I try to never take anything for granted. Doubting Thomas, don’t you know? So, when I read Attack and Dethrone God? (insanitybytes2.wordpress.com), I did a little research online. Apparently, a fellow named Terry Turchie started this latest hullaballoo on “The Ingraham Angle” (‘Attack & Dethrone God’ Is Goal of Protests, Says Former FBI Agent Terry Turchie (heavy.com)). So now the Liberal Democrat news media is deriding the whole idea.
heavy.com provides an example, pointing to the manifesto of the Weather Underground, “Praire Fire” (see https://archive.org/stream/PrairieFire_20170422/Prairie-fire_djvu.txt). Heavy complains “Praire Fire” never uses the phrase “attack and dethrone God”, but “Praire Fire” is an openly Communist publication. Communists see religion as an instrument of oppression. They demand atheism. They punish those with religious beliefs.
Here is heavy.com’s relevant excerpt (from page 46) that shows the worst the Weather Underground had to say about religion.
Historically, the cultural and social justification of slavery had been religious. This was true during the Crusades in Europe and in the Mideast, and was carried by feudal Spain into its conquests in the Caribbean and South arid Central America. Religion was the main ideological control of feudal society and early capitalism. Chattel slavery was defended as the means of saving the souls of “ignorant heathens” from eternal hell-fire by giving them the “blessing” of Christianity.
The authors of “Praire Fire” equate religion with oppression.
Supposedly, the Weather Underground is dead, but the small number of people who made up that organization are not. Moreover, the sixties radicals include more people than just those people. So, it is silly to say the Weather Underground is without influence. Barack Obama garnered support from Bill Ayers.
Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois state Senate was launched at a famous fundraiser and kickoff for the campaign at a 1995 gathering at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, says Kurtz.(https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/32072-obama-and-bill-ayers-together-from-the-beginning)
Ayers and Dohrn helped to write “Praire Fire”. Ayers and Dohrn later became university professors.
Think about this.
Ayers is a retired professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Academic_career)
What kind of university hires a crazy bomb throwing communist to design curriculum and instruct children? Yet those are the people running our public schools.
In 1991, Dohrn was hired by Northwestern University School of Law as an adjunct professor. Her title was “Clinical Associate Professor of Law”. She was one of the founders of the Children and Family Justice Center in the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern Law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn#Later_life_and_professional_career)
What kind of law school hires a terrorist who was on the FBI’s most wanted list?
Citizen Tom 
No surprise here.
They all follow in the footsteps of Karl Marx.
The following quote is often attributed to Marx “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism”.
Although no source for the quote exists it is entirely believable that Marx could have said this.
Georg Jung, a friend of Marx, wrote “Marx will surely chase God from His heaven and will even sue Him.”.
In his book “Marx And Satan”, Richard Wurmbrand makes the case that Marx was a satanist.
Although he presents a massive amount of circumstantial evidence, I’m not entirely convinced that Marx was a fullblown satanist who participated in satanic rituals.
However, the evidence presented leaves no doubt, what spirit was expressed through Marx.
The evidence also shows that Marx was not motivated by noble ideals to help the poor and the oppressed. He was an evil POS who hated humanity.
Marx’ poem “Invocation of One in Despair”:
So a god has snatched from me my all,
In the curse and rack of destiny.
All his worlds are gone beyond recall.
Nothing but revenge is left to me.
I shall build my throne high overhead,
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark – superstitious dread.
For its marshal – blackest agony.
Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
Shall turn back, deathly pale and dumb,
Clutched by blind and chill mortality,
May his happiness prepare its tomb.
Here’s another of his poems.
To thee my verses, unbridled and daring,
Shall mount, O Satan, king of the banquet.
Away with thy sprinkling, O priest, and thy droning.
For never shall Satan, O priest, stand behind thee.
Thy breath, O Satan, my verses inspires,
When from my bosom the gods I defy.
Of kings pontifical, of kings inhuman:
Throe is the lightning that sets minds to shaking.
O soul that wanderest far from the straight way,
Satan is merciful. See Heloisa!
Like the whirlwind spreading its wings,
He passes, O people, Satan the great!
Hail, of reason the great Vindicator!
Sacred to thee shall rise incense and vows!
Thou hast the god of the priest disenthroned.
Terror and violence is not optional to communism but it’s part and parcel of the whole stinking, rotten movement.
Marx writes in The Communist Manifesto:
The Communists despise making a secret of their opinions and intentions. They openly declare that their aims can be reached only through the violent overthrow of the whole existing social structure. – …There is only one method to shorten the murderous pains of death of the old society, the bloody birth pangs of the new society; only one method to simplify and concentrate them, that is revolutionary terrorism.
Marx And Satan by Richard Wurmbrand
Click to access Hour_Of_The_Time_08122012-Marx_and_Satan.pdf
@artaxes
I try not to judge people, but I would be surprised to find Marx in Heaven. God knows whether he ever repented.
@Tom.
I don’t know where he’s now but his legacy is one of death, destruction and persecution.
There is a reason why Christians are persecuted in communist China and in North Korea and why they were persecuted in former communist countries.
