All Music Sunday

While waiting for answers from Marshal, I thought I'd post something hopefully a bit more pleasant. We had an all music Sunday at church, yesterday. Here are a few snippets from the service.

Trying to Answer Misunderstandings and the Topic of "sin"

 

Craig, at his blog, recently invoked my name and his confusion about my actual positions on a variety of topics... heaven, hell, forgiveness, a Good God, what is and isn't just or good, and sin. He says he's working on a post on the topic and is still mulling it over and requested no comments yet while he mulls. This is what he said so far...

For example scripture tells us that we are "dead" in our sin, and the Jesus offers us "life" free from sin.  Or scripture tells us that we are "slaves" to sin, and the Jesus bought our freedom from :bondage" or "slavery" to sin.  

That language doesn't sound like there is room for "trivial" or "minor" sins, does it?   Death/Life or Slave/Free sound like mutually exclusive categories don't they?  Can you really be 95% alive and 5% dead?  Or 95% free and 5% enslaved?  

Craig is, I believe, operating out of some version of the human traditions of Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Because he rarely answers questions directly, it's hard to tell, but I believe he believes that all humans are "sinners" from birth, meaning NOT the obvious (that people commit "sins" from their first day on earth - a rather preposterous claim, seems to me, and certainly not provable) but that we're born with a theoretical "sin nature." And, I believe he believes, this "sin nature," means all humans are irredeemably corrupt and "sinful," incapable of doing good on our own.

I say, "theoretical," because this human tradition IS a human tradition, not a given. And there may be many permutations on what Calvinists/Craig believe on this human theory. It's hard to tell with Craig because, again, he rarely directly answers these sorts of questions.

I think everyone can agree that humanity, every one of us, is imperfect. Maybe many of us could even agree we're "prone to sin or do wrong..." It's objectively observable that none of us are perfect and that we all engage in at least some misdeeds and bad behavior in life, so I don't think that's in question by most of humanity, religious or not. But whether or not we have a "sin nature" is, of course, not proven nor provable, as far as I can see.

Now Craig begins, as many traditional conservative religionists do (whether Christian or another religion) by appeals to "scripture" to begin making his case.

Here, I believe, is where the problems begin.

As a Christian, I am a lover of the words found in the Bible, of the teachings of the Bible, of the language of the Bible. I strive to take the Bible more or less seriously. And I certainly strive to take the words of Jesus seriously, as I identify as a follower of Jesus.

But as any serious student of the Bible will affirm (and this is whether or not they're traditional or not, whether they're conservative or liberal or otherwise) that the words found in the Bible are only as solid as the interpretation that people reading those words assign to them. If a "christian" says that God never condemns slavery and indeed, commands slavery in at least some cases, and if that christian decided, "Therefore, slavery is not immoral and indeed, even god-ordained!" then most of the world and most of Christianity will say that this is not so and that guy's crazy, using "scripture" to advance a set of bad behaviors - evil, even. I believe most conservative Christians would say the same thing. They would say he's not interpreting the Bible correctly, I believe. I certainly know conservatives who would say that.

Thus, when reading the words of the Bible - if you value them - they are only as good as the interpretation you assign to them.

Secondly, most conservative and other Christians would, I believe, gladly affirm that not every line in the Bible is to be taken literally. They would affirm the obvious, observable reality that there are portions of the Bible - maybe vast portions, even - that are poetic, figurative or otherwise use metaphors or non-literal ideas. Thus, "the four corners of the earth," does not mean that the earth is a flat rectangle/square. When Jesus tells the rich man what he must do to be saved is "sell his belongings, give it to the poor and follow him," conservatives (and probably most progressives who love the Bible) would say that this was more of a situational or figurative idea, not a universal command. I could go on and on with examples in the Bible that conservatives would agree is metaphorical, not literal.

Thus, with ANY LINE in the Bible, one must begin with the question of, "is this some sort of literal command or notion? Or is imagery at play here?"

And now, with that prelude, here we are with Craig's list of questions.

For example scripture tells us that we are "dead" in our sin,
and that Jesus offers us "life" free from sin. 

Of course, these are clearly figurative words to describe human relationship with sin. No one is literally "dead in sin..." What would that even mean? Their heart keeps beating, their blood pumping, their brain thinking, hopefully.

And "life free from sin..." what does that mean? Do we become perfect and sinless? No, observably not.

Craig continues...

That language doesn't sound like there is room for "trivial" or "minor" sins, does it?

And I ask, as I often do... ? What? The Bible DOES use language like "we're all dead in sin..." For instance, this line from Paul in Ephesians...

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked,
following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air,
the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh,
carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and
were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
even when we were dead in our trespasses,
made us alive together with Christ...

All kinds of language that sounds, on the face of it, quite figurative. We didn't "walk in sin" and what or who is this "prince of the power of the air" that "you" were following? (Of course, in the context it's speaking of "the devil..." and who or what is that?). What does "dead in trespasses" mean? Or what does "children of wrath, like the rest of manking" mean?

So, first of all: "That doesn't sound like there is room for trivial or minor sins...?" Craig asks. Yes, of course it does. It does not rationally or biblically preclude the notion that some "sins" are minor or relatively minor and some are greater.

And here is where we who, like me, were raised conservative start going down a bad path, rationally and biblically, it seems to me.

The conservative tradition is trying to take these sorts of passages fairly literally because that is their tradition (was mine). Then, they say, "So, how can we make literal sense of this?" And from there, they say, "Well, what it MUST MEAN is that we are all - all of humanity, from the newborn infant to the mentally ill, to those with extreme intellectual delays to every day people who are, on the face of it, good and decent people living good and decent lives, helping out others, taking care of their families and friends and even strangers... that ALL of humanity is hopelessly "sinful" and even "evil," entirely incapable of doing anything good outside of God. And that even the smallest misdeed - for instance, taking the last cookie from the bag when you know your wife was wanting that cookie... that low level of selfishness - is a great evil or sin and that their notion of "god," can NOT ABIDE that "sin," and that "sin" must be punished not just with an appropriate response, but with an eternity of torture or torment in "hell..."

