Moving Past Milk, 2

 

Stan said, with ZERO support...

Sin is not primarily horizontal; it is vertical.

A crime against a neighbor is finite. A crime against the infinite God is not.

and then, presumably to support these unsupported guesses, Stan said:

This is why Scripture describes sin as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), rebellion (Isaiah 1:2), enmity against God (Romans 8:7), and falling short of His glory (Romans 3:23). Sin is not merely doing wrong; it is rejecting the God who is right.

Looking at his proof texts, then, 1 John 3...

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin.
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.
No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Okay, some points, right off the bat. John is clearly speaking metaphorically or figuratively, here. Even the conservative religionists are glad to acknowledge that even THEY "continue to sin" after coming to "know" Jesus.

Setting that aside, is there ANY support in this passage for Stan's theory that " a crime against the infinite God is not finite..."?

No. It's just literally not saying anything about that. At all.

Isaiah 1...

Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth!
For the Lord has spoken:
“I reared children and brought them up,
but they have rebelled against me.
The ox knows its master,
the donkey its owner’s manger,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand.”

It's a passage where Isaiah is speaking specifically about a rebellious Israel, saying ISRAEL (in this specific time and place) does not understand.

Setting that aside, is there ANY support in this passage for Stan's theory that " a crime against the infinite God is not finite..."?

No. It's just literally not saying anything about that. At all. As we see in reviewing Isaiah (whether listening to rabbis or just regular people reading the book), the "guilty" groups in Isaiah, the ones who are threatened with just punishment, are those who specifically ARE rebelling (ie, not everyone) and even more specifically, the rich and powerful who would abuse the poor and marginalized.

No, it's literally NOT offering any support for Stan's theory.

Romans 8...

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

This passage is not talking about a condition of all humanity, only those who live "according to the flesh." Which goes undefined and is obviously figurative/metaphorical language.

Setting that aside, is there ANY support in this passage for Stan's theory that " a crime against the infinite God is not finite..."?

No. It's just literally not saying anything about that. At all.

Moving on to Romans 3. This chapter, I'll note, contains the infamous, "There is no one good, no not one..." line, which, itself, is a quote from the OT, from Psalm 14 which says, in part, that there ARE no good, there are "none who seek God." Pretty inclusive (although not support for Stan's theory). BUT, if you keep reading, you will see what you always see in the OT warnings against the evil - it's ultimately a warning to rich oppressors to quit harming the poor and marginalized. "They (the evil ones) devour my people," God says. "You evil ones frustrate the plans of the poor, but I am their refuge..." As we see in context, the psalmist is not saying here that there are NO good people, rather, it's indictment upon the rich oppressors.

And not what Stan is saying.

But moving on and getting to the verse in question...

now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify...

ie, don't oppress the poor and marginalized, over and over that is made "known," made clear IF one is reading the OT in context and not ripping passages out of context. Continuing...

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Which speaks to God's grace and acceptance of all those willing to be part of the beloved community of God, BUT, it doesn't address Stan's theory. At all.

So, yes, Stan IS throwing out all sorts of verses out there AND he's making many claims. But do ANY of the verses support ANY of his claims?

Objectively, no.

Oh, one more claim from Stan that I skipped past:

Sin is not merely doing wrong, it is rejecting the God who is right.

Do ANY of those passages say that? 

Literally, no. Not in those words or any other words that suggest that.

More later.

I am curious (if you fellas are going to answer anything here), do you suspect that we WILL find any biblical support for Stan's theories that he keeps throwing out with no support? Do you suspect that at some point near the end, he'll finally be able to say, "And HERE is the verse that ties all those other verses and my many unsupported claims together..."?

I have to say, given past experience, the answer is almost certainly, No.

Moving Past Milk

Conservative bloggers, Marshal and Craig, are complaining that I "never" make my case for my positions or to explain what's wrong with the conservative's position when I engage in conversations with conservative religionists with whom I dare to disagree.

Of course, this whole blog, for over two decades, has largely been devoted to doing just that - me explaining, step by step, reasonably and looking at what the Bible says (although I don't view the bible as a rulings book in the way they do anymore), why I disagree with their human theories. They're complaining about it now, saying that another blogger, Stan, has recently posted about his theories on sin and it's "full" of biblical citations. The post:

https://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2026/05/consider-sin.html

Now, setting aside that I've been methodically disputing these human theories for years now, let me tackle it more directly from what they view is the "biblical" point of view (which is, of course, their personal human interpretations of various selected passages and how they use those interpretations of theirs to form another opinion that's not in the text.

