Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
The More Given, the Less Earned
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


One of the reasons for the ascendance of the English-speaking world has been that the English language is almost alone among major languages in having the word “earn.”

Those of us whose native language is English assume that the phrase “to earn a living” is universal. It isn’t. It is almost unique to English. Few languages have the ability to say this.

In the Romance languages, for example – a list that includes such major languages as Spanish, French, and Italian -- the word used when saying someone “earns” money, is “ganar” in Spanish, “gagner” in French. The word literally means “to win.” In Hebrew the word “marveach” means “profits.” In German, the word “verdient” means “deserves.”

Obviously, it is very different to “win” or to “deserve” or to “profit” than to “earn.”

Since the 1960s-‘70s, a concerted effort has been made to weed the word, and therefore the cultural value, of “earning” from American life. Increasingly little is earned. Instead of earning, we are increasingly owed, or we have more rights, or we are simply given.

Many American kids no longer earn awards or trophies for athletic success. They are given trophies and awards for showing up. These trophies are not earned, just granted -- essentially for breathing.

Another increasingly widespread concept that undermines the notion of earning is “unconditional love.” The term, which was barely used prior to the 1960s, is now ubiquitous. It is a prominent goal, a human ideal to strive for. The idea of having to earn love is more than unheard of today; it would strike most moderns as morally suspect.

We expect unconditional love not only from parents to babies and toddlers, but to children of any age, no matter how they act. Parental unconditional love means that all people, no matter how disgracefully they act --- even toward a parent -- and no matter how old they are, must be shown infinite love from their parents. Parental love is never to be earned, always to be given.

We expect God to show unconditional love to all people, again no matter how they act. According to the doctrine of divine unconditional love, God loves sadists as much as He loves the kindest individuals. No one earns God’s love; we receive it, like sports trophies, for breathing. Many fine people believe this about God, but I think it is religio-cultural-specific, and non-biblical. In 15 years of study in a yeshiva I had never heard the phrase, and it would have struck me, as it still does, as quite odd. It depicts God as a love machine who, like an air-conditioner that emits the same amount of cold air no matter how the inhabitants of a house act, emits the same amount of love no matter we act. It means that we in no way influence God’s love for us. I don’t find that comforting. And it is certainly no more likely to induce decent behavior in human beings than a God who does show conditional love based on human decency.

We expect unconditional love -- meaning unearned love -- from spouses. No matter how awfully you treat your wife or husband, as soon as you were married, you were owed unconditional love. While your spouse and you had to earn each other’s love prior to marriage, the moment you got married, you no longer had to earn the other’s love.

We also expect forgiveness to be given without being earned. Many people believe in what I call automatic forgiveness -- the obligation to forgive anyone any crime, committed against anyone, no matter how many victims and no matter how removed from my life. Thus the pastor of a church attended by then-President Bill Clinton told the president and all others at a Sunday service that all Christians were obligated to forgive Timothy McVeigh, the terrorist murderer of 168 people. Did McVeigh earn this forgiveness? Of course not. So where did the notion of unearned forgiveness come from, especially unearned forgiveness from people who were not the victims of the evil being forgiven? It is one thing for me to forgive those who have hurt me; it is quite another for others to forgive those who have hurt me. God Himself demands that we earn forgiveness. The term for that is repentance. No repentance, no forgiveness.

Finally, the increasingly powerful culture of entitlement and rights further undermines the value of earning anything. The more the state gives to its citizens, the less they have to earn. That is the basic concept of the welfare state -- you receive almost everything you need without having to earn any of it. About half of Americans now pay no federal income tax -- but they receive all government benefits just as if they had paid for, i.e., earned, them.

America became a great civilization thanks to a culture based on the value of having to earn almost everything an American got in life. As it abandons this value, it will become a mediocre civilization. And eventually it will not be America. It will be a large Sweden, and just as influential as the smaller one.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Little House on the Prairie
is a horror story in today's society. A family living in severe poverty, with no health care insurance, no medicare, no medicaid, no social security for retirement, no welfare, no paid vacation, no overtime pay, no Saturdays off, and one of the few sources of literature is a book filled with myths about an invisible infallible, sky creature who spies on everything we do - more intrusive than a CIA wiretap.

