Quick! Call Mike Pence and Sam Brownback! Christians are being persecuted!
Oh, wait: in this case, the Christians are right here in America, and the persecutor is the Trump Administration:
Arrests of people for harboring, sheltering, leaving food and water or otherwise protecting migrants have been on the rise since 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered federal prosecutors to prioritize cases covered under the harboring statute.
Scott Warren, a 36-year-old college geography instructor from Ajo, Ariz., works with a group called called No More Deaths or No Mas Muertes. The group’s volunteers leave water and food for migrants traversing the Arizona desert.
Warren was arrested in 2017 and faces three felony counts including conspiracy to transport and harbor migrants. In its complaint, the government claims Warren was seen talking to two migrants who sheltered in Ajo. He denies being part of any sheltering plan.
“It is scary to be intimidated like this and to be targeted but there really is no choice,” said Warren. He believes the government is violating his right to religious freedom by criminalizing his spiritual belief that mandates he help people in distress.
…”With these prosecutions, the government is saying, ‘we’re extending our zero tolerance policy to Good Samaritans,'” said Ranjana Natarajan, director of the Civil Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law. “People shouldn’t be helping migrants even if they might be at threat of death” [Lorne Matalon, “Extending ‘Zero Tolerance’ to People Who Help Migrants Along the Border,” NPR: All Things Considered, 2019.05.28].
Good Samaritan Scott Warren volunteers for No More Deaths, a ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Christian Church of Tucson. Their work enacts “Faith-Based Principles for Immigration Reform,” which embody Christian principles far better than any of the Trump regime’s immigration policies. The principles seek the practical end of reducing deaths as well as the moral end of ennobling all of humanity:
We come together as communities of faith and people of conscience to express our indignation and sadness over the continued death of hundreds of migrants attempting to cross the US–Mexico border each year. We believe that such death and suffering diminish us all. We share a faith and a moral imperative that transcends borders, celebrates the contributions immigrant peoples bring, and compels us to build relationships that are grounded in justice and love [Preamble, Faith-Based Principles for Immigration Reform, retrieved 2019.05.29].
Justice and love—sounds very Christian to me! I can’t comprehend how good Christians like Mike Pence and Sam Brownback can stand to work for an anti-Christian regime that would persecute fellow Christians living out their ideals. I would suggest that Pence and Brownback run a joint primary challenge against the anti-Christian White House under the banner, “Make American Christian Again”… but I worry those guys would get the meaning of “Christian” wrong again.
Cory writes:
Most Unitarians reject the historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead, as well as the historically Christian doctrines regarding the infallibility of the Bible, the fallen nature of humanity, the existence of the Holy Spirit, the divinity of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.
They may call themselves “Christians,” but as a traditional Bible Protestant, I generally regard Unitarian groups as cults.
You should only worry whether your dough has risen.
Indeed mfi, all that should matter is getting water and provisions to those that need it. It has nothing to do with what kind of Christian you think you are.
True Christians would build churches along the border to conduct religious services, stock water and food, and offer sanctuary when needed.
Quick! What’s the difference between an atheist an an Evangelical Christian?
A – An atheist is honest about not following Jesus!
Watch and witness so-called Christians ( like the self consumed one here) breaking up with Jesus.
https://youtu.be/LsMzQA1p0lA
PS … A traditional Bible Protestant is a made-up term attempting to normalize those who can’t seem to fit in with we mainstream/mainline Protestants ( Lutherans, Methodists, UCC’ers, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopals). A TBP isn’t an organization. It’s a flock of loners, which is contrary to Jesus’ teachings.
What is wrong with Kurt Evans? I try hard not to read his tripe, because it’s bad for the soul. I always sense I’m reading the words of the devil. As far as I can tell Kurt does nothing here on DFP other than pat himself on the back for his evilness, while claiming his evilness is holy. He accuses others of not being holy, while they go about the work of Jesus. If Jesus came across the border, Kurt would be complaining that the UUs gave him water. Kurt has a big mouth and a non-existent soul. Kurt, you badly need to repent and reform yourself.
Porter and Don, I just saw a comic today in which a “Christian” was bragging about his flags and banners showing how Christiany he was. Jesus told him should ditch all that paraphernalia and try showing his faith via his actions. True that.
Prissy Pussy Pency and his ilk, like the entire current deministration, have demonstrated via their behavior that there is little or nothing of Jesus in them, but they are very Christiany. In fact, they’re so Christiany they like to let people die, lock children in cages where some are molested, all emotionally scarred, while they display their piety to the gullible 25% who share their bigotry and fear.
Porter Lansing writes:
The phrase “traditional Bible Protestant” consists of three terms, Porter, and those terms aren’t made up. Traditional Protestants affirm the principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible.
Learn more here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant
Donald Pay writes:
That sounds like what I sense when I read your tripe, Donald.
I would certainly share my water if camping out in organ pipe natl mon on the border in NM.
big news today. but this should be required listening too. might explain trump’s continuing misbehavior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNa4eRotufQ
but the mueller appearance this morning is essential, to understand its import which is a bit deep. this MNBC analysis is miles away from what 50% of the nation is being spoon fed by the right wing billionaire owned media. TODAY I am hopeful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuQl2rZz6-4
yesterday I was sad. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/28/mueller-trump-obstruction-charge-michael-wolff-book-siege-under-fire-news
it is clear republican national strategy is to hold on to power no matter the consequence and Kristi’s wall is a symptom of her failed representation of the people of SD and fear she stokes to play the billionaire game.
