Sinning Babies is Biblical... Where?

Craig asked me...

DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?

I'm relatively sure I've answered this question multiple times but I'm glad to do so again, directly and clearly. It's an easy question to answer:

Maybe I'm a simple man, but I think
a killer is one who kills,
a cheater is one who cheats and
a sinner is one who sins.

Period. As simple as that. We are sinners WHEN we sin. Before we sin, we are literally, by definition, NOT sinners. Which is why infants are not sinners.

Biblically speaking, "sinners" are ones who miss the mark, who fall short of the target. Here again, what "target" is it that infants can possibly fall short of? Trying to apply the term "sinner" to a newborn is just not rational (or biblical) on the face of it, biblically or just speaking from standard English (and I'm relatively this is true for all languages).

Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?

Craig also asked...

I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".

1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason? Why not?

2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from ONE place in the Bible... Psalm 51, which also says:

"Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin."

Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?

3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife):

"Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;"

Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?

4. AFTER uttering those two lines, then David said, of himself:

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage. Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?

5. Conversely, another place that says something similar is Psalms 58 (which is addressed SPECIFICALLY and literally to oppressive, unjust rulers):

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."

Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies? That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct? Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?

Also, literally, it isn't speaking of all humanity but only "the wicked," in a passage written specifically to oppressive leaders (which again, is why it's important to understand the prominence of specifically oppression of the poor and marginalized in biblical teachings).
=====

Craig...

I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".

So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly? This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing. On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?

The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?

Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?

Or consider this: Ezekiel says...

You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.

That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)

Or consider this, from Jesus:

“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?

All of that to say that, while you personally don't understand why we shouldn't take this passage from David sort of literally (well, not the part about him speaking specifically of himself - THAT part we should make figuratively applicable to ALL of humanity, but the single line, ripped from context, "born in sin," THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?

Craig...

I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.

Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME.

Can we agree on that basic literal reality?

A Loving God in the Hands of Angry Sinners

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've become increasingly progressive and liberal NOT because I read a lot of liberal, anti-conservative material, but because I was raised within, listen to and read the arguments of extreme conservative white Christians. (And I need to cite specifically "white Christians" because conservative black Christians often don't hold to the same theology as conservative white Christians).

Take the "sin nature" of humanity. These conservatives assure me we are all - ALL of humanity, right down to our newborns! - evil humans intent on rebellion against all that is good and decent and of God.

I don't think they understand how shocking a claim this is to a large portion of humanity - that even newborn babies are not innocent of sin, of having a "sin nature," and that this "sin nature" is so bad, so evil, that even newborns are "deserving" of an eternity of torture for having this "sin nature."

Now, most of them, I believe, will hedge their bets and say that God will probably give a pass to babies and children up to a certain age, not because their "sin nature" isn't deserving of an eternity of torture, but because, they are guessing, that they haven't reached an age where they can make reasonable decisions not to commit these awful sins that come from this "sin nature."

I ask them regularly what they mean by "sin nature..." and never get much of an answer.

Are they saying that these newborn babies are imperfect humans who, given a chance to grow up, will make mistakes and "sin," and do wrong in numerous ways? Of course, that comes with being imperfect humans.

But what specifically are these infants doing - or going to do - that is SO heinous, SO evil that it deserves to be punished with an eternity of torture?

Or what about these conservatives, themselves. What have they done, specifically, that is so evil that the only reasonable punishment is an eternity of torture? Not merely rebukes or temporal punishments for the typical "crimes" of humanity - the being jealous, being greedy, telling a lie, telling 1,000 lies, lusting after a man or a woman... - that the ONLY possible punishment for it is an eternity of torture, something akin to being burned alive forever??!!

I ask and get no answers.

Or the answers, when I get them, are vague and unsupported and frankly, a bit irrational. "You're committing 'cosmic treason' against God almighty!"

"Cosmic treason??" What's that?

Ultra-conservative RC Sproul says in an essay on "cosmic treason..."

