and tents creates psychological trauma that will affect them for life whetjer the incarceration is one week, one month, or many months.
The truth is that evil tries to shirk from love by slipping the word, “permanently,” in a bad-faith declaration. CS Lewis has his Screwtape do suchbthings. Milton his Satan. And Genesis its serpent.
The truth is that true love demands that we protect children not only at the border, but everywhere else as well. Y’all don’t give a shit about these kids beyond their usefulness as a political bludgeon in your jihad against Trump.
I'm leaving this last piece of false hysteria as a sign of how perverse your side is becoming in your lying. Not only perverse, but STUPIDLY perverse. OF COURSE, we care about kids. We HAVE kids. We are parents, we are godparents and grandparents. Of course we care about kids you lying sack of shit troll.
I'm being quite harsh to Craig, any outsiders who may stop in, because I'm half convinced he's a Russian or other troll, given his constant evasions of direct answers, his dodgy-ness, his anonymity, and his stupid-as-Trump but twenty times as pasty bland non-positions.
It is this sort of stupid lies that are a serious threat to human liberty. Of course, real people like me, like my faith community, like my conservative brothers and sisters, even, care about kids. Of course, we don't "just use" them as "political bludgeons." That is a burning sack of shit and I'm extinguishing with the water of Truth.
Don't bother ever trying to comment here again, troll, until you apologize for that sort of stupid ass lie. But then, Russian trolls don't really care, do they? In fact, don't bother trying to comment here further until you apologize AND offer some proof of who you claim to be, because I'm doing my part to fight internet fake news and the trolls who vomit it out.
In response to your deleted comment: I don't have your personal email, Craig.
I've had people offer their FB page as proof, or a news story about their work. I have been glad to give my home address to people, my phone number, you know my church and there is documentation/blog/social media presence for all of that, there are news stories to my work... It's not that hard and you don't have to give me an address or a phone (that wouldn't actually prove anything, anyway).
I repeat, Craig, I do not have your email. If I've had it in the past, I don't have it now.
I communicate with a good many people via email and I do not remember everyone with whom I've emailed. Especially if their emails were not memorable. Nor do I hang on to their emails.
My email is easily found on my blog information page.
Look Craig, this is pretty easy, if you want to comment here, just give proof of who you are in some way. This is not an unusual ask in this world where conservative and Russian trolls are known entity and where you are Anonymous and very evasive / dodgy.
Anytime anyone has expressed concern about who I really am, I don't take offense. I don't get all huffy about it. I don't make demands. I just show who I am.
It's a reasonable ask. Do it or not. That's up to you. Just FYI, being a decent sort of guy, I don't share people's private stuff around. Of course.
I’ve given it some thought, while I still don’t trust you, I’m going to be the adult and simply hope that you have some hidden reserve of morality and character that will elicit an opology.
I'm leaving this one here, too, just to ask, what SPECIFICALLY do you think that I owe you an apology for? Because I truly have no idea. That I'm not sure that you're who you say you are? I owe you an apology for being dubious that you're really who you say you are, when I don't know who you are?
Okay, if you are, I can apologize for my skepticism.
In a world where Russian and conservative trolls and fake news are a real thing, do you recognize how this is not an unreasonable skepticism to have?
mm-hmm.
I deleted this from Craig, but decided to post it again, for educational purposes...
Craig:
"That’s a new way to hide behind your lies. For all your histrionic prating about the sins of others, you’re willfully blind to your own reveling in the things you condemn in others."
You keep prattling on about an apology. I am honest with you in response, asking a genuine, "What for?" ...since I honestly don't know. The only thing I can think of is for being skeptical and ask if that's it. Instead of a clear and direct response, you offer that above.
What does it mean? What does ANY of what you're saying mean?
And I'm not picking on you. I have conversations with conservatives all the time that go like this.
They cryptically/vaguely accuse me of... something. I ask for clarification since I genuinely don't know.
They respond with other words that don't seem to be in response to what I asked. I STILL don't know what they meant to begin with and NOW I don't know what they mean in the second (and third and fourth, etc) responses.
Why not just answer direct, clear and reasonable questions with direct, clear and reasonable answers?
Or, let’s try this. Hopefully it’s clear and direct enough for you. You made a demand, you got what you wanted, you’re still lying about it.
I'm leaving these for now. Just as a talking point.
What in the WORLD are you talking about, in ANY of this?
I've got what I wanted? I still don't know who you are, anonymous person who goes by Craig. I don't know anything more about you than I did yesterday.
"I proceeded to your demand..."? What does that MEAN?
Look, if I were saying something along these lines, I'd say, "You requested that I prove who I am. I gave you my Facebook information (which you could find anyway, since I give my real first and last name here, as well as where I'm from!) and I gave you a link to a news article about my church and my work. That proves that I am indeed, Dan Trabue from Louisville, KY who goes to Jeff St and works at Mattingly Edge. You can see the pictures and stories of my family and church on Facebook..."
That is a clear and direct answer.
"I proceeded to your demand" is just barely English and is gibberish.
You continue, "Call and you continue to lie about it..." ?? Craig, that is not a rational sensible English sentence. It's gibberish.
Is it the case that you're dictating these messages and you MEANT for them to not be gibberish, to have some meaning, but the translation in dictation went wrong?
WHAT LIE?
If you are dictating and that's what's not making sense, then stop until you can make sense. Or, have you had a stroke, maybe? Early onset dementia? I'm not being mean here, I'm wondering and trying to find an explanation for your increasingly gibberish-type responses. Even Marshall has alluded to your many typos and non-sensical comments. What's going on?
Or, are you a troll and this is just a way to waste time?
One more try.
1. You made a demand. That I provide you with “proof” of my existence.
2. I agreed to your demand with some caveats, you bitched about my reasonable requests.
3. I gave in and gave you what you wanted in terms of “proof”.
4. You’ve ignored that and chosen to continue to lie.
5. I (as do you) occasionally use the voice feature to make comments, which sometimes leads to things that don’t get translated correctly. I mistakenly chose to accept those for what they really are, apparently I was wrong.
6. Did I mention that I’ve reached out per your demand, and you’ve chosen not to acknowledge that?
7. Did I mention that you’ve continued to lie, even after your demand was met?
I have to note that you chose to ignore my simple, direct response.
3. Gave me what I wanted? What is it you've given me?
I've received no email, no message from Facebook, no nothing. Are you thinking that you have done this? It hasn't come through, if you think you have.
4. What lie?
What are you talking about?
I’ve sent multiple FB messages to you, it’s really not that difficult to understand.
I’m talking about you continuing to spread false information.
4 to be precise.
And have I responded to those messages? In your mind, I mean? The reality is, I have received no FB messages from you. If you sent them they haven't come. If you received responses, it wasn't from me.
The reality is, I have received no Facebook messages from you.
I’ve just emailed you more evidence to ignore.
I have to say, as unwanted as it will be by everyone, and as an Anglo-Catholic Anglican who prefers Orthodox theology of the human person, we really can see in the developing focus of this exchange how protestantism caged it’s own beating heart in sectarianism.
I am the body and you are the branches. Craig and his cohort keep trying to cut off their branch from the body (thus choosing a pure, cold death) and I keep saying they already have (choosing a morally healthier, though too elite or sacramental tree than fits American Puritanism).
Leaving you, Dan, I guess, to be Karl Barth: trying to convince culturally bigoted Protestants of their radical inheritance in the Word of Christ.
None of us are going to end all that well until Dan and I offer a lot more on the ground meaning to society and Craig et all wake up to actual life instead of dealing death.
I'm on my phone now, not at my computer. I see that you sent me two emails it appears. I am telling you the reality is, I have no Facebook messages from you. Do you understand that reality?
I’m telling you, I just sent you photographic proof to the contrary. But don’t let proof stop you.
What proof? On my phone, all I see are what to look like two different images of some texts. I can't tell where they're from. I can't tell that it's on Facebook, at least not on my phone. What do you think those two images prove? And again, did I respond to the supposed alleged Facebook messages? Answer the questions being asked of you, Craig. Clearly and directly. It should be rather simple. Either yes Dan, you did respond and here's what you said... Or no, Dan, you did not respond... It's not that difficult.
This is as boring and small bore as hell. Actually that may be a contradiction.
They are screenshots of your FB messenger, and your FB page with messages and a comment from me.
Yes, it’s stupid and boring that I have to prove my existence as a “real person” to someone I’ve been conversing with in multiple media for years. But, I’m trying to be patient and give simple unequivocal evidence that Dan has what he’s been demanding. One he accepts reality, my comments will be gone.
This is what happens when you wrestle with a pig.
But, for once, you’re right. I guess defending one’s character from false attacks isn’t worth it in your world.
Your craven need doesn’t count as defense. That you think it does defines your character.
Trump cages children. When we say we hate that and everyone should, you say we’re really talking about something else.
No wonder then that, as you daily disrespect the rights of people who don’t look like you and we name your hate, you claim that we’re really talking about something else.
Deny, divert, dodge, prevaricate. You yourself are the worst enemy of your character. You refuse to face that. Nothing here changes that.
Craig: "Y’all don’t give a shit about these kids beyond their usefulness as a political bludgeon in your jihad against Trump."
Feodor: "Trump cages children. When we say we hate that and everyone should, you say we’re really talking about something else."
Caig: "You just keep making stuff up"
Sick in the head.
One. Your diverting, self-serving delusional lie that we don't care about the children does not live in a world where facts matter. You cannot prove your prevarication.
Two. Your moral claims never actually hit any ground. You leave them up in the air so they don't affect what you support. Which is clever on your part. Since you support brutality on the ground and a dead Jesus somewhere in the air that you cannot locate.
Three, your claim to care about children is fake. Becuase it is not the children you care about. What you care about is framing your "care" with a definition that protects your extreme fundamentalism.
You don't care about muslim children because you hate Islam.
You don't care about gay children because you hate non-heterosexuality.
You don'r care about refugee children because you hate what you fantasize is their drain on the US economy and oncoming crimes - both of which irrational fears are demonstrably disproved by all studies. And so your denial is further sign of your inhumanity.
You don't care about girl children because you don't believe they are autonomous individuals in the world with the rights to define their lives away from your approval and knowledge.
You don't care about black boys because you think of them as menacing.
You don't care about poor children because you don't care about those things this country cared so much about in the Great Depression and the southern poverty of the 60s: housing, nutrition, healthcare, education. Jesus cares about those things. Jesus literally says feed the hungry, clothe the poor, care for the widows and orphans. We can do easily as a nation, but have not because you and people like you say you care to the air but block all action.
You are a liar. A denier. A dodger. A diverter. A serpent.
Four. You gave up the claim that I was lying in the space of a few minutes. What was a lie turns immediately into "haven't proven I'm wrong.
That's because I showed you how you lied. How you cannot even follow the thread of your own statements.
Corrupt, ever shifting heart: shallow, ever anxious mind.
And now you’re a child, taking your ball home in tantrum that you lost.
Craig had the temerity and immoral gall to write this: ""Y’all don’t give a shit about these kids beyond their usefulness as a political bludgeon in your jihad against Trump."
And so he once again defends a man who is in on covering up a gruesome murder of the Saudi journalist. As of tonight, even Republican Congressional politicians can't stand to do what Craig is doing.
Just wanted to make sure you found the pics of me harming impoverished Haitian children, building boxes for immigrant children, and packing bags of powdered chemicals for starvating children.
I eventually found something called "Message Request" on FB, but it's nothing that popped up where I could see it publicly and, as far as I know, not anything I've ever had before, so I don't know how I would know to find it. I had to go looking for it on my FB inner workings.
So, yes, I do NOW have your messages and your FB info, Craig. I'll review it and see if it all seems legit and get back with you. In the meantime, behave. And by all means, PLEASE, if you want to comment here and call me a "liar," you HAVE to tell me what I've lied about. And just generally answer questions and stop speaking in a cryptic, vague manner. Speak to be understood and communicate. Use communication for good, not for obfuscation.
You’ve lied about me being a “Russian troll” for starters. You’ve lied about me supporting specific actions of the Trump administration. You’ve allowed your groupie to lie with impunity.
I love how, after I’ve given you what you demanded, you still can’t just admit that you were either wrong, or that it’s just been a big pile of BS.
I especially love how, now that your demands have been met, that you are going to pass judgement on the “legitimacy” of my social media.
Like I said. Make sure you take the time to find the pictures of me building boxes for immigrant children, tormenting poor children, and packing bags of chemicals for the hungry.
Look, I know you’ll grudgingly, halfheartedly, sort of admit that you were wrong at some point in the next month or so, then you’ll just trump up some other BS to bitch and lie about. Either your so scared or being wrong or losing that you’ll go to any length to avoid it, you’re so obsessed with control that you’ll do anything to maintain it, or there’s something not quite right. I can’t think of any rational reason to go to the lengths you have.
Clearly pointing out the dozens of questions you’ve dodged and obfuscated over the past few months a my blog would be s pointless waste of time and provoke more lies, so I won’t.
You’ve lied about me being a “Russian troll” for starters.
I've been abundantly clear that I SUSPECT you are a Russian or other troll. That is NOT A LIE. It is a SUSPICION and the suspicion was genuine.
Before you EVER state one single solitary word here ever again I need to you to confirm that
1. You understand that reality and
2. You apologize for suggesting I've lied, when it was just your misunderstanding, NOT my lying.
You’ve lied about me supporting specific actions of the Trump administration.
