In a discussion, I can’t locate right now, I accused Dan Trabue of equating Jesus message with class warfare. Now we have some disagreements, but that accusation was and is unfair and wrong … and I apologize.

Mr Trabue is far more comfortable with Marxist Liberation theology than is healthy for anyone, err, than I. Particularly seeing as how I think, and I think I can support, the idea that Marxism is inextricably linked with genocide. But that is no reason to connect Mr Trabue to a line of thinking that link  Jesus teachings on charity to the poor, via Liberation theology to Marxism and thereby conclude that Mr Trabue thinks that Jesus commends class warfare. So, no I don’t believe that Mr Trabue thinks that the outworking of Jesus theology is Holodomor.

Mr Traube holds his beliefs out (see comment 10 in the above linked item) for us all to review so we might examine our differences. I’m going to list these items and remark on some of them in the hopes of exploring in a gracious way, our differences.

1. We are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus. Not by works.

Now a lot of theological fire is held in abeyance in this statement. Catholics affirm it, yet they continue by noting that faith without works is dead … so by logical inference works are required as well, but the works don’t save us, Christ does. Works are the evidence of our faith. Paul also notes works without faith avail us not in Romans.

2. We are not saved merely by believing in Jesus (”yeah, he was a good guy, son of God, that’s all cool”) – even the demons believe, we’re told – but by believing in Jesus and his teachings, the Way he told us to live. By embracing that as the Right and Good Way, by asking for forgiveness when we get it wrong and trusting in God to help us follow in those steps.

Sacramental efficacy? Baptism into life, “all who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ” is sung at times in Orthodox liturgy. Fasting, prayer, confession, repentance, charity, and the liturgy are the ways in which we follow that way. We don’t ask forgiveness “when we get it wrong” because we always get it wrong. We must pray continually, ask forgiveness continually, etc.

4. Because we’re flawed humans, we don’t always get it right. Sometimes we misunderstand the Bible. Sometimes, our reasoning is off. Thankfully, we are saved by God’s Grace.

What has been accepted by Ecumenical council and received by the Church catholic are how we judge the correctness of our interpretation. See also St. John Cassian on discernment transmitting the wisdom of the Desert.

5. The Bible has clear teachings – consistently throughout the whole of the Bible – about wealth and poverty. To ignore them is foolishness

I agree. I just think the teachings on our attitude toward God, our repentance are more important. That is the crux of our argument.

6. One of the consistent gists of biblical teachings on wealth and poverty is that God is especially concerned for the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized. God clearly loves us all, but consistently throughout the Bible, God says, “woe to those who’d mistreat the poor.” God never in all of the Bible says such about the rich, the powerful and the mainstream. There are lessons to be learned there.

“woe to those who’d mistreat the poor”? Where? Just curious. On the “never says that about the rich” I don’t know what is meant by that. St. John Chrysostom taught that the rich should help the poor as part of charity and the poor for their part in charity should pray for the rich. I think that is right.

7. The lesson, though, isn’t that God is a class warrior or a mere marxist – playing the rich against the poor. Again, God loves us all. Rich and poor. God wants what’s best for us all.

“God wants what’s best for us all.” Which is that we are holy, priestly, God-fearing people.

8. This world is a world of abundance and plenty, with plenty for all – providing that some don’t overconsume resources and especially that they don’t do so by “false scales,” “buying land upon land,” etc. i.e., providing that people don’t oppress others by systems or methods that are designed to take advantage of people to one’s own benefit.

?! See my prior post.

9. Both Marxism and capitalism are flawed human constructs – ways of dealing with matters of economy. Neither is perfect and, in fact, both have quite potentially large flaws. My personal inclination is towards a regulated capitalism. I think Marxism is difficult to pull off well on the large scale.

Marxism is evil incarnate. Slavoj Zizek writes that Lenin is to Marx and Marxism and Paul is to Christ and Christianity. You cannot have one without the other. Marxism implies genocide. Marxism was “pulled off” just fine by Mao and Lenin. The result speaks for itself.

10. Because I recognize the reality of the large number of verses dealing with wealth and poverty, because I point out that James said, “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?” or that Jesus said, “it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom,” doesn’t mean much beyond that I’m pointing them out and that I believe that what Jesus and James and the prophets and all the other writers of the Bible had to say is important.

