OT: Jussie Smollett

[Guest]

@suncoastvike said:
We started with Jussie and got to Jesus. I didn't see that coming.

Sorry, it's probably my fault. It seems some want to believe that fake hate crime is a bigger problem than hate crime. 

[Guest]

@pumpf said:

You're post is helpful- inasmuch as it shows which passages have those words. But I'm still failing to see the connection to liberal theocracy.  Maybe I'll go read the link that Ralphie posted.
Nope.  I read it.  Didn't help.  My guess is that Maroon heard it as a talking point- and regurgitated it- without really knowing anything about it.  And now that's he's been asked about it, he actually looked it up for himself... and saw how flawed that theology was.  Hence, the silence.

First of all we need to establish the importance of caring for the poor in the Bible. For whatever reason modern American Conservatives have lost sight of that. 

There’s no denying that the poor is Jesus’ hang up, right? It’s been true for thousands of years…until modern American conservatism. It gets more ink in the Bible than anything else. Measure it. Nothing even comes close. Not prayer, not salvation, not forgiveness, not judgement, not evangelism, not family…He even goes so far to suggest that caring for the poor, or ignoring to do so, is ignoring HIM. 


No disagreement so far, right? So what gives? That brings us to Matthew. Why don’t we just put it here verbatim so there’s no confusion….


When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

After reading this, how do you think nations should treat the world’s poor? As you know, “panta ta ethne,” mean’s “all the nations.” And so who is being gathered and called to judgement there? “Nations” isn’t just “you’z guys.” It’s “peoples,” ethnos, ethnicities…implying nations, divisions, implying leadership among those divisions. I don’t know why conservatives think that this judgement was meant only for individuals and not leaders of people...kings, masters of servants. As if God’s judgement suggests “everyone in positions of leadership cover your ears. I’m not talking to you, only your servants.” REALLY? Especially when you consider what King Solomon says in the Psalms. 


I grew up in an evangelical home and church and I don’t ever recall my pastor ever once talking about the poor. It was always focused on your “walk with the Lord,” which is important I suppose. But the Bible I was reading at the time didn’t STOP talking about the poor. That sent up red flags to me. And it continued when our church sent around literature that suggested popular pop artists like the Eagles and Elton John, for example, were promoting Satan. The fuck? 


This is where my gut kicked in. And I trust it to this day. I know when I’m being bullshitted. That just did NOT ring true to me. I KNEW their lyrics. My best friend in the church decided he was going to burn his Hotel California album as a result. I remember thinking. “Wow, that’s an impressive commitment.” But it didn’t ring true to me. I wanted to believe that what I was hearing from my spiritual leadership was true. But it didn’t sync with what I KNEW in my gut. Just didn’t. It mentioned Elton John and “his boyfriend” Bernie Taupin making ridiculous amounts of money and how greedy they were. But as an Elton John fan, I knew that while Elton was gay, Bernie wasn’t. And 40 years later I know my gut was right. These right wing idiots were nuts. And they were! The Eagles were not Satanists. Elton wasn’t a Satanist. Flawed yes, but they were just kids writing esoteric lyrics. And, by the way, Elton John has done more for the modern day leprosy (AIDS) than any church could or will ever do. Which again reminds me of Jimmy Carter. Anathema to conservatives, but someone whose lifestyle rings true to the Bible i read. 


Which or course brings up the role of leadership. You believe that individuals or churches should alone be responsible for helping the impoverished around the world. It’s not possible. It’s just not. It’s not even close. Let’s just take Medicaid as one TINY little segment of that. It’s only in America. It does nothing to eradicate malaria, AiDS, ebola, global poverty, famine, etc. Yet my brother required Medicaid to pay for all his cancer treatments. Medicaid in 2018 cost $630 billion dollars. If churches were responsible for paying that, it would cost each American congregation about 2.5 million each year. Just curious...is your congregation ready to contribute that much? 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:
 Jesus, doesn't anyone work around here? If I get time, I'll explain what I mean at some point tonight when I get home. But haven't we had this conversation several times in past? Or am I making too many assumptions about what I thought were WELL known divisions between liberal and conservative believers in terms of how we're to treat the least among us, the role of individuals vs. the role of government, etc. 

"Panta ta Ethne" first appears in the Old Testament.  

Ah, see you posted whilst I posted. 

"After reading this, how do you think nations should treat the world’s poor? As you know, “panta ta ethne,” mean’s “all the nations.” And so who is being gathered and called to judgement there? “Nations” isn’t just “you’z guys.” It’s “peoples,” ethnos, ethnicities…implying nations, divisions, implying leadership among those divisions. I don’t know why conservatives think that this judgement was meant only for individuals and not leaders of people...kings, masters of servants. " 

Short answer tonight (for now, as it's late)... is there is some Old Testament/New Testament Biblical passages to panta ta ethne...it concerns (clearly) taking the hope & promise of God to groups of (individual) people.... but there is NO "conflation"/obligation to 'nation-states', or Holy judgements thereof, that I discern.  

