1. "Take it up with Chris." Why should I take it up with Chris? Did he call his views "enlightened?"
2. "...Dawkins chooses to focus on the literalism...." Actually you are wrong, Hewitt focused on the literalism. Hewitt ignored any metaphorical interpretation. Please read the interview again you will see your error.
"...but unfortunately Chris’ enlightened view is far from dominant among believers."
Why do you find Chris' view enlightened? What is your criteria for making such a judgment?
If Jesus is God couldn't he easily change water into wine, or bring Lazarus back, or feed the multitude with limited provisions? If one accepts the oogedy-boogedy (and I'm guessing Chris does) that God sent his Son, God, to redeem fallen man all else is easily believed. Swallow that original and believing in the wedding miracle is a piece of wedding cake.
"And once you even start down the path of 'the Bible must be read as metaphor' I think you're in very deep trouble. Where do you stop, exactly? How do you know where that is?"
This does seem the ultimate slippery slope.
While I would like to see the argument that Chris offers as preferable to a literal reading of the wedding miracle I can't. Chris is well stepped in the theology he puts forth but ultimately, as a Christian, must acknowledge Jesus as God, dying for our sins to gain our salvation. Certainly such a being could change water into wine. Wouldn't it be easier to just stick with the original story and speak from authority, "for The Bible tells me so."
E.D. I'm obviously sympathetic to matoko's views. And I think you offhand dismissal of her views as "myth" and "pop" culture is extremely glib.
Please spend a few minutes with the linked article, the author offers a lot more than opinion.
Here is the authors conclusion:
"Since the potential for additional Republican gains among married white Christians appears to be limited, Republican leaders will need to find ways to reduce the Democratic advantage among voters who are not married white Christians in order to maintain the party's competitive position. However, given the generally liberal views of this group, this will not be easy. In 2006, according to data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 57 percent of these voters supported a woman's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, 66 percent opposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, and 71 percent favored a single-payer health care system. Any attempt by Republican leaders to significantly increase their party's support among voters who are not married white Christians would therefore require changes in some of the party's longstanding policy commitments -- changes that would clearly upset a large segment of the current Republican base."
"The idea that some of Jesus’ miracles did not happen and were written to shore up Messianic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible has been common in academic circles for decades [centuries?]. But for many of the faithful it will come as almost as much of a shock as the thought of Jeffrey Archer being the propagator of this new 'truth'”.
Not only did the Lord turn water into wine, but really a fine vintage. (Wine Spectator gave it a 98.) The bridegroom is suitably shamed by his servant, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now." What lesson is being taught?
"It’s even more strange that people, once in the oven, would endure this to their deaths."
It's not strange at all considering the fact that these folks did not enter the sweat lodge, "oven," knowing that death awaited.
If we are to believe what we read many saints endured martyrdom for their beliefs, they chose an "oven" rather than renounce their faith. Now that is strange.
I'm not defending the conman, he should and will face charges and probably years in prison. But the fact that he was able to find - let's be charitable and call them - seekers seems less strange than martyrs willingly accepting death.
The seekers that died in the sweat lodge did not enter looking for death. They sought some purifying ritual that went criminally wrong.
E.D. or whoever makes the final call, I'm sure this idea won't find a lot of support but I would be more than willing to pay a monthly "subscription." Nothing mandatory mind you but it might be easier for readers to chip in on a regular basis, or when they have an extra $5 or $10 to send the League's way. I have no idea if such a thing is doable, just a thought. In any case, monthly or a lump sum, I'm happy to support the endeavor.
I emailed my brother in Australia some stuff from Sullivan early this morning. Now this piece. I would have seen it eventually but thanks for the link.
But I still like Pat, he's just old beyond his years.
Kyle, let me try to clear some of this possible messiness up.
Yesterday I accused, picked a nit, E.D. of of possibly equating left and right name-calling. I asked him if he thought one was more "credible" than the other. I did not seek justification for either sides actions. I did not suggest that one party had a right to retaliate because of some slight or perceived slight. I made my comment entirely within the confines of E.D.'s post. Again, I only asked E.D. which side was more credible.
Now with regard to your comment this evening. I'm going to standby my original comment in response. Degree of offense does matter. But let me say for the third time that was *not* the issue I raised last night.
Kyle, who said “...they’re worse therefore I’m justified....” Not me. I reject that thinking, two wrongs and all that childish thinking. I commented to E.D. that I thought he ended his analysis too soon.
But your judging degree of of wrong doing as unacceptable is unacceptable.
I guess I have a more highly tuned ethical standard.
Degree of wrong doing is always considered, in ethics, religion and law. But I understand your reluctance to want to recognize that fact since the right is much more culpable in this regard.
Okay, let's say that every word in that 2002 LA Weekly piece is true. Even there the accusation is that the "minuscule Workers World Party" is the real turd in the punch bowl. Later Cooper links ANSWER to WWP as a front group. It's oh so 1950's it really made my head hurt to read it. Where is HUAC when we really need them? The entire story sounds like a movie proposal.
