Messages

His Word, however, is quite unambiguous. Obviously, your understanding of that Word is less so.

That is true for all of us.

Uh, no. I don't question clear Scripture. Obviously, you do.

Indeed, none of us is the norm, but the "written Law and Word" as "the eternal and immutable will of God" (FC SD VI:3) is the norm. It unambiguously reveals His design and creation of humans as male and female.

God's design precedes the fall.  Given the reality that we all our sinners, we lack the reason to fully comprehend the Creator's wisdom.  Thus, we cannot claim that our understanding is unambiguous.

His Word, however, is quite unambiguous. Obviously, your understanding of that Word is less so.

[manly courage]

Consider these LXX passages (emphasis added).

4 Macc. 15:23 But in the midst of these very passions, pious reason endued her heart with manly courage and strengthened her to disregard the immediate claims of parental love. [ἀνδρειόω]

a woman acting like a man!

Proverbs 19:15 Timidity restrains the effeminate, and the soul of the idle will suffer hunger. [ἀνδρογύναιος]

Proverbs 18:8 Fear casts down the timid, and the souls of the effeminate will suffer hunger. [ἀνδρόγυνος]

Effeminate men (men acting more like women)

Such in-between genders were known before Christ.

Not sure if you meant to quote Proverbs 19:8...

At any rate, quite novel translations!

 

statement was more a reflection of the fact that "Bible believing" R's embrace supply side economics, a policy that is grounded in the value that greed is good.  Yet, Scripture has more to say in the condemnation of greed than it does about any other manifestation of original sin.

Oh, come on, Mr. Mundinger! Come out with it! What you're really implying is that capitalism is a policy that is grounded in the value that greed is good. You know... What your hero Michael Moore espouses: "Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system and allows the few at the top to get very wealthy and has the rest of us riding around thinking we can be that way, too - if we just work hard enough, sell enough Tupperware and Amway products, we can get a pink Cadillac."   

My issue is with the question: "Is this what you believe?" when "this" is a portion of scripture...

I suspect that there are Muslims who would also say that they don't believe those passages in the Quran about killing all the infidels. They can still believe that they are good and faithful Muslims, even as other Muslims have a different view.

Okay, so their answer might be "No." Or, for some, it might be "Yes"

So, what's the problem? You're arguing with a straw man, Brian!

I'm arguing with Prof Nagel and those who followed his advice: "Is this what you believe?" I don't believe that he is made of straw. The answers, as you note above, will be "yes" for some and "no" for others. It's a bad question.

🙄 That's nonsensical. You're hopeless.

My issue is with the question: "Is this what you believe?" when "this" is a portion of scripture...

I suspect that there are Muslims who would also say that they don't believe those passages in the Quran about killing all the infidels. They can still believe that they are good and faithful Muslims, even as other Muslims have a different view.

Okay, so their answer might be "No." Or, for some, it might be "Yes"

So, what's the problem? You're arguing with a straw man, Brian!

Picky-picky...

It was in response to the claim that "They are wrong about the Koran."

Yes, violence has been part of Islam since nearly the beginning, but there has also been pacifist within Islam. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism_in_Islam. Judging a religion (or denomination) by its most extreme folks doesn't five an accurate picture.

After 9/11, we all interviewed Muslims and Muslim organizations who said, "We Muslims don't believe that way. They are wrong about the Koran."
Sort of like today, when the Speaker of the House says, "I'm a Christian, I believe the Bible," and millions of us say, "We Christians don't believe that way; he is wrong about the Bible."

As the sainted Norman Nagel taught us, you take their written confession and ask them, "Is this what you believe?" Take the Koran, which gives an accurate picture, and ask them.

Give it a rest, Brian. You've contradicted yourself, now you've lapsed into your canned, irrelevant gibberish. The shrimp are in the wings. 😒

While on a Summer vacation my wife and I stayed
in a small rural town in Wisconsin.  I called the
Lutheran church and asked what time the Sunday
Worship Service starts.  And they said what time
can you get here.

  That's a great story.  We had family vacations "up north" in the summer, and the church attendance up there in July/August was filled with "southerners" from Milwaukee-land and even the true outsiders, like I guess yourself, from Illinois.  Evening activity was often to drive to the dump and watch the bears, who invariably showed up. 

Dave Benke

Yup, A common thing in the MN Lakes area. Go to the dump at night to watch the bears. 😄

Yes, violence has been part of Islam since nearly the beginning, but there has also been pacifist within Islam. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism_in_Islam. Judging a religion (or denomination) by its most extreme folks doesn't five an accurate picture.

As the sainted Norman Nagel taught us, you take their written confession and ask them, "Is this what you believe?" Take the Koran, which gives an accurate picture, and ask them.

Your reply was that Christians and Americans did similar?! Thanks for making my point!

I suggest you buy and watch this.

