The chicken and egg of faith and politics
In a response (mostly off-point, but that's life in the big blogosphere) to yesterday's blog posting, someone named "pat'' wrote:
"...what is readily apparent to any regular reader of your column and blog site... Michael Riley is a liberal first and a Christian second. ''
This is, I would imagine, designed to be a particularly devastating criticism.
And yet, I would make the case that it is precisely because I'm a Christian that my politics on social issues tend to skew liberal. The bedrock values of the Gospel seem to me to include mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy. As I try, however imperfectly, to make those values part of my worldview, it seems to me that however stupid some liberals are (and there are plenty of 'em), I'd rather take my stand with them than the conservatives I hear on talk radio.
Of course, conservatives could make the same sorts of arguments, so what do we do? This isn't the sort of thing that polling data or a vote could decide.
"...what is readily apparent to any regular reader of your column and blog site... Michael Riley is a liberal first and a Christian second. ''
This is, I would imagine, designed to be a particularly devastating criticism.
And yet, I would make the case that it is precisely because I'm a Christian that my politics on social issues tend to skew liberal. The bedrock values of the Gospel seem to me to include mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy. As I try, however imperfectly, to make those values part of my worldview, it seems to me that however stupid some liberals are (and there are plenty of 'em), I'd rather take my stand with them than the conservatives I hear on talk radio.
Of course, conservatives could make the same sorts of arguments, so what do we do? This isn't the sort of thing that polling data or a vote could decide.
posted by Michael Riley at 1:07 PM
148 Comments:
Someone told me once that on a sailboat, the conservatives are the mast, and the liberals are the sail. Without either one, the boat won't go.
Somehow, we have to agree, converge, compromise, or if none of those, somehow still work together towards understanding each other. Never an easy task, but things worth attaining are often difficult.
Margaret
"This is, I would imagine, designed to be a particularly devastating criticism." -- Reverend Michael Riley
I wrote what I did not because I sought to be particularly critical, but rather because I sought to expose you for the hypocrite that you are.
"Reverend," if you are going to reference Sacred Scripture in furtherance of a political point of view (e.g., "I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. I don't see word one about married couples not being able to do that."), then don't be surprised when one of your readers points out those times when you ignored that very same Sacred Scripture -- particularly when it was convenient for you to do just that, or when that feigned ignorance suited your stated particular political viewpoint. (e.g., Your support for for gay marriages and/or gay civil unions, Sacred Scripture and the teachings of Christ notwithstanding)
In short, don't presume to lecture your readers on what the Bible doesn't say when you are all too prepared to ignore what it does say.
The single scriptural quote that you, pat, choose continuously to justify your own political ends is no basis for argument.
Not only is the vague reference you make irrelevant to the discussion (it is actually Jesus' answer to the Pharisees question of whether or not divorce for an arbitrary reason is just.), but it is far outweighed by Jesus' many messages of tolerance, of love, and of peace.
And aren't you a Catholic? What are you doing interpretting the Bible to begin with. Aren't you supposed to have someone else do that for you?
So a stupid liberal is better than a bombastic conservative?? That truly is a strange statement.
You'll have to excuse Spooky Ol' Pat. He's so far over the edge that he's forgotten all about Jesus. He's much more interested in guns and killing people. Gee, I wonder what Jesus would have said about vengefulness at the point of a gun. Hmm. Not Pat, though. This guy's vision of Jesus would likely be a ripped-shirt, automatic weapon-carrying, ammo belt-wearing Rambo.
Turn the other cheek? Nah! Not while he's still got ammo! If Jesus were here today and gave Spooky Ol' Pat any lip about humility, respect and human decency, Ol' Pat would probably call him a liberal and tell him to get lost and give him the count of ten... and then report the incident as a Defensive Gun Use.
Mr. Riley, you say:
"I would make the case that it is precisely because I'm a Christian that my politics on social issues tend to skew liberal. The bedrock values of the Gospel seem to me to include mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy."
Please enlighten me as to what principals of American Conservatism you believe are contrary to those bedrock Gospel values you list.
"Please enlighten me as to what principals of American Conservatism you believe are contrary to those bedrock Gospel values you list."
How about war, tax cuts for the rich, torture of prisoners... excuse me... enemy combatants, putting profits over people's health (i.e. not letting the government bargain for better prices for medicine for the elderly), lying to the people, the death penalty, fighting the idea of a living wage, not believing in the separation of church and state, supporting dictators over the will of the people in foreign countries because of perceived American interests (read, profits) thus supporting slavery and more torture.
This is just the short list.
Ray, the reasons you have chosen are not affiliated with American conservatism, but instead with bad politics.
Liberals lie to the people, too.
Margaret
I agree with you, margaret, only I have to say, I haven't seen "American Conservatism" in effect in years in this country. The current administration, as well as most Republicans in office stray very far from the American Conservative focus on less federal government and more personal/state freedom
Margaret:
"Ray, the reasons you have chosen are not affiliated with American conservatism, but instead with bad politics."
One might say that they are one and the same. I would.
But you missed the point. 'Justifiedright' objected to Michael Riley's statement to the effect that his Christianity, i.e. believing in what Jesus taught, leads him to be liberal and that American conservatism is contrary to this. The principles of "mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy" are anathema to conservative Christian values. You can't just shrug it off as bad politics when the conservatives tell us that their politics is driven by their religion. Why not join us and acknowledge that their religion is what's bad?
"Liberals lie to the people, too."
Again, you missed the point. Conservative Christians tell us ad nauseum that they are the real Christians so their lying becomes an issue for that reason, right? Even if liberals do lie then noting this is just a smoke and mirrors distraction from the issue at hand.
anonymous:
" ...I haven't seen "American Conservatism" in effect in years in this country. The current administration, as well as most Republicans in office stray very far from the American Conservative focus on less federal government and more personal/state freedom"
Yet after the first four years of Bush and Co. you still voted for him in 2004, right? Sadly, all those guys have to do is to scare you into tears about terrorists, wave the flag and mention God enough and you all fall right into line. Too bad so few people are proficient in critical thinking. Those guys get away with all of this with your support.
What Mr. Riley is talking about is the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.
Jesus was effective and therefore a danger to the Pharisees because he could point out the error of their ways, ie, hypocrisy.
But spirit of the law doesn't mean the sky is the limit in terms of doing away with moral thinking, and that is what conservatives envision. This country is so into freedom, that it thinks, let's just do away with anything restrictive to freedom. Scares the heck out of me.
And, the letter of the law is not always a bad thing.
Margaret
I guess Mr. Riley doesn't wish to back up his assertion.
I guess you don't want to respond to what I've written then, right?
Margaret, try as I might I don't see what you've written as having anything to do with what Michael Riley wrote. I saw his message as being about the hypocrisy of what conservatives claim to hold important about Christian values while behaving in a totally different manner, not the letter of the law.
I agree with you, however, that people obsess on their rights (remembering, though, that if you don't use your rights you'll likely lose them) and that they tend to forget that rights do not exist in a vacuum. One must also realize that with each and every right comes a responsibility.
My first post does have much to do with Mr. Riley's question...what are we to do? We need to try to work with each other, was basically my answer.
And, I don't know that his answer was soley about the hypocrisy of conservatives. Yes, it was about a comment that Pat made about "liberal 1st, and Christian second"... and Pat may be right about that.
Mr. Riley says a lot of stuff, in particular about sexuality and things of that nature that would have me believe that. Immorality is a word that Mr. Riley scoffs at, I think. So that might be the basis for that particular comment from Pat (guessing here).
Anyway, these stupid labels, 'liberal' and 'conservative' only widen the gap among people. I hate the labels, really. Because I have very conservative views, but have great compassion for those who find themselves in situations not of their choosing...I am not sitting in judgement of anyone.
Hypocrites are the problem, really, don't you think?? Those who live in glass houses and all that.
You didn't respond to the question Ray, as Margaret pointed out.
I betting Mr. Riley has no answer either.
"The single scriptural quote [cf Matthew 19:4-6] that you, Pat, choose continuously to justify your own political ends is no basis for argument." -- Anonymous @ 4:53 PM on 14 June 2007
Then perhaps you can explain why a large number of Christian clerics, the overwhelming majority of whom oppose gay marriages and/or gay civil unions, are so quick to reference that very same Biblical passage?
Are you suggesting, Anonymous, that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, somehow "misspoke" when He twice defined marriage as a union between a male and a female? Is it your position, Anonymous, that Christ, knowing full well that that His words would eventually find their way into Sacred Scripture, really meant to say that marriage is a union between two "persons?" Do you really need me to quote other passages from Sacred Scripture that speak to the inherent and sinful nature of homosexual acts?
"... but it is far outweighed by Jesus' many messages of tolerance, of love, and of peace." -- Anonymous (from the same post referenced above)
That Christ spoke of tolerance, love, peace and, thankfully, forgiveness, in no way suggests that He now finds sin somehow acceptable. Far from it. Christ despises that very sin which, by its nature, separates us from Him.
Throughout the New Testament Christ is often seen forgiving sinners, only to dismiss them with the words, "Go and sin no more." Christ despises sin so much -- particularly those post-baptismal sins committed by Christians -- that He even exhorts His followers to rebuke a fellow Christian that is in sin, in the hopes that the sinner will see the error of his ways, repent and then seek forgiveness. Moreover, and even worse than the underlying sin itself, Christ warns of a particularly harsh fate for those who lead a Christian ("one of these little ones") into sin. (e.g., A Christian "Reverend" who encourages sin by giving his tacit approval and/or "blessing" to a homosexual marriage or a homosexual civil union.) Please see Luke 17:1-4
"And aren't you a Catholic?" -- Anonymous (from the same post referenced above)
Just like the Apostles and the authors of the New Testament, yes, I am a Catholic -- and a proud one at that, I might add.
"What are you doing interpretting [sic] the Bible to begin with[?]" -- Anonymous (from the same post referenced above)
Don't be silly, Anonymous. Not only was the New Testament written by Catholics primarily for Catholics, it was the Catholic Church, the one church founded by Christ Himself (cf Matthew 16:17-19), that is responsible for the very existence of the canon that we Christians now call the Bible. For it was the Catholic Church, the very "pillar and foundation of truth" (cf 1 Timothy 3:15), exercising the infallible teaching authority (The Magisterium) that Christ conferred upon it alone (cf John 16:12-15), that determined which books were inspired by God and which were not. Those 73 books deemed inspired by God are now what we call "the Bible" -- or, more accurately, "the Catholic Bible." Those books deemed not to have been inspired have been, so to speak, relegated to the ash heap of history.
(Incidentally, I'll prescind from speculating as to why Martin Luther and others involved in the Reformation decided to remove the 7 Deuterocanonical books from "Protestant Bibles," except to say that I suspect that Luther had more than a few problems with the teachings contained in those books. Case in point: Luther often referred to the writings of St. James as "an epistle of straw." In that sense, Luther seems to have adopted "The Ray approach" to Scripture study: "Thus, The Word of God is whatever you want it to be.")