Great information Tom—I actually caught that segment the other evening— and immediately recognized that the communist party, that has lived in the US for decades, has now simply been given new life — a resuscitation of sorts— most of our monsters never really die— they just sleep waiting for the day when seasons are ripe and they can be reawakened and made anew— morphed for the sake of for the times— tweaked and good to go—
@Julie
Until the Second Coming, we are stuck with Satan, demons, and corrupt human beings. Even Jesus had to resist Satan, cast out demons, and die at the hands of corrupt human beings.
In fact, Jesus came to save corrupt human beings. So, it is funny some people act so surprised when people point out corruption. However, the explanation is simple enough. When we tell the most corrupt among us that we don’t want their “help”, they get angry because if we get away with refusing their “help” it cuts into their profits.
Well said, Tom. I’m all about giving people second chances, third, forth, and people’s ability to change. But when darn near everybody in positions of power, education, politics, leadership, shares an common anti American history that is influencing our culture today, we need to take a deeper look at what’s really going on.
@insanitybytes22
Ayers and Dohrn still celebrate their radicalism. Since they are still intent on making trouble, there is no point in giving that sort a second chance.
I don’t think many Christians consider what this means.
Wicked spiritual forces are the rulers of this dark age. That doesn’t make all our politicians Satanic demons, but it does mean we should not trust people we don’t really know with the education of our children. Unfortunately, previous generations of American have done so. Hence, darn near everybody in positions of power, education, politics, leadership, shares an common anti American bias.
Every decision a political leader makes tends to be a political calculation. If the the people of a society let politicians get away with it, that includes deciding who teaches children and what children learn.
Instead of doing what is best for the children, politicians do what improves their position of power. If each generation of parents doesn’t constantly focus on what is best for their children, the political calculations of a society’s leaders leads to the slow degradation of that society. That is, children don’t receive proper instruction in wisdom, and each generation that failure increases.
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
We do not recognize and celebrate one group’s humanity by denying another’s. Only by loving the transcendent spark of beauty in every heart do we overcome our tribal prejudices, whether we call that spark the image of God or the reflection of our own humanity, our own finest, most cherished hopes and dreams, mirrored back at us in every other beautiful brother and sister.
@tsalmon
I have no idea what you are reading into this post. We are supposed to celebrate the humanity of bomb throwing communists? While they throw us into concentration camps, right?
If every time I say anything, you are just going to respond by implying some sort of bigotry, what is the point?
Why don’t you answer any questions? How we defend that transcendent spark of beauty in our children? Do we put people in charge of their education who teach them only the government matters? That their ruler is their god?
Anyway, I take it your storm prep is near done. I pray the tropical storm turns out to be nothing more than a rainstorm.
Tom,
Actually, I was referring to some protesters who are failing to see the spark of God in our police and national guard, but instead they lump their uniformed brothers and sisters all into some enemy tribe. It is interesting how you have tripwired yourself to react, however. I know I am your little brother old man, but you don’t really need to automatically disagree every time, especially when these are thoughts upon which all Christians of good will should unite.
“ We are supposed to celebrate the humanity of bomb throwing communists? While they throw us into concentration camps, right?”
Well, yes. it seems to me that this is exactly what Jesus said and exemplified, and the course that MLK tried to take. They asked us to love our enemies exactly for that reason, that we are all made in the image of a loving God.
These turbulent times have caused me to reflect again on MLK’s speeches. What an amazing man. Too bad he is not alive today. Both sides of this made up divide could learn from him.
Storm prep done and now we can only just ride it out. We in the rain and storm surge part, but though close to the beach, we are on fairly high ground. The wind is picking up, but hopefully less than the average Northwest windstorm. Thanks for your prayers. I’ll always take them.
Let me just say this again:
“I think Tom that you are of the false impression that I am disagreeing with you. Where did I say that, as Christians, our thoughts should not always be towards eternity, both the eternity, the incarnate Christ, ever present in this world and in the next? My experience is that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.“
You’ve never gone for a walk to nowhere in particular on a beautiful day just for the pure joy and appreciation to God at being alive? I know that I have flown plenty of times for the shear joy of flying and without the intention of going anywhere in particular. You’ve never taken a drive to somewhere and enjoyed the trip as much as getting there, where in fact the joy of the journey itself, the destination, all of It, was one thing? One of the reasons that I ultimately chose to fly for a living was because I really just enjoyed the flying, the being in the moment, even when I had some necessary destination to arrive at.
I’m not sure what your actual disagreement here is? You are unhappy with the imperfect nature of the world, and feel the need to scold me because I’m not miserable enough about it? Nah . . . I think that you just like to disagree and it really doesn’t matter what I say, does it? 🙂
I’m not in charge of Meriam Webster. I have no opinion about whether they properly changed the definition of “racism” or not. I know, because l took many linguistics classes in college, that language has an organic evolutionary quality to it. Language changes (often in predictable patterns) as a matter of the consensus of its speakers. In some sense, dictionaries and grammar books, are efforts to entrench and standardize language language so as to resist those changes. Although one can see why some convention Is needed for communication, some change is still inevitable.
As Orwellian “right speak” illustrated, establishment political forces often try to define the terms of complex issues into simplistic slogans and jingoisms. Such demagoguery enforces tribal loyalty and incites xenophobic fears and hatreds of an enemy “other”, whether real or made up. In the balkans, the Serbs tried to claim pure Serbian language words and forms even though the various factions had spoken the same language for centuries.
