Ed. Good read. Long. You might want to print and read.
Commentary Magazine Wilfred M. McClay January 2007
Even before November’s midterm elections and the Republican party’s loss of its congressional majorities, there was widespread talk of the exhaustion, even death, of conservatism in America. Over the past year or so, indeed, every new day has seemed to bring another article or book on the subject. Gathering steam as the election approached, such inquests became as popular among conservatives themselves as among liberals. Each offered a distinctive thesis or complaint relating to a perceived malfeasance of the Bush administration, whether in foreign policy, social policy, homeland security, domestic spending, corruption, or any number of other areas.
One particularly notable gesture of disaffection appeared on the very eve of the election, when, in a symposium titled “Time for Us to Go,” a group of seven self-identified conservative writers were moved to publish, in the liberal Washington Monthly, their reasons why the Republicans deserved to lose. While not exactly the “A” list of conservative minds, these writers, ranging from Christopher Buckley to Joe Scarborough (the former Florida Congressman turned talk-TV host), urged the defeat of their party for the sake, precisely, of the future health of conservatism itself. But their words contributed mightily to a growing general impression: that after a run of two decades or so, conservatism’s day in the American political sun was drawing to a close
. . . more
Father – I’m really interested in your views on this subject.
Personally, I feel conservatism has a vital and important role in our democracy. There is a correct size for government and the presence of two competing ideologies serves to maintain a sort of equilibrium between government that is too small to meet the needs of its citizens and government that is so large it suffocates freedom. Conservatism, therefore serves as an essential counter-weight preventing government from becoming too large, unwieldy, intrusive, powerful and unresponsive. The policies of President Bush have diverged dramatically this traditional conservative role, and I feel that conservatives need to disassociate themselves from them and reasert their traditional values.
Do you agree?
Here is an interesting statistic. Since taking a position supporting President Bush’s war policy John McCain’s support among New Hampshire independents has dropped from 49% to 29%.
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=177706
Conservatives can’t win elections without appealing to independent voters and they can’t win independent voters over if they are associated with George W. Bush.
Let’s define conservatism. Where do we draw the line, for example, between traditional conservatism and the neoconservatism and voodoo economics? I think there are a lot of differences and it in order to answer the question of whether conservatism is finished it is important to draw the distinctions and explicitly state which concepts belong to true conservatism and which ones are ideological adulterations.
Economics: Traditional Conservatism emphasizes fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets. Neo-conservatism emphasizes starve the beast and borrow and spend.
Size of Government: Traditional Conservatism emphasizes efficiency and value to taxpayers. Neoconservatism emphasizes emasculated government that is powerless to intervene.
Foreign Policy: Traditional Conservatism emphasizes avoidance of foreign entanglements. Neoconservatism emphasizes regime-change and nation-building.
Middle-east: Traditional Conservatism emphasizes an even-handed approach with America serving as honest broker. Neoconservatism emphasizes vigorous and unqualified support for Israel and demonization of Arabic culture and the Islamic faith.
Religion: Traditional Conservatism defends freedom of religion and family values. Neo-conservatism emphasizes Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionist policies that promote fuundamentalism and Millenialist end-of-times beliefs over authentic Christianity and the rights of peoples of other faiths.
So to answer the question of whther Conservatism is finished after Bush, I would answer that it is finished only if it fails to return to its traditional beliefs.
2008 promises to offer one of the most interesting Presidential races in a good long time.
On the Republican side the candidates I am going to be watching most closely are Senator Sam Brownback (KS) and Governor Mike Huckabee (AR).
Although McCain and Giuliani are leading in the polls now, I believe both will fade. Neither enjoys support from the social conservative base. McCain has hurt himself with his support for the escalation in Iraq and his volatile personality. Giuliani is pro-choice and as Mayor, kicked his wife out of his residence so he could move in his mistress. Mitt Romney has also been mentioned prominently as a candidate but he also has problems with the social conservative base.
Brownback and Huckabee would both begin with solid support from the social conservative base, and neither has close ties to the failed Bush administration that would hurt them. Brownback’s support for a resolution criticizing the escalation is intriguing. If he can disassociate himself from Bush’s mistakes and totally recraft and redefine the conservative message so as to reivigorate the base while appealing to independents, he could be a strong candidate.
