Forgiveness

[Selene]

It can only be a hate crime when it's white on black... never black on white.

Greg

There is a short paragraph in the article that states that local authorities in NY City charged a black man with a "hate" crime under local law because the victim was Jewish.

[moralist]

It can only be a hate crime when it's white on black... never black on white.

Greg

There is a short paragraph in the article that states that local authorities in NY City charged a black man with a "hate" crime under local law because the victim was Jewish.

That's called "Whack a Jew". (not a joke)

Greg

[Selene]

It can only be a hate crime when it's white on black... never black on white.

Greg

It does appear to be the heavily predominant pattern:

A 70-year-old Florida man trying to protect neighborhood kids from cars he felt were driving too fast ended up in the hospital after two of the “scummiest things I’ve ever seen” disagreed with his tactics.

James Gorman from Bradenton, Fla., stepped toward a car from the sidewalk where he was pushing his wheelchair-bound wife. His granddaughter was also walking nearby, Friday evening, according to WTSP-TV.

Apparently, Gorman was trying to protect the neighborhood kids who were playing.

Gorman told the Bradenton Herald that he regained consciousness when the men were pulling away and saw his wife fallen out of her wheelchair trying to help him. Neighborhood children who witnessed the beating were crying.

Gorman suffered a black eye, torn rotator cuff muscle and broken glasses in the attack. Since the incident, he told the news station he has had headaches.

Manatee County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the incident. The attackers are described as two black males in their 20s.

But Gorman, a resident of the neighborhood for 27 years, is more worried about what the children had to witness.

“I am more worried about my grandbaby, she is still pretty shook up,” Gorman told the Herald. “That bothers me more than anything, that kids had to witness that. That wasn’t necessary.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/30/grandpa-pushing-wife-in-wheelchair-has-run-in-with-two-of-the-scummiest-things-hes-ever-seen-after-trying-to-protect-the-neighbor-kids/

[Selene]

Hallelujah!

A...

Secretly thinking of becoming a Theocrat For Palin

"I've heard there was a secret chord

That David played, and it pleased the Lord

But you don't really care for music, do you?

It goes like this

The fourth, the fifth

The minor fall, the major lift

The baffled king composing Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah"

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leonardcohen/hallelujah.html

Continuing my Ann Coulter Crusade, her column today is brilliant with great satire.

Instead of the government censoring speech, what we have is shock troops of liberal agitators demanding people's heads for the slightest divergence from Officially Approved Liberal Opinion.

Evidently, the word of God is on the banned list. As Robertson himself has said, all he did "was quote from the Scriptures, but they just didn't know it."

This is just a nicely turned paragraph, and, like Maureen Dowd, I love the way she writes:

There's absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures. But liberals can't grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. (I promise you, except for venereal disease and eternal damnation, life would be a lot more fun if we were making it up as we went along.)

I will stop quoting the article after this one, hmm like doing the stations of the cross in a Catholic church:

The book of Romans, called "the Cathedral of the Christian faith," provides the clearest explanation of the doctrines of sin. Here are a few catchy verses:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven ... so that people are without excuse.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error ...

"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Also, keep these citations in your back pocket for the next time some sweaty teenage boy tries to convince you Jesus didn't condemn fornication: 1 Corinthians 7:2; Galatians 5:19-20; Jude 1:7; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; and Matthew 5:32.

Hilarious!

Here is the link.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-12-31.html#read_more

[moralist]

"...so that people are without excuse."

Expanding on that point Robertson made about people being without excuse...

"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made. So men are without excuse, because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves."

{Romans 1:20-22}

We're perfectly free to go in any direction we please... even if it's over the nearest cliff.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Continuing my Ann Coulter Crusade, her column today is brilliant with great satire.

There's absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures. But liberals can't grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. (I promise you, except for venereal disease and eternal damnation, life would be a lot more fun if we were making it up as we went along.)

[...]

The book of Romans, called "the Cathedral of the Christian faith," provides the clearest explanation of the doctrines of sin. Here are a few catchy verses:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven ... so that people are without excuse.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. [....]"

So being a Christian requires obeying onerous dictates of a cosmic autocrat who will engender "shameful lusts" in those who don't obey him and then punish the disobedient for being disobedient.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Isn't the main message of the Old Testament obey God--who created you and everything around you--or else you are going to get it bad?