I’m not sure where you are going with this? Are you wanting to explore the complex issues of “racism” so as to come to a mutual understanding of the problem? Or do you want to use the semantics of racism as a wedge issue? If the latter, thanks, but I’m not interested.
Let me just say this again:
“I think Tom that you are of the false impression that I am disagreeing with you. Where did I say that, as Christians, our thoughts should not always be towards eternity, both the eternity, the incarnate Christ, ever present in this world and in the next? My experience is that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.“
You’ve never gone for a walk to nowhere in particular on a beautiful day just for the pure joy and appreciation to God at being alive? I know that I have flown plenty of times for the shear joy of flying and without the intention of going anywhere in particular. You’ve never taken a drive to somewhere and enjoyed the trip as much as getting there, where in fact the joy of the journey itself, the destination, all of It, was one thing? One of the reasons that I ultimately chose to fly for a living was because I really just enjoyed the flying, the being in the moment, even when I had some necessary destination to arrive at.
I’m not sure what your actual disagreement here is? You are unhappy with the imperfect nature of the world, and feel the need to scold me because I’m not miserable enough about it? Nah . . . I think that you just like to disagree and it really doesn’t matter what I say, does it? 🙂
I’m not in charge of Meriam Webster. I have no opinion about whether they properly changed the definition of “racism” or not. I know, because l took many linguistics classes in college, that language has an organic evolutionary quality to it. Language changes (often in predictable patterns) as a matter of the consensus of its speakers. In some sense, dictionaries and grammar books, are efforts to entrench and standardize language language so as to resist those changes. Although one can see why some convention Is needed for communication, some change is still inevitable.
As Orwellian “right speak” illustrated, establishment political forces often try to define the terms of complex issues into simplistic slogans and jingoisms. Such demagoguery enforces tribal loyalty and incites xenophobic fears and hatreds of an enemy “other”, . In the balkans, the Serbs tried to claim pure Serbian language forms even though the various factions has spoken the same language for centuries.
I’m not sure where you are going with this? Are you wanting to explore the issue of “racism” so as to come to a mutual understanding of the problem? Or do you want to use the semantics of racism as a wedge issue? If the latter, thanks, but I’m not interested.
@tsalmon
Are all destinations the same? Then it doesn’t make much sense to say the journey is the destination.
Is Jesus with us in this world? Yes, Jesus is always with us, but don’t forget we won’t truly know Him until we reach Heaven.
Can we be joyful and content in this world? Yes, but that is because we know God loves us, that He has already claimed us for Heaven, and that He is bringing us home.
The beauty we see in this world is a proof of God’s existence, and we should take joy in this world because of that. We should study this world because of what it tells us about God, but this world is marred. Like us, this world is a creation God will remake. Because we need to focus God, there is no point idolizing this world. We should never equate the place of our journey with our destination.
@tsalmon
That is what you meant? Who would have known? A mind reader?
It is perfectly okay to love your enemies and throw them in jail if that is where they belong. It makes no sense to put bomb throwing communists in charge of our schools. You cannot blame that foolishness on either the Bible or MLK.
Any idea can be taken to an absurd extreme. That is why Jesus said this.
Kindness to an enemy only makes sense if that enemy has enough virtue to appreciate it. If your enemy sees kindness as a weakness, if you are kind to him you are just inviting an attack.
“That is what you meant? Who would have known? A mind reader?“
No mind reading is required if one considers that the difficult, almost impossible, God given mandate to love is actually universal. If the concept of “love your enemy” is selective to only to those who we don’t actually consider our enemies (even just our political enemies), then “love thy enemy” is a meaningless cliche rather than a truth from God, don’t you think? The perceived hyperbolic threat of your aged “red scare” menaces, the good and the bad police, the peaceful and the violent protesters, even the man who murdered George Floyd, even Joe Biden and Donald Trump, we Christians say we believe are all created in the image of God.
Is there a distinction between that God given love and righteous justice? Not if what Jesus said is true. If God’s Word is true, there is no justice without love and there is no love without the willingness to sacrifice.
I think it is the responsibility of we Christians to promote God’s love, even when the well meaning nonbelievers, the confused believers and especially the cold hearted cynics like Trump who simply want to use our idealistic passions against for their own narcissistic schemes, wish to incite us to react with the cold heart of hatred.
None of this is my idea. I’ve been reading MLK lately and he said it all, but I believe it ultimately comes from God. Don’t you brother?
@tsalmon
I believe the Bible comes from God.
The are four ways we love God.
1. We obey Him.
2. We care for children.
3. We serve others.
4. We care for the needy.
BTW, I’m sure you didn’t mean to do so, but the way that you quoted Mathew made it seem that your words were actually the words in the Bible. I’m sure that it was a typo.
That said, I think a little research into this unique passage in the Bible will show that the meaning is difficult to interpret, especially what Jesus meant Bible what it “holy”. I think, however, that if we interpret at this passage in the context of what Jesus said and did throughout the rest of the Gospels, this passage was never meant to place limits on our responsibility to love each other and to appreciate the image of God even in our worst, most hostile adversaries. In other words, God was not saying “Love each other” but only if you like them, or they love you back, or they are in your tribe or you always agree with them on politics. It would make the difficult moral obligation to love, which is the source of all moral obligation, so relative, so incidental, as to make it meaningless.
@tsalmon
Sorry about the typo. I fixed it.
You have a little difficulty with an uncomfortable passage so you find it convenient to ignore it?