So.

Stan:

Sin is not small because God is not small. Our culture measures sin by the size of the act; Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against. David understood this when he prayed, “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4)

I won't cover the whole of this entry, not today. But let me start here. Stan begins with an unsupported assertion: "Sin is not small because God is not small."

To which I respond, as always, says who? In this case, it's Stan who says this. Jesus didn't say anything like this nor is there a text anywhere in the Bible that says this. It's Stan's personal human take as he starts building his personal human case for his personal human theories about "sin," "Sin nature," "SIN," "Inheriting a 'sin nature' from Adam," and related topics.

It's not at all a given that "sin is not small because God is not small." I mean, if my children disobey me in some minor way and I respond, "HEY! Even though you THINK that was a little white lie, you told it to ME and that makes it BIG!" It just doesn't follow or is not a given. It's literally an unsupported theory at this point that I suppose Stan thinks he's going to support. Moving forward then.

Our culture measures sin by the size of the act. Presumably Stan is noting that we judge how horrendous a misdeed is by its awful, harmful impact on others. A person who drives 28 MPH in a 25 MPH zone is committing a civil wrong, but we DO view it as relatively minor as compared to the person who is drunk and driving 70 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, which is a greatly bad behavior, and made worse when that person actually kills a child as a result of his bad behavior. So, YES, we do measure sin by the size of the harmful impact of that sin, and rightly so. I suspect that if we pushed Stan, Craig, Marshal, et al, they could probably agree. Genocide is vastly more evil than stealing a cookie, which barely rises to the level of "bad," much less evil. At least to rational people. Again, our conservative theorists probably can agree.

Continuing:

Scripture measures sin by the worth of the One sinned against.

There are no biblical texts that say this. Presumably Stan will try to make his case, and he begins with David repenting for his truly awful sin when he raped/seduced Bathsheeba, then arranged for the murder of her husband, Uriah. Psalm 51:

Have mercy on me, O God,
    according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
    blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
    and cleanse me from my sin.

For I know my transgressions,
    and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight...

So, yes, David says that his sin (rape, abuse of power and murder to cover up his rape) was against God only. But is that factually correct OR is David, in his penance, engaging in hyperbole?

In this case, David's sin is literally NOT against God only. He abused his power to seduce or rape this woman. He abused his power to arrange for Uriah's death so he could "have" Bathsheeba as his own wife. His sin is against many people, including his whole nation. He is NOT literally correct in this claim.

Reading Rabbis talking about this topic, they will note that David's actual crimes merited the death penalty. David was desperately pleading for his life and of course, engaging in hyperbole to sound penitent (and he probably was truly sorry, if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

But that David engaged in hyperbole here is NOT biblical or rational proof that his "sin was against God alone" OR that Scripture measures sin by the worth of the one sinned against. THAT claim of Stan's is simply not supported in this verse. At all. Literally not supported. It's an extension of an idea that Stan is trying (and failing) to extrapolate out some reasoning for his personal human theory. And he fails.

Continuing, Stan made more empty claims:

He had sinned against Bathsheba, against Uriah, and against Israel, but he recognized that the ultimate offense was against God Himself. Sin is not primarily horizontal; it is vertical. A crime against a neighbor is finite. A crime against the infinite God is not.

David HAD sinned against multiple people, Stan acknowledges. THEN Stan theorizes that David's claim (against you, alone, God, have I sinned) is that 

a. David was making a claim that "the ultimate offense was against God..." The text does not say that. Stan is reading that INTO David's hyperbole.

b. Sin is not primarily horizontal, it is vertical" Another unsupported and empty claim. The text literally does not say that, Stan is reading that INTO the text. And again, if you read Rabbis speaking of this passage, they will not take that stand, but rather emphasize that David was desperately begging for his life.

c. "a crime against a neighbor is finite, a crime against God is not." The text does not say that, reason does not insist upon that. It's Stan's unsupported theory to try to build his case.

But he is failing on every point so far. 