"Even just one sin will send you to hell, where the fire you are burning in is NEVER quenched and your torment goes on and on for ALL of eternity!" the fiery evangelists regularly preached to us when I was growing up in that world.

But think about it: One sin? Eating that last cookie you KNEW your wife wanted... that "deserves" an eternity of torture? How is that rational? How is that just, moral or good?

Because we, as humanity, recognize the notion that justice, to be justice, must deal with misdeeds in an appropriate manner. I sure as heck shouldn't have taken that last cookie that I knew my wife wanted! Shame on me for doing that! It was wrong!! But... if the state made it a law criminalizing taking that last cookie and the punishment for that small selfishness was to be tortured for the rest of your life, I'd reckon that ALL of humanity would call such a punishment a great and horrible evil. And they'd be right.

So, even though the Bible uses words speaking about "dead in sin," that just doesn't preclude rationally or biblically noting the reality of the range of sin/misdeeds and that, indeed, some behaviors are relatively minor and some are truly a great evil.

If we relegate the selfishly taking the last cookie to a great an awful evil, then that has to minimize the seriousness of rape or genocide. And just as a point of reason, it does not reasonably follow, Craig's claim that there's no such thing as degrees of awfulness of bad behavior and that, indeed, some misdeeds are literally actually relatively minor.

That's just a small start at Craig's small start of thinking about sin and the principles I'm pointing to today:

I. Of course, we can recognize the notion that there are small misdeeds and great evils that might all be considered "sin;"

II. That there is nothing unbiblical about this. And certainly nothing irrational or unmoral about it;

III. That indeed, it would be irrational and immoral to say otherwise;

And additionally...

IV. That just because there are phrases and ideas gleaned from the Bible that traditionalists have traditionally understood one way does NOT mean that they are understanding them correctly;

V. And that understanding any moral idea or biblical notion correctly and rationally is a vital starting point.

To Craig's other questions...

Death/Life or Slave/Free sound like mutually exclusive categories don't they? 
Can you really be 95% alive and 5% dead?  Or 95% free and 5% enslaved?

I would respond by saying, that first, we must rightly understand what these ideas mean and what they don't mean. Is there some figurative language at play here? Yes, of course there is. Is Paul trying to say that it's a fact that those who aren't "saved" (and what does THAT mean?) are literally (somehow) dead in their sin and "incapable" of doing any good? Clearly that can't be the case because we see what conservative Christians would say are "unsaved" people doing great good in their lives. So, what does it mean? And EVEN IF they could prove somehow (and they can't) what Paul meant objectively, does that mean that Paul was correct?

Which leads to another principle:

VI. When reading a sacred text, if we are interpreting its words to mean something that is, on the face of it, irrational or greatly immoral or objectively false (ie, that "unsaved people" can do NO good actions), then we should question that interpretation.

That is, if we value the Bible (or any sacred text) as speaking The Truth.

And that's all for now.

Trying to Answer Misunderstandings... and it's Not Easy

 [I tried to post a picture here. It doesn't appear to work for reasons unknown.]

 

Stan, at his blog, tried to answer questions I submitted for him regarding the human tradition/understanding of the notion of Election (that God only elects a few certain people to be saved and literally to hell with the rest). He no doubt thought he was answering my questions. He wasn't.

Here is my response to his post which he will not address, given past history.

For what it's worth, the problem is that you're not addressing the points I'm making. You're just reiterating the same mistakes I believe exist in your eisegesis (ie, his reading into Scripture that which Scripture does not insist upon).

You see, the problem is this: JUST BECAUSE there are lines in the Bible that say This or That, this is NOT sufficient to say "'This' and "That' are so." You almost certainly don't think so, yourself.

That is, just because slavery is repeatedly and consistently throughout Scripture accepted and not condemned and is even promoted or commanded by God (apparently) does not mean that we should read into the Bible, "Therefore, slavery can be moral and commanded and approved by God." Indeed, we should REJECT out of hand such an atrocious, immoral claim. That would be reading INTO the Bible a bad rational and moral conclusion.

Hopefully you can agree that the enslavement of innocent people is ALWAYS a great moral wrong/evil. (This is a question that nearly always goes unanswered or, IF it is answered, they will say that we should not regard slavery as not always a great evil!)

With that example (and others I could give - Jesus' apparent routine consideration of wealth as a dangerous threat and that giving away one's wealth is what might lead to the salvation for some, which is pretty compelling and strong and yet which you, Stan, don't take literally... and perhaps Jesus' claim that "blessed are you who are poor... and woe to you who are rich..." is not something you take literally... for two examples), we see an instance where we can't assume that just because a behavior/action/policy is condoned or endorsed or allowed in the Bible does NOT mean it's a moral option.

The principle here being:

The mere acceptance or condemnation of a behavior or circumstance
found in the pages of the Bible
is NOT sufficient to say, "Therefore, it must be understood this way."

You don't do this, nor do I. We must seek understanding. Ideally, Godly, moral and rational understanding. We must not be literally wooden in our reading of any text. We must use our God-given reason and moral reasoning - God's Word written on our hearts and minds, as the Bible says - to rightly understand and interpret the words in the Bible.

So, YES, there are many verses that say something about the notion of "election." AND there are many verses that clearly condemn riches. AND there are many verses that accept and even promote slavery. AND there are many verses that say God wants EVERYONE to be saved. etc.

But what do we read INTO those passages/ideas? How do we use our God-given understanding to interpret them and assign them meaning?

Back on slavery, again: Yes, there are verses in the Bible that accept and promote slavery.

AND there are verses in the Bible that promote human liberty and dignity and "doing unto others."

What do we do with this apparent dichotomy? Insist that slavery is sometimes moral and not evil? God forbid!

And we're not limited to comparing ideas within the Bible that might be apparently in conflict. We can also go with known observable reality, that which we can know with our God-given senses and reasoning.

