When the Walls Came Tumbling Down
by Andy Hanson
by Andy Hanson, October 9, 2014
When I was baptized at the age of ten, I was given a Bible. I was also told that I had assumed the responsibility to take care of it properly, such as making sure that no other book, magazine, or anything else, was ever to be placed on top of it. It was sacred. It was God’s word, and millions of Christians valued its message more than life itself.
That responsibility was kind of scary, and I was relieved when I learned that I didn’t have to read the Bible exactly, and it could remain “safe” on my bookshelf. I could learn what I needed to know in Sabbath School. David was a brave shepherd boy; Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived; Esther was a Jewish girl who won a beauty contest because she had a nice smile; and Jesus died for my sins.
One of my favorite stories was celebrated in a song I sang loudly and lustily when given the chance: Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho. But the pictures in the books and the flannel board illustrations never mentioned what happened after “the walls came tumbling down.”
When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.1
If the unspeakable conclusion of this battle sounds like what happens after an ISIL victory, Christians need to acknowledge that “Islam is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition, and especially with respect to the code of war, the teachings of the Torah invite comparison with Muslim law. In chapter twenty of Deuteronomy some elements of a code of war are given.” 2
But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them– the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites— just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God.
If you besiege a town for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them. Although you may take food from them, you must not cut them down. Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under siege from you? You may destroy only the trees that you know do not produce food; you may cut them down for use in building siege works against the town that makes war with you, until it falls.
In some instances, the code even sanctioned murder.
Agag came to him in chains. And he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
But Samuel said,
“As your sword has made women childless,
so will your mother be childless among women.”
And Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal. 3
I wonder how Samuel killed him? The author doesn’t say.
Today, I read and appreciate the Old Testament as Jewish literature. My favorite books are Proverbs, Job, and Ruth, even though I have a question or two about what happened during the night she spent with Boaz on the threshing floor.
The God of Old Testament history comes across as a malevolent figment of the imagination, and I know that I slept better as a young person because I only began reading the Old Testament when I took a Biblical Literature class from Alice Babcock at Pacific Union College.
PS: Isn’t it obvious why Jesus had to show up?
_____________________________________________________________
1 from Joshua 6
2Islam and Just War Theory
Hau Muhammad Legenhausen
https://www.academia.edu/2522530/_Islam_and_Just_War_Theory_
3 from 1 Samuel 15
'But the pictures in the books and the flannel board illustrations never mentioned what happened after “the walls came tumbling down'
Who do think changed? Was it God or was it more likely the person describing God?
If a five year old and a thirty-five year old master both draw a picture of the same nude model before them, or say the same bowl of fruit, how different would the pictures be? And how different again if we got Picasso, Di Vinci or Michelangelo to all paint, draw or sculpt the same model?
Again, would the model change or would it rather be the artists, showing different levels of understanding, methods, backgrounds and skills who would change?
To quote Ellen White herself:
‘The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen… It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired’ (Selected Messages, 1, 19-22; Manuscript 24, 1886.)
'The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes.' (Selected Messages, book 1, 19-22.)
'If the unspeakable conclusion of this battle sounds like what happens after an ISIL victory, Christians need to acknowledge that “Islam is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition, and especially with respect to the code of war, the teachings of the Torah invite comparison with Muslim law. In chapter twenty of Deuteronomy some elements of a code of war are given'
Very true. There is a text from the Koran that affirms it is not a new religion but simply the original (Noahide) religion of Abraham that predates Jews and Christians.
And that is exactly its problem. The Bible represents a progressive revelation about God through history. Islam has entered a timewarp and gone back in time.
I know it is a hard concept for many Christians to understand, this notion of progression. But again, it isn't God who progresses as much as we who progress. They were called the "Children" of Israel for a reason.
God commanded the Israelites to destroy the evil-doers in the land they were conquering and when they did not, the results were terrible.
Some realities are timeless. Sun Tsu, author of the classic tome "The Art of War" observed that "the only trustworthy enemy is dead." He also wrote war was horrible, but those who refused to achieve complete victory in it were making themselves to suffer defeat in the future. We can apply that in both the conflict between nations or ideologies and in spiritual warfare. Where victory is not achieved then struggle continues and destruction follows.
Such thinking results in hateful stereotyping and decisions about individuals on the basis of groups with whom they are identifiable. This is a God of prejudice, not a just God. A God that advocates such an approach is not the God of Love and is not worth admiration or worship or obedience.
May the power of peace prevail over those who love to hate.
If what you say is true, then why did God promise to destroy sin?
Our reluctance to destroy evil in our world arises directly from our tolerance for and love of sin rather than the righteousness of God.
Just about any type of thinking, including sacred doctrines like "tolerance" and "equality," can and does lead to hateful stereotyping, Joe. Are you really suggesting that those who accept the God of ancient Israel revealed in the Bible – the God of judgment who hates evil and purposes to eradicate evildoers – are more prone to hateful stereotyping and prejudice than those who reject that God?
Failure to recognize and fight against the insidious, pervasive reality of evil in earthly kingdoms and human hearts inevitably leads to oppression and enslavement. The world is violently spinning out of control in large part because Western civilization has suicidally chosen to repudiate its imperfect Judeo-Christian moral inheritance in favor of the values d'jour that sprout from critical theory and secular relativism. The West can no longer recognize, much less forcefully resist, evil. You can hope all you want for the power of peace to prevail over those who love to hate. But such naive wishfulness merely empowers evildoers who do not share your liberal values. (C.f., radical Islam-ISIL)
The problem is not in worshipping a God who at times in history, viewed through the filters of presentism, appears tyrannical and unjust. The problem is the illusion that, by repudiating the God of Judeo-Christian history, or deconstructing Him to conform to orgulous, contemporary secular morality, we will somehow pave the way toward the utopia of John Lennon's imagining.
There is no sharp dividing line that allows us to define and condemn "those who love to hate" as opposed to those who love or seek peace.Should the power of peace prevail over starving, imprisoned North Koreans who "hate" their leaders? Should the power of peace prevail over Kurds, Christians, and Syrian Muslims being slaughtered by ISIL? Should the power of peace have prevailed over Dietrich Bonhoffer's hatred of Hitler? Should the power of peace have prevailed over FDR after December 7, 1941?
As Solzhenitsyn observed, " In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers,…we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations."
Nathan,
Good points. Thank you.
We are all capable of incredible degrees of hatred toward others. We are also capable of being infused by the love of God and to reflect His love in ways and degrees we have yet to discover.
