Obama's speech was impressive. It was Inspiring. And it was also insulting. In that order.
The Poet [your host cringed and is still cringing] was a neophyte. That woman can't hold an unstruck match to Maya Angelou's candle. The poem was both uninspiring and unremarkable... literally. There is nothing positive I can say about it. I write tons of poetry and her... ! Well... I said "Nothing," and I mean it.
The prayer by Joseph Lowery,
When white embraces right..."
!?
Who said racial tension would be a thing of the past with a black man in the White House? I was and am truly and rightfully insulted by this mans "prayer"....
Obama was the highlight. They should have ended it there and gone straight to the National Anthem.
110 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Then, it had the desired effect. And I say: Amen.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
If you mean yourself, well, I must comment on your arrogance. Why, next thing we know, you'll be inserting yourself or human beings as a group into hymns, substitute fallible human beings for the original subject, the Lord God Almighty.
The capacity for such flagrant idolatry -- to substitute yourselves or a mere politician into hymns and other songs written for God, to glorify yourselves so openly and brazenly -- is a sin against the holy sovereignty of God.
You should be ashamed of yourself for your arrogant and frankly creepy behavior.
(Despite the fact that his speech, while soaring in imagery, was nonetheless filled with empty platitudes)
I was as gracious to our commander in chief as you've been to his predecessor... moreso in fact, because I stopped at saying I was insulted. But graciousness is lost on you, and I'm not surprised. Graciousness is lost on the Left, and has been for quite a while.
What was that they were singing in the crowd when Bush was introduced?
"Nah nah nah nah, Nah nah nah nah, Hey hey, Goodbye"
That's the Left for you... without grace, without class. Much like your terse and self-important comments. I'm beginning to believe the only reason you open your mouth is to hear yourself talk.
I'm just sayin'
My momma always said, "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all."
I like it so much, I think I'll post it on my blog...
Reconsider, Eric.
reconsider.
As for what your momma said, kindly pass that advice on to ER.
For myself, as a poet (and not at all famous), I have read better poetry from high school students. She may be an accomplished poet. And if so, what she read today cannot possibly be her best work. Furthermore, she may be a poet of note (to someone), but she is a terrible orator.
Blacks don't have to ride in the back. Browns are welcome to stay around-- the U.S. government isn't trying to get rid of them, least of all Democrats. Yellows are mellow? Frippery. And whites embracing what's right? What a slap in the face to every white who voted for Obama for reasons OTHER than the color of his skin.
Obama spoke of moving forward. All Lowery did was drag everyone backward.
We pray now, O Lord, for your blessing upon thy servant...
He has come to this high office at a low moment in the national and, indeed, the global fiscal climate. But because we know you got the whole world in your hand, we pray for not only our nation, but for the community of nations...
you’re able and you’re willing to work through faithful leadership to restore stability, mend our brokenness, heal our wounds and deliver us from the exploitation of the poor or the least of these and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these...
while we have sown the seeds of greed, the wind of greed and corruption, and even as we reap the whirlwind of social and economic disruption, we seek forgiveness and we come in a spirit of unity and solidarity to commit our support to our president by our willingness to make sacrifices, to respect your creation, to turn to each other and not on each other...
help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate, on the side of inclusion, not exclusion, tolerance, not intolerance...
We go now to walk together, children, pledging that we won’t get weary in the difficult days ahead. We know you will not leave us alone, with your hands of power and your heart of love...
Help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors... when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream...
? Seems to me that the main problem is it's too long. I don't generally care for long public prayers. Still, it's an exceedingly prophetic, biblical prayer. Is your only concern the last few lines, delivered with a bit of humor intended ("when white will embrace what is right.")?
I'd hope that you'd have the grace to allow a civil rights giant a little light slap on the wrist of the history of white oppression. Other than that one line, really, what in the world is wrong with that prayer? You seem intent on bringing folk down, brother.
I'm with Dan. Yeah, it was long. It was faithful, it was prophetic, it was hopeful. I liked it.
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right
Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen."
I seek to do justice and love mercy, so I say heartily, "Amen!" But my amen is not recognized by Mr. Lowery's prayer. I'm told I need to embrace "right." I think Mr. Lowery needs a refresher course on the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King who said I should be judged by the content of my heart, not the color of my skin. Barack took two bold steps forward. Mr. Lowery took one step back.
If what you posted were all Mr. Lowery had prayed I'd have nothing to object to. But Barack himself said in his speech, "it's time to set aside childish things aside..."
To that I can say amen. And it should have began with Mr. Lowery's uninspiring prayer.
For the record, I didn't find anything particularly inspiring about Warren's prayer either.
Grace, brother. Grace.
I would have said, "led the crowd in the Lord's Prayer," but I didn't see anyone recite it with him, not even the new President. I thought I saw a random girl reciting it, but I think she was chewing gum. Maybe everyone's just more used to responding to calls to say "Amen" to black-power boilerplate.
I will say this, at least Rick Warren had the audacity to mention his Lord and Savior by name. Lowery's prayer was a bit lengthy, but it's probable that he trimmed it before he spoke, and he had to keep his priorities straight: sticking it to Whitey is far more important than public praise for Jesus Christ.
I'm curious what Dan and Geoffrey thought about Warren's prayer.
Geoffrey sure didn't like the decision to pick Warren, calling the decision indefensible.
"Part of Barack Obama's pledge to set a new tone and new politics should have included sidelining people like Warren from our public life. I have no problem with Warren preaching whatever hateful crap, and insisting it isn't hateful at that. I do have a problem with said hateful crap getting an official imprimatur from the incoming President of the United States."
I find it ironic, his outrage at Warren's "hateful crap" and his praise for Lowery's "prophetic" prayer.
Since I mentioned it, I'm tired of the abuse of the word "prophetic." It seems to me that some have distorted the word to mean little more than, pleasing to the ears of a radical.
Consider Numbers 16, where God punished those Israelites who objected to the Levitical priesthood.
Moses spoke to the people:
"This is how you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works; it has not been of my own accord: If these people die a natural death, or if a natural fate comes on them, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the Lord." - Numbers 16:28-30
What Moses said, happened.
He spoke prophetically, quite literally: Moses, a prophet of the one, true God, accurately prophesied and therefore met Scripture's very strict test for who qualifies as a prophet.
Anyone want to guess whether Dan has ever praised this passage as a prophetic teaching? I don't think he ever has, but I do know that he used another adjective for this passage: Atrocious.
As in, a literal atrocity, comparable to a war crime.
In summary:
"Marriage = husband + wife" is now hate speech.
And an actual prophecy in the Bible is an atrocity.
But "White folks need to get their minds right," is hopeful and prophetic.
THIS IS PERVERSE.
"help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate, on the side of inclusion, not exclusion, tolerance, not intolerance..."
Mr. Lowery made a poor "choice" in rhetoric... one, I suspect, that is firmly rooted in his memories of the past. But THAT is where his statement belongs... in the past. No Black is ever asked to "sit in the back." Not today. And whites have no trouble embracing what is right. It would be nice if tomorrow morning, when Mr. Lowery wakes up, he realizes he's living in 2009... and apologize for his insensitive remark.
In asking God to bless hizzoner, the blessed and Right Reverend Dr. Lowery, should we ask God that Lowery not be asked to get back, or should we pray that Lowery can stick around?
Should we just pray for both, to cover our bases?
Or, since Lowery didn't have the apparent fortitude to praise his Lord and Savior by name, should we pray that God will keep him mellow?
Oh, and one more thing.
I'm thinking of rewriting "All Things Bright and Beautiful."
Should I attribute creation to Obama, to the People in general, or to myself in particular?
I'm tired of the abuse of the word "prophetic."
"Prophetic," as in quoting the words of the prophets. Surely you recognize the words of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Jesus (at least those) in Brother Lowery's words? The prayer was RICH in biblical prophetic imagery. No abuse there.
The only abuse here is by some sad losers who are picking on an elderly pastor's prayer. Shame on you.
Bubba also wondered:
I'm curious what Dan and Geoffrey thought about Warren's prayer.
Haven't read or heard it. In looking at it now, it's a fine prayer.
When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.
Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of goodwill today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet.
Great stuff. Amen.
For instance, I believe Isaiah was writing prophetically when he wrote about the Suffering Servant, but I never thought that anyone else, myself included, is speaking prophetically when quoting Isaiah.
