The Rise of the Political Christian

[Chuck Naill]

Last week I was reminded of my own spiritual journey when Jimmy Carter was president and when Ronald Reagan was elected to replace Mr. Carter. I don't remember politics being discussed. I knew my family on both sides were Democrat, primarily because they remembered Hoover Days and the rise of social programs that got people back on their feet in many ways.

As I said, Francis Schaffer was writing about civil disobedience and getting involved politically. Since that time, it seems to me that it has destroyed the American church.

When I was coming up I endured and was made to study the Bible as a child. Later, I did it voluntarily with men and women the same age as my grand and great grandparents. They knew the scriptures and had interpretations. Some were cessationists. Some were pre trib and some post. The common thread is that they had come to know about Jesus and what he said and taught. It occurs to me that the modern person in the pew is not educated in what the texts say. They know they like Republicans. Actually, I'd say they are not a curious sort at all.

Some think the worse thing that happened to Christianity is when it was adopted by Roman as the official religion.

Thoughts?


"But American church attendance was declining. The share of self-identified Christians in the United States dropped from 75 percent in 2011 to 63 percent in 2021 while the share of religious “nones” — i.e., those who identified as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” — jumped from 19 percent to 29 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. The G.O.P. has not been immune to this trend. The share of Republicans who belong to a church dropped from 75 percent in 2010 to 65 percent in 2020, according to Gallup. Although the sharp drop-off in religiosity began in the liberal mainline Protestant denominations, it has spread to their conservative counterparts as well. Fewer than half of Republicans said “being Christian” was an important part of being American in 2020, according to Pew — a 15 percentage point drop from 2016. Across the ideological and theological spectrum, organized religion is waning.

As a result, the religious right’s influence in the G.O.P. has been declining since the Bush era. The party’s 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, repeatedly flip-flopped on Roe, voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and decried Jerry Falwell as one of several “agents of intolerance.” Mitt Romney, who sat atop the G.O.P. presidential ticket in 2012, had a similarly spotty track record on social issues.

While President Donald Trump delivered on a number of religious conservative priorities — most notably, appointing enough conservative justices to the Supreme Court to cobble together a likely majority of anti-Roe votes — he is a lifelong pro-choicer and sexual libertine who made explicit appeals to gay and lesbian voters on the 2016 campaign trail and was the first openly pro-same-sex-marriage candidate to win the presidency. “It is hardly surprising that the religious right is no longer even perceived as a relevant force in U.S. politics,” George Hawley concluded in The American Conservative. “Far from a kingmaker in the political arena, the Christian right is now mostly ignored.”

Revolution From the Middle
The decline in Republican church membership directly coincides with the rise of Mr. Trump. As Timothy P. Carney found in 2019, the voters who went for Mr. Trump in the 2016 primary were far more secular than the religious right: In the 2016 G.O.P. primaries, Mr. Trump won only about 32 percent of voters who went to church more than once a week. In contrast, he secured about half of those who went “a few times a year,” 55 percent of those who “seldom” attend and 62 percent of Republicans who never go to church. In other words, Mr. Carney wrote, “every step down in church attendance brought a step up in Trump support, and vice versa.”

The right’s new culture war represents the worldview of people the sociologist Donald Warren called “Middle American radicals,” or M.A.Rs. This demographic, which makes up the heart of Mr. Trump’s electoral base, is composed primarily of non-college-educated middle- and lower-middle-class white people, and it is characterized by a populist hostility to elite pieties that often converges with the old social conservatism. But M.A.Rs do not share the same religious moral commitments as their devoutly Christian counterparts, both in their political views and in their lifestyles. As Ross Douthat noted, nonchurchgoing Trump voters are “less likely to be married and more likely to be divorced” than those who regularly attend religious services. No coincidence, then, that a 2021 Gallup poll showed 55 percent of Republicans now support gay marriage — up from just 28 percent in 2011."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/opinion/republicans-religion-conservatism.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

[Niner]

...

the modern person in the pew is not educated in what the texts say. They know they like Republicans.

...


Thoughts?

...


They all look alike. They should go back where they came from. (Imagine there being some kind of sarcasm smiley here.)

[TSherbs]

Political identity is becoming America's new religious faith.

[Chip]

My faith is not usually inpired by ephemera.

(Although I'm fascinated by butterflies.)

[Chuck Naill]

Question, anyone beside me ever hear a preacher ask something like…” is there anyone here to loves Jesus”?

[Chip]

Question, anyone beside me ever hear a preacher ask something like…” is there anyone here to loves Jesus”?

Do you ever read what you type before posting?

You should.

[Chuck Naill]

Question, anyone beside me ever hear a preacher ask something like…” is there anyone here to loves Jesus”?

Do you ever read what you type before posting?

You should.

I often use my iPhone and posting on the go.

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding what Justice Alito thinks.



"“The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States, Europe and other similar places,” Justice Alito said, “is to convince people who are not religious that religious liberty is worth special protection.”

On one level, there is nothing surprising about such a declaration from Justice Alito. We know where he stands on religion. He is the author of a long string of opinions that have elevated the free exercise of religion above civil society’s other values, including the right not to be discriminated against and the right to enjoy benefits intended for all. He wrote a concurring opinion in June’s astonishing decision that permitted a high school football coach to commandeer the 50-yard line after games for his personal prayers over the public school district’s objection.

He was a vigorous dissenter during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the court upheld the attendance limits that governments were placing on religious as well as secular gatherings. And later, when the court reversed itself on that issue after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival, he was part of the five-member majority that established a new “most favored nation” status for religion — meaning that any time the government, for whatever reason, grants a secular entity an exemption from a restriction or regulation, the failure to offer religion a similar exemption is presumptively unconstitutional."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/opinion/religion-supreme-court-alito.html

[kazoolaw]

Gosh Chuck, you'd agree that the exercise of religion is guaranteed special protection wouldn't you?

[Chuck Naill]

It’s been two months, dumb ass. I would agree that the government cannot establish a religion.

You can say you love Jesus and pay someone to have sex with your wife.

Thing is, all you Evangelicals are the ones shooting yourselves in the foot .

[kazoolaw]

It’s been two months, dumb ass. I would agree that the government cannot establish a religion.

You can say you love Jesus and pay someone to have sex with your wife.

Thing is, all you Evangelicals are the ones shooting yourselves in the foot .

Just as I thought: you'd edit the part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" out of the First Amendment. You probably thought no one would check the text.

The second sentence is an insight into your sad, perverted mind. Not a pretty sight.

[Chuck Naill]

It’s been two months, dumb ass. I would agree that the government cannot establish a religion.

You can say you love Jesus and pay someone to have sex with your wife.

Thing is, all you Evangelicals are the ones shooting yourselves in the foot .

Just as I thought: you'd edit the part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" out of the First Amendment. You probably thought no one would check the text.

The second sentence is an insight into your sad, perverted mind. Not a pretty sight.



No, it is well documented regarding Jerry Falwell,Jr, Kaz. This is old news.

"Giancarlo Granda, the man at the center of a sex scandal involving Jerry Falwell Jr, detailed on Friday how the evangelical leader and outspoken ally of Donald Trump “enjoyed watching” his wife and Granda having sex."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/jerry-falwell-jr-giancarlo-granda-becki-enjoyed-watching

Something more current and I'll use you favorite source, Fox to inform regarding the Southern Baptist's handling of sexual abuse.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/justice-department-investigating-southern-baptist-convention-handling-sex-abuse-cases

I'll check back next month for your next drive by post. :)

[kazoolaw]

^ ^ ^
And this is what you try to pass off as Constitutional Analysis? This is your diversion from discussing the complete protection of religion in the First Amendment?
Pull yourself out of the gutter, and set your mind on things above.

[TSherbs]

This is your diversion from discussing the complete protection of religion in the First Amendment?
Pull yourself out of the gutter, and set your mind on things above.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

How about if you pull your mind out of false overstatements about the "complete protection" of religion. You're not any more sincere (or righteous) than anyone else around here.

[kazoolaw]

TS-
Thanks for pointing out my error: should have read "the complete language regarding the" protection of religion in the First Amendment.
I'll leave the false overstatements to Chuck.
How's retirement treating you?

[Chuck Naill]

Had I posted a false statement, you would have shown where I did. As it is, you choose to participate as you always have on this forum toward anyone who disagrees. It gets old, Kaz.

[kazoolaw]

You did.
I did.
Always there to point you the right way.
Never gets old, as you never stop.

[Chuck Naill]

You did.
I did.
Always there to point you the right way.
Never gets old, as you never stop.


I didn't until you prove it, Kaz. What get old is you refusing to respond with something of substance that back up your posts.

The government cannot establish a religion or prevent you saying something without restraint of being censored. This does not mean bad players like Falwell and the Southern Baptist can get by with making poor decisions or that we cannot call them out for doing so. Watching your wife having sex with another man is not freedom of religion no matter how much you want it to be.

I understand it galls you to be corrected, but if the "foo shits wear it".

[Chuck Naill]

Can't think of a better place to post. From a David Brooks op-ed this AM.
"Christians, he wrote in one novel, should get up every morning, read The Times and ask themselves, “Can I believe it all again today?” If you say Yes 10 days out of 10, he wrote, then you probably don’t know what believing means. But on the days you can say Yes, “it should be a Yes that’s choked with confession and tears and … great laughter.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/opinion/columnists/frederick-buechner-inner-depths.html

[kazoolaw]

You did.
I did.
Always there to point you the right way.
Never gets old, as you never stop.


I didn't until you prove it, Kaz. What get old is you refusing to respond with something of substance that back up your posts.

The government cannot establish a religion or prevent you saying something without restraint of being censored. This does not mean bad players like Falwell and the Southern Baptist can get by with making poor decisions or that we cannot call them out for doing so. Watching your wife having sex with another man is not freedom of religion no matter how much you want it to be.

I understand it galls you to be corrected, but if the "foo shits wear it".

First, you take the position that Alito is wrong/out of line asserting that religious liberty is worthy of special protection.
Second, when asked whether the exercise of religion is worthy of special protection, you slide sideways and acknowledge the government cannot establish a religion, avoiding the question, and ignoring the language of the First Amendment which addresses the question you were asked. In another attempt to deflect away from a constitutional discussion altogether you bring up pay-for-sex. Do your attempts at insulting people ever work?
Third, your post 18 you go off on Falwell, Southern Baptists, and return to your fixation on pay-for-sex. So far as I know, you are the only person who would link freedom of religion, pay-for-sex, with Justices Alito and Barrett rulings on First Amendment religious liberty opinions.

[Chuck Naill]

You did.
I did.
Always there to point you the right way.
Never gets old, as you never stop.


I didn't until you prove it, Kaz. What get old is you refusing to respond with something of substance that back up your posts.

The government cannot establish a religion or prevent you saying something without restraint of being censored. This does not mean bad players like Falwell and the Southern Baptist can get by with making poor decisions or that we cannot call them out for doing so. Watching your wife having sex with another man is not freedom of religion no matter how much you want it to be.

I understand it galls you to be corrected, but if the "foo shits wear it".

First, you take the position that Alito is wrong/out of line asserting that religious liberty is worthy of special protection.
Second, when asked whether the exercise of religion is worthy of special protection, you slide sideways and acknowledge the government cannot establish a religion, avoiding the question, and ignoring the language of the First Amendment which addresses the question you were asked. In another attempt to deflect away from a constitutional discussion altogether you bring up pay-for-sex. Do your attempts at insulting people ever work?
Third, your post 18 you go off on Falwell, Southern Baptists, and return to your fixation on pay-for-sex. So far as I know, you are the only person who would link freedom of religion, pay-for-sex, with Justices Alito and Barrett rulings on First Amendment religious liberty opinions.



I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Muslims and Jews have been attacked and killed recently.

Falwell and the SBC deserve the criticism and the justice inquiry into sexual abuse. Both are influential parties that have done great harm and receive lots of financial support. If a similar abuse were being performed by a Jewish or Muslim group, the same standards would apply.

[kazoolaw]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?

[Chuck Naill]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?



“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

[Lloyd]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?



“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?
Who defines morality?
If religions are false (can all religions be true simultaneously? ), mustn't they be lying?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?



“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?
Who defines morality?
If religions are false (can all religions be true simultaneously? ), mustn't they be lying?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Would you consider abuse moral? Let’s not make this complicated.

[Lloyd]

Do I get to define morality for all?
Does psychological abuse count? Striking the fear of eternal damnation into the minds of youth in religious schools? Told your innate sexuality is evil?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.

[Lloyd]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.
Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"

[Lloyd]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"
My off the cuff definition - A (closed) set of behaviors that are subjectively defined, by some subset of society, as acceptable. All actions outside of this set are similarly defined as immoral. Different subsets of society may have differently defined behavioral sets.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

An impressive off-the-cuff.
Which leads me to answer, "no," you don't get to apply your construct of morality for everyone.

[kazoolaw]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?



“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

Staying with the Constitutional thread, I agree that not every religious practice would get the benefit of 1st Amenment protection. I can't think of an entire religion which would fall outside though.

[TSherbs]

An impressive off-the-cuff.
Which leads me to answer, "no," you don't get to apply your construct of morality for everyone.


Fortunately, neither of you do.

[kazoolaw]

Lloyd's use of "sub-set" infers it's not the product of one person's opinion.
Though inyour instance, it's not for lack of trying.

[TSherbs]

Some opinions are more equal than others.

[kazoolaw]

Good tthat your opinions bow down before others.

[TSherbs]

Good tthat your opinions bow down before others.


sometimes, sure

[TSherbs]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"
My off the cuff definition - A (closed) set of behaviors that are subjectively defined, by some subset of society, as acceptable. All actions outside of this set are similarly defined as immoral. Different subsets of society may have differently defined behavioral sets.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That's a pretty good definition, Lloyd. I would add only that these subsets change over time, also.

[Lloyd]

Who defines morality?

Since you're going off-topic, why don't you define "morality"?
Not whether a particular act is or is not moral, a decision which requires a standard to measure it against.
So Lloyd, what is "morality?"
My off the cuff definition - A (closed) set of behaviors that are subjectively defined, by some subset of society, as acceptable. All actions outside of this set are similarly defined as immoral. Different subsets of society may have differently defined behavioral sets.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That's a pretty good definition, Lloyd. I would add only that these subsets change over time, also.
Some subsets stay fixed but change which behaviors fall into the moral/ immoral labeling, too.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I do no agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions. It isn’t their job. Their job is to make sure they don’t establish a religion (promote or protect one over another)and that folks can practice their religion freely. This would apply to any religion as long as that religion is responsible and respectful in its practice.

Thanks Chuck, I'll respond to your first paragraph at this time.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I don't think we have the issue that the Founders did with establishment part: the history of the monarch also being the head of the church, prosecution of certain denominations. I agree the issue and the protection both remain. I think that's where the question becomes deciding whether the speech/conduct is treated differently because of its religious content. And as you point out, in the public sphere, is allowing religious expression in government spaces establishment/endorsement of religion. As in much of the law, there is no bright line test. Instead it's a balancing test, with both sides careful to see if the other side has its thumb on the scale. And, it being a religious issue, high emotions follow.

I'm curious about your first sentence: "I do no(t) agree that the SCOTUS should be protecting all religions." [Did I correctly edit your sentence?] I know that there have been decisions rejecting some religious practices. Polygamy comes to mind first, as do some cases involving use of drugs. Am I understanding you correctly to say that some religions should not be protected at all under the First Amendment? If I've stated your position correctly, how would SCOTUS decide which religion do, and which do not, fall within the First Amendment? And if I've misunderstood, could you elaborate on your statement?



“At all” is a complicated concept! Obviously we would not support the Southern Baptist abusing others, nor Falwell Jr. saying one thing and practicing another. Does that answer?

