Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNo one should be surprised that President-elect Barack Obama would choose self-promoting Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural. Warren has been hustling for years to make himself the "new Billy Graham" -- seeking to fill the vacating role of spiritual adviser to presidents, be they born-again Republicans or born-right-the-first-time Democrats.
Obama, always on the watch for ways to broaden his base of support, has been developing a relationship with Warren for many years, as he has with other fundamentalist preachers who try to put a smile on their intolerance.
Back in December 2006, when he was merely a senator with unannounced presidential ambitions, Obama delivered a smart, sensitive address at Warren's "2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the Church," a high-profile event on the pastor's Saddleback Church campus in Lake Forest, Calif.
Twenty months later, as the soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, Obama went back to Saddleback for an unfortunate joint appearance with Republican John McCain -- the last major misstep of the senator's bid for the nation's top job.
Past is prologue, and Obama's dalliances with Warren, for better or worse, always pointed to the placement of this particular pastor on the inaugural stage.
What will be significant about Warren's remarks, however, is that they will be so insignificant.
Warren's invocation will be forgotten five minutes after it is finished.
Indeed, the only "news" that will come from his appearance at the inaugural is the controversy surrounding it -- and the protests that controversy may spark.
Far more significant, and encouraging, than his off-putting selection of Warren to deliver the invocation is Obama's choice of a genuine spiritual progressive to deliver the benediction.
It is the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery who will present the far more uplifting and meaningful religious message on Inauguration Day. And in his appealing selection of the 87-year-old Lowery, Obama has made a choice that is far more adventurous -- even, dare we say, radical -- than his unappealing designation of Warren.
Lowery was the longtime president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which he co-founded in 1957, before Obama was born, with the Revs. Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph David Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth. An essential player in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, Lowery was sent by King to deliver the demands of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march to Alabama's segregationist governor, George Wallace, and it was to Lowery that Wallace apologized three decades later.
Long after King and most of the other founding fathers of the civil rights movement had been buried, Lowery carried on the struggle. He led the 1982 drive to extend the federal Voting Rights Act. In 2005, when it came time to renew the act once more, Lowery famously cornered Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a memorial service for Rosa Parks to ask for maintaining voting rights protections. Why did Lowery choose so somber a setting to make his appeal to the most prominent African-American member of President Bush's Cabinet? "Because I knew she could not move," he explained.
Lowery has never hesitated to speak truth to power. In 2006, he earned national attention -- cheers from progressives, scorn from conservatives -- when he used a eulogy for his close friend Coretta Scott King to deliver a scathing denunciation of President George W. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush was sitting just a few feet away as the pastor spoke in blunt biblical terms about the sin of waging a "pre-emptive" war.
While Warren has compared the loving relationships of same-sex couples to incest and child molestation, campaigned on behalf of legislation that authorizes discrimination based on sexual orientation, and refused membership in his Saddleback Church to out gays and lesbians, Lowery has long been in the forefront of advocating for gay and lesbian rights.
In 2000, Lowery was one of the most prominent backers of a campaign to reverse the United Methodist Church doctrine that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," announcing his support for a United Methodists of Color statement objecting to the policy and to disrespect of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons by United Methodism.
"Remembering the voices who have told us to wait on justice, we dispute the notion that issues of race and nationality are so overwhelming that to fight for another issue of injustice is to water down the movement," declared the statement Lowery backed. "For the storehouses of God's justice do not run low, and we must recognize the interconnectedness of all forms of oppression if we are ever to achieve the kingdom. The realm of God is at hand."
In a speech to a dinner during that year's general convention of the United Methodist Church, Lowery asked leaders of the nation's second largest Protestant denomination: "How could the church, because of a person's sexual orientation, deny ministry to those whom God has called?"
The civil rights movement leader's counsel was to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.
Since then, Lowery has been an outspoken foe of the same moves to discriminate against gays and lesbians that Warren has supported.
"I support gays rights," says Lowery.
"When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue," he explained in 2004, when stating his opposition to state-based initiatives to ban gay marriage and civil unions. "And I can't take that away from anybody."
Lowery, at 87, admits to "a little cultural shock" regarding the question of gay marriage. "But," he adds, "I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country."
With regard to Rick Warren, Lowery is blunt: "I differ with the young pastor who's going to give the (invocation). I differ with him sharply on his position on this issue. I don't think we ought to put into law any discriminatory action against people because of race, or ethnicity or sexual orientation. I oppose that."
And, on Inauguration Day, it is a sound bet that the pastor who challenged George Wallace's bigotry and George Bush's war-making will challenge the backward thinking of Rick Warren and all those who would presume that the storehouses of God's justice run low when it comes to the rights of gays and lesbians.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"we know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. but coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. millions without health insurance. poverty abounds. for war billions more but no more for the poor!"
the rev. joseph e. lowery
i sure hope he brings up the $160,000,000 and the homeless.
go get 'em rev.
i hope........
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 10:28pm
Are we still going to pretend to believe the mythology of the religions in this administration?
Posted by bleedingheart at 01/17/2009 @ 11:49pm
"Lowery, at 87, admits to "a little cultural shock" regarding the question of gay marriage. "But," he adds, "I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country."
But don't gays already have recognized civil unions in all 50 states and all the rights that any other citizens have in this country?
Seems to me in my conversations on the marriage subject that gays want approval, not rights. They want marriage to prove that how they live is acceptable and should be acceptable to everyone.