By this odd logic, Satan himself spoke prophetically when he tempted Christ, because he quoted the Prophets, but Moses never spoke prophetically because, being the first of God's prophets, he never had the opportunity to quote any other prophet.
That's bizarre.
Is that really what you mean? That doesn't seem intuitive, and it seems (to me) to cheapen an adjective that could be reserved for actually prophecy itself rather than repetition of prophecy given to someone else.
If that's what the adjective means in the circles you frequent, I apologize: the use of the word has always rankled me because, it now appears, I misunderstood the intended meaning.
Is that the position to which you retreat at last?
Who was it that said, 'Can two walk together, except they be agreed?' That's right, a GENUINE prophet of God, Amos-- whom you just invoked.
How can we walk together, Dan, if we can't even have a civil discussion about what makes one brother offended? You retreat to calling me a sad loser because I'm offended by the REVEREND Lowery? Is that really the position you wish to take?
I'm not perfect by any stretch of meaning, unless (but that's off-topic)... neither is Mr. Lowery. Or Dan Trabue for that matter. Yet if you're offended you demand redress and apologies, but if I'm offended, I'm called a "sad loser" by you. And ER! from his own lips (fingers), my offense was Lowery's intent?
What was it Jesus said? "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."
Did Lowery consider this BEFORE he insulted whites? Does Mr. Lowery realize he is going to spend eternity with millions of whites? Shouldn't he seek to be reconciled with those he's insulted BEFORE he has to spend eternity with them?
I'm not demanding redress or apology here from anyone, least of Lowery. All I want is acknowledgment that Lowery's words were poorly chosen, and factually wrong. I'm asking "brothers" for a little honesty.
My final analysis, assuming nothing changes here in this thread?
We do not agree, because we do not walk together. What hope is there for fellowship with you OR ER if neither of you can honestly see and address grievances I have? Our relationship is grossly one-sided: You demand we attend your hurts, but refuse to look at our own.
I see and recognize the words you write, but we do not speak the same language. The judgment of Babel STILL afflicts us. The saddest part of all this is we claim to be brothers, yet we tear at each other like starving dogs with every post and comment. What a sad sad testament to the faith we CLAIM is ours.
That's because you're thinking of "prophecy" as if it were some sort of voodoo spooky "seeing the future" sideshow gag instead of speaking prophetically the Truth of God. That's how prophecy appears in the Bible, not mere parlor tricks.
The saddest part of all this is we claim to be brothers, yet we tear at each other like starving dogs with every post and comment.
Perhaps you're right. I intend to attack your attacks, not you as a person. It's just unfair attacks on an elderly man of God's PRAYERS stirs some anger in me. For attacking you rather than your mistake, I apologize.
Thanks, Dan. We continue to walk some distance apart.
Are you that easily offended?
You recognize the offense in my harsh words towards you, why do you not recognize the offense in your words towards this man of God?
If you truly had a problem with that ONE line in an otherwise beautiful, powerful, prophetic prayer, then you could have said, "Wow, what a powerful prayer! But why did he feel it necessary to specifically condemn white folk? It's a shame he put that one line that could be taken as an insult in an otherwise wonderful prayer..." or words to that effect.
You seem to want to live in some PC world in which folk have to be careful about each little line in a prayer. Ironic.
That's because you're thinking of "prophecy" as if it were some sort of voodoo spooky "seeing the future" sideshow gag instead of speaking prophetically the Truth of God. That's how prophecy appears in the Bible, not mere parlor tricks.
That's not how I think of prophecy, and you should not presume to know what I think.
The Bile is quite clear that one sure-fire test for whether a prophet is a true messenger sent by God or a false prophet, is whether what the prophet says comes to pass: a single mistaken prophecy is a capital offense (Deut. 18:20-22).
Not everything that God revealed through His prophets concerned future events, certainly, but future events weren't excluded, either, and accepting that God's prophets spoke predictively doesn't entail ideas about voodoo or parlor tricks.
What I meant by that comment was, I have always thought that the adjective "prophetic" is (or should be) reserved for the original prophecy given by the actual prophet.
If merely quoting what the prophet spoke (or invoking the same imagery) is "prophetic" then even Satan himself spoke prophetically when he tempted Christ.
But if that's what you mean by the word, you should at least be aware that your definition is at least not a consensus definition and might even be a minority definition, one that invites misunderstanding.
At dictionary.com, the first two definitions of prophetic are:
1. of or pertaining to a prophet: prophetic inspiration.
2. of the nature of or containing prophecy: prophetic writings.
At merriam.com:
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a prophet or prophecy
Lowery was speaking prophetically in the sense that he was quoting the prophets, in the sense that he was speaking the truth of God like a prophet and that he was speaking of the nature of God's word like a prophet. Prophetic in that sense.
NOT in the sense of predicting future happenings, as is the more modern use of the word, at least in some more superstitious circles. My take on the word is not the minority one in the circles in which I travel, and it does not appear to be one in the dictionary.
Are we done playing word games now? I am.
Are you all prepared to apologize for over-reacting and getting your panties all twisted over not much? I mean, if you're intent on poring over each word spoken by Obama or some of his pals looking for some scrap of something in which to find offense, knock yerselves out. I'd suggest you could find a happier path in receiving and giving a bit of graciousness, as Eric was bemoaning earlier.
Liar. You make your bones one word games. Even here, you take the thinnest possible connection of YOUR definition to a real one in order to make more holy the inane words of this unfortunate old man.
And pouring over words? Give me a break. They leap out and slap like the words of any other liberal buffoon.
"...deliver us from the exploitation of the poor or the least of these and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these..."
The usual lefty demonization of the successful, and the usual lefty victimization of those who have yet to succeed.
"while we have sown the seeds of greed, the wind of greed and corruption"
You think he refers to all Americans? His final words, those that Eric rightly calls insulting, suggest otherwise.
"help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate, on the side of inclusion, not exclusion, tolerance, not intolerance..."
What's this? More racial crap, or perhaps he's putting down those of us strengthened by our God to call sin sinfulness and not loosen His standards under some lame claim for tolerance? I hope he's asking forgiveness for the exclusion and intolerance of lefty ideology.
"Help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors..."
He's obviously seeking the Second Coming because the rest of it isn't possible before He comes to judge the quick and the dead.
"when justice will roll down like waters"
It certainly rolled down on Sadam and his boys, didn't it?
Get serious Dan and ER. You're not listening to this guy. You're both just wallowing in the platitudes and celebration of your leader like good sheep should.
"That's the Left for you... without grace, without class."
You could not be more correct. Recall the wacky antics of the Clinton people before GW Bush took over, and compare that to the bending over backwards of Bush to accomodate and make smooth the transition of power now. On both ends of his administration Bush takes crap and remains above it. If Obama had half the class, he'd be lambasting his followers that engage in such typical behavior.
Lowery was speaking prophetically in the sense that he was quoting the prophets, in the sense that he was speaking the truth of God like a prophet and that he was speaking of the nature of God's word like a prophet. Prophetic in that sense.
Neither definition you gave -- and no definition I've ever seen -- justifies using the word to mean merely quoting an actual prophet. I'll reiterate that, if it did, then Satan was speaking prophetically when he tempted Christ, and that strikes a discordant note on the mind's ear.
And as for "the sense that he was speaking the truth of God like a prophet and that he was speaking of the nature of God's word like a prophet," I don't remember Lowery saying a single solitary thing about God's word, but -- either way -- a prophet isn't one who merely speaks things that are true about God. A prophet is given revealed truth about God, by God personally.
The way you use the word reveals what you really mean by it. So far as I can tell, you reserve the adjective for preachers whose politics accord with yours. You use it to praise preachers who invoke (and arguably distort) Scripture to promote collectivist economic policies, but never to describe the sermons and prayers of those who invoke Scripture to protect the lives of the unborn (truly the least of our brothers) or the traditional institution of marriage.
Heck, you don't even use the word to describe the teachings of the actual, Biblical prophets. When Moses warned of immediate judgment in Numbers 16 to those who rebelled against the Levitical priesthood, you didn't describe his warning as prophetic and as something which deserves our attention because it came from God. Instead, you dismissed it as a literal atrocity.
You seem to use the word, not as a objective description of someone's teaching or prayers, but as subjective description of your approval of what was said.
You seem to reserve the word for only those times when Christian faith is invoked to advance a Progressive agenda.
