Comments on: The foolish man

By: steve

steve — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:44:48 +0000

DeLay’s a LITERALIST. He don’t do metaphor. His skills at Biblical exegesis are on a par with, say, your basic Pet Rock. Subtlety, nuance, contemplation… the signs of those about the Devil’s work. Jesus said “I’m a-gonna smite me some evildoers” and he MEANT “I’m a-gonna smite me some evildoers.” He did NOT mean “Don’t ya’ll be evildoers so I won’t have to smite you too.” It’s an absolute truth in DeLay’s cosmology that DeLay and his friends and fellow travellers cannot possibly be evildoers since Jesus talks to them directly. DeLay’s version of God does in fact take a direct personal hand in every happening of every bit of daily life. There are no accidents. The Shrubberies are in control NOT because they lied, cheated, twisted, bent, and broke laws, but because God wants them in charge as evidenced by the fact that the lies, cheating, and lawbreaking worked. I suspect that if DeLay’s sorry about ANYTHING related to the tsunami, it’s that the DNC wasn’t having a post-election conference in Phuket. (Incidentally… I DO know the man slightly, since before he became the Second Coming (when he was merely another East Texas pol on the make). Suffice it to say that when he went mano-a-mano with a cockroach, and the cockroach lost, evolution became somewhat less credible…)

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:03:14 +0000

“The text in question is a parable, an extended metaphor, if you will. I don’t think any Christian sect takes it to mean God will drown the bad guys. If all he did was read the passage, I don’t think the criticism is well-founded.” ‘Of course they do. We see this sort of reaction all the time from at least some Christians here in the US.’ Yeah, at least some. Or, ‘some’ meaning a lot. I’m not at all sure it’s a ‘small minority’ thing as some comments said. Don’t forget the popularity of the Rapture novels (the ‘Left Behind’ series) and the way those interesting fictions revel in the punishment meted out to the unbelievers. I’m afraid DeLay’s view is all too normal.

By: Joe M.

Joe M. — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:04:52 +0000

I can’t read Tom Delay’s mind. But it seems obvious to me that there are two possible interpretations of what he meant, and no one has mentioned the second: 1. “Jesus predicted floods for people who disobey him; this is to be taken literally; therefore, since south Asia had a flood, it’s because they don’t obey Jesus.” Or: 2. “A physical flood has happened in Asia, and we all see how destructive that is. But Jesus said that the same thing would happen in the spiritual realm to those who don’t obey him. We in this room should be sure to obey Jesus so that we don’t experience a spiritual ‘flood’ just as devastating as what happened physically in Asia.” Why are people leaping to the first interpretation, when the second interpretation not only makes sense but is much more in keeping with how conservative Christians actually talk all the time?

By: james

james — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:27:18 +0000

The statement should read ‘Christians do not beleive Muhamad was a prophet from God.’

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:43:38 +0000

y81: Thank you for the thoughtful response. Dan Kervik: TD:”The text in question is a parable, an extended metaphor, if you will. I don’t think any Christian sect takes it to mean God will drown the bad guys.” DK: “Of course they do. We see this sort of reaction all the time from at least some Christians here in the US. These are the same people who blamed 9/11 on homosexuality and abortion – God’s decision to punish the Sodomites of the liberal northeast.” No doubt there are some Christian sects whose doctrines hold that God punishes those individuals and/or groups that displease him by causing bad things to happen to them in this life, e.g. sickness, death, mass disasters, etc. The famous post 9/11 remarks of the Reverends Fallwell and Robertson explicitly professed such beliefs. It was not my intention to argue otherwise. My comment referred only to the specific text DeLay read. On its face, and in context, it does not refer to any kind of divine intervention or retribution on this earth, in this life. I don’t think any Christian sect, even those which believe that God operates that way, interpret the “house on the sand” story as an explicit or implicit allusion to such an operation. Perhaps I should say that I don’t know of any Christian sect that holds this view. As Michael Kremer wrote, “The passage … is addressed to Christ’s “hearers” and is a challenge to them. It is explicitly not about judging others. It is about doing God’s will — where that means, as Matthew also tells us, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, inviting in the stranger, clothing the naked” etc. I would add that the critical verses are particularly well known, – “building a house on the sand” long ago entered the secular vernacular, and indeed is now a cliche. Further, as I understand the DeLay story, he read the passage at some sort of religious service for Congresspersons, in a church, lots of them read from the bible (perhaps some spoke in tongues and/or handled snakes). The more that read, the higher the odds that someone would do the house on sand routine. (heh- Tom DeLay, Speaker of the House Upon the Sand) In any event, if all DeLay did was read Matthew 7:21-27, this does not in itself support the charge that by doing so DeLay “t[ook] a swipe at the tsunami victims,” or displayed insensitivity or tactlessness. You wrote: “I wouldn’t at all put it past DeLay to take a swipe at the tsunami victims.” Neither would I. But what he said can’t reasonably be interpreted as doing so. DeLay says all kinds of nasty things. But his notorious propensities are not grounds for imputing a malicious intent to a statement he makes that is otherwise innocuous.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:22:49 +0000