So, you can see that a rational person can look at Stan's theorizing and recognize holes right away, but it takes some time to wade through and play the Bible game that these Bible-as-rulings-book conservatives like to do and, truly, it's a waste of time. But I will continue for at least a bit more, later. Just to point out how devoid of both reason and biblical acuity this line of conservative religionism is.

Stan, Craig, Marshal, can you at least concede that, at least THIS far into Stan's attempt to make a case, he hasn't done it yet? That indeed, so far, as he's done is make several empty claims?

Unanswered Questions for Hell and Totally Depraved Human Theorists

Some of the questions that I've regularly asked conservative religious theorists and rarely get full answers that meet moral or rational levels:

1. Do you believe that some sins deserve eternal torment?

2. What specific crimes or misdeeds warrant eternal torment?

3. Do you believe/theorize that even one sin, one single lie to your mother, justifies eternal torment?

4. But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?

5. Do you believe in the perfectly loving and perfectly just God? 

6. How do you define perfectly loving and perfectly just? Based on what?

7. Do you believe that it is God's will that none should perish or be tortured, not one human? 

8. Why would you take a verse that says something about eternal hell literally but not the verse that clearly says God is not willing that any should perish? 

9. What is your rubric for deciding which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively? 

10. Can you clarify that you can't objectively know which passages should be taken figuratively and which literally OR do you think that you DO have that power to understand perfectly the literal and figurative verses? 

And other questions like these...

I'll note that while they are glad to answer these questions in part, it's only in part... never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment? 

Yes, they may answer that question with the simplistic, "Sin" or "having a (theoretical and unproven) 'sin nature...'" but the necessary follow up questions that immediately comes up - Which sins? ANY sins? EVEN ONE "sin..."? How is that worthy of eternal torture/torment? How would eternal torture be in any way a just or loving response?? - these questions go unaddressed. I'm relatively sure that this is because they are so grounded in their human theories that they can't even recognize how these are reasonable questions OR that they have no reasonable answers for them.

There's more to this topic that I'm still wanting to write about, but I thought I'd at least get these reasonable unanswered questions out there.

 

[NOTE: The butterfly pictured is the Question Mark butterfly, thus, my using it for this post.] 

 

How Do We Recognize Good?

I've long tried to get answers from my conservative friends and family about their theories of the corrupt nature (totally depraved) of humanity and how "there is NO ONE who is good." There are holes in their arguments that they just leave unaddressed. We've covered that on this blog before.

But this week, Stan and his colleagues over at the conservative "Winging It" blog have been addressing their theory (again, without dealing with the holes in their arguments or even acknowledging them) and that has caused one of them (Lorna) to ask some questions. I'll answer her questions here as a back door way of pointing out the very holes that they are ignoring. 

The statement was made...

"Of course there are good people," we all want to counter. "Just open your eyes. Even bad people do good things.” We even contend that humans are “basically good” ….

Lorna replied:

I can’t offer any rebuttals not already said by others, but I am always struck by the illogical nature of such a contention. For humans to distinguish “basically good people” from “particularly wicked individuals” among us is a completely relative exercise, requiring a subjective, sliding scale. On such a spectrum, when does “good” become “wicked” and how much of one behavior causes a person to fall solidly into one category rather than the other?

When does good become wicked? When it starts to cause deliberate, awful harm. Is that a precise measure? NO. Is it a reasonable measure, generally understood in the real world?

IF, in the attempt to do some good action - say, protecting a baby from falling over and hurting themselves - someone accidentally slips and, instead of stopping the baby from falling over, actually causes that baby to fall... that is not a wicked act. Of course. We all recognize that good intention and just an accident that happens.

IF, in the attempt to stop the baby from falling out of a window, the do-gooder rushes over and startles the baby who THEN actually falls out the window, resulting in terrible harm, that still isn't wicked. Of course. It's an accident in the process of trying to do good.

IF, in the attempt to keep baby from hurting themselves, someone kidnaps the baby and locks them in a padded cell for the rest of their lives, THAT has crossed over into catastrophic harm and an obvious human rights abuse, EVEN IF the intentions were good.

Truly, I don't think this is as hard as some may think. I'd love for these conservative types to think it through with me and answer such questions, but they don't/won't.

When does someone fall into the category of wicked rather than good? Again, not as hard as they seem to think: WHEN they take deliberate actions that are abuses of human rights and cause harm. EVEN IF their intent was good (hint: It often isn't).

