Theonomy mom & Breezy Brookshire: Holocaust Denialists

[Witsec1]

So, I've been having a discussion with Leah of Leah's Labyrinth. I wasn't going to post it here, because I was having this stupid delusion that a reasonable, calm discussion would shake her out whatever has a hold of her.

Fuck that. I feel I have come face to face with the "banality of evil".

The conversation is here: but I will post it below, including my last comment, which Leah deleted.

•

• Flora Poste

• January 28th, 2012 at 11:26 am

•  

•

• I posted a comment but I’m not sure if it went through. If it did, just delete this one, unless you have a policy of deleting comments disagreeing with you, in which case delete away, ha!

• I was just wondering how you justify using MLK to “sell†your ideas when he stood for so much that you seem to be against. You seem to be a fan of Christian reconstructionism and Rushdoony and I know he has a very negative opinion of the civil rights movement.

• Leah

• I mostly just like the quote.

•

• Flora Poste

• January 28th, 2012 at 2:36 pm

•

• I like it, too.

• I also hope more people will vote for Ron Paul, but probably not for the same reasons as you do!

• Leah

• January 28th, 2012 at 2:45 pm

•

• That’s the great thing about RP. He brings so many diverse people together for diverse reasons! I bet you and I do have some things in common though if you like him. What do you like about him?

•

• Ray Mason

• January 28th, 2012 at 4:32 pm

•  

• Flora, I personally have no idea what you are talking about. Would you please be more specific? Thank You, Ray

• Flora Poste

• January 28th, 2012 at 8:01 pm

•  

•

• I give Ron Paul points for consistency and his anti-imperialist-war stance. I also don’t like how the media determines for us which candidates will get heard. Jon Stewart sums it up here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... ision-2012—corn-polled-edition—ron-paul—the-top-tier

• But mostly I just hope he ends up splitting the Republican vote.

• Does that clarify things Ray?

• If you’re asking referring to my first comment about MLK being an odd face to find on a Christian Reconstructionist blog, my understanding is that Rushdoony is the movement’s spiritual godfather, and the fact that he was very negative about desegregation and the civil rights movement is well documented. Also the fact that he was a Holocaust minimizer, though not an outright denialist.

• Leah

• January 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm

•  

• Flora, I post all kinds of quotes from people that make a point. I use quotes from Hitler and secular humanists too from time to time. Some of them had some truth occasionally and it can be eye-opening.

• As for Rushdoony, I’m not the most studied on him, though I have just started reading more of his materials. I have many friends who were closely associated with him. He was not racist in any way, shape or form if that’s what you are implying (or read somewhere on the internet). And he was a brilliant historian. Perhaps you would consider reading up more on his position of WW2 before asserting you know his position on the holocaust.

•

• Flora Poste

• January 29th, 2012 at 7:44 am

•

• Well, I have looked up the context of some of his more outrageous quotes that are easy to find on the Internet. Some of these quotes do look better in context, There’s one especially where the quote makes it look like he uses a string of crude racial epithets, but in context it’s clear he’s not endorsing such language.
I have researched his position on the Holocaust, that’s why I said he is a minimizer and not a denialist as some claim. Rushdoony absolutely does flatly assert that the numbers of Jewish deaths were inflated by 5 million or so, based on two very questionable sources. I do realize that he makes this claim in the context of a larger point about mass death in the twentieth century, but that doesn’t excuse such sloppiness and irresponsibility.

• Leah

• January 31st, 2012 at 4:11 pm

•  

•

• I would highly recommend that you read his books on history rather than just looking up on wikipedia or wherever you got your internet info on his holocaust position. Again, he was a brilliant historian. And by the way, much of history has been re-written in our modern text books. He is not the first or the last to point this out.

• Flora Poste

• February 1st, 2012 at 8:02 am

•  

• Leah, perhaps my meaning wasn’t clear in my comment above. I meant I have come across outrageous quotes from Rushdoony on the Internet, and I *have* looked them up to get an idea of the context.

• I wholeheartedly agree that one shouldn’t rely on textbooks or secondary sources, but primary sources sources wherever possible. That’s why footnotes were invented. That’s why I encouraged you to check out the footnoted sources of your favorite American Vision authors earlier.

