text:
Blog Main
Bio/About
American & Christian Culture
Guns in America
LGBTQ Issues & Theology
Opposing the Religious Right
Pro-Life Ethics & Issues
What Franklin Graham is Wrong About Today
Theological Topics & The Bible
Christian Nonviolence
Benjamin L. Corey
BLC is an author, speaker, scholar, and global traveler, who holds graduate degrees in Theology & Intercultural Studies from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and received his doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller. He is the author of Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus, and Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith.
Facebook Twitter Instagram Google-plus Youtube
Trump's Dehumanizing Language Is An Assault Against Our Christian Foundation
Christians can be found of all political and theological colors, but regardless of where one lands on the trajectory of Christianity, there's one thing we should all be able to easily agree on:
Donald Trump's most recent dehumanizing language is actually an assault against the Christian foundation.
While shocking or offensive language from Trump is no surprise, I would urge Christians of all shapes and sizes to not downplay or dismiss the seriousness of his most recent words. When recently speaking of America's immigration policies at a cabinet meeting, Trump referred to deported immigrants, saying:
"These aren't people, they're animals."
Calling people "animals" might not sound like the most offensive or outrageous thing he's ever said, but for the Christian– whether you are conservative or liberal– Trump's comments are an attack upon the very foundation that nearly all other Christian theology, belief, and ethics are built upon. Yes, Christianity is like a river that splinters off in different directions, but before those disagreements there is by and large a mutual starting point.
Regardless of how one interprets the book of Genesis, the Christian foundation ultimately begins with the belief that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. Or more specifically, all Christian faith and practice ultimately stems from the belief that each human being has intrinsic, unsurpassable worth to God. Whether spoken or unspoken, this is the core foundation that all other beliefs and theology flow from, whether you're a conservative Christian, liberal, or somewhere inbetween.
Why has God attempted to make himself known? Because human beings are God's image bearers and have intrinsic, unsurpassable worth.
Why did Jesus put on flesh and dwell among us? Why was he willing to die (however one might explain the atonement)? Because human beings are God's image bearers and have intrinsic, unsurpassable worth.
Why does God command us to love one another, and even say that it's impossible to love God but also hate another person?
Why do evangelical Christians engage in world missions, progressive Christians preach inclusion, and everything else in between?
Because we both actually believe that as image bearers of God, we all have intrinsic and unsurpassable worth.
I don't care how liberal or how conservative a particular theology may be, [with the exception of Calvinism] the vast majority of Christian faith and practice is deeply rooted in the foundational belief that we are each image bearers of the living God, and that we each have divine value that cannot be stripped away.
And this is why when Donald Trump speaks of immigrants and says they're "not even people, they're animals" it is an assault to our core foundation: referring to a human being as an "animal" (unless you're doing it in bed) strips them of their divine value. More damagingly, it sends the anti-Christian message that there are some people who do not have unsurpassable worth and the God-given worth that we have.
If that belief were to actually take root in the hearts of others? Well, I can imagine you just might find that belief give birth to all kinds of anti-Christ behaviors.
In fact, nearly every act of evil in history first begins with attacking this foundation. Once we begin to see others as less than image bearers who have unsurpassable worth to God, and once we begin to label them as somehow being less than as fully human or as valued as we are, we then pave a road that will lead us to do the unthinkable– often without any remorse for it.
Why were we able to commit genocide against the Native Americans? Well, it first started with labeling them as "savages."
Why was it so easy for our ancestors to buy and sell human beings? Well, they literally declared them to be less than fully human– that certainly makes it much easier on the conscience.
Whether it's American slavery, or Hitler's gas chambers, the most anti-Christ actions in history all began at the same root:
Attacking the foundational truth that each human being is an image bearer of the living God and thus has intrinsic and unsurpassable worth– just as our "Christian" president did when he called God's image bearers "animals."
And that's precisely why Donald Trump's most recent dehumanizing language is not only an assault against the Christian foundation, and something to be denounced by conservatives and liberals alike, but is a dangerous first step down a road that leads to the greatest evils the world has ever known.
For those who claim to follow Jesus, we have no choice but to resist.
Follow @benjaminlcorey
BLC is an author, speaker, scholar, and global traveler, who holds graduate degrees in Theology & Intercultural Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and earned his doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller.
He is the author of Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, and Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus.
PrevPreviousHow To Let Life's Pain Make Your Heart Soft, Instead of Hard
Read NextNo, The Gospel Isn't "Good News" For EveryoneNext
It's not the end of the world, but it's pretty #@&% close. Trump's America & Franklin Graham's Christianity must be resisted.
Join the resistance: Subscribe to posts and email updates from BLC!
Join the comments below!
Search the Archives or Browse by Category:
Join the resistance: Subscribe for posts and updates from BLC!
Books from BLC:
What you think
Post Comments:
Rev. Stephen Bailey says:
I have very little hope for what seems to be the growing blindness of the majority of American Christians. Contrary to your opening statement, Ben, a significant number of Americans do not consider Trump's unacceptable comments an 'assault on the Christian foundation', but rather a support of said foundation. That is the true tragedy of a nation that, historically, we know was never "Christian" in its outlook or behaviour, but claims to be so. History has shown us that a sprinkling of Christian belief conflated with American exceptionalism has produced a hybrid American religion that is far from orthodox Christian praxis. Trump has brought out the worst in American culture with his blatantly racist, xenophobic ravings – and has done so deliberately. His agenda is, ironically, anti-American and the poison has been swallowed by "evangelicals" and "fundamentalists" who think he is protecting their interests and their mythology about past and present America. Trump has brought about a natural culmination of what America was, is, and will be unless some powerful prophets speak out and turn the tide back to a moral and ethical foundation built on Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom of God. No positive prophetic Christian voice has yet captured the attention of the American public. Sadly, I believe the U.S. will continue into moral and cultural decline and unhealable divisions. There is a lot of talk about the dangers and blatantly unacceptable ineptness and outrageous unfolding of the Trump presidency, but no one is willing to do anything about it. There is no balm in Gilead; there is no "City Set Upon the Hill". There is only mounting pain and darkness while "religious" America sleeps and will probably wake up too late.
Karl Cocke says:
I think it is unfair to consider the institution of slavery and the treatment of native Americans as comparable to Hitler's gas chambers.
Fartrell Cluggins says:
Agreed, his speech and pretty much everything about him is opposite of what Christians stand for, but what is worse and needs to happen is for true Christians to stand up to all the false "christians" still supporting him just because he has an (R) next to his name. Hypocrisy all the way.
Until the true Christians stand up and call out each and every "christian" friend and family member for supporting him and the Republicans, reminding them of their values in Christ, we'll only slide further down this slope to a Banana Republic and false theocracy.
Just Me says:
Sorry to inform you but we're not living in a theocracy.
But we're approaching one, and if Conservatives in power had their way, we'd have one as soon as they could legislate it.
SamHamilton says:
Fartrell,