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Islam-Sam-Shamoun/dp/B003RY48IG

As he supports his argument with quotes from the Koran, Mohammed taught from the beginning: infiltrate, assimilate, accommodate. Then take over, and whoever doesn't convert must be eliminated. We see the first steps happening in Congress and colleges already. Is there any wonder why The Squad doesn't back off of their seemingly inflammatory statements? They'd be compromising their religious beliefs and rejecting the promotion of worldwide Islam.

They don't want only to eliminate Israel. "Then they came for me."

I understand, Brian, that atrocities in war are not new. In the Pacific theater in WW II, the Japanese soldiers would cut off the genitals of dead American soldiers and stuff them in their mouths. And evil would sometimes well up in otherwise decent persons. Example:

My father fought with the 77th Division on Okinawa. He was in the Battle for the Maeda Escarpment, aka Hacksaw Ridge. (He knew Desmond Doss.) But the battle depicted in the movie was only the beginning. (Desmond Doss was not injured in the movie battle. He was injured later in the Okinawa campaign.) The goal was the Shuri Castle. The 77th Division and a Marine division fought side-by-side as they battled toward the Castle. At one point, Dad's unit came into a village and Marines were there, throwing babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets. Did Dad and his fellow soldiers try to explain the Marines' actions in the kindest way or try to understand it because of what the Japanese had done? Of course not! It was pure evil. The soldiers "locked and loaded" and said, "One more baby and you're a dead Marine!" The atrocity stopped.

Yes, war can be the cause of major dilemmas. You can blame American leadership all you want for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have used it as a "You too!" logical fallacy several times. But: "A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities." Truman, etc felt that they were doing the lesser evil. Or, how about this?

"What Would You Do?"

https://www.ww2classroom.org/node/115#:~:text=This%20scenario%20puts%20students%20on,to%20slow%20the%20American%20onslaught.

That's war. But what Hamas did on Oct 7th and what they do now, using the Palestinian people as shields, etc, goes well beyond decisions made in war. The atrocities were pure evil. We don't need to explain it in the kindest way or judge ourselves first or in addition.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-police-say-extreme-sexual-violence-rape-by-hamas-terrorists-was-systematic

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/hamas-video-oct-7-massacre-israel-war-20231120.html

You urge us consider what might have led Hamas to commit such atrocities, that Israeli actions might have some bearing on the actions of Hamas. We may not accept hamas' actions as justified, but we should at least understand that what Israel did could cause Hamas to do what they did. Apparently Jews are not human enough to deserve such understanding.

Certainly. Pretty much the same logic European-Americans felt justified in making war against the Native American who felt justified in making war against those driving them off their homelands. Of couse, some Natives had a history of fighting other Natives seeking to take over their lands, too. There were also other Natives who created alliances. The Brotherton Nation for one, created a democracy of their tribes before the U.S. came into being.

Another observation--Islam spread through the Middle East and north Africa by the sword, seeking to establish an ummah in the conquered places and to destroy non-Islamic beliefs.  The Palestinian military efforts are right in line with historic Islamic teachings.

Abd Christians responded to Muslims in the Holy Lands with sword in the Crusades.

But that the evil of the Crusades was uniquely Christian has never made sense to me. Jihad has been interpreted by some Muslims as primarily a spiritual struggle. That is something that can resonate with us as Christians. The continual struggle to live our faith authentically is one that we share. But Jihad as spiritual struggle was not the original meaning, nor is that the meaning given to Jihad by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad parties in Palestine, nor by many militant Muslims. Hamas' first priority is the military conquest "from the river to the sea" and elimination of Israel, but their ultimate goal is the world-wide destruction of all other beliefs other than their version of Islam. As Terry pointed out, the very first Crusades were not Christians trying to retake the Holy Land, but Muslim Jihad that destroyed Christianity in Northern Africa, spread Islam and Arab control by the sword across Northern Africa, into the Iberian Peninsula and from there attempted to conquer Europe, and spreading north into the Balkins and invasion into Europe from the east. That Europe did not become an Islamic conquest was not because Islam was a religion of peace.

Furthermore, Muslim Arabs were involved in the trade in enslaved African slaves from the beginning.

Some of the early spread of Christianity, e.g., Scandinavia was also "by the sword."

While Mr. Mundinger appears to take a break, Brian makes sure that the "You too!" logical fallacy remains alive and well in an attempt to give some justification to Hamas' atrocities. 

Where have I justified the Palestinian atrocities? Are we not commanded to try and explain people's in the kindest ways? I called them atrocities, but sought to understand why they might have committed them.

You justify the Hamas atrocities by using a tu quoque fallacious argument to contrast Terry Culler's and Dan Fienen's claims with Christian and American actions to illustrate supposed hypocrisy. I.e., suggesting that Christians and Americans did similar so who are we to judge? Explain Hamas' atrocities in the kindest way?! 

Hamas seems to be just evil. I don't attribute that evil strand to all Palestinians, though.

Agreed. Don't try to understand Hamas' actions. They are evil atrocities. And I don't know of anyone hereon who attributes that evil strand to all Palestinians.