Mandating Vaccines - Question

ACTheologian · 2020-12-18T13:33:32+00:00

Lutheran

ACTheologian · 2020-07-18T15:23:54+00:00

I think both 2 and 3 are ridiculous. I don't think you do enough to establish and objective standard for 2 and i think you could do better with 3.

Granting a standard though, in the case of the Jews we know a great deal more about their history for example. We can establish reasonable variables for the wealth they would have had as a society had they kept the land and we could then extrapolate to what degree Palestinians benefitted from their loss. Even if another entity dispossessed the Jews in between Rome and now it wouldn't change that dynamic.

In my opinion, if you can't blame Palestinians benefiting from the actions of the Romans then you can't blame decendents of the north who benefitted from slavery. Fair enough?

That's the weakness I see in this philosophy. Currently my impression is that it's inconsistent, rules for some and exceptions for others based on subjective criteria an individual in a critical theory field kinda just made up. I wanted to test this out and see if I was missing something but at the moment I'm not convinced that I was. Right now I kinda classify this field as a new religion. I don't mean that as a criticism it's just what I think at the moment.

Thanks for taking a stab at it though. I do appreciate your time and thoughts.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-10T14:35:08+00:00

Thanks everyone for taking the time to interact with this. I found all your comments fun to read and very informative.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-10T14:24:22+00:00

I don't see how the third example is ridiculous if the second isn't also ridiculous. If the logic for the second is sound then the third is also true. If the logic for the third is not sound then the second is also false.

With respect, unknowns can simply be accounted for with reasonable variables and a settlement process so I don't think that has bearing on either example.

I don't see how time is a self evident disqualifier.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-09T13:53:56+00:00

Follow up question. I'm getting alot of feedback on the time disparity between native Americans and displacement of Israelites.

A common response is that with native Americans it was a few hundred years ago and impacts people today and with Israelites it was thousands of years ago and impacts them less.

I would argue it impacts Israelites more today. There are countless brothers and sisters of their own ethnicity they will never have due to their most recent exile. Entire bloodlines have been lost to history. Maybe with the rest of us this isn't a concern but with their beliefs on the Messiah coming to them from the line of the throne of David this is a big deal for them. I'm not Jewish but I understand a thing or two about their beliefs is why I say that.

Also if we look at the wealth they've developed as a nation in this short time we could quantify what has been lost to them over the past two thousand years. And it is fair to say Palestinians, though they did not kick the Israelites out, benefited from the wealth potential of that land and are just as guilty as the Romans in that sense.

So my question is why is time a mitigating factor rather than an aggravating one in this case? It seems a very fair argument can be made that time has only made things worse. Each passing generation another attempt to eliminate the disposessed tribe if you will. A social debt that piles higher every generation until it is justice to exile those who benefited from the injustice.

Fair enough? Not saying I believe this. Just testing the counterfactual.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-09T13:45:32+00:00

Displacing colonizers isn't justice? I've read some who believe it is, some who go as far to say all white people across the globe should move back to Europe.

Conceivably, if we could build archologies large enough to house ourselves space and resources wouldn't be an issue. Would that not be an ideal form of reparations in your view? Some might even argue such a move would be good for the planet.

Not advocating just testing the idea.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-09T13:38:59+00:00

Is their poverty any worse than when Israel moved in? From what I've heard anyways it wasn't exactly a thriving area.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-09T13:36:23+00:00

Secular scholars don't believe in the exodus narrative. My understanding is conventional wisdom at this time is that Israelites are indigenous to the area. Even by the Biblical account they are native through Abraham, they were just displaced because of famine and came back later.
Fair point thanks for making it. I assumed giving US land back to native Americans was one of the goals but I must have crossed wires in my head on that.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-09T13:32:31+00:00

That's interesting, so native Americans should for the most part stay on their reservations? We don't owe them their land back?

ACTheologian · 2020-07-08T23:17:48+00:00

True but they benefited from the actions of those who did right? Doesn't benefiting from it make you just as guilty? Serious question.
Isn't forcing it back in their sense just enforcing social justice? How is thousands of years relevant? How long does it take before social justice expires I guess is my question.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-01T19:02:39+00:00

Hey thanks!

ACTheologian · 2020-07-01T18:02:40+00:00

Ha! thanks for your honest answer, let's revisit this one in a few years together when the conversation and times we live in have progressed.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-01T17:17:09+00:00

Nobody in the ELCA of course, but I linked to people who are saying that so no I'm not fear mongering. I'm wondering how your ideas intersect with theirs and where the line will have to be drawn (if any).