And that seems to suggest very disconcerting things about what your real faith is.
From Lowery's lips to God's ears. I'm not holding my breath.
So when J. Wright announced that God anointed BHO to the presidency (sorry I don't have the exact quote, but...) was he speaking prophetically?
"If those who were enslaved were alive, they would deserve huge reparations and their captors would deserve worse punishments than our laws allow. But death has put both [slave and slaveowner] beyond our reach. Frustrating as that may be, creating new injustices among the living will not change that."
But people like Feodor won't accept that, because it's far too convenient to treat this country's "original sin" of racism as pervasive and permanent, so as to expedite the destruction of its institutions and the elimination of the individual's property rights and political rights.
How many years are we supposed to keep dragging up the sins of the past?
God says:
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
Sounds about right.
Are you sure this passage applies only to adult children of those who sinned, or have you suddenly decided that divine intervention that results in the death of infants and toddlers really is permissible?
And do you not realize that passages like this were invoked to justify literally centuries of persecuting Jews as Christ-killers?
Since I accept all of Scripture as inspired and authoritative, I don't have a problem with your citing this passage, but you seem to miss a very salient point.
God is the one who will punish people for the sins of their ancestors.
You're not God, and your radical friends aren't either. None of you -- and none of us -- are the agents of this particular type of wrath.
If God wants to continue to punish this country because of slavery, He is free to do so; if He doesn't want to, He won't. Arrogant agitators like you should let Him be sovereign and not try to do His job by instituting your own unjust forms of retribution.
And when you read passages like that, you should not only consider the immorality of slavery. You should consider the brutal holocaust of state-sanctioned abortion.
And you should tremble for the wrath that you invite for the policies that you support.
No. The state does not "sanction" abortion. The state permits the practice of abortion by individuals who choose to have one. If you do not so choose, you are not punished in any way. See, that's the thing - speaking for myself, I am not "pro-abortion", in either a philosophical or any other sense. I am pro-choice, which simply means I support the right of individuals to live their own lives, make their own medical and moral choices, even if these choices are not ones I would make. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.
As for the relevance, again, I don't get it.
Wrong? Says who?
Whether or not Bubba is wrong-- or me for that matter --is subjective. Feodor does not own Lowery's intent. Feodor THINKS Bubba and I have it wrong. Just because Feodor thinks it-- or Dan, or ER, or whoever else for that matter --doesn't make it so.
Lowery was praying for the future... not the past. "White" elected Barack Obama, yet Lowery chose to forget that little fact.
Perhaps the objection is based on a misunderstanding on my part, or yours.
Regardless, I think you have a tremendous amount of nerve writing this:
I am pro-choice, which simply means I support the right of individuals to live their own lives, make their own medical and moral choices, even if these choices are not ones I would make. Why that is so hard to understand is beyond me.
Even ignoring the controlling, totalitarian bent of Progressivism, particularly regarding property rights, I think it's quite clear that you don't support the right of individuals to live their own lives, at least not in all cases.
You certainly don't support the right of an unborn child to live his or her own life.
It's bad enough that you think certain forms of murder should be legal, to the tune of tens of millions of innocent children, truly the least of our brothers. You have no business pretending that your support of this holocaust makes you a champion of human rights.
State-sanctioned does not necessarily mean "permitted"; it can also mean "encouraged". The US government, and the fifty state government do not encourage abortion; they do attempt to restrict it in certain cases (third trimester abortions, for example, are illegal in many states, as permitted by Roe v Wade).
If you truly believe, as seems clear, that abortion is murder, why do something about it. Lobby your state reps and Congress-folk and Senators to pass a law, or constitutional amendment, declaring it so. The Republicans have had years of power to do so, and have failed. Completely, utterly, totally failed.
Another commenter who hangs out here and other places equated support for choice to Stalinism and Maosim. If that is truly how you believe, why do something about it. Bomb abortion clinics. Kill abortion providers. C'mon, man up, live up to your principles. If the "holocaust" of dead fetuses is too much for you to take, do something about it.
Or shut up.
Makes me ashamed that he and I share the same country. Just ugh.
Criticize the comment for what it is, not for what you clearly, desperately wish that is was.
Now, when I say that abortion is state-sanctioned, I mean that the government permits it.
Geoffrey, I will readily admit that I do not do enough to protect the rights of the unborn. I will also say, for the record, that there are some actions that are out-of-bounds. Some are simply immoral, such as acts of terrorism; and some are out-of-bounds politically -- namely, passing any laws that prohibit abortion. Roe and its companion case, Doe, ruled out the latter, and even a constitutional amendment is a problematic solution because it doesn't address the central problem of the judicial activism that led to Roe.
Again, I don't do enough, but thankfully, the righteousness of a cause is not determined by the faithfulness of one of its foot soldiers. Though I recognize that faithfulness to a noble cause is the ideal, I'd much rather be a lazy advocate for what is good than an eager supporter of what is evil.
I deny the notion that rights are given to us by the government.
Instead, I affirm that all men are created equal, that we are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. Among those rights is the right to life, without which no other right can be exercised.
I have the right, for instance, to life and to property. To put it another way, my neighbors have a moral obligation not to infringe upon my life and property. The one entails the other, and my neighbors' moral obligation cannot be separated from my rights -- and vice versa, of course.
Those two things -- my right to life and property, and the neighbors' obligation to recognize that right -- were not given by any earthly government.
They were given by God.
Hence, God's law includes the prohibition of murder and theft.
I actually don't think you really believe that rights come from the government; if you did, you would have no objection to those frequent occurrences when the government declines to recognize those rights -- as when the United States government permitted chattel slavery. I doubt that you really believe that black slaves had no right to be free just because the state governments in the South refused to recognize that right.
But, either way, it is true to say this: I believe that the government should recognize the unborn child's right to live.
I would prefer that you explain why it shouldn't rather than act as if the fact that it doesn't, settles the question.
And your extended riff on this subject is juvenile.
It should go without saying that those who believe abortion is immoral do not idolize the unborn, and it's not true that there is a true consensus on this issue, anymore than Plessy settled the issue of segregation.
But most of this is beside the point. Many political conservatives -- and most politically conservative Christians, myself included -- believe that abortion is immoral because it is murder, the unjust taking of an innocent human life.
If you have ever made a rational argument for why abortion is morally permissible, I'd like appreciate your linking to that.
It would be a lot more useful than what you've written so far in this discussion.
This is what I'm sick of, Bubba, and I'll be perfectly blunt. I'm sick of moral cowards hiding behind nonsensical talk of "rights" for "unborn children" who are "murdered" in the "millions" who refuse to do anything to stop what has repeatedly been called a Holocaust.
Either put up, or shut up, dude. The choice is pretty clear.
"It should go without saying that those who believe abortion is immoral do not idolize the unborn, and it's not true that there is a true consensus on this issue, anymore than Plessy settled the issue of segregation."
The criticism that those who oppose abortion aren't doing enough to live out their stated convictions, that has merit, regardless of who's making that criticism and why he's making it. The assertion that we're idolizing the unborn does not, nor does the assertion that a consensus has been reached just because the Supreme Court invoked ridiculous arguments to impose their will.
I have no idea why you used scare-quotes, not only to dismiss the idea that unborn children have rights, and to dismiss the idea that we're discussing unborn children, but even to question the numbers. Why did you use scare-quotes around "millions"? Is that number not accurate? Have there only been a few thousand abortions since Roe? Or did you just get carried away?
And, more importantly, why -- exactly -- are our arguments for the immorality of abortion nonsense?
Just what is your argument for the moral neutrality of the deliberate killing of an innocent human life?
Do you deny that the fetus is alive, despite the distinct heartbeat and brainwaves that it develops? Do you deny that the fetus human, and could you tell me, to what species does it belong? Or do you deny the fetus' innocence, and can you explain what crime he committed?
Or do you accept that a fetus is alive, is human, and is innocent, but do you argue that that's not enough to meet the minimum standard for who should be protected as a matter of what's moral, regardless of what happens to be legal at any one time? What is it that the fetus lacks that, say, a one-hour old premature infant has?
It is entirely possible that the politically conservatives' often tepid opposition to abortion is just a poor reflection of our individual characters: it's not proof that our arguments are bad, anymore than the existence of immature Christians is an indictment of the central tenets of the faith.