I think one thing that gets overlooked in discussions about God in the Old Testament is, while He sent the Israelites to destroy the evil nations in the Promised Land, He demonstrated His incredible power and love continually to them. There were battles where they lost not a single soldier, yet killed many and times when they did not even have to swing a sword to enjoy victory. Then, once the battles were over, He blessed them immensely with crops that overwhelmed their barns, large families and in love for each other. Yes, the Israelites were sent to do horrible things in war, but afterward God gave them lives filled with peace and prosperity so long as they remained faithful to Him.
So let's not stop with seeing just the God who sent the Israelites into war. Let's also remember the God who blessed them so greatly that people like the Queen of Sheba traveled great distances to learn what had made them the most prosperous of all nations.
In my humble opinion both Steve Ferguson and Nathan have given insightful responses to this. I don't find the blog as insightful, since it doesn't deal with the complex factors of context, worldview, the primitiveness of the OT culture, and the depraved, demonic, and destructiveness of the surrounding pagans. God originally told the Isrealites He would fight their battles through hornets that would drive the evil pagans out before them. But they didn't believe and went on to fight their own way.
Some scholars say the Israelites saw God as responsible for all that happened in nature and in battle because the Adversary concept was not yet understood. It was first described in Job, and if this was available to the Israelites, we don't know.
These battles can also serve as metaphor for our life battles and how every bad habit has to be rooted out and destroyed.
But Jesus came as the full and complete representative of God, and sin was so gruesome, He had to die. Revelation is symbol, but it still describes some rather horrific visions in the NT.
Ella very true. I've heard that view about the hornets as well and very much agree:
'I And I will send the pestilence in front of you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.' (Ex 23:28)
People seem quick to blame God when it's not really God's plan to begin with.
You're also spot-on I think about progressive revelation and Satan. The OT Israelites didn't seem to have a full understanding of Satan then. But they didn't even have a full understanding of God either.
You get the vibe that they understood Yahweh was their god, but they didn't quite get Yahweh was the God. Which is why they kept returning to the worship of idols, beginning with the golden calf. The point is, God had to reveal Himself slowly over time.
God didn't change – the people's understanding of Him did. This is nothing raddically new as the quotes from Ellen White above demonstrate.
Several of the comments here have diect bearing on what is happening in the Middle East right now. So let me try to set aside my own Western and Christian biases for a momemt and cast a cold hard eye on the situation there.
The Baathist rulers of Syria and Iraq were ruthless Stalinist dictators who cared not a bit for either their own people nor for those around them. That being said, the major beneficiary of the US decision to take-out Saddam Hussein was and remains Iran. The current central government in Iraq operates as an Iranian client state. It is Iranian influence that dominates in Lebanon via Hezbollah which is another client of Iran. The Syrain government accommodates Iran and would no longer exist without the support of Iran and Russia.
The Sunni regions of Northern Syria and Iraq tolerate and/or abet the Islamic State because they (rightly or wrongly) see it as preferable to the Shiite hegemony pursued by Iran via its clients.
What about the other two major powers in the region? First consider Israel. Isreal regards Iran to be its biggest existential threat. The Islamic State is currently more of a threat to Iranian hegemony than to Israel. Unless and until the Islamic State becomes a threat to Israel they have no reason to intervene.
This leaves Turkey. Having gone through the motions of authorizing the use of force against the Islamic State, Turkey is doing absolutely nothing to intervene. Why? Turkey is the main trading partner of the Islamic State, which supplies them with petroleum from Syra (and potentially from Iraq). Turkey shares a long and weakly defended border with the Islamic State. And Turkey does not wish to do anything to strenghten the Kurds who are spread across adjacent portions of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is less costly for Turkey to continue to absorb an influx of at most a few million refugees than for it to intervene. Unless or until the Islamic State attacks them directly, Turkey is unlikely to intervene in any meaningful way.
Bottom line – the only regional players with any current imperative to fight the Islamic State are Iran and its client states. So far Iran has been avoiding direct confrontation. They appear to be content to use their regional clients to contain the Islamic State. However there have been armed clashes between Islamic State fighters and Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a number of places. It will be increasingly difficult for Iran to avoid this conflict.
Now let me turn the same cold hard eye towards the interests of my own country in the same region. Contrary to widely held beliefs, the United States does not need Middle Eastern oil. We have planty available right here in the Western Hemisphere. However our major trading partners in Europe and Asia depend on Middle Eastern oil. So we have a strong econimic interest in maintaining their steady flow of oil. The oil fields controlled or jeopardized by the Islamic State are an important source of regional consumption but do not represent much if any of the export capacity to our major trading partners.
The United States has two major military allies in the region – Israel and Turkey. Whether we provide more benefit to these allies than they provide to us is an interesting question that I will not pursue here. However given that as explained previously, neither Israel nor Turkey has a current imperative to fight the Islamic State, and neither do we.
Bottm line – the Islamic State poses no immediate threat to United States military or economic interests.
One of the painful lessons of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that there is little if any long-term benefit for the United Sates trying to impose our form of "nation building" without a firm commitment from the local and regional players. We can topple regimes but unless we are willing to keep our own forces deployed indefiniitely we cannot control the outcome. The eventual outcome will be determined by those who actually remain in the region.
For all of the above reasons, there is a fair case to be made that a limited air war against the Islamic State by the United States and its "coalition of the willing" is the best approach. This air war will not overthrow the Islamic State, but it may weaken them sufficiently to limit their ability to threaten our regional interests and allies. The demise of the Islamic State when and if it happens, will be at the hands of regional players.
In some instances, the code even sanctioned murder.
Agag came to him in chains. And he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
But Samuel said,
“As your sword has made women childless,
so will your mother be childless among women.”
And Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal. 3
This was NOT murder as you claim. Samuel was the presiding judge in Israel. He executed Agag for crimes Agag had committed including murders. As the quoted passage recites, Samuel pronounced a sentence of death on Agag for his crimes, then proceeded to execute that sentence where Saul had demurred.
I wonder how Samuel killed him? The author doesn’t say.
You only need to wonder if you study the "polite" translations. All of the more literal translations agree on what the author said.
And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
Your very selective reading of this passage in 1 Samuel 15 reveals much about your approach to the "Old Testament as Jewish literature". If you do not believe that God created humans, then you would not agree that God had the right to sentence humanity to death, sparing only a single boatload of refugees. So your problem with the Old Testament God goes all the way back to the early chapters of Genesis.
