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

The Gospel of Jesus vs Evangelicalism

Stan, at the Winging It blog, posted today about the "Gospel of Jesus." Stan pointed to Jesus declaration of purpose as he began his ministry ("I have come to preach good news to the poor...," etc)...

This passage has been dragged out as proof that "the gospel" is simply a social justice gospel. Jesus was here to help the oppressed and the poor and the transgender. Oh, no, not that one, but He would have been if they had been around at the time. You know, any of the mistreated and minimized. Assuming that's so, it's sad to know that Jesus failed.

Some points in response:

Right. Take the Bible literally... unless it's Jesus' words speaking of Jesus' Good News... then you should make it metaphorical and basically ignore it and replace it with your own human-made "gospel" that leads with "You're all disgusting sinners who deserve an eternity of torture... AND the vast majority of you will get just that!"

My concern is that much of modern evangelicalism has a sick idea of "good news." Sick, in the sense that it's entirely divorced from Jesus' actual gospel. Jesus, the author of that Gospel, one would suppose.

My concern is that modern evangelicals regularly fail to take Jesus' words seriously and opt, instead, for trying to render them meaningless and impotent.

Stan said... "If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission."

Wow. He is trying to emasculate Jesus who he calls Lord, saying his teachings, taken literally, show a failure of a man unable to do anything.

It's stunning, how little respect modern conservatives have for Jesus' teaching.

Jesus' way as he taught is a way of salvation for all, beginning with the poor and oppressed but including the rich and powerful and privileged. Like me and most people who might read this blog. It includes us WHEN and AS we join with the poor and marginalized in fighting oppression and building the Beloved Community.

Ironic that Stan choose this MLK Day to attack the idea of the Beloved Community as a failure of an idea, a failure of Jesus' teachings.

And what of Stan's "gospel" of bad news for nearly all of humanity? Of assumed failure and eternal torture for the bulk of the world? You call that a SUCCESSFUL bit of "good news..."??? If you're going to say Stan's "gospel" is better because Jesus' Good News didn't fully succeed in ending the oppression and marginalization of the poor then and there with Jesus, well, hell, isn't the modern evangelical "gospel" an UTTER failure because most people, in that scheme, will die and be tortured for an eternity?

Think about it.

And rather than misrepresenting what Jesus' progressive followers are saying when we point to his literal words, why not begin by listening to what we're actually saying? Stan's parody of our position - our understanding of Jesus' literal words - is a pale and faint understanding.

Stan also said...

"Still, I happen to think that the latter -- saved from sin -- is more impressive and more important ... and more consistent with Jesus's ministry and the rest of the Scriptures (like Jesus's own claim that "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost")"

1. Again, the "good news" that the majority of humanity will NOT be "saved from sin" but will instead, be tortured for an eternity for their typical human failures is NOT good news at all. It's sick, evil, irrational. Even if you ultimately disagree, do you at least see how  truly awful that "good news" you modern evangelicals have manufactured is?

2. Stan cites Luke 19, that Jesus came to seek and save the lost... but he lifted that verse entirely out of the passage to ignore the context of those words and render it meaningless in an effort to promote the modern Evangelical bad news. I wondered if Stan (and others) caught how they did that?

3. Also, in context, this passage REFUTES that misrepresentation of Jesus' actual gospel, that Jesus "failed" because no poor people were lifted out of poverty.

Luke 19, in context (the story of Zaccheus)...

When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”

Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord,
“Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I
will give to the poor,
and if I have defrauded anyone of anything,
I will give back four times as much.”

And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

WHO was the lost one in that story? Zaccheus, the rich man.

WHY was he lost?

Because he had placed his treasures here on earth - that is, accumulating treasures for himself, which ultimately led him to a way of cheating and oppressing the poor (which is one of the trappings of wealth).

WHAT saved him?

Recognizing his way was sick and harmful and repenting and following Jesus in HIS way, which was a way of restoring the poor and cheated, of lifting them out of the oppression caused by systems of wealth and power.

Stan chose a great passage but reached an ass-backwards interpretation of it.

I wondered and asked Stan if he saw how that might be correct... that he'd misinterpreted this passage?

