a bit of kibitzing

I haven't done anything like this for a while, and I'm actually anticipating it a little. So, onward and upward!

“Weeping Jeremiahs” is a blog that's been brought to my attention, for good or ill, mostly ill. I don't know anything about whomever write it, or even if “Jeremiahs” is telling us there's more than one person contributing bad poetry to the site. Anyway, this one example is certainly interesting.

The Values of the Lamb

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.””

First, HT to Michael Beasley and his book, The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism, an excellent resource for the biblical view of prophecy, such as the verses above, which were in his book.

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.

I value love more

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.

I value charity more

than I value profit.

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.

I value your enemies

as much as I value you

No problem there, but what is this person really saying? I think this next verse may show this person's hand.

I value peacemaking

and nonviolence

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.

what is Destiny Image doing, putting out this book?

A while ago, I did something crazy, and joined Destiny Image's book review club, or whatever it was at that time. Hey, if I'm going to read NAR junk and put reviews of it on Amazon, it may as well be for free. I've tried to be fair and my reviews, and some have even had a slight positive side to them, but overall...yeah, garbage.

Anyway, DI did change things recently, and now they simply offer e-books for free or on sale on Amazon, and send e-mail notices about them.

So, a few days ago, I got one of the e-mails. There was a bit of an ad for a book they will release soon. What got my attention about this ad was the quote from someone whom I guess had read the book, and liked it. Here's that quote and the person who is credited for it.

"This book may just save Christianity from us Christians"--Frank Schaeffer.

I don't do it much, for reasons of health, but I know that I have opined about Schaeffer a few times here. For example, Schaeffer is the one who gave us such gems as "...BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN". Please note, I did not add the all-caps, that was Schaeffer's doing. Or, these paragraphs...

The terror unleashed on Norway - and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist "economic" theories that want to destroy our ability to function -- is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.

Call this the ultimate "Tea Party" type "answer" to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.

Foreigners, visitors from another planet and Americans living in a bubble of reasonable or educated people might not know this but the reality is that the debt ceiling confrontation is by, for and the result of America's evangelical Christian control of the Republican Party.

 Please note, yes, I have linked to my own articles above. You can find links to the sources for those quotes on that page, but, frankly (pun intended), I have little desire to stomach any more of Frank Schaeffer's hate-filled nonsense then I must, and so will not link to his words any more than I must.

So, Destiny Image is proudly putting a blurb of this man's words in an ad for a giveaway for this book, Undiluted, by someone names Benjamin Corey. Take a good look at the book's cover, and you'll see that there are a few words in praise of the book at the bottom of the page, by one Brian McLaren. Yep, the same man who has pretty much denied every cardinal doctrine of Christianity.

Now, since the book's page has the author's website, I made a quick little visit, and was certainly not surprised by what I saw, given Schaeffer's and McLaren's words of praise. Basically, it's a blog in favor of progressive --ianity (that may be my new word for it, as there is basically no Christ in it at all).

So, in other words, Destiny Image is proudly promoting a book put out by someone on the far left. Yeah, let that sink in.

If you want to find basically any book on bad Charismatic theology, Destiny Image is your source. So, don't (repeat: DON'T) be surprised at Destiny Image and charismania going to the left. This isn't the first time I've seen this in charismatic writers, and why should it be a surprise? Consider that both charismatics and progressives put much more emphasis on hearing a supposed voice of God inside themselves, over what is actually taught in the Bible. Since both get their guidances from the same source, why should a meeting of their minds not happen?

i don't believe in revival

This post is similar to the one where I say that I don't believe in social justice, and in many ways, it's very similar, though in much the same way a photo negative is similar to the photograph.

In the religious section of the liberal and conservative divide, revival serves much the same function among conservatives as social justice does for liberals. It is the goad that makes people get out and do whatever the people in charge want them to do. It is the carrot that is hung before the crowds to make them respond.

Revival is a nebulous concept, and perhaps all the more useful because of it's lack of clarity. What is revival? Hard to say. A church, particular of an older mindset, might have a week of “revival meetings”, which might mean that the church has invited a guest speaker to preach every night that week. But that doesn't seem to be what some today mean by revival.

One might think that the seemingly endless stream of conferences, gatherings, and events that fill stadiums and large mega-churches might qualify as revival, or at least an indication of it. But while such things may be considered good things, they aren't themselves really revival.

Like social justice, revival isn't really something one arrives at so much as something one is constantly trying to arrive at. Just as things are never just enough in the social justice mindset, things are never revived enough in the revival mindset. If you surrendered yourself completely last month, well, that was last month, have you done it today? Are you at this moment completely surrendered now? If not, well, you'd best do it!

And like social justice, revival is tied in to the political and social ambitions of the leaders. In other words, revival is closely tied with Dominianism. Just as a liberal dominionists might dream about a society which embodies their notions of social justice, conservative dominianists dream of a society which embodies what they mean by revival.

Revival isn't just conversion. It's always something more. One must always do more, surrender more, give more, pray more, pray longer, pray more extremely, take a bigger risk, live larger, want more, have bigger experiences, want more and more to change the world, and so on.

I do not believe in revival, just as I do not believe in social justice. I do not believe that revival is the answer, I do not think that if the church prays enough, surrenders enough, gives enough, whatevers enough, then all of a sudden the world will start to like us more, and will finally do what the church wants it to do. I do not believe that if somehow the people in charge of the various aspects of society were to become Christians (in it's loosest definition), then suddenly the country will become a much better place, and might even be well on its way to becoming christianized.

I do not pursue revival. I do not attend all-night meetings where people over and over and over ask God to send revival. I do not go to various places where people say “the Spirit is moving there!”. I sure don't go to church to fall down, bark like a dog, act like a drunk, or any of the inane and bothersome signs of what people have called revival in the all-too-recent past.

I believe in conversion. I believe in the Gospel of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. I believe that Christians have good works God has given them to do, and that a lot of those works are very mundane things—doing honest work well, looking after your families, loving and serving the people around you.

