Killing in the Name Of
I was in such a Nyquil-induced haze last night that I forgot to mention that I killed somebody again.
It was an old guy this time. 76, I think. Old, blind and in a wheelchair. And diabetic.
Didn’t stop me, though.
In fact, I was so looking forward to killing him that when he had a heart attack back in September, I made sure he recovered, just so I could finish the job last night.
Oh, and if you’re keeping score at home, that brings the tally up to 39.
I think I might need a month to rest before I take on the big 4-0.
Unless somebody stops me first.
Please?
January 19th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Yeah, I just don’t see how a society that kills its children, incarcerates young people, kills off dying old men, and hates everyone who isn’t white and/or male can claim to be carrying out justice.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Which society is that, Nicole?
January 24th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Welcome to the United States.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Zalm, if you’re going to continue to be a serial killer, you should at least come up with a cool gimmick.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Oh, really? Amazing. You live in a different U.S. than I do, I guess. Is that why you show such contempt?
Let’s see, kills it’s children: Abortion, a largely Democrat supported law
Incarcerates Young People: Yeah? I guess if you commit a crime you should be held accountable for that crime, regardless of age, and it would depend upon the seriousness of that crime, you disagree?
Kills off dying old men? What are you talking about? The Oregonian law to legalize Physician assisted suicide passed by a majority of liberal judges?
Hates everyone who isn’t white and/or male? In what part of the country do you live? I don’t know anybody who hates everyone who isn’t white and/or male around here…
…I’d suggest you move if you find your country is so despicable.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Jacke, this isn’t a love it or leave it. It’s a change it or lose it.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:22 am
(I stole that line from Sage Francis, btw.)
January 25th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Good line, Kevin. One person’s contempt is another’s honorable dissent.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Jacke,
A few thoughts about why you may find talking to progressive Christians so unspeakably challenging:
1. Above you’ve used rhetoric that pretty much completely invalidates Nicole’s position on particular issues. You might not feel like you’ve done that, but from where she’s standing you’re using your words to make the conversational move that says, “I’m right and you’re stupid.”
2. Here, you make assumptions that shouldn’t be made. For example, in her phrase “incarcerates young people” you seem to make the assumption that Nicole’s talking about youths that have been convicted of committing crimes. I would humbly suggest that Nicole could’ve been referring to any number of other situations such as the detaining of SUSPECTS in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as around the world.
3. You’re using argumentative rhetoric. For example when Nicole talked about a nation that kills it’s children you responded: “Let’s see, kills it’s children: Abortion, a largely Democrat supported law”. Now, see, what’s the point of that statement? Are you trying to say that all democrats suck? Why be partisan? Had you perused Nicole’s blog recently you’d notice that she’s on the record as being famously pro-life…(though we must distinguish that from anti-abortion.) But, further, Nicole’s consistently pro-life. That is she believes in not only not killing fetuses but also not killing, you know, minors via the death penalty. (And, correct me anywhere I’m wrong Nicole.)
4. Where Nicole was referring to killing off dying old men, judging by the context, she was talking about the California execution that inspired this post. You did read this post, didn’t you? Anyway, who cares that it was liberal judges that made assisted suicide legal. Do you know that Nicole supports assisted suicide? Or, did you just want one more thing to go off about?
5. I’m not going to talk about the race / misogyny thing because frankly I’ve lost faith that even the best reason will convince a hardened heart.
6. You may disagree, but when people make statments like “I’d suggest you move if you find your country is so despicable.” And then prattle on about how they want to dialogue, well, I find that fucking dishonest at best. If you want dialogue, as you claim to want, then be willing to accept what people have to say and not respond with, “if you don’t like it you can get the hell out.”
Just in case you were curious why you sometimes receive the cold shoulders you do.
January 25th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
No, we’re living in the same country, but we have really different perspectives, it seems. My views have really been transformed over the last three years, based on my relationships with many people of color, international students, my course work, and being in community with many other Christians at an institution that has really stretched me. I am not contemptuous, from my point of view. I am realistic. I appreciate the freedom that I have in the U.S., but I repent of the exploitative mechanisms that are in place in order that I can have those freedoms, this wealth, these priveleges. I do see collective sin going largely ignored in our individualistic culture, and that angers me in a way that I feel is appropriate.
I tend to think party lines are a rather artificial way of viewing the choices we must make politically as individuals. Yes, I was referring to abortion here, but I also think that we are killing our children in a worse way. Our families are falling apart, largely from forces of poverty, pressure to be ever producing for the economy and away from one’s family, and from lack of health care, a corrupt food production system, and antiquated ineffective educational systmes such as “No Child Left Behind.”
At this point in time, it’s actually Republican policies that neglect the poor, focus on continual economic growth, privatized health care, and farming subsidies. So, maybe what I should have said was, that a society sets children up to want to kill themselves is destined to fail. Abortion is just a symptom, not the disease.
As a child psychologist in training, I just can’t agree with you here. I can see very very very few circumstances that would make me support death penalty for children or for long term incarceration. Research shows that prevention and promotion programs work and incarceration after the fact just doesn’t. A statistically anomalous few children become criminals without first having been victims of horrible abuse and crime themselves. We owe a hell of a lot more to the downtrodden in this society than just a barred cell and three squares a day.
I was talking about sending dying old men to the electric chair or to some other form of extermination. But, I don’t think assisted suicide is any better (or worse). They’re both killing a person. Again, I think black and white thinking of “liberal” versus “conservative” just isn’t helpful here. Either we value all life equally as a part of the imago dei, or we don’t. That’s the only division here that I can see. And either side of that theological debate you choose requires that we step outside party lines and endorse or not endorse assissted suicide AND the death penalty. Either all life is equally valuable, being created in God’s image..or it’s not.
I live in Chicago, and I grew up in Rural East Tennessee. And in both places I’ve seen how voices that aren’t white, or aren’t male, do not get equal consideration. In the Southern Baptist Church, I have experienced and seen women be devalued as less than men. I’ve seen people discriminated against because of their race. But, overall, institutional racism and our fear of what is different means that minorities and/or women do not get heard as easily or as well as men.