Unconditional Love
I agree with Mr. Prager that its wrong to expect unconditional, nonjudgemental love from people. But the desire for it is real and legitimate. You want uncritical love? The animal shelters are full of puppies and kittens who only want to give it to you.

If bad things happen, God hates you?
I think that God loves all his creations because he is always there to forgive. There are hardly any sins for which forgiveness will not be given. This is how God shows his love for the sinner -- by always giving the sinner to option to repent and be forgiven. If God didn't love the sinner, he would reject repentance and not forgive.

You are calling "love" what I would call blessings. I think God loves all of his creations. However, he is more apt to "bless" those who are obedient to him (i.e. those who LOVE him are obedient to him and follow the NT scripture -- "If ye love me keep my commandments").

BUT the problem is that bad things sometimes/often happen to good people. You can't then say that God doesn't "love" them as evidenced by him "letting" such a devastating thing happen to them. In your view does God not love the babies who die from natural and man-made causes? When did those poor dead babies ever get the chance to "prove" their love to him before they died?


Nit-picking
Romance languages -- "earns" is "win?" Yes, sort of. Romance languages come from Latin, I think. In Latin, "earns" is "mereo," or "promereor." Maybe "merit" comes from this word. But Dennis is correct, in the language Latin, and it's followers, "earn" is expressed as "win." That might be because "winning" was everything to the Latin speakers and writers, as in, "win the battle." In those days, in the days of Latin, the Latin speakers, to gain their wealth, merely battled non-Latin speakers, beating them out of their wealth.

One can say what they want about those Latin speakers, but their words were honest.

That is still the best idea, as in, "Just win, baby."

God seems to like that idea, too. But, one never knows....

Oh, then there's that (in-)famous financial firm brag, "We earn it." Then, they "lost" it -- or maybe "stole" it. One never knows....

God Is Love
God is love. He loves His creation. He loves each and every one of us, no matter how we behave. But He is also Holy. And He is just. And we are sinners. We are self centered. And we are constantly transgressing His moral law.

Our transgressions don't impact His love for us. But they do impact His treatment of us. Has any parent ever grounded, or spanked, a child because of their behavior? Did that mean that the parent had stopped loving the child - that the parent's love for the child was conditional upon the child's behavior? Love isn't something you turn on and off.

True love, God's love, because it isn't conditional is terribly vulnerable to being wounded by the person loved. But that doesn't, in and of itself, stop the love. God's love was, and is, big enough to handle the wounding, look at Jesus.

I almost always agree with what Dennis Prager writes. In this case, I think he has a weak view of love as always bestowing favor, and always giving the person loved everything they wish for or desire. From my viewpoint that's not love. It's hate because of it's inevitable impact. We can see the result of 'love' untempered by righteousness or holiness all around us.

In other words, love is unearned whether it's the love of a parent, or the love of God. It's the benefits of that love that can be lost. And there's a personal responsibility to behave in a way that 'earns' the benefits of that love.

We need to maintain the clear distinction between love and the way that love is manifested in our lives based upon our behavior.

What is Earning?
Dennis. The old Capitalism made a few very wealthy people. Did they EARN that wealth? Are they that much more "valuable" than the rest of us? Did they add that much more value to society?

There's a problem with the old Capitalist system. Don't know about you, but I've seen so many get rich in the old Capitalist system off of the creativity, talent and effort of "others". We all have seen Wall Street insiders get rich with scams and deceptions. And, I'm not talking about just the publicly known scandals.

American industrial "leaders" get rich by sending jobs to China, not by building a competitive company here in America.