Alternatively, if you believe that God created humans, then you should agree that God had the right to sentence humanity to death, sparing only a single boatload of refugees.
From Genesis to Revaltion, the Bible presents God as Creator, Redeemer and Judge. Putting an end to sin and suffering is an act of love and mercy, every bit as much as providing a way of escape for those who are willing to be saved.
2 Peter 2 would seem to suggest that your serious misgivings about this God of the "Old Testament as Jewish literature", might also be the God of the "New Testament as Christian literature".
Some things never change – Jesus in the new Testament proclaimed Himself to be the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Jesus indeed came to save humanity from a fate worse than death. But Jesus and Peter and James and John and Paul all clearly indicate the fate of those who reject God. At some point evil and evil doers will cease to exist.
"But Jesus and Peter and James and John and Paul all clearly indicate the fate of those who reject God." Really? Who are they and what defines them?
Where is the line drawn between "evil and evil doers?" Do you have a theory on that? Are evil doers those who view the Scriptures as the word of men? Or is it proper belief? If so, how is that defined? Does one have to view God as you do? Am I an "evil doer" for postulating that Superguy, the God you like, is created in man's image? If I believe SDA doctrine, reenter the cocoon/White Space Ship, would I be safe?
It's hardly a cacoon if lived aright. Clearly the scriptures indicate selflessness is the standard in any era or culture, and it's hardly popular or cool. Learning to give up any behavior that hurts others is difficult or impossible without God's spirit, especially if one grows up with negativity and dislike for spiritual things. Some seem to be religious but mean-spirited; others secular and mean-spirited.
Rejecting people means rejecting God and vice versa–it's not a list of rules or doctrines.
I do not draw any lines. I merely acknowledge the right of God as Creator and Redeemenr to judge us. Jesus said we judge ourselves by our response to Him.
Do people who think they are carrying out God's instructions have a right to do whatever they think those instructions are?
A VERY GOOD QUESTION and not an easy one to answer. The book of Judges contains many stories of atrocities committed by people who may have thought they were doing the right thing, but according to the author(s) were NOT acting on divine instructions but merely doing what was right in their own eyes, to the detriment of their nation.
There is also a good case to be made that both Saul and David were guilty of war crimes, for actions they took where the record does not indicate any divine mandate (eg Saul against the Gibeonites and David against the Ammonites) butwhere they were acting to avenge their wounded individual and/or national pride. God did not allow David to build the Temple because of his history of wanton bloodshed. The Temple was built by Solomon who was a man of peace and diplomacy, rather than a man of war.
In the case of the flood (which I suspect you consider a fable) it was God who acted so there was no moral dilemma for Noah (unless he failed to build a big enough boat).
In the case of Agag which was a common name for Amalekite kings (Ogyges in ancient Greek writings) I would claim there was ample evidence of his crimes so Samuel did not need to act in the name of God (though he did) but only in the name of criminal justice under common law.
Now in the case of the Canaanite inhabitants at the time of the Exodus (which I suspect you consider a fable), the archaelogists' spades and trowels have dug-up ample evidence of their vile practices. Whether you consider people who fried their babies as offerings to their pagan gods to be worthy of destruction I do not know. There was provision for those who wanted to follow Yahweh to be assimilated rather than destroyed.
On a broader front the whole question of incarceration or enslavement vs capital punishemnt for really serious crimes is an interesting ethical discussion. There are good arguments on both sides.
One must remember that as others have pointed-out, the Old Testament records how both God and humans dealt with ver ysavage people in very savage times. And unfortunately what Chruchill called the "thin veneer" of civilization has worn though in many places today and humans collectively seem bent on descending into the the barbarism from whence we came. God and/or society may again find it necessary to take recourse to Old Testament measures.
"There was provision for those who wanted to follow Yahweh to be assimilated rather than destroyed." The reviled inquisition provided similar options. How is that different?
Jim, any attempt to salvage an ethic based on the Old Testament version of God is a fool's errand. The stories of God ordering genocide and murder is obviously the Hebrew effort to exculpate themselves in the face of incredible, unmitigated guilt. The head choppers in Syria have already offered the same reasoning for the crimes. Do you buy their claim?
There is no escaping the obvious. Superguy, aka Jehovah, is the whipping boy created by the whippers for convenience.
How much of those practices came directly from God vs how much came from man is an interesting question.
On the one hand I do not deny the right and power of God to do whatever he/she/they see fit with or to their own creation. On the ohter hand I do not deny the enormous capacity of humans to create God in our own image.
Throughout recorded history evil has been begetting more evil. I view much of the role of God in human history as holding evil in-check so that good is not totally destroyed. I also believe that a loving God who does not eventually intervene to put an end to evil is indifferent or impotent or malevolent. Not my own mental concept of a truly loving God.
"How much of those practices came directly from God vs how much came from man is an interesting question."
Sorry Jim, it is a stupid question in my estimation. If there is no validating, definitive answer, then there is no God. Or at most he is so absent from us and is totally useless, virtually the same as not being.
"I view much of the role of God in human history as holding evil in-check so that good is not totally destroyed."
Really? He's doing a pretty lousy job, if so. Or he doesn't exist except as an imaginary fabrication. Superguy. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not persuasive. Shibboleths in defense of dogma is no defense. Even worse the fragility of slogans expose the weakness of the users position.
Opinion, multitudes of them, is all there is.
" I also believe that a loving God who does not eventually intervene to put an end to evil is indifferent or impotent or malevolent."
Wishful thinking. Watch and wait for Superguy to the rescue, I guess! Don't hold your breath for this! ". . .indifferent or impotent or malevolent." Now you have slip slided away into verifiable truth. You have just identified Superguy as a kind of trinity of despair. Absent is another term for God because he is imaginary. Every human in the process of victimization has pled for deliverance, without response from deity. There is not one incident in the history of the evil exercises of mankind where Absent showed up for rescue.
The God of love is the only barrier to "evil." Not indifferent or impotent or malevolent. Present, active, never failing, experienced.
"Daddy, did you really kill babies, children and daddies and mommies and pregnant mommies, and their puppies, too, when you invaded Jericho?"
"Well, aaaahhh, yes."
"Why."
"Aaaahhh, well God told us to."
"Did that get our sins forgiven like killing animals for sacrifices?"
"Aaaahhh, . . . "
God is the convenient justification for bad human behavior.
