Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Evangelicals bad, radical leftists good

On yesterday's episode of National Public Radio's "Fresh Air," with Terry Gross, Terry interviewed Ryan Lizza, author of the recent New Yorker hit piece on Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann. Lizza researched some of the people who have influenced Bachmann, a group which consists of a who's who of mostly standard, sometimes goofy, evangelical thinkers.

Lizza would name one of them, as Terry would express shock and amazement. He would name another, and Terry would express disappointment and unbelief.

It became clear to me that we needed a good comparison of the figures who influenced Bachmann we shouldn't respect and imitate (exclusively evangelical) and the figures we should admire and emulate (almost all secular).  Here is the list for those of you who were confused in any way. I know you will agree that the liberal heroes clearly are superior to those of Michell Bachmann:

Michelle Bachman's Heroes (Bad) Liberal Heroes (Good)
John Eidsmoe (Professor who believes many of the founding fathers were Christians) Margaret Sanger (Symphathized with Nazis, advocated eugenics and population control of the lower classes)
Francis Schaeffer (Late Christian thinker who believed that your worldview should affect what you do) Robert C. Byrd (Late Democratic Senate leader who was a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan)
Robert Wilkins (Presbyterian pastor who has romantic view of the institution of slavery in the old South) Barney Frank (Gay Congressman whose live in "partner" was running a prostitution ring out of his apartment without his knowledge)
Nancy Pearcey (Follower of Francis Schaeffer who thinks your worldview should affect what you do) Che Guevara (Totalitarian pro-Soviet revolutionary who presided over Cuba's first firing squad sessions and founded the Cuban labor camp system for political prisoners)
R. J. Rushdoony (Late theologian who believed Old Testament Law still applies and that Christians should convince enough other people of their views that they will affect culture and politics) Bill Ayers (Leader of communist revolutionary group that conducted terrorist bombings in the 60s and 70s)

36 comments:

Lee said...

As I recall, Martin, you're not a big fan of Francis Schaeffer, and it had something to do with his view of Thomas Aquinas.

I did read Schaeffer's pamphlet, "How Then Shall We Live?" and found it interesting. Aquinas did take a bit of a beating, it seemed, and (from the things you said earlier) perhaps an undeserved one.

But I'd be interested in your thoughts about his main thesis in that book, to wit, that philosophy got wrapped around the axle starting with the so-called "age of enlightenment" by seeking ways to unite ethics and reason in a godless cosmos, with the failure of this attempt resulting in post-modernism.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KyCobb said...

Nice soft pedaling there. Why didn't you mention Rushdoony thought Human Slavery should be legal and children should be stoned to death for disrespecting their parents?

Singring said...

I had no idea Barney Frank, Che Guevara or Bill Ayers were my 'heroes'. But thanks for telling me, Martin.

As to Michelle Bachmann's 'heroes', you call them 'mostly standard, sometimes goofy evangelical thinkers'.

Well, maybe in your circles denying the Holocaust (as Rushdoony has) passes for 'standard' thinking. Maybe you consider it nothing more than a little 'goofy' when someone says that Germans did not exterminate six million Jews and millions more Sinti and Roma and disabled people. I call it abhorrent. Where I live, denying the Holocaust will get you investigated, maybe prosecuted. It will certainly destroy any credibility you have on anything.

But then again, I'm one of those godless moral subjectivists who have no idea of what is really right and wrong, so maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that trivializing or lying about genocide is evil, rather than 'goofy'. Clearly, you have superior moral standards in this regard and Michelle Bachmann should be commended for citing such a formidable moral beacon as an influence on her thinking.

To get a good idea of what Michelle Bachmann's 'heroes' really want th eworld to look like, maybe we should listen to someone who was intimately involved in their philosophy and political movement. Maybe someone like Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Shaeffer, whose political philosophy you euphemize as believeing that 'your world view should influence what you do'.

So what yould Schaeffer have wanted Americans 'to do'. According to his son (I quote):

'And Herb Titus and my dad and people like Rousas Rushdoony and other founders of the Reconstructionist movement, or the Dominionists, because they want to take dominion over the earth, including American politics, really believe that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights should be replaced by what they regard as biblical law.

[...]