I also believe that the world hates God, and thus will hate those who are God's. I believe what Jesus said about the same world that hated Him will also hate those who follow Him. I believe what Jesus said about how in this world we will have trouble, but we should be of good cheer because He has overcome the world. I believe that we are more than conquerors while in the midst of lots of terrible stuff like tribulations, persecution, trials, and all kinds of bad situations.

The emotional appeals of revival have grown stale to me. The constant stress on wanting God more does not do much for someone who knows that God is with him. The straining to hear some kind of hard-to-hear voice that may or may not be God has become very suspect, since seeing that such a thing is not taught in the Bible.

If our hope is in revival, our hope is in the wrong place.

i don't believe in social justice

This is a re-post, with a few corrections.

Why aren't more Christians involved in social justice? Are we callous and uncaring? We don't think so. We can both learn and do

Ken and Deborah Loyd, in the book An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 272

First, there is the question "What is social justice?" That's probably one of the concepts emergents and others who use it aren't likely to define very well. If you look back a few months, you'll see where in Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", he relates how in one emergent church a woman was wearing a t-shirt saying she was a straight woman for gay rights because her Bible teaches social justice.

Journey doesn't have an "official statement" about homosexuality, but there's obviously enough freedom in the community for Courtney to wear her beliefs on her shirt.

Courtney's shirt.
Straight Chrisitians for Gay Rights
(My Bible Teaches Social Justice)

Tony Jones, The New Christians, pp. 198, 197

Perhaps we aren't involved in social justice, because we can see through the rhetoric of social justice, and know what it is--a thin veil behind which leftist policies and politics are pushed.

Social justice seems to be about the legalizing of sexual immorality. It's also seems to be about the enforced silence of those who teach the Bible's stand on such immorality.

Social justice seems to be about punishing some crimes more than others because of perceived "hate" involved, even when unproven (one may almost say 'especially when unproven').

Social justice seems to be about the redistribution of wealth through socialistic economical policies.

Social justice seems to be about scaring people into being "green", despite the evidence against any such thing as global warming.

Social justice seems to be about going into histrionics over deaths in war, while either downplaying over even supporting the many more who die in abortion.

I do not believe in social justice. I do, however, believe in justice. And I believe in compassion.

I do not believe that practicing theft through socialism will solve the plight of the poor. To borrow a quote I read in a comic book, "Communism is the equal distribution of poverty". To try to equalize the field (except for a handful of elites at the top who will find reasons to give themselves special privileges, which is one thing that happened in Soviet Russia), will only result in all being poor, and none being really helped. And there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred.

I do not believe that justice demands that we recognize and legitimize sexual immorality. If anything, justice and compassion demands that we call these things the sins they are.

I do not believe that justice demands that we cave in to environmental fearmongers, especially when truth of their claims is being questioned, and when there is such an obvious political agenda behind it.

In regards to how we are to care for the poor, there are things taught in the Bible that should be of help in how to properly do so.

It may be strange that Paul tells the Thessalonians to NOT help some among them who had stopped working and were only idling their time waiting for Jesus to return. He says they should get back to their work.

It may seem strange that Paul tells another church to be wary of what widows they should help and support.

It may seem strange that one can see things in Proverbs that don't seem very kind about some kinds of poor people.

It may seem strange that it's in the Bible that we find the phrase "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat".

It may seem strange that we aren't told that the Samaritan who found the guy left for dead didn't return home, find a few likeminded people, and start wandering the highways and byways looking for people left along the road, robbed or otherwise in ill fortune. He helped one man who was on his way, as he was about his own business.

I know that there are things said about helping the needy, I'm saying the issue is more complex than many emergents seem to want to accept.

They also seem to think that because Christians don't do things their way, then they aren't doing them. They likely don't recognize that there are Christians who give when they have the opportunities, whose generosity takes many forms, who do things quietly and with their eyes open

he may as well admit that he denies it

Do I Deny the Resurrection?

There is a certain aspect of postmodernism that is especially annoying; namely, their lack of ability to actually give answer a question. Instead, what we get is a lot of words that basically don't answer the question at all.

For example, this guy claims that people sometimes ask him this kind of question. One would think that it would be a simple enough question to answer. But, oh, no, not for a super-clever postmodern like him, no indeed-y.

Instead, he quotes something from Peter Rollins. That's never a good sign, unless you're doing it to show how ridiculous Rollins is. For some reason, this guy thinks Rollins isn't ridiculous. The PR quote basically doesn't answer the question. But if you point that out, well, here's this article writer's reply...

As you might expect, this does not calm the questioners down. They accuse me of not understanding the question. I understand the question perfectly well. I think they are the ones who do not know what they are asking.

Translation: "Ah, yes, you silly idiotic people, how dare you expect me to actually answer your question!"

He goes on to try to make his position even more clear, and it basically comes down to this...politics. Apparently, Jesus' death was less about Him dying for our sins, but rather about Him spitting in the eyes of those in power in Rome, even though Jesus lived and was crucified several hundreds of miles away from the city of Rome, never visited Rome, and never tried to cause a rebellion against Rome.

If I act hateful, or in fact, less than loving to my neighbor, I have denied the resurrection just as surely as my selling state secrets to China denies my allegiance to the USA...And I can believe whatever you want about what happened that Sunday morning, but if I am not using what power I have to help God bring the Kingdom into fruition, to help make it on Earth as it is in Heaven, I don’t expect you to call me a Christian.

So, that's his position...it doesn't matter. Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead, or not? It's not important, just do whatever this guy things you should do to "...help God bring the Kingdom into fruition...".

In other words, salvation by works. Grace alone, faith only, through Christ alone? Hogwash!! No, you've got to work for it!

See, his wishy-washiness isn't grace, it's law. It puts you back under the burden of keeping the law, or at least his version of it. Fight the powers, be a good little socialistic activist, try to bring God's kingdom to earth. It doesn't matter what you belief, but it sure matters what you do.

