As I've had several discussion this last year on Jesus as he relates to US policies - many of these discussions having been with conservative religious folk - the question has crossed my mind:
Are there any policies that the Christian Right advocate for that have a basis in Jesus' actual teachings?
I know that this sounds like a provocative question and it's only partially meant to be. Partially, I'm genuinely interested. With all the effort being spent in opposition to gay marriage, welfare and abortion, and all the advocacy on behalf of this war, on behalf of big businesses, stern interrogation methods, etc...ALL of which I find either absent from Jesus' teachings or actively opposed by Jesus' teachings, I'm genuinely interested if the Religious Right feels that Jesus' words back up any of their positions.
And this is not to say that I think Christian thought ought to be the final arbiter in US politics - I don't (although I do think that Jesus' teachings ought to be Christians' final word).
Nor is it to say that I think I can find backing from Jesus for all my positions - I can't (Jesus, while seeming to love the environment, may not have spoke any on environmental policy, at least that I can think of off the top of my head).
It's just an honest question, if anyone's interested in biting.
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»You might some of the comments interesting on the two posts bookmarked in the blogroll at my joint.
Anybody else is welcome, too.
See "Jesus is a liberal."
And "Jesus is a conservative."
Thanks, I'll check it out. And I recommend everyone visit Erudite's place just for the joy of his writing, if nothing else.
Aw shucks. Gracias.
ER,
I checked out those two posts and the many comments which were delightful and a hoot to read - you've got some fun commenters there!
But I was having a hard time sorting through all the joking and all to get to many posts where people were answering with Jesus' words (ie, Jesus taught us "xxx" which aligns with my conservative thought that xxx).
Were there just not many or was I rushing too much in my skimming?
I'll have to add you to my roll of places to visit, y'all have a lotta fun over there.
"...ALL of which I find either absent from Jesus' teachings or actively opposed by Jesus' teachings..."
Dan,
Do you really believe the above concerning wholesale abortion?
Hey, I'm against abortion-as-birth control. But clearly Jesus never spoke directly to abortion.
That's all I'm asking: Are their any typically conservative positions that are backed by Jesus' words?
In regards to the abortion question, here's an angle that many Christians rarely consider. I'm quoting a guy named Jim Miller from Andrews University. Just some food for thought (the entire piece is worth reading and considers a variety of viewpoints):
Although abortion was widely practiced in the Roman Empire, somehow the New Testament contains no specific reference to the practice. As early as the fourth century B.C., Plato and Aristotle endorsed abortion in certain cases. A safe and effective abortion drug was made from silphion fennel, and there was a high demand for it. In fact, the demand was so great that the plant was harvested to extinction.
Though the New Testament does not speak on abortion, one legal text from the Old Testament speaks almost directly on the subject; and it has an interesting history.
In the law of Moses, is a fetus a legally protected person with a recognized life of its own? One biblical law seems to define the fetus as property rather than a legal person. The text is Exodus 21:22-25: "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (New Revised Standard Version). According to this text, punishment for the miscarriage is handled by imposing a fine. However, any damage to the woman herself results in the lex talionis, a life for a life, etc. In this law, the woman is a full person with status equal to the man who struck her. Any damage to her can be inflicted equally on her assailant. But the fetus is property of the husband to whom the fine is paid. The fetus does not hold the legal status of a person with a life equal to that of the assailant or the woman.
I think that the coming of Jesus might require us to reevaluate that. But it is interesting that those who justify war based on the Old Testament skip over this verse, which can easily be used to justify abortion.
I don't know that Jesus' teachings should be in any way seen as able to apply in the areas of anything other than personal governance.
I've always believed that followers of God's laws should write those laws into no other book than their own.
Having said that, I'm no longer a religious person, so take that with a grain of salt.
Thanks Wasp Jerky for the info.
And welcome to my site David. You said:
"I don't know that Jesus' teachings should be in any way seen as able to apply in the areas of anything other than personal governance."
And I agree. Totally. As I alluded to in my essay, gov't policy ought to be decided by rational logic, not bible thumping.
Having said that, when Christians are apllying Jesus' teachings to their lives (personal governance), then they may well stand in opposition to bad policy at times (or in support of good policy).
What many Christians believe is that we have some beliefs that are expressly "religious" in nature, while others are more civic- and logic-based.
For instance, some folk believe that Mary was a virgin. That is a strictly faith-based belief, there is no reason to try to apply that religious belief to civic society.
On the other hand, some folk believe that it is a sin to murder. BUT not only is it a sin, it is logically a crime against society and one can make a case for being opposed to murder based upon natural law (the old, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose").
So, while Christians might be opposed to murder as a sin, they can also make a civic case for being opposed to it and well they should.
And so, I agree that Christian teachings per se ought not be the sole basis for law in a secular society, Christians may well have dual reasons to oppose/support policy.
I'm opposed to illegal invasions because they are a crime against humanity. But I'm also opposed to war because Jesus has told me to love my enemies. That kind of thing.
And I was just trying to think of what Jesus-related reasons the Religious Right might have as part of their reasoning for any of their positions.
Phew! Long explanation.
Re, "I was just trying to think of what Jesus-related reasons the Religious Right might have as part of their reasoning for any of their positions."
And there you have nailed to crux of my personal problem with the idea of "politically conservative" Christianity. It's an oxymoron.
And it's the reason you could find no direct attributions to Jesus of any personally held view on conservative political-socio-economic policy:
There aren't any.
Well, that's my opinion, too, ER. But I was interested in hearing what some of my conservative friends might have to say about that.
For instance, I know they often offer up the verse "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." As evidence of Jesus' support for violence-as-solution. Or Jesus' instruction to his disciples shortly before his arrest to purchase a couple of swords.
Of course, most realize that these are weak evidences that Jesus believed in violence-as-solution.
The standard answer on the topic of violence is that God is forever the same and since Jesus IS God, then when God instructed the Israelis to bash the heads of the enemy's children against the rocks, that Jesus would council thusly, as well.
That, or they go with the notion that Jesus had a "special mission" that we as Christians are not obliged to follow and that's why Jesus couldn't advocate violence...
Or something along those lines. I think most realize the weak case for Jesus endorsing violence-as-solution, though, and was wondering if they might have OTHER policies they believe they could better find an endorsement for in Jesus' words.
So, one could take the silence as evidence that it's pretty difficult to do so or just that people are just busy this time of the year or some of both.
Maybe I'll try it again later in the year, not so near the Holidays (or "Christmas," as Jesus would have us call it...you know, as he tells us in that passage where...um...)
Dan,
Being one of the people you have had such a debate with you already know my position on this, so I will not be reposting it here.
I will, however, remind you that I am thoroughly convinced that My position is the more Christlike one between us.
www.ravingconservative.com
And lo, Republican Jesus said unto them, "Loving your neighbor means taking him to an old Soviet interrogation facilty and sodomizing him with a lightbulb."
And lo, Liberal Jesus said unto them, "Loving your neighbor means reducing them to weak, drooling, half-wit parasites, yeah, even unto the forth and fifth generations, in order that thou mayest feel self important thyself and suckle at the public pap."
A case could be made that no conservative point of view is DIRECTLY endorsed by Jesus. But just as strong an case can be made that no so called 'progressive' view is DIRECTLY endorsed by Jesus.
Almost all of the most dearly held religious views through history are a result of laborously interpreting Jesus' words, not actually following them. It's sort of like the old Rube Goldberg cartoons.
Rube Goldberg poked fun at the unnecessary complications of modern life. Rather than just bend over and pick up a piece of trash, his 'machines' had rod A opens door to cage B freeing mouse C who is chased by cat D who is tied by a string to box of birdseed E causing pigeon F to fly from perch on wheel G which turns scooping up paper H.
www.rube-goldburg.com
The piece that Wasp Jerky cites is the ONLY reference in the entire Bible which comments on DIRECTLY on the humanness of a fetus and it is not favorable to the anti-abortion faction. The anitabortion rehetoric is generated in Rube Goldberg style by citing vague, general endorsements of life being important and so we know that life A, being of importance B, makes fetus C, equivalent to person D, and that teaching E against murder F makes abortion the same thing as murder.
Liberal theology operates the same way, only the Goldbergian machine is even more complex. Jesus said love thy neighbor A, but neighbor A never does any work B resulting in no money C to buy frozen pizza E resulting in unhappiness F. Love G means never letting neighbor A experience unhappiness F then in order to realize love G we must tax worker H by force I to take his money C to buy pizza E for neighbor A thus relieving unhappiness F and achieving love G.
Without the Goldbergian machinery to define it, there are is NO basis for the progressive philosophy in Jesus' teachings.
Oops, make that
www.rube-goldberg.com
I'm sorry Dan... I don't have the time to get into the discussion on your post right now. You see, I screwed up and printed an e-mail as fact when it turned out to be a hoax. You commented on that post (regarding social security). I'm letting every person who commented there know that personally, as I don't like mis-information or outright lies published on my blog. I have learned to not post anything that comes through an e-mail without researching it first. Please go read the retraction. It should be fun... a conservative eating crow! :)
You live an learn. My apologies!
Geez Dan, where do I start?
Generally speaking, I believe all laws are derived from a certain succession. This succession was undoubtedly started from a common denominator in all laws: they abide by that of Natural Law.
Natural Law is really something embedded into the conscience, coming into 'full force' during the Age of Reason (scholars estimate near the age of 12).
This dictates how all laws are written, therefore being directly related to God. Christ, being that of God and man, then can be linked directly to all laws.
First example:
Abortion is the murder of a life. Human life is protected because of Natural Law. Therefore abortion is wrong.
Also, how can you cry through your left eye about a war while your right eye is watching a woman shove a vacuum through the skull of a child?
"Hey, I'm against abortion-as-birth control. But clearly Jesus never spoke directly to abortion."
Well, that might be a given considering RU-486 didn't exist nor did invasive surgery or vacuums.
Second example:
Animals and land provide sustenance to support human life. Life again is protected by that of Natural Law. Mmmm, Christ didn't try and save cows and sheep for redemption, did he?
Finally, your inquisition is quite a loaded question. Who says Daniel or I would ever condone actions unbecoming of Christ? Perhaps we choose those that are the lesser of two evils. Also, as situations arise, our consciences must defend our actions. For instance, war is generally bad, but at times, humans are faced with horrible decisions - eliminate people like Hitler and Hussein or let millions of others die at the hands of a few.
As for abortion being acceptable in the bible, that's just plain wrong. I think I'll listen to Pope Benedict the XVI before some Prof from Andrews University.
There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
-Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict
Thanks everyone for your comments thus far. Gayle, I think this is your first time here, you're welcome back anytime.
Short on time, a couple of thoughts:
"Perhaps we choose those that are the lesser of two evils."
I appreciate your thoughts on Natural Law, neo-con. I'm thinking on your comments. A quick note: The problem I have with the above notion is that, when you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil.
I have noticed still no quotes from Jesus from the Right.
Yes, neo-con, it is a loaded question. No, Eleutheros, Jesus never condoned any specific conservative OR progressive policy.
However, for those of us opposed to the policy of war, it is (at least partially) because to engage in war one must kill one's enemies, which Jesus specifically taught against.
For those of us opposed to policies that serve the needs of the wealthy it is (at least partially) because of Jesus' warnings and condemnations about wealth and nations whose wealthy run roughshod over the poor.
For those of us concerned about policies that bring hardships to the poor, it is (at least partially) because Jesus gave specific instructions to care for/give to the poor.
For those who spend so much time, money and effort in opposition to "the homosexual agenda," it is interesting to note that Jesus had nothing - zero - to say about homosexuality.
My point is that there is at least a significant and relatively clear teaching from Jesus related to several liberal positions while there seem to be no correspondingly significant and clear teachings from Jesus for more conservative ones.
Which may be neither here nor there, it's just an observation for what it's worth.
Pope Benedict the XVI is a far greater, more virtuous man than I. I never said I was the perfect Catholic, nor did I say I could do what the Pope does.
With that said, I feel the war in Iraq was just while sucking the brains out of a harmless child is not.
neo-con, let's not hyperbolize. No one is in favor of sucking the brains out of children. Some are willing to see them killed accidentally in a war of choice and some are willing to see them die in a medical procedure as part of a parent's decision, but no one loves killing babies.
You have never heard me say that I think our soldiers get a kick out of blasting children in the faces with their bullets, I'll thank you not to do the same towards those who believe that a medical abortion ought to be the choice of the parent and not the gov't.
And you were the one who said you'd defer to the judgement of the Pope. I'm neither Catholic nor a big fan of this pope. I just thought you'd dig the quote.
Good stuff here. Sort of a more civilized version of the Erudite Redneck Roadhouse.
Thanks, ER. One can only aspire.