For example, men have no problem getting jobs in my field…period. Men hold more than 75% of the positions of authority and administration, eventhough my field is composed of appr. 80% women. The statistics hold true when you hold everything constant for various confounding variables. Minority students have an even more difficult time than women.
Plus, women are the most likely to be abused. 1 out of every 4 women will be sexually abused or raped in the States. Women are the victims of abuse much more often than men, they are victims of violent crimes, and spousal abuse. So, no, I don’t think women have as much of a voice as men. If one gender being victimized and abused, beaten, and killed in disproportianate numbers is a covert hatred, I don’t know what is.
Well, that’s absurd for you to say that if I don’t agree with you that I shouldn’t be in the States. Or if I find my country does despicable things, that I should throw up my hands and leave. Nope, my country does despicable things and I call us all to change it. And every country does despicable things. Because systems are fallen because they are composed of people. That doesn’t mean I’m going to roll over and just accept the status quo because my own life is pretty fucking comfortable. Most people in the world don’t get to CHOOSE when to be uncomfortable, like we all do.
But, I wouldn’t mind living in Europe, but I don’t feel called to go live there. It wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that God calls me to live in a developing country. God’s heart is with the poor, and I doubt any of us qualify. Seems to me that God calls Christians to go where no one else will, to love those no one else will…not to drive SUV’s and live in big homes and eat well while others starve and die so we can have oil and Big Macs.
But most of all, if you’ve read this long, I have to say that your attitude IS very defensive. You can disagree with me adamantly, and that’s your right, but it’s really hard to even engage in dialogue with you, Jacke, because you convey such contempt for me personally b/c you didn’t like what I had to say.
I did not attack you. I don’t think I ever have, and if I have, I apologize. But defensiveness is a reaction of fear, not one of love. What exactly about what I said threatened you to the point you felt the need to attack?
I was conveying a sadness…a grief. A grief that our country is so riddled with institutional sin that no one wants to address honestly, and least of all Christians. Rather than love, we preach control of ourselves and others. The U.S. looks at the world and looks at what we can do to preserve our own comfort and values, just like we encourage our citizens to look out for #1 and feel like we’ve done something special if we tithe our 10% and give to a few charities, and maybe work at church a few times a week, when that really, in our circumstances costs us nothing.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
I don’t have the time to read Nicole’s response but I did read Brandon’s response. Sure, I tentatively jumped to some conclusions and perhaps it would have been better to have just questioned Nicole more but, you know I questioned her once on her vague comment and received yet another vague comment. The statements she made could have been interpreted a number of ways, is that not true? That was the point I was making, or trying to make in providing the answers I provided, Brandon. I could either guess, make yet another query as to what she was talking about or assume some things on my own, it seems assuming got some attention, imagine that, it always does no matter who practices it.
I’ll tell you this, I can feel my patience is thin tonight. I’ll check back at another time when I have the time to carefully read and consider Nicole’s reply and give it the attention I am sure it deserves.
Sorry if I ruffled feathers, it ruffles my feathers when people run the United States down as if it were a third world country under the rule of a brutal dictator, but that’s just me. That’s just the way I took Nicole’s VAGUE reply. Sorry if you “Progressives” don’t have the only license to getting your feathers ruffled.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:24 am
Lots that I could say here, if I thought it would get us anywhere. But, I don’t.
Let me just say this to this comment:
I don’t see where you’re getting this from. Nicole said this:
Nicole didn’t argue here that the US was a third world dictatorship. So, why say that she did? That’s dishonest at best. That’s called the straw-man fallacy, and it doesn’t really work round these here parts.
That’s all.
I’m out.
January 27th, 2006 at 6:47 am
Tag. I am in.
I think that third world comment might betray deeper concerns. Certainly Nicole said nothing of the kind. Maybe some conservatives (not necessarily Jacke) fear deep down that Bush is more tyranical than godly.
Jacke, from my perspective, the real frustration came from the “love it or leave it” comment–as if you had the right to define the limits of American citizenship or identity. My experience is that response is primarily a conservative one–because they think that liberals always have to prove their patriotism. I don’t remember any conservatives complaining under Clinton and being told to “love it or leave it.”
I started to say something about Nicole being vague, but then reread her initial response. Vague? Perhaps, but not in the context of Zalm’s original comment. It was a direct challenge to the notion that executing a guy in a wheel chair constitutes justice. Or that a death penalty system that is biased on issues of race or class is just. Those are reasonable questions.
And we can disagree about all of that. But please don’t suggest that we move if we don’t like it. That isn’t America, and it suggests a poor understanding of our history.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:00 am
I have still not read Nicole’s reply but I’ll just point something out here, Brandon.
You were very quick to point out that I didn’t know what Nicole was talking about and that I made assumptions. Then, what did you do? Did you not spend a whole heck of a lot of time telling me what Nicole meant? How did you know what she meant? Were you not making assumptions as to what she could have meant yourself, all the while giving me hell for assuming something about what she said, and you continue to do so? Get a grip man…
…further, your little tirade, in which you feel compelled to tell me why I have difficulty in communicating with “Progressive” Christians? Thanks a lot. Would you like me to tell you why I think YOU have trouble communicating with ME!? Geesh…Brandon…I think I fully understand why I have trouble communicating with “Progressive” Christians and it has more to do with a disagreement about the way we view politics and society than it does about my use of the English language. I was talking issues that might fall under the categories laid out by Nicole, I certainly didn’t go into a tyrade about why Nicole can’t communicate or why you can’t communicate, and I said nothing about Nicole being pro-choice, for your information, what I said was that abortion is a largely Democratic supported law, that is a FACT which has nothing whatsoever to do with Nicole. Oh, I have plenty more I could say about your rant, Brandon, your methodically NUMBERED rant, but I am not going to get sucked any further into this little aside. You are welcome to think anything you wish to think about me, since you seem to have me pegged and evidently know me so well. Thank you.
As far as Nicole not saying third world country…well, Nicole didn’t say a lot of the things YOU explained FOR her in your long numbered rant either, but that’s different, I guess?