You don’t know the meaning of holy or pearl. Do a word search on the Bible. See how the words “holy” and “pearl” are used in the same context.
Consider a commentary or two. Here is an example.
As a practical matter, we love people by giving of ourselves to them. When we are confronted by a vile enemy, we have very little we can give them that they will not abuse. They will even abuse mercy.
We are suppose to forgive as we would be forgiven. However, some will abuse even that. Consider => Matthew 18:23-35.
Need a real world example? Since this is a religious/political, we will us a political example. We opened ourselves to trade with the Chinese communists. That wicked government has used slave labor, stolen our trade secrets, manipulated its currency, bribed our leaders, and done every sneaky thing it can do to weaken us.
Sometimes all we can do for our enemies is pray for them. We cannot make someone who is unwilling to love God love God.
“I believe the Bible comes from God.
The are four ways we love God.
1. We obey Him.
2. We care for children.
3. We serve others.
4. We care for the needy.“
I don’t disagree that those are all expressions of God’s mandate to love, but I beg to differ on your inference that your list is exhaustive, especially if you claim to believe the Bible.
I think the Beatitudes alone exceed this list by more than a few examples. Then there’s Mathew 25:35-45, which seems to have some broader qualifications about “the least of these” who Jesus wants us to love as if it were Him, And “The Good Samaritan” where, as Jesus does elsewhere, He purposely uses a member of a tribe thought heathen by the Jews as an exemplar of the commandment to love and the universal nature of who is to be loved. And then there are all the metaphors of His love especially for the lost souls, who also by their nature may not necessarily fit into any of your limited categories. I could give many more Gospel examples beyond your list where God asks us to love, but by even making such a list, I think we miss the broader Universal point.
God so infinitely loved all of us that God sent His only begotten Son as a perfect sacrificial demonstration of His universal love for all of us, good and evil alike, and although Jesus certainly emphasized the categories you mention, they were certainly no limitation on God’s wondrously powerful statement of His infinite and merciful love that is the passion, the death and the resurrection of Christ. Christ so loves us that in the most excruciating way possible, He suffered everything with us that could be suffered by being a human in this finite and fallen world.
Not only did God provide that supreme example of love, but the universal Christ is always suffering with all of us, the good and the bad, He always has been and he always will be. We are each and every one of us loved by a suffering Christ so that we never suffer alone. That is an impossible lot of love for each of us to live up to but with God all things are possible.
Therefore, I think the story and words of Jesus call on us to try to constantly expand our ability to love universally, even beyond our human boundaries, rather limit God’s infinite love into some convenient Pharisaic legalizations. I very often fail to live up to this dynamic call to love, but is what I believe with all my heart and soul.
Now you can mock me if you like good brother. I don’t mind it. The truth of this has become so evident to me that it is only sad to me that you, with all your gifts and studies, don’t see it, and instead wish to spread all this divisive rage and hatred all the time.
@tsalmon
Mock you? Since we are our own worst enemies, what would be the point? What could I do that would rival the injuries you bring upon yourself? When I am so busy treating my own self-inflicted wounds, who has the time?
God is a narrow category. There are plenty of children. Service is just helping someone, anyone. I suppose some would even include a wild animal that cannot feed itself among the needy, but I am not quite that generous. Nevertheless, that list is inclusive enough, I think.
Think about what I am trying to say. Jesus died on a cross for the sins of mankind. Can you or I do that? Of course not.
Did Jesus actually die for the sins of everyone? Well, His sacrifice was enough to cover the sins of everyone who believes in Him, but not everyone is willing to believe in Him.
Sometimes all we can do is pray for people. To love we must have humility. In fact, we must love with humility. Otherwise, we quickly cease to love. We can only give to others what God gifts us to offer to others in His Name.
Tom,
Like I said, what Jesus meant when He said not to throw pearls before swine is scripturally unique and there is some dispute on how it fits into the theological whole. I think that, like much of the Bible, there is a desire to make even less mysterious passages mean what we want them to mean so as to sanctify our own political or tribal affiliation of the moment. I think that the best interpretation of this passage would be, not as you imply, a transactional one, where we consider our love too precious to spend it on those we consider undeserving of it, but instead, God was simply saying once again not to commit idolatry.
In other words, don’t treat God and God’s love like a reciprocal business transaction or a tribal affiliation or a political movement. The Body of Christ is not so small as our personal or tribal or national governmental clubhouse. Instead these are all temporal forms of corporate bondage to illusions which each present their own self inflicted evils exactly because they endlessly divide us from each other and thus separate us from the holy of holies, a dynamic relationship with God in each other through The Body of Christ.
I believe that the whole concept of casting Christ’s redeeming love as a necessary reciprocal political or business transaction with the Chinese or political parties or anyone else that divides our hearts into groups of swine snorting in the dirt for money and power is exactly throwing the greatest pearl of all, The Body of Christ, before earthly swinishness. It’s the delusion of pretending any given momentary Game of Thrones branding exercise is something holy when it’s not. As Fr. Richard Rohr puts it when interpreting Paul‘s words on this sort divisive idolatry:
“Remember, it is not the brand that matters.
It is that God’s heart be made available and active on this earth.”
