I think that's incorrect. God makes a covenant to never do it again. God does *not* apologize, or otherwise acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Confederate Flag
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
- Status
I think that's incorrect. God makes a covenant to never do it again. God does *not* apologize, or otherwise acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I think you might want to keep in mind that a number of statehouses started flying the Confederate flag as an offensive exercise directed right at the Civil Rights Movement. That they're finally bending to pressure to stop being dicks 50 years later is actually a positive thing. The fact that it took 50 years is vexing, though.
That's ultimately the issue. Flying the flag was an act of dickery 50 years ago. It also represented governmental endorsement of dickery.
A fine point, but wholly accurate: a promise not to do X again is not acknowledgement that doing X was improper. It is often taken that way, but it isn't a linguistic dictate.
And, in theological terms, a deeply meaningful one. Imagine the theological difference between, "God is infallible," and, "God can and does occasionally make a mistake or otherwise act in other than a right manner."
If God *ever* apologizes, then the latter is true, and Judeo-Christian theology is turned on its ear.
Point well made.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Within mainstream Jewish theology God can be defeated by humans in a theological argument then told to go away because it's none of his business. Which amuses God in the way a parent is amused the first time their kid beast them at a game (Ref). It's a very different relationship between God and humans in the major branches of Jewish theology I'm aware of than in mainstream Christianity. Judaeo-Christian is seldom an appropriate term to use; it almost invariably means Christian, with a side order of cultural appropriation and erasure.
Yes, it is a different relationship. But, after a quick consultation with a rabbinical friend of mine - at least by his interpretation, that story does *not* refute my point.
When you note that G-d in that story is amused the way a parent is when a kid beats them at a game, that's entirely correct, because it was a game, or at least a test. G-d in many of the stories is a bit of a trickster. He apparently liked to give a lot of passive-aggressive tests of His chosen.
In that story, someone asks G-d for an authoritative answer, and He gives it. But Rabbi Joshua noted that the Law already given said that interpretation of the Law was not something one had to go to Heaven to get authoritative answers on. They are *supposed* to figure it out for themselves - and in many cases majority rules (except when the majority is wrong, then you aren't supposed to follow them).
So, it was not that Rabbi Joshua proved G-d wrong. It was that Rabbi Joshua pulled an Admiral Ackbar, saw the trap, and dodged it. The moral of that story is not that G-d can be incorrect, but that He does want you to use your head, and is happy when you do so.
"Seldom," does not mean, "never". "Almoste invariably," does not mean, "always." Suggesting that everyone else does that is not proof I am doing that.
And, not really happy with the passive implication of impropriety - either make an accusation, or don't, please.
Last edited:
This caught my eye:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/living/feat-stone-mountain-georgia-naacp-confederate-symbol/index.html
Like I said upthread, I can't condone removing most of the statuary, etc. that commemorates the fallen South. I think removal- let's be honest, destruction- of this monument, despite what it symbolizes, would be akin to what Islamic extremists have done to the works left by previous cultures where they hold sway. Buddha statues, the Assyrian winged bulls, etc.- all destroyed because they didn't agree with what they represented.*
No. Don't destroy the carvings- correct the apparently slanted romanticized-Comfederacy/slavery-minimizing message offered to visitors at the museum present at the site. Bring it into compliance with historical accuracy.
* also, according to some international organizations, to cover up the looting of archaeological sites to fund their operations.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/living/feat-stone-mountain-georgia-naacp-confederate-symbol/index.html
Like I said upthread, I can't condone removing most of the statuary, etc. that commemorates the fallen South. I think removal- let's be honest, destruction- of this monument, despite what it symbolizes, would be akin to what Islamic extremists have done to the works left by previous cultures where they hold sway. Buddha statues, the Assyrian winged bulls, etc.- all destroyed because they didn't agree with what they represented.*
No. Don't destroy the carvings- correct the apparently slanted romanticized-Comfederacy/slavery-minimizing message offered to visitors at the museum present at the site. Bring it into compliance with historical accuracy.
* also, according to some international organizations, to cover up the looting of archaeological sites to fund their operations.
Neonchameleon
Legend
No. But it makes mine - that you can not generalise that way. If I just wanted to refute your point I'd go with one of the passages in the Bible in which God directly and explicitly changes his mind. To me the clearest are in Exodus and Jonah (especially Exodus), but there are others.
Exodus 32: 11-14 (NRSV)
11 But Moses implored the Lord his God, and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
Jonah 3:10 (NRSV)
10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.
But although growing in popularity within Christianity Open Theism is still fringe, as from another angle is American-style Liberal Christianity that reaches as far as e.g. John Shelby Spong. (Liberal Christianity in the UK is a very different thing.)
But that's not what I was talking about. What I was doing was pointing out that Jewish conceptions of G-d and humanity's relationship with G-d are very different from Christian ones of Jehovah most of the time and that it is very seldom a theologically useful term.
Apparently you are not happy with me saying exactly what I mean and taking care not to say what I don't intend to.
Bringing this back to topic, when someone waves around the Confederate Flag that doesn't mean that you should immediately call them a racist despite that having been created by racists for racist purposes and representing some of the strongest overt racism the US has seen. On the other hand it is sensible to tell them not to fly that thing again and why.
Which is what I am doing here with the term Judaeo-Christian, a term I have heard several Jewish friends rant about at length. It is not a term you should be using unless you know what you are doing (and most people who know what they are doing shouldn't be using it either but thats a whole different story).
- Status
