Ranting to /dev/null

Ah....rejoicing at the pain of others....a cornerstone of enlightened society.

You're cheering for and amused by drought and locusts?

Uh, tell us again what you were saying about being blinded by hatred...

Saw that one coming a mile away.

Look, people: not a single French farmer is going to be hurt by this. The bleeding EU doesn't spend 40% of its budget on agricultural subsidies for nothing. This, however, is devastating to African farmers, because they can't compete with European farmers who don't even need to grow anything. For people so concerned about the poor, you've got quite the bias for the oppressors.

That makes no sense whatsover.

If no crops are being produced in France, they're not sending anything to the market, which is good for the African farmers, not bad.

Yes, I agree that some French farmers probably won't be hurt financially by the drought/locusts, but it's still frustrating to put a lot of work into something only to have it destroyed.

Wishing drought and plague on a farmer's crop is malicious. I'm glad that my vegetables are still growing well here in Chattanooga.

Farm subsidies are an entirely different issue. I agree with you that farm subsidies are bad for poor agricultural countries, whether it be Mexico or the Congo. For free trade to work, there must also be fair trade, which requires a level playing field. I suggest we focus on our own excessive agricultural subsidies before we force others to do the same.

Ending subsidies will drive prices up so that all farmers will receive more money for their crops. The down side is that we will have to pay more for these products.

I believe that your post is biased against France for its opposition to U.S. interests in Iraq. An honest look at agricultural subsidies would focus on our problem with these subsidies, not France's.

What Ryan is actually saying is that the drought/locusts don't hurt the French, but the EU subsidies hurt African farmers.

I also happen to agree that a little frustration on the part of the French farmers is is a small price to pay if less African farmers starve in the meantime.

Stephen, its not good for African economies because they're not allowed to export any of their foodstuffs into the EU, they haven't been for years. The EU is also effectively blackmailing the US by refusing to accept US import of goods if the US starts accepting a certain level of foodstuffs from African. Its nuts, and oppressive to African nations, forcing them to be one-export countries, making them indentured to whomever is their biggest buyer.

And I don't think any of the French are suffering or anything like that, they'll still be wealthy and well-fed etc., unlike the African nations their oppressing economically.

And can't anyone else see the poetic/divine justice in the situation? A nation that has been self-rightouesly adamant about environmental issues is hit by a natural disaster to which they've banned the solution? Come on, people, this is massively ironic.

US farm subsidies are indeed a problem, but they don't operate on anywhere near the scale that European ones do (seriously, 40% of the EU budget goes to propping up their inefficient and under-worked farmers. That's billions of dollars.). Furthermore, a good chunk of American farm subsidies go to support those American farmers whose products aren't being bought because we're importing grain from Africa. Check this list. We're 8th in agricultural imports, and one of the only nations that produces a significant amount of grain to also be such a huge importer. The American government buys American grain and sends it to Africa so that the Africans have both grain to eat and money for the grain they've sold to us. Europe, on the other hand, tends to only use their own stuff, props prices way up so that their farmers can afford to survive, and slaps huge import tariffs on any imported foodstuffs.

I'm not disagreeing with you guys on the fact that extreme subsidies are bad policy.

It's just that rejoicing over something bad happening to someone else is disgusting, no matter how much you think that person might deserve it.

This is another place where you and I differ. When I see justice done, I rejoice. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have any real interest in justice, only "understanding". Well understand this: there really are evil men in the world, and if defeating them isn't cause for rejoicing, then I don't know what is.

I believe that evil is real enough that an innocent man had to be tortured to death to pay for the sins of his people. I'm guessing that you don't.

Wow.

So because I don't wish hellfire to rain down upon the French, I must not be a Christian? You, sir, just brought our conversation to a new low.

Luke 9:54-55:
"When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them."

As you said, He already paid for their sins. Why do you rejoice in seeing them suffer as well?

I understand the need for justice, but necessary existence of the axeman's blade makes me weep, not smile.

Who said anything about smiling? Do I sound happy to you?

Here's the thing. I've got room in my world for compassion, and have strenuously argued for it at various times and places. Read my archives.

And you didn't really answer my objection. I believe that evil is real and deserving of punishment, and that when such occurs, the appropriate response is to rejoice. Do you agree or not?

You must have a very bizarre dictionary if you don't believe that rejoicing and smiling are related. In fact, "rejoicing" connotes a much stronger form of happiness than "smiling" does.

And to answer your question, I do not agree that rejoicing is EVER the appropriate response when someone faces misfortune, whether it is true justice, revenge, or simply bad luck.

