Thread: Eugene Peterson Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005696
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Story here in case you have missed it.
Basically, in an interview, he indicated that he was broadly in support of same-sex marriage. Then, the evangelical right started to complain. Bookshops said that they would stop stocking his work. And then he changed his mind again to say that he didn't support SSM.
I am not calling Peterson here, I am calling the evangelical right to burn in the deepest pit of hell, for bullying, for being shitty, vile unpleasant, people. For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
And, while I am at it, stop fucking well using "Biblical view" or "Christian view" when they are issues that people disagree on.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am not calling Peterson here,
He's a ball-less fuck.
quote:
I am calling the evangelical right to burn in the deepest pit of hell, for bullying, for being shitty, vile unpleasant, people. For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
And they are bastards.
[ 15. July 2017, 17:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Ah, the sale of books as incentive to ditch compassion and truth and justice ... so noble ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
The whole situation just made me deeply, deeply sad, more than angry. As Rachel Held Evans said, "it's World Vision all over again" with the LGBTQ+ community left in the lurch yet again.
I overall have enormous respect for Peterson but this was greatly disappointing. I don't want it to overshadow a brilliant career, although it's bound to to at least some degree.
As best I can understand it, the question was raised at the end of an interview and Peterson was "caught off guard". Why that should be is beyond me, Peterson is PCUSA (my denomination as well) clergy, it's been a matter of debate within the denomination for most of his career until the denomination reversed their position and approved gay marriage and ordination only a few years ago. A perfectly predictable question if you ask me.
Taking Peterson at his word (in the rebuttal) though, he was (somehow) caught off guard, and answered the question "would you officiate at the marriage of two same-sex congregants" instinctively and succinctly "yes." It was only later that he (apparently) regretted his answer. Interestingly, his rebuttal doesn't cite typical evangelical rationales like Scripture or "biblical morality" (unpacking those would be dead horse territory) very much but seemed more persuaded by "respect for the church"-- all of which yes, does make it seem like it was the backlash/ peer pressure (or book sales) that caused him to reverse direction.
Which again, is just deeply deeply sad. What I have loved about Peterson as an author and pastor is his heart-- the way his theology and spirituality is shaped by a Christ-like heart. His heart instinctively gave him the answer. Bullying (or economic interest-- who knows?) led him in another direction.
Again, for this evangelical, just sad. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 15. July 2017, 18:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Ironically, I found this response so beautifully and thoughtfully composed that it sounded like something that Eugene Peterson would have written.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
I like how he explains himself by saying he was asked a hypothetical with a lot of "ifs", and he doesn't like to use the word "no".
A: If your kids were causing too much noise, and if it was giving you a headache, and if you had asked them ten times to be quiet, and if they still kept screaming their heads off, would you murder them to shut them up?
B: Yes.
A: Holy fuck, that's horrible.
B: Well, actually I wouldn't, but there were a lot of "ifs" in your question, and I don't like to say no.
(And no, I'm not saying SSM is equivalent to killing kids, just that we don't normally accept Peterson's type of logic logic as a justification for ignoring someone's original statements.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yep. Interestingly, when you read the entire interview and the question-- which, despite his claims he was caught off guard, wasn't out of the blue but the 3rd or 4th of a series of questions regarding the PCUSA decision and LGBTQ+ Christians in general-- his "yes" seems entirely consistent, the clear resolution to a well thought out line of reasoning based on his experience as a pastor. And the rebuttal sounds so weak-- both in his rationale for his "misstatement" (if it was) but also even in his rationale for wanting to now say "no". It just doesn't hold together. It does sound very much like a position he feels forced to take for some reason. Not that that excuses it-- he IS a free man, freer than many, and could take his lumps, financial or otherwise, like the rest of us progressive evangelicals (to say nothing of LGBTQ+ Christians). But it still is both a head-scratcher and a heart-breaker.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suspect the truth is that he'd have been totally frozen out by his publisher, had angry vitriol thrown at him and probably would have been forced into bankruptcy (or worse) if he hadn't backtracked. Even this might not be enough - fundamentalist Evangelicals are wagging the dog in the publishing subculture so he may never get back the position he had.