I rather doubt that's true. Almost certainly it's not true that I've lied about it.
What I more likely have said in a variety of ways is that remaining silent in the face of the great atrocities of this pervert in chief is a way of condoning. What I have said is things like, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to remain silent in the face of that evil."
Or perhaps, I've said it SEEMS like you must be supportive of... whatever.
But since, AS ALWAYS, you're being vague and non-specific in your accusation, it is a meaningless nothing.
1. I understand clearly the words you’ve written
2. I apologize for thinking that your constant references to me as a “ Russian troll”, among other things were me misunderstanding you. Because it’s clearly reasonable that after years and years of extended conversations over multiple media that your suspicion that I was a “Russian troll” was totally reasonable and rational.
As for the rest, I’d copy/paste the quotes, but you’d come up with some other excuse.
Of course, you allowing and encouraging Feo’s lies make you complicit.
It’s clear that my suspicion was correct, you’re so invested in being right, that you’ll do anything to avoid admitting that you could possibly be wrong.
What’s most likely is that you’ll go to any lengths necessary to maintain control and maintain the illusion that you’re right.
I truly pity you.
“Don't bother ever trying to comment here again, troll,” “ But then, Russian trolls don't really care, do they?” ” because I'm doing my part to fight internet fake news and the trolls who vomit it out.”
Oh look, right here in this very thread, evidence that Dan wasn’t exactly honest.
I’d copy paste others, but we both know you’ll contradict yourself again.
Not once has Craig specified a lie from me, as Dan has requested.
Not once has Craig engaged with scripture from me, as I have requested.
What Craig wants to say is a lie is the rationally clear inference that Craig consistently fails at backing up his claims. He merely claims the opposite without any evidence. For example, he claims the poor are not central to scripture when the OT snd NT consistently put the poor at the center of ministry. And when pressed on this he has zero comeback and can only insist on his position by repeatedly saying we’re lying about him. He cannot see that his only tools of debate are diversion, dodge, denial, and prevarication.
That’s a pitiable situation to have.
His hypocrisy mounts in whining about Dan’s requirements of him when he asks details of gun caliber from me before unblocking.
Two things are obvious (in Craig’s vocabulary these will be lies):
He’s intimidated and defeated by me.
And he’s very fond of Dan.
When I meet people that are smarter than me I tend to read them.
When I am fond of people I tend to listen to them with great attention and readiness.
Dan,
Not that it’ll matter, but I’ll throw in one of the many lies you allow to stand.
“You don't care about muslim children because you hate Islam.”
And how is that a lie?
I make that claim because you’ve written in defense of a Muslim ban. I make that claim because you’ve written ideas that make Islam responsible for terrorism. I make that claim because you’ve combined the two and supported a ban on Muslim people because you think they bring terrorists into this country.
I make that claim because I combine these kinds of statements with your denial of any need for rational action to save Americans who are killed by guns in numbers that exceed 10 9/11s every year.
If you support a ban on people that have killed less than 50 Americans TOTAL since 9/11 and reject any action toward people that kill over 30,000 Americans EVERY YEAR, I must, in all good conscience, conclude:
You hate Muslim boys because they are Muslim - among others.
What is your rationally defended argument opposing my thinking?
I am willing to concede that you are not conscious of your hate. But that doesn’t mitigate moral accountability. For all your years in a free country that has chewed over these issues for decades you can only remain unconscious if you repress awareness of your hate in order to protect yourself at the expense of others.
Sad how in our popular culture we stopped availing ourselves of a self concept that includes the psychological actions of what we call the unconscious and subconscious. Regaining that reflection on ourselves would help to make America great again, rather than all this reactionary repression.
Okay, I've checked out your FB page and think you are, indeed, who you say you are. Now, a few things...
1. Yes, I've treated you like a real person for years. I do this because I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and, why wouldn't I?
2. However, the news about conservative and Russian and other trolls (not just Russian trolls) has been increasing over the last few years, and has been going on for longer than that. No doubt, as you may know, I have had my identity regarded as suspect for nearly all the time I've been blogging, so it's hardly a new thing.
3. So, given the reality of troll/spam/people posting under fake names, AND given your increasingly erratic and irrational and non-sensical constant non-answers and ridiculous false allegations, I was just trying to make sense of what would make someone who is a real person do that. I was beginning to suspect that no real person could be as obtuse or irrational as you have been, especially in the last years.
4. So, now you have convinced me that you're real and I DO apologize for suspecting that you weren't a real person and I DO appreciate you providing some proof of that - something you COULD have done long ago, ya know - but that still leaves me with the reality of your irrationality.
5. So, for instance, the completely insane statement that I "just use" children as "political bludgeons..." If you were a troll, just trying to cause chaos and waste time, that would at least explain such a nonsensical false claim. But now that you appear to be a real person, I'm left with a person who, like your president, is glad to make repeated nonsensical, irrational and stupidly false claims.
So, I no longer suspect you as a Russian troll, but you have confirmed yourself to, at least at times, to be a person who is willing to make harmful, irrational, nonsensical and stupidly false claims because, I suppose, your politics has made you irrational...? Or maybe it's age or a mental condition...? I don't know the reasons or motives, but I do know the reality.
So, treating you as a real person, I will repeat the request for you to retract and apologize for the ridiculously stupid false claim you made and we can move on from there, as I would with any other real person.
Feodor, I will ask you to refrain from making claims that you don't know to be true, as well. I don't know that Craig hates Muslim children, for instance. I don't recall seeing any commentary from him that would make me suspect that. For all his flaws, given that he is a real person and his story is probably pretty legit, Craig regularly sends aid and goes to assist in impoverished places and appears to try to do so in a respectful way.
I suspect he is a good person with good intentions who just is irrational and willing to stoop to false claims at least on some points.
Oh, Craig, as to the stand alone quotes about "you Russian troll..." type of things I've said... ALL of those were in the CONTEXT of a set of comments where I was abundantly clear that I was SUSPICIOUS you were a troll of some bent. In THAT SPECIFIC context and with that being the REALITY of my position (that is, I was truly suspicious of your identity), that I sometimes shortened a comment/response to "you Russian troll, you..." I figured you would be able to recognize was part of the larger conversation, not me going back and forth between me saying you were a troll and me being suspicious of you being a troll. I DO apologize if you weren't able to follow that reasoning or if anyone else were to step in and read and isolated comment out of context and fail to understand the context.
Then take on my logic, Dan. The inference and clear conclusions are sound.
Doing good for others is what John Allen Chau believed he was practicing. Doing good is what George Wallace believed he was doing for Eddie Holley. Patronization slways believes it is doing good. You and I would disagreee with that.
That Craig patronizes the context of his doing good is the real sign of his repressed hate. He consciously knows and believes he should be loving. He unconsciously disparages and hates. This is easily read in the things he writes. You know this to be true.
Liberals have long and often had the same problem. Whiteness is at the base of this subconsciously tortured history.
“People with good intentions but limited understanding are more dangerous than people with total ill will.”
MLK
Dan,
Thank you oh so much for finally granting me the status of real person. You don’t know how validated I feel that you’ve finally conferred the status of reality on me. To be recognized as real by someone of your stature is truly gratifying.
1. “Why shouldn’t i?” Great question, yet you chose not to.
2. So you chose to project your insecurities about your identity on me. Have you considered getting help for that?
3. That would have made sense, had you chosen to simply express your concerns and ask respectfully and politely that I address them. But you chose months of snide comments filled with weasel words to try to cover your ass.
4. I knew you’d figure out some way to blame me for your irrationality and presumptions.
5. You’re right, I should have phrased that statement more carefully, I apologize. I find your sudden concern for the truth puzzling in light of your behavior and tolerance for lies. I also question your qualifications for judging other people’s rationality. Believing that you’ve been in a decade long conversation with a “Russian troll”, isn’t exactly a rational belief.
If that wimpy, milquetoast, pathetic comment is indicative of how highly you value the truth, then don’t even bother. If you can’t muster the consistency to hold everyone (including yourself) to the same standards, then just admit it and stop pretending.
Yes, I realize that those comments were the few in this small context where you were careless in your use of weasel words, and you got caught. The fact is that you can come up with all the excuses you want, you can claim that I should have understood your unwritten words, all you want. You said what you said, it’s right there.
I now know why you deleted the comment where I made some requests that I hoped you’d grant before I submitted to your absurd demands. It seems quite clear that you are unwilling to simply admit that you were wrong and offer an unqualified apology.
Dodge and divert. I left out hypocrisy among Craig’s avoidant strategies.
Brazen hypocrisy.
I did want to make sure that the pictures of me terrorizing poor children, building boxes to warehouse immigrant children, and packing bags of chemicals for starving children didn’t prove too disturbing for your delicate sensibilities.
Dodge and divert.
"Marshall, I deleted your comment because I asked you to answer some questions before commenting further. No offense, I'm just trying to be orderly and I expect y'all to answer questions when asked."
The day you answer questions as directly and unequivocally as do I will be a day of great rejoicing. My schedule does not allow for immediate response in all cases, particularly for those questions that demand research (since you're always demanding "hard data" you never yourself provide when the shoe is on the other foot) and detail. Half the time I barely have time to keep up with the ongoing "discussion". Your favored troll (not Craig, who isn't a troll at all) cluttering the thread with whatever it is he's saying further complicates things as he interrupts the flow of discourse. In the meantime, while I await opportunity to answer, your comments provoke responses from me that do not mean I've dismissed the questions you want answered. I have absolutely no fear whatsoever answering anything you ask and never have. I look forward to it. I would respond to your troll if he ever borrows enough integrity to meet the demands his infantile behavior brought upon him. If you ever feel I've left an "important" question unanswered, simply ask it again. But deleting that which is in response to other comments of yours with that lame excuse is childishness.
Now for the question(s):
"Why specifically, pray tell, did Jesus come (according to you) and where did he tell you this?"
My answer is in the following link, so you'll actually have to read this one. In doing so you'll find several reasons why Christ came and among them are those given in His own words. It's not really a complete list, but it certainly goes farther than just preaching to the "poor". But that's the real issue here, not that He didn't come to "bring the good news to the poor", but what is meant by "poor" in verses like this and Luke's version of the Beatitudes. It is NOT material wealth of which He speaks.
"What is it with you and Craig? I have not said that the upper and middle classes were not "worthy" of the good news.
Do you understand that this is nothing I've said? Please answer that clearly and directly before commenting further."
Are you unfamiliar with the expression "not in so many words"? If you're going to insist that Jesus came to bring good news to the materially poor, that cannot help but eliminate those who are not also materially poor. Indeed, half your series on "the Bible and Economics" is worthless because of this foolhardy corruption. And despite the Christian obligation to serve, I submit that the encouragement is primarily for the sake of the server, not the served. Think on that for a while and see if you can't imagine why it might be so, even if your Marxist soul refuses to accept it.
"Again, I did not say that ONLY the poor were followers. Do you understand that?"
Again, not in so many words. But the point was that because this is the case, your position has less upon which it can stand. His initial followers (the 12) were not all poor (if any of them truly were, even by the standards of the time) and they were the first to whom He preached.
continuing...
Are you unfamiliar with the expression "not in so many words"? If you're going to insist that Jesus came to bring good news to the materially poor, that cannot help but eliminate those who are not also materially poor.
Think these things through, Marshall.
I, DAN TRABUE, am a follower of Jesus.
I, DAN TRABUE, am incredibly wealthy, by global standards.
HENCE, I, DAN TRABUE, believe that those who are wealthy can also be followers.
Do you recognize that reality?
Or, put another way, not in ANY words have I said that. I have not HINTED at it, I certainly have not SAID it and I DO NOT BELIEVE IT.
Do you recognize that reality?
Simple question, please answer.
My answer is in the following link, so you'll actually have to read this one. In doing so you'll find several reasons why Christ came and among them are those given in His own words. It's not really a complete list, but it certainly goes farther than just preaching to the "poor". But that's the real issue here, not that He didn't come to "bring the good news to the poor", but what is meant by "poor" in verses like this and Luke's version of the Beatitudes. It is NOT material wealth of which He speaks.
First of all, as you note, your list is incomplete, it leaves off Jesus' specific statement that he said he had been ANOINTED by God to preach good news to the poor.
Why did they leave that one off, one wonders?
But yes, thanks for offering those passages, that is a starting point. But WHICH ONE of those are THE REASON? Or are they all reasons he came and why those and not to preach to the poor?
You're just being whimsical and haphazard in what you choose to try to take literal and what not, from where I sit.
As to your claim that Jesus was mistaken when he said that he'd come to preach good news to the poor (or that he shouldn't be taken literally when he says that)... Says who? Just because YOU DON'T LIKE taking it literally doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Again, historically, Jesus has most often, I suspect, been taken literally in these verses like the one mentioned and the passage in Luke 6. It just doesn't make any sense if you try to spiritualize it. "Woe to you who are rich, for you already have received your comfort..." What does that MEAN if it's not speaking to the literally rich? The "Spiritually rich..."?? What does THAT mean? Being spiritually rich sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
And, as noted, this is just not how this passage has been handled throughout church history, by and large.
"He was NOT speaking of the materially poor, but as Matthew put it, the "poor in spirit"."