Despite many around this country and the world seemingly turning away from the petty tribalism that infects organized religions (including often my own), God’s message of love is still ubiquitously calling and many more are hearing it than you think and are accepting the cross without the need to form into some venal tribe that takes credit for doing God’s work of love in the world. There is progress. There is evolution. Christ has always been here for eternity patiently moving the universe and us toward Him and God will continue to do so long after all our tribes and teams and political idols fade into the dustbin of eternity.
@tsalmon
When I try to figure out what the Bible means, I read the Bible. The Bible has much to say about love.
Matthew 7:6 does not describe a transaction. Never said it did. When we gift others with love, do we receive love in return? Sometimes, but if we love as part of a business deal, that really is not love (1 Corinthians 13).
When we love a small child, do we gift that child with valuable, delicate and beautiful pottery to show our love? Nope! A small child would not appreciate such a pearl. That child would destroy the pottery and might even injure himself. We must give of ourselves to a child what is appropriate for a child.
Love requires wisdom. If we give ourselves indiscriminately to everyone, we don’t do anyone much good, including our self.
We love God with all our heart, strength, mind, and soul by obeying Him. Obedience and praise are all we have to give Him. Our neighbor, however, is not God.
God told us to love our neighbor as we love our self. When we love others, we don’t have to be self destructive. We just have to treat others as we wish to be treated. If we behaved like a thug, would we expect others to risk their lives by pretending we were not dangerous? As a thug, we might wish for such naivete, but neither of us treats a thug the same way we would treat someone we trust.
It is a simple fact that each person is unique. To love each person properly, we must love them as they are, not as we might wish them to be. When the world contains people as diverse Adolf Hitler and Mother Tereasa, wisdom leaves us no other choice.
“When I try to figure out what the Bible means, I read the Bible.”
No, actually, you don’t. You don’t just read the Bible, like the rest of us, you “interpret” the Bible.
Interpretation is necessarily subjectively selective and fallibly discriminating. And if we all actually agreed on our subjective “interpretations”, if we were all equally subject to the perfect knowledge of God’s Will in the Gospel through the grace of revelation by the Holy Spirit, then we would not have thousands of Christian denominations. This alone should give us a little humility about what we claim to know simply by our own supposedly conclusive “reading” of the Bible. Didn’t the religious scholars of His time have the temerity to tell Jesus what He should know about Scripture too? Christ was rarely critical of individual sinners, but these self appointed dictators of God’s Law were constantly corrected for their pride and hypocrisy, weren’t they? Didn’t Paul also continuously battled withIn his parishes against this whole divisive idolatry of putting a subjective human interpretation of Law before the love God through the Holy Spirit puts in every human heart if we only seek it?
Wouldn’t my pretending that I have simply “read” a given Bible passage and my reading is somehow conclusive strike you as rather pompous and vain on my part, especially if I used my pomposity to further divide the Body of Christ into warring Pharisaic camps who themselves proclaimed what is my mere fallible interpretation on the infinite as absolute knowledge, a Venn Diagram where we get to decide for God whether someone else or their group is either in or out of the circle of God’s love? Wouldn’t you see my conceit as it’s own form of idolatry?
@tsalmon
What are you worried about? If words don’t mean anything — if we just form vague interpretations of words — why don’t you just interpret my words to mean I agree with you? All you have to do is proclaim your interpretation, the Law of Love is absolute, and anything else is a vainglorious Pharisaic interpretation.
And BTW, I believe that both Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler were loved by God. I believe they were both made in the image of God. No matter how despicable we think someone is, I don’t believe God wants us to chose for God who is in or out of His Body of Christ. I believe we must try to find that divine spark in even the most miserable soul and attempt to love that person or group of people for it.
Granted, individual acceptance of God’s merciful love is miraculously voluntary. However, I think our opinion about someone else’s God given voluntary choice to love God and to love others as we think personally appropriate does not decide for God whether God loves and redeems them or not, and I therefore also believe that we should not therefore decide to voluntarily love some folks and hate others. It’s all indeed voluntary – we each get to choose to promulgate God’s love or we can choose to hate instead.
I cannot force this internal choice upon anyone. It is a normative appeal based on my own personal act of faith and belief in what God asks, just as your acceptance of that appeal must be voluntary on your part. My duty to protect others from someone else’s destructive hate, in contrast, may not be voluntary on either my part or theirs, but I deny the premise that this effort toward justice must be done without love for the individual who is acting wickedly. Just the opposite, I believe that there is no real justice without such love.
I have not read enough about her to say for certain, but given her life of advocating for the most wretched (often heathen) souls, I think Mother Theresa knew that universal live too.
“What are you worried about? If words don’t mean anything — if we just form vague interpretations of words — why don’t you just interpret my words to mean I agree with you? All you have to do is proclaim your interpretation, the Law of Love is absolute, and anything else is a vainglorious Pharisaic interpretation.“
Ha,ha,ha! Have not thought of that, but may be worth a shot. Didn’t you try to convince me recently that math was subjective? How can mere words survive relative interpretation if what 2 + 2 equals is in the eye of the beholder? 🤓
In the end, I think our disagreements are more about our different temperaments than they are about real theological disputes. You are a more rule driven personality and I am more relationship driven. Perhaps we are both just different pieces in God’s vast jigsaw puzzle. I appreciate your keeping your sense of humor though.
It’s been three days cooped up in the house without a run on the beach. The storm is on its last intense throws before driving north and dying a slow wet death. So good time for a run, right?