Evans … Putting three words together doesn’t make you anything except what you truly are. Selfish. Traditional Bible Protestant is just something you made up a few months ago. But, who cares what you label yourself. Everyone here has an accurate read on you.
I read an account yesterday of migrant babies “seized” (that was the US Marshals Service’s word) from their mothers two days following birth in El Paso, TX. The baby is immediately placed in foster care while the mother is sent back to lockup without knowing if or when she will ever see her baby again.
One does not have to look far to find Don the Con’s Cult proving there is no bigger hypocrite than a pro-life christian.
SD Blue, I read about that too. That’s no less monstrous than stuff that happened in Hitler’s concentration. No exaggeration. That’s severely traumatizing for the babies and only less so by degrees for the mothers. So inhuman and inhumane.
The republican party always claims to have morals and family values.I wonder where they lock them away never to be practiced again.
Speaking of prosecuting trump, Mueller just nailed it. Justin Amash, realistic Republican, and the rest of the Democratic congress folks who defend the Constitution (not to worry about the 3 South Dakota’s Russian lovers), must start impeachment now. This criminal and his sidekick, the illegal Pence, both need to be removed. Billy Barr also needs to have the impeachment process started against him for lying his arse off to Congress and the American people. A clean sweep of stank needs to be done.
Oh, no. The State Department’s Office of Religious Freedom can’t get into any debate about who is a Christian and who isn’t. Unitarian Universalists are Christians in the government’s eyes as surely as my Lutheran kin. The Trump Administration is persecuting Christians. Speciously stripping people of their identity only compounds the persecution.
It’s hard to recognize true Christianity from abstract philosophical professions. We can recognize Christianity better by actions. As Roger notes, offering food, water, and sanctuary to people in need are among the clearest expressions of Christian faith, clear enough that the founder of Christianity himself spoke of such actions by the Good Samaritan in one of his best known parables, a parable so compelling that it remains a key feature of our secular language today. People enacting basic Christian principles are being persecuted by the Trump regime. There is no semantic way around that basic fact.
I dare say that we could turn Porter’s joke to say that the difference between an atheist and an evanTrumpical Christian is that this atheist actually advocates following Jesus’s teaching in the desert.
SDBlue points to another egregiously un-Christian action, separating families.
If we can’t make America Christian again (and I ultimately cannot adopt that as a general campaign slogan, because America as a political organization never was and never should be exclusively Christian), we should work to make America follow basic Christian principles again, like taking care of people in need. Real Christians don’t practice Trump’s selfishness and hatred. Real Christians practice servant leadership. Real Americans lead the world by serving the world, by applying our great wealth to the service of all humanity.
An indication of how the “evantrumpical Christians” (thanks Cory) have bastardized the religion is that an atheist has just better described the essential behaviors of a Christian than any of the former fakes and their fellow bigoted dupes.
Porter Lansing writes to me:
The phrase indicates a set of principles by which evangelical Christians have been living for nearly 2,000 years.
Cory writes:
Many on the political left seem to say, “There’s no accurate historical record of Christ’s teachings, and we’re following those teachings better than Trump supporters.”
Feel free to correct me, Cory, if you believe the New Testament is historically accurate.
Saddam protected Christians in Iraq, while the coalition of the willing, have let more than a million of them die brutally in an unnecessary war and occupation. How many of the half million Christians in Iran will be sacrificed to satisfy trump and his horror show in yet another go at mass murder?
We’ve been through this so many times with Kurt, but he apparently enjoys this.
Parts of the Bible, OT and NT, even Apocrypha, are true, sometimes just bits and pieces, sometimes more.
The Apocalyptic books, especially Revelation, is code designed as science fiction to provide hope to the Israelites when they were living as captive slaves in Babylon. But fundamentalist/evangelical leaders similar to Kurt found they were much more effective tools of manipulation when disguised as future prophesy, like palm readers or fortune tellers.
Paul’s stories and letters are mostly true since he had a secretary keeping notes for him. He did not write everything often credited to him and his influence on the Christian religion is outsized and misguided according to many scholars, but the old white guys creating the cannon favored his stuff because it better suited their needs and wants.
A guy named Jesus almost certainly did exist and was a very charismatic man and highly skilled leader who was most probably killed by crucifixion for fomenting political insurrection.
The rest is myth, legend and fuzzy memories recalled a generation later. There was no literate reporter following Jesus around keeping notes and jotting down quotes. The first gospel, Mark, was written 40 years after he died, about 70CE. The other 3 gospels used Mark as a template, though John was written by a much more mystical guy.
Places mentioned in the gospels do exist; there are stone tombs being discovered every day; crucifixion was a method of execution in the 30sCE; male children were circumcised at 8 days old; King Herod did rule; Pontius Pilate existed, etc.
Nothing in the mythological or legendary nature of the Bible makes it less valuable to believers in the faith based upon it. Myths and legends have long been critical tools to human culture’s development and likely will continue to be so. I am grateful for the wisdom they impart.
Kurt Evans is trying to distract. It doesn’t matter what the phrase indicates, you made it up recently to give yourself a new label. If you’d spend more time trying to help and support others you might have a future as s child of Jesus.