God is the hapless creation of man, an alter ego, reflecting every nuance of mankind. Anthropomorphized. Us. And all of us before us. The Scriptures, falsely extolled as the revelation of God, exists partly as a record of man's search for God and partly as an attempt to justify genocide and other human activities and perversions.
The Bible should be entitled "The Word of Men."
The development of the Judeo-Christian concept of God, his evolution, is traceable through history (plenty of books recount the process). There was a time when god wasn't. The traceable core is creative imagination. A sort of Frankenstein, He has been assembled by millions of mad scientists over the centuries. Us. I call him Superguy. He is a nightmare concoction of the best and worst of humanity projected by us.
God as killer is worshiped and feared, men as killer is reviled and hated. From this point of view, Men are better than God.
God as Love is distinct from every other definition of love. Christianity has ignored the degree to which the Christ character was a revelation of a God unrelated to Jehovah. "God is Love." Love isn't partner to genocide. Love isn't a person. There is no "Love Guy." Love has no history. Love isn't "jurisprudence." Love has been entwined in human experience from the beginning of humanity. Love cannot be anthropomorphized. Love doesn't entertain theology. Loved cannot be compartmentalized. Love isn't owned by any religion. God as love is a force beyond physics, the simplest force in the universe. Barnacles of man's projections can't adhere to love. Love is experienced, free of mental manipulation and contortions. Love doesn't come at the end of theological investigation. Love cannot be dissected. Love doesn’t require belief. Love doesn't require "practice."
God of Love is simple. Much too simple for theologians. Unimaginably threatening to the convoluted doctrinal monstrosity enjoyed by mentally addicted "believers." Love attracts. Humans respond, or not. That accounts for good and evil. Mankind has never been "perfect." The God of Love has never been "imperfect."
Why isn't Jehovah on the Most Wanted List?
People who behead people because they "look like the enemy" or demand that everyone convert to their religion or be killed are not to be tolerated. Period. We are seeing such a situation today with extremists on the war path. But it does not look much different than the instructions attributed to Yahweh in the old testament.
I'm sorry folks, but if that is your concept of God the Almighty Creator, don't expect me to join you in worshiping Him anytime soon.
Surely the message attributed to Jesus was that God was not really like that–that God was Love.
Whether genocide and ethnic or racial or religious profiling is perpetrated by an atheistic or theistic entity, it is just as wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Maybe it is even worse if attributed to an all-powerful God.
Decisions about individuals must not be made on the basis of characteristics attributed to groups.
I get the "tough love" kinds of arguments and see merit in such an approach to some extent.
But isn't it interesting how some find it so easy to dismiss the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, while everything else must be accepted as literal.
Is worship even a necessary part of life? The purpose of worship can spring from many motivations, none of which are useful, in my opinion. In my view, there are two primary inclinations operative here.
The first motivation is fear. Superguy is fickle, such nasty bastard, every effort, including worship, to appease him might be just soften the blow from his judgment.
The second motivation is thankfulness. This view is that mankind has so disgustingly descended from a time of perfection that he is doomed. A redeemer is the only hope. Problem solved, one is offered by religious divination. Unlimited pandering, praising and fawning are the appropriate responses.
The God of love can't be worshiped. Doesn't judge. Attracts and elicits response. Has no involvement in steering human affairs, especially restoration. Can't be bribed or appeased. Is experienced in virtually every human life.
Worshiping Superguy is worshipping a version of ourselves. What good is that?
Joe,
See what I have said below in my last paragraph. BTW "Thou shalt not kill" in Hebrew the word is murder which is different from war killing. However, David was restricted from building the temple because God felt he had shed so much blood. And, as said above, war was not God's first choice for chasing out the wicked pagans who history and the Bible tells us were gruesome beyond measure. I really wish you would research these things and consider them before making such proclamations.
I'm not sure where you stand on modern battles, but when the brutal are not stopped, they take over. At the same time I lean toward pacificism and taking care of the wounded in battle rather than being part of the bloodshed.
With all this discussion, does anybody ever really learn anything? We seem to keep echoing the same stuff we started with months, years ago.
I totally agree with Ella here.
Archaeology shows that the Canaanites had descended into brutal and degraded savagery. The Bible account itself shows that most of the former slaves in the Exodus were not much better.
One of my intellectual pursuits is the study of history and that includes a lot of wars declared and un-declared, and a lot of atrocities. History can be rather ugly if you take the trouble to scrutinize things.
My personal leanings definitely run towards pacifism. However I have the historically rare luxury of living in a time and place where I personally do not have to engage in physical combat to preserve my life and limbs and those of my family. My ancestors and my relatives fought in World Wars I and II, the US Civil War, the Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, the American Revolution (on both sides in some of the same campaigns where one ancestor died), the so-called Indian Wars before the American Revolution, and doubless in numerous European wars.
I am the first generation of my known ancestry for many generations to have the luxury of not personally fighting a war, much less coming home wounded or disabled or not coming back at all. I narrowly missed being drafted for Vietnam by the good graces of a woman on my local draft board who was watching-out for me. One of my grand-fathers was inducted in World War I but refused to take the oath and was eventually freed from service by a federal judge. One of my great-grandfathers appears to have evaded the draft in the Civil War by living away from home for several years. At least five of his in-laws did fight in that war. One of them served under Custer in the Ccvalry and came back minus an arm. Most of the others were wounded. Another more distant relative took a musket ball through the head at Chickamauga and did not come back.
It is far too easy for us to sit-back and criticize the beliefs and actions of those who were literally fighting for their own lives and those of their loved ones.
FYI – I am NOT claiming all or most of these were "just wars". I am merely reporting what I have learnt in my studies.
Some may come up with this description, but it sounds simplistic and superficial. The last paragraph is the kind of God we all want. Unfortunately if he didn't judge, we would have a world full of Jihadists, Hitlers, and the like who have thrown away the kernal of faith all are born with. That's why I see death as necessary–because of evil doers. Only the fool thinks God can be bribed or appeased. And there are many fools out there. God will never steer our individual lives or restore us unless asked.
It's sad when people take select biblical passages in this era of overwhelming resources and biblical research and paint a personal picture of God that none of us would want. There are more passages that say God is love (but fair in his final judgment) and the Bible has to be taken as a whole.
The legalists/literalists are on both extreme sides of the spectrum and demand the words mean exactly what they do today, be dictated by God and written by ancient PhDs that knew 21st-century science.