For instance, there are verses in the Bible that make it seem like the universe may only be ~6,000 years old AND there is just the reality that the data doesn't support that conclusion. Must we accept the notion of a young earth, just because the Bible nowhere suggests a universe that is billions of years old?

No. Of course, not.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, there are verses that speak to the notion of Election and God appearing to say God is going to - for reasons completely unknown to us - choose to simply condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the "crime" of being imperfect humans. AND there are verses that say God is not willing to see anyone perish, but wants all to be saved.

Why must we assume the former must be taken literally but not the latter? ESPECIALLY when the former paints that god as such an evil, tyrannical and irrational beast-god, just using common sense?

At the very least, can you see how people of Good faith can disagree with taking election literally and the very biblical and rational and moral reasons we have for doing so? That we do so out or RESPECT for God and the Bible, NOT because we don't care about God or the Bible?

Opposition to Debt Forgiveness... from Christians??!

 

[Subtitle: Unclear on the Concept]

Jesus came into a world where the literal poor were literally oppressed, taken advantage of, pushed down, abused, held back. The poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the orphans, the women, the widows, the unclean, the "dirty sinners," the least of these. We know all these terms and recognize them (if we're biblically literate) because these concepts come up throughout all of Jesus' ministry and all of the Bible.

Jesus came into a world where the marginalized were largely kept marginalized. Once you were unclean and an outsider, it was unlikely you would ever be welcomed as NOT an unclean outsider.

Indeed, women, by the very nature of being women, were permanently on the Out, among the oppressed.

And if a man decided on a whim to divorce a woman, she had few options other than begging or perhaps returning home to her birth family (if they were alive and willing to take her in).

Jesus came into a world of oppression of the poor and marginalized. And of separation between the privileged and the poor. And Jesus came into a world where systems were designed that kept the poor on the outside and likely to remain poor. Even the temple of God was a place where the moneychangers took advantage of the poor.

And Jesus announced right at the start - almost as if it were part of a plan that simply extended the prophetic and Old Testament traditions and concerns...

I've come to preach Good News to the poor, the sick, the outsiders, the imprisoned (who, by the by, were often in prison because they were poor and couldn't pay their debts!).

He came to preach good news - what would literally be considered literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized. But was that Good News this...?

"One day, if you get saved and if God decided God even WANTS to save you - and God doesn't want to save most of you slugs! - then ONE day, by and by in the sky, you might get a piece of pie and lawdy lawdy, things will be good then. THEN. IF you're one of the lucky few who don't get tortured for an eternity."

Listen to that traditional conservative atonement "gospel." In what possible world does anyone think that might be taken as good news for people who were poor, marginalized, suffering and struggling today?

"Do you wanna bet on a lottery ticket that might (but most likely, won't) be paid out after you and your children have suffered a lifetime and then died horribly...?" That's NOT good news to the poor. Nope.

No, Jesus came to that real world context of the haves and the have nots, and Jesus sided with the Have Nots. He cast his lot among them. He welcomed them, specifically. He began forming a nurturing and welcoming community there. Then.

"Thy realm come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven."

I don't think Jesus had that much use for pie in the sky by and by. Not in the gospel that he taught in his own words.

And we must needs understand, this Good News to the poor was not Good News for all. For the rich who were interested in keeping their wealth and those unconcerned for the poor, this was not their Good News. Indeed, it was bad news.

"Jesus said to him, “There is still one thing lacking.
Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

That rich man walked away sad. Bad news.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy...

Therefore,
God said,
I removed them when I saw it."

Literal bad news for the folks in Sodom who were wealthy and unconcerned for the poor.

But for the wealthy willing to embrace and welcome and side with the poor, it was Good News, so it truly was good news for all... except those who rejected this Good News specifically, literally for the poor and marginalized. Consider wealthy Zaccheus who Jesus called down from his tree where he was separated from Jesus and his followers (the poor and marginalized)...

"So he [Zaccheus] hurried down and was happy to welcome him. All who saw it began to grumble and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.”

Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord,
“Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor;
and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.”

Good News for the poor was Good News for Zaccheus, too. He got it. [And we shouldn't let this story pass without noticing that the poor were poor precisely, at least in part, because of the systems of oppression and defrauding that Zaccheus took part in, became wealthy through, and repented of. Welcoming the wealthy into Jesus Good News kingdom in such a way that affected change, that WAS literally good news for the poor and marginalized. Then. There. And it was also good news for the wealthy who recognized this system of oppression and repented.]

But for those who did not welcome, side with, share with, join with the poor and marginalized? They were called the goats and cast out from God and the saints.

"Depart from me, you evil doers!
For I was hungry and you didn't feed me!
I was sick and you didn't comfort me!
I was in prison and you didn't come visit me.
Depart from me to the pits of hell, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Bad news for those unconcerned for the poor and marginalized and unwilling to embrace or even recognize the Good News for the poor and marginalized.

Or recall how Jesus condemned those who would invite to dinner the rich or others who might later pay back the favor. Instead, he counseled,

“But when you give a banquet, invite
the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind”

And again, Jesus began his ministry with the declaration of bringing good news specifically to the poor and marginalized. He declared the day of God's good favor, which the Jewish people hearing would certainly recognize as a reference back to the Jubilee wealth redistribution laws that were part of what was required of a God-loving nation.

And if you're familiar with the Bible, you should know that I could go on and on with this consistent, Genesis to Revelation story of Good News for the poor and marginalized.

It really is there throughout the whole of the Bible, the Gospel of Enough, of Grace, of the Siding with the Poor.

How did Jesus tell John the Baptist that he could tell he was from God?

"Tell him how I preach the good news to the poor."

And good news for the poor IS being able to have enough to live and thrive and being welcomed, not excluded. Grace, grace, grace. Throughout the Bible and it regularly shows up as forgiveness of debt and the wealthy paying to the poor.

So, I hope conservatives - and especially conservative Christians - can understand how surprising their harsh rebukes of this Debt Forgiveness plan that Biden has promised.

Debt forgiveness is kind of our thing, if we're decent people and especially if we're followers of the One who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.