I am a Unitarian Universalist. It is NOT correct to classify individual UUs (except by their personal choice) or the denomination as Christian. It’s true that many UUs consider themselves to be Christians, and it’s true that historically both Unitarianism and Universalism grew out of the Protestant Christian tradition as heretical branches. However it’s important to know that the great majority of UUs today do NOT consider themselves to be Christian. Unitarian Universalism is a diverse liberal religious movement that does not have a prescribed creed or dogma, but promotes the inherent dignity and worth of all people, the search for truth to be found in all spiritual and secular endeavors, the democratic process, and recognition of the interdependence of all life. UU congregations are self-governing and voluntarily join the UU Association of Congregations which is governed by its members. More information at http://www.uua.org.
Deb Geelsdottir writes:
Wouldn’t it be an amazing coincidence if the parts of the Bible that seemed to support your political views were true, but the parts that seemed to contradict your political views weren’t?
The Apostle John finished the book of Revelation around AD 96. The Babylonian captivity had ended more than 600 years earlier, and science fiction hadn’t been invented yet.
*canon
Would you say corrupt white guys had a lot of social influence in first-century Israel?
Nothing you’ve said here explains why the authors of the New Testament would bother to accurately record any of Christ’s teachings when they were conspiring to spread the lie that He rose from the dead, which would be arguably the biggest lie in human history.
Many thanks to Debbo for her informative explanation of biblical history. And for what it is worth, helping hungry and thirsty people seeking safety, freedom and opportunity doesn’t seem to be a particularly “political” act. Rather, it seems more like a positive ethical act, whether based on the Bible or social teachings.
My mistake Kurt. When John of Patmos wrote “whore of Babylon” and other such nasty attributes to Babylon, that was a stand in for “Rome,” the current occupants.
You need to read the rest more closely, Myths and legends often have some truth to them. What I said pointed out that there is no hard evidence to support the myths and legends.
Lastly, it was the direct reverse of this: “Wouldn’t it be an amazing coincidence if the parts of the Bible that seemed to support your political views were true, but the parts that seemed to contradict your political views weren’t?”
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Thanks BCB.
Isn’t it interesting that Kurt’s expectation is that biblical interpretation functions in this way:
“Wouldn’t it be an amazing coincidence if the parts of the Bible that seemed to support your political views were true, but the parts that seemed to contradict your political views weren’t?”
It’s not completely surprising however, since it’s often done that way.
Mike of the Prairie, that’s really, really interesting! A majority of UUs would reject the label Christian? Wow! What is their fundamental (if I may use the term non-judgmentally) heresy? What specific elements of Jesus’s teachings do they reject?
Nonetheless, as Mike of the Prairie notes, UUism arose from Christianity, and the actions carried out by Scott Warren certainly fit with Christian values. In this case, if it quacks like a Christian and acts like a Christian, is it a Christian?
I agree with Mike of the Prairie that UU is not a Christian denomination, though many Christians, especially trumpgelicals, would benefit from looking to them for a model of Christian behavior.
Universalism is the belief that all people are worthy, saved, heaven bound, etc. That’s heretical to most official Christian dogma, hence, heresy.
Unitarianism was once a separate church, though I’m unsure of the details. Perhaps MotP can fill us in from his personal experience and perspective.
Deb Geelsdottir asks:
There’s nothing about interpretation in my question.
Cory, I would say that the foundational heresy of Unitarians was a belief in “one god” (rejection of the doctrine of the trinity and therefore rejection of the divinity — but not the importance — of Jesus). I would say that the foundational heresy of Universalists was a belief in universal salvation (rejection of the doctrine that humans are created in sin and must be saved or suffer eternal punishment). One common thread was promotion of freedom of (or from) religious belief. These ideas can be traced to long and complex histories dating back to ancient times, but modern organized movements in North America coalesced in the mid-19th Century, and American Unitarians and Universalists merged their organizations in 1961. By that time both movements had evolved to embrace the ideas expressed in the UUA’s Principles and Sources (https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles) which are as close as we have to a creed.
I would not say that UUs reject Jesus’ teachings. I would say that many of us reject much of what is taught *about* Jesus. Because Jewish and Christian traditions are such a pervasive part of our Western history and culture, most UUs probably would agree that some basic Biblical literacy is a worthwhile part of everyone’s education. We embrace the spiritual and practical wisdom to be found in all religious, humanist, secular, and scientific teachings and practices, and lift up the many common threads. Our congregations are made up of people from many religious traditions, including Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, and many who identify as agnostics, athiests, humanists, and often more than one of the above or none of the above. Some congregations tend to lean toward particular traditions because of their history or the community in which they are located.
Rather than insisting on a set of prescribed answers and practices that are the one path to salvation, Unitarian Universalism is an open and supportive community within which to seek one’s own answers, build one’s own practices, and discover one’s own path. And where we can find and use the power of our common values to act together and live with greater purpose and meaning in building a better world.
I think most UUs would agree that heaven and hell are what we create in this life, and we can’t know or do anything about anything about an afterlife.
As for quacking and acting like a Christian: Take away the label and I would say that a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Unitarian Universalist or Secular Humanist or [______] would recognize the same acts as being just as sincerely grounded in *their* moral tradition. Fearful people who “stick to their own kind”, like so many South Dakotans, may never understand that.
Thanks for the great information, Mike otp.
Kurt is all about interpretation, as is every reader of every document. It’s the extremely flimsy “evidence” concocted to support his interpretation that gets him so far off track and into 6000 fairy tales and so forth.
Very good Mike of the Prairie. I have read the translation of the letter from the President of Mexico to trump. It is beautiful, here is the translation of what we all should believe in. Humans have the dignity and the right to live without presecution for any reasons. Anyway, here is the translated letter.