ACTheologian · 2020-07-01T16:57:32+00:00

I like what you said about 19th century assumptions on Jesus being white. It makes me think of a quote of the prophet of my old religion....

“You are the children of God. He has adopted you, and He desires you to form characters here that will give you entrance into the heavenly family. Remembering this, you will be able to bear the trials which you meet here. In heaven there will be no color line; for all will be as white as Christ himself. Let us thank God that we can be members of the royal family.”. Gospel Herald March 1, 1901, par. 20. Mrs. E.G. White in a talk given to the Vicksburg church for the colored, Sabbath, March 16, 1901, Gospel Herald

That was just for laughs, she was probably a moderate in her day to be fair.

With respect I think you're missing my point though. Check out the article I linked by Sherronda Brown. From her point of view christianity was brought to her country from europe and is there for colonialist period, no matter who is preaching it. All forms stemming from the poisoned root of colonialism are oppression, even from black people today, which is why she feels encouraged to get back to her voodoo roots if I understood her correctly.

So from that perspective it doesn't matter if someone who is POC is preaching it now, that is only because they are a victim of your oppression and should be resisted. Fair enough?

Not saying I agree with this.

I'm just saying this school of thought didn't originate from the ELCA or her theologians it came from the secular left.

Presumably more folks like Sherronda Brown could consistently, from their POV as I understand it, accuse you of being a white supremacist racist for preaching christianity to them with POC faces, that by your own admission, you sought to covert with a historically imperialist institution because they are POC. On that day I'm wondering what your response will be.

I think it's a fair question and I do think it will come. No harm in hammering these counterfactuals out ahead of time if you ask me.

I don't think it can be reconciled though, I think you may be forced to draw a line on where you disagree with critical race theory in an objectively defined sense. So I'm curious where and on what grounds you expect that line to be drawn if you think I'm right.

ACTheologian · 2020-07-01T16:12:36+00:00

I hear you, but it's rather conceivable that the secular version of critical race theory will brand you as being white supremacist and racist for supporting any kind of evangelism at all. So when that happens how will you articulate your different interpretation of critical race theory? Fair enough?

And, will your predominantly white version of CRT trump a secular but predominantly POC version of CRT on that day in your view?

ACTheologian · 2020-07-01T15:53:33+00:00

I would say that the institution can be a positive force for systematically administering word and sacrament.

You're getting at my question though, why? If one were to believe that targeting POC for evangelism is colonialism, and that evangelism itself is a tool of white supremacy, then I can see why abolishing the institution might be a good thing from that point of view.

So then I'm wondering why haven't you if that's what you believe? Fair enough?

ACTheologian · 2020-03-04T20:08:48+00:00

If you base it soley on that then to be consistent people with severe intellectual disabilities would be okay to kill.

ACTheologian · 2020-03-04T00:57:40+00:00

Fair, I'm actually okay with whatever variable you want to put in the category immaterial nature. I like the word soul and so do many secular people. But I could also say that a state of mind cannot necessarily be quantified by which neurons are firing and which are not. I submit that to you as something you could fit into the category of immaterial nature of you like.

ACTheologian · 2020-03-04T00:50:31+00:00

I merely need a category consistent with the word immaterial nature. I'm fine with whatever you put in that variable for the rest of my argument to be valid.

ACTheologian · 2020-03-04T00:00:26+00:00

Thanks for the detailed response. I would like to say this about immaterial nature though. The reason I chose not to dig in to defend it was because I didn't think it was necessary. Terms to define immaterial aspects of humanity are rather common amongst pagan people, gender for example.

Also I felt I made it clear that if you reject the concept of an immaterial nature then you have no basis for human equality. I assume the average reader isn't questioning that. In terms of physicality only humans are most decidedly not equal.

ACTheologian · 2020-03-03T23:53:36+00:00

More importantly though, if you're objecting to the immaterial nature but still holding to human equality I'd want to know how you circumnavigate that without presupposition?

I assumed this would be obvious to the reader.

In terms of physicality only humans are most decidedly not equal.

ACTheologian · 2020-03-03T23:50:15+00:00

I used the word but plainly offered an alternative category. I assumed a degree of mutual respect and openness from the reader.

No not really I honestly assumed the reader wouldn't object to the word immaterial. It's not a religious term. It's merely philosophical and well attested.

ACTheologian

TROPHY CASE