[Michelle Bachmann] comes from a fringe even of the fringe, which is the Reconstructionist, Dominionist movement, that honestly, in the best of all worlds, as far as they’re concerned, would replace American democracy with a theocracy on a Christian level that would mirror something like modern-day Iran after it fell to the Ayatollah Khomeini.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Yzy6Mt4k8

So Martin Cothran says that people who want to instate a theocracy are 'standard, sometimes goofy' thinkers.

I don't think this needs further comment.

Our Founding Truth said...

Schaeffer is correct about Aquinas. And you can add Belarmine in there too. Both didn't say a word when their employer was murdering millions of Christians and Jews. They were both losers.

Sing,

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the Bible:

"All human laws [Constitution] are null and void if contrary to the Divine Law [Scriptures]."
--Alexander Hamilton. The Farmer Refuted

Singring said...

OFT,

are you in favour of, for example, a law that would have blasphemers put to death?

Yes or No?

Art said...

So, which Commandment did the 2nd Amendment come from?

Which Amendment is supposed to be the 1st Commandment?

And what were Hamilton's real words?

KyCobb said...

OFT is regurgitating David Barton pseudohistory. I saw a post about one of our founding documents on The Panda's Thumb blog that is so pefect I'm going to quote it here:

"The United States was founded on the principles it says it was founded on, not on anything in the Christian gospel. “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. Self-evident, not written down in some Scripture somewhere.

And what truths are these? “That all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights… That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Creator, Henry. Not Jesus. Not the Abrahamic God. All men, meaning “all humans”, not Christians. From the consent of the governed, not because God says.

It was not Christians affording protection to heathens that created the United States. That’s pernicious tosh at best, if not downright lies, and Patrick Henry should have known better. It was a free people agreeing among themselves that they would respect and protect the rights of all of them. All, Henry. Not those who read the Bible. Not those who go to church on Sundays or any other day. Not those who believe in God. All the people, mutually. “We, the people.” Not “we, the Christians”."

Our Founding Truth said...

OFT,

are you in favour of, for example, a law that would have blasphemers put to death?

Yes or No?

No

Our Founding Truth said...

Art,

If you would the framers' writings, then read the Bible, you will find the truth.

Right to bear arms. Second Amendment: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

The free exercise clause, where Jesus granted every human being in the Gosples, takes the place of the 1st commandment.

Our Founding Truth said...

Kycobb,

I don't need to regurgitate Barton to prove the United States was formed a Christian Nation.

Singring said...

OFT:

'No'

Excellent. So no death penalty for blasphemers then.

But what punishment would you deem appropriate?

Imprisonment?

A fine?

Because according to your blog, blasphemy is indeed a crime punishable by law and you seem very much in favour of this idea:

I quote your blog post from Dec. 29th 2007, in which you seem to endorse laws derived from the Ten Commandments.:

'The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court [...]; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), (i)he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law.(/i) It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.'

(emphasis in the original)

and on October 6th 2007 you wrote:

'The foundation of Republican Government is Law, Common Law. (i)The basis of the Constitution's Republican Government, and Common Law, is without a doubt, The Ten Commandments from Yahweh, the God of Israel (/i). It is an indisputable fact the Founding Fathers believed this'

(emphasis added)

and later you write:

'That the Divine Law is The Ten Commandments is clear.'

Now, according to the Old Testament, the punishment for blasphemy is death:

Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”

So I wonder how you can on the one hand endorse 'Common Law' (i.e. as derived from the Ten Commandments in the OT) as a basis for our modern society, but then want to go against the OT when picking a punishment.

I mean, fair enough, if you want to pick and choose, I know that that's standard procedure among Christians.

But as I said, it does make me curious: What punishment - if any - would you deem appropriate for someone who had blasphemed to the point where they actually deserve punishment?

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KyCobb said...

OFT,

The only references to religion in the Constitution is to prohibit an establishment of one by Congress, and to prohibit a religious test for public office. Also in the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to the Senate by Founding Father and then President John Adams in 1797, and ratified that same year it states, and I quote, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Not in any sense, OFT.

Ed said...

J. Steven Wilkins, not Robert

Our Founding Truth said...

Sing,

You need to ask the framers--rather, read their writings to find out the answers. I would not use their justice for Sin.

The Divine Law would also include the Gospel.

I would definitely punish someone for blasphemy, as the framers did. What that would be, haven't thought about it, because it won't happen.

Our Founding Truth said...

ky,

What you, and the secular world don't seem to understand--which you should have already, because I have quoted the framers to you on this point--is that religion is left to the States to do whatever they want. The Constitution pertains to the Federal govt. The 1st amendment prohibits ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVT. That's why the States had a religion test for public office.