The legalists/literalists are on both extreme sides of the spectrum and demand the words mean exactly what they do today, be dictated by God and written by ancient PhDs that knew 21st-century science.
How very true indeed!
Ella, you are entirely correct that the translation from Hebrew should be "murder." Some treat scripture as if each word is literally intended by God to be as we currently read it in our own language. I do not agree with that approach.
Even so, I submit that murder is killing someone on purpose with malicious motivation. Genocidal killing, or killing someone simply because they look like "the enemy," seems to be murder, not merely killing. Even when one is in a state of war, one may not (has no right to and should not?) engage in murder. And that is not just because there is a commandment or because it isn't nice. In my opinion, every individual deserves and is entitled to due consideration.
Even though I served in the US Army as an "objector," I am not a true pacifist. I know there are times when people must be stopped from doing terrible things. Sometimes that involves killing them. It does not, in any case I can think of, warrant raping the women or enslaving their children–or even killing all of the men of "fighting age." Any General or President or God who orders genocide is not in my chain of command. I recall the late sixties expression attributed to Cher "Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity." All the more ironic of course, in that she named her daughter "Chastity."
BTW, while I'm in a offensively profane mood, I'm sure we are all aware of what BS stands for, and that MS just means "more of the same." I have been reminded pretty often that PhD just stands for "piled higher and deeper." ; }
I'm guessing that people today who have been awarded PhDs are likely more abundant than people who were literate (in the sense of being able to read and write at all) during the times when scripture was written. While they may have been among the most advantaged people of their times, they did not have the language or intellectual tools to produce inerrant manuscripts or even to examine information adequately. Their words (whether "kill" or "murder" or something else) really need to be examined in the context in which they were generated, to the extent that is possible.
RE: "Fighting for peace is like !@#$%^& for chastity."
—-
I find the use of such profanity, even to illustrate a point, rather crass and in poor taste, especially on a supposedly 'christian' website. Ah, perhaps the catcher in the rye generation lingers.
I might as well add that if one of the not so highly acclaimed were to have written this, the walls of Jericho would have come tumbling down.
Trevor,
You might be surprised but I AGREE WITH YOU.
It is neither necessary nor persuasive to stoop to vulgarities in civil discourse.
There were variously sanitized version of that statement that included a word that is offensive to some, however that is the version credited to Cher, George Carlin, John Lennon, anonymous, and many others. I admit to having been "crass and in poor taste." I can live with the guilt. I realize that the really holy people among us would not say $#!+ if they had a mouthful.
It has nothing to do with holiness or piety, Joe. It's a rather simple issue of decency and propriety in civil discourse. Decent, polite people who prefer not to embarass themselves don't pass gas in crowded elevators, don't belch at the dinner table, and don't use vulgarity on websites like this.
An unfortunate blind spot of Adventist repudiators is the distinction between standards that are righteousness issues and standards that are simply respectability/good taste issues arising out of the consensus of civilized, polite people. Trashers of conservative religion and so-called family values love to sneer at and delegitimize any standards of taste or value endorsed by religious people as being holiness issues, when in fact they are, more often than not, simply decency issues that, until the "moral" revolution of the 60's were generally acknowledged by the broader culture to be part of the glue and sinews that bind people to culture and language that ennobles, and elevates humans above what is harsh, crass, coarse, and vulgar.
How attribution of offensive language to the crudeness of vacuous entertainers vests it with legitimacy in the context of this website is beyond me.
Far be it from me to claim that celebrity generates legitimacy or authority.
I admit to having quoted something sort of coarse and vulgar and probably in poor taste in this venue, that some celebrities said about a really horrific conflict that was in progress at the time the those words were spoken and written on bathroom walls and protest signs. It isn't and wasn't funny. You maybe correct that this is the equivalent in indecency and impropriety of farting in an elevator. Oh these BAD words! How horrific and evil and offensive they are to those who are so much better than the rest of us! No wonder the holies think we are so coarse and crass and evil.
Sarcasm does not obfuscate.
Joe,
You are a professionally trained psychologist. Leaving religion and God and holiness aside, do you think it appropriate for individuals or a community to establish boundaries between public behavior and private behavior, between public speech and private speech? Or should every person be free to jolly well say and do whatever they please in public?
You can find videos online of people engaging in every sort of "private" behavior including all forms of sexual contact and elimination of body wastes. You can find all sorts of language being used. People can and do install web cams not only in their bedrooms but also in their bathrooms. All of this may be protected as "free speech" but do you really think it is appropriate for a community fourm? Even those who do not wish to regard Atoday as a religious forum could hopefully agree that there should be some degree of civility in our discourse.
It is ironic for me to say this because I am not known as a terribly repressed and private person. I am personally willing to discuss almost any topic at any time to whatever degree is reasonable (or possibly even unreasonable). But the entire concept of civilization is that we (voluntarily or under compulsion) refrain from behaviors that might harm or even seriously offend other people. Churchill who was himself a fairly uninhibited person, wrote of war that civilization is at its est a thin veneer. What benefit do you see in stripping away this veneer in its entirety?
Larry, once again i am in a quandary of you. In respect of your rationale on many views (makes sense to me), you occassionally make me wish i had not read what you had to offer. Point in question, your above two comments: i would say "Satan", couldn't have been more eloquen in stating "there is no GOD of LOVE". i submit there would be no love on the Earth, if there was no Love Guy. Yes, we could have invented Him, after His Love penetrated our dense brain of hate. He is my alter ego. No Barbarian (of which we are descended) ever was touched with "True Love". "Kill the tribe over the hill, rape his womenfolk, pitch fork her children to stop their bawling, take the best looking ones home with you. Verbally abuse your wives, beat the hell out of them, keep them pregnant and isolated in the home, ignorant, and thinking to herself, she is just another brood mare. This tragedy is still happening today in the middle east with the followers of Allah, where there is no Love. The world needs Love Guy. He is what has preserved mankind to where today there are more alive than ever before at one time on Earth. But the times, they are achanging. All hell is being unleashed against man on Earth. Ebola is epidemic. Israel bombed Iran's nuclear final assembly of 7 warheads last week, so they will not be a nuclear threat for a few more years. But the forces of evil are grinding slow but exceedinly fine. The final days of Earth are at our doorstep. The final call to Earth's inhabitants is out of their hands now. The Almighty's Angels are in charge now. Even so, COME, COME, LORD JESUS.