"Aren't you supposed to have someone else do that for you?" -- Anonymous (from the same post referenced above)
Absolutely! (And thank God that we do!)
While we Catholics are certainly encouraged to read, study, quote and discuss Sacred Scripture, we do so with the full realization that Sacred Scripture itself cautions individuals from interpreting that very same Sacred Scripture, lest we, as individuals, interpret in error. (See Acts 8:30-31 in which the Ethiopian answers Philip: "How can I [understand Scripture] unless someone instructs me?" Also see 2 Peter 1:20 in which St. Peter cautions that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation.")
Rather than rely on our own oh-so-fallible individual interpretations, we Catholics look to the church that Christ Himself founded, the Catholic Church, for guidance -- that very same church that is the human reason that we now have the Bible in the first place, I might add. We do so because we believe that the Catholic Church alone, hierarchical by the design of Christ Himself, possesses an infallible teaching authority that is certainly lacking in other non-Catholic churches -- much less in individuals, save The Holy Father. In short, if a Catholic errs in his individual interpretation of Sacred Scripture, he does so with the confidence that he will be disabused in short order, and with considerable authority, by Christ's own church, the Catholic Church.
The alternative, of course, is to reject the notion that "the church" of which Christ spoke is something other than a single entity, "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (cf 1 Timothy 3:15) Once one starts down that oh-so-slippery slope (e.g., believing that no one interpretation of Sacred Scripture is any more valid than the next), then truth becomes irrelevant. How, for example, can it be true -- much less, the will of God -- for one Christian church to condemn gay marriages while the next Christian church "blesses" such a union? By way of example, if one proffers that 2 + 2 = 4, then one surely cannot also accept as a viable option the notion that 2 + 2 also equals 5. Clearly both interpretations cannot be valid. So too it is, I submit, with respect to interpreting Sacred Scripture.
In the end, we all place our bets, so to speak. We can look to a 2,000 year-old church that is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" in its nature, and which possesses a teaching authority that Christ gave to it, or we can look to someone like Reverend Michael Riley whose authority to preach the Gospel is no greater than the next clown that clicks on the following link:
Click Here To Become Ordained A Protestant Minister
In the end, the choice is yours.
When Was Your Church Founded? (And By Whom?)
The voice of the New Left:
"Why not join us and acknowledge that their religion is what's bad?" -- Ray (at 11:06 PM on 16 June 2007)
Didn't Goebbels, Himmler and Hitler ask this very same question at the end of those Nazi membership drives that they used to hold back in the 1920s?
Or was it Comrades Marx, Lenin and Stalin muttering something about religion being an "opiate for the masses?"
Here's another one for the Ray scatterbrained scrap book:
"Conservative Christians tell us ad nauseum that they are the real Christians so their lying becomes an issue for that reason, right? Even if liberals do lie then noting this is just a smoke and mirrors distraction from the issue at hand." -- Ray (11:06 PM on 16 June 2007)
Did you get that, Margaret? If a politically conservative Christian lies, it is "an issue." If, however, you point out those times when a politically liberal Christian lies (e.g., "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.") then you are merely engaging in some sort of "smoke and mirrors" parlor trick.
Aren't you glad that Ray cleared that up for us?
Clear as mud, Pat, clear as mud.
Margaret
"You didn't respond to the question[,] Ray, as Margaret pointed out."
"I [am] betting Mr. Riley has no answer either. -- JustifiedRight.com (AKA Asbury Park's best cheerleader and Howell's own Tommy De Seno, Esq.)
With all due respect, Tommy, and despite his numerous shortcomings, Ray rarely fails to respond when challenged. (By his own admission, blogging is his part-time job.) Take a look a the post that he made on June 16, 2007 @ 12:02 AM on this very blog thread. Ray quoted you and then responded to what you originally wrote.
By contrast, and with respect to Reverend Riley, please don't hold your breath waiting for him to respond to your post(s). The courage of his convictions -- not to mention Riley's apparent unwillingness to defend those convictions, particularly when challenged -- is apparently not part & parcel of Reverend Michael Riley's character. In short, Ray will give you a fight, albeit a lame one replete with all the ad hominem remarks that you'd expect to find in someone that lacks both the stamina and the brains for serious debate; Riley, on the other hand, will back down faster than a prison bitch.
Ray, by way of introduction, please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Thomas De Seno, Attorney At Law. Tommy has, among his many other attributes, proved himself to be rather adept at successfully identifying and then successfully suing those who libel others on various blog sites. Take me at my word when I say that Tommy is as politically conservative as you are liberal. For the record, you are both pretty damn obnoxious.
This ought to be fun. Let the games begin.
Thank you for the introductions, Pat.
I'm wondering if Ray is the same fellow who writes to the Coaster and sometimes the AP Press, I believe from Bradley Beach?
Either way, I prefer to fight it out with the fellow who dropped the challenge - Mr. Riley.
I've met him. I took an afternoon off of work and allowed him to interview me a few years back. I took him out to a restaurant afterward and we had drinks (can't recall if his was liquor - mine certainly was).
It would be rather bad form if he were to ignore me now.
"The principles of 'mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy' are [an] anathema to conservative Christian values. " -- Ray (June 16, 2007 @ 11:06 PM on this thread)
And supporting the holocaust that is legalized abortion in this country -- a policy that, I point out, has resulted in some 47 million innocent deaths since Roe v. Wade was decided -- this policy, universally accepted and embraced by those on the American Left, this is somehow consistent with Christian values?
Spare us the lecture, Ray. You have entirely way too much blood on your hands to lecture anyone about values -- Christian or otherwise.
"Consider: in poll after poll, the overwhelminmg [sic] majority of Christians respond that they wouldn't vote for an atheist or an agnostic." -- Ray (June 19, 2007 @ 12:22 AM on the "Some Assembly Required" thread started by Reverend Michael Riley on June 7, 2007)
Go figure!
Make no mistake: When "Thus, the Word of God is whatever you want it to be," the end result is never pretty. To wit:
That which Ray dismisses as "a choice" while casually lecturing us all on "Christian Values."
Margaret wrote:
"Mr. Riley says a lot of stuff, in particular about sexuality and things of that nature that would have me believe that. Immorality is a word that Mr. Riley scoffs at, I think."
Talking about sex between married heterosexuals is immoral? Margaret, has Pat/Papinian taken control of your soul?
"Hypocrites are the problem, really, don't you think?? Those who live in glass houses and all that."
Hypocrites are indeed the problem. And that's what I got from Michael Riley's original post. Nothing about the spirit vs. the letter of the law.
justifiedright:
"You didn't respond to the question Ray, as Margaret pointed out."
Please be so good as to indicate which question I've failed to answer.
BTW, you still haven't acknowledged my response to your post.
Spooky Ol' Pat wrote:
"Didn't Goebbels, Himmler and Hitler ask this very same question at the end of those Nazi membership drives that they used to hold back in the 1920s?"
Nope. They argued for their own contrived Aryan myth in place of the one already in existence. Had you been paying attention you'd have realized that my comment was directed specifically to conservative Christianity while making the point that it fails where liberal Christianity succeeds. Now that doesn't sound like what Hitler, et al were saying, does it?
Spooky Ol' Pat wrote:
"Or was it Comrades Marx, Lenin and Stalin muttering something about religion being an 'opiate for the masses?'"
I think it's funny that you actually believe you're thinking freely and not following obediently along the politically/religiously correct route.
And BTW, those "comrades" thought more along your own lines than you realize. Their belief in Communism was really no different than your belief in religion in that they're both mere belief systems. People will kill, maim, loot and pillage in the name of their own belief system. It matters not what that belief system is. It's not until you stand outside of belief that you get the big picture and see that belief is belief, no matter what the belief is.
Spooky Ol' Pat wrote:
"Did you get that, Margaret? If a politically conservative Christian lies, it is "an issue." If, however, you point out those times when a politically liberal Christian lies (e.g., "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.") then you are merely engaging in some sort of "smoke and mirrors" parlor trick."
Sheesh, Spooky, you've missed the entire discussion! Let's quote me again: "Again, you missed the point. Conservative Christians tell us ad nauseum that they are the real Christians so their lying becomes an issue for that reason, right? Even if liberals do lie then noting this is just a smoke and mirrors distraction from the issue at hand." You're telling that you don't understand this?
Here, let me dumb it down a bit more for you: The conservative Christians, like you, tell us that they're the real Christians, right? They tell us that the Republican party is the Party of God, right? So, being such godly folk, the bar is higher, right? But you people want to divert discussion of the higher standards into a discussion about other peoples' foibles. That says a lot. You need to live up to your "higher-level godliness", don't you think? Yet you make excuses.
Spooky Ol' Pat wrote:
"Tommy has, among his many other attributes, proved himself to be rather adept at successfully identifying and then successfully suing those who libel others on various blog sites."
This is nothing more than a threat and an attempt at intimidation. Save it, Spooky. We all know that it won't work on me and further, we all know that you're full of baloney. You're a sad little man if you have to resort to this sort of thing.
But my interest is piqued! Please prove to me that he has sued anyone in a blog!
Spooky Ol' Pat wrote:
"And supporting the holocaust that is legalized abortion in this country -- a policy that, I point out, has resulted in some 47 million innocent deaths since Roe v. Wade was decided.."
And your church has murdered millions, including pregnant women, for centuries. So your point was..?
" -- this policy, universally accepted and embraced by those on the American Left, this is somehow consistent with Christian values?"
There's that smoke and mirrors again! Address the issue and stop deflecting it.
"Spare us the lecture, Ray. You have entirely way too much blood on your hands to lecture anyone about values -- Christian or otherwise."
No blood on my hands. I simply believe people should make their own decisions.
"Consider: in poll after poll, the overwhelminmg [sic] majority of Christians respond that they wouldn't vote for an atheist or an agnostic." -- Ray
Go figure!"
My point is made again.
"Make no mistake: When "Thus, the Word of God is whatever you want it to be," the end result is never pretty."
I've made my point several times, now. And all you can do is to attempt to mock it without refuting it. Telling, isn't it?
"This is nothing more than a threat and an attempt at intimidation." -- Ray
I don't threaten, Ray. It's just not my style.
"But my interest is piqued! Please prove to me that he has sued anyone in a blog!" -- Ray
What's the matter, Ray? Google isn't working for you this evening? Please see the following articles:
Manager files complaint
against Internet accuser
Attorney: Resident’s repeated
postings on local message
board prompted action
A civil suit filed by former Township Manager Jacqueline Ascione against resident Ginger Hoffmeier, of West Farms Road, has been settled between the two parties.
Will that suffice, Ray, or do you need to see a copy of the complaint?
"I've made my point several times, now. And all you can do is to attempt to mock it without refuting it." -- Ray
Refute it? Surely, you jest, Ray. You are the voice of a hedonistic generation. I think we should put your words ("Thus, The Word of God is whatever you want it to be.") on billboards. I can't help but think that your words will do wonders for those seeking to evangelize.
Ray, the sex comments that Mr. Riley makes has nothing to do with married heterosexual sex.