It's easy Dennis, to fault Obama's ideas. But, the response is not going back to the "good old Capitalist System". You need to come up with a new, fairer Capitalist System.

http://www.visionlinegolf.com

God's love and capitalism
On God's love: "unconditional love" is a useless phrase. God is love, but that is only one of His attributes. In Isaiah's vision, the angels weren't attending the throne saying, "Love, love, love," they were saying "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord." A key problem with the phrase is that when we say "unconditional," most people hear, "(I'm) unaccountable," which I think is the point Prager is making.

On capitalism: the problems cited in the comment above aren't with captialism, they're with thieves, which exist in any system. Capitalism is precisely what made so much wealth possible for so many people, unless you want to limit the label "wealthy" to those who make multiplied millions by Wall Street (and Washington, which made the laws that made the cricis possible -- or even inevitable!) "scams and deceptions," which are hardly limited to capitalists.

And if one thinks the term "unconditional love" as is so commonly understood is a useful, accurate phrase, then there's no reason to criticize thieves.

Vlad
Can you summarize for us?


It's Good to Forgive But Not to Forget
Forgiveness is a good psychological mechanism that helps us go on living without being consumed with hate. It doesn't mean that we are to forget acts or trespasses of our enemies. Vigilance is a necessary activity if you want your descendants to continue, but it helps us to get past transgressions and move on. Then it is up to the transgressors to 'earn' our trust. Forgive but do not forgot, is a good method of living.

Just as doing to others as you would have them do unto you is good as long as you are not suicidal.

Hmmm.
This is a great argument for increasing the inheritance tax.

We'd actually be doing the spoiled brats a favor, right Prager?


Good column
One of the first ones in a while that Dennis didn't say anything nutty. He's so much better when he stays away from politics.

Phylo
That's funny. There are many implications of this piece that I'm sure Dennis wouldn't like.

Would you say that it means that you and Dennis agree on principles and that his difference with the left is one of reasoning from values rather than values themselves?

Vlad, so you're saying the ...
mere allegation of a lawsuit means one is guilty? I'll be you didn't/don't think the same of Bill and Hillary WRT to White Water, right?

You're a tool and don't even know it. Very sad indeed.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Prager's beliefs on forgiveness ..
are based on his Jewish faith. They differ greatly from the Christian faith tradition. Jews had to seek atonement through not only repentance but from sacrifice to receive forgiveness. Christians make sacrifices because we have been forgiven.

The differences may seem nuanced, but the implications are HUGE. The tell of WHY we do what we do. Jews earn forgiveness, or win it as Prager states. Christians receive forgivenss through repentance. The good works I perform are a result of the grace given me, not something I perform in the hopes of receiving forgiveness.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

some points
In part Prager's problem here seems to be with Christianity, which is, not to surprisingly, different than Judiasm on theological matters.

It seems a mistake on a Christian level to confuse love being unconditional with its being non-judgemental. One can judge people one loves. And in fact anyone with children should see something a little creepy in the idea that in recognizing that ones children have behaved badly one therefore loves them less, at least for that period. While children's behavior waxes and wanes, it would be a mistake for our love for them to be as inconstant.

That is not to say that it necessarily should be impossible to be justified in not loving a child, but that confusing love being unconditional with our being unjudging is a mistake.

Also, the emphasis that Prager puts on the difference betwen winning and earning suggests that he was not much of an athelete growing up. Traditionally winning contains the concept of earning.

On the other hand it is nice seeing Prager come out in support of something like an estate tax, because after all if wealthy people are just given their wealth by accident of birth, they did not earn it, and as Prager indicates that is the downfall of the American way of life.

The Cookie Jar is Leaking
If a real worker makes 10 cookies a week and then has to throw 3 cookies in the IRS cookie jar at the end of the week.

The government worker walks by the IRS cookie jar and pulls 10 cookies out of the jar and then throws 3 cookies back.

The government worker has really walked away with 7 cookies and hasn’t really made any cookies or paid a cookie tax.

The more real cookie making jobs we send out of the country the more cookies the government will have to borrow to pay the government workers.

The more we import the more cookies leave the country.

This process is going to make our paper money worthless.

The people that used to make cookies will now have to depend on Caesar to survive this will make the people weak, fat, self absorbed, self worshipping, high maintenance drama queens.

