Pompacifists

I came across a Facebook post by a guy who could be reasonably described as a militant pacifist.  He’s a pretty typical theological liberal who has a bit of a following.   In this case he decided to take the occasion of Memorial Day to post about pacifism, and, as happens so often crossed over into the pompous.    I love it when folks who take a very flexible view of Biblical Authority and lean toward a flexible and very non literal interpretation of the Biblical text, get all “Thus saith the Lord” and start making pronouncements.    In that spirit, I offer a few quotes.

“For the record: When John 15 says that "No one has greater love than to give up one’s life for one’s friends"-- there is no biblical way to apply this to war.”

This is the opening line.  No room for any other possible interpretation, no room for grace or differing opinions, just “there is no biblical way”.    Humble, yes?

“Applying this passage to soldiers and war has no biblical legs to walk on.”

Again, I’m right, you’re wrong.   No other options allowed.

“…that life is a gift. To call it a gift is to imply that we did not earn it. Life is grace.”

First, I’ll point out that this statement is incompatible with anyone who claims Christ and supports abortion.

Second, this ignores the fact that the Bible clearly delegates the taking of life (under certain circumstances) to humans of human agencies.

“May we see this resurrection potential all around us!”

One wonders what the author means by “resurrection potential”?  As well as what view he has about the resurrection.

“Many whose motives were pure, believing that this sort of sacrifice was Your will. May those of us who claim to be peacemakers remember that soldiers of any nation usually believe that their fight is for a moral good.”

Of course, no matter what their motives are/were, they we’re wrong and we the enlightened are correct.  As pointed out earlier these folks offer no room for disagreement with their enlightened view.

“…also being committed to re-incorporating veterans into our Christian communities.”

Because at this point these folks have decided that veterans are excluded from “our Christian communities”.   How generous.  I suspect that very few Christian veterans would want to be included in this type of “Christian community”, but I could be wrong.

“…name evil and we discourage followers of Jesus from any vocation that might require violence.”

Because vocations like law enforcement and the military are “evil”.    Why would anyone want Christians involved in those vocations?   Lord knows we want more atheist cops out there.

“At the same time, we refuse to distance ourselves from those who have taken part in the way of Empire.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that while he might distance himself from some random military member, he’d be in line to embrace P-BO, Hillary, Bernie, or any other left wing politicians who control much of what he calls “empire”.   I’d also suspect he doesn’t keep the same distance between himself and abortion providers either.

“May we be people who lay down our pacifistic pride, and follow the model of our Savior by stretching out our arms as a gesture of love, openness, and hospitality.”

Let’s start with his acknowledgement of the notion that pacifists (as shown by his earlier quotes) tend toward a prideful superiority when talking (down) to the unenlightened.      This also ignores the fact that he has slammed the doors to anyone who might have a differing view on the relevant Biblical texts.

So, in closing, why are so many pacifists pompous folks who want to impose their opinion about interpretations of Biblical texts on the rest of us, while actively excluding any other possible interpretation from even being considered?

Marriage

As I was listening to one of the more reasonable conservative national talk show hosts talk about marriage today a few thoughts struck me.

As an aside, I realize that it is redundant to say add that therm "national" to conservative  talk show as virtually all successful national talk shows are conservative.    Anyway, back to the subject.

The topic was an article in the Washington Post regarding monogamy and marriage.

There is a school of thought that would suggest that the reason why we need "gay marriage" is that while gay sex is not wrong per se, engaging in promiscuous and dangerous gay sex is problematic.   Therefore, if gays are allowed to marry they will be less promiscuous and more monogamous, loving and respectful.   Now just on the surface this school of thought is kind of silly.   Many people of varied and diverse persuasions have monogamous relationships regardless of their marital status, so clearly marriage is not necessary for monogamy, some sort of commitment is sufficient with or without state sanction.   