But yes, I'm very willing to grant your point, “But, um… conservatives are correct in tarring liberals as Stalinists… if you limit your view to, say, International ANSWER.” But do you really want this limited example of some Hollywood infighting on the left to be the point on which the right hangs their brush tarring liberals as "Stalinists?" But I guess if it the only twig within your grasp, go for it.
You write, "You seem eager to compare 'liberals' to the 30 percent of the most hardcore liberals." What does that even mean? And where in gods name do I say anything remotely resembling that?
Too much Kahlua in your coffee this morning? I kid.
E.D., you seem to take my comment at #6 to be some sort of criticism. It was not. Every word you digitize is Holy Writ in my book. Well, mostly.
In any case I do have a nit to pick.
I applaud the concise nature of your post, I'm really busy, not. But I wish you had extended your remarks by a paragraph or two. While you do an admirable job of describing a situation you choose not to make any judgment as to which group had a better case.
Are conservatives credible when they paint liberals as hate America firsters, Stalin loving comminists' pinko fags out to destroy real America?
Are liberals credible when they paint conservatives, the 30% base, as Limbaugh loving religious theists opposed to science and civil rights
This flat description, "The fictions we create, the myths we weave, start to become reality if we believe them enough," smells of false equivalency to me. But then I'm an unwashed partisan -- unlike yourself.
Do liberals/Democrats really caricaturize Rush, Sean, Billo, Glenn, the Big Four?
From my chair I'd say they do a dam fine job of doing it to themselves. Throw in the Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, James Inhofe, Dan Savage, the straight? one, and so many others and you have a made for cable/talk radio Freak Show that David Lynch bows before.
Liberals just point and say, "look there."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The President’s War on Fox”
Oh please - stop being correct all the time.
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
1. "Take it up with Chris." Why should I take it up with Chris? Did he call his views "enlightened?"
2. "...Dawkins chooses to focus on the literalism...." Actually you are wrong, Hewitt focused on the literalism. Hewitt ignored any metaphorical interpretation. Please read the interview again you will see your error.
"
I use that term often, never been called out on it. I could have said much worse.
"
"...but unfortunately Chris’ enlightened view is far from dominant among believers."
Why do you find Chris' view enlightened? What is your criteria for making such a judgment?
If Jesus is God couldn't he easily change water into wine, or bring Lazarus back, or feed the multitude with limited provisions? If one accepts the oogedy-boogedy (and I'm guessing Chris does) that God sent his Son, God, to redeem fallen man all else is easily believed. Swallow that original and believing in the wedding miracle is a piece of wedding cake.
"
"And once you even start down the path of 'the Bible must be read as metaphor' I think you're in very deep trouble. Where do you stop, exactly? How do you know where that is?"
This does seem the ultimate slippery slope.
While I would like to see the argument that Chris offers as preferable to a literal reading of the wedding miracle I can't. Chris is well stepped in the theology he puts forth but ultimately, as a Christian, must acknowledge Jesus as God, dying for our sins to gain our salvation. Certainly such a being could change water into wine. Wouldn't it be easier to just stick with the original story and speak from authority, "for The Bible tells me so."
On “Another response to Conor”
E.D. I'm obviously sympathetic to matoko's views. And I think you offhand dismissal of her views as "myth" and "pop" culture is extremely glib.
Please spend a few minutes with the linked article, the author offers a lot more than opinion.
Here is the authors conclusion:
"Since the potential for additional Republican gains among married white Christians appears to be limited, Republican leaders will need to find ways to reduce the Democratic advantage among voters who are not married white Christians in order to maintain the party's competitive position. However, given the generally liberal views of this group, this will not be easy. In 2006, according to data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 57 percent of these voters supported a woman's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, 66 percent opposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, and 71 percent favored a single-payer health care system. Any attempt by Republican leaders to significantly increase their party's support among voters who are not married white Christians would therefore require changes in some of the party's longstanding policy commitments -- changes that would clearly upset a large segment of the current Republican base."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_incredible_shrinking_repub.html
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
Why only the cognoscenti? Good question.
"The idea that some of Jesus’ miracles did not happen and were written to shore up Messianic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible has been common in academic circles for decades [centuries?]. But for many of the faithful it will come as almost as much of a shock as the thought of Jeffrey Archer being the propagator of this new 'truth'”.
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/03/god_finds_jeffr_1.html
But another good question provokes the faithful, was it wine or grape juice? Ahhh, theology!
"
Not only did the Lord turn water into wine, but really a fine vintage. (Wine Spectator gave it a 98.) The bridegroom is suitably shamed by his servant, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now." What lesson is being taught?
On “New age cons”
"It’s even more strange that people, once in the oven, would endure this to their deaths."
It's not strange at all considering the fact that these folks did not enter the sweat lodge, "oven," knowing that death awaited.