If you have an actual argument for the moral neutrality of abortion, I ask you once again to present it: link to it, if you've written about it before.
For someone who insists that others put up or shut up, you don't seem willing to make actual arguments for your own position.
A charge I've made repeatedly in not so many words. Geoffrey might be gearing up for the "I won't do your research for you" response. Geoffrey oftens uses legality to settle issues of morality as well. He's done so most recently over Gitmo. Yet, on SCOTUS vote the other way would have negated that argument. Roe v Wade is equally as tenuous.
The sorry fact is that Geoffrey has no argument. He has no facts that support his position. He has no science. He'll scoff at the mere suggestion that a rube like myself might dare suggest to him such a thing, but he's yet to show anything that resembles scientific evidence in support of his position.
Getting back to Lowry, despite the defense by those too willing to ignore the obvious, this guy speaks of a time that no longer exists in this country. The previous administration showed as much with Bush's numerous appointments of minorities throughout his administration. Lowry's obvious digs at those across the ideological aisle are clearly from a man who's time has past.
I've recently read a few snippets from the heretic Vicky G. Robinson, who also echoes the same stupid charges against those with whom he disagrees ideologically. Self-serving crap is what both these "prayers" are.
Assuming the struggle for racial equality -- or a close real-world approximation -- isn't over, there are countless ways to pray for racial unity without taking a dig at one particular race.
When given the option between being civil and trying to be cute, I think Lowery made a very regrettable choice.
He wan't even humorous. There isn't any real humor in what he said, and it seems to me that the leftists who insist otherwise are really just applying the adjective because they agreed with the sentiment: they like it, therefore they claim it's humorous. And prophetic.
But all that assumes that the struggle for equality isn't substantially over: who, again, was taking the presidential oath?
Suppose that for one of Reagan's inaugurations, a prayer was given by a preacher who was also a veteran of World War II -- forty years after the end of the struggle in which he became famous, just as it is now forty years since (I believe) the struggle for racial equality has essentially ended.
(Well, except for affirmative action, which leftists like Lowery generally don't oppose.)
Suppose the World War II veteran prayed for unity in the face of common enemies...
...like those wops, Huns, and Japs.
You could (arguably) excuse such insensitive and archaic language that strikes such a discordant note against calls for unity, by noting the guy's age and background.
You could excuse it, but no one should defend it, much less attack those who take offense by accusing them of being humorless.
I understand well what has passed and where we are now. The idea of institutionalized racism is a whine of losers and white people who feel guilty for that over which they played no part. I don't know your color (and it matters not a whit) but there is no good arugment to defend such a position in today's world. Is there racism? Hell yeah. Does that mean the tone of Lowry's "prayer" is an accurate reflection of the state of it today? Not in the least. It's tripe and nonsense and holds appeal to only the worst elements of society. To denegrate it is appropriate as it was a "prayer" wholly unappropriate for the occasion.
And I ask: What "tone"? I thought it was a wonderful, Godly, biblical and yes, prophetic prayer. I am a white guy. I felt not a whit of guilt or accusation directed towards me. Just because you find there to be a "tone" to the prayer - to ONE SINGLE LINE in a prayer - you all go on the attack against an elderly gentleman of God. Where is the grace of God in that? Where is the love of God in that?
You imagine a "tone" or an "insult" and you all go on the attack like you've smelled blood. Is it possible that that ONE LINE could be taken a bad way? Sure, apparently it is possible. People find all kinds of things that hurt their little feelings. But does that justify public attacks on a man's prayers?
What would Jesus do? Attack an old man for one line in a prayer? Or extend a little grace, a little compassion and not get his knickers in a knot over one line that could be taken negatively by some?
Really.
What would Jesus do? Chase the money-changers out of the temple... Chase everything that corrupts the temple of God, out.
Prejudice corrupts the temple of God-- be it white, black, brown, red, or yellow.
Your lack of personal offense does not nullify the validity of ours.
Feodor, the mind reader, meet Moses.
Just because you find there to be a "tone" to the prayer - to ONE SINGLE LINE in a prayer - you all go on the attack against an elderly gentleman of God. Where is the grace of God in that? Where is the love of God in that?
Where is your grace in attacking us with no effort to understand our position? You're quite transparently invoking God's grace hypocritically, demanding that we extend to Lowery, what you refuse to extend to us.
And you have a nasty habit of doing this. When Jeremiah Wright's hateful conspiracy-mongering came to light, you defended him as a "man of God," too -- as if you would never, every say a harsh thing about a politically conservative preacher, out of deference to his clerical status -- and then viciously invoked the imagery of lynching to attack us, his critics.
God's grace and compassion, and the more lowly standard of civility, are not collectively a mere cudgel to be used to advance your leftist agenda -- and a tool to be ignored when it's convenient, as when a preacher takes the opportunity of an inauguration to attack whitey.
That's because Reverend Wright and Brother Lowery have shown themselves to be men of God by their actions and words.
I don't know y'all that well. All I've seen from y'all is a lack of compassion and grace, snitty remarks and an eagerness to attack those with whom you disagree politically - warranted or not. I'm not attacking Marshall, Bubba or Eric. I'm attacking the practice of gracious-lessly attacking others unprovoked.
Where is the love? I'm sorry to say that you have not demonstrated it by your words and I can't see your actions.
What would Jesus do?
Do you seriously think that Jesus would attack an elderly man because his prayer contained ONE LINE that some might construe negatively?
I thought you all were of the party that was opposed to political correctness - opposed to getting all offended because someone uses a word or two that you don't like. But now you are all in a public snit because of one line in an otherwise beautiful, wonderful, Godly prayer - a prayer not unlike you'd find offered by the prophets in the Bible.
To attack such graceless pettiness is not a lack of grace, it is defending the family of God.
What's the difference between Feodor and a box of rocks? None of your psuedo-intellectualism contradicts the comments that provoked it. Try your silly diversions elsewhere or stay on point. I stand by those provocative statements to which your lack of cleverness is incapable of responding.
Or perhaps I used words you found a bit too difficult to understand?
"One line", Dan? Re-read my comment of January 21, 2009 2:27 AM.
Yeah, I was being generous and overlooking your ridiculous comments in which you criticized remarks that were either directly lifted from the Bible or that echoed biblical thoughts. For Eric and Bubba, I believe it was just the one line that troubled them.
But seriously, you have a problem with:
"...deliver us from the exploitation of the poor or the least of these and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these..."
??? WHO could possibly be opposed to praying for deliverance from exploitation of the poor?? That is exactly what the Bible teaches us, that IS prophetic language. You HAVE read the prophets, haven't you? You HAVE read Jesus' words, haven't you? James?
Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? But you dishonored the poor person. Are not the rich oppressing you?... Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries...
Will you criticize the apostle James? Brother Marshall, it is hard to take you seriously when you criticize such language as offered by Brother Lowery or James. That was why I ignored that ridiculous criticism and why my only comment when you did so initially was "wow." There is really very little to say to such commentary - if you think Lowery's comments were wrong, then you're criticizing much of the Bible, as well.
Seriously, you aren't ACTUALLY opposed to prayers opposing exploitation, right? You're just joshing?
For myself, and returning to the topic as described by this post's title, I am impressed at you dogged determination to shore up constructs built on shifting sand. I am uninspired by your inability to commiserate with those with whom you disagree, especially in light of the fact that you claim a measure of intelligence and "light"ness that should make it the easiest thing in the world for you to do. And I am insulted by your consistent attitude toward those with whom you claim a spiritual kinship. In mitigation, I personally know you're capable of much more, much better.
But... just because YOU have not been offended by Mr. Lowery, doesn't mean no one else has a right or reason to be offended. I thought you were bright enough to recognize and understand this.
It is exactly this kind of pointless, one-sided debate that continues to reinforce the general belief-- in me, at least --that the Left's cupboard is empty of a good number of things, not the least of which is moral fiber, let alone courage.
I am beginning to believe you would defend Hitler if he had claimed to be a Christian. You routinely make excuse for the worst behavior of "believers" you agree with, while castigating those who take issue with said behavior.
I shake my head in wonder.
That's because Reverend Wright and Brother Lowery have shown themselves to be men of God by their actions and words.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
You invoke this particular commandment to attack those who disagree with you, but because you apparently seem to think God's law is a tool to advance the left's agenda, you don't even try to be consistent about its application.
