Israel, Palestine, and the old saying about how two wrongs don't make a right

Christians and Israel « Deeper

If you find yourself in disagreement with the author’s central claims, I urge you to still give the letter a read. Consider what they have to say. The majority of the letter is devoted to understanding 2 key ideas: first, God’s promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants, and who it applies to (here’s a hint: the Israelites were not Abraham’s only descendants); and second, the conditional nature of Israel’s possession of the land. They were to treat the people in the land, especially including aliens, the poor, and so on- with justice, or risk losing it altogether (which they did when God sent both kingdoms into exile- only hundreds of years later were they allowed to return and partially reoccupy the land).

Now if the equations were as simple as Israelis = bad guys and Palestinians = innocents (or, conversely, Palestinians = bead guys and Israelis = innocents).

You know what would be a refreshing change of pace in this discussion? If one side (or better, both) would actually stop the pointless finger-pointing and finally admit that its own side perhaps isn’t as completely innocent as it portrays itself to be. By omitting key facts, this open letter shows itself to be nothing more than another example of this trend. While I have no intention of whitewashing or excuse Israel’s numerous wrongdoings, it would be equally objectionable to ignore the many wrongs that have been committed against it.

Deof Movestofca's Grand Web Tour #2: 20 links in 27 days

Note: the following first appeared on the "¤ Deof Movestofca's Web Tour ¤" static page, but were moved here to keep it from getting overloaded with links.

 N.B.:The author of the "Pastoral Musings" blog has written that he is moving to new hosting, so any links to that blog might not work at the moment.  I believe only the first link in the list is affected by this.  (Also, for those who are fastidious about such things, it might add a day or so to the "27" mentioned in the title).

A New Genre? In which it is éxplainéd that thosé who intérprét padding in resumés as lying don't undérstand thé resumé litérary génré (I figured if I was going to break out the character map anyway for "resumé", I might as well make the most of having to do so).  My recommendation for similarly-styled satire is James Thurber's essay "The Macbeth Murder Mystery".

U.S. lacks Christian heritage, billboard claims  Whéré I argué that ultimatély it doésnt mattér (in térms of whéthér thé Biblé is trué or not) whéthér the founding fathérs wéré Christians or not (I figured I'd add a few more "é"'s just for the fun of it).

Do All Religions Lead to God? 7 reasons why the parable of the six blind men and the elephant doesn't prove religious pluralism.

all in a good brew  In which I try, in my response, to link bad arguments against coffee (I would say "bad coffee", but in my opinion, that's redundant) and religion and somehow manage to wrongly wind up with what appears to be a female avatar.

from possibility to certainty in just 6 short pages an examination of the "argument" that Jesus and/or his parents were once Pharisees based on the flimsiest of evidence.  IOW, typical skepticism masquerading as scholarship (the book he quotes, not the post itself).

Of Xmas and Other X-things One would think that somewhere in this post there would be some mention of the X-Men.  But no, she has to discuss the Greek letter chi and chiasm.  Blatant bait and switch, if you ask me.

Basketball and Babylon An examination of the "court narratives" in Genesis (Joseph), Esther, Nehemiah, and Daniel, plus a suggestion from yours truly that their might be an "anti-court narrative" with Satan in Job (the Book of, that is, not the man himself).

Does Grace Produce Disobedience? An open letter to "Mr. Grace-Loving Antinomian".

Bad Art and the Tortured Beauty of the Cross "Bad art encourages escapism among Christians. Good art, epitomized by the Psalms, helps us long for the new creation even as we learn to love all God's creatures."  I couldn't have said it any better, although I would (and did) recommend Chris Koelle's digital graphic novel of The Book of Revelation as an example of good art.

Productive for the Glory of God, Good of Neighbors In which I argue that while scripture does mandate that workers should be productive, it also requires that those for whom they are productive should adequately recompense such productivity.

All (Animal) Guts, No Glory Why you shouldn't send a court magician to do a prophet's job

Hoarders Matthew 6: 19-21 seems like the perfect verse for this post.

Why Is Tebow Hated So Much? To paraphrase Alfred E. Newman, "What, me worry about what the world thinks about me?".

Alzheimer’s, Pat Robertson, and Human Nature Anti-biblical teaching is anti-biblical teaching regardless of how well-meaning it is or who's teaching it.

Who Will Be Greatest?  I couldn't leave a reply on the page because the comments seem to have been disabled for it.  However, it does make some of the same points I was trying to do in my "Ministry success: it's not about "our" success, it's about God's (Pen & Parchment, Parts 1 + 2)" post.