I always thought medical procedures should be beneficial. Just who benefits from yanking a baby almost out and puncturing the back of its skull and suctioning the brains in order to kill it? You cannot deny how the process is done. I've had some babies and if it is that near out of the womb, the best place for the baby is to allow birth to take place and I surely felt better afterwards. No guilty consciences to live with either, that I had destroyed a life that God had created.
>My point is that there is at least a significant and relatively clear teaching from Jesus related to several liberal positions while there seem to be no correspondingly significant and clear teachings from Jesus for more conservative ones.
Let's be careful that we don't form a position and then try to use scripture to validate it - instead of letting scripture form our opinion. Anyway, 'liberal' and 'conservative' are just labels on either truth or error. They hold no inherent value by themselves or outside of the truth. However, truth is always true - and right. So, let's seek truth, and follow it wherever it goes.
anonymous, I'll save the abortion debate for another day, you're off topic insofar as the question was what specific teachings of Jesus back your positions. If you wish to answer that question, please give it a crack.
Also, a name would be nice.
Roger, welcome to Payne Hollow.
On labels, as I said somewhere in this pile of comments, I don't have too much use for them. Talk to me about actions and policies, not labels as I'll be found on both sides of any label you're likely to give me.
On the scripture validating opinions, you may be interested to know that I was a traditional, conservative Baptist dude up til my mid 20s as all that Bible teaching began to sink in and I realized how far from Jesus' teachings many conservative policies are.
On some issues, I left what might be called the conservative camp kicking and screaming and only because I thought the Bible was telling me otherwise.
Dan,
Sorry it's taken me so long to return with a response. Anyhow, neo-con beat me to the punch. I was going to extrapolate the general immorality of abortion as he did using Natural Law as my premise. I would say that much of what is found in Scripture has a basis in this concept. I'm not saying all abortion is wrong, but that as a general rule it's immoral. There are of course exceptions to the rule, and let us not forget that "love covers a multitude of sins." I'm no Bible-thumper, that's for sure. The Scriptures while valuable and important and even essential can be open to grave misuse. While I place great worth and respect in them, I'm basically not one to accept the Scriptures as my sole and final authority. But then again, I'm not a Protestant evangelical-fundie either.
As a final comment, I'm in agreement with you that the war in Iraq is wrong (stupid too). I'm not against war per se in all instances. I do indeed believe that in some circumstances that violence as a means to an end is the only prudent choice—i.e. where defense, personal or national, is the primary (and legitimate!) rationale. I also would say that the notion or concept of a "just war" is worthy of consideration (WW II comes to mind). The war in Iraq is at a minimum one hell of a strategic blunder, but also entirely unnecessary in my view and an obvious ill-informed choice. I have no doubt that our current undertaking in Iraq was a misuse of power. I think there were other means to facilitate what's thus far been accomplished in Iraq.
I don't know why my comments were off subject. You were the one bringing up abortion as a medical procedure.
You don't seem to have much of a view of right and wrong.
The Bible does speak of calling right wrong and wrong right. If you can justify killing an innocent life in its mothers' womb, you need to study your Bible a bit more and stop hunting certain scriptures to justify your own pet issues.
I suggest you reread Matthew 24 also since you seem to think that man controls world situations. Wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilences and disturbances of weather are foretold. Spend all your time blaming Bush if that is your calling, but I was a Democrat before you were even born and I don't think any of your favorite Democrats are going to bring peace.
Constantine, thanks for your thoughts. I understand the concept of natural law and am not objecting to that at all. What I was looking for (mainly from the more traditional Religious Right folk) was what policies you feel are backed by specific words/teachings by Jesus.
As I said, I don't think Jesus suggested much at all on environmental issues and yet I believe in taking care of the environment.
So Jesus being silent on an issue doesn't necessarily stop me from having an opinion about it. But some of what passes for conservative political orthodoxy seems to many (not just me) to be directly opposed by Jesus and nothing much seems to be supported by Jesus' words.
I'm just curious if those of the religious conservative persuasion see some teaching that I don't see or are they relying totally upon other teachings and thoughts than Jesus'.
Thanks for your thoughts.
On the abortion issue, some of you probably have me wrong on it. I consider myself consistently pro-life - against abortion as birth control, against the death penalty and against war.
The area where I make some allowance is for the freedom to allow end-of-life decisions to be made by the individuals involved. And I'm not talking about suicide or euthanasia.
I'm talking about, for instance, if I were to get sick enough that the only way to keep me alive for a few more days/weeks/who knows was to spend $1 million and a good deal of effort by doctors and nurses and the prognosis is not all that good anyway. In that situation, I might want to choose to go camping with my family instead, thank you just the same.
It's not out of a cheapness for human life that I might make such a decision, but out of the VALUE of life AND the recognition that we all die and that's just part of the gig and we may as well do it with dignity, not clawing and spending our way in to a few more hours of life in a hospital bed.
In these times that inevitably come to some of us, I want individuals and their families to make that decision, not the gov't. And just as some of us may make that decision after adulthood, some of us might be in a position to make gut-wrenching decisions about what is best for our children - born and unborn.
And I don't want the gov't to be the ones to make that decision either.
Do I want people using abortion as birth-control? No. I don't think ethical doctors ought to cooperate with a parent that would ask such a thing - the Hippocratic Oath, and all. If there were some way to codify out medically necessary from unnecessary abortions, then I might be willing to go along with that.
But the conservative, anti-gov't part of me doesn't want to give gov't much leeway when it comes to personal medical decisions.
Having said all that, this is all my thoughts based upon what I would call Natural Law, not upon Jesus' words. And anonymous, THAT's what I meant when I said you were off topic. I didn't ask what your ethical or moral opinion of abortion was. I asked if you have teachings from Jesus to back up your position.
You don't, nor do I, because as far as I know Jesus never addresses it.
And your comments about Democrats are off-topic too, unless you think Jesus was a democrat. THIS POST was specifically asking if you had teachings specifically from Jesus for any of your positions.
I'm assuming from your lack of response on that regard, you don't. Thank you very much for confirming my suspicion.
The reason I mentioned Democrats is because I saw your post on another site where you mentioned and were excited about wanting two Democrats for the next Presidential and VP candidates. Now you pretend not to believe I would comment such.
Ya see, anon, the way these blog things usually work is the bloggist makes a post on a topic and commenters make comments in response to the topic at hand. Sometimes it moves from topic to topic, but that can get unwieldy in this short format and I find it usually easier to deal with one topic at a time.
But I reckon I've swerved from time to time myself from the topic at hand so no harm done.
And yes, Kucinich, Obama and a hand full of others who are nominally Democrats I find to be appealing candidates. But they tend to be outsiders in the Democratic party and not representative of the mainstream.
Would that we DID have some true alternatives to Republicrat corporate flunkies more of the time.
But that's another topic for another day. Today's topic remains...well, you know by now, I hope.
Btw, Dan. I should say, in an effort to be honest, that while I may personally believe that war is sometimes necessary, I would bet all my chips at the table that Jesus would be thoroughly anti-war on all fronts. I'm not sure what that really says about me, but I don't want to create a Jesus in my own image, even if I'd like it to be that way.
I may lean towards your view a bit, Constantine (and thanks for the honesty), in that I don't know that I would 100% be opposed to every war ever... Some truly defensive wars may be hard to avoid.
The problem in making that statement is it then becomes pretty easy to rationalize, "Yeah, you're right, we SHOULD save war for only instances where we truly need to defend ourselves..." and then we readily find reasons we need to "defend" ourselves, as in this Iraq invasion.
So I tend to prefer to start at the "Jesus would not do it and it's just wrong theory" and, if exceptions must be made, then enumerate what justifies the exception (as in a strictly interpreted Just War Theory) and stick to it.
Dan,
This is an absolutely wonderful post. I was curious to see if any of your readers who are part of the Christian right could come up with support for their positions based on the teachings of Jesus, especially in regard to their support of the policies of GW as this president has been held up by them to be Godly and how in their churches they are instructed to vote their "christian values" which really means vote republican. Several days and 34 comments later I don't see where they've come up with a thing.
And that abortion issue... you're right... Jesus never mentions it.
I can't help but wonder how Dan and Marty can see Jesus as not being interested in abortion. He called for the little children to be brought to Him for His blessing. Do we have to quote scripture to you for you to have knowledge of the nature of Jesus? God the Father, Jesus the Son, the Holy Spirit are all one. The following is a quote from a Bible bookmark that I received from the Billy Graham Organization. It is so true!
The New Testament is CONTAINED in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is EXPLAINED in the New Testament.
The New Testament is CONCEALED in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is REVEALED in the New Testament.
The New Testament AUTHENTICATES the Old Testament.
The Old Testament ANTICIPATES the New Testament.
The New Testament LIES HIDDEN in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament LIES OPEN in the New Testament.
The Old Testament PREDICTS a Person.
The New Testament PRESENTS that Person.
The whole book is relevent. We don't pick and choose what suits our taste. Our opinion is irrelevent. Truth is Truth.
To clarify my statement concerning Jesus and abortion. My intent was to cause thoughtful consideration of the nature of Jesus. I do not see Him blessing the little children and telling His disciples not to forbid them to come to Him and then having another side of His nature that would not value them before birth.
Anon,
You still haven't really explained how we can ignore Exodus 21:22-25, which, as quoted above, specifically seems to say that a fetus is property, while a woman is a human being. I'm against abortion as well, but the verses in Exodus are pretty straight forward. Saying you'll listen to the Pope over a college professor doesn't negate what those verses have to say. Just wondering how you're squaring that away.
wasp jerky, When you acquire one of those "pieces of property", then come back and tell me how you feel.
I have a more definitive answer for wasp jerky.
That scripture does not in any way affirm abortion. Abortion is a premeditated and decided procedure. The baby spoken of in this scripture became involved because of a fight between 2 men, whereas the woman was injured accidently and it does not specifically say that the baby dies. It does mention punishment also.
I believe that women who have abortions can be forgiven if they repent and are sorry for what they have done, but if they show no remorse and continue in a pattern of aborting babies, I believe there is a price to pay.
Hey Wasp,
Anon isn't squaring it away. She's ignoring it. And anon, just for the record, I'm against abortion as well, also the death penalty.
But we digress. The question at hand is: "Are there any policies that the Christian Right advocate for that have a basis in Jesus' actual teachings?"
"Are there any policies that the Christian Right advocate for that have a basis in Jesus' actual teachings?"
You see, this is what is so frustrating about the pick-and-choose approach to a "biblical" worldview. it goes like this (for some people): if Jesus in his recorded teachings did not address a specific topic by name, then obviously we can have no final biblical position on it.
Well, that's just inane. The biblical canon is a complete work, meant to be taken in its entirety. It includes the OT, and Paul, and the general epistles. Not just the red words in the first four NT books.
If Jesus came to fulfill the OT law in righteousness (and he did), not to destroy it (or lessen it, or mitigate it, or liberalize it, or annul it), then I think it's a pretty safe bet that what OT law described as righteousness before God, Jesus considered righteousness before God. Okay: Jesus never mentions homosexuality. But the OT law does. It's simply ludicrous to think that Jesus, God the Son, was out of step with the revelations of God the Father to his chosen people, the Israelites. And Paul mentions it, too.
If the Bible as a whole clearly teaches a position on a given issue, then that simply is the position Jesus would have held to. But then, again, my beliefs are showing through here: I believe the Bible is a revelation from God in its entirety (not just a religious book written by men) and that Jesus was very God of very God (not just a pious, feel-goody teacher of tolerance and all things leftist).
Sorry I was unable to respond for a couple of days, computer's in the shop.
So much to cover, so little time.
More clarification, as some of you keep repeating misconceptions about what you think I believe:
1. I'm against abortion (with the exception of as medical procedure)
2. I'm against big gov't
3. I'm for personal responsibility
4. I don't pick and choose bible passages.
5. I'm NOT suggesting we ignore the OT, I love the OT. I'm suggesting we pay a hell of a lot more attention to the teachings of BOTH the OT and the NT.
To Ellie's suggestion of setting the criteria before reading the bible:
Initially, I took the traditional "conservative" teachings I was taught as fact and interpreted the Bible thusly. At some point, it became clear to me that (and again, this is still orthodox thinking) the Bible must be translated through the teachings of Jesus, if we are to claim ourselves to be Christians.
THAT is my criteria. This means that:
1. If the OT suggests that warring is sometimes permissible (but we are not commanded to do so) and,
2. Jesus commnands us to love our enemies...
That I'll take that combination of biblical truths, see that I'm NOT commanded to wage war, I AM commanded to wage peace and love my enemies and then I believe correspondingly. That IS reading the whole Bible, it IS reading (and LOVING) the OT and not discounting it, and it IS orthodox exegesis.
There's nothing radical about it except for the fact that so many people choose not to do so. If you're a christian and have a problem with that, tell me where my biblical logic is wrong and we'll discuss.
For but one example. Other areas of my belief may be less clear but they are arrived at by the same process, within this fallible little brain o' mine.