Happy Human Liberty & Independence Day

You want to be a decent human? You want to celebrate human rights and independence?

Then, so long as others are not causing harm to anyone...

1. Live and let live
1a. Don't tell others how to live
1b. Don't tell others what choices to make
1c. Don't tell others how they must act or be

Simple.

And, if you want to go above and beyond...

2. Live, and celebrate one another for our own delicious quirky selves.

Also, Frederick Douglass:

What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim.

To him, your celebration is a sham;
your boasted liberty, an unholy license;
your national greatness, swelling vanity;
your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless;
your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence;
your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery;
your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings,
with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him,
mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—
a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices,
more shocking and bloody,
than are the people of these United States, at this very hour...

Words to remember for all the historically oppressed.

Stay Away from Conspiracy Theorists

One thing that we all have to keep in mind is that today's conservatives are especially in need of being forced to support their claims precisely because so many conservatives have bought into so many conspiracy theories.

From the way out there types like Q-Anon and the Great Replacement Theory nuts to the more day-to-day insane theories like

* The gov't wants to take my guns away
* The election was stolen
* "Election fraud" in 2016 cost Trump the popular vote
* The gov't is being taken over by a cabal of Hollywood pedophile liberals
* Hillary Clinton and Democrats were running a child-peddling operation out of a pizza joint in DC
* The media is an enemy of the state
* Obama was not a US citizen
* "Climate change" is fake science
* "Covid" is fake science and Fauci et al are spreading lies
* The Clintons killed Epstein, Foster, Rich and others to silence them
* "The earth is only ~6,000 years old and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Satan...?"
* The "homosexual agenda"

...and on and on and on it goes. One set of crazy stupidly false claims after another, promoted as if they are real or that they MIGHT be real.

Because of this endless cascade of "alternate facts" and stupidly false claims, we just have to start holding Trump-style/supporting "conservatives" to a strict, "Prove it with data" set of guidelines.

There simply is no corresponding set of "liberal conspiracy theories" that are as common and widespread and widely taken seriously. In fact, I did a search and just couldn't find anything serious. Sure, there are outliers like the liberals (and conservatives) who believe that 9/11 was staged, but those are not commonly accepted amongst rational people/liberals.

Don't want to be asked to support your claims? Don't lie down with pigs in their stupidly false claim pit.

Never vote for anyone who takes any of these stupidly false and irrational conspiracy theories seriously. That is a line that should not be crossed.

"None but ourselves can free our minds." ~Bob Marley


https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-2016-5

https://www.salon.com/2015/11/12/10_right_wing_conspiracy_theories_that_have_slowly_invaded_american_politics_partner/

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/patriot-paranoia-look-top-ten-conspiracy-theories

End Apartheid!

On most of the day's big issues, there isn't much of a contest between support for conservative opinions/policies and liberal opinions/policies.

The people of the US support keeping abortion as a legal option, 58 to 35%.

https://news.gallup.com/.../steady-americans-not-roe-wade...

The people of the US support policy changes to take action in response to the climate crises, some 60-80+%, depending on the policy in question.

https://news.gallup.com/.../climate-change-proposals...

Of course, on matters of liberty for our LGBTQ+ neighbors/friends/family, support for legal rights have grown to a significant majority with 70% supporting legal marriage rights (because, why wouldn't we? - and who are those 30%?... I know, we know).

https://www.bloomberg.com/.../pride-2022-71-of-americans...

And with 55% favoring decriminalizing drugs and ~70% supporting legalizing marijuana, the progressive position has popular support.

https://www.cato.org/.../poll-55-americans-favor...

Importantly, support for the progressive position is more solid with younger adults and voters which means support for the more conservative policies are literally dying off.

We have the support of solid majorities on most/all big issues. Change will have to come as long as we vote in ways that reflect the will of the majority. Which, sadly, is part of the problem, isn't it?

None of this is a comfort for women, LGBTQ folk, black people and others who feel their rights are under threat and attack and I'm so sorry. I will stand by you and follow your lead.

Pentecost and Pride

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and
filled the whole house where they were sitting.

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire
that separated and came to rest on each of them.
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and
began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them...

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,
to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Everyone was filled with awe at the many
wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

All the believers were together and
had everything in common.

They sold property and possessions
to give to anyone who had need.

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.

They broke bread in their homes and
ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
praising God and
enjoying the favor of all the people.

And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

"Thoughts and Prayers..."

No doubt, we've all seen some of the memes out there that follow (more and more) tragedies like mass shootings. The memes that say things like, "Keep your thoughts and prayers. Give me policy change and action."

And I've also seen push back at such ideas. As Craig did recently at his blog (the actual blog doesn't matter - it's the ideas expressed in his words that I've seen elsewhere). Craig said

"There are a couple of flaws here.  First is the false conclusion that it's an either/or choice.  The second would only apply to those who's belief system includes an all powerful, personal, God who can and does intervene. "

Craig continued to ask:

"If you believe in an all powerful, all knowing,  deity, then why would anyone place their faith in politicians, the political process, and humans in general instead of God?"

Here is the answer (or at least one answer) to that question:

We believe in a God who is all knowing and all powerful and who does not daily actively intervene in policy matters of a nation state or in direct tragedies, like stopping an active shooter.

We believe in a God who wants us to act on behalf of the poor and marginalized and those who might be harmed.

We believe in a God who wants us to create policies that systematically deal with the common failings of humanity. In the Old Testament, we see a God:

* who advocated the nation of Israel to create policies to set aside portions of farm fields so that the starving could freely harvest it in an effort to deal with problems of hunger and poverty.

* who advocated Jubilee years as a matter of national policy where land that had accumulated in the hands of a few rich people would be redistributed back to the hands of the original families in an effort to deal with greed and the accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands.

* who advocated policies that made sure that women and children - who were not citizens with full rights - were not taken advantage of.

