Ah, the language of
values. Not morals, not ethics, but values. But, let's be glad that
this person knows so much about what Jesus values, right?
“I do not share your
values, America:
Well, all right-y,
then. Let's give Weepy Jerry credit for coming on strong, bringing
the heat.
Now, first, let's note
a few things. First, tie this in with the title of this poem, The
Values of the Lamb, and note that this person puts these words in
quotes, and writes in the first person, I. In other words, Weepy
Jerry is claiming that Jesus is the one saying these words.
Wow, that's quite the
claim. Take a look at this passage. “Deuteronomy 18: 18– 20: 18
“I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you,
and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all
that I command him. 19 “It shall come about that whoever will not
listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will
require it of him. 20 “But the prophet who speaks a word
presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or
which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.””
So, claiming to be
speaking for God is not a trite thing. Saying “Thus sayeth the
Lord”, even if one doesn't use that phrase, was a matter of life or
death in the Old Testament. True, we may be glad that in this New
Covenant we wouldn't kill a false prophet, but we shouldn't pretend
that false prophecy is not a serious issue. And in claiming that the
words of this poem are the words of Jesus, Weepy Jerry is putting
him/her/themselves in the place of a prophet.
So, noting that, let's
go on.
than I value
independence
Well, that's
interesting. Are love and independence mutually exclusive? Are they
bitter enemies, such that we cannot have one if we have the other?
Personally, I don't see the conflict, and more than that, I think
there are many ways in which love and independence go hand in hand.
Even if we look at things on a national level, which country sounds
more loving—the independence people have in the US, or the
micro-control people suffer in North Korea? I think I'll take the
independence we have in the US, thanks.
So, when did charity
and profit become mutually exclusive? You know, you work day in and
day out, and when payday comes you get the wages you've worked for,
and what is wrong with that? How that is anti-charity? In fact, how
are any of us suppose to do much of anything charitable without
earning anything?
Is work wrong? Is it
wrong to want to earn the money you need to pay your bills, get
groceries, and maybe afford a few extras? I guess we can assume that
Weepy Jerry has at least one computer, or all the Weepy Jerries have
their own computers, so it seems like they have some means. How were
they able to afford to get computers? And wireless access? And a
home?
Charitable giving is
fine and dandy, if it is done wisely. I'm quite fine with charity,
but I don't see how charity is suppose to be opposed to making a
profit.
I value the native
people
you uprooted and
oppressed.
Ah, now it's cheap
guilt trip time. Yeah, America, you ain't been perfect.
True, God does love
native people, whatever that might mean, wherever that might be. He
also loves the people that replaced them, and the people who
replaced those people. After all, how many square inches of this
world can really be said to be in the ownership of whatever people
first claimed them?
I assume that at least
one of the Weepy Jerries is white, because this person obviously
relishes wallowing in his/her white guilt. As a white man myself,
I think I'll pass. I know very well that the US has a lot of really
ugly things in our past, something true of any nation, something true
even of those native people.
How do I know that?
Simple. Those native people were like us—fallen, sinful, corrupt,
and even their attempts at works of righteousness were no better than
filthy rags. They were just like me, because I was and am like that.
I am a sinner, I am still fallen, even as I am forgiven and made
clean in Christ. I think it is the Lutherans, and maybe the Reformed,
who have a saying that we Christians are simultaneously just and
sinner.
So, yes, God loves
native people, God loves those who took their place, God loves all
peoples. And He showed that love in this, that while we were sinners,
Christ died for us.
No problem there, but
what is this person really saying? I think this next verse may show
this person's hand.
Yep, typical leftie
cowardice and self-righteousness, right there on full display.
Notice the lack of a
contrast here—no “I value X over Y”, but “I value X and Y”.
As you might expect, I think this is a bit of an either-or, more so
than this person's other attempts at contrasts.
For example, why does
peacemaking equal nonviolence? I've had some exposure to leftie
rhetoric about these things, and, frankly, it's full of
contradictions.
Maybe one would think
about Jesus' words in what we call The Sermon on the Mount, where He
said, “Blessed are the peacemakers”. All well and good, but does
that mean pacifists? Does that mean nonviolence? I think that could
be debated. First, by much of the Old Testament, where God often
tells His people to go to war, and even seems to indicate that King
David got into moral trouble with Bathsheba because he was not at war
at a time when kings went to war. Warrior images are also often used
for God. And there is no contrast between God the Father and Jesus.
One isn't the thunder-god who just wants to do a lot of smiting while
the other is the meek and quiet one who's pulled off an Occupy Heaven
type of takeover. No, there is no conflict between the Father and the
Son. Jesus completely approved of everything in the Old Testament,
and the Father completely approved of everything Jesus said and did.
To put it another way,
the same God who told Yeshua to lead the people of Israel into a
conquest of The Promised Land is the same Yeshua who said that
peacemakers are blessed, and He will be the same Yeshua who will
return as a king and a conqueror, as Revelation tells us as do other
prophet passages.
Proverbs, an Old
Testament book, often speaks against violent people. Of course, these
violent people were not like King David, or Joshua, or Moses, or
Gideon, or any of David's mighty men. Rather, these violent men were
murderers, bandits, robbers, ambushers, people who shed the blood of
the innocent.
In a human sense, the
policeman who stops a murderer or a robber is a peacemaker, even if
he uses his weapon and even does so lethally. A soldier fight his
country's enemies is a peacemaker. Of course, there are
complications—it could be seriously questioned how much of a
peacemaker a soldier in Nazi Germany was, and an ISIS terrorist is
obviously not a peacemaker at all. Hamas terrorists lobbying
thousands of mortars and rockets into Israel are not peacemakers, no
matter how much they try to disguise themselves in false concern for
the Palestinian people. And there are corrupt police officers, sadly.
But by and large, police officers and soldiers do far more
peacemaking than leftist radical activists.
I value freedom from
sin more
than I value political freedom
Oh, my, how
hyper-spiritual. I guess that might work as a cover for leftist
attempts to curtail political freedom.
I value your salvation
more
than I value your
nation.
Ok, so, who is this
person now talking to? I thought this person was address the US as a
whole, but now it's changed somewhat.
And, again, it's
hyper-spiritual. It's a common ploy among those on the left, and
sadly even those on the right.
Do not confuse your
values with Mine!”
Oh, and now we have “Mine” capitalized,
another sign that Weepy Jerry is claiming that these words are form
Jesus. So, are we suppose to put this little poem into the Bible?
Maybe make it part of the Psalms, or at least a New Testament version
of the Psalms?
Sorry, I can't do
that.
One wonders if Weepy
Jerry is actually taking his or her or their own advise? After all,
they are claiming that their own values are the values of Jesus, but
are they not then confusing their values for His? I think this little
poem shows that they are, and pretty badly, too.