• I’ve read extended passages in “The Foundations of Social Order†and specifically the entire surrounding context where he talks about the Holocaust. He does flatly state that the numbers were inflated for propaganda purposes. There’s not much room for interpretation there – his words speak for themselves. The best you can say is that it’s an extremely irresponsible claim. Definitely not the work of a “brilliant historian.â€

• But you may have read more than me, though you say you are just starting to read him. What am I missing? How would you characterize his position on the Holocaust?

Leah

• February 1st, 2012 at 10:23 am

•  

•

• The only reason you think Rushdoony’s work is “irresponsible†is because you were obviously schooled by the very textbooks which have re-written history. But Flora, this post is not about the Holocaust, it’s about Christians who are apathetic and don’t care about what’s going on presently. Perhaps another time I will write on that topic. In the meantime it seems you are not a fan of the authors I read or of my blog. In which case, I wonder why you are here.

• Flora Poste

• February 1st, 2012 at 12:41 pm

•  

•

• I can still be interested in things and people I don’t agree with. I am interested in why people believe as they do. I have studied the history of 20th century totalitarianism quite a bit, not just from textbooks but also from primary source documents. It’s something I care passionately about, and I cannot be apathetic when this history is misused and distorted.
I made a specific claim, that Rushdoony’s discounting of the number of Holocaust victims by 5 million was inaccurate. His source for this claim was a controversial French writer who had condemned the Nuremberg trials and Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. I think it was irresponsible to use such a source. Can you explain to me specifically, how my thinking on this has been affected by “textbooks that have re-written historyâ€. What can you possibly mean? Do you or do you not accept the commonly agreed upon estimate of Holocaust victims of 6 million Jews, 11+ million total victims?

• Leah

• February 1st, 2012 at 1:16 pm

•  

•

• Flora, sorry but I’m not falling for your tar-baby. I’m not about to argue with you on this topic. But I am curious – are you a Christian?

• Ray Mason

• January 28th, 2012 at 8:16 pm

•  

•

• Not really Flora, you accused someone of using MLK to “sell†something and then you rambled on about Ron Paul and what is Christian reconstructionism anyway?

• Flora Poste

• January 28th, 2012 at 8:30 pm

•  

•

• Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, Theonomy – different names for the system of government advocated by the blog owner. Pretty much the opposite of what MLK stood for. And yes I consider that she is a “seller†in the marketplace of ideas, as is anyone who tries to get his or her voice heard above the general confusion.

• Paul Nowlin

• January 31st, 2012 at 10:35 am

•  

•

• My favorite line in the article-†Ignorance is not bliss—it is hell waiting to happen.†Very true.

• Jennifer Fralick

• January 31st, 2012 at 2:40 pm

•  

•

• Your point would have been more effectively made had you not instructed your readers for whom to vote and then demeaned all other choices.

• Nevertheless, I admire your passion and your willingness to “step into the fray†and get involved. An outspoken voice is better than no voice at all.

• I join with you in fervent prayer for our country.

• Leah

• January 31st, 2012 at 4:15 pm

•  

•

• Thanks for reading Jennifer. Had I just said “vote†and not said who for, that’s not doing any good because a vote for the other candidates is really a vote for Obama if you do your research. People can’t just go to the polls and expect God to just “reveal†the right person to them. This is not a whimsical decision. That’s why I said who I think is the right guy. All yo have to do is look at each candidates history….. you’ll understand exactly what I mean!

• Flora Poste

• February 1st, 2012 at 3:51 pm

•  

•

• Replying here because if I post a reply above it will be in a column about 2 words wide – I guess it is WordPress.com’s way of telling us the discussion has gone on too long.

• I don’t understand why you think my question is a “tar baby,†unless you think your position depends on Rushdoony being inerrant. But I do hear you saying that the discussion is over. That’s your choice, but I got the impression from your post that you did not mind confrontation or dialogue with people who do not share your viewpoints. Sorry if I got that wrong.

• You ask in your post “How can a person not care about the past, present or futureâ€? Milan Kundera famously wrote “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.†As I said before, I do care passionately about getting the truth of 20th century totalitarianism right. You say that my thinking has been distorted by “textbooks that have re-written historyâ€; I’d appreciate it if you could point out where you think I’ve gone wrong.

• In answer to your question, I am an ex-christian. I’m not sure how it is relevant to this specific question. Surely the number of Holocaust victims is a matter of historical record that doesn’t change based on one’s “worldview.†Truth is not relative.