I'd love for some of them to explain why they think it's difficult?

Which is not to say there may not be hard to call exceptions. What IF someone is concerned about an active shooter and they have a gun and open fire at the shooter and, as a result, they hit innocent bystanders? Probably still not wicked, just perhaps ill-advised and poorly executed. Still, the point stands: It's just not that difficult as a rule to recognize the significant difference between actively wicked and good.

Lorna continued:

Who sets these standards and what causes them to change--i.e. which humans qualify to judge “good” and “wicked” and in-between? 

Common sense. Moral reasoning. I'd suggest that perhaps the best standards are ideals like the Golden Rule, which are universally recognized across cultures and religions, even if not universally agreed upon in practice. Another standard would be basic human rights. Does an action actively cause harm to someone/some group? Does an action deny someone's humanity? Does an action imprison or sicken someone? These are the building block standards for recognizing good from evil.

Do you disagree? (Another question to go unanswered).


For those who'd disagree with these common sense guidelines, I always ask what they would propose instead? Someone's interpretation of holy texts? Which holy texts? WHOSE interpretations? On what basis would we choose one person's/group's interpretation of a given holy text over someone else's? Their say-so?

That's just not good enough. It's a whimsical human opinion not based in anything more than their opinions and interpretations and, perhaps, their particular human traditions.

We can see that it’s impossible to even judge people’s natures by their behavior, since “even bad people do good things” (wouldn’t’ that make them “good people”?) 

I would disagree. Or rather, I'd clarify. It's not possibly to PERFECTLY assess someone's nature by their behavior, but their behaviors and motivations ARE reasonable tools for understanding their character. By their fruit/actions, you will know them. Again, this is just common sense. What would you propose to gauge their character by if NOT their observation of their words, attitudes and actions?

There are some rational, common sense answers to her type of questions. But will they ever deal with the obvious questions that arise from their human theories?

I've not met conservatives yet who can/will/do. I'm sure they are out there, but I've not found them.

A Better Way

Some of the best parts of being in the Beloved Community of Progressive- and Open-minded folks include:

- We are a part of a truly beloved community with beautiful, amazing people all around us from all parts of the world that we get to share life with;

- All the wonderful people who are observably good, trying their best, just wanting to have their own safe, peaceful, loving place in this world. What's to disagree with in that?

- It's a beautiful world that we all share, and we are fired up to celebrate and care for it;

- It's a beautiful world, and we're enamored with spending time in it;

- Hiking;

- Gardening;

- Recycling garbage into art!

- Freedom;

- Human rights;

- Live and let live;

- If you don't want to marry a guy or a gal, you don't HAVE to...
you're free to be you and WE'RE free to be us;

- If you don't think a specific medical process is right for you, NO ONE will force a medical procedure upon you! You're free to be you and make your decisions... and we're free to make ours; 

In short, the best things about belonging in the Beloved Community are Liberty, Love and Grace. THESE are our common ground, or can be, regardless of political party or partisan leanings! We are part of a welcoming, empowering, supportive beloved community of All who wish to join... and if you don't want to join, that's fine, too. Just don't cause harm to others. Because, Love, decency and just basic common sense, friends.

Let's tear down the walls that divide, protect the marginalized and love, love, love.

Oh, and one last thing: When someone not only rejects being part of the Beloved Community for themselves, but they try to deny rights to the rest of us, we in the Beloved Community can and will stand in solidarity with each other. Of course, not everyone IS making good, non-harmful decisions. The Beloved Community is there to fight against those who'd cause harm, too, as well as celebrate all the great things that come with belonging in what Wendell Berry would call the Membership.

More Words from Jim Palmer

More words from Jim Palmer:

I have a public confession to make.

I am an unbeliever.

I am an unbeliever in a God who lives somewhere “out there,” hovering above the universe like a divine landlord—watching, judging, intervening when it suits him.

I am an unbeliever in a God wrapped in maleness, whose image props up patriarchy and calls domination “divine order.”

I am an unbeliever in a God who tortures people forever for getting theology wrong, then calls it justice.

I am an unbeliever in a God who rigs the game from the beginning—baiting the first humans into failure and then blaming all of humanity for it.