That message is in almost every chapter (at least in the parts I have read), stated very clearly like that. It's not in those words, but the concept is unmistakable.

And you are not to question that inconsistency stuff about God creating sin. Yeah, it looks tacky, but God has His reasons. So leave it alone.

Look at Job. Even as Job got it real bad as a test, he obeyed because there was always worse lurking around the corner. God got mad at him for asking what gives in the end (implying the rest of us should take that as a warning), but Job essentially obeyed, so the real boom was not lowered on his head.

Obey, obey, obey.

Or else it gets ugly for you.

(Arising out of that context, the message of Jesus was a relief.)

That's just one way to look at The Bible. As it is a religious text full of stories and metaphors, there are many ways to interpret it. That's one of the things I like about it. I believe the very ambiguities work so well because they have been honed over centuries of retelling and rewriting by scribes, and that honing is what makes them rich and deep in the human psyche. Irrelevant mutable details got discarded over time and the ambiguous unchanging essence remained.

Just think. If The Bible were absolutely clear, there would be only one Christian religion. That would be a totalitarian nightmare on the spiritual level. The existence of different denominations is a blessing.

On another issue, Coulter talks about free speech, but there is one point in the Duck Dynasty affair I have not heard anyone talk about yet.

A&E execs exercised their right of free speech, too.

Free speech not only means you are free to object or espouse polemics. It also means you are free to cave in and say so in public, and free to backpedal and suck up.

That's a constitutional right.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A & E is a cowardly cultural money-grubbing suck up. This was proved by the way their midgets used their "free speech." The basic point here is how free speech rights are actually conmingled with property rights. The interesting point is how the gay fascists were sent packing by one consistent though twisted redneck brain. The broader consequence is that brain is now a moral force let off the farm by the fiasco and how wrong ideas might do some good for we aren't talking about ideas so much as the conflict of powers, one latent but potent (Christian) and the other (gay bullying) all above board with nothing much in reserve. This is because gay righteousness here didn't defend paganism, which is defensible, but the right to bully, which has no gravitas or intellectual force at all.

--Brant

there's a lot in the Bible Christians don't acknowledge is questionable, if they even read it, along with stuff that isn't and interesting along with the underlying moral stricturing that is the main and important thing about it, not the particulars

[PDS]

"...so that people are without excuse."

Expanding on that point Robertson made about people being without excuse...

"For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made. So men are without excuse, because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves."

{Romans 1:20-22}

We're perfectly free to go in any direction we please... even if it's over the nearest cliff.

Greg

Greg:

I think John Calvin might like to have a word with you.

Doubly so, if you repeat yourself yet again.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

there's a lot in the Bible Christians don't acknowledge is questionable, if they even read it, along with stuff that isn't and interesting along with the underlying moral stricturing that is the main and important thing about it, not the particulars

Brant,

That could be said about Rand's opus, too, if you want to use it as a model for behavior.

For instance, I would not advise shooting security guards at point blank range if they won't answer your question.

Or biting your lover until you draw blood during lovemaking.

Or blowing up a publicly-funded building if you disagree with the design.

To make that stuff work, you have to "interpret" it. And once you start doing that as part of the show, off you go...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

there's a lot in the Bible Christians don't acknowledge is questionable, if they even read it, along with stuff that isn't and interesting along with the underlying moral stricturing that is the main and important thing about it, not the particulars

Brant,

That could be said about Rand's opus, too, if you want to use it as a model for behavior.

For instance, I would not advise shooting security guards at point blank range if they won't answer your question.

Or biting your lover until you draw blood during lovemaking.

Or blowing up a publicly-funded building if you disagree with the design.

To make that stuff work, you have to "interpret" it. And once you start doing that as part of the show, off you go...

Michael

If the first case I'd be shooting the guard out of hand as an act of war. No palaver.

I'd keep the blood drawing to hickeys.

I wouldn't blow up a public housing project unless I was an actor in a movie.

--Brant

bang! bang!

next!(?)

[moralist]

Greg:

I think John Calvin might like to have a word with you.

(shrug...) Just another view. Take your pick.

The differences within a religion are greater than the differences between religions.

Greg

[moralist]

Isn't the main message of the Old Testament obey God--who created you and everything around you--or else you are going to get it bad?