Now, if you don’t mind, after I get calmed down, yet again, from your presumptuous post, I’ll make an effort to actually communicate with Nicole rather than her self-appointed spokesman. Again, thank you.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Nicole writes:
I thank you for your reply, Nicole and found it very reasonable, I actually have little to argue with…the reason I got defensive, and angry is not just because of what you said but because of other conversations I have had with liberals. Certainly, there are problems in our country that need attention, certainly God does have a heart for the poor, but God’s heart isn’t limited to an interest in the poor, either. I get defensive because I get so blasted tired of all the “Chicken Little, sky is falling” rhetoric that is the ongoing liberal/progressive, ad nauseam, negative assessment of these United States. Yes, it certainly does make me defensive, and angry. Yes, I am just as capable of getting my “feathers ruffled” as anyone else is and because I am in a minority when I visit these “Progressive” blogs I get called out on it many times when others rhetoric is just accepted and embraced by the majority which agree with it. The fact is that yes, we have our problems, but IN MY OPINION, the United States is still the best country in which to live and yes, we have problems which we need to deal with that deserve discussion but I do tire of the flippant negative comments which I face day in and day out as though America is an evil “empire” as though we are the cause of every problem on the face of this entire globe and because we have great wealth that we are culpable for every problem on this globe. Yes, I get irritated with this mentality, and you know, I just refuse to apologize for that. You, of course have every right to feel however you feel and you have every right to dissent with current policies in this country but I don’t believe a change of the leadership of this country is going to improve that very much, and no, I’m not assuming that you said it would, I’m just talking here.
Someone posted an article the other day I’d like to share with you, it might give you an idea about how some Conservatives feel about all this negativity which seems to me to be generated primarily from liberal sources. I realize that it is a generalization and that many of you may differ from point to point but…well read it, you’ll get an idea about the way many Conservative’s perceive all this negativity.
Thank you for your response, you do a much better job responding for yourself than others do in speaking for you.
Here’s that link:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11876.html
P.S. I’m not sure where this idea comes from that I attacked you? Is that what you are thinking? You and others may disagree but if a person is so terribly unhappy with the society in which they live I don’t believe it is unreasonable to suggest they go somewhere where they might be happier. I can’t imagine suggesting you go somewhere where you might be happier is an insult, myself, to me it is a compassionate thing to say. I did NOT frame it the way Brandon suggested: “if you don’t like it you can get the hell out.” …I did not say “America love it or leave it…” those words were attributed and assumed and not at all what I actually said. I didn’t intend any contempt for you personally, I do, however, get tired of all this negativity, I seldom see a liberal with anything positive to say about our great country and I just think that’s a crying shame. We are so blessed, it is each of our individual choice and decision about what we, personally, do to rectify the problems in our society so if you or any other doesn’t think enough is being done, do more, personally. It’s very simple, really, in my opinion. I deviate from the liberal idea that the government should just take care of it all and I actually think that the government has contributed to the black community’s condition by all of it’s entitlement programs, rather than assisted the black community toward freedom they have made them more dependent on “the man.” My opinion of course, as usual.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:00 am
(Different Brandon here - as Zalm says, this site attracts quite a few of us.)
By definition, liberals tend to want to change things for the better, sometimes even when things don’t need changing. So it’s easy for that message to come across as “America Sucks,” either if the message isn’t conveyed clearly or if the recipient isn’t paying close attention. Likewise, it’s easy for conservatives’ message to come across as “America’s Great - Don’t change anything.” I don’t think many people on either side of the divide actually feel that way, although I’ve certainly attributed those kind of reductions to the other side of the spectrum when I feel most frustrated.
By participating in that, we’re turning this site into a mini-version of RedState or DailyKos, both of which are equally inept at conducting any kind of a dialogue. Those are places where people go to rant with other people who agree with them - I doubt if either site (or any others like them) has changed many minds, since they don’t seem interested in engaging a range of ideas.
Although I don’t always succeed, I try as hard as I can to read more complexity into an opposing viewpoint, rather than less - not only does it lead to a fuller discourse, since it involves engaging ideas rather than dismissing them, but I’m more apt to find a thread of truth I can hold onto when an idea is fully fleshed out.
Thanks for all the interesting, passionate, and thoughtful posts over the last few days.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:07 am
One quick point. Jacke said: I deviate from the liberal idea that the government should just take care of it all.
That is clearly what many conservatives SAY liberals believe, but not what most say. I think it is completely reasonable to say that government can cause tremendous problems and dependency on it has caused problems for many. No disagreement here. But where do liberals say that Government should do everything? We certainly see government more positively, than perhaps we see large corporations, but that doesn’t mean we think government should take care of everything.
I guess I am suggesting that your disagreement with liberals is fine, but this really misstates our argument.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:16 am
My, my, my, the hubris is so thick around here you could cut it with a knife.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Y’know, I was actually going to join in here and add my own observations to this discussion. But then I read that article that Jacke posted. And I’ve completely forgotten whatever nice points I had to make.
Look, if you … I mean … oh, never mind. Maybe I’ll try again later.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Main Entry: hu·bris
Pronunciation: hyū’brĭs
Function: noun
exaggerated pride or self-confidence
Just in case any other uneducated folks like myself were wondering.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:41 am
And, another thing:
Bullshit.
If this were true, I would have difficulty talking to ALL conservatives, and I don’t. The truth is, I have difficulty talking to you because, rhetorically, you don’t play fair, and that pisses me off. Sometimes it so gets under my skin that I respond without much of a sense of decorum. With most people, however, who are being respectful, I can be respectful in return and have engaging conversations. Sometimes, I can be respectful even when people aren’t respectful to me. I’m not as good at this as Zalm, however, and thus I’ve kind of given up on this “turn the other cheek” thing as it’s not really my style.
Sometimes that happens with you Jacke, sometimes you’re respectfully, and fairly dissenting. Much of the time it does not.
And, I have no idea how you can NOT think you’re attacking people. Perhaps the dialogue you’re imagining we’re having here isn’t the one we’re actually having. Perhaps it wouldn’t hurt you to imagine just for a second (and I know this could be hard) that I’m right: That you have trouble talking with conservatives not so much because you disagree with them, as much as that you piss them off with your rhetoric and then don’t seem to know why they’re pissed off.