Don't know why you try to understand or communicate with the likes of Larry, Earl. I pretty much ignore his pathetic, angry, sarcastic rants. For folks like him, if God in any way contradicts their simplistic linear moral reasoning, He can't be a God worthy of worship. If He in fact corresponds to their moral reasoning, then he's certainly not transcendent, and hardly needs to be worshipped or shrouded in religious myths and superstitions.
Larry or Joe can easily, predictably answer your question. They would say, "Once you strip away all the dastardly crimes committed at the behest of the Love Guy, you've pretty much destoryed your Love Guy. Why not just go with Love as a rational principle, rather than trying to embody it in God-rationalizing movements that have committed great evil in the name of their "love" religions?"
“There is not one incident in the history of the evil exercises of mankind where Absent showed up for rescue.”
It’s true that the best argument against the God of the Bible may be that He has ordered deaths of humans. Most attempts to explain why are futile. If you don’t believe that He is omniscient and loving no explanations work. If Bugs’ deity was omniscient, we would’ve previously found more common ground.
So what is it about human history and human nature that makes the God of Scripture credible to those of us who believe in the Almighty and transcendent God of heaven?
We know that evil and hatred exist. We also know that the God of the Bible represents self-sacrificing love (in both Testaments). We understand that evil, hatred, and greed are opposed by, and overcome with, His self-sacrificing goodness and love—and that vengeful violence represents a vicious, never-ending cycle.
“The God of love is the only barrier to ‘evil.’"
Things could be much worse than they are. There could be more war, murder, disease, poverty, and evil than there is. Is Bugs suggesting that terrorists and other madmen could not have inflicted more evil and devastation than they have to date.
Is the reason that things are not worse because of good men and women? Are good, strong men and women that influential or numerous? Are you kidding me? Actually I agree that “the God of love is the only barrier to evil;” except I believe that both actually exist.
Really Bugs, according to you the God who is love does not exist, and evil doesn’t really exist either.
There’s no Creator to worship because this is all coincidence; therefore worship is unnecessary. I doubt you believe this nonsense; but to the extent that you do, aren’t you effectively arguing that Superguy isn’t enough like us to deserve worship; and if He is like us (or if we are like Him) then He still doesn’t. Heads you win, tails we lose, right? How is that different than our/any rationalization (in attempting to have it both ways)?
Well stated, Stephen –
It always puzzles me, given the reality of the natural world, and the rarity to nonexistence of self-sacrificing agape love in that natural world, outside humanity, how the atheist/agnostic crowd explains goodness. If there is no God, how have goodness, as we experience it – beauty, truth, self-sacrificial love – persisted in a natural order where death and predation prevail?
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face . . . .” 1 Cor. 13:12
Here is an example of Progressive Revelation at work that hopefully helps explain the disparity between the Old Testament and the New Testament Gospel Ethics
The Prophet Elisha Commands Jehu to Slaughter Them, and This Slaughter is Later Condemned by God through Hosea. And he said, “It is for you, Commander Jehu.” 6 Then he arose and went into the house. And he poured the oil on his head, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I have anointed you king over the people of the Lord, over Israel. 7 You shall strike down the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel. 8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab all the males in Israel, both bond and free. 2 Kings 9:5-8
So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, his priests–none remained. They took them alive, and slew them at the pit of the shearing house–forty two men; he left none He slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, and destroyed him, according to the saying of the LORD, which he spoke to Elijah. 2 Kings 10:11-17 And Jehu gathered all the people together, and said unto them, Ahab served Baal a little; but I shall serve him more. Now therefore called all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests to a great sacrifice to Baal; “But Jehu did it in subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal.” 2 Kings 10:18-20 “Thou has done well in executing that which is right in my eyes; and yet here God will avenge that blood upon the house of Jehu. 2Ki_10:30-31. “Thou has done well . . .” But NOT “well” according to later revelation through the prophet Hosea, where Hosea condemns what was done by Jehu.
“And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” Hosea 1:4 Commentaries often attempt to explain this “discrepancy” by supposing that Jehu “went beyond the specific directives of the Lord. He slaughtered forty-two relatives of King Ahaziah of Judah, seizing the opportunity to weaken his rival’s throne. The bloodbath was remembered for almost one hundred years (see Hos. 4:1–2). He also killed all the relatives and associates of Ahab.” Nevertheless preserved the house of Jehu for four more generations, lasting almost one hundred years.[1] But it was said at the time “Thou has done well in executing that which is right in my eyes..” What is going on here? Progressive Revelation!!
The Disciples learned "Progressive Revelation" of Agapa Love from Jesus! “They entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for Jesus. And they did not receive him, because they would go to Jerusalem. And when James and John saw this, they said, Lord, shall we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did? But Jesus turned, and rebuked them, saying, You know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.” Luke 9:52-56
“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:17 [1] Mathews, K. A. (1998). The Historical Books. In D. S. Dockery (Ed.), Holman concise Bible commentary (p. 149). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Thank you, Darrel, for this excellent example.
I remember several years ago, while vacationing in Egypt, I fell into conversation with a prominent SDA theologian, traveling with me, and a Muslim garbed high school English teacher from London. We had a fascinating conversation with the high school teacher about the English school system (highly regimented), and afterward, my theologian friend commented that it was too bad other people couldn't have that kind of conversation, so that they could see Muslims through a lens other than media images and headlines. I jokingly asked him how he knew that the gentleman we had been talking to was not a terrorist or terrorist supporter. He gave me a pained smile, offering that we should look to the best in other faiths when we judge them.
I responded that, by such a standard, we could not pass negative judgments on any belief system. For the best elements of every belief system are laudable in the abstract. I argued, and still believe, that the most reliable metric by which a religion or belief system can be judged is its demonstrated capacity for self-criticism and evolution over time. By that standard, it seems to me that Judeo-Christian faith traditions fare very well.
Hmmmm. Terrible things happen in the world. Wonderful things happen in the real world. The rest is in between. Attributing "evil" to the natural order and "goodness" to something supernatural doesn't offer much help, unless one is just attempting to justify a concept of the supernatural or is dependant on invoking the supernatural to explain things. In fact, many people wonder and ask how God can allow such terrible things to occur as really do occur in reality.
There are many scientists who attempt to explain how "empathy" and "altruism" and other prosocial behaviors could evolve. Others of us wonder how such patterns could NOT develop, given the fundamental requirement of nature that humans and other animals get along well enough to procreate and survive without killing each other or becoming prey.