Jeremiah Wright accused the United States government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide, a slander so vile that it is no overreaction to compare it to the blood libel against the Jews.
He not only lied, he viciously slandered. As if that isn't bad enough, he did so from the pulpit, and his congregation's ecstatic reaction proves pretty conclusively that this hateful conspiracy mongering wasn't seen by his church as a shocking and disgusting digression: it's red meat that they were waiting for and that they regularly receive.
Jeremiah Wright lies and does so frequently.
You're guilty of the same sin of dishonesty when you defend his words and deeds as godly.
When you continue to defend Jeremiah Wright's hateful slander, you lose all credibility in criticizing our supposedly unwarranted, ungracious, and unloving words, because his are far, FAR worse.
About Lowery's prayer, a few more points should be made.
Conservatives do oppose political correctness, but we also believe in propriety: if a man has some pretty offensive character traits, they should be not be aired out during his wedding or his funeral. Lowery's certainly free to stick it to Whitey, but a presidential inauguration is no place for him to do it.
I believe that Lowery's collectivist politics runs all through his supposed prayer, but because the rest of his prayer remained civil, I don't object to it nearly as much.
But let's not be coy about his supposedly prophetic prayer. None of us here object "to praying for deliverance from exploitation of the poor," but you know and I know precisely how people like you and Lowery think the problem of exploitation should be solved: punitive taxation and burdensome regulation that is ultimately collectivist in nature, discredited as both immoral and impractical.
Isn't it funny that supposedly prophetic prayer involves criticism for greed, but never for envy; and isn't it funny that greed has now come to be defined, not as wanting to acquire more and more, but simply wanting to keep what one has already justly earned. The Ten Commandments prohibited theft and covetousness, but the "men of God" that you like so very much never take those passages to preach against envy. Instead, with their worldview framed by Marx whether they know it or not, they exacerbate the problem of envy by stoking the fires of class warfare.
The command, "thou shalt not covet," leads me to a much larger point.
You are no position to question anyone else about whether they don't like the Bible.
As much as you claim to love the Sermon on the Mount, you don't apparently accept Christ's teaching in that Sermon as it relates to Scripture. He upholds Scripture to the smallest penstroke, but you have attacked passages you don't like by saying that they attribute atrocities to God, and you have done this repeatedly.
Your problem with Scripture extends not only to passages where God commanded total war, but even, it seems, to Passover, the central event of Judaism and a demonstrate of what Christ would do, as in the upper room Jesus Christ Himself connected His death with Passover.
You don't seem to acknowledge that, in Matthew 19, Jesus affirmed the teaching in Genesis 2 that God made us male and female so that, therefore, a man (male) will become one flesh with his wife (female). Instead, you ignore this explicit affirmation of marriage's heterosexual character and the large number of implicit affirmations -- those that presume the institution to involve husband and wife, and not just a generic spouse and spouse -- to argue that the traditional definition of marriage is mere tradition when it's clearly rooted in Scripture.
You have even asserted that the doctrine of atonement only "meant something" to the first-century Jews: it's the Bible's most prominent theological doctrine about the most important historical event, and you apparently believe that it can and should be ignored.
You have no business pretending to defend James' epistle as authoritative, when it's quite clear that -- at best -- you consider Scripture authoritative only when it doesn't interfere with your political philosophy.
Eric said:
just because YOU have not been offended by Mr. Lowery, doesn't mean no one else has a right or reason to be offended.
And I repeat yet again:
What would Jesus do?
Would Jesus take offense at that one line and because of that one line in a prayer go on a tirade against an elderly man of God because you didn't like the way that line sounded and you chose to take offense? Do you REALLY think so?
If not, I encourage you to apologize for blowing something out of proportion and attacking an elderly man's prayer over such a non-issue.
Now, I don't claim to be omniscient, but I do believe that people can and should be judged by what they say, that a tree should be judged by its fruits.
Let me remind you of what you have written before, not in some comment of yours or some other blog, in the middle of some heated exchange, but in the essays you have posted as blog entries.
First, from April of this past year.
[T]here are a disturbing number of acts recorded where the Bible gives the indication that it is GOD ordering the actions. Actions that we all agree today are atrocious. War crimes. Terrorism. Rape...
Let me be clear about what I think: IF you think God orders (or has ordered in the past) these sorts of actions, then you believe in an atrocious god. One that commits or commands atrocities. That the actions happen by a god’s word does not make it less an atrocity.
And again, from this past December.
Not every verse that smacks of being NOT of God has some explanation as to its meaning and application. When we read that "God says" to kill disrespectful children or that when we invade a country, we are to kill everyone - including the children and babes, BUT to save the virgin girls so we can make them our wives - when we read passages like that, we don't need a Bible verse to straighten that out for us. CLEARLY, our God-given sense of logic and morality shouts out that such behavior is atrocious and wrong.
To summarize:
1) You've written that there are "a disturbing number of acts" that you describe as atrocities, but that the Bible attributes to God's command and God's will.
(I mention God's will because you don't limit yourself to passages where God commands so-called atrocities. You list Numbers 16 as problematic and, in this comment, you seem to take issue even with Passover, the central event of Judaism and an event that Christ Himself invoked to explain His death.)
2) You denigrate those who believe these passages are authoritative. You write that we "believe in an atrocious god. One that commits or commands atrocities."
3) Though you refer to those who affirm Scripture's inerrant authority as "literalists" you have never offered a figurative interpretation that affirms the passage's authority. Though you (sometimes) say that these passages "seem to" teach that God commanded or committed acts that you don't like, you've never offered an alternative interpretation.
4) Instead, you have written that not every verse even needs "some explanation as to its meaning and application." You have written that "we don't need a Bible verse to straighten [out some difficult passage] for us."
So far as I know, you have never retracted these comments, and NOTHING you have written suggests that you do not believe what you wrote in those two blog entries I cited above.
And none of this touches on your inability to take serious what Christ taught about why we were created male and female, and the Bible's wholly consistent message that marriage = "husband + wife" and not merely "spouse + spouse." Nor does this touch on your comment from a while back that the Atonement -- what is by far the most prominent Scriptural explanation for the most important event in history -- is a doctrine that only "meant something" to first-century Jews.
Despite all this, you want to insist that you love the Bible?
And you want to insist that I have no good reason to find that claim absurd, simply because I can't read your mind?
To the degree that you dismiss my skepticism as ridiculous?
Look again at what you've written. What you have written in detail about your beliefs about the Bible cannot be reasonably reconciled with a stated love for the entire text.
What you have written about the passages you denigrate as atrocities that do not need to be reconciled with the rest of the Bible, doesn't imply love.
It doesn't even imply mere apathy.
It implies sheer contempt.
If you really do love the ENTIRE Bible, every chapter and verse, then you need to examine why what you write about passages you don't understand, comes off as contempt.
Obama's Inaugural Speech Failed to Inspire Me
And from someone who's actually served this country.
Bubba, your fallacious/erroneous comments about me are off topic. If you honestly want to address those questions, you can write me. Suffice to say, you don't know jack.
If I mischaracterized your positions on the Bible, correct me, and do so with some real specificity.
I don't think I have wrongly described what you believe, and I am not going to put off my criticism of your rank hypocrisy for some private conversation, and let you pretend to be something that you're not.
And your obvious contempt for parts of the Bible isn't the only hypocrisy you've displayed here.
You've repeatedly demanded graciousness and compassion for Lowery, but you have refused the offer the same to us.
You insist that Eric's criticism be weighed against the standard of "what would Jesus do," but you seem wholly unconcerned about the probability that Jesus would not mischaracterize the acts of other people: you accuse Eric of a "tirade" when his words do not merit that description. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Jesus Christ would almost certainly NOT make sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, based on the color of their skin, much less do so while ostensibly in prayer.
Jesus Christ wouldn't slander people, but Jeremiah Wright did. That doesn't bother you, you ridiculously defend him as a "man of God," and you engaged in your own smears when you invoked the language of lynching against those who criticized him.
Jesus Christ also wouldn't make sweeping generalizations based on skin color, but Lowery did, and that doesn't bother you at all. You thrill at the prayer's supposedly humorous, prophetic words. It's only when Lowery is criticized that, all of a sudden, WWJD becomes important.
Maybe it's because you know you're dealing with people who actually try to conform to what Christ did and taught -- you know, including what He taught about Scripture and about marriage -- that you think harping on WWJD is an effective tactic.