And so he denies the resurrection, and so he is not a Christian.

does "lack of credibility" mean nothing?

So, there's this organization out there called Love146. Their main concern is child sex trafficing, trying to stop it and help the victims. Since that is an issue that needs dealt with, all well and good.

Now, apparently, this organization has recent had it's 10th anniversary, and celebrated it with an event of some kind. At this event, they had a guest speaker.

That guest speaker was former US president Bill Clinton.

Yes, the same Bill Clinton whose presidency was marred by his sexual shenanigans with a White House intern, and whose lies about that resulted in his impeachment. The same Bill Clinton whose political career was marked by accusations of sexual misconduct.

http://youtu.be/F9iy7rhRIRQ

Maybe this organization, Love146, is doing lots of good work. But if they are so all-fired-up about sexual exploitation, why did they have a known sexual exploiter speak at their event? Did they try to get one of the women whom this former president exploited? Would't that have been much more in keeping with their goals and aims?

Does Clintons lack of credibility on this issue mean nothing?

I would like to think that this organization is a good one, well worth supporting, that maybe this was simply a slip in judgment. But it still leaves me wondering.

sojo's double standard

Jon Stewart on Limbaugh: 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Gross'

For one thing, isn't Stewart castigating someone else a bit like a drunk getting on someone else's case for looking at a beer can? Or, as the commenter (so far) quite succintly put it.

pot...kettle...

But my concern is mainly Sojo, and their double standard. Remember this?

Jesus Gets the Last Word on Rick Perry's Ad

Yep, this is Sojo gleefully posting a video where a man depicts Jesus, and this jesus calls someone an a--hole.

So, Sojo finds insults to those they disagree with hilarious (and to not apologize for posting them), while continuing the usual liberal schtick when a conservative messes up, even after the conservative apologizes.

Yep, Sojo--elevating the conversation by plunging it even deeper into the mud. Is this what is meant by "falling upwards"?

good for thee, but not for sojo

The Santorum Question: Should Theology Affect the Way We Vote?

In order to understand the hypocracy behind this, image a headline like this "The Obama Question: Should Theology Affect the Way We Vote?", where conservatives look at the things said by Obama's pastor (which Obama himself claims to have not heard).

Sojrones would be falling all over themselves to cover for him.

And, of course, Sojo is constantly pressing for their views, based on their own biblical interpretation or lack thereof, to be used in the way voters or politicians vote on things. They support their views on illegal immigration by pointing to real or supposed biblical injunctions about "welcoming strangers" (apparently, that means strangers don't have to abide by a nation's rules). They go all into hissy fits when the notion of fiscal responsibility concerning the so-called "safety net" is concerning, claiming it's somehow being hard on the poor and oppressed.

And don't get started on war and the military.

So, I find it ironic indeed that people so committing to having their own religious veiws affect (or is that effect?) how people vote, are wanting to raise it as suspicious with regards to Santorum.

But liberal catholic politicians like the Kennedys and Pelosi? Eh, not so much. And Obama's socialistic black liberation theology church? Bring that up, and you're a racist.

The double standard is glaringly obvious. But if you want real amusement, read the comments to that sojo piece. One person tries to raise the issue of the double standard, and committed sojrone commentors say he's being unfair.

sojo promotes immorality

U.K. Innkeepers Fined for Turning Away Gay Couple

On the surface, this seems almost like a regular news story. I think, though, that Sojo lets their biases out in the caption with the photo.

No Room at the Inn. Image via Wylio, http://bit.ly/ADRtVi.

If your familiar with the account of Christ's birth, you know what "no romm at the inn" means--it refers to Mary having to give birth in a stable because the inn was filled.

So, in putting "No Room at the Inn" to this caption, Sojo is linking the birth of Christ, and there being no room at the inn where Joseph and Mary were at, to the fact that the Christian owners of this guesthouse did not permit a homosexual couple to stay in their rooms and so practice their immorality.

England is making the guesthouse owners pay a fine, which is rather bad in itself, but the topic is Sojo.

Look at what they are doing--taking the birth of the sinless Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world, and using it to promote sinful and immoral sexual behavior.

If that isn't blasphemy, I'm not sure what is.

poor pitiful him

Sale Cereal

Much of this post an account, autobiographical I suppose though fiction isn't completely ruled out, of his attempt to get coffee from a Starbucks when his bank account was too low. Yeah, major bummer, he's just so oppressed.

For my middle-class friends — the ones who have snuggled into comfortably paying, socially respected careers—the post-grad years of scraping by, of wrangling coins for groceries and beer — become cutely nostalgic. “Remember when we’d eat Ramen all the time, and could only go out during happy hour, and got clothes at Target?” Now sipping $60 bottles of wine and donning designer jeans, these years become testament to their ability to do it—the whole poverty thing—as if it’s some sort of game, some trial-by-fire, a stepping stone to real, adult life.

Oh, of course, those sell-outs. How dare they "snuggle into comfortably paying, socially respected careers". How dare they do without for a time so they could get educated and trained, so that they could find work that really paid well (thus earning the money that people like this Sojrone want to tax so very badly), so they could afford $60 bottles of win and designer jeans, if that's what they wish to purchase and can afford.

For what it's worth, I doubt they were going around saying things as a testament to their ability to do poverty, but rather to the effect that they rose above it. And maybe some sympathy to the bud who whines about not being able to get coffee-house coffee.

My problem is that, for many, it’s not seasonal: the lights go off every month for years, the cards are always declined, pulling on those mythical bootstraps isn’t really an option. Aside from the whole I-want-to-get-married-someday thing, this is probably why I’m a democrat, because I work in the communities that are supposed to benefit from trickle-down economics. Here’s a little secret, though: they don’t. They’re stuck, and not because they lack motivation, but because they haven’t been afforded the same opportunities for success. Poverty preys on their prayers.

So, those communities have benefit from social welfare? Really?

Here's a little secret. They haven't. They're stuck.

Which is why I'm a Republican, because I don't want to get caught in the food-stamp dependency trap.