Huckabee has the advantage of being totally removed from Washington and busy solving practical day-to-day problems as a State Governor. His comments indicate that he is aware that Republicans need to broaden their base. EJ Dionne writes about Huckabee ” .. he is mastering a conservative form of triangulation blending religious conservatism with policy pragmatism. .. If it all works, Huckabee would become The Next New Republican Thing: an affable evangelical who talks about issues that secular and middle-of-the-road voters care about. .”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_republican_to_watch_mike_h.html
The results of our failed experiment in Iraq weigh down the chances of any Republican in next years Presidential election. I don’t think that the situation is hopeless for the republican candidate but I do think that they need to put considerable distance between themselves and George W. Bush.
Any responses?
Dear Dean Scourtes,
You seem to be left alone on this conservative issue.
You can only conserve what you have or ideas from the past, i.e. the Constitution or the right of Habeas Corpus; you can’t conserve the future-you can’t conserve a future war; you can try to conserve the present one as Bush is doing.
If you only conserve, you can not partake of changes in the weather or politics or in new ideas. To conserve the Geocentric Universe was a historical tour de force.
Maybe a new force that rejects the liberal or democratic politicts of the current time will come forth; maybe a neo-neo or maybe a dimetric or tennis position.
Any force will meet a counter force as sure as a cause will effect an affect.
So maintain the faith.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
Yes, you would think that conservatives would want to weigh in on the future of their movement.
Personally I feel we are all guilty of not recognizing that both Conservatism and Liberalism provide a neccesary Yin and Yang, two primal opposing but complementary forces which, together, help keep our democracy healthy.
Traditional conservatism serves as a braking mechanism to prevent runaway government and also defend traditional values that are essential for maintaining social cohesion, order and stability. Traditional liberalism provides the necessary pokes and prods when government is neglecting the needs of it’s citizens and serves as an advocate for segments of our society who through inequality and intolerance are denied full particpation in the economic and political life of our nation. Both conservatives and liberals should acknowlege the weaknesses in their own movements and be grateful for the existence of the other which checks their own worst excesses.
I actually think conservatism began to go off the rails in 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, because that is when respect for the Yin-Yang relationship was discarded in exchange for a ruthless, take-no-prisoners approach. Gingrich taught his acolytes to use the most derogatory and inflamatory language possible when describing the political opposition and destroyed whatever comity was left among legislators. Gingrich poisoned and paralyzed Congress through this approach.
There was also an emphasis on consolidation of political power by any means that older conservatives found unseemly. The impeachment of President Clinton for a stupid sexual indescretion seems unbelievable to us now, after having a President cynically lie to the nation, and in his own State of the Union address, in order to take the country into an uneccesary war. The single-minded pursuit of legislative power, led by former speaker Tom Delay, resulted in numerous scandals revolving around the K-Street Project and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, which both contributed to the Republicans undoing in the 2006 elections.
President Bush ushered in a new era of “big-government” conservatism that stood traditional conservatism on its head. It has been marked by abandonment of fiscal restraint and deficits, military adventurism, a sharp expansion of executive power and curtailment of civil rights, and increasingly corrupt and even more inefficient government performance.
As I said I think conservatism has an essential and valuable role to play in American politics, but to survive it has to jettison the awful accoutrements picked up under Gingrich, Delay and Bush and return to its traditional roots.
“Personally I feel we are all guilty of not recognizing that both Conservatism and Liberalism provide a neccesary Yin and Yang, two primal opposing but complementary forces which, together, help keep our democracy healthy.”
Spoken like a true liberal. Perhaps Good and Evil are also such a dialectic?
Christopher: Maybe you didn’t realize you just called at least half of America evil. But thank you for illustrating my point.
Part of the strategy of the right wing propaganda machine over the past 15 years has been to inculcate a Manichean view of politics so that the conservative base simply does not disagree with its political opposition but views the political opposition as evil and actively hates them (see Ann Coulter Syndrome). As always, the target audience for fascist proaganda is the frustrated white male demographic, a group whose insecurities can usually be exploited with through the offering of scapegoats, (gays, muslims, abortionists, people on welfare) that can conveniently take the blame for all problems.
This is the divide and conquer strategy. Working together calmly and dispassionately, with trust and respect, Americans can solve all of our nation’s problems. Divided, embittered and distrustful, we remain paralyzed and incapable of addressing with national problems resulting from situations where the few benefit from the suffering of the many. Ask yourself who prospers through our inability to deal with issues like health care and dependency on foreign oil.
Actually, Dean.