I am an unbeliever in a God who bypasses a woman’s full humanity by turning her into a divine incubator because ordinary biology supposedly wasn’t good enough.

I am an unbeliever in a God who demands loyalty to one ancient book, as if truth stopped evolving thousands of years ago.

I am an unbeliever in a God who engineers a fallen world and then demands blood—his own son’s blood—to clean up a mess he designed.

I am an unbeliever in a God who calls belief a virtue even when it contradicts reason, conscience, compassion, and lived experience.

I am an unbeliever in a God who mysteriously “anoints” men with spiritual authority and expects women to call it holy.

I am an unbeliever in a God whose endgame is violence—Jesus on a white horse, enemies crushed, the world burned into submission.

I am an unbeliever in a God who puts conditions on love, qualifiers on grace, and fine print on acceptance.

So yes, I am an unbeliever in 'that' God.

And here’s the thing: we made that God up.

That God looks suspiciously like our fears, our power structures, our need for control—projected into the sky and baptized as truth.

Jesus didn’t believe in that God either.

Jesus didn’t teach a distant, punitive, blood‑thirsty deity obsessed with belief systems and moral scorekeeping. He spoke of a God discovered within, among, and between us—a God of radical inclusion, boundary‑breaking love, and relentless compassion.

The tragedy isn’t unbelief.

The tragedy is clinging to a God Jesus himself was trying to dismantle.

So yes—count me out.

I am done believing in ideas that collapse under scrutiny.

I am done baptizing contradiction and calling it mystery.

I am done mistaking control for holiness and fear for faith.

I am done pretending silence is virtue and obedience is love.

Words from Jim Palmer

Some words from a dude named Jim Palmer whom I don't know but who makes a lot of sense...

People love to say, “My authority is the Bible.”

Hate to break it to you: it’s not.

Your authority is what your pastor, your denomination, your favorite author, and that one sermon series told you the Bible means. Let’s not pretend you cracked open ancient texts in Hebrew and Greek and emerged with pure, bias-free divine download.

You inherited an interpretation. Then you called it “truth.”

Big difference.

Because here’s the uncomfortable reality nobody wants to admit: there is no single, clean, uncontested thing called “Biblical Christianity.” Never has been.

Christians have disagreed—loudly and often—about pretty much everything. Who Jesus was, what he meant, how salvation works, what the cross did, who’s in, who’s out… it’s been a theological food fight for 2,000 years.

And yet somehow, every group ends up convinced they’re the ones who finally got it right.

Convenient.

What you see in the Bible isn’t just “what’s there.” It’s what you’ve been trained to see.

Your conclusions are filtered through a whole cocktail of influences:

Your assumptions about what the Bible is—divine dictation or human wrestling match.

Whether you read it like a history book or a poem.

Which verses you were told matter most—and which ones to politely ignore.

What you think the authors were doing in the first place.

The theological box you’re trying to keep everything inside of.

How much Greek and Hebrew you actually understand (or pretend to).

All the books, sermons, and hot takes you’ve already absorbed.

Whether you trust logic, experience, or your gut.

How much contradiction you’re willing to live with without losing sleep.

How open you are to changing your mind (or how allergic you are to it).

Whether your current beliefs are comforting enough to protect at all costs.

How much time you’re willing to spend actually digging versus just repeating.

How tightly you cling to your tribe’s version of the truth.

And the big one—your entire life experience shaping what you think God is like.

But sure… “the Bible says.”

Here’s the plot twist:

People don’t read the Bible.

They read themselves into the Bible.

And then defend it like God personally endorsed their interpretation.

Now, when people leave religion, they often swing hard the other way and start trashing the Bible like it’s the villain in the story.

But let’s be honest—that’s a bit lazy too.

It’s not the Bible’s fault you were handed a rigid, literalist, fear-based framework and told, “This is the only way to see it.” That’s not the only way people have ever read these texts—it’s just the loudest one in certain circles.

Outside the fundamentalist bubble, people have been reading the Bible as poetry, protest literature, myth, metaphor, wisdom, and spiritual reflection for a long, long time.

So maybe the problem isn’t the book.

Maybe it’s the certainty.

Maybe it’s the arrogance of thinking your version is ‘the’ version.

Maybe it’s outsourcing your thinking to “experts” and calling it faith.