There is enough leverage that they can put pressure on an old man to toe the party line.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Also - he had some pretty choice words to say about Trump. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he had someone threaten him as a result and make him say something that makes him look incredibly stupid.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the truth is that he'd have been totally frozen out by his publisher, had angry vitriol thrown at him and probably would have been forced into bankruptcy (or worse) if he hadn't backtracked. Even this might not be enough - fundamentalist Evangelicals are wagging the dog in the publishing subculture so he may never get back the position he had.
There is enough leverage that they can put pressure on an old man to toe the party line.
There is no question that his publishing career would take a huge hit-- Jen Hatmaker's experience earlier this year would no doubt be played out.
But he wouldn't be bankrupt. He would have his PCUSA pension, as well as at least some continued royalties from already published books. He appears to live very simply. There's the possibility other, more progressive publishers would continue to publish his very popular books. So I don't think he'd be reduced to begging on the street. But he has had a very very successful career that might very well be cut short (if you can call it "cut short" at age 84). So it's possible financial interests were the motivator, although I hope not.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
Whereas when we do that, it's noble and just. A boycott's a boycott, and folk don't have to support you economically if they don't want to.
Having said that, I would have figured at 84, he could have thrown his detractors along with his books under the bus and told them to swivel on it, but apparently he chose to throw gay people there instead. Which makes me sad.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
Whereas when we do that, it's noble and just. A boycott's a boycott, and folk don't have to support you economically if they don't want to.
There are differences, though. Bookshops are the few dictating access for the many whereas a boycott is the many pressuring the few. Point granted in how we view the rightness, but the dynamics are not equal.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am not calling Peterson here,
He's a ball-less fuck.
I am disappointed in him, but I still think we don't know the story fully yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
Whereas when we do that, it's noble and just. A boycott's a boycott, and folk don't have to support you economically if they don't want to.
I think the political and financial clout of the liberal left is substantially less than the evangelical right in the US. Financially, they can cripple you, if they decide to reject you and your major financial base is there.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
Whereas when we do that, it's noble and just. A boycott's a boycott, and folk don't have to support you economically if they don't want to.
True. What makes the difference is our own individual opinions about whether the boycotter is right or wrong. From my indisputably biased position, It's sad that so many people-- so many of MY people-- are willing to use that power to institute hate, and so few willing to use that power to promote justice and inclusion. But it is what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]
Having said that, I would have figured at 84, he could have thrown his detractors along with his books under the bus and told them to swivel on it, but apparently he chose to throw gay people there instead. Which makes me sad.
Me too.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I _think_ I read this earlier today due to a link from this good ship which I can't now find. Whatever - it's relevant to this thread and plausible.
Poor man. He must feel shit tonight.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I _think_ I read this earlier today due to a link from this good ship which I can't now find. Whatever - it's relevant to this thread and plausible.
Poor man. He must feel shit tonight.
That's very good, and is one reason I was not yet prepared to condem Peterson. I suspect the pressure put on him has been incredible.
It is very easy to say he should have told them to swivel on it, but we don't know the full story.
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on
:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the truth is that he'd have been totally frozen out by his publisher, had angry vitriol thrown at him and probably would have been forced into bankruptcy (or worse) if he hadn't backtracked. Even this might not be enough - fundamentalist Evangelicals are wagging the dog in the publishing subculture so he may never get back the position he had.
There is enough leverage that they can put pressure on an old man to toe the party line.
It is a form of prostition.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
I was initially glad that a senior and respected evangelical had taken a Christian stance, expressing love and respect to fellow human beings. A genuinely pastoral care for his flock. Something to make me think there was hope for us to hold onto a slight glimmer of respect, that it might be possible to say "I'm an evangelical" without being ashamed.
A big pity he caved so easily to the threats from the lunatic fringe of evangelicalism, the lunatic who have taken over the asylum.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think the political and financial clout of the liberal left is substantially less than the evangelical right in the US. Financially, they can cripple you, if they decide to reject you and your major financial base is there.
I'm sure you meant to say that the evangelical right is more organised than the liberal left, and I wouldn't expect otherwise.
Fortunately, I don't rely on those meatheads for my daily bread, and my secular publishers are fine with me being a Christian - far more fine than any Christian publisher would be...