But your view, Nathan, that "agape" love exists only in humans, is worth thinking carefully about. Perhaps mother love (abundantly aparent among mammals) and parental care (widespread among animals–but certainly not perfect in humans) do not qualify as "agape." Such affectional attachments that have biological utility do seem, at least to be related to the agape concept.
Once again, though being guilty of overgeneralization and stereotyping sometimes myself, I urge people not to be too quick to sort all Muslims into the same bucket (any more than we would claim affinity with all who call themselves Christians). I have had many long and detailed conversations with an array of Muslims, very few of whom seemed at all inclined toward violence or hatefulness (at least, no more than Christians or anyone else).
For those who see science as a belief system (rather than a set of methods for obtaining and evaluating evidence), I must suggest that there is a very well demonstrated capacity in science for self-criticism, change, and refinement. It will come as no surprise that I think science fares rather well according to that standard alongside all faith traditions.
No, I'm not saying that the existence of good proves that God exists. I am simply countering the notion that the persistence of evil somehow disproves a good, loving God. It certainly raises legitimate inquiries. But it is not a litmus test.
I never thought of science as a belief system, any more than I think of mathematics as a belief system. I think of a belief system as a guiding moral/ethical set of principles embedded in, and growing from, historical experiences or ideologies.
I think the closest competing alternative to Christianity, as a belief system, is probably secular progressivism. While its history is too short to meaningfully evaluate its capacity for self-criticism, its tendency toward presentism, historical revisionism, and dissociation of itself from toxic fruits of its past like eugenics, euthanasia, racism, communism, and fascism, do not bode well for its long term ability to critically examine itself in the mirror, and candidly acknowledge its capacity for evil. But as I say, its history, which it often has great difficulty remembering, is too short to permit meaningful evaluation of its self-critical capacity.
C. S. Lewis described how he had originally rejected the idea of God because of the cruelty of life. Then he came to realize that evil was even more problemat. In the end, he realized that suffering provided a better argument for God’s existence than one against it. "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and unjust”?…What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?…Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that dd not happen to please my private fancies…. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. "
Darrel, I agree with C.S. Lewis that "atheism turns out to be too simple." I began from a position of believing in God according to the concept of God I was taught as a young adventist. As I matured, some aspects of that concept fell away. Still, I preferred to believe in God. There were answers to questions about the cruelty of life, and there were answers–not fully satisfying answers, but, at least, efforts to address those questions. Across time, I came to believe less-and-less in the concepts of God as traditionally advanced. Essentially, it seemed to me that the traditional concepts of God were internally inconsistent–at best inaccurate, because they were merely imperfect human concepts about unknowable matters. The disturbing possibility occurred to me that concepts of God and gods were nothing more fabrications of human imagination. Even if that were so, that did not negate the possibility that an Almighty Creator God existed in some reality only knowable by faith/belief.
So, I am not picking a fight with Almighty Creator God. I am not claiming to know anything about the existence or nonexistence of such a God. The most honest position I can hold is that I do not know one way or the other. I am not telling anyone not to believe in God. If God is all knowing, God will judge me justly. If God is merciful and loving, God may take into account everything that matters. I am comfortable with that. I am okay with admitting that my knowledge and understanding are very, very limited.
This leaves me with a largely secular world view, although I recognize that the role of faith looms large in various deistic and atheistic concepts. Ignoring that faith exists and failing to be aware of the concepts in which faith is invested, would be very foolish, indeed. As for "progressivism," that seems to me to be a slippery concept. If I were to choose a political label for myself, I might say I am "conservatively constructive." Maybe "cautiously" or "carefully" would substitute well for "conservatively."
Nate, I think you and I both dislike what could be called "reflexive liberalism." "Reflexive" anything (in the sense of automatic or unthinking) does not stand up well, in my opinion, with evidence-based flexibility. I am committed to learning from the past, and acting in the present with consideration for the future. Being appropriately self-critical and contually revising perspectives in accordance with emerging evidence is a part of that. Ideological rigidity does not appeal to me, whether deistic, atheistic, or something else. I don't even like rigid inflexibility in people with whom I largely agree.
“I think the closest competing alternative to Christianity, as a belief system, is probably secular progressivism.”
Nathan, I respect you and am not attacking you. But your statement is ideological, and I take issue with it accordingly. With respect, this is an utterly ludicrous statement which explains practically everything. I’m afraid that a more ridiculous and revealing statement could hardly have been made.
Think about it for a minute, if “secular progressivism” represents “[probably] the closest competing alternative to Christianity, as a belief system,” then that which competes against secular progressivism is, and must be, aligned, allied, and associated with Christianity in opposing secular progressivism.
Now then, what idea-based (ideological) belief system might that be other than (secular?) political conservatism; and really, how ‘secular’ can it be if it’s—as it must be—aligned, allied, and associated with Christianity as its “competing alternative” (opposition) to secular progressivism? What else competes against secular progressivism in the marketplace of ideas other than conservatism?
Actual belief of this nonsense explains everything about how secular conservative political ideology is actually often conflated by many with Christianity. And here’s the double standard: if I were to have said that secular conservatism “[tends] toward presentism (if by that you mean, as in the anachronistic tendency that contemporary propagandists have of associating the name and policies of today’s liberal northern-dominated Democratic Party with the name and policies of former ‘Deep South’ Southern Democrat-turned-Republican segregationist racists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms for instance) historical revisionism, and dissociation of itself from toxic fruits of its past like slavery, persecution, genocide, racism, fascism, and neo-Nazism;” that would been perceived an over the top politicization, or as having hysterically playing the race card; or some similar fallacy—no matter what undeniable history was cited.
By your reasoning the opposite of “secular progressivism” is sacred (or religious) conservatism. Is that what you really now believe Nathan? If it is, then that juxtaposition of the sacred with secular ideology seems ominous (partly by how commonplace it now is).
Correction: …or has having hysterically played the…
Glad you've so carefully avoided political/ideological rants, Stephen. I'm really not aware of secular conservatism as a belief system, although I know that there are a few conservatives, like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, I think, and of course the late Christopher Hitchens, who are not religious believers. Philosophical conservatism is, to my way of thinking, like classical liberalism, not so much a belief system as an approach to belief systems.
You have shifted from a belief system to politics, and I'm not going there. I'm sorry I touched a raw nerve. I never suggested that secular progressivism is the opposite of Christianity. It is not. I said it was an alternative belief system. What presentism means is a tendency to judge the past by contemporary moral standards. I have no idea how you are using that term.