They're offhand opinions about sex outside of marriage...the one comment I'm thinking of in particular was about the recent (Madame) scandal in Washington DC. It's the "don't people have anything better to do than worry about these things" kind of comment in regard to sex acts outside of marriage while married...we're right back to the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky mentality all over again.
And, the spirit of the law (which might be considered a liberal view) versus the letter of the law (which might be considered a conservative view) was right on point.
Margaret
Ray, I don't believe that any group (Republicans or otherwise) is the party of God. You've heard people say that?? SOME republicans stand up for the things I believe, but then agian, so do SOME dems, or independents...lately they're all beginning to blend and it's harder and harder to make a proper vote...PLUS they all talk a good talk and then do whatever they want once in office!
NO wonder you're so angry...if you did hear the above quote, then I want you to kow, that I don't believe Republicans or any other partyis THE party of God. How arrogant is that??
Margaret
No one of any import refers to the GOP as the party of God.
Spooky wrote:
"'I've made my point several times, now. And all you can do is to attempt to mock it without refuting it.' -- Ray
Refute it? Surely, you jest, Ray."
Well, there you have it. No refutation.
" You are the voice of a hedonistic generation.
Wow! A whole generation just like me? BTW, what generation am I from?
"I think we should put your words ("Thus, The Word of God is whatever you want it to be.") on billboards."
I like it! Be sure to add the rest of what I said: God is whatever you want him to be, and The truth is whatever you want it to be. Maybe it'll get people thinking.
Spooky wrote:
"Will that suffice, Ray, or do you need to see a copy of the complaint?"
Well I stand partially corrected. Of course, this is nothing like what you were threatening me with.
anonymous:
"No one of any import refers to the GOP as the party of God."
This is the "They're not one of us!" defense. Of course, they are, until political necessity gets in the way.
Margaret:
"Ray, I don't believe that any group (Republicans or otherwise) is the party of God. You've heard people say that??"
Yup. And if you haven't heard it then you're not paying attention.
"I don't believe Republicans or any other partyis THE party of God. How arrogant is that??"
Extremely.
Margaret:
"Ray, the sex comments that Mr. Riley makes has nothing to do with married heterosexual sex."
Here's what he wrote:
"But get this: In Georgia, less than a decade ago, oral sex between a husband and a wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Where, in the name of God, does a law like that come from? I'm pretty familiar with the Bible. I don't see word one about married couples not being able to do that."
It was within the post about the guy who was in jail for statutory rape when he was 17 but the only thing MR said about that was that the punishment was draconian.
I've been reading Mr. Riley's posts for nearly a year, and, that post was not what I was referring to. He's said other things, but I am not going to scroll through a year's worth of stuff to prove my point.
Plus, I referred to what I was talking about in his newest blog post.
"They tell us that the Republican party is the Party of God, right?" -- Ray at 12:28 AM on June 20, 2007
"Ray, I don't believe that any group (Republicans or otherwise) is the party of God. You've heard people say that??" -- Margaret at 7:33 AM on June 20, 2007
"Yup. And if you haven't heard it then you're not paying attention." -- Ray at 12:40 AM on June 21, 2007 (in responding to the remarks that Margaret made on June 20, 2007 at 7:33 AM)
Ray, which specific Republicans (or others of note) have, in something other than a joking manner, referred to the Republican party as "the party of God?" Which specific Republican members of Congress have said as much? Which specific Republican governors have said the same thing? How about members of this current Administration? Which one of them have used the actual words "the party of God" when referring to Republican party?
Please be kind enough to name names and provide sources. When answering, and to the greatest degree possible, please be kind enough to refrain from using vague or nondescript terms like "conservatives," "liberals," "Christians," "they," "you guys," "those people," etc. Please don't merely point me in the direction of various policies, proposed or otherwise, that you believe indicate that Republicans act as if they are "the party of God." Basically, I am looking for an online newspaper article or some other source that shows that Congressman X -- or anyone of import, really -- used the actual words "the party of God" when describing the Republican party.
Since you've told Margaret that you've actually heard various Republicans and/or others use the term "the party of God" in describing the Republican party; and since you've even gone so far as to suggest that Margaret wasn't "paying attention" because she, apparently, has never heard a Republican or others use the term "the party of God" in a serious manner when describing the Republican Party; then I imagine it won't be all that difficult for you to provide the readers of this blog with a few sources that disabuse us of the notion that it is a very rare occurrence indeed for a Republican to refer to his or her political party as "the party of God."
Thanks in advance for providing us with those sources.
"Well I stand partially corrected. Of course, this is nothing like what you were threatening me with." -- Ray
I didn't threaten you, Ray, and I accept your partial apology. I take that this means you'll be coming over on the third to watch the fireworks show? If so, please know that Jenn wants you to bring plenty of macaroni salad. Apparently Reverend Riley can't get enough of that stuff. :-)
"I like it! Be sure to add the rest of what I said: [']God is whatever you want him to be['], and [']The truth is whatever you want it to be.['] Maybe it'll get people thinking." -- Ray
Or running for the nearest pew.
Not so fast, Spooky. Why is it okay for you to ignore so much of what I write in response to you and then have you come out and demand a response from me? Unless you're conceding my arguments, of course.
This link should make the point that I didn't make it up about the Party of God nonsense:
This is the GOP: God's Official Party
Perhaps you're not watching or reading the news? This has been bandied about for a couple of years now. But you're really not entitled to even this much. Now, how about we finish old business, i.e. refuting my charge about the alleged word of God instead of copping out by merely trying to mock it, before we take on another subject?
Spooky wrote:
""I like it! Be sure to add the rest of what I said: [']God is whatever you want him to be['], and [']The truth is whatever you want it to be.['] Maybe it'll get people thinking." -- Ray
Or running for the nearest pew."
I like the contrast here: one can either think or run to the nearest pew. I guess we finally agree on something!
Spooky wrote:
"I didn't threaten you, Ray"
Right. And your mention of his suing bloggers elsewhere relates to this blog in what way, then?
Spooky wrote:
"I take that this means you'll be coming over on the third to watch the fireworks show? If so, please know that Jenn wants you to bring plenty of macaroni salad."
Nah. But I'll bet macaroni salad would be a welcome alternative to the baloney you'll be serving.
Re: God's Official Party blurb from Ray. While it is posted in The New Republic ( "liberalist" paper i.e. Wikipedia), I googled and looked around. You're right Ray, it has been referred to as such.
Margaret
The statement "Thus, the word of God is whatever you want it to be" needs no refutation. The statement is self-refuting.
In making the statement, you acknowledge the following:
(A) There is a God;
(B) This God has communicated using words;
(C) This God will say only what you want God to say, with "you" being understood to refer to whatever individual happens to be reading or otherwise reflecting upon the original statement.
That being the case, if Walter wants God to say X but never Y; and if John wants God to say Y but never X; then clearly, and at best, only one man, but never both men, will be content with the word of God. Ergo, the word of God most certainly is not whatever you want it to be.
Ray and Margaret, I posted this on the "Some Assembly Required" thread after it went inactive. Just wanted you two to see it:
" Margaret,
I meant "mocked for biology" as pertains to sexuality, specifically for being deemed immoral for just that.
Ray,
You might be the first person in human history to call Thomas Hardy "fluff" of any type. The poem is an answer to people who believe disbelief is easy. I added the "want to believe" to make your case a little more sympathetic."
Sexuality is a tough thing, anonymous. One is not immoral for their sexuality. One's actions can account for immorality. Mocking one's biology (now that I understand what the term means) is not something to which I ascribe. There but for the grace of God go I.
Margaret
Anon 902pm, I went back to "some assembly required"...you asked the question which is worse, mocked for faith or biology. Of course, the answer is both are equally awful. Being mocked is so unkind. I don't think there is justification for either, do you?
Margaret
No, I really do not believe either is called for. While lacking, I have a great respect for faith and have never, to the best of my knowledge, openly challenged - let alone mocked anyone for their beliefs. I am a practicing Christian, but at the same time do not believe God specifically forbids homosexuality. Again, I personally feel that Matthew 19:4-6 is frequently misused by those with alterior biases and those who trust "moral authority."
I reread Matthew 19:4-6 and find it quite straightforward.
I think God forbids adultery. That covers quite a lot.
Margaret
then read matthew 19: 1-3
Yes, that's the beginning of the reading...the Pharisees were asking the question in regard to divorce...what's on your mind in regard to that?
M
Margaret,
Again, I don't think that anyone could use that verse to contend the morality of homosexuality without already having that end in mind.
Without a social context, the verse has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
An outsider to faith and culture would not be able to extrapolate the message people try to attach to it. They are beautiful words as you have said, they just happen to be irrelevant words in this discussion.
Again, I'm not trying to take a jab at anyone, I just don't see the logic in it.
I might not have access to the internet for a few days, so I might not be able to respond to anything you might add for a while, but I'd like to see what you or anyone else thinks.
Have a nice day.
JDS
I will soon be doing a column in the triCityNews about the report that was released showing that news reporters gave to Democrats over Republicans by a 9 to 1 margin.
Now that Riley has let loose with his tripe about Democrats being closer to the Bible than Republicans, I can give the piece a local flavor.
Look for the column in the next couple of weeks.
JDS - So the Matthew verse (19:4-6) is specifically about a a man and woman marrying - or is it more, because in my bible it says "Have you not read from the beginning that the Creator 'made them male and female'...FOR THIS REASON a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
This verse does stand up under scrutiny, with or without social context. It's very specific. It's not only about the issue of divorce, which the Pharisees speak of, but it includes a specific answer by Christ as to who indeed marries.
Further down in Matthew, 19:11-12, Christ said "Not all can accept this word...Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven..."
Food for thought, certainly...
Margaret
Margaret,
I appreciate your response, but I still don't see it your way. I find it hard to believe that Jesus would find it necessary to comment on homosexuality in response to a question on divorce.
As a happily married man (to a woman, if it makes any difference to you), I don't find the lives of two men or two women are of much consequence to mine. I respectfully disagree with you, but I pray every day that should I err in interpretting God's word (as I will admit to having done more than once), that it be on the side of tolerance.
Glad I could see your response before my departure; again, and for real this time, I'll be away for a few days.
Take care,
JDS
Take care, safe journey.
M
anonymous:
"(A) There is a God;"
It actually doesn't even matter in this discussion.
"(B) This God has communicated using words;"
Assumed, not established beyond the bounds of a particular belief ystem.
"(C) This God will say only what you want God to say, with "you" being understood to refer to whatever individual happens to be reading or otherwise reflecting upon the original statement."
The lack of agreement, even using the same source of God's alleged words, is in itself enough to make the point. You assume to know what God meant. But so does everyone who disagrees with you. Even assuming that there really are words to be attributed to God and that they have a specific meaning, all factions claim that knowledge. Thus, what is taken as the word of God is contingent upon other things, i.e. politics, sociology, psychology, etc.
But note: even if everyone agreed as to what is the word of God, that wouldn't matter anyway. You still have to get over the hurdle of establishing that your understanding of those words is correct (not assumed). Remember that the truth is not determined by popular vote.