So here’s a radical idea:

Ask questions.

Think critically.

Hold your conclusions loosely.

And for the love of honesty, stop pretending your interpretation dropped straight from heaven untouched by human hands.

Because it didn’t.

And deep down—you know it.

Words of Wisdom from Dr John M Perkins

I was reminded today of the author, philosopher, pastor, John M Perkins. I was struck because I hadn't thought of him for some time. But it was reading his book, Let Justice Roll Down, that, in part, helped set my path for where I am today regarding the struggle for justice and the beloved community. Probably even before reading much of Dr King, it was Perkins who helped push this then conservative young man in the pursuit of justice for all.

Sadly, I hear he is in ill-health. Prayers for him and his loved ones.

Some quotes, then, from Dr Perkins:

"Come dream with me. Dream of a fight for something bigger, something more important and worthwhile. We need to fight for justice and peace, for the walls between us to come crashing down.” 

“And it requires that we make some uncomfortable confessions. G.K. Chesterton said, "It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem." I believe this statement can be applied to the lack of reconciliation within the Church today. We've not been able to arrive at the solution because we haven't seen or acknowledged the problem. 

The problem is that there is a gaping hole in our gospel. We have preached a gospel that leaves us believing that we can be reconciled to God but not reconciled to our Christian brothers and sisters who don't look like us - brothers and sisters with whom we are, in fact, one blood.”

“If we have been silent and have chosen to ignore the mistreatment of others in the past, we should begin to speak up and challenge injustices. If we were racist and bigoted in our speech and actions, there should be a radical change that is observable. If we have been angry and spiteful toward the other, there should be a radical change that is observable. 

And, yes, if we have an abundance of wealth and we have the opportunity to use this blessing to encourage those we have previously been prejudiced against, we should open our hands in Christian love and brotherhood. We should tear down the walls that have separated us for so long.”

“Throughout Scripture we read about God's concern for people who are vulnerable or suffering - the poor, the widows and orphans, the foreigners in the land, and so on. All Christians should feel a sense of calling to where there is pain in our society.”

....

And yes, I know that Dr Perkins is probably (way?) more conservative than many others in the Civil Rights movement... he may still be anti-LGBTQ (as he would almost certainly have been in the first more than half of his life, as was I...), although I don't know that. Still, his words moved this conservative Southern Baptist boy towards a more justice and beloved community direction and I'm thankful for that.

The People in My Dreams

Kentucky poet, writer, James Still

Last night, truly, just a few moments ago,

I had a dream I wish I could remember more of.

My wife, Donna, and I were at a conference -

the purpose of the conference was vague

and oft-changing -

and it was just a delightful wealth of great people.

Theologian, writer and prophet, Ken Sehested, was there and acted as a guide for us, introducing us to people as if we were honored guests. Lee Pennington, a great Kentucky poet and former teacher of mine, was in the ever-changing crowd. (Thanks, Ken, for being our host, I felt truly honored, as I don't think we've ever met in person!)

I believe songwriting Minneapolis friend, Bret Hesla, was there. Kate Sanders (poet and musician friend) was there, reading poetry. Poet and friend, Mackenzie Berry, was there, too, I believe. It all had a very Kentucky/Appalachian feel to it.

And much of the time was spent doing more mundane activities like finding which house we were supposed to be having the next meeting or lunchtime gathering in and I never was sure where we were supposed to be, but it didn't bother me as it was all such a delight.

Eventually Wendell Berry and James Still (Kentucky poet, writer who's been dead since 2001) ambled by to say some kind words, as if they were fans of ours! Although she didn't stop to say hello, Kentucky poet bell hooks was in the crowd and what an honor to see her! (She passed away recently... Last year?)

Eventually that lunch gathering was over and people began to disperse and so did the dream. I can't recall the words that were shared, but I know they were gold. The overwhelming feeling the dream left in my soul, as the details are now starting to evaporate, was Warmth. It was a gathering of good and kind people who shared warm affection for each other.

Oh, how I could remember the words that were shared in that dream.

In lieu of that, here is one of Still's poems that seems apt...

How it was in that place,

how light hung in a bright pool

Of air like water, in an eddy of cloud and sky,

I will long remember. I will long recall.

The maple blossoming wings,

the oaks proud with rule,

The spiders deep in silk,

the squirrels fat on mast,

The fields and draws and coves

where quail and peewees call.