It’s just brain chemistry
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html
Wow! Sounds just like what the liberals do, let’s see:
Part of the strategy of the left wing propaganda machine over the past 15 years has been to inculcate a Manichean view of politics so that the liberal base simply does not disagree with its political opposition but views the political opposition as evil and actively hates them (see Cindy Sheehan). As always, the target audience for leftist proaganda is the frustrated rich guilty white demographic, a group whose insecurities can usually be exploited with through the offering of scapegoats (white males, corporations, conservative Christians who actually believe the Bible means what it says, people who work for a living and pay their bills and don’t want to foot the bill for anyone who wants to make a lifestyle out of living on welfare) that can conveniently take the blame for all problems.
Same thing. Yes we can all come together to do something but the problem isn’t one sides and it’s just as nasty all the way around.
Dean, in case you don’t realize it the idea of a dialectic is not Christian. Christopher was not calling half the American population evil (you’ve done far more of that over the years on this blog). Christopher is trying to point out that a the dialectic approach you prefer is an inherent form of dualism that refuses to acknowledge a hierarchy of values and produces a realitivist, utiliatarian, non-Chrisitian world view.
Meona writes: “Part of the strategy of the left wing propaganda machine over the past 15 years has been to inculcate a Manichean view of politics so that the liberal base simply does not disagree with its political opposition but views the political opposition as evil and actively hates them . . .”
But there is a difference, and I think it is an important difference. Liberal hatred tends to be focused on individuals, not on conservatives as a group. Certainly there are exceptions to that, and I’m sure that Fr. Hans can mention a number of them. But in this case the exceptions prove the rule.)
In general, liberals tend to hate Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Coulter, Limbaugh, and so on. In my liberal crowd I have NEVER heard any ever say that “all conservatives are despicable,” or anything remotely like that. In fact, in many cases liberals agree with conservatives on specific issues. I have a liberal friend who was talking about “feminazis” long before Limbaugh was.
The hatred from the right is very different. They hate liberals as a class. Liberals are stupid. Liberals are evil. They are in the business of keeping people poor so as to stay in power. Liberals hate America. They are the “culture of death,” in comparison with which the other side is the self-anointed “culture of life.” Liberalism is a disease, which may be at least partially exterminated by the culture war. While it is true that the occasional liberal (emphasis on “occasional”) may be a good or at least well-meaning person, such a creature has no moral foundation for its goodness; for the liberal being good is, at best, a matter of personal taste, rather like a choice of toothpaste.
Meona: “As always, the target audience for leftist proaganda is the frustrated rich guilty white demographic, a group whose insecurities can usually be exploited with through the offering of scapegoats (white males, corporations, conservative Christians who actually believe the Bible means what it says . . . ”
So I infer from the above comment that you believe that the various exterminations commanded in the Bible were right and proper?
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
I Sam 15:3
Is that the idea?
You obviously have not read the forum at Mothering.com. I was there for long enough to know that many many liberals think that because I voted for BW I personally am a baby killer (even though I am pro-life) and because I think homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian that I must be homophobic to the point of agreeing with murder as well. Those are the liberals I know. If there are some out there that are different and are willing to be tolerant of another point of view besides their own, I have yet to meet them, online or IRL. If your experience is different, feel blessed.
Did God say to do it? According to verse 2 of that same chapter, yes. In that case, it must be right and proper. I do not argue history with God. I tend to lose everytime. ~smile~
Hm. That should be GW, not BW. LOL
Meona writes: “You obviously have not read the forum at Mothering.com. I was there for long enough to know that many many liberals think that because I voted for GW I personally am a baby killer (even though I am pro-life) and because I think homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian that I must be homophobic to the point of agreeing with murder as well.”
Well, sure, you’ll run into that kind of stuff on the internet. I’d be surprised if you didn’t. But I don’t believe that you’ll find many books like that by mainstream liberals on the best-seller lists. Many conservative authors and pundits take a scorched-earth approach to these issues, in which anyone who doesn’t go the distance with them is a “liberal.” In fact, I think for many of them that is a conscious strategy — for example, the desire to eliminate “RINO” (Republican in name only) politicians.
Meona: “Did God say to do it? According to verse 2 of that same chapter, yes. In that case, it must be right and proper. I do not argue history with God. I tend to lose everytime. ~smile~”
That does rather take the shine off the pro-life argument, doesn’t it? More to the point, do you understand that passages such as that don’t play very well with many people, even those who are not liberals?
