Stan, at his blog today, is talking about "the Bible and sin," supposedly. He says that we miss the enormity and seriousness of sin. Stan says...
"We have a problem with definitions here. First, we think of "sin" as a
faux pas, a boo-boo, an embarrassing blunder, perhaps. Scripture
considers it a transgression of the Most High and to violate the glory
of the Most High deserves the ultimate penalty -- eternal death."
I asked him the reasonable question: DOES "Scripture consider it a transgression of the Most High..."? and if so, where? DOES the Bible describe sin as the absolute worst ever and that any and all sin is deserving of eternal torture (an eternity in a burning hell, whether that's figurative or literal "burning," as evangelicals promise)?
Where?
It's a reasonable question if someone is citing the Bible as their authority for that claim. Of course, to really prove it, they need more than their beliefs about what their particular holy book says, as they translate and interpret it. But I was just starting at the beginning.
Rather than responding, he says he never reads my comments and assumes I was saying something else that I was not saying. Of course. When you assume...
I also cited a website talking about how "sin" is used in the Bible.
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/how-does-the-bible-define-sin
Out of time. More later...
17 comments:
Don't hit him with knowledge. You blow up his 17th century faith and he disassembles.
Craig is still hiding behind magic negroes. He really shouldn't. Re his latest post:
It is so like Craig to hide behind a magic negro who obviously hasn't read the book to cover over the fact that he doesn't know what it says, either. DiAngelo says no such thing as that "people of a certain color are irredeemable." The first thing she says is that whiteness, as moral people know, isn't real. It's an ideology. She's not talking about color. Craig and his black avatar are.
“How can I say that if you are white, your opinions on racism are most likely ignorant, when I don't even know you? I can say so because nothing in mainstream US culture gives us the information we need to have the nuanced understanding of arguable the most complex and enduring social dynamic of the last several hundred years....
As a sociologist, I am quite comfortable generalizing; social life is patterned and predictable in measurable ways. But I understand my generalizations may cause some defensiveness for the white people about whom I am generalizing, given how cherished the ideology of individualism is in our culture....
Rather than use what you see as unique about yourself as an exemption from further examination, a more fruitful approach would be to ask yourself, "I am white and I have had X experience. How did X shape me as a result of *also being white?*" Setting aside your uniqueness is a critical skill that will allow you to see the big picture of the society in which we live; individualism will not....
The final challenge we need to address is our definition of "racist." In the post-civil rights era, we have been taught that racists are mean people who intentionally dislike others because of their race; racists are immoral. Therefore, if I am saying that my readers are racist or, even worse, that all white people are racist, I am saying something deeply offensive; I am questioning my readers' very moral character. How can I make this claim when I don't even know my readers? Many of you have friends and loved ones of color, so how can you be racist? In fact, since it's racist to generalize about people according to race, I
am the one being racist! So let me be clear: If your definition of a racist is someone who holds conscious dislike of people because of race, then I agree that it is offensive for me to suggest that you are racist when I don't know you. I also agree that if this is your definition of racism, and you are against racism, then you are not racist....I am not using this definition of racism, and I am not saying you are immoral. If you can remain open as I lay out my argument, it should soon begin to
make sense.
In light of the challenges raised here, I expect that white readers will have moments of discomfort reading this book. This feeling may be a sign that I've managed to unsettle the racial status quo, which is my goal. The racial status quo is comfortable for white people, and we will not move forward in race relations if we remain comfortable. The key to moving forward is what we do with our discomfort. We can use it as a door out -- blame the messenger and disregard the message. Or we can use it as a door in by asking, Why does this unsettle me? What would it mean for me if this were true?"
Marshal and Craig desperately need to justify their unconscious thrill to the sight and sound of George Floyd being slowly suffocated for 9 minutes by a police officer sworn to protect and serve the community.
And they’ve set about doing just that: sanctioning murder. It’s as if they share the same mindset as Officer Chauvin. There must be a name for it.
Craig is working very hard to find George Floyd worthy to be murdered.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, suffocation is allowed.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then he is just more proof that black men aren't worth the time of day.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, the purpose and massive community of protests are just rage to be put down by any means necessary. Shoot them in the eye!
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore that raging violence isn't the vasty major provenance of the right.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore Breonna Taylor.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore police brutality.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore Ahmaud Arbery.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore Atatiana Jefferson.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore Elijah McClain.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore Treyvon Martin.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore Sandra Bland.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore how mass incarceration indicts a racist penal system where black men get are charged 3 times as often as white men for the same crime and receive 2 times longer sentencing.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore white guilt, his own guilt.
Craig believes that 100% of African Americans supported MLK whereas these days he can find 50 not down with BLM: a faithful remnant!
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to think of the 90+% of black folks who vote for Democrats are stupid.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore predatory lending in communities of color.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore racist redlining real estate practices.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore the genetic dispositions for disease that were accumulated by 200 years of slavery.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore the zoning for incinerators and power plants and sewage plants solely in communities of color.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore the massive health impact of such beaurocratite white supremacy.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore unequal education based solely on race.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore unequal healthcare based solely on race.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore prejudicial hiring based solely on race.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then we can continue to ignore our own racialized world view as white people.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then he himself is OK!