Snoopy & Theology I could be wrong about this, but I believe Charles M. Shulz wrote this strip (if you were thinking of George P. Shultz, has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?)

What Religion Should You Be? Even they agree I should follow Christianity.

Skye Jethani: The Wrong War on Christmas Response: "I think we, as Christians, would do better to focus on what Christmas means to us and stop worrying about what it means to non-Christians."  (Original post: Are Christians Fighting the Wrong “War on Christmas”?)

How Churches Can Save the U.S. Post Office Thinking outside the (mail)box.

5 Issues Your Members Will Talk About in 2012 A good example of how preaching can inform church members on political issues without endorsing a particular position or candidate.

Cracked eisegesis: it's not just for biblical interpretation anymore!

8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape | Cracked.comN.B. I have reformatted and added links to some of the original material. Furthermore, my defense of these songs is limited to Ian Fortey's (possibly facetious) claim that these songs advocate rape and is not intended to imply agreement with the moral views presented by them.  IOW, just because I think a particular song isn't necessarily about rape doesn't mean that I don't find it morally offensive for other reasons, such as extolling lust and/or casual sex.

#8. "Baby It's Cold Outside" - Dean Martin & Doris Day

Offending Lyrics:

Her: but maybe just a half a drink more
Him: (put some records on while I pour)
Her: the neighbors might faint
Him: (baby it's bad out there)
Her: say what's in this drink
Him: (no cabs to be had out there)

A short list of things left unspecified in the song:

1. whether or not she actually stays
2. if she does, whether or not they engage in sexual activity
3. if they do, whether or not it is consensual
4. that he is preventing her from leaving.  It is possible that she's choosing to stay of her own volitiondespite her protestations that she "really must go",
5. that he drugged her drink or even whether it has alcohol in it (although I would agree that it's safe to assume that it does.  Furthermore, he didn't ply the drink on her- she requested "half a drink more".

Cracked eisegesis: Another reason I dislike this song: to me, it sounds more like listening to two different radio stations at once than a conversation.
And in the link to the lyrics, I'm assuming that "namonia" is supposed to be "pneumonia" (in case they haven't fixed it as I requested).

#7."Summer Nights" - Olivia Newton John & John Travolta

Offending Lyrics:

Girls: Tell me more, tell me more, was it love at first sight?

Guys: Tell me more, tell me more, did she put up a fight?

Cracked eisegesis: Forley chooses the definition of the word "fight" ("physical altercation") that best fits his premise and ignores other, equally plausible meanings.(such as "intense verbal dispute" or "strong resistance").  IOW, Kenickie (the character that sings "did she put up a fight?") instead may be asking "Was she 'easy' or did it take a lot of convincing to get her to go along?".
Just asking: if the two of them married in real life, would that have made her Olivia Newton John Travolta?

#3."My Sharona" - The Knack

Offending Lyrics:

Never gonna stop, give it up

Such a dirty mind, always get it up

For the touch of the younger kind

Cracked eisegesis: First, "young" is subjective, so "of the younger kind" and "above the age of consent aren't mutually exclusive.  Second, he never clarifies what he's "never gonna stop" or how far he's willing to go to achieve it.  Unless this includes force and as long as he waits until she's over the age of consent, then there's no rape.  Third, no matter how much the singer may want to have sex with her, various lines in the song indicate that they haven't engaged in sexual activity, such as  "Is it just a matter of time Sharona?" and his use of the future tense  in the question "when you gonna give it up...?".  No sexual activity = no rape.

#2."Young Girl" - Gary Puckett

Offending Lyrics:

Young girl, get out of my mind

My love for you is way out of line

Better run, girl,

You're much too young, girl

Cracked eisegesis: As in "My Sharona" above, it's clear that the singer is attracted to someone who is likely a minor.  However, it is just as equally clear that they haven't engaged in any sexual activity and, in this case, he's actively resisting such a temptation.  As long as he does so successfully (on which point the song is ambiguous), there's no rape.

In each of the above cases, the fault lies in adding more to the text than is actually written.  For example, in "Baby, It's Cold Outside" merely asks "what's in this drink?".  The cracked eisegesist reads this and assumes that this means not only must he have added something to the drink, but it must be some type of date-rape drug, even though the text itself does not state that he had.

