Posted by John Gray Wallace on 7/5/2009, 11:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Scandals"
68.230.95.193
To your 1st paragraph, above, I would reply that I try NOT to believe in the things I "hope" are true, but only in those things which are there to be believed.
Paragraph Two's comment about "punishing" someone's else behavior is not linked to having a view regarding that behavior, although a "punishment" may sometimes ensue from such a view. But the mere having and expressing of such a view is what I advocate IS perfectly acceptable. As for punishments, when such behavior occurs within the Body of Christ (the Church), then Matthew 18 outlines how to proceed; when it occurs outside the Church, the authorities have jurisdiction.
In Paragraph 3, Carter's choice is HIS choice. I may, or may not, choose likewise, as situations and circumstances may vary; to whit, Carter's choice is not binding on me, or others.
Merely for the sake of argument, allowing the twin premises of your 4th paragraph to be true, if that is, indeed, Carter's linkage, of "condemnation-avoidance with avoiding pride" and that his point is that we should recognize no absolutes, the first linkage is subjective to him (& therefore non-binding on others, and not objective, as all truth is)and his 2d point is contra-Christian in the extreme and calls into question the validity of Carter's own grasp of the faith he espouses. As does, by the way, his naming of Paul Tillich as his "favorite" "Christian" theologian.
Te reference to Bush & WMD's in your 5th paragraph I find not germaine to our discussion and dismiss. The other point you make therein, is probably true, but irrelevant. Popular wisdom, majority opinion (Consensus Gentium) is no proof of the truth of any idea. As for our "City On the Hill" self-image, that is given validity by the fact that so many from other countries are literally, in some cases, dying to come here. Still. Even after the decades-long erosion of American values which has been promulgated on our society from various quarters in recent years.
In your 6th paragraph, again accepting your premise regarding what Carter's intentions were, this view is , again, contra-Christian. If it IS Jimmy's view, it places him against the traditional Christian concept of the sanctity of marriage wherein only adultery is countenanced as a valid cause to dissolve any marriage. Popular in "the world", but definitely contra-Christian.
In your concluding paragraph, I am, again, prepared to grant, just for the sake of argument, that Carter's intentions were as you suggest. However, I think there were other, better, more Christian-compatible and Christ-like ways in which to accomplish this end. Socrates, by the way, also declared that, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
That the USA needs to re-examine itself and its motives has been apparent since Viet Nam And Roe V. Wade. You may recall that even in the 1950's, I believe it was, that Marlon Brando starred in a film called "The Ugly American", which film addressed the then-perception, even among some of our allies, that the USA had grown arrogant. Bobby Kennedy also addressed this in a far more constructive way when he came out against the Viet Nam War, asking, to closely paraphrase, "When did we (the USA) become so God-like as to have the right to decide who would live and die today, and which villages would be bombed into oblivion, and which lives would be destroyed?" The same questions could be asked of Iraq and Afghanistan; especially the former.
With great respect,
John
Message Thread:
« Back to thread