In a significant sense, belief in the literal truth of such passages constitutes a kind of moral relativism. One of my professors in college used to call it “theological relativism” — in other words, there are no moral truths that are true in and of themselves. Rather, what is morally true depends on what God says. So if God says to exterminate the men, women, and children in a particular region, then that’s what you do. Thus the believer does not operate out of a body of profound moral truths, but instead acts according to what he or she believes God wants.
I think it really undermines the whole concept of morality. It eliminates the possibility of condemning an act as immoral, based on moral principles. So you wouldn’t be able to say that flying planes into buildings and killing innocent people is morally wrong, because maybe the guys flying the planes correctly intuited the will of God, and sometimes God says that the innocent are legitimate targets.
I know why you say you believe in the truth of such passages, but I think it weakens your arguments in all sorts of other places, and I don’t think you want to go there. I would encourage you to reflect on that.
Dear Mr. Bauman,#11
Dialectics was a tour de force of the Schoolmen. The Great Ox inheited their leadership mantle after the later direct Greek interpretations of Aristotal became available to the church. The Arabic interpretations were to Neoplatonic, patristic and mystic upon their arrival for the time. St. Thomas was ‘the’ dialectician. His presentations upon degrees of truth and error are good example. This is from the RC position of course.
Sincerely, J R Diitbrenner
Jim (#15)
The reason I don’t argue with what the Bible says are God’s decisions regarding things that happened X thousands of years ago is that it makes no sense to do so. Since He said to do it and apparently it was done, my opinion on it is irrevelant. What would be the point of getting up in arms about it? It’s illogical and a distraction that has no bearing on whether I think a human being who is not God has any right to kill a child in utero.
As for the books out there re: liberal/conservative hatred of conservatives/liberals, I’m assuming you haven’t seen Michael Moore’s movies, Al Franken’s books, etc etc. Of course if you go the route of saying, “That’s just entertainment” I would have to beg to differ.
What I was saying in my post was simply this: the vitriol is spewed from both sides. Neither side is innocent and to point fingers at one without pointing at the other is plain hypocrisy.
And for the record, I find Anne Coulter just as amusing as Al Franken. Both of them make me laugh. Neither of them spins my political compass.
note # 11:
Michael, you forgot to say:
for those of you in Rio Linda…;)
p.s. I am not using quotes because they seem to force things into the moderators bin.
Michael: I do not believe I am taking a “realitivist, utiliatarian, non-Chrisitian world view”. Can we really say the conservatism is always right and liberalism always wrong, or visa-versa. Isn’t it more accurate to say that both ideologies have selected the specific Christian moral teachings that appear to support their political and economic philosophies and have discarded the rest?
I agree that the conservative approach on defending the rights of the unborn are more aligned with Christian morality, for example but would describe a policy of cuttinh health care benefits for old people and poor children to pay for tax cuts for billionaires to be the very opposite of what Christianity teaches.
At least having both ideologies in counter-balance ensures we do not go to far in either extreme and I think that’s a good thing – which is why I said above that “conservatism has an essential and valuable role to play in American politics”.
J.R. in your comment #16 are you seeking to refute my point?
Meona writes: “Since He [God] said to do it . . . ”
I think that’s the issue in question. Certainly “God” as one of the literary figures in the Old Testament commanded extermination. The issue is whether it is also theologically true. If so, that causes all sorts of problems.
Meona: “It’s illogical and a distraction that has no bearing on whether I think a human being who is not God has any right to kill a child in utero.”
See, that’s part of the problem. If it turns out that God does, on occasion, command mass extermination, and that command is right, then there’s nothing wrong with mass extermination per se. Killing becomes not so much a matter of right and wrong, but of who has the “right” to kill. As long as you have the divine “license to kill,” hey, no problem — man, woman, child, infant, innocent, guilty, it matters not.
Meona: “As for the books out there re: liberal/conservative hatred of conservatives/liberals, I’m assuming you haven’t seen Michael Moore’s movies, Al Franken’s books, etc etc.”
I saw Moore’s 9/11 movie. I thought it was Ok, but I wasn’t a big fan. But you have to remember the context in which Moore made the movie. At the time there were literally tens of millions of people who were upset about the situation in Iraq. But the news media were practically silent on the issue. Even in the Senate Robert Byrd said “this chamber is hauntingly silent.” It was as if everyone were afraid to offer anything critical. If you wanted to find anything that wasn’t a hagiography of Bush and a blessing on his Iraq war, Moore and a few others were the only store in town. That’s what made Moore’s movie such a big deal, and is the context in which his excesses have to be understood. Had other people been doing their jobs, Moore’s movie wouldn’t have made much of a splash.