[/harumpf]
January 28th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Brandon writes:
I’m sure you meant to say Progressives rather than conservatives, above. Yeah, Brandon, you could be right. I could be a smug jackass. I could piss people off because of my rhetoric. What I find interesting is that you have read a few of my comments on a comment section here and there and you think it gives you license to critique my motives and intentions and presumably my very being. I’m sorry that you think so little of me, truly I am. I do my best to communicate in a thoughtful and intelligent way, just as you do…I’m still trying to figure out the rules of the game when in YOUR company. Evidently you are willing to excuse yourself when certain rhetoric pisses you off but no one else is worthy of that level of understanding but Brandon? Okie, dokie, I think I got it now. Righteous indignation from Brandon..good. Righteous indignation from Jacke..miserably bad.
Zalm: I posted the link to that article to show you the way SOME conservatives and others might perceive all the negativity coming from the progressive camp. After having been drilled with everything the Republican party does being wrong…that they are selfish, uncaring, power mad war mongers for the last three or four years it does cause people to exaggerate. That article, in my opinion, was an exaggeration. On the other hand, in conjunction with the posting going on here at “From the Salmon” in another group I had the pleasure of viewing a “cartoon” posting from a progressive which showed an eagle with a bag over its head and the caption “I’m ashamed to be living in Bush’s America.” How funny…isn’t that a funny cartoon? Ha. Ha.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Since Jacke doesn’t respond to me, I will simply make some an observation.
No, it isn’t a funny cartoon. It isn’t meant to be funny. It conveys what many progressives feel, however. That our president embarrasses us when he denies global warming, but embraces intelligent design. Or cuts taxes during wartime. Or switches the justification for war to suit his own political needs. Or evesdrops on Americans with the justification that he is President. Or present a Christianity that seems to bless the Rich.
Do I need to move now?
January 28th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Well, I realize I’m coming to the party awefully late, but….
First, two comments to Jacke:
1. You say
I’ve heard this so many times from so many conservatives that I’m beginning to think that those “other liberals” are the ones that exist pretty much only in the heads of conservatives. It brings to mind the “some people” to whom George W. likes to refer in his speaches. If you want to have a dialog with somebody, it might be best to have a dialogue with just them, rather than with them and all of the other people that you associate with them in your mind. And thanks to brandon for the comment about the straw-man fallacy. For the record, I imagine that this occurs with more or less the same frequency on both sides of the great divide - I’m not really picking on all conservatives here, but I am picking on you.
2. The cartoon wasn’t supposed to be funny. As Nicole said, what we feel is immense grief, and for my part more than a little shame. I don’t mind if it pisses you off that we feel this way, but you really need to accept the fact that about 49% of the people living in this country do feel this way. Also, you might want to ask yourself why that is. Is it just that there are 150 million complete morons living in this country, or is it possible that there is something severely wrong with the conservative agenda which is so completely dominating every aspect of life in this country right now? I’m not suggesting that everything about the conservative program is wrong - I think they get a lot of things right (especially regarding personal responsiblity) that liberals do not. But there is a huge difference between “we get some things right” and “everything we do is right and if you criticize anything that we do then you are the enemy.” I apologize if I am committing the same sin here that I just told you in item 1 not to commit, but your first post above makes me think that I am not.
Now a comment for Nicole. You say
First, you say that “black and white” thinking isn’t appropriate here, and in the next sentence you make a black and white statement (which I happen to disagree with - yes, there is an agenda here). I agree that all life is part of the imago dei. Just as I believe that everything is part of the imago dei. But just because I believe that the TB baccillus is part of the imago dei doesn’t stop me from wanting to see it eradicated. It is a fact that God’s creation is continually evolving - some parts of it go away and some other parts come into being. It is also a fact of God’s creation that the preservation of some life requires the eradication of other life. You imply that you think that all life is equally valuable, but I wonder if you really mean that. And if so, why do the living parts of the creation rate higher than the inanimate parts of the creation in your estimation?
I think that as distasteful as it may be for us, we are forced by the very nature of the creation to have an entire hierarchy of value. I think that many people overlook this fact. For example, there are many people who carry “pro-life” banners and have bumper stickers that say “abortion stops a beating heart” who also eat meat. Clearly they are not pro- all life, and they’re not too concerned about stopping the beating of certain hearts. But of course, claiming to be “pro-life” sounds like such a good thing, and having to start qualifying that by defining just what sort of life you are “pro” really reduces the implact of the claim, maybe even to the point that you don’t look much better than people who claim to be “pro-choice” (and yes, there is a parallel thread: most people who claim to be “pro-choice” would not be very “pro” my choice to kill them, etc.).
The point of all this is that it seems to me that any honest discussion of euthanasia/death penalty/just war/abortion/assisted suicide has to begin and end with a discussion of our hierarchy of values. For example, one of the things which I personally think is most valuable is “agency.” That is the ability of certain living things to make choices and exercise free will. Agency is something that adult humans have a lot of, children somewhat less, babies less still, and fetuses none at all. So in my value system, abortion (of a fetus) and murder (of an adult human) are two very different things. As another example, mammals have some agency and plants have none at all, so in my value system being a vegetarian is better than being an omnivore. As a final example, killing an adult, mentally sound human represents a huge injury to agency; forcing an adult, mentally sound human to remain alive against his or her wishes represents a pretty big injury against agency, and assisting an adult, mentally sound human to exercise their agency by helping them terminate their life might be a positive good as regards agency (depending on circumstances). So in my value system assisted suicide and the death penalty couldn’t be more different. In my hierarchy, refusing to allow someone to die is in fact quite close (morally) to executing them.
Of course I’m grossly oversimplifying here. I haven’t told you my hierarchy of values, I’ve just told you one of the things that I value highly. There are others, and these may be in competition with each other or with agency in some situations. Moral questions (unlike this sentence) are never black or white.
I’m not claiming here that my hierarchy of values is “right.” Given that I’m human, I know that it is not and will never be completely or maybe even mostly right. What I am trying to do is illustrate how defining that hierarchy can make our stand on various complex issues more honest and intelligible, and to point out that virtually no one who claims to be simply “pro-life” or “pro-choice” really is.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:13 am
All right, let me tell you the way I see this exchange, from my perspective.