* who warned that nations who did not look out for the poor and marginalized or that actually oppressed the poor and marginalized would be judged harshly and have to account for that oppression or neglect.

and so on. We believe in a God who fully expects us to systematically do better as societies, and not only as individuals.

Why wouldn't we?

Craig also said/asked...

"...[some Christians who believe that] praying for God to intercede and work in a situation is the absolute highest and best they can offer.  Even if someone doesn't agree, why would you mock millions of people who are genuinely concerned."

I note that, in the Bible, the Apostle James (and others) have done the same, mocking mere words of encouragement when they're not backed by actions.

"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.

If one of you says to him,
"Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,"
but does nothing about his physical needs,
what good is it?

In the same way, faith by itself,
if it is not accompanied by action,
is dead."

These words echo the even more dire teaching from Jesus in the parable of the sheep and the goats, where the "goats" who thought they were good followers of God and yet, had done nothing for "the least of these," were failing to walk in Jesus' way. Such inaction had dire consequences for these goats. No doubt, they prayed for the poor and marginalized, but they took no actions to actively help.

Why would James mock those who merely wished people well? Because such words without actions are meaningless and not merely less-than-helpful, but an active stabbing of the hearts of the oppressed. ADDING TO rather than alleviating suffering.

Philosophical Abortion Facts

 

Some facts about abortion. These are objective, rational, demonstrable facts, no partisanship and no need for disagreement. True fact! Check it out. (AND, if I have any of my facts wrong - especially on the legal side of things, feel free to correct me... with facts, not opinions.)

1. People who support keeping the medical procedure of abortion legal (henceforth called "Abortion supporters") do not hate babies or fetuses (at least in most cases).

 

2. Abortion supporters do not want to see fetuses "murdered." Nor do we support "murder."

 

3. People who would like to outlaw abortion (henceforth called "abortion opponents") don't want to kill moms and don't hate women (at least in most cases).

 

4. A human fetus IS a human fetus. 100%.  It's literally a human fetus.

 

5. Abortion supporters acknowledge that, of course, a human fetus is a human fetus.

...Ready?

The questions, then, are
5a. Is a human fetus deserving of human rights in every possible sense?
5b. Do we objectively, factually know?
5c. Does the law say?

5d. Does "God" (Allah? Buddha? The Bible? The Koran?) say?
5e. Does reason insist?

6. Humans have different rights depending on the stage of their life. True fact!

 

7. Human five year olds do NOT have a right to drive a car. Human 16 year olds (in most places?) DO have a right to drive a car.
 

8. A one year old does not have a "right" to take care of himself or live on his own. An 18 year old DOES have those rights.
 

9. So, does a fetus have full human rights legally speaking? Nope. Nor does a one year old, nor does a 13 year old. Different ages/stages, different rights. That is, by "Full human rights," I mean, does a fetus, one year old, six year old, 14 year old, etc have all the rights of an adult human? I'm pretty sure the legal answer to this is a clear No.

According to Encyclopia.com:

"Historically, under both English common law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient."

Again - the legal part of this is where I'm least clear. I am glad to be corrected.

10. Okay, but what about the basic "right to life..."? Even a one year old has that, right? But does a fetus? Does a fetus at 2 weeks old have that right? At 20 weeks old?

This is the big question. It all boils down to the answer to that question. And the answer:

11. We do not know. No one can objectively prove, one way of the other, in an authoritative, factual manner, "YES, the 2 week old fetus has an innate right to life." OR "No, the 2 week year old fetus does NOT have an innate right to life."

12. Now, legally, this may be dependent on where you live. Different states and different nations may establish laws one way or the other, but here's the thing:

The lawmakers in these various states can not prove it objectively, authoritatively one way or the other. This is a fundamentally unprovable opinion, one way or the other.

You see, it's a simple matter to objectively answer: Is this a human fetus or is it not? That is demonstrable and objectively provable. But, "Does a 2 week old fetus have an innate right to life? What about a 20 week old fetus?"... we just have no way of authoritatively, objectively answering that question. That's a fact.

Has the law ever authoritatively answered this question? I don't think so.
Has science ever proven an innate right to life beginning at conception? No. It hasn't. It factually hasn't.
Has GOD or Allah or any omnipotent, omniscient being EVER handed us an authoritative answer to this question?

No.

Indeed, biblically speaking, the rights of a fetus are more like property rights of the parent than human rights... In Exodus 21, it states that "if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death." Thereby, treating the two lives - the fetal life and the mother's life - differently.

And the passages that abortion opponents often cite are ones like this: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” which literally does not say authoritatively that the 2 week old (or 20 week old) fetus has a right to life. It's literally not there. People who READ INTO that passage that "right" are reading into the text something that is not there.

No. The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to life. Just factually speaking. God has not told us this. I won't speak to what other sacred texts may or may not say, as I'm not familiar with them.

13. Here's the thing: EVEN IF you are part of a religious group that believes or even has a sacred text that says, "Thus sayeth the Holy Cow: The fetus of Two Weeks doth truly have an innate right to life..." that is not anything like objective proof. It is a religious belief of that particular group, but not a universal rule authoritatively proving the question. Christians would not accept it as a fact if that came from the Book of the Heavenly Cow because they do not ascribe to that sacred text. Other people are not obliged to agree with Christians on what they think God thinks on the question (and as a reminder: God has NOT said in the Bible that the fetus has an innate right to life. Just a fact.)

...and SO, given all these facts, I think it is helpful to remember that abortion supporters are not even necessarily "abortion supporters" (although many of us are fine with it as a medical treatment): Abortion supporters, by and large, are just recognizing that this question is not a proven or provable question, as to whether a fetus has a right to life and at what point that right kicks in... AND SINCE it's not proven or provable, we simply want this philosophical and medical matter to be left to the woman with the fetus. Not a Supreme Court. Not a Congress of predominantly men. And not even a Congress of predominantly women, if we had one.

The woman.

And NOT because we support "murder." Not because we hate fetuses or children. Those are all false claims. Stupidly false claims.

No. We simply respect the reality that since we can't prove this question one way or the other, the decision is best left to the mother.