"That being the case, if Walter wants God to say X but never Y; and if John wants God to say Y but never X; then clearly, and at best, only one man, but never both men, will be content with the word of God. Ergo, the word of God most certainly is not whatever you want it to be."
John is right. Walter is always saying that nonsense. Seriously though, the reference to 'you' is oneself, not the collective opinions of others. Thus, both John and Walter maintain their separate ideas about God's word. Their beliefs are not conditional upon each other.
Spooky wrote:
"Take me at my word when I say that Tommy is as politically conservative as you are liberal. For the record, you are both pretty damn obnoxious.
This ought to be fun. Let the games begin."
The games seem to have been cancelled.
anonymous:
"Ray,
You might be the first person in human history to call Thomas Hardy "fluff" of any type. The poem is an answer to people who believe disbelief is easy. I added the "want to believe" to make your case a little more sympathetic.""
I've been searching for this to try to recall the context but I could't find it. Was it in this thread? If I remember correctly, I meant that poetry is a "fluff" response when one is asking for a bit of cold, hard reasoning. Poetry is filled with emotion - certainly not the stuff to convince a skeptic.
"Even assuming that there really are words to be attributed to God and that they have a specific meaning, all factions claim that knowledge. Thus, what is taken as the word of God is contingent upon other things, i.e. politics, sociology, psychology, etc." -- Ray
I imagine few, save the truly obstinate, would argue over what God meant when He said "Thou shall not steal," matters of politics, sociology and psychology notwithstanding. God either permits stealing or he forbade it. To suggest otherwise is to say that words have no meaning. But then again, if you approach the issue while subscribing to a value system that holds, among other things, that "truth is whatever you want it to be" (e.g., Tuesday is Saturday), then I imagine that being labeled obstinate is the very least of your worries.
I can't stand evangelical atheists, i.e. Ray. Believe or don't believe, but if you're fighting what you believe to be oppressive belief systems, why do so in such an annoyingly evangelical and obstinate fashion?
Seems counterproductive.
WOW...evangelical atheist. What a term. Seems oxymoronic, but it does seem to define Ray.
Spooky wrote:
"I imagine few, save the truly obstinate, would argue over what God meant when He said "Thou shall not steal," matters of politics, sociology and psychology notwithstanding."
Perhaps he did say "Thou shalt not steal", but that doesn't stop people who call themselves religious from doing it. The truth, you see, is relative to one's take on God's words.
"...if you approach the issue while subscribing to a value system that holds, among other things, that "truth is whatever you want it to be" (e.g., Tuesday is Saturday)..."
It's not a value system. It's a critique of yours.
And if someone could benefit by saying Tuesday is Saturday, rest assured they would do so... and then they'd go to church and feel okay about it.
"... then I imagine that being labeled obstinate is the very least of your worries."
Call me obstinate if it makes you feel better. It's a free country and you're entitled to be as confused as you wanna be. But let's raise the bar a little higher and not pretend that challenging the standard, politically and religiously correct orthodoxy is in any way akin to obstinance.
anonymous wrote:
"I can't stand evangelical atheists, i.e. Ray. Believe or don't believe, but if you're fighting what you believe to be oppressive belief systems, why do so in such an annoyingly evangelical and obstinate fashion?"
Because it's fun?
But seriously folks... maybe the issue here is that you don't like it when someone questions that which is off limits for questioning? Like I said, I'm not politically correct. Nor do I mince words.
another anonymous wrote:
"WOW...evangelical atheist. What a term. Seems oxymoronic, but it does seem to define Ray."
In your world, perhaps speaking one's mind can be referred to as evangelism. That's okay. I know your world is small and rigid (but hopefully, round). In my world, however, i.e. the politically incorrect and socially unacceptible world (quite round, btw), it's nothing like evangelism at all. It's free thought. Good grief! Do you even begin to realize that you're applying religious terminology to something that's diametrically opposed to such orthodoxy in the first place? Bizarre. Isn't it? Since when does making an argument in support of a proposition make it evangelism?
If you're right, though, we'll need to rewrite those history books! Galileo was an evangelist because he insisted that the church had it wrong about the solar system. So was Kepler. And Copernicus. And Darwin. And all those other SOBs who disagreed with orthodoxy. Damned heretical evangelists!
Ray,
But Galileo et al benefited society in a way.
Everyone else,
I think Ray is going to start his own religion based on his own "martyrdom"
Ray again,
It's ok though; I don't much care for Pat's evangelism either. You're argument that it's fun is much stronger than the fact that you think it's a natural reaction to challenging someone's beliefs and voicing your own opinion. If your views are diametrically opposed to organized religion, why waste your breath? I'm DEAD against anyone trying to legislate based on their religious value systems which are, as you say, remarkably pliable cross-culturally and historically. I agree with you on that issue. The rest of the time, you're just wasting your breath it seems.
Take it easy.
Anonymous said...
Ray,
But Galileo et al benefited society in a way.
Yes. And Galileo didn't say "There is no god, there is no god, there is no god." He just said "I have some evidence here that looks like the sun does not, in fact, revolve around the earth."
anonymous:
"Yes. And Galileo didn't say "There is no god, there is no god, there is no god." He just said "I have some evidence here that looks like the sun does not, in fact, revolve around the earth.""
He didn't even have to deny God. He was arrested as a heretic anyway.
anonymous:
"But Galileo et al benefited society in a way."
The truth always does.
"I think Ray is going to start his own religion based on his own "martyrdom""
Not a bad idea. I hear the religion business pays well. Maybe I'll brush up on L. Ron Hubbard.
"It's ok though; I don't much care for Pat's evangelism either."
Be careful. He'll think you and I are the same person.
" If your views are diametrically opposed to organized religion, why waste your breath?"
Because I think it's a worthy waste of my time. I also want the cloistered world to know that there are other views out there and, maybe... just maybe... cause someone to question blind faith.
"I'm DEAD against anyone trying to legislate based on their religious value systems..."
You've lost me here. Legislate?
"... which are, as you say, remarkably pliable cross-culturally and historically. I agree with you on that issue. The rest of the time, you're just wasting your breath it seems."
Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, I do enjoy the give and take.
Ray,
As far as legislating based on one's belief, I mean laws should not be enacted in this country (i.e. demanding that intelligent design be taught in schools, and that faith based non-profits get a bigger share of the pot, and many other instances)
"Perhaps [God] did say 'Thou shalt not steal,' but that doesn't stop people who call themselves religious from doing it. The truth, you see, is relative to one's take on God's words." -- Ray
Right. So when we are not consulting "politics, sociology and psychology, etc." in order to discern what God meant when He used the word 'not' in "Thou shall not steal," we should also remind ourselves that, in the end, truth is relative to "one's take." After all, if others speed, there must not be a speed limit, right?
Tell me, Ray, is that very same scatterbrained logic applicable to other areas -- namely, arithmetic, days of the week and even the laws of our land? (e.g., 2 + 2 = 5 ... Tuesday is Saturday. ... Dick Cheney is a member of the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government. ... "Don't you see, Trooper? The speed limit on this particular road is whatever I want it to be," etc.) Clearly, that must be the case. For it was yourself, after all, that pointed out that "the truth is whatever you want it to be."
[Sarcasm off]
"As far as legislating based on one's belief, I mean laws should not be enacted in this country (i.e. demanding that intelligent design be taught in schools, and that faith based non-profits get a bigger share of the pot, and many other instances)" -- Anonymous @ 12:06 PM on 28 June 2007
If we can agree that feeding the poor and the homeless in some way advances a legitimate and compelling governmental interest worthy of funding; and if, say, The Salvation Army, a non-profit organization that is also an established religion, has the only soup kitchen in City X that currently has the capability to feed those same poor right now and while those same poor hunger; and further assuming that that same Salvation Army has concluded that it must discontinue its soup kitchen operations for lack of proper funding; why would you, Anonymous, be opposed to the government providing a grant to that same non-profit Salvation Army so that it might continue to feed the poor, particularly when doing so in no way whatsoever "establishes a religion," as is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment?
Why is okay for, say, Joe's Secular Soup Kitchen, another non-profit organization in City Y, to receive those same governmental funds that you would, apparently, deny to The Salvation Army? Does Joe, a secularist motivated simply by his desire to help his fellow man, get a constitutional pass -- not to mention Uncle Sam's check -- simply because he says "good luck" when handing out his bologna sandwiches, whereas the volunteers at The Salvation Army, motivated by faith (cf Matthew 25:31-46), receive nothing from that same government simply because they may or may not be inclined to say "God bless you" when handing out their tuna fish sandwiches?
"No blood on my hands. I simply believe people should make their own decisions." -- Ray
Unless, of course, that decision involves law-abiding, properly trained, properly licensed citizens who choose to lawfully carry firearms so that they might, if need be, effectively defend themselves or their families when faced with deadly force. Isn't that pretty much your view, Ray? When it comes to effective self-defense, particularly in the face of deadly force, you are pretty much of a big fan of jumping up and down, blowing whistles, begging for mercy and/or calling 911 while hoping that the cops arrive in time to save you and/or your family, aren't you? Good luck with that plan, by the way.
"Gee, I wonder what Jesus would have said about vengefulness at the point of a gun[?]" -- Ray
Who said anything about vengeance?
By the way, would that be the same Jesus, Ray, that, seemingly, had little or no problem with the fact that Apostle Peter was not only carrying a weapon but was rather inclined to use it? As Sacred Scripture points out, it was St. Peter, after all, sword at the ready, who was, so to speak, packing the proverbial "heat" of his day. (cf John 18;10-11)
Would this also be the same Jesus that urged his followers who lacked swords to sell their cloaks so that they might be able to buy one? (cf Luke 22:36)
Incidentally, and for those so interested, The Catechism Of The Catholic Church -- and that would, I might add, be the very same Catholic Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded -- also speaks to those same issues that Ray alludes to above. Please see:
CCC # 2263
CCC # 2264
CCC # 2265
Pat said:
why would you, Anonymous, be opposed to the government providing a grant to that same non-profit Salvation Army so that it might continue to feed the poor, particularly when doing so in no way whatsoever "establishes a religion," as is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment?
I'm not saying we should cut off funding for such programs...(although it's more than often the conservative voice that says we shouldn't fund them at all), I am saying faith-based initiatives should not take precedent over other charitable organizations. In many ways, making such programs a priority does in fact infringe on the First Amendment as far as funding goes. Also, such programs, if they would ordinarily not be eligible for aid, need to be examined before given aid in order to prevent my tax dollars from supporting the making of anti-abortion signs or the signs held at soldier's funeral's saying that God killed our young because of the gays.
There are so many charitable organizations that are funded by the government that support things I am directly opposed to... and I do not get the ability to say - oh no, that non profit supports XY and Z and I don't want my tax dollars going there. Because something is faith based, people can say the things you just said, ANON 11:59 pm.
Separation of church and state did not mean the total elimination of anything representative of God.
This country is going to _______ in a handbasket.
Margaret
No one said it was. I am appalled by the fact that the extreme example of government funding supporting the signs that plague the families of killed soldiers would be shrugged off by anyone though
ray, although I am neither agnostic nor an atheist, I understand your "belief/non-belief" system and agree with much of what you say and I get your humor, too... everyone..take a couple of deep breaths...and some of you.. i.e. (paps)..do not exhale...
