Beloved, Humble Community and the Bible

I've asked many traditionalist Christians over the years, "Why Sola Scriptura? It's not in the Bible, so isn't it a self-defeating human theory?"

Some of my posts on the topic...

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2013/08/listen.html

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2015/10/i-can-do-no-other.html

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2016/03/answering-question.html

Stan at his blog yesterday once again says he's answering this question. He isn't. He doesn't answer the question. I think he's missing the point, because this line of "answers" are what I always hear from traditionalist Christians who believe in this human tradition.

Just a reminder: Sola Scriptura is the theory that "The Bible the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

The problem? It's not in the Bible. And here, I don't mean the words, "Sola Scriptura" or the concept, "The 66 books of the Bible are the sole infallible source of authority for faith and practice," or even, "Scripture is the sole infallible source of authority for faith and practice."

There is no ONE (or multiple) biblical source that says anything like that. There just isn't. Jesus certainly never says anything like this. At all.

One problem with this? IF Sola Scriptura were a real thing, then the tradition of Sola Scriptura would undermine the teaching of Sola Scriptura, because it's simply not in the Bible.

And just for what it's worth, it's not like I'm a wild loner alone, making this self-evident claim that Sola Scriptura is not biblical and thus, is a self-defeating theory. There are folks like this guy and many other Catholics (and others) who recognize the obvious...

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/

Ultimately, when challenged on it, traditionalists who affirm this human tradition drop back to saying something like, "Well, there IS that one passage that says that 'all scripture is God-breathed...'" It's what Stan did yesterday. The passage in question says...

All Scripture is breathed out by God and
profitable for teaching,
for reproof,
for correction,
and for training in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

That's it. It literally says nothing like "all Scripture is the sole authority for understanding morality and matters of theology/Christian belief."

Is Scripture profitable for teaching? Sure, I think so.

Is it good for reproof and correcting people? Sure, why not?

Is it good for training people about righteousness? Yes, sure.

But, does any of that say it is the sole, or final or ultimate authority on deciding what is and isn't moral? What is and isn't right Christian thinking? It literally just doesn't say that.

What the traditionalists are doing are, in essence, saying, "To ME/US, it makes sense if it's 'God-breathed," and is useful for teaching, etc, then the pages of the Bible MUST be the SOLE authority to decide such matters." But no matter how much it might make sense to them to think that, it literally doesn't say that. THEY are reading into the text something that isn't there.

And I'm totally fine with them thinking that makes sense to them. But it's different to say that GOD HATH SAID sola scriptura, because God hasn't. It's their human interpretation and tradition, not what the Bible says.

I've never seen one traditionalist admit that distinction. Or even to seem to recognize that what they're doing is inserting their interpretation in place of what the text actually says.

And, as I note in one of my posts above, the Bible is plenty clear that we can understand about morality and God through multiple means. If we're believers, we can see that God might teach us through God's Spirit. God is an almighty God (as described in the Bible) and there are many examples of God telling people in the Bible what the right and moral thing to do is. There is nothing in the Bible that says God won't do this any more.

Further, the Bible makes it clear that God's will or God's word or God's thinking is written upon the human heart/psyche. We might refer to that as just our good God-given common sense. I don't need the Bible to tell me how evil it is to enslave another human, it's just obvious.

The Bible makes it clear that the Golden Rule (do unto others...) is a reasonable way of understanding right and wrong.

The Bible even says that all of creation, including human nature, is telling us of God.

And in none of that is there one suggestion of, "and THIS way is the ultimate, sole, authoritative way of determining what is right and good Christian thinking." It's not there, not in the Bible. Anywhere.

We can see that it's not there by the way traditionalists defend this human tradition by trotting out one, maybe two verses that don't say Sola Scriptura, and they have nothing else. Stan does that again in his post yesterday.

Here's how he put it (referring to this passage in Timothy)...

This statement gives us the two most important claims regarding Scripture.
First, we have its origin.
Second, we have its efficacy.

Okay, for believers who value the Bible, we might concede that "all Scripture" (and here we may include the Bible, but it isn't in the text) is originated from God. But what do we mean by that?

Well, some of us Bible believers say we affirm that passage that says "every good thing comes from God." Because, of course, if you believe in a good and perfect God, then all good things are OF God, if not FROM God. But that might be a minor distinction. But let's set that aside for now. The second conclusion Stan (and others) reach is that this passage teaches that "scripture" is effective for teaching morality and Christian belief.

But that is not what's in question. The question they need to prove if they want to is, but is the Bible the SOLE AUTHORITY for deciding morality and Christian belief. This text does not say that, and that it does affirm that Scripture is effective for teaching morality and faith, that's not the same as saying it is the SOLE authority.

Stan continues with some about "God-breathed" and what Stan thinks that means (note: NOT what the text says, but what Stan, et al, theorize about what it means...) and then Stan opines...