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then God is good!
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then America is exceptional!
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, he can continue to be in peace.
Craig believes that if Mr Floyd struggled, then all future murders can be discounted. And will.
Craig is on the outside of sanity, screaming.
The President of the United States is blocked from social media because he tells bare faced lies.
But Stan and Craig are dithering about whether a parish can tell women not to wear pants.
Isaiah condemns them.
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Amos
Hosea
They all condemn them.
Craig says he cannot comment at my blog. He lies. In fact, it’s not really a blog at all. 3 or 4 months ago, Craig whined that I comment at their blogs without giving them an opportunity to do so at any blog of mine. So I created the blog and gave Craig and Marshal a vote as to whether my blog should stay or go. Marshal spent reams of diarrheic words making juvenile claims that I’m not a man if I don’t keep the blog for him to spread his corrupt lies
Craig never showed.
Now Marshal doesn’t have the balls to return because I broke his trust in American Thinker, after I broke his own blog. Both of them whine and lie and speak inhumane brutalities. Marshal rages; Craig denies his own behavior.
Both can comment if they use reason. Just like you have required. They don’t have the capacity for reason.
You know, Dan, the facile and craven rhetorical acts of Craig is evidenced in the bare fact that he says, "Dan allows, encourages, protects, and harbors lies at his blog." And this is not a personal reflection on him as a creature of god. This is simply naming how he acts politically, in moral terms, here, there, at other blogs.
We have a responsibility to name those who cover injustice, oppression, and brutality. The prophets of scripture still tell us of god's moral life and judgments.
So, to continue, does Craig point to anything in order to try to show you how and where there are lies at your blog? If he is implicated in anything, does he demonstrate the reasons by which he is so clearly innocent? Or is he just outraged because he is offended by being read and read too well? Where is the argument? Can he make arguments? I've never read Craig deliberate on anything just by himself. He denies you the right of making his case. Why? Just in attempt to manipulate you by using a one liner that tries to guilt you?
Craig thinks the quotes on his blog, never arguments in and of themselves - really just one liners - are self explanatory. Really? Do thirty one liners from black people really beat back the vast righteous protest of 60 years of the black moral presence in the US? Why would he think so? How can a hundred words from disparate folks scattered around social media really be held up to balance the persistent cries for justice that have surrounded us so long by so many and that rise up still in the face of undeniable police brutality? But he denies police brutality. He denies the half century and more of consistent, unfaltering black moral presence. He denies us an argument that opposes what we see. He doesn't argue why our eyes are lying to us. He doesn't have a moral position he can describe that provides reasoned, persuasive narrative that negates what the majority of the country says it is realizing: police culture everywhere has become too callous and brutal. Why? Just in an attempt to manipulate the dialogue by erasure alone?
Craig thinks that new video - which he says he's never seen! just "described" somewhere (Wintery Night?) - shows us a struggling George Floyd. And for him that automatically represents an incredibly arrogant denial of the massive energy and purpose of nation-wide protests from Oakland to Fargo, SD; an incredibly arrogant denial of the murders of all other innocent black victims; and, in an offense to god, an incredibly arrogant inference that George Floyd's rights were not at all violated but that maybe now, Officer Chauvin can get his right to a fair trial! Poor Officer Chauvin!
Does Craig reason out his act of denial of our, yet again, national re-re-re-awakening to violent, murderous injustice that beats down people of color for driving, running, sleeping, looking out the window, pulling money out of a wallet that came from god knows where? No.
Does Craig reason out his act of denial of George Floyd's human worth? No. Does Craig reason our his act of refusing to back up his accusations of lies here and your act of harboring lies? No. Why?
Craig denies us his thinking; he denies any extended reasoning of his own; he denies us any symbol at all of a defense of his moral acts of erasure, hoping, apparently, that he can defend himself with small, one line mirrors that only reverse reality and the smoke of indicting what you actually write from yourself in real words, real reasoning. He produces nothing of his own. He takes no stand. His conscience is a ghost behind a cloud of dust. Why does he do this?
Because, I believe, he takes his unseen faith in being a white man. A true white man - who cannot be a liberal, obviously - does not have to exert on his own behalf. A true white man faces injustice when he is only just openly confronted, when he is justly offended with opposition because opposition to true white men must be false on its face. There need be no defense. White men don't need a defense. It is righteous just to be who we are. So... the missing arsenal of moral reasoning ain't no thing. No need.
When he points he believes that truth come into existence. No description needed. Just observe. You ARE encouraging and protecting and harboring lies. BLM IS a tower of lies. George Floyd, struggling against a prejudiced rush to judgment and forcible imprisonment, CANNOT matter.
Because Craig tells us so.
And when true white men speak, there is no need for actual reason(s).
