prisonchaplain

Jesus' response to the Canaanite woman is the stuff of some controversy. A simple Google search of, "Was Jesus racist towards the Canaanite woman?" brought loads of response. Thankfully, most defended Jesus' answer. Several points bear remembering: 1. Matthew was written to the Jews. The encounter Messiah had highlighted a theme that replays in the early church--Gentiles, non-Jews, often expressed greater faith than Jesus' fellow Jews. 2. When Jesus says that the food is for Jews, not for dogs, He is not speaking in the Asian sense (most cuss words include the word "dog"). Instead, he's referring to the family pet. The woman's response is that yes, the children get food from the table. However, these children share with the family pet--the dog--whether by accidentally or intentionally dropping food for the dogs to lap up. 3. Jesus is so impressed with the woman's faith that he grants her everything she asked for--total healing! The OP is correct. Jesus did not go after Gentiles to offend them. However, He often riled up his fellow Jews for their lack of faith. I would argue that in my setting Jesus would be far blunter with the chaplain than he would with the incarcerated sisters.

Here's the watch I need to gift you this Christmas:

We're currently doing a series on Bible Failures. @zil2 has kept my viewership in double digits. 🤗

I'll make everyone here feel young. I was passing through SLC back when this was LDSTalk and Hijolly met me and gave me a tour of the Conference Center. I don't think I'm too bad online, but hopefully I was better in person. 😉

We love you, @zil2! Never leave us!

IMHO Angel Studios is attempting to make faith affirming movies that are interesting enough that non-believers will watch. There are a couple of movies that come to mind (one Catholic, one Jewish) that were R-rated, yet definitely affirmed faith and had well-recognized production value. Movies about real life events can sometimes work well. Sound of Freedom (I haven't seen it) had potential, though it became politicized, then key players ran into controversy. These movies are few and far between, but they happen. Some faith-affirming movies flop miserable. All the Left Behind movies failed at the box office. I've seen them all. The Kirk Cameron ones (1990s) were okay for Evangelicals but had weak production value. The two re-dos tried and failed to reach the broader public. The blind was a sweet movie about the Duck Dynasty family but felt like something that would quickly go to streaming. All this to say, it can work, but this is tough work and there is a lot of competition. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile.

Big picture thought: Do we lament lost Hollywood, circle the wagons, and spend our time watching B-grade religious movies. OR do we engage the culture by producing and consuming the high-quality stuff? Of course, the actual answer is some of both. The first impulse is most common among Fundamentalists while Evangelicals favor the latter approach. Yet, even in those camps you'll find a mix. There is a lot of dross in Hollywood. Sadly, a good amount of Christian production is of poor quality. Love those gems that are both well done and faith affirming.

I don't know Pastor Jeff, nor do I subscribe to his channel. However, I give him credit for being pretty upfront about what he's doing. Of course, he's trying to convert LDS to Trinitarianism--he's an Evangelical PASTOR! So, there's no cunning in his approach. At the same time, he's definitely not hostile, angry, aggressive, or even disrespectful. @CommanderSouthis exactly right. If the Restoration is true and Pastor Jeff is sincere, he might be the one to convert. Either way, at least he's not condescending. BTW, I agree with those here who said that it's predominantly the algorithm. 😉

Angel Studios is a movie producer, apparently owned by members of the church, but often putting out general Christian films. I watched The Shift this week and enjoyed. It seems to be a sci fi, dramatic retelling of Job. While it had a modest budget the story and acting were compelling. For those interested, do a bit of internet searching. It seems that there are ways of obtaining tickets for less than full price (mine was free). 😉

One of my guilty pleasures is YouTube. Lately I have noticed an increasing number of Evangelical/LDS interaction videos. There's a Pastor Jeff hosting a series. Another Evangelical is touring the state, visiting wards, even touring a temple (probably one open for public visiting prior to opening for members). There are some reaction videos too--one by the Sword of Joseph questioning Pastor Jeff's motives. I've only seen watched portions of a few of these but am wondering what is going on. Is it simply the algorithm targeting me as one who is interested in this material or has there been an increasing general interest? Thoughts?

I believe Doug Bandow is a well-known Evangelical Libertarian. Still, if it ends up being Trump/Biden and No Labels puts forth a candidate (I really like Manchin, for example) I'll probably support them. Otherwise, I have to discern just how afraid of Trump I am. I doubt he's pro-Israel and know he's not pro-Ukraine. Also, without the taming Christian support, I fear that he is a true narcist.

Media's bias against Trump is the biggest non-secret there is. Their own telling is that media built him up and he became a monster that they could not stop or tame.