You guys always quote the treaty of tripoli, but you mis-quote it. Enter treaty of tripoli on my blog for the truth about it. You put a period after religion. There is no period there, rather a semi-colon to show the context is after the colon. It is the Christianity of europe that persecuted muslims that we are not.

That is a fact because the guy who signed the treaty, John Adams, said we were a Christian nation two months later at his inaugural address.

Singring said...

'I would not use their justice for Sin.'

So killing a blasphemer is a sin?

I guess God is the worst sinner of all then - because he was ordering mass slaughters left, right and centre for blaspheming him.

'The Divine Law would also include the Gospel. '

Where in the gospel does it say that blasphemers should not be put to death or that blasphemy is no longer a sin to be punished? Is it not in the gospels that blasphemy is called the 'only sin that cannot be forgiven'? Is it not Jesus himself who says that 'not a jot or tittle of the old law shall pass away?'

But hey - I understand that Christianity is like a big old cherry orchard - you just amble through and pick a couple cherries here. a couple cherries there, whatever tickles your fancy and is in line with youir idea of a beautiful, glorious theocracy, Iranian-style.

'I would definitely punish someone for blasphemy, as the framers did. What that would be, haven't thought about it, because it won't happen.'

You sound disappointed.

Our Founding Truth said...

I guess God is the worst sinner of all then - because he was ordering mass slaughters left, right and centre for blaspheming him.>>>

Where?

Where in the gospel does it say that blasphemers should not be put to death or that blasphemy is no longer a sin to be punished? Is it not in the gospels that blasphemy is called the 'only sin that cannot be forgiven'? Is it not Jesus himself who says that 'not a jot or tittle of the old law shall pass away?>>>

You need to read the Bible, start in John, and you will find the answer when Jesus forgives the woman caught in adultery. God can forgive, which is the reason Jesus came to earth. Get your sins forgiven, through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, but by me."

John 14"6

Is it not in the gospels that blasphemy is called the 'only sin that cannot be forgiven'?>>>>>

The unpardonable sin is refecting Christ. For that, there is no forgiveness.

Lee said...

It's even worse than that. God stands idly by while billions of people have died.

Our atheist friends should just come out and say that if He were truly a just god, He would simply abolish death. Stands to reason, doesn't it?

Except it doesn't work that way. It also stands to reason that the Giver of Life has the authority to be the Taker of Life. In our sinful condition, death itself is a blessing. What if the Stalins and Temujins and Maos and Neros of the world could live forever? Through experience, they would be simply fortify their positions and their power to the point where nobody could depose them, and there would be no escaping them, now or forever.

Singring said...

'Where?'

Ever heard of a little event called the flood?

'You need to read the Bible, start in John, and you will find the answer when Jesus forgives the woman caught in adultery.'

So forgiveness of adultery is forgiveness of blasphemy? Thanks for clearing that up, because I always though forgiveness of adultery was forgiveness of adultery.

'The unpardonable sin is refecting Christ. For that, there is no forgiveness.'

Jesus seems to think otherwise:

Mark 3:28-30: Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Picking and choosing is easy.

Singring said...

'What if the Stalins and Temujins and Maos and Neros of the world could live forever? Through experience, they would be simply fortify their positions and their power to the point where nobody could depose them, and there would be no escaping them, now or forever.'

God is not deposable, Lee. Nor can you ever escape him. And what does he do to those who displease him?

He tortures them forever.

So what's your problem with Mao or Nero if you happily 'love' and obey a God who has exactly the attributes you wish to condemn?

Do you somehow enjoy the tyranny of a supernatural simply because it is supernatural?

'In our sinful condition, death itself is a blessing.'

And this from teh guy who wants to lecture me on morality.

Priceless.

Lee said...

> He tortures them forever.

There are different takes among Christians as to the nature of Hell. Some do not believe in Hell at all. Others believe the torture is the knowledge that you are forever separated from God. But ultimately, it is the rejection of Him that brings it on.

> So what's your problem with Mao or Nero if you happily 'love' and obey a God who has exactly the attributes you wish to condemn?

If we take it as a given that you are a creature of God, then He has designed you to be happy in His presence. What's He supposed to do if you don't want to be in His presence, now or ever?

To my knowledge, Mao or Nero didn't create me in their image. They only played at being god.