"You can believe that if you wish, but you have to torture the text to reach that conclusion. I don't think there have been many traditional biblical scholars who have argued that when Luke records Jesus saying "blessed are you who are poor... woe to you who are rich..." that Jesus was not speaking literally."
The text isn't tortured simply because it is dissected and analyzed based on the meaning intended at the time it was written (together with how it was understood at the time). Frankly, I've been finding many traditional Biblical scholars that speak of both sermons being the same sermon related to us by two different Gospel authors coming from two different personal perspectives. I insist that it is contemporary ("progressive") "scholars" that try to make the Lukan version about materially poor people. The torturing comes from you forcing your 21st century socialism upon Scripture, rather than seeking to learn what it really means.
"As has been pointed out repeatedly, what does "RICH in spirit" even mean, if you try to vanilla its clear meaning away into nothing blandness?"
This is the first I've ever seen anyone try this defense. But as "poor in spirit" generally refers to recognizing the need for God, "rich" in spirit would have to mean believing one has no such need...that one's own talents, abilities, works, etc., are enough. That's my "off the top of my head" suggestion at a possibility. What's more important is to compare the two Gospels with regard to this sermon to see how the similarities play out. While Matthew might not refer to "woes", he goes on for longer with his report of the event, but that doesn't mean he was unaware of or not appreciative of the "woes". In any case, that the Lukan version uses only "poor" or "rich" does not mean Christ was referring to materially rich or poor, and your petulant insistence on self-serving literal interpretation (not true literalism) doesn't stand as evidence for your position.
"But we've covered all this before."
And you still neither get it, nor do you have anything substantive to support your position. You merely want it to be about the materially poor.
"You reject the traditional understanding of the literal text in Luke to favor some shallow pablum prosperity gospel nonsense."
It is mine that is the traditional understanding, and my link has been one piece of evidence supporting that fact. I have more at the ready. You have only your desire that it means what you prefer...a common thing with you on many issues.
What's more, I favor no prosperity gospel of any kind, nor has anything I've ever posted so much as hints at such a preposterous and desperate charge. Talk about misunderstanding the other guy!!! In reality, I'm certain this is just another ad hom, straw man attack.
"That's your option, but you can't act like it's a literal or serious reading the text."
I'm not "acting" in any sense, but merely asserting what scholarly understanding affirms. What's more, you've proven to me long ago that you have no real understanding of what constitutes either literal or serious reading of Scripture.
So now that I've answered your questions in full, my next visit will cover other egregious falsehoods you've expressed since your questions were asked back on Dec 2.
Actually Dan did say clearly and unequivocally that the good news was “exclusive” to the poor. But he probably didn’t mean “exclusive” as it’s usually meant.
Oh jeez! I just realized you responded to part one of my answer. I admit it reminds me of points I intended to include. I'll do so now:
"I, DAN TRABUE, am a follower of Jesus."
Superficially, perhaps, even if you don't intend so. But you support much which conflicts with the actual Jesus of Scripture and examples will be forthcoming when I deal with those egregious falsehoods. Stay tuned.
"I, DAN TRABUE, am incredibly wealthy, by global standards."
As happy as I am for you, that's totally irrelevant.
"HENCE, I, DAN TRABUE, believe that those who are wealthy can also be followers."
Not quite the point though, is it? The point in contention is your claim that by "bring good news to the poor" that "the poor" are those with no scratch. It isn't, but by so insisting, it necessarily leaves out anyone flush. If you can't speak your mind accurately, don't whine that I'm not able to "understand reality". The "reality" is that you don't make yourself clear, or dodge the implications of your words when they're repeated back to you. So no matter how you try to "clarify", asserting that "the poor" in that claim of Jesus are those with no coin still excludes those aren't.
Here's another thing to consider, my position works for those blessed in Luke as well as for those on whom "woes" are bestowed. Yours excludes people on both sides of the economic divide.
"Or, put another way, not in ANY words have I said that. I have not HINTED at it..."
Try stomping your feet now. But you have by definition...at the very least...hinted at it, if not asserted it outright. You might want to try some humility and simply say that you didn't mean to imply that. But even in so doing, the fact is you did and do by insisting Christ meant the materially poor. Don't blame me.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
That wasn't reality. It's what you want reality to be. But it's OK. I just explained what the reality is.
I encourage you strongly to give up this tactic of pretending either Craig or myself fails to grasp reality. It would be insulting if it wasn't so pathetic. To presume in such a way is a level of arrogance you haven't the status, knowledge or justification to exhibit.
moving on to your next half...
So since we've eliminated the notion that y'all are intentional trolls, we're left with the reality that y'all don't understand reality.
You read words and don't understand them correctly. You don't understand, and you don't ask for clarification. When offered clarification, you still don't understand. And that is where we are.
Good luck.
I think we can agree that Dan is less likely to interpret Scripture literally than most people. Given that, what does it tell us when he clings to a wooden, literal interpretation of certain words?
Ahhhh, Dan has now estimated himself as the final arbiter of “reality, understanding, and clarity”. It’s always interesting when someone projects their own behavior on to others, then complains incessantly about the others.
"First of all, as you note, your list is incomplete, it leaves off Jesus' specific statement that he said he had been ANOINTED by God to preach good news to the poor.
Why did they leave that one off, one wonders?"
I don't know. I found something else that suggests 100 reasons why He came. I thought it would have been a bit wordy, so I went with the link I presented. But why did it need to include the specific statement of YOUR preference when it had other specific statements? I suggest you contact the author and ask him yourself.
"But WHICH ONE of those are THE REASON? Or are they all reasons he came and why those and not to preach to the poor?"
Considering there may indeed be as many as 100 reasons (maybe more? I've never counted personally), it seems more than merely possible that none can be presented as THE reason based on how Christ expressed any of them. That is, no place that He says, "I know I mentioned other reasons why I came, but THIS one is THE reason above all others." But if the "good news" is the Kingdom of God, how do we who are undeserving get a piece of that action without Christ taking on our sins and paying the price instead of us? So my money's on Easter Weekend. THAT'S why He came.
"You're just being whimsical and haphazard in what you choose to try to take literal and what not, from where I sit."
Clearly you need to find a chair with a better view. But again, you have a kindergarten understanding of "literal" in relation to Biblical study and understanding.
"As to your claim that Jesus was mistaken when he said that he'd come to preach good news to the poor (or that he shouldn't be taken literally when he says that)... Says who? Just because YOU DON'T LIKE taking it literally doesn't mean we shouldn't."
First, I NEVER said Jesus was mistaken about anything. I said YOU were mistaken about what Jesus said. By that, once again, I mean not the specific words He used, but what He meant when He used them. It's called "context" with serious and scholarly translation of the ancient language in support. Hardly whimsical and haphazard. In any case, you demonstrate the very level of misunderstanding of which you accuse Craig and I...except that yours comes much closer to a purposeful lie, given how easy it would have been to copy and paste where I said Jesus was mistaken had I actually said that.
So anyway, I AM taking Christ's words literally. YOU'RE taking them superficially. If He said, "that dog won't hunt", you'd be wondering what breed.
continuing...
Just for me people who come here who are able to understand word meanings and stuff, I don't take the Bible literally. It's not a literal history book or a literal rulebook either one.
I do, however, take it seriously. Especially the teachings of Jesus.
And in taking the teachings of Jesus seriously, I see that clearly according to probably most scholars (although I do not know that) and just the plain meaning of the text, the Jesus repeatedly talked about the wealthy and the poor.
When he said blessed are you who are poor, there's no indication that he meant anything other than those were literally poor. When he said woe to you who are rich, there's no reason to think that he did not mean the literally rich. When Mary was singing about the mighty bring brought down and the poor lifted up, there is no reason to think that she meant anything other than the literal poor and the little rich and Powerful. When James the Apostle wrote about, "is it not the rich who oppress you, who take you to court..." there's no indication that he did not mean the literal Rich. None of it makes sense in context to try to spiritualize or make metaphorical these texts which are clearly talking about the literal Rich.
So, all that being said, I do strive to take the Bible seriously and Jesus seriously. Thus, I take these texts for what they appear to mean to say.
"Again, historically, Jesus has most often, I suspect, been taken literally in these verses like the one mentioned and the passage in Luke 6. It just doesn't make any sense if you try to spiritualize it."
Again, historically, Jesus has been understood in a way you never seem to understand Him. The problem is what you suspect. What you suspect isn't evidence, "hard data" or worth much of anything standing by itself. It's...as you would say...whimsy. Nothing more. Further, I don't "try to spiritualize it". I simply study the passage without preconceived notions or desires to impose my 21st century understanding on the time of Christ. Christ made it a spiritual thing, as His concern was of God's will, the Kingdom and our souls, not our financial condition.
"What does that MEAN if it's not speaking to the literally rich? The "Spiritually rich..."?? What does THAT mean? Being spiritually rich sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing."
I explained this already. Poor in spirit is, generally speaking, recognizing one's need for God. There's no shortage of commentaries that explain this, most all saying basically what I've said here. So think of it this way: if there's a need, then one is without, that is, "poor". The need is filled by/with God. Thus, those who might be the opposite..."rich"...are those who see no need for God, or who feel they are all they need.
By YOUR reasoning, all wealthy people are worthy of nothing from God...because they've done well for themselves financially? How does THAT makes sense? Christ NEVER preached that all the wealthy should give away all their wealth. NEVER. Every admonition against wealth that YOU point out is toward those for whom their wealth replaces God in their hearts. So your understanding is infantile. It is NOT a literal understanding of the passage. It CANNOT make sense.
John Wesley on Luke 6...
In the following verses our Lord, in the audience of his newly-chosen disciples, and of the multitude, repeats, standing on the plain, many remarkable passages of the sermon he had before delivered, sitting on the mount. He here again pronounces the poor and the hungry, the mourners, and the persecuted, happy; and represents as miserable those who are rich, and full, and joyous, and applauded: because generally prosperity is a sweet poison, and affliction a healing, though bitter medicine. Let the thought reconcile us to adversity, and awaken our caution when the world smiles upon us; when a plentiful table is spread before us, and our cup is running over; when our spirits are gay; and we hear (what nature loves) our own praise from men.
Happy are ye poor — The word seems here to be taken literally: ye who have left al] for me. Matthew 5:3.
Jonathan Edwards on Wealth and Poverty and the Bible...
https://www.whatsbestnext.com/2014/08/11-objections-on-giving-to-the-poor-answered-by-jonathan-edwards/
Tertullian...
[On Luke 6:24: “Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort”] … Again, since the “woe” which has the rich in view is the Creator’s, it is not Christ, but the Creator, who is angry with the rich; and Christ approves of the rich’s claims—I mean, their pride and glory, their devotion to the world and neglect of God, for which they deserve that “woe” from the Creator. And surely this disapproval of the rich must proceed from the same [Christ] who has just now expressed approval of the indigent [Luke 6:20]. There is...
Augustine on the poor and the rich...
Augustine knew well the social circumstances of his people. As well as the rich minority, he knew the world of many beggars, the poor majority who suffered hunger and daily requested help from him. -- See Sermon 9: 19; Sermon 14: 1; Sermon 155: 5
God made the world for all, Augustine comments, but human pride seeks the accumulation of wealth. Although all have the same skin, all do not have the same dress. All were born naked, but now some swim in abundance while others do not have anything. -- See Sermon 39: 4; Sermon 61: 2; Sermon 177: 6-7
For that reason Augustine continually looked to the poorest. He even sold off the holy vessels of the church in order to be able to help the poor people.
http://www.augnet.org/en/works-of-augustine/his-ideas/2315-poverty-and-hunger/
I could go on and on, but church history certainly leans towards taking these passages to mean just what they say, and it is only the modern and wealthy who have spiritualized them into meaningless and godless pablum and twiddle away Jesus' message to a pathetic limp irrelevancy.
Take a church history class, man. Research what church history has to say about wealth and poverty. And start sometime before 1900, as I suspect (don't know, but suspect) that most of this allegorization of wealth and poverty is strictly a mostly modern phenomena.
Sigh. Craig, where in the hell do you think I said the gospel was exclusively for the poor?
IF it has happened, it would have to have been a typo or an autocorrect mistake, because I have been ENTIRELY CLEAR that I don't think this, I haven't said this and I don't mean this.
Do you recognize that reality?
The interesting thing about your link Art, is not that it isn’t exhaustive, it’s that it lists 20 odd specific quotes from Jesus about why He came into the world and none of them mention financial condition.
It’s abundantly and inarguably clear that the absolute best case is that “good news to the poor” is one of many reasons Jesus came. It clearly isn’t THE reason, nor is it the PRIMARY reason. The larger context of Jesus words make that clear.
One thing we know about scripture is that repetition sometimes indicates importance. I wonder if the reasons Jesus gave have been compiled in a way that we can see how many times He mentioned a particular reason.
For example, if “saving the world from sin”, is mentioned 10 times, and “good news to the poor” is mentioned 2 times, we could reasonably conclude that “good news to the poor” was not the “exclusive” reason Jesus came.
I’ll have to do a search after work.
Did Marshall just try to say that I am an inconvenient truth? I think he did. Or was it the Gospel of John that he finds to be the inconvenient truth?
It comes as no surprise that Craig and Marshall wish the poor were not at the center of the Gospel. Neither is it a surprise that they cannot conceive that Jesus himself was poor.