And because I find it distasteful that whiners like this get so upset because they can't afford Starbucks. Since he works for Americorps, it's my tax money that's paying his salary, and frankly if he can't afford Starbucks, he can go down to the store and buy instant. Maybe doing without Starbucks will allow him to pay his electric bill on time.

I like how one commentor to the post put it. Since Sojo comments now have like and dislike buttons, they comment predictable has been severely disliked by the denizens. All the more reason for me to like it.

If you don't even have $1.85 for a cup of coffee, perhaps you don't need to be in Starbucks. And that $4.59 you had leftover after the transfer will no doubt go towards an overdraft fee. But of course, it's not your fault for not knowing your available balance. You're just way too busy to be concerned about how your failure to manage your own life has negative consequences. It's sad how a lack of personal responsibility in your life has made you unmarketable, but it's nobody's fault but your own. The world doesn't owe you a living, so please do something about it instead of just complaining.

That comment is at -8 right now, and I've no doubt will go down further. This is, after all, Sojo, where all hints of personal responsibility are to be condemned.

pots and kettles

Christianity, conceived of as a system, begins with a religious or political mode of thinking and then seeks to impose it upon the world. Here a strong Platonic influence is at work whereby we mold the particular (the individual) into the Universal (the idea), and if the individual can’t—or won’t—be molded, then he or she is rejected. For instance, if a certain lifestyle is perceived to be wrong within the system’s framework, the individual in question will be asked to change or leave. The disavowed obverse of “all humans are part of my family” is then, “if you will not be part of my family you are not human.”

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.

What we see being worked out within Christianity can thus be said to be a prejudice toward those who are excluded and marginalized, those who are oppressed by our religious and political systems. This means that every time a “Christian” system is created, the Christian is the one who seeks out those who are excluded from it. Christianity, as a religion without religion, affirms a system that undermines every system of power by seeking those who are oppressed. The Christian critique is not then directed at the people in power so much as at the place of power itself. When a system of thought, however great, is given authority over all, it becomes oppressive and undermines its own liberative elements. The point then is not to find the “right” way of thinking and then give it a place of power and influence, but rather to question the place of power and influence itself. Is this not what we learn from the following biblical insight?

Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1929-1948). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

First, a bit of a personal gripe. Rollins here goes on about "those who are excluded". Very well, but then, the past few times I've tried to leave comments at his little blog, they have not been posted. The comments of some other people have been, usually comments containing sycophantic praise. Now, my proposed comments have not contained praise, sycophantic or otherwise. Is that why Rollins or whomever the gatekeepers at his blog are do not allow such questioning and critical comments be allowed to stand?

But perhaps that exposes what he means above in a nutshell--the "excluded" whom his version of Christianity is suppose to seek out are only those "excluded" ones who do not voice much disagreement with him and those like him. To give an extreme example, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't bother him much the neo-Nazis are excluded from power and don't have that much of a voice, and in fact I would bet that if such people were to be put in power it would likely disturb him very much. In that, I hope he and I may find a rare bit of something to agree upon.

But given this extreme example, what about other, less extreme examples? That is one of the things that is most disturbing about the Left when they talk or write like this--they mean it only for themselves and those they agree with, but woe betide those who oppose them. One can see it, for example, in the lying accusation hurled at the conservative Tea Party that it is racist, violent, hateful, and should not be listened to or taken seriously. There is rather scant proof of any of that, if any proof at all, but it has become an established meme that is believed without question by those who oppose it.

As well, we should ask what is meant by these excluded whom the church should seek out. What about, for example, murderers in prisons? Again, an extreme example, but come along anyway. Certainly they are among the voiceless and powerless in regards to politics and religion. What does it mean that the church should seek them out? Should the Christian critique be directed at those who think that murderers should be put in prison, away from society, so that they should not be able to practice murder any more? Should the Christian system stand against those who have put the murderers into these prisons, such as the detectives and policemen who have arrested them, the lawyers who in trial put forth the evidence for their crimes, and the judge who sentenced them to prison?

Now, the idea that murder is a crime is a religious idea--"Thou shalt not murder". Should the church stand against this teaching that you should not murder, because it is the idea that is in power?

As I said, this is an extreme example, but I think it is one that's pointed. I doubt that Rollins would want murderers to be set free from prison. But this shows just how shallow what Rollins is saying really is, because the church's job is not to validate something simply because it's not in political or religious power. It's not the church's job to validate people like neo-Nazis and murderers, no matter how isolated they are, no matter much people don't pay attention to them, no matter how much they may feel oppressed because no one takes their looney beliefs seriously or because they are put into small concrete cells and kept away from innocent people so they can't murder any more of them.

But let us give Rollins a partial point, a good bit less than half a point, maybe about a quarter if we are to be generous. There are people on the outside, and the church does have a commission from Christ to take the Gospel to the world, that Christ came to seek and save the lost. Those lost may not be in power, but then maybe they are. Both the king and the peasant are equal in one thing, in being sinners whose every attempt at a good work is like the vilest of rags to God.

Rollins wants to make this about politics, which is blasphemy. It's about much more than that. It's about the condition we all find ourselves in, that we are separated from God, that we are enemies of God, that we are under God's wrath and rightfully so, that all we deserve is physical and spiritual death. It is about Christ being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, doing the thing recorded of Him in the Gospels, being crucified as a sacrifice for out sins, and rising from the dead.

The church doesn't go to the lost to proclaim what we can do for anyone. We proclaim what God has done for us. It isn't about being against power and authority, for then we would be going against God, but rather that we point to the one who has ultimate power, to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Don't doubt that Rollins' rhetoric is simply a cheat, a bait and switch. His main concern, and those like him on the Left, is simply that they should be the only voices, the only 'advocates' for whatever they espouse. Why else would they try to silence dissenters and opposing information? There're reasons why his book is called "The Fidelity of Betrayal", why he tries to make the traitor Judas into a hero.

wallis attacks fox with bad theology

Continuing the tirades against Rick Perry's statements about the War of Christmas, head Sojrone himself Jim Wallis weighs in with a hit piece.