I get a different message from the Bible: It's in our own best interests to do what's morally right because doing good makes us better people.

And you are not to question that inconsistency stuff about God creating sin.

You forgot to mention the other side of that act of creation, as all truths are double edged swords which cut both ways.

Just as we have the freedom to choose to do what's morally wrong, we also have the freedom to choose to do what's morally right. It is impossible for one to exist without the other.

Greg

[PDS]

"Just another view", Greg says, with characteristic incuriosity.

Yeah. Just another view that happened to inform the Protestant Reformation.

Other than that, no biggie.

[moralist]

"Just another view", Greg says, with characteristic incuriosity.

Yeah. Just another view that happened to inform the Protestant Reformation.

Other than that, no biggie.

There are many variations of Christianity... none of which invalidate our personal moral accountability for our own actions.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I get a different message from the Bible: It's in our own best interests to do what's morally right because doing good makes us better people.

Greg,

The general feeling I get from the Old Testament to the New is the focus on fear God in the Old to love God (or better, accept God's love) in the New. Morality in this context is a group of rules God handed down because He said so.

Obey God is in both and, as you mentioned, self-interest is involved. In the former, you get whacked real bad if you don't obey and in the latter, you guarantee your place in a privileged afterlife. Actually, the only thing you have to obey in the latter is to accept Jesus as your savior.

(After I became an adult, I've had increasing difficulty with understanding this last condition, but I can't argue with the fact that it worked for getting civilization under control and spawning the conditions for individual rights to arise as a formal doctrine.)

In fact, there is a theory that Christianity became such a powerful influence on Western culture because of its emphasis on the individual and the individual's self-interest--i.e. individual salvation earned by the individual's own choice and actions rather than submission of soul to the collective or tribe. One can argue about the reality of the benefit (going to Heaven on dying), but it is undeniable that the benefit is to the individual, not the collective.

Michael

[moralist]

I get a different message from the Bible: It's in our own best interests to do what's morally right because doing good makes us better people.

Greg,

The general feeling I get from the Old Testament to the New is the focus on fear God in the Old to love God (or better, accept God's love) in the New. Morality in this context is a group of rules God handed down because He said so.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

--Old Testament

"Perfect love casts out all fear."

--New Testament

This is the progression from the Old Testament to the New.

From fear to love.

Little children at first don't do what's wrong only out of fear of being punished by their parents who love them. Because they're too young to see that the love of their parents is for their own good. Then as they grow into adults, they learn to freely choose to do what's right out of their love of goodness.

Greg

[dldelancey]

Actually, it isn't the punishment itself that little children fear. It's the potential loss of the parent's love because they know their parents love is for their own good.

[Selene]

Actually, it isn't the punishment itself that little children fear. It's the potential loss of the parent's love because they know their parents love is for their own good.

Yep...

[PDS]

"Just another view", Greg says, with characteristic incuriosity.

Yeah. Just another view that happened to inform the Protestant Reformation.

Other than that, no biggie.

There are many variations of Christianity... none of which invalidate our personal moral accountability for our own actions.

Greg

Wrong yet again, Greg.

There is a large and growing body of Christianity that has revived the doctrine of universal salvation that was held by many of the early Church fathers, and even Paul. This applies to Evangelicals as well as Christian Universalists. Even mainline Protestant churches are increasingly taking the view that Christ died for everybody, including non-believers-- which negates entirely the premise of your whacky "just desserts" philosophy. This trend and the theology behind it risks a theological "error" on the side of God's love, rather than God's wrath.

This raises a question: are you going to be "held accountable" for your lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine, especially when you telegraph your lack of understanding to a largely non-Christian audience? Assuming you accept such accountabiity, can you name for us the last three books you have read on Christian doctrine, or do you, as I strongly suspect, simply make shit up as you go along?

[moralist]

Actually, it isn't the punishment itself that little children fear. It's the potential loss of the parent's love because they know their parents love is for their own good.

Excellent point.

The fear of the imaginary loss of parents' love is inherent in a child's perception of punishment, because they are not yet mature enough in their personal growth to see when punishment is done out of love for their own good.

The similarities between how children relate to their parents, and how adults relate to God are many. It's no accident that God is referred to as our Father, and those who honor Him are referred to as Children of God.

Greg

[moralist]

"Just another view", Greg says, with characteristic incuriosity.