But Jesus was born poor. And made poorer in exile. He took on poverty with no place to lay his head. Dependent upon the support of others, including the rich, he did not accumulate riches nor a middle class home. For his disciples he took the working class, revolutionaries, political traitors, prostitutes, outcast short people. According to Marshall it wasn't destitute real lepers he healed - just spiritual lepers who could easily have been an upper level manager. According to Craig it wasn't impoverished real blind people he healed - just the spiritually blind who could easily have been an Uber driver making a living wage... or nearly so. It wasn't moneyless cripples and beggars he loved - just the old nagging club tennis injury, the teenage golf resort caddy.
Craig and Marshall tell us that Jesus made the rich and powerful to sit in the cheap seats in order to protect their profits and that that's probably where the good AC was blowing. That Jesus paid every worker the same despite the hours worked, well, only God can do that, right? We're not God. Minimum wage doesn't cover life's expenses? We'll always have uninsured among us. Marshall and Craig are among those upset that healing was done on Sunday.
Then, of course, Jesus rode in to Jerusalem on a donkey. Pretty low class. Set a poor man's feast of bread and wine. Ultimately, with thorns for a crown - very déclassé - he died in camaraderie with thieves.
Craig and Marshall want to say that all this wasn't about being born in a trough. It wasn't about emptying himself. It wasn't about making himself less than in order to reveal the actual waste of wealth, of false pride, of self worship, of power grabbing inhuman brutality.
This is no surprise. When one makes a book a God, one loses the truth that the book actually testifies about God.
"If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death...
I apologize, I misread your comment, you used the term “exclusively” as an example and I mis read it.
You claimed that Jesus came to preach “specifically” to the “poor”. Which is problematic, because He spend quite a bit of time bringing the “good news” to those not “poor”.
Again, I sincerely apologize for mis reading your comment. I’ll try to remove or edit my comments to eliminate my error as much as possible, as soon as possible.
"Just for me people who come here who are able to understand word meanings and stuff, I don't take the Bible literally. It's not a literal history book or a literal rulebook either one."
Both Craig and I understand well the meanings of words "and stuff" that you write...that is, except for "Just for 'me' people". I'm gonna say you're doing a cockney thing for some reason, but other than that... And it is both a literal history AND rule book. I don't recall God saying "I suggest you not murder...but it's not like it's a rule or nothin'". There are LOTS of rules for living a Christian life within the covers of the Bible...many you reject, some you follow and others you've made up.
"I do, however, take it seriously. Especially the teachings of Jesus."
VERY debatable. In fact, we're debating another aspect of that claim right now.
"And in taking the teachings of Jesus seriously, I see that clearly according to probably most scholars (although I do not know that) and just the plain meaning of the text, the Jesus repeatedly talked about the wealthy and the poor."
Again, you're confusing "plain meaning of the text" with the meaning of the words used to create the sentences in the text. I refer again to my hypothetical...if He had said, "that dog won't hunt" the plain meaning of that expression would not mean an actual dog and whether or not it will hunt. It would mean, "no, Dan. Your understanding is wrong."
So just because He mentions rich and poor, doesn't mean that He's always using those words in a literal way. Sometimes He does, and, more often than you have the courage and integrity to admit at this point, He does not. For the purpose of this discussion, it is the latter.
"When he said blessed are you who are poor, there's no indication that he meant anything other than those were literally poor."
There most certainly is. It's called "Matthew 5:3".
"When Mary was singing about the mighty bring brought down and the poor lifted up, there is no reason to think that she meant anything other than the literal poor and the little rich and Powerful."
Sure there is. Plenty of reason, especially given that there's no evidence of such being the case in the temporal world. Certainly not on any grand scale. It's still a spiritual thing. The Magnificat was also referenced in that link you never read.
"When James the Apostle wrote about, "is it not the rich who oppress you, who take you to court..." there's no indication that he did not mean the literal Rich."
There's no indication what he wrote about the rich has any relation to this discussion. It is another example of you conflating one thing with another to force your point. James is talking about favoritism...in this case showing it toward the rich because their rich. Nice, but desperate try. And here I wouldn't attempt to speak of the rich in spiritual terms because James isn't doing that in the way Jesus was in the passages under discussion here. Indeed, James IS talking about the materially wealthy and that one shouldn't play favorites with them because of it. It's about discrimination against the poor in favor of the rich. AS such, it's really not about the rich, but how one shouldn't treat rich and poor differently. Kind of an "equality under the law" kinda thing.
Thus, you need to find a real Biblical teacher if you wish to maintain that you study seriously and take Scripture seriously.
Which is problematic, because He spend quite a bit of time bringing the “good news” to those not “poor”.
Oh my God. Bless your poor little illiterate heart. I won't bother explaining because I just no longer think you're able to understand, at least not from me. Ask a trusted literate friend the difference between exclusive and specific. Hint: They're not synonyms.
Jesus Christ, save us from your followers!
It’s interesting that Dan is in selective in his appeals to “church history”, and the wisdom of the “modern” over the ancient. There are many tenets he clings tightly to (the OT as fictional myth being one) which are exclusively creations of the modern (postmodern) worldview.
Of course, when others point out the historic position of the Church on other matters, Dan dismisses it as an “appeal to numbers” logical fallacy.
Where, Dan’s selective quoting of people he otherwise disagrees strongly with, falls down is it’s limit’s, and lack of context.
Those widows weren't actual widows. They were just Trump's ex-wives and porn hook-ups with cushy hush pay money.
I agree, Dan. It's horrifying to have to go through a Cliff Notes summary of the Gospels to remind so-called *fundamental Christians of the actual story because they have sold their soul in forgetfulness to defend white supremacist brutality and their snake oil salesman.
Being literate, I know that “exclusive” and “specific” aren’t synonyms. You might have missed the fact that I never claimed they were.
I did point out that Jesus did not ever speak “specifically” to only the poor.
Can I assume that you’ve chosen not to accept my humble and sincere apology?
Of course, I think most people can recognize that when I'm citing church history, I'm doing so because Marshall (and Craig?? I haven't heard him clarify fully if all these references to the poor are somehow NOT REALLY the poor, just sorta, ya know, "poor" but not really poverty and wealth and all...) thinks he is speaking from a place of tradition and he just isn't.
He isn't taking the Bible literally.
He isn't taking the tradition church position.
He isn't taking these passages in context of what is clear and/or a context of the time.
He is, instead, relying heavily upon more modern church interpretations from predominantly more wealthy white men who have invented a gospel devoid of the message of grace and hope for the poor and marginalized as found throughout the Bible's pages.
I'm not asking him/y'all to take it literally or to take church history literally. I am asking that you be reasonable and responsible and more well-informed about the positions you take and recognize that it is mostly a modern wealthy white guy gospel you are advocating, not Jesus' gospel he came to preach, ACCORDING TO JESUS' WORDS, to the poor.
Dan, it might help if you were to properly understand my (and Art’s) position. Neither of us is suggesting that the Gospel is not intended for the materially poor. Neither of us is suggesting that Jesus did not come with good news for the poor.
What we’re suggesting (because the Bible is pretty clear), is that Jesus Gospel was for everyone. Rich,poor, Jew, gentile, prostitute, tax collector, Roman soldier, slave, free, Pharisee, zealot, leper, blind, lame, doctor,everyone regardless of material or ethnic status.
The Gospel isn’t specific or exclusive or anything else based on temporal categories.
The fact that you’ve chosen to present my (our) position as anything else is adds a needless degree of challenge to the conversation.
Your last comment is inadequate. It ignores your selective appeals to Church history and your embrace of modern/postmodern theological positions. It posits a tiny sample size (of theologians you disagree with on virtually every other topic), as a comprehensive study of Church history. Finally, it doesn’t support your that Jesus was preaching a gospel that was specific or targeted primarily to the materially poor.
No one is arguing that the Gospel isn’t for the materially poor. I’m not even arguing that “poor” can’t mean materially poor, I’m arguing that the text doesn’t demand only that interpretation and that the actions of Jesus and the early Chuch don’t match the notion that the gospel was “specifically” for the materially poor. I’m also suggesting that you can’t choose to take the sermon on the mount in a wooden literal sense, except for the “poor in spirit” reference.
Ultimately I’m suggesting that instead of your either/or (or close to), that I it’s more both/and, I’m also suggesting that your making a theological argument in a discussion of secular government policy.
Craig's scriptures:
"And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least [AND RICHEST] of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry [AND FAT] and you gave me no food, I was thirsty [AND AT A PARTY] and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger [AND THE TOAST OF THE TOWN] and you did not welcome me, naked [AND IN FURS] and you did not give me clothing, sick [AND SKIING IN ASPEN] and in prison [AND PRESIDENT] and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry [AND AT TAVERN ON THE GREEN] or thirsty [AND AT THE FOUR SEASONS BAR or a stranger [AND ON Fox News] or naked [AND IN A COAT THAT SAYS "I DONT CARE" or sick [AND AT THE SUPERBOWL] or in prison [AND THE Oval Office], and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least [AND RICHEST] of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment [WELL, NOT REALLY], but the righteous into eternal life [WITH LOCK-HER-UP-FLYNN]”
What I'm saying is that JESUS specifically identifies specifically the poor and marginalized as the ones he came to preach good news to, at least in these passages in question.
I'm further pointing out that there is no contextual data to suggest that he was being metaphorical.
I'm further pointing out that this has been the traditional understanding throughout church history.
I'm further pointing out that the wish to make these passages metaphorical is mostly an invention of wealthy modern white men.
The traditional black church history and understanding, by way of contrast, would not have a need or desire to make these metaphorical, nor would the struggling poor across the world.
Do you recognize all those realities?
And yes, I appreciate it when people recognize and acknowledge their mistakes. Thanks for that.
I’ve deleted, I believe, all of the comments where my only point was my misunderstanding of your comment. I’m prepared to go through the rest of my comments and edit them, but I’m unaware of a way to accomplish that and keep them in context.
I hope that perhaps my comment removal, explanation, and apologies will be sufficient.
Excellent representation of the problem, Feodor!
Craig's Scriptures:
"Are you the Messiah, or should we be expecting someone else?”
“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind [WELL... REALLY JUST MY PERSOL BIFOCALS] receive sight, the lame [WORN OUT LAND'S END BOAT SHOES] walk, those who have leprosy [DANDRUFF] are cleansed, the deaf [CAN'T HEAR MSM] hear, the dead [LIBERALS] are raised, and the good news [CAPITALISM] is proclaimed to the poor [A LITTLE, BUT MOSTLY RICH CABINET MEMBERS FLYING ON TAXPAYERS DIME TO EAT IN North Carolina]. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble [OR STOP PLAYING GOLF] on account of me.”
Craig's scriptures:
"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, “Who touched me?”... When the woman saw that she could not remain hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. He said to her, “Daughter, if you lie for me, I'll see you get a pardon.”
Craig's scriptures:
“A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ "Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’
The servant came back and reported this to his master.
Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor [AND THE RICH], the crippled [AND THE MIDDLE CLASS], the blind [AND THOSE ACCUSED OF RAPE] and the lame [AND SAUDI PRINCES].’
Craig's scriptures:
"“But woe to you who are rich [BUT ONLY IN CHINA]
for you have received your consolation.
“Woe to you who are full now [BUT ONLY IN New York]
for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who are laughing now [BUT ONLY YOU TASSELED LOAFER HOLLYWOOD TYPES]
for you will mourn and weep."
Craig's gospel parable is about Lazarus and the rich man [BEING A DEMOCRAT WAS THE REAL PROBLEM, NOT BEING RICH].
Running out of time, but to respond to your comment of December 7, 2018 at 8:41 AM:
Wesley quote is rather incomplete, not really addressing either of our positions to any great effect. But one thing that is clear is that even in his comment, one cannot assume that all rich and poor are consistently good or evil, greedy or generous, saved or not. Thus, it does not truly serve you as an example of a prominent Christian from history proving your understanding of "Blessed are the poor" from Luke.
The John Edwards piece---I did two cursory searches through the link and did not find that particular quote of Matt 5:3, which in any case is incomplete, so it doesn't help your case.
Tertullian---this too fails to truly address the meaning of "rich" or "poor" as we are debating them here, but this bit does suggest a more spiritual aspect of even an actual rich dude as you have in mind---"I mean, their pride and glory, their devotion to the world and neglect of God," One needn't be wealthy to be possessed of these traits, so it tends to support my position...that it isn't really dealing with the materially rich or poor.
Augustine plainly appears to be addressing material poverty, so it also fails to support your position.
Keep in mind, the point here is whether or not the particular verses in question refer to the materially poor ("Blessed are the poor" -Luke, and "bringing good news to the poor" -mentioned more than once). Thus, you continue to defend your position with that which doesn't relate to the debate between us. I don't need verses insisting that Christians are to be charitable and caring of the poor and needy. That is NOT at issue here.
There's hardly anything "irrelevant" about the poor in spirit. What an arrogant thing to say! A filthy rich Christian can still be poor in spirit. A $10 an hour "Christian" can be a pompous ass who thinks he's all that. Which of the two is "blessed" according to either version of the Beatitudes in your non-humble opinion?
"Take a church history class, man. Research what church history has to say about wealth and poverty. And start sometime before 1900, as I suspect (don't know, but suspect) that most of this allegorization of wealth and poverty is strictly a mostly modern phenomena."