There is a mountain of difference between elected legislators enacting their personal policy preferences into place, even when those public policy preferences are grounded in a religious faith, and a theocracy.
"…even when those public policy preferences are grounded in a religious faith" which is exactly what a Theocracy is: ruling by using religion as your guide. Deny it all you want, but that form of rule is why the USA was created. The pilgrims were fleeing a tyrannical religious government.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing any political science expert that the definition of a theocracy is voters and their legislators letting their religious faith influence their public policy decisions. But even using your definition, it's incorrect to imply that "conservative" Christians are the sole Americans who want a theocracy. Most every Christian across the political spectrum, other than those who eschew politics altogether, use their faith to guide the public policy decisions (and most people of other faiths do so as well).
No we're not. We have constitutional protection from this and there is no state religion or anything even approaching that. You need to try better to keep up with current affairs.
C_Alan_Nault says:
"Until the true Christians stand up"
Let me guess: you are defining a "true" Christian as a Christian that believes exactly as you believe.
Not at all, and you should look inward if that's the first thought that triggered you to respond. Why is it so hard to rebuke what Trump is all about and what he says? Why is it so hard to look past the Republican (R) next to their name and hand wave whatever they do because of it, instead of weighing their actions and words independently, taking partisanship out of it?
Basically, a true Christian to me, is one who follows Jesus' teachings and the Ten Commandments at the very least. Love thy neighbor, welcome and help the poor, etc. Every single tenement of what modern Conservatism and much of "christianity" and evangelicalism are about are opposite of those teachings. Praise and help the rich, bash and take away from the poor. Keep others out, instead of welcoming them.
"Basically, a true Christian to me, is one who follows Jesus' teachings and the Ten Commandments at the very least. Love thy neighbor, welcome and help the poor, etc"
The ten commandments? What about the other 603 commandments? There are 613 commandments in the old testament.
Laurence Charles Ringo says:
A "True Christian " is one who obeys The Savior and adheres to the Scriptures as they're discerned in their proper cultural context. When one is guided by the principle embodied in Proverbs 3:5-6, you will be amazed at how easy that will become. PEACE IN CHRIST TO YOU. 😊
"A "True Christian " is one who obeys The Savior and adheres to the Scriptures as they're discerned in their proper cultural context. "
"adheres to the Scriptures as they're discerned in their proper cultural context. "???
What does that mean? Aren't the scriptures supposed to be the word of god? Wouldn't god's words be correct for any and all cultural contexts?
Or is the Bible supposed to be used like a menu, where someone can pick and choose which items they want?
Yes and no. They were written to a specific time and culture, but also for us. Therefore to establish how to understand it and apply it today one needs to first understand what was being said to the original hearers and then one can begin understanding what it means and how it would apply to the contemporary situation. One also needs to ensure it actually fits within the context of the theology and meta narrative of Scripture. These are all guidelines that ensure you are applying the text accurately and not making up your own meaning. I hope that helps you, brother.
Either it is moral to own human beings as property or it is immoral to own human beings as property.
Either it is moral to kill homosexuals or it is immoral to kill homosexuals.
So you have decided that you will create your own way of reading it even though that is not at all what the author was saying. It's probably easier for you because than you can make it say what you want it to say instead of actually caring what it truly means. You can take it out of context and put your oen spin on it. If you truly want me to show you what is happening in some of the texts and can clearly show you but if you are choosing to just look for ways to attack because that's easier for you it's probably not worth my time. I too can go through statements you've made and pull out sentences to take out of context… which is a form of lying about it… or I can actually pay attention to what you are saying and seek to understand where you are coming from. Your choice.
"So you have decided that you will create your own way of reading it even though that is not at all what the author was saying. It's probably easier for you because than you can make it say what you want it to say instead of actually caring what it truly means. You can take it out of context and put your oen spin on it."
Here is what it says:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
That's what it actually says…
What do YOU think the author is saying?
What do YOU think truly means?
In what context are such laws good?
No, a true Christian knows about and practices what Jesus believed and left for His followers to proclaim.
The Sanctified Muse says:
Trump calls murderers, torturers and rapists "animals." Leftists push policies that permit more murderers, torturers and rapists into the United States. We're going into histrionics over vulgar speech while people's lives are being lost. Mr. Corey, if you really care about image bearers, you can do a lot better than this.
otrotierra says:
Note to Dr. Corey: a fraudulent Disqus account has again been created to impersonate and harass me across multiple comment sections beginning with Sojourners. This is the fifth fraudulent account to impersonate me.
My account, opened in 2011, has 4,598 comments with 13,590 upvotes. The fraud's account, opened yesterday, is set to private and has 20 comments. Thank you in advance for moderating your comment section.
Realist1234 says:
I previously defended Trump for using the word 'animals' to describe members of the brutal MS-13 gang. I see now he has described all illegal immigrants coming into America as 'infesting' the US. Such language is wholly inappropriate – we all know what we tend to do with 'infestations' – exterminate them. It reminded me of the language used by the Nazis, and we know where that led. So it seems Trump has betrayed his true mindset.
I dont know if any of you has seen the documentary 'White Right: Meeting the Enemy' on Netflix. Id recommend it. Sometimes racists just need to meet the people they hate on a personal level for some change to begin.
The Mouse Avenger says:
Well-put, well-written, & well-thought-out in every single way. 🙂 I have no other words to say, alas!
LadyWoman says:
Surely someone is going to tell you, "He was just talking about gang members". It's the "just" that starts us down the path of more wide-spread dehumanization. If we don't fight to at least think of everyone as human and valuable just for that, then it's easy to think this person is less than because and that person is less than because and here's a guy who's less than because…we can ALWAYS find ways to dehumanize people. We sure as hell don't need our President priming the pump by calling ANYONE animals. Deal with crime, yes, but deal with HUMANS, PEOPLE, committing crimes.
gloriamarie says:
If one claims to be a Christian, one will know that no Christian can ever think to call another human being an "animal." It is inconsistent with loving one's neighbor as one's self as God first loves us. There are no two ways to look at it. A Christian knows God loves all people.
The only people who would call another person an "animal" is someone who speaks from a place of privilege, usually although not always, white privilege. The only people who would call another person an "animal" are people who think they are better than another. And God tells us no one is better than another. We are all sinners.
This administration is filled with people of privilege who think they are better than anyone else in the country and possibly the world. This administration passes laws that help people like them and only like them: rich, straight, and white. This administration, I am convinced, would consider the average John Pavlovitz' follower an "animal" because we are not rich, not all of us are straight, not all of us are white. They are endorsing self-professed neo-Nazis to run for political office, unopposed.
The values of the current administration have nothing in common with Jesus' values as taught in the Sermons on the Mount/Plain and in Matthew 25. This administration and those who support it have turned their backs on Jesus and His teachings.