Jonathan Sacks had a nice op-ed in the L.A. Times with another perspective:

What distinguished the biblical prophets from their pagan predecessors was their refusal to see natural catastrophe as an independent force of evil, proof that at least some of the gods are hostile to mankind. [...] The simplest explanation is that of the 12th century sage, Moses Maimonides. Natural disasters, he said, have no explanation other than that God, by placing us in a physical world, set life within the parameters of the physical. Planets are formed, earthquakes occur, and sometimes innocents die.

He ends with:

Not as an explanation of suffering but as a response to it, I will pray that in our collective grief we renew the covenant of human solidarity. Having seen how small and vulnerable humanity is in the face of nature, might we not also see how small are the things that divide us, and how tragic to add grief to grief?

By: james

james — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:04:46 +0000

Salman Chaudhry – All Christians believe that Christianity and Islam are seperate religions. Only Muslims believe that they are not. While both believe in the God of Abraham, Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Muslims do not. This belief is a non-negotable tenent in the Christian relgion. Christians do beleive Muhamad was a prophet from God. Its my understanding that this is a non-negotable tenent in Islam.

By: y81

y81 — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:30:06 +0000

tom doyle, I would interpret “these words” as referring to the entire sermon that has gone before. Thus, “acting on” Jesus’ words means turning the other cheek, storing up treasure in Heaven etc., i.e., making God the center of your life. If you do this, make God your ultimate reality (which is what I mean by “ontological substrate”), then the ills of the world will not shake you.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:12:26 +0000

Dear y81: You wrote: It’s amazing to me, the venom poured …toward a philosophy you haven’t bothered to study and don’t understand. Is it really that amazing? (I think it is passing strange to argue about Scripture on a secular, political blog, but Vox Populi,.. etc.) I don’t know..In Luke, Chapter 6 , which is kind of a parallel to Matthew, Chapter 7, Jesus says “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.” Luke 6: 26 [Note: citations are to the New American Bible] and “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.” Luke 6: 22-23 The comments in this thread are pretty mild compared to what Jesus seems to have been talking about. There’s no “hate,” “exclud[ing] and insulting,” “denounc[ing anyone] as evil on account of the Son of Man. At worse, some comments seem, at least to me, to contain mistakes about some parts of the bible, which are expressed very emphatically. With all due respect, I don’t think that’s amazing. Christians themselves have been arguing about these things for 2000 years, and especially since the Reformation. Continuing in this tradition of disputation: You wrote: “Do you not understand that Jesus is speaking metaphorically? He doesn’t mean that floods are a punishment from God, he means that the ills of the world will sweep you away if you are not anchored in the ontological substrate.” I’m not sure I agree with you. I don’t understand what you mean by “anchored in the ontological substrate.” This is my take on the text. Jesus seems to be speaking literally here: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ “ Matthew 7:21-23 Then he uses two similes (not metaphors, I erred) which apparently illustrate or clarify the literal statements: “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.” Matthew 7:24-25 (emphasis added) And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Matthew 7:26-27 (emphasis added) Moral: One who listens to Jesus’ words ( relating “the will of [His] Father) and: a.) conforms his/her conduct to comport with them (“does the will of [Jesus’] Father,” “acts on” Jesus words), will be saved (“enter the kingdom of heaven”); b.) does not conform his/her conduct to comport with them (doesn’t “do[] the will of [Jesus’] Father,” “does not act on” Jesus words), will not be saved (“I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ ”). Is my exegesis in accord with yours?