> Do you somehow enjoy the tyranny of a supernatural simply because it is supernatural?

Half of any discussion with you is trying to figure out how you arrive at your conclusions about what I saiid based on anything I said.

> And this from teh guy who wants to lecture me on morality.

> And this from teh guy who wants to lecture me on morality.

So you think the world would be a better place if evil were allowed to live forever, and you seem astonished that I would see things otherwise?

Singring said...

'There are different takes among Christians as to the nature of Hell. Some do not believe in Hell at all. Others believe the torture is the knowledge that you are forever separated from God. But ultimately, it is the rejection of Him that brings it on.'

I'm not interested in what some Christians believe, Lee. In this context, its important what you believe.
What kind of hell do you believe in?

'What's He supposed to do if you don't want to be in His presence, now or ever?'

What's Mao supposed to do if you don't want to be in his presence now or ever?

Does the simple act of refusing servitude and adulation warrant eternal torture, damnation, whatever you think hell is?

How come you are rightfully abhorred by the evil of dictators like Mao, but call it 'love' when a supernatural being acts in exactly the same way?

Well, you give us this explanation:

'To my knowledge, Mao or Nero didn't create me in their image. They only played at being god.'

So in other words: Might makes right. Mao and Hitler were evil for killing and slaughtering. Why? Because they didn't have enough power.

God, on the other hand, simply because he created us, has the right to do whatever he likes. Kill babies, slaughter people who choose to not love him, all of that good stuff.

This is the epitome of complete servitude, the utter abdication of any and all human dignity and morality to a supreme power that can treat you as it wishes - just so long as it is supremely powerful. You will not let yourself be dictated to by a being with X amount of power, but you will happily accept whatever supreme being with X+1 power does, even if it is the complete annihilation of a planet or eternal torture of the those who think differently.

What a glorious idea of morality.

'So you think the world would be a better place if evil were allowed to live forever, and you seem astonished that I would see things otherwise?'

1.) You said that death is a blessing because of our sinful condition. Is it a blessing for a child to die of pneumonia? Is it a blessing for a teen in Ohio who works at a nursing home and just happens to be a Jew to die and go to hell for all eternity a blessing?

2.) You declared that those who 'fortify their power to the point where nobody could depose them, and there would be no escaping them, now or forever.' are acting in an evil way.

God acts in exactly that way! So - according to you - it is your world view that is ripe with evil, not mine.

I am simply pointing out this inconsistency in your application of the term 'evil'.

If Mao does it, its bad, if God does it, its glorious.

Our Founding Truth said...

Sing,

Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is rejecting the Holy Ghost, who is convicting you about Jesus, like He is convicting you right now.

Singring said...

'Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is rejecting the Holy Ghost, who is convicting you about Jesus, like He is convicting you right now.'

So sometimes blasphemy means blasphemy and sometimes it means rejection. Got it. A real shame god was such a very poor public speaker that he couldn't even get his basic meaning across in a simple sentence. I mean. saying 'don't blaspheme against the holy spirit or you won't be forgiven' is obviously much clearer than saying 'don't reject the holy spirit or you won't be forgiven'.

Luckily, there's people like you who can interpret the Bible for us and let us know what god really meant.

Lee said...

Singring, I'll respond to what I believe to be the threads holding your thoughts together.

First, regarding the nature of Hell: I'm undecided on the precise nature of Hell, other than it seems fairly certain it's a place of torment. Just what is causing the torment is probably debatable. Martin has suggested that we Protestants wouldn't know poetic language if it were to smite us verily in the chops. On this issue, my tendency is to take Martin's view. When the time comes, perhaps the worst part of it is that those destined for damnation finally realize that everything they have ever valued or treasured was a gift from Him, and that they have thrown it all away.

Or maybe not. Maybe it's the torment of the eternally offended. C.S. Lewis proposed that, ultimately, the damned may actually choose Hell because they prefer it. I find Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man fascinating in this regard. The rich man, suffering in Hell, begs Abraham to send Lazarus over to him with water to cool his tongue. Then he asks if he can appear to his brothers and warn them of his fate lest it become theirs. I find it interesting, and perhaps instructive, that the rich man did *not* ask Abraham if he could join them in Heaven. Maybe he didn't want to subject himself to the debasing "servitude" you complained about.

Another point you raise is that since God and Mao ask the same things of me, that therefore they are morally equivalent. My answer? You are right, if and only if the King and the Usurper are the same. But One is entitled to my reverence, the other is not.