Then your position is at odds with Scripture, which certainly makes room for it. Read the Psalms. Read Revelation. There are times when we beg for God to judge justly, and then rejoice when he does it.

I put it to you again: I've got room for compassion in my framework. Do you have room for justice?

Yes. There will be a day when God will strike out on Earth with His judgment. But that time is not now.

You CANNOT be devoted to going "into ALL the world and preaching the Good News" if you also want to see people punished here and now on Earth for their sins.

Your arguments reek of Pharisee.

Let's avoid name-calling, if you please. Calling me a bastard - even accurately so - doesn't make me wrong, but it does make you irrational. If you want to make an argument telling me why I'm wrong/being Pharisaical, then please, by all means do so, but if all you've got is nasty names then kindly go stuff yourself. I'd do it for you, but I've better things to do.

Pray tell, how can one be devoted to only one half of the gospel? It's a two-edged sword you know. A stumbling block. What a good evangelist prays for is that everyone be affected by it. Those who belong to God will be saved by the Gospel. Those who refuse will be judged by it. We want as many as God wills to be saved, but we also want God to be faithful and to judge those who reject him.

Are you telling me that it's wrong to pray that the wicked be punished for their sins in this life? What of Psalm 109?

"Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.
May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.
May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.
May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.
May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.
May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.
May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD;
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.
May their sins always remain before the LORD,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth."

Got misfortune?

All I'm trying to get you to admit is that yes, God has promised to judge the wicked, yes, it is appropriate, and yes, we are supposed to be happy when God fulfills his promises. That's all.

What you're trying to get me to admit is that there isn't any room for punishment in God's economy or if there is, we aren't supposed to like it. Good luck with that one, buddy. You've got a hard case to make, and I don't envy you. But again, by all means, take a shot at it. I'm waiting.

"Calling me a bastard - even accurately so - doesn't make me wrong, but it does make you irrational."

This is now officially pointless.

God bless.

Silence is concession.

What about the homeschooled girls with poor aesthetic sensibilities who don't brush their hair and wear too much denim?

I think somewhere in this discussion a dictionary definiton of the word SURPLUS might've come in handy. I'm just sayin'.

"What about the homeschooled girls with poor aesthetic sensibilities who don't brush their hair and wear too much denim?"

We should ship them all to France. That'll teach 'em.

They've already got them. They're called French men.

Oooh! Snap!

Ryan,

How does Jesus weeping over Jerusalem fit into your schema?

hey, my comment wasn't meant to be a leaping off point for sarcasm, you've gotta come up with your own for that.

I also think you can find something ironic/funny without rejoicing in it, and I also don't think the French are suffering with it, and I also don't think the locus are some kind of tragedy. I think arguing as such is the product of a lack of perspective on the issue.

Doesn't mean Ryan isn't somehow wrong, I'm usually inclined to think that his tone is off under certain circumstances (i.e. making people agree with him), but I don't think you've done anything Stephen to show him why he's wrong. Heck, I haven't seen anything proving that Ryan was doing more than just being exuburantly ironic as opposed to "rejoicing".

my feeling on the whole thing is that a. it is ironic given how the French have hamstrung themselves b. Ryan could have picked a better tone c. all y'all gotten all cats n' dogs over the last two weeks and folks aren't thinking very level in the discussion. of course Stephen/Alice whomever is going to interpret Ryan's statement as hate-filled or whatever, that's how they've come to define him. So they argue at him from that perspective. Right or wrong, its not helpful, just like Ryan, right or wrong, could pick a more helpful tone.

And Paul, no one-off distant/above-it morally/intellectual condescending questions either. I'm not saying you're doing that, and you may be sincerely interested in Ryan's answer, but you ought to engage or not, no lukewarm half-assing it.

Yup.

I am honestly interested, because I think it is a unique and also exemplary instance in scripture. I've been trying to be less verbose as of late. Hence the brevity of my question.

Well said, Josiah.

Also, not having internet access in front of me for most of the day dramatically reduces my ability to fully engage in these rapidly moving discussions.

I can only judge Ryan by what I read here. I am certain there is much more to him than I have been exposed to (and perhaps we could be even be chums under other circumstances), but unfortunately, posts llike the one today are the way he's chosen to portray himself to the world.

I do concede that I was the first to use the word "rejoice," but he never made a distiction between his finding humor in the irony of the situation and "rejoicing" in God's wrath on evil men.

I also want to add that irony and humor are not synonymous.

A person being strangled by a seatbelt during a car accident is ironic, but certainly not humorous.

Thanks, Josiah and mesh.

