Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?"

First of all, "leftist" and "liberal" are not necessarily synonymous. Personally, I would consider Mr Edwards a moderate liberal, but certainly no leftist.
.
I would grant that there is a difference between micro and macro, but--as Prager himself implies (below)--they are not separate and distinct entities. Neither exists in a vacuum. What happens in the micro affects what happens in the macro, and vice-versa.
.
Prager writes:
One example is when religious conservatives equate public and private cursing. While ideally one should refrain from using expletives in private as well as in public, there is no moral comparison between using such words in private conversations and using them in public. One trusts that if a religious conservative overheard a teacher using an expletive in a quiet conversation with one other person, he would not compare such speech to the teacher's using that expletive while teaching a class. The first may be a personal sin, but the second is destructive of society.
.
Seems to me there's a double standard being implied. Let's take Pager's premise to its logical extreme. If its OK to swear in private, where it won't prove potentially destructive to society, then why isn't it OK for a woman to decide, in a private discussion with her doctor, to terminate her pregnancy? No one will know, so what's the difference?
.
If its OK to swear in private, then it must be OK to steal, lie, or do whatever else might be expedient--as long as no one else sees it. (Well, OK, perhaps this person will have to work things out with God, but, according to Prager, this won't harm the macro-system.) Nope. That just doesn't wash with me.
.
Yes, context is important, but turning the other cheek, or refraining from judgment, or going the extra mile have ramifications *much* beyond the purely personal. The problem is, as I see it, people don't have faith that non-violence will work. They like getting angry and using force. It feels sooooo good. They also (tragically) fail to understand that the time to begin the practice of non-violence is **long before** things get to the point of blows being exchanged.
.
Among Jesus' parting words were "feed my lambs." Elsewhere in the Bible he says "anything you do to one of these you do to me," and he goes on to describe MACRO, not micro, actions (because they can be applied to groups of people and because failure to address these issues definitely is destructive to society).
.
In the old testament justice is frequently equated with taking care of the poor, the ill, the orphaned, the naked, and the hungry. These are MACRO actions which I believe ANY person should feel called to do regardless of political/religious affiliation.
.
And finally, how can a person expect have peaceful relationships with anyone (including himself) if he does not walk the walk, in every aspect of his life, whether or not anyone is watching?
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Let's See

.
Dennis Prager.
.
Let's see, "The first may be a personal sin, but the second is destructive of society."
.
He's talking about using expletives in public or in private--comments like, "What the **** !", right?
.
How is that destructive of society?
.
Mr. Prager seems more like a self appointed judge than anything else to me.
.
Like so many people who are caught up in the moment, he fails to look at the bigger picture.
.
His view is highly focused on the miniscule facts with which he seems to live out his days. Could be he needs a God's eye view of humanity. But, I doubt he is capable of that.
.
For what purpose does any language have those tools that are called expletives? Saying we shouldn't use expletives is like saying we shouldn't use a pick axe to break up hard ground. Stupid, if you ask me.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Let's See

In response to Let's See posted by pink101:

Umm....

Did you notice??? Prager engages in ****moral relativism!!!!**** I thought conservatives considered that anathema.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brother_Jones - Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?"

In response to Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?" posted by paper_turtle:

Yes, context is important, but turning the other cheek, or refraining from judgment, or going the extra mile have ramifications *much* beyond the purely personal.

I think you did find the weakness in his article.

The problem is, as I see it, people don't have faith that non-violence will work.

Well, even MLk and Ghandi called on the police to do their stuff from time to time.

They like getting angry and using force. It feels sooooo good. They also (tragically) fail to understand that the time to begin the practice of non-violence is **long before** things get to the point of blows being exchanged.

That is where your argument seems to go bust. We have civil enforcement in place and national enforcement in place, and I guess personal protection in place not so much because we are all against non-violence and that we are somehow angry...but some of us want to protect the rights of the innocent. I would suppose that instead of turning the other cheek to a thief and mugger, that you would call for help and hopefully a local cop would come to your rescue and demonstrate a little non-violence as he/she chased down your assailent.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» paper_turtle - Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?"

In response to Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?" posted by Brother_Jones:

.
BrotherJones wrote:
Well, even MLk and Ghandi called on the police to do their stuff from time to time.
.
Did they? Did they ask the police to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violence? OR, were the police called in because some people were not going to heed the message of non-violence?
.
We have civil enforcement in place and national enforcement in place, and I guess personal protection in place not so much because we are all against non-violence and that we are somehow angry...but some of us want to protect the rights of the innocent.
.
Yes, but we have thieves and muggers BECAUSE people have not sought to actually prevent violence and criminal behavior at its source. Instead, we use intervention after-the-fact.
.
Which was precisely the point I made about war. We engage in intervention after things have already gone horribly wrong (and, in the case of war, generally after much saber-rattling, posturing, and threats).
.
That's like egging on the class bully and then acting surprised with he fights back--and then saying, "See? I told you negotiating wouldn't work."
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brother_Jones - Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?"

In response to Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?" posted by paper_turtle:

Did they? Did they ask the police to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violence?

You be the judge. According to one of Gandhi's biographers, Gandhi was thankful on the day he died, Jan. 30, 1948, that the policeman assigned to him didn't show, because it bothered Gandhi to be praying next to an armed authority which was his usual custom since the Jan. 20th episode when Gandhi was almost killed by a bomb planted at one of his meetings.

from Gandhi, A Memoir, William L. Shirer, p. 224.
i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Politicizing Jesus

.
The entire idea of politicizing Jesus appears to come out of the Dominionist thinking of men like Robertson, Falwell, Kennedy, Dobson, et al. Dominionism is all about politics--pure and simple.
.
If any of us decides to pin our understandings of Jesus on the political aspects of life, we are stuck with interpreting everything about our "Christianity" on the way the political wind blows.
.
The un-American attitude of such men as Dominionism represents makes our "Christianity" an enemy of the People of America.
.
Go figure.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?"

In response to Re Brian's Blog "left-wing Jesus?" posted by Brother_Jones:
.
local cop would come to your rescue and demonstrate a little non-violence as he/she chased down your assailent.
.
Law enforcement officers are trained to and expected to use nonviolent methods first, violence being the last resort. Even when using the last resort, there are regulations against 'excessive force'. Pursuing an assailent is not an act of violence. Breaking his face after you catch and cuff him is.

-- posted by Migisi