There are religious publishing imprints owned by the Big 5/6, which have access to not-Christian bookstores. Being an apostate doesn't mean being out of print. If that was his reason for retracting, he was advised badly.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
What's it to you? If you don't want to contract a gay marriage for yourself, don't. You are in charge of your own choices. Stop encouraging interference with other people's choices in loving relationships.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think the political and financial clout of the liberal left is substantially less than the evangelical right in the US. Financially, they can cripple you, if they decide to reject you and your major financial base is there.
This is the problem, ISTM.
This retired Presbyterian minister should have built up a stronger following among mainline Christians rather than attracting so many conservative evangelicals, but it's the latter who have the numbers and the money. Maybe his his publishers urged him to satisfy that lucrative market, but he could have switched publishers if he disagreed.
Maybe people who write 'Christian books' ought to be rather more like poets - far less focused on sales. What's the point of being popular among people who don't understand where you're coming from? There are other ways of making a living.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
What do you mean, it's time somebody did? Plenty of people have been taking that stand—very loudly and very publicly—for years now.
Fortunately, for the most part the only people listening to them anymore are the others who've confined themselves to the same narrow echo chamber, or the Republicans unwilling to piss them off.
Unfortunately, those people in that echo chamber helped elect the current incumbent of the White House.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This retired Presbyterian minister should have built up a stronger following among mainline Christians rather than attracting so many conservative evangelicals, but it's the latter who have the numbers and the money.
He does have a pretty strong following among mainline Christians. That's not the point. The point is that it's not the mainliners who are going to boycott or shun him because of his position, or rally around him to protect him from the Evangelical Right's boycott. That's simply not how mainliners act. It is how the Evangelcal Right acts.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If it's how they act, why expect any different?
Maybe he doesn't need them or their wretched money, in which case it doesn't matter if they boycott him or not. But why would he have retracted his original statement if that were so?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe he doesn't need them or their wretched money, in which case it doesn't matter if they boycott him or not. But why would he have retracted his original statement if that were so?
As some others seem to think, my hunch is there's more to the story than we know.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Yes how sad that up until this very day only one person has spoken out against Gay Marriage. What a maverick.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Yes how sad that up until this very day only one person has spoken out against Gay Marriage. What a maverick.
FWIW, I thought the original statement was quite a good piece of dry irony. Largely on the basis that it's thoroughly nonsensical otherwise...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mark--
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I _think_ I read this earlier today due to a link from this good ship which I can't now find. Whatever - it's relevant to this thread and plausible.
Poor man. He must feel shit tonight.
Thanks for the link. I don't think I've ever heard of Peterson, or the Mr. Cizik mentioned in the article. What a lot of crap people put other people through. Baby Jesus wept. And yes, it sounds very plausible.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
RC--
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Um, if that's not sarcasm, and if you're really Roman Catholic and not just a cat addict, you must know that your church has said quite a bit.
So...what's with this remark?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Yes how sad that up until this very day only one person has spoken out against Gay Marriage. What a maverick.
FWIW, I thought the original statement was quite a good piece of dry irony. Largely on the basis that it's thoroughly nonsensical otherwise...
I thought it was quite well posistioned to be supporting but not enough to cause the sort of trouble he did.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Put the new toy down, folks, it's a cheap knock-off.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It does seem remarkable how throughout human history no-one has ever really pointed out the moral difficulties in SSM. It's almost as if human civilisation throughout the ages has had a collective blind-spot in not challenging homosexuality and just regarded it as a normal part of human diversity, no different to left-handedness.
Thank God we've finally discovered homophobia and taken a stand.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But in the past I don't suppose that gay people would necessarily have needed SSM as such. Most people were expected to enter into 'straight' marriages because that's how society functioned. It wasn't a question of choices and 'sexual preferences'.
Marriage was about protecting women and children, and setting limits on sexual behaviour was necessary so that there could be strong families which would then help create strong tribes and nations.
Nowadays marriage doesn't have much of a protective role, and the nation state doesn't particularly need strong families. The legal rights pertaining to marriage vary from country to country, but the rise in illegitimacy rates suggests that those rights are of limited interest to a large number of people. Choice is indeed king.