I read a post from Zalm which I have no comment on, incidentally, because he has every right to feel the way he feels, I feel the exact same way about abortion, every time one occurs I have a child’s blood on my hands because of the law of this land. I do feel that there is a Biblical argument for capital punishment and not only in the Old Testiment but I absolutely respect Zalm’s feelings on the matter and it is a very personal matter, there is much division among the Christian community about whether it is right or wrong so it is a choice which I feel is best left up to the individual. You see, I don’t have to agree with everyone to respect their opinion, I respect Zalm’s opinion about Capital punishment and it would be ridiculous to argue with him about it primarily because I wouldn’t change his mind and he wouldn’t change my mind so it’s rather pointless.
So, next I read the comment section and this vague statement from Nicole:
When I ask which society she is speaking about I get this:
I took offense at that remark. I took offense at that remark in much the same way that Brandon and, it appears, all the rest of you took offense at this remark:
And since I received NO indication of what Nicole was speaking about in her vague comment I put forth some highly charged and controversial issues which I could imagine that Nicole could have or might have meant and I knew full well that these were not the things she had in mind when she made her comment and I knew full well that it would piss some of you off when you read my comment…I didn’t give a rat’s ass. Someone needed to say it and I’m not above pissing people off from time to time. At least I stayed with issues, however, other than making the honest statement that if someone, anyone, is so absolutely unhappy and thinks so little of the country in which they live they might seek citizenship in some country which they might better approve and could find a higher level of happiness in, if that pisses you off then so be it. And YES! I do realize that this will piss you off as well.
Now, Brandon makes the assertion more or less, that I brought politics into the issue, bull. Nicole brought politics into the issue when she brought up a smorasborg of negative complaints about our society rather than simply replying to Zalm’s topic, sure, I could have ignored it…I ignore a lot of things, a lot of things, I wasn’t in the mood to ignore this one.
Then I get excoriated by Brandon for having the audacity to assume what Nicole might have been speaking about…all the while HE is assuming to know what Nicole was speaking about himself and somehow the topic gets changed entirely, EXCEPT for Nicole’s OWN reply, to a new topic about why Jacke can’t communicate with progressives in BRANDON’S OPINION. Now, it’s just fine for Brandon and any and all of you to emphasize your points all day long with
FUCKING, FUCKING, FUCKING, FUCKING, FUCKING, FUCKING, FUCKING rhetoric, and doesn’t that make you all the big rebels rebelling against those senseless and over-played tabooed words in the English language but if I emphasize things in another way to make a point I am to sit still and suffer all your slings and arrows, all your excuses for your righteous indignation while I am, evidently, not allowed to speak my mind because I might “upset” you? Isn’t that special? At the moment, you bunch of judgemental, intolerant (exclusively, it seems, to conservative viewpoints, specifically MINE) can continue your game of patting each other on the back and excusing yourselves for making the same broad assumptions and personally attacking others while you excoriate me for doing that which you are currently involved. I really have nothing more to say. Stick your collective heads in the sand…it’s all okay…AMERICA SUCKS!
January 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Jacke, I thought that playing the victim was only something that liberals did.
You say …I am, evidently, not allowed to speak my mind because I might “upset” you?. Has anyone told you to shut up?
The point of a dialogue to try and improve understanding, with the end goal of trying to facilitate the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. Looks to me like we’re not doing so well just now, but that’s no reason to give up. It seems to me that people (including me) are attacking the style of your arguments, not so much the substance. My bad (I’ll not speak for the rest of us). Now, where were we on the substance?
January 28th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I am just wondering where in the sand we will find a Bush that is competent?
And Jacke, not that you have acknowledged any of my questions, but maybe you might want to lighten up. That might apply to several of us on this side, but good god! Reading you makes me want to just say this, “ok, you are right, America rocks. Please don’t have me deported.”
January 28th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Greg writes:
First of all Greg, I don’t believe that 49% of Americans have such a negative view of America. Upon what are you basing this percentage?
Secondly, I don’t think you are a moron or that 150 million people are morons, I do think that there is a vast amount of misinformation and outright propaganda floating around on the internet and everyday I come across liberals who believe everything that Kos says or Buzz Flash and any number of other far left websites on the internet. Some of these people are actually quite intelligent but so blinded by partisan politics that they cannot even consider anything that doesn’t either bash and demean the entire Republican party and America, at large, or build up their own party and ideology. It’s very unfortunate and I certainly understand that there are far right people who engage in much the same actions.
Thirdly, I’m not particularly happy with the Democrat or the Republican party at the moment. I am not happy with the status quo. I wish to heaven that we could actually get a viable third party that is actually interested more in what their constituents want and value instead of what lobbyists want and value and whether they can spew enough hog slop intended to make their constituents think they are doing their job so that they can keep their seat in the Congress or Senate. I have great faith in the American people and a rapidly decreasing amount of faith in any politician, regardless of his or her party. Politicians, however, do not make this country and until we realize that and stand up for ourselves they will continue in their false belief that they are the power. WE give them the power, each and every one of them, and we can take that power away. In my humble opinion there are very few politicians today that deserve to keep their position. I’m fed up with almost all of them but I am far from fed up with my Country.
I have a real problem with a defeatist attitude. I’m not a quitter. If I was, I guarantee you that I wouldn’t be trying to communicate with people who’s political views differ from mine. Excuse me for indulging myself in ranting back when I was faced with what? 4 or 5 people wanting to spend most of their time critiquing the way I communicate? Puhlease, and Streak tells me to lighten up? Geesh.
Streak, for your information, I am not ignoring you, I allowed myself to be sucked into a weird vortex of Brandon’s making for a while. I’m not very good at letting people define me to others and being able to keep my mouth shut and not try to set the record straight. I felt like I was on the outside wall of a tornado (representing the attack on my debate style) looking in at the quiet eye (the actual topic), longingly, wishing that we were actually having a conversation. I’ll take another look at your questions, or comments later. I really didn’t realize that my comments to Nicole were going to open me up to a dialog with 5 people, I was really just trying to get Nicole to explain what she was talking about. My subtle queries did not seem to have any effect on her, or at least it was not providing me with the answers I desired so I took it up a notch. So, she did reply and I replied back to her. Over all I was quite satisfied with her answer. If I had the power to have you deported, I wouldn’t. I’m sure yer too valuable to lose.
I am also planning to take a second look at Bran’s comments.