We would not support a religion which is in conflict with the US Constitution.

Ive come to realize that some practices are immoral and self evident. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated using religious freedom as an excuse. I doubt either of us would except religious freedom as an excuse to be immoral?

Staying with the Constitutional thread, I agree that not every religious practice would get the benefit of 1st Amenment protection. I can't think of an entire religion which would fall outside though.


The title is not about the Constitution. It is about the rise of the political Christian, Kaz. I've tried unsuccessfully to stay on topic.

It is not about other religions, but the Constitution does provide protection for all, not just one. Alito seems to be focused on one although I might have misunderstood his interest.

[kazoolaw]

Good talk.
See you again.

[Chuck Naill]

LOL!!

[Chuck Naill]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.
Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

To appreciate, you'd need to know about the "Liberty Way" which says, "“being in any state of undress with a member of the opposite sex.”. I am assuming Mrs. Falwell was somewhat naked during her adventure for which her husband, the former president of Liberty University, enjoyed watch her having sex. Did I mention they have three children?

However, Kaz, is defending them using the religious liberty card.

[kazoolaw]

However, Kaz, is defending them using the religious liberty card.


What a pathetic lie.

[Lloyd]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.
Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

To appreciate, you'd need to know about the "Liberty Way" which says, "“being in any state of undress with a member of the opposite sex.”. I am assuming Mrs. Falwell was somewhat naked during her adventure for which her husband, the former president of Liberty University, enjoyed watch her having sex. Did I mention they have three children?

However, Kaz, is defending them using the religious liberty card.
Is this what you're going on about?
https://people.com/human-interest/jerry-falwell-jr-wife-becki-open-up-about-pool-boy-sex-scandal/
All three are above 18 years old, consenting, and Gerry states he's not religious. So, who cares?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.
Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

To appreciate, you'd need to know about the "Liberty Way" which says, "“being in any state of undress with a member of the opposite sex.”. I am assuming Mrs. Falwell was somewhat naked during her adventure for which her husband, the former president of Liberty University, enjoyed watch her having sex. Did I mention they have three children?

However, Kaz, is defending them using the religious liberty card.
Is this what you're going on about?
https://people.com/human-interest/jerry-falwell-jr-wife-becki-open-up-about-pool-boy-sex-scandal/
All three are above 18 years old, consenting, and Gerry states he's not religious. So, who cares?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Liberty makes no mention of an age in their The Liberty Way.

[Lloyd]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.
Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

To appreciate, you'd need to know about the "Liberty Way" which says, "“being in any state of undress with a member of the opposite sex.”. I am assuming Mrs. Falwell was somewhat naked during her adventure for which her husband, the former president of Liberty University, enjoyed watch her having sex. Did I mention they have three children?

However, Kaz, is defending them using the religious liberty card.
Is this what you're going on about?
https://people.com/human-interest/jerry-falwell-jr-wife-becki-open-up-about-pool-boy-sex-scandal/
All three are above 18 years old, consenting, and Gerry states he's not religious. So, who cares?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Liberty makes no mention of an age in their The Liberty Way.
Why does the behavior of these three matter to... anyone, Chuck? Why is this immoral? No one is underage, no one was forced/drugged, no animals were abused,...


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I would think most would consider watching your spouse having sex as odd.
Many things people do in private others would view as odd.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

To appreciate, you'd need to know about the "Liberty Way" which says, "“being in any state of undress with a member of the opposite sex.”. I am assuming Mrs. Falwell was somewhat naked during her adventure for which her husband, the former president of Liberty University, enjoyed watch her having sex. Did I mention they have three children?

However, Kaz, is defending them using the religious liberty card.
Is this what you're going on about?
https://people.com/human-interest/jerry-falwell-jr-wife-becki-open-up-about-pool-boy-sex-scandal/
All three are above 18 years old, consenting, and Gerry states he's not religious. So, who cares?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Liberty makes no mention of an age in their The Liberty Way.
Why does the behavior of these three matter to... anyone, Chuck? Why is this immoral? No one is underage, no one was forced/drugged, no animals were abused,...


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

If you had a standard for me that you didn’t apply to yourself, would it matter? Do people who choose be in leadership be expected to obey the laws and rules that are applied to those under them? Now, that’s why it matters to me. However, I’m saying it needs to matter to you.

I do not consider morality as people only doing what is right In their own eyes. Generally, justice requires that rules and laws be equally applicable to all.

Putin is over 18 and does not live in the US of course. By what standard are you able to criticize him? Perhaps you don’t.

[Lloyd]

Are you comparing their ménage à trois to Putin?😒
Are you saying that you never acted hypocritically? Getting upset by someone's behavior despite you doing, or had done, almost the same thing? Do you think you know right from wrong in a way that applies universally?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Are you comparing their ménage à trois to Putin?😒
Are you saying that you never acted hypocritically? Getting upset by someone's behavior despite you doing, or had done, almost the same thing? Do you think you know right from wrong in a way that applies universally?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Oh hell yes, I have played the hypocrite. I just don't pretend otherwise. Otherwise, I can see you either don't understand the difference or you're just being divisive.

[Lloyd]

... Otherwise, I can see you either don't understand the difference or you're just being divisive.

Can you explain what you mean in writing the above?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

... Otherwise, I can see you either don't understand the difference or you're just being divisive.

Can you explain what you mean in writing the above?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

No more explanation should be required. If you disagree, that's fine with me. I am not trying to change your opinion regarding morality or ethics. I've explained and been transparent. At this point, you appear to being trolling.

[Lloyd]

Which opinion regarding morality or ethics are you alleging me of stating to act troll-like?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Which opinion regarding morality or ethics are you alleging me of stating to act troll-like?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You sound like Kaz. If you disagree, move on, Lloyd.

[Lloyd]

Which opinion regarding morality or ethics are you alleging me of stating to act troll-like?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You sound like Kaz. If you disagree, move on, Lloyd.
If I disagree about what? I sincerely don't know what you're alleging me of?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Which opinion regarding morality or ethics are you alleging me of stating to act troll-like?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You sound like Kaz. If you disagree, move on, Lloyd.
If I disagree about what? I sincerely don't know what you're alleging me of?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I can only assume you are not reading my responses to your posts. Therefore, move on, Lloyd. You're making as ass of yourself.

[TSherbs]

Wow. A stunning opinion piece by Michael Gerson on the un-Christian behavior of the alliance of evangelicals with the radical Right and Trumpism. The piece also includes a good history of the movement of Jesus and what he stood for. I am not really a believing Christian, but this piece has me reflecting deeply (it's an essay, not a brief column)

from the WaPo (I hope that you can read it. Let me know if you can't and I'll see if there is something I can do):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/01/michael-gerson-evangelical-christian-maga-democracy/

[Chuck Naill]

Wow. A stunning opinion piece by Michael Gerson on the un-Christian behavior of the alliance of evangelicals with the radical Right and Trumpism. The piece also includes a good history of the movement of Jesus and what he stood for. I am not really a believing Christian, but this piece has me reflecting deeply (it's an essay, not a brief column)

from the WaPo (I hope that you can read it. Let me know if you can't and I'll see if there is something I can do):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/01/michael-gerson-evangelical-christian-maga-democracy/

Can’t access, Ted. I’d love to read I’d you can gift it.

[Lloyd]

Wow. A stunning opinion piece by Michael Gerson on the un-Christian behavior of the alliance of evangelicals with the radical Right and Trumpism. The piece also includes a good history of the movement of Jesus and what he stood for. I am not really a believing Christian, but this piece has me reflecting deeply (it's an essay, not a brief column)

from the WaPo (I hope that you can read it. Let me know if you can't and I'll see if there is something I can do):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/01/michael-gerson-evangelical-christian-maga-democracy/

Can’t access, Ted. I’d love to read I’d you can gift it.
Here's a pdf of it I made
http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/6316a4206c28f/Post%20article.PDF


Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Thank you Lloyd. Here is a piece he wrote in 2018. I’ve seen him with David Brooks on PBS Fridays.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-last-temptation/554066/

[TSherbs]

Thanks, Lloyd.

[TSherbs]

I just read read that Gerson has both Parkinson's and kidney cancer. Jeez.

[Chuck Naill]

I just read read that Gerson has both Parkinson's and kidney cancer. Jeez.

It is sad, Ted.

You said, "but this piece has me reflecting deeply". If you don't care, I would be interested in knowing how this has impacted you.

While reading I reflected on my own inadequacies to communicate how I had come to see that Evangelicals had moved away from becoming disciples of Jesus. Being a lifelong Biblical student, I knew what they said and could easily see how that many Evangelical leaders like Graham and Falwell appeared to either ignore or be brainwashed by something outside the texts.

I to succumb to anger and tit for tat instead of following Jesus' example of not reviling when reviled. So, I am not pointing fingers. However, over the past nine years I have changed. I began to see that what we were saying did not follow Jesus' teaching. Why would I care if two men married? Why would I forbid a woman from not carrying a child to term. Why would I have to have an opinion about Target having non gender specific bathrooms? Why would my hope be connected to who's on the Supreme Court?

I think part of the issues is that Evangelicals are taught they must teach and if necessary, force laws upon others. When they see these actions thwarted by progressives, they think the world in being challenged and they will say, as some here have said, "we need to get our country back on the right path". As Gerson points out, Jesus never tried to get Israel back on the right path. His kingdom was not a place but within the hearts of men and women. He elevated women. He told the woman caught in adulty he didn't condemn her. He told her to not do it again lest something worse happens. As an aside, I think educating about abortion, but allowing people to make their own ways is the Jesus way. Putting a girl behind bars for getting an abortion is something no disciple of Jesus would want.

[TSherbs]

My reflections are mostly about the nature of my own behaviors in the present tense. Gerson's review of the import of the teachings of Jesus has reminded me just what a radical egalitarian and minister to the poor and dispossed he was. I see no Christian work today that comes anywhere close to this, nor is there such work in my life. To be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth means something very different from anything I see today (not that I see all Christians), certainly not anything even remotely close to American politics from any corner. And like I said, not anything like anything in my life, either. I am no follower of the teachings of Jesus. I am not sure that I have ever even met a single one, and I grew up as a minister's kid.

[Chuck Naill]

Thanks, Ted.

[TSherbs]

I do believe, and this is just my semi-informed opinion, that Jesus thought that the "kingdom of God"--judgment day and the end of time--was coming soon and that he was also asking people to get their "souls" and their "houses" in order before that end came. There are times he speaks in metaphor, but there are other times that he seems literal to me. Jesus was, I believe, more radical and extreme than most later religious institutions want to acknowledge because it would mean the likely end of those instutitions. The Essenes have been dismissed as weird marginal extremists who did not get the "teachings" right, but maybe they were the truest followers of them all. They just did not win the subsequent religious evolutionary battle for the future of the following.

[Chuck Naill]

Maybe, but my reading is that Jesus was speaking of a kingdom that was inside a persons being, not a rapture or Earthly transformation. He said it is good that he go away so the Holy Spirit could come. So instead of people following rules, the Holy Spirit would lead so that God’s intent could be manifested. The biggest problem that I see is the church follows men instead of Jesus. They sit in the pews and listen, or now listen to pod casts.

In the article I posted Gerson talks about the evolution from post millennial to pre. This was what I was taught. His point is, if it’s all going to be destroyed, why be involved.

The other issue is Christian grievance. They feel attacked while being detached from the progression of civilization.

I do think some want to help others and think if they can just get saved alls going to be okay. It reminds me of something that was said in A a River Runs Through It.

“Each one of us here today will at one time in our lives look upon a loved one who is in need and ask the same question: We are willing to help, Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don't know what part of ourselves to give or, more often than not, the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it is those we live with and should know who elude us. But we can still love them - we can love completely without complete understanding.”
Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It

[Chuck Naill]

Today I traveled down an unfamiliar road. A very nice home and property sported a signed that said, “Biden Sucks”. I thought of this thread and if the owners attended church.

If you think he sucks, that’s your business and not mine. However, “sucks” was once something said in private with friends .

[TSherbs]

Maybe, but my reading is that Jesus was speaking of a kingdom that was inside a persons being, not a rapture or Earthly transformation. Yes. I think that he meant both of these things. It's not an "either/or" for me, it is a "both/and".

[Chuck Naill]

Maybe, but my reading is that Jesus was speaking of a kingdom that was inside a persons being, not a rapture or Earthly transformation. Yes. I think that he meant both of these things. It's not an "either/or" for me, it is a "both/and".

The idea of an Earthy kingdom has spurred modern non charismatics to work to make the US the kingdom. Obviously it is not and cannot be, but when you hear folks say they want to get the country back on the right path, this is what some are thinking.

[TSherbs]

... Obviously it is not and cannot be, but when you hear folks say they want to get the country back on the right path, this is what some are thinking.

Wow. Yeah, that pursuit is deluded and non-Jesus like.

[Chuck Naill]

I remember reading Charles Colson's book How Now Shall We Live first published in 1999. Below is an introduction.

"Christianity is more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is also a worldview that not only answers life's basic questions--Where did we come from, and who are we? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to fix it?--but also shows us how we should live as a result of those answers. How Now Shall We Live? gives Christians the understanding, the confidence, and the tools to confront the world's bankrupt worldviews and to restore and redeem every aspect of contemporary culture: family, education, ethics, work, law, politics, science, art, music. This book will change every Christian who reads it. It will change the church in the new millennium."

This was a popular view in the 1990's and one that I believed to be true. The problem is, this was never something Jesus taught. He never said we needed to confront, restore, and redeem every aspect of contemporary life. When we consider what was going on in the 1990's, we can see how the Evangelical movement has evolved into a political pawn for would be autocrats. Doing the right things the wrong way is never a good strategy.

I have come to believe the best way is to simply make disciples. When someone is transformed from the inside out, they will impact first themselves and also their neighbors. Telling someone not to abort their baby or making it illegal is not the same as informed consent. People get into desperate situations. They are looking for help.

I know I am rambling, but it helps to put pen to paper, so to speak.

[TSherbs]

I remember reading Charles Colson's book How Now Shall We Live first published in 1999. Below is an introduction.

"Christianity is more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is also a worldview that not only answers life's basic questions--Where did we come from, and who are we? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to fix it?--but also shows us how we should live as a result of those answers. How Now Shall We Live? gives Christians the understanding, the confidence, and the tools to confront the world's bankrupt worldviews and to restore and redeem every aspect of contemporary culture: family, education, ethics, work, law, politics, science, art, music. This book will change every Christian who reads it. It will change the church in the new millennium."

This was a popular view in the 1990's and one that I believed to be true. The problem is, this was never something Jesus taught. He never said we needed to confront, restore, and redeem every aspect of contemporary life. When we consider what was going on in the 1990's, we can see how the Evangelical movement has evolved into a political pawn for would be autocrats. Doing the right things the wrong way is never a good strategy.

I have come to believe the best way is to simply make disciples. When someone is transformed from the inside out, they will impact first themselves and also their neighbors. Telling someone not to abort their baby or making it illegal is not the same as informed consent. People get into desperate situations. They are looking for help.

I know I am rambling, but it helps to put pen to paper, so to speak.

Wow. Thanks for sharing that passage. What a grandiose act of hubris that effort would be! No wonder this kind of arrogance and presumption of superiority lead to such abuses of power over children, women, and other marginalized persons (think LGBTQ+).

This is the error of thinking that being a good religious person is accomplished by making rules and enforcing them (much more like the Old Testament, no?) rather than becoming a new person within (a new connection with the spirtuality within). It is orthodoxy over inner transformation.

[Chuck Naill]

Plus you’re expected to go along. A great teacher was fired for questioning Hell at a Christian School.

Check out televangelists profiles and see how many of them have been married multiple times. And, how they spend the tax exempt contributions.