The Real War on Christmas ... by Fox News

Fox News’ “war” is designed to criticize the “secularization” of our culture wrought by atheists, agnostics, liberals, leftists, progressives, and separation of church and state zealots— i.e. Democrats. This irreligious coalition force is allegedly waging a strategic offensive on Christmas, trying to banish the sacred symbols of the season, denying our religious heritage, and even undermining the spiritual rubrics upon which our great nation is built.

Well, at least Wallis has the list of usual suspects correct. But, in typical liberal fashion, it's the perpetrators who are the actualy victims, while the people crying foul about it are the ungodly oppressors.

But, on to the bad theology.

What is Christmas? It is the celebration of the Incarnation, God’s becoming flesh — human — and entering into history in the form of a vulnerable baby born to a poor, teenage mother in a dirty animal stall. Simply amazing. That Mary was homeless at the time,a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country whose local political leader, Herod, was so threatened by the baby’s birth that he killed countless children in a vain attempt to destroy the Christ child, all adds compelling historical and political context to the Advent season.

Now, as you man know, the most convincing lies contain a bit of truth in them. Some parts of the first part of that paragraph are fine, as far as they go. Christmas is the celebration of God becoming flesh, of the birth of Christ. After that, well...

I'm trying to remember where in the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ it is said the Mary was a teenage girl. I know the popular depictions--young, pretty, and all that. And maybe they're right. But I can't remember it being said, that way or this. At the risk of sounding like McLaren, what if Mary was actually in her twenties or thirties, and rather on the homely side? Would that add or take away anything from the account?

Now, concerning the economic status of Joseph and Mary. From the account Matthew 1, where we are told that after the dream Joseph took Mary as his wife, are to we assume that they were a homeless couple? It seems to hint rather that he had a place for his wife and family. They may not have been very wealthy, as some have hinted at concerning the sacrifice in Luke 2, but they were not homeless, as Wallis wants us to think.

When Wallis starts going about Jesus being "...a member of a people oppressed by the imperial power of an occupied country...", we can see his own politics coming in. It's a true enough statement, Israel was under Roman rule and occupation, and that seems to be almost a non-issue in much of what Jesus said and did in the Gospels. It does seem that the people were expecting the Messiah to come and liberate them from people like the Romans, but Jesus had a much more serious thing to liberate them from--their sins.

This is important. Jesus was not leading some kind of Occupy Jerusalem nonsense. He was not interested in trying to throw down Herod. When asked about paying taxes, He said that they should pay to Casear was is due to him. Some at Sojo try to read a dismissive or sarcastic tone into Jesus' statement here, but that is not hinted at in the text.

And, finally, Herod did indeed kill many children in trying to kill Jesus. Later, the Israelites were the ones wanting to kill the adult Christ. Roman and Jerusalem, Jews and Gentiles, all stand condemned for the unspeakable crime of rejecting the Messiah.

It is theologically and spiritually significant that the Incarnation came to our poorest streets. That Jesus was born poor, later announces his mission at Nazareth as “bringing good news to the poor,” and finally tells us that how we treat “the least of these” is his measure of how we treat him and how he will judge us as the Son of God, radically defines the social context and meaning of the Incarnation of God in Christ. And it clearly reveals the real meaning of Christmas.

Wallis is not the first person I've heard make a big thing about Jesus not being born in a palace, or being born in a rural area, or whatever. I remember a few years ago watching a church's Christmas play, where a character depicting the innkeeper mad a speech about the gift he was giving the Christ child was indifference. I don't know it that innkeeper was indifferent, busy, or what have you what not. Angels appeared to the shepherds, though I would guess none came to the innkeeper to tell him who was to be born that night near to him.

Later in life, Jesus did claim the prophecy in Isaiah to Himself, saying it was fulfille that day in their midst. The sick were to be healed, and the poor were to have the Gospel preached to them. We would be wrong, though, to say that this was some statement of class warfare on His part. Many people of means and power, like Nicodemus and Zacchaeus and Lazarus and the rich young ruler and the Roman centurion, seem to have heard His message and found it at least interesting, even if at least one went away saddened by His demands for him. It seemed the materially well-off had the Gospel preached to them, too, along with the poor. Because, ultimately, all of us are paupers in spirit, dead in sins, helpless to help ourselves, and in need of forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice.

And, finally, Wallis tries to throw in the social gospel--that "the least of these" are somehow all the poor or prisoners or whomever is suppose to be, in the eyes of ones like Wallis, that least. It's always funny how context is never brought in here, for example that Jesus' statement was "the least of these my brothers". If any are brothers of Christ, it is those who believe in Him. Many Christians are in hard situations, persecuted for their faith in Christ while living in cultures that are actively against those beliefs, in prisons, denied jobs and forced into poverty, sick for various reasons. In one of the epistles, we are told to do good to everyone, but especially to those of the household of faith. The Church is to look after it's own first, while not neglecting the needs of those outside.

The theological claim that sets Christianity apart from any other faith tradition is the Incarnation. God has come into the world to save us. God became like us to bring us back to God and show us what it means to be truly human.

There may be a good bit of truth in Wallis first couple of sentences there, except that I wonder about what he means by some of the words he's using. But Christ came to "show us what it means to be truly human"? What does that mean? Rather, as Paul said, "Christ Jesus came to save sinners".

Last year, Americans spent $450 billion on Christmas. Clean water for the whole world, including every poor person on the planet, would cost about $20 billion. Let’s just call that what it is: A material blasphemy of the Christmas season.

Well, let's go here, shall we? What, for example, is Sojourners' budget? How much do they spend on, for example, their magazine? How much during the year do people donate to them? How much to they pay their staff? How about the head Sojrone himself? He doesn't look like he's struggling, and he's had a few books that have sold big. How much have people like Soros donated to Sojo? Maybe Sojo can release their books, and Wallis his own, so that we can stand and be amazed by their amazing generosity as they condemn Americans of spending to give gifts during Christmas?