God bless.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:00 am
You know, after I wrote my last reply last night I was thinking. I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton, I didn’t approve of a lot of what Clinton did even after shaking his hand in Arkansas, myself, when he was still Governor of Arkansas, but I reminded myself that nothing happens on this Earth but what God allows it and we are told in the scripture that the Governments, the rulers of our lands, are there because God wills it or allows it to happen and I believe that God has a reason for allowing each and every ruler in this world to rule or lead his people and that His purpose is not our purpose and that we cannot see the big picture. This is what helped me to accept that Clinton was my President during his eight year term, the knowledge that God was and is in control and that nothing happens that He cannot turn to good for the people He loves. Thinking on such things I couldn’t help but wonder where is the faith of people who are so negative about their country?
Recently Pat Robertson made another of his idiotic statements. Not idiotic because God doesn’t on occasion use sickness to get people’s attention, idiotic because he, Robertson, couldn’t really know the reason that Sharon had a stroke, presumptuous that he could tell the world the reason God allowed it to happen. I was later listening to M. Savage on the radio on the way home from my Mother’s house. He was saying that it could have been that Sharon didn’t have a stroke until AFTER the pullout from Gaza, but didn’t claim to know, was merely discussing it. That made a little more sense to me…after all, if God allowed Sharon to be struck down physically and He didn’t approve of the Gaza pullout, He could have allowed Sharon to be struck down BEFORE the pullout rather than after the pullout. This, of course has nothing to do with your questions, or does it? The point is that for us, for Christians, we are to have faith that God is in control, that God is soveriegn and that nothing happens lest God allows it to happen for His purpose.
Nah, I’m not suggesting that God would have voted for GW Bush, but God certainly allowed it to happen, just as He allowed Clinton to be President for the eight years preceding that, and I have faith that God’s purpose is still God’s purpose regardless of who the President of the U.S. might be at any given moment in our history. His ways are not our ways. I’m also not suggesting that when Christians feel that something is wrong that they should be silent and just wait for God to accomplish His plan, rather I believe we are to have a voice…this, I believe, is at the heart of the “Conservative” Christian movement, has it taken some twists and turns along the way? Sure, and I’m sure it will continue to do so, just as I am sure the “Progressive” Christian movement will take some twists and turns along the way. What are Christians, any Christians doing when they look to men instead of God? We should all be careful who we look to, I am certain that in the future of the “Progressive” Christian movement you will have some leaders who you’d like to cover your eyes and hide your head over, you think that won’t happen? Lol. Israel wanted a King…remember? They had the most powerful King of all, Jehova God, but they wanted a King, a man King like everybody else. We need to all be careful about who we choose as our “Kings.”
January 29th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Jacke: don’t take this the wrong way, but I can’t remember ever agreeing w/ virtually everything in two of your long posts until now. Of course, you and I have very different ideas of how God works in the world, but I think that we agree on some very basic things like:
1. The relativizing nature of God. Every aspect of human existance has to be understood in the context of God. If we think we know that answer we do not, because we are not God. If we think that we are right we are not, because we are not God. If we think that we know what God is or wants or believes or commands we do not, because we are not God. Only God has God’s authority.
I’m thinking that maybe you actually disagree with that second to last sentence, based on you’re stated views on the bible, but let’s continue. You wrote:
I would state this as:
2. As far as humans are concerned, God works primarily through us. This isn’t to say that God is dependent on us or anything like that. It is to say (as they say in the Lutheran church) that we are the body of Christ. Whether we like it or not. Whether we choose to be or not. (Well, maybe the Lutheran’s don’t add that last bit, but I do).
But of course,
3. God gave us free will (agency). We can choose to work towards better understanding of God. We can choose to work towards the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. Or not. And it matters - more than anything else in our lives - what we choose to do. I am not saying that we can thwart God’s plan by choosing to ignore God or act against God’s plan. But we can certainly deny ourselves (and many others, unfortunately) some of the benefits of God’s grace and goodness during our lifetimes, and we can alter the pace and manner (relevent to us, but not to God) in which the kingdom of God becomes manifest.
Finally, we are Christians because we believe that
4. The most reliable source for improving our understanding of God, and the chief example of what it means to work toward the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God, is Christ.
So I’m curious. You are a conservative christian, and I am a progressive christian, but do we agree on all of these things?
(zalm - maybe I just hijacked the thread. Sorry. But this is interesting).
BTW, Jacke, we progressives already have some leaders who you’d like to cover your eyes and hide your head over. John Shelby Spong was actually my introduction to progressive christianity (and the guy that got me re-interested in christianity), but there is a lot about him that bugs me. Jim Wallis is just an embarassment. But it’s God’s plan, not mine….
January 29th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Greg,
I recently did a post on the Emergent or Emerging church after seeing something on T.V. that piqued (sp?) my interest. I can see this Emerging “conversation” merging with those interested in reaching out to post modernists. Some of what I read about the Emergent Church was very reminiscent of some things I have seen Brandon discuss, at badchristian, about what the church should be about. One of the research papers that I read, however, was leaning toward the belief that even post modernism is on its way out. So, you have to wonder, if that’s the case, what is the point? Cutting edge? What is that? I look for McClaren (the Emergent Church’s leader (?)) to be a leader in the Progressive Christian movement, I look for him to be adopted into the movement, though he claims he is not a Progressive Christian he espouses much of what I see Progressive Christians promoting, including its political agenda. He denies this, but I note he is active in those sorts of pursuits and wants to be inclusive to all religions in the format of their worship experience. I have some real problems with his theology, or lack of willingness to give clear and concise answers to certain questions, choosing rather to be evasive. Are you familiar with him?
January 29th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I am vaguely familiar w/ McClaren. There was some discussion here on churchgal. I went to the website. I was not impressed. I think that his approach tries too hard to bring theology into the here and now. While it is true that all of the pictures of God that we humans have created are products of the time and place in which they were created, that doesn’t mean that this is a good thing. On the contrary, it seems to me that universality (both of time and place) is what one would like in a picture of God. While modernity (or post-modernity, or whatever) has taught us is that the picture of God contained in the bible is very much constrained and distorted by the time and place in which the bible was written, I don’t see how creating a new picture which is intentionally very much constrained and distorted by the here and now fixes that problem.