As I mentioned, you also seem to resent very much the suggestion that we should serve God. I don't understand why. After all, He serves us. One way He serves us is to forgive our sins based on Jesus' sacrifice. He gave you the gift of life, and He made possible the things that make your life worth living. Is the real problem that, like a spoiled rich kid, you think it should have been so much more?

You ask, "Does the simple act of refusing servitude and adulation warrant eternal torture, damnation, whatever you think hell is?" This puts the cart before the horse. Our sin is what condemns us; Jesus is the only way out of that. Quite simply, it's the best He can do for us.

You point at supposed "inconsistencies" in my moral viewpoint. Don't see the inconsistency, sorry. I say God is the Author of all that is right. If so, then my moral code is right, even if sometimes I'm unsure about its precepts and have to consult His word and guidance from those who know it better. If not, then my moral code is still not necessarily wrong. After all, morality would then be relative, wouldn't it? All I have to do is stand in one place and wait for it to come around.

Finally, a point of my own: Paul suggested that there really is no such thing as a non-believer, that there are only those who shake their fist at the Lord. This seems to be true in your case, at least to this extent: it sounds like, even if you were convinced of the essential truth of God's existence, you would still reject Him for requiring your servitude. That is a spiritual problem that goes far beyond the ability of reason and evidence to deal with. That one will require the Holy Spirit to intervene.

Singring said...

Thanks for the very eloquent response, Lee.

I acknowledge that you are not quite settled on the issue of hell, but you do admit you see it as some kind of torment. So this brings us very directly to the second issue, regarding Mao and God which you address head-on:

'But One is entitled to my reverence, the other is not.'

I realize that you believe this, but I ask you on what basis you make this decision? What is it that makes Mao the usurper and God the king? And why must the king be obeyed and served, the usurper not - when, after all God behaves in exactly the same way the immortal Mao does (i.e. undisposable, eternal, authoritative, doling out punishment).

'As I mentioned, you also seem to resent very much the suggestion that we should serve God. '

That is not quite right. I resent the notion of unquestioning servitude to anyone, including God. I resent the notion of immutable servitude. And most importantly, I resent the notion of a servitude based on nothing more than power or authority. You said yourself that the reason you serve God is that he is our creator and thus ultimately powerful. So it appears to me that you will happily serve whoever has the maximum amount of power.

This doesn't jibe with the politcial Lee I've come to know - the one that wants freedom from government, a less authoritative state, more personal liberties (at least in some issues). How come you value freedom and liberty so much in one arena, but happily subject yourself to complete and eternal servitude in the other?

'One way He serves us is to forgive our sins based on Jesus' sacrifice.'

Indeed he claims to do so. But these 'sins' are only 'sins' because he says they are and because he created a situation in which they could arise himself - Was it not God who set up the garden of eden, placed the snake in it, allowed it to speak to Eve, never gave Eve any idea of what is right and wrong and then punished not only Adam and Eve - but every single one of their ancestors for their a transgression they had no idea would have such grave consequences? If he hadn't been so vindictive/egomaniacal and incompetent or ignorant or evil in the first place, God wouldn't have needed to forgive us our sins.

Its like the Mafia boss who comes to your shop and offers to protect you from 'fire damage'. Is he there to serve you also?

Christianity is trying to sell you the cure for the disease of its own creation. Its the ultimate racket.

'He gave you the gift of life, and He made possible the things that make your life worth living.'

Even if that were so, would that give him the right to torture me forever, simply for not serving him? Is that what you would call 'justice'?

'Our sin is what condemns us;'

God defines sin, he allowed sin to happen - he set the whole thing up knowing it would happen - and then he condemns the son for the father. God could easily decide that X, Y or Z is not a sin - but he doesn't. Can't you see the cognitive disconnect you are creating?

On the one hand, God created us and knows exactly what we will or won't do, plus he gets to decide what a sin is caompletely arbitrarily - but when we 'sin' its all our fault and God is to be commended for forgiving us when we grovel before him so as not to be punished forever?

Its like the ultimate abusive relationship. Someone beats up on you and then you blame yourself for it.

Singring said...

'I say God is the Author of all that is right.'

So? You said that in your scenario, Mao and others were the ultimate evil because they were unaccountable, unassailable, eternal - these are all things that apply to God.