Whether Americans, or anyone else for the matter, are as generous as they could or should be, is an interest question, and perhaps one impossible to answer. But it does seem that, whenever a disaster happens in the world, Americans by and large are generous in trying to help--donating to send aid to those places, sending the aid themselves, even going their themselves to work. No doubt people from other nations do the same things, I've no wish to hint otherwise, but Wallis' claim that Americans are somehow unspeakably greedy among all the peoples of the world seems to fall flat.

I am not judged by Wallis' standards and shoddy interpretations. Before God, I am condemned as a sinner, but in Christ I have forgiveness of sins.

because it means you're too independent?

Sojo seems to have it in for Black Friday this year.

Politics BlogBlack Friday: The Anti-Thanksgiving

Yet, even if Black Friday were not so terrible for working families, and even if it did not threaten to steamroll Thanksgiving under the weight of Christmas-season merchandising, I would still be opposed to it. Black Friday is the Anti-Thanksgiving. The Thanksgiving holiday is traditionally a time to gather with family and friends and practice gratitude for our blessings. It is a time to cultivate awareness of all the ways in which God provides for us, and to pay special attention to providing hospitality to others who are hurting. Black Friday, on the other hand, is a celebration of greed, unbridled consumerism and disregard for others.

Now, I have to admit, I haven't been one of those who gets up early in the morning the day after Thanksgiving to be among the first in any store's doors. Just not a great interest of mine. On the other hand, I have done some similar types of things, like stay in line all day to get into the first practice for the nearby college basketball team.

So, I'm don't have anything against people who do the early-morning Black Friday thing. I think of it as being kind of like those who, for example, insist on camping out in order to get in early when the Star Wars movies were released--it's rather silly, it's not necessary, but, hey, there is a certain amount of camaraderie and fun to it, and so long as they behave themselves, then no big deal.

Thanksgiving is, at its best, a fleeting incarnation of the peaceable kingdom, where we can all come together in peace and mutual respect. Black Friday, on the other hand, is an intensification of the hyper-capitalist, corporate order that already dominates most of our lives. Rather than gratitude, it promotes greed; instead of cooperation, competition. While Thanksgiving fosters brotherhood and peace, Black Friday is a celebration of self-centeredness and bickering.

Wow, one would think that the people at Black Friday were as bad as those of Generation Brats who make up OWS.

If you need evidence of this, examine the fruits of the Black Friday rush for the latest consumer items. There was gunfire in a shopping mall. And at a Los Angeles Wal-Mart, the "competitive shopping strategy" of one woman involved the pepper-spraying fellow customers. Amazingly - though perhaps not surprising - the Wal-Mart remained open through the entire incident, and the woman was allowed to buy her merchandise and leave the store. Nothing, not even outright violence, was allowed to stop the flow of consumption.

Considering how many millions of people were out and about that time all over the country, I have to admit if there were only these few incidents, people were rather well-behaved. At the least, compared to those of Occupy Wherever, they were rather civilized.

To begin with - and, I confess, it is a modest beginning - I commit myself to resisting Black Friday. I will not participate in this anti-holiday.

And when the businesses you don't support go out of business, they should send you a thank-you card. But...wait on it...

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Yes, that's right, Sojo has a donate button. So, while you're evil for shopping on Black Friday, just make sure you give (that's right, give) money to Sojo, so they can continue to cause your businesses to fail.

don't let inconsistency stop a bad argument

Remember a few days ago when I linked to an article at Sojo about how evil Thanksgiving is, and how we shouldn't celebrate it?

But, apparently, that doesn't mean people Thanksgiving can't be used to stop people from doing productive things, like, you know, working.

In Solidarity with Target Workers on Thanksgiving

Some people who work for Target, a major national retailer that plans to open its doors for Black Friday starting at midnight following Thanksgiving, have circulated a petition in protest. They are right to say enough. I stand in solidarity with them.

However, the idea that this society is willing to allow our materialism to go unchecked to the point that we want to force people to lose a significant portion of a day dedicated to giving thanks because some business does not want to lose a “competitive edge,” is shameful. It is a sad commentary on our values. People have been trampled to death in a rush to get into this or that store for the sake of the bargains. This is tragic. It is time to say enough. Let Thanksgiving Day remain sacred, set apart. We can stop the madness if we do not shop before sunrise on Friday morning. Stand in solidarity with the Target workers.

I remember a time I had to be at work at 12:00 AM the day after Thanksgiving. Of course, I had to be there a bit before midnight, in order to actually start on time. How evil of the I worked for. In fact, this year, I was actually at work for a few minutes Thanksgiving morning. What wickedness on the part of the people who pay me to work for them!!! I should return the money I earned from them!!

Well...no, I won't. Because as bothersome as it was, there is nothing morally wrong with it.

I'm not the biggest fan of Target, but if the people who are so honked off about this don't want to start work at midnight, well, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would be quite happy to take their places.

misadventure in badly missing the point

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.
Rollins, Peter, Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1934-1941)

If one were to actually read the Gospels, how would one find any of that?

It could be pointed out that those who would likely have been considered on the outside, sick people and lepers and blind and Romans and Gentiles, did find Jesus usually welcoming. But then, it wasn't an exclusive thing. Jesus was welcoming to an 'insider' in the person of the Pharisee Nicodemus. He cared deeply for the young man who was rich and a ruler. He was very complimentary of the faith of the Roman centurion who wanted Him to heal his servant. Some of his closest friends seem to have been Lazarus and his sisters, people who had their own home and likely had some means and influence.

As well, we do not find any hint that Jesus was some kind of rebel. Jesus did not try to overthrow the Pharisees or other religious leaders, He did not try to overthrow the Romans. In fact, He tells the people to respect those in the seat of Moses, to do what they said, but to not live as they lived, for they were hypocrites. Jesus' problem, we can see, is not with religious authorities, but rather with those who have such authority and do not use it wisely and justly.