Every day I work hard to incorporate Jesus's values to resist this administration and the evils they perpetuate. I strive to bring to attention actions, articles, well-documented news backed up by citations, references, and sources. The kingdom of heaven is "at hand," meaning we can reach out and touch it and make it a reality. We can do this for the whole world. If you like, you can join my Facebook group, Gloriamarie's Progressive Stuff.
Obama called Kanye a "donkey".
A notable virtue signaler called Trump an animal months prior to denouncing this speech. What say you?
What part of my very first sentence was unlear to you?
I just want to know if you'll be so bold as to question Obama's Christianity on the same grounds.
No, I don't think so. I think you want to have an argument. Once again I refer you to my first sentence which I believe is unequivocal. I commit you to God in love.
"No, I don't think so. I think you want to have an argument."
And I think your "Christian mercy" goes only one way, as do so many outspoken posters that follow Benjamin Corey.
Again, trying to bait me into an argument which demons clearly diddn't read what I wrote. your chiice. If you don't liem waht Corey writes, incidentally a veteran who is 905 disabled in the service of gthe USA, why bother to read him and troll his audience.
I Commit you to God in love.
"incidentally a veteran who is 905 disabled in the service of gthe USA,"
Whatever this has to do with me, I know not.
"why bother to read him and troll his audience."
Because I'm trying to disabuse people of the slanted tripe he generally writes.
Hmmm.. an alumnus from an evangelical senminary who is a veteran who is 90% disabled writes tripe? A call to a life of holiness as taught by Jesus is tripe? I refer you to books written by Shane Claiborne.
May the Holy Spirit illumine your mind and soften your heart I commit you to God in love.
"an alumnus from an evangelical senminary who is a veteran who is 90% disabled writes tripe?"
"A call to a life of holiness as taught by Jesus is tripe?"
Yet supports theft through government and forcing one's will over another human being because it's what the collective wants.
May the Holy Spirit illuminate you to the fact that slanted theology and majority rule are, themselves, both evil.
Ivan T. Errible says:
Church is boring.
Fascist rulers and a lying media, hence why these two things are becoming so unraveled having you believe that Hamas is actually the victim.
I don´t believe Hamas is the victim …
Apologies, "you" was meant to be a pronoun for "the populace" which generally is told by folks at CNN and their ilk that the deaths of women and children at "peaceful protests" are Israel's and the U.S.'s fault.
Thanks for the clarification Josh.
I´m wondering if the Israeli´s, who always stress their military is for defense, could have defended the Gaza border more responsibly?
I´m not naive to think that every Palestinian protesting on the border was peaceful, but I´m also not so naive to think the Israeli´s are totally innocent either.
It´s a very complex situation Josh, especially when (like me) one tries to really listen to and hear the voices of both groups of people living in the land.
[Edited]
You mean in that 80% of those that were killed were actually Hamas?
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/50-Hamas-members-reportedly-killed-during-Mondays-Gaza-protests-556627
As for defending more responsibly, I doubt so. After all, the only one's really getting shot are those sending kids to burn tires as a smoke screen and then trying to cut the border wire…of which, Hamas is clear that they want to murder Israelis in Nazi fashion.
If Israel changed its policies toward the Palestinians, and if many U.S. lawmakers dumped their support for dispensationalist theology which shapes their policy decisions, do you think Hamas would change its behavior and stance toward Israelis, or do you think Hamas is simply dedicated to an extremist ideology that would never really change?
They are dedicated, Matthew. Israel has offered peace AND land many times and it has always been rejected by Palestinian leaders.
https://www.quora.com/How-often-have-the-Palestinians-been-offered-their-own-state
3lemenope says:
the only one's really getting shot are those sending kids to burn tires
Pretty sure the kids get shot much more than the people who send them, since they are the ones, you know, running in front of the soldiers with the itchy trigger fingers.
of which, Hamas is clear that they want to murder Israelis in Nazi fashion.
Of course, Israel has made it clear that they will actually murder Palestinians "in American fashion", complete with enthusiastic victim-blaming by people like you. So I guess that's alright, then, yeah?
80% were members of Hamas. Got any other statistics?
You mean shooting members of a gang whose explicit purpose is to rip out spines and gas them like Hitler? Sure, I could shoot those kinds of people.
This is Jew-hatred you're spewing.
And with the cheap and easy accusation of antisemitism, we are done. You, sir, are despicable.
Except that I let facts refute your incredulous claims.
What matters, however, is your motivation for just assuming what you say is true and, worse, wouldn't be challenged. My thoughts: because you find it easier to blame Jewish Israel than to admit that the American leftist-supported Hamas actually want to murder Jews and actually praise Hitler.
This must only be the case because you hate Jews, as the information is freely available if you turn off CNN or the New York Times (who, btw, supported a young, charismatic Hitler).
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1922-new-york-times-hitler/
Kirk Leavens says:
Bob Shiloh is what has happened to America! Fox News Christianity. MAGA Christianity! The trolls on the Right have been emboldened by the crassness of his Orangeness. Their pandering to bigotry is beginning to pay off for them.
Artistree says:
Whether its the left wing of the Beast, or the right wing of the Beast, its still the Beast. Republicans and Democrats are senseless to the Wisdom of God in Jesus.
Bob Shiloh says:
I did not have to read very far to see you are quoting out of context and being as bad as the Fake News media.
MS-13 is the gang our President was referring to and they are animals and need to be locked up for life. Fortunately for most of your readers this is all over the news and some are reporting on it correctly not trying to pander.
"President Donald Trump referred to some people deported from the United States as "animals" during a roundtable discussion about California's "sanctuary" law on Wednesday. After a California sheriff commented that her county is unable to notify ICE when an MS-13 gang member is in jail for a minor crime, Trump launched into a riff about "people trying to come in" and being deported who are "not people. They're animals." It's the latest in a series of statements stretching over Trump's entire national political career that carelessly conflate immigration, criminality, and violence."
"THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we're stopping a lot of them — but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy.
It's not clear whom the president was referring to — whether he was simply picking up on Sheriff Mims's reference to MS-13 gang members or referring to deportees more broadly. But he didn't exactly bend over backward to specify that not all immigrants deported by this administration are "animals."
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17362870/trump-immigrants-animals-ms-13-illegal
Trump makes no effort to be precise because it would not pander to his base of White Nationalists if he appeared soft on immigration.
Kirk, it was about MS-13
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/17/ms-13-donald-trump-gang-violence-animals-immigrants-media-column/621537002/
I heard the speech as it was given. It was perfectly clear who the President was referring to. You sir are a liar!
Sticks and stones!
'You wouldn't believe how bad these people are.' I think its obvious he is not talking about immigrants in general, but people who have done very bad things. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that Trump was referring to MS-13 gang members. Per wikipedia:
'In an interview with Bill Ritter in late 2017, Nassau County, New York District Attorney Madeline Singas, referring to crimes committed by MS-13 gang members, stated: "The crimes that we're talking about are brutal. Their weapon of choice is a machete. We end up seeing people with injuries that I've never seen before. You know, limbs hacked off. And that's what the bodies look like that we're recovering. So they're brutal. '
According to the same article:
'On July 28, 2017, one day after 113 suspected MS-13 gang members were arrested by Salvadoran authorities,[32] President Donald Trump declared his goal of "eradicating" MS-13, calling them "animals" whose victims "die slowly because that way it's more painful."'
Assuming Ben is reporting what Trump said within the last few weeks, then this quote from nearly a year ago is strong evidence he was again specifically referring to MS-13 gang members.