'This seems to be true in your case, at least to this extent: it sounds like, even if you were convinced of the essential truth of God's existence, you would still reject Him for requiring your servitude.'

Again, this is not quite true - I would reject him for requiring my servitute on the punishment of eternal torture. You know, Mao and Hitler were horrible men, but at least they couldn't torture you forever if you didn't dance to their tune.

If God existed and had said: 'Hey, you know what - you're a good guy and I hope you do the right things with your life but if you don't I won't hold it against you as long as you don't hurt other people. And if you want to follow and serve and love me, good for you. I'd really like that and I think we could be great friends, maybe I could even help you out once in a while with a miracle healing or something. If you don't want to - that's fine. I'm easy.' - I would have no problem with that kind of God and who knows - I might even decide to serve him for a while, maybe for a long time.

But according to you - if he exists - that's not what he said. What he said is: 'I created you, knowing your great-great-great....great ancestor would sin, but I'm going to blame you for that and I am going to send you to a place of eternal torment just because you won't accept the human sacrifice I made to myself two thousand years ago in bronze-age palestine and won't serve and love me for doing all of that.'

To that God, I say (to put it politely): 'You don't sound like someone I'd be interested in spending a minute with riding the bus, let alone serving in any way, shape or form. Thanks, but no thanks.'

Lee said...

> Thanks for the very eloquent response, Lee.

You're quite welcome, and it's quite gracious of you to say that.

> I realize that you believe this, but I ask you on what basis you make this decision? What is it that makes Mao the usurper and God the king?

The Lord is our Creator, but it isn't just that. He wants what is best for us and works tirelessly for our benefit. That cannot be said of Mao, or any other human dictator, boss, or ex-wife. Morality is about relationships, and the scriptures portray God as a fanatic, so to speak, on building and protecting good relationships. He treasures the joy of Heaven so much that He cannot admit into it anyone who would ruin it and try to destroy it. Some people could only be happy in Heaven if they were the ones wearing the crown and sitting on the throne. We cannot bring our sinful human baggage to Heaven; it's like having a fancy party and allowing a stray cat to come in and mess up the carpet. Thus, we have what Reformed theologians call the sanctification process, where the Holy Spirit works on our human nature to change our perspective into something more like His.

And I think you have this servitude thing all wrong. In the Lord's way of thinking, those with position, power and authority do most of the serving. He already serves us in so many ways. Jesus illustrated this when He washed his disciples' feet -- this runs counter to everything we know about human nature, where anyone with power demands that others wash his feet. It runs counter to human nature, but not the Lord's: relationships are best when we serve those we love.

If you read Jesus' parables (particularly the wedding feast and the prodigal son), you get a sneak preview of what Heaven will be. In modern parlance, the Lord is a party animal. Those "high-toned folks" He invited to His wedding feast turned their noses up at Him, so He extended the invitation to the rabble on the street, and even bought them appropriate garments to wear for the occasion, analogous to giving the men tuxes and the ladies evening gowns. But when someone tries to crash the party in his street clothes, the bouncers make short work of him. He simply will not put up with those who try to ruin the joy of the occasion.

All I have time for, for now.

Lee said...

> This doesn't jibe with the politcial Lee I've come to know - the one that wants freedom from government, a less authoritative state, more personal liberties (at least in some issues). How come you value freedom and liberty so much in one arena, but happily subject yourself to complete and eternal servitude in the other?

Socialism presumes that decision-makers have sufficient knowledge, virtue, and motivation to make the best economic decisions. If any of these presumptions break down, the system fails.

I know of only one Being with perfect knowledge, virtue, and motivation.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'All I have time for, for now.'

That is a quite nice story and account of the goodness of Christ you give there, Lee, but unfortunately you leave out all the bits that earlier you decried: the immutability, the everlasting authority, the eternal punishment.

As I said earlier, I would have no problem with a God who is all friendly and easygoing and hunky-dory like the one you would like to tell me you believe in.

The God you actually believe in is the one who will never go away, never leave me be, has created a world in which I must bow down and grovel before him by washing myself in the blood of a horrific human sacrifice that I was never asked to approve of in the first place - and which turns out not to have been a sacrifice at all because the person still lives - so that I may be forgiven 'sins' I am guilty of simply because a man some 6,000 years ago whom I did not know did something that he himself did not know to be wrong, and which this God only deems to be a 'sin' because he decidided it to be one. And if I don't grovel, this God will punish me for my disobedience forever.