In the epistles, this respect for human authority continues. Peter tells us to obey the rulers. Another epistle explains that the rulers are ministers of God. The only time that the Apostles stood against the rulers was when they were told to not preach and teach in the name of Jesus, that in such a case they had the explicit command to Christ to take the Gospel to everyone, so they obeyed God rather than men.

Does Christianity stand against power? Where is that in the Bible?

Behind the convoluted nature of Rollins' words, his thinking is far too simplistic. Christianity is not an eternal game of being against whomever is in power, like some kind of perpetural counter-culture no matter what the culture is; rather, it's about right and wrong, righteousness and sin.

Rollins points to certain parables of Jesus', ones that are about someone seeking something of value. He wants to make this about outsiders, as if it's only about being counter-cultural or whatever. But what did Jesus Himself say? "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save those that are lost".

Because here is the truth--when it comes to God, we are all outsiders, we are all poor and miserable, we are all sinners. We can preach the Gospel in the poorest ghetto and the richest mansion, because the most abject addict and most successful billionaire are alike in their poverty before God. Peter can heal a lame beggar at the Temple one day, then later preach in the house of a Roman Centurion, because the Gospel he preached both times was applicable to the people present on both occasions.

Rollins wants to make this about human politics, which is asinine. It's not about such shallow and worldly things, but rather about Christ having been born of the virgin Mary, living a sinless perfect life, laying down His own life as a sacrifice for our sins and to appease the wrath of the Father, rising from the dead and ascending to Glory. It's about us through repentence of our sins and belief in Christ being made right with God.

It's not about works at all. We can do no work that will make we who are sinners in any way right with God; rather, God says that all of our works of righteousness are as putrid rags. He is not impressed with our works at all.

generation brats gets special treatment

Occupier Outrages Omitted

MRC analysts reviewed the Big Three network evening (ABC’s World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning shows (Good Morning America, The Early Show, Today) for the month of October and found accounts of anti-Semitism and sexual assault arrests have been completely omitted from the Big Three broadcasts. And when confrontations erupted between the police and the protestors, the networks were much more likely to pin the blame on police for instigating the violence.

In fact, in the few stories of violence at the protests, like the one in Oakland, the Big Three networks took the side of the protestors against the police more often than not with 15 stories (54%) putting more blame on law enforcement officers. Only seven stories (25%) mostly faulted the protestors for acts of aggression. Six stories (6%) didn’t blame any particular side for the violence. Viewers of these stories were also far more likely to hear statements made by reporters or talking heads blaming law enforcement officials for the violence with 36 (71%) blaming officers to just 15 (29%) blaming the protestors.

Despite several charges of sexual assault and rape and instances of anti-Semitism the Big Three reporters have completely ignored these incidents. Not only did NBC’s Today show omit the ugly instances, but on their October 21 show, they actually preached that parents should use the OWS protest as a teachable moment for kids.

Not a single anchor or reporter brought up the anti-Semitic rants found at some of the rallies, like this one caught by MRC-TV cameras on October 21: “The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on the earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it.... Whenever there’s a billion dollar fraud, there’s a Jew involved.”

So, while the Tea Party is given all kinds of bad labels without any evidential support, Generation Brats of Occupy (whatever) get their racism and violence covered over.

And who says the media isn't biased?

generation brats plays dirty

And I'm not referring to them not wanting their places of (often illegal) occupation cleaned.

Occupiers Attack Police with High-Tech Intimidation

Meanwhile, in Occupying events around the United States, police are mocked, screamed at, spat upon, confronted, pushed, knocked off motorcycles and loads more. New York confrontations resulted in hundreds of protesters arrested. While Occupiers attacked Oakland police with everything from “eggs” and “paint” to “feces” and “M-80” firecrackers, the bigger threat is a new tactic called “doxing.” It’s part of the culture that comes from hacker group Anonymous, which is one of the major organizers of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Doxing is a hacker tactic designed to dig up the public, and often not-so-public, information on an individual. “The time has come to retaliate against Oakland police via all non-violent means, beginning with doxing (releasing of documents and data) of individual officers and particularly higher-ups involved in the department's conduct of late,” reported CNET on an Occupy Wall Street statement.

So, attacking police officers by releasing information about officers and their families is "non-violent"? Putting their private information out there, I would guess things like credit card numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, their home address and phone numbers, is a "non-violent means"?

Apparently, women are entitled to the kind of privacy rights the allows them to kill their unborn children, but police officers who dare to keep the public peace against the obvious shenanigans of Generation Brats don't have any such rights.

Pathetic.

But, wait, it's not just the Occupiers who are getting into this act.


Larry O'Donnell Calls for Occupy D.C. to Bring 'Firestorm' to Nat'l Restaurant Association's HQ

Did MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ignore President Obama's previous calls for civility? The late-night host, in a five-minute Thursday night tirade, called for violence by specifically telling Occupy D.C. protesters to bring a "firestorm" to the National Restaurant Association (NRA) headquarters nearby, as well as to the NRA's corporate sponsors which include Starbucks and 7-11.

O'Donnell insisted that the organization release presidential candidate Herman Cain's accuser from her confidentiality agreement and let her bring the allegations against Cain to the public. If by Friday they still refused to do so, "then a firestorm should be visited upon the 1200 17th Street Northwest and the members of the National Restaurant Association," ranted O'Donnell.

This is fear and intimidation, the use of threats, and it is violence. Every day brings more and more to light the lies these "non-violent" types hide behind.

generation brats does not respect

Here's the deal--for the cause of their "greater good" or whatever they choose to call their agenda, the folks of Generation Brats will not let things like respect of private property, access to things like parks and shopping malls, and of course the ability to drive down the road get in their way. This is true for the religious side of Generation Brats as well, if not more so, since they can cloak their brattiness in spiritual garb.

