In one easy FB Post:
Yep. Mr. Alt, apologist for the Catholic Faith, just put a stamp of approval on all those stupid anti-Christian, atheist, skeptic and other memes that say if you believe anything in the Bible, you have to believe we can kill sinners by stoning them.
I'm sure in most cases, Mr. Alt knows why that is such an asinine argument. If he has the slightest theological education he certainly does. Yet he just endorsed skeptics and opponents of the Gospel making that very point. Though in fairness, most liberal ministers I knew from my Protestant days also invoked this stupidity, as if the Gospel hadn't happened yet.
This is why keeping politics at arms length is the better way to go. If we're not careful, we end up shooting Jesus in the kneecap in our attempt to hit those rascally other party types behind Him. And the only one who wins there is the one who is always happy to see Jesus get shot in the kneecaps.
The same is true of Ms. Bowers, FWIW. I know nothing of her. I found her FB to be fair and see what she was about. Other than a title that suggests Christian, most of the posts were variations of 'hate Trump, hate him now.' So there you go.
Can we have a quick poll on how many women would be in favor of stoning their husbands over adultery? Because I would bet it's pretty high.
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling this isn't quite the pwn Ms. Bowers and Mr. Alt think it is.
My thought is somewhat tangential to the topic, but I sometimes find myself wondering at the ease with which Jesus persuaded the would-be stoners in John 8 to drop their rocks. It's almost as if they didn't really want to do it, and were just waiting for someone to give them an excuse not to. They were perhaps relieved when Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of punishing someone for sexual impropriety, when they were themselves no doubt guilty of some too. It was a fear of judging lest they be judged by their own professed standard. ---- G. Poulin
DeleteG Poulin, the Gospel story specifically states that the Pharisees presented the adulteress to Jesus purely to trap Him into saying something that would get Him into trouble with either the Jewish authorities or the Romans. Nobody was ever seriously going to stone her.
DeleteWell, I'm sure the desire can be there when it happens. But to me I'm stunned that they use such a lame argument and think it means something. An argument i know Mr. Alt would laugh at in other circumstances.
DeleteG. Poulin, that's correct. They knew what they were doing was just a set up, not really justice. The text says she was 'caught in the act' (a Greek word that means to catch someone in the act of a crime). That means there should have been two there, not just her. So right out of the gate it's clear they aren't seeking justice, and likely are less concerned with stoning a sinner as setting up Jesus.
DeleteI know a few, especially my neighbor, who have been trying to convince me to vote for Biden. After making each man's record as president in comparison with the other, my neighbor still was convinced I should vote for Biden. I asked him WHY? In a straight face he said to me, "I hate him and I hate how he talks." That was all the convincing he thought I should have to vote for Biden. Go figure. Hate has played a big role in the last two elections and it's not subsiding anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteIt has been said, and I agree, that the only thing that makes Trump seem stark raving sane is the madness of his detractors. There has to be a tremendous amount of leeway not to see the barking mad crazy of his opponents for what it is. This is not an endorsement of Trump, but an indictment of those who hate him - for various reasons.
DeleteMaybe. But if Christianity in general, to say nothing of Catholicism in particular, is in fact true (which it is), then it should infuse everything we do. We don't expect a doctor, or a scientist, or a historian to carefully pretend not to know what they actually know. We expect that truth cannot contradict truth, but medicine and science are, at least for the most part, things we really believe to be true. Our faith in matters of religion is much weaker, for which there is sadly a great deal of evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis "joke" seems to require us to find it unthinkable that it might be just that a man's life might be justly shortened by decades for adultery. Certainly there are arguments against the prudence of demanding the death of adulterers, and the call for mercy is universal, but can it really be unthinkably unjust to anyone who accepts the teachings of the Church that a man who deliberately entertains unclean thoughts -- even though he refuses to act on them and no one around him knows he is doing this -- is committing a grave sin, potentially a mortal sin that can send him to Hell for all eternity?
Now, not everything that can send a man to Hell should send him to jail, his hidden thoughts being a prime example. Christ is not a just judge, He is THE Just Judge, but experience teaches us not to trust the State to be exceptional in knowledge, wisdom, or justice. But adultery really is a borderline case. Just ask David Petraeus; his career in public service went down in flames due to adultery, which, though a necessary consequence of his actions, is still a loss to his country.
I fear this joke rests heavily on the modern secular assumption that no matter what I do, I should never have to pay and I'll no doubt be eternally rewarded anyway.
DeleteConsidering Ms. Greene has divorced from her husband after conducting an adulterous affair with her yoga instructor, why should we trust what she has to say on marriage?
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, judge any argument on its on merits. Otherwise you risk the genetic fallacy.
DeleteI can't speak for who she even is. I just know when I see nothing but 'hate Trump, hate Trump, hate Trump' it means there is nothing worth listening to that she has to say.
DeleteYou shouldn't. And you also shouldn't take guidance from someone who thinks a variation of the shellfish argument has merit.
ReplyDeleteThe maddening part of it from my Protestant days was those ministers from liberal denominations. They would often use the shellfish argument when it was pointed out from the New Testament something they didn't like. But when they pushed to change the Faith's teachings, they would then appeal to 'development of doctrine.'
DeleteThis does make one wonder if these people have read the Gospel, particularly the part where Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."
ReplyDeleteAside from the theological inanity, this is also just petty. And if you're not careful, social media is very quick to magnify your faults. A little petty in real life can be overlooked and smoothed over by grace. A little petty on social media just advertises it on the internet forever.
Politics is a petri dish for pettiness. When I was in middle school, Ronald Reagan became president. A few weeks into his presidency, I still remember watching the evening news with my parents. There was a segment where doctors and medical pros were upset with Reagan for setting a bad example for the kids. What was that bad example? He had his famous jelly beans on the desk in the Oval Office. That was back when every second of news time was gold, and when such luminaries as Walter Cronkite were still fresh in our minds. Yet how petty I thought. It hasn't gotten any better. That's why delving into politics can be bad for your reputational health. Like I tell people, politics is like a demolition derby. It's fun to watch, but I wouldn't want to drive in one.
Delete