Franken is different. He came to politics from comedy. I’ve heard him on Air America. He has a point of view, but I don’t hear him foaming at the mouth. His book on Rush was titled “Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot” — but where do you think that came from? He was giving Rush what Rush dished out for years. As the gospel says, what measure you mete it shall be measured to you again. If you (not you personally, but the generic you) want to denounce your opponents as reprehensible, don’t be surprised if they denounce you as reprehensible.
I’m not aware that today’s liberalism claims Christian moral teachings as its foundation for anything, but still, I see what you’re getting at.
I don’t think that any conservative or liberal (Christian or otherwise) says that one side is always right. “Always” is too absolute of a word to use in these kinds of circumstances. I find more that is sensible, responsible and reaffirming about conservatism, and there are many things in the current brand of liberalism that I think are detrimental and downright toxic to the well-being of individuals and societies both.
But that’s not to say I completely disregard your yin and yan idea. I might just say that there’s a different variable, and that is the political climate and the state of the world. If I’d been alive in the days of robber barons and child labor, I might well be a liberal. As it is, growing up in the 60’s, I’m conservative.
Dean, #19. Both are ususally wrong. Neither is worth defending because both seek no longer to govern in any meaningful sense. They only seek their own power. To that extent both are useful to the other as whipping posts. Both are inheritors of a secular political ideal that has always sought to eliminate genuine faith from any form of relevancy in the public sphere. Neither seeks to build anything, only tear down, both when in office use the power of their office and taxpayer dollars to buy votes. The fact that some of those who profess “conservative” ideas frequently self-identify as Christians does not mean that they are in any but the nominative sense. Certaintly the majority of those self-identified as Catholic and Orthodox who are in national office do not actually vote in accord with the teachings of the faith they profess to hold. They are, in fact, secular in outlook, utilitarian by design and therefore in de facto opposition to the Christian understanding of man in society. I don’t believe I said anything about you personally.
Jim #21
Are we approaching this from two different angles or what? You said “God” as one of the literary figures in the Old Testament. Your words give me the impression that you think He is merely a convenient device used by ancient authors to justify behavior you disagree with. If God is just a “literary figure” to you, we aren’t going to be able to communicate on this issue because I believe He is so much more than just a “literary figure.” I believe He is God in every sense of that word. He is sovereign and there are times He is going to (and has) command things I don’t understand or agree with.
As for the rest…Rush Limbaugh makes me laugh as well. Again I say, the poison has been dished out for years from both sides. Blaming one when the other is equally guilty is hypocrisy.
Meona writes: “Are we approaching this from two different angles or what? You said “God” as one of the literary figures in the Old Testament. Your words give me the impression that you think He is merely a convenient device used by ancient authors to justify behavior you disagree with.”
Let me put it this way: just because a religious work states that “God said X,” or “God commanded X” doesn’t mean that God really said or commanded X.
Dear Mr. Bauman,
I was not trying to refute your point; I was just saying that the the use of dialetics has been in indigenous use within the church’s dialogues for a long time. St. Thomas’ 5 rationals for the existence of God could be a case in point. His syllogistic dialetic was aimed at those that did not agree with the RC’s positions on God, salvation and the other Holy Mysteries. There is a position-in context-for the either/or position.
A woman can not be a little bit pregnant; she is or she isn’t. Force will always meet a counter force; the conundrum:what new states of matter will exhist when the irresistible force meets the imovable object.
It would seem that the main thread of this discussion is whether Christianity has a place in public life or not, the secular verses the secterian, and the diquiting use of competing factions to use one view or the other to dominate the electorate. Well it has a place; not to build the kingdom here but to prepare for the Kingdon to come, unto ages of ages.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
Jim #24
And you expect me to determine this, how? By what criteria do you suggest I dismiss my faith and presume to set myself in the place of God, judging His actions and blaming Him?
Again, if He is just a literary device to you then you won’t understand me nor I you. Even as an agnostic and a Wiccan I never thought of Him as merely a literary device with no reality in our world, so I definitely do not believe that about Him now.
Is this what you believe?