Who's shrugging off anything? Signs against killed soldiers...is that what you were saying anon 1:16 6/29...what is the charitable organization that does that?
You know what the source of our angst is? Forget about what government funded charitable organization offends whom...it's the fact that not everyone is on the same page in terms of knowledge of who's doing what. It's all there for us to know...BUT WHO HAS THE TIME to research and know what's what??
Perhaps the government counts on that.
And so we go around in circles complaining.
BTW - the people who have anti war signs at funerals of dead soldiers need to have their heads examined.
And, while I am pro-life, I will always abhor pro life signs with dead babies on them; they are counterproductive at the very least.
Why is it counterproductive to show pro-abortionists precisely what they've "chosen" to do?
When I see those images, it makes me so upset. I guess that's the point, but to me, I see how those images impact the very folks pro-lifers are trying to reach; it enflames them with anger. And then there is hatred for our side, our cause. And minds and hearts close.
Maybe it's because some of those folks have had abortions and the guilt is eating them alive and the pictures exacerbate their agony...maybe because those pictures make our side look like insane zealots.
For me, there has to be a better way. And the very fact that those pictures are of the very human beings we are demanding others to respect, it almost seems like grotesque hypocrisy to shove these pictures of dead mutilated children in other people's faces.
Margaret
what charitable group holds signs up at funerals?
It's not a charity, but The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, travels the country doing just that.
I'm not saying cut off all funding from all faith-based charities. I only object to them taking precedent over others.
And as far as non-profs go, it wouldn't be inconceivable for Reverend Phelps to get funding provided he doesn't make a profit and maybe opens up a soup kitchen.
Who has the time to regulate who gets what money?
I guess you expect money to be treated the way it has been in Iraq, just given out, willy-nilly, lost, unaccounted for, and even used counterproductively. If a government agency provides grants to charitable non-profs, it should be able to show some discretion.
Discretion, so be it.
I want monies to be given on behalf of our soldiers in Iraq so that they have the proper equipment, for their safety, not given out 'willy-nilly' (anon's words).
And the Reverend Phelps should be seeking other means of getting his message across.
Margaret
i agree wholeheartedly with Margaret
Spooky wrote:
"So when we are not consulting "politics, sociology and psychology, etc." in order to discern what God meant when He used the word 'not' in "Thou shall not steal,"..."
I'll ask you again to prove to me that it was God who authored those words and not someone simply voicing his own opinion.
"...we should also remind ourselves that, in the end, truth is relative to "one's take." After all, if others speed, there must not be a speed limit, right?"
This is so naive as to be laughable. Laws, such as speed limits, are a constructed and agreed-upon set of values with no ambiguity in meaning. Religious "truth" is whatever a person or faction decides for itself to be correct, based upon the dictates of their belief system.
"Tell me, Ray, is that very same scatterbrained logic applicable to other areas -- namely, arithmetic, days of the week and even the laws of our land? (e.g., 2 + 2 = 5 ... Tuesday is Saturday...."
See above. And I must note the naive and childish misunderstanding of the difference between demonstrable reality versus the pliable word of an entity that changes according to who is praying to it or interpretting the word of it.
"For it was yourself, after all, that pointed out that "the truth is whatever you want it to be."
Okay, let me simplify it so even you can understand it: When I say 'truth' as in religious truth, I am not referring to the everyday truth that we all acknowledge. 2+2=4 is not a religious truth. Neither is a speed limit. What you take as the word of God is a religious truth. It is malleable and bendable in the hands of different people. Thus, it means different things to different people. Everyday truths are not subject to interpretation as is religious truth. Get it now?
Spooky wrote:
""No blood on my hands. I simply believe people should make their own decisions." -- Ray
Unless, of course, that decision involves law-abiding, properly trained, properly licensed citizens who choose to lawfully carry firearms so that they might, if need be, effectively defend themselves or their families when faced with deadly force."
And turning the tables on you, you would apparently be willing to apply a death sentence (a real possibility in a DGU), in violation of your own church's statement that such is immoral, to someone who is committing a crime.
"By the way, would that be the same Jesus, Ray, that, seemingly, had little or no problem with the fact that Apostle Peter was not only carrying a weapon but was rather inclined to use it?"
Thank you for demonstrating the moral relativism taught in the Bible. You say that Jesus had no problem with people carrying weapons yet he also advocated turning the other cheek. Could we ask for a better example of the fact that you can take the word of God for whatever you want it to be?
Further demonstrating this absurdity, the alleged "Prince of Peace" said "Think not that I have come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34. Thus, the word of God is whatever you want it to be.
Margaret wrote:
"Separation of church and state did not mean the total elimination of anything representative of God."
It sure does in the public sector. The founding fathers were quite specific about this. Even though the Constitution is a bit vague, being a rather short document, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. left no ambiguity in their own writings as to what they had in mind. In his statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money fo the propogation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyranical."
Ray, so you believe in sin? (i.e., "sinful and tyrannical" quote from Jefferson quote)
M
"I'll ask you again to prove to me that it was God who authored those words and not someone simply voicing his own opinion." -- Ray
It isn't required. For the sake of the argument, you acknowledged as much when you asked for me to refute the statement, "Thus the Word of God is whatever you want it to be." As I pointed out earlier, the statement is self-refuting.
If God said, "Thou shall not steal," that statement ("word") will surely meet with the approval of the shopkeeper. It will not meet with the approval of the thief. That the thief nonetheless continues to steal even after hearing The Word of God in no way whatsoever changes what God said or what God meant. It is only through perverting the language that the thief could look to the words, "Thou shall not steal," and then conclude that "Hey, I think God wants me to rob this liquor store."
Ergo, and inasmuch as The Word of God in the example provided above is most certainly not what the thief "wants it to be," your statement is refuted.
"And turning the tables on you, you would apparently be willing to apply a death sentence (a real possibility in a DGU), in violation of your own church's statement that such is immoral, to someone who is committing a crime." -- Ray
Well, for starters, you are grossly misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which I am a proud member. Truth be told, you are saying the exact opposite of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
In in an earlier post on this thread, I referenced paragraphs #2263, #2264 and #2265 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church. For the benefit of non-Catholic readers, I provided URL links so that all could read precisely what those particular paragraphs say and precisely what it is that the Catholic Church teaches with respect to self-defense, particularly self-defense that, tragically, ends in the death of another. I would urge you to take another look at those links if you haven't done so already. (See the post I made on June 28th @ 3:40PM.)
As you will clearly see, far from being "immoral," the Church teaches that not only is it morally permissible, at times, to use arms in self-defense, under some circumstances, doing just that constitutes "a grave duty."
Having said all that, if faced with deadly force, and assuming there was, at that moment, no other viable means of stopping an unjust aggressor from doing harm -- and I would include in that scenario the possibility that the confrontation could be avoided by exercising one's moral, if not legal, "duty to retreat" -- then yes, I would defend myself and my family. Moreover, if I had access to a weapon, including a firearm, I would not hesitate to use that weapon, even if in doing so I might cause the death of another human being. In short, I would shoot to stop, not to kill.
And I'm willing to bet that you'd do precisely the same thing, Ray. The only difference is that I am willing to admit as much; you aren't.
On a side note, and although I realize that you, Ray, were speaking with respect to DGUs and little more, since you used the words "apply a death sentence" when speaking of me, and lest others get sidetracked, I want to make one point very clear: Under no circumstances would I have anything whatsoever do with capital punishment. In that respect as well, my pro-life position is entirely consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. (cf CCC # 2267)
"Thank you for demonstrating the moral relativism taught in the Bible. You say that Jesus had no problem with people carrying weapons yet he also advocated turning the other cheek. Could we ask for a better example of the fact that you can take the word of God for whatever you want it to be?" -- Ray
Tisk, tisk! Ray, were you home with the chicken pox when your Summer Bible Camp taught that insofar as Sacred Scripture is concerned, "text without context is pretext?" I am afraid you are going to have to come up with another example from Sacred Scripture if you want to go home with a little gold crucifix sticker that you can hang on the refrigerator so that everyone can see what a smart little boy you are.
Yes, one can reasonably surmise that Jesus had little or no problem with his Apostles carrying weapons. Case in point: Even after St. Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, Christ simply told St. Peter to put his sword back in its holster, so to speak. He didn't say, "Hey, Pete, what the hell are you doing packing heat? Were you asleep these last three years? Did you hear a single word I said?" (cf John 18:10-11)
And, yes, Christ also taught that one should turn the other cheek. (cf Matthew 5:39) But here is the kicker, that pesky little part that deals with context: In response to what scenario did Christ teach that one should turn the other cheek? The answer, of course, is that one should turn the other cheek when slapped, or more accurately, when insulted.
Now I don't know much about you, Ray. Maybe you've been around the block a few more times than I have. Maybe not. That said, in all my time on this planet, I have yet to hear of a single case where a person was slapped, much less insulted, to death. Have you? For you to suggest that Christ contradicted himself by, seemingly, having no problem with people carrying swords, while at the same time urging his followers to turn the other cheek, is, well, to exploit hyperbole in a way that is something less than honest. Emptying the 15-round magazine of your .40 caliber Glock into the chest of your friend the orthodontist who just called you a "spaz" because you failed to sink a one-foot putt is, dare I submit, both sinful and illegal. Firing a single .38 caliber round into the chest of a parolee who is charging at you with a tire iron in his hand during a road rage incident is something altogether different.
"Further demonstrating this absurdity, the alleged "Prince of Peace" said "Think not that I have come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34.[)]" -- Ray
And what did Jesus say in the very next few lines? (Matthew 10:35-38) Do you think that when Jesus said that one must love Him more than one loves even their mother and father -- a radical statement by today's standards, even more so 2,000 years ago -- that what He was really trying to say is that it will be difficult to be a follower of His? Do you think that Christ's reference to a sword was possibly a metaphor and that what He was really trying to say was that following Him and His teachings would, at times, entail going against the grain of what is both popular and/or convenient? Is it possible, Ray, that when Christ spoke of a lack of peace, that what He was really trying to say to His followers was that they should expect challenges along their faith journey?
Or, by contrast, and as you have so intimated herein, did Christ, who so often taught in parables and by employing similes, really mean what He said literally? Do you really think that Matthew 10:34 means that Jesus Christ wants Margaret to come to Mass tomorrow morning carrying the sword of a Ninja warrior?
I agree with ray..who can prove God told anyone anything? I believe the Bible is akin to Homer's Iliad and Oddysey in that it is just an oral history( eventually written down) by generations of families depicting mythological characters and events to explain Life's timeless mysteries of creation, death and after-life ..every culture from day 1 has depicted their histories on rocks,caves, papyrus, paper, audio, video and now YouTube for future generations to carry-on...after thousands of years of morphing, these tales are sometimes true, sometimes partially true/untrue and sometimes untrue...my truth, your truth and the real truth...most theological writings are based on mythology, in my opinion...I want proof..I am always the skeptic...just because an illusionist makes someone levitate, doesn't mean they are...