We are on the East side of the counterclockwise flow, the side with all the showers. Winds are out of the South at about 40 knots in dark squalls of rain bands. The warm rain stings a little as I run, but it is still exhilarating.
The surge has come right up to the seawall. Debris is everywhere. Part of the new community peer now decorates the beach at the end of my street. A beach comber says he found a hat and a nickel on the sand. He really thinks the nickel part is a funny discovery, like finding a nickel in a sand stack. Life is such an amazing adventure. Praise God.
@tsalmon
Well, I am glad to hear the storm was not too serious. We are having beautiful weather here. My guess is once the storm moves north your weather will improve. Cool air usually moves in after the storm moves out, but who knows for certain.
Predestination, whether some are God’s elect, is a controversial issue. The Bible contains a fair number of verses on the subject. Romans discusses it, but the fact God determines who is saved grates on some people. Puffs up others. Humbles some too.
Are we suppose to love everyone? Suppose so. The Good Samaritan knew nothing about the man he rescued. Still, he showed his loved for him. The problem is that not everyone is a brother or sister in Jesus Christ. Think of it this way. It would be much easier to work with Mother Teresa than Adolf Hitler. We can’t treat everyone the same, but have to be careful to avoid partiality for the wrong reasons.
Mother Teresa was a sister in Christ. Hitler was power mad, someone prepared to throw you and your family in a concentration camp just because our last name is Jewish. Because Mother Teresa said she had accepted Jesus as her savior and behaved accordingly, she was family. Because Hitler was dangerous to us and our families, he was a dog or swine. We could pray for him, but unlike Mother Teresa we would have been foolish to trust Hitler. Yet only God can judge either Mother Teresa or Hitler. We might think Mother Teresa belongs in Heaven and Hitler belongs in Hell, but only God judges the souls of men.
You say you are about relationships. Do you treat everyone the same? You think God treats everyone the same?
Predestination? That esoteric topic came out of nowhere. I can only assume your point is that, if God’s handed all of us loaded dice, it also means that some of us are inexorably lost, so we need not waste our love on them. Supposedly, their only purpose is to be a warning to the rest of us. Problem is that God doesn’t label the His supposed damaged goods that well.
Could be wrong but predestination seems like mostly a Protestant bug-a-boo, a creature of too much Enlightenment sophistry. I’m reminded of what our Catholic school nuns might have said if we asked if God could create a rock so big that He can’t lift it: “It’s a mystery, now do be quiet and stop your askin your stupid questions”. Given my performance in school, the good sisters undoubtedly thought that I was predestined to be a ditch digger.
Do I try to treat everyone the same and with basic good will and decency? Well, yes, making a commitment to do so in my 20’s was a fundamental turning point in my whole life. It literally changed everything for me. It is difficult and I mostly fail, but I firmly belief that basic and general goodwill is the source of virtue.
Do I think God treats everyone the same? Well, I hope so, but ultimately it’s a mystery, so do be quiet and stop askin your stupid questions. 😉
@tsalmon
God is omniscient. He know the End from the Beginning. He created us knowing what we would do. Yet we have choices, that is free will. Have no idea how that works.
Some of us will go to Hell. Even though we were only made in the image of God, some of us insist upon being God. So God does not treat us all the same.
Who goes to Heaven, and who goes to Hell. We don’t know. Therefore, our tendency is to treat each other as well as our conduct justifies, but Jesus commands us to go further, to love each other so that we might serve as His instruments and lead the unsaved who will be saved to Him. Kind of makes ones head ache thinking about it.
“Who goes to Heaven, and who goes to Hell. We don’t know. Therefore, our tendency is to treat each other as well as our conduct justifies, but Jesus commands us to go further, to love each other so that we might serve as His instruments and lead the unsaved who will be saved to Him. Kind of makes ones head ache thinking about it.“
Very nicely said, especially that last part.
What strikes me with admiration is the admitted uncertainty. If we really don’t know much about Heaven and Hell (even if it is only a duality), if we can’t be certain who goes where (and as you say, we shouldn’t judge for God even at the extremes), and if we should, as you say, “love each other so that we might serve as His instruments and lead the unsaved who will be saved to Him”, why in the first place should we constantly put so much focus on what are irresolvable mysteries anyway? It seems to me that, despite the vague mystery of it all, we risk putting ourselves and each other in a sort of corporate bondage to an either/or (Heaven or Hell) dualistic ideology that, at best is likely to be infinitely more expansive than we can or need to fathom, and at worst we are completely misinterpreting.
This is a much longer discussion and it is a little off topic (although maybe some greater community contemplation on this issue could resolve many other disputes), however, over the course of my lifetime journey, I have slowly come to a less limited and dynamically communal concept of what it means to be “saved”.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not denying the voluntary individual commitment that brings salvation. (This is a friendly “yes, and” appeal that I’m making). After a good deal of study and thought and practice over the years (as well as a little revelation), I have come additionally to believe that there is infinitely more “good news” in the concept of salvation right now, in the present moment, beyond the (somewhat scripturally nebulous) dualistic promise of a blissful reward or a horrific punishment in the afterlife.