“Mexico City, May 30, 2019
President Donald Trump,
I am aware of your latest position in regard to Mexico. In advance, I express to you that I don’t want confrontation. The peoples and nations that we represent deserve that we resort to dialogue and act with prudence and responsibility, in the face of any conflict in our relations, serious as it may be.
The greatest President of Mexico, Benito Juárez, maintained excellent relations with the Republican hero, Abraham Lincoln. Later, when Mexico nationalized its oil resources and industry, Democratic President Franklin D, Roosevelt understood the profound reasons that led our patriotic President Lázaro Cárdenas to act in favor of our sovereignty. By the way, President Roosevelt was a titan of freedom who proclaimed the four fundamental rights of man: the right to freedom of speech; the right to freedom of religion; the right to live free from fear; and the right to live free from misery.
With this in mind, we frame our policy on immigration. Human beings do not leave their villages for pleasure but out of necessity. That’s why, from the beginning of my government, I proposed opting for cooperation in development and aid for the Central American countries with productive investments to create jobs and resolve this painful situation.
You also know that we are fulfilling our responsibility to prevent, as much as possible and without violating human rights, any passage of the persons concerned through our country. It is worth remembering that – in a short time, Mexicans will not need to go to the United States and that migration will be optional, not forced. This is because we are fighting, like never before, the main problem in Mexico, corruption. And, in this way, our country will attain a powerful social dimension. Our countrymen will be able to work and be happy where they were born, where their families, their customs and their cultures are.
President Trump, social problems are not resolved by tariffs or coercive measures like turning a neighboring country overnight into a ghetto, an enclosed place for the migrants of the world, where they’re stigmatized, abused, persecuted, and excluded and the right to justice is denied to those who seek to work and to live free from want. The Statue of Liberty is not an empty symbol.
With all due respect, although you have the sovereign right to say it, the slogan “United States First” is a fallacy because universal justice and fraternity will prevail until the end of time, even over national borders.
Specifically, citizen President, I propose to deepen our dialogue, and seek alternatives to the immigration problem. And, please remember that I do not lack courage, that I am not cowardly or timorous, but that I act on principles. I believe that politics was invented to avoid confrontation and war, among other things. I do not believe in the Law of Talon, in a ‘tooth for a tooth’ or an ‘eye for an eye’ because, if we practiced it, we would all be toothless and one-eyed. I believe that as statesmen and even more so as patriots, we are obliged to seek peaceful solutions to controversies and to practice the beautiful ideal of non-violence, forever.
Finally, I suggest that you instruct your officials, if it doesn’t cause any inconvenience. that they attend to representatives of our government, headed by the Secretary of Foreign Relations, who will be in Washington tomorrow to reach an agreement for the benefit of our two nations.
Nothing by force. Everything by reason and human rights.
Your friend,
Andrés Manuel López Obrador
President of México”
Kurt has not bothered to declare his position on the atrocities fake Christians are committing on our fellow suffering human beings. Persecuting Christians, like the Border Patrol, ICE and those who give the orders, should be fearful as hell of the hell they have allotted for themselves. They deserve that special place…
jerry, thanks for posting that letter from President López Obrador. It is inspirational.
Also your point that “Kurt has not bothered to declare his position on the atrocities fake Christians are committing on our fellow suffering human beings” is elucidating and a bit depressing.
One would think the highest priority of anyone calling themselves a “traditional Bible Protestant” Christian would be to praise compliance with the teachings of the Bible regarding helping our fellow humans, especially those of Jesus in the NT given the claimed fealty to his teachings, rather than adversely judging alleged mistaken theological beliefs of religious folks that are actually trying to provide aid to desperate people in need of water, food, and medical help.
Matthew 7:1-3, KJV.
That is a wonderful letter. What a sad commentary that it is serving as a reminder sent TO a US president, rather than FROM one.
BCB, the gospels are not particularly popular among trumpgelicals, “traditional Bible Protestants”, fundamentalists or similar ilk. Jesus caught plenty of flak even from his own 12 disciples for being kind to the “other,” like women, children, Samaritans and others whom the Chosen People rejected.
Today’s Chosen People, white Christians, are no better. (“Chosen” refers only to their perception of themselves.)
Kurt Evans said “Most Unitarians reject the historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead, as well as the historically Christian doctrines regarding the infallibility of the Bible, the fallen nature of humanity, the existence of the Holy Spirit, the divinity of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.”
I always knew Unitarianism is something I might even believe in. Especially that infallibility of the Bible thing.
Debbo, thank you, I always wondered what Revelations was supposed to be telling me. It seemed like hellfire and brimstone combined with Game of Thrones to me. (I don’t believe in Game of Thrones, either.)
“Everybody poops, but did Jesus?
“If you’re thinking, “Yes, he was a human being, But oh my G-o-d why are you bringing this up? Talking about Jesus’ bowel movements is like discussing my parent’s sex life,” then that’s understandable. But if it seems like we at The Daily Beast have jumped the shark this week, then you’ll be interested to know that this was a centuries-long debate among the Church Fathers, for whom digestion was often a much more important question than sex.”
Thought y’all might find this interesting. It was a burning question, so to speak, in Christendom. Daily Beast published an interesting, informative and entertaining article about it.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-jesus-poop?source=email&via=desktop
Jesus likely pooped up a literal ton and a half of poop over his life, if he existed at all, but I bet he was more “godly” than most and did not resort to juvenile name calling. In fact, in one of the books of the middle testament, Jesus kicked a short hair out of his preacher clan for name calling.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-jesus-poop is a good blue link to read, as one can learn much from The Beast.
grudznick … There are easily over a dozen examples of you name calling. Climb down off your high ass and stfu.