Yeah. Just another view that happened to inform the Protestant Reformation.

Other than that, no biggie.

There are many variations of Christianity... none of which invalidate our personal moral accountability for our own actions.

Greg

Wrong yet again, Greg.

There is a large and growing body of Christianity that has revived the doctrine of universal salvation that was held by many of the early Church fathers, and even Paul.

That belief does not absolve anyone of the moral accountability for their actions. I'm not referring to heaven or hell, I mean right here and right now.

This applies to Evangelicals as well as Christian Universalists. Even mainline Protestant churches are increasingly taking the view that Christ died for everybody, including non-believers--

Christ's sacrifice was for everyone including Adam. Now whether you choose to gratefully and joyfully acknowledge it, or to crap on it is totally up to you. Each of those two responses has consequences here and now, but it is not God who set them into motion. Only you yourself have the power to do that.

which negates entirely the premise of your whacky "just desserts" philosophy. This trend and the theology behind it risks a theological "error" on the side of God's love, rather than God's wrath.

Punishment can't be "God's wrath" when it is your own free choice to do evil. Blaming (unjustly accusing) God does not prevent you from harvesting what you planted. You do that all by yourself.

This raises a question: are you going to be "held accountable" for your lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine, especially when you telegraph your lack of understanding to a largely non-Christian audience?

The only judge is the reality of how your life is right now.

What Christianity means to me is a result of my own life. You need to grow up and go find out what it means for yourself, and give up blaming ( unjustly accusing) me.

I'm not your Mommie.

Assuming you accept such accountabiity, can you name for us the last three books you have read on Christian doctrine,

The last three were Genesis, Isaiah, and Revelation in that order.

or do you, as I strongly suspect, simply make shit up as you go along?

That was a similar complaint of the Pharasees!

No matter how long you pore over books like a blind scribe, that will never substitute for doing what's morally right.

Greg

[moralist]

there's a lot in the Bible Christians don't acknowledge is questionable, if they even read it, along with stuff that isn't and interesting along with the underlying moral stricturing that is the main and important thing about it, not the particulars

Brant,

That could be said about Rand's opus, too, if you want to use it as a model for behavior.

For instance, I would not advise shooting security guards at point blank range if they won't answer your question.

Or biting your lover until you draw blood during lovemaking.

Or blowing up a publicly-funded building if you disagree with the design.

To make that stuff work, you have to "interpret" it. And once you start doing that as part of the show, off you go...

Michael

If the first case I'd be shooting the guard out of hand as an act of war. No palaver.

That's Army 101.

Greg

[PDS]

Greg:

Greg: I want to respond to your comments.

If you claim you have recently read Genisis, Isiah, and Revelation lately, I suppose there is nothing I can say about that except congratulations. Normally, I would call bullshit on that, but...

Just so you know, I am not blaming you for being a Christian. I actually believe Christianity presents a reasonable world view, especially (perhaps only?) as it relates to universal salvation. I cannot wrap my brain around Christ dying only for a select subset of humans, preordained in advance, while others are preordained to suffer. That was not the early view of the Church, and it took Augustine to make this a mainline view of the Church for well over 1,000 years. Although this manline view scared the shit out of people rather nicely, it diminished our view of God's love rather greatly as a result.

Am I unjustly accusing you? Perhaps. But just so we are clear: my main problem with you is that you insult your audience. Many of us have been around here long before you arrived. George Smith is kind enough to roam this forum, offer comments, even get in a scrape with some us now and then. Have you read his works? Do you realize how shallow some of your comments might come across as to someone like George Smith? Or Ellen Stuttle? Or any of the others you routinely (and I hope unintentionally) insult the intelligence of?

Even though I am 51 years old I agree that I need to grow up, but not for the reasons you probably think.

[Brant Gaede]

That's Army 101.

Greg

For Rand talking usually came first. She was all about talking. The security guard episode was to talk him up to puff him up then to knock him down. The border guard that killed Kira at the end of We the Living was set up much better. The guard was the killer at the end of her first novel then the tables were turned at the end of her last. I'm sure this was deliberate on the author's part. The narrative power of Rand's writing exploded in Atlas Shrugged, but her esthetic-artistic nuance suffered somewhat. No problem. Just read all three novels--or at least the last two. That'll give you the great overall package.

--Brant