But you raise an interesting point. You say
People with my theology have a fundamental problem. If you believe (as I do) that God makes Godself known to all people in all times and places in essentially the same way (i.e., that God is revealing Godself to us in precisely the same way that God was revealed to, say, the writers of the books, letters, and songs that make up the bible, or the people who, in the third and fourth century CE, selected which writings to canonize as thebible), so that no one has any more right than anyone else to claim that their picture of God is correct, then you have an authority problem. Surely not all pictures of God are equal. How do we judge one against the other? If a fundamental (the most fundamental?) tenet of your belief is that we can never claim to know with certainty what God is or what God desires, then how do we make claims about God without sounding wishy-washy or even evasive?
One way to go is the fundamentalist route: the bible is the inspired word of God. We may not fully understand it but there it is, end of discussion. I’m right because the bible says I’m right. My problem with this approach is that it seems that it is basically forcing God to act in a way which is intellectually pleasing to us humans, and I can’t think of any reason why God should act that way. Just because we crave surety, why should God supply it? Everything that I see in the creation, all of my experience in this life, tells me that God is far from fully understood by us humans, and that God is far greater than what is contained in all of human knowledge and experience, to say nothing of just the bible.
Now, I’m not claiming that my view is correct. It may be that God did and is communicating with humankind is some extra-historical way through the bible (as I think that you believe). I’m just saying that I don’t believe it, and because I don’t neither I nor Brian Mclaren can quote you chapter and verse, or do anything else to prove a point. Note that this does not mean that I am not a real Christian. Prior to Martin Luther’s sola scriptura no one believed the bible to be a complete description of God. Which is another reason why I don’t believe it.
My point is that it is possible to believe in God without believing that there is some special, absolute authority by which God is revealed to us. And further it is precisely because we crave such an authority that we should be suspicious of anything that claims to be that authority. But of course, without an absolute authority you have to wonder what constitutes a clear and concise answer. And believe me, I do.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:10 am
I’ve kind of been sitting this one out, so it’s not like I feel any real ownership over the thread. But if you want my blessing, I say hijack away!
January 30th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Greg, I like the way you think…I can’t really argue with you. You are right we have choices which have to be made about to whom (or what) we give authority. You are also right when you suspect (I think?) that I believe that the Bible is inerrant. I absolutely do. Because I’m simple-minded? Is that why fundamentalists believe that way, because it’s easy? You think? I find nothing easy about the Bible, myself. I find a new revelation each and every time I pick it up, but what is amazing is that more than 40 different men were used by God to write it, men with different perspectives just like you and I and yet they did, indeed, reach a level of agreement, in all their different writing styles with all their different up-bringings and baggage from life they managed to find consensus throughout the entire Bible which, if one really thinks about it, is often not even matched by a single writer of a book from front cover to back, especially when dealing with such philosophical subjects. That is inspiration.
Where the “pickle” comes in with me is in this argument that God still communicates with man, and yes, I believe he does, therefore that must mean that there is “new” wisdom and “new” understanding? Certainly you are correct that the Bible was written during certain periods of time and reflects the language and situations of those times but that language and those situations can be applied to our time, as well.
I once asked a progressive Christian who does not believe in the Bible’s inerrancy, on another blog, what book he believed was an equal to the Bible, what book did he feel was more authoritative, was more brilliantly written, was richer and wiser in its philosophy or its wisdom, he never replied to that very specific question.
This is the crux of my problem with not believing in the Bible as God’s inerrant Word:
Many question its authority because it was written by mere men, but in that questioning they trust what other mere men are telling them, this is where their questions spring from, from other men.
In my heart of hearts I believe that the Bible is God’s Word, but I’ll tell you this, if it hasn’t been kept from blemish? If God’s power somehow was not enough to keep it pure, to keep it on track? It is still the best guide that we have for understanding God, aside from our Savior and Lord and what he speaks to our heart, and much of what He speaks to our heart is garnered and verified in that very Bible which some question. It reveals more about God than any other book available to us and contains more wisdom than I will likely understand in my lifetime, so, you see, to me it is about having faith in God that He is able to keep his Word pure. I’m trying really hard to articulate this just right because I have been accused of worshipping the Bible in the past by some Progressive Christians INSTEAD of God, that isn’t it at all, though if the Bible is, as it claims to be “The Word” and “The Word” IS Jesus Christ and “The Word” IS living and active, just as it claims to be, then it does require a level of faith when it is accepted as the authority. All I am saying is this, in a nutshell: IF I am going to put my faith in the Words of a book, in words written by men, then I believe this Book, which has survived and been passed on for thousands of years, which claims to have been inspired by God Himself is more worthy of that faith than any other Book on the planet. Some of my favorite scripture, and I have far too much of it to pinpoint a single scripture and call it my favorite, comes from the Book of Job, please indulge me:
Man can do no better and can do much worse than retaining a belief in the Bible.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:29 am
Ah, great stuff! You say:
I don’t believe that I said I thought it was easy, or that peoply did it from simple-mindedness or intellectual laziness (as I believe is often claimed by progressives). What I said was that we humans crave surety, but that I don’t think that God has given us that. Well, OK, I dobelieve that God has given us surety, but not in the straightforward (but not easy!) manner of biblical inerrancy. I could go on and on here, but I’ll spare you that.
You say
Yes, I believe that. I look at 12 or 20 billion years of cosmic evolution, and 4 billion years of evolution here on earth, and 1 million years of human biological evolution, and 10 or 20 thousand years of human social evolution, and what I see is a truly amazing creation. It is not something that was created. It is something that is continually being created. The creator is continuously at work, continuously creating. The creation is much more a state of becoming than it is a state of being. This is something that I think we today are much more aware of than were the writers of the bible. This is new wisdom is the sense that I think you mean above.
So does that mean that I think that the bible has been superceded by science? No! In a more restricted sense, do I think that science has shown that the creation story in genesis is wrong? No! What it means (I suspect) is that I interpret the creation story differently than you do. I don’t expect every word of it to be literal truth, but I do expect it to contain deep and profound truth, and I believe that it does.