The Way of Jesus is a way that, when followed, leads the people siding with/aligning with the poor and oppressed and taking actions which defends them and helps restore them to the Beloved Community. To the degree that we take Jesus' words literally (as Zaccheus did), the poor ARE restored and, at least, a welcomed part of the beloved community of God.  And, when the rich and powerful continue to dismiss Jesus' teachings and they aren't lifted out of poverty fully or made whole, they are, nonetheless, part of a beloved community which shares what they have to alleviate the suffering of the poor and marginalized by the wealthy oppressors.

Look at what the passage is actually saying, people.

Stan... "If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission. He tried, but apparently it's up to His followers to accomplish what He couldn't."

1. Jesus literally fed the hungry. Success.  That was literally good news for the poor and hungry. It wasn't a failure. Shame on you, Stan, for calling Jesus a failure.

2. Jesus told his followers to literally feed one another, especially the hungry and marginalized.  And they did so. That was success, not a failure.

3.  Jesus literally saved the oppressed woman accused of adultery (somehow, magically, apart from any man!) from those who literally sought to kill her. You can bet that was good news to her. Shame on you, Stan, for calling Jesus valiant actions a failure.

4.  In the passage Stan cites, Zaccheus was led to change his ways and follow Jesus way, literally feeding the poor and fighting oppression. That was a success... That was good news both for Zaccheus and for the people that he had harmed. Shame on you, Stan, for calling Jesus a failure. Zaccheus would disagree.

5.  Jesus said that those who followed him would do even greater things than him. And indeed, we have. We've ended the notion of slavery being accepted as a moral option, by-and-large. We've ended the oppression of women in places where Jesus' teachings are followed. We've more fully developed and recognized the notion of human rights and spread that good news around the world. We have made progress precisely because of following the Teachings of Jesus' way.

 Following Jesus way has indeed lifted the poor out of misery and helped to end oppression. Have we ended all oppression? No, but we've made progress. On the other hand, has Jesus saved all of humanity from their sin? Modern Evangelicals would say no... nothing like it, that most people are doomed to an eternity of torment (hell).

Which way is truly the failure?

Rest in Glory, Desmond Tutu

 

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

"Because we are human beings who have been given, extraordinarily, by this God we worship the gift of freedom. And God has such a deep reverence for that gift, that God who— alone I usually say he has the perfect right to be a totalitarian, had much rather see us go freely to hell than compel us to go to heaven. God takes seriously the gift that God has given us. And we make choices. And the God, who in an omnipotent God, in many ways becomes impotent, because God has given us the gift to choose. And God hopes that there will be those who agitate against slavery, that we will have people who will fight against racism, injustice, oppression, wherever."

"Once a Zambian and a South African, it is said, were talking. The Zambian then boasted about their Minister of Naval Affairs. The South African asked, “But you have no navy, no access to the sea. How then can you have a Minister of Naval Affairs?” The Zambian retorted, “Well, in South Africa you have a Minister of Justice, don’t you?”"

"When will we learn that human beings are of infinite value because they have been created in the image of God, and that it is a blasphemy to treat them as if they were less than this and to do so ultimately recoils on those who do this? In dehumanizing others, they are themselves dehumanized. Perhaps oppression dehumanizes the oppressor as much as, if not more than, the oppressed. They need each other to become truly free, to become human. We can be human only in fellowship, in community, in koinonia, in peace.

Let us work to be peacemakers, those given a wonderful share in Our Lord’s ministry of reconciliation. If we want peace, so we have been told, let us work for justice. Let us beat our swords into ploughshares.

God calls us to be fellow workers with Him, so that we can extend His Kingdom of Shalom, of justice, of goodness, of compassion, of caring, of sharing, of laughter, joy and reconciliation, so that the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever. Amen."

"Just Us" or Justice?

 

Stan at the Birds of the Air blog put up a post today about his understanding of Justice. As is often the case, his argument raises so many questions that I'd love to see answered, and yet, he never answers questions. So, here are some of the questions/concerns I have about what he's written, for what they're worth.

Stan... "as is so much the case these days -- words are shifting -- "justice" is shifting. Part of that is displayed in that simple first definition above, where "fair and reasonable" becomes purely "What I consider fair and reasonable.""

It is not currently defined as "WHAT I consider fair and reasonable..." It has always been what the culture at large considers fair and reasonable. Nothing is shifting there.

Stan... "Instantly it becomes contrary and meaningless because too many of us would define "fair and reasonable" in a way that is neither."