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that on this occasion, Trump is being falsely accused.
Thank you Dr. Corey for affirming Jesus and The Greatest Commandment, no matter how politically offensive it is to U.S. white evangelicals still following Trump's rage-filled, xenophobic gospel. White evangelicals will not be raptured, but will spend the remainder of their days attempting to justify their unjustifiable support for bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, fear-mongering, hatred, lies, deception, corruption, and their denial and obfuscation of the truth.
"Doctor"? He can prescribe medicine?
Wow-I thought he just learned some languages and pretends hear voices.
He has a PhD and is therefore titled 'Dr'. Dont pretend you dont understand that.
"And we have to mention this fact every time we say his name so that people treat him as if he were as intelligent as a physician!"
Being that obviously needy used to be considered pathetic, but I guess you're desperate enough for public attention to have to resort to stamping your feet.
Sorry are you talking to me or Ben? I dont have a Doctorate.
Tim Higgins says:
Seems that this has been debunked. I'm totally against the rhetoric of this man, but in this instance, we've got it wrong. Only right to retract. I'm removing my share of this from my page.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30748/animals-heres-how-unethical-mainstream-media-joseph-curl
Iain Lovejoy says:
It is completely unclear who Trump is referring to; I doubt even he knows. It is just about possible to construe him as talking specifically about M-13 gang members if you really try, and, to be fair, he isn't necessarily saying all immigrants are "animals", but the lack of clarity is the whole point of the speech: it allows him to refer to immigrants as "animals" and whip up hatred against them while also allowing the "I didn't mean those immigrants" when the inevitable blowback occurs. Whatever the question was referring to, his answer is plainly not just talking about deporting M-13 or gang members but immigrants generally, and his actual policies have nothing to do with identifying and deporting gang members specifically, and lump all immigrants together as the same.
Walt Harvey says:
Listen to the question he was asked!!!! There is no ambiguity if the answer goes with the question!
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4729859/president-trumps-ms-13-animal-comment
If you divorce the answer from the question and then speculate about the man's thoughts and intentions. Well, I think your intentions become a little more obvious.
Texancoach says:
Yepper, Walt, Trump was responding to a hypothetical MS-13 question when he made the statement. However, he gave no distinction from other Latino immigrants and MA-13 in that statement. If you consider all his past statements on Latino immigrants, then giving the benefit of the doubt, one certainly could ascertain he was including all Latino immigrants when referring to "these" immigrants instead of merely referring to 'MS-13 members'.
Kinda 'asinine' isn't it…
He wasn't making a "statement" he was answering a direct reporter question about MS13. Geez take your anti-trump blinders ff for just a second in this case.
Walter, Walter, Walter…you're the one taking it all out of context, If you would just see his past statements concerning ethnicity; like, "They are not our friend, believe me," when it comes to Mexico; in disparaging Mexican immigrants: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." Lest we not forget Trump's reference of Haiti and African nations that, "They're s#ithole countries!"
Now if ya really want to debate cowpunch and 'see' who's wearing blinders, fire away. Any Trump topic, you choose, so…you're call…
I took nothing out of context. I merely said he was answering a specific question. I made no attempt to defend any of Trump's statements. But you sir are taking his answer to a specific question out of context and adding your anti-trump bias to it. The answer was specifically about a MS13 question. To add all your other Trump hating bias is to deny the basic fact that the statement that everyone is screaming about again was not a policty statement but the answer to a specific question. Your anti-Trump bias needs to take this out of context so your blinders aren't dislodged. And I never bother to waste my time with people who have already made up their minds and closed it shut solid. Regardless of the topic. So find some other proselyte for your anti-Trump rhetoric. Again, I merely pointed out the comments that added to, interpreted his comment. Once, more I was addressing the convenient lack of context in this particular outrage not defending anyone carte blance. Even most of your media outlets have acquiesced on this point. Have a great day, brother.
First off ol' Walt…there was no specific question, it was a comment and it was not by a "reporter," it was a California sheriff who gave a declaration.
Simply put, when it comes to undocumented immigrants, the Trump administration lumps them all together in their rhetoric (Trump, Kelly, Sessions, etc.) and in their policies…
Coach, you are just wrong. Listen to the C-SPAN clip. He is responding to the female reporter's direct question about MS13.
Like most progressives your blinders don't even all you to wrestle with the actual facts. Rather you just run with how the media 'chooses' to report it instead of consulting available source material. That's looks like a preconceived bias to me.
Good luck with that blinding hatred, brother.
No "hatred" podnuh, but there is some impatience..it was a female county sheriff making a statement…you go back and look at it yourself…then Trump goes off on his little tirade. She did include the MS-13 in her final comment, but she wasn't addressing Trump to answer a question.
But speaking of this 'out of context stuff' when FBI agents, Strzok and Page were phoning each other complaining about Trump…was that taken out of context in your opinion…
"It is completely unclear who Trump is referring to; I doubt even he knows."
"but the lack of clarity"
Lol, right after she says they could be MS-13 members.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/cwclp.gif
Here's a golf clap for managing to keep your bigoted blinders on; how loving.
well, at least Trump didn't call them a bunch of snakes and a brood of vipers, huh ?
And yet that's what Jesus called a group of people.
You mean when Jesus spoke to his primary adversary, religious elites who were cooperating with a corrupt colonial government?
Thank you for pointing out that Trump and Jesus are polar opposites.
But surely youre missing the point of the article. Ben is saying that noone should ever describe other human beings as 'animals' because we are humans not animals, and such a comparison is to be viewed as highly offensive. Yet Jesus and his apostles sometimes compared some humans to animals, due to their behaviour.
In this particular case, it seems Trump referred to these specific people as 'animals' because of their behaviour, not because they were immigrants. Apparently he specifically said they were 'bad people', implying bad behaviour.
Derek Ramsey says:
"Calling people "animals" might not sound like the most offensive or outrageous thing he's ever said, but for the Christian– whether you are conservative or liberal– Trump's comments are an attack upon the very foundation that nearly all other Christian theology, belief, and ethics are built upon."
Let's ignore for a bit the implications to Trump and just address the underlying claim about Christians and the foundation of Christian theology. It's difficult to conclude that either knowledge of scripture is surely lacking or this is just good old-fashioned partisan politics intruding into theology.
John the Baptist called people vipers (Matthew 3:7). Jesus called people dogs and pigs (Matthew 7:6) and vipers and snakes (Matthew 12:34; 23:33). Peter called people animals (2 Peter 2:12). Balaam, a human, was rebuked by a donkey. God debased Nebuchadnezzar into living as a beast, like an ox, eagle, and bird. Jesus was placed in a manger, the eating trough for animals. There is nothing inherently wrong with calling someone an animal and Christians should not feel ashamed for doing so whenever it is appropriate. Context is everything.
What gets worse is that the context of the statement was left out, as pointed out by other comments. Unlike calling someone an animal, deceiving is a unambiguous sin. This article should be retracted, as it is falsely distorts Christian theology.
I would like to see some comments about how to understand the verses that you quote in their proper context. Should they be understood metaphorically? I really don´t know.
Believers in a God of absolute love, revealed in the person and work of Jesus, and who have problems with violence in the Old Testament, need to explain how sometimes even in the New Testament verses come up that paint a different picture of the God they describe. Some of the Psalms would also be a case in point.