So now modern marriage is totally optional, and is primarily about celebrating romantic love, not the foundation of strong families. In addition, SSM is about celebrating the equality of different sexualities.
If the conservative churches don't share these cultural values then they're obviously going to have a problem with SSM. But the heterosexual marriage has been very beneficial for the church, so it's unsurprising that conservative Christians want to prioritise it.
On the level of mission (or PR), I think many moderate churches would benefit from conducting SSMs. The strict churches wouldn't. It's a question of identity.
[ 16. July 2017, 11:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Rather than this being an exciting rediscovery of the extensive theological work done on a Christian model of marriage which includes marriage between members of the same sex, perhaps we could return to the focus of the OP?
Right, so. What we have here is a person who has produced something which owes its success to a particular group, which now feels that it owns him - presumably as a PCUSA pastor he was not unduly exposed to the whims of the lunatic fringe as part of his day job. He has discovered that this lunatic fringe now believes itself to own him, and he lacks the energy to resist, fearing lynching.
Very sad.
Who belongs in hell as a result? Possibly him, but certainly the loveless lunatic fringe that is hounding him.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I _think_ I read this earlier today due to a link from this good ship which I can't now find. Whatever - it's relevant to this thread and plausible.
Poor man. He must feel shit tonight.
That's very good, and is one reason I was not yet prepared to condem Peterson. I suspect the pressure put on him has been incredible.
It is very easy to say he should have told them to swivel on it, but we don't know the full story.
And the Lord said, 'Go forth and do ye, what is right.
Unless thou feelest the slightest resistance.
Then shall ye turn tail and repent of your honesty and courage. Third Book of Capitulations, verse 5-8.
[ 16. July 2017, 13:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What we have here is a person who has produced something which owes its success to a particular group, which now feels that it owns him - presumably as a PCUSA pastor he was not unduly exposed to the whims of the lunatic fringe as part of his day job. He has discovered that this lunatic fringe now believes itself to own him, and he lacks the energy to resist, fearing lynching.
If he fears any physical threats to his person, then he needs to go to the police.
Otherwise, I'm still not clear what power these people have over him. He's had a long, successful career as a writer; did it never occur to him before now that many of his fans were not nice, tolerant Presbyterians? Didn't he ever go on book tours or attend conferences, etc., and meet some of the folk who had a different agenda? It's not as if they usually keep their angry opinions to themselves!
But this has now happened, and I hope he has some good friends and family members who can help him through this period of unwelcome attention. His opponents will soon find someone else to get angry about. Or (since there are always winners as well as losers) some younger person whose career they can support.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
It seems like one of life's cruel ironies that so often our worst moments-- the times when we give in to our very human tendency to lean into fear or self-interest-- can come at the very end, overshadowing a life of faithful and prophetic service. That certainly seems to be the case here. Perhaps it's nature's way of clearing the field to make room for new growth.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
cliffdweller: quote:
Perhaps it's nature's way of clearing the field to make room for new growth.
Don't blame Nature for this. She may be a bitch, but she's not that kind of bitch.
...on the other hand you might have a point. The wannabe leaders moving in on the ageing alpha male, smelling blood...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter collapses while building houses for those who don't have one. Gets treated in hospital. Comes back, carries on building houses.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter collapses while building houses for those who don't have one. Gets treated in hospital. Comes back, carries on building houses.
Have to see if he got the parasite he was working on, last I heard it was at single digit cases
Checked, 25 last year, from 125 the year before that, so getting there. (but not so much progress this)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter collapses while building houses for those who don't have one. Gets treated in hospital. Comes back, carries on building houses.
Have to see if he got the parasite he was working on, last I heard it was at single digit cases
Checked, 25 last year, from 125 the year before that, so getting there. (but not so much progress this)
I have no reference for any of this except that Carter works for Habitat for Humanity. Parasite? Digit cases?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Since we're talking about Carter, this is prophetic.
The author adds
quote:
We have lost our way, in short, because we have exalted "a mistaken idea of freedom"; our self-indulgence has led us to assert every right as absolute, every form of compromise or regulation as inimical to freedom, and to elevate the very avatar of self-absorption to the highest office in the land.
Quite a polemicist. Amen.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Yes how sad that up until this very day only one person has spoken out against Gay Marriage. What a maverick.