And, as Marty and I both have pointed out, the question remains unanswered: Can you point to specific teachings of Jesus that support your positions on war, poverty, wealth, abortion, gay marriage?
In so asking, I'm NOT NOT NOT saying that you shouldn't hold your position. I hold positions that Jesus did not teach on (I'm for a tremendous reduction in on dependence upon fossil fuels, for instance - Jesus NEVER spoke to that)...this is not a condemnation of your beliefs if you can't find Jesus' teachings to back them up.
It's just a question out of curiosity, the answer to which seems relatively clear at this point.
Thanks everyone for carrying on this tremendous conversation in my absence.
Peace.
I wonder if you and Marty want to make sure that you don't have more money that one of the welfare recipients and go find a few of them and divide what you have up with them, so that they have as much as you do.
That seems to be what you believe, everyone should be on equal footing whether they work for it or not is of no matter. Everyone is supposed to be equal it appears. Or does that just apply to the other "guy"?
Dan:"Bible must be translated through the teachings of Jesus, if we are to claim ourselves to be Christians.
THAT is my criteria."
That doesn't answer my posit. It is still too vague and means that you open the Bible first and then start making the rules for interpretation as you go along.
For example: You find "Love your enemies" and somehow through a Goldbergian machine arrive at a contraindication of the Iraq war. Yet just after that we find a list of who the 'enemy' is:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you".
Doesn't say a thing about 'those who refuse to have thier nuclear facilities inspected,' or 'those who commit genocide on their own people.'
And yet when we come to "Think not that I came to bring peace, ...but a sword" and "The poor you have with you always.." again it is interpreted on the fly.
What I'm talking about is establishing your criteria before you open the book and don't make up new criteria when you encounter something that doesn't agree with your philosophy and don't make up new criteria when you find something that vaguely resembles you philosophy if only you set up some intermediate steps to get there.
Since under the criteria you are actively using (if not stating), we are allowed to interject intermediate steps, then Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.." The law and prophets are quite full of killing everyone in sight with the edge of the sword so Jesus is clearly endorsing warfare as a solution.
As far as following Jesus words, he also said "sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor"
ALL. Now under the Gospel according to the Progressives, we are to take Jesus at his word and lay down our arms and trust that God will make everything right because we are following His way. Fine. The apply that here too. This is far more clear than the many stepped 'logic' that leads to the conclusion that Jesus is against the war in Iraq. And it doesn't say 'squeezest thou the money out of corporations', it says to an individual "sell ALL that you have". What about it? Do we take Jesus at his word or not?
Oh, I know the old dodge, He was talking to just that rich young ruler and not to everyone. But that's not in your list of criteria BEFORE you opened the book and found that it was going to tell you, in the Kentucky winter, to sell ALL that you have and trust God to take care of you and your family.
Do that first. Let's see how that works out. Give us a report and then we'll consider laying down our arms.
El said:
"For example: You find "Love your enemies" and somehow through a Goldbergian machine arrive at a contraindication of the Iraq war."
You've a point. To a degree. Most of us don't think it such a large jump from "Love your enemies" to "don't kill them" but it is a jump. I just happen to think it's an entirely reasonable one.
El said:
"Jesus said: 'sell ALL that you have.' What about it? Do we take Jesus at his word or not?"
Yes, we do. But we look at the entirety of Jesus' teachings. Jesus disciples didn't have nothing. Some of Jesus' followers had houses.
Within Jesus' teachings you find clear warnings about wealth, clear admonitions to give to the poor, clear admonitions to divest yourself of unjust economic systems and yes, to some people, clear admonitions to sell all they had and join with his community (where they had some modest means of support).
I'm trying (poorly, but trying) to do these. One day, I hope to grow up and be more like Eleutheros.
But, Jesus does not have a clear admonition for us all to sell everything we all have and all be destitute. That is a consistent and challenging reading of Jesus words, wouldn't you agree?
Dan,"Yes, we do. But we look at the entirety of Jesus' teachings. Jesus disciples didn't have nothing. Some of Jesus' followers had houses.
....
That is a consistent and challenging reading of Jesus words, wouldn't you agree?"
No, I wouldn't. Some of Jesus followers were also military men (see 8th chapter of Matt). Yet we do not find Jesus telling them to stop following military orders and quit invading other countries. The military man in question WAS an invader in the middle east. Did Jesus tell him that to follow Him, he must get out?
So in light of this, being consistent and taking the whole Bible, you can't say on the one hand that the direct command of Jesus to sell ALL that you have and give it to the poor wasn't intended to apply to everyone because some of his followers had houses, and then say that a prohibition against war (which he NEVER said directly) is meant for everyone even though he hever said a thing about it when talking to military men.
Inconsistent and seems to be just another case of ripping out bits and pieces of the Bible to crudely plaster a respectable facade over our preconcieved notions.
"I'm trying (poorly, but trying) to do these. One day, I hope to grow up and be more like Eleutheros."
Don't look at me! The best I've ever going to do is buy Jesus a beer.
Call me silly if you want. Now how does that make you different than what you accused me of doing?
I would still refer you to the scripture in Thessalonians. That should be the guidelines for welfare. It is as Eleuthores has said, if the present system is according to God's will, it would be working. Instead, we put more and more money into the system and it fails worse and worse. We take the initiative away from people to help themselves when we encourage them to go for a handout, instead of wanting to make it for themselves. Again, I remind you to apply the Thessalonian prescription before you call me hard hearted. I am not!
>I'll point out again that you're not addressing the question asked in this post
Hey - did I not address the question? ;)
>I'm trying (poorly, but trying) to do these.
Seriously, I think one of the most liberating things we can discover is that the Christian life is not about us trying to do anything. We might as well give that up right now as all our effort is pointless. God said our righteousness is filthy rags. So, lets be careful that we're not trying to live the Christian life in our own strength and intelligence. The Holy Spirit is the what will work through us to do what we wish we could do but fail miserably at. Remember - they're called fruits of the Spirit and not fruits of the believer. Yeah, I know that sounds simplistic, but I see no answer in anything else. The Holy Spirit is a much forgotten person these days I'm afraid.
Roger, you provided no Jesus quotes backing your positions. Again, that is not to say you're wrong. It's only to say that you provided no Jesus quotes.
Everyone hear me saying that this does not necessarily make your position wrong, it's just an observation.
And yes, Roger, on one hand we can give up trying (salvation is a gift from God) and our efforts are filthy rags, BUT on the other hand we are to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling," we are to follow in Jesus' steps, we are to emulate the sheep in Jesus' parable and not the goats inasmuch as we are to do with and for the least of these.
We're not struggling and striving for salvation, but we are struggling for God's kingdom come, God's will be done, a paradox with which I'm comfortable.
Anonymous referred me to that scripture in Thessalonians:
"If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10)
A few questions:
1. The largest single group "on welfare" is children, where would you like them to find a job?
"Of the 14 million TANF recipients, only 4.9 million are adults, 90% of whom are women- many mothers of young children. In nearly half of welfare homes, the youngest child is under 6 years of age."
2. Where would you like the mother to work and with whom should she place her child?
3. I guess a gov't-funded daycare? No, wait, that'd be wrong because it'd be welfare and plus mom's should be home with their kids...
4. Which conservative value are you going to run with here? That moms should be with their children or that those who don't work ought not eat?
You suggest in your comment, anonymous, welfare only "fails worse and worse."
Depends on how you define failure.
"While they may return for a period of time within five years, 70% of women receive welfare for less than 2 years." Many are on welfare for a time of crisis and then move on to be productive citizens.
Could assistance be improved? Sure. Is the fact that there's not a 100% success rate and that some fraud occurs argue for elimination?
Only when you answer what to do with the 1 million children who will be homeless tonight.
I've answered many of your questions, perhaps you could answer this one (with or without Jesus' words): What would your answer be for these children?
It's easy to get angry at "those lazy cheats taking my tax dollars" and suggest that they simply not eat if they don't work. I'd suggest it's more difficult to deal with the very real and difficult problems confronting us.
We're not struggling and striving for salvation, but we are struggling for God's kingdom come, God's will be done, a paradox with which I'm comfortable.
As a former Democrat, that is mostly why I am still not one. Look at the platform.....supports same sex marriage, abortion, wants Christians to stay inside the walls of the church with their views, so forth and so on.
Dan, Let's be reasonable. Are you implying that I would not have enough compassion and common sense to know that the children are not to blame for their situation? Who conceived those children? They are supposed to be the responsible ones.
I have mentioned this before, the welfare system in it's present form takes away the incentives and feelings of responsiblity that belongs to the parents. I am old enough to remember when illegitimate children were few and even when it happened, the parents felt some sense of financial responsibility. I know there are people that MUST be helped, but I also find that they seem to be the ones that try the hardest to make it on their own.
"but I also find that they seem to be the ones that try the hardest to make it on their own."
And how many of the 5 million welfare moms out there do you know? How many of them AREN'T working hard to make it?
I've asked you to answer one question, anonymous: What shall we do with the 1 million children who will be homeless tonight (WITH welfare assistance)? What's your plan?
To remove all those moms from welfare and hope that all 5 million find the gumption to make it off the streets? And if they don't?
Feel free to disagree with me but present a reasonable plan, please.
>Roger, you provided no Jesus quotes backing your positions. Again, that is not to say you're wrong. It's only to say that you provided no Jesus quotes.
Given that Jesus is the God-man, why would you need to seek 'Jesus quotes'? That seems odd. If the issue is addressed in scripture, it has been addressed. The search for Jesus quotes might be a good exercise but not necessary to discovering God's mind on this subject.
>And yes, Roger, on one hand we can give up trying (salvation is a gift from God) and our efforts are filthy rags, BUT on the other hand we are to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling," we are to follow in Jesus' steps, we are to emulate the sheep in Jesus' parable and not the goats inasmuch as we are to do with and for the least of these.
Yes, we are to work out our salvation (or 'sanctification' as it's more easily understandable) and that includes not being wise in our own opinions does it not? So, let's be careful not to antagonize folks like 'anonymous'. Also, the Holy Spirit is very capable of following in Jesus' steps, where we (the flesh) are prone to wander. After all, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit - where He indwells the believer 24/7. The Holy Spirit doesn't inhabit political parties, branches of government, or even churches. He inhabits the believer. So, if the body of Christ asked God for His plan on how to handle the social issues of the day, we might see results. Yeah, I know it hurts, as I step on many toes including my own with that view. It's tempting to look to government to do what the church should be doing, but I think the results speak for themselves. Government (which is God-ordained) has a role, but it's different from that of the church. James 1:27 doesn't speak about public policy, it talks about the role of the believer.
Dan, a lot of them aren't trying. And tonight there are shelters. Tomorrow there is assistance. TEMPORARY assistance. And not serially temporary assistance either (2 years here, 2 years there, which your 2 year statistic does NOT mention but IS true, nor does it mention generational assistance, which is also a fact). If a "welfare mom" (illigitimate breeder) cannot summon the gumption to care for herself and her kids, her kids need to be taken and given to a family that can provide. Seems harsh, no doubt, to those all too willing to accept assistance when they make bad choices.
And not that there aren't problems there too, but as madcap has ably pointed out, the God of intact family enabled by the state is a false one.
That's what happens to the homeless children tonight.
And on top of that, social workers don't mess at all with intact families who are providing for their kids, even when you disagree with how and what they are providing for them.
Thanks piper for trying. Some problems, it seems to me:
"her kids need to be taken and given to a family that can provide"
We already do this to a degree, and there are many kids in "orphanages" and rotating thru foster care who go unadopted. You want to add to that number?
Who will pay for this? Who will oversee this?
At least you've provided an answer, instead of just saying, "they ought to be off welfare." But, as I've already said, greatly increasing the parentless child rate will cost us money - someone will have to pay to put up and feed all these kids.
Believe me when I say I'm WAY fine with churches and faith groups stepping up to the plate. They aren't. What will we do in the meantime?
"And on top of that, social workers don't mess at all with intact families who are providing for their kids"
Not sure what you mean here: Social workers do indeed work with intact families. My wife's a social worker for a homeless family agency here in town.
Roger said: "The search for Jesus quotes might be a good exercise but not necessary to discovering God's mind on this subject."
Really?
Dan, thanks......for everything.
Roger said:
"Given that Jesus is the God-man, why would you need to seek 'Jesus quotes'?"
I was going to just go on and acknowledge that Roger and I have different thoughts, but changed my mind. For what it's worth Roger:
In the OT, in Leviticus, the Holiness Code tells us to kill two men found "laying together." And yet, we don't. You don't advocate that we do, right?
Why not?
Because Jesus has taught us a better way. Jesus taught us, "you have heard it said...BUT I SAY..."