I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing your comfort level with Marxism and your theological elevation of poverty/charity in the Gospel.

Dan Trabue has been burning the midnight oil, frequently commenting on a number of mine and Doug’s posts recently. In this, he recently denounces conservative ecological and stewardship. This is insulting and incorrect. I am as conservative as anyone. I also:

• Drive a Honda Insight getting 60-65 mpg city and 70-90 mpg highway depending on conditions.
• Our family car is a diesel VW Golf, which gets ~50 mpg.
• We use the air conditioner sparingly in summer, running an house fan nightly to cool the house and only turning on the air when the interior temperature exceeds about 85F. In winter, nighttimes the thermostat is between 55-58 (… and may be colder next winter as the kids are getting older and hardier) and 62 and 66 during daytime.
• We installed a tank-less water heater for additional conservation two years ago when we replaced our water heater.
• We compost all our waste vegetable matter and recycle.
• The house in which I dwell, is the “starter” home we initially purchased. It is 35 years old now, we will likely this summer invest in upgrading the insulation and installing and attic fan.
• We may also price geo-thermal cooling and heating.

And … to boot, I don’t buy one bit of the global warming snake oil Mr Gore and his minions are selling. But I find the contention that conservative=profligate consumer insulting and incorrect. Recall the recent comparisons of Mr Gore’s and our Presidents personal dwellings and their environmental impact. Also note, liberal Hollywood which is one of the hot beds of liberal activism and expression is also far more profligate in consumption than virtually anywhere else on the planet.

Liberals seize the high ground on conservation by talking the talk. But far too often, they don’t want to walk they but they do want, by dint of force and regulation, to get the other guy to do it for them.

• Cause of death in Western Europe.
• I didn’t know that. Mom. A Day. Three in a row.
• Hollywood time is not real.
• Clauswitz on hypothesis.
• If you need that … do you also need Lipitor?
• Rumbling in the ranks of the wicked.

• A day in the life, of being a dad.
• Art and beauty: Verse. ePsalm. Oil. Czech cinema. Pen and ink.
• Apparently we’ve been misinformed. Jihad is not always spiritual.
• Cuteness.
• The status of operation turtle rescue.
• Heh.

These links (with few more) are also found here at my (personal) blog: Pseudo-Polymath.

Frequent commenter in these here parts, Dan Trabue and others brought up the discussion of homosexuality and Scripture. It is said, where two or three or gathered there will be four or five opinions on theological matters and that seemed to be the case. As this conversation too often brings up lots of heat and little light, I’m going to put most of it below the fold. Read the rest of this entry

• Myths of divorce.
• The US Marines and the Afghan cash crop.
• Kids … and a legal drug. You know the real problem with kids is that they are so darn immature. 😀
• Mr King and a remark. A response.
• Sin and sight.
• A film to look out for.

Two posts. First, Richard Chappell notes:

Some people judge that homosexuality is immoral, because they find it intuitively repugnant. They must also be aware that a few short decades ago people thought that interracial sex was immoral, on the same basis. This suggests that such intuitions provide a very flimsy basis for discrimination. Indeed, I find it completely baffling that homophobic conservatives fail to realize that they are the modern day equivalent of yesterday’s racist conservatives. Why are they not humbled by history? What makes them think that their disgust-based moral intuitions are any more reliable than their grandparents’ were?

There are two aspects to this, one fairly trivial. Mr Chappell goes from “Some people judge … because” to “homophobic conservatives fail … equivalent of yesterdays racist conservatives”. The “some people” goes from an adjectival description that (rightly) describes a small minority, while on the other hand to my reading “homophobic conservatives” is less likely to read as an even smaller subset (those in the “some people” category of before who are also conservative) to a notion that of a notion tarring essentially all conservatives as homophobic.

In the comment trail, Brandon argues for repugnance as a basis for other issues such as incest, which Mr Chappell finds acceptable.  I offer two alternative tests:

 Consider abmnemnopaedophilia, that is hiring young children (from poor family backgrounds) so that one might apply a drug which prevents the creation of long-term memory and then “use them” for the purposes of sexual enjoyment. That is, paying a family to give up their child for a night’s “entertainment” (with material renumeration) along with the application of a drug which prevents the child from having any memory (the next day) of nights events. This, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, should have no issue. That is, no lasting or measurable harm is done, the paedophile gets his “reward”, and the family gets some much needed financial assistance. It would seem that the primary argument against is repugnance (or perhaps virtue ethics).