Tell you what: I'll create a post at my blog (again) where I talk about reading the Bible and rightly divining God's Word. Anyone can feel free to make commentary on that topic there. I'll pass on doing so here, since it is clearly not the topic of Eric's post.
Again, suffice to say that you don't know or understand my position and, instead of dealing with it with me, as THE BIBLE instructs, you choose to misrepresent my position and thereby attempt to slander me (and others like me). You have demonstrated a repeated pattern of either ignorantly or deliberately misunderstanding my position. IF you are truly concerned about speaking Truth as it regards my positions, feel free to attempt to deal with it at my blog. I'll ask this, though: Let's strive to make honest attempts to understand one another.
I'll offer my position. You can say, "What I hear you saying is... and I have a problem with that because..." and if you are mistaken about what I'm saying, I'll clarify for you and on we can go til we at least get to the point where you're accurately representing my position. We may still disagree, but at least we'll be disagreeing based on my ACTUAL positions rather than a series of strawman misrepresentations.
Or you can not and just continue to do more of the same, your call.
Your repeated attempts to say that someone is slandering your here are getting old. Please understand, you cannot be slandered on a blog. Never. It is not possible. Do you even know what slander is?
Grow up, get over it, and apply the same standards at your blog you expect Eric to apply here. This tactic gets old quickly.
When you position yourself as a stalwart defender of Scripture, I believe I'm well within the bounds of what's proper to remind you and everyone else of your record on Scripture.
If you want to take this to your blog, please do.
I have not commented at your blog since you deleted comments I posted, which you described as "attack commentary", all while you quite hypocritically left intact your own attack about the condition of my soul. But if you promise not to delete comments in this one thread, I'll be happy to comment there, so we can work to make absolutely clear I understand your position.
Please understand, you cannot be slandered on a blog. Never. It is not possible. Do you even know what slander is?
I would suppose that you are talking about the legal definition, which is specifically NOT in writing. However, slander, as used in the Bible and in the other dictionary definitions is:
1. defamation; calumny:
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
So, yes, I am quite aware of what slander is and I'm further aware that it happens frequently from some of y'all's mouths.
Are YOU aware of what slander is and that it CAN happen here?
For the record, I don't point out the falsehoods and slander that happens so often on the Right because I'm personally offended that some would slander me or my comrades. I don't really care too much what total strangers think.
I point it out because it happens SO often (on all sides, but I see it an awful lot on the Right - specifically amongst the religious right) and it is specifically condemned in the Bible as a characteristic of those who are NOT following Christ and because the hypocrisy of condemning an act (such as gay marriage) which is not even addressed in the Bible and the practice of using slander - which IS specifically and clearly condemned in the Bible - rises to such a level as to stink to high heavens and I'm concerned about the state of the Church, the community of Christ.
I'd like to think we could disagree without resorting to slander or falsehoods. For that reason, I point it out in hopes of trying to shorten the chasm that divides us, rather than increasing it.
The man loudly and unapologetically asserted, from the pulpit, that the United States government created the AIDS virus as an act of attempted genocide against blacks.
The man preached really vicious stuff, accusations so vile and slanderous that they rank up there with the blood libel against the Jews.
You defended the guy. You wrote that his offense was minor compared to those preachers who are insufficiently vocal promoting the social causes of the Left, and you invoked the imagery of lynching to attack us, his critics.
But now you claim to stand against slander because you are "concerned about the state of the Church, the community of Christ"?
I try to watch my language, but that's complete bullshit.
I find it fascinating that you minimize the "legal definition" of slander since slander is a legal term. You could argue that what happens here is Libel, however the burden of proof would be on you to prove 2 things. One that the statement is objectively false, Two that there was malice involved.
But let's leave that aside for a moment, and consider two other issue. First, you have repeatedly reduced these discussions to a clash of opinions. Since an opinion is, by definition, not fact it strains credulity that you would continue to harp on the alleged slander in others opinions. Second, would that you applied the same distaste for "slander and defamation" on your blog. I have seen and been on the receiving end of this kind of stuff from your homies multiple times (you've taken your shots as well). So why should anyone take your whining seriously when you apply your dandards so selectively?
Maybe we should have a little discussion about the difference between exegesis and isegesis.
? Oh, really? Says who? That is, who says that it is ONLY a legal term? Do you think the apostle Paul (or GOD) was using it in a legal sense when he commanded the followers not to slander one another?
"Do not go about spreading slander among your people..." I am the LORD.
~God
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice...
~Paul
Do you think the point of verses like these is that God's people ought not engage in maligning people verbally because it's against the law, but in print it's okay? OR, do you think that the point is that we ought not slander one another - in ANY fashion?
Again, who says slander is primarily a legal term?
First, you have repeatedly reduced these discussions to a clash of opinions.
Says you. I would not suggest that is what I've said at all - sometimes I have reduced it down to that. I have reduced it down to a clash of opinions on those points in which we're talking about, well, our opinions. HOWEVER, I have reserved the charges of slander and misrepresentation to those times when slander or misrepresentation have happened. Let's look at this post, for instance...
The first time I used the term slander was after Bubba misrepresented my positions. I said:
"suffice to say that you don't know or understand my position and, instead of dealing with it with me, as THE BIBLE instructs, you choose to misrepresent my position and thereby attempt to slander me (and others like me)."
I said that in response to Bubba's false charges here in the comment preceding it. Charges like:
but you know and I know precisely how people like you and Lowery think the problem of exploitation should be solved: punitive taxation and burdensome regulation that is ultimately collectivist in nature, discredited as both immoral and impractical. ~Bubba
I have never proposed we have punitive taxation or burdensome regulation. To state this is a falsehood. A misrepresentation of my position. A lie, to be blunt, although to be fair, it could be that Bubba is just stating a falsehood in total ignorance. Nonetheless, it is not a "clash of opinions" on this point. I have never suggested what Bubba blatantly claims. It. Is. A. Falsehood. Objectively.
So, don't misunderstand, Craig. SOMETIMES, you and I and others here ARE discussing matters of mere opinion: Would God approve or disapprove of abortion or of gay marriage? The Bible never says directly and so we can only express our opinions as to what God thinks. That is just the reality of the situation and I'm not complaining about slander if someone were to say, "Dan, you are not in support of criminalizing abortion!!" That would be a fair summation of my position. However, when someone says, "Dan, you support punitive taxation!!" that is a falsehood, since I have never suggested that. Ever.
Understand the difference?
Oh, that's right, you don't. You support what you oxymoronically describe as an intelligently regulated free market, a market that is (somehow) simultaneously free and unfree.
Indeed, you have never described your policy positions as entailing taxes that are punitive and regulations that are burdensome, but I don't think it's slanderous to describe your positions as such, when you frequently show contempt for an unregulated market and a basic distrust of individual freedom.
But if all this is enough to trigger your oh-so-sensitive slander alarm, WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU CONTINUE TO DEFEND JEREMIAH WRIGHT AS A "MAN OF GOD"?
I reiterate that Wright accused the United States government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.
I believe my summary of your economic positions is harsh but accurate, but even if it can be argued that it verges into slander, it is NOTHING compared to Wright's hateful rhetoric from the pulpit.
But you, in your hypocrisy, invoke God's words and Paul's words only to attack me, while you defend Wright and hold the position that his vile, hateful, false, slanderous words somehow prove his godliness!
Your behavior's truly despicable.
WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU CONTINUE TO DEFEND JEREMIAH WRIGHT AS A "MAN OF GOD"?
Bubba, how many times do I have to point out that I try to observe basic blog etiquette and strive to keep relatively to the topic at hand. This is NOT the topic at hand. If you truly want to ask me about this, I'd suggest the proper, polite way would be to email a person questions that are off-topic.
Having said that, since Eric continues to not comment on your off topic forays, here's a quick answer to this question...
When John the Baptist sent messengers to ask Jesus if he was REALLY who he thought he was, Jesus replied:
"Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
Similarly, in the SOTM, Jesus tells us that "By their fruits you will know them." Those who bear good fruit are preachers of good. Those who bear bad fruit, not so much.
For decades, by all accounts, Reverend Wright HAS borne good fruit. He has preached the good news to all - especially the poor and needy. He has ministered to the marginalized. He has demonstrated by his actions that he is a man of God. He has assisted widows and orphans, worked in inner city amongst the least of these.