Seems like a terrible way to live, needing approval from others for your lifestyle. I'm sure we'll all survive the inevitable gay marriage thing becoming "law" and no one will even really think about it in the future.
The real winners will be the divorce lawyers. And ultimately it will be God who judges the wisdom of all of this, not Warren or Lowery and certainly not me.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/17/2009 @ 11:54pm
It may be just me, but this article really does sound like "I agree with Lowery, I disagree with Warren, therefore Lowery will surely matter more." Really? Not sure I see the link there.
Also, though I really enjoy Nichols' compelling close to this article, I think he paints Warren with far too broad a brush. I don't think Obama was mistaken to attend the forum with him, and I don't think we should ignore the nuanced political theology that Warren expresses.
That said, however, I have to agree more with Lowery than Warren on this particular issue. I think the Biblical basis for condemning homosexuality is uncompelling, especially given the strong intuitive and philosophical/theological presumption against the position. Certainly, homosexuals should NEVER be excluded from the church. Ever. Nor should anyone. If Jesus did not even exclude his betrayer from the first Communion, much less various instances of fellowship and community with him, it is difficult to see how even those who view homosexuality as a sin can possibly exclude homosexuals from the church.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 12:27am
You're right to raise this question, freiheit1, however, a common misconception is that civil unions and domestic partnerships offer the same legal and personal protections as marriage. They do not.
Federal law does not recognize domestic partnership; therefore, for instance, domestic couples are ineligible to file taxes as a married couple, even if they happen to have children. Nor can a domestic partner naturalize his or her foreign partner, as married heterosexuals are allowed to. These are just two of a long list of protections that are only afforded to married couples.
You are absolutely right - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and if the legal protections were equal, who would care if it was called "marriage" or not?
The problem is, the legal status is NOT the same.
One solution would be to enact a federal law ensuring that domestic partners were granted all the same protections as married partners in every state in the union, with all the messy legal wrangling that would require.
Another solution would be to just let gay couples marry.
Posted by canaro71 at 01/18/2009 @ 12:56am
freiheit1, I don't mean to be rude, but you are entirely wrong when you say all 50 states have civil unions. In fact, fewer than 10 states recognize anything like a civil union or gay marriage, and many of the 40 other states have constitutional amendments against recognizing anything like a civil union. So it's not about approval. There are very real legal ramifications for gay couples because their states refuse any recognition of their relationships, because these couples are denied hundreds of legal rights.
In addition to agreeing with everything that canaro71 has said, I would like to suggest that gay couples do not seek legal recognition to obtain social approval, because legal recognition does not create social approval. Legal recognition just guarantees that gay people can exercise their Constitutional civil rights.
Posted by wahrheit1 at 01/18/2009 @ 01:23am
Thank you both. I can see I need to explore the legal side of the issue.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/18/2009 @ 02:04am
"I think the Biblical basis for condemning homosexuality is uncompelling...."----Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 12:27am |
Would that be from Leviticus, which said it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery or kill somebody who worked on the Sabbath...
or St. Paul who said it was bad for men to touch women?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2009 @ 07:38am
Hence uncompelling. As you've at least partially illustrated, neither of those two sources is categorically binding, and since the Bible doesn't even work with a coherent understanding of what homosexuality is...I find a Biblical position against homosexuality difficult.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 09:50am
"But don't gays already have recognized civil unions in all 50 states and all the rights that any other citizens have in this country?"
no, we don't. not even close. and in fact, a handful of states (not that my queer friends would ever want to live in two of them) recently passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage; and one state prevented gays from adopting children.
can we all just admit that 'gay' is really the new 'black'? if pastor warren had made horrific remarks about black people, then he never would have been selected by obama to read the invocation. never. in fact, warren may have never reached his position as the "nation's pastor," as racial hatred towards blacks is (obviously) intolerable (unless you are part of the very fringe white supremacist minority).
but sexual intolerance is still very much de rigeur in both rural and urban areas, judging by the relative lack of outrage at pastor warren's comments.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2009 @ 12:37pm
PE Obama wants diverse people around him, no one has to agree with him and he with them...we all have different points of view and it doesn't mean we can't all get along. Imagine how boring life would be if we all thought the same way on every single topic...God made us as individuals not as clones and gave us a brain to have our own thoughts and not just follow the herd.
Posted by Caj at 01/18/2009 @ 12:38pm
caj, but what if warren was an avowed racist?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2009 @ 12:46pm
Caj wrote: "God made us as individuals not as clones and gave us a brain to have our own thoughts and not just follow the herd."
Please, don't pretend you've solved the nature vs. nurture debate with one sentence that you think forcefully explains the situation - because it doesn't.
It is arguable your very sentence alone shows a sheep-like mentality - claiming that "God" made people. You don't know this - you're following what many people think.
Hello!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 12:59pm
caj, but what if warren was an avowed racist?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2009 @ 12:46pm
I don't think it would make any difference as PE Obama wants to be inclusive off ALL people and we all have different takes on race and religion, doesn't mean PE Obama shouldn't deal with them.
Posted by Caj at 01/18/2009 @ 1:05pm
Marriage is a legal partnership. Nothing more, nothing less. Leave fairy tale Gods out of it, lets mind our own business when it comes to what two consenting adults do and move on.. Simple yes?