When you consider that Jesus had no place to lay his head, the extravagance of some who claim the anointing is eye popping.

[Chuck Naill]

In Texas,
“The suit is being led by attorney Jonathan Mitchell, the Republican former solicitor general of Texas known for his efforts to restrict abortion access in the state. Mitchell argues that mandatory PrEP coverage forces Christians to subsidize “homosexual behavior”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/judge-says-hiv-drug-coverage-violates-religious-freedom

[TSherbs]

In Texas,
“The suit is being led by attorney Jonathan Mitchell, the Republican former solicitor general of Texas known for his efforts to restrict abortion access in the state. Mitchell argues that mandatory PrEP coverage forces Christians to subsidize “homosexual behavior”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/judge-says-hiv-drug-coverage-violates-religious-freedom

The religious Balkanization of America continues.

[kazoolaw]

Wow. A stunning opinion piece by Michael Gerson on the un-Christian behavior of the alliance of evangelicals with the radical Right and Trumpism. The piece also includes a good history of the movement of Jesus and what he stood for. I am not really a believing Christian, but this piece has me reflecting deeply (it's an essay, not a brief column)

from the WaPo (I hope that you can read it. Let me know if you can't and I'll see if there is something I can do):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/01/michael-gerson-evangelical-christian-maga-democracy/

I appreciate the link. It's a piece that merits more than the quick glance I have time for today.
We debate politics all the time, but would be interested which sections you're reflecting on.
Just finishing a sermon series on Jesus' parables, ending with 2 from Luke 16 addressed at the Pharisees.

[Chuck Naill]

From Heather Cox Richardson:
"In Braidwood Management v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, various business owners and individuals opposed buying insurance that covered some of those treatments, citing either economic or religious grounds. Four individuals wanted to be able to buy health insurance that did not include PrEP drugs to prevent HIV infection, contraception, the HPV vaccine, or screenings and counseling for STDs and drug use. The plaintiffs say they do not need such care and being forced to participate in plans that cover that care “violates their religious beliefs by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

The Evangelicals are their own worst enemy.

How can you be against abortion and against contraception at the same time? Humans like all of nature is going to procreate. And it usually happens when you are young.

[Chuck Naill]

From Peter Werner fellow at The Trinity Forum:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/southern-baptist-convention-abuse-report/630173/

[Chuck Naill]

Wehner

[Chip]

Mitchell argues that mandatory PrEP coverage forces Christians to subsidize “homosexual behavior.”

They do that already by donating to their churches and the Boy Scouts.

[Chuck Naill]

Gerson on PBS last night.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/capehart-and-gerson-on-queen-elizabeths-political-impact-and-new-polls-ahead-of-midterms?utm_source=PBS+NewsHour&utm_campaign=71e2bd65ba-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_10_1_2021_21_33_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_47f99db221-71e2bd65ba-321251046

[Chuck Naill]

"What might it look like today if white evangelicals were to live out Jesus’ model? The author offers examples:

▪ Instead of engaging in vicious political infighting, Christians would seek the common good of their neighbors and reject any idea of greatness that makes others small.

▪ They would they would live free from grudges and ready to offer forgiveness, instead of being driven by anger and fear.

▪ “They would engage in argument without slander or threats — demonstrating not wokeness or weakness, but due regard for our shared dignity.” They would reject violence in word or deed.

▪ They would practice true humility, knowing that they, like all humans, are imperfect and prone to make mistakes in policy or individual behavior.

▪ They would honor the image of God in everyone, responding especially to the cries of the poor, sick and abused. ▪ “Instead of giving in to half-justified despair, they would assert that there is hope at the end of a twisting road. Even when their strength is drained by long struggle and the bitterness of incoming attacks, they would live confidently rather than desperately, with faith in God’s mercy and hope for a tearless morning.”
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/paul-prather/article265451456.html

[Chuck Naill]

"Christian young people are often taught that they should be countercultural. The youth group version of that admonition goes something like this: When the world is profane, your speech is clean. When the world is drunk, you are sober. When the world is promiscuous, you are chaste. How do you know we’re Christian? We don’t cuss, drink, or have premarital sex.

But the call to counterculture is much more comprehensive. When the world is greedy, you are generous. When the world is cruel, you are kind. When the world is fearful, you are faithful. When the world is proud, you are humble. How do you know we’re Christian, by our love.

Yes, we say. Yes to all of this. Right until the moment when we think that our kindness, our faithfulness, or our humility carries with it a concrete political cost. We think we know what’s just, and we can’t do justice without power.

And so, in our arrogance, we think we know better than God. We can’t let kindness or humility stand in the way of justice. Yet we’re sowing the wind, and now we reap the whirlwind. The world’s most-Christian advanced nation is tearing itself apart, and its millions of believers bear much of the blame. "

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/christian-political-ethics-are-upside

[kazoolaw]

Politics is not religion.

[Chuck Naill]

Both are faith based, Kaz.

[kazoolaw]

If faith in politics is the same as faith in God the former is idolatry.

[Chuck Naill]

Idolatry is whatever you decide it is. I could call the devotion to fountain pens idolatry.

[kazoolaw]

If fountain pens are the focus of your faith in place of God, and the subject of your devotion, they are your idols.

[Chuck Naill]

If fountain pens are the focus of your faith in place of God, and the subject of your devotion, they are your idols.


That’s just your opinion, Kaz. I’m faulting you for believing what you decide, but your cannot force it on everyone.

[kazoolaw]

I've agreed your Post 88: "I could call the devotion to fountain pens idolatry."
Each person decides who they will serve; we cannot serve two masters.

[Chuck Naill]

I've agreed your Post 88: "I could call the devotion to fountain pens idolatry."
Each person decides who they will serve; we cannot serve two masters.



You can serve a half dozen if you want.

[Chuck Naill]

Herein lies the problem with Evangelicals, they repeat phrases

[kazoolaw]

I've agreed your Post 88: "I could call the devotion to fountain pens idolatry."
Each person decides who they will serve; we cannot serve two masters.



You can serve a half dozen if you want.

"No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
In light of Post 88, substitute "fountain pens" for "money." Same principle, same choice.

[Lloyd]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism



Are you saying Chuck is a polytheist, based on Post 92? Or just being oppositional?
Deflection noted: the Topic addresses the "Political Christian," which is my point of reference. See, 10 Commandments, I & II.
For the polytheists among us, I'll let them respond.

[TSherbs]

[

"No servant can serve two masters,



Consecutively, they can serve multiple, and often have/do. Same way with spouses and gods, actually.

[kazoolaw]

[

"No servant can serve two masters,



Consecutively, they can serve multiple, and often have/do. Same way with spouses and gods, actually.

With predictable results: "he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

[TSherbs]

Quoting the rules of the Bible, Kaz, only has weight among the group of Judeo-Christian believers. Worshipping a car is not a sin outside that circle. There may be other ethical problems, but "idolatry" as you mean it is not one of them.

And for those of us who recognize no gods, all of this is idle/idol chat.

[Chuck Naill]

And I can prove it Biblically, the evangelicals for trump are serving two masters, Kaz

[Lloyd]

Who are atheists servants to?

Also, if there's multiple masters, why must any hold one's devotion? Can't a servant despise all of their masters?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

So don’t quote scripture and live and think contrary to what is considered the word of God, Kaz .

[Lloyd]

So don’t quote scripture and live and think contrary to what is considered the word of God, Kaz .


"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated"
Christopher Hitchens

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

Quoting the rules of the Bible, Kaz, only has weight among the group of Judeo-Christian believers. Worshipping a car is not a sin outside that circle. There may be other ethical problems, but "idolatry" as you mean it is not one of them.

And for those of us who recognize no gods, all of this is idle/idol chat.

Then there is nothing here for you.
" I am not really a believing Christian, but this piece has me reflecting deeply "
Keep reflecting, keep reading, keep focusing on Jesus.

[kazoolaw]

And I can prove it Biblically, the evangelicals for trump are serving two masters, Kaz

I think that's where I came in: politics is not religion.
Yes, there are those who put politics ahead of faith.

[kazoolaw]

Who are atheists servants to?

Also, if there's multiple masters, why must any hold one's devotion? Can't a servant despise all of their masters?


Who (or is it "whom?") or what ever they choose. One, many, all, or none.

I think it's human nature to favor one or two above another. Despising them all? No one's winning in that situation, neither servant nor master.

[TSherbs]

Quoting the rules of the Bible, Kaz, only has weight among the group of Judeo-Christian believers. Worshipping a car is not a sin outside that circle. There may be other ethical problems, but "idolatry" as you mean it is not one of them.

And for those of us who recognize no gods, all of this is idle/idol chat.

Then there is nothing here for you.


How would that be true? This thread is not an orthodox believers-only discussion of faith. Why are you trying to be exclusionary?

I explained in a post what reflections I was doing. It was not on the sayings of Jesus. I don't believe that that man said most of the things attributed to him, and I certainly don't believe in the miracles or resurrection. I have been focusing on "Jesus" in this regard: I have been re-reading John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus. Fascinating scholarship.

[kazoolaw]

Quoting the rules of the Bible, Kaz, only has weight among the group of Judeo-Christian believers. Worshipping a car is not a sin outside that circle. There may be other ethical problems, but "idolatry" as you mean it is not one of them.

And for those of us who recognize no gods, all of this is idle/idol chat.

On further reflection, one additional thought.
Even allowing for the skepticism and animosity about religion on this board, it seems odd in a discussion about Christians to be criticized for for quoting the Bible, the essential Christian text.

[TSherbs]

Who are atheists servants to?

Also, if there's multiple masters, why must any hold one's devotion? Can't a servant despise all of their masters?


Who (or is it "whom?") or what ever they choose. One, many, all, or none.

I think it's human nature to favor one or two above another. Despising them all? No one's winning in that situation, neither servant nor master.



Honestly, a "servant/master" paradigm is abusive in tone and dynamic.

[TSherbs]

There is some more "criticism." If this isn't "Christian" enough, we can explore some of the other endemic issues of abuse within Christian organizations.

[TSherbs]

On your earlier quote, however, I do agree with you: politics is not religion (they are not entirely distinct, but for the most part, and certainly at their core, they are different).

[kazoolaw]

Quoting the rules of the Bible, Kaz, only has weight among the group of Judeo-Christian believers. Worshipping a car is not a sin outside that circle. There may be other ethical problems, but "idolatry" as you mean it is not one of them.

And for those of us who recognize no gods, all of this is idle/idol chat.

Then there is nothing here for you.


How would that be true? This thread is not an orthodox believers-only discussion of faith. Why are you trying to be exclusionary?

I explained in a post what reflections I was doing. It was not on the sayings of Jesus. I don't believe that that man said most of the things attributed to him, and I certainly don't believe in the miracles or resurrection. I have been focusing on "Jesus" in this regard: I have been re-reading John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus. Fascinating scholarship.

The Bible is idle chat to you, holding no weight. ["Idle/idol" clever turn of phrase]
You don't believe in the miracles or the resurrection: do you believe in Jesus' divinity?
If not, there is nothing in the Biblical teaching for you about putting God first.
Jesus and his teaching were rejected in His day, and they are today too.
The Bible's always there for you to return to.

[TSherbs]

"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated"
Christopher Hitchens

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Hitchens seems right, but there are different kinds of "faith," and not all spiritual practices require this kind of subjugation of reason and will and independence, etc. Buddhism certainly does not.

[TSherbs]

Quoting the rules of the Bible, Kaz, only has weight among the group of Judeo-Christian believers. Worshipping a car is not a sin outside that circle. There may be other ethical problems, but "idolatry" as you mean it is not one of them.

And for those of us who recognize no gods, all of this is idle/idol chat.

Then there is nothing here for you.


How would that be true? This thread is not an orthodox believers-only discussion of faith. Why are you trying to be exclusionary?

I explained in a post what reflections I was doing. It was not on the sayings of Jesus. I don't believe that that man said most of the things attributed to him, and I certainly don't believe in the miracles or resurrection. I have been focusing on "Jesus" in this regard: I have been re-reading John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus. Fascinating scholarship.



do you believe in Jesus' divinity?
No.

[kazoolaw]

Honestly, a "servant/master" paradigm is abusive in tone and dynamic.

No, not "honestly."

[TSherbs]

Honestly, a "servant/master" paradigm is abusive in tone and dynamic.

No, not "honestly."

yes, honestly, as in "I am stating this in earnest about how I feel about the language describing an analogy for a relationship to a spiritual mentor or godhead." That kind of "honest." If you want to debate about what I sincerely believe about abusive relationships in Christian ideology and practice, I am ready.

[TSherbs]

Idolatry is whatever you decide it is. I could call the devotion to fountain pens idolatry.

What about inkolatry?

[Lloyd]

I wonder which master a typical slave loved... the plantation owner, his wife, his eldest son,....

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Idolatry is whatever you decide it is. I could call the devotion to fountain pens idolatry.

What about inkolatry?

That's a cult...LOL!!

[kazoolaw]

Honestly, a "servant/master" paradigm is abusive in tone and dynamic.

No, not "honestly."

yes, honestly, as in "I am stating this in earnest about how I feel about the language describing an analogy for a relationship to a spiritual mentor or godhead." That kind of "honest." If you want to debate about what I sincerely believe about abusive relationships in Christian ideology and practice, I am ready.

"Honestly" as in you "actually feel" that way. I have no doubt you feel that way.
"Honestly" as in the servant/master paradigm is genuinely abusive, no.

[TSherbs]

Honestly, a "servant/master" paradigm is abusive in tone and dynamic.

No, not "honestly."

yes, honestly, as in "I am stating this in earnest about how I feel about the language describing an analogy for a relationship to a spiritual mentor or godhead." That kind of "honest." If you want to debate about what I sincerely believe about abusive relationships in Christian ideology and practice, I am ready.

"Honestly" as in you "actually feel" that way. I have no doubt you feel that way.
"Honestly" as in the servant/master paradigm is genuinely abusive, no.


How would you know what is "genuinely" abusive about the Bible? Are you objective about the Bible?

[kazoolaw]

Did you notice that you slid sideways on the topic? Again?
I won't know what you feel is genuinely abusive until you tell me.
Define "objective" as it informs your approach to the Bible.

[Chuck Naill]

All Kaz can offer are texts pulled from the Bible. It is not as if Jesus’ teachings are irrational. No one needs to worship a book for it to have value. The Michael Gerson op-Ed was excellent, but I bet Evangelcials would attack him rather than considering he might have spoken the truth. For some, it’s true if they think it’s true.

What gets communicated is what Evangelicals are against. We know they are against sex outside of a marriage, against birth control, against abortion, against females in rolls where they have authority over men, against women teachers.

We know they expect tithes and offerings.

We know they expect weekly meetings be attended.

We know they don’t want to have to mingle with outsiders except if those outsiders decide to come to church and bend to their rules.

We know they are against any scientific theories that don’t support their world view.

We know they prefer an obviously immoral person if that person supports their rules.

[kazoolaw]

You live in a very strange place in your head. Who are these "Evangelicals" you claim to know so much about? Are they the same as, or different from, Christians?

[Chuck Naill]

You live in a very strange place in your head. Who are these "Evangelicals" you claim to know so much about? Are they the same as, or different from, Christians?


What’s strange? Was attacking me even necessary? Would Jesus have said my head was in a strange place for simply saying the obvious about this group? Did I say anything false and if so, tell me where I am wrong.

You’re the one having to quote rather than rationally supporting your positions. If idols are bad for humans, why? As Jesus said, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

Is adultery bad for bad sake or is there something rational behind the law?

If lust is wrong, why besides a book says so?