• Leah

• February 1st, 2012 at 5:53 pm

•  

•

• It’s not that I mind discussing things with people with other viewpoints – it’s simply that I don’t have TIME. I am busy homeschooling four kids under the age of six. So of all the things to get into an argument with an “ex-Christian†stranger whom I’ve never met – this isn’t something I have the time for. It’s easy to see your intentions and I’m pretty much done here. Thanks for reading though.

• Flora Poste

• February 1st, 2012 at 8:18 pm

•  

•

• Not sure what I’m being accused of, my intention was to confront you over something I am passionate about: the struggle of memory against forgetting. I hope you will do a post about this topic because I am honestly shocked by the implications of your responses – or lack thereof. You can’t really think that history is on the side of Rushdoony/Rassinier and that the 6 million figure is “history re-written for the textbooks.†Do you really agree that the overwhelming consensus among historians regarding the number of Holocaust victims is a violation of the 9th commandment against bearing false witness?

(comment deleted)

[darkplumaged]

I don't see how Breezy fits into this. Am I missing something?

I've always kind of liked her, but I am d-o-n-e if she actually is a Holocaust denialist.

[Witsec1]

Now for Breezy Brookshire.

I was googling "Rushdoony holocaust denial" to see how other Rushdoony fans explain away his statement that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths, is "false witness". I came across this on Breezy Brookshire's blog, she of the sweet Tasha Tudor- inspired illustrations.

abowlofmossandpebbles.com/?p=5364

Joshua on 3 November, 2011, said,

Dear sister in the Lord:

I greatly admire your interest in the theology and spiritual writings. However, I feel like I would be doing an injustice if I remained silent about the man whom you are quoting. Though his quote is very good in your post, please read his writings with a grain of salt as he is very controversial.

Rousas John Rushdoony is a denier of the Jewish Holocaust. He also claimed that slavery within the South (pre-civil war) was benevolent and that some people are by nature slaves. He believed that interracial marriage was wrong and should be illegal. Please feel free to research this yourself. My own father spoke to some men organizing a Rushdoony booth at a NCFIC conference and they confirmed this to be true.

I hope I have not given offense, but I felt that you should be informed. Blessings and peace to you Breezy.

Mary on 4 November, 2011, said,

....

Breezy on 5 November, 2011, said,

....

Joshua, thank you for your concern. If you don’t mind, I would like to take a moment to put your mind at ease as to what Rushdoony actually said. R.J. Rushdoony did not deny the Holocaust happened: in Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, pages 584-88, in his chapter on the ninth commandment, Rushdoony says that the actual deaths are overestimated because the generation during (and generations following) WWII were so desensitized to murder by the media we’ve consumed, that we need the exaggerated numbers to open our eyes to the actual atrocities. On page 588, Rushdoony says, “In view of this massive insensitivity to murder, so that false witness is resorted to, the exaggeration of evil to make it seem evil, evil itself is growing in order to keep pace with the imagination of men, an evil imagination grounded in false witness.†(Does it sound insensitive and reckless to deny the estimated numbers? Yes, but we must also do justice to truth of history as well as to the victims.)

You wouldn't know the truth of history if it smacked you in the face. You are wallowing in a cesspit of evil and spreading it to all you touch.

In regard to slavery, I have heard that many Southerners viewed slavery as “benevolent†because to not buy the slaves would be to condemn them to death in the Caribbean where, due to the extreme conditions, they could not be expected to live more than a year. Now, are some people by nature slaves? I have no further than myself to look to remind me that without the blood of Jesus Christ, I would be a slave to sin.

Of interracial marriage, Rushdoony says, “Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers and is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal religious yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and a woman in the reflected image of God in man, and from man (I Cor. 11:1-2; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). ‘Help-meet’ means a reflection or mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.†(Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, page 256-7)

This comment got a little long, but I hope it helps explain anything that may have been misunderstood. Thanks for stopping by my blog!

....

I added this comment:

Flora Poste on 2 February, 2012, said,

Actually, Joshua is correct. Rushdoony’s statements meet the legal definition of Holocaust denial. Rushdoony calls the well-documented figure of 6 million Jewish deaths an example of “false witnessâ€, based on a few unreliable sources. He did not do any research on primary sources. Why do you think Rushdoony is correct in stating that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is an inflated figure?

[Witsec1]

I don't see how Breezy fits into this. Am I missing something?