"Should they be understood metaphorically?"
They must be. Jesus didn't think the Pharisees resembled snakes or were hatched from snake eggs. He was describing actions.
We use metaphorical language all the time to describe behavior, in both positive and negative ways. It is called zoomorphism. Sports teams and players are described as animals. Personal relationships are described in animal terms (dog, tiger, cougar, fox). Comic book characters. Criminals. Friends and enemies. God himself (Psalm 63:7). That the Bible uses zoomorphism is completely unsurprising.
Calling out someone's animal-like behavior implicitly acknowledges that they are (or should be) better than animals, that they are created in the image of God. That's why it's upsetting to be called an animal. But that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. For example: "The media and blogger wolves circled, looking for any opportunity to viciously attack, even if it was based on lies and deception."
(As an aside, a number of media outlets, including the AP, retracted their misleading statements. Many have not.)
Thanks. Do you think these metaphors show God to be less than absolute love?
Chari McCauley says:
When parents say, "Close the door, were you born in a barn?" Do they love you less?
No Matthew they dont. God is truth too. As I said in my final comment above, sometimes people are compared to animals because they are not living up to the image in which they are made. They are behaving as if they are less than that image, that is, like animals.
Thanks Peter.
yw!
And yet Jesus—the dark-complected Middle Eastern refugee crossing borders with no English, no citizenship, and no birth certificate—is more interesting than your sad attempt at obfuscation, moral relativism, and defense of the indefensible.
splitrock says:
As usual, Otrotierra has no idea what is being discussed. Derek points out that John the Baptist and Jesus referred to people as animals, but Otrotierra wanders off into some other universe with irrelevant comments. Sad. In fact, Trump was responding to a question about The MS-13 gang and they are worst than animals. Both Patheos and the MSM, blinded by their Trump-hatred, can't get anything right about Trump. In Mexicolast year MS-13 members threw severed heads into a restaurant. Maybe they are the sort of animals St. John and Jesus were referring to.
Jim Larkin says:
False teachers, like those who deny God, those who are full of greed, those who are sexually depraved, are referred to in the Bible (2 Peter 2) as(or like) "unreasoning animals" "creatures of instinct to be captured and killed" "stains and blemishes" "a dog" "a sow" (a swine, hog or a boar).
Thank you for confirming that Jesus and Trump are nothing alike.
Elizabeth Niederer says:
And this describes undocumented persons within the borders of the USA how, precisely?
Oops, this is in response to Mr. Larkin.
Certainly agree at how unacceptable his language and policies are, but I'm not really sure about calling it an attack on our Christian foundation.
An attack on American foundation? That would make sense to say, since he is the American president and has the power to affect the country. Against fundamental Christian values? That would also make sense. Attack on vulnerable immigrants? Surely. But how is someone who isn't a Christian leader capable of assaulting the foundation of Christianity? Surely Christianity exists independent of the US President and the US is not a theocracy.
Trump is hailed as leader by a huge (and very influential) chunk of American "Christians", who are interested in embedding their version of Christianity into the American state. That is why Trump is an assault on the foundations of Christianity, especially in the US, but also, because of the US's global influence, the rest of the world.
So maybe those who would ascribe that position to him are assaulting the foundations?
Yes. Maybe that would be more accurate.
You know what's dehumanizing? Taking people out of context. The "animals" comment was specifically in reference to a question about MS-13.
That being said, regardless of speech I think it's dehumanizing to put one's will over another, even if it's the collective will.
I'm also much less concerned about the dehumanizing aspect of speech as I am the inhumane view toward murder our presidents have had, including abolishing due process.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/targeted-killing-death-without-due-process
Just FYI to Dr. Corey and the comment section moderator: harassment continues at the Sojourners comment section, as a user has yet again opened a fraudulent Disqus account to impersonate me. Their account is marked as private in the hopes of masking their deception.
A friend, catlady, just reminded me of another important distinction: I currently have 4,497 comments with 13,272 upvotes. The fraudulent abuser thus far has 1 comment alone.
Al Cruise says:
This all stems from this fact and it's scaring the living hell out of white evangelicals. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/
Yep. And it is quite telling than Evangelicals rush to defend Trump's anti-Christlike behavior, even right here in Dr. Corey's comment section. Their digital footprint reveals all we need to know about their theology.
I'm curious what your definition of an "evangelical" is. I wonder about this because you ascribe the "defenses" of President Trump's statement as coming from Evangelicals, yet no one here has self-applied that term (that I've noticed). I wonder how you know they're evangelicals.
Absolutely . Trump is using a small group to demonize the entire group as a whole. That's the real intention here. Point out a few bad apples in a way that the public will believe every apple is bad . It's old school fear-mongering and something evangelicals are skilled at doing . What about white american males that go to South Asia for sex tourism , to have sex with minors , should all white american males be banned from traveling there because it should be assumed they all want to do that?
Motto of MS-13: Rape, control, kill. Calling them animals is an insult to animals.
Sometimes animals treat each other better than some humans. I dont see animals beheading or burning alive their fellow beings.
You, like the rest of the media, took this out of context. He was speaking specifically about the MS13 gang members and yes calling them animals is factually correct.
PedasiPaul says:
Having read the transcript, I did not see his specific reference to MS13 gang members. Were these words exclusively about gang members? "We have people coming into the country, trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them. We're taking people out of the country…"
Well forget the transcript. Listen to the question he is asked. He is responding specifically to a reporter question about MS-13.
Francis J Farrell says:
READ THE TRANSCRIPT! SHAME FOR YOU PARROTTING THE LEFTIST "FAKE NEWS" LINE!
BJ Oropeza says:
Could you please check your facts? This was said about the gang MS-13, which means that you quoted Trump out of context. A good discipline I've learned to do now (due to so much bias in news media coverage of anything that goes on politically or in the White House), is to switch between two media sources, one on the right and one of the left, such as CNN and Fox news, or NYTimes and Drudge report. This way, at least you could hear both sides of an issue, and detect when news is taking things out of context.
Marshall says:
John Bunyan also took liberty to describe humans by means of zoology.
Politics can be no ally of faith.
"Regardless of how one interprets the book of Genesis, the Christian foundation ultimately begins with the belief that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. Or more specifically, all Christian faith and practice ultimately stems from the belief that each human being has intrinsic, unsurpassable worth to God. "
And that women are not worth as much as men and must be subordinate to men.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Also, shun non-Christians.
2 John 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed
Also, your slaves should fear and respect you.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
And if your slave is also Christian, your slave should work even harder for you because he/she will be helping a fellow Christian.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
Dang Genius says:
Trump is a master politician. He's a genius panderer, just like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Although his language may seem off-the-cuff, I suspect it's more thought out with intention to stir support from his base. Bottom line is, we have a serious education problem in this country and until we fill the country with smart voters, we're going to continue to get divisive politicians who use polarizing language to rouse their base. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American citizen issue. Most people in this country lack the thinking skills to process what 'pandering' is. And so it's exploited.