And yet no one has ever claimed to find the supposed tomb of the characters of the Illiad or the Odyssey...gimme a break.
Margaret
"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33)
DG, didn't you once claim to be a Christian?
Margaret wrote:
"Ray, so you believe in sin? (i.e., "sinful and tyrannical" quote from Jefferson quote)"
Nope. Jefferson may have. Or he may have been using it as a rhetorical device. Either way, he made his point.
Spooky wrote:
"[Me:]"I'll ask you again to prove to me that it was God who authored those words and not someone simply voicing his own opinion." -- Ray
It isn't required. For the sake of the argument, you acknowledged as much when you asked for me to refute the statement, "Thus the Word of God is whatever you want it to be." As I pointed out earlier, the statement is self-refuting."
There's no such thing as a self-refuting statement. That's just an excuse for you to avoid answering my question.
"If God said, "Thou shall not steal," that statement ("word") will surely meet with the approval of the shopkeeper. It will not meet with the approval of the thief."
Repeating myself, the two views are quite independent of each other. Since when do one person's personal beliefs hinge upon someone else's?
"That the thief nonetheless continues to steal even after hearing The Word of God in no way whatsoever changes what God said or what God meant."
That's just your belief system talking. If people see God differently, the word of God can mean something different to them. Rather simple to understand, isn't it?
"It is only through perverting the language that the thief could look to the words, "Thou shall not steal," and then conclude that "Hey, I think God wants me to rob this liquor store.""
Yet I'll bet you don't accept it when the "word of God" tells you, "...they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16) Ergo, the word of God is whatever you want it to be.
Spooky wrote:
"Or, by contrast, and as you have so intimated herein, did Christ, who so often taught in parables and by employing similes, really mean what He said literally?"
There you go again. You keep proving my point. You interpret the word of God one way while seemingly unaware that others are interpretting it another. While you see parables, others see words to be taken literally. Thus, the word of God is whatever you want it to be. Thanks for making my point!... again!
BTW, the quote I supplied above -- "...they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16) -- is an interesting take on God's feelings about abortion, isn't it? Is it literal or parable?
Ray, how can you use something to prove a point that has something you don't believe?
M
"BTW, the quote I supplied above -- '[The people of Samaria must bear their guilt because they have rebelled against their God.] [T]hey shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.' (Hosea 13:16) -- is an interesting take on God's feelings about abortion, isn't it? Is it literal or parable?" -- Ray
Whether it is literal or a parable matters little insofar as abortion is concerned. The passage from Sacred Scripture that you, Ray, quote, Hosea 13:16, most certainly does not speak to someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy, but rather speaks to The Lord's anger towards a generation of Israelites that have turned their back on Him.
It would only be through an absurd perversion of the language that one could look to the 13th chapter of Hosea and then conclude that the chapter, or any verse contained therein, speaks to abortion -- precisely the very same perversion of language, I might add, that the thief mentioned above would require when he looks to the words "Thou shall not steal," and then somehow concludes that God wants him to rob a liquor store. But then again, if one is hellbent on demonstrating the absurd (e.g., "Thus, the Word of God is whatever you want it to be"), then I don't imagine that one in such an untenable position would be at all troubled by a little perversion of language.
Hosea 13:1-16
anon/paps..I believe in a higher being (Christ) but not all the tales of the Bible..they are myths to me, as is the Iliad Margaret...I need proof, not tall tales..that's just my opinion and each has his/her own beliefs...God (god)or whatever you believe in, bless us all..
The entire Bible is not akin to Homer's Iliad.
Some folks believe that the Old Testament may have some "stories" in there, but the New Testament is about the Life of Christ and the beginnings of the Church.
There are no fiction accounts there.
According to whom? what?
The blind really are leading you blind..
margaret, like I said before, I believe there is some truth based in parts of both Old and New Testaments...as well as non-truths
It's good we can share our beliefs, dg. It helps us better understand each other.
Where is there non-truth in the New Testament?
Margaret wrote:
"Ray, how can you use something to prove a point that has something you don't believe?"
I'm pitting the beliefs of others against their own beliefs. I don't need to believe.
Spooky wrote:
"Whether it is literal or a parable matters little insofar as abortion is concerned. The passage from Sacred Scripture that you, Ray, quote, Hosea 13:16, most certainly does not speak to someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy, but rather speaks to The Lord's anger towards a generation of Israelites that have turned their back on Him."
By dashing their infants to pieces and ripping up pregnant women. And you worship such a monster? Take a breath and note that applying a rationale to God's actions in no way refutes the contradiction in what you take to be his word. Rather, you're calling attention to it.
"It would only be through an absurd perversion of the language that one could look to the 13th chapter of Hosea and then conclude that the chapter, or any verse contained therein, speaks to abortion..."
So the killing of fetuses is bad when you call it abortion but it's okay when you call it the result of God's anger. I think I understand. Put aside the semantic spin and think about what you're saying. Whether you realize it or not, you're demonstrating how easy it is to make God say anything you want.
You make up funny rules for yourself, Ray.
So I don't know if it can be said that your tactics are antagonistic. There isn't really a word than can accurately describe what you do in blog land, at least, in the English language.
Animosity, enmity, and hostility, all those words don't cover it really, because you derive pleasure from "pitting the beliefs of others against their own beliefs"...but this is as you perceive them, Ray.
My perception is you stir the pot, really not caring if you're making a point or not, just kind of delighting in standing back and watching after the pot has been stirred.
I was going to say that I have never met (here) a persona quite like yours, but I have to take that back. If I think back enough in time, I can remember high school girls who had the same agenda, on a smaller scale. I don't mean to be unkind, I think it's coming out that way though...I give you credit for being honest with the above quote. But man, it slammed me. I really thought you were trying to open minds, not play with them.
Margaret
Pat wrote:
"It would only be through an absurd perversion of the language that one could look to the 13th chapter of Hosea and then conclude that the chapter, or any verse contained therein, speaks to abortion"
Pat, I know it's been discussed on this blog before, but I feel the exact same way about Matthew 19:4-6. People provide the context of homosexual marriage that the Bible does not.
Again, I don't really care to duke it out in blog land and don't have much time, but I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance is and if they provide a clearer context.
Both yourself and Ray are really defensive at times when asked questions like that, so don't think I'm antagonizing you. I'd just like to know.
Margaret said:
"I give you credit for being honest with the above quote. But man, it slammed me. I really thought you were trying to open minds, not play with them."
No surprises here. Ray's the snickering kid in the back of the classroom who has found his niche in symantics and plagues teachers everywhere with unproductive and (although not always true in Ray's case), unfunny outbursts. I wouldn't let him worry you.
JDS
untruths in new testament to those who do not believe in your religion or bible..most of world does not anonymous..just because you believe, does not make it so..
Most of world does NOT? Just because YOU believe that, doesn't make it so.
"Pat, I know it's been discussed on this blog before, but I feel the exact same way about Matthew 19:4-6. People provide the context of homosexual marriage that the Bible does not. Again, I don't really care to duke it out in blog land and don't have much time, but I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance is and if they provide a clearer context.Both yourself and Ray are really defensive at times when asked questions like that, so don't think I'm antagonizing you. I'd just like to know." -- Anonymous/JDS
"Damn, you Catholics have more rules than Blockbuster." -- Homer Simpson
JDS, I don't think you are antagonizing me, and I thank you for asking the question. Like yourself, I also don't have a lot of time -- at least not today, that is. That said, I'll speak somewhat briefly to your question now. If need be, I can write at greater length tomorrow or, preferably, on the weekends. At the end of this post I will also point you in the direction of a great lay apostolate, Catholic Answers, that is far better equipped and capable than am I to answer whatever questions you and/or others may have about the Catholic faith.
For starters, if you are sincerely interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church, the very first place you should look is to The Catechism of the Catholic Church. To Catholics, The Catechism is authoritative. Even if you, a non-Catholic, don't believe what is said in that book, you can have confidence that, at the very least, what is said there accurately represents the teachings of the Catholic Church. Incidentally, an online edition of The Catechism, albeit one that lacks the extensive -- and I do mean extensive! -- footnotes found in the "regular" editions of the same book, can be found at the following link:
The Catechism Of The Catholic Church
Having said that, and before speaking to the issue of gay marriages and/or gay civil unions -- the Catholic Church adamantly opposes both, as you can imagine -- I think it is important to reference what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to homosexuality in general. In doing so, one must, I believe, and as does the Church, draw the distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual inclinations. In that respect, the teachings of the Church are very much in line with the old aphorism (read: cliche) that holds that "one should love the sinner, but despise the sin."
With respect to homosexual acts, the teachings of the Catholic Church could not be more clear cut: Homosexual acts are never condoned. (cf CCC # 2357) I am tempted to say that those acts are always "sinful," but I'll prescind from doing just that in that I don't want to get sidetracked discussing what conditions must exist in order for something to be considered, per the Catholic Church, a mortal sin.
At the same time, the Catholic faithful (e.g., Margaret, myself and about a billion other Catholics on this planet) are admonished to remember that homosexuals, very much created in God's image, are to be treated with respect, compassion, Christian charity, sensitivity and, above all else, love. The Church teaches that they should not be unjustly discriminated against. (cf CCC # 2358) Like every other Catholic/Christian not in a valid marriage, homosexuals are called to live a a chaste life -- which is, to be sure, very much a trial, particularly in the culture and times in which we live.
On a personal note, I can tell you that my wife and I are fortunate -- blessed, really -- to count as our friends more than a few Catholics that are also gays and lesbians. Moreover, I suspect that more than a few of the Catholic priests, nuns and other religious that I have encountered in my life have been and/or are homosexual in their inclination. Not a day goes by where I don't thank God in His Heaven for them and the impact they have had on my life. Father Mychal Judge, a Franciscan priest, chaplain of the FDNY and a true hero of 9-11, is one such Catholic priest that immediately comes to mind. Portrait of an American, Catholic and Gay Hero: Father Mychal Judge, O.F.M, FDNY
Now with respect to gay marriages -- and again, I apologize for the lack of time -- I'd urge you to read the following article, which was written by a Catholic Answers staff member:
Gay Marriage: A Catholic Perspective
I would also point out that the opinions expressed in the article above in no way whatsoever involve The Magisterium (teaching authority) of The Catholic Church. As such, Catholics may, in good conscience, embrace or otherwise take issue with what is said therein. (And yes, we Catholics do debate and otherwise think for ourselves, the opinions of others to the contrary notwithstanding.) I would further point out -- although I lack the time to discuss it properly here -- that "obeying the marriage laws of the Catholic Church" is one of the 6 Precepts of the Catholic Faith. (A "precept" is one of the bare-minimum requirements that one must honor in order to be considered a practicing Catholic.)