“The sinfulness of sin” sounds like a vacuous redundancy that adds no information to the subject under discussion."

And he's not wrong. It DOES sound like a vacuous redundancy. He goes on with this nonsense.

What I meant by that statement was that even the slightest sin that a creature commits against his Creator does violence to the Creator’s holiness, His glory, and His righteousness. Every sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King.

Fine. But says who? Where is the support for this nonsense?

Does he know EVEN ONE PERSON - much less proof that it's common amongst humanity - that is deliberately "rebelling against the sovereign God..."? I mean, I'm a fallen, imperfect human just as we all are, and I know a good number of fallen imperfect humans... but I've never met one person who has said anything to suggest that they are deliberately wanting to do evil, or deliberately wanting to rebel against a sovereign God. Where is the evidence for this?

I just don't see it and they never provide it.

I then have often asked, "What about you? Your children and family? What specifically have they done where they said, in effect, 'I want to spit in the eye of God and commit atrocious crimes that cause harm to people and the world and to God...'?"

Again, I get no answers, no response.

Maybe it's the case that I just know a better class of people - fallen, though we all may be. I just don't know anyone like this. I can't imagine what it is that I or the people that I've known throughout the years that is SO evil, SO atrocious that the only apt punishment is an eternity of torture, of being burned alive, forever.

And when I repeatedly get no answers from the conservatives that I grew up with, the conservatives I know now... I have to think that they simply have no answers.

They believe that newborn babies are guilty of having a "sin nature," and that "sin nature" ought to reasonably be punished with an eternity of torture... even though they have no proof of this. They believe that people - themselves included - regularly, naturally engage in cosmic treason, deliberate acts of spitting in the face of God and saying, "I WANT TO REBEL AND DO EVIL..." even though they can't even point to one thing that they've done that supports this crazy-sounding claim.

What do we do with that?

The God of the Oppressed in the Bible

God made it clear that God sided with the poor and oppressed and marginalized throughout the Bible, if the authors of the Bible can be trusted. A small sampling...

Deuteronomy:

But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, subjecting us to harsh labor.
Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our ancestors, and
the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression.

Judges:

I rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians. And I delivered you
from the hand of all your oppressors;
I drove them out before you and gave you their land.

2 Samuel:

And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that
they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed.
Wicked people will not oppress them anymore...

1 Chronicles:

[God speaking] they [Israel] wandered from nation to nation,
from one kingdom to another.
God allowed no one to oppress them;
for their sake he rebuked kings:
“Do not touch my anointed ones;
do my prophets no harm.”

Nehemiah:

when they were oppressed they cried out to you.
From heaven you heard them, and
in your great compassion you gave them deliverers,
who rescued them from the hand of their enemies.

Job:

For he has oppressed the poor and left them destitute;
he has seized houses he did not build.
“Surely he will have no respite from his craving;
he cannot save himself by his treasure.

Psalms:

The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.

Psalms:

You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted;
you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
defending the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that mere earthly mortals
will never again strike terror.

More Psalms:

May God defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy;
may God crush the oppressor.

More Psalms, this time apparently speaking directly to the GOP leaders in KY, TN, TX, etc...

From their callous hearts comes iniquity;
their evil imaginations have no limits.

They scoff, and speak with malice;
with arrogance they threaten oppression.

Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
and their tongues take possession of the earth.

I could go on and on in Psalms and really, every book, but continuing...

Proverbs:

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Ecclesiastes:

I saw the tears of the oppressed—
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
and they have no comforter.

Isaiah:

Therefore this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
“Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,
this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant.

Isaiah:

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?"


Isaiah, later quoted by Jesus as to what his ministry was about:

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn...

Jeremiah:

If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly,
if you do not oppress the foreigner,
the fatherless or the widow and
do not shed innocent blood in this place,
and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm,
then I will let you live in this place...

Ezekiel, explaining what the "sin of Sodom" actually was:

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.