I guess that would depend upon who is giving the church history class. But I don't need to know what it has to say about wealth and poverty, BECAUSE THAT AIN'T THE FREAKIN' ISSUE HERE!!!! The issue is whether or not the use of the word "poor" ALWAYS means the materially poor anywhere it is used in Scripture. I've provided that link you never read that explains why that is not the case, and not the case with regards the verses in question here. You should finally read it and then try to find something that contradicts it rather than adding any more verses, passages or dissertations that don't in the least address it.
Craig's scriptures:
The camel can go through the eye of a needle because, while a camel can be Arab, a camel can't be a muslim. The rich man, well... he shouldn't be muslim. Rich has nothing to do with it.
I never argued that the word poor always means literally poor. I'm saying in the passages we're speaking of, it clearly is speaking of the materially poor.
I've never argued that the poor are always good nor that the wealthy are always bad.
Marshall's faith: leave the poor and destitute alone; it's the gays we gotta cure.
Seriously, Dan, the two of them and people like them cannot accede to mere humanity because they are sick in the head. They've spent years abusing their conscience. You can delete this, but it's true. And we are in a truth telling time because we see how silence sets everyone up for waves of cresting brutality.
Nor can they accede to mere Christianity because they have spent years not listening to what they read. It's an ingrained habit which they choose to make more painful to quit than the discomfort it takes to learn to love others.
My point to you, Feodor, is that I prefer and think it best not to guess at their motivations and intentions... or at least not to presume I KNOW what their intentions are. Suffice to say, "when you say Up is Down..., you're just mistaken."
After years and, what, 2,3 million words. Guessing isn't involved. Fairly accurate impressions repeatedly made manifest one that amount of time and conversation is pretty much how love, friendship, and psychotherapy works. I'm not saying that love, friendship, and psychotherapy is always accurate. But neither is a well wound wristwatch.
I do realize those things. I also realize that it’s intellectually dishonest to take these 2/3 “I came to...” passages in a literal manner while ignoring or taking that other “I came to...” passsges as something other than literal.
You’ve made it clear the you believe that Jesus the gospel doesn’t (can’t) include any sort of atonement, yet Jesus clearly says otherwise.
Unless you want to play the Jesus Srminal magic pebbles game, you have no basis to prioritize certain of Jesus “I came to...” statements over others. Or you do, but haven’t shared your formula.
I honestly don’t think anyone is dogmatically saying these 2/3 passages can’t possible be relating to the materially poor. We are saying that it’s more rational to look at the context of all of the “I came to...” statements before making a dogmatic conclusion. We are saying that a consistent interpretive lens used to evaluate all of the “I came to...” statements is valuable. We are saying that you can’t argue that the 6ish scriptures on one topic aren’t enough to reach a conclusion, but 2 on another topic are.
In short, we’re talking about using consistent standards, of interpretation.
Wow Dan, way to take a principled stand. That’s very impressive, you were so firm and authoritative. Well done.
The problem is that, after all those words, THEY form conclusions as well. And their conclusions are generally factually wrong.
So, for consistency's sake, I prefer not to delve into motives, not authoritatively.
Craig hasn't been told his wound is fatal. He's still trying to lift the gun not realizing it's just straw in the dust.
You're quite the poet, F. Seriously.
This raises a question.
In the passage y’all hang so much on, Jesus is quoting/paraphrasing/referring to/announcing the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah.
That would seem to indicate Jesus stance on the OT, or at least that part of the OT.
Does Jesus use of that prophesy validate isiah as accurate? A prophet? Non myth?
Does or could the fact that Jesus concludes this scripture reading with “Today this prophecy is fulfilled in your presence.”, indicate that Jesus point wasn’t so much about “the poor” specifically as it was about Himsrlf and His credentials?
I’m curious if y’all have ever thought past the simplistic/surface interpretation and dug a little deeper.
You prefer not to delve into motives, but do. You prefer consistency, but don’t practice it. You prefer not to do those things, but won’t really stop others who do.
Got it.
I've given you 25 or more passages, Craig. That you try to lie and say it's one is not surprising.
I hang my hat on a superstructure of things. All of them. And all of us. And all of our best thinking. And the living Christ. As far as language, goes, since language is a symbolic tool, you and I are communicating altogether in mythic conceptions. You're a mythic text to me and I to you. Deal with it.
And when you can conceive of a God who is unbossed by the useful symbolic word, shit - or admit what Jesus means when he says, ἀκαθαρσίας - then you may have made a start beyond the primitive.
Yes. And all the OT, leading up to that moment.
Clearing out all the brilliance and idiocy that fills out this post, Dan originally refers to the Nativity stories.
That Jesus is born in a feeding trough is vital symbolism for the interpretive purposes of Luke and Matthew. They want to make sure that we get that Christ came poor, unwelcome as Dan mentions. Far from home and among strangers, as Dan mentions. And then, immediately as the text goes, under threat.
We are to get that the Incarnation of God is constituted not just by the Son taking human flesh, but taking humble human station. And hated by the rich and powerful. The good news of love is a threat to human power and possession.
Christ, on earth, is poor and loving.
If a Christian does not begin here, the Christian has not yet begun to read with understanding.
All this raises another question for Dan, who was Jesus? Was he literally the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity? Was he just an inspired human?
And for you: was he white?
Craig, you keep laboring under some consistent mistakes. Many.
But just fyi: I've never said that the entirety of the OT was likely written in a mythic style. It simply wasn't.
I've said that it was all written prior to the advent of modern history telling, as commonly accepted by historians, and it was.
Parts of Genesis are written in a clearly mythic style, given the common tropes of what makes up a myth. And it is.
Other parts of Genesis and other OT books were written in a more Epic or Legendary manner, many/most literary scholars would agree.
None of which makes the OT "untrue" or "false" or composed of falsities. It just means it appears to be a product of its time, and why wouldn't it be? It's not like we would expect stories that were begun in ~2000 BC to be written in a modern scientific manner. That would be suspicious. Of course, stories that were told then were told in the manner that stories were told then. Just like stories that are told today are told in the manners that stories are told today.
You REALLY appear to get personally offended and hung up by the notion that the OT was written in the styles of the day, but it's not clear why.
So, given that and to answer your questions...
Does Jesus use of that prophesy validate isiah as accurate? A prophet? Non myth?
As "accurate..."? Would depend on what you mean by that. Does it mean that Isaiah was a literal person? We don't know definitively. I suspect he was.
Does it mean Jesus thought of him as a real person? I don't know, I imagine he did.
Does it mean that he thought the stories told about Isaiah were told in a 18th-21st Century style of deliberate and accurate history telling? I don't know, but doubt it seriously, because why would he?
Does he treat Isaiah as a prophet? Yes, as do I.
Does he treat Isaiah as a myth? I don't know that people thought about stories in terms of "myths" back then, so I just don't know. I don't think of Isaiah's stories as mythic, they don't fit that style.
Does or could the fact that Jesus concludes this scripture reading with “Today this prophecy is fulfilled in your presence.”, indicate that Jesus point wasn’t so much about “the poor” specifically as it was about Himsrlf and His credentials?
I don't think so. Or, more precisely...
I'd say that when Jesus said that he'd been anointed to preach good news to the poor, Jesus meant that he'd been anointed to preach good news to the poor.
I'd say that when he cited Isaiah, he was establishing his credentials, as you say... he was doing so by way of appealing to traditions and teachings with which the people were familiar to say that his teachings were in line with those teachings... As from the beginnings of all the stories of God and God's people, God has expressed concern specifically for the poor, the stranger, the marginalized... and that his teachings were in line with that great tradition.
Because that's literally what the text says and it seems straightforward enough.
As to who Jesus was, I believe he was the son of God. I don't know that he thought of himself as the "second person of the Trinity," as he never taught that, but by modern understandings of God's triune nature, that's fine with me to consider him such.
FYI, given your lack of precision in identifying exactly which parts of the OT fall into your various categories means I tend to use myth as a general term to indicate your dismissal of (by and large) the accuracy of the OT.
Having said that, the point of my comment/still remand remyunaddtessed. I guess that is an answer of sorts.
I’m not personally offended by your particular hunches about the nature of the OT, I’m curious about the question I asked.
I’m also curious about why “Church history” can be offers by you as “proof”, but if I was to point out the fact that Church history doesn’t agree with your hunches, you’d ridicule the notion.
Now that I’ve dealt with that bit of digression, I’ll see where things go.
I didn’t have time to read all of that lengthy dissertation in detail, but I will at some point. I will move it, that your last paragraph about who Jesus was is anything but definitive. You leave your self so much wiggle room, and so many escape routes, that I’m not sure exactly what you mean.
FYI, given your lack of precision in identifying exactly which parts of the OT fall into your various categories means I tend to use myth as a general term to indicate your dismissal of (by and large) the accuracy of the OT.
To help you understand my actual position: I do NOT "dismiss the accuracy of the OT." I consider them to be stories told in precisely the manner of the day that the authors wrote in.
If someone tells a parable about flying sheep and in telling the story, gets something "wrong" about sheep as known by scientists (that they fly, for instance), that doesn't mean the parable is not accurate. It's a parable and, presuming the parable is told well, done precisely right, not "inaccurately..." IF the parable went on to say, "and all sheep in the real world DO fly as a point of scientific fact..." then THAT would be inaccurate, but not if they merely cited flying sheep in the parable.
Do you understand the distinction?
I'm also curious about why 'church history' can be offers by you as 'proof...'
You misunderstand. I'm NOT citing church tradition as proof that the texts were talking about literal poverty and wealth. I'm citing church tradition to remind Marshall that this IS church tradition, that I'm not speaking about some crazy modern liberal idea that when Jesus said, "woe to you who are wealthy..." that he was speaking of literally rich people.
Now do you understand?
"Do you understand the distinction?"
Yes, of course I do. You expect very little of the OT to accurately reflect actual events, so you don't "dismiss" the accuracy you just start from the position that it isn't an accurate representation of events.
"Now do you understand?"
Yes, I understand that you're offering "church history" to make your point, while ridiculing others when they do the same.
I note that you've chosen not to increase the precision with which you identify the sections of the OT and how you classify them.
"As "accurate..."? Would depend on what you mean by that."
At this point, I'm referring to "accurate" in terms of the prophecy. In other words, is Jesus presenting the prophecy and the fact the fulfilled the prophecy as a something that actually happened? To put it another way, was Isaiah's prophecy an actual instance of him accurately foretelling actual future events accurately and did Jesus know of the prophecy and consider Himself the fulfillment of the prophecy?
"Does it mean that Isaiah was a literal person?"
Although that wasn't my point, it is germane. Because if Isiah wasn't a real person who prophesied a real, accurate prophecy, then doesn't it make Jesus a liar?
"Does it mean Jesus thought of him as a real person?" You seem to be suggesting that Jesus (who you refer to as the "son of God"), wouldn't know if Isiah was a real person. I guess that raises questions about what you mean when you say "son of God" as well as about Jesus nature and His relationship with the Father.
"Does it mean that he thought the stories told about Isaiah were told in a 18th-21st Century style of deliberate and accurate history telling?" Once again, this raises questions about your view of the nature of Jesus, that I'm not sure what to do with.
"Did he treat Isaiah as a prophet" What does "treat Isiah like a prophet mean exactly? Does it mean that his prophecies were accurate? Direct revelations from God? If so, doesn't that validate the book of Isiah as rising above "myth" or legend or whatever?
Does he treat Isaiah as a myth? Maybe a better question is, "Does He treat Isiah as someone who accurately communicated God's revelation?"
Again, it's hard to understand without some more insight into your view of Jesus" nature and His relationship with the Father.
You expect very little of the OT to accurately reflect actual events, so you don't "dismiss" the accuracy you just start from the position that it isn't an accurate representation of events.
So, no, you don't understand.
"Now do you understand?"
Yes, I understand that you're offering "church history" to make your point, while ridiculing others when they do the same.
So, no, you don't understand. That's literally not what I'm doing.
Because if Isiah wasn't a real person who prophesied a real, accurate prophecy, then doesn't it make Jesus a liar?
No, it literally doesn't.
Like that. Etc, etc.
You just don't understand where or how or when you're wrong and I'm not helping you.
Good luck.
"I'd say that when Jesus said that he'd been anointed to preach good news to the poor, Jesus meant that he'd been anointed to preach good news to the poor."
Are you suggesting that you attach zero significance to the fact that He was claiming to be the One that Isiah prophesied? No significance to the fact that this is His first public claim of Him being the Messiah? None? Your suggesting the He was simply announcing who His target market was and what His topic was going to be, correct?
"I'd say that when he cited Isaiah, he was establishing his credentials, as you say... he was doing so by way of appealing to traditions and teachings with which the people were familiar to say that his teachings were in line with those teachings... As from the beginnings of all the stories of God and God's people, God has expressed concern specifically for the poor, the stranger, the marginalized... and that his teachings were in line with that great tradition."
Are you suggesting that He was merely trying to establish His credentials as someone who was simply one more rabbi teaching the orthodox Jewish party line? Are you suggesting that He wasn't trying to establish anything more significant that that? You seem to be suggesting that the "stories" you refer to (technically this is a fulfilled prophecy, not merely a story, but whatever) were not considered to be accurate representations of past events? If, as your hunch seems to suggest, Jesus was trying to establish His credentials as part of the ongoing history of the Jewish/Hebrew people, why would He appeal to something that He presumably knew to be inaccurate?