By his fruit, you can tell. THAT is why I call him a Man of God. Now, this man of God made some inflammatory comments (a few lines' worth in decades of ministry). He was rightly condemned for this. A brother making a mistake does not mean that he is no longer a man of God.
David, after all, committed murder and adultery, not satisfied with his dozens of wives and concubines, and still he was "a man after God's own heart." In my book, it is okay to make mistakes. It is okay to be wrong, sometimes. I'm not from the group that says we must castigate a man - especially a man who has demonstrated his worth by his decades of service to God - over a few crackpot lines.
IF that was the gist of Wright's ministry - demonizing "whitey" and preaching hatred, I would agree with you. I don't see much evidence that this is the case.
Here, you are positioning yourself both as a defender of the Bible and as a critic of slander, but that context shows how inconsistent -- how frankly partisan -- you are in both roles.
You say you want to defer this larger context out of a concern for etiquette, but isn't funny that these topics just happen to undermine your credibility, too?
About Wright, it's simply absurd to believe that Wright's slander of the US government was a one-time event in an otherwise unblemished career in service to God and the community. The church's official embrace of an explicitly racist theology belies that, as does Wright's frequent embrace of radical conspiracy-mongers like Farrakhan.
And, most damningly, the congregation didn't recoil in horror from Wright's slander: THEY CELEBRATED IT, and by all indications this hate speech is the red meat they've come to expect from Wright.
IF that was the gist of Wright's ministry - demonizing "whitey" and preaching hatred, I would agree with you. I don't see much evidence that this is the case.
The evidence is there and cannot be denied by any reasonable man with a basic grasp of the facts. I suspect that you "don't" see this evidence because you refuse to see it.
For you of all people to be advancing the argument "the Bible says XYZ" is frankly bizarre. At best you could assert "my opinion is, the Bible says XYZ".
Now, let's look at the two verses you "quote"
Who is "spreading slander among your people", I don't see anyone going outside of this conversation (even though it is spread over a few different blogs), and "spreading slander". All of the alleged slander is done directly to you, not behind your back. You have ample opportunity to correct anything that is said about you. How you use that opportunity is up to you.
"Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice... "
I'm not sure I'm seeing bitterness rage, and anger as much as frustration on the part of those who respond to you. Further, I see no evidence of malice.
But beyond even that, how do you choose which seemingly clear Biblical commands to obey or not? Please, give us a window into your isegetical process that would lead you to believe that these two commands are to be obeyed while others are not? When did you determine that a word from Paul was on the same level as a word from God? How did you form your opinion on these matters? You forget in your comparison of David and J. Wright, that God declared David a man after God's own heart. Not Dan.
After a fairly quick search of some Bible dictionary resources, seems to indicate that the word translated as slander in the Bible seem to be related to the word for blasphemy and also strongly imply that some sort of tangible harm is done.
Let's look at what else the Bible says about slander.
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Matt 15:19
They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; Romans 1:29-30
Obviously, you would have no problem with the first since Jesus said it, and you now seem to accord Paul with a certain degree of authority the second must also be fine with you, correct?
So, what happens when we see Jesus affirms the following statement "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' " in the context of the same story. Still good?
Or when Paul includes stuff like this is the same chapter.
"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
He then moves on to:
"24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."
and
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
and
"28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Please don't miss the last part of that.
"those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
It would seem that Jesus and Paul take this slander thing pretty seriously. So would you have us believe that what happens in the blog world is really rises to this level? Come on, really?
There is only one defense for Slander (in the legal sense), the Truth.
In short, Dan, it is your inconsistency that is a cause of much frustration. You people who post at your blog to lie, distort, and misrepresent peoples comments with impunity, while crying "slander" when it happens elsewhere. Where is your defense of those on the "religious right" who have done the same types of things you give Wright such credit for.
Eric, obviously this (in some ways) goes beyond the scope of your post. As such, I will understand if you choose to administer this thread back on topic.
sigh.
Evidence? An example of this happening? Or should everyone just take y'all's word for it when you say "THEY DID IT!" to mean that we did what you claim, even though you can't support the claim with actual evidence.
THIS is what I'm talking about fellas. If you have a charge to make, support it.
I charged that Eric was speaking an untruth specifically when he said that "Obama wishes to kill children." THAT is a specific charge based on Eric's actual words. Where is your evidence?
Seriously, assume for a second that I'm an actual human being and friend that you want to help. HOW can I change if I don't know what in the world you're talking about? How can I apologize for a non-existent action? If I did something, tell me and support it with the actual quote. If you can't do so, I'm suggesting that the evidence would suggest you're misrepresenting reality.
Still, when someone makes an outrageous accusation, the burden of proof is on them to support the outrageous statement. Until you do, then generally, people do well to ignore outrageous, ridiculous-sounding, unsupported comments.
Here, prove this is NOT true: Eric wants to kill children.
Can you prove that it's not true? No. Still, anyone making such a nutty statement ought to be considered a nut until such time as they provide evidence.
In this manner you avoid answering anything yourself.
Clever.
Since you are so adept at spotting "slander" I would think a cursory reading of your blog will reveal what I am talking about. If you can't nothing I post will make any difference.
Remember what God said:
"Do not go about spreading slander among your people..."
From God's lips to your ears, brother. You have a problem with that, take it up with God.
So, in other words, you are making baseless accusations which you can't support in an effort to defame my good name or, what's that other word for it...? Oh, yeah! Slander.
What you write here cannot possibly be justified by what Eric and Craig have written; saying that this is what they wrote "in other words" is not honest in the least.
What's more, you have a habit of accusing others of literal megalomania for thinking that they are "God enough" to read your mind when they paraphrase your comments in a way you don't appreciate. But here you do exactly what you find so offensive in others.
Craig wrote that he won't provide detailed substantiation of his accusations against you: that he will not, not that he cannot, and the former doesn't imply the latter.
(He wrote that he won't because he thinks doing so is futile. Imagine that.)
You could have reiterated your request for evidence, and you could have even suggested that honorable disagreement obligates such evidence. The latter is quite plausible in general circumstances, if not when dealing with someone who makes civil discourse impossible.
Instead, you made claims that aren't justified by what they wrote, that you cannot possibly prove, and that you cannot even put forward IF you dare hold yourself to the standards that you demand for others.
You can't prove, for instance, that Craig believes his accusations are baseless. I don't think you can prove that they are baseless. And most importantly, you don't even try, which means -- by your own standards -- you're guilty of slander.
You even go so far as to speculate about their motives, writing that what they write is part of "an effort to defame [your] good name." Again, I don't think that you can prove that their motives are malign, and since you don't even try, this accusation about their motives is also slander, according to your own standards.
After all this, you dare to invoke God's word about slander, without any apparent recognition that you're engaging in that very sin, according to the standards that you have chosen to impose.
You know what Christ teaches about motes and beams.
I can't fathom that you're so unaware that you don't see your gross hypocrisy, but there it is: what you write speaks for itself.
I do however agree with Bubba that Dan often holds us to a standard to which he does not or will not hold himself.
Be that as it may, I like Dan. I disagree with his religion (which is not the same as faith), and his politics, but I can't fault his passion.
Logically, you cannot simultaneously claim that Craig has malign motives in order to accuse him of slander and distance yourself from that claim by saying the claim is an instance of your deliberately and ironically engaging in slander.
If you engaged in slander to malign Craig's motives, then his motives are clean, and you have no business accusing him of slander.
Instead, you should examine yourself and see how thoroughly you hypocritically engage in precisely that which you forbid from others. Through God all things are possible, but I suspect that genuine reflection on your part -- to say nothing of contrition and actual repentance -- is nearly impossible without His intervention.
It has nothing to do with not appreciating it, Bubba. It has to do with accuracy. When someone says I support punitive taxation, it simply is NOT something that I have said nor something that I endorse. Do you understand the difference?
This is a serious problem that many of you all have. You consistently read someone's comments (mine, Obama's, whoever) and, if it seems that you disagree with them, then you paraphrase what they're saying to mean something else completely different. Do you understand that?
When I say I support responsible taxation, that is to say, I support taxing an amount so that we have enough to pay for our common needs without going in debt. When I say that I believe in progressive - not regressive - taxation, that means that I don't think a flat tax where each person pays the same percentage is a moral, ethical or just method of taxation.