Amos:

They trample on the heads of the poor as on the dust of the ground and
deny justice to the oppressed.

Zephaniah:

Woe to the city of oppressors,
    rebellious and defiled!
She does not trust in the Lord,
    she does not draw near to her God.
Her officials within her
    are roaring lions;
her rulers are evening wolves,
    who leave nothing for the morning.
Her prophets are unprincipled;
    they are treacherous people.
Her priests profane the sanctuary
    and do violence to the law.

Malachi:

So I will come to put you on trial.
I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers,
against those who defraud laborers of their wages,
who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and
deprive the foreigners among you of justice,
but do not fear me.

And that's just a tiny sampling from the Old Testament. Let those who have ears, hear.

I Hate Your Religious Festivals, More

Not that it's likely to matter to people like the conservatives who need to hear this - the ones who routinely think they know what's best for everyone else, better than the experts, better than the people involved and their families and allies, but...

I attended a large rally last night with hundreds of LGBTQ, Drag performers, preachers, church folk, city leaders and allies.

What we heard is that the LGBTQ community is telling anyone who's listening that they're living in terror about these anti-trans, anti-drag laws being pushed by conservatives.

They told us that these laws WILL kill LGBTQ people, including children.

They told us that the pretenses of the anti-drag laws are fallacious, built upon lies not supported by reality.

In my own Kentucky, for instance, the conservative religious bigots are saying they have to protect children from sexually explicit performances like Drag Queen Story Hours (DQSH)... but that simply doesn't happen at DQSHs. It's a lie meant to attack and demonize, which attacks actually DO cause harm.

One Drag Queen pointed out the false claims that they're "sexualizing" and "grooming " children, but as she testified - and the crowd roared in approval - she was NEVER groomed by any LGBTQ people, NEVER harmed by any LGBTQ people.

She was, however, baptized as an infant, against her will. She was sent to weekly Bible classes and told what she should believe... she was told that if she continued this transgender path she was on, she'd be burnt alive for an eternity... this is what she was told by conservative zealots.

Let's talk about who's actually grooming!

She said she was never molested, never harmed, never groomed by LGBTQ people, no. Instead, the LGBTQ community were the ones who were there to embrace and support her in the face of the torment she received from conservative bigots. To pick her up when she'd been beaten down by conservatives.

Many of the speakers talked about how they were so oppressed, demonized and reviled by conservatives, including those who said they love them - their family and church family - that they felt it would be better to just kill themselves.

As children, this is what conservative mistreatment had led them to. According to them.

Do you all really think you know their situation better than them?

Fortunately, at least in large parts of the world and most of the US, the tide has turned against these fundamentalist bigoted ways of thinking. The majority of the US recognizes that of course, LGBTQ folks are their own best experts and that the actual experts agree with them, NOT with the minority view of anti-reason, anti-data bigots who are trying to force these laws on the majority of the states and nation. The old white religious conservatives may win temporary battles, but we will make progress and sooner or later, these hateful religious views will simply die off and be replaced with more progressive ideas.

It's really quite simple: Let's stand against those laws that cause harm and for those laws which promote wholesome, healthy lives. Let's stand against religious bigots - even if they don't realize they're bigots, and stand with the marginalized and oppressed.

And it should go without saying that any hateful comments made here will be deleted. Any comments that suggest that human rights should be denied to some people will be deleted.

Choose to side with freedom, justice and decency. Choose to side for children and families and healthy lives.

Them Lyin' Media and Corrupt Politicians!

Far too many conservative extremists have been attacking the "mainstream media" for years, complaining that they're dishonest and shills for liberal causes and knowingly report false claims. This, of course, undermines trust in the reported word and does damage to a free republic in the process. Treating the media as a literal "enemy of the people" of the US is precisely part of the process for authoritarians throughout history. "Don't trust what they're reporting... Trust ME and ONLY ME..." It's a dangerous, twisted road to go down but it's exactly what Trump and his ilk have been doing for years (well before Trump, he's just upped the volume and viciousness). Indeed, Fox News played this same gambit for years. "WE are the fair and balanced ones... Don't listen to any other media!"