Like, for instance, saying that a human who has committed 1000 typical "sins" (no murder, rape, arson, grand larceny, etc... more of the gossiping, slander, lying, etc sorts of sins) "deserves" to be punished for an eternity of torture/torment... that is most certainly not in any rational way far or reasonable... and yet it's what conservatives routinely teach. So, insofar as you're talking about traditional abuse of the word Justice by conservative Christians, yes, it does become meaningless.

Do you understand why?

At the same time, I suspect that what is Just is not that difficult for the vast majority of us. We recognize that for a ruler/nation to punish someone for a lifetime for relatively minor crimes would be a travesty of justice. We recognize murder, rape, arson, abuse of innocents, assault, etc... to be offenses against justice. It's generally and broadly speaking, just not that difficult for most rational adults.

Admittedly, when it comes down to specifics, it can be trickier... what IS a just punishment for murder? Capitol punishment? Life in prison? Possible parole for good behavior? What if the murder was a woman killing her abusive husband? Same punishment or do the circumstances make a difference?

The details can be tricky and disputable and, to be completely clear, there are NO perfect answers. We don't have a perfect court or word from God that spells out the specifics of all the potentialities of what to do when someone harms another. But, nonetheless, generally speaking, it's not that difficult.

Stan (referring to a death penalty for eating the fruit in the garden in the Creation story)... "God thought so. We wouldn't. "

Stan thinks God thought so. But that's Stan's opinion and it's not a given and not proven.

IF the story is a mythic telling of Creation as it appears to be at face value, then we aren't obligated to treat that "punishment" as a literal suggestion that God thinks eating fruit deserves a death penalty, which is irrational on the face of it. And unjust as the word is defined.

Stan... "God considered adultery worthy of death (Lev 20:10); we don't."

Just to be clear: YOU, Stan, don't consider adultery (or talking back to your parents) to be worthy of death, do you? No answer forthcoming, I'm sure.

Stan... "Perhaps you see, now, why simply "that which corresponds that what is right" is something of an unhelpful definition for "justice" when we are so deficient at knowing what is right."

Ah, and it comes down to this. YOU are suggesting that we are "so deficient at knowing what is right..." but you haven't proven this. It's an unsupported hunch on your part. God has not said this. Reason does not demand it. It's what you and your human tradition believes.

Do you recognize how this is correct?

Stan... "His infinite perfections, infinite greatness, and infinite worth are violated when we take it upon ourselves to circumvent Him."

Ah, but what of those who never once decide to "take it upon ourselves to circumvent God..."? The atheist and agnostic, for instance, who don't believe the evidence supports a God are specifically NOT ever, not even one time, trying to circumvent God. They just don't believe in God, so they would have no reason to choose to circumvent God.

If they do something wrong, it's never an intentional affront to God. At all. So, by that measure (the one you're suggesting there), atheists can do no wrong, it would seem. Does that make sense?

Also, what of all those who DO love God and disagree with conservatives about how best to follow God. We support the idea of aiding refugees and immigrants, of abolishing the death penalty, of supporting a woman's right to choose, of supporting women's rights in general, of supporting LGBTQ rights... ALL in an effort to honor God and follow God's ways. There is zero intention on our part to "circumvent God," even though conservatives disagree with us on these points. But we're not beholden to conservatives, are we? ...but to God, as best we understand God.

In that case, do you agree there is no intent to circumvent God... but instead, just the opposite?

Stan... "If we understand sin like it is described in Scripture -- a violation of God's glory, an assault on God's holiness, treason against the Most High -- then lots of things change. Death for sin becomes reasonable."

1. First of all, "scripture" LITERALLY never describes sin in those terms... not that I can think of. Those are human interpretations of Scripture, but literally NOT scripture. Just as a starting point, do you recognize that?

(Briefly, in the Bible, there are two terms translated "sin..." The most common one, I'm told, is one that speaks of missing the mark - imperfection. Attempting to hit the target but falling short. That makes sense. We all recognize how we humans do that. The second, less-common in the Bible word is the notion of intentionally transgressing a law, going beyond boundaries that were set... neither of those ideas are comparable to "cosmic treason" or "an assault on God's holiness." Those are Stan's - and others' - reading into the Bible something that is literally not there.)

2. Even so, death does not "become reasonable..." IF we are imperfect humans and we make mistakes and choose wrong and do something God doesn't want us to do... HOW does eternal punishment for being imperfect make rational, just sense?