He was clearly talking about MS-13. You are disseminating fake news and you are a domestic terrorist.
gimpi1 says:
Um, 'domestic terrorist?' You're calling for Cr. Corey to be arrested for disagreeing with Mr. Trump's language? That's over the top nuts.
As to Mr. Trump's comments, they're open to debate (obviously.) However, even if he was referring only to a specific violent gang, you could make a case that dehumanizing any group strips them of their unique humanity and that act is against the teachings of Jesus. That's what I took Dr. Corey's point to be.
Jesus on the cross didn't dismiss the criminals being crucified alongside him as animals. Christ followers necessarily believe in redemption.
Apparently there's debate about that too. Many people here who consider themselves Christian are defending Mr. Trump's remarks by saying he was referring to criminals when calling people his administration had deported "not human, animals." So, some people who think they're following Christ also think dehumanizing people based on their actions is just dandy . ..
Now, I personally prefer your and Dr. Corey's beliefs. There's never a reason to dehumanize a human being. Someone's actions may force us to restrict them, even remove them from society, for safety's sake, but they still have the inherent dignity of humanity. I'm not hearing that in Mr. Trump's statement or from his defenders. Defenders, am I hearing correctly?
Just an aside, biologically speaking, humans are, in fact, animals. We're not minerals, plants, fungi or viruses. I know that's a technically, but it's worth remembering, in my view.
Spreading the cover-up huh, there are ya, cowpunch…Trump's original statement was when he was referring to immigrants in general and there was no "some" immigrants to it…that only came later under the damage control and using it for bait to hook asinine wearing blinders Trumpeteers…
Trump's original statement: We have people coming into the country, TRYING to come in, we're stopping a lot of them. We're taking people out of the country, you wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before, and because of the weak laws, they come in fast.
There you go, trying to use facts to persuade, as if that will do any good in this age of The Donald.
My sincerest apologies here, PedasiPaul…it appears I made a grave mistake in sending my response to the wrong person…that being you. It was intended for John. I hope that in your heart ya could ever forgive me; in fact I vehemently agree with what ya stated…
All the deception, hyperbole, and fear-mongering of a Trump Rally.
"domestic terrorist?" A terrorist is someone who commits violence in the name of a political cause.
Patricia Lindsay Douglass says:
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Trump has made many remarks about people that doesn't lift them up as "image bearers". This is one reason I could never support him.
Would you support Obama, a third-part (if so, who), or are you an anarchist?
bill wald says:
If evil people and good people are equally "image bearers" then it tells us more about God than about humans, After all, God told his prophet that the army invading Jerusalem was His servant.
Trump is a white supremacist, and appeals to a right-wing base of supporters. He does not care about anyone outside of this group, in fact, he only cares about himself.
David White says:
You are so seriously full of labels and judgement that you are completely out of touch with reality. If you are hateful toward Trump, that's all you will see and you will believe the misinformation to support you hate as justified. Time for a good look in the mirror and a reality check of who is being hateful now.
I am loath to sound like a defender of the President, but in this case I think he was talking about gang members. His language is often inexact and/or sloppy, and he should be more careful. His spokesperson clarified later that he was, indeed, referring to members of MS-13, who were the subject of the original question to which he was responding. However, I can understand how some people don't give him the benefit of the doubt considering some of the things he's said in the past.
In our town, gang members from Central America slit a young man's throat and left him under a slide on a playground near our home. "Animals" is too good an adjective for people who would do such a thing.
That being said, this is an interesting thought experiment. Couldn't Mr. Corey's same points be made even about violent gang members? Aren't they, too, human? Shouldn't Christians react with just as much frustration to characterizing convicted murderers in dehumanizing terms? Should it matter whether the President was talking about any undocumented immigrant or just MS-13 members?
Mr. Corey's sentiment, though I think he misinterpret's the President, is accurate. His comments are a good reminder about dehumanizing language or attempts to make people different than you into people who can be dismissed. Comments like "people who cling to their guns and religion" or using labels like "commie, hater, bigot, fascist, terrorist, socialist, fundamentalist, etc." People use these terms less as true descriptors but more as slurs to imply "these people can be disregarded." Politicians from across the political spectrum are very good at this. Christians should eschew this behavior.
Addendum: Another example of dehumanizing language to further political goals is "it's just a clump of cells," "no different than getting your appendix out or sloughing skin cells."
Why are "gang-members" gang-members? Who made them 'gang-members"? Who brutalised them so much that they became so violent and cruel? Is a gang-member beyond redemption – beyond the reach of God? Maybe there was no social media when The Cross and The Switchblade came out as a book then as a movie, but it asks some very valid questions about the brutalisation of the people who become gang-members.
Good questions. I would guess that gang members are all different and have different motivations for joining gangs. I certainly don't think gang-members are beyond redemption or God's love. I didn't even speak ill of gang members in general in my comment, but drew attention to particular gang members who would slit another man's throat over what was most likely some petty grievance, show of machismo, or small amount money.
I think most anit-Trump folks hear only what they want to hear in order to reinforce their preconceived conclusions. As in this case, when placed in context, Trump was talking about brutal inhumane gang members who act like "animals" not humans. In this context calling them "animals" is equivalent to saying that they are acting like animals.
It would be very nice to hear from anti-Trumper's when the President talks about the importance of loving one another, the uniqueness of America as an incredibly positive influence on the world. That is not to say that America is perfect, but no country on earth, in the context of history, has come to the aid of other in need like the USA. To talk about our goodness with pride while talking about our mistakes with regret inspires people to goodness. Let's get some balance here eh?
'but no country on earth, in the context of history, has come to the aid of other in need like the USA. '
– that's highly debatable. I would remind you that the US is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons against civilians, twice. It also took a full 2 years before the US would aid its allies in World War II, and only then because it was directly attacked. It continues to be full of discrimination against non-white people, still allowing the likes of the KKK to continue in existence. I could go on.
Can you say something positive about the U.S., Peter?
Notagod says:
One of the problems with the U.S. is the conceit. Other countries do a lot to aid others, in some cases much more than the U.S. does. The U.S. is a large land mass country, it is disingenuous to compare the amount of U.S. aid to the aid provided by smaller countries. Christians really should get a grip, they elected a most disgusting President due to their conceited, uncaring attitudes. Christians have lost their undeserved moral high ground reputation, and it's about time to because in reality christians never have been morally superior.
You are welcome. Anytime!
Dean Daniels says:
I wasn't aware that Anabaptists or Progressive Christians were Full Preterists proposing Postmillennial theocracy. Historical accounts of the Anabaptists peg their eschatology as Premillennialist. But aside from that curiosity, do we see any such New Testament raging against emperors and governors? Paul engages murderous tyrants of Jerusalem, Rome and Asia and he does so with respect and grace and without fear and panic that "Christian foundations" are under siege and in danger of eroding under their reign. Additionally, there are no such attitudes or diatribes found in the Patristic writings. We cannot propose that God will judge Christians as to a vote in error in a democratic republic or blind support of a maniacal despot – so to judge them ourselves is clearly stepping out of the bounds of His mercy and Grace. I submit that the only "Christian foundation" under assault here is this particular construct of Theology which is lacking continuity in debate. Unless of course, this written 'condemnation of other brethren' truly is from the consensus of Full Preterist Postmillennialism – then it is just a heretical error; but even then I am not aware that heretical error in eschatological matters is worthy of condemnation.
Kyllein MacKellerann " says:
One needs to understand that Donald Trump has only one God, who happens to be named Donald Trump. Other diverse creeds may be tolerated, but at the end of the day, the POTUS will only worship at the altar of Donald J. Trump and his divine avatar, Mammon.
kaydenpat says:
Supposedly Trump's remark was about MS-13 members. However, given Trump's past comments which are racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc., he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. He's a bigot and proudly so.
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that on this occasion, Trump is being falsely accused..
Hello Peter!
I´m wondering if you read Derek Ramsey´s post below? If so … thoughts?
Eddy Hall says:
After reading the blog, I decided to check the comments wondering, "I'm not sure how any Christian could find anything significant to disagree with in the blog, but I suspect someone will." Well, sure enough!
The consensus of several responders seems to be that if people are evil enough (gang members), then it's fine to call them animals. The author states that all people are bearers of God's image, and so it violates the foundation of Christian belief to dehumanize other people by calling them animals, or savages. As people who are called to demonstrate God's radical love even for our enemies, It baffles me that people who claim to follow Christ can consciously defend referring to other people as being "not people" because they do evil things. I agree with the author: This gets to the very heart of Christ's teaching.
'The consensus of several responders seems to be that if people are evil enough (gang members), then it's fine to call them animals. '
– actually the main point of my post was to negate Ben's apparent assertion that Trump was using the word 'animals' to describe ALL deported immigrants:
'Trump referred to deported immigrants, saying:
"These aren't people, they're animals." '
In fact he seems to have only referred to violent gang members as 'animals'. That is why I think Ben is making a false accusation, which as you should know from Scripture is a serious thing.
The whole point of comparing some people to animals DUE TO THEIR BEHAVIOUR is precisely because they are not living as the image of God in which they are made. They are behaving more like animals than humans.
I would also remind you that the authors of Scripture sometimes compared human beings to animals:
2 Peter 12: "They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish".
In the next verse the same people are described as "blots and blemishes"!
And 2 Peter 22: "Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit," quoting Proverbs 26.
Again because of their behaviour.
Personally I think Trump is immoral and probably racist, but lets get the facts correct before making accusations. And don't assume EVERYTHING he says or does is immoral or wrong.
I recognize that there are differences of perception about whether President Trump was referred to Immigrants in general when he said they they are not people, or whether he was referring specifically to immigrants who had joined gangs. But surely you would agree that that issue is irrelevant to the theological issue this blog is addressing. And can there be any doubt that dehumanizing other people becomes, as the author reminds us, the basis of treating others inhumanely?
In other words, no matter who the President was talking about–whether criminals or Boy Scouts–what he said, and his actions which align with what he has said, is, as the author said, in opposition to the very core of Christ's teaching. I'm puzzled that you seem to be more concerned about who the President was talking about than the fact that the President of our country would say it about anyone at all. Can't Christians at least all agree that it is a tragic outrage that the leader of our nation would say this about any human beings, whoever they are?
Ive explained my position clearly. If people choose to behave in non-human ways, mocking the image of God in which they are made, then comparing them to non-human animals is acceptable. It should actually shame them. And you dont seem to agree with Jesus, who called one group of human beings a bunch of snakes, nor the apostle Peter who compared another group to animals, including dogs and pigs. There isnt much more I can say.
JB Watkins says:
You moron, he was obviously talking about MS-13
FrankScotsman . says:
So your argument is "Trump didn't say what Trump said?" That argument is getting worn pretty thin, you need something new.
Elca says:
So, they are not " people "? I wonder who is the moron?
Chuck Johnson says:
Overstatement is a time-honored political ploy.
White Evangelicals and the Religious Right supports and enable such divisive rhetoric.
When we taught that Trump had hit a new low with his racist comment about " S…Hole people" and his preference for white people from Norway, Evangelicals simply slap him on his orange hands and gave him a wink, a nod and a smile so he can continue his divisive ,bitter and offensive tirade against God's Children.
We will never hear Trump be so out spoken against white supremacists and white terrorist, killing kids in schools…
I look forward to Trump going to a new low, because Trump knows this is what the base ( Evangelicals, the Religious Right and the deplorables ) wants to hear to be fed.
Dr. Corey: over at his Patheos blog, Morgan Guyton just announced that Patheos Evangelical shut down Dr. Throckmorton's blog. Dr. Throckmorton, you likely know, has courageously spoken out against serial abuser Mark Driscoll and other fraudulent evangelicals who continue to lie, deceive, obfuscate, and bear false witness. Is there any kind of support that you and other Jesus-following Patheos bloggers can offer Dr. Throckmorton?
More evidence that U.S. Evangelicals are earning their national and international reputation as self-centered, self-serving, abusive bullies with a deep hatred for truth.
Over on Slacktivist, fellow user Gregory Peterson posted this from Dr. Throckmorton: "Dear Patheos: Which Topic was the Last Straw?"
http://www.wthrockmorton.com/2018/05/23/dear-patheos-which-topic-was-the-last-straw/#comment-72291
Regardless of how one interprets the book of Genesis, the Christian foundation ultimately begins with the belief that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. Or more specifically, all Christian faith and practice ultimately stems from the belief that each human being has intrinsic, unsurpassable worth to God.
Not true.
You, Benjamin and other modern Christians made that up and then pretend that it's the original intent of Christianity and Judaism.
Making things up an then pretending that they are true is a hallmark of religious people.
Mr. James Parson says:
When I was a Catholic, the story in Genesis was merely that humans are sinful and capable of sin an therefore need salvation.
Disclaimer: I am now an atheist.
What do you think was the original intent of Judaism? Christianity? I would really like to know your thoughts.
The intents and uses of these religions were there long before the word "Judaism" or "Christianity" even existed.
These stories and traditions served many purposes.
Entertainment, education, speculation about the origins of things we observe, transmission of laws and morality, and many other uses.
To look for a single "original intent" is folly.
Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
It's clearly stated in the New Testament
It is clearly stated in the New Testament that Jesus gave advice on the proper method to beat your slaves.
The Southern Baptist Church was founded upon the approval of slavery which is abundant in the Bible.
The Bible can be used to "prove" anything.
It all depends upon what style of confirmation bias guides you.
God, Jesus and the Bible are dummies.
Religionists are the ventriloquists.
I think you'll find that it was Paul, not Jesus who talked about treatment of slaves. And you have to remember that these people were just as much products of their time as anything else.
(c) 2019, Benjamin L. Corey. All Rights Reserved
<# if(ThriveComments.current_user.ID){#>href="https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/wp-login.php?action=logout&_wpnonce=28a0b3643d"<#}#>><#= ThriveComments.util.render_label('logout_change') #>