Consider also the following sort of slave trafficking. In this sort of traffic young orphan girls from third world cities, who have been captured by street elements and sold locally into brothels might then re-acquired into first world, say European or American brothels. In those brothels, these girls are still sexual chattel … but they get better clothes, better food, work more reasonable hours and have a substantially improved lifespan and as well, the third world nation gets an influx of captial. Again a utilitarian can offer no complaint.

I would argue that both of these situations are “intuitively repugnant.” As well, one might be able to hoist reasoned arguments why they are bad, however there also utilitarian reasons why they are “good.” However one might ask those who would support either of the two test cases, “Why are you not humbled by history?” Why do you think your utility-based moral intuitions are reliable? Perhaps instead of proving a reason to doubt “repugnance” might we find instead utility a flimsy basis for ethical decision-making.
Mr Schraub asks:

A new ad out tries to force McCain into that question pro-lifers never want to answer: if abortion should be a crime, how much time should women who have them serve?

[…]

I’ve yet to hear a coherent justification (at least, one that isn’t nakedly paternalistic — e.g., women are irrational creatures controlled by their emotions, so they can’t be punished) for why abortion can be outlawed (as murder), but the murderers should get off scot-free. I suppose if someone doesn’t think abortion is murder, but still can come up with a reason for it to barred, they could dodge out of this, but the few arguments I’ve heard on those lines are also pretty paternalistic (it’s a serious decision, and we can’t know if you’re taking it seriously enough unless you’re willing to prove it somehow to the state).

A counter question that “pro-abortion proponents” never want to answer (or offer coherent justification) for is why they are for regulation (are paternalistic?) on virtually every other phase of life/issue, e.g., gun ownership, seat belts, hay rides, retirement, school regulation, and so on …  but when it comes to killing the fetus brook no regulation or oversight at all. Paternalism per se is not a thing from which the left shirks … except in the case of abortion. The “pro-abortion” proponents also fail to offer “a coherent justification” for the notion that the pater, i.e., father, has any rights at all in this matter, which is unfortunate.
Now, the argument for regulation of abortion that I’ve made is not, I think, paternalistic (that is based on the idea that the state is wise but women are “irrational creatures”) but motivated instead by the idea that virtue is the path to happiness and that providing an environment in which virtue can flourish is one of the primary ends of the state. My argument was not singling out young women by any means, but was based on the notion that every serious ethical personal decision that affects society, i.e., marriage, divorce, abortion, and end-of-life issues might rightly be confronted by methods in the public square so that the society might be assured that the person(s) involved recognize that a serious ethical decision is being made. Men or women considering marriage often declaim they would climb any mountain or brave any raging torrent to be with their beloved. Aboriginal American cultures often had such barriers, fasting, vision-quest, or other feats to overcome which one might argue served this purpose. In modern Babylon, i.e., our culture, civil courts currently serve something of that purpose. Currently our courts have a limited set of tools, like prison, fines, and service. It seems likely if we considered the task of the courts to assign barriers to demonstrate one’s resolve, a larger set of tools might be assigned to their disposal, which could then be also used perhaps at a generically higher level, for those who don’t present their case in court.

That is basically a less mocking restatement of the “serious ethical decision” argument. It is one I’d argue for at a local level, so that if/when barriers would be set, they would be made at a micro-scale to be proportionate and be seen as reasonable to those setting them. However, in policy, it is one I don’t ascribe to on a national level. I’m currently of the opinion that these decision of abortion, euthenasia, divorce, marriage, and so on should all be made locally, at the village/precinct level.  At the local level, one response to deciding to forego the regulations put up in these matters is that, you must face the set consequences … or move (preferably prior to breaking the law and facing said consequences).

• Alevis … an Islamic sect I’ve never heard of featured.
• “Off with their heads”, said the Queen of Hearts … and in a different story, on the plight of the headless.
• I hope that’s art, because otherwise … it’s really stupid.
• Speaking of stupid.
• Two cultures, love and life vs death and utility.
• A Christian Jewish girl making waves … in Israel.