Which is NOT NOT NOT the same as suggesting that I support punitive taxation. It simply isn't the same. So to take my words on taxation and say I mean this other thing altogether, it is a falsehood. Now, it may well be a falsehood spoke in ignorance - it may be that you read my words and somehow can't grasp that I mean what I said and not this other thing - but it is still a falsehood.
That's just one example, but you all do this frequently. And so, it is a demonstrable fact that you are not god enough to know my thoughts and when I tell you, "I don't think what you said I think," that is a fact, too. I'm not teasing you, I'm not trying to trick you. When I say, "I don't think X," it means that I don't think X. EVEN IF I said Y and you think I mean X, I don't.
Do you have this problem in the real world or is it only in the internet that you presume you can tell other people what they think, even if they tell you they don't think that?
Craig wrote that he won't provide detailed substantiation of his accusations against you: that he will not, not that he cannot, and the former doesn't imply the latter.
No, I meant "CAN'T" as in the sense that it doesn't exist. I don't think that I have done the actions that he accuses me of and so it doesn't exist in the real world and so, since it doesn't exist, HE CAN'T provide evidence. IF IT DID exist, you may be right that he chooses not to provide it, but I'm saying that it doesn't exist. If he wants to make a charge then, it is on him to support the claim.
Until such time, then, that he provides evidence, I am calling him a liar and a slanderer. If HE wishes to provide evidence to the contrary, I shall gladly apologize (although, I don't believe he can since it doesn't exist.)
Logically, you cannot simultaneously claim that Craig has malign motives in order to accuse him of slander and distance yourself from that claim by saying the claim is an instance of your deliberately and ironically engaging in slander.
I have tried, several times in this conversation, to try to allow that there is no malignant intent on anyone's part, to suggest that you may be making false claims in ignorance. It is not slander to say, though, that if someone is misrepresenting another's position, that they are engaging in slander, whether or not it's intentional.
IF I have clearly stated, for instance, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PUNITIVE TAXATION," and someone proceeds to say that I do, that is twisting my position. Whether or not they do so with intent to slander or if they merely misrepresent in ignorance (ie, they can't understand fairly clear language), I don't know - I can't know.
That is why I've tended to use "slander" and "misreprsent" or "falsehood" when I talk about these sorts of problems. If someone misunderstood that, I apologize. I am making it clear now, then: IF you say that I believe X and I, in fact, DON'T believe X, then you are either engaging in slander, twisting the truth, lying, misrepresentation of facts, SOMETHING along those lines. I am not god enough to know your thoughts and motives, so I'm just guessing as to a motive if I say slander when it should have been twisting the truth.
I hope that is clear enough to be understood.
And thanks, Eric, for the defense (of sorts). I would still offer that if you truly believe I've not held myself to the same standard as I hold others, that if you could please, please, please, point that out to me specifically ("dan, when you said, X, you...") and then I can apologize and straighten myself out or at least explain, if there has been a misunderstanding.
I am a quite fallible human being and it is easy for me to make mistakes sometimes and I can only repent if I know specifically what my sin is. As it stands now, more often than not, it seems that you all are accusing me of sins/opinions which I don't hold (ie, Dan supports punitive taxation).
Blessings.
This is a serious problem that many of you all have. You consistently read someone's comments (mine, Obama's, whoever) and, if it seems that you disagree with them, then you paraphrase what they're saying to mean something else completely different. Do you understand that?
What you describe is precisely what you did with Craig's comment:
"So, in other words, you are making baseless accusations which you can't support in an effort to defame my good name or, what's that other word for it...? Oh, yeah! Slander."
This statement is completely different from what Craig wrote, but you don't hesitate to describe it as the same statement "in other words."
If you wanted merely to say that you don't believe Craig can substantiate his charge, you should have simply said so. Instead, you went further and claimed that he admitted that he cannot substantiate the charge.
WHILE ACCUSING HIM OF SLANDER, YOU COMMITTED SLANDER.
I suppose you're going to keep asking for evidence of your sin, because while you're humble enough to admit you're fallible in the general case, you never seem to get around to owning up to specific sins in particular.
About my position that you support punitive taxes, you admit supporting so-called progressive taxation, and I believe you display a frequent contempt for a truly free market and fear of individual economic liberty.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD NOT DESCRIBE THE TAXATION YOU SUPPORT AS "PUNITIVE."
Nevertheless, I think it's accurate, and I don't think it's slander if we disagree.
You have frequently expressed the opinion that political conservatives like me support a war in Iraq that is immoral and illegal. None of us believe that those adjectives are accurate, but YOUR concern for OUR opinion of the war we support doesn't prevent you from expressing your own opinion. If you were remotely consistent, you would describe the war in Iraq only in terms with which all parties could agree, in order to avoid slandering those who support the war by describing the war in a way we would not.
You describe the war we support with adjectives we reject in no uncertain terms, but you think that's fine.
I describe the taxes you support with adjectives you reject, but you say that's slander.
That's hypocrisy.
Thanks for the defense.
Dan,
I have been called a liar, a hypocrite, an ill mannered troll, and had my integrity questioned numerous times at your blog. So when I express my opinion on how you have different standards on your blog as opposed to what you expect from others, and this is how you respond. Really. How has my expressing my opinion in any way defaming your good name. The fact that I'm not going to cut and paste a bunch of stuff from your site over here does not invalidate my opinion. If you really need an example,see my last series of exchanges with Alan, in my opinion he clearly misrepresents my comments while transferring a reasonable question into some sort of referendum on my character.
But let me be clear, my problem is not with Alan or what he said, I am free to engage with him or not. My problem is that you allow him and others to say things that are very similar to what you label slander. You obviously don't see it, or don't want to. It's your blog and your rules, it just seems that you are inconsistent in how you see "slander" and how you apply that definition.
I have no desire to defame you or to "slander" you, I merely pointed out what seems to be an inconsistency.
You seem to feel as though you can divine my intentions and that I intend malice toward you. I envy you the ability to do so. In this case, however, you are wrong.
In closing, if the only thing that will satisfy your desire for proof is some unknown number of cut and paste quotes, I will not play that game.
If you would like to move back to something substantive such as what exactly the Bible means when it uses the word translated as slander then you can respond to that.
If you want to talk about why you now want to throw out Biblical commands as "proof" of your point, great. I'd find it interesting. But if all that is going to happen is you accusing everyone else of slandering you then why bother.
In closing I second Eric.
"For the record, and to be quite clear, I respect Dan. I am not, in any way shape or form, out to defame his good name.
I do however agree with Bubba that Dan often holds us to a standard to which he does not or will not hold himself.
Be that as it may, I like Dan. I disagree with his religion (which is not the same as faith), and his politics, but I can't fault his passion."
Eric,
To the extent that I took this so far off topic, I sincerely apologize.
Not to pile on, though I guess I am, I think the difficulty you now face is self-inflicted by your use of words like "slander" to critique our opinions. Right there it's a conflict that needn't be, particularly when we are speaking of someone in the news, as opposed to a fellow commenter on these blogs. Why bother with that? Why not simply ask, why do you think Obama wants to kill kids? For my part, I maintain that his radical position on abortion shows no difference in the impact on the unborn as those who actually do the deed. He is making it easier for more children to lose their lives. He is thereby promoting it by his actions, none of which addresses anything resembling real prevention. For example, whether he has or not, I've never heard him say anything supporting chastity, waiting for marriage to have sexual intercourse or any similar truly preventative measures. All his efforts in the realm of so-called "family planning" revolve around making abortions easier to get anyone, anytime for any reason, no matter what. If you can't see how that equates to being in favor of killing babies, then you are suffering from sort of moral vision problem. I've never even heard him suggest that there IS any other option. He's for it, dude. Whether he says right out loud I WANNA KILL BABIES or not. Worse yet, if HE doesn't get the connection between what he supports and what results from it, then you've voted for a complete moron, which we've been trying to tell you since about 140 days after he became a US Senator.
Thanks, for the clarification. I completely agree that a significant portion of the current difficulty is due to the use of term slander. I would hope that we could move beyond this current discussion, I guess we'll see.
Dan, you wanted an example of the kind of thing at your blog that you let slide, and sure enough Alan was kind enough to provide a recent one. Now are you man enough to censor your buddies?
More of the same from your homies.
"I just naturally assume it's full of shit, having read so much of what you've written that is full of shit"
Now this is what I call demonstrating the love of Jesus.