Mmm.
🐐
“Mike of the Prairie” writes:
According to Christ’s teachings, humans were created good and fell into sin and death only when Adam and Eve rebelled.
Deb Geelsdottir writes of me:
Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, and the Hebrew Bible teaches that Adam was created just under 2,000 years before Abraham was born.
Deb quotes Candida Moss:
Candida Moss has made herself wealthy and famous spreading lies about the history of Christianity. She’s like Deb Geelsdottir but with a Ph.D.
I’d written:
And the scientific evidence fully aligns with the historical evidence. Learn more here:
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
https://www.siouxlandproud.com/news/local-news/trial-pushed-back-in-orange-city-library-book-burning-case/2052983692
What century are we living in? Seriously? Kristians burning LGBT books from public liberry.
Well they’re “Good Kristians” Mike. 🙄🙄🙄
“jerry” writes:
I’m opposed.
“bearcreekbat” writes of me:
Praising good deeds isn’t the highest priority of any true Christian.
Deb Geelsdottir writes:
The Gospels are extremely popular among traditional Bible Protestants.
“mike from iowa” writes:
It was one guy, and based on the fact that he stole the books, I doubt he’s a true Christian. I’m wondering whether he’d protest books about stealing by engaging in homosexuality.
Kurt’s comment, “Praising good deeds isn’t the highest priority of any true Christian” doesn’t respond to the statement it purports to address.
First problem, the statement Kurt addresses did not use the phrase “praising good deeds,” it used the the phrase “praise compliance with the teachings of the Bible regarding helping our fellow humans.” While an act in compliance with the teachings of the Bible regarding helping our fellow humans might qualify as a “good deed,” there are undoubtedly other acts that qualify as “good deeds” that are unrelated to any teachings of the Bible.
Second problem, the comment addressed the highest priority of a “traditional Bible Protestant” Christian rather than a “true Christian.” Since “true Christians” likely existed before there were “protestants” of the Catholic religion, and even before portions of the Bible were written – indeed maybe one or more of the disciples of Jesus qualified as a “true Christian” unless it is a priority for a “traditional Bible Protestant” Christian to also finds flaws in some aspect of the disciples’ faith.
In any event, if praising compliance with “the teachings of the Bible” regarding helping our fellow humans in not the “highest priority” of a “traditional Bible Protestant” Christian, then one might wonder where it does rank, if at all, in the priorities of a “traditional Bible Protestant” Christian – higher or lower than the apparent priority criticizing the beliefs of those that comply with “the teachings of the Bible” regarding helping our fellow humans?
BCB, if Kurt definitively states a thing is so, it is so. Haven’t you seen that in his responses here? Kurt doesn’t say, “In my opinion … as I understand it … per my reading … some similar minded people may disagree … it seems to me” and so on. When kurt says something he’s 100% correct and there is no deviation. “Traditional bible protestants” is a thing because those words are in the dictionary and because Kurt says so. “scientific evidence fully aligns with the historical evidence” because Kurt and his cite say so, regardless of the overwhelming scientific consensus that disagrees.
If Kurt says it is so, it is so. Nothing more needs to be said. He may not be the voice of god, but he seems to believe he is close.
Kurt overlooked some stuff in my original link such as this- https://www.siouxlandproud.com/news/local-news/christian-group-burns-lgbtq-library-books/1542523564
Something about a kristian group burning books that Kurt credits only to one man.
Debbo, I agree that Kurt often offers statements he seems to treat as definitive and lacking any need for explanation, justification or support outside of his personal assertions. I have tried on numerous occasions to engage him in actual discussions, but have not been very successful. Instead, he has tended to point out that whatever I write is incorrect (although once he actually agreed with something I wrote), or that I have failed to understand his comments or that I have made a grammar or spelling error.
But since he does often respond to questions or statements I thought it might be informative to get his views on the priorities of people like himself who he declares to be “traditional Bible protestant” Christians when it comes to denigrating the beliefs of those who try to practice altruism toward people in need according to Biblical representations of the instructions of Jesus Christ on how to treat people in need. Thus, I hoped he might tell us whether and why for him, as a “traditional Bible protestant” Christian, criticizing people based on his perception of the inadequacies of their personal beliefs may be a higher priority than praising them for conduct toward people in need in ways the Bible reports that Christ encouraged.
That’s a good description for how attempts to have a discussion with Kurt devolve. 😁
I haven’t had much success in learning from “Christians” similar to Kurt how they square disregarding the needs of others with the CHRIST part of “CHRISTian.”
Usually I get either OT references, intensive text cherry picking or obscurism.
“bearcreekbat” had written of me:
I’d written:
“bearcreekbat” writes:
Your initial statement was about my priorities as a traditional Bible Protestant, and as a traditional Bible Protestant, I’d say all good deeds are in compliance with the teachings of the Bible.
The word protest originally referred to a solemn affirmation. It didn’t have to be against something. The first people called “Protestants” were protesting in favor of freedom of conscience.
Deb Geelsdottir writes:
I inadvertently say things that aren’t true sometimes, Deb, but not nearly as often or as recklessly as you do.
Traditional Bible Protestants exist because traditional Protestants have always affirmed the primacy of the Bible.
No, because the reasoning in the cited sources is essentially correct.
I welcome valid rebuttals if you have any.
“mike from iowa” writes:
I’d read that article in its entirety before I commented, but you apparently haven’t.
It was one guy.