"Because that's literally what the text says and it seems straightforward enough."
So you attach great significance to the part about "preaching to the poor etc, but stop attaching significance at the point where He claims to be the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
(A side note. You may not believe that the Isiah prophecy was actually prophecy. You may not believe that it was specifically Messianic prophecy. But, that's simply applying your 21st century non Jewish interpretive lens to something that doesn't fit your worldview. What we need to consider is how this claim appeared to a first century Jew. As we know, Jesus claims to be the Messiah were not received well by the Jews.)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it's just possible that the claim that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of Isiah, just might have been pretty significant to His audience. Perhaps more significant than simply repeating things they'd already heard. If you were to give the rest of the chapter the same emphasis you give your snippet, you'd find that the folks in the synagogue weren't particularly pleased with His claim.
"As to who Jesus was, I believe he was the son of God."
Well, that's a nice biblical, christiany sounding answer, but what do you mean by the term?
"I don't know that he thought of himself as the "second person of the Trinity," as he never taught that, but by modern understandings of God's triune nature, that's fine with me to consider him such."
Of course he wouldn't necessarily expressed it that way, and I'm not sure that "that's fine to consider Him such" really sheds any light.
Let's try it this way?
Taking into account Jesus words and claims, His miracles, and the authority He was recorded as having, would you say that Jesus was God incarnate?
Or.
What would you say was Jesus precise relationship to YHWH?
Or.
Was Jesus merely a human with something unique about him, or was He something else entirely?
"I'm not helping you."
That may be the most accurate, clear, and honest thing you've said in quite some time.
One wonders if it's a matter of you being intentionally vague, and imprecise, or if you're simply stating that fact that won't help. One further wonders why, if you seriously want to be understood, you are so unwilling to actually out forth the effort to get what you claim you want.
1. You've been quite adamant that you consider parts of the OT to by "myth", "epic", and various other genres. You have also been quite clear that you believe that there was some point in history where the telling of history changed from a style of history that wasn't particularly factual (myth, epic, legend) to a point where the accurate recording of actual events became the norm. Yet, you've never precisely defined what that point is. So, while you want to quibble about semantics, the fact remains that you do not consider the OT historical books to accurately record actual events in a manner that would give us confidence that the events actually took place.
2. In this particular case, you have two problems.
2A. If Jesus referred to and Treated Isiah as a real, actual person who really lived and really wrote what was attributed to him, knowing that Isiah did not exist or did not write the works attributed to him, then by definition Jesus was lying.
2B. If Jesus accurately characterized the existence of, and the accuracy of Isiah's writings, then one would think that that might suggest a degree of validation for that part of the OT.
Again, your lack of willingness to precisely define what sections of the OT are what genre, and your inability to draw a precise line between the "fake news" version of history, and the accurate telling of history make it difficult to discuss these topics. Of course your refusal to help, is it's own kind of problem.
Of course, if Jesus wasn't anything but a run of the mill human rabbi, then none of this makes any difference.
Again, thank you for your clear and honest statement regarding your unwillingness to help.
Craig, I can answer your questions, but if you can't understand them (and just look at your last batch of responses to which I responded... you were like zero for six or something like that in accurately understanding my clear words), what good is there.
For instance...
You have also been quite clear that you believe that there was some point in history where the telling of history changed from a style of history that wasn't particularly factual (myth, epic, legend) to a point where the accurate recording of actual events became the norm. Yet, you've never precisely defined what that point is.
I have been quite clear that I'm citing historians who generally consider the era of modern history telling with an emphasis on linear, factual histories to have begun in the period of 500 BC - 500 AD.
PRIOR to that, there are simply no historical stories that appear to be told in this more modern style. You almost certainly agree with any and all other histories besides biblical ones, am I right?
DURING that time, you see a beginning of stories being told in this more modern style.
AFTER that time, you see histories more regularly told in this more modern style.
There wasn't ONE DAY that the change happened and I never said that.
Do you understand that reality?
Given that there was not ONE DAY where there was The Great Change, I can't be precise, can I? Do you understand that?
But also given ALL the other historical written histories that are available, you almost certainly would agree that ALL OTHER non-biblical texts do not appear to be written in the modern factual style. You want to say, then (it would appear), that The biblical authors opted for a style that just wasn't around in that time anywhere else.
Why would they do that?
Because God wanted it that way? Says who?
Because God was ABLE to do it that way? Okay, but then, God COULD HAVE made the authors record a literally scientific history with hard data and proven research... but God didn't. Why do you think God didn't give us a story in a style that fit our modern sensibilities?
Think it through a bit, maybe the answer will come to you.
But you see, I can answer your questions in such a way that is precise and clear as it can be. And yet, you almost certainly won't understand all my answers. After nearly a decade, give or take, you don't understand my answers. Why would it change now?
For instance, I HAVE pointed to the 1000 year window that scholars and historians identify as the time period where modern history telling came into being, slowly replacing older ways of recording history. But did you understand that? If so, then why are you asking that I "precisely define when that point is..."?
I'm NOT refusing to try to help. I'm saying I've tried to help you understand and you only seem to be getting further and further away from actually understanding my actual points. So, given the definition of crazy (doing the same thing in the same way over and over and it not working, only to try it again...), how is it helpful for me to answer you yet again?
As to your questions about what I think about Jesus' Godhood, I don't think I mean anything exceptional or odd. Just what Jesus said, I believe.
"Before Abraham was, I am"
I believe that.
"Anyone who has seen me has seen God... Don’t you believe that I am in God, and that God is in me?"
I believe that.
When Peter answered who he thought Jesus was, the exchange went like this...
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered him,
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
I believe that.
I believe that Jesus is and was God, everlasting to everlasting, so far as I can tell.
Jesus also referred to himself as a "son of Man," and did so very frequently (~60-70 times).
I believe that, although I certainly don't know the mechanics of his childbirth and don't know that I think he was literally the biological son of A man (Joseph).
So, in short and to be very precise, I believe what Jesus said about himself and his relationship with God and with humanity, although he certainly sometimes spoke metaphorically. I would not affirm as a fact anything BEYOND what Jesus said about himself (i.e., what some humans may claim about Jesus), but I do believe what he said about himself.
"I have been quite clear that I'm citing historians who generally consider the era of modern history telling with an emphasis on linear, factual histories to have begun in the period of 500 BC - 500 AD."
Yet, I can't recall you actually ever "citing" anyone specific. Maybe you could do so now. I also remember citing several instances of historians who disagree with this contention.
But, your still focusing on literary style, not content.
"PRIOR to that, there are simply no historical stories that appear to be told in this more modern style. You almost certainly agree with any and all other histories besides biblical ones, am I right?"
1. I'll have to do the research again, but I've previously posted sources that demonstrate accurate portrayals of historical events prior to the dates you've claimed.
2. The Bible has been considered to be something beyond merely a secular history. While it can't be proven to your skeptical, variable, standard it seems possible that an all powerful God who wanted to communicate a specific and accurate message to those who followed Him might not be limited to the stylistic conventions of humanity.
"Do you understand that reality? Given that there was not ONE DAY where there was The Great Change, I can't be precise, can I? Do you understand that?"
Given that I've never asked you to provide "one day", I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to explain your failure to do something you've never been asked to do. What I have hoped for is some higher degree of precision in defining which parts of the OT (and given your 1000 year range for the big change) and the NT fall into the particular literary genres, and what parts accurately reflect reality.
"But also given ALL the other historical written histories that are available, you almost certainly would agree that ALL OTHER non-biblical texts do not appear to be written in the modern factual style. You want to say, then (it would appear), that The biblical authors opted for a style that just wasn't around in that time anywhere else."
I hate to repeat this, but I'm not talking about literary style, I'm talking about content or substance. I'm suggesting that accurately recording events, is completely unrelated to literary style. I know your obsessed with style over substance here, but it shouldn't be that hard to acknowledge the difference.
"Why would they do that?"
Why wouldn't they? Is there any indication that the Hebrews ever engaged with other cultures enough to adopt there literary styles? If YHWH exists, and communicated directly to the authors, why wouldn't they bother to accurately record His words?
"Because God wanted it that way? Says who?"
That's a great question. I have no reason to think you'll honestly consider any answer I might give, so I won't waste me time.
Of course, you can't support a claim that God didn't want it that way either. Nor can you definitively say that the writers of the OT did strictly hold to the literary conventions of other cultures.
"Because God was ABLE to do it that way?"
That's a great question. Was God able to have the writers of the Bible accurately record events as they actually happened? If He was, then why wouldn't He?
"Okay, but then, God COULD HAVE made the authors record a literally scientific history with hard data and proven research... but God didn't."
Lets start with your last claim "but God didn't". That's quite a claim. That's you literally claiming that you know to some degree of certainty what God did or didn't do. It's probably unrealistic to ask that you offer proof of your claim. The problem you'd have in proving your claim, is that all you have for "evidence" is what other writers in other cultures did, and the assumption that the Bible writers in the Hebrew culture acted in precisely the same ways you believe other cultures acted. That's an assumption, not proof. I can't believe that accurately recording actual events as they actually happen isn't a function of "science". Given the inaccuracies of even the most modern science, I'd be hesitant to tie accuracy and science together too tightly. But beyond that, when someone tells you what they saw, it's not a question of science, it's a question of honesty and accuracy. You've essentially imposed a completely unrealistic category of reporting history. You're claiming that for history to count, it must be reported to some undefined "scientific" standard, that no one in the real world operates under.
Have you ever seen a scientist in a courtroom verifying the accuracy of witness testimony to some sort of scientific standard? (since polygraphs aren't accurate enough to be admitted into evidence, I'd say that the legal system actually distrusts the "science" more than human memory)
"Why do you think God didn't give us a story in a style that fit our modern sensibilities?"
I think God gave us a "story" that was and is timeless. He communicated in a way that isn't bound by time period or literary style. I believe He gave us His story that is like Him in that it, and He< transcend literary convention and time period. I think that He realized that He was communicating for the rest of history and communicated in a way that wasn't limited.
"For instance, I HAVE pointed to the 1000 year window that scholars and historians identify as the time period where modern history telling came into being, slowly replacing older ways of recording history. But did you understand that? If so, then why are you asking that I "precisely define when that point is..."?"
Again, I'll point out that I've not asked you that question, which raises questions about why you've gone to such lengths to talk about a question I haven't asked, as opposed to answering questions I have asked. I could also point out that I've never actually seen any actual citations of specific people who have proven this claim scientifically.
"I'm NOT refusing to try to help."
Really? When you say "I'm not helping you.", it sure sounds like your "refusing". But that's just me interpreting your words, phrases, and sentences according the normal, standard English language usage.
I can't help but wonder if this whole digression about literary style, is simply to avoid having to deal substantially with how Jesus interacted with the prophesy of Isiah.
"Jesus also referred to himself as a "son of Man," and did so very frequently (~60-70 times)."
Given your extensive study of scripture, I'm sure you realize that the term "Son of Man' is a term used in the OT to identify the Messiah.
"I believe that, although I certainly don't know the mechanics of his childbirth and don't know that I think he was literally the biological son of A man (Joseph)."
1. This is incoherent. You seem to be suggesting by your use of double negatives that you believe that Jesus was the biological offspring of both Joseph and Mary. Could you clarify?
I'm curious about your affirmations about what you believe about Jesus. If you believe everything you've pointed out, then why would you be equivocal about Jesus knowledge of Isiah's existence and of the accuracy of Isiah's writings. Surely someone who WAS before Abraham would be aware of one of the major prophets of Israel, wouldn't He? Surely if Jesus was God, and if God inspired or "breathed" scripture, then wouldn't He know what was in the scripture He inspired?
"So, in short and to be very precise, I believe what Jesus said about himself and his relationship with God and with humanity, although he certainly sometimes spoke metaphorically. I would not affirm as a fact anything BEYOND what Jesus said about himself (i.e., what some humans may claim about Jesus), but I do believe what he said about himself."
If the above is true, then would you agree that one way to determine Jesus" purpose in coming to earth would be to look at all of the statements He said (presuming you're willing to stipulate that the statements attributed to Him are accurately recorded), and to assign some degree of weight to the number of times He gave a particular reason for His reasons for coming?
Craig opining on near eastern literature like the Hebrew Bible (which takes its place as examples of genres among other examples from 4,5,6 near eastern cultures) is not exactly fun to read but it is laughable. There is so much in common among them. There are Psalms patterned after Egyptian hagiographies.Craig can be heartened, however, to know that the role of Hebrew prophets compared to other cultural prophets, and the purpose of Hebrew prophetic literature seem to be original. Sadly for him, though, the Hebrews appear to have been Canaanites who simply veered religiously and never did get to Egypt by any means whatsoever.
And son of Man (rarely with a definitive article) in the Hebrew Bible refers to mortals or mankind as a whole in contradistinction to God; not the Messiah. “How much less, man who is a worm, and the son of man who is a maggot!"
The Son of Man (always with the definite article) in the NT is either unrelated or completely transformative.
I’m happy, though, that Craig has left behind his scattered efforts to remove the poor from the center of the Gospel message. It would have been decent of him to have admitted his error first and then acted on his well honed skills at diversion. Truthfulness and decency are always buried by his diversions. Being the whole point for him anyway.
"I'm NOT refusing to try to help."