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@suncoastvike said:
We started with Jussie and got to Jesus. I didn't see that coming.

Sorry, it's probably my fault. It seems some want to believe that fake hate crime is a bigger problem than hate crime. 

No need for you to apologize. Things go the way they go. I don't even disagree with your thought here. Things like what Jussie did do arm some with a distraction weapon. Too many people are willing to believe a few bad examples are the whole. This goes for many things in life. There's and old expression. Don't let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. Like I said earlier this guy gave the other side a huge weapon. There is enough real hate no need to manufacture it. I see hate and racism enough to know it exists. Sometimes people don't even know they are doing it. Sometimes they really do and don't care. I fear those ones.
I probably shouldn't go here but I will. The whole immigration policy battle now. While I agree reforms are needed. We can't simple be the world's stopping ground. It's the reasons for I hear too much thats worrisome. To me it's purely economics.  When I listen to people debating or discussing it sometimes it does take on a sound of anger that "we are now the minority". We meaning whites.  "By the year 2050 we will be the minority". No we won't we will for the 1st time maybe make up less then 50% of the total population but we will still be the largest demographic. If it mattered even. The only color that matters in terms of control and influence is green. Who controls the most controls the world. If some really do fear becoming less then 50% what does that say? The others comprising the new +50% are all going to gang up on us. That to me means that persons saying that he believes we are in danger from them. That sounds a little racist to me. But again most don't think that way. Back to the bad apples.
I hope I don't regret saying this.

[Guest]

So... if I am following all this Latin correctly,  we now have a Democrat trying to quote scripture as a reason to justify bigger government?  I thought that was the party that wanted God to have nothing to do with Govt and anything the govt touches? (Not saying this came from you maroon,  but it seems to be the stance of the liberal left of your party)

[Guest]

@suncoastvike said:
We started with Jussie and got to Jesus. I didn't see that coming.

I did... :p

Sticky is always stirring the damn pot lol!

It's actually been a fascinating, educational thread...A bit heated as to be expected be on such "sensitive" and emotionally charged issues various, personal value takes.. 

[Guest]

@purplefaithful said:

@suncoastvike said:
We started with Jussie and got to Jesus. I didn't see that coming.

I did... :p

Sticky is always stirring the damn pot lol!

It's actually been a fascinating, educational thread...A bit heated as to be expected be on such "sensitive" and emotionally charged issues various, personal value takes.. 

Yeah running pretty smoothly for a board discussion.  My smart@ss'dness just won't let me miss a good opportunity.
  

[Guest]

I'm not going to quote you, Maroon, because the post will be too long.  So I'm going to respond to your points without directly quoting them.

1. Yes, caring for the poor is important.  As it for widows and orphans.  And, by the way, EVERYBODY.  When Jesus told people to love their neighbors, and they asked Him who is my neighbor, His "short answer" was: EVERYBODY.  So, as much as we are to care for the poor, that doesn't exempt a Christian from loving everyone else- including their enemies.  For some reason, Christians (of all persuasions) seem to have missed that one.  Some, in their pursuit of "justice" for the poor... have no qualms about attacking (hating) others that they consider enemies.  By the way, as I posted previously: Jesus ALSO had a lot to say about children- and letting them come to Him.  And liberal "Christians" seem to have lost sight of that.

2. As for American conservatives, it has been proven- time and time again- that conservatives give more time and money to helping the poor that liberals do.  So your accusation rings false.  You want to believe it, because conservatives do not believe in doing it through the gov't.  Your accusation is about political policy.  My response is about the reality.  If liberals care so much about the poor, why don't they do more with their own money?  Conservatives pay the same tax rates that liberals do (we don't get a discount just because we oppose them); and yet- above and beyond those taxes- conservatives give even more.  So, please: let's not even begin to try to make the case that conservatives don't care about the poor.  It's your opinion; but the facts say otherwise.

3.  You're dead wrong about Jesus' "hang up".  And this is the part that astounds me.  HE CAME TO DIE!!!  His whole, entire earthly existence was about His mission: to become sin (by taking onto Himself the sins of the world) so that the penalty for sin might be paid (the wages of sin is death)... and mankind might be redeemed.  Why is it that liberal Christians care so much (in their own minds, anyway) about the temporary lives of others... but seem to care nothing for their eternal lives???  Take homosexuality for example.  The Bible calls is a sin.  Liberal Christians encourage it.  Sin leads to death... for which the only solution is faith (which leads to repentance).  So liberal Christians want LBQT (etc) people to feel good and affirmed... but all they are really doing is pushing them closer and closer to the Abyss.  How is that loving?  It's great that liberal Christians desire to love others; but when you are putting a beer in the hand of an alcoholic: that's not loving.  And the ONLY reason I'm brining up homosexuality is because it is an example of the idiocy of liberal Christianity: saying they care about the body, yet damning the soul.  I could say the same thing about any other sin (since they are all the same in God's eyes... or, to make it easier to understand, the punishment for all sin- no matter how "small"- is the same).  SIN is the "hang up" for Jesus.  It is LITERALLY the reason He was hung on a tree.