And no, I wasn't trying to be particularly persuasive. I was having too much fun trolling, and probably got carried away. I've just been having a pretty bad few weeks, I'm more than a bit pissed off about a few highly personal matters, needed to let off a bit of steam, and jumped at the chance. If the opportunity to hash things out with your friends doesn't present itself, at least you can count on personal detractors to be there when you really need to pound something. I'm only disappointed Stephen quit when he did. I was so ready for the coup de grace.

But as to Paul question: that fits in just fine. I believe in a God of bountiful compassion and unending love. But I believe Scripture teaches that the Prince of Peace is also the Lord of Hosts who wages war. The God who weeps over Jerusalem is the God who burned Sodom. Neither would be nearly as impressive alone.

"Rejoice" might be too strong a word, but a God who does what he says he is going to do is a good thing. How many people can you say that about?

I dunno. Maybe we should ask Alanis Morrissette. She seems to know a little bit about both the French AND irony.

Glad I could be your punching bag there, Ryan. Because I certainly have nothing better to do than to engage in a fake debate with someone feigning righteous indignation for kicks and giggles.

I agree that it fits in fine if you recognize that one is to hold both simultaneously. It seemed to me that you tend to claim to hold both but emphasize the sodom hell-fire more in praxis. But I am not trying to be accusatory and I could be very wrong since I don't often read your blog and I haven't talked to you in over a year.

The terror and the beauty of the whole thing, as you imply, is that it is the same God who weeps and burns and the same God who tells us to do both _at the same time_. This is, I believe, our responsibility. I think we all tend toward one or the other and end up having these "your a heartless bastard" vs. "your a spineless wimp" fights as a result.

People don't fake righteous indignation on blogs. They back away from it when they feel uncomfortable with the response they get. Or they get bored or sick of the conversation. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't really feel that way.

I call it the "Aw, Shucks Syndrome":

"Heck, I didn't really mean that. Can't we both compromise our beliefs so that nobody's feelings get hurt?"

If it's going to wind up that way, then better to never start the argument at all.

That's why I post more about Wiffle Ball these days than anything else. I'm changing. I love Wiffle Ball and you can't stop me!

I guess I was under the impression that blogs were more about communication and interaction than trollish entertainment.

I know that I am often wrong/mistaken/uninformed about certain issues that I post on (in fact, I welcome correction when I am).

But I don't stir things up just to piss somebody off. It's immature, rude, and.....now where did I hear this expression recently.....glorified mental masturbation.

Stephen and Bill: I wasn't kidding. I meant everything I said. I wouldn't have said it if I wasn't in a foul mood, but I wasn't faking anything.

Paul: you're probably right. In this space I guess I do tend more towards that direction of things. I do, however, tend towards the idea that we don't always need to qualify everything. The Gospel isn't a balance or compromise between justice and mercy: it's the full weight of both, and neither one is a qualification of the other.

I said you WEREN'T faking it.

Well. This was productive.

My feet hurt.

Better not say that around Melissa. Especially in a few months.

Maybe we should just go for a record number of comments on this post.

Are the locusts going to harm the production of freedom fries?

I gotta go potty.

......and...DONE!!!

This comment officially sucks all respectability out of this thread. Yay, me!!!

Well, you gotta give Ryan credit for not being disengenuous about being disengenous.

And while I do think that given its public nature Ryan isn't completely abdicated for trolling, its still his blog, and sometimes I'd like to leave a little room for venting as such. I mean heck, have you read the average post/comment on Hamdems?

Paul, looking back I realized I sounded harsh-er than I meant to, or something. So I apologize if I came off as more of a prick that I normally am.

I agree with all of that. (Especially the Hamdem's part. Ugh.)

And I want to add that I don't consider myself Ryan's "detractor." I have nothing against him, other than that we appear to disagree more often than not. (And again, this could simply be due to the nature of what we each choose to emphasize on this forum.)

To be honest, when I first read the title of his original post, I thought......oh good.....something good happened to him....maybe he'll even be in a better mood.

So perhaps I was even more disappointed than I otherwise would have been when I actually clicked it.

I know this is a day late and a dollar short, for reasons I already gave.

Josiah: no worries.

Ryan: I think I would agree with you in terms of the full weight of both and not needing to apologize. However, I see the full weight of both as being, necessarily, mysterious. Thus, my desire to hold both simultaneously as a recognition that God is much bigger than we are and asks of us more than we can do, instead of jumping from one to the other as if they didn't influence/interact (although I'm not sure about "qualify" -- I need to think about that) with each other.

I hope that doesn't sound like a guy who finally gets a joke an hour after it has been told.