How do you reconcile supporting Donald Trump while holding everyone else to your rules and standards? This is a question many former Evangelicals are asking and why churches are emptying out. The children growing up in these gatherings are looking for some place where people not only talk about a standard, but live it, and don’t beat them up for questioning.

[TSherbs]

Did you notice that you slid sideways on the topic?


dearlord, Kaz. I quoted you directly and focused on the term in your reply that *you* were focusing on. It's not a dodge to ask you if you are able to accurately assess the claim that you are making. It's kind of like asking judges not to take cases in which they may have a conflict of interest. I am asking a Catholic if he thinks that he can accurately assess the text that his faith reveres and considers the inerrant word of God. Or should you "recuse" yourself? (by analogy).

[TSherbs]

You live in a very strange place in your head. Who are these "Evangelicals" you claim to know so much about? Are they the same as, or different from, Christians?


I don't think that you have followed all that Chuck has said on this topic. Chuck has told us that he was an evangelical himself and spent years in their churches learning their point of view and teachings. My guess is that although his experience is limited (as is each of ours), he knows of which he speaks in this matter. I have no sense that he is fabricating things about the patterns of evangelical teachings and thinking. He has also named books that he has read on the topic.

[kazoolaw]

You live in a very strange place in your head. Who are these "Evangelicals" you claim to know so much about? Are they the same as, or different from, Christians?


I don't think that you have followed all that Chuck has said on this topic. Chuck has told us that he was an evangelical himself and spent years in their churches learning their point of view and teachings. My guess is that although his experience is limited (as is each of ours), he knows of which he speaks in this matter. I have no sense that he is fabricating things about the patterns of evangelical teachings and thinking. He has also named books that he has read on the topic.

I've followed with great interest, and concern. Chuck describes "Evangelicals" as a formal group, as opposed to evangelical, an adjective. I've been around a fair number of Christians, and the "Evangelicals" as he describes are unfamiliar to me. Don't doubt that there are some people who identify with some of the things he identifies with. But Chuck is never one to limit his broad sweeping statements.

[kazoolaw]

You live in a very strange place in your head. Who are these "Evangelicals" you claim to know so much about? Are they the same as, or different from, Christians?


What’s strange? Was attacking me even necessary? Would Jesus have said my head was in a strange place for simply saying the obvious about this group? Did I say anything false and if so, tell me where I am wrong.

You’re the one having to quote rather than rationally supporting your positions. If idols are bad for humans, why? As Jesus said, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

Is adultery bad for bad sake or is there something rational behind the law?

If lust is wrong, why besides a book says so?

How do you reconcile supporting Donald Trump while holding everyone else to your rules and standards? This is a question many former Evangelicals are asking and why churches are emptying out. The children growing up in these gatherings are looking for some place where people not only talk about a standard, but live it, and don’t beat them up for questioning.

If Jesus' teachings are rational, why not refer to what He said? You must think they're rational, else why do you refer to Jesus' comments on the sabbath? How do you understand it to apply in this situation?

What does it mean to "worship a book"? Who does that?

What does "Is adultery "bad for bad sake" mean?

"How do you reconcile supporting Donald Trump while holding everyone else to your rules and standards?" Huh? Didn't we start down this path with my statement that politics isn't religion? That people that mistake politics for religion were raising politics ahead of God?

All I can glean is that you have had certain experiences with a particular group of people, and choose to paint all Christians with the same brush.

[kazoolaw]

Did you notice that you slid sideways on the topic?


dearlord, Kaz. I quoted you directly and focused on the term in your reply that *you* were focusing on. It's not a dodge to ask you if you are able to accurately assess the claim that you are making. It's kind of like asking judges not to take cases in which they may have a conflict of interest. I am asking a Catholic if he thinks that he can accurately assess the text that his faith reveres and considers the inerrant word of God. Or should you "recuse" yourself? (by analogy).

I'll be interested to hear how the Catholic responds to your question about accurately assessing the Bible.
Until he/she gets back to you I'll respond to the issue.
Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question. And the question runs both ways: are you able to assess/critique the text given your disbelief, and occasional animosity?
By way of your analogy, a judge is not required to have no thoughts on an issue, but is to decide issues without a predisposition to a result. The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.
Interestingly, in olden days a jury of one's peers was thought to be a good thing because they would know something about the matter, and perhaps the parties involved.

[TSherbs]

Did you notice that you slid sideways on the topic?


dearlord, Kaz. I quoted you directly and focused on the term in your reply that *you* were focusing on. It's not a dodge to ask you if you are able to accurately assess the claim that you are making. It's kind of like asking judges not to take cases in which they may have a conflict of interest. I am asking a Catholic if he thinks that he can accurately assess the text that his faith reveres and considers the inerrant word of God. Or should you "recuse" yourself? (by analogy).

I'll be interested to hear how the Catholic responds to your question about accurately assessing the Bible.
Until he/she gets back to you I'll respond to the issue.
Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question. And the question runs both ways: are you able to assess/critique the text given your disbelief, and occasional animosity?
By way of your analogy, a judge is not required to have no thoughts on an issue, but is to decide issues without a predisposition to a result. The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.
Interestingly, in olden days a jury of one's peers was thought to be a good thing because they would know something about the matter, and perhaps the parties involved.



What denomination do you belong to? I thought that you had claimed to be a Catholic. My apologies, if I am not remembering correctly. Could you clarify?

[TSherbs]

Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question..... The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.


You don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Could, in theory, the Bible include references to abuse in God's treatment of mankind? Or, by definition of your faith, is that not possible from your point of view? This is what I am getting at by asking if you can be "objective" about the issue.

I admit to some lack of objectivity on the subject. My parents taught me only reverence for the Bible, but I have subsequently lost my faith in the divinity of Jesus, I see the OT and the NT as human documents inspired by faith in a god, but not as "divinely" inspired (I believe that a "God" is a fiction, and so no Inspiration in the traditional sense is possible). As human documents, all religious texts (not just the Bible) do not exceed the cultural understandings and values and mores of the time in which they were written and as human stories they demonstrate the strengths and weakness of human understanding and their human conceptions of godhead. Sometimes this depiction of god is noble and enlightening; at other times the depiction is degrading and corrupt. Such is humanity; such is how we see and express things, especially as we conceive our relationship to figures of extreme authority. Seeing the difference in these depictions requires independent thought and maturity.

That is my context and/or "bias". As a person, except for brief stretches of my adult life, I have chafed at authority. I remain deeply spiritual and read and write about spiritual matters every day. I have three spiritual books next to me right now (one is about the teachings of Jesus). But religion as an institution, as a force of authority and control on this planet, deeply troubles me because of its incredibly corrupt episodes from history, some of it very recent. Religion deserves no special reverence or respect from non-believers. It is not "special" or exceptional, deserving some kind of polite pass from criticism. Individuals, however, should be left to the private practice of their beliefs (meaning the rites of worship, not enacting all the rules that they want). Individual spirituality is as human as sex and hunger; it should be respected and accepted as such, but watched over also for signs of excess and abuse and harm.

Now you.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

'The arguments of religious men are so often insincere, and their insincerity is proportionate to their anger.
Why do we get angry about what we believe? Because we do not really believe it.
Or else what we pretend to be defending as the “truth” is really our own self-esteem.
A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the truth than in stating it clearly,
for he thinks that if the truth be clearly seen it can very well take care of itself.'

- Thomas Merton

[kazoolaw]

EoC-
Long time no see.
Would you place yourself in the first 3 sentences, the last sentence, or outside the quote altogether?

[Chuck Naill]

I feel like Paul when he asked, to what baptism did you receive. The questions I asked could be simple to answer had you considered them before. Adultery destroys the home, harms the children if present, and removes familial security, which is essential. This is a rational reason why the law exists. Adultery is not bad because the Bible says so.

I am trying to respond. I am not the only one who speaks of the eroding of Evangelicals into a political pawn of the right. It’s leaders like Focus on the Family James Dobson referring to Trump as a “baby Christian”.

Perhap consider reading. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-last-temptation/554066/

If you choose to, I’d be more than pleased to discuss.

[TSherbs]

Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question..... The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.


You don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Could, in theory, the Bible include references to abuse in God's treatment of mankind? Or, by definition of your faith, is that not possible from your point of view? This is what I am getting at by asking if you can be "objective" about the issue.

I admit to some lack of objectivity on the subject. My parents taught me only reverence for the Bible, but I have subsequently lost my faith in the divinity of Jesus, I see the OT and the NT as human documents inspired by faith in a god, but not as "divinely" inspired (I believe that a "God" is a fiction, and so no Inspiration in the traditional sense is possible). As human documents, all religious texts (not just the Bible) do not exceed the cultural understandings and values and mores of the time in which they were written and as human stories they demonstrate the strengths and weakness of human understanding and their human conceptions of godhead. Sometimes this depiction of god is noble and enlightening; at other times the depiction is degrading and corrupt. Such is humanity; such is how we see and express things, especially as we conceive our relationship to figures of extreme authority. Seeing the difference in these depictions requires independent thought and maturity.

That is my context and/or "bias". As a person, except for brief stretches of my adult life, I have chafed at authority. I remain deeply spiritual and read and write about spiritual matters every day. I have three spiritual books next to me right now (one is about the teachings of Jesus). But religion as an institution, as a force of authority and control on this planet, deeply troubles me because of its incredibly corrupt episodes from history, some of it very recent. Religion deserves no special reverence or respect from non-believers. It is not "special" or exceptional, deserving some kind of polite pass from criticism. Individuals, however, should be left to the private practice of their beliefs (meaning the rites of worship, not enacting all the rules that they want). Individual spirituality is as human as sex and hunger; it should be respected and accepted as such, but watched over also for signs of excess and abuse and harm.

Now you.

I answered fully for you, Kaz. What's the nature and level of your bias around religion and the language of the Bible?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

EoC-
Long time no see.
Would you place yourself in the first 3 sentences, the last sentence, or outside the quote altogether?


Thank you for asking. Not the first three sentences; I rarely get angry about my religion, and consider myself sincere when discussing it. That is not of course to suggest that I am in any way infallible or incapable of errors in understanding or interpretation. The last sentence resonates, but to my mind there will often be a gulf between what I think is clear and what others may take as clear. This is not an uncommon phenomenon, for there are many people well-versed in a field - for example - who do not have the skill to describe it to others. The same can apply to those who are sincere in their beliefs.

Worth a quick scan: https://tricycle.org/magazine/sake-argument/

[Chuck Naill]

As some of us have discussed, the heart of the pawn making of the Evangelical has been the idea that they are the answer to restore a world in which God's laws become either voluntarily followed or enforced.

An alternative for Evangelicals would be to enjoy the religious freedom they have in the US and elsewhere, choosing to make God's laws incorporated personally, but allowing other religions to also freely live by their teachings.

The problem is, Evangelicals seek abortions, commit adultery, have idols, lust for what they don't have, tell lies, and break every law they would impose on others. I have to ask the question, if you agree with the Bible and think it prescribes how people should live, both believers and unbelievers, how do you reconcile that even followers don't live by those rules, traditions, and laws?

I don't think you can single out Evangelicals only since all religions have examples of this same hypocrisy. It reminds me of something my great grandfather said, "do as I say, not as I do".

[kazoolaw]

TS-
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'll get back with you: work and family sometimes intrude with life online.
K

[Chuck Naill]

A book I read years ago was heavily criticized by Evangelicals which I found a fresh look at a godly relationship. The Shack has much to say and is not steeped in American Evangelicalism.

[Chuck Naill]

I guess Kaz has left the building. So much for drive by posters.

[TSherbs]

From The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/15/christians-minority-population-2070-pew-study?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR33bH4yBXm2JnE_LdXTVZIPXrg_BGTZ2S1ofsFBJ Jl2WU6EszyGoC2Cb1Q#Echobox=1663267708

Pew Research predicts that Christian believers will lose US majority status in next 50 years...Sounds like a long time, but the point is that Christian belief in America as a percentage of the population is in steady decline and is predicted to continue. It is no genius of mine to then also speculate that the Christian attempt to hold on to political power and influence will continue (if not increase as desperation and fear increase).

[Chuck Naill]

I was considering how many churches exist. It is usually generations of white families who make up the local membership. It is refreshing to attend a meeting where the members don’t know if your new or a multi generational member.

I think over time and with younger generations obtaining college degrees, church is a combination of reminiscing and family. They would never say, but they go along to get along. No reason to upset the grandparents.

I think Vietnam had a detrimental effect on Evangelicals.

I think Pentecostalism and televangelists were easy to discern and dismiss. The extravagant life styles of clergy and the decadent buildings make the critical thinker say “hold on here”. Plus, upon learning that tithing was introduced in the early 1800’s just pisses you off.

There is, I think a place for a new order where disciples of Jesus live out their lives as Jesus would if he were living their lives. We’d all be better off this occurred and it would end the use and abuse of Jesus for political gain.

[TSherbs]

...There is, I think a place for a new order where disciples of Jesus live out their lives as Jesus would if he were living their lives.

A "new order"? What do you mean? Monasteries already attempt this. What might you be referring to?

[Chuck Naill]

...There is, I think a place for a new order where disciples of Jesus live out their lives as Jesus would if he were living their lives.

A "new order"? What do you mean? Monasteries already attempt this. What might you be referring to?

Not a monastic type. Just disciples living ordinary lives by the principles that Jesus taught.

[TSherbs]

...There is, I think a place for a new order where disciples of Jesus live out their lives as Jesus would if he were living their lives.

A "new order"? What do you mean? Monasteries already attempt this. What might you be referring to?

Not a monastic type. Just disciples living ordinary lives by the principles that Jesus taught.

Which ones? I am curious what you think. Leaving home and family to minister to the sick and poor? Taking food only when invited into a home? Not having more than one pair of shoes and one shirt? I actually can't imagine America ever following many of the ideas of Jesus. He was a radical egalitarian and was anti-wealth (he felt that money and power were corruptions). He opposed several key cultural values and showcased his breaking of the rules. He broke sabbath, he broke gender rules, he broke caste and purity rules. He was a form of cultural chaos (inversion) that was doomed to be executed (the Romans were thorough in their executions: there were dozens of crosses on Golgotha, and they were busy with corpses).

[kazoolaw]

Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question..... The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.


You don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Could, in theory, the Bible include references to abuse in God's treatment of mankind? Or, by definition of your faith, is that not possible from your point of view? This is what I am getting at by asking if you can be "objective" about the issue.

I admit to some lack of objectivity on the subject. My parents taught me only reverence for the Bible, but I have subsequently lost my faith in the divinity of Jesus, I see the OT and the NT as human documents inspired by faith in a god, but not as "divinely" inspired (I believe that a "God" is a fiction, and so no Inspiration in the traditional sense is possible). As human documents, all religious texts (not just the Bible) do not exceed the cultural understandings and values and mores of the time in which they were written and as human stories they demonstrate the strengths and weakness of human understanding and their human conceptions of godhead. Sometimes this depiction of god is noble and enlightening; at other times the depiction is degrading and corrupt. Such is humanity; such is how we see and express things, especially as we conceive our relationship to figures of extreme authority. Seeing the difference in these depictions requires independent thought and maturity.

That is my context and/or "bias". As a person, except for brief stretches of my adult life, I have chafed at authority. I remain deeply spiritual and read and write about spiritual matters every day. I have three spiritual books next to me right now (one is about the teachings of Jesus). But religion as an institution, as a force of authority and control on this planet, deeply troubles me because of its incredibly corrupt episodes from history, some of it very recent. Religion deserves no special reverence or respect from non-believers. It is not "special" or exceptional, deserving some kind of polite pass from criticism. Individuals, however, should be left to the private practice of their beliefs (meaning the rites of worship, not enacting all the rules that they want). Individual spirituality is as human as sex and hunger; it should be respected and accepted as such, but watched over also for signs of excess and abuse and harm.