Prior to the Israelites, most of the peoples of the world worshiped a variety of God’s, and each God had it’s place: the God of the forest, the god of fire, the god of the stream, etc. And all of these God’s were in competition with each other, much as all tribes of people were in competition with each other. Further, there was no particular point to the whole arrangement - it was just the way things were. The Israelites, however, became aware of a new and deeper truth in the creation. First, they discerned that the creation was a unified whole; that every part of it belonged to a single purpose or movement. They called that purpose or movement God. Second, they understood historicity, the fact that God’s work is not done. They expessed this in terms of God’s covenent with Abraham and later with Moses and the Israelites: If the people placed God firmly at the center of their lives, they could speed the fullfillment of God’s promises to them, the promise of a better state of being in which pain and suffering were banished and peace and love would prevail, which they refered to as the Kingdom of God. In other words, they understood that a) there was a direction to history - that we are coming from someplace and going to someplace else (the Kingdom of God - a good place) and b) that they had influence over the future course of the creation - they had a voice.
This is some of the new wisdom of 3000 years ago, and it is huge. It is a radical change in world view from what came before, and it preconditions all of the western theology that has come since. We can only compare our different pictures or understanding of God because the Israelites, through the bible, first articulated was God was. Take the example of evolution above. What is our modern scientific understanding of evolution but some elaboration on one aspect of the historicity which was first described in the bible? A very important elaboration which brings about a qualitative improvement in our understanding of God (imo, not yours, I know), but still, it is new wisdom that required first the older and more basic wisdom contained in the bible to come into being.
You ask
My answer is “none,” which is why I am a christian. But I believe that for others the answer is “the Quran,” or “the Vedas,” or writings that have come out of other traditions, and I have no problem with that. Even for my part, just because I believe that no book is more authoritative, more brilliantly written, or richer and wiser in its philosophy and wisdom, I still believe that there are other books that are authoritative (to various degrees), brilliantly written, and rich and wise; Lots and lots of them. God speaks though all of us - we all have a voice. And yet all of our wisdom together is not sufficient to fully describe even the tiniest part of God.
Of course, not all of us are equally wise. What makes the bible so special (imo, not yours, I know) is precisely that it is the work of many many people over a very long period of time. I believe that the way to increase the authority of a teaching is to expose it to the critique of many people over a long period of time. God works through each of us in a unique way, and such a process of long critique provides a teaching with ever greater influence from the hand of God. What emerges from that process has more authority than what has not yet undergone that process, but that does not mean that what has not yet undergone that process should be ignored. Far from it, it needs to be subjected to that process. Further, nothing ever really “emerges” from that process, since the process is never finished. It is always “onward and upward,” to use C.S. Lewis’ words.
In your final paragraph you begin
Jacke! This is God we are talking about here! Never doubt God’s power. Never. And I don’t think that you really do.
I would respond to this by saying that I do not (for reasons that should be obvious from above) ascribe to the notion that there was once a perfect creation, that it fell from grace because of sin, and that we for that reason needed to be saved or redeemed by Jesus Christ. (Yes, I still get to be a Christian). So neither do I believe that there was once the perfect Word in the bible, and that maybe it has been garbled in translation over the millenia. The Word is present and being spoken now all over the creation. It is in the bible, to be sure, but it is also being spoken by the homeless and the poor, by the good and the evil, by the stars and the trees, and it is precisely the Word that God wishes to speak. It is only our sinfulness (by which I mean our unfinishedness, that stems from our free will) that makes it hard for us to hear it. And so it is our highest purpose in life to use our free will to try and understand that word more clearly, with faith that by doing so, we will be hastening the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.
Concerning the Job, I like it insofar as it speaks to the utter insignificance of humankind before God. I’m not so hot on the part that equates God’s power to God’s ability to destroy things. Sure, God can destroy things, but nowadays so can man. With our nuclear arsenals, we do in fact have the power to unleash the fury of (our) wrath, look at every proud man and bring him low. What we do not have is the ability to create like God and to love like God. This is something that I think that Jesus saw clearly, so I will leave you with some words from St. Augustine:
February 1st, 2006 at 6:01 am
Greg said:
That’s why I asked you, I didn’t say you said that, I was posing the question and answering it because, just as you said, it is often claimed by progressives.
In regards to “new” knowledge? I disagree with your position. I’m not interested in beginning a new discussion on Creationism vs. Evolution with you, though I appreciate that you merely used it in an attempt to illustrate your point. I believe that we come to new understanding of the scripture, that our understanding of the scripture (or knowledge in general) evolves on a personal and collective basis but I do not believe that there is “new” knowledge. When Solomon states in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun I believe in his great God-given wisdom. We think we are learning “new” things. The things we learn are not “new,” perhaps a better statement would be that we attain knowledge which is new to US , but the knowledge is there, waiting to be understood. Truth is…it simply is. The fact is that we will not recognize or understand all of it in our singular lifetimes.
Gary, I am not questioning God, or his ability to keep His Word pure. I am suggesting to you that even if He wasn’t the Bible is still the best authority and the greatest book for understanding God and that we cannot do better but can do much worse than to retain a belief in the Bible.
Even your quote from St. Augustine was building on something Paul said in the scripture….I tried to find the scripture but have run out of time as I have to take my Mother to the Doctor today, but basically Paul was telling his disciples from prison that even an unbeliever, I don’t think St. Augustine was speaking of unbelievers but he was talking about our inability to understand scripture fully, but Paul said that even an unbeliever sharing the Gospel will help in building the Kingdom of God, will direct people toward Jesus and that the disciples should not try to silence them because they have not been authorized by “the Church” to speak for God. It was not a “new” thought that people who do not understand the scripture, and only think they do, if they are promoting God’s message are of value, I think that was St. Augustine’s main point? Paul said that in the scripture, it isn’t “new.”
What I think is this: The greatest scholars and theologians of all time will not be able to fully understand the scripture, rather it is something we all explore, discuss and arrive, or evolve, if you will, at different levels of understanding about, that doesn’t make the things that we grasp new, only our understanding of knowledge is new, not that actual knowledge itself.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Hey, Greg! Are you still out there?
I was doing a little bible study tonight and I came across that scripture I was referring to in my last comment. It’s found in Philippians, specifically Philippians 1:15-18