Earth loved more than any earth,

stand firm, hold fast;

Trees burdened with leaf and bird,

root deep, grow tall.

 

The "Board of 'Peace'"

This administration - one known for circumventing due process to execute/kill off innocent people (or people who have not been found guilty of anything) - and being friends to strongmen, dictators, fascists and other bad actors... THIS administration has unilaterally "declared" they are forming a "board of peace..." presumably initially to restore the area around Gaza destroyed by Israeli/Palestinian warring (ie, destroyed by Israel)... the Israel that this administration (and to a lesser degree, former administrations!) have been allies with. They have no plans other than grandly announcing they are the "best" board ever, the "most historically important group" ever, "never before has there been anything like it!" According to the grifter/felon in charge.

The Felon announced unilaterally that the US would contribute $10 billion to a "fund" to do the work of this "board." Congress has not approved or been consulted, it would appear. It remains dubious to me that the president can just declare and grab such funding from the taxpayers unilaterally. He's inviting other nations to join in by also contributing billions to this "fund." More on that later.

The chief administrator for this "board of peace..."? The president has declared that HE will be the one managing this operation. Other administrators on this board include his son-in-law and other Felon loyalists. NO one else from other nations, at least at this point.

Who will manage the tens of billions that are allegedly being raised? Well, let's see... I guess that would be the administrator, and WHO was that again? Oh, yes, the Felon who has been convicted of corruption and money mismanagement, who has a history of no transparency of his funds, who has a history of going bankrupt or suing people when his money traps have skirted the law... THAT corrupt man will be placed in charge of administrating tens of BILLIONS of dollars (HUNDREDS of billions??)

So, who HAS joined this dictatorial "board of 'peace'..."? The "founding members" of this "board of 'peace'..." are:

Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Egypt, El Salvador, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Oh! And, what's that? These nations are by and large, all anti-democratic, authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning nations with bad human rights records? Who could have seen THAT coming?!

Hint: When the "bad guys" are running the "board of peace," they aren't actually interested in peace. If I've learned nothing from the comics, when a bunch of formerly (or currently) villains join forces to form a League of Villains, they are ALWAYS interested in self-enrichment and a threat to the safety of others. 

This has ALL the markings of a pyramid scheme or money laundering operation. Trump pressures a bunch of global pariahs/outliers into "funding" his "board of peace" that will be managed by, who again? Oh yeah, the Felon who has been found guilty multiple times of financial impropriety and then, the Felon or his shell corporations go "bankrupt" or "sue" people seeking accountability and the money goes "missing" or unaccounted for or just in his own pockets.

This is a scam and although it may be profitable for the villains involved, it's not a very intelligent scam and requires a level of gullibility or cultish brain-washing that is hard to imagine.

"All You Fascists," Indeed

The list of abuses, beatings, shootings, killings, false arrests, false detentions, etc, etc and additional jackbootery is long and has happened across the nation. That is hasn't happened to you or in your sight doesn't mean it isn't happening. Some examples:

Americans have been 
dragged, 
tackled, 
beaten, 
tased 
and shot by immigration agents. 
They’ve had their necks kneeled on. 
They’ve been held outside in the rain while in their underwear. 
At least three citizens were pregnant when agents detained them. 
One of those women had already had 
the door of her home blown off
while Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watched.

About two dozen 
Americans 
have said they were held for more than a day
without being able to phone lawyers or loved ones...

While the tally is almost certainly incomplete, we found more than 170 such incidents during 
the first nine months 
of President Donald Trump’s second administration.

Among the CITIZENS detained are nearly 20 children, 
including two with cancer. 
That includes four who were held for weeks with their undocumented mother and without access to the family’s attorney...

https://lailluminator.com/2025/10/17/ice-citizens-arrest/

And those were just the US citizens and from only one source and even before ALL THIS thuggism in Minneapolis.

Are you okay with ALL of that? ANY of that?

Does it not shame you that they kidnapped US children WITH CANCER and detained them?

How do you apologists read that sort of very short list and not vomit in embarrassment in what's being done in your name and with your support?

Not enough? Need more abuses by these thugs?