Georgia’s 14th Congressional District Republican voters have nominated for the US Congress a QAnon devotee who believes Hillary Clinton and leading Democrats organize a nation-wide child kidnapping and trafficking in order to eat them for some secret sauce they have.
And Trump has celebrated her victory.
Georgia’s 14th Congressional District Republican voters... huge % homeschooling their kids.
I’ve forgotten, Dan, why Craig cannot come here and set the record straight. Why does he not appear here and rebut my comments?
Oh, right! He can’t show how they are lies, so he cannot show up! He can love pulling your chain at his blog because he has total control of the smoke and mirrors.
Of course. He can only attempt to manipulate you into erasing truths here.
What does that say about Craig in addition to what Ive pointed out?
Dan, have you read Craig and Marshal's exchange regarding the USPS?
Trump is using the mail service - established in 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, when Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general - to tamper with and block the right to vote. A felony.
But are Craig and Marshal patriotically outraged? Not at all. They're onto management and organizational issues of the USPS.
They are willfully blinding themselves to their own irrational anti-American corruption.
Not to mention that the "right to life" party, being fine with caging children, are naturally unmoved by letting them get disastrously, contagiously sick at school.
Apparently FOX thinks black lies matter more than white lies.
Diamond & Silk question ‘systemic racism’ at Fox News after being axed
"The sisters were let go from Fox Nation, where their videos were regularly posted, after spreading conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic. They claimed that the virus was being “deliberately spread” to make President Donald Trump look bad.
In their new book, Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway and Rochelle “Silk” Richardson are claiming that Fox News pushed them out after they “dared to ask questions” that were also posed by white personalities. on the conservative network."
Evidenced based study, horrifically inferential revealing devastating Systemic Racism:
“ Black newborn babies in the United States are more likely to die when in the care of White doctors, according to a new study.
Researchers from the University of Minnesota found that the odds of survival increase when Black infants are cared for by Black doctors.
The findings are based on data from 1.8 million hospital births in Florida between 1992 and 2015, the Duluth News Tribune reports. The records show that Black newborns with a white doctor had a higher death rate compared to newborns with a Black doctor.”
To your point, Dan, about Stan and sin:
Stan to Marshal: "... things like restrictive showerheads are a lifesaver for us..."
Stan on George Floyd: "It shows a man resisting arrest... It does call into question 1) the level of murder this rises to and 2) the allegation that it was racism -- a hate crime. but cops can still beat and kill black people."
Because Floyd moved his foot, he wasn't murdered. White men under arrest move their foot all the time and live to tell the tale.
8 million Swedes called Swedish bank robbers kidnappers and terrorists when they held four Swedes in a bank vault for a week. Those four Swedes developed a psychological dependency on their captors and defended them after they were released.
CRAIG: "It's probably absurd to point this out, but it seems strange to base one acceptance of any given premise on the majority of a group defined... rather than on whether or not the premise is factual or True."
___
400 years of slavery and dispossession and systemic oppression has left 60+ million white people like Craig and Marshal fucked in the head. It is to be expected that a couple of million of non-white people will fucked in the head by the same. That's what oppression does. They're not magic.
___
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines “oppression” as “the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.” However, this does not mean that those subjected to unjust treatment or control are aware of it.
This is an aspect of oppression that is largely missed in popular culture when we consider whether we or others are being oppressed. Indeed, when living day to day in concert with the constraints of a given cultural milieu, we seldom consider whether we are actually being oppressed. Instead, we tend to think that one who wants to live according to the constraints of her culture is making a free choice.
In contrast, the usual scenario we think of when we think of oppression is that of someone who is captured, confined, tortured, or otherwise unjustly treated or controlled against his or her protests and pleas for freedom. Those who organize rebellions, or who would do so if they could, are thought to be oppressed. The internal resistance against apartheid in South Africa was viewed as a mark of oppression; while those who acquiesce in their cultural restrictions and taboos, and think none the worst of it, are typically considered free agents....
In 1861, in his seminal essay titled, “The Subjection of Women,” John Stuart Mill wrote about one such subtle form of enculturation:
"All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men ... All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favorite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds."
Craig has found his favorite targets, too.
Ok, Dan, I can't anymore. They're too stupid.
At Craig's they have pronounced that women were best off in the time of ancient Israel and at least pre-Industrialization. Smh. They cite Proverbs 31 to isolate their conception that women were more free when they identified only as economic agents who provided only material goods.|
Proverbs 31. A time when men married multiple women who had to look after their own children with him and their own daily lives because he was more often with the other women than any single one of them.
Proverbs 31. A time when men had slaves and parceled them out to women to help them survive.
Proverbs 31. That describes women as self-sufficient with their slaves and their children: therefore, giving the men no trouble, no concern, taking up nothing of their time.
Do they mention this, from Proverbs 31? "Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
No.
Because they are so utterly stupid and vacuous.
I can't anymore.
Let them celebrate my absence. Let them think they are winning. Their joy rises as an offense to the nostrils of God.
Post a Comment