And did I mention the amount of cookies that leave the state/cities/country because of drugs?

Parental Love
I would take exception to one element of Mr. Prager's column, though I agree with almost all of it.

Parental love is unconditional, at least I know that I love my children unconditionally. Does this mean that I shower them with anything I can provide, or accept any behavior; well of course not. One of my daughters I had to love to the point of allowing her to live in her car rather than accept her unacceptable behavior. She finally pushed herself out of her bad behavior and joined the military where she is quite successful and has returned to the values and behaviors with which she was imbued as a child. Our relationship has never been better.

I believe that God also loves us without condition, as He sent His only Son so that we could be redeemed. That does not mean that He would preclude us from deciding to spend eternity without Him. That is our choice, grown from how we live our lives.

Yes, I know that unconditional love exists, but the results of it drive the parent, or God, to allow the child or us to live with the results of our actions. We will, though, always be there to accept our children if they turn from destructive behaviors.

A NEW Capitalism, RJBJr ?
Since you disapprove of the old capitalism, you would seem to have the burden of outlining the new. Don't ask me to do it. The old capitalism made the USA the most prosperous country in history - with spin-offs available to other countries as well and, of course, to individuals in our country up and down the ladder, though I know you despise the ladder metaphor.
Perhaps you are imagining (but only imagining) a system in which EQUALITY and LIBERTY co-exist perfectly and that is why you give no explanation of the mechanism for their simultaneous operation.
But try anyway...

Lon
There's been very little you've said on this board that I or most other conservatives have agreed with you on, but I'll give you credit for
getting it right when you said, "It seems a mistake on a Christian level to confuse love being unconditional with its being non-judgemental. One can judge people one loves".

God's LOVE and FORGIVENESS are AVAILABLE to ALL - yes, even Osama Bin Laden. And it was available even to Adolph Hitler right up to the last day of his life.

But nowhere in God's Word does He promise that receiving His forgiveness by repentance gets one off the hook for the consequences of one's behaviour. If Osama Bin Laden were to receive Jesus Christ as his saviour tomorrow and turn himself in, he would be just as forgiven as I am before God - but there is by no means any obligation on God's part to relieve him of the consequences of his deeds, even if those deeds were admittedly committed while he was still "in darkness", and he may very still wind up paying for his deeds with his life. King David is a case study of how a man can be forgiven - in his case, for his sin with Bathsheba and murder of her husband - yet still have to pay for the consequences of his sin for the rest of his life: because of the forces he set into motion with his sin, he lost his sons Amnon and Absalom.

We have an example of this in the not-too-distant past: Texas murderer Karla Faye Tucker. She converted while in prison - but still wound up having to pay for her crime committed before that with her life. In fact, TownHall columnist Cal Thomas at the time argued AGAINST the commutation of her death sentence by then-governor George W. Bush (and I agreed with him, by the way), declaring that if Tucker was truly converted, she had already received the only pardon she would ever need.

God loves sinners
God loves not only sinners but everyone. But that doesn't mean he also will not punish sinners as some of them seem to think. There are too many cases of that in the Bible. In fact, when the sinners outnumber the believers, even the believers are punished. And while Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven!", he also continued by saying, "Go and sin no more."

There are going to be a lot of surprised people in hell after they die. I just hope I'm not one of them.

GreenDay:
You are correct about that book. And I can think of several more of the same kind. All should be banned to prevent the youth from getting any ideas, shouldn't they?

CAarchitect
You wrote: "BUT the problem is that bad things sometimes/often happen to good people. You can't then say that God doesn't "love" them as evidenced by him "letting" such a devastating thing happen to them. In your view does God not love the babies who die from natural and man-made causes? When did those poor dead babies ever get the chance to "prove" their love to him before they died?"

There are two reasons bad things happen to good people that I can easily think of. First, when God punishes the bad, the good sometimes get caught in it as well. Second, are you sure you are being punished for being good? Perhaps you are actually receiving a blessing intended to make you a better person - or to use you as a good example for others.