I admit that the dualistic view has the logic of comforting certainty, and it is also just the sort of thing that our good rule followers amongst us in our Christian communion crave so as to maintain the self discipline (and unfortunately, all too often to try to discipline others). I just think that God’s appeal to love, even (and more likely, especially) when our love requires a certain amount of suffering and sacrifice for each other, is its own amazing eternal reward right now and for its own extraordinary soteriological sake.
Perhaps this is better meant for another discussion and another time. As difficult as this is for you and I though, I don’t think that everything, and especially this topic, has to be an argument. I think, especially when we are regarding such infinite mysteries, we can accept that we both can be somewhat right, while recognizing with humble astonishment that we are both probably mostly wrong, and there is so much miraculously more to be revealed by the Holy Spirit than either of us could likely ever contain.
@tsalmon
As Socrates once said (paraphrasing), much of wisdom is admitting how little we know. One of the reasons I favor limited government is we are incapable of consistently putting people in charge who know what the are supposed to do. The other reason is that power corrupts.
Jesus gave us clues about both Heaven and Hell. We know they exist. To go to Heaven and avoid Hell, we must learn how to obey God. Jesus was not ambiguous about that.
How do we learn how to obey God? We study the Bible. We carefully discern what God wants us to do.
When I said that your personality type oriented you toward rules and mine toward relationships, I think you may have thought that I mean only my relationships with other people or with God. Actually, by relationships, I meant more than just those relationships. I was referring to the interconnections and interactions between the various actors within complex systems so as to recognize and understand the wider field, and then to look at the commonalities and connections in seemingly unrelated fields to try to comprehend those relationships so as to envision even wider fields.
Have you ever been reading a book on one topic and realize that their were serendipitous connections to another book that you read on a seemingly unrelated topic? This kind of epistemology has lead me to what little wisdom that I have. That wisdom comes in the epiphanies that such synchronicities engender.
For example, if we are to follow the wisdom of Socrates, wr must admit that we know little about the systemics of Heaven or Hell and how they interact, but there has been interaction. For example, what does the statement that said that after His death, Jesus descended into Hell mean, and why did He go there? Did you know that many early Christians and Eastern Church today believe Jesus went there to empty Hell, presumably because His sacrifice made Hell obsolete? The duality of Heaven verses Hell is motivating, I suppose, and that sort of discernment represents a kind of wisdom I guess, but I find the connections, the relationships in widening unified fields far more enlightening.
What can we learn from other religions. How are they the same? How are they different? Why? What can religions learn from psychology? How are physics and metaphysic the same thing? And your favorite thing, how does Christianity influence culture which in turn influences government, which in turn influences economics which in turn effects science and so on in widening circles?
@tsalmon
So, now we have broadened the meaning of the word “relationships” to the point of we cannot be certain of the meaning. Sigh!
God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden because they would not obey a simple rule. Adam and Eve did not love God enough to obey that simple rule. Adam and Eve did not have a strong enough relationship with God to obey a simple rule.
Much of the Book of Romans addresses the problem Adam and Eve had obeying a simple rule and how God chose to solve that problem. God gave us a Savior, His Son. We learn to love God through Jesus, by loving Him. We pray to the Father in Jesus’ Name.
How we connect properly with Jesus and the Father. The Holy Spirit indwells us. Through the Holy Spirit Jesus and the Father make their home in us.
How much do I understand any of that? Not much, but it is all in the Bible. God gives us the strength to obey Him when we return His love. That makes Christianity about a relationship with God, not just about obeying a bunch of rules.
Side topic.
When we don’t exactly understand something, we conjecture. If we are an “expert”, we may take our conjectures too seriously. That is a mistake.
Here are a couple of reference.
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html
https://www.christianity.com/jesus/death-and-resurrection/the-crucifixion/did-jesus-descend-into-hell.html
When Jesus died on the cross, He took our sins upon Himself. At that point the Father could not look upon Jesus. Hell is separation from God.
@tsalmon
When I say Hell is separation from God, I need to make something clear. The primary characteristic that makes Hell undesirable is that those in Hell are separated from God. Beyond that we don’t know much about it..
Words, including the words in the Bible, are imperfect abstract symbols. We put words together to form sentences that generally provide the subject/object relationships we often use to communicate. In turn, these are formed into thought units called paragraphs which make up essays, metaphors, poetry, rhymes lyrics, sermons, declarations, commands and all the other complex structures of linguistic perspicuity. But it all starts with the relationships and interactions of mere words.
Here’s one definition of “faith”:
“strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.“
Here is a definition of “certainty“:
“a fact that is definitely true or an event that is definitely going to take place.”
Here is s a definition of “conjecture”:
“an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.”
Finally, here is a definition of the word “theory”:
“a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.“
Each of these words has semantic qualities that can distinguished that word from the other words. Importantly, however, each of these words are intricately related as well. Contemplating both the distinctions and the relationships between such words can be more enlightening than just making binary choices about what word is right or wrong.
I think that you realize that, as an element of sagacity, discernment generally requires finer distinctions than mere dualism. However, perhaps an analogy would be useful.
Someone has been put into a wild and virgin forest. She is told that at the end of her journey, her destination can be either an indescribable but safe place of comfort and security or else, if she chooses her paths unwisely, she will end up in a place of isolation and greater suffering. She also has been given a book which she believes contains instructions to get to the better destination if she can only wisely study and decipher the words and stories in this mysterious book. That’s one way of looking at our journey in life, and I’m.nit saying that it is incorrect.