And how effective is this Scripture? The text says that it is "profitable"

Yes, indeed. That's LITERALLY what it says. But does profitable mean It is the SOLE AUTHORITY? That's just not what the text says. Stan, et al, overreach when they read into the text this meaning. As much as the traditionalists complain about eisegesis (reading into the text something that isn't there), that's precisely what they're doing.

Stan sort of concludes...

The logic is irrefutable. The source of Scripture is God, giving it God's authority, and the purpose of Scripture is to give us all we need to be what we're supposed to be.

But the logic IS refutable. I've just refuted it. And by acknowledging he's using his "logic" to reach that conclusion, it's all the more clear that it IS Stan's logic.

I know, I used to believe in these human traditions that were taught to me and it can be hard to overcome. But if the text doesn't say what they interpret it to mean, well, it just doesn't say it. And it doesn't say it. It's an interpretation. A human opinion. And as such, it is not biblical and as such, according to the sola scriptura traditionalists, it's not authoritative. Period.

Beloved Community and the Beloved Economy

 

Continuing the theme...

The Beloved Community/A Beloved Economy
Vs
A Loveless Community/the Extractive Economy

I'm currently reading a book called Beloved Economies: Transforming How We Work, by Jess Rimington and Joanna L. Cea. I'm still early in, but it appears to be a great work talking about positive workable solutions for our Work and a healthy community/communities and world.

It touches on and borrows much (with acknowledgment) from the giants (known and lesser known) who've gone before us. Beloved Community, of course, from Dr King (who found much of that notion in Jesus' Community and the Bible) and "loveless" communities and economies from Kentucky's own deeply missed, bell hooks.

I'm reading it because it was recommended by those in my work world specifically about building economies that work for folks with disabilities who've been so marginalized and left out of nearly ANY economy for, well, ever. But of course, it's much bigger than that.

Because what many of us have talked about for a long time involves systemic policies and rules and traditions that are intertwined and interwoven, I think it can be difficult (at least for me) to think clearly about it. I think this book will help/is helping.

I imagine I'll have more excerpts and thoughts from the book in the weeks to come.

"It raised a question:

If work doesn't have to be locked in
harmful, exhausting patterns for our endeavors to succeed,
why aren't more of us adopting
beloved patterns of working?"

The premise of the book is that the way we, collectively, work isn't working for many/most of us. The "system" has been designed to work very well for the people at the top of the system, the people who make the most money. And it DOES work well for them. But if you're someone from an historically oppressed or marginalized group or just a regular citizen, that system - the "loveless economy" or "business as usual" - is not working well. It doesn't bring true wealth to society and especially, the most marginalized groups of people.

As I read this book, I find it ringing true over and over on point after point and yet, at the same time, find myself trying to wrap my head around its implications. This is the problem with any New Way of Thinking, I think. Being a new way of thinking and doing things, means literally thinking in new ways and that can be hard to do if, you know, you only have known the old ways of thinking.

And by pointing to "new ways of thinking," the authors of the book continually point out that they're not really new. Many/most of these ideas are actually ancient in different cultures. They're just outside of our current way of doing business.

Beloved Community, Jesus and the Disinherited

It is rumored that Dr King often (always?) carried two books with him when he traveled: The Bible and Howard Thurman's "Jesus and the Disinherited." Some excerpts from the latter...

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I have heard a sermon on the meaning of religion, of Christianity, to the man who stands with his back against the wall. it is urgent that my meaning be crystal clear. The masses of men live with their backs constantly against the wall. They are the poor, the disinherited, the dispossessed.

What does our religion say to them? The issue is not what it counsels them to do for others whose need may be greater, but what religion offers to meet their own needs. The search for an answer to this question is perhaps the most important religious quest of modern life...

It was this kind of atmosphere [a desperate need the oppressed have for liberty] that characterized the life of the Jewish community when Jesus was a youth in Palestine. The urgent question was what must be the attitude toward Rome. Was any attitude possible that would be morally tolerable and at the same time preserve a basic self-esteem—without which life couldn’t possibly have any meaning?

The question was not academic. It was the most crucial of questions. In essence, Rome was the enemy; Rome symbolized total frustration; Rome was the great barrier to peace of mind.

And Rome was everywhere. No Jewish person of the period could deal with the question of his practical life, his vocation, displace in society, until first he had settled deep within himself this critical issue.

This is the position of the disinherited in every age. What must be the attitude toward the rulers, the controllers of political, social, and economic life? This is the question of the Negro in American life. Until he has faced and settle that question, he cannot inform his environment with reference to his own life, whatever may be his preparation of his pretensions.

In the main, there were two alternative faced by the Jewish minority of which Jesus was a part. Simply stated, these were to resist or not to resist. But each of these alternatives has within it secondary alternatives...