Roger said:
"If you feel Jesus' words supercede/nullifies Moses or the prophets, then that means God has changed from the O.T. to when Jesus appeared"
Jesus has in fact changed teachings to better understand God's mind. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the teachings were wrong in the first place (wrongly ascribed to God) or if they merely represent an improved understanding or different circumstances or something else, but clearly Jesus has changed OT teachings.
Jesus said:
You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but I tell you, do not resist the evil person. Whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn the other cheek to him."
That is a new teaching. Only one of many.
Roger, are you saying that you DON'T think Jesus changed any teachings from the OT? I'm interested.
Dan,
Perhaps all of your statistical data is correct. Perhaps children are the majority. Perhaps this welfare is actually helping the helpless.
However, progressive/liberal views promote single-mothers. They don't promote marriage much less abstinence. Progressives promote fallible condoms, numerous partners, and no liability (abortion).
Welfare stems from years of progressives modifying and destroying family values. Promiscuous sex was never promoted by any conservative/republican leader. Family values and abstinence (teachings of Christ) are promoted by republicans (Reagan, HW, and W) while Kerry and Clinton promote more sex ed, abortion (eraser), and 'free condoms to all!'
Welfare is the current eraser for progressive's old mistakes. It's funny actually because welfare is the abortion of degrading family values.
Bottom line, there are undoubtedly errors across both party lines but if I had to pick, I vote republican.
>Roger, are you saying that you DON'T think Jesus changed any teachings from the OT? I'm interested.
Yes, I believe that's true. If Jesus changed any principle from the OT, that means God has changed - and we know from scripture that He doesn't change.
>In the OT, in Leviticus, the Holiness Code tells us to kill two men found "laying together." And yet, we don't. You don't advocate that we do, right?
>Why not?
That's a good question. Is that a principle or something that was given specifically to Israel at a specific time and context in history for a reason?
>You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but I tell you, do not resist the evil person. Whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn the other cheek to him."
>That is a new teaching. Only one of many.
Do some research and study on that passage and you'll find (as I unexpectedly did) that there's a lot more involved there than just what appears to be at first read. It's not a new teaching but a further clarification of a principle and most likely a correction to those to whom He was speaking.
I was thinking some more about what I posted last time about the role of government as God ordained it to be.
This question came to my mind:
"How many times did Jesus mention the role of government?"
For example, we have this in scripture:
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Compare that to James 1:27,
"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
Are we to conclude from this that there are distinct roles for the Body of Christ and the government and that those roles are not the same?
Neo-con said:
"Welfare stems from years of progressives modifying and destroying family values."
Says you. I say that studies say that welfare use stems from poverty.
Have liberals/progressives and conservatives each had policies that can be interpreted as modifying and destroying family values? Probably. But it's not, as you are suggesting, part and parcel of progressive philosophy to destroy families.
Promiscuous sex was not promoted by progressives any more than it was by conservatives, that's just a ridiculous statement. Are there libertines in the liberal camp? Sure. But they exist in the conservative camp, too and it's simply not part of progressive philosophy.
(By the way, did you know that abortions have gone up under Bush? It's not enough to think good thoughts, you got to shoot for policies that have good results. I'd think the pro-lifers would be unhappy with Bush's results in this field.)
neocon said:
Family values and abstinence (teachings of Christ) are promoted by republicans...
All-righty then! Here's your chance. Show me the family values that Jesus taught that are promoted by Republicans. THAT's what I've been asking for all along on this post. Go to town, brother neo-con. Give me a halfway convincing list and I'll post them as my next blog entry.
Roger, I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly. Which is why I say that gov't should stay out of people's bedrooms, as sexual morality is a matter of people's faiths (or lack thereof) and consciences.
You also said:
"It's not a new teaching but a further clarification of a principle"
Okay, I don't care if you call Jesus' teachings "new teachings" or "clarifications," I'm fine with either term.
But Jesus clarified for us many teachings that seem to have opposite intents in the OT.
OT:
Sabbath is a day specifically for rest and not work.
Jesus:
Sabbath made for humanity, not the other way around (after getting caught working on the sabbath)
OT:
eye for an eye (and by the way, I HAVE studied these passages intensely and found out that this teaching was a way of reducing violence not exacting revenge)
Jesus:
Turn the other cheek
OT:
You should kill practicing gays, disrespectful children and those who don't honor the sabbath (among others)
Jesus:
I don't know that we have a direct teaching from Jesus or the NT that contradicts this other than the greater principle of loving those who are different than us, of doing unto others as we'd have them do unto us.
I'm curious: Why don't YOU think we should kill gays? What changed? Do you think that was specific to the OT Israelis? What makes you think so?
In short, how do YOU determine which OT teachings to take literally and which ones have been "clarified"?
CONSERVATIVES DO NOT BELIEVE IN PROMISCUOUS OR PREMARITAL SEX OR DIVORE:
Matthew Chapter 19:9
"Dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur"
"And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.*"
CONSERVATIVES DO NOT BELIEVE IN ABORTION:
Fifth Commandment
"Thou shalt not kill."
CONSERVATIVES DO NOT BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE:
Genesis Chapter 19:24
"Igitur Dominus pluit super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur et ignem a Domino de caelo"
"And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"
CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE IN THE IRAQI CONFLICT:
Catholic Guidelines for a "Just War"
The Existence of the Right of War;
Its Juridical Source;
Its Possessor;
Its Title and Purpose;
Its Subject-matter;
Its Term.
CONSERVATIVES DO NOT BELIEVE IN WELFARE OR THE PROMOTION OF SLOTH:
Corinthians 2:7
"Ita ut e contra magis donetis et consolemini ne forte abundantiori tristitia absorbeatur qui eiusmodi est"
"So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow."
Are you happy?
You state that your question is mainly asked out of curiosity; I'll take that at face value. Other than the curiosity factor, then, the question seems to be of little relevance to understanding God's will on subject matters Jesus (God the Son) didn't specifically address.
(And I happen to agree with you--mostly--when it comes to war)
Though you don't seem to advocating the position here (again, I'm taking you at face value--a courtesy I'd surely appreciate personally), I have seen it advocated quite a bit in different blogs... the position: Jesus' teachings supercede other scripture (including OT and the Pauline corpus). I just find that position untenable.
What's dangerous about your question (but, for all that, should never preclude your question) is that the Jesus-the-Word-supercedes-the-revelation-He-inspired-elsewhere group equates lack of "Jesus quotes" with the justification to advocate positions (e.g., gay marriage) absolutely ruled by other biblical considerations.
To moi, that's just not acceptable.
Anyway...interesting.
Am I happy Neo-con? Well, yes, generally, thanks. But on this topic, you have cited ONE line of Jesus' teaching on the controversial topic of encouraging us not to divorce. Divorce is NOT a liberal goal. We believe in marriage.
Myself, I've been married once, for 21 years...we're not pro-promiscuity. You're confusing liberals with libertines, which can be found in both parties and in both wings (do I need to start citing Jim Baker, Newt Gingrich, etc?)
and even your OT sources are not topical exactly. The 5th commandment is thou shalt not murder/kill which could apply to abortion sort of but is not about abortion and would also preclude the death penalty and war, depending upon your view of war.
Sodom and Gomorrah were NOT destroyed because they were gay. The Bible tells us in the book of Ezekiel specifically WHY Sodom was destroyed:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and
did detestable things before me."
From God's mouth to your ear. The men of Sodom attempted to rape the messengers/angels. Rape is a crime and we are all opposed to it.
Do you get the gist of what I'm saying here, neo-con? I'm saying that for all the Right's crowing about being the party of Jesus and family values, you can't find teachings from Jesus that back it up.
I will give you credit for one thing. You are very creative with your interpretations!
I am not agreeing with you, just giving you credit.
The men and women were interpreted as perverts and polygamists, promoting sex and adultery. We can both believe our own interpretations, it's going to happen.
"...which can be found in both parties and in both wings (do I need to start citing Jim Baker, Newt Gingrich, etc?)"
I don't really care where you find it or with whom you find the actions. The conservative ideology isn't who partakes but the foundation of our beliefs. Just because Gingrich is a perv doesn't make it acceptable. You keep forgetting ideology, stop naming names.
"Rape is a crime and we are all opposed to it."
Mimicking Mr. Trabue himself: Clinton is a rapist = liberals believe in rape.
"Do you get the gist of what I'm saying here, neo-con? I'm saying that for all the Right's crowing about being the party of Jesus and family values, you can't find teachings from Jesus that back it up."
Who said I'm done yet? The bible is really long, don't worry though, I'll keep working on it. You do the same.
>Roger, I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly. Which is why I say that gov't should stay out of people's bedrooms, as sexual morality is a matter of people's faiths (or lack thereof) and consciences.
Abortion proponents use that as their justification - yet it's not their bodies alone that they're dealing with. Isn't that an evil that needs to be restrained? Without a revival in the church, I fear society will never come to the realization that a personal choice is not personal when harm comes to another. We don't have any disagreements on how Jesus said we should treat one another, do we?
>But Jesus clarified for us many teachings that seem to have opposite intents in the OT.
Yes, it first appears to be. So, what do we do? We certainly don't dismiss the OT because it's hard to understand. It demands that we prayerfully dig into scripture so that the Holy Spirit can show us the truth. John 16:13
>I'm curious: Why don't YOU think we should kill gays? What changed?
Is the Bible in error when we read that? What DID change? Did any principles change?
>Do you think that was specific to the OT Israelis? What makes you think so?
Yes, considering that the fact that the law was given to them specifically as they were God's chosen people - to be set apart. Civil laws can't be equated with principles - to be applied throughout all time periods and cultures. Context is important here - as with any writing. Why do you think the punishments were so harsh? It seems to me that God deals harshly with sin when it's first addressed in scripture and then intends for us to use that record in scripture to remind us of the seriousness of sin and the consequences of it, for our own good. What happens when we dismiss that? Well, just look at our culture. We declare sin as a valid alternative. People end up hurting themselves all the while they are deceiving themselves that all is ok. And to make things worse, the church falls for the same deception so hurting people in a dark culture don't even see the light when they look to them. All the while, God knows what sin is and what it does, and He is grieving over it.
>In short, how do YOU determine which OT teachings to take literally and which ones have been "clarified"?
Will the culture help us figure out how to do this? What role does the Holy Spirit have in interpreting scripture? Do you think He will contradict Himself? Don't rest with your questions that don't have answers. Take them to God. I don't believe He want us to struggle with these things.
God is so much bigger than politics. If we (that goes for both sides of the political aisle) love politics more than truth , I sincerely believe that we're going to continue to not only NOT get anywhere in these debates but also that things will continue to get worse. We should want to know the truth more than we should care about whether we're 'liberal' or 'conservative', Republican or Democrat.
neocon said:
"We can both believe our own interpretations, it's going to happen"
If you're talking Sodom and Gomorrah, I'm telling you (and I showed you) that God says explicitly what condemned sodom and gomorrah (or at least Sodom). What interpretation are you using? I don't understand. NO WHERE in the Bible does it say that Sodom was destroyed because the men there were gay, which seems to be what you are saying.
"The conservative ideology isn't who partakes but the foundation of our beliefs."
I didn't say otherwise. What I said was that this (strong families and communities) is a foundation of liberal philosophy, too. It's not a uniquely conservative thang.
I feel like we're talking past each other sometimes.
On your thinking linking gays to the attempted rapes of Sodom (Clinton is a rapist = liberals believe in rape), I'm not real sure what you're getting at.
The Bible teaches us that ALL the men of Sodom wanted to rape the messengers, not just the gays and not just the straights. Does that address your point?
"I'll keep working on it."
Looking forward to it.
Roger said:
"Civil laws can't be equated with principles - to be applied throughout all time periods and cultures."
I agree again, wholeheartedly. But if you take out the Holiness Code proscriptions to homosexuality, add to it the "nothing" that Jesus said about it, and add in the confusing wording in two or three other NT places, then you have really no biblical opposition to homosexuality, right?
I'm just verifying where we are in understanding one another.
(we really all over the board on this particular post, aren't we?)
anon said:
"You are very creative with your interpretations!"
I'm sorry, what interpretations are those? We've covered so much, I really have no idea on what topic it is we're talking here, anon.
anon, you also said:
"Jesus' teachings supercede other scripture (including OT and the Pauline corpus). I just find that position untenable."
I don't know if you call it superceding or just better interpretation but at times, the OT is best interpreted through Jesus' teachings. At NO time are Jesus' teachings to be superceded by OT teachings, do we agree on that?
The Bible teaches us that ALL the men of Sodom wanted to rape the messengers, not just the gays and not just the straights. Does that address your point?
Does your statement there not indicate the total depravity of Sodom? Remember that if even 10 righteous people could have been found, He would have spared it. I'm not disputing your quote from Ezekial, I just believe your view is too narrow.
I also wonder if you think our society is getting better since abortion was made legal. Bad laws have done nothing to make us better.