SHGround
Yet another example of the IDIOCY foisted on America by The Drug Addled, Leftover Hippie, Lying, Cheating, Liberal, Cowards.

RJBJR and envy
First, "capitalism" is a Marxist label, implying a system benefiting a few capitalists by exploiting the rest of the populace. The more accurate term is "free market," i.e., a system based on voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions.

No other economic system ever devised can hold a candle to the free market when it comes to raising living standards for the average person. Only about 6% of the returns go to reward capital, almost all of the rest (less taxes are returned to labor (a higher return to labor than socialism provides). A comparison of similar populations readily proves this point (eg, East v West Germany; North v South Korea).

That some can become very wealthy merely reflects the fact that many chose to maximize their own well-being by transacting with that person. The fact that a non-productive few are envious doesn't invest them with the moral authority to interfere with "economic decisions between consenting adults."

No one gets to "decide" who "deserves" the money they earned. You only get to decide what to do with your own money. In a real sense, everyone "votes" on what everyone else deserves with their own money. That some have more than other merely reflects that others have voluntarily voted them more "merit." If you don't like someone, don't deal with them. Everyone else is entitled to "vote" with their money and need not deal with those offering less value.

Creativity and productivity take many forms, most unimagined and unappreciated by the envious.

Call to action/No internet
Shutting down the internet.........yes obama-nation wants to do this

letters to my senator: About S. 773 & S. 778

These senate bills will give obama the authority to shut down free speech on the internet, email and call your senators. Google S. 773 and S.778 and get the truth.

With the passage of the bills, S. 773 and S.778, will end free speech as we know it protected in the constitution.

Our constitution is under attack daily that makes an Obama dictatorship more likely.

Please stand-up for the citizens that believe in the truths set down by our founding fathers, that we are a nation founded under God, not a man to have this much control over her citizens.

Please stand up for us, that is why you were voted in.

dennis
interesting article. But we are lucky to be available to God's love 24/7, any time and anywhere.

A Small Ray of Hope
My 6-year-old nephew to his mother this winter:

"Is this another trophy everyone gets, or did I do something good?" He didn't even want to go to the presentation if they were just handling them out to everyone.

He's not old enough to ride in a car without a booster seat, and even he gets the concept of pride in earning something. I hope he leads someday.

English
I have always liked the English language. Now I have another very strong reason.
Donald W. Bales

Chris - estate tax
Dennis, you have identified the quintessential American value.
Do you now understand why the U.S is one of very few countries that
still have a estate tax and a gift tax? Just as our government
should not give her citizens something that they did not earn,
nor should parents give their children enormous wealth the
children did not earn. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, we Americans
are more interested in what an individual becomes, what she makes
of her life, rather than who her grandfather was or how much
money he left to her. Abolishing the estate and gift taxes is
one huge step toward the establishment of an "aristocracy",
where some fortunate few are born to wealth/privilege,
rather than earning it themselves. If the idea of government
taking your hard earned money when you die repulses you, then
create and fund a foundation that will help improve our society
long after you're gone.

JustMe, out of the mouths of babies!
If only our leftist moonbats had that much common sense! I hope there is something left to lead when he is old enough!

Chris-Estate Tax
Whether what Abe Lincoln said is correct or not, it is entirely besides the point. A foundation of our American culture is the concept of private property. For the government to exact a tax on the passing of property from one to another is an impermissible infringment of a fundamental right-to dispose of one's property as one sees fit. Your version results in some form of governmental social engineering and is just another leftist-fascist method of interference with property rights. Government has no right to take that property, why fund a foundation to fight to restore a right? Remove the legislators that cause the problem through the ballot.

Rich Not Wealthy
Huh? In case you didn't notice, the leftists on this site are in almost complete agreement with Dennis' latest column and the sentiment expressed by the 6-year-old. In fact, it is basically a foundational belief of the left.

Standshisground
Thanks for the kind words. I have read my Chesterton.