Of course, wise citizens have always recognized this con for what it is. But then, there are the gullible citizens. The ones susceptible to cons and grifts.

So, now that Fox News and Trump's own lawyers and allies are making it clear that they were lying about the "stolen election" claims they pushed relentlessly, and that they KNEW they were lying and that they lied ONLY for the reason of hanging on to profits and power (some of the signs of con artists throughout the centuries)... NOW, will that cause those who whine about unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of reputable media outlets to finally open their eyes and recognized they've been played for useful idiots all along? NOW, will they admit they've been suckered? NOW, will they turn their attacks on Fox News and Trump and his allies for these admitted cons?

I have yet to see ANY sign that MAGA country is willing to admit what was always clear and what is indisputably clear now. I have yet to see them condemn Fox News for knowing Trump was an incompetent ass and irresponsible liar and STILL promoting him. Indeed, Fox News acolytes of Trump have made it clear that they literally loathed the corrupt orange idiot. But not one word from any of the Fox Country conservatives out there.

What will it take?

Environmental, Simple-Living and Agrarian Wisdom from Liberals

At least two conservative types who have regularly commented here expressed an ignorance of knowledge that liberals are concerned about simple-living, healthy-living, wholesome life concern for rural and agrarian topics. They appear to be wholly unaware of this vast Agrarianism field in progressive writings and expertise.

Indeed, the term, Agrarian, itself, is a progressive philosophy regularly espoused by liberals. From Wikipedia:

Agrarianism is a political and social philosophy that has promoted subsistence agriculture, smallholdings and egalitarianism, with agrarian political parties normally supporting the rights and sustainability of small farmers and poor peasants against the wealthy in society. In highly developed and industrial nations or regions, it can denote use of financial and social incentives for self-sustainability, more community involvement in food production (such as allotment gardens) and smart growth that avoids urban sprawl, and also what many of its advocates contend are risks of human overpopulation; when overpopulation occurs, the available resources become too limited for the entire population to survive comfortably or at all in the long term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarianism

A partial list of philosophers and writers coming from a more liberal or progressive tradition who have written about agrarianism, simple-living, healthy rural communities, etc include these below among many others (with the caveat that not all would fit neatly in liberal/progressive traditions but nearly all would be considered wildly liberal by many modern conservatives):

Wendell Berry
Aldo Leopold
John Muir
Henry David Thoreau
Rachel Carson
Robin Wall Kimmerer
Robert Penn Warren
Harlan and Anna Hubbard
Helen and Scott Nearing
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edward Abbey
Arundhati Roy
Gail Myers and Owusu Bandele
Thomas Jefferson (??)
Miguel de la Torre
Ellen Davis
Thomas Paine
Patty Krawec
Edwin Way Teale
Martin Luther King
Jane Goodall
Marjory Stoneman Douglas

And I could go on and on. Look up rural environmentalists, agrarianism, liberal environmental writers, indigenous environment, black agrarianism, etc. Some quotes:

“The long fight to save wild beauty represents democracy at its best. It requires citizens to practice the hardest of virtues--self-restraint. Why cannot I take as many trout as I want from a stream? Why cannot I bring home from the woods a rare wildflower? Because if I do, everybody in this democracy should be able to do the same. My act will be multiplied endlessly. To provide protection for wildlife and wild beauty, everyone has to deny himself proportionately. Special privilege and conservation are ever at odds.”

“It is those who have compassion for all life who will best safeguard the life of man. Those who become aroused only when man is endangered become aroused too late. We cannot make the world uninhabitable for other forms of life and have it habitable for ourselves. It is the conservationist who is concerned with the welfare of all the land and life of the country, who, in the end, will do most to maintain the world as a fit place for human existence.”

~Edwin Way Teale

 

“Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.