Can't go there. My struggle with Libertarianism is that it's rooted in atheism (Ayn Rand was a militant one). Communists argue that the collective has godly wisdom, so God's not needed. Libertarianism (Objectivism actually) argues that the individual should be selfish in his/her pursuit of talents, and that if everyone would do so all would be well--so God is not needed.

A possible answer:

I feel the same way about Trump--and I'm moderately conservative. The majority of Americans agree with us. And yet, here we are. 🤷‍♀️

That dirt is neither little nor secret. There's plenty of Jew-hatred on both sides. Since I lean conservative that's the side breaking my heart.

To define this perspective more precisely--it is the America First-Isolationist faction. They argue that any foreign aid (military or social) must directly and immediately benefit U.S. interests. This faction is tepid about supporting Israel, mercenary about Taiwan, and opposed to helping Ukraine. Another "conservative" faction is the overt antisemites--including those who are white supremist and those who just despise Jewish people.

Many LDS are conservative. I tend to be, as well. So are Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. Lately, Shapiro, who is an orthodox Jew, and Owens, a Christian, have been at serious odds. Owens works for the Daily Wire (Shapiro owns a part of the outlet). She's been vaguely critical of Israel's response to the Hamas attack. When Shapiro publicly labeled her response disgusting, she responded by quoting the New Testament--saying that God blesses peacemakers and that she could not serve both God and money. Shapiro responded that if she felt that taking money from the Daily Wire was coming between her and God then she was welcome to quit. She responded to that by saying that she was quoting the Bible, and that the Bible was not about Shapiro. Some even suggested that Shapiro was persecuting her for citing the New Testament. While I don't judge people's souls, I feel safe in guessing at their political intent. My sense is that Owen's quoting from the New Testament was an intentionally passive-aggressive slam at Shapiro. Further, her stated ignorance of any context Shapiro might have for context, as well as her surprise at learning Shapiro wasn't happy with her appear feigned. Owens is incredibly smart. I suspect that she is an America-first isolationist. It's her prerogative, but the fake confusion on her part doesn't engender any sympathy from me.

I've seen YouTube videos of that civil war and think Owens was the more guilty party. She seemed to react to the Israel/Hamas conflict as if there was moral equivalence. When Shapiro said that her reaction was disgusting (keep in mind that she is very familiar with Jewish conservatives, so she knows the perspective), she responded by quoting the New Testament (she knows Shapiro is Jewish). Her supporters argue that Shapiro was unprofessional because he didn't speak to her privately. Sorry, but given the gravity of the issue and my sense that she knew what she was doing, I blame her.

I can meet you half way. Regardless of how much Heavenly Father forgives us, we need JAG. 😌

I've got a witness!

This from Christianity.com: The point is not to get fixed on a specific number, checklist, or scorecard as Peter was doing. The phrase “seventy times seven,” which we first encounter in Genesis 4:24, is a certain number used to signal an uncertain, nearly indescribable amount. According to R.C. Sproul, when Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive, Jesus essentially told him, “As many times as it takes”

I couldn't do what I do unless I believed in free will--even very late in the game (of life). "Whosoever will may come." All who are hungry or thirsty or both are welcome. Death bed conversions are real. The thief on the cross was real. The prodigal son--was all of us. Perhaps the greatest evidence of free will is Judas. Jesus knew this disciple would betray him. Jesus even said it would have been better for him if he had never been born. So, where's the free will? Jesus still chose him. Jesus still washed his feet. Jesus suffered and died so that folks like him could repent. Jesus may have known that Judas would not repent, but the invitation and possiblity was always there. There are secular scholars who argue that God's foreknowledge negates free will. I disagree. Often, we know what our children will do. We recognize their patterns (often because we did likewise at their age). Nevertheless, we let them make their mistakes. Most of the time we see the errors well in advance. Once in a while they surprise us and don't do what we fear they will. Regardless, the mistakes or wise choices are theirs. God, being all-knowing, is always correct in what He knows. Nevertheless, the choices are ours. We are free. BTW, is free will not core to LDS teaching. My understanding is that free agency is even stronger (more advanced) than free will, and that it is crucial to LDS theology.

In reviewing my last post, I realized that I got to preaching. Occupational hazard, I guess. 😉

This is the gist of the Replacement Theology argument: The Jewish people broke the "If my people..." conditions and so inherited the "If my people do not ..." warnings. Thus, God replaced the Jews with the Christian church. My difficulty with this approach is that we have all failed God. Jesus forgives 70X7. The cycle throughout the Old Testament was of sin (whoring after false gods--not just corrupt Judaism, but full-on Paganism), repentance, forgiveness, blessing, and gradual drifting away. Every time they came back, God forgave them. His covenant remains. Every time I repent, likewise, God embraces his prodigal son. We need the Old Testament largely because it reminds us that as undependable as we are, God remains true to His word.