I would be a bit careful on equating the behavior of God with the behavior of the state of Texas though. It seems pretty silly to think that the State of Texas executed Tucker out of love. And in fact I gather Bush, who was governor at the time, mocked Tucker in a way that was not suggestive of love.

But I agree with you on the Christian conception of love in the cases in which to an outsider love would not seem possible.

The More Given...
I was on board with the article until the last crack about Sweden...not necessary AND not a good example. Sweden is a mono-culture with one ethnic group dominating its national agenda. Everything is very homogenous there and, truth be told, not unpleasant at all if you don’t mind being taxed at the 60% rate. We in the U.S. are an amalgamation of many cultures and religious persuasions that are mostly NOT harmonious. With the rapid moral and ethical degradation Mr. Prager is talking about we are setting ourselves up for MAJOR social upheaval. We are on the path to being a major power to some insignificant third world behemoth if we don't Balkanize into 50 or more little banana republics. NICE ONE AMERICA!

a common theme in Praeger's shows
is his dislike for what I would call Christian love and forgiveness. In both cases Praeger argues it must be "earned".

I would say this is a stumbling block for the Jew and an absurdity to the Greek.

Aside from the well-known John 3:16-18 exposition, I think Christians typically turn to 1 John 3 and 1 Corinthians 13 to understand "love". In the Greek the word is typically rendered agape, and much has been written on the significance of agape vs eros or philia. In the Latin vulgate agape has been translated as caritas, and in turn caritas was been translated into English as love or charity. I think that's significant, as the notion of charity does suggest unearned to me. Deus caritas est. WRT forgiveness, we told to pray that our trespasses be forgiven as we forgive those who trespass against us, and further that the measure that we use will be used to measure out to us, which seems an incentive to err on the side of forgiving to me.

Prager as Fraud
I will attempt a very short summary of Vlads cases, though I would ask Vlad on question going from Tod's (Frog) response. Just because a law suit exists, does not mean it is correct and, since he is the defendant in one case and the plaintiff in the other, I do not understand how you can claim he is a fraud because of both. If you posit that he tried to rip off the bank because he is a defendant in one law suit, doesn't it follow that someone tried to rip him off as a defendant in another law suit? That would make him a victim, not a fraud in the second one.

In any case, it is true that anyone can sue for anything. The existence of a law suit does not imply that it is valid.

They are both several years old, and, you would expect that one or both have been settled. If Vlad has further information, I would be interested in it, though simply because Prager may lose a law suit does not mean that his points are not valid. If I wanted to critique an article, I would attack the ideas, not the person.

I know nothing about the suits other than what Vlad provided, and I am not a lawyer. The Bank is suing Prager for an unpaid loan taken out for one of Pragers business enterprises. In the second, Prager is suing a (hopefully former) business partner because he was using Prager's domain name in a fraudulent and harmful manner.

In any case, none of these would indicate that Prager is immoral. Even if both suits went against him, it just mean that people disagreed about business. Reasonable, moral people can disagree. If money is involved, people who disagree often sue. It is part of business. And for everything else that Prager is, he is also a business man.

Estate Tax
Dennis never said that he was in favor of the estate tax. Abraham Lincoln did not say he favored the estate tax. Dennis was concerned about Parents who gave their children their wealth even if they were rotten kids. The solution is for rich parents to be more willing to write the rotten kids out of the will rather than for the government to take half of the money (or more) away from EVERYONE. Keep in mind, even the leftists agree that immigrants come here to make a better life for their kids. Don't all parents want to make a better life for their kids? How can they do that if the government confiscates so much of the business or property that the parents are trying to leave their kids that the kids are unable to benefit? Lincoln said that he did not care who his grandfather was. He cared more who his (the grandfather's) grandson will be. He was talking about judging people by who they are. He said nothing about transfering money from one generation to another.

prager
it seems to me that you have the same view as a 4 or 5 year old. do exactly what i want you to do or i won't love you anymore. as far as god's unconditional love- doesn't sound unconditional to me. either worship me or spend eternity in hell. thats a big condition in my book. talk about holding a grudge. i just don't know why i'm supposed to believe in something that someone wrote down 2 or 3 thousand years ago. i don't know them or their motivations. the whole bible sounds more like a political manifesto to me. especially after they cherry picked what went into the new testament and what didn't at the council of nicea 300 years later. i suppose i'm supposed to believe that god spoke to those guys and told them what was actually his word and what wasn't? sorry, i ain't buying it.

Wrong again!
Spanish
earn
1. ganar, percibir (wages)
2. ganar, producir (bring in)
3. merecer, ser digno de (deserve)
earned
1. ganado (wages)
2. merecido, debido, justo (deserved)

Just Me-MN
I LOVE Ur story of the 6-yr old nephew..I'm older than dirt, but in my lifetime, so far, I've known many more "Winners" than "Losers"..
Unfortunately, it seems to me that far too many of todays participants are merely "PRESENT", and THAT IS SAD!!CHEERS

John
I don't get your post. Prager said in Spanish you use the word "ganar" which means "to win." Your post confirms that.

Nice job!
I have to admire Dennis's courage for writing this. It is a purely Jewish view, of course; many Christians will disagree.

(For those who think that you need a sacrifice to be saved, please see Ezekial, who clearly says that changng your ways is enough.)

Dear Isaah, Frog & Right Teacher
Isaah, the summary s DP doesn't like to part with money.

Frog, you asked me a question (about Whitewater) then judged me before I could answer. My guess is you learned to debate by listening to that fruad Dennis Prager. But so you know, I'm not a fan of Bill & Hillary, although I am a registered Democrat. So it would not surprise me if they were/are guilty in the Whitewater case...whatever, Dennis goes on the radio every day to discuss morality and the neccessity of a God and all that, yet he's just the type of guy who gives himself a pass wheneverhe decides he needs it. And it's not a mere allegation of a lawsuit. There were lawsuits.

Right Teacher, knowing how Dennis works (I worked with him 5 days a week for 6 years) I am well aware of the sneaky practices he employs to sell his tapes. The man signed a contract giving ownership of his shows to the broadcaster (Salem), then went right out and made a profit off of what was not his to sell, for 5 years, then blamed his business partner when he was caught. The guy has no shame.

Like a broken clock, DP is right sometimes, but Hitler loved his dogs, right?


Unconditional Love
Regarding "unconditional love", this article seems a bit confusing because Dennis seems to offer a false dichotomy, i.e., an individual's love for another is solely characterized by either unconditional or conditional love. This is a surprising perspective, since Dennis does allude to a disbelief in love being binary (i.e., it's either infinite or nonexistent). If indeed love can be multi-leveled, then it is possible for components of both conditional and unconditional love to coexist within the same relationship.

For example, a baby has not done anything to earn his or her parents' love. The child does nothing for itself and creates messes for the parents to clean up. I do not think anyone could argue that parents, at least at this stage of the child's life, show unconditional love.

Most parents continue to retain this component of love throughout the child's life, even if the child chooses bad behavior. In fact, it is because of unconditional love that the bad behavior causes hurt to the parents. However, unconditional love does not necessitate that the parents condone the bad behavior or do not attempt discipline. Certain aspects of their relationship will undoubtedly suffer and are conditional on the child's behavior.

God's Unconditional Love
Concerning what kind of love God exhibits, as a Christian I believe the New Testament teaches that He exhibits both unconditional love (e.g. "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son..." -- Jn 3:16) and conditional, multi-leveled love (e.g., "the disciple whom Jesus [i.e., God the Son] loved" -- Jn 13:23). However, I do not believe at all that the Old Testament only portrays God's conditional love and is bereft of examples of God's unconditional love, as Dennis implies.

For example: "The Lord is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has made." -- Ps. 145:17. This is clearly a blanket statement of unconditional love, with no distinction made between the obedient and disobedient.

Or consider the story in the book of Jonah. I do not see evidence that the Ninevites did anything to earn the love of God -- God only refers to their wickedness, not to any redeeming qualities. Yet He sent Jonah to warn them to repent in order to spare them from His wrath. Was this not an act of unconditional love? In God's own words to Jonah: "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" -- Jnh 4:10-11

Dennis is Right
When you don't read the Bible as a whole you might think God has unconditional love toward everyone but as Dennis said its not true. Daniel 4:34-35.

God does not love everyone in the world without exception, though he provides for all without distinction by grace. There are consequences for our actions, and without repentence and faith in Christ we will stand before God as guilty deserving of his judgment.

Though still deserving of judgment if based on our own goodness which falls short most always, we are found not guilty because of the work of Christ on the cross.

If God loves everyone and sends them to hell anyway that seems quite silly. In John 3:16, quoted all the time, you must asked how does one believe, is it because God has chosen/drawn them to him or do they believe because they are more spiritual and better than others. The bible makes the case for the first not the last.

Response to Brian Part 1
Daniel 4:34-35 seems like a curious passage to cite for your argument. In my understanding, it is a statement of God's authority over all mankind. The statement, "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing...", thus refers to the subordinate status of all mankind in relationship to the ultimate authority, God. This view unifies the entire story, as Nebuchadnezzar, the most aggrandized earthly potentate in history, was humbled before God. To say that this phrase means that God does not love His creation not only goes beyond what was stated, but it problematically contradicts other biblical passages such as Psalms 145:17, which I quoted previously.

Your dismissal of John 3:16 as evidence of God's unconditional love does not make sense to me. The verse says, "For God so loved the world..." It does not say, "For God so loved those whom He chose from the world..." In direct analogy, I think you should also think over the story of Jonah as I suggested previously. God made it clear that he cared about the inhabitants on Nineveh even in their wicked, disobedient status. That is why he sent Jonah to preach repentance to them.

Response to Brian Part 2
You state that "If God loves everyone and sends them to hell anyway that seems quite silly." To claim that love necessarily precludes punishment is simply false -- no matter how severe the punishment.

For example, consider Ted Kaczynski's (a.k.a. the Unabomber) brother David, who turned Ted in to the federal authorities. Although he requested leniency for his brother, David was given no guarantees that his brother would not be executed for his crimes. Do you conclude that David did not love his brother since Ted faced possible annihilation? I would contend rather that David deemed justice to be imperative over the love he has for his brother. Similarly, God unconditionally loves all of His creation, but He prioritizes justice before that unconditional love. However, the centerpiece of God's conditional love, i.e., the love He has optionally offered to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, has most wonderfully satisfied His justice for those who repent and believe.

Linguistic Laches
Mr. Prager,
First, I would advise that you never seek employment as a translator.

Second, it is clear that your training in English is sorely lacking. Have you never heard of a homonym? Words are homonyms if they are spelled the same or sound the same but have different meanings. Take for example: I could not bear (tolerate) to bear (carry) the weight of the grizzly bear (animal) any longer.

The same is true in other languages. In particular, "ganar" (the infinitive form of the verb) can mean "to earn" - precisely as "earn" is understood in English, or "to win."

You may be interested to know that the English language contains more words that most (maybe any) other language, and this may give English speakers (and writers) some advantage (depending on your perspective). Take for example the concept of being ignorant, this can be expressed with: unaware, uninformed, rude, boorish, inconsiderate, oblivious, naive . . . I think you get the point.


David A. Chacon


verdient and to earn
Dear Mr. Prager,

As an immigrant I understand that it is not always easy to comprehensivly understand the meaning of one word.

The German equivalent for "to earn" would be "erarbeitet".

Regards,

moxx

"to earn a living" in Hebrew
Dear Mr. Prager,

I would translate "to earn a living" to Hebrew as "lehitparnes" (from "parnasah") rather than "marveach".

Regards,
Alex.

Prager--stick with your main point
Your main point (at least I think it was) about us becoming an entitlement society is spot on. Why in the world did you muddle it up with an incorrect (an apparently uninformed) view of unconditional love and earned forgiveness?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.