The counter to the above school of thought is to point out the obvious,  which is that there is a significant vocal segment of the gay community which wants marriage without monogamy, they even have a term for this (monogamish).     As Dan Savage points out, "''But I actually think the attitudes we hold about monogamy and the importance we place on it is more dangerous, is doing more damage, is harming marriages, is leading to more divorces than anything I've ever recommended that people do or think.''
''We were monogamous for four or five years and not monogamous for 15 years,'' Savage says. ''We're blissfully happy and we still have sex all the time with each other. I coined the term for our marriage, monogamish, [because] we were so much more monogamous than not.''.

The author describes his position thusly,  "Savage argues that in redefining the old rules of marriage, this is one area where change has not gone far enough. He believes sexual fidelity as a social norm is not merely old-fashioned but is actively damaging to relationships and the individuals within them.".

http://www.smh.com.au/national/on-love-and-marriage-and-why-monogamy-is-bad-for-you-20131025-2w771.html

This attitude seems to be gaining traction within the gay community.

But now we see an article in the Washington Post which demonstrates that this attitude is making inroads into the remaining 98% of the non gay culture as well.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/are-new-dating-apps-killing-monogamy-or-has-it-always-been-dead/2015/05/26/485f07ec-03e8-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html?hpid=z1


I guess that there just might be some truth to the notion that once one accepts the notion that a marriage means something other than one man/one woman "till death us do part", there is no telling what strange notions come through the door once it gets opened.

But I guess it's also OK to naively believe that if we can just legalize "gay marriage", then all will be well and monogamy will be the norm.   Or one can realistically conclude that the next dominoes to fall will be age of consent, oh wait, there is already a movement seeking to do just that http://www.b4uact.org/.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/normalizing-pedophilia-abolishing-the-age-of-consent

I know, I know, that slippery slope thing never actually happens.

"If you have such a definition, from God to you, please provide it and documentation from God, certified, please."

 "Providing a signed note from God (notarized) supporting your OPINION, and showing it to be a fact..."


Elsewhere I have been following a somewhat rambling exchange in which one party made the obviously stupid and outlandish claim that one could find a definition of marriage in Scripture.    The unspoken part of the claim being that since scripture is "God breathed", then it might not be completely unreasonable to conclude that when Scripture (specifically Scripture quoting Jesus), makes a claim that it just might represent God's actual thoughts on the matter.

To be clear, there is no definition in the sense of a modern dictionary.   But the Bible isn't a modern dictionary.   There are, however, some claims that are reasonably clear and straightforward enough to equtate them with a definition.

The quotes above indicate the response to this obviously foolish claim.   The person quoted above is asking for a standard of proof far beyond any that he himself is willing to provide for his claims.

One wonders why anyone would expect such a clearly unreasonable level of proof from others. 

Irony???

A black "kid" with a criminal record dies while in police custody and we get riots.

A black police officer gets killed for doing his job, and we have no riots.

Interesting,  I guess some black lives matter more than others.

Some quotes about poverty in the United States

"There is no material poverty in the U.S. Here are a few facts about people whom the Census Bureau labels as poor. Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study “Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor”, report that 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. Poor Americans have more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. What we have in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare state."

"The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it’s 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn’t hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it’s 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts?
There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data “going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery … showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940″? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity?"

"No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault.
If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. It turns out that a married couple, each earning the minimum wage, would earn an annual combined income of $30,000. The Census Bureau poverty line for a family of two is $15,500, and for a family of four, it’s $23,000. By the way, no adult who starts out earning the minimum wage does so for very long."

" Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the “need” to deal with some aspect of poverty. In a column of mine in 1995, I pointed out that at that time, the nation had spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, and with that princely sum, “you could purchase every U.S. factory, all manufacturing equipment, and every office building. With what’s left over, one could buy every airline, trucking company and our commercial maritime fleet. If you’re still in the shopping mood, you could also buy every television, radio and power company, plus every retail and wholesale store in the entire nation”. Today’s total of $18 trillion spent on poverty means you could purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some."


Clearly this is some uneducated racist hack spewing the conservative party line with absolutely no critical evaluation of the tryth.

Just as clearly, the plight of the poor in the US is comparable to the plight of the poor worldwide.