By: Salman Chaudhry

Salman Chaudhry — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:07:49 +0000

I am from a Muslim country, and well, a former theist. I was sort of amused after reading this post: I always thought Muslims were the only people who mis-quoted things. Muslims have always had a deep infatuation with quoting ‘holy’ texts for their own purpose wherever it seems fit. In the past few days I have met more than 20 people who quoted one thing or the other from ‘Koran’, explaining how the whole disaster was god being vengeful. In principal, Christianity and Islam are not really different. I have read both the Bible and Koran. The same mythical stories (Noah, Lot, Jesus etc), god toppling over cities, floods of giant proportions, stones falling from the sky. Where it all originates from is another story, the fact remains that the ‘holy’ scriptures have a history of being quoted to push one’s point. I have seen people justify the events of 9/11, suicide bombings, murder of children, massacres—anything one can imagine, through Holy Scriptures. Having said that, most of the Christians actually believe that Christianity and Islam are two different religions, they are not. Sure Muslims are illiterate, barbarian people who can not tolerate any other religion, but then, so were Christians when they weren’t the dominant religious group. What makes America a great country is partly the fact that religion doesn’t play any real role. Being devoid of ‘faith’ is a great blessing.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:04:43 +0000

I don’t know DeLay’s form, but I’m quite willing to believe it didn’t occur to him how offensive this might be. Is it plausible he liked the sentiment so much he completely missed the tact issue? Perhaps…but as to the first question, his “form” tends to the delusionally messianic: “He [God] has been walking me through an incredible journey, and it all comes down to worldview. He is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me, He is working with me.” As to whether he might have inadvertantly caused offense to non-Christians, consider this: “Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of ‘Where did I come from?’ ‘Why am I here?’ ‘Where am I going?’ ‘Does life have any meaningful purpose?’ ” DeLay said. “Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world—only Christianity.”

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:08 +0000

“Is it plausible he liked the sentiment so much he completely missed the tact issue?” Well, as a Texan…Watched Marvin Olasky (University of Texas) speak for hours on CSPAN one night, explaining why Woodrow Wilson’s unrepented 1905 adultery caused WWII. He was of course alluding to Bill Clinton, but that was not the point. The talk was about the degree of God’s active involvement in history and the world. Now there may be many here who could discuss this better than I. Tho I wonder. But I thought he made a decent argument that a believer must believe that God is at least sometimes arranging events toward a purpose. Considering some of Tom DeLay’s statements about Israel, I would be surprised if he wasn’t aware and thoughtful about “God in History.”

By: Nick Kiddle

Nick Kiddle — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:24:49 +0000

It’s a good sentiment, and if the metaphor was anything other than houses collapsing in a flood there wouldn’t be a problem with it. But since that is the metaphor, it wasn’t a very tactful choice right now. I don’t know DeLay’s form, but I’m quite willing to believe it didn’t occur to him how offensive this might be. Is it plausible he liked the sentiment so much he completely missed the tact issue?

By: George

George — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:43:39 +0000

As a Christian, an American and a (former but still mostly votes as) Republican, I think I’m on pretty firm ground when I say he’s an embarassment to all three groups. And moreover, the offensiveness of the above quote is immediately obvious to me. But I’m fascinated that it is not so clear to everyone. Indeed, it’s possible that DeLay himself might not be aware of how awful a selection that is. (But I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.) I’m getting a twinge of recognition, though. Since the US election, various voices on the Right have been saying things like “if the Democrats can’t grasp that X is offensive (or sacred), they will never win another election.” Case in point: this Lileks piece from shortly before Christmas: http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/1204/122204.html. Most of the column is part of the slightly silly brouhaha between Lileks and James Wolcott, but never mind that; scroll to the bottom to see that he’s posted a recent magazine photo of Morgan Spurlock (the maker of “Supersize Me”) in a crucifiction pose. Says Lileks:

The person who came up with the idea didn’t know this would be offensive, or didn’t care. The photographer didn’t know, or didn’t care. The person who chose the photo didn’t know, or didn’t care. The editor who approved the section didn’t know, or didn’t care. In case you wonder why this might be offensive to some, it’s this: he ain’t Jesus.

I can see his point, though I wouldn’t make such a big deal of it. But you could say virtually the same thing about what DeLay said—and that’s if you give him the benefit of the doubt.

By: x

Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:31:26 +0000

oh, and since indeed the passage he chose to quote is only the last bit in the whole sermon, ask yourself, why on earth did he not choose to quote the bits about feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, inviting in the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick… which might have been a little more appropriate to a disaster situation? or any other passage from the vastity of the bible that might have been appropriate? something about grief, hope, prayer, consolation, etc. etc.? It’s not that hard, people do it at funerals all the time, usually by managing to avoid such crass insensitiveness.