4.  Now, AS A CHILD OF GOD (or citizen of His Kingdom, if you prefer), there are certain expectations.  Loving our neighbor (in all the applicable ways) is that expectation.  BUT... it is the SECONDARY commandment.  It is the 2nd Table.  But the most important commandment- which supersedes all others- was this: Love God (with all your heart, soul, strength and mind).  That is the greatest (1st Table) commandment.  The 10 Commandments break THAT commandment down thusly: Have no other gods... don't take the Lord's Name in vain... honor the Sabbath day.  So... if a Christian is worried about keeping the commandments of God, those 3 ought to be the FIRST ones that they worry about keeping.  The rest (the final 7) are all about how to love our neighbor.  In the Lutheran catechism, Luther explains the 5th Commandment by saying that we should not hurt nor harm our neighbor, but help and support them... likewise he says the same thing about the 7th Commandment.  So: we ARE commanded to care for our neighbors... and many Christians take that command seriously.  Unfortunately, people like you ignore all the good that conservative Christians do- and ignore it- because they don't view the role of gov't in the same way that you do.  Sadly, it appears that liberal Christians have taken one Commandment... and made it their one and only rule of life.

[Guest]

5.  As for "all nations", you seem to be engaging in isogesis.  You are putting something into the text that it doesn't say.  "All nations" is nothing more than "all people".  You seem to be saying that "nations" will be held responsible for carrying out these commands (and judged accordingly).  First of all, that puts you in the company of Pat Robertson.  Congrats?  They are the ones who think that God punished America on 9-11 for our "sins".  If your interpretation of this text were correct, you and he would be in full agreement.  How does that make you feel?  Secondly: if this text were saying that it was the "nation's" responsibility to carry out these commands, wouldn't that make the "nation" into a theocracy: doing the work of God through gov't???  Are you seriously suggesting that we- as a country- ought to be a theocracy?  What else could your interpretation mean?  That we use the gov't to carry out these things?  That doesn't even work in this text, much less when you look at the rest of God's Word.  In the Matthew example, are the nation's talking to the King?  Or is it individuals?  A simple, honest reading would say that it is the citizens of the world (i.e. everyone will be held to account for what they did)- NOT the nations, themselves.  Simply put: you had a theology that you believed (which you were very honest about: your gut told you how to feel... and then you went looking for some Bible passages that could be twisted to support your personal beliefs.  That's pretty much the definition of liberal Christianity.  Nowhere in this text- or in any other- is the gov't seen as the vehicle for people's completion of the King's work.  If your interpretation of this text were correct, you'd be able to find other examples of it in Scripture.  That's how a person knows that their interpretation of a text is the correct one: because it agrees with the rest of Scripture.  

5.  The only emphasis that I can see re: gov't... is that God commands us to respect and obey our earthly authorities.  And that CERTAINLY is not being practiced by liberal Christians.  (Or, previously, by conservative Christians, including myself).  Unfortunately, we don't get to pick which commandments we have to obey.  I am guilty of breaking that commandment... but- thankfully- I am also forgiven for it.  Now, I am called, as a forgiven child of God, to: "go and sin no more". 

6.  As for your comment about "leaders", yes: they will be held to account... and, perhaps moreso because of the authority that God has given them.  HOWEVER: that applies to all sins, not just how they cared for the poor.  So a governor who signs a bill that allows for abortion (at any age) is going to be held to account for that.  And that still doesn't mean that the "nation" (i.e. "gov't') is responsible for doing the King's work.  Individuals are.  In the OT, the people followed their king (usually in the wrong direction)... and the kings were held accountable for that.  But so were the people.  Since we don't have "kings" anymore (other than the King of Kings), that doesn't really apply to us, either.  Simply put: your interpretation of this text is just wrong.  There is no basis for it anywhere else in Scripture.  

7. Elton John may have done alot for AIDS... but what has he done for the eternal well-being of others?  By being an open and unrepentant gay, he has "helped" doom people to eternal damnation.  Do you really think that his AIDS work can somehow offset that?  Now, I assume that- as a liberal Christian- you don't consider homosexuality to be a sin... presumably because THOSE parts of the Bible aren't true / applicable to us today.  Well, if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God: then you really can't use it to further your argument here. 

8.  Finally: yes, the churches (and their members) ARE responsible for helping the poor.  First of all, the poor were taken care of long before LBJ decided to try to solve the problem.  If anything, using the gov't to solve the problem has only made it worse.  There are a myriad of reasons why health care costs are so high- and many of them  have to do with the gov't (causing more problems than they're solving).  The Bible makes it clear how and where and when we are to care for the poor.  But you've bypassed all of those texts... because they don't support your personal view of gov't.  This post is already too long... and I've got to get to work.  So, if you want me to share with you the Biblical passages later, I will.  

[Guest]

If there is going to be a test when this is all said and done.... can I buy the cliff notes?