But if you take out the Holiness Code proscriptions to homosexuality, add to it the "nothing" that Jesus said about it, and add in the confusing wording in two or three other NT places, then you have really no biblical opposition to homosexuality, right?
This is one of the creative parts. I feel like a pretzel, trying to figure out your logic.
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGH!!! til tomorrow. BTW, I've completely abandoned my blog over this string of tangents.
anon said:
"I just believe your view is too narrow."
I was just quoting God as found in Ezekiel, God's the one who said it, not me...
As to your feeling like a pretzel, let me try to straighten things out.
homosexuality seems to be addressed about 12-ish times in the bible (depending upon your translation and what you choose to consider a homosexual theme)
1. About 4 of those have to do with Sodom and Gomorrah or another situation like it, where the issue is rape, not homosexuality.
2. A few of the passages have to do with catamites, or boy prostitutes in temples. We can agree that prostitution is not a healthy thing and we can agree that it is not homosexuality.
3. You have the Holiness Code section that says we ought to kill gays, but YOU have just said we don't need to heed those passages.
4. Jesus never addresses homosexuality. If it was a GREAT a sin as today's church makes it out to be, you'd think J would have weighed in on it, wouldn't you?
5. You have a few (2-4) NT passages that use words like "effeminate" and "sodomites" and biblical translators say that they're not sure how these words ought to be translated.
Except for one passage, THAT is the entire "case" against homosexuality, and it is a weak one. That leaves us with one passage:
6. Paul's Romans passage says:
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."
And if you take it at face value, as I did for many years, that is the single most damning passage for gays. However, if you realize that what Paul is condemning here is abandoning "natural relations," then you might be inclined to think (as I do) that Paul would condemn gays "acting" straight, since that would be abandoning their natural relations.
Why would I choose to interpret it that way?
1. It's the sole NT passage that seems to clearly condemn homosexuality
2. I, like anonymous, choose to take in to account cultural traditions and attitudes as I interpret the Bible through the leading of God, and
3. I have gay friends who are Christians. There's no doubt in my mind, as "by their fruit you shall know them."
"BTW, I've completely abandoned my blog over this string of tangents..."
well, now I feel guilty.
The Psalms start by giving the rationale for a human life starting at conception:
Psalm 51:5:
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sins did my mother conceive me." -- we are formed in a world shaped by the consequences of original sin, this applies to those just conceived as it does to all persons.
Psalm 139:13-16:
"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them."
The prophets confirm this:
To Jeremiah, God said: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5
To Isaiah: "Before I was born the Lord called me..." "And now the Lord says - He who formed me in the womb to be His servant..." --Isaiah 49:1,5
This implies that the person in the womb has a spiritual connection to God, and is one of his children.
The gospels continue this idea -- talking about John the Baptist, "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." --Luke 1:15(NIV) There is no record of the Holy Spirit ever filling anything but an actual person.
Another thing you may not know, is that the date of Christmas is actually celebrated on Dec. 25, because early Christian scholars had a notion of a perfect form of life where all the most holy people died on the same day of their conception. And, since these scholars believed the first Easter was on Mar. 25, they set the date of the celebration of the Annunciation on that same day(still commemorated by Catholics and the Orthodox and some other liturgical churches). Since Christ was the perfect man, he was obvoisly born exactly nine months later. (See the article Calculating Christmas for more on that). Christ the person was recognized by John the Baptist, both when they had not yet been born.
Can there be any doubt that the only biblical, historical, and traditional church view that bears examination is the one the life begins at conception? I've never understood how anyone can take these passage, and the many on defending the weak, the poor, the needy and decide it is okay to kill the unborn.
In the Diache, (subtitle: The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations) an early work (possibly as early as 50 A.D.) said to be by the apostles, and, while not part of scripture, considered a holy and authentic document by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, it says directly in chapter 2:1-3 : "And this is the second commandment of the teaching. {Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for the double tongue is a snare of death."
Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto me... for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these... anyone who refuses to come to God as a little child will never be allowed into his kingdom.” Then he took the children up in his arms and placed his hands on their heads and he blessed them. Mark 10:14-16
Wow, that last post of your interpretation of the scripture in Romans has blown me away! It appears to me that you just turned the Holy Scriptures wrong side out.
I guess we just are living in an age of "write your own Bible".
There are a lot of things that might "feel" natural to man, but that does not make it right. We all were born in sin and our only hope is regeneration and redemption through Jesus Christ, but we are not to call wrong - right and right - wrong.
>I agree again, wholeheartedly. But if you take out the Holiness Code proscriptions to homosexuality, add to it the "nothing" that Jesus said about it, and add in the confusing wording in two or three other NT places, then you have really no biblical opposition to homosexuality, right?
No, we have this from the NT...
Jude 1 (New International Version)
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
1 Corinthians 6 (New International Version)
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
>Why would I choose to interpret it that way?
>1. It's the sole NT passage that seems to clearly condemn homosexuality
Not so, see above.
>3. I have gay friends who are Christians. There's no doubt in my mind, as "by their fruit you shall know them."
Just because someone sins doesn't mean they are no longer a child of God. However, sin always has consequences, and to not see sin for what it is and what it does is never a good thing. We have no biblical instruction whatsoever for dealing with sin other than repentence.
>add to it the "nothing" that Jesus said about it, and add in the confusing wording in two or three other NT places,
Does God want us to remain confused? Don't you think the enemy wants us to remain confused, let it slide, and in the process letting those that are struggling not have a unified answer from the church - and continue to remain in a sinful lifestyle that damages their relationship with God? Also, we have scripture (1 Cor 6:9-11) to tell us how Jesus Christ is stronger than any sin that may be in our lives. We also have the testimonies of those that have come from that lifestyle to a heterosexual lifestyle. Why would God contradict Himself by delivering people away from something that He created? Scripture says that cannot be: See Matt. 12:22-28. Also, don't neglect the mentioning of deception in 1 Corinthians 6. We don't want to underestimate the enemy and his subtle and seemingly 'logical' arguments.
Dan, what does "adultery" mean to you? And, better, what do you think it meant to Jews at the time of Christ?
"The Psalms start by giving the rationale for a human life starting at conception"
'In the womb' is not the same thing as 'at conception'. All the ancients even up to quite recent times, and by the majority of the people today, human life was seen as beginning at the 'quickening',
at about 20 weeks.
This is just another example of the extreme stretch people will go to when there is no direct teaching on a matter. Martin Luther was once brought an eight year old boy who was severely retarded and they asked him what the scriptures taught they should do. Luther's reply was to take him to the river and drown him and proceded to show by the very same means that the right to lifers use to show that the Bible demanded they do it.
>"The Psalms start by giving the rationale for a human life starting at conception"
>'In the womb' is not the same thing as 'at conception'. All the ancients even up to quite recent times, and by the majority of the people today, human life was seen as beginning at the 'quickening',
at about 20 weeks.
We can take that view with that verse if we choose, but I don't know any other way to read Ruth 4:13. Note that the Lord gave her conception.
Eleutheros, what about His knowing us before we had any days, before we were formed in the womb? If the God of all creation has a relationship of knowing us at that time, that is certainly before any hypothetical "quickening".
Was Christ neither God nor Man until "the quickening"? Or perhaps only God, or only man? If he wasn't all God and all Man from the very beginning, the very first day of his conception, you have commited, depending on your choice, one of the early Christian heresies regarding Christology. And further, if you decide rather that He was different than us in in his manhood from the day of conception, then He is no savior of ours, for He wasn't really like us, wasn't fully man in the same way we are.
Using the Martin Luther example does not bear the same weight as the Bible. All mankind is capable of making mistakes.
Dan, "If you're talking Sodom and Gomorrah, I'm telling you (and I showed you) that God says explicitly what condemned sodom and gomorrah (or at least Sodom)."
But you haven't. As I've pointed out before, you are using a perverted loose paraphrase of the Bible meant to dodge many a sticky issue by correcting God and ignoring the original wording.
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
The last phrase reads:
"WeYadh-'Aniy weEbyown lo-hichziyqah"
WeYadh = and the hand
'Aniy = of the poor
weEbyown = and the needy
lo-hichziyqah = she has not caused to be strenthened
The sin was not failing to give the poor a hand out but rather keeping them in a helpless situation, failing to strenthen them. That's what the progressives do.
Roger:"That's a good question. Is that a principle or something that was given specifically to Israel at a specific time and context in history for a reason? "
I am amazed, Dan, that you can't look into this mirror and see your own views. We follow the Bible right up to the point we find it telling us to do something that we really don't want to do, or durst not in this case. Then we waffle and do the exegetical dance and dodge, 'Ahem, well, I'm sure it doesn't really mean that.... exactly." If you flip this coin over, you will find "sell ALL that you have and bestow it upon the poor" on the other side.
Speaking of which:
Dan:"I've asked you to answer one question, anonymous: What shall we do with the 1 million children who will be homeless tonight (WITH welfare assistance)? What's your plan?"
This is the same thing as saying that if a parent commits a crime, we can't send the parent to jail, that's just punishing the child. For a peaceful society we've answered that question by saying that it is the parent, and not the court, that is punishing the child. Same thing applies here.
But that's not answering your question. I've got a plan, and it's an elegant one, everyone involved wins. We place all such families in workhouses where the parents will be required to provide the food and clothes for their children through manual labor. Parents go there whether or not they retain custody of their children, are divorced, absent, or never married. They can opt out any time by showing how they are going to provide for their children on their own.
But, says you, where are you going to get the money to fund this, especially in the beginning? That's the elegant part. We take all the Professional Poverty Perveyors (PPP) who have earned an ill gotten living keeping such families in poverty and seize their assets, homes, cars, 401k's etc. and fund the workhouses. Since that may not fully fund it, we talke all those PPP's (hand wringers, social workers, teachers, activist clergy, etc) and put them to work there as well hoeing potatoes and stitching clothes until the restitution is paid back.
Everyone wins, the children are taken care of, the parents are highly motivated to support their children on their own, and the PPP's, who were surely bound for Hell because they were violating that verse from Ezeliel you misquote, get to finally do what Jesus said directly to do and sell all their goods and bestow them on the poor.
I told you it was elegant!
AsceticWay: "Eleutheros, what about His knowing us before we had any days, before we were formed in the womb?"
Well, now, if we are to refrain from abortions because God knew us in the womb, then we can only conclude that if He us BEFORE we were in the womb, then we must impregnate women at every opportunity because otherwise you are thwarting a person God just might be knowing before they are concieved. I'm glad you straightened me out on that, I'll get busy on it right away.
"you have commited, depending on your choice, one of the early Christian heresies regarding Christology."
Ha! If that's the only heresy I commit today, I'll be doing great. I generally commit three or four heresies before breakfast.
"And further, if you decide rather that He was different than us in in his manhood from the day of conception, then He is no savior of ours, for He wasn't really like us, wasn't fully man in the same way we are."
If I could bottle such reasoning as this and sell it! I can't wait until I show this to Jesus when he stops by for a beer later. It's in the Bible too, you know, about Jesus and the beer.
Anon:"Using the Martin Luther example does not bear the same weight as the Bible. All mankind is capable of making mistakes"
Martin Luther WAS using the Bible. He used the Bible to come to his conclusion, the religious right uses it to come to their conclusions. It is EXACTLY the same thing.
I think I mentioned that man can make mistakes - Even in our interpretation of the Bible, but there are enough passages that will help us to know the nature of God (as willing as we are to seek to know). The Holy Spirit is to be our Guide and there again is the willingness on our part to let Him teach us.
You use the term pro-lifer as if it is somehow a negative thing. I would rather meet someone who is a pro-lifer in a dark alley than someone who cared not that innocent unborn babies die.
"You use the term pro-lifer as if it is somehow a negative thing. I would rather meet someone who is a pro-lifer in a dark alley than someone who cared not that innocent unborn babies die."
Oooo. Not me! I've found prolifers to be in the main the 'nuke a gay, communist baby seal for Jesus' types. Slack jawed, eye twitching, itchy finger trigger types. In fact I did meet one in a dark alley once. Years ago my father took me aside and gave me a bullet from his gun and said, "Son, keep this with you always near your heart." So I kept that bullet with me in my shirt pocket always. Then on the night in question and in the alley in question, the right wing pro-lifer nutcase had me trapped and when I wouldn't accept Jesus, he threw his Bible at me! It hit me square in the chest and I though I was a gonner. But no! The Bible had hit square on the bullet and the bullet had saved my life!
It's times like that I thank God I'm an unbeliever.
"1. It's the sole NT passage that seems to clearly condemn homosexuality."
You list this as your first (am I to assume, as well, your primary?) reason for interpreting this passage as a commentary on acting against sexual preference (i.e., gays acted straight; straights acted gay). This seems like quite a stretch to me. On the face of it, your argument is indeed curious. Since this passage "seems to clearly condemn homosexuality" (in your words), therefore, you suggest that it doesn't really do any such thing??? I realize your em-PHAS-is was on the "only," but I still don't really get the thrust of the argument. Let's say it is the only verse in Scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality: so what? Isn't one enough?