The solution which Jesus found for himself and for Israel, as they faced the hostility of the Greco-Roman world, becomes the word and the work of redemption for all the cast-down people in every generation and in every age. I mean this quite literally. I do not ignore the theological and metaphysical interpretation of the Christian doctrine of salvation. But the underprivileged everywhere have long since abandoned any hope that this type of salvation deals with the crucial issues by which their days are turned into despair without consolation.

The basic facts that Christianity as it was born in the mind of this Jewish teacher and thinker appears as a technique of survival for the oppressed.

That it became, through the intervening years, a religion of the powerful and the dominant, used sometimes as an instrument of oppression, must not tempt us into believing that it was thus in the mind and life of Jesus. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

Whenever his spirit appears, the oppressed gather fresh courage; for he announced the good news that fear, hypocrisy, and hatred, the three hounds of hell that track the trail of the disinherited, need have no dominion over them...

https://epiphany-md.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Jesus-and-the-Disinherited-.pdf

Beloved Community and a World House

 From Dr King's "The World House..."

Some years ago a famous novelist died. Among his papers was found a list of suggested plots for future stories, the most prominently underscored being this one: "A widely separated family inherits a house in which they have to live together." This is the great new problem of mankind. We have inherited a large house, a great "world house" in which we have to live together-- black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu-- a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.

However deeply American Negroes are caught in the struggle to be at last at home in our homeland of the United States, we cannot ignore the larger world house in which we are also dwellers. Equality with whites will not solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a world society stricken by poverty and in a universe doomed to extinction by war.

All inhabitants of the globe are now neighbors. This worldwide neighborhood has been brought into being largely as a result of the modern scientific and technological revolutions. The world of today is vastly different from the world of just one hundred years ago...

We live in a day, said the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, "when civilization is shifting its basic outlook; a major turning point in history where the pre-suppositions on which society is structured are being analyzed, sharply challenged, and profoundly changed."

What we are seeing now is a freedom explosion, the realization of "an idea whose time has come," to use Victor Hugo's phrase. The deep rumbling of discontent that we hear today is the thunder of disinherited masses, rising from dungeons of oppression to the bright hills of freedom. In one majestic chorus the rising masses are singing, in the words of our freedom song, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn us around."

All over the world like a fever, freedom is spreading in the widest liberation movement in history. The great masses of people are determined to end the exploitation of their races and lands. They are awake and moving toward their goal like a tidal wave. You can hear them rumbling in every village street, on the docks, in the houses, among the students, in the churches and at political meetings. For several centuries the direction of history flowed from the nations and societies of Western Europe out into the rest of the world in "conquests" of various sorts. That period, the era of colonialism, is at an end. East is moving West. The earth is being redistributed.

https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2010/01/martin-luther-king-jr-the-world-house-excerpt.html

Shame, Shame and Shame

Shame
Shame on Joe Biden for his border policy and his "Parole" answer to letting some people in conditionally which illegally (or so say the lawyers I've heard/read talk about the topic) still denies asylum seekers from, you know, seeking asylum. I know that Biden and the Democrats are ham-strung by the GOP (and some Democrats) who won't create reasonable border policies that simply allow those escaping starvation and violence to enjoy the human right of self-determination. This must change.

Shame

On the GOP (and some Dems) in Congress for not doing better by our immigrant neighbors and asylum seekers. This must change and we need the GOP to be more welcoming to those seeking liberty and safety and the Democrats and the citizens of the US to apply more pressure to all our representatives to see this change. Again, this is a basic human rights issue.

"Imposing asylum bans, expulsions, or other punitive policies on people seeking asylum at the U.S. border is both a violation of U.S. refugee law and the Refugee Convention."

https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/biden-administration-use-and-expansion-of-trump-policy-to-ban-people-seeking-asylum-endangers-lives-tramples-human-rights/

Shame

Shame on the GOP. Shame, shame, shame. The silence in the face of recently elected George Santos and his completely fabricated "history" of "accomplishments is an embarrassment to a free republic. Santos is the ultimate outcome of the modern Trump-style GOP (although it began prior to Trump). He has out-trumped Trump in his complete disregard and attack on facts. His campaign and election is a mockery of a free republic.

But I'm not blaming Santos, not him alone. What he did was deplorable and I hope he gets some help. But he's one man. The GOP, on the other hand, have remained silent so far as I have seen. There certainly has not been an outcry from the GOP demanding that he step down.

This complete disregard of facts is an attack on facts and, by extension, our free republic. Santos, for his part, has denied that he's even done anything wrong. He says he just "embellished" his resume. Bullshit. That is nothing but vomitous bullshit. Saying, "I had about a 4.0 in college..." when you had a 3.4 is an embellishment. Saying you graduated from a college you didn't attend or that you worked at places you didn't work is a lie. I am at a loss as to what to do with the GOP that remains silent, indicating that power is more important than facts or doing the right thing.