My point was to reflect on the capacity of a belief system for self-criticism. You completely missed the point because you apparently felt personally attacked and threatened by the dim view I have of progressivism's capacity, as a system of belief,
You're pretty amazing, Stephen. You misrepresent and misread what others say about as often as anyone on this website. Yet you profess to know that your interpretation of what Bible writers put down thousands of years ago in very different cultural context, languages, and understandings, is precisely correct. literal, and irrefutable. When you are able to more accurately reflect what others say and mean in real time in your language and culture, you will have considerably more credibility in telling us what God said and meant.
Nathan,
I repeat; I’m not attacking you. I am challenging what you clearly stated. Instead of taking it, and making it, personal, why not simply engage and defend the actual statement? And what you said was undeniably political because you weren’t talking about Adventist/religious progressivism.
There are logical implications to your position. There is no representation of your statement. You didn’t say, as you’re now indicating, that secular progressivism is just "an alternative" to Christianity; instead you said that “secular progressivism” was “[probably] the closest competing alternative to Christianity, as a belief system.” (Besides I didn’t mistakenly misappropriate someone else’s words and attribute them to you; which exemplifies misrepresentation and misreading as literally as possible.)
Are you perhaps suggesting that there’s no significance attached to being “the closest competing alternative to Christianity, as a belief system”? Are all alternatives to Christianity the same?
If you are differentiating between a belief system and “an approach to a belief system;” and are suggesting that “philosophical conservatism” represents “an approach to a belief system;” then is there any particular belief system that philosophical conservatism generally 'approaches' that ‘other’ conservatives like those you mentioned (Will, Krauthammer, et al) don’t generally approach; and do you perceive there to be any such thing as, say, 'philosophical progressivism'?
As an example, would a Bible-believing political progressive like Jimmy Carter, or the late George McGovern, or even someone like me perhaps be considered a ‘philosophical progressive,’ Nathan? Just how much religion do you have to claim or possess to be considered something other than secular?
A closely competing alternative to Christianity as a belief system simply sounds like a pejorative (as in something that is anti-Christian); and “an approach to a belief system,” as opposed to a belief system, is not exactly the most distinct and unambiguous differentiator we’ve heard.
As if there was any doubt as to whether you meant to position “secular progressivism” disparagingly, and as if there was a doubt that your reference to it was political, you associated with fruits of “eugenics, euthanasia, racism, communism, and fascism.” But of course, that didn’t represent a political rant; whereas my response must have.
Imagine if I had actually said the inverse of what you said (regarding conservatism)?
My main concern is this however Nathan, if in the marketplace of ideas for the organization and governance of temporal society, if an ideology (conservatism?) is not secular, then how/what exactly should we consider it (besides an “approach to a belief system”)? If it’s not secular, is it sacred/religious?
(And dude, it’s not up to me to tell you "what God said and meant;" I am not a prophet Nathan. Many of us differ on such things; we hash it out on these boards.)
Correction: There is no misrepresentation of your statement.
Stephen –
When I offered secular progressivism as the closest competing alternative to Christianity, what I meant was that it is the belief system which comes the closest to Christianity in terms of its capacity for self-criticism, change, and growth. I went on to suggest why I think it does not fare particularly well. I obviously did not make that clear.
Whatever man…to be honest, it’s still not clear. In re-reading that which I’d been accused of misrepresenting, it sure (still) seems that you were talking about the difference between belief systems and some things that you don’t consider to be such—as you had just provided your definition. You immediately went on to make the statement that I have challenged; and subsequently commented on its self-criticizing capacity, or lack thereof, in the context of the evil things for which you believe it’s been responsible.
I’ll take your word for your clarification (For what it’s worth had you said “secular humanism” sans the laundry list of atrocities, I would have agreed with you; but we generally say what we mean.)
Frankly, I don’t know of any entity that has a strong capacity for self-criticism; and that would include the Christian religion.
Again, Stephen, I'm talking about self-criticism in a broad, historical sense. That is to say, Judeo-Christian traditions have demonstrated the ability to reject and grow beyond historically held values and beliefs, while still owning and affirming that history, and God's leading in it, as their own.
I understand that, within our lifetimes, we can see Christianity, like other belief systems, as pretty ossified and resistant to change. But its peaceful diversity is unique. And if you look over hundreds and thousands of years, and you see, for example, how the Catholic Church is changing and has changed, as well as how Protestant churches have changed over the past hundred years, I think that suggests a strong, though not a conscious, deliberate capacity, for Christianity to challenge itself, change, and grow beyond its past, while still affirming its identity and God's leading in that past.
The US "national religion" is a curious blend of Christianity, politics and sports. And the Adventist religion? Adventists have been advised to focus on Christianity and not get entangled in politics and sports.
I have previously remarked on the irony here displayed, where some commenters seamlessly weave Christian conservatism with political progressivism, whereas others seamlessly weave political conservatism with Christian progressivism.
Though I do have strong political views (centrist with Libertarian leanings) I mostly resist the urge to join in the politcal debates here because I find them to be a blend of distraction and amusement and bemusement. If such were possible, the political discourse on this web site seems to be even more passionate and less rational than some of the religious discourse 8-).
However I do confess to having been drawn into sports discussions on occasion (mostly for sport 8-).
“Adventists have been advised to focus on Christianity and not get entangled in politics and sports.”
I’m in need of grace…because I don’t know much about anything else. Confession is good for the soul, right?
Well I confess that I am speechless because I am doubled-over with laughter 8-)).
Could you pass a bit of that grace along to me?
Yes, Joe, as Paul stated, "~1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
Thanks, Darrel. Those texts certainly influenced my outlook as I was maturing, and they are probably still incorporated in my worldview.
Joe, did you note my frustration was followed by a ::)). i believe i have a handle on your agnosticism, and the above statement satisfies me that you haven't locked the door. Nathan, i agree that secular humanism, maybe, but not secular conservatism.
Yes, Earl. I would regard secular progressivism and secular humanism as interchangeable on the spectrum of self-critical capacity of moral belief systems. Progressives can certainly be Christians. And in such a case, I would certainly not call them secular humanists or secular progressives, because they presumably have a Biblical world view and do not embrace philosophical materialism or naturalism, which are not really belief systems, but views about the nature of reality that undergird their belief system.
Of course I'm just sort of having fun with the idea of judging a belief system by its capacity for self-criticism. Its kind of an interesting thought experiment.