If you want to argue against keeping abortion legal, please begin from the place of acknowledging these facts. Stop with the demonizations. Stop with the presumption that you have an authoritative answer or that you are speaking for God (or Allah or the Holy Cow).

Please.

It's just not something any of us have an objective answer for and no one is authoritatively, objectively speaking for God.

True fact.

Don't be Deceived

 

My dear conservative, Republican friends... There is an effort out there by many in the GOP to sell a stupidly false claim, to try to instill fear of your neighbors.

Don't buy the lies. I know you. I know you believe in truth and decency. Stand up against it.

In Florida, the GOP governor (DeSantis) is selling some dangerous lies for unknown reasons, but I suspect because he knows demonizing "CRT" and other GOP flash-words gets some in the GOP riled up because they fear CRT, even though they don't understand it. Don't buy into the fear.

In the news:

"DeSantis has taken a lead role nationally in Republican efforts to aggressively push back against liberal cultural values and what he calls “woke indoctrination.”

A measure labeled “Individual Freedom,” also known as the "Stop WOKE Act," was passed during this year's legislative session and still waits for the governor's signature."

++++++

They are banning MATH books, they say, because these MATH books contain CRT, which they have banned in Florida schools. They are indoctrinating parents and children to fear CRT and demonize liberals while saying they value individual freedom and, they say, oppose being told what to think.

Think about that. They are saying...

"We don't want you to think about these CRT ideas, because we shouldn't be told what to think. We so believe in individual liberty and not being told what to think that we're going to ban these books in our schools or even a mythical mention of CRT..."

Don't you see? It's all a lie and there almost certainly are no mentions of CRT in a third grade math book (what does that even look like??). Let the fact that they won't even cite what it is they're protesting be a clue that they're lying to you to try to scare you into hating your neighbors while saying (falsely) that CRT wants us to hate our neighbors.

Another way of putting this from DeSantis and people like him is that they are not saying they value free speech and independent thinking. Just the opposite.

They don't value people being critical of the US in any way or acknowledging the very real evils of slavery and racism in our past. They don't want any mentions of that happening in schools and they will ban any books that have even a hint of concern about evils of racism in our very real history. They value their "free speech" and want to limit/ban/demonize/distort/bear false witness against anything they perceive to be hostile to their views. Their views and hell, their very way of life - they will tell you openly and loudly - are being opposed and destroyed and the way to battle this attack on their "way of life" is to ban and demonize any opposing, disagreeing views.

If they valued free speech, they would welcome - even if they disagreed with some conclusions of some people - a reasonable discussion about racism in our history. Or the oppression of LGBTQ people in our history. Or the denial of freedom of self determination to women in our history.

They are saying, We want to see OUR understanding of history only... any reports or interpretations about history that WE don't approve of need to be silenced and removed.

It's a scam. Don't buy into it.
 

++++++
Link to the story...

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093277449/florida-mathematics-textbooks

Hold Them All Accountable

 Just to make clear what should be obvious: if Hunter Biden broke any laws, he should be held accountable.  If he acted in a profiteering manner that isn't illegal, he should be held accountable  and maybe we should change laws so that any profiteering off the presidency is illegal.

It's that simple. Why won't modern conservatives behave in a likewise responsible manner?

"A top legal analyst at CNN said it is possible President Biden's son Hunter Biden could be indicted by the U.S. government following an investigation into his foreign business dealings. 

"This is a very real, very substantial investigation of potentially serious federal crimes," Elie Honig said Wednesday morning on the network. "We are seeing federal prosecutors in Delaware do exactly what you would expect to see federal prosecutors do in this situation." 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/600372-cnn-realistic-chance-hunter-biden-could-be-indicted%3famp

Trump and Russia/Ukraine

I wonder if there will come a point where the GOP will recognize the degree to which they helped lead to Putin's invasion of Ukraine with their support of Trump as an actual president? The Trump years and Putin should really help shine the light on how very important it is to have rational, responsible adults in charge and how very important it is to support factual reporting and oppose misinformation... how very important a free press that operates with journalistic integrity and how dangerous those who spread misinformation can be to a free world.

I go back and forth trying to decide if Trump was simply a complete idiot with a single skill of conning people into supporting him but who otherwise had almost no idea of how to act like a rational adult leader... is he that? Or is he more of a sociopathic lover of chaos who does have a good idea of what he's doing with his attacks on experts, minorities, the free press and basic decency and just doesn't care. I lean towards the simpleton who's in over his head but who does have a certain genius at being a con man to get people to support him, even though he has no idea of what to do with leadership once he gets it.

From NPR...

Then-President Donald Trump was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Ukraine's defense as he was asking its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to investigate Trump's potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden.

That 2019 call got Trump impeached. But the Senate acquitted him, and he dismissed the controversy as a politically motivated hit job — and his base went along.

Now, with Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and Zelenskyy being hailed around the world as a hero for his resolve, that call is put into a very different light.

"There's just a lot of evidence that Trump was wrong on this issue [Ukraine] and that in many ways, we undermined the NATO alliance and we undermined Zelenskyy's position in the eyes of Russia and Putin," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and former senior adviser on Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/08/1085023029/russias-invasion-puts-a-new-light-on-trumps-ukraine-pressure-campaign

From the Economist (March 5th)...

IF VLADIMIR PUTIN’S invasion of Ukraine rests on a grand delusion, it is one he might have learned watching Fox News and other outlets of the American right. Ever since Donald Trump rose to the top of the Republican primaries in 2016, conservative talking-heads have praised the Russian leader’s vigour and acuity and denigrated his Ukrainian, European and NATO adversaries as corrupt, weak and gutless. As recently as last week, Tucker Carlson, America’s most popular cable host, suggested that, if forced to choose between Russia and Ukraine, he would pick Russia. Only a warmongering liberal obsessive would fuss over Mr Putin’s prosecution of the faraway conflict, he added: “Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

The subsequent reality of Ukraine’s bombed towns, dead children and heroic resistance has not entirely pierced this delusion. Fox is still airing pro-Putin commentary. Mr Trump still praises the Russian leader. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 26th, he condemned the war but snuck in that Mr Putin was “smart” and “playing [Joe] Biden like a drum”. Even so, the war has caused the most dramatic rethink among Republicans since Mr Trump took over their party.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/03/05/the-end-of-the-putin-delusion

White Privilege, Explained and Quantified

As it happens, I have been in the hospital most of the week and away from my computer.  Nothing major -  gallstones and minor surgery.