Now you.

TS-
The usual formulation that the Bible is inerrant in its original text. And yes, that is my position. I would respond to the questions in your first paragraph in a different order: I don’t find God abusive in His treatment of mankind.
As I read your entry, and recall others, it seems to me that two thoughts/beliefs intertwine: “chafing” at authority and rejection of religion. The former rejects the concept of the divine, and the latter rejects the practices of those that profess belief in God. In some combination they inform the rejection of God, and divine inspiration.
“Religion” is not God. Neither are denominations. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church. (My departure from the church long predates my membership here on FPG.) Here in the West it is perhaps the best known “religion” and denomination. As you look at the rites and rituals of the Roman Catholic church you see much that does not derive from the teaching of Jesus. Embedded within the Roman Catholic church is, or maybe now more accurate to say “was,” a strict hierarchy of authority. For the longest time Catholic hierarchy had a distrust of the Bible, and held that only the priesthood was qualified to read and teach the text.
If the concept of authority is as troubling to you as I take it to be, then it must lead you to reject the idea of God. I take this from your comment on the servant/master being abusive by its nature. Is it the concept, or the practice, of servanthood which makes it abusive? Authority runs through all of society, from parent-child, coach-team member, commander-soldier, teacher-student, government-citizen. We have different levels of tolerance for authority.
I can see that you have read extensively about Jesus, and His teachings. It was the religious establishment of His day that kept trying to trip Him up in His teaching. Ultimately, it was the religious leaders that combined to put in motion the events leading to His death. So, on that level, we hold sympathetic opinions about the role and practice of organized religion. Yet underneath religious practice the person and divinity of Jesus remain.

[TSherbs]

Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question..... The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.


You don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Could, in theory, the Bible include references to abuse in God's treatment of mankind? Or, by definition of your faith, is that not possible from your point of view? This is what I am getting at by asking if you can be "objective" about the issue.

I admit to some lack of objectivity on the subject. My parents taught me only reverence for the Bible, but I have subsequently lost my faith in the divinity of Jesus, I see the OT and the NT as human documents inspired by faith in a god, but not as "divinely" inspired (I believe that a "God" is a fiction, and so no Inspiration in the traditional sense is possible). As human documents, all religious texts (not just the Bible) do not exceed the cultural understandings and values and mores of the time in which they were written and as human stories they demonstrate the strengths and weakness of human understanding and their human conceptions of godhead. Sometimes this depiction of god is noble and enlightening; at other times the depiction is degrading and corrupt. Such is humanity; such is how we see and express things, especially as we conceive our relationship to figures of extreme authority. Seeing the difference in these depictions requires independent thought and maturity.

That is my context and/or "bias". As a person, except for brief stretches of my adult life, I have chafed at authority. I remain deeply spiritual and read and write about spiritual matters every day. I have three spiritual books next to me right now (one is about the teachings of Jesus). But religion as an institution, as a force of authority and control on this planet, deeply troubles me because of its incredibly corrupt episodes from history, some of it very recent. Religion deserves no special reverence or respect from non-believers. It is not "special" or exceptional, deserving some kind of polite pass from criticism. Individuals, however, should be left to the private practice of their beliefs (meaning the rites of worship, not enacting all the rules that they want). Individual spirituality is as human as sex and hunger; it should be respected and accepted as such, but watched over also for signs of excess and abuse and harm.

Now you.

TS-
The usual formulation that the Bible is inerrant in its original text. And yes, that is my position. I would respond to the questions in your first paragraph in a different order: I don’t find God abusive in His treatment of mankind.
As I read your entry, and recall others, it seems to me that two thoughts/beliefs intertwine: “chafing” at authority and rejection of religion. The former rejects the concept of the divine, and the latter rejects the practices of those that profess belief in God. In some combination they inform the rejection of God, and divine inspiration.
“Religion” is not God. Neither are denominations. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church. (My departure from the church long predates my membership here on FPG.) Here in the West it is perhaps the best known “religion” and denomination. As you look at the rites and rituals of the Roman Catholic church you see much that does not derive from the teaching of Jesus. Embedded within the Roman Catholic church is, or maybe now more accurate to say “was,” a strict hierarchy of authority. For the longest time Catholic hierarchy had a distrust of the Bible, and held that only the priesthood was qualified to read and teach the text.
If the concept of authority is as troubling to you as I take it to be, then it must lead you to reject the idea of God. I take this from your comment on the servant/master being abusive by its nature. Is it the concept, or the practice, of servanthood which makes it abusive? Authority runs through all of society, from parent-child, coach-team member, commander-soldier, teacher-student, government-citizen. We have different levels of tolerance for authority.
I can see that you have read extensively about Jesus, and His teachings. It was the religious establishment of His day that kept trying to trip Him up in His teaching. Ultimately, it was the religious leaders that combined to put in motion the events leading to His death. So, on that level, we hold sympathetic opinions about the role and practice of organized religion. Yet underneath religious practice the person and divinity of Jesus remain.


This is as much some kind of analysis of me as it is an expression of your bias...

[kazoolaw]

Given the personal expression of your position it seemed appropriate.

[TSherbs]

Asking me if I can be objective is a fair question..... The rules are more formal than that, but that's my take on it. So, yes.


You don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? Could, in theory, the Bible include references to abuse in God's treatment of mankind? Or, by definition of your faith, is that not possible from your point of view? This is what I am getting at by asking if you can be "objective" about the issue.

I admit to some lack of objectivity on the subject. My parents taught me only reverence for the Bible, but I have subsequently lost my faith in the divinity of Jesus, I see the OT and the NT as human documents inspired by faith in a god, but not as "divinely" inspired (I believe that a "God" is a fiction, and so no Inspiration in the traditional sense is possible). As human documents, all religious texts (not just the Bible) do not exceed the cultural understandings and values and mores of the time in which they were written and as human stories they demonstrate the strengths and weakness of human understanding and their human conceptions of godhead. Sometimes this depiction of god is noble and enlightening; at other times the depiction is degrading and corrupt. Such is humanity; such is how we see and express things, especially as we conceive our relationship to figures of extreme authority. Seeing the difference in these depictions requires independent thought and maturity.

That is my context and/or "bias". As a person, except for brief stretches of my adult life, I have chafed at authority. I remain deeply spiritual and read and write about spiritual matters every day. I have three spiritual books next to me right now (one is about the teachings of Jesus). But religion as an institution, as a force of authority and control on this planet, deeply troubles me because of its incredibly corrupt episodes from history, some of it very recent. Religion deserves no special reverence or respect from non-believers. It is not "special" or exceptional, deserving some kind of polite pass from criticism. Individuals, however, should be left to the private practice of their beliefs (meaning the rites of worship, not enacting all the rules that they want). Individual spirituality is as human as sex and hunger; it should be respected and accepted as such, but watched over also for signs of excess and abuse and harm.

Now you.

TS-
The usual formulation that the Bible is inerrant in its original text. And yes, that is my position. I would respond to the questions in your first paragraph in a different order: I don’t find God abusive in His treatment of mankind.

***
“Religion” is not God. Neither are denominations. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church. (My departure from the church long predates my membership here on FPG.) Here in the West it is perhaps the best known “religion” and denomination. As you look at the rites and rituals of the Roman Catholic church you see much that does not derive from the teaching of Jesus. Embedded within the Roman Catholic church is, or maybe now more accurate to say “was,” a strict hierarchy of authority. For the longest time Catholic hierarchy had a distrust of the Bible, and held that only the priesthood was qualified to read and teach the text.

***
It was the religious establishment of His day that kept trying to trip Him up in His teaching. Ultimately, it was the religious leaders that combined to put in motion the events leading to His death. So, on that level, we hold sympathetic opinions about the role and practice of organized religion. Yet underneath religious practice the person and divinity of Jesus remain.


I have removed the material said about me to highlight what I could glean that you stated about your own beliefs. I take it that you are no longer Catholic (in membership?), but I cannot determine anything else about your faith or tenets here, beyond that you take the Bible to be inerrant. If you would rather not state your beliefs, you might just say so so that I stop asking. Otherwise, I might think that I just did not ask clearly enough. Does this last entry mean that you are not a member of a congregation of any denomination? You sound "protestant" in tone, but you could make that clear.

Do you take the Bible to be literally true in in its very historical accounts and laws and precepts (OT and NT)? (I meant to ask this in my prior post). Inerrancy is one thing, literal interpretation is another.

[kazoolaw]

I have not been a member of the Catholic Church for over 40 years. Since then we have belonged to an independent church which was part of an association of similar churches, without a hierarchy. Most recently, we have belonged to independent Bible churches. Broadly speaking, they are conservative Protestant churches.

I think I would answer "yes" to your literal interpretation question. Do I believe in Creation? Yes. I could be more definite if I understood the "very historical accounts and laws and precepts" part of the question.

[TSherbs]

I have not been a member of the Catholic Church for over 40 years. Since then we have belonged to an independent church which was part of an association of similar churches, without a hierarchy. Most recently, we have belonged to independent Bible churches. Broadly speaking, they are conservative Protestant churches.

I think I would answer "yes" to your literal interpretation question. Do I believe in Creation? Yes. I could be more definite if I understood the "very historical accounts and laws and precepts" part of the question.


I appreciate the answers, Kaz. I meant things like the ages of persons in the OT, various historical accounts (and miraculous events, like the flooding of the earth, the arc, etc). If you are a literal creationist, then I take the answer to be yes for all these other events too. This helps me understand.

[TSherbs]

I am very far from this position on the all of the wisdom teachers of the ages: they are all human, mortal, and not-god (there is no such thing as a divine spirit beyond human consciousness, from my view). The Bible, from my view, is a collection of historical accounts, cultural legends, and religious mythology (ALL of the theistic texts are this, from my view). I grew up liberal Protestant (UCC), then I was briefly born again (conservative, orthodox), but this did not stick. Then I lost all my faith in a traditional external God, life after death, etc. Now the Bible, like many other texts, from my view, has both great wisdom and dangerous falsehoods in it, particularly when coupled with a literal reading and a sense of righteousness (this is when, in my view, humans become intoxicated with their perceived "divine purpose" and sense of "special selection" from God, and then abuse other humans).

To change the subject a little, but as an example of what I mean, Rep. Boebert proclaimed in a speech that we are "at the end of the end times" and that it was therefore time for America to do the work of God that it has always been meant to do. That is exactly the kind of mixture of righteousness, presumption, and influence that I feel that we must guard against in our communities and in our nation.

[TSherbs]

And finally, as what I mean by an "abusive relationship between 'God' and humans," I would first generally point to the various acts of destruction and killing that the God of the OT perpetrated upon humanity (selections of it, but once also including the mass near-extinction of every living thing on earth). God is significantly angry with humanity ("wrath"), and God's response, significantly, is destructive or murderous. By analogy, in the human world, only a dictator or slave owner or tyrant would have both the power and impunity to deal with large swaths of humanity in such a way. And, I can't imagine describing that kind of power and tyranny over people (individually or collectively) as anything but abusive.

Additionally, there are psychological forms of abusive manipulation, as in the treatment of Abraham and Isaac by God in the famous near-sacrifice scene. Abraham lies to his son (only son, to boot), has to bind him to the wood of the altar (the suggestion is that Isaac is resisting, naturally), and then proceeds to murder his son in pagan fashion all because God told him to do this. The story has Abraham follow God's wishes here without comment and without objection. There are some who say that Abraham knew that God would never let him follow through (the lamb reference), but this line makes clear that Abraham intended to kill the boy: "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." The intent and purpose of the action is clear, and the angel must quickly step in to stop him! Even if God never intended physical harm to come to the son, Abraham did, and God played this "test" as a the ultimate power play of a gang-leader or dictator: just how far will you go to show your fealty to me and subservience to my command. The psychological abusive trauma of such a scenario is obscene. And, for me, there is no "well, the ends justify the means" (the progenitors of the tribes of Israel). The scene is sick in its manipulative power play between a God (who already knows the outcome, right?) and the humans mindlessly following orders and trying to commit murder within a family (breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and a child).

There are so many examples, Kaz, and you must already be familiar with them. The objection to these is not new and I am no original thinker in decrying them.

[kazoolaw]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

When we aren't out to convince the other person to change their mind, we do better. I have a long history of discussing religion and faith with persons of many faiths and of no faith. I am better practiced in this listening than in some other topics. I can try to do some more practice here. Whereas politics (and law) is often about telling other people how to live or what they should care about (politics and law are public endeavors, for the most part), faith and spirituality are not. (Religion is public, but I am not discussing that here). What a person believes is their right, and I value that right highly. I value its independence and hard-fought process of going through struggle and coming out with an opinion (whatever it is, privately). Maybe this is the Protestant in me (I might have evidence of Protestant DNA in my genome, for all I know). I am not perfectly accepting, however; I acknowledge this.

[TSherbs]

'The arguments of religious men are so often insincere, and their insincerity is proportionate to their anger.
Why do we get angry about what we believe? Because we do not really believe it.
Or else what we pretend to be defending as the “truth” is really our own self-esteem.
A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the truth than in stating it clearly,
for he thinks that if the truth be clearly seen it can very well take care of itself.'

- Thomas Merton

Merton was one of the great sages of our time. As was Tay. Thanks for posting this; I just read it again and was reminded of how much I appreciated it.

[Chuck Naill]

Evangel is good news and to evangelize is to spread that good news.

[TSherbs]

Evangel is good news and to evangelize is to spread that good news.

You calling EOC an evangelist?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I believe my label quota is full for the time being. :)

[Chuck Naill]

Evangel is good news and to evangelize is to spread that good news.

You calling EOC an evangelist?

I’m responding to what you posted regarding changing peoples minds.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Your follow up to this one, Kaz?

[kazoolaw]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Your follow up to this one, Kaz?


Not yet.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Your follow up to this one, Kaz?


Not yet.

Yet?

Or, if you would rather not, saying so seems appropriate.

[kazoolaw]

Not now, but soon.

[Chuck Naill]

What did Jesus teach?

[kazoolaw]

TS-

I'll go back to Post 153 and begin there, responding in pieces rather than trying to respond to all your points in one post.

You and I disagree on what the Bible is. I'll not address your view at this point. Your parenthetical comment at the end of the first paragraph, " (this is when, in my view, humans become intoxicated with their perceived "divine purpose" and sense of "special selection" from God, and then abuse other humans)" I have thoughts about. nothing It is not only Christians wyho are self-righteous, believe that they have a higher purpose, think they are specially selected to accomplish a particular goal, or are abusive. If I recall correctly, there was a magazine cover touting a politician as "The Second Coming," and asking if he was "God the Father or God the Son." There nothing about being a Christian which makes one perfect, blameless, sinless if you will. No one is blameless. There is something particularly appalling, and indefensible, I agree, with those whose actions actually contradict the avowed justification for their actions.

My comment here as actually about your second paragraph, quoting Lauren Boebart about the end times, and her call for political action as a result. We, and she, can debate eschatology at another time. I would think we can agree that people should act as Christians if they're Christians, or in accordance with their morals, but I think it a mistake to think that she knows what God's plan for America is in a political sense, or when the world will end. When I said politics is not religion I meant that it is not a substitute for God, nor is it the means to spiritual improvement. I find no party platform in Jesus' teachings. There is nothing I've found that indicates that a political party is supposed to take precedence following God's commands. While there may be an overlap between political and religious issues, politics is not a substitute for God.

This conversation may bleed over into discussing what is and what is not the establishment of religion, which is a conversation for another day.

[Chuck Naill]

I’ll say that disciples should act like disciples.

[TSherbs]

Ts-
I appreciate you extending yourself to share in both of these posts. I share your concern about comments about making a Christian kingdom on earth both from a political and theological viewpoint. I'll return to address your other comments; you raise issues well worth discussion.