Jim & Meona RE: bloody commands of God in the OT
The Incarnation and the Crucifixion changed everything. He shed His Blood as Theanthropos for us. The sacrifice offered once and for all. We enter into the grace of that scarifice now in a bloodless way at each and every Divine Liturgy.
The wrath of God evidenced in the OT against transgressors is still there but we are protected against it to some degree and have the opportunity to avoid it altogther because of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion.
The fact of the matter is that all of us are worthy of death and hell–as Shakespeare aptly pointed out, “In the course of justice none of us should see salvation”
Now, if we accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ and accept His Love, mercy overrides justice, but the justice is there for those who refuse His gift of mercy.
Those who do not accept His gift experience His Love as unbearable fire.
Dear J.R.
It is the mental machinations of the Schoolmen, great and small that, IMO, contributed to the decline of Christianity in the West and led to the subsitution of man’s knowledge for God’s wisdom. The western church became the purveyor of a humanistic legalism that denies the activity of the Holy Spirit and indeed the Incarnation itself.
Meona writes: “And you expect me to determine this, how? By what criteria do you suggest I dismiss my faith and presume to set myself in the place of God, judging His actions and blaming Him?”
First of all, we’re not talking about “judging God,” but about judging what is said about God.
In general, I would say that any time something violates our normal moral intuitions, a little warning light should go off. Any time someone attributes to God behavior or attitudes that would be disgraceful in an adult human, a little warning light should go off. I think these are pretty good criteria.
Meona: “Again, if He is just a literary device . . . .”
I didn’t say that. I said that the extermination of various groups is attributed to the figure of God throughout various pieces of the Old Testament. If someone writes an historical novel about Abraham Lincoln, then Lincoln is a literary figure in that novel. It doesn’t mean that he is *just* a literary figure, nor does it mean that everything he says in the novel was actually spoken by him in real life.
I see the Bible differently from a historical novel, Jim. Much differently. I see it as the words of God written by men inspired and enabled by the Holy Spirit to give an accurate account of exactly what He said. I believe that where they were inspired and enabled to write regarding history they did so accurately and without spin or allegory. Where they were inspired and enabled to write allegorically and poetically they did so. Since 1 Samuel is an historical account and neither allegory nor poetry, it is therefore correct and accurate as to what God said when.
I have the oddest feeling we are not going to agree on this topic. I don’t know why…~smile~
What he said.
Meona writes: “The fact of the matter is that all of us are worthy of death and hell”
One of my largest gripes about many believers is their complete lack of a sense of proportion. First of all, I can’t imagine too many people worthy of eternal torture (though some can easily imagine it for those guilty of the unspeakable crime of having an improper understanding of the Trinity, for example). I’m not sure even the Nazis would have insisted in bringing the Jews back to life just so they could torture them ad infinitum.
Further, do we really believe that the average person who may commit some minor offense or will lie about their weight is on par with a Josef Stalin or a Jeffrey Dahmer? How does one intelligently assess anyone’s character if “everyone” is worth tossing into a fiery trash heap?
In terms of the Old Testament, Meona, recall that God’s “wrath” is executed not just against transgressors, but often their children, their children’s children (up to the 10th generation) and anyone standing within a 100 mile radius. I would like to think that an all-powerful and all-benevolent Being would be able and willing to, at the very least, dole out His punishment in a more just manner. This is why just because some Biblical personality in the OT insisted that their military excursion was ordered by God, I personally have to wonder. However, I do appreciate the fact that people are less likely to question you when you tell them you’re under orders from the Lord Himself.
Post # 33
LOL! You should read a basic catechism, such as Clark’s “The Faith”. Your view of death, hell, and it’s meaning to Orthodox Christians (or Catholics, or many though not all protestants) is caricature…
Um, JamesK #33, I just agreed with the statement. I didn’t write it. Please note the quotes. I also agree with Christopher in #34.
As for your response…I can’t help you. My understanding is that, this side of the Cross, God doesn’t dole out the punishment He simply gives folks exactly what they ask for–separation from Him which is described in the quote as fire. Have you read The River of Fire? It’s a very good read and may clarify some things for you.
Question: Where do you get “10 generations” in this context? Deuteronomy 23 does say that a Moabite/Ammonite/illegitimate birth may not enter the assembly unto the 10th generation but nothing about His wrath being visited on them to that point. Chapter and verse if you can, please. According to Jeremiah 31:27-29, in the New Covenant, the Lord does not account to anyone any sin but their own.
Anyway, this has been fun.