"2. I, like anonymous, choose to take in to account cultural traditions and attitudes as I interpret the Bible through the leading of God"
Now, this one I've heard before. Should I take you to mean that, because homosexuality was considered sinful by the biblical writers in the past, but is not currently so viewed by the larger culture, then we have some leeway in interpreting/appropriating Scripture? I don't see the logic in that. Or have I completely misrepresented your view here?
"3. I have gay friends who are Christians"
I have alcoholic friends who are Christians. That just proves we each know some Christians with sin in their lives (a group I think we'd both agree includes you and me as well). But this doesn't really prove anything more than that.
And, finally, back to (1). Are you really, seriously suggesting that Paul had in mind, in any sense, at any time, gays who were acting against their nature by attempting to act straight? C'mon. You don't really think that, do you? So, does it matter what Paul actually thought when he was writing? For that matter, does it matter what God really thought when he inspired Paul to write that verse you with which you deal so cavalierly?
Nothing personal, here. Just curious.
Okay, so I'm going to quit being lazy and sign in, so I don't get confused with any other "anonymouses."
Eleutheros,
May I invite myself over when Jesus stops by your place for that beer? I'll tell ya right now though, I'd like a nice cold glass of ice tea. Boy I don't wanna miss the conversation between the two o' you. I don't take up much space, I'm a wee thing. And to be honest I'd sure like a taste of some that food at your table.
Marty, none more welcome than yourself.
But I ought to tell you, the Devil has come by on rare occasions, and, the odd thing, he's a teetotaler, always wants ice tea.
Occupational hazard, I'm thiking.
:)
Nice to see you had no response other than name calling. Typical. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since:
"It's times like that I thank God I'm an unbeliever."
So whats the point for you, then, in carrying on such an arguement, in a place like this?
And who says I'm a nuke-the whales conservative? Just because I don't think the unborn should be killed? I don't think anyone, even murderers should be killed. Try that on with most of the Bushites.
Plus, I brew the beer I drink. I bet mine tastes better than yours.
AsceticWay:
"So whats the point for you, then, in carrying on such an arguement, in a place like this?"
A place like this? This is only a place for believers, is it Dan? Seems to me the question was posed as to whether any conservative views could be found in Jesus' words. Since when does a person need to be a believer to answer that?
"And who says I'm a nuke-the whales conservative? Just because I don't think the unborn should be killed?"
What were you doing lurking in the alley to begin with, then. Sounds mighty suspicious to me.
"Plus, I brew the beer I drink. I bet mine tastes better than yours."
I grow the hops, grow the barley and malt it. So I very much doubt it. Probably why Jesus likes hanging around with me more than you.
Let's not fall for the temptation to view each other in the extreme. I think that's one way the enemy likes to confuse debates where people are honestly seeking the truth. (1 Corinthians 14:33) He keeps planting those thoughts of who we are debating that fight against any progress being made and hopes the whole thing gets so unreasonable that no sense can be made of it. I've found from experience that too often these kinds of debates end up having us debating views that nobody here even has. Let's stay on topic and process the views that are here on the table as they have been stated and brought into the debate.
The act of homosexuality is wrong. The bible clearly states, in both the OT and NT, that this perverse act is wrong. God never condemns homosexuals, only those who perform the act. The Catholic church accepts homosexuals but once they commit the sinful act, that is wrong. Unnatural acts are wrong and I don't see that any other way - call me a hate monger.
Secondly El, call me medieval. Sex is designed for procreation. I can't impregnate a woman via a handshake, can I? The outcome of an event typically defines the precursor, correct? That's why the church is against premarital intercourse, abortion, condoms, homosexuality, and so forth.
If all people abstained from promiscuous sex, we'd have no problems. No STDs, no need for condoms, abortions, welfare, etc. Wow, wouldn't life be grand if we could all keep it in the pants, hey?
Don't get me wrong - to live the life that the Church teaches is very, very hard - it can be done. Christ did it. People before us did it. Just because social norms don't conform with the Church's teachings doesn't mean the teachings (and bible) should be changed.
Wow. Step away for a few hours...
I'm very glad to see y'all managing to carry on a mostly respectful conversation in my absence. Welcome to Ascetic and cks.
Everyone is welcome here, although I do ask everyone to try to remain mostly polite to visitors. Challenge folk all you want but remain mostly polite as you do so.
This conversation has really gone far afield from the original post and for my part, I may mostly end my conversation here, just because it's all over the place and hard for me to be coherent (my poor wee brain, ya know?) in the midst of such chaos.
A few notes, though:
on the topic at hand: In ALL 100+ comments here, no one has seriously tried to offer a teaching specifically from Jesus to support conservative doctrine.
I'll give props to neocon for at least trying (citing Jesus' words in support of family values...but then family values are not solely conservative values).
on abortion:
I've already stated my case fairly clearly:
1. I'm against abortion as birth control,
2. I don't necessarily think the bible comes out in favor of it, just that Jesus never mentioned it, THAT'S ALL this post was asking
3. I think end-of-life medical procedures and decisions ought to be made by families, not the gov't.
That's all I've got to say on that right now.
on homosexuality:
Roger cited Jude which speaks of sexual immorality and perversion... and rape falls in that category, I'd say. It DOESN'T talk about a loving and committed same-sex relationship.
Roger also cited I Corinthians that contains a list of "sinners" that won't be part of the Kingdom. That list includes:
homosexual offenders, the greedy and slanderers, among many others.
Two thoughts:
1. What are homosexual offenders? Gay folk you say? Yeah, you say. Biblical translators will tell you they're not sure of the meaning of the word.
2. The Greedy and slanderers are excluded from God's Kingdom, as well. Do you think the church spends anywhere NEAR a comparable amount of time talking about these two sins?
Even when greed is listed THROUGHOUT the Bible as a BBBBIIIIGGGG problem and we can clearly see the negative effects of greed, does the Church worry about it, preach against it?
Or do they pad some more pews, pave another parking lot and build another church $1,000,000 building over God's good earth?
Can I get a witness, people?!
On adultery: [asceticway asked me what the word means to me]
Depends on what your definition of the word "means" is...
Adultery means not being faithful to one you've committed yourself to. In our church, we help our gay and lesbian friends be faithful by celebrating their marriage and fidelity to one another. It's a grand and beautiful thing.
And as wonderful and appreciated as all your comments have been, I think I'll stop there for now.
Drat! I was just going to add my little twigs to the fire... guess I'll have to wait for the next inflammatory post, Dan! ;-)
It's never too late, MCM...inflame away!
Dan:"on the topic at hand: In ALL 100+ comments here, no one has seriously tried to offer a teaching specifically from Jesus to support conservative doctrine."
Yes, that's right. But on the other hand no one has offered even one teaching specifically from Jesus to support liberal or 'progressive' doctrine. Just as the conservatives can only offer general teachings on family values, liberals can only offer vague and general teachings on compassion and peace. But what in the name of thunder does that mean?
There are no DIRECT teachings (from Jesus) that support taking money from one individual by force and using it to support another individual. There is no direct teaching from Jesus that following Him includes celebrating gay and lesbian marrieages, earning a living as a professional do-gooder, opposing war, ... all the things the progressives busy themesleves with day to day. None of it found DIRECTLY in Jesus' teachings. All of it, just exactly as with the conservatives, is a result of interpretation, not direct teaching. It's always a matter of "Jesus said A and so we think that by doing B we are actually fulfulling his teaching to do A." As soon as 'we think' leaves you lips, you are out of Jesus teaching and wandering aimlessly in interpretation.
It's where the non-believer has an advantage over both camps. We don't have to twist and torture Jesus' words to make them fit our personal philosophy.
Eleutheros:
>It's where the non-believer has an advantage over both camps. We don't have to twist and torture Jesus' words to make them fit our personal philosophy.
Or better yet, we can let the Holy Spirit lead and we won't have to worry about hypocrisy as the Spirit will not contradict Himself, Jesus, or the Father. The hard part for the believer is that whole 'dying to self' and 'yielding to the Spirit' thing. The flesh never reforms - even after being born again. The flesh is still the flesh. As Neo-Con Tastic has stated:
>Don't get me wrong - to live the life that the Church teaches is very, very hard - it can be done. Christ did it. People before us did it.
They did it not in their own strength, but in the Spirit. It can't be done in the flesh.
Dan:
1. What are homosexual offenders? Gay folk you say? Yeah, you say. Biblical translators will tell you they're not sure of the meaning of the word.
We are free to believe whatever we want. Isn't is neat that God doesn't force us to believe? However, with that comes the chance that we'll choose unwisely and end up on the wrong side of truth. Like I said earlier, truth isn't up for debate. We are free to choose, but we're not free to choose the consequences of our decisions.
2. The Greedy and slanderers are excluded from God's Kingdom, as well. Do you think the church spends anywhere NEAR a comparable amount of time talking about these two sins?
Does that prove that what we're saying about homosexuality is wrong? I don't understand.
I can reconcile my view with a God that doesn't create people outside of His own ordained parts of creation: procreation, marriage. If God were to do that, I'd say that's cruel and not really a god that I want to know. I can reconcile my view with a mankind that is prone to wander (sin) and then not fess up to the reality of their sin (I'm human, I understand all too well). I can reconcile my view with a reality of testimonies from people that have once been apparently content in that lifestyle and are now even more content in a heterosexual lifestyle. I can reconcile my view with a God that doesn't force us to His will, but rather when we come to Him desiring His will not ours, He will gladly oblige. All of these things harmonize with scripture. We don't have to scratch our heads and wonder, debate, wonder some more, and then end up with questions that aren't addressed in scripture when all is said and done. Your view ends up having something as critically important as God creating homosexuality as normal and then not ever addressing that in His word - why would He do that? Your view ends up with you having to ignore the testimonies of those that have been changed by God. That's reality. That's also a denying of God the glory that He deserves. He did that for His glory and it's serious business when we deny that. The evidence is all around us. It's observable - in ourselves and in the actions and testimonies of others. That's what the truth is. Prayerfully consider what I'm saying. Can you say that it is not true?
Okay, just cuz I feel a little lively this morning....
"Just because social norms don't conform with the Church's teachings doesn't mean the teachings (and bible) should be changed." Neo-contastic.
I'd alter that a little to read, "Just because the Church's self-interested teachings and interpretation of the Bible don't conform with social norms, doesn't mean social norms should be changed." Social norms should be changed, I agree, but not in order to align with the bluster of an institution, particularly one that's had such a dismal record in regards to morality and integrity. And I suspect we wouldn't much agree on the changes that need to happen, either.
"Your view ends up with you having to ignore the testimonies of those that have been changed by God." - Roger
There are certainly many people out there who would claim as much Holy Spirit inspiration as you do, on the other side of the fence. Who's the arbiter of the "true" Spirit, you? Shaky ground, I'd say, if I have to rely on some human's determination of what's God and what isn't. It's safe to say that's led to many an abuse.
There's always been plenty of fuel for both fires in the Gospel, if you're looking for it.
madcapmum:
>There are certainly many people out there who would claim as much Holy Spirit inspiration as you do, on the other side of the fence. Who's the arbiter of the "true" Spirit, you? Shaky ground, I'd say, if I have to rely on some human's determination of what's God and what isn't. It's safe to say that's led to many an abuse.
Will the Holy Spirit abuse? Will the Holy Spirit contradict Himself - and lead us to confusion? Doesn't scripture state that the Holy Spirit inhabits the believer 24/7? Isn't the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of Truth? These things are not available to the unbeliever, but the believer should dig into scripture and pray to yield to the Spirit and not walk in the flesh. That's not me claiming anything - that's just what scripture says. You are free to disagree, but understand the source of what I'm saying.
I've been thinking about all the views expressed here and something that bothers me is that I see so much of what is described as sin, abomination, and other descriptive words; being explained away because it is not specifically spoken of by Jesus. If these issues were not serious and if man can be assured that he is alright, Jesus died on a Cross in vain.
How can a person be saved if he does not see himself or herself as a sinner? Do we want to make everyone feel good or do we want them to know the Truth.
We will always be imperfect while in the flesh, but with Christ as our Savior we are redeemed.
"Will the Holy Spirit abuse? Will the Holy Spirit contradict Himself - and lead us to confusion?" - Roger
Apparently the Spirit will, if I have to take seriously the notions of everyone I've ever known or read about who's claimed the Spirit as the inspiration behind their crackpot ideas.
The source is duly considered.
madcapmum,
The source is duly considered.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but the scriptures tell us that when we have been born again, the Spirit seals us and abides in us. We can discern the Truth by seeking the Holy Spirit's help. Those who know the Truth can discern.
madcapmum:
>Apparently the Spirit will, if I have to take seriously the notions of everyone I've ever known or read about who's claimed the Spirit as the inspiration behind their crackpot ideas.