Thanks, kazoo. Yes, you had already said that you and I were in agreement on rogue righteousness.

It's #154 (what you call here my "other comments") that I have been "patiently" waiting for (the bolded part above). You had asked me to highlight what I found "abusive" about the Bible's depictions of relationships, and I wrote about this at length in response to your question put to me. It's that reply that I am still waiting for. That was the core of the matter for me, and it was specifically the matter that you asked me to illustrate.

[kazoolaw]

"Patiently" waiting.

[Chuck Naill]

From a summary of Charles Colson's book:

"Christianity is more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is also a worldview that not only answers life's basic questions--Where did we come from, and who are we? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to fix it?--but also shows us how we should live as a result of those answers. How Now Shall We Live? gives Christians the understanding, the confidence, and the tools to confront the world's bankrupt worldviews and to restore and redeem every aspect of contemporary culture: family, education, ethics, work, law, politics, science, art, music. This book will change every Christian who reads it. It will change the church in the new millennium."

This came after Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live, The Rise and Fall of Western Thought and Culture".

Both books calls for the politicization of Christians and the Evangelicals have been fed this mentality sine the 1970's. The idea that Schaeffer uses the word "should" in the title speaks to his arrogance.

Francis son Frank Schaeffer left the Republican party.

"On October 10, 2008, a public letter to Senator John McCain and Sarah Palin from Schaeffer was published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper.[12] The letter contained an impassioned plea for McCain to arrest what Schaeffer perceived as a hateful and prejudiced tone of the Republican Party's election campaign. Schaeffer was convinced that there was a pronounced danger that fringe groups in America could be goaded into pursuing violence. "If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters... history will hold you responsible for all that follows."[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer

The younger Schaeffer's comments were prophetical, but I doubt any Evangelical would agree today.

[TSherbs]

"Patiently" waiting.


You did write that 32 days ago.

And you did ask me in a different place what Biblical passages I was reflecting on.

So, for this case, it is the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Again, please tell me if you actually aren't interested in a conversation on this. I am beginning to think that you are not. But, you seem to suggest...maybe. could you make this clear for me?

[Chuck Naill]

I've been camped out on Jesus' words to love your neighbor as you love yourself of a few years as not just a concept but a behavior to allow to permeate my actions. Whether I am successful on a daily basis, it is non-the-less a thought that I cannot escape.

At a time when Evangelicals have become supporters, more or less, of isolationists and authoritarians, I am left asking, do these folks not recall or have they never been taught what Jesus said?

I was introduced to W.E.B Du Bois's biography of John Brown. This is from an op-ed today.
"Du Bois’s entry is at once a typical biography — it goes into some detail about Brown’s childhood, his upbringing and his moral development, including a depiction of the scene that made Brown, at a young age, an ardent opponent of slavery — and an exercise in social analysis.

Du Bois sums up Brown’s views in his conclusion. “John Brown loved his neighbor as himself,” writes Du Bois. “He could not endure therefore to see his neighbor poor, unfortunate or oppressed.” Brown’s sympathy with the least advantaged was strengthened by his Christianity and influenced by the “social doctrines of the French Revolution with its emphasis on freedom and power in political life.”

https://www.nytimes.com/column/jamelle-bouie

[kazoolaw]

TS-
Sorry for the unanticipated delay.
I will get back to you on this.

[kazoolaw]

Additionally, there are psychological forms of abusive manipulation, as in the treatment of Abraham and Isaac by God in the famous near-sacrifice scene. Abraham lies to his son (only son, to boot), has to bind him to the wood of the altar (the suggestion is that Isaac is resisting, naturally), and then proceeds to murder his son in pagan fashion all because God told him to do this. The story has Abraham follow God's wishes here without comment and without objection. There are some who say that Abraham knew that God would never let him follow through (the lamb reference), but this line makes clear that Abraham intended to kill the boy: "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." The intent and purpose of the action is clear, and the angel must quickly step in to stop him! Even if God never intended physical harm to come to the son, Abraham did, and God played this "test" as a the ultimate power play of a gang-leader or dictator: just how far will you go to show your fealty to me and subservience to my command. The psychological abusive trauma of such a scenario is obscene. And, for me, there is no "well, the ends justify the means" (the progenitors of the tribes of Israel). The scene is sick in its manipulative power play between a God (who already knows the outcome, right?) and the humans mindlessly following orders and trying to commit murder within a family (breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and a child).

There are so many examples, Kaz, and you must already be familiar with them. The objection to these is not new and I am no original thinker in decrying them.

Let’s begin with what is, and what is not, within the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, found in Genesis chapter 22.
Abraham did not “murder his son in pagan fashion.” As you recognize, Abraham stopped short, not killing him at all. Child sacrifice was not uncommon at the time; this is a story of child sacrifice rejected. Many times in the Old Testament God denounces the sacrifice of children to idols.
Isaac was bound, but there is nothing to suggest that he “had” to be bound to force his compliance. The traditional sacrificial lamb was bound, front and back legs on each side tied together. As you read, God did provide the ram as sacrifice.
This is Abraham’s story of being tested, and of his faith. It is important to understand that this is the point of the story from the beginning. 22:1 Recall that Isaac was Abraham’s son with Sara, who was barren for so many years. We are given to understand that Isaac was a special, a miracle child. Abraham tells the men who came with them that “…we will worship and return to you.” Abraham and Isaac did return. 22:5. In verse 8 Abraham says that God will provide the lamb. God did. 22:13. What is not in the account is Isaac’s reaction.
The analogy to a gang leader falls short. We’re familiar now with the stories of “making his bones” killing to be admitted into a gang, the Mafia. Abraham’s story is recorded because he did not kill Isaac, no one was murdered. Nothing suggests mindless obedience. Rather, there is a demonstration of deep faith in God’s provision. As the story continues, God declares that Abraham will be blessed, and that Isaac’s descendants will multiply greatly because of Abraham’s obedience.
The story of Abraham and Isaac prefigures the sacrifice of Jesus, who many times is described as a Lamb, the One whose death was a sacrifice for the sin of us all.
It is a curious thing to me that Isaac coming back down from the altar, alive, is described as "breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and child" and the sacrifice of six million is a parents' right.

[Chuck Naill]

When my son was young, the idea of putting him on an alter and killing him was never anything I would have done, and I would have rather died myself than do so. Also, I never tested my son or would have tested him to see if he had faith in me. I am okay with saying, not my will, but thine be done if I understand the need or benefit to myself, but not another.

Now let's discuss the concept of sin. The word means to miss the mark of God's holiness. I can well accept that I am not without sin or missing the standard of holiness but can I do otherwise through no fault of my own. When my children didn't tell the truth I was not surprised, and I was always willing to forgive them. I didn't expect perfection because I knew they couldn't help it.

I would never send them to an eternal torment because they didn't apologize or repent.

Ross Campbell wrote a book about how to really love your child. He advocated for unconditional love, active listening, and making eye contact. How would a holy god not do the same? Only a cruel god would expect me to figure it out.


I recognize this is a departure from Evangelical teachings. That said, these are the teachings that cause us to question what we believe. What I have never questioned is to treat others as I would want them to treat me or to love my neighbors as I love myself.

[kazoolaw]

Post 175: Sorry sixty, not six, million.

[Joincte1993]

The rise of the political Christian is not only about the increase in the number of Christians who have become politically active, but also about the fact that they are now becoming increasingly influential in politics. In the past, Christianity was seen as a religion that had no place in politics, but today we find many politicians who are openly religious. Politicians who are Christian tend to be more conservative than those who are not. However, some Christians may be liberal or even socialist. Visit The site (https://www.zodiacsigns-horoscope.com/chinese-horoscope/rabbit-2023/)

[dneal]

Spam reported.

[TSherbs]

Additionally, there are psychological forms of abusive manipulation, as in the treatment of Abraham and Isaac by God in the famous near-sacrifice scene. Abraham lies to his son (only son, to boot), has to bind him to the wood of the altar (the suggestion is that Isaac is resisting, naturally), and then proceeds to murder his son in pagan fashion all because God told him to do this. The story has Abraham follow God's wishes here without comment and without objection. There are some who say that Abraham knew that God would never let him follow through (the lamb reference), but this line makes clear that Abraham intended to kill the boy: "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." The intent and purpose of the action is clear, and the angel must quickly step in to stop him! Even if God never intended physical harm to come to the son, Abraham did, and God played this "test" as a the ultimate power play of a gang-leader or dictator: just how far will you go to show your fealty to me and subservience to my command. The psychological abusive trauma of such a scenario is obscene. And, for me, there is no "well, the ends justify the means" (the progenitors of the tribes of Israel). The scene is sick in its manipulative power play between a God (who already knows the outcome, right?) and the humans mindlessly following orders and trying to commit murder within a family (breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and a child).

There are so many examples, Kaz, and you must already be familiar with them. The objection to these is not new and I am no original thinker in decrying them.

Let’s begin with what is, and what is not, within the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, found in Genesis chapter 22.
Abraham did not “murder his son in pagan fashion.” As you recognize, Abraham stopped short, not killing him at all. Child sacrifice was not uncommon at the time; this is a story of child sacrifice rejected. Many times in the Old Testament God denounces the sacrifice of children to idols.
Isaac was bound, but there is nothing to suggest that he “had” to be bound to force his compliance. The traditional sacrificial lamb was bound, front and back legs on each side tied together. As you read, God did provide the ram as sacrifice.
This is Abraham’s story of being tested, and of his faith. It is important to understand that this is the point of the story from the beginning. 22:1 Recall that Isaac was Abraham’s son with Sara, who was barren for so many years. We are given to understand that Isaac was a special, a miracle child. Abraham tells the men who came with them that “…we will worship and return to you.” Abraham and Isaac did return. 22:5. In verse 8 Abraham says that God will provide the lamb. God did. 22:13. What is not in the account is Isaac’s reaction.
The analogy to a gang leader falls short. We’re familiar now with the stories of “making his bones” killing to be admitted into a gang, the Mafia. Abraham’s story is recorded because he did not kill Isaac, no one was murdered. Nothing suggests mindless obedience. Rather, there is a demonstration of deep faith in God’s provision. As the story continues, God declares that Abraham will be blessed, and that Isaac’s descendants will multiply greatly because of Abraham’s obedience.
The story of Abraham and Isaac prefigures the sacrifice of Jesus, who many times is described as a Lamb, the One whose death was a sacrifice for the sin of us all.
It is a curious thing to me that Isaac coming back down from the altar, alive, is described as "breaking the ultimate bond of care between a parent and child" and the sacrifice of six million is a parents' right.

Thanks, Kaz.

Everyone acknowledges that this is a test of faith, including me (see above). My point, which you asked me to elaborate on, is that this test is an abusive one because of the unequal power dynamic and the request of a father that he put his own son to death by the sword simply as a test of faith. To pass the test, Abraham must be willing to kill his own son simply to appease a god. (I call this act "pagan" because human sacrifice has roots far back in pre-Judeo history, and it is certainly no longer condoned by the Christian community). I am calling this request (based on an unequal power dynamic and no reference to any hesitation on the part of Abraham) "abusive" because that is exactly what we would call it today if it were to continue to happen, whether tested in this manner by a "god" or by another human (we would probably call it other names, too). Can you speak more directly to this point of the request to kill a child to please a figure of authority? Is your point that if one perceives that one's "god" is making this request, that the request is not abusive in nature of the dynamic? Is there something that makes the request perceived from a god different from the same request made from a human? Or is your point simply that human sacrifice was more common then, so for a father to be tested in this manner would not be then considered abusive (and the morality of the act should not be judged by anachronistic mores)?

[Chuck Naill]

Jephthah’s daughter is an example where the child suffers for her father’s rash vowel.

[kazoolaw]

TS said:


Thanks, Kaz.

Everyone acknowledges that this is a test of faith, including me (see above). My point, which you asked me to elaborate on, is that this test is an abusive one because of the unequal power dynamic and the request of a father that he put his own son to death by the sword simply as a test of faith.
You seem to posit that every interaction between those in an "unequal power dynamic" is abusive. It is also important, essential, to see that this story doesn't suddenly appear in a vacuum, without a history of interaction between God and Abraham.


To pass the test, Abraham must be willing to kill his own son simply to appease a god. (I call this act "pagan" because human sacrifice has roots far back in pre-Judeo history, and it is certainly no longer condoned by the Christian community).
And a practice that God rejected, and does again in this story.


I am calling this request (based on an unequal power dynamic and no reference to any hesitation on the part of Abraham) "abusive" because that is exactly what we would call it today if it were to continue to happen, whether tested in this manner by a "god" or by another human (we would probably call it other names, too).
Well, now you've changed the narrative: what is a "god" as you've used the term? This was not a test from another person, and not by a "god." Again, this is not the only interaction between God and Abraham.


Can you speak more directly to this point of the request to kill a child to please a figure of authority?
It doesn't sound to me like we share the same understanding of what Abraham was asked to do, and where this fits in the narrative of Abram, Abraham, being called out of his home, Sarah being barren, being promised a son, and Isaac. Abraham was asked to substitute Isaac for the sacrifice of a lamb. It wasn't a random drive-by killing.


Is your point that if one perceives that one's "god" is making this request, that the request is not abusive in nature of the dynamic? Is there something that makes the request perceived from a god different from the same request made from a human?
Although you've moved from God to "god" [which you've yet to define] I don't think you're intentionally evading the point. Rather, you don't believe in God, and equate the request as coming from a powerful person, not God. Abraham understood who was making the request far differently than you appear to, and had faith in God's nature. Abraham had followed God's calling from his homeland to go to a place he didn't know. Hebrews 11:8. Abraham had seen his barren wife bear a child, and heard God's promise that Abraham's descendants would run through Isaac. Abraham's faith was deep enough that he knew God was able to raise people from the dead. Hebrews 11:19. His faith was that God would honor His promises, and not be inconsistent with them.


Or is your point simply that human sacrifice was more common then, so for a father to be tested in this manner would not be then considered abusive (and the morality of the act should not be judged by anachronistic mores)?
Human sacrifice was more common then, and was condemned by God on many occasions, which is why it is important to recall that is not how Isaac's story ends. There was a time when the Son became a sacrifice for all, and was killed. His story ends with His resurrection, which in one sense demonstrates Abraham's faith was justified.

[TSherbs]

You seem to posit that every interaction between those in an "unequal power dynamic" is abusive.

No, I did not. "Every"?? Really, Kaz? I claimed that the power dynamic between this conception of God (the all-powerful, slayer of cities and species and manipulator of plagues and knower of all things) and that of a human is one element of the abusive dynamic. Abuse always requires at least a temporary power inequality. But of course not wht you say that I am claiming.


And a practice that God rejected, and does again in this story.


"Reject" is not the word I would use for asking Abraham to carry out the task and then only stopping his hand once he has the knife and it is lifted to kill the son. God stays the hand, but he uses the willingness to sacrifice as the test. That is not a "rejection"; it is a manipulation.


Well, now you've changed the narrative: what is a "god" as you've used the term? This was not a test from another person, and not by a "god." Again, this is not the only interaction between God and Abraham.
So, because it is by your "God," the act is excused (permissable morally)? The same acts committed by persons (say, the destruction of a city) are not permissable, but by your "God" they are? (I am using different terms to keep clear that I do not believe in a single "God," nor a multiplicity of "gods").



Abraham was asked to substitute Isaac for the sacrifice of a lamb.
Yes, he was asked to kill his son in sacrifice. That is exactly how I see it.