The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.

Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.

Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

~Arundhati Roy

“Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health -- his land's health, his own, his family's, his community's, his country's..."

“If change is to come, it will have to come from the margins.”

~Wendell Berry

“Campaigners for God, Country and the American Way of Life did not stop when they had crushed radical trade unions and jailed socialist, syndicalist and communist spokespeople. They also bought out and took over the communication apparatus...

The same men who operated mines, factories and department stores became owners, directors and trustees of the entire communication apparatus. Communication, like merchandising and farming became parts of the big business octopus that was reaching its tentacles into every profit-yielding corner of American life."

~Scott Nearing

For a small sampling.

=====

This was a quickly thrown-together effort. There is, of course, SO much to cover on the topic. I'm shamefully not well-read on LatinX authors on agrarian concerns, but I know enough to know there is much written on the topic. As well as from women and indigenous peoples. But it's a start.

"I Hate Your Religious Festivals"

Shame on the GOP.

Shame on the meddlers and busybodies.

Shame on the hypocrites.

Shame on the oppressors.

Shame on those who, on the one hand, are worried that professionals teaching children about the realities of slavery, racism, homosexuality and transgender issues... those who falsely accuse these experts and professionals of the worst motives and behaviors

BUT, who at the same time

insist that THEY are the ones who need to dictate by weight of law
what women should do with their pregnancies
what parents of transgender kids can do to support their children
AND while listening to expert opinion
to save their children's lives.

Meddling oppressors.

Liars.

Those whose policies are dangerous and deadly.

The ones who are ACTUALLY trying to "groom" children to be petty, graceless oppressors like them.

Shame on them and the hell they are creating for themselves.

AND, shame on those conservatives who may not go so far as the legislators in places like Kentucky and Tennessee in oppressing LGBTQ people and dictating medical decisions upon women
BUT who do not speak up and denounce their fellow conservatives.

All it takes for evil to win is for normal people to remain silent.

Shame on modern conservatism and their oppressive, dictatorial tendencies.

You will be remembered as a stain on history and your children and grandchildren will grow to recognize you as villains and oppressors.
 
You are dying out and your day of dictatorial rule can't last much longer.

Repent while you can. Stop harming innocent people as you try to force your vile and graceless, loveless "religion" on others.

There are those who turn justice into bitterness
    and cast righteousness to the ground.

The One who made the Pleiades and Orion,
    who turns midnight into dawn
    and darkens day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
    and pours them out over the face of the land—
    the Lord is his name.
With a blinding flash God destroys the stronghold
    and brings the fortified city to ruin.

There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court
    and detest the one who tells the truth.

You levy a straw tax on the poor
    and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
    you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
    you will not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your offenses
    and how great your sins.

There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes
    and deprive the poor of justice in the courts...

“I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
    your assemblies are a stench to me.
Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
    I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
    I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs!
    I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice roll on like a river,
    righteousness like a never-failing stream!"

~The Prophet, Amos

Lift Every Voice and Sing

What beautiful lyrics. What an amazing performance (not that I watched the ball game.)

(NOTE: I had put Ms Sheryl Lee Ralph's video here but apparently, the NFL is blocking it from being shared. Here's another great performance.)

Lift every voice and sing
Till earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the listening skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us,
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun
Let us march on till victory is won.

That some people are protesting that this song was sun is just another sign of brutalizing white fragility and their irrational fear of "being replaced." It would be sad if it weren't so dangerous.

I see white people saying things like, "Why do we need another anthem? Why one specifically for black people??" Not understanding that Lift Every Voice is not "just for black people." It's there in the title: Lift EVERY Voice and sing... we all who care about freedom and justice and human rights can join along.

And some of the same people who criticize black football players for not standing for the national anthem are also the ones who'd refuse to stand for this. I guess it's not harmful or disrespectful if it's white people refusing to stand.