As far as Rick Warren is concerned, he is irrelevant to most people. Let him jack his ignorant jaws as much as he wants. I for one could care less about Rick Warren.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/18/2009 @ 3:37pm
"I don't think it would make any difference as PE Obama wants to be inclusive off ALL people and we all have different takes on race and religion, doesn't mean PE Obama shouldn't deal with them."
you've proven exactly my point that sexual bigotry is still pretty much de rigeur, when warren's extremely bigoted views are simply considered a "different take," and not precisely what it is: bigotry.
if warren said that blacks are social deviants, would you consider that a "different take," or would you be appalled?
basically, you're a straight person, caj, and you don't really care. you can't see the bigotry, cuz it doesn't really effect you.
it's really as simple as that.
since when is saying "homosexuality is like pedophilioa" a so-called "different take," rather than extreme sexual bigotry?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2009 @ 3:39pm
claiming that "God" made people. You don't know this - you're following what many people think.
Hello!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 12:59pm
You are right about "God made People"...for the want of a better word I think God is used as none of us really know who made/created this universe or us. But, who ever or whatever it was that made/created us we are all different at the end of day our thought process is different from person to person that's all I'm saying and because of that there is still no reason not to get along or listen to someone else because of it.
Posted by Caj at 01/18/2009 @ 3:40pm
"Atheists in general are much more reasonable people."
-Chaoszen-
Posted by chaoszen at 01/18/2009 @ 3:47pm
Posted by Caj at 01/18/2009 @ 3:40pm
It is almost always better to leave "God" out of any equation that involves human affairs. It eliminates the necessity of "backpedaling".
Posted by chaoszen at 01/18/2009 @ 3:56pm
TURN YOUR BACK to Warren, and kiss the partner of your choice through the Invocation. LOVE conquers H8
Progressives and gays and lesbians will decide what we accept and what we DON'T!
Posted by mensa7 at 01/18/2009 @ 4:54pm
"Atheists in general are much more reasonable people."
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and their followers, atheists all.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/18/2009 @ 4:55pm
"The examples most in common use--those of the Hitler and Stalin regimes--show us with terrible clarity what can happen when men usurp the role of gods...To begin with a slightly inexpensive observation, it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists."
- Christopher Hitchens
(I know, I know.... sorry)
Posted by Best Leftist at 01/18/2009 @ 6:21pm
<i>Posted by Best Leftist at 01/18/2009 @ 6:21pm </i>
Haha. Actually, I'd agree with part of that. I do think this is what happens when human beings try to deify themselves. I think many religious people would agree with that. The whole notion of a divine standard that transcends human beings means that when people who believe in that kind of transcendent moral point of reference do awful things and effectively pretend that they are gods, they're going AGAINST what they affirm.
<i>Posted by chaoszen at 01/18/2009 @ 3:56pm</i>
Also, though I think you're right to suggest that imputing our limited preferences to God is problematic, leaving God out of the equation entirely makes sense only if he does not exist, and thus begs the question upon which religious and nonreligious individuals differ.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 7:24pm
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and their followers, atheists all. Posted by freiheit1 at 01/18/2009 @ 4:55pm
Hitler quotation from "Mein Kampf", "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Hitler claimed to be a Catholic.
As far as Stalin and Mao are concerned they never said either way. Yes they abolished religion. But not for any good reason other than they wanted to establish themselves as gods.
The argument you make is unsound at best. Because by your argument if a Catholic like Hitler was evil, then it would follow that all Catholics are evil. Faulty reasoning.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/18/2009 @ 9:58pm
Joseph Lowery is nothing but an old fool who's lost his way. He is irrelevant, even in many Black churches today. If Obama were a true Christian, he could have offered the benediction reading to good principled leaders who would season their words with "salt" and offer up prayers for grace and salvation. Having Dr. Charles Stanely or Bishop T.D. Jakes speak would have been wonderful, it would have taken the fire from the extreme right or the extreme left.
IMHO, this was a poor attempt placate the fringe left. I guess his handlers figured the old man was a much better pick than the bombastic Rev. Wright. To this day, I'm still bothered about that whole blow-up regarding his mentor. This man ministered to Obama for 20 years and in one heart beat, abandoned him over a sound bite. Now that's disloyalty for ya.
Posted by ACook at 01/18/2009 @ 11:37pm
ll you hate fags, it's that simple.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 12:27am
(one that only developed with the modern liberal theology that even denies that deity of Christ--heresy on it's own),
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/18/2009 @ 11:50pm
imagine if some dude comes down from the mountain today and proclaims to be the son of god.
i doubt he'd even get on nancy grace.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 12:57am
The argument you make is unsound at best. Because by your argument if a Catholic like Hitler was evil, then it would follow that all Catholics are evil. Faulty reasoning.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/18/2009 @ 9:58pm
Hitlerwas evil.
Hitler was Catholic.
Conclusion all Catholics are evil.
That Ch. is your reasoning, not Frie's, and that is an invalid argument.
Here is your argument again:
Hitler was evil.
Hitler was an Austrian
Conclusion all Austrians are evil
but it gets worse
Hitler was evil.
Hitler was a human being.
Chaoszen is a human being.
Conclusion Chaoszen is evil.
Back to logic 101 for you, I think, or was it a "typo".
Frie was not producing any argument but just indicating, by a few choice examples, how ludicrous your statement is.
No problem with Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao who were all philosophical materialists so its pretty hard for that sort to be anything but atheists.
Hitler was all over the shop and after 1940 railed against Christianity and tended to a form of German ancestor-worship. If we could bring him up to date he would have been a nature worshiping, greenie pagan and Al Gore would have been his choice for propaganda minister ( if H could have weaned him off the Leftist tit).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 01:23am
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/18/2009 @ 11:50pm </i>
Unlike a theory of originalism, the framework does not rely upon what all of the writers thought. Paul made mistakes, and no one believes that even the full category of morally-charged offenses in Leviciticus reference universally-binding moral premises (see: slavery).