Really? When you say "I'm not helping you.", it sure sounds like your "refusing". But that's just me interpreting your words, phrases, and sentences according the normal, standard English language usage.
As always, I'm sorry you didn't understand it, given the years of explaining I've done, that I'm NOT helping you. MY EXPLANATIONS are not helping you understand MY INTENT or THOUGHT or WORDS. This is just another example.
Given your constant not understanding, then, why would we continue?
It's almost as if this obsession with semantic minutia is either an admission that you aren't particularly good at expressing yourself, so convinced of your overall intellectual superiority that the rest of us just can't keep up, or you'd rather focus on semantic minutia instead of the other 99% of my comments.
But, as always, the amount of effort and thought you've invested is amazing.
One thing I see people do when others don’t understand them, is they try to explain things differently instead of simply repeating themselves.
Craig,
I can attest that Dan has indeed offered a name of some person who, at least to Dan's satisfaction, validates the claim of some ancient period where history was recorded in a manner that allows Dan to equivocate. I don't have the dude's name, but the point is that Dan did indeed offer one. That is, "ONE", as in, no more than that. Since then, he's defaulted to "scholars and historians" as if it is some community of unknown number who agrees.
But as you say, style means nothing compared to accuracy of the events having happened. To that end, I offer the following:
"1. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology is reported to have said this about the Bible (referring to history, not spiritual teachings.)
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” (http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf.)
Here's part of a letter from the National Geographic
I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible. ~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C."
Art, I haven’t had time to do the search again, but I found multiple sources that indicate the there is plenty of accurately recorded history significantly earlier that the dates posited by Dan. I’ll post links when I find them.
I’ve searched for some substantiation of Dan’s claims and, so far, have been unable to find anything as definitive as he is.
I’d love to see some “hard proof” or “scientific evidence” that would support those claims.
I just did a quick search and found that there are written records dated about 5000 BC which detail accounts, listings of property and the like. Now, it seems reasonable that if some scribe counted Bob’s cows (in 5000 BC), then wrote down an accurate count, that we have accurate records of actual events being kept prior to 500 BC. But I could be wrong.
Again, quick search, but the consensus seems to be that keeping of “historical” records began with the formation of writing. Most things I’ve seen place that at of before 2000 BC. I’ve also found that most of these sources do not automatically discount the accuracy of oral history, but none of that really matters as much as the fact that I’ve seen nothing that indicates anything approaching 500 BC as being a point of any significance.
I am pleasantly surprised by Craig’s new found dedication to the evidence and investigations of archeology. This promises good things to come if he follows his God-created mind where it leads. He’s rejected the Creationist dating of the world - a mortal blow to trusting any part of the historicity of the Hebrew Bible prior to a possible king called David. I’m excited!
There have indeed always been historical writing. Prior to ~500 BC, it was historical writing told in a pre-modern style. Over the next 1,000 years, it moved to the more factual, linear modern style of historical writing.
Historical writing prior to 500 BC (other than the lists you mentioned) were not done with an emphasis on facts. Again, look at the history writings from that period. Was Gilgamesh written with an eye towards factual historical storytelling?
You are right that it's difficult to find material on it online. I'm just going by what I've read and researched in the past. Feel free to disprove it. I have seen nothing that disproves what I'm recalling from my previous readings.
I continue to find interesting your insistence on bringing up non-Jewish writings to support your position on the "factual" nature of the Biblical historical record. I have no interest in Gilgamesh and there is no good reason why it's existence should have any bearing on one's understanding and faith in the truth and accuracy of Scripture. More to the point, I have less interest in the intentions of the author of that tome, nor should anyone else who claims to be a believer in the God of the Bible, unless you're trying to insist the both stories are some equal level in accurately portraying the histories therein.
Furthermore, if there is no "emphasis on facts" in the OT "mythic style", which "facts" are actually not, in your opinion, and which are?
"I'm citing church tradition to remind Marshall that this IS church tradition..."
Really? Sez you. I insist that true church tradition concerning this matter is to debate whether or not "the poor" of the Lukan Beatitudes, the Magnificat and to whom Jesus brought the "good news" were actually materially poor or spiritually poor. Leftists lean to the former while the correct people lean to the latter.
Marshall: “I have no interest in Gilgamesh and there is no good reason why it's existence should have any bearing on one's understanding and faith in the truth and accuracy of Scripture.”
Asian myths have shared mythic motifs. Native Americans myths have shared mythic motifs. Germanic/Scandinavian myths have shared motifs. So, too, ancient near eastern literatures.
“The Epic of Gilgamesh, a literary product of Mesopotamia, contains many of the same themes and motifs as the Hebrew Bible. Of these, the best-known is probably the Epic’s flood story, which reads a lot like the biblical tale of Noah’s ark (Gen 6-9). But the Epic also includes a character whose story bears even more similarities to stories in the Hebrew Bible: Gilgamesh’s possession of a plant of immortality is thwarted by a serpent (compare Gen 3), he wrestles in the night with a divinely appointed assailant who proclaims the hero’s identity and predicts that he will prevail over all others (compare Gen 32:23-32), and he is taught that the greatest response to mortality is to live life in appreciation of those things which make us truly human (compare Eccl 9:7-10).
The Gilgamesh Epic was familiar in the biblical world: copies have been found at Megiddo, Emar, Northern Anatolia, and Nineveh. It shares many motifs and ideas (such as the Flood) with other ancient Near Eastern texts. Because of this, it is difficult to state with any certainty that the Epic directly influenced the stories of the Bible. For example, it was widely believed that dreams could be divinely inspired, cryptic forecasts of the future. So when Joseph dreamed of sheaves of corn and bowing stars (Gen 37:5-11), the author was probably not copying Gilgamesh’s oracular dreams. Likewise, the idea that it is mortality—the impetus behind Gilgamesh’s quest—that separates gods and humans is found in other Mesopotamian and Egyptian writings, as well as in Gen 3:22.”
Thanks Dan, you just acknowledged that there are factually accurate historical records recorded prior to 500 BC. Not surprisingly you now admit that you can’t actually prove your claim. I guess you expect us to just trust you, that you are exempt from having to prove your claims. Well done.
Art has already provided more evidence on this topic than you have. At one point I provided multiple links to evidence that contradicts you, but until I can find it, I’ll pass on making any claims.
I guess my suspicions might be closer to the mark than I thought.
Accurate historical records prior to 500 BC:
# of cattle
# of amphora with oil
# of amphora with garum
# of lbs of copper
# of tares of wheat
Nonhistorical narative myth motifs prior to 500 BC:
Cyclop giants
Talking serpents
World wide floods
God Kings
Men with dog heads
Again, I can point you to what I actually said, but I can't make you understand it or reality.
Good luck and Merry Christmas.
I realize what you actually said. You acknowledged accurately recorded history before you claimed it was possible. You acknowledged that you can’t actually prove the claim you’ve been asked to prove for years. You haven’t acknowledged the fact that Art has brought more evidence to this than you have.
Things don’t become true simply because you repeat them.
Like it or not, you made the claim of fact, the burden of proof is 100% on you.
Good luck with coming up with proof. I suspect we’ll see anything but proof.
Again, I can point you to what I actually said, but I can't make you understand it. Hint, I didn't say what you think I said. Look at the actual words. Good luck.
Craig failed in his attempts to remove the poor from the center of the Incarnation and the whole of Gospel narrative.
So he dodges admission and diverts to the rigorous historicity of the Hebrew Bible.
Failing to score there he dodges admission and diverts to the learned archeological record that keeping a record of bulls traded birthed the development of glyphs and hieroglyphs and cuneiform writings.
What did he want to show us? Something about scripture? Or that he’s not wholly stupid? No one thinks that a Craig is wholly stupid. But getting lost in his dodges and diversions testifies to a whole lot of other things about him.
Dan, maybe if you keep repeating yourself often enough it’ll become true.
I’d copy paste your quotes, but it wouldn’t matter.
I’ll start with this.
1. You made a specific claim of fact. You claimed that the accurate recording of events did not happen prior to 500BC.
2. You claimed that you had “cited” sources.
3. You then acknowledged that there was accurate recording of events 1500 years before you claimed it happened.
4. You acknowledged that you can’t actually find the sources you claimed because it was hard to find them. But you remember reading something from sometime in the past.
Craig, you are absolutely right that the event of receiving 20 bulls in tribute was accurately recorded 3,000 years ago. So was Hammurabi’s pay rate setting for an ox driver 1700 years ago.
Dan is right that Herodotus’ writings of the 5th century BC are the first to try to represent human affairs with investigative veracity and organization according to reality.
Can you guess what you were trying to say the first half of the Hebrew Bible was like: counting olives or describing battles? Probably not.
One wonders how many years ago it was that you read this one bit on information that you’ve remembered?
And which prize morsel did you look up in Wikipedia? Linear B? Ugaritic? Or did you not get that far this morning?
“...one bit of...”, not “...one bit on...”.
I’ll blame autocorrect.
Would you like book recommendations?
I've been wanting to get back to points discussed in this thread, but have been distracted by Dan deleting comments he can't honestly address at his newer post. Thus, I've begun re-reading all the comments here to find those that stood out as most worthy of rebuttal, correction and/or clarification. Not as daunting a task as one might think given the 189 comments posted, because as I've come to do by habit, I never read any comment from anyone named "feodor", unless I'm told he's decided to finally respond to questions he's never answered by the terms his infantile behavior has brought upon him. Still, there are a lot to read. I begin with this comment of Nov 30 @ 6:11 AM:
"When Jesus began his ministry, he said clearly that he'd come to preach good news TO THE POOR, the outcast, the sick, the imprisoned. Jesus made it clear that welcoming the stranger and siding with the poor was a core part of his message. He repeated the oft repeated message from the OT that we are to welcome strangers."
This prompted me to do some research regarding Christ's most common teachings. I found someone who did the work for me...a guy named James E. Smith. Never heard of him, but his results speak directly to this notion of Dan's feel-good claim:
"In the four Gospels there are 1,854 red letter verses in which Jesus is directly speaking. Of these 341 are comments that clearly have no direct teaching value. For example, Jesus often engaged in casual conversation with his disciples or with those in his audience. Removing these non-teaching verses left 1,513 verses to be analyzed.
I found that the Gospel of Matthew had the most red letter teaching verses both in terms of raw numbers (1,071) and percentage (55%) of the total material in the book. The top ten subjects addressed in the teaching of Jesus are these: eternal life and salvation (46 vv; 3.04%); prayer (48 vv.; 3.17%); persecution (54 vv; 3.57%); judgment and hell (61 vv; 4.03%); predictions, especially about his disciples and himself (67 vv; 4.43%); hypocrisy (73 vv; 4.82%); second coming (79 vv; 5.22%); fate of Jerusalem and the evil generation that rejected Jesus (119 vv; 7.87%); Jesus’ identity and mission (129 vv; 8.53%). The subject that Jesus spoke about most was the kingdom (159 vv; 10.51%)—its nature, entrance requirements and nearness. (emphasis mine)
For the record, I found sixteen verses which had the primary teaching emphasis on marriage and divorce (1.06%), and forty-three verses (2.84%) that addressed treasure and greed."
Now, it could certainly be said that somewhere in among these categories are the mentions of the poor and strangers. But to suggest they represent a "core part of His message" does not seem to be the case. To whatever extent He did speak on these things, they were not of primary concern with regard to why He came or I'd have to insist they'd be mentioned far more often than Smith's research has shown.
I also found this rather snarky piece. Note item #4.
There's also this, which concerns Christ's commands to His disciples.
Two of these I chose specifically due to the counts done by the authors with regards Christ's teachings and commands, so that my response to your comment is not just opinion, hunch and personal desire as your position clearly is.
The thing that Jesus talked about most, i read, is the Realm of God.
The thing that Jesus talked about second most was money - wealth, poverty and our relationship with money and how it impacts us.
https://patch.com/georgia/smyrna/jesus-talked-the-most-aboutmoney
All of it is talking about a Way. Jesus' Way. The Way of God, which is a Way of Grace. The realm of God is a realm of Grace where all are welcome and specifically and especially noted (by Jesus) were the poor, the marginalized, the ill (and in that society, oftentimes if you were marginalized (the stranger/foreigner, the widow, the orphan, etc) or ill, you were poor.
From your comment of Dec 4 @ 2:02 PM:
"Craig, you can clear it up by coming out and clearly denouncing what Feodor says you believe. But given that you appear to be, if not an ardent supporter of Trump, at least a flaccid passive acceptor of his perversions and atrocities, it just remains to be seen if you can stand with your more sturdy conservatives and clearly denounce CAGING CHILDREN. Clearly denounce TEAR GASSING women and children. Clearly denounce his unending and stupid lies, call them what they are and be done with it."
Regarding Trumps "perversions and atrocities"...your embrace of purposely inflamed rhetoric, as opposed to simple, objective and accurate depictions of that which you find problematic is no less than lying...which is quite pathetically ironic given your constant insistence that Trump's "lies" are so problematic, despite never pointing to one that has actually caused any harm whatsoever. Compared to Obama, Hillary and the Democratic Party you support...not to mention other ideologies...Trump's "lies" are incredibly insignificant and annoying at best. Not a defense of them, though you're sure to pretend it is such, but merely an accurate assessment of reality...of which you have no true grasp.
