Wednesday, November 18, 2009

A reader responds.

Mr. Schille over in Saukville responds.



God will have the last word

On Saturday, Nov. 14, Mark Peterson had one of his intellectual editorials printed. Three cheers. He knows how to use the dictionary.

Too bad he doesn’t know how to use the Bible as well. If he did, he’d know that many of the words we use today are derived from the Bible. “Sodomy” happens to be one of those – from Sodom and Gomorrah and the lifestyle those people tried to enforce on everyone until the triune God of the Bible was fed up and annihilated the whole countryside. See Genesis 18:20-33 and 19:1-29. You might continue reading on through verse 38. It’s pretty interesting and gives an insight of the people who are descendents of Lot and who still live there today.

In regard to all the free speech Mr. Peterson advocates, let the people say what they want. God is still going to have the last word anyway.

Fredric Schille

Town of Saukville



It is a bit odd to be accused of being an intellectual, and then accused of not knowing the etymology of the words I'm analyzing, but I am grateful for Mr. Schille's correction and it might not be gratuitous to call his attention to Malachi 4:1 and check his leaf blower.

12 comments:

DanBack said...

"the lifestyle those people tried to enforce on everyone"

I'm straight but have a bunch of gay friends that I hang out with on a regular basis. 15 off the top of my head. Not ONCE has any of them ever tried to "enforce" their lifestyle onto me. Never. That is just some type of suburban Christian fear mongering. Life is short people, why hate for something as silly as what two consenting adults decide to do together?

Anonymous said...

"many of the words we use today are derived from the Bible."

Source? Which Bible? King James? The new conservative edited Bible?
The Dead Sea Scrolls? The Torah? Ain't the ol original testament written in the original Hebrew language which was somewhat lost in the translation from Latin to English?

I thought English came from middle English which came from ol English with a spritz of Latin and a smattering from every other non-Latin based language?

Oh yea, congrats, Mark. Your selling papers! JPenterman

Mpeterson said...

I'm already waiting for Kevin to explain how Obama is making everyone gay.

John Jost said...

I love reading those Bible verses. From Genesis 18:21, I get "I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me."
Meaning people had to cry out for God to know, and he had to go down to see? Doesn't he know everything everywhere?
Then God, who loves us all, gets fed up and annihilates the whole countryside. Fed up is not a typical Supreme Being state, is it?
It all just... beats me.

Mpeterson said...

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-benevolent: choose two.

Grant said...

I loves me some exegetical hermenuetics.

God will have the last word

And it shall be...shpadoinkle.

Anonymous said...

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent: have all three.

I'd have to hear your case for Omnibenevolence before I respond to that one.

Mpeterson said...

O, O, O. Sure Anon.

If God is all powerful and all benevolent, then for evil to occur God must not know about it. Dead end.

If God is all knowing and all benevolent, then for evil to occur, God must not be powerful enough to stop it.

And if God is all powerful and all knowing, then for evil to occur, God must simply not be all benevolent.

QED. :^)

Anonymous said...

Oh, I fully understand the angle you're coming at. What I was more interested in was your particular use of the word "Omnibenevolent"

Honestly this is a pretty weak argument. Depending on your definition of Omnibenevolent, a well read Christian may or may not agree that it is an attribute held by the God they worship.

If you take a step over to the etymonline (which you appear to already do frequently, and for good cause) it defines benevolence as meaning "wishing to do good, kindly"

Is this the definition that you run with? Perhaps something a bit more robust?

Anonymous said...

To the last anon, do you consider saving a baby who would otherwise burn to death a benevolent act?

Anonymous said...

I don't think benevolence is the most appropriate word to use in a situation like that, but this response will give you enough rope to hang me if thats the route you want to go.

If I was witness to a burning baby and was capable of saving him or her, I believe I would be morally obligated to do so.

The problem of evil is such an easily countered argument that its hardly worth making.

The fact of the matter is that Benevolence is a hazily defined term that was invented (as far as we can tell) by the Catholic church, and not even they used it at that time nor currently as a term to reference a quality that God has in any of their rites or practices.

God is all powerful, God is all knowing, God is everywhere.

God is also all loving, and that is the basis of the Bible from the very first page in Genesis all the way to the end of the book.

I mean, the main theme of the entire Narritive within the Old Testament is a cycle of blatent human disobedience and forsaken relationship and God in his insurmountable love coaxing them back within covenant faithfullness.

Timothy said...

Me thinks Mr. Schille projects a bit.