Let's backpedal a bit, though. Any understanding of this issue has to meet two separate tests:
1) Consistency with the central teachings of the Scriptures, for which the ultimate standard must be noncontradiction of what Jesus himself said.
2) Consistency with the fundamental attributes of God to which Jesus testifies.
Though I've spent a lot of energy engaging (2), I feel like I've touched on both of these tests. A huge problem your argument keeps running into is that our understanding of homosexuality is relatively recent. Early church fathers ALSO understood it purely as a set of isolateable acts that an individual chose to undertake, which means their testimony on it would suffer from the same one that Paul's does. To use an analogy, this would be the functional equivalent of trying to derive specific astrophysical conclusions from particular statements that Gospel writers or early church fathers make.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 03:27am
Besides this incongruity argument (what they were talking about wasn't even homosexuality), I gave you two more arguments, both of which were explicitly theological.
One, the Bible doesn't under any reading say what you want it do. The ONLY homosexuality EVER referred to is male. This means both that in the best-case scenario you can provide, only male homosexuality is sinful, AND makes a "self-degradation" explanation much more coherent than the narrative you're offering.
Two, the fact that homosexuality is an orientation makes your claim THEOLOGICALLY problematic. The acts to which various verses refer are inextricably bound to an individual's sexual orientation. How do we know this? Because the concept of "one flesh" presupposes a union of both physical and spiritual. The upshot is that cutting out any acts effectively neuters the only sense in which a homosexual could experience the form of love that a heterosexual can. To argue that expressions of homosexual love, a nature in which some number of people were made and which is a fundamental part of their being, is sinful, seems intuitively difficult given a God whose fundamental being is love. Could it be overcome? Maybe, but the evidence simply does not seem to be there
Pastor, I began this discussion with a willingness to hear your perspective, and tried to engage those of your arguments that intrigued me. This is an issue I have thought a good deal about, despite having no direct personal stake in the outcome. As such, and owing to your clear interest in discourse, I have confidence that you will engage the arguments I have offered and take them as serious considerations rather than simply rationalizations.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 03:35am
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 01:23am
I said freiheit's argument is unsound. Because by his post he was making a specious argument. And I referenced that false argument in my post by using the Hitler/Catholic example. Can you read?
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 03:41am
About as logical as your position on Paul (one that only developed with the modern liberal theology that even denies that deity of Christ--heresy on it's own), dismissing his teachings even though the apostles and the record of the church until the late 19th century opposes your view.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/18/2009 @ 11:50pm
For the record, I think that specific claim of modern liberal theology is just clearly incorrect. Both Paul and the Gospels make the conclusion extraordinarily hard to sustain. Thus, I don't defend what they do.
One other question, by the way. Jesus' understanding of "sexual immorality" may be explicitly tied to Leviticus 18...but does that mean that it refers to the ENTIRETY of Leviticus 18? Most of that, interestingly enough, deals with things like incest and sex with animals, none of which are remotely analogous. Given the significant theological counterweight in the other direction, and the contrast between acts which can clearly be seen as problematic AND which don't have any tie to a broader orientation AND which are clearly morally repugnant and the notion of homosexuality, why should we assume that Jesus' condemnation extends to everything there?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 03:50am
Frie was not producing any argument but just indicating, by a few choice examples, how ludicrous your statement is. Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 01:23am
The argument can be inferred by the statement and needs no further evidence. As it is a common invalid argument used mostly by Christians in an attempt to smear Atheists. Not only is it a specious argument but it is also based on little or no evidence that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao were even Atheists!
The funny thing is I could easily compile a list of "Christians" to fill a book that would put to shame the few examples so called Christians are fond of citing. And even that would never prove that Christians were either unreasonable or evil.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 03:58am
Your contribution begins by the suggestion that the question of homosexuality should not be the province of religion which of course rules out both Lowery, as his view of marriage is basically an orthodox Christian one, and Warren.
Then you move from that to the baseless claim that: "Atheists in general are much more reasonable people."
Frei's rejoinder to that Schoolboy howler is: "Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and their followers, atheists all."
Then follows your invalid argument, which you later incomprehensibly claim was Frei's inference.
You missed the point that most primary school children would not miss i.e. it was not merely the atheist leaders but also their followers that Frei refers to. That means hundreds of millions of atheists, which should have made you realise that Frei also covered your "atheists in general".
The only inference that anyone with a grasp of history could reasonably draw from Frei's statement is that atheists, given the terrible unreasonableness of those regimes, are no more reasonable than theists "who (have) God in the equation". Nothing more nothing less. For some strange reason you set off on a wild goose chase, perhaps to prove to us that you don't understand how a valid argument is constructed from the data.
So the inference you draw is all your own and has nothing to do with the data and importantly you make not only an argument that has nothing to do with your claim and Frei's response but is an invalid argument and that too is all your own work.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 08:32am
You seem to be ignorant of what a materialist is. Do a bit of reading and see why you do not need the Marxists to confess to being atheists. Their atheism follows directly from their adherence to materialism.
You are on only slightly firmer ground with Hitler because you don't seem to know his later (1940/41 onwards) position. Here's a sample: "We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews." Hitler said, "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." (Bullock derived both quotations from the book Hitler's Table Talk.)
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 08:34am
"Their atheism follows directly from their adherence to materialism."
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 08:34am
I would suggest that the reverse is more likely true - materialism is a philosophy that would evolve out of atheism as a possible explanation of the world we live in. Historical or dialectic materialism as proposed by Marx and Engels attempts to define the history of the world through continuous class struggle. I would venture further in saying one would first have to shed the dogma of religion to come to these conclusions; hence atheism first, then materialism.
But just as modern science can easily dismiss theistic religions for their lack of evidence, modern science, especially quantum mechanics, can also easily dismiss materialism since the concept of matter has changed significantly. This possibility was no doubt in the mind of Engels, who said, "with each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science, materialism has to change its form."
Picking a few bad apples to attempt to point out the "immorality" of atheism is knee-jerk and totally irrelevant. As chaoszen points out, the proportionality of ruthless theistic leaders to atheistic leaders tips towards religion. Examine any aspect of the Inquisition for clarity.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 10:24am
religious people are so rarely simply happy w/ their religions.
they need to compare their religions to other religions, and to people who don't adhere to religions - and claim they are superior to them.
i pity them - must be exhausting to not be content in who you are - but rather to have a desperate need to win some poll of public opinion.
actually, when you think of it - it's very similar to shallow accumulation of material things in that way - both are often used as tools in a desperate need to prove worthiness by sad people.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 11:30am
Examine any aspect of the Inquisition for clarity.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 10:24am
also,
each clusterbomb has been blessed by "god".
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 11:36am
You seem to be ignorant of what a materialist is. Do a bit of reading and see why you do not need the Marxists to confess to being atheists. Their atheism follows directly from their adherence to materialism. Posted by lrjones4 at 01/19/2009 @ 08:34am
The Social Materialism of Karl Marx has nothing to do with religion or a lack thereof. It is concerned with class relations and economics aswell as other ideology like law, morality and science. So how can you infer that atheism follows from an adherence to social materialism? Another invalid argument.
You seem to be stuck on making and supporting invalid arguments to prop up unfounded assertions. And then to top it off you put words in the other persons mouth in an attempt to validate them. Poor form.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 12:20pm
"each clusterbomb has been blessed by "god"."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 11:36am
You mean, g-d? Ah, to live in fear.
Is that like referring to Voldemort as "He-who-cannot-be-named"?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 11:59am
Again, LL, you have no credibility.
"it's very similar to shallow accumulation of material things in that way"
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 11:30am
Don't confuse the philosophical school of materialism with modern-day consumerism.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 12:32pm
HAL9000 - I don't appreciate you partially quoting me then "correcting" me on something I didn't say.
I didn't compare materialism with modern-day consumerism.
I compared religious people's need to be right with the accumulation of things (modern-day consumerism).
Don't make someone's words into what you want them to be just so you can "correct" them and sound like you're smarter than them - ok champ.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 12:42pm
LL - lots of gymnastics to try and make legit your bigotry toward fags.
it's ok - you hate gay people. we get it.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 12:54pm
"Don't make someone's words into what you want them to be just so you can "correct" them and sound like you're smarter than them - ok champ."
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 12:42pm
I thought you were continuing on the subject of my thread and assumed, incorrectly, that you were using the common definition of materialism as the accumulation of wealth and things. For that, I apologize. Now, settle down.
And don't call me champ, only g-d is champ.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 1:00pm
Both the clear teaching of my faith and that of Judaism that it is not and there is no science to validate your claim. Thus you are left with a conclusion on your side of the argument that is only conjectural.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 11:59am
so,
your faith = science?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:03pm
13 " 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands**, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty."
**thou shall not kill
uh oh....
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:09pm
" 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
whoa!
god's not gonna pass biology class....
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:12pm
When G-d chose the Jews, he stated that it wasn't because they were better but because of His agreements with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And because of them, He was choosing the Jews to reveal Himself, His nature and His holiness, and His standards for acceptable behavior to all mankind. That is why G-d warned them not to even act or look like the pagans' no child sacrifices, no tatoos, no body piercing among the men.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 11:59am
G-d??? don't you mean "nancy"?
nancy <i>chose</i> the jews?
sorry buddhists, hindus, pastafarians. you guys don't rate.
acceptable behaviour? do you have a beard, larry:
" 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
newt gingrich must die!
'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:20pm
egad!
ellen is possessed by demons.
just look at those eyes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:23pm
"there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic"
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 1:14pm
Actually, nature is full of evidence. What's lacking is a concrete theory, but that's the beauty of science. Research will bring humanity closer to the truth and eventually confirm or deny your faith.
Did you say demonic possession in the same sentence as science? I guess god isn't going to pass biology class after all, frosty.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 1:29pm
so i can do, like, anything, and if i say "sorry, jesus is king", i'm safe?
wow, that's easy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 2:07pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 11:59am </i>
1) I think we agree on one absolutely crucial thing here. Your entire argument hinges on the premise that homosexuality can be described as nothing more than a set of particular acts in which an individual chooses to either engage in or not. If that premise falls, your entire position falls with it.
Homosexuality doesn't have to be something that's passed down genetically for the orientation argument to hold. All that has to be true is that in a significant number of cases, it is not a free choice. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that claim, and the dismal failure of what one movie refers to as "de-gayification" also lends support to this. There are, in fact, a number of people whose homosexuality effectively makes them outcasts in their community, such that they would prefer that their desires didn't exist and that they could experience romantic love with members of the opposite sex.