text:
// ./api/userAPI

// Load our models
var User = require('./models/user');
/**
 *  Aggregation strategies:
 *
 *  The aggregation process essentially sends a collection
 *  through a series of filters to reduce the collection to
 *  a set of meaningful data.
 */

/*
 * routes for GETTING user(s), and POSTING their info
 */
module.exports = function(app) {

	// get the JSON for a particular user
	app.get('/api/user/:id', function(req, res) {
		getUser(req.params.id)
		.exec(function(err, user) {
			console.log('hello user');
			res.json(user);
		});
	});

	// get array of all reports a user has ever posted
	app.get('/api/user/:id/reports', function(req, res) {
		getUser(req.params.id)
		.select('reports')
		.exec(function(err, user) {
			res.json(user.reports);
		});
	});

	app.post('/api/updateUser', function (req, res, done) {
        // find a user whose email is the same as the forms email
        // we are checking to see if the user trying to login already exists

        User.findOne({'_id': req.user.id}, function(err, user) {
            // if there are any errors, return the error
            if (err)

                return done(err);

            // check to see if theres already a user with that email
            if (user) {
                user.name = req.param('name');
            	user.phone = req.param('phone');
                user.local.email = req.param('email');
                // No option to change password yet //

                var perimeter = req.param('perimeter');
                console.log("PERIMETER");
                console.log(perimeter);
                if(perimeter) {
                    var parsedPerimeter = [];
                    for (var i = perimeter.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
                        console.log(perimeter[i]);
                        console.log(JSON.parse(perimeter[i]));
                        parsedPerimeter.push(JSON.parse(perimeter[i]));
                    };
                    user.perimeter = parsedPerimeter;
                    // newUser.perimeter = JSON.parse(req.param('perimeter'))
                };
                // JSON.parse()
                // user.name = req.param('name');
                // user.phone = req.param('phone');
                // // newUser.contact = JSON.parse(req.param('contact'));
                // user.perimeter = req.param('perimeter');

                // // if(perimeter) {
                // //     var parsedPerimeter = [];
                // //     for (var i = perimeter.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
                // //         console.log(perimeter[i]);
                // //         console.log(JSON.parse(perimeter[i]));
                // //         parsedPerimeter.push(JSON.parse(perimeter[i]));
                // //     };
                // //     user.perimeter = parsedPerimeter;
                // //     // newUser.perimeter = JSON.parse(req.param('perimeter'))
                // // };
                // newUser.local.email     = email;
                //newUser.hashPassword(password);

                // save the user
                user.save(function(err) {
                    if (err)
                        throw err;
                    return done(null, user);
                });
            }

        });

    });
};

/////////////
// QUERIES //
/////////////

//get user by id
function getUser(id) {
	var query = User.findOne({'_id': id});
	return query;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


This highly successful book brings together academic and practising lawyers to consider the key regulatory and contractual dimensions of the mature hydrocarbon province. Now in its second edition, the text has been fully updated. New chapters look at Energy Security, Law and Technology in the Oil Field and Acquisitions and Disposals.


text:
Q: Expressjs req.params undefined but req.req.params defined I'm working on a nodejs project express application. My route looks something like this:
router.get('/observe/:fileName', function(res, req){

    var reqFileName = req.params.fileName;

    console.log("GET /observe/" + reqFileName);
    res.end();

}

The problem is that if I do a GET request on localhost/observe/myFile the variable reqFileName is undefined because req.params.fileName is undefined. But inspecting(using node-inspector) the req I can see that the req has a property called req that has params. so req.req.params.fileName will give my parameter value. Is this normal ?

A: You've got res and req backwards. Try this:
router.get('/observe/:fileName', function(req, res){

    var reqFileName = req.params.fileName;

    console.log("GET /observe/" + reqFileName);
    res.end();

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


This is our 50th year in business. I am a third-generation owner. We are a Benjamin Moore dealer and have been selling decorative concrete products over the last 20 years. Our hours are 7-5:30 m-f and 7-1 on Saturday. We have 3 locations in Jacksonville and are set up to ship same day if ordered by noon.
Most Populated Zip Codes: 33210, 32244, 32218, 32225, 32246, 32209, 32216, 32256, 32257 and 32277.


text:
Who Got Evicted On Big Brother 2013 Last Night? Week 11
By: Todd Betzold | September 12, 2013 at 8:01 AM EDT
Big Brother host Julie Chen made a surprise appearance on CBS last night, as there was a special eviction show on Big Brother 15 and the Final 5 became the Final 4 and we crowned a new Head of Household, so who got evicted on Big Brother 2013 last night? Get the results in our Big Brother 2013 spoilers below!
When CBS finally caught us up on all the happenings in the Big Brother 2013 house, we found out the final nominees for the night were:
Everybody loves free stuff, so get a two-day trial of the Live Feeds here!!!
GinaMarie Zimmerman
Judd Daugherty
The Exterminators were forced to exterminate one of their own after McCrae won veto, but which one would they take out? I guess Judd was going to be spending some more time in the jury house, as he was evicted for the second time this season! It sucks for him, but he made a big mistake by going with The Exterminators and trusting Andy over Elissa!
I think he could have done some damage with Elissa, but then he also could have done some damage if he could figure out how to do a damn puzzle! He loses his cool way too fast and then just quit in the PoV competition shown last night! How could someone quit when you are that close to winning $500,000. I think that was another downfall for him, but he gets to join the jury house full of women! That should be interesting!
Who are you rooting for to win it all?
Join us on Reality Rewind for all your Big Brother 2013 spoilers, recaps, previews, pictures, news and much more! Get all the scoop from our partner site Big Big Brother. Subscribe to our Email and RSS or like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all our latest updates.
Tagged: Big Brother, big brother 15, big brother 2013, Big Brother Spoilers, Reality TV

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl