griner, whelan... and the Merchant of Death

[Wahoo Redux]

Is there anybody here who would will kill a necromancer?

"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:11)

"Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man." (NRSV, 1 Corinthians 11:4-7)

"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Leviticus 11:7

"12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

6 “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a] 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”  Leviticus 12

I'm just curious how we would react to these Biblical dictates. 

[secundem_artem]

1) Viktor Bout was in no sense of the term a 'low-value prisoner'-- are you nuts?   Do you have rocks in your brain?   He is a scumbag of the first order, and has the blood of thousands on his hands.   Every day that he will not be incarcerated is a day that he can also continue his activities, safe in Putin's protection whilst drinking vodka at a Black Sea dacha, or something like this.  Now tell me how it would be that you could explain to the families of some hapless Third World victims of revolutionaries, terrorists, or the like, to whom Bout sells weapons next year, when said bad guys use said weapons to blow up innocents?   'we're sorry, but we really had to get this druggie ballplayer out', really just won't cut it.

Bout is absolutely a scumbag of the first order. That doesn't make him a valuable prisoner, however. I may be wrong, of course, but his value to Russia seems more symbolic than anything; he's been out of the arms game long enough that I expect it'll be hard for him to get stuck in again. As for his value to the US... I would be surprised if he had any, frankly. He also had just six years remaining in his sentence..

That said, it's worth remembering that a number of scumbags of the first order--who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths--walk free in the US today, and even enjoy a fair bit of status as venerated doyens. If we care about the families of "hapless Third World victims," then Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and many others should be in shackles and awaiting trial in The Hague. I expect the explanation to those victims is the same as it always is: there is no explanation, because their interests don't actually matter to us (even if they should).

No doubt that if there's a hell, Bout is a solid candidate to cross the River Styx, give Cerebus a pat on the head and not come back.

That said (and I realize it's only Wikipedia) Paul Whelan is not in Bout's league, but certainly he's got his own pretty sketchy history of evil doing and generalized skullduggery.  Brittany Griner may not be curing cancer and making the world a better place, but saving her from a 16 yr penal sentence for a minor infraction is a merciful thing to do.

And as I understand it, the Russians had little interest to enter any negotiation for Whelan.  She may be a pot head, but Whelan's in trouble for allegedly spying on the Russians so he's a very different sort of issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Whelan_(security_director)

https://www.axios.com/2022/12/11/kirby-paul-whelan-brittney-griner-russia

You may return to arguing various faith related issues for which I have nothing to add.

[Istiblennius]

[/quote]

You do know that the women rejected the contract that the men accepted, don't you? Then, when they were dissatisfied withe the contract they negotiated, they demanded to retroactively get the men's contract?
[/quote]

My understanding is that now they are actually gaining pay equity by getting a cut of the winnings from the Men's world cup too. But I'll admit I've not dug deeply into the details, mea culpa. That's what That said, I don't want to lose sight of the original point - part of the reason Griner was in Russia was because she was trying to make a living playing the sport she loves.

[dismalist]

My understanding is that now they are actually gaining pay equity by getting a cut of the winnings from the Men's world cup too.

Yup, the male tax! I've long thought implementing such across the board would simplify the accounting and promote transparency. :-)

[marshwiggle]

You do know that the women rejected the contract that the men accepted, don't you? Then, when they were dissatisfied withe the contract they negotiated, they demanded to retroactively get the men's contract?

My understanding is that now they are actually gaining pay equity by getting a cut of the winnings from the Men's world cup too. But I'll admit I've not dug deeply into the details, mea culpa. That's what That said, I don't want to lose sight of the original point - part of the reason Griner was in Russia was because she was trying to make a living playing the sport she loves.

They originally negotiated higher base pay than the men, with lower performance bonuses. (As I understand it, ironically, both teams would have done better under the other one's contract, given how things turned out. But the women wanted to have their cake and eat it too.) My understanding is that, going forward, there will be only one contract for both teams; they all have to agree. That should keep this from ever happening again.

(But why should either team get a cut based on the other team's performance?  That's bizarre either way.)

A lawyer discusses the case.

[pgher]

You may return to arguing various faith related issues for which I have nothing to add.

As I mentioned, I'm not interested in arguing, since we are all unlikely to change each other's minds. I do appreciate the thoughtful response from apl68. My point was more that when we disagree on small issues, it is often because we have different world views that trace back to our fundamental understandings.

This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.

The problem with the term "progressive", in politics, religion, or anything else, is that it exhibits the conceit that "progress" is absolutely identifiable, and that hindsight will never show this generation's idea of "progress" to have been a grave error. Pretty much any historical choice that we now lament was thought by people at the time to represent progress.

I have no idea what my grandchildren will see as "progress" when they are my age; all I can do is try and cultivate humility in myself and realize that my best ideas might be ones which I myself would regret later, and so I should always at least listen to views that disagree with me to consider if there might be some insights that I have missed.

The "progressive" in progressive Christianity is more about progressive revelation than progressive politics or progress in society. I embrace the idea that God is not limited to what was understood by a small agricultural society 2600 years ago, or a small sect living under Roman rule 2000 years ago. Instead, we continue to learn more about the Divine, and in learning, we gain a better understanding of how society should work.

[Wahoo Redux]

"progressive," no matter how it is used, is simply a buzz-word for conservatives to become agitated over these days.  Some people will axiomatically react to "progressive" the same way they will react to "woke" no matter how it is used.  I hear or see very few people who use either of those words...unless they are a certain type of conservative.

[nebo113]

Is there anybody here who would will kill a necromancer?

"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:11)

"Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man." (NRSV, 1 Corinthians 11:4-7)

"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Leviticus 11:7

"12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

6 “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a] 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”  Leviticus 12

I'm just curious how we would react to these Biblical dictates.

Ah yes:  the menu approach to faith.  Thank goodness a male priest will atone for the sin of the woman who gave birth.

[apl68]

"progressive," no matter how it is used, is simply a buzz-word for conservatives to become agitated over these days.  Some people will axiomatically react to "progressive" the same way they will react to "woke" no matter how it is used.  I hear or see very few people who use either of those words...unless they are a certain type of conservative.

It would be a great thing if our society could have the best of what goes under words like "progressive," and "liberal," and "conservative."  They can all be positive things.  Unfortunately in recent decades we seem to be largely getting the worst of what's associated with each of these things.  I don't really like to use any of these words myself any longer, due to the frequent use of them as shorthand for "things I don't like."  But they do make such handy terms that they're hard not to use.

[pgher]

"progressive," no matter how it is used, is simply a buzz-word for conservatives to become agitated over these days.  Some people will axiomatically react to "progressive" the same way they will react to "woke" no matter how it is used.  I hear or see very few people who use either of those words...unless they are a certain type of conservative.

It would be a great thing if our society could have the best of what goes under words like "progressive," and "liberal," and "conservative."  They can all be positive things.  Unfortunately in recent decades we seem to be largely getting the worst of what's associated with each of these things.  I don't really like to use any of these words myself any longer, due to the frequent use of them as shorthand for "things I don't like."  But they do make such handy terms that they're hard not to use.

Count me among the few who use "progressive" in a positive way, along with https://progressivechristianity.org/ and https://www.patheos.com/progressive-christian.

[Wahoo Redux]

NY Times: Griner Says She Will Be Home for the Holidays