I've always kind of liked her, but I am d-o-n-e if she actually is a Holocaust denialist.

Sorry, I split it into two posts because it was so long. Sorry there was a delay.

She obviously has no idea what she's talking about. I wonder if she will respond, dig in and defend Rushdoony, or just delete.

[Beeks]

Sorry, I split it into two posts because it was so long. Sorry there was a delay.

She obviously has no idea what she's talking about. I wonder if she will respond, dig in and defend Rushdoony, or just delete.

Wow. I don't really know why I'm surprised, but I always sort of liked Breezy. Sounds like she's just as big of a dangerous idiot as most fundies.

[liltwinstar]

Rushdoony was a holocaust-minimizer/denier? OMG. I didn't know that. I knew he was down with slavery, but I didn't realize that he had crazy-ass views about the holocaust.

Interesting, given that his parents fled the Armenian genocide! But maybe he thought that was "inflated" too, in which case I'm surprised that his mother didn't give him what for. In my own Armenian family, the genocide is *still* a topic of conversation/grief/outrage, and we're coming up on the 100th anniversary of it here in a couple years (in 2015).

(do ya'll think I should delete that part about the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide? I don't want Dougie thinking it would be cool to dress up Armenian farmer costume and exploit the children of the survivors while getting his minions to finance a trip to Turkey and Armenia and I don't know, marching into the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin -the Armenian Orthodox Vatican - with a copy of Rushdoony's Institutes........although I would probably pay to send one of my devoutly Armenian Orthodox Great Aunts there with a video camera to put Dougie and crew in their place.)

[Witsec1]

Rushdoony was a holocaust-minimizer/denier? OMG. I didn't know that. I knew he was down with slavery, but I didn't realize that he had crazy-ass views about the holocaust.

Interesting, given that his parents fled the Armenian genocide! But maybe he thought that was "inflated" too, in which case I'm surprised that his mother didn't give him what for. In my own Armenian family, the genocide is *still* a topic of conversation/grief/outrage, and we're coming up on the 100th anniversary of it here in a couple years (in 2015).

(do ya'll think I should delete that part about the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide? I don't want Dougie thinking it would be cool to dress up Armenian farmer costume and exploit the children of the survivors while getting his minions to finance a trip to Turkey and Armenia and I don't know, marching into the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin -the Armenian Orthodox Vatican - with a copy of Rushdoony's Institutes........although I would probably pay to send one of my devoutly Armenian Orthodox Great Aunts there with a video camera to put Dougie and crew in their place.)

ZOMG - a monstrous regiment of Armenian Orthodox Aunts! I would so love to see that.

[Guest Anonymous]

Rushdoony was a holocaust-minimizer/denier? OMG. I didn't know that. I knew he was down with slavery, but I didn't realize that he had crazy-ass views about the holocaust.

Interesting, given that his parents fled the Armenian genocide! But maybe he thought that was "inflated" too, in which case I'm surprised that his mother didn't give him what for. In my own Armenian family, the genocide is *still* a topic of conversation/grief/outrage, and we're coming up on the 100th anniversary of it here in a couple years (in 2015).

(do ya'll think I should delete that part about the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide? I don't want Dougie thinking it would be cool to dress up Armenian farmer costume and exploit the children of the survivors while getting his minions to finance a trip to Turkey and Armenia and I don't know, marching into the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin -the Armenian Orthodox Vatican - with a copy of Rushdoony's Institutes........although I would probably pay to send one of my devoutly Armenian Orthodox Great Aunts there with a video camera to put Dougie and crew in their place.)

If it happens, you should consider paying her to rip him a new one while she's at it.

[liltwinstar]

If it happens, you should consider paying her to rip him a new one while she's at it.

Oh, I wouldn't have to pay her. She'd do that all on her own... and it would be hilarious, because she's this itty-bitty thing (maybe 4 and a half feet tall these days?), and she's in her late 80s and doesn't take crap from anyone, particularly when they malign her religion or her family history :)

[JesusFightClub]

Sorry, I split it into two posts because it was so long. Sorry there was a delay.

She obviously has no idea what she's talking about. I wonder if she will respond, dig in and defend Rushdoony, or just delete.

I know not of Breezy, but Leah, well. It doesn't really surprise me, knowing the kind of stuff she's into. It's like getting mad at a Stalinist for liking Stalin...no, actually, that's a shit comparison, sorry! It's early here.