• Putin and Georgia.
• Friendship and the whole me Tarzan you Jane thing.
• Tongues of fire and … administration?
• A picture of a man striving not to believe Emmy Noether’s theorem.
• Monsters in our midst. (HT: Mere Comments)

• Witnesses, rape/incest, Islam and why.
• A list of 10 things to be happy about in the Church and its movement in the 20th and 21st century.
• Because “we like nihilists have gone astray” sounds really stupid (or free thinkers)
• A look at Cuba.
• Smile!

Dan Trabue, in a comment thread at Stones Cry Out on Black Liberation Theology and liberation theology in general, held that Jesus message (and more generally the main thrust of Scripture) was one of class warfare and providing assistance to the poor and oppressed. I disagreed. Mr Trabue asked for my interpretation on the verses of Luke noted above. I’ll quote the ESV as it’s popular with many bloggers (and online and easily accessible):

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land,and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.

I had previously noted that Matthew (and as it turns out Mark as well) both when noting “Jesus first preaching” or “Jesus begins to preach/teach” his call was for repentance, which I was arguing was at the heart of Biblical teaching not social issues. It is interesting as well, via Luke, to note the first teaching of the Apostles noted in Acts after Jesus leaves them, “Repent … ” is their theme as well. Mr Trabue keys on the quoted verses from Isaiah and notes connects this with the idea that Jesus mission. The key question then is who are the “poor”, the blind and the captives (oppressed). I think that neither Jesus nor his hearers took “the poor” not to mean the poor (blind and oppressed) dwelling among those in Israel, but instead the common notion was that all of Israel itself was poor, blind and oppressed. In noting that Jesus mission is one to help the literally poor and oppressed is to get his point exactly backwards.

The major themes of Old Testament are one of exile/slavery and redemption. Israel is enslaved in Egypt and is redeemed by Moses. Then, later, they are enslaved in Babylon. In the first century, they have returned … but are still enslaved (now by Rome, but that only replaced Greek/Alexandrian rule). All of Israel hopes for redemption and a release from bondage. They yearn for a second Moses, the Christ to return and redeem them materially and politically with fire and the sword (or other dramatic acts like the parting of the Red Sea) as God had done for them the first time. This is exactly the same sort of redemption that Mr Trabue hopes for the poor and takes as the message of the Gospels. This is exactly the notion which Jesus rejects however. Jesus countered the peoples expectations (of the liberation theologians) and the 1st century Hebrew people. Jesus didn’t give the expected response (John 18:36) “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'” Specifically, Jesus came and offered a healing of Adam’s fall, emptying the tombs, and healing creation. The “poor” are all of the Israel. The “blind” are those hoping for political redemption. The liberty that is promised is, in Dostoevsky’s/Zizioulas’ terms the “ontological freedom” made available to either the person willing to die (Dostoevsky) or Baptized into Eternal life (Al of Christianity via Zizioulas).

• Jesus mails it in.
• Ms Cyrus and the meatgrinder.
• An amazing lady.
• The Christian carnival comes to town. Weekly.
• Denial of reality, reaching for the (cheese) moon.

• A peer reviewed paper contra-global warming.
• Iron Man.
• Hmmm, are Roman Catholics the largest American protestant denomination?
• Welfare and despotism.
• I’d go for that, … if the socialists in America tied their socialism to completely unfettering the market, a compromise I’d make.

• Saving the Book that came from Hell (or a place very close to it).
• An evangelical and Mr Dawkins. In many ways … not what you’d expect.
• Considering a pacifist who planned murder.
• Feminism … and making sense.
• Feminism and evangelicals … “used to agree” on the fight against pornography … do they still? Related post here.
• Climate.
• Men in goofy rubber suits … returning?

• Homosexual practice and divorce compared. One problem, not confronted in that essay is that the contention “Divorce and remarriage has become generally acceptable even in socially conservative circles in western countries” is itself not by any means good or to be applauded but instead vehemently countered (if true).
• Praise of the former President Carter.
• Free-Tibet flags … made in China!?
• On the other hand, a contention that all global warming models share a feature in which the most marked warming is to be found in the equatorial troposphere … but it isn’t to be found there. A serious problem for the global warming devotee I’d think.
• Black liberation theology out of the closet.
• Beauty in song.