Kurt, you are one of the most unintentionally funny people I know. It’s a great contrast in one so humorless. As I’ve said before, don’t ever change. That’s merely finger exercise on my part, when addressed to one so unbending.
I breathlessly await your response. 😆😆😆
Claiming to be aTraditional Bible Protestant is like scorning others with the term politically correct. A Protestant is a Protestant and correct is correct. No qualifiers apply.
Here, Kurt. This was produced for all the self consumed fake Christians like you.
https://www.facebook.com/312383761871/videos/10155858055286872?s=1333004518&v=e&sfns=mo
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2019/06/prison-of-mind.html
Amen!
As usual, Kurt points out that my statements are, in his opinion, incorrect.
I mentioned the limitation of “protestants” might have excluded true Christians existing before those who protested the Catholic church. And while “Protestants generally trace to the 16th century their separation from the Catholic Church,” Kurt is correct in pointing out that there were some even earlier “protestants.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Protestantism
I am not sure how that makes my statement that “true Christians” existed before those protesting Catholicism incorrect or invalid, but perhaps Kurt will elaborate.
And as a note, when Kurt references “Your initial statement was about my priorities as a traditional Bible Protestant,” to point out how I also was in error in discussing “good deeds” he again eliminates my additional qualification to the question:
I take that to mean he has concluded the manner in which I framed my inquiry was in error.
Also it appears that in his view there are no imaginable “good deeds” that might not be in compliance with the teachings of the Bible – such as saving the life rather than stoning to death some who has: disobeyed his parents; gathered sticks on the Sabbath day; been found to be a medium or wizard; takes the Lord’s name in vain; commits blasphemy; engages in extramarital sex; or worships other gods. I agree that saving the life of any of the above would be a “good deed,” but I failed to see how doing is consistent with biblical teachings to kill the offender, but as Kurt points out I just must be wrong again.
The good news for me this time, however, that while I again was hoisted on the petard of making “incorrect” statements in Kurt’s view, I apparently avoided misunderstanding comments or making any grammmar or spelling errors. Two out of three ain’t too bad!
I will concede, however, I remain absolutely puzzled about how or why a traditional bible protestant Christian would consider it a higher priority to question someone’s faith than to “praise” him or her for “compliance with the teachings of the Bible regarding helping our fellow humans.”
BCB, you are far from the only one who remains “absolutely puzzled” by significant parts of Kurt’s responses. 😁 They do have some entertainment value, but that is diminishing.
Deb Geelsdottir writes to me:
I used to be a center-left Democrat who thought that the earth was billions of years old and that humans and squid had evolved from a common ancestor. I’m pretty sure I’ve changed more than you have, Deb.
Porter Lansing writes:
Do you deny the existence of male Protestants and female Protestants, Porter?
I’d say it was probably produced for people who wouldn’t see its distortions of American history for what they are.
“bearcreekbat” writes:
As I’d told Porter in a previous comment above, people have been living by the principles of traditional Bible Protestantism for nearly 2,000 years. The only point I was trying to make in my last response to you, though, was that a “protest” in the original sense of the word was a solemn affirmation that didn’t have to be against something.
I believe you made several grammatical errors in that comment.
Evans … Name five people from the last 2000 years who’ve labeled themselves Traditional Bible Protestants. You can’t because you’re the only one. You’re a born again evangelical with an identity complex. You crave attention like a prisoner in your own neuroses.
Don’t ever change Kurt. 😆😆😆😆😆
Porter Lansing writes to me:
It seems unlikely that I’m the only person who’s ever identified himself or herself as a traditional Bible Protestant, but because the primacy of the Bible is a foundational Protestant principle, it’s probably worth noting that the phrase “Bible Protestant” is technically redundant.
Learn more here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant
Unfortunately the widespread ignorance of religious history in modern society makes that redundancy useful and sometimes necessary.
You seem to be projecting your own traits onto me, Porter, since you apparently want to identify yourself as a “Protestant” while aggressively rejecting Protestant teachings.
Kurt or anyone can’t name another self identified TBP (the abbreviation isn’t as tedious as the actual phrase).
Kurt has no facts to dispute my assertion. He has only personal opinions.
Thus, he’s done discussing and back to projecting.
Yawn …… Enough ……. Adios
I’m just going to drop this here w/o comment from moi… https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/gop-senators-force-trump-nominee-to-withdraw-because-he-didnt-give-catholics-extra-rights-to-discriminate-against-gays/
Isn’t a “traditional Bible Protestant” how Puritans would also self-identify? I really am not trying to cast shade; Kurt’s phrasing just made me think of why Puritans left the Church of England (and Catholicism), objecting that “man” had interjected himself (a King and a Pope) into what had been clearly dictated (in the Bible) by God.
Good morning, o. :) I was raised, confirmed and am a member of UCC formerly The Congregational Church which was the church of the Puritans. We, unlike Catholics, discuss and denounce our discriminatory beginnings. However, we do share with the Pilgrims our founding and celebration of America’s greatest holiday … Thanksgiving.
~ While the Pilgrims were Separatists, the Puritans were non-separating Congregationalists — they believed the Church of England was the one true church and they were loyal to England, but not in the way they worshipped. They believed that “New England” worship and practice would be an example for Old England and the world.
The Pilgrims were few in number. 102 sailed across the Atlantic on the Mayflower. About half died the first winter. The Puritans came by the thousands, indeed forty to fifty thousand eventually came. By 1776, 75% of the American population were of Puritan roots.
The Pilgrims came earlier in 1620, the Puritans came later in 1629-30.