>The source is duly considered.
The source should be considered. It should be recognized so that repentance can follow. That's my point: the flesh is ever present and the flesh is at odds with the Spirit. Believers don't become 100% sanctified/perfect when they are born again. We're still human, we're still flesh - but now we have the Holy Spirit residing in us. It's just a case of whether we choose to yield to Him or not. Sanctification is a lifetime process for the believer, and we will never meet a believer that is perfect.
Yes, I do most heartily and humbly repent me of many things. Thank you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Social norms should be changed, I agree, but not in order to align with the bluster of an institution, particularly one that's had such a dismal record in regards to morality and integrity. "
Dismal record to morality and integrity... It's quite obnoxious when one needs to use accounts created by that of man, a sinner. The Church is perfect in all ways, guided by the Holy Spirit and carried out through man.
Just because man is fallible, "dismal record in regards to morality and integrity", doesn't mean the Church is flawed. This "institution" hasn't faltered in over 2000 years, and no one can take that away. Just because some perverted priests have infiltrated the ranks of the holy doesn't make the Church wrong. The foundation, the rock, the Spirit behind the Church should dictate our actions.
Again, I cannot repeat that I am far from holy, challenged daily by the guidelines of the Church.
Go ahead and question the dictates of the Catholic Church - I'd rather be on my side of the fence.
So, Neo-con, do you agree with the position of both this pope and John Paul that the Iraq invasion was wrong, wrong, wrong?
I picture you chuckling at your keyboard as you typed that inquiry.
Both the beloved John Paul II and Benedict XVI have claimed the war is unacceptable by the Catholic Church. Neither Pope told the Catholics to lay down their arms though.
Section 2309 of the Catholic Catechism states:
“belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good”
In my eyes the judgment belongs in the hands of Bush and the Congress that voted for the war (democrats included).
>As for “preventive war,” Ratzinger flatly stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The then-cardinal’s remarks also suggested that the United Nations, rather than George W. Bush, would be the proper public authority to decide upon war with Iraq: “the United Nations … should make the final decision,” he said. “It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.”
Ratzinger assumes that the UN isn’t corrupt; I assume that it is. If Kofi wasn’t taking cash from Hussein, he’d probably agree the importance of invading Iraq.
To answer your question as a Catholic - the war is wrong. To answer your questios as an American - the war is right. The beautiful part is, humans have flaws and I’m no saint.
> http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_08_29/article.html
"So are you Catholic/Christian first or American first," he typed as he chuckled...
ttttthhhhhhhppppppbbbbbbtttt!!!
Hmm, two more things to repent of, logic and historical record. I'll get right on that.
The Church is perfect because she is kept so by the Holy Spirit. How do we know this to be true? Because the Church says so. How does the Church know this to be true? Because the Holy Spirit says so. How do we know this to be true? Because the Church says so.
Well, if say-so is the only criterion, I guess I'm ready to start my own church! The Spirit told me so, never doubt it, because I said so.
Just for argument, let's consider the Church's record with the Jews through its history as a power.
Papal edict of 1775: "Jews of both sexes must wear a yellow-coloured sign, by which they are distinguished from others, and they must always wear it at all time and places, both in the ghettos and outside of them."
And that was only the tip of the iceberg, of course, so much more behind, so much more still to come. Yes, I can certainly depend on Mother Church to guide me right in all things. That's exactly the sort of thing Jesus would tell me to do, yes sir. Good thing the Church speaks for him so there's no confusion about such things.
Of course, what would a lost lamb like myself know about yea, the deep things of God? Especially since I'm a despicable human. I should repent of having a brain too. Wait a minute.... where'd that brain come from, with all its wayward thoughts? I feel a heresy coming on...
Watch your language!
And though I really want to disengage myself from this quagmire, I've a thought on this remark:
“the United Nations … should make the final decision,” [Ratzinger] said. “It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.”
To which you responded by saying that Ratzy assumes the UN isn't corrupt and you assume it is.
Could it be though that the Pope (whom I find to be fairly flawed in many ways) and many of us out here place no hope whatsoever in Dems or the UN and certainly not in the Republicans? Could it be that we realize abundantly well the fallen nature of humanity?
AND BECAUSE OF THAT (and not some naive trust in the presumed goodness of the UN and the evil of the US), we know that the fewer folk involved in a decision/policy, the more likely a mistake will be made? And conversely the more involved, the more chances for morality and reason to prevail?
Thomas Sowell, a conservative with whom I disagree quite a bit, has stated that a "constrained view" (which he sort of equates with a conservative view) has it that humanity IS fallen and flawed, and that is why you want to go with the wisdom of many (all those generations who've led up to a decision/policy being made) over wisdom of the individual making their individual logical argument against the decision/policy.
Sowell may well disagree with my interpretation of his writing (Koby, you out there?), but there seems to be some logic in it.
Regardless, suffice to say that many of us ARE well aware of the fallen nature of the members of the UN as well as the leaders of the US, and it's not that we trust the UN more than the US. It's that we don't trust the US anymore than the UN.
And thanks for bringing another delightful voice to this cantata, MCM!
Madcap:"The Church is perfect because she is kept so by the Holy Spirit. How do we know this to be true? Because the Church says so. How does the Church know this to be true? Because the Holy Spirit says so. How do we know this to be true? Because the Church says so.
"
This is very much like a card that reads, "To find out how to keep a moron occupied for hours, turn this card over."
And on the other side it says, "To find out how to keep a moron occupied for hours, thurn the card over."
Or perhaps more closely, if I printed up a paper here on the printer that said, "This paper is worth $10,000,000." Is it? How do we know that what it says is true? Well, it might be argued, anything worth ten million isn't likely to have a falsehood written on it. But how do we know it's worth 10 million? Because it's written right there! But how do we know it's true?
I am allowing that there might be something out there that can be identified as 'faith' beyond my definition of what you believe even though you know it isn't true. I haven't seen any of it yet. All I see is this circular reasoning, a dog chasing its tail, and people call that faith.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understood that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb.11:1-3).
Suppose what you will but I rather be hoping and believing than not at all. Again, human faults cannot anchor the rise of the Catholic Church.
“And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19)
I have yet to hear anything dogmatically wrong. MCM, you forget of the infallibility of dogma. Dogma is documented laws of the Catholic Church - laws never wrong. That is what the scriptures of Matthew explain.
Perhaps you can find some dictations of a cardinal or pope, but you will never find dogma that is/was wrong. I’ll patiently wait your agreement.
Being a naysayer gets you nowhere. Being a believer will get you everywhere.
I have something to be considered:
If I believe and am wrong, I have lost nothing.
If an unbeliever is wrong, consider the consequences.
Yes anonymous, keep paying your religious insurance premiums. Only believe that God loves you and sign your head in at the door, or be damned forever.
Still flipping the card, Neo-Con.
The infallibility issue is top in my mind. The Church claims her dogma is infallible because she says so, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't have it otherwise, etc. etc. It all hinges on me taking the hierarchy's word for it, which I don't.
Being a naysayer gets me nowhere? That sounds like a Knights of Columbus lawn-placard. I'll say nay when I think what I'm hearing is religious codswallop, just like I do in any other situation.
You were naysaying me, by the way, and it will get you nowhere. Just believe in me, Madcap the Infallible, and all will be well, my son. I shall wait patiently for your acquiescence.
I guess you're right MCM. There's no denying your infinite wisdom undoubtedly gained throughout your many years of existence. The Church's 2000 years of diligent studying, thoughtful prayer, and men of wisdom are no match for your 50+ years of doubt.
Question the Church all you want - apparently you're enlightenment is a newfound thought, never considered by others, making you the creator of a new found belief. Bravo for your ability to hand-pick faults in a 2000 year old faith, finding minimal data to support your arguments.
When the church of MCM prevails the sands of time and usurps the Catholic Church, I'll be the first to accredit your ingenuity. Until then, your flighting doubts are left unbased.
Anon:"I have something to be considered:
If I believe and am wrong, I have lost nothing.
If an unbeliever is wrong, consider the consequences"
That's just Blaise Pascal's old 'Le Pari - 'The Wager' and is always included in the bag of tricks to demonstrate the logic of faith. What is so amusing is that most people don't know that Pascal proosed it as a joke.
The gist is, if Christianity is right, you win everything by following it but if it is wrong, you lose nothing.
This was proposed at a time when the only two religious philosophies being considered were Christianity and Materialist Nihilism (akin to Atheism).
The thing is, reality doesn't come un just those two flavors, so you do indeed risk losing if you are wrong.
Thank you. It's nice to be recognized.
Goodness knows that all other accepted wisdom of 2000 years vintage has remained unchallenged. Age proves everything, don't you find? Better a nice comfortable well-worn dogma than living in the wilds, that's what I always say. And then there's the numbers game - if 1000 venerable vested-interest men believe one thing, and one uppity woman with nothing to gain from it believes another, obviously they get to vote me wrong, huh?
You haven't answered to the charge of a circular argument, btw, though that was a lovely bit of ad hominem.
Well, I have a real life to attend to now. Hopefully God doesn't strike me down while I'm taking the kids to gymnastics. Ta-ta!
madcapmum:
>The infallibility issue is top in my mind. The Church claims her dogma is infallible because she says so, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't have it otherwise, etc. etc. It all hinges on me taking the hierarchy's word for it, which I don't.
Scripture itself claims to be infallible. (The beauty of that is that you can take God at His word and see for yourself - you don't have to take MY word.) The church certainly isn't infallible because it's made up of flesh - and we've already talked about sanctification and the role of the Holy Spirit. What does 'the Holy Spirit wouldn't have it otherwise' mean? Scripture states that believers are capable of sin and the Spirit is grieved when we sin.
Eleutheros:
>That's just Blaise Pascal's old 'Le Pari - 'The Wager' and is always included in the bag of tricks to demonstrate the logic of faith.
Pascal was a magician? ;)
Seriously, Pascal thought a lot more about apologetics than just that. He approached it from a serious, observational mind - looking for answers for the reality of the world that he lived in and saw around him. If you want to read more, here's a link:
Pascal and apologetics
Y'all are doing fine without me (thanks for visiting MCM!), but one question:
Roger said:
"Scripture itself claims to be infallible."
You want to tell us where?
(And specifically, where does "scripture" - meaning the 66 books of the Bible, I assume - say "These 66 books are infallible"?)
Roger:"Pascal was a magician? ;)"
No, more of a joker, much like God when you really get to know Him.
"Seriously, Pascal thought a lot more about apologetics than just that. He approached it from a serious, observational mind - looking for answers for the reality of the world that he lived in and saw around him. If you want to read more, here's a link:"
Interesting, but that's second hand Pascal. I don't find that view quite so clearly expressed in the original writings.
For Eleutheros, to lighten the mood, I need to paraphrase a line from the movie "The Island."
How Steve Buscemi explained God to the inquisitors:
'You know when you wish for something? God's the one who ignores you.'
Eleutheros,
I've been thinking on that home brew....hmmm...I may want a taste o' that. But keep the tea on hand just in case I don't like the brew.
I imagine Marty will bring along some honey to sweeten her tea with. I see a little drippin here.
Eleutheros:
>>Roger:"Pascal was a magician? ;)"
>No, more of a joker, much like God when you really get to know Him.
Wait, you said you aren't a believer. How do you know what God is like? *Seriously*, only those who have put their faith in Him are qualified to talk about God's faithfulness - and can speak personally of knowing Him. That's only logical. We can read about someone. We can even serve someone from a distance. But until we actually get close to and spend time with someone, we don't really know that person.
Dan Trabue:
>>Roger said:
"Scripture itself claims to be infallible."
>You want to tell us where?
John chapter 10 - specifically verse 35. ("Scripture cannot be broken");
(of course, there are all of the references that Jesus makes referring to or quoting OT scripture as well)
2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 1:16-21 ("And we have the word of the prophets made more certain")
Of course, you (and anyone else for that matter) are welcome to make your case. Where have you taken God at His word and found that He lied to you?
Understand this: I love scripture. I love God's revelation to me wherever God might want to reveal God's self.
And I find God quite trustworthy.
But I'm honest enough to know that the 66 books of the Bible NEVER make a claim that those 66 books are infallible.
God's revelation is infallible, sure. But God did not hand King Jim a prefab book and said, "Here ya go, from my finger to your eyes."
Further complicating matters, of course, is that while God is infallible, WE aren't. For this reason, I have no problem at all with anyone registering complaints with the church's behavior...it is quite often quite deserved.
This is why we all ought to be wary of those who claim to speak for God or those who have a definitive word from God (and I'm including myself here). Judge everything, hold on only to the good, as Paul tells us.
And so, I find the Bible to be a great wealth of instruction, history and info, but not infallible - and certainly not our interpretations of it.