It does really annoy me that they won't ever defend their viewpoints though. If you hold a controversial belief (or really any belief) you should be prepared and able to defend it. Both must know fine well about Rushdoony, especially Leah, so honestly they must have expected to be challenged.

I think they did it at least partly so they could get the ZOMG PERSECUTION!!! which appears in the form of people like you asking them civil questions. She will be feeling all righteous and holy now after coming under attack from an evil atheist while defending a Man of God. Such things are meat and drink to these people.

[valsa]

I was having this stupid delusion that a reasonable, calm discussion would shake her out whatever has a hold of her.

To steal a line from Mythbusters, "Well, there's your problem."

[Nothing2CHere]

It’s not that I mind discussing things with people with other viewpoints – it’s simply that I don’t have TIME. I am busy homeschooling four kids under the age of six. So of all the things to get into an argument with an “ex-Christian†stranger whom I’ve never met – this isn’t something I have the time for. It’s easy to see your intentions and I’m pretty much done here. Thanks for reading though.

Then how the hell does she have time to have a blog in the first place, in which she shares her controversial opinions? "It's easy to see your intentions" - ZOMG, you're trying to make her THINK!!!! :o

[Burris]

It's a common dodge for these fundies to question the intentions of those who dare to debate with them.

I mean, it's obvious your evil intention there was to...

...wait – tar baby?

[browngrl]

Once again I have evidence that behind the sweet, pretty face of fundamentalists there lies a cess pool. I used to have "pet" fundies. People who I thought were actually kind of nice but I have come to see that even the most banal (e.g. Breezy) of fundies is not someone I would want to be around.

[kaetrin]

I don't understand why, as you mentioned, Flora, they seem to need Rushdoony to be inerrant. None of us, I'd imagine, agree with anyone 100%, and most of the time there's no problem just saying something like, "Yes, X did say Y which I don't agree with, but that position doesn't invalidate point Z, which I am making." Y could invalidate Z, but that would be a matter of discussion on the issue at hand (for instance, if it reflects a pattern of irresponsibility with source material). When people like Leah get all cagey about it, it sounds like they are being irresponsible at best and deceitful at worst.

[debrand]

I am busy homeschooling four kids under the age of six. So of all the things to get into an argument with an “ex-Christian†stranger whom I’ve never met – this isn’t something I have the time for.

I've noticed that fundie women use their kids as an excuse to avoid discussing their views.

[Cran]

I wonder why people get so defensive about "their" candidate? There is no harm in saying "Well, ok, I admit Romney is wrong on XYZ, but I will still vote for him, because STRONG REASON XYZ."

Although I can't of a reason strong enough to vote for any Republican in this race, but thanks to all Gods, that is not my problem!

[slickcat79]

I've noticed that fundie women use their kids as an excuse to avoid discussing their views.

I know it's minimal in the grand scheme of her post, but how can she really claim to homeschool kids under age 6? Most kids that age aren't even in school. Teaching your kids basics like reading, counting, etc. isn't homeschooling, it's called parenting. Not that Leah would know anything about that concept, anyway.

I am more surprised to hear talk like that from Breezy, though. She seems so...IDK, I can't really think of the word. Inoffensive? Shallow, maybe? But this is pretty much reprehensible, as well as idiotic:

I have heard that many Southerners viewed slavery as “benevolent†because to not buy the slaves would be to condemn them to death in the Caribbean where, due to the extreme conditions, they could not be expected to live more than a year. Now, are some people by nature slaves? I have no further than myself to look to remind me that without the blood of Jesus Christ, I would be a slave to sin.

1. What does the Caribbean have to do with anything? Many slaves in the US did come from that area, but most were originally of African descent. The fact that they were slaves in the Caribbean isn't germane to the discussion of whether or not slavery was somehow benevolent.

2. The conditions for slaves in the US were also "extreme", if you want to use that word. Slaves were starved, beaten, shot, stabbed, lynched and otherwise worked literally to death here as well as there.

3. No, you moron, no person is a slave by nature, only through their own choices or by conditions forced upon them.

4. The "blood of Jesus Christ" is only relevant to your life because you make it so. You would not be noticeably worse-off if you'd never had christianity in your life, you would have simply made other choices.