The Pilgrims for the most part were of the poor class. Not all on the Mayflower came for religious reasons, some came for better economic opportunities in the New World. The Puritans were primarily upper middle class.
The Pilgrims were not terribly well educated, while the Puritans typically were. Over 100 of the first Puritans to come to America had been educated at Oxford or Cambridge. Within 6 years of landing, the Puritans founded the first college, Harvard, in Cambridge (Boston).
The Pilgrims settled in Plymouth. The Puritans settled in Salem and Boston.
Pilgrims had names like William Bradford and William Brewster, and Myles Standish. The Puritans had names like John Endicott, John Winthrop.
Ultimately, however, both colonies united to form Massachusetts following the Puritans having their charter revoked in 1689.
Since 1620, we have all suffered their arrival. Greenland would have been a better place for the lot of them.
You’re right, Jerry. We were a sour bunch. The Puritan Church (America’s first Protestants) have become famous for intolerance and telling people what to do, often with harsh repercussions for non-followers. However, we’ve morphed into just the opposite. UCC was the first (and possibly still the only) church in SD to recognize, honor, and perform same sex marriages.
*Kurt Evans, when he gloms on to the term “traditional” in his self labeling, exudes those traditionally reprehensible traits (intolerance, telling people what to do and believe, and harsh penalties) that The Congregational Protestants have long left behind. He’s the sour one now.
Porter, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church-USA are gay friendly and are allowed to do weddings for anyone, regardless of the genders of the couple. I think the Presbyterian Church-USA does to and perhaps the American Baptist Conference. Of course the UUs do.
The thing about Christian tradition is that it was created by dusty old white men for dusty old white men. The roles played by women and POC were sorted off early on, with only menial stuff left for them, while the positions of power and control were set aside by dusty old white men exclusively for dusty old white men. They maintained their positions of power and control for centuries. And thus was born “Christian tradition!” (I always hear Tevye in Fiddler when I type the word “tradition” in this type of context. 😁)
A few decades or so ago the RCC came clean and admitted they didn’t have biblical support for reserving ordination for dusty old white men so, why not ordain women? 🎶Tradition🎶
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Debbo & Porter, today’s RC Journal page 1 reports that the Dakota Conference of the United Methodist Church has passed a resolution opposing the traditional exclusionary bans on marriage and ordination of members of the LGBTQ community. Will wonders never cease!
Yeaaa – “Baby, Let’s Be Methodists Tonight!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJ3HdG8v54
Debbo and Bear, that’s great. Is there a difference between those religion’s national policies and what’s practiced in South Dakota? Two alternate realities, often. (#BadGrammar101) :0)
Porter, the Journal article reports the action as seeking to change UMC anti-LBGTQ national policies, including punishing clergy that perform gay marriages. As to whether the local Methodist churches comply with the objectionable policies locally, I haven’t a clue.
There will be backlash from Methodist central, I’ll guess Bear. Hope not. It is Pride Month, after all. YAY!!
Good one, Debbo. Tevye and tradition. I hear it, too.
For me, it seems that in our 21st century, “patriot”, “politically correct”, and “traditional” are dog whistle words used mostly by white, male supremacists and bigots attempting to shield and salve themselves from proper criticism and ridicule by we temperate and moderate progressives.
I’m sure there’s a difference from church to church. Clergy have “moved on” to another church after performing a legal action parishioners hit the roof over.
Here’s one for our poor, mistreated, white males.
https://www.facebook.com/100025823808426/posts/362565307947593/?app=fbl
If you don’t have FB—
“First they came for the white men and I did not speak out ……. because no one is coming for the white men, you paranoid, delusional, self-pitying dimwits.”
Jeff Tiedrich
(Per Jeff’s photo, he’s a middle aged white man)
Mike of the Prairie, I have long thought that if I HAD to “belong” to a church for some kind of legal reason (I don’t) I would “join” UU if they required joining. But not if I were required to recite a creed which includes belief in a personal savior or a triune god or a personified singular god. And if there were any UU groups accessible here in the Great Boonie sections of the Rural Red Lands. And I don’t want to go to meetings. What do you think, Mike OTP, debbo, Cory, anybody?
I have not read all the posts yet, too many, but I will scan them for answers.
UU churches require no creeds or particular belief systems. Members do not have to be Christians. Ironically, UUs often behave in a more Christ-like manner than many Christian churches.
Thank you, debbo. Apparently there are no groups in SD except in Vermillion, Sioux Falls and Rapid. That’s ok.
Porter, and wasn’t it also true that many of the original pilgrims were felons, miscreants and ne’er-do-wells who were swept out of British jails and off the streets to get them out of the way, and at the same time, to go and colonize the new country. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.
That’s how I learned it, Robin. Of course, I was taught religion by the reformed descendants of the Puritans. The current UCC church takes an especially dim view of how the Pilgrims mistreated Indians. Puritans certainly had little respect for indigenous themselves but probably treated each other worse. I was taught that Pilgrims AND Puritans left England because the moral character had become too liberal. The code of conduct wasn’t strict enough. You’ve read stories of people being put in stocks and stoned for being too liberal. What mental state must modern day fundamentalists be in to want a return to those “stick up their butt” traditions? Borderline fundamentalist sadism, the current UCC Church would say.
“o” writes:
The official teachings of the Church of England itself, particularly as defined in the 39 Anglican Articles of Religion from 1562, affirm the primacy of the Bible and fit comfortably within the parameters of traditional Bible Protestantism:
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion
The problem from my perspective is that many people who identify themselves with traditionally Anglican institutions are no longer following traditional Anglican teachings.