With respect to any specific questions that you or others may have regarding the Catholic faith, I would respectfully urge you to, first, pose those questions to the Catholic apologists at Catholic Answers. CA can be found at the following link: Catholic Answers Homepage. Once there, click on the "forums" tab or click on the following link: Catholic Answers Forums. Although you can pose a question in any forum, in my opinion, the "Ask An Apologist" forum is probably your best bet. (I think you'll like their forums!) That said, if you have any questions that you want me to answer, ask away and I'll do my best to either answer those questions or, at the very least, steer you to someone that can.
Again, I apologize for my lack of time. Please forgive the typos. Happy Fourth of July, everyone. God bless.
Margaret wrote:
"Animosity, enmity, and hostility, all those words don't cover it really, because you derive pleasure from "pitting the beliefs of others against their own beliefs"...but this is as you perceive them, Ray...
...I really thought you were trying to open minds, not play with them."
Maybe I didn't explain myself well but I never thought anyone would fail to understand that noting the inconsistencies in someone's reasoning is quite valid. It's not matter of "deriving pleasure" from anything. It's simply that the first step in logical argument is to show that your opponent is wrong. I'm doing that by laying bare the fact that the belief system is inconsistent.
JDS wrote:
"No surprises here. Ray's the snickering kid in the back of the classroom who has found his niche in symantics and plagues teachers everywhere with unproductive and (although not always true in Ray's case), unfunny outbursts. I wouldn't let him worry you."
Here's another person who thinks that all debate should be a matter of licking the hand of your opponent.
Ray,
You're logical fallacy, which is a well-noted logical fallacy for someone as pompous as yourself to forget, is that you forget that science/politics and religion are separate, noncompeting realms.
You do not logically prove that the earth revolves around the sun by first claiming there is no god. You just go for it. Hence you are unproductive in argument demanding that everyone first accept that premise (which is as central to you as anyone else's belief).
I don't make people accept my faith before they accept my opinion. My opinion must make its own without the faith for it to be public discussion.
"Here's another person who thinks that all debate should be a matter of licking the hand of your opponent."
Also real productive.
Have a happy 4th. I'll be at the beach.
JDS
"By dashing their infants to pieces and ripping up pregnant women[?] And you worship such a monster?" -- Ray
"So the killing of fetuses is bad when you call it abortion but it's okay when you call it the result of God's anger[?] I think I understand." -- Ray
I don't think you understand at all, Ray. I think you are trying to exploit obvious hyperbole in an attempt to put a few points up on the old debate scoreboard.
Ray, if Sue, a friend of yours, in describing her just concluded vacation, said that, "It rained cats and dogs the entire time that we were in Katmandu," you would not, for a moment, think that little kittens and little puppies were literally falling onto the streets of Nepal, would you? Of course you wouldn't. As an English-speaking American living in the 21st century, you would, without even thinking about it, recognize your friend's remarks for the idiom that it clearly is. You would know that what Sue really meant was that it rained "a lot" or "considerably" during her vacation.
By contrast, if you ran into your neighbor, Bob, the Grand Knight of the local council of the Knights of Columbus, a fraternal organization made up of Catholic men, and Bob told you that, "We are really rolling out the red carpet in anticipation of Bishop Smith's upcoming visit to our council hall," you might not know whether Bob was speaking literally or figuratively.
To be sure, the term "rolling out the red carpet" generally refers to the special treatment that VIPs receive. The term, as commonly understood, doesn't necessarily involve literally putting a red piece of carpet outside the front door as a welcoming sign. Maybe what Bob really meant was that someone was going to talk to Slappy, the Knight's bartender, in order to make sure that the ole Slapster showered, shaved and put on a clean shirt in the hours before His Excellency arrived. But then again, maybe Bob was speaking literally. Maybe those crazy Catholics in Fair Haven really have a red carpet that they keep in the attic and that they literally roll out for the Bishop to walk upon whenever he comes to town to make a speech and throw back a few cold ones with the boys. Then again, maybe they have a red carpet and they want Slappy to shower. Who knows? In short, what Bob meant is unclear.
In either case, it would foolish, to say the least, for anyone to look to the remarks of Sue and Bob and take those words literally. Indeed, in either case, if one took a literal approach to interpreting what Bob and Sue had to say, then they would, more than likely, entirely misconstrue what Sue and Bob really, actually and truly meant or otherwise intended to say.
So too it is, I submit, with respect to interpreting Sacred Scripture, -- which, at the end of the day, is a canon (collection) of 73 individual books (67 if you ask Martin Luther and most Protestants) that includes songs, poems, psalms, mind-numbingly boring census counts, war stories and/or tales of long-concluded battles, some rather racy (read: "Jerry Springer like") parts that speak to incest, bigamy and sex in general, metaphors, idioms, hyperbole, parables, similes, as well as actual history and actual quotations.
If one interprets Sacred Scripture by only employing a literal approach, then one runs the considerable risk of misconstruing what the various authors of Sacred Scripture fully intended to convey -- which, incidentally, is precisely what you have done with respect to your own interpretation of the biblical passages that you, Ray, have referenced throughout this particular thread and elsewhere.
Wait till Mr. Riley comes back and sees that he has over 120 comments to this thread...many of which have NOTHING to do with his writing...:))
10 lashes with a wet noodle!
M
JDS wrote:
"You're logical fallacy, which is a well-noted logical fallacy for someone as pompous as yourself to forget, is that you forget that science/politics and religion are separate, noncompeting realms."
Well, they should be separate. Unfortunately, politics, as well as religion, both insist on dictating to science. Witness creationism and the Bush strategy of influencing if not outright alteration of scientific results to further its agenda. Science should inform politics because it's a source of new knowledge. Maybe it should inform religion, too. But science can only maintain its integrity if it is free from the polluting influences of politics and religion.
How's that? Pompous enough for ya?
You do not logically prove that the earth revolves around the sun by first claiming there is no god. You just go for it."
What the heck are you talking about? Who said anything like that? That's one world class non sequitur there.
"I don't make people accept my faith before they accept my opinion. My opinion must make its own without the faith for it to be public discussion."
Faith is opinion. But no matter. My argument doesn't rely on faith, anyway.
"[Me:]Here's another person who thinks that all debate should be a matter of licking the hand of your opponent."
Also real productive."
Thank you.
Spooky wrote:
"I don't think you understand at all, Ray. I think you are trying to exploit obvious hyperbole in an attempt to put a few points up on the old debate scoreboard."
Hyperbole, parable, simile, tall tale, slow news day story. Call it what you like. The point is that you must interpret the words and that different people do that in different ways. And the way it's done is arbitrary and self-serving. IOW, when people interpret, they do so in accord with their world-views.
The decision about what to take literally and what to interpret as hyperbole, etc. is a personal judgement that's clearly not set in stone, so to speak.
Young-Earth creationists tell us that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that biblical kinds can't be changed. Others, including most Catholics, tell us that the Earth is as old as the scientists say and that species do evolve. The Bible plays a role in the thinking of both groups yet they don't agree at all. So what's the "word of God" here? Answer: it depends on what you believe. Hence, the word of God is whatever you want it to be.
Margaret wrote:
"Wait till Mr. Riley comes back and sees that he has over 120 comments to this thread...many of which have NOTHING to do with his writing..."
You mean we were supposed to talk about chickens and eggs?
"The decision about what to take literally and what to interpret as hyperbole, etc. is a personal judgement that's clearly not set in stone, so to speak." -- Ray
And we can surely blame Martin Luther and the heretics for that one. :-)
Proper Biblical Exegesis
"Wait till Mr. Riley comes back and sees that he has over 120 comments to this thread." -- Margaret
120 + has got to be some sort of record. I don't think even Bob Ingle has come close that number -- and he has the guy that makes a half a dozen posts about the Department of Corrections no matter what the blog topic is.
You mean we're supposed to talk about chickens and eggs? - Ray
Yeah, uh, I think so...it's been so long here I can't actually remember.
Pat - I know about Mr. Ingle's blogs and I thought he had the record for most windbags (myself included) blogging there, but I guess the windbag blog award goes to us and Mr. Riley, eh?
Margaret
Hey, "pat"/pap, whatever..those"crazy Catholics in Fair Haven are not only throwing back a few cold ones with the boys" as you say..be careful because some of them may be getting molested by your clergy after they liquor them up..ha..
Spooky wrote:
"And we can surely blame Martin Luther and the heretics for that one. :-)
Proper Biblical Exegesis"
What is condidered "proper" is relative to each set of beliefs. For every claim of what is proper, there is another that disagrees and sets a different set of standards.
When you boil it all down, what is considered "proper" depends on which religion you were born into.
As I've said before, what a stroke of luck it was that everyone was born into a family that has the one true religion... even if those religions are different.
"As I've said before, what a stroke of luck it was that everyone was born into a family that has the one true religion." -- Ray
You mean like these folks, Ray?
List of people who converted to Catholicism
Five thousand British convert to Catholicism each year, says British priest
Blair will convert to Catholicism 'soon'
Just be sure to save me a seat at your baptism, Ray.
"What is condidered [sic] "proper" is relative to each set of beliefs. For every claim of what is proper, there is another that disagrees and sets a different set of standards." -- Ray
We covered this already, Ray. To the shopkeeper, the words "Thou shall not steal," mean, well, thou shall not steal. To the thief, however, those same words mean, "God wants you to rob this liquor store."
Once again, if we are to accept for the sake of argument that the words "Thou shall not steal" are the words of God; and since it would be entirely illogical to assume that God is, with the very same sentence, commanding one man to steal while commanding another not to steal; the statement, "Thus, the Word of God is whatever you want it to be," is refuted. (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4; it doesn't also equal 5. God either defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, or He does not.)
"When you boil it all down, what is considered "proper" depends on which religion you were born into." -- Ray
Or the degree to which one is inclined to pervert the language God uses in order to arrive at a predetermined result that one is comfortable living with. Again, we've covered this ground as well.
"Pat - I know about Mr. Ingle's blogs and I thought he had the record for most windbags (myself included) blogging there, but I guess the windbag blog award goes to us and Mr. Riley, eh?" -- Margaret
And don't forget about Ray! I don't know about you, but if I have to go down on a felony blogging charge of being a windbag, then that SOB Ray is going down with me. :-)
Incidentally, where the hell is Tommy De Seno when you need him?
"Where...is Tommy DeSeno?" - Pat
First I had to find out WHO is Tommy De Seno...thank goodness for google.
Anyway, yes, Ray has to go down with us too. It's only fair.
Pat, I want you to do less explaining when it comes to those who incite only to frustrate.
Otherwise the gerbil on the little round wheel starts to look soooo familiar. Life is short. :)
Margaret
Spooky wrote:
"[Me:]"As I've said before, what a stroke of luck it was that everyone was born into a family that has the one true religion." -- Ray
You mean like these folks, Ray?
List of people who converted to Catholicism
Five thousand British convert to Catholicism each year, says British priest
Blair will convert to Catholicism 'soon'"
Oh, please. The fact is that this amounts to a very small percentage and in no way counters my point.
"Just be sure to save me a seat at your baptism, Ray."
You genuinely don't get it, do you? This is the kind of self-deception that people like you stroke yourselves with as you create a world of blissful ignorance. And this makes me wonder, Is it possible to be addicted to religion? Other behaviors, when overdone in a compulsive way are often considered to be addictive behaviors. But religion, being off-limits to all but those who don't worry about societal correctness, gets a free ride.