FWIW, I thought the original statement was quite a good piece of dry irony. Largely on the basis that it's thoroughly nonsensical otherwise...
Poe's Law. Especially given the username.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter collapses while building houses for those who don't have one. Gets treated in hospital. Comes back, carries on building houses.
Have to see if he got the parasite he was working on, last I heard it was at single digit cases
Checked, 25 last year, from 125 the year before that, so getting there. (but not so much progress this)
I have no reference for any of this except that Carter works for Habitat for Humanity. Parasite? Digit cases?
Guinea Worm Eradication
It was actually around 25 cases last year, which requires two digits ('2' & '5') to write.
In 1986, it would have required 7 digits, because there were around 3500000 cases.
It's on track to be the third eradication after smallpox and a pig disease.
Before being president he also had a significant role in the safe clean up at Chalk River [Canada].
If trump were half the person Carter was, America would be great.
[ 16. July 2017, 19:57: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
If trump were half the person Carter was, America would be great.
If Trump were half the person Carter is, he never would have gotten elected.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
The author adds
quote:
our self-indulgence has led us to assert every right as absolute, every form of compromise or regulation as inimical to freedom,
The juxtaposition of compromise and regulation is interesting here. Properly done, compromise is something that you choose to do yourself. You compromise on your preferences in order to exist harmoniously with someone with different preferences; you expect him to compromise in return.
Regulation, by contrast, is something that is imposed on you, and I rather suspect that the author sees compromise in a similar light - as a thing to be forced on people.
Rather like telling people they are required to volunteer.
I don't think, by the way, that President Carter thinks that. When he talks about intransigence and an unwillingness to compromise, he means exactly what he says.
[ 16. July 2017, 21:18: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The juxtaposition of compromise and regulation is interesting here. Properly done, compromise is something that you choose to do yourself. You compromise on your preferences in order to exist harmoniously with someone with different preferences; you expect him to compromise in return.
Regulation, by contrast, is something that is imposed on you, and I rather suspect that the author sees compromise in a similar light - as a thing to be forced on people.
This is the paradox of society. We have to get along, and that means in part that we have to pool resources, and that means we have to impose regulations, taxation, and so forth. There is no opting out, unless you leave for some other country.
Libertarians think they should be able to opt out of paying for things while still enjoying the benefits of the society they don't want to pay for. Society can't work if everybody does that -- it fails the Kant test there. It's a special form of selfishness, deriving in recent years from Ayn Rand, who most explicitly called selfishness a virtue.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
cliffdweller: quote:
Perhaps it's nature's way of clearing the field to make room for new growth.
Don't blame Nature for this. She may be a bitch, but she's not that kind of bitch.
...on the other hand you might have a point. The wannabe leaders moving in on the ageing alpha male, smelling blood...
Well, yes, that does rather speak to the "red of tooth and claw" aspect of nature.
But I was thinking more of the up-and-coming young evangelicals (or "post-evangelicals")-- Rachel Held Evans, Shane Clairborne, etc.-- who are bringing us back to our progressive social justice roots and a deeper, more thoughtful spirituality.
Perhaps it is both. But I know who I'm rooting for.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
If trump were half the person Carter was, America would be great.
If Trump were half the person Carter is, he never would have gotten elected.
Chicken and egg. Both statements are true: if we were great, we would elect someone like Carter again.
I'm trying to remember who it was who said, American should stop trying to be great and try to be good. I don't think it was Carter although it's his sort of thing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Why?
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[QB] Story here in case you have missed it.
Basically, in an interview, he indicated that he was broadly in support of same-sex marriage. Then, the evangelical right started to complain. Bookshops said that they would stop stocking his work. And then he changed his mind again to say that he didn't support SSM.