Porter Lansing writes:
And about half of the rest were from other branches of traditional Bible Protestantism, leaving roughly ten to fifteen percent of the original U.S. population that didn’t affirm the primacy of the Bible.
The article below would suggest your portrayal of Pilgrims and Puritans is largely the result of deceitful and relatively recent propaganda, Porter.
“Puritans drank beer, loved sex, and didn’t burn witches”:
https://medium.com/@MM_OKeefe/puritans-drank-beer-loved-sex-and-didnt-burn-witches-cf5fc7cfd6e1
None of them refer to themselves as traditional bible protestants. Just you call yourself your term which focus groups better than patriarchal fundamentalist.
Medium.com is an invalid source.
Porter Lansing writes:
No, but you are, Porter:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-11-28-0211280291-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/11/23/folks-at-first-thanksgiving-werent-all-that-puritanical/8ceda00f-3914-46c4-832f-bc91ac586989/
My description of Puritan behavior stands on historical accounts. Beer and sex have nothing to do with telling people what to do and think and imposing harsh penalties for those that don’t obey. E.G. (Any night in Pierre during session.)
Evans, however probably doesn’t drink beer and is less attractive to women than genital warts. He just tells people what to do and think. Incels are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom. Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals. The term is a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates”. Wikipedia
Evans believes Puritans didn’t kill witches. That’s probably why he’s been cursed ….
~ “If you think being a witch is just sitting around doing spells all the time, you think wrong,” she says. “Half my business is being on Instagram.”
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-col1-witches-of-los-angeles-20190611-htmlstory.html?utm_source=Essential+California&utm_campaign=75b1072c8c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6e35f7f85b-75b1072c8c-83348197
There was just another death of a small child. The article says people are coming from Africa and Asia to come up the Mexican border. She was from India. It’s terribly sad but more complicated than your post. Should they be allowed to assist people to break the law and enter this country illegally? There is a crisis at the border and migrants need to stop coming. They need to fully understand they cannot come into this country and then it will end. Aid needs to be given to their home countries. We have a bad policy that is encouraging risk taking.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/indian-migrant-girl-died-arizona-002103830.html
Porter Lansing had written:
Now Porter writes of me:
You and I agree that you’re essentially the opposite of the Puritans, Porter, but we obviously disagree about who’s sour.
People were executed for practicing witchcraft, but less frequently than in Europe, and with more due process.
Robin Friday asks:
The Pilgrims decided to bring paying passengers to America after they realized it was the only way they could afford the voyage at all. Some of those passengers may have been criminals, but they weren’t swept out of jails, and they weren’t regarded as Pilgrims.
Wingnuts on Scotus determine a cross on public land maintained with tax dollars is not religious.
https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2019/06/christmas-trees-and-crosses/
Alito has this covered, both ways…… In a truly impressive demonstration of cognitive dissonance, Justice Alito characterized removal of the cross as “hostility to religion” and denied that the cross had religious significance.
Okay.
mfi, that cross is as meaningless as this publicly maintained statue depicting ol’ Satan his own self.
“The country’s capital city holds unique bragging rights for having what is commonly acknowledged as the only public monument to the Devil himself.
“Located in the gardens of the expansive Parque del Buen Retiro, this statue is 666 meters height above the sea level. The Fallen Angel (Ángel Caído) is set atop a marble pillar in the midst of a fountain decorated with sinister demonic entities and some rather miscast reptiles. Lucifer is depicted at the moment he is cast out of Heaven, as inspired by a passage in John Milton’s Paradise Lost.
Sculptor Ricardo Bellver cast the statue in bronze for the third World’s Fair in Paris, after which point the piece was acquired by the Museo del Prado. The statue was later donated to the city of Madrid and inaugurated at its current location in 1885.
The statue is renowned equally for its discordant subject matter, as well as Bellver’s ability to imbue a sense of tension and anguish in his rendering of Satan.”
So now, we can have Menorah’s during the Christmas festivities. Woo woo.
“LAKEWOOD – It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas downtown, but Hanukkah? Not so much.
In this large Jewish enclave, a complaint over a menorah set up beside a decorated Christmas tree in Town Square has triggered the menorah’s removal, and upset numerous residents and at least one downtown merchant, who says township officials acted rashly.” https://www.app.com/story/news/local/jackson-lakewood/lakewood/2015/12/09/lakewood-menorah-public-display/77034780/
Unintended consequences sometimes open doors for understanding. The silver lining of life was built in such a regard.
I blush to guess what so called kristians can do with their omnipresent religious displays in public. This is a family oriented blog and I can blast hypocrites at another site, and do quite often,
“mike from iowa” writes:
Justice Alito writes:
See page 31 of Alito’s opinion here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Justice Alito writes wrong…again, what a dope. https://whitecrosses666.bandcamp.com/
“mike from iowa” had written:
I’d quoted from page 31 of Justice Alito’s written opinion:
“jerry” replies:
Are you claiming the cross isn’t a Christian symbol?
What gawd fearing kkkristians have become under drumpf’s guidance….
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/indiana-priest-slurs-black-lives-matter-as-maggots-and-parasites-trying-to-create-a-new-species-of-human/
Just like jeebus taught them to do, right true believers
Wow. Mike, that is one sick puppy. I hope the RCC finds a home for him where he can be deprogrammed or defrocked. Then he can start his own hateful evangelical church and hang out with Jerry Falwell and other cruel bastards.