Among the detentions in which allegations have not stuck, masked agents pointed a gun at, pepper sprayed and punched a young man who had filmed them searching for his relative. In another, agents knocked over and then 
tackled a 79-year-old car wash owner, 
pressing their knees into his neck and back. 
His lawyer said he was held for 12 hours and wasn’t given medical attention despite having broken ribs in the incident and having recently had heart surgery.

Piece of shit bullies and cowards.

And that was just ONE source. More...

In Oregon:

ICE has raided 
houses of worship, 
schools,
hotels, restaurants, farms, and retail stores.
 
“Communities across the state have been terrorized by masked, armed agents who are indiscriminately and aggressively harassing and kidnapping individuals at school, at work, on the streets, and in their homes,” the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota said Thursday.
 
US Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote on social media following the shootings in Portland on Thursday that “ICE has done nothing to keep our communities safer.”
 
“ICE agents are terrorizing folks in Oregon and across the country,” he added. “I’m demanding full accountability—an investigation that involves Oregon officials—and ICE to immediately end these dangerous operations in Oregon...

A pregnant Illinois woman told Newsweek she thought her life was about to end when a federal agent pointed his gun through her car window, after she honked her horn to alert people ICE was nearby,” The Marshall Project reported. 
“In another incident in Chicago, 
a combat veteran alleged in a court filing that a federal officer said 
‘bang, bang’ and ‘you’re dead, liberal’ while pointing a handgun at him.””

On the same day as Good’s killing, ICE conducted a raid at a nearby Minneapolis high school. One local resident who witnessed the raid said 
she saw “one teacher get tackled” 
as educators and other school employees tried to keep the agents 
away from students.
 
The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers accused federal agents of using tear gas—which ICE has deployed frequently in recent months.
 
The Washington Post reported in November that federal immigration officers “have thrown chemical agents out of vehicles on city streets, creating a hazard for motorists.”
 
“They have thrown tear-gas canisters near stores and schools, exposing 
children, pregnant women, and older people to the noxious gas,”
the newspaper added. “And on numerous occasions federal officers have fired pepper balls directly at protesters—in one case, 
striking a pastor in the head.”

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/%E2%80%98reign-terror%E2%80%99-ice-builds-appalling-record-killings-beatings-kidnappings-and-more

Feeling proud yet?

 
Maimings, hospitalizations, false arrests, gassings, being shot point blank with "less lethal weapons," for the "crime" of protesting, verbal abuses, of course, an eye (or more?) being put out, and, of course, the killings.

“I will never see through my left eye again, not even light,” said 21-year-old protester Kaden Rummler, in a statement to the Associated Press. “I’m just glad I’m alive to tell my story.”

Rummler was maimed by a projectile fired by a federal officer at a recent protest in Santa Ana, California the AP reported.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/20/us/protestors-tear-gas-pepper-balls

Look at the videos and photos, the blood, the maimings, the explosions, the gas attacks, the beatings... ALL on US cities and on predominantly peaceful protesters who, predominantly, are not the "illegal violent criminal aliens" these jackboots are allegedly after.

This is an administration that is out of control. Even THEY are having to back down and apologize for the slander and stupidly false claims they routinely made out of hand to defend the abuses of their jackboot villainous secret police force.

And you know I could go on and on detailing the NATIONAL harm and violence being waged across the US on immigrants (documented and not) and citizens. And, as repeatedly noted, more often that not, they DO NOT HAVE the warrants that they are required to have by law.

Just like the extrajudicial killings of people on boats in the ocean off of Venezuela. You can have a criminal deviant con man tell you, "Oh, trust me, they REALLY were bad guys..." and not offer ANY support for the claims and you trust him, you trust ICE, you trust the Felon's idiot enablers... and while you're trusting abusive, bad people, you're blaming peaceful protesters, pastors, children, youth, young adults, the elderly for the abuse and killings by the actual bad guys.

Blaming the victim is always a sign that you're on the wrong side of decency.

Oh, and as to the way your "heroes" are "protecting" US citizens by arresting "ALLL these violent criminals," that, too, is a damned stupid lie your con man is telling his useful idiots.

65 Percent of People Taken by ICE Had No Convictions, 
93 Percent No Violent Convictions

https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions

Wake up.

All You Fascists Bound to Lose!

 Thank you, Rhiannon!

Thank you, Woody!

Thank you, Resistance Revival Chorus!