5. The concept of sin is relative, and you cannot be a slave to sin in and of itself.

[fakepigtails73]

And I'd bet a dollar that Rushdoony or members of his family (I think his son-in-law is in charge of his Dominionist think-thank) would have freaked out every time the Armenian genocide was denied...

[valsa]

Slaves were starved, beaten, shot, stabbed, lynched and otherwise worked literally to death here as well as there.

Don't forget "raped"! Granted, fundie women are used to being forced to have sex with a man who owns them, so they probably think the female-slave/male-master relationship is the same as their marriages.

[emmiedahl]

I wonder why people get so defensive about "their" candidate? There is no harm in saying "Well, ok, I admit Romney is wrong on XYZ, but I will still vote for him, because STRONG REASON XYZ."

Although I can't of a reason strong enough to vote for any Republican in this race, but thanks to all Gods, that is not my problem!

I don't get it either. I have criticized the candidate I am voting for here and irl, sometimes fairly and sometimes just because I was pissed off.

I am voting for Obama not because I looooove everything he does, but because he is not evil. He may not be changing the things I want him to change, but he also is not trying to infringe on my rights. The other ones make the hair stand up on my arms, I really don't trust them or their intentions at all.

Bad change happens quickly. A lot of the nations that have scary nasty people ruining their country did not see it coming. And it happened really quickly. Look at how fast Iran and Afghanistan changed. That could be us in a few years.

[kaetrin]

I am more surprised to hear talk like that from Breezy, though. She seems so...IDK, I can't really think of the word. Inoffensive? Shallow, maybe? But this is pretty much reprehensible, as well as idiotic:

1. What does the Caribbean have to do with anything? Many slaves in the US did come from that area, but most were originally of African descent. The fact that they were slaves in the Caribbean isn't germane to the discussion of whether or not slavery was somehow benevolent.

2. The conditions for slaves in the US were also "extreme", if you want to use that word. Slaves were starved, beaten, shot, stabbed, lynched and otherwise worked literally to death here as well as there.

3. No, you moron, no person is a slave by nature, only through their own choices or by conditions forced upon them.

4. The "blood of Jesus Christ" is only relevant to your life because you make it so. You would not be noticeably worse-off if you'd never had christianity in your life, you would have simply made other choices.

5. The concept of sin is relative, and you cannot be a slave to sin in and of itself.

Even from a traditional Christian theological perspective, she doesn't know what she's talking about. Paul's language about being a slave to sin is a psychological analogy, used to describe the (fallen) human condition as being prone to destructive behaviors, even if the rational mind rejects such behaviors. One acts badly sometimes even against one's own will. An addiction would probably be the appropriate modern parallel. Christ's work then "redeems" us, literally buys us back from this condition of slavery and makes us free to act according to our own better nature and to pursue virtue and spiritual growth more effectively.

There is also a lot of language about being "slaves" to God, but my point is that it all is an ANALOGY or a metaphor to describe our spiritual journey. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Platonist conception of some people being "naturally" slaves in an organized human society, nor does it imply that slavery is a-ok. Breezy is equivocating very very badly.

Now that I think about it, this is actually another manifestation of inappropriate Biblical literalism - the apparently irresistible urge to make metaphors and analogies into factual assertions.

[slickcat79]

Even from a traditional Christian theological perspective, she doesn't know what she's talking about. Paul's language about being a slave to sin is a psychological analogy, used to describe the (fallen) human condition as being prone to destructive behaviors, even if the rational mind rejects such behaviors. One acts badly sometimes even against one's own will. An addiction would probably be the appropriate modern parallel. Christ's work then "redeems" us, literally buys us back from this condition of slavery and makes us free to act according to our own better nature and to pursue virtue and spiritual growth more effectively.

There is also a lot of language about being "slaves" to God, but my point is that it all is an ANALOGY or a metaphor to describe our spiritual journey. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Platonist conception of some people being "naturally" slaves in an organized human society, nor does it imply that slavery is a-ok. Breezy is equivocating very very badly.

Now that I think about it, this is actually another manifestation of inappropriate Biblical literalism - the apparently irresistible urge to make metaphors and analogies into factual assertions.

Good point. I think I meant to include something about how being a "slave to sin" in Breezy's terminology is not analogous to being a slave in the physical sense, though I was unaware of Paul's specific words on the subject.

Agreed on the biblical literalism point, in particular.

[Witsec1]

Message in my fortune cookie today: "Never argue with a fool". Is the universe trying to tell me something?