Re: "caging children". The phrase is dishonest, particularly in how it is constantly trumpeted as some kind of battle cry by people like Dan. The dishonesty comes not from the facility in which the kids are housed...it's hard not to view such a facility constructed of chain-link fencing as other than a cage...but from the play on emotions the lefties hope succeeds in their open borders agenda. That is to say, that agenda would be harder to push if the kids were housed in the luxury penthouses of Trump's swanky hotels. But the effect is the same. The kids are basically incarcerated in order to get through the process made worse by lax border enforcement since Reagan's mistaken amnesty, which he felt was necessary due to the disaster that was Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965", without which his amnesty wouldn't have been necessary and we'd likely not be discussing this now.
But "caging children"? There are a number of reasons why this practice is appropriate, and the deterrent effect on those considering entering the country improperly is indeed among them. But some of those kids came unattended. Others were held until those who brought them could be confirmed as their legal parents. Most all were held simply because the parents acted illegally in crossing as they did and our government rightly does not allow kids to be incarcerated with their arrested parents. So the real question is what to do with them? Again, penthouse suites wouldn't be good enough for the Dan Trabues of the country seeking to exploit any situation believed beneficial for demonizing Trump. He'd still find a way to pretend evil is being done, because lying is what he does...again, it's ironic.
Also ignored by Dan is the fact that the situation has long gotten out of hand and the means by which we process ANY immigrant to this country...those who do so according to our righteous and just immigration laws, as well as those who don't...is an overburdened one. So long as the tide is not mitigated, and they continue to come in such vast numbers, they will be herded to some extent. But putting them in areas sectioned off by chain link fencing isn't "treating them like animals". It also serves to protect them from the predators among them. And we all know how Dan feels about predators... at least when it serves his purposes.
more coming now...
In the spirit of Marshall's confession and investigation, I'm going to do the same. I confess I've been distracted by the consecutive concussive rounds from Mueller that could well lock up Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Paul Cohen, all three. Lock them all up, I say. Jared, Don Jr, and the orange monkey.
In terms of investigating scripture, I looked into who Jesus was - since Marshall investigated what he said - and have come up with some very discomforting findings:
Jesus wasn't white. And he doesn't appear to have acknowledged anyone white; certainly no one from northern Europe. And as Marshall can attest, he never once mentions northern Europe. There is cause to be scared about this for all of us.
Jesus wasn't a women. Dang. I don't think women are worthy except to serve. This is bad news for women. As Marshall can attest, he never once said anything about all of us being equal.
Jesus was bearded - almost certainly. As the custom seems to have been that all adult men wore beards, this is really tragic news for all those clean shaven men who, Marshall can attest, never got a mention in scripture. Thankfully, I expect my goatee to get me in.
Jesus wore sandals - almost certainly. We'd best move fast and clean out our closets of LL Bean boat shoes, and all shoes that cover the feet. Not a single mention, as Marshall knows.
Jesus was not a truck driver and, as Marshall can attest, he never once talked about truck drivers. Really sad news for Marshall. I'm a teacher, so I'm safe. Dan is a do goober, helping the unfortunate, so he's safe. What's Craig's line?
And he wore a robe. This is a toughy. Can Marshall suggest what we should do regarding this, based on what Jesus said?
I know Marshall has demoted the poor from really being cared for by the Gospel, but here's the kicker and I really feel the shaking of the foundations on this one. This may blow up all our desires to enter heaven:
Jesus was born poor and chose to stay poor all his life. And he told people, as Marshall can attest, to give up all they had and to follow him. And he said more than once, as Marshall can attest, that family doesn't mean anything. In fact, family seems to mean less to Jesus than the poor. What are we to make of this!
I am so shook. Maybe we should all get together and decide whether we are really, really going to follow Jesus or not. But we're white men. He may not even let us. And Marshall is a truck driver. Jesus had not love for truck drivers, as Marshall can attest from his investigation into Jesus' words. No words at all for truck drivers. Not even a conjunction.
Then there's the "tear gassing of women and children". This is typical Dan deceitfulness, pointing to women and children caught up in justifiable law enforcement response to a situation brought about by those, including the women who dragged their children with them, who intend to force our nation to bow to their demands without any consideration of our own people. Dan lies here by implying women and children are targeted specifically by his choice of wording, as he has done in other situations regarding the Iraq war, Hiroshima and the like. I say again, it is purposeful...designed to exploit the situation to serve his agenda. In this way, Dan proves himself no better than islamic scumbags who store weaponry and launch attacks from within hospitals and schools, or even from among crowds containing women and children.
As to Trump's "unending and stupid lies", Dan continues to put focus on this as if there's any real harm being done. Both Craig and I would greatly prefer that Trump be more careful with the things he says. At the same time, I love seeing how low intellect people...dishonest people...wet themselves over the goofier things Trump says. I also love that Dan's hypocrisy is exposed once again as he whines about this while never having said squat about the far more egregious and truly dangerous lies spewed by his favored candidates and political party. The true cut of Dan's jib is well known at this point.
Does anyone know if Marshall can really sail? I doubt it. I think he’s a poser.
Marshall, it seems ridiculous to have to explain this to a supposedly moral, rational and Christian man, but... Lies are Bad.
When someone lies all the time - and literally, we're talking about on a daily basis... sometimes dozens of times a day and doing so publicly!! - that is especially bad.
EVEN IF his lies were about inconsequential matters (they're not), if someone lies about obvious and stupid stuff, then how do you trust A SINGLE THING THEY SAY?
Just answer that question. Before you do anything else ever here again, answer that question. On what basis can you trust ANYTHING that this man says, when he lies so regularly, effortlessly and stupidly?
Our truthfulness, or lack thereof, says something integral about our personality.
So, EVEN IF his lies were about the stupid and banal exclusively (the size of his crowds, the "best" nature of his "people," etc) - and they're not - a leader who regularly lies about anything and everything erodes confidence in truth and facts. He already has his followers believing (not that they didn't believe it before) the stupidly false claim that "the media" is "fake news." This one is so stupid and ridiculous that it would be laughable, except now, some 1/3 of Americans don't think trust the free press at all... well, except for when they do. But there it is again, just haphazard agreeing with facts only when it pleases you is a dangerous situation for a free republic.
And here, this should not need to be said either, but it probably does... that does NOT mean that the press is perfect or always right or always unbiased. Of course, it's not! But neither is "the media" "fake news." That is a stupidly false and a dangerous claim. That in and of itself should put Trump at the bottom of our presidents rankings, or at the top of our hall of shame.
But it's not just that, and it's not just the constant lying so that one doesn't know when he's telling the truth (if ever, or if he even recognizing "truth" and "fact" or if they matter to him... we just don't know! You CAN'T know!), but it's lying to achieve bad policies. Lying or being deliberately uninformed about climate change, for instance. Lying about Obama's birth certificate. Lying about the problem of women being abused/molested. His lies about the refugees seeking safety. His lies about the "dangers" of terrorists crossing the border and "needing" a wall to protect us from terrorists when the southern border is NOT a source for terrorists... when the reality is that we have a MUCH larger problem with terrorists emerging from home grown white conservative types.
And really, before doing anything else, read this entire article...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/04/13/trumps-lies-corrode-democracy/
Or this one...
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/the-other-side-president-trumps-lies-a-clear-and-present-danger/
Who'd have thought that I would have to make a case against casual lying? What has happened to white evangelicals that they so gladly and gleefully sold their souls for a bowl of porridge made up of vomit and feces from Trump?
December 13, 2018
"The number of immigrant children being held in government custody has reached almost 15,000, putting a network of federally contracted shelters across the country near capacity. The national network of more than 100 shelters are 92 percent full, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The situation is forcing the government to consider a range of options. Those could include releasing children more quickly to sponsors in the United States or expanding the already crowded shelter network.
Most of migrant children are teenaged boys from Central America who travel to the border alone. Many are escaping poverty or gangs, and they plan to ask for asylum, and ultimately find work or go to school in the U.S. The largest migrant youth shelter in the country is located in the community of Tornillo in remote west Texas. Currently, 2,800 children live in heated, sand-colored tents set up on a patch of desert a few hundred yards from the Rio Grande. The camp is staffed for 3,000 children. It can house up to 3,800 children, but that will require hiring more staff.
A source familiar with Tornillo's operation, who asked not to be identified because this person had not been authorized to speak to the media, said the shelter is taking in roughly twice as many kids every week as it is able to release. "This is unsustainable," the source said."
Re: your comment of 5:55 AM
Packer makes the same forced, marxist nonsense of Mathew 6:19-20 as you do. It ain't about money, but the notion of accumulating money at the expense of one's obligation to God. As such, this passage is not about finances at all. Jesus could easily have used a parable about political power in place of God. But it wouldn't be a parable about political power. It's a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven and how one is to put God first and above all else in this life, including, I might add, posturing as a person of charity and concern for the poor (and doing it badly to boot).
Then of course you go on with your drivel about the poor being especially of concern to Jesus, when the truth is His special concern were the sinners and their need to repent, regardless of whether or not they were rich or poor.
"Marshall, it seems ridiculous to have to explain this to a supposedly moral, rational and Christian man, but... Lies are Bad."
Yet you indulge in the practice with alarming regularity...easily as much as you claim Trump does. Yours are more eternally harmful than any of his.
"When someone lies all the time - and literally, we're talking about on a daily basis... sometimes dozens of times a day and doing so publicly!! - that is especially bad."
Yet you indulge in the practice with alarming regularity...easily as much as you claim Trump does. Yours are more eternally harmful than any of his.
"EVEN IF his lies were about inconsequential matters (they're not), if someone lies about obvious and stupid stuff, then how do you trust A SINGLE THING THEY SAY?"
I don't know about you, but actual adults listen to the "consequential" and compare that to his actions as president. His promise-to-promise fulfilled ratio is remarkably exceptional. The petty stuff to which you feel such a depraved need to grant such importance has no tangible effect on anything...except the hate level of those like yourself because wiser people than you won't give it the time of day.
There. I answered the question but not before responding to what came before it. Sue me. But I emboldened it after I saw your usual idiotic ultimatum so as to draw your attention. In doing so, it answers the question that follows that demand as well.
"Our truthfulness, or lack thereof, says something integral about our personality."
Yet you indulge in the practice of lying with alarming regularity...easily as much as you claim Trump does. Yours are more eternally harmful than any of his. Plus, you lie about the content of comments of mine and Craig that you delete. You lie about so many things that it's truly amazing that you'll, ostensibly with a straight face, pretend you're truly concerned about the insignificance of Trump's alleged lies.
DAMN IT, DAN!!! I just noticed yet another "do this first" demand, making three in the same damned comment! I don't have the luxury of perusing your every word before responding to your incredibly questionable comments and arguments (if that's even the right word for what you do these days). So buck up and indulge me, because I have absolutely NO problem answering all your questions directly as has ALWAYS (unlike yourself) been my practice. I absolutely intend to address this latest nonsense, because I can tell by the links and who they're from that it will be incredibly easy. But I'm going to take your comments as they appear chronologically because it makes more sense to do so. Right now, my day is over and I must retire for the "evening" (night shift, you know). Try to resist your cowardly impulse to delete.
The thing is, Marshall, we can and have documented Trump's lies.
Your claim about my lies are just silly and unsubstantiated claims that you can not support. They are precisely the same sort of false claim that Trump makes on a regular basis. Stupid ones. Ones you can't prove and don't prove.
His promises? Like "Make Mexico pay for the wall..."? That was a stupid and empty promise that he couldn't deliver and won't deliver. It was a false claim and only a very gullible person would have believed it in the first place.
Yes, he HAS delivered on appointing two (one unqualified, according to the bar, as I recall) conservative justices to the SC.
As to the rest, he has not done much of anything productive. He has appointed anti-environment people to the EPA, a man unqualified and unfamiliar of housing issues to HUD, etc... he has appointed unqualified rich people to administer programs they aren't familiar with or are actively hostile towards! He has surrounded himself with people willing to lie for him and to twist facts and he has had the most criminal two years of presidential power in US history... He certainly has not kept the promise to drain the swamp... unless you want to say he drained the swamp, then filled it with toxic sludge.
As to the rest of his promises (and some he DID keep, but were bad promises to begin with...), he has a mixed record...
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/
The point remains that Trump is an established liar. And I noticed that your response does not deal with the problem, the reality that YOU simply can't trust a single thing he has said.
So, he promised you to appoint supreme court justices that were conservative and he did. He didn't lie about that. BUT, that still doesn't mean you can trust any given thing he says. Again, being a blatant liar says something about your character.
When B Clinton lied about a simple blow job, I called for him to step down because lying matters. Because abusing your office to take advantage of a very young (willing, but young) woman was sleazy and said something about his character.
Character DOES matter, especially when the character you're dealing with is vile, perverted, lying, conning, cheating, unfaithful and supportive of racism and xenophobia... In short, contrary to ALL that is holy.
Craig, though, ought to be proud that Marshall thinks that the count in number of verses determines value. This could be done by cuneiform accounting so vital to Craig's faith.
I myself should take a lesson from Marshall's proof text counting. I'm hell on fruitless trees. Just chop them right down on the spot. But now I've changed my ways. Where are those Brooklyn Pharisees?!
I wonder if this made Marshall's count? The poor aren't mentioned in it at all, so why should it have? Measly poor.
Or did it make into the Marshall's "judgment and hell" category?
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, 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 something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Post a Comment