This fact, supported by abundant testimony, poses a serious problem for your position in ways that I've already outlined and you've never challenged. It makes your position extremely difficult to defend theologically.
Also...why only homosexuality between males? Still no response.
2) This is a very interesting argument, but I don't think it goes nearly far enough. If homosexuality were really just forbidden so that the Jews wouldn't blend in with everyone else (serving the same function as banning tatoos and such), then why would we have a problem with it any more than we do with tatoos? I don't know of any church, really, that believes that having a tatoo is fundamentally unchristian.
I have a lot of things to see on this Martin Luther King Day, so I'll try and respond to the Paul analysis later.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 2:17pm
And don't call me champ, only g-d is champ. Posted by HAL9000
you're not one of these people who think omitting an "O" between "G" and "D" is some sort of important gesture, are you?
because, GODDAMMIT, GOD doesn't give a shit!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:21pm
I don't hate them and they are free in this country to live as they like. but that is a seperate issue from how G-d demands that we live for Him. When someone like Thrawn attempts to rewrite the bible according to his opinions, he is not free to do so. He can have opinions but not to ignore the weight of the historical record and claim an equal legitimacy for his view. --posted by LL
no, you hate them, we get it.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:22pm
LL wrote: "I maintain that it is a choice of one yielding to an aspect of the craven nature that each of us is born with, or demonic oppression and even sometimes demonic possession, and there is no scientific argument to dispute my contention, only opinion."
your opinion that gay people are possessed by demons.
hahaahahahahaahahahaha!
that is the funniest, science can't prove my opinion wrong stance I've ever seen.
gay people possessed by demons.
hahaahahha
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:24pm
"you're not one of these people who think omitting an "O" between "G" and "D" is some sort of important gesture, are you?
because, GODDAMMIT, GOD doesn't give a shit!"
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:21pm
Oh hell no...I'm making fun of lvliberty, or hthomesexuals as it were. I'm a non-believer. Did you see my g-d/voldemort question?
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 2:29pm
what's an "hthomosexual" - or is that a typo?
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:37pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:37pm
lvliberty is "love liberty". hthomosexuals is "hate homosexuals". Possibly a more appropriate title for the resident preacher?
What was this blog about again? Oh yeah, Lowery. Let's get back on that.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 2:44pm
<i>Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:20pm </i>
I think Liberty would argue, quite fairly, that there was a distinction between the moral law and the ritual law.
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 12:47pm </i>
There are at least 2 verses that I wonder about, of which clearly came from Paul and which either contradict Jesus or contradict what I'm fairly sure we both believe:
1) "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head- it is just as though her head were shaved." - 1 Corinthians 11:16
2) "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches....If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14:35
Both of these are manifest contradictions of Jesus' approach. Though none of the Gospel stories take place in church, Jesus NEVER treated women in the kind of different way that theses verses clearly defend. As William Lane Craig points out, the law did not even regard women as acceptable witnesses in court, but they were among the first to whom the risen Jesus appeared.
In a similar token, Paul would have been appalled by the notion of a female pastor, but I would be hard-pressed to see anyone make anything approaching a good theological argument why female preachers are at all problematic.
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 1:46pm </i>
Doesn't that run at least a little bit in tension with the "Old Testmanet law stands" approach?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 2:45pm
I wish I had the last five minutes back.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 2:46pm
Back up people. Let's look again at these so-called 'examples of atheism driven to is's logical conclusion': Hitler, Mao, Stalin. The main point was that these jokers had far more in common with Pharaoh, Xerxes II, Mayan rulers etc. than they do with Karl Marx or Richard Dawkins.
I belive these men were the exact opposite of athiests. They were so sure of the existence of God that they believed they were Him. Remember, the same war that Adolph and Joey were tangled up in also had Hirohito who we actually had to force into admitting that he was not a god made flesh. As an athiest and a democratic-republican I believe that true authority comes from no one other than those WE choose to loan it to. I care not to be commanded by anyone and if you don't believe that we can create heaven on this earth then what the f--- are you still doing here?
Posted by Best Leftist at 01/19/2009 @ 2:51pm
I did not say that. I said that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/19/2009 @ 1:14pm
There is scientific evidence that homosexuality may be genetic. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282
And also: http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1995/148-01/14801-15.pdf
It does not represent absolute proof. But it does bring up some interesting questions. But does it really even matter? In my opinion NO. Whether it is a choice or not is unimportant. Unless you don't care for gay folks. Which means you are a sexual bigot.
Even your buddy Saul of Tarsus may have been an epileptic repressed homosexual. It seems much more reasonable to assume he had an attack of temporal lobe epilepsy (which produces hallucinations) on the road to Damascus other than his speaking to a dead person. The only positive result of his disease was that at least he stopped killing early Christians..
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 3:01pm
the bible doesn't provide absolute proof either - but don't say that to someone who's swallowed its words whole!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 3:18pm
<i>Posted by Best Leftist at 01/19/2009 @ 2:51pm</i>
A couple of things:
1) The ambition to create a perfect society on Earth is precisely what has created some of the most devastating and tyrannical regimes this planet has ever seen. The aspiration to change things for the better is certainly a good one, but when it morphs into a belief that imperfect human beings can somehow create perfection, it becomes dangerous.
2) As far as people having authority over others...I'm pretty sure most theists would also agree with you because to do otherwise conflates man with God. No mere human being has any kind of intrinsic "right to rule" or any such nonsense.
3)You seem very, very interested in consent. I don't want to presuppose anything here, but would you also contend that no moral frameworks matter except those which we as individuals freely consent to? Or is there some form of authority (loosely defined) which you would see as legitimate?