I am not calling Peterson here, I am calling the evangelical right to burn in the deepest pit of hell, for bullying, for being shitty, vile unpleasant, people. For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
I also think this is a vile attitude. But come on, bullyng and being vile for people who have different opinions is the standard attitude of the "progressives" concerning anyone who dares not to agree with their opinions. For example, Tim Keller had an award revoked by Princeton Seminary just because some "progressive" group disagrees with his beliefs on sexuality, and they are convinced that people who don´t agree with them should not be allowed to be awarded (even if the award in question has nothing to do with the issue they disagree with). Also, any conservative christian in mainline "progressive" churches knows how hard the pressure to silence conservative minorities is, to the point of even barring ordination of persons who do not agree with the liberal gender ideologies. "Using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views" is the exact definition of what liberals in mainline churches do. Think of the state churches in many european countries, for example, which have much more political and financial clout then small independent evangelical churches.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
cliffdweller: quote:
Perhaps it's nature's way of clearing the field to make room for new growth.
Don't blame Nature for this. She may be a bitch, but she's not that kind of bitch.
...on the other hand you might have a point. The wannabe leaders moving in on the ageing alpha male, smelling blood...
Well, yes, that does rather speak to the "red of tooth and claw" aspect of nature.
But I was thinking more of the up-and-coming young evangelicals (or "post-evangelicals")-- Rachel Held Evans, Shane Clairborne, etc.-- who are bringing us back to our progressive social justice roots and a deeper, more thoughtful spirituality.
Perhaps it is both. But I know who I'm rooting for.
Rachel Held Evans is not an evangelical, she is a progressive christian who comes from an evangelical background. Just like a converted protestant who was raised in a roman catholic home is not "post-roman catholic", as if protestantism was a natural progression for roman catholics. She just markets herself as "evangelical" or "post-evangelical" because that gives her the status of a rebel, and makes her sell, while "just another progressive christian talking about gender issues" wouldn´t make her sell or seem rebel.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
...bullyng and being vile for people who have different opinions is the standard attitude of the "progressives" concerning anyone who dares not to agree with their opinions.
So, just to be clear: you consider not discriminating against people to be an opinion?
Or is the classification of individuals as "people" where the opinion comes in?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Rachel Held Evans is not an evangelical, she is a progressive christian who comes from an evangelical background.
I must admit that I don't know much about Rachel Held Evans. But, there's certainly no reason why an evangelical couldn't be progressive. Evangelicalism is demarked by views on Scripture, on the central role of Christ on the Cross, of the need for personal conversion and commitment, on faith being active. Which can all lead to progressive views on areas where Scripture isn't clear. Active engagement in issues of social justice, environmental activism, promoting peace etc have long been part of evangelicalism and not limited to progressives from other faith traditions and none.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Gorpo,
As a progressive, I don't give a flying monkeys' what your views on sexuality are. You are free to believe that gays are all on a highway to Hell, that God is the ultimate queer-basher, that he also loathes transexuals.
Where I have a problem is where you think your beliefs entitle you to prevent LGBTQ+ people from exercising their rights. When you think you're entitled to vote against them being allowed to marry. To live their lives according to their chosen gender identity. To access goods and services like everyone else.
To summarise - if you don't believe in equal marriage, fine, don't marry someone you don't think you should. But stop agitating to have my gay friends subject to the same restriction. Stop opposing equal marriage in law. That is all.
Because whilst you still campaign against equal marriage (and this "you" is aimed at everyone doing so, not specifically you) and for stopping trans-women from using women's toilet facilities, then you are hurting and oppressing my friends, and I will stand up for them. If that's vile, then colour me vile and proud.
It's funny. The oppressors talk about "live and let live", but they're not willing to let the people they despise do so.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's funny. The oppressors talk about "live and let live", but they're not willing to let the people they despise do so.
Typical projection of the right in the US.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think Karl said it better than I can.
I even go so far as to say that the evangelicals can say that this is Christianity, and disagreeing with them makes you not a CHristian. I think that is remarkeably arrogant, but so be it. If that is Christianity, I am happy to define myself as an atheist.
But they cannot then expect me to worship this God, be interested in him or follow him. They cannot then impose their faith on me. They cannot then say that I am subject to their in and out.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think Karl said it better than I can.
I even go so far as to say that the evangelicals can say that this is Christianity, and disagreeing with them makes you not a CHristian. I think that is remarkeably arrogant, but so be it. If that is Christianity, I am happy to define myself as an atheist.
But they cannot then expect me to worship this God, be interested in him or follow him. They cannot then impose their faith on me. They cannot then say that I am subject to their in and out.
If evangelicals define Christianity in that way -- how would you define it?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0