If we are to believe what we read many saints endured martyrdom for their beliefs, they chose an "oven" rather than renounce their faith. Now that is strange.
I'm not defending the conman, he should and will face charges and probably years in prison. But the fact that he was able to find - let's be charitable and call them - seekers seems less strange than martyrs willingly accepting death.
The seekers that died in the sweat lodge did not enter looking for death. They sought some purifying ritual that went criminally wrong.
On “Bleg”
E.D. or whoever makes the final call, I'm sure this idea won't find a lot of support but I would be more than willing to pay a monthly "subscription." Nothing mandatory mind you but it might be easier for readers to chip in on a regular basis, or when they have an extra $5 or $10 to send the League's way. I have no idea if such a thing is doable, just a thought. In any case, monthly or a lump sum, I'm happy to support the endeavor.
"
Mark, what kind of $$ you looking at?
"
I donate to liberal blogs, you guys won't get a dime.
Really, you guys are worth a C note, at least. Count me in.
On “I don’t know if this is the best thing Andrew Sullivan has written . . .”
I emailed my brother in Australia some stuff from Sullivan early this morning. Now this piece. I would have seen it eventually but thanks for the link.
But I still like Pat, he's just old beyond his years.
On “New Policy Blog”
I got the account and it was 90 seconds of pure hell. Only for you E.D.
Hope you and Matt Taibbi live happily ever after.
On “caricatures & demons”
Kyle, let me try to clear some of this possible messiness up.
Yesterday I accused, picked a nit, E.D. of of possibly equating left and right name-calling. I asked him if he thought one was more "credible" than the other. I did not seek justification for either sides actions. I did not suggest that one party had a right to retaliate because of some slight or perceived slight. I made my comment entirely within the confines of E.D.'s post. Again, I only asked E.D. which side was more credible.
Now with regard to your comment this evening. I'm going to standby my original comment in response. Degree of offense does matter. But let me say for the third time that was *not* the issue I raised last night.
"
Kyle, who said “...they’re worse therefore I’m justified....” Not me. I reject that thinking, two wrongs and all that childish thinking. I commented to E.D. that I thought he ended his analysis too soon.
But your judging degree of of wrong doing as unacceptable is unacceptable.
I guess I have a more highly tuned ethical standard.
"
Sorry, Kyle
"
Oh Kyly, you are *wrong.*
Degree of wrong doing is always considered, in ethics, religion and law. But I understand your reluctance to want to recognize that fact since the right is much more culpable in this regard.
"
Okay, let's say that every word in that 2002 LA Weekly piece is true. Even there the accusation is that the "minuscule Workers World Party" is the real turd in the punch bowl. Later Cooper links ANSWER to WWP as a front group. It's oh so 1950's it really made my head hurt to read it. Where is HUAC when we really need them? The entire story sounds like a movie proposal.
But yes, I'm very willing to grant your point, “But, um… conservatives are correct in tarring liberals as Stalinists… if you limit your view to, say, International ANSWER.” But do you really want this limited example of some Hollywood infighting on the left to be the point on which the right hangs their brush tarring liberals as "Stalinists?" But I guess if it the only twig within your grasp, go for it.
"
Point two, you say, "But, um… conservatives are correct in tarring liberals as Stalinists… if you limit your view to, say, International ANSWER."
Now granted you are the expect on ANSWER so my limited knowledge is that they were/are an antiwar group. Yep, "Stalinists" by any definition.
"
You write, "You seem eager to compare 'liberals' to the 30 percent of the most hardcore liberals." What does that even mean? And where in gods name do I say anything remotely resembling that?
Too much Kahlua in your coffee this morning? I kid.
"
Actually it was E.D. that used the "writ large" terminology. But no matter, the entire comment borders on incoherent.
"
E.D., you seem to take my comment at #6 to be some sort of criticism. It was not. Every word you digitize is Holy Writ in my book. Well, mostly.
In any case I do have a nit to pick.
I applaud the concise nature of your post, I'm really busy, not. But I wish you had extended your remarks by a paragraph or two. While you do an admirable job of describing a situation you choose not to make any judgment as to which group had a better case.
Are conservatives credible when they paint liberals as hate America firsters, Stalin loving comminists' pinko fags out to destroy real America?
Are liberals credible when they paint conservatives, the 30% base, as Limbaugh loving religious theists opposed to science and civil rights
This flat description, "The fictions we create, the myths we weave, start to become reality if we believe them enough," smells of false equivalency to me. But then I'm an unwashed partisan -- unlike yourself.
"
Yes, I know that is what you wrote.
Shorter me, with spokespeople like these who needs enemies?
"
Do liberals/Democrats really caricaturize Rush, Sean, Billo, Glenn, the Big Four?
From my chair I'd say they do a dam fine job of doing it to themselves. Throw in the Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, James Inhofe, Dan Savage, the straight? one, and so many others and you have a made for cable/talk radio Freak Show that David Lynch bows before.
Liberals just point and say, "look there."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.