<i>Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 3:01pm </i>
Only if you think that a miraculous explanation is automaticaly the least probable of any available explanation (a claim which needs warrant and always seems to lack it). Your claim here only works if one accepts the same basic philosophical presuppositions that you do.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 2:21pm
Actually I think the somewhat obsessive-compulsive fear of saying or writing the name of God only applies to the hebrew name for God, YHWH, IHVH, YHVH or the Tetragrammaton. It is said that in the kabbalah if someone manages to pronounce the name of God successfully then terrible things would happen.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 3:38pm
yeah i really don't care about superstition - especially when it's cloaked in the authority of religion.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 3:40pm
Your claim here only works if one accepts the same basic philosophical presuppositions that you do. Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 3:31pm
I'm not talking about philosophical presuppositions. I'm talking about logical explanations for supernatural occurences. Talking to or hearing voices from the dead are much less likely to be a logical explanation for the phenomenon. In Pauls case there is at least some evidence that he was an epileptic. Temporal lobe epilepsy is known to cause symptoms of hyperreligiosity, hypergraphia, pendantism, hallucinations and temporary blindness. All those symptoms could apply to Paul.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 3:53pm
yeah i really don't care about superstition - especially when it's cloaked in the authority of religion.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 3:40pm
amen br-ther.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 3:56pm
"I don't know of any church, really, that believes that having a tatoo is fundamentally unchristian."
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 2:17pm
Thrawn, scripture warns against body piercings and tattoos for Christians believers. Here's a few passages I think you may be familiar with. Starting with:
Leviticus 19: 28 and Numbers 23:19, then work your way forward to:
1 Corinthians 3: 16-17 and 1 Corinithians 6: 19-20
2 Corinthians 6: 14-17
Galatians 6: 7-8
I've noticed as of late, you've been questioning the scriptures (not a bad thing), is there something on your heart that troubles you?
Posted by ACook at 01/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
It is said that in the kabbalah if someone manages to pronounce the name of God successfully then terrible things would happen.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 3:38pm
i will never say "nancy" again.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 5:17pm
Posted by ACook at 01/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
The taboo against tats and piercings was just another malevolent attempt by so called christians to subjugate and destroy pagan beliefs. It was just another disgusting effort to bring down the "Old Religion".
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 5:32pm
Acook wrote: "Thrawn, scripture warns against body piercings and tattoos for Christians believers."
oh yeah? so all the athletes (many black) covered in tatoos that are thanking jesus all the time are going to be prevented access to heaven because there's permanent ink on their skin?
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 5:37pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 5:37pm
UR, these guys have no clue. They drop the savior's name because they think it's cool. They don't worship Christ no more than you do.
Posted by ACook at 01/19/2009 @ 11:30pm
sounds like a broad sweeping generalization.
one would even say - a prejudice.
but no - a black conservative woman could never be prejudiced, right?
the more people I find that think they have the market cornered on jesus and god and heaven - the more i realize they are doing nothing more than desperately seeking immortality and they don't want to share!
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 11:37pm
<i>Posted by ACook at 01/19/2009 @ 4:42pm </i>
Though I appreciate the concern, what troubles me is when that which I love is distorted into something that I really don't even recognize.
I question the scriptures because I believe that that's fair. That doesn't mean I reject some of the most basic bedrocks of the faith (namely, a belief in a God whose love knows absolutely no bounds, and who seeks to cultivate in human beings a joy and depth greater than any we can understand). What I gleant from the Christian tradition I belong to is that the core of scripture is God's overwhelming love for the world and human beings in it, and the boundless grace which welcomes us in no matter what our struggles and failings. What I reject is when the Scriptures are taken so literally that they destroy the core they were meant to support. It saddens me when anyone is rejected from the Lord's table or from the fellowship of the church. If Jesus could make a tax collector, a collabor with the regime that was oppressing his people, a disciple and friend at his table, how on earth can we justify telling certain people that they're not welcome? And why is it we so easily forget the "joy" part? I know I should avoid ranting too much here, but why is it that we often talk about a "spirit of joy in God's presence" but sing as though we were just muttering words?
I think the "tatoo" references illustrate precisely the point I'm making. Yes, this was introduced so that Jews could distinguish themselvs from surrounding civilizations. Should I reprove or judge someone because they choose to get a tatoo? I don't think so. Does God love them less? Not in the least. Does this somehow keep them from heaven? Not a chance.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 11:55pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/19/2009 @ 11:37pm
My dear, if they knew the Lord and his word, they would not have defiled themselves.
Are you familiar with the parable of the sower (the farmer) and his seed? You will find that story in Matthew 13, Mark 4: 1-9 and Luke 8: 4-8.
This isn't about being prejudiced. It's about understanding the will and the word of God. The way through Christ is open to all.
Posted by ACook at 01/20/2009 @ 12:19am
I agree with you here, though I think I would interpret "all" even broader than you would. I think the "God saves only Christians" paradigm tries to limit God's goodness and mercy far more than can be justified.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/20/2009 @ 12:24am
Should I reprove or judge someone because they choose to get a tatoo?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 11:55pm
It depends. If they received the tattoo before their conversion, then no. How ever, if they marked themselves after their baptisim, then a rebuke is needed to remind them that their body (whom they've given over to Christ) is a sacred temple to remain blemish free (or at lease come close to it as one possible can). Then, hopefully, they'll go to their private place and ask God for forgiveness.