But let’s say that along the way she begins to explore the forest’s own wonders and mysteries. She begins to see connections between plants and creatures until she see the elegance of the relationships as an entire divinely beautiful ecosystem, and as her sentience of these connections increases, she begins to see her place within the wider whole and that the myriad of her creative or destructive interactions within the whole carry their own amazing rewards and punishments which go beyond her own small fears and desires about those nebulous ultimate destinations. This revaluation therefore begins to engender in her a sort a bliss in the dynamic adventure, the exploration itself.
Finally, let us suppose that, as she turns from journier to sojourner, she also begins to understand that the book she was given is not so much a book of directions as it is an exploration guide.
It may be far too used and abused a cliche, but what I am asking you to consider, what so many saints and mystics (and also I think Jesus) have tried to tell us but that we fail to fully grasp, is that perhaps in some mysterious ways, the journey itself is also the destination.
@tsalmon
This is a fallen world that is still falling. Don’t make it your destination. Don’t make it your home.
2 Corinthians 5:1-10
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians+5&version=ESV
Hebrews 11 speaks of the heroes of faith. Hebrews 11:13-16 is included in the middle of it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A13-16&version=ESV
I think Tom that you are of the false impression that I am disagreeing with you. Where did I say that, as Christians, our thoughts should not always be towards eternity, both the eternity, the incarnate Christ, ever present in this world and in the next? My experience is that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Paul often calls for the creation of such an eternal life in Christ here on Earth now. I’m sure you know the references, but I will look them up for you when I have more time if you want.
Speaking only from personal experience, the experience of being saved is anticipatory, yes, and also one of an expanding and joyful immediacy, which as the revelation of the connections of now to eternity expands by increments so too increases the anticipation of even more gloriously wholistic fields of grace in an afterlife.
I don’t have the feeling of being exclusive or elect so much as incredible inclusion in something cosmic that was there waiting around me all the time. I feel drawn into it both by a certain orthodoxy that is older than humanity (and is Holy Scripture), but which also manifests itself in an orthopraxy that is the dynamic presence of God’s love moving the universe and each particle in it, including, once we see and accept it, through us. I can not really explain it very well and I think it defeats its real understanding if we argue about it because the argument itself divides the this most natural communion, the Body of Christ.
Does that make any sense to you? I feel sometimes like I am preaching to the preacher who already sees this but just explains it differently.
@tsalmon
It is funny how you cited several definitions trying to make some sort of point. Now Merriam-Webster is going to change its definition of the word “racism” in order to accommodate the whims of the mob (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52993306).
Words either mean something or they serve no purpose. Unfortunately, some people change the definition of words to mean whatever they want those words to mean to suit the needs of the moment. It is an old trick. Define the terms of debate so the definitions determine the conclusion we want.
Try flying an airplane as if the journey is the destination. Do all flight headings lead to the same airport? The journey gets us to the destination. The journey is not the destination.
If we are a child of God, he disciplines us. Because He teaches us to accept His rule, He brings His Kingdom to us here and now. That is, He makes us more suitable as a citizen of Heaven. Thus, our life experiences become part of the journey, leading us to the final destination.
God is Truth. He speaks Truth into being, creating what is from nothing. To obey God, Man has to love and accept the Truth. Rebellious Man tries to redefine what is into being what he wants the truth to be. When we do that we just delude ourselves with our own nonsense.
Anyway, if you have references in the Bible, please provide them.
Let me just say this again:
“I think Tom that you are of the false impression that I am disagreeing with you. Where did I say that, as Christians, our thoughts should not always be towards eternity, both the eternity, the incarnate Christ, ever present in this world and in the next? My experience is that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.“
You’ve never gone for a walk to nowhere in particular on a beautiful day just for the pure joy and appreciation to God at being alive? I know that I have flown plenty of times for the shear joy of flying and without the intention of going anywhere in particular. You’ve never taken a drive to somewhere and enjoyed the trip as much as getting there, where in fact the joy of the journey itself, the destination, all of It, was one thing? One of the reasons that I ultimately chose to fly for a living was because I really just enjoyed the flying, the being in the moment, even when I had some necessary destination to arrive at.
I’m not sure what your actual disagreement here is? You are unhappy with the imperfect nature of the world, and feel the need to scold me because I’m not miserable enough about it? Nah . . . I think that you just like to disagree and it really doesn’t matter what I say, does it? 🙂
I’m not in charge of Meriam Webster. I have no opinion about whether they properly changed the definition of “racism” or not. I know, because l took many linguistics classes in college, that language has an organic evolutionary quality to it. Language changes (often in predictable patterns) as a matter of the consensus of its speakers. In some sense, dictionaries and grammar books, are efforts to entrench and standardize language language so as to resist those changes. Although one can see why some convention Is needed for communication, some change is still inevitable.
As Orwellian “right speak” illustrated, establishment political forces often try to define the terms of complex issues into simplistic slogans and jingoisms. Such demagoguery enforces tribal loyalty and incites xenophobic fears and hatreds of an enemy “other”, . In the balkans, the Serbs tried to claim pure Serbian language forms even though the various factions has spoken the same language for centuries.
I’m not sure where you are going with this? Are you wanting to explore the issue of “racism” so as to come to a mutual understanding of the problem? Or do you want to use the semantics of racism as a wedge issue? If the latter, thanks, but I’m not interested.