This is an entirely different God and has nothing to do with the humble, kind, gentle one you want to sell me.

So its a nice sales pitch you make and if serving such a God makes you happy, then who am I to stop you - but if such a God existed (and I see no reason to think he does), I would resist his totalitarian regime just as much as I would oppose those of Mao, Hitler or Nero.

You seem to prefer one absolute dictator over another. I reject all dictators. I guess that's ultimately the difference between us.

'Socialism presumes that decision-makers have sufficient knowledge, virtue, and motivation to make the best economic decisions. If any of these presumptions break down, the system fails.'

Capitalism presumes that individuals have sufficient knowledge, virtue, and motivation to make the best economic decisions. If any of these presumptions break down, the system fails.

But I would question what you mean by the 'best economic decisions' anyway. That's question-begging.

'I know of only one Being with perfect knowledge, virtue, and motivation.'

Well, apparently according to his own word, God's system failed so badly he had to drown everyone - preganant women, children, animals - and start over from scratch. And that second try didn't work out much better either.

Lee said...

Singring, if you're curious about Reformed theology, or Christianty in general, there are plenty of resources. But your spiritual issues, from my perspective, go far beyond a simple lack of belief. For someone who believes in moral relativity, you're pretty absolute in your denials that you might owe anything to a God who gave you everything.

> You seem to prefer one absolute dictator over another. I reject all dictators. I guess that's ultimately the difference between us.

If you prefer socialism, your preferred form of dictatorship is the death of a thousand bureaucratic cuts. And for those really deep into the culture, there's always the heavy hitters -- Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot. As Stalin said, you gotta break eggs to make an omelet.

> Capitalism presumes that individuals have sufficient knowledge, virtue, and motivation to make the best economic decisions. If any of these presumptions break down, the system fails.

Wrong. Capitalism presumes man to be an amoral wretch with imperfect knowledge and sufficient motivation only to take care of himself and his immediate loved ones. Adam Smith wrote that it is not through benevolence that the baker bakes bread or the butcher cuts meat, but out of regard for his own welfare. Capitalism's gift is its ability to harness self-regard for the common good.

> But I would question what you mean by the 'best economic decisions' anyway. That's question-begging.

What's question-begging about it?

> Well, apparently according to his own word, God's system failed so badly he had to drown everyone - preganant women, children, animals - and start over from scratch. And that second try didn't work out much better either.

It's the risk He ran when He gave man free will.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'For someone who believes in moral relativity, you're pretty absolute in your denials that you might owe anything to a God who gave you everything.'

Lee, the issue is not whether or not I owe him anything, the question is whether or not a being that is supposedly perfect and loving should be commended for threatening those who don't pay back this 'debt' (one that in fact he is ultimately responsible for in the first place) will suffer eternal torment at his hands.

A perfectly loving being would say 'You 'owe' me and don't want to pay me back? OK. No worries. Love you anyway. See ya later, now get on with your life'. After all, isn't this the God who is also supposed to have said 'love your enemies as you love yourself?'. But that kind of God that I could easily get on with is not the God you believe in, Lee. The God you believe in says: 'You 'owe me' (according to the arbitrary rules I set up and didn't consult you about) and if you don't pay me back I'm going to have you tormented forever.'

Maybe you think that's fair and will gladly be the servant of such a God. I don't and I won't.

'If you prefer socialism, your preferred form of dictatorship is the death of a thousand bureaucratic cuts. '

I live in a country that is a social democracy - we've had socialist governments many times. And yet we have electrions that are more free than those in the US. Its childish to equate socialism to a dictatorship.

'Wrong. Capitalism presumes man to be an amoral wretch with imperfect knowledge and sufficient motivation only to take care of himself and his immediate loved ones.'

See, Lee. That's why I wanted to know what you are talking about when you say 'the best economic decisions'. It's a loaded term and obviously you just twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean. For example, in a capitalist system it would be the 'best economic decision' of an amoral wretch to destroy the environment of an entire planet if it benefited him in some way and the consequences would only be felt after his death.

Would that serve 'the common good'?

'What's question-begging about it?'

Define it for me then - what is a 'best economic decision' in any given situation?

'It's the risk He ran when He gave man free will.'

Then his plan wasn't so perfect if it contained a risk, now was it?

Socialism contains a risk of going wrong, so does Capitalism. How is God's failed plan any better?