Posted by ACook at 01/20/2009 @ 12:47am
ACook - you, like LL, believe in a strict interpretation of the bible when it suits you, and other times you'll say (no, it was allegorical, it's not literal, etc).
Jesus is far better than you - because he loves people, even those that are different than you. You should learn from him, instead of pridefully thinking you have it all figured out.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 12:48am
Jesus is far better than you - because he loves people, even those that are different than you. You should learn from him, instead of pridefully thinking you have it all figured out.
Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 12:48am
Sigh. UR, I don't do strict interpretaton. I'm not Jewish. Scripture is both figurative and literal. There's a difference between the two. For ie, the parables and much of scripture are figurative and God's commandments are literal. When you read figurative scripture, it should be read with discernment.
As for your quip about Jesus being better then me, you're absolutely right. Afterall, had he not taken my place on the cross, I would not be here today.
Posted by ACook at 01/20/2009 @ 01:50am
ACook - please discuss this with LL (and on these blogs - so I can see!)
Posted by urmygyro at 01/20/2009 @ 02:10am
Afterall, had he not taken my place on the cross, I would not be here today.
Posted by ACook at 01/20/2009 @ 01:50am
so why are the indigenous of the amazon still here?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2009 @ 02:12am
<i>Posted by ACook at 01/20/2009 @ 12:47am </i>
So no earrings? The reason I ask this is because you seem to be making the argument with an implicit assumption that any form of alteration or addition onto the body's existing structure or form is a blemish. Why is that? Or, to make it even more interesting...what about a phylactery?
I just think it's interesting that when Jesus came to speak, what he dwelt the most on where the sins/virtues of character and of society. Yes, he very much wanted to clarify people's understanding of God and renew the "spirit of joy in [God's] presence," from which flowed concerns for both social justice and individual character.
It just seems striking that the kind of stuff you're discussing here just never came up. And it's not enough to say "well, that was implicit in him affirming the law," because I think we can learn a great deal just by seeing where his focus was. It was not on passing judgment on people, it was on trying to hammer home a concept of the Kingdom of God, perhaps best captured in the trio (triune, dare I say?) parables which include the fascinating and wonderful prodigal son story. For those who see Christianity as being about avoiding the wrath of God or following a set of rules and regulations so God will be pleased enough to let you in, I think this story dashes all of that to pieces.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/20/2009 @ 06:26am
"the day when tanks are beaten in tractors"
(Beat your tanks into tractors and plow for those who didn't.)
Posted by bleedingheart at 01/20/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/19/2009 @ 10:24am
Doesn't really matter what the chronological order is. C apparently wanted "personal testimonies" from the Marxists that they were indeed atheists. My claim that materialists by implication are atheists or that atheists are necessarily materialists probably depends on the consistency of a particular atheist's or materialist's philosophy. There can be little doubt given the history of these regimes that atheism was core, at certain times, to the social programs of the Soviet and China. And is a sort of circumstantial evidence that these men were atheists (and that their regimes were atheistic). Pol Pot's experiment in social engineering is interesting in that there was some synthesis of Marxism with a sect of Buddhism but that of course , on consideration, reminds us that that philosophy is also essentially atheistic.
Perhaps an extension of the inference that could be drawn from Frei's response is that human beings, regardless of their philosophy or religion share the same unreasonable predisposition, which is confirmed by their behaviour.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/20/2009 @ 4:07pm
You seem to be stuck on making and supporting invalid arguments to prop up unfounded assertions. And then to top it off you put words in the other persons mouth in an attempt to validate them. Poor form.
Posted by chaoszen at 01/19/2009 @ 12:20pm
C, you wouldn't know what an argument should look like. Further I assumed too much about your ability to understand the implications of philosophical materialism. Stop compounding ignorance with ignorance and sit down and get a grasp of the implications of embracing materialism as Marxists do, then come back and say something relevant.
p.s. also enroll in a logic 101 class.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/20/2009 @ 4:38pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/20/2009 @ 10:45am </i>
I think this is partially true, but is dangerous if taken too far. The perfect illustration comes in the story of the prodigal son (which I alluded to). No one disputes that the prodigal son would have been wrong to not repent and seek forgiveness for everything he had done. However, note that the father's acceptance of him wasn't conditional on this. All we're told is that the father sees his son, goes running towards him, hugs him, and cuts him off before he can make the repentance speech that he had been preparing. In other words, the father's love and forgiveness weren't conditional on the son's actions. In addition, Christ's sacrifice on the cross becomes less impactful if he didn't actually take on ALL sin (and Paul, btw, says he DID), and thus remove it from us. Moreover, if the only things God could forgive are things you confess, suicide would actually be unforgiveable, and that's a problem.
So here's the bottom line that I'm defending: God both desires repentance and recognizes that because we are human, not sinning is not a possibility. To limit his grace to those who either believe the right things or follow the right rules is to confine God's mercy and thereby make him imperfectly merciful. This is especially important given that unlike love, I don't think justice is actually an intrinsic virtue. I don't mean that it's OK to give someone worse than they deserve, but giving them better than what they deserve can only be problematic in a system like our world where calculations of cost and benefit enter in. That's why I think justice is best understood as our attempt to approximate perfect love in the best way we can.
Finally, none of this responds to the homosexuality analysis from earlier.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/20/2009 @ 8:49pm
As a more direct link to the thread...I actually thought (until he got to Jesus and the Lord's Prayer) that Warren did a pretty good job.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/21/2009 @ 09:15am