Although you've moved from God to "god" [which you've yet to define] I don't think you're intentionally evading the point. Rather, you don't believe in God, and equate the request as coming from a powerful person, not God. Abraham understood who was making the request far differently than you appear to, and had faith in God's nature. Abraham had followed God's calling from his homeland to go to a place he didn't know. Hebrews 11:8. Abraham had seen his barren wife bear a child, and heard God's promise that Abraham's descendants would run through Isaac. Abraham's faith was deep enough that he knew God was able to raise people from the dead. Hebrews 11:19. His faith was that God would honor His promises, and not be inconsistent with them.
Yes, I am aware of this. I understand these teachings and ideas. I don't see how they bear upon the issue of the request to kill one's son and how Abraham understands this literally and even attempts to carry it out (even though, apparently, "God" did not ever mean to have Abraham carry this out). Is your point that Abraham is faking the attempt to kill his son?



..., which in one sense demonstrates Abraham's faith was justified.
We know that this is part of "God's" plan. I am asserting that the manipulation of the father within the plan is deceitful and abusive (I have described this more than once, so I won't bother to continue to.) Is your point that Abraham's "trust" makes the deception non-abusive? That "trust" or "faith" cancels the manipulation within the power inequality? Or something more straightforward, like "Since God did it, it is not abuse"? Or maybe, "Since Jesus came later, all earlier actions by God are justified and good"?

[TSherbs]

Let me add that "God" does not rebuke or correct Abraham, either, for his willingness to kill his son at "God's' request. There is no "rejection" in words, only a reward. Abraham is rewarded for his willingness to kill his son (do "God's" bidding, no matter how murderous or contrary to filial love).

[kazoolaw]

Let me add that "God" does not rebuke or correct Abraham, either, for his willingness to kill his son at "God's' request. There is no "rejection" in words, only a reward. Abraham is rewarded for his willingness to kill his son (do "God's" bidding, no matter how murderous or contrary to filial love).

I'll return to Post 183 at another time, but this response indicates to me that you are upset enough that logic has escaped you. Why would God rebuke or correct Abraham for expressing faith in God?

[Chuck Naill]

Using the Hebrew text, we know that God did not condone child sacrifice. Therefore, it seems odd that God would use child sacrifice to test someone's faith. You cannot assume Ted is "upset" for simply stating the obvious, why wouldn't God rebuke Abraham? What if Abraham said, "well, I thought you said to kill Issaac from which the land, seed, and blessing were to come." I would have been like, "well, I must be hearing the Devil", or, "that wasn't from God". These are sincere questions, Kaz.

At the heart of all of this is the concept of sin. Adam sinned and the curse was passed on to all of his descendants. And, it involves God actually communicating with people. If I heard God say to not eat the fruit in a audible voice, I would have cut the tree down and burned it lest I mistakenly eat it's fruit.

Most Evangelicals today do not believe God still speaks. They are Cessationists. The Pentecostal and Charismatics believe people can here. There are numerous modern examples of people saying they are hearing from God. Some believe that God told them to see Trump as God's chosen leader. I honestly don't see how any rational person who knows their Bible could believe such a thing, but there are many who do.

[TSherbs]

Let me add that "God" does not rebuke or correct Abraham, either, for his willingness to kill his son at "God's' request. There is no "rejection" in words, only a reward. Abraham is rewarded for his willingness to kill his son (do "God's" bidding, no matter how murderous or contrary to filial love).

I'll return to Post 183 at another time, but this response indicates to me that you are upset enough that logic has escaped you. Why would God rebuke or correct Abraham for expressing faith in God?
I am not upset at all.

Do you really need to add that "logic has escaped" me?

I feel that you know exactly what I mean, Kaz. I mean that if God is "rejecting" (your word) the killing of a son, then he is not doing it here in words nor in any form of punishment or lesson. As I said, God rewards Abraham's willingness to carry out the act. There is no illogic here. I am sticking directly to the plot of the scene and the text. Are you suggesting that when Abraham raises the knife, it is not with the intention to carry out God's request to sacrifice (kill) Isaac?

[kazoolaw]

Let me add that "God" does not rebuke or correct Abraham, either, for his willingness to kill his son at "God's' request. There is no "rejection" in words, only a reward. Abraham is rewarded for his willingness to kill his son (do "God's" bidding, no matter how murderous or contrary to filial love).

I'll return to Post 183 at another time, but this response indicates to me that you are upset enough that logic has escaped you. Why would God rebuke or correct Abraham for expressing faith in God?
I am not upset at all.

Do you really need to add that "logic has escaped" me?

I feel that you know exactly what I mean, Kaz. I mean that if God is "rejecting" (your word) the killing of a son, then he is not doing it here in words nor in any form of punishment or lesson. As I said, God rewards Abraham's willingness to carry out the act. There is no illogic here. I am sticking directly to the plot of the scene and the text. Are you suggesting that when Abraham raises the knife, it is not with the intention to carry out God's request to sacrifice (kill) Isaac?

Stay with me here: God tells Abraham to substitute Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham, having faith in God, acts in obedience. What would the rebuke be for? Believing that Isaac would not be die, or would be raised from the dead?

[TSherbs]

You said that God "rejected" human sacrifice in the scene.

I replied, not in words in the scene. And God actually rewards Abraham's *willingness* to kill.

You replied that I lack logic.

And now what are you asserting? That Abraham did not believe that Isaac would die? Or that God would raise him from the dead?

[kazoolaw]

You said that God "rejected" human sacrifice in the scene.

I replied, not in words in the scene. And God actually rewards Abraham's *willingness* to kill.

You replied that I lack logic.

And now what are you asserting? That Abraham did not believe that Isaac would die? Or that God would raise him from the dead?

TS-
You've not responded to my question: what was there to rebuke? Abraham's faith was that God would act consistent with God. And He did: a ram was provided.
And yes, Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead.

[TSherbs]

You said that God "rejected" human sacrifice in the scene.

I replied, not in words in the scene. And God actually rewards Abraham's *willingness* to kill.

You replied that I lack logic.

And now what are you asserting? That Abraham did not believe that Isaac would die? Or that God would raise him from the dead?

TS-
You've not responded to my question: what was there to rebuke? Abraham's faith was that God would act consistent with God. And He did: a ram was provided.
And yes, Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead.


Rebuke isn't the word so much as "reject" (your word).

So, is it your position that Abraham, with arm raised with the executioner's knife, does not think that Isaac will die?

[Chuck Naill]

God didn’t tell Abraham to substitute Isaac.

[kazoolaw]

You said that God "rejected" human sacrifice in the scene.

I replied, not in words in the scene. And God actually rewards Abraham's *willingness* to kill.

You replied that I lack logic.

And now what are you asserting? That Abraham did not believe that Isaac would die? Or that God would raise him from the dead?

TS-
You've not responded to my question: what was there to rebuke? Abraham's faith was that God would act consistent with God. And He did: a ram was provided.
And yes, Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead.


Rebuke isn't the word so much as "reject" (your word).

So, is it your position that Abraham, with arm raised with the executioner's knife, does not think that Isaac will die?

At this point I suggest we take a break.
"Rebuke" is your word from Post 184. I'll rest on Post 190.

[TSherbs]

You said that God "rejected" human sacrifice in the scene.

I replied, not in words in the scene. And God actually rewards Abraham's *willingness* to kill.

You replied that I lack logic.

And now what are you asserting? That Abraham did not believe that Isaac would die? Or that God would raise him from the dead?

TS-
You've not responded to my question: what was there to rebuke? Abraham's faith was that God would act consistent with God. And He did: a ram was provided.
And yes, Abraham believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead.


Rebuke isn't the word so much as "reject" (your word).

So, is it your position that Abraham, with arm raised with the executioner's knife, does not think that Isaac will die?

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]At this point I suggest we take a break.
"Rebuke" is your word from Post 184...

I know. I withdrew it and returned to your word, which I figured that you would accept. I was trying not to get bogged down in word choice. I know that your understanding is based on faith; I just don't understand your justification of God's request of Abraham to kill his own son: it's a substitute; maybe Isaac would come back to life; this is about trust, not killing; this leads to the tribes of Israel and the coming of Jesus and prefigures the sacrifice of Jesus by God the Father, etc. For me, none of these things erase or negate the fact that Abraham raises the knife to kill his son, just as God requested (in sacrifice) and then rewarded him for doing (while also sparing Isaac). The fundamental message is that Abraham so loved God and was so faithful (and dutiful and obedient) that he would *even* attempt to kill his own son in sacrifice when God requested it. It is this AND the other religious interpretations that you offer. But the latter ideas do not negate the foundational dynamic around a god requesting a kill and a believer willing to do it. Perhaps it is not *just* a kill, but I don't think that we can grant that the potential sacrifice of Isaac's life isn't, in its barest element, an act of infanticide.

[kazoolaw]

"...an act of infanticide?"
I anticipated that you'd react to the reference to sixty million abortions and try to justify them by comparing them to the story of Abraham/Isaac.
Does the analogy work? Let's look again at the actual text to see if there is support for your argument that Isaac was an "infant" at that time.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/childdevelopment/positiveparenting/infants.html
It was a 3 day journey to the mountains. Four people made the trip: Abraham, Isaac, and two young men. Only reference to one donkey. No mention if anyone rode it on the 3 day journey, or whether it carried the wood. Can "infants" walk at all, much less for 3 days, up a mountain?
Abraham describes Isaac as a "lad", and had Isaac carry the wood for the burnt offering. The burnt offering required the sacrifice to be totally burned; not a negligible amount of wood would be required. Extra-Biblical sources estimate 60 pounds of wood. In any event, more than an infant (0-1 years of age) can carry.
Isaac speaks to Abraham: again, not the act of an infant.
It can be fairly said that there is no support in the Biblical text that Isaac was an infant.
The story of Abraham's faith demonstrates that this was not "an act of infanticide."
In plain terms, Isaac was neither an infant, nor was he killed.

[TSherbs]

Dear lord, I simply meant the killing of a child by a parent.

[TSherbs]

I simply meant the killing of a child by a parent.

And the words "willing to" and "attempt" are in there, Kaz. You know exactly what I meant. I have acknowledged more than once that Isaac doesn't die. Everyone knows this. Then call it "attempted homicide of a son" for crying out loud.

You seem to be trying to bog me down in my word choice.

I answered your question, now answer me this: is it your position that all the suffering and killing carried out through God's agency or his wishes in the OT is therefore (because it is God's will or his actions) justified and good?

[Chuck Naill]

The problem with faith is that it doesn’t constitute evidence. Nothing wrong with believing something you can’t prove to another. If you have a sense there is a God and that he is righteous and just, just believe it for yourself.

Obviously the Abrahamic faith account is problematic to understand or accept as righteous and just. Paul puts words in Abrahams mind or mouth by suggesting Abraham believed God would bring Isaac back to life. Perhaps Paul had a source we don’t know about.

The OT has given believers fits for thousands of years. How to explain except to say that God is righteous and just so we apparently must just accept that the scriptures are infallible. We are the problem, not God.

All this is fine, but Proverbs stands against the notion man is ignorant. Obviously we are responsible for what we do and say. This requires an intellect for living. An intellect asks questions.

A problem American society has today is believing things that are not true and have been shown not to be true. We can’t always choose what occurs, but we can choose how we respond. Self education and using wisdom is each of our responsibility.

[kazoolaw]

You seem to be trying to bog me down in my word choice.


TS-
It's a case of self-bogging.
The usual meaning of the word "infanticide" is well understood.

[TSherbs]

You seem to be trying to bog me down in my word choice.


TS-
It's a case of self-bogging.
The usual meaning of the word "infanticide" is well understood.

I retracted it, Kaz.

Can we move on to my question, posed just above?

[kazoolaw]

At this time I prefer not to.

[TSherbs]

Well, that conversation didn't feel very sincere from your side. You waited over a month to reply (asking me to be "patient"), then I couldn't get you to address my fundamental objection even though the whole thing started with you asking me to support my opinion that I saw "abuse" in the Bible.

My interpretation is not uncommon, even among both Jewish and Christian believers. The question, why would Abraham submit to such a request (that goes against nature and law), goes back millennia. The same with, why would a loving God make such a request?

The alleged immorality, brutality, deception, and abuse of the wishes and actions of the Judeo-Christian God (or those carrying out his requests) is a discussion on internet fora, church groups, and papal encyclicals. The "problem" of God's actions (devastation and killing) in the OT is one that I find extremely interesting, and full of great influence on later Christian behavior.

[kazoolaw]

Well, that conversation didn't feel very sincere from your side.

A curious way to invite further conversation, calling someone insincere.
I understand that you don't accept my responses. They have been clear. And clearly they have been unconvincing to you. I understand that. Abraham's faith in God is difficult to grasp.
Your feelings notwithstanding, I have sincerely responded to your question about Abraham and Isaac, but apparently not in the way you desired.
There is something about this topic that causes you to say things you retract, or to assert things you really didn't mean. "Infanticide" is a specific word, with a particular meaning. In my experience (yours may differ) it's not easily mistaken for another. It's difficult to converse when one side of the conversation changes after the fact.
Beneath our disagreement about Abraham/Isaac is a more basic disagreement. I believe that there is God, worthy of faith. You do not.
Given where our conversation has come thus far, I simply don't think it profitable to continue this discussion at this time.

[TSherbs]

Well, that conversation didn't feel very sincere from your side.

A curious way to invite further conversation, calling someone insincere.
I understand that you don't accept my responses. They have been clear. And clearly they have been unconvincing to you. I understand that. Abraham's faith in God is difficult to grasp.
Your feelings notwithstanding, I have sincerely responded to your question about Abraham and Isaac, but apparently not in the way you desired.
There is something about this topic that causes you to say things you retract, or to assert things you really didn't mean. "Infanticide" is a specific word, with a particular meaning. In my experience (yours may differ) it's not easily mistaken for another. It's difficult to converse when one side of the conversation changes after the fact.
Beneath our disagreement about Abraham/Isaac is a more basic disagreement. I believe that there is God, worthy of faith. You do not.
Given where our conversation has come thus far, I simply don't think it profitable to continue this discussion at this time.


I'll take this piece by piece, in an effort to then move on.


A curious way to invite further conversation, calling someone insincere. It was you who said that you were done, twice. Although here you are again.


I understand that you don't accept my responses. They have been clear. And clearly they have been unconvincing to you. I understand that. Abraham's faith in God is difficult to grasp. I do accept your responses. They have not been "clear" *to me,* which is why I have asked continuing questions (which you have said that you are not interested in answering). I understand Abraham's faith. I keep asking, how does his "faith" erase or negate the act of homicide that he begins to engage in before God stops his hand? Is your point that kiling in the name of God is acceptable, even in the case of a child by a parent? (this is the question you have said that you won't answer, but it is the crux of the matter. It is why I call the request an act of "abuse" of power/authority of God over Abraham).


There is something about this topic that causes you to say things you retract, or to assert things you really didn't mean. "Infanticide" is a specific word, with a particular meaning. In my experience (yours may differ) it's not easily mistaken for another. It's difficult to converse when one side of the conversation changes after the fact.Really? I changed it to "homicide by a parent of one's child". I could not think of a word other than "infanticide," Kaz, so I used it. Everyone knows that Isaac was not an actual "infant." So, I just learned a new word that I have never heard used before: "prolicide." [from here (www.etymonline.com/word/prolicide#etymonline_v_47449) meaning "killing of one's child or children," 1824, introduced by Dr. John Gordon Smith in the 2nd edition of his "Principles of Forensic Medicine;" from Latin proles "offspring" (see prolific) + -cide "a killing." That seems more accurate, no, for what I mean? Can we move on from this sticking point for you?