Spooky wrote:
"We covered this already, Ray. To the shopkeeper, the words "Thou shall not steal," mean, well, thou shall not steal. To the thief, however, those same words mean, "God wants you to rob this liquor store.""
No, the thief might say, "It's okay to steal because I see people who say they believe in God doing things like going to war under false pretenses, rationalizing torture, plundering their oil under the pretense that we deserve it and that the Chinese will get it anyway if we don't, allthewhile telling us that God told them to do so.
"Or the degree to which one is inclined to pervert the language God uses in order to arrive at a predetermined result that one is comfortable living with."
To say that one is perverting the word of God is to insert one's own personal beliefs and then judging the actions of others on the basis of those personal beliefs. Yet those in opposition can do exactly the same if that's the way they construct their beliefs.
"Oh, please. The fact is that this amounts to a very small percentage and in no way counters my point." -- Ray
Funny thing, but those were the very same words that came to my mind when the "they" in the sentence "They tell us that the Republican party is the party of God" turned out to really mean the former, acting chairman of the Nebraska Republican party and a few others too secret to name. But, alas, I digress. :-)
That said, the list of converts referenced above does counter your argument, Ray, that "everyone" is lucky enough to be born into the one true religion. People convert all the time. More importantly, people mature in their faith. I know of precious few adults, for example, who still cling to the "now I lay me down to sleep" child-like faith of my young children. I also know of a few former atheists and agnostics that, thanks to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, are now practicing Christians.
"You genuinely don't get it, do you? This is the kind of self-deception that people like you stroke yourselves with as you create a world of blissful ignorance. And this makes me wonder, Is it possible to be addicted to religion?" -- Ray
Well, I certainly hope that it is possible to get "addicted" to religion. On a personal note, if I am not there already, then, by the grace of God, I certainly hope and pray to get there sometime soon. Moreover, once there, and as Miss Winehouse is quick to tell us, "If they try to get me to go to rehab, I won't go, go, go."
All joking aside, the "bliss" to which you refer, Ray, comes from the realization that both you and I are loved by an awesome and forgiving God; that we are called from the very depths of our being to love and serve that God in this life, and that we should spend eternity with Him in the next life.
Seek first God's Kingdom and His righteousness and everything -- and I do mean everything, Ray -- will be given onto you. (cf Matthew 6:33) A peace and a serenity that transcends anything this temporal world can possibly offer awaits you. All that is asked is that you show the smallest bit of faith -- the faith of the mustard seed, if you will. Believe God when He says that if you ask for that faith, it will be given onto you. (cf Matthew 7:7-11) Demonstrate that faith -- trust in it -- and I promise that God will do the rest; God will bring you home. (cf Luke 15:11-32, The Parable of the Prodigal Son)
And whether you realize it or not, Ray, I have to believe that God is already leading you in that direction. Despite all your passion on these boards, despite your repeated words to the contrary, you are here for a reason. I don't think for a moment that it is by any accident that you spend so much of your time arguing with those of faith. I don't think you are trying to convince others inasmuch as you are trying to convince yourself. In short, "me thinks doth protest too much." You are searching for something, Ray. You are being prompted by The Holy Spirit to begin a faith journey that begins with the seemingly desperate yet oh-so-important and sincerely proffered prayer: "God, I want to believe."
To that end, Ray, please know that my prayers are with you. I sincerely want for you all that God has to offer. God bless.
Spooky wrote:
"Funny thing, but those were the very same words that came to my mind when the "they" in the sentence "They tell us that the Republican party is the party of God" turned out to really mean the former, acting chairman of the Nebraska Republican party and a few others too secret to name."
Your arguments are getting more petty and pointless than ever.
"But, alas, I digress. :-) "
As always.
"That said, the list of converts referenced above does counter your argument, Ray, that "everyone" is lucky enough to be born into the one true religion. People convert all the time."
What percentage of people change their faith? Maybe a percent or two? My point is made.
"More importantly, people mature in their faith. I know of precious few adults, for example, who still cling to the "now I lay me down to sleep" child-like faith of my young children."
Sure. That's the same thing that happens when the cigarette companies get kids to start smoking. They start by getting them thinking that smoking is cool... then they're addicted.
I also know of a few former atheists and agnostics that, thanks to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, are now practicing Christians."
Prompted by societal pressures, you mean.
"All joking aside, the "bliss" to which you refer, Ray, comes from the realization that both you and I are loved by an awesome and forgiving God..."
You're wasting my time.
"No, the thief might say, "It's okay to steal because I see people who say they believe in God doing things like going to war under false pretenses, rationalizing torture, plundering their oil under the pretense that we deserve it and that the Chinese will get it anyway if we don't, allthewhile telling us that God told them to do so." -- Ray
I see. So The Word of God isn't what the thief wants it to be. The thief steals in spite of The Word of God. Moreover, he rationalizes away his theft by saying (a) "Others are stealing/sinning so its okay if I do the same;" and (b) "I don't like the foreign policies of the Bush Administration."
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Ray. Thanks even more for demonstrating that The Word of God is not whatever you want it to be. I'm glad that we can finally put that baby to bed.
Spooky wrote:
"I see. So The Word of God isn't what the thief wants it to be. The thief steals in spite of The Word of God."
Holy smokes! Did I read your comment correctly? I wrote that the 'word of God' can be used to justify the abuses I mentioned (i.e. to make it into something that rationalizes his actions), and you turn that into a statement to the effect that the 'word of God' is established as true? Geez, Spooky, get your nose out of that Bible and get some fresh air. I think fumes from the glue used in the binding is affecting you.
"Moreover, he rationalizes away his theft by saying (a) 'Others are stealing/sinning so its okay if I do the same;'"
He's using the actions of others to justify his own. No matter how you parse it he's interpreting the 'word of God' in a way that's convenient for himself.
"... and (b) 'I don't like the foreign policies of the Bush Administration.'"
You really don't understand anything being said here, do you?
"Thanks for clearing that up for us, Ray."
You still refuse to understand anything that hasn't been predigested by your belief system.
"Thanks even more for demonstrating that The Word of God is not whatever you want it to be."
I've demonstrated how easily people like you are deceived by your beliefs.
"I'm glad that we can finally put that baby to bed."
Actually, I think you've aborted it.
"Holy smokes! Did I read your comment correctly? I wrote that the 'word of God' can be used to justify the abuses I mentioned (i.e. to make it into something that rationalizes his actions), and you turn that into a statement to the effect that the 'word of God' is established as true?" -- Ray
We are getting redundant here.
One need not demonstrate that the words "Thou shall not steal" are an established truth. If you proffer that "The Word of God is whatever you want it to be;" and if, simply for the sake of argument, we test your hypothesis by accepting as a given that God said, "Thou shall not steal;" then the fact that the thief continues to steal in a manner contrary to that Word demonstrates that The Word of God is not whatever the thief wants it to be. Ergo, your statement is refuted, your obstinate refusal to accept as much notwithstanding.
Moreover, the fact that the thief might, through a perversion of the language, interpret those words to mean something other than what God intended, doesn't in any way change what God said. Nor does the fact that the thief rationalizes away his theft in any way alter what God said. The Word of God is what it is -- and that remains the case whether the thief chooses to ignore that Word or not.
"You still refuse to understand anything that hasn't been predigested by your belief system." -- Ray
I like you, Ray, and since that "Thus, the Word of God is whatever you want it to be" line was so easy to hit out of the ballpark, and with the above referenced quote yours in mind, here's a softball lobbed your way ...
Right. And "We live in a society where the individual ego and the group dynamic are in constant struggle."
I think you missed your calling, Ray. You could be writing the nonsensical, double-speak lines for the blond talking head on the GEICO commercials.
See what lengths I go to, Margaret, to make you chuckle? We can start the countdown now. How long before Ray suggests that I could, if need be, replace the caveman in those same commercials? 5,4, 3 ....
Pat, I certainly believe in one's right to an opinion, and defending one's belief when there are those who distort (due to lack of correct information) those beliefs in a blog site.
But this thing with the thief and, "thou shalt not steal" and you and Ray playing verbal baseball or whatever it is...yikes.
Aren't you tired? Or dizzy yet? I would be in your place.
You know, NOT responding does not mean that the other side has won, though the other side will most likely interpret it that way.
That's HIS/HER problem... don't let it be yours.
And not for nothing, but I can't stand the GEICO Caveman thing and have no idea how the whole premise lasted this long.
Margaret
Spooky wrote:
"Moreover, the fact that the thief might, through a perversion of the language, interpret those words to mean something other than what God intended, doesn't in any way change what God said. Nor does the fact that the thief rationalizes away his theft in any way alter what God said. The Word of God is what it is -- and that remains the case whether the thief chooses to ignore that Word or not."
Why do you refuse to see that your interpretation of the 'word of God' is your own? Others may not see it that way. It's just your belief system talking. Other belief systems talk differently. "What God intended" is arbitrary and up for grabs. Don't give me that "2+2=4" as an analogy, either. Mathematical certainty is demonstrable and provable. Your "word of God" is neither. The fact that there are so many religions and competing sects within religions and so many examples of behavior contrary to what you call the "word of God" coming from people who are just as sure as you that they also know the "word of God" argues that the "word of God" is ephemeral, transient and politically self-serving.
Spooky wrote:
"How long before Ray suggests that I could, if need be, replace the caveman in those same commercials? 5,4, 3 ...."
I doubt you could handle a life as advanced as that of a caveman compared to your own.
"The fact that there are so many religions and competing sects within religions and so many examples of behavior contrary to what you call the "word of God" coming from people who are just as sure as you that they also know the "word of God" argues that the "word of God" is ephemeral, transient and politically self-serving." -- Ray
And how much debate, theological or otherwise, do you imagine these religions and sects to which you refer would require in order to discern what God meant when he spoke the following four words: "Thou shall not steal?" How many of these religions will tell the thief that he is right and that, yes, God really does want him to rob that liquor store? In the end, the Word of God is not what the thief wants it to be. The thief steals in spite of that Word.
Spooky wrote:
"And how much debate, theological or otherwise, do you imagine these religions and sects to which you refer would require in order to discern what God meant when he spoke the following four words: "Thou shall not steal?""
Given all of the ways in which religions and sects differ on what constitutes the word of God it flabbergasts me that you still cling to "Thou shall not steal" as if it somehow will distract us away from the reality that God's alleged word is so vague as to have allowed a multitude of religions to go off in their own direction about what is right. If the 'word of God' were so clear there would be only one religion in the world.
"How many of these religions will tell the thief that he is right and that, yes, God really does want him to rob that liquor store? In the end, the Word of God is not what the thief wants it to be. The thief steals in spite of that Word."
The fact that secular laws exist with little ambiguity (many of which predate the 10 Commandments) is no argument for the 'word of God' being unambiguous. What you're doing is piggy-backing the 'word of God' on a secular law and holding it up as an example of its own integrity. What nonsense.
Post a Comment
<< Home