Also, along those lines, when folks like me (anabaptist-ish and otherwise) don't stand for the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance, it's for reasons of religious liberty and opposition to war and the fetishizing of the flag, which the anthem glorifies. When the football players and others took a knee, they GAVE the reason for the protest - protesting the history of black oppression by white police officers. Now, whether or not you agree with us, we have a reasonable, respectful, conscience-based reason for not standing.

But for white folks who refuse to stand or otherwise mock Lift Every Voice (shame on them), what are they protesting? That they don't like the reference to a "black national anthem..."? Where is the moral grounding for that?

More about the brothers who wrote this soaring anthem:

https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/lift-every-voice-and-sing

Sole Source? How About Love?

 Returning to earlier comments and questions from Craig on his blog...

The question then becomes,
since all of those things are completely dependent on how they are perceived by humans, isn't it possible that two people can see the same thing and reach conclusions about YHWH that are complete opposites?

Yes, of course it is. It happens all the time.

If so, then how does YHWH revealing Himself in such a subjective way actually reveal anything about Himself?

If we are OF/FROM God, "created in the image of God's own Self," "a little lower than God's Self," with "God's Word written upon our hearts (metaphorically speaking)," then why would we not expect some notion of understanding God within us? Just as I can understand something about my parents from my DNA, I suspect that we can understand something of God from our own psyche.

Indeed, CS Lewis (and others) even cite this "God within us" and the sense of morality generally shared amongst humanity as one of the evidences of a Creator God.

I suspect that your problem is with the "vagueness" of these various ways. You ask...

Is there no standard available for us to measure against?

No.

Just, no, not that God has ever told us about. As a point of fact, God has never said, "HERE is THE Standard to measure against. The SOLE SOURCE for understanding me, God, and my Godly ways." God just hasn't done that.

On the other hand, God did say (or Jesus and the biblical writers, anyway) some version of
Love is the way to recognize God and God's way and God's people.
That's probably the closest thing to a Sole Standard we find in biblical text.

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another”

~Jesus

"We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.
God is love,
and the one who remains in love
remains in God, and God remains in him."

~Paul

But alas, Love, too, is subjective.

But this returns us to an earlier problem I've raised with you all:

EVEN IF "the Bible" was THE SOLE standard for recognizing God and God's ways, for recognizing Christian faith and practice, to WHOSE interpretation will we be able to reliably appeal for a ruling?

Some of us Christians recognize the great glory and love in straight and LGBTQ folks allying together, supporting each others' humanity and that of God within them, supporting the rights of LGBTQ family just as we support the rights of straight folk. We, on our side, recognize this as Godly and biblical and reasonable and moral.

Other Christians, as you know, have historically NOT accepted LGBTQ folks rights, to marry, who to date, whether they can raise children, to recognize their own gender, etc. To them, none of that is biblical or Godly.

EVEN IF the Bible were the SOLE authority, WHO DECIDES? Which set of fallible humans are understanding God and God's ways correctly?

Or, some Christians accept SS as biblical, others don't. WHO DECIDES if SS is biblical or reasonable or not?

We have not been given an arbitrator or decider to make such calls. When we HAVE had people assume that role in the past (the Pope, for instance), many of us have objected to that human's presumption in appointing themselves the Decider.

So, to return to answering your question: NO, we've been given no assurance of a Sole Source and even if we did have that - which we don't - we're still at a loss of a Decider to say, "Yes, that is the correct understanding of this Sole Source." Which raises the reasonable question: If a Sole Source of text to decide things comes with NO Authoritative Interpreter, is it really a Sole Source for understanding? Certainly not for perfect understanding.

Jesus and the early church all taught the very reasonable (ie, it appeals to that of God in all of humanity) line of "If we LOVE, that is of God," and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," and, even more briefly, "Love God, Love humanity." THAT is THE MOST reliable source we have, both from a reasonable point of view and a biblical point of view.

You want a Sole Source? How about this:

One of the [Pharisees], an expert in the law,
tested him with this question:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

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