It doesn't.

Stan... "Christians who believe that Christ redeemed us by His blood (Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; Rev 1:5) are backwards, ignorant, and, basically, just as evil as this god they believe in. Or, as I started to explain, they believe in a different form of "what is right" and it is not consistent with Scripture, history, or Christian doctrine."

That IS what much of conservative evangelical history teaches, but it is ONLY what you all think Scripture teaches, it's not God's Word. It's your opinion of God's Word, which many of us think is wrong for precisely the reasons you cite here... You're relying upon your own interpretations which are, on the face of it, unjust and unholy and irrational... which is, itself, an indication that you've misunderstood and misinterpreted. Do you recognize that distinction?

Stan, seriously, there is just so much wrong, unbiblical, irrational and unjust in what you're saying here. It really would help your case if you could answer the huge questions about the huge holes in your argument.

And if you can't answer them (and you almost certainly can't), then maybe it would be time to humble yourself a bit and take a step back, take a breath, open your eyes and ears to a fresh word from God... a Word that isn't so crazily irrational and unjust and unholy.

Stan... "Thus, the penalty for failing to meet that all-encompassing glory must be equal to the size of the failure. That's what corresponds to what is right."

???

Says who? And to be clear, I'm NOT disagreeing with God. I'm saying DID GOD REALLY SAY THAT precisely because I know the Bible and God did NOT say that. Any of that.

The Bible teaches of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
The Bible teaches of a God that wants ALL to be saved.
The Bible teaches of a God who has a table open to all, who saves by Grace, not by irrational fury.
The Bible teaches of a God who is patient and forgiving, who knows us better than we know ourselves and who loves us, just the same. BECAUSE God knows us perfectly.

It's an unhealthy, irrational and unjust human understanding of the Bible. A perversion of both God's great and glorious grace and God's justice.

Think about it: We have flawed, imperfect humans who sometimes make deliberate wrong choices, but more often than not, we make mistakes... We THINK it's right to oppose gay marriage, for instance, or we THINK it's right to support immigrants... and it turns out we're mistaken. Our point was to honor God and do the right thing. We're more often that not, I suspect, making errors from a place of trying to do the right thing.

Consider: What if STAN and his human traditions were wrong all along in their opposition and oppression of gay people? They didn't even realize they WERE oppressing gay people and causing harm (we conservatives have been, after all, but I know I didn't realize it at the time and no doubt, you don't realize it now)... but what if they were wrong? What if you were wrong?

Do you think that you, a human created as an imperfect human "deserves" to be punished "equal to the size of God's glory..."? How is that rational? Moral? Just? Biblical?

MAYBE, if we were perfect gods and everything we did, we did knowingly to cause evil... MAYBE then that would make sense. But imperfect humans being imperfect "deserve" a punishment as big as an almighty God??

You paint a rather petty and mean-spirited picture of a god who is irrational and unjust, by biblical standards.

Do you understand why or do I need to explain it to you? (That's a serious question, not meant to be insulting.)

More questions to Stan that will go unanswered by him or by conservatives, in general. At least, that has been my experience. I hope one day to find the conservative willing to wade into this and actually answer questions directly and rationally. I'm confident they exist... I just can't prove it, yet.

You Can't Hear Answers if You Refuse to Listen

Stan, on his blog, lamented with Craig recently how "they..." those "others" who call themselves Christian but who refuse to agree with his wisdom and human traditions - how they never even try to give reasonable responses to explain why they disagree with Stan and his human traditions.

The post was "Who Says?" and was written in response to my regular question to him (and he may have been writing with other people in mind who disagree with him, but there were so many near-direct quotes from me that he was clearly referencing conversations we've had.

And when I say, conversations, I mean where I've written to him explaining an alternative view and which he rarely responds to and never directly responds to anymore. At best, we may occasionally see Stan say something like, "Dan tells me..." (and then proceeds to say something that I haven't said, because he has, again, failed to understand what I was actually saying... but that's another post).

With conservatives, I regularly push back when they say that we can "know" that this position or that position is the "right one" because The Bible. By which, they mean, that THEY READ the Bible and THEY INTERPRET the Bible to be saying something that agrees with their particular human traditions. When they say, "But we know that God opposes gay people getting married..." I will regularly ask, "Says who?" Because God has not said that. Ever. Literally.