I believe that there is God, worthy of faith. You do not. Of course. This is why, I assume, that you asked me why I was calling the relationship between God and man "abusive" and why I responded and was interested in a discussion with you. I know that you are a believer and feel that God is worthy. I am curious how you see that "worthiness" in response to the suffering and killing that God enjoins in Biblical texts. I believe that you said that you take most of the Bible literally, so I gather that you actually believe that God destroyed most of life on earth in the flood, that he spread plagues upon the land, that he destroyed cities and all the inhabitants, that he assented to the torture and killing of Job's family (at least briefly) to test his faith, that he gave women pain (and death) in childbirth because of Eve's disobedience, etc. (If you take any of these as metaphors, feel free to clarify--although the message is likely the same either way). I am not, of course, listing here all of the brutality done by God or on the request of God or in God's name from the Biblical texts, but there are many (which I know that you are well aware of). I am simply asking, how do you process this brutality (killing) and suffering from your believer's point of view? Is it that your God cannot be capable of abuse, therefore it is not abuse? Or maybe that since the events are meant (in the Christian view) all to lead to the salvation through Jesus that they become justified? Or maybe you see them as fiction meant only to inspire fear and awe and respect for the power of God (God did not actually do these things, but his power is commensurate to these acts)*. I offer these options only as conversation starters, not to limit the answers like multiple choice.

*If it makes any difference, when I was a believer, this is how I saw these OT stories. I still see them this way, but that is just my point of view.

[TSherbs]

The OT has given believers fits for thousands of years. How to explain except to say that God is righteous and just so we apparently must just accept that the scriptures are infallible. We are the problem, not God.

Indeed. Except that one need not accept the "infallibility" of scripture to be Christian. That is not the teaching of all Christian sects. It was not the teaching of my church (nor literalness of the OT) in my upbringing. I did not encounter those ideas until I was around 20 and joined with a "born again" group in 1978. The Catholics I came to know understood that the RCC preached literal infallibility, but they did not believe it themselves. And none of the Jews that I met in college believed in the infallibility of the OT.

[Chuck Naill]

The OT has given believers fits for thousands of years. How to explain except to say that God is righteous and just so we apparently must just accept that the scriptures are infallible. We are the problem, not God.

Indeed. Except that one need not accept the "infallibility" of scripture to be Christian. That is not the teaching of all Christian sects. It was not the teaching of my church (nor literalness of the OT) in my upbringing. I did not encounter those ideas until I was around 20 and joined with a "born again" group in 1978. The Catholics I came to know understood that the RCC preached literal infallibility, but they did not believe it themselves. And none of the Jews that I met in college believed in the infallibility of the OT.

Take infallibility out of the way and more peaceful communication could occur. I see design in nature and like to think and intelligence is behind it all, but I cannot prove it.

Calvin taught that our existence was preordained. I’d like to think I have a choice. If there is choosing, why the book Proverbs and others wisdom literature?

I also admit there is much I don’t know, nor claim to, but I do believe in God and I am a disciple of Jesus. I’d like to think God is as portrayed in The Shack.

[TSherbs]

... I’d like to think God is as portrayed in The Shack. What is "The Shack"?

[kazoolaw]

Yes, I said I was done. Maybe a demonstration of sincerity. ;>)
I changed my mind When you recast the story as infanticide I couldn't let that go uncorrected.
I'm sure we'll talk again.

[Chuck Naill]

... I’d like to think God is as portrayed in The Shack. What is "The Shack"?

It is a book written by William Paul Young in which the protagonist endures a parent's worst nightmare then experiences God in a transformative way at an abandoned shack. I've probably reread it five times. It was written in 2007. There was a movie made, but I have not seen. Among some Evangelical leaders, it was loudly criticized.

I found it refreshing spiritually and transformative in how I think of God and it's depiction of forgiveness life giving.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-shack-where-tragedy-confronts-eternity-by-wm-paul-young/247440/item/1107306/?mkwid=%7cdc&pcrid=77378313662347&pkw=&pmt=be&slid=&product=1107306&plc=&pgrid=1238050402825500&ptaid=pla-4580977771819599&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+Everything+Else&utm_term=&utm_content=%7cdc%7cpcrid%7c77378313662347%7cpkw%7 c%7cpmt%7cbe%7cproduct%7c1107306%7cslid%7c%7cpgrid %7c1238050402825500%7cptaid%7cpla-4580977771819599%7c&msclkid=9b079649a8771a26120af52a0121ec17#idiq=1107 306&edition=4367975

[kazoolaw]

The OT has given believers fits for thousands of years. How to explain except to say that God is righteous and just so we apparently must just accept that the scriptures are infallible. We are the problem, not God.

Indeed. Except that one need not accept the "infallibility" of scripture to be Christian. That is not the teaching of all Christian sects. It was not the teaching of my church (nor literalness of the OT) in my upbringing. I did not encounter those ideas until I was around 20 and joined with a "born again" group in 1978. The Catholics I came to know understood that the RCC preached literal infallibility, but they did not believe it themselves. And none of the Jews that I met in college believed in the infallibility of the OT.

You may wish to review the RC differentiation between "inerrancy" and " infallibility."
And the doctrine of popes speaking ex cathedra.

[Chuck Naill]

Both words are commonly defined as incapable of being wrong. Some say infallible means the scriptures cannot fail in its communication.

[kazoolaw]

Both words are commonly defined as incapable of being wrong. Some say infallible means the scriptures cannot fail in its communication.

Some say the Bible isn't infallible, it's inerrant. Some people think there's a difference, that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Some people don't know what their official church doctrine is.

[Chuck Naill]

I am not a member of a denomination or official church and have been disconnected since becoming a believer in 1979 and after my experiences with denominations.

I consider the scriptures to represent the best resource for what Jesus said and did. I do take it seriously.

I have come to consider those writings attributed to Paul as such that context is essential. For example, his views on females were for his context and not necessarily for today.

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

[dneal]

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

The same is the case for constitutional law and politics in general. Having the study tools online is of little worth when one refuses to avail oneself of them.

Here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22) is one place you could start, although if you would like something more specific, THIS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is a good one.

[kazoolaw]

I am not a member of a denomination or official church and have been disconnected since becoming a believer in 1979 and after my experiences with denominations.

I consider the scriptures to represent the best resource for what Jesus said and did. I do take it seriously.

I have come to consider those writings attributed to Paul as such that context is essential. For example, his views on females were for his context and not necessarily for today.

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.


CN-
Don't necessarily disagree in general, but in certain subjects there are terms of art. Apparently inerrant and infallible are two such terms in RC theology.

[Chuck Naill]

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

The same is the case for constitutional law and politics in general. Having the study tools online is of little worth when one refuses to avail oneself of them.

Here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22) is one place you could start, although if you would like something more specific, THIS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is a good one.

The topic is not constitutional law. Please stop posting off topic comments.

[Chuck Naill]

I am not a member of a denomination or official church and have been disconnected since becoming a believer in 1979 and after my experiences with denominations.

I consider the scriptures to represent the best resource for what Jesus said and did. I do take it seriously.

I have come to consider those writings attributed to Paul as such that context is essential. For example, his views on females were for his context and not necessarily for today.

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.


CN-
Don't necessarily disagree in general, but in certain subjects there are terms of art. Apparently inerrant and infallible are two such terms in RC theology.

I’m not taking issue that differing definitions do exist except when conversations bog down over them. I think we both know Ted is not ignorant of the age of Isaac. To take issue, as you did, ended and otherwise interesting discussion.

[dneal]

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

The same is the case for constitutional law and politics in general. Having the study tools online is of little worth when one refuses to avail oneself of them.

Here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22) is one place you could start, although if you would like something more specific, THIS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is a good one.

The topic is not constitutional law. Please stop posting off topic comments.

Really? Why do you mention "politics" (and variations of) and "Supreme Court" in the OP?

[Chuck Naill]

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

The same is the case for constitutional law and politics in general. Having the study tools online is of little worth when one refuses to avail oneself of them.

Here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22) is one place you could start, although if you would like something more specific, THIS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is a good one.

The topic is not constitutional law. Please stop posting off topic comments.

Really? Why do you mention "politics" (and variations of) and "Supreme Court" in the OP?

I respect your Ukrainian thread. Show the same respect.

[dneal]

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

The same is the case for constitutional law and politics in general. Having the study tools online is of little worth when one refuses to avail oneself of them.

Here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22) is one place you could start, although if you would like something more specific, THIS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is a good one.

The topic is not constitutional law. Please stop posting off topic comments.

Really? Why do you mention "politics" (and variations of) and "Supreme Court" in the OP?

I respect your Ukrainian thread. Show the same respect.

Dear god you really do live in an alternate universe.

[Chuck Naill]

There is much ignorance of scripture. What I mean is, many rely upon someone to tell them what it means than developing the tools and skills for self study. We are advantaged in having study tools online that required finding books when I was first a student of the texts.

The same is the case for constitutional law and politics in general. Having the study tools online is of little worth when one refuses to avail oneself of them.

Here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22) is one place you could start, although if you would like something more specific, THIS (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is a good one.

The topic is not constitutional law. Please stop posting off topic comments.

Really? Why do you mention "politics" (and variations of) and "Supreme Court" in the OP?

I respect your Ukrainian thread. Show the same respect.

Dear god you really do live in an alternate universe.

Please go away! You’ve got the attention you crave.

[dneal]

I put 'god' in the reply, just to stay on topic. What's the problem?

[Chuck Naill]

I put 'god' in the reply, just to stay on topic. What's the problem?

Nothing, but I do enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. As always...LOL!! Catch you tomorrow.

[kazoolaw]

Back on the political part of the topic...

Would I be correct in thinking that,if quoted accurately, you would say the following quote to be inappropriate for a politician?
"We're going to keep praising together. I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on earth."

[Chuck Naill]

Let's establish a working definition of a king politically. The KOG is where God reigns, rules, and gets his way. The Greek word basileia is not a geographical area, but the activity of the king and involves his sovereign power. When Jesus speaks of the KOG it is related to his power over human bondage. If we experience this in our own lives, we can experience in some way the KOG.

Even serious believers can go down the wrong path. It is why the Holy Spirit is said to have been gifted and even then, we can get it wrong. Plus, simply following the HS can cause suffering and great loss. The disciple considers the cost and proceeds. The believer is no push over just as Jesus was no push over. Speaking the truth in love is be followed but is very difficult to pull off.

In The Shack, Mack asks Jesus if he was saying that all roads lead to him. I am probably misquoting, but if I am correct, he responded that most roads don't lead anywhere, but that he would use any path to reach the seeker. This goes against what many church people would consider, but in a kingdom, God is not bound to someone's interpretation or beliefs.

By clinging to a book, some think that God is forced to rule and reign only as the scriptures allow. In one Shack seen Mack asks Papa, the God the Father character, if they had to pray. Papa responded that he doesn't have to do anything, that he actions come from his character and purpose. Some think God needs us to pray and to praise when in fact, prayer and praise, is for our benefit just as the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

If I am correct, the KOG is a radical and profoundly glorious environment for which Earthy examples would never contain it. Even among the faithful, the concept of the true KOG is beyond our ability to understand.

Of course none of this might be true. I couldn't prove it to anyone, but in our private thoughts if we sense there is more, we will pursue it. Perhaps the cry of the heart is, there has to be more!

[kazoolaw]

CN-
Was this a response to #224?
If so, is it a Yes or a No?
If not, carry on.

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz-
I am responding to the concept of the Kingdom of God and to no one. Cheers!! As I said a few weeks back, I am no longer arguing. I simply express my opinions and move forward.

[kazoolaw]

Good to know: carry on.

[kazoolaw]

Back on the political part of the topic...

Would I be correct in thinking that,if quoted accurately, you would say the following quote to be inappropriate for a politician?
"We're going to keep praising together. I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on earth."


Part of an occasional effort to demonstrate bi-partisan participation.
https://tinyurl.com/3uzbrree

[TSherbs]

On Herschel Walker and evangelical support (Instagram snark involved):

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cj8251jAyI2/?igshid=YmRhOGE0MWQ=

[Chuck Naill]

On Herschel Walker and evangelical support (Instagram snark involved):

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cj8251jAyI2/?igshid=YmRhOGE0MWQ=

And I would have to ask, why would the Lord want Mr. Walker to win? Not saying that I know the mind of God, but just curious.

Is God a Republican? Is he/she an independent? Is he/she an American?

The Times ran a piece about the myths of Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims didn't come here for religious freedom. It was the lure of wealth and to establish a theocracy. As Paul Harvey used to say, "and now you know the rest of the story".

[TSherbs]

I believe that the GOP (and thus the majority of evangelical Christians) see in Walker three things of powerful importance:

1) he is not a Democrat

2) he will oppose easy abortion access and not challenge restrictive abortion legislation from the legislature

3) he will be amenable, open, and even dependent upon the counsel of smarter and wiser politicians in his party

The rest, like character quality or education or wisdom or intuitive intelligence, are way down the list.

[Chuck Naill]

I have a new bumper sticker based on the Gadsden Flag which read, "Relax, no one is treading on you". It seems we are dumbing down everything.

[Chuck Naill]

These people have taken over Christianity with a false message.
"It will not be so easy for the government to team up with smaller fringe sites like Gab, a hub for white supremacists and online conspiracy theories whose founder, Andrew Torba, argues that “unapologetic Christian Nationalism is what will save the United States of America.” The site, which gained millions of new users after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, is rife with posts promoting unproven Covid-19 remedies, including ivermectin. It also has displayed ads offering ivermectin for sale.

In an email to The New York Times, Mr. Torba said Gab was “not in a position, as a neutral platform provider, to ‘fact-check’ our users or assess the truth or falsity of any information posted to the site.” He also criticized The Times and ended his message with an instruction: “Please repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/us/politics/covid-misinformation-gab.html

[kazoolaw]

... the majority of evangelical Christians...

I'm interested to know what you mean by the term "evangelical Christians."
The adjective "evangelical" and the noun "Evangelical" have different meanings among Christians, depending on who you have a conversation with.
There doesn't seem to be a single definition in either religious or political circles, with meanings tending to breakdown between those groups.

[kazoolaw]

These people have taken over Christianity with a false message.

2000+ years. No one has taken over Christianity.

[Chuck Naill]

Did Jesus ever say to make him your personal savior, Kaz? It’s a yes or no answer.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck-
I'm not aware of Jesus using the words "personal savior." If you have a Bible reference you'd like me to look at I'm happy to do so.

Jesus did say “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also....
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:2-3,6

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck-
I'm not aware of Jesus using the words "personal savior." If you have a Bible reference you'd like me to look at I'm happy to do so.

Jesus did say “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also....
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:2-3,6


Has nothing to do with “personal savior” Kaz. What Jesus did say was to make disciples. Have you done a word study of the Greek word translation of disciple?

[kazoolaw]

These last questions are unrelated to my statement that, in 2,000 years, no one has taken over Christianity. I'll pause here and wait for a return to the Topic.

[Chuck Naill]

These last questions are unrelated to my statement that, in 2,000 years, no one has taken over Christianity. I'll pause here and wait for a return to the Topic.

I will assume you don't know the answer which, of course, is germane to the topic, for which I am the OP.

[kazoolaw]

Yes, you are free to make unfounded assumptions. It may take you on an unexpected path.

[Chuck Naill]

Honestly, I think these are matters for which you haven’t given much attention.

[kazoolaw]

You are free to think about what matters you wish, but I'd urge you to think on these things:
Philippians 4:8.
A change may take you on an unexpected path.

[Chuck Naill]

Maybe get back with me in 6 weeks, Kaz.

[kazoolaw]

Have a Merry Christmas.
Now there's something for you to consider.

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus was born in October. Christmas is related to the Feast of Lights, Kaz

[kazoolaw]

And all this time I thought that was Hanukkah.
Happy Hanukkah!

[Chuck Naill]

As any student of history would have known. More than happy to help.

[kazoolaw]

Nice try though, check your calendar for December 25.