And while I'm at it: SHAME on conservative churches/christians who, so far as I've seen, have remained silent about Santos. Lord, have mercy.

Finally...

Shame

Shame on Biden for having classified documents in the wrong place. This is, of course, wrong and should be investigated. BUT, by all evidence to emerge so far, it sounds very much like a simple oversight and mistake and, thus, not a crime at all.

So, Way to Go, Biden, for showing how to deal with these sorts of mistakes. He informed the authorities as soon as he heard about it, has cooperated entirely and has not, in anyway whatsoever, tried to defend it or demand that he owns these documents and they belong to him and otherwise obstructed justice.

And so,

SHAME

On those conservatives who try to make a false equivalence between Biden and Trump on this issue. There's no comparison and those who accuse Biden of hypocrisy while not condemning Trump are, themselves, showing themselves to be the hypocrites.

I Had a Dream

 In my dream, I was feeling ill, heavy, bloated, slow-moving, weighed down.

I went to the doctor's office (walked and bused there, in spite of not feeling well), where they did some tests and seemed quite concerned, but also unsure of what to do next.

So, they recommended more tests from more doctors, and told me to get with the front desk to find out details of where to go and when.

I went to the front desk, where I could see the nurse had some official-looking document printed out with four or five doctors' names. But instead of giving that to me, she handed me a piece of paper with a hand-written address on it and, looking furtively around, said, "Go here, now..."

While this seemed a bit odd, to be sent directly to another doctor for more tests right away, and with no name, no phone number or anything but an address, I followed her directions and started walking to this new appointment.

The trip to this new place seemed to take a long time, but I don't really remember any details (I think I stopped for a fund-raiser for homelessness and saw there the guy who sells hotdogs down the street from my office... but that may have been a separate dream...). I just remember feeling more and more weighed down and bigger, as if this illness was literally making me rounder, larger.

I believe the address was just an address, nothing else, but I kept looking at the paper as if it were giving me directions, leading me further from a developed city and further into the woods, until I was literally on a path in the woods. Then, at the "end of the woods" (or so it felt), there was a beautiful, oddly-shaped tree.

I felt I was supposed to climb it, but by this point, I was totally worn out. I felt even more tired, uncomfortably physically larger, my legs were tired, my hands were swollen and I just couldn't do it. Besides which, there was a storm brewing, the wind was blowing, leaves were whipping around and it felt rather unsafe.

Then, I think a wolf (or a scary wolf-like animal) showed up. I heard it first, a large animal moving in the woods around me, it seemed on all sides. Finally, it came out of the woods and while I don't think it was behaving in a threatening manner, wolf, you know, so I was sorta scared.

In my fear, I began climbing the tree. As I did, the wolf ran over to the bottom of the tree to chase me further up. Up I climbed, further than necessary to escape the wolf. Up into the blowing leaves with the limbs whipping around, threatening to knock my tired and gravity-soaked body to the ground. Eventually, I reached an opening in the tree branches, where I could see the forest around me and all the trees blowing in the wind.

Having a secure, large, flat branch below me and the tree against my back, I stood up and stretched out my arms, enjoying the terrifying wind that was flowing through the forest like an out-of-control river. And, as I stretched out my arms and stood there - autumn leaves blowing all around - parts of "Me" were blowing off, all that bloating and excess that I had accumulated were blowing off just like the leaves that were blowing off the trees.

I began to feel lighter, less weighed-down, more invigorated and still the wind whipped off bits of me to flutter away. Finally, I reached a point where I was so light, so freed from gravity, that I knew I wouldn't be able to stand there much longer, I was going to lose my balance and fall.

And then, I did.

Only, by that time, there wasn't much of "me" left, and - with the sky clearing and the wind lessening to a gentle breeze - I floated down to the ground below like just another autumn leaf.

Although I thought I was dying by then, it was an exhilarating and freeing fall to the forest floor that seemed to last a very long time.

From that point, I think it was as if I were seeing the scene apart from myself. I saw the bottom of the tree, the forest floor with golden and red leaves, and the wolf, still waiting at the bottom of the tree. The wolf padded over to a pile of leaves and began pawing through them and there I was, made whole and healthy.

I woke up soon thereafter.

Happy New Year.

All Music Sunday

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

Trying to Answer Misunderstandings and the Topic of "sin"

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here, I believe, is where the problems begin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig continues...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And additionally...

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

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

To Craig's other questions...

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

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

Which leads to another principle:

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

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

And that's all for now.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principle here being:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Of course, not.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

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

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

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

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

 

[Subtitle: Unclear on the Concept]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That rich man walked away sad. Bad news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Human Liberty & Independence Day

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

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

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

Simple.

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

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

Also, Frederick Douglass:

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

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

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

Words to remember for all the historically oppressed.

Stay Away from Conspiracy Theorists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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