Who says is a reasonable question to answer, but Stan and Craig, etc, really hate it. They often will try to mock it by comparing it to the "devil" saying, "Did God really say...?" to "Eve" in the Creation story. The difference that they never seem to get is we are not questioning God. We're questioning them.

Beyond that, a rational, powerful and secure God can handle us asking questions, one would assume if one doesn't have a rather boxed in and limited view of God.

In this post, Stan concludes with what he says is the difference between people like him and people like me, saying...

Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ..."

And here, I would respond with, Says who? He clearly is following a set of human traditions. His source are the words of Scripture as he and those who agree with him interpret them. And THAT is the actual difference between he and I. And just because he doesn't agree with my conclusions (any more than I do his) doesn't mean I don't also read Scripture (and use my reason, as he does) to make conclusions.

By way of example, he offers his human opinions and interpretations of Matthew 18 that includes the verses about "plucking out your eye if it offends you, cut off your hand if it offends you... it's better to enter heaven maimed than be cast into a fiery hell for ever..." Stan concludes we can KNOW that there is an eternal punishment for all sinners (except for the "saved") because Jesus said so. And he cites this passage.

In the comments, Craig lamented...

A while back I raised a question something like, "If our reward for doing good (ie minimizing our typical sins) is eternal, and that eternal reward is "fair", then why wouldn't eternal punishment be "fair" also?". I never really got much of an answer for that either.

And Stan responded...

It feels like I rarely get reasoned answers to questions like that. But maybe that's just me.

[chuckle, chuckle...] those guys sure think they have them liberals on the ropes... They can't even answer their questions.

Except, I do. I did. I have and I regularly do answer these sorts of questions.

Here is my response to Stan's Matthew 18 "Jesus said there was eternal fiery hell for sinners" idea. It was the third or so time I'd answered it just in this post.

+++++++++

Instead of complaining that you "rarely get reasoned answers" - why not share the answers you HAVE received and have a reasoned discussion about the matter?

ETERNAL FIRE: in the context of the Matthew 18 passage, we see Jesus using what appear to be several clearly hyperbolic phrases to make a point. I suspect that most Christians agree that Jesus wasn't literally calling for plucking out our eyes or cutting off our hands.

Agreed?

Likewise, even amongst traditional conservative Christians, there is a fair amount of doubt about whether or not passages like this are suggesting a literally fiery hell/punishment. So, even conservatives treat many of these verses in Matthew 18 figuratively.

Agreed?

Do you think "hell" is a literal eternal fire or do you think the "fire" part might be figurative?

In the case of literal bodily mutilation, I suspect that most of Christianity does not think this is a literal command. The point being, then, a hyperbolic reminder to watch out for the trapping and harmful nature of sin.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4569/did-jesus-teach-people-to-literally-pluck-their-eye-out-and-cut-their-hand-off

Agreed?

Why then, when we see Jesus flip over to a mention of "eternal fire" as torture/punishment for at least some sin*, do we think it might be literal promise as opposed to hyperbolic emphasis, as is more rational and (at least some of us think) a natural, simple direct understanding of the text? Isn't a hyperbolic explanation of ALL of these examples the very clearest, simplest, most obvious interpretation?

Further, when Jesus used these seemingly clearly hyperbolic language, it is in the context of "one these little ones" this seems to many of us to be clearly connected with the on-going themes of justice for and siding the "least of these," the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus said he'd come to preach good news and release and Jubilee. This concern for the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus literally said he'd come to preach good news is in contrast with the Pharisees and rich and powerful whom Jesus regularly butted heads with. This passage clearly SEEMS IN KEEPING with this concern... it's yet another warning to powerful oppressors and those who cause harm to the poor and marginalized.

Is that not reasonable and biblical, even if you may not agree with it?

* In THAT clear context, Jesus gives this strong warning. This passage is literally not saying "Any sin will cause you to be thrown into hellfire forever, if you don't repent just right..."

Do you agree that it literally isn't a blanket warning for any and all sins to cause one to be "sent to" a "fiery hell" forever?

Now... EVEN IF you don't ultimately agree with my reasoning, how is that NOT a direct and clear reasoned response to the question of "eternal fire" as mentioned in Matthew 18? How is that not both reasoned and biblical?

++++++

Of course, Stan didn't answer, as he rarely does the actual questions I ask him. And so, I've posted it here, just to be clear that Stan et al ARE getting reasoned responses, in spite of their protests.