From cracked eisegesis to

skepticism masquerading as scholarship

One way that some skeptics apply similar means in biblical interpretation is their treatment  of Numbers 31 as condoning rape.  Some read that the Isrealites took "women who had not known man by lying with him" as plunder (vs. 35 ESV) and jump to the conclusion that this somehow must have included rape.  Now, while such an action could lead to rape, it doesn't necessarily.  This, however, overlooks two very important facts: first, they took sheep, cattle, and donkeys as plunder as well, but I doubt anyone can persuasively argue that they used such animals for such a purpose as the Israelites are accused of using the women; second, while the plundering of women could involve rape, it does not necessarily do so.  There are other purposes to which the Israelites could have employed the women, such as for servants.

Woot!! My blog inerrantly made #1 on a search on Google.com

ministry success "deof movestofca" - Google Search

1. Grooving With A Pict

deofmovestofca/blogspot.com/

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

1 minute ago – Deof Movestofca: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Third Star to the Right: A ... Ministry success: it's not about "our" success, it's about God's (Pen ...

Okay,so the keywords I was searching for were "ministry success deof movestofca". But, hey, it's a start. Actually I was looking for the following...:

5. Ministry | Clay Jones http://www.clayjones.net/category/ministry-2

Jun 1, 2011 – Last week I talked about the folly of basing your ministry success on the ... Deof Movestofca on If You're Sick, Maybe It's Because You've ...

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

... because it sounded similar in topic to this post (my name shows up there because of a comment I made on one of his pages- see "How sin sunk us into sickness" for details), which I had replied to but then my browser froze (Bad browser... baaaaaaad browser) before I could post a link to it on this blog. making me have to go find it all over again:

2. What Defines Ministry Success? | Parchment and Pen

www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/.../what-defines-ministry-success/

6 days ago – If you do, you are extraordinary. You have a successful ministry beyond your imagination. ..... Again, just a guess? ;). Deof Movestofca says: ...

What does this all mean?  How should I know?  Just remember I did warn waaaaaaaay back in my original post on this blog (Let's get this party started...) that my choice of theme song "should serve as fair warning of the weirdness to come to one and all."

How sin sunk us into sickness

If You’re Sick, Maybe It’s Because You’ve Sinned | Clay Jones

What this means then is that when someone else is sick we can’t judge that it is because of sin, but if we ourselves are sick we should ask God if, perhaps, it is because of sin, and, if so, then confess and forsake it! Of course, the last thing Satan wants you to do is examine yourself to see if you are living a life worthy of God.

 NB: I make the same points (plus a few others) in my "Man's problem: How the Bible answers our most important question- why we suffer" post.

This is basically why I've never found the "problem of evil" (or "problem of pain") argument too persuasive: the Bible makes it clear that we did this to ourselves.  Or, as Pogo might say, "We have met the enemy- and he is us".  While it is true that it was Adam and Eve who sinned in the Garden of Eden, we confirm that we would have done no differently by our own sins.  We suffer and die because we have cut ourselves (and continue to cut ourselves off) from God, who is the source of all life.  It is not God who prohibits anyone from receiving this life, but rather those who reject His offer of life that block themselves from it.
I think there are several problems, though, from going from sickness in general is caused by sin in general to one-to-one identification between sickness and sin, not the least of which is that it would equate physical health with spiritual health.

Sartre was wrong: Hell isn't other people, but one's decision to reject God's love

jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the 1st century Jesus for our 21st century » Blog Archive » LOVE MEANS NEVER SAYING THE WORD "HELL"

A friend of mine remarked that the new defintion of God’s love means unconditional, endless tolerance and affection. Sweet, but so much wishful thinking. Discounting the perichoresis of the Trinity, the hard edge of love that compelled Jesus to voluntarily lay down his life for sinners is considered ‘bad parenting’ by God the Father, even divine child abuse. You can read it in many popular expressions of the new, soft, fireless, judgmental-less love. I think many of these new "God is love" proponents learned their definitions of love from Sesame Street rather than from the biblical text. What I think they mean when they say "God is love" is "God is nice."

In response to a comment the author added near the end of the post ("I’m totally open to exploring all current ideas about judgment, hell, gehenna, hades, lake of fire and separation from God forever."), I wrote the following:

My own belief on the matter is that the "punishment" in Hell is the undeniable knowledge of the God's love and the price He paid through the blood of His Son to redeem us.  I don't think there is a torment that God could possibly add to the realization of the unrepentant of how callously he or she has rejected such a gracious offer that could make that person's suffering any worse.