But that means I don't have all the ability to post that I normally do. Nonetheless, on the topic of the easily established reality of white privilege, here's what some people have said...

You can only see part of this, but it's very helpful...

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-white-privilege-definition-examples-statistics.html

White privilege quantified...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157125/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/white-privilege-quantified/386102/

On everyday undeniable examples...

"1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2.If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

3.I can be pretty sure that my neighbours in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

5.I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilisation,” I am shown that people of my colour made it what it is.

7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a32752175/white-privilege-everyday-examples/

more...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953614003359

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/white-privilege

UPDATE:

More specifics, more quantified data about white privilege. This one has many specific, quantifiable instances and support for them.

"If education is the key to success, then there is no debate that whites have the advantage in America. In 2012, the U. S. Department of Education reported that about 33 percent of all white students attend a low-poverty school, while only 6 percent attend high-poverty schools. In comparison, only 10 percent of black students attend a low-poverty school, while more than 40 percent of black students attend high-poverty schools.

This means that black students are more than six times more likely than white students to attend a high-poverty school, while white students are more than three times more likely than black students to attend a low-poverty school..."

"It is a little-known fact that the average black person pays more for almost every item he or she purchases. While there is no discount Groupon that comes whit white skin, there might as well be. A John Hopkins study showed that supermarkets were less prevalent in poor black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods with the same average income, leading to increased food costs. News organization ProPublica recently found that car-insurance companies charge people who live in black neighborhoods higher rates than people in predominantly white areas with the same risk."

https://www.theroot.com/yes-you-can-measure-white-privilege-1794303451

Slavery and the US Church

I've been hearing some of our conservative friends painting the white church as "the primary driver to eliminate slavery..." as if the white church were the hero in that history. This, from one who can't/won't acknowledge that slavery is always a great evil or that white men in power who, by policy and social dominance, were engaged in a great evil in their institutionalization of the racism and slavery of the day, or that the white church was not involved in a great evil in their either passive or active support for slavery and the racism that produced it.

"The primary driver to eliminate slavery."

That's quite a claim. I wonder if he could support such a charge?

Of course, I acknowledge (as Frederick Douglass noted in my last post) that there were SOME in the white church who followed the lead of black leadership to come out (sooner or later, in different cases) as not only opposed to the racism and slavery of the day, but to actively fight against it. The Quakers, as a group, were an early group who decided as a group to take an active stand against slavery. And there were others, later on and to varying degrees. (Ironically and as an aside, there would be many Christians who don't consider the Quakers to be Christians - and, of course, there are some Quakers today who'd say the same thing, I think.)

I'm not saying that some Christian churches were not involved in the fight for human rights in regards to racism and slavery.

But, we'd have to turn an extremely blind eye to actual history to refuse to acknowledge the awful efforts made by white churches in our history to defend slavery and racism as "god's will" and/or to defend slavery by remaining quiet in the face of a great evil. This post is just to point to some of the historical record regarding white church history and racism/slavery.

In the 1820s, former slave owner (and Kentuckian) James Birney became increasingly disturbed by slavery and became an abolitionist. In the 1840s, he wrote a pamphlet in England talking about slavery in the US and dealt a great deal with the degree of support for slavery and violent opposition to abolitionism within American churches. Some of his article (which, in some places, is quoting the actual religious slavery-defenders)...


THE extent to which most of the Churches in America are involved in the guilt of supporting the slave system is known to but few in this country.^* So far from being even suspected by the great mass of the religious community here, it would not be believed but on the most indisputable evidence. Evidence of this character it is proposed now to present—applying to the Methodist Episcopal, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, and the Protestant Episcopal Churches. It is done with a single view to make the British Christian public acquainted with the real state of the case—in order that it may in the most intelligent and effective manner exert the influence it possesses with the American churches to persuade them to purify themselves from a sin that has greatly debased them, and that threatens in the end wholly to destroy them...

In the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches, the colored people, during service, sit in a particular part of the house, now generally known as the negro pew. They are not permitted to sit in any other, nor to hire or purchase pews as other people, nor would they be permitted to sit, even if invited, in the pews of white persons. This applies to all colored persons...

"As a man, a Christian, and a citizen, we believe that slavery is right; that the condition of the slave-holding States, is the best existing organization of civil society."

"He [Amos Dresser] should have been hung up as high as Haman, to rot upon the gibbet, until the wind whistled through his bones. The cry of the whole South should be death, INSTANT DEATH, to the abolitionist, wherever he is caught..."

"That slavery through the South and West is not felt as an evil, moral or political, but it is recognised in reference to the actual, and not to any Utopian condition of our slaves, as a blessing both to master and slave..."

A public meeting was appointed to be held a few days afterward, to complete, in the same spirit in which they were commenced, preparations for excluding Anti-Slavery publications from circulation, and for ferreting out persons uspected of favoring the doctrines of the abolitionists, that hey might be subjected to Lynch law. At this assembly the Charleston Courier informs us;

  "The Clergy of all denominations attended in a body, lending their sanction to the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive character of the scene."

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/christn/chesjgbat.html

I may post more of this later. But clearly, F Douglass and this Birney abolitionist recognized the prevalence and deadly vehemence of support for slavery and opposition to abolitionists. I suspect that this was the (vast) majority position in churches in the US but I'll continue to look into it.

Comforting Words from Frederick Douglass...

 ...comforting, UNLESS you are one who denies the very real evil of slavery and racism in our very real history.