Prayer and Meditation Flash Mob Upsets Officers

A group of occupiers and flash-mobbers in Salt Lake City organized an impromptu gathering in which protesters sat outside of the Gateway shopping mall in silent meditation and prayer. As you can see from this video, the mall officers weren’t too keen on the idea.

So, yes, never mind Christ's teachings about going to a private place, so that you don't do your praying for public show. Why, if you can do it for show, protest capitalism and shopping malls, and tick off mall security, you will get mega-brownie-points in heaven/nirvana/pick your afterlife destination. Not sure where that is in the Bible or whatever supposedly sacred text you choose, but hey, I'm sure Sojo can dig it up somewhere. It may be in Rules for Radicals, for all I know, a sacred text indeed among such, I would suppose.

sojo supports filth

And not just any old Sojrone, either, but the Head Sojrone himself.

Statement from Jim Wallis on Friday’s “Cleaning” of NYC’s Zuccotti Park

Bloomberg’s office has said that this “cleaning” action, scheduled for Friday (10/14) morning, is not a shutdown of the protest and that Occupiers can return after the cleaning and if they agree to follow a set of rules. But these rules ban sleeping bags or tarps from the park and it is not clear if even laying down will still be allowed.

This is effectively a shutdown of the #OccupyWallStreet demonstration, which the Mayor Bloomberg promised just a few days ago not to do.

A group of clergy has decided to join that circle and is planning a press conference at 11 am at Judson Memorial Church to report on the morning’s events at the #OccupyWallStreet demonstrations in Zucotti Park, as well as to issue a multi-faith statement of support for the Occupiers.

Abuse of power should never be met with violence. We urge demonstrators to continue their principled and peaceful actions.

Sooooo...

The notion that asking or even telling the protestors to leave the park for a while, so that it can be cleaned up of the filth they have scattered about, is an "abuse of power"? A threat to shut down the protests, even if they will be allowed to return after the cleaning?

This is one of the sickest examples of illogic I've ever seen. But, then again, things like liberalism and postmodernism are founded on irrational philosophy. They couldn't survive in a world where people actually tried to make sense, so they have to try to create a world of nonsense.

Well, for what it's worth, this protest against cleaning has succeeded. The protestors are free to lie in their own filth, even as they deny others the freedom to enjoy the park they are trashing, cause traffic problems for others, and basically make brats of themselves.

Here's an addendum to the battle cry for Generation Brats, "Don't you dare change our diapers!!!".

sojo idolators condemning supposed idolatry

#OccupyWallStreet: Playing with Fire and Corraling the Golden Calf

And the biblical allusions were clear, even to those who hadn’t attended the church service at Judson beforehand: Wall Street (with its massive, raging bronze bull) is the idol of the day, and people of faith stand in solidarity with those who have had enough of such idolatry.

In her sermon, Schaper, Judson’s senior minister, went a little deeper. The Golden Calf is not only Wall Street, she said, but also all of capitalism. And we, the people, have helped erect this massive false god with our own treasures — the best and most valuable parts of ourselves.

I'm not going to put more of the article here than I have to, so you'll have to go there to do some reading, sorry about that. But this Sojrone is going on about how during her church service, I suppose this past weekend, the church had some effigy of the Wall Street bull on display, and had some ominous music playing, like in a movie I suppose (here that march, boys and girls, that's Darth Vader's theme, and we don't like Darth Vader, do we).

I don't know the story behind the Wall Street bull. I do know that a market doing well is called a bull market, while one doing poorly is a bear market, though maybe that's a simplistic understanding.

But this is mostly about another form of simplistic understanding--equating the golden calf in Exodus to the Wall Street bull, and saying that somehow means that Wall Street and capitalism have become idols.

Now, this is especially hypocritical of Sojo, because it is becoming plain that they are themselves idolators--they worship socialism; they consider it to be the economic system most in line with their version of the kingdom of god; they are the ones who are continually crying for what they consider to be 'economic justice', which is basically take from the rich and give to those who haven't earned it; they are the ones who are replacing God with something that is against Scripture, a god made of ideas they themselves consider good, a god of their own creation.

Consider this, from the article.

Later that day, dozens of church members marched with the papier mache golden calf to Zuccotti Square where they participated in a prayer vigil with faith leaders and faithful (of various religious traditions) from around the city.

"Varios religious traditions". Would I be correct in thinking that this means non-Christian religions? Maybe Muslims, Hindus, those of the Jewish religion, not to meniton heretical 'christians' like Unitarians?

But I am glad that this Sojrone saw fit to give the reference for the passage her pastorix misused, because context is revealing.

1When the people saw that Moses(A) delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him,(B) "Up, make us gods who shall(C) go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." 2So Aaron said to them, "Take off the(D) rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." 3So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4(E) And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden[a] calf. And they said,(F) "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" 5When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron(G) made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD." 6And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And(H) the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up(I) to play.

Odd, isn't it--Aaron responds to pressure from the people, like these OWS folks expect people to cave to their demands. Aaron takes the gold from the people, like OWS expects gold to be taken from others. The people made offerings to their false god, just like OWS expects people to make offerings to their false gods and ideas. And, finally, the people descended into debauchery, like OWS has and will continue to do.

Occupy Wall Street: Darker Side Emerges

An article in the New York Post takes Occupiers to task for drug use, strewing litter and copulating in the out of doors. "Zuccotti Park," says the paper, smells "like an open sewer—with people urinating and defecating in public. "

ABC News reports that a faction of the computer hacker group Anonymous has threatened, in a gesture of sympathy with Occupy, to launch a cyber attack against the NYSE. In a YouTube video posted last weekend, a computer-generated voice warns, "Many people refuse to accept that Operation Invade Wall Street is a reality."

There still are postings that talk about taxing the 1 percent more severely or even throwing them in jail. "But then," says Schiavone, "there's an increase in 'let's kill' them. We see 'eat the rich,' 'kill the wealthy.' There are images circulating of senior executives being decapitated, images of blood. Artists are releasing images of banks on fire."

Oh, and should I also mention violence?That article mentions some, and here is another example of these people engaging in violence.