Some "blasphemy" from Frederick Douglass for those who want to hide our real history from our students:

“…I therefore hate the corrupt,
slaveholding,
women-whipping,
cradle-plundering,
partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land…
I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers,
the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.
Never was there a clearer case of
‘stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.’

I am filled with unutterable loathing
when I contemplate the religious pomp and show,
together with the horrible inconsistencies,
which every where surround me.

We have men-stealers for ministers,
women-whippers for missionaries, and
cradle-plunderers for church members...

 The slave prison and the church stand near each other.
The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and
the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time.
The dealers in the bodies of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit,
and they mutually help each other.

The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit,
and the pulpit, in return,
covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.

Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—
devils dressed in angels’ robes, and
hell presenting the semblance of paradise...”

The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers.
I could regard them in no other light than a band of successful robbers,
who had left their homes, and gone to Africa, and stolen us from our homes,
and in a strange land reduced us to slavery.

I loathed them as being the meanest as well as the most wicked of men."

https://bookriot.com/frederick-douglass-quotes/

Or, from his speech, "What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?"

"This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God...

...Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask,
why am I called upon to speak here to-day?
What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence?

...I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us.
I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary!
Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us.
The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.
The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence,
bequeathed by your fathers,
is shared by you,
not by me.

The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.
This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.
You may rejoice, I must mourn.
To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and
call upon him to join you in joyous anthems,
were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.

Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day?

...Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine,
I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation
never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July!

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present,
the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting.
America is false to the past,
false to the present, and
solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.

Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will,
in the name of humanity which is outraged,
in the name of liberty which is fettered,
in the name of the constitution and the Bible,
which are disregarded and trampled upon,
dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command,
everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America!

...But a religion which favors the rich against the poor;
which exalts the proud above the humble;
which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves;
which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on;
it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind;
it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and
tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man.

All this we affirm to be true of the popular church,
and the popular worship of our land and nation—
a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom,
we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God.

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/speeches-african-american-history/1852-frederick-douglass-what-slave-fourth-july/

There is so much in this speech that still needs to be heard and understood and heeded. Read the whole thing, again and again.

Do Not Fear

I often hear conservative Christians pushing fear like a drug.

"We should FEAR God!"
they say.

"We ALL should fear God!"
they say.

"And by 'fear God,' I don't mean respect God, I mean FEAR A TERRIBLE, DEATH-DEALING GOD!" they say.

In the Bible, we see that John says,

"God is love.
Whoever lives in love
lives in God,
and God in them.
This is how love is made complete among us
so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment:

In this world we are like Jesus.

There is no fear in love.
But perfect love drives out fear,
because fear has to do with punishment.
The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

In this world, we are like Jesus.

Wow!

The one who fears is not made perfect in love. And yet, too many conservative Christians regularly are counseling people to fear. And when they're not counseling it directly, they're listing all the ways we (they) should be afraid.

"The government is going to take our guns!"
they say.

"They're going to put Christian bakers in prison!"
they say.

"They're trying to steal our elections and take away our way of life!!"
they say.

"They're going to let transgender women actually use the women's bathrooms!"
they say.

In countless ways, they continue to counsel and promote and try to instill fear.

But John says there is no fear in love and that
perfect love drives out fear and
the one who fears is not made perfect in love.

The reason so many conservative types counsel fear is because, in the Bible, while there are numerous instances of words of reassurance and "do not fear," there are also some places where the exact opposite is written.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Do not fear those who can harm your body,
but fear God who can destroy your soul.

Like that.

I think the point is clear - whether we reach this conclusion biblically or rationally:
For those who oppress,
who cause harm,
who denigrate and attack or
even just ignore
the poor and the least of these,
there is reason to fear awful repercussions.

We see this in Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats:
The Goats who did not listen to or help with the needs of the least of these,
they were cast into a burning lake of fire.

Damn.

Literally.

But, those who loved, those who sided with and helped the poor
the marginalized
the hungry
the foreigner
the least of these...

For those people, there was no fear. For they were living in love and in grace.

Do not fear.
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?
Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside of God's care.
And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
So don’t be afraid;
you are worth more than many sparrows.

~Jesus

Thích Nhất Hạnh and Thomas Merton

 

We lost another hero this week, Thich Nhat Hanh, at the age of 95. Thich Nhat Hanh was a Buddhist monk, peace activist and wise person. He was also a friend of Catholic priest, Thomas Merton, who died many years ago. He also was a peace activist and wise person. So, in honor of these two good men, here are some words from both of them...

“People usually consider walking on water or

in thin air a miracle.

But I think the real miracle is not to walk

either on water or

in thin air,

but to walk on earth.

Every day we are engaged in a miracle

which we don't even recognize:

a blue sky,

white clouds,

green leaves,

the black,

curious eyes of a child—

our own two eyes.

All is a miracle.”

~Thich Nhat Hanh

“If you want to identify me, ask me not where I live,

or what I like to eat,

or how I comb my hair,

but ask me what I am living for, in detail,

ask me what I think is keeping me from

living fully for the thing I want to live for.”

~Thomas Merton

“To “love our enemy” is impossible, because
the moment we love him, he is no longer our enemy.”

~Thich Nhat Hanh

“Usually when we hear or read something new, we just compare it to our own ideas. If it is the same, we accept it and say that it is correct. If it is not, we say it is incorrect. In either case, we learn nothing.”

~Thomas Merton

“If the wave does not have to die to become water, then
we do not have to die to enter the kingdom of God.”

~Thich Nhat Hanh

“Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him.”

~Thomas Merton

“With utmost courage, Jesus taught a gospel of nonviolence.
Is the church today practicing the same by its presence and behavior?
Do the churches practice nonviolence and social justice, or
do they align themselves with governments that practice violence and hatred?”

~Thich Nhat Hanh

“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and

faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

~Thomas Merton

“Suffering is not enough.

Life is both dreadful and wonderful...

How can I smile when I am filled with so much sorrow?

It is natural-

you need to smile to your sorrow because

you are more than your sorrow.”

~Thich Nhat Hanh