Myself, I read where the Bible says God said: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
And that's just not the God I know that has been revealed to me.
Again, I love God, I love the Bible, I just don't find any biblical or godly justification for making it wholly inerrant.
Dan, I'm sincerely interested in where you attended divinity school. I am assuming that since you are a pastor, you probably did.
I'm not a pastor. My wife attended the Southern Baptist Seminary in the school of church social work (which has closed since the conservative takeover of Southern Baptists) but not me.
I DID attend the Miss Marie's Sunday School at Victory Memorial Baptist Church (and many other great and sincere teachers of the Bible) and I DO attend Jeff Street Baptist Community under the divinely-inspired tutelage of Pastor Cindy, for which I am eternally grateful.
Thanks for asking.
>But I'm honest enough to know that the 66 books of the Bible NEVER make a claim that those 66 books are infallible.
If they are not infallible, please clarify. What has caused you to doubt?
>God's revelation is infallible, sure. But God did not hand King Jim a prefab book and said, "Here ya go, from my finger to your eyes."
True: But what is the Holy Spirit for? Is He a mere bystander, or is He responsible for (among many things) communicating the truth of God?
>This is why we all ought to be wary of those who claim to speak for God or those who have a definitive word from God (and I'm including myself here).
Does the Holy Spirit speak for God? The Holy Spirit inhabits the believer. I'm not going to go through the whole discussion of the fallibility of the flesh and the reality of spiritual warfare as we've covered some of that already. But let me just say that the enemy doesn't want us to understand the power of the Holy Spirits' presence in the life of a believer.
>Judge everything, hold on only to the good, as Paul tells us.
You seem to be dismissing what I'm saying. Is it not good? If so, how is it bad?
Paul also said,
1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (King James Version)
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Paul acknowledged the role of the Holy Spirit in his writing, and challenged those that might question it to acknowledge the truth of what was communicated. That's why I asked you all to test what I was saying. It's either true (from the Spirit and consistent with scripture) or it's not.
>And so, I find the Bible to be a great wealth of instruction, history and info, but not infallible - and certainly not our interpretations of it.
Again, if you find it to not be infallible, it logically follows that you can back that up with proof. I'm not doing that to put you on the spot or to be clever - that's just logical! What has caused you to come to the conclusion you have?
Anoymous,
I take my tea straight. No sweetener in my tea, no siree.
I am going to surmise, since I sure haven't been convinced otherwise, by all these over 140 posts and counting that the answer to Dan's orginal question is "NO".
Dan:
I don't want you to think that I'm badgering you, so I feel I need to clarify. I just wanted to flesh out some very important things:
1) There is no case for scripture NOT being inerrant and infallible. Sure, there is a lot of talk - but there is no evidence.
Note from who in the culture the talk appears to originate: from those that don't believe and don't know Jesus - from those that haven't taken God at his word in faith.
2) The importance of inerrancy/infallibility cannot be understated. Here's a quote I recently found that is sobering...
"Ultimately, the rejection of inerrancy leads to vast differences in one's theology
in general. Subjectivity replaces objectivity as the guide to life. Salvation becomes little
more than a leap of faith, rather than a confident belief in God's promises. The mission of the church is reduced to restoring the economic and social order, rather than proclaiming the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God. Evangelistic efforts are replaced by social enterprises. In every case where the doctrine of inerrancy has been forsaken, evangelical zeal has faded and churches have grown cold. It is not long before such churches begin to die."
3) The enemy is behind the doubting of God's word. (He's done this since the Garden of Eden!) It's impossible to separate God from His word (remember: the word became flesh!) - so the enemy must resort to removing the word from the church. Think about it: the church is the 'body of Christ' in the world - as believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. So, that is the greatest hindrance to Satan. Spiritual warfare is what we are all involved in - a battle for our minds! If the enemy can get us to doubt, we have given him a stronghold in our thought life. Going back to point #2...
That leads to us doubting whether those tough issues of life can be understood with a Bible that was penned so long ago.
That leads to us giving more credence to modern philosophy or social trends - that "surely explain the current times" more clearly and accurately than the Bible.
That results in many people being led away from the truth and believing lies.
That is observable reality for us today, unfortunately.
I just wanted to touch in again to reassure Neo-Con that God did not, in fact, strike me on the way to or from gymnastics, because I know you were worried about that. Also, re-reading, I noticed that you flattered me by assuming 50+ years of doubt, and here me only a tender 35! Obviously you were influenced by my matriarchal mien. You may call me Amma.
Still no response to the circular argument?
Madcap:"Still no response to the circular argument?"
No, they are still turning the card over and over. They'll get back with you on that at some future date.
The Bible is infalloble. No question. But then any circular thinking closed system is infallible. We can create infallible systems of believe at will. Let's see: All the worlds problems are caused by invisible spacecraft sending zorg-rays into people's brains causing them to doubt the absolute truth of the teachings of the great prophet Zarquon. What? You don't believe that there are invisible spaceships sending zork-rays into your brain and that Zarquon can save you from them. See! What did I tell you! The zork-rays are making you doubt!
Christianity's claims of infallibility aren't much more sophisicated than that. But when you start to apply any external standard to it, it falls to pieces. That's why no Christian, progressive nor liberal, dares to state the criteria to be used to interpret the Bible before we ever open the cover. Else we find ourselves obligated to sell our house for the poor or kill all the gays or some such.
For example Pat Robertson recently announced that Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for giving away the Gaza Strip. Hmmm. Sharon is 77 and weighs nearly 300 lbs. The way I see it, by all rights, he should have had a stroke 20 years ago. So it is obvious that God WANTED him to give away the Gaza Strip by keeping him healthy against all odds.
Roger asked me:
"If they are not infallible, please clarify. What has caused you to doubt?"
Well, as I said, God in the OT sometimes has the Israelis killing off their enemies down to the children. Jesus in the NT tells us to love our enemies. That is problematic for me.
But beyond examples like that, it comes down to the fact that the Bible itself nor God, God's Self, never tells me to take the 66 books of The Bible TM literally and inerrantly, so why would I?
Roger also asked:
"You seem to be dismissing what I'm saying. Is it not good?"
I don't know that I've deliberately dismissed anything you're saying. A lot has been said by many people on this particular entry, more than I have time to deal with on a case by case matter. If there's some big question(s) you'd like to direct to me, feel free and if I'm able to I'll try to answer.
Did I answer your "doubting" question (although, I don't really look at it as doubting, I just don't see anything saying it ought to be taken literally)?
I'll try to address some of your comments again, Roger:
You said:
"Note from who in the culture the talk (of errancy) appears to originate: from those who don't believe."
But not in my case. I was taught and believed the bible literally until such time as (with the Spirit's leading, as I'm sure you'll want me to note) I realized that biblical inerrancy is an extrabiblical notion.
I've been a Christian for 32 years now, know the Bible pretty well (thanks to those Baptist SS teachers in my background) and have a different opinion than you on the matter apparently.
Roger said:
"Subjectivity replaces objectivity as the guide to life."
Is that an objective opinion on your part or subjective? I'd tend to disagree here, as well.
Roger said:
"The enemy is behind the doubting of God's word."
I don't doubt God's word. I don't though, believe the Bible is to be taken literally. For reasons I've already stated (God never told me to take it literally).
Dan:"I don't doubt God's word. I don't though, believe the Bible is to be taken literally. For reasons I've already stated (God never told me to take it literally)."
Yes, perhaps, but do you really think He intends for you to take Him literally when he didn't tell you to take the Bible literally? I see a paradox of mind-mangling proportions here! Literally.
"but do you really think He intends for you to take Him literally when he didn't tell you to take the Bible literally?"
Yeah, She's cool with it.
"I guess you're right MCM. There's no denying your infinite wisdom undoubtedly gained throughout your many years of existence. The Church's 2000 years of diligent studying, thoughtful prayer, and men of wisdom are no match for your 50+ years of doubt.
Question the Church all you want - apparently you're enlightenment is a newfound thought, never considered by others, making you the creator of a new found belief. Bravo for your ability to hand-pick faults in a 2000 year old faith, finding minimal data to support your arguments.
When the church of MCM prevails the sands of time and usurps the Catholic Church, I'll be the first to accredit your ingenuity. Until then, your flighting doubts are left unbased."
Where's this 'lovely bit of ad hominem'? Perhaps my sarcasm is a way of questioning your beliefs, not personally attacking you as a person. You've been commenting quite the same towards me and my faith. Everytime you verbally assault my faith, you do the same to me.
As for this cyclical argument, let me quote the scriptures again:
"And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly.
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"(Anonymous 1:1)
Well, in this case Christ came first. The bible then followed. After that, the Catholic Church was formed. Now, I don't see a cyclical path here. I see a chronological order of events. 1 goes to 2, 2 goes to 3 and so on.
To make myself clear, the Scriptures or Word of God, explains the Church, its infallibility, and then man makes due. Christ explains the Church, the bible then logs this explanation, and then the Church implements this.
No circle here.
Something else...
"And then there's the numbers game - if 1000 venerable vested-interest men believe one thing, and one uppity woman with nothing to gain from it believes another, obviously they get to vote me wrong, huh?"
Only 1000, hey? Try 1.3 million currently.
Oh, and that doesn't include the 17% of the world population that agrees.
BTW, 17% equals 1,114,000,000.
Shame on me for using the numbers game, apparently that isn't a valid factor. You're right, 1.114b could be wrong, but that's a lot of dumb people.
Neocon said
"'And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth...'
I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly."
I'm sorry neocon, I know you said you don't know if you can explain it more clearly but I didn't understand this line at all.
It's probably me, staying up too late blogging.
The quote explains that all dogmatic laws dictated by the Catholic Church are binding both on Earth and in Heaven.
So the Catholic Church, when acting in infallibility while speaking dogmatically, create laws or rules, Heaven shall also recognize them.
Therefore, God is also saying that the Church must be guided by the Holy Spirit, prior to the dictation of rules, making them pure and holy - the Church being a symbolic medium of the Holy Spirit.
It's cool when you think about it. God is saying that the Church can make rules that are bound in Heaven, making the Church weary on what is actually dogma. In other words, the Church is very careful in what is dogma because these same rules apply in Heaven. Wow! When I think about it, this kind of stuff really solidifies my beliefs.
Kapeesh? Kapeesh.
Given your last comment neo, I'll reference a rough quote from a favorite anabaptist writer, Art Gish, who said:
If we're longing for heaven, the Kingdom of God, where there is no greed, no oppression, no war, no buying and selling nor hatred, then why are we not living that way now?
Further, if we get there and are no longer able to do all these things that have been such a part of our lives for so long, will we enjoy it?
Which further reminds me of the story of the rich young man who genuinely thought he wanted to be part of God's Kingdom, but ultimately not if it meant giving up what he trusted in.
After being told what he must do to inherit the kingdom, he walked away sadly from Jesus.
I wonder if we'll have many folk walking sadly away from heaven saying, "If they let gays in, if I can't have my money, if we can't defend ourselves against others, if I can't get around in my auto, then that's not heaven for me..."?
"Everytime you verbally assault my faith, you do the same to me."
Well, so be it. Every time I assault what I consider to be a stupid idea, I guess I'll just be insulting the person who holds it. Every time I tell off the man who comes to my door for telling racist jokes (yes, he shows up fairly regularly), I'm insulting him.
Every time you verbally assault my ideas, you're verbally assaulting me. Poor me. No one should ever challenge my ideas because they're precioussssss.
I guess the discussion is over, then.
"If we're longing for heaven, the Kingdom of God, where there is no greed, no oppression, no war, no buying and selling nor hatred, then why are we not living that way now?"
-Who is Gish to say that we (I'm assuming he's lumping us ALL in there) enjoy this life on Earth. Some say we should pray for the end so all can be broken of these very same sins that he lists.
"Further, if we get there and are no longer able to do all these things that have been such a part of our lives for so long, will we enjoy it?"
-Again, some BIG assumption Gish just made. I know Heaven will be without all of this - the whole reason that I want to be there. Let me dissect even more. "lives for so long" So Long! 80 years ain't nothing compared to an eternity.
"Which further reminds me of the story of the rich young man who genuinely thought he wanted to be part of God's Kingdom, but ultimately not if it meant giving up what he trusted in."
-I trust in God, again Gish is assuming that we are all the same.
"After being told what he must do to inherit the kingdom, he walked away sadly from Jesus."
-After the cock crowed three times...
"I wonder if we'll have many folk walking sadly away from heaven saying, "If they let gays in, if I can't have my money, if we can't defend ourselves against others, if I can't get around in my auto, then that's not heaven for me..."?"
- Dan, you totally missed it. Do you really think because I have strong beliefs and vocalize them - means I'm not worthy?
My goal is not on this Earth but to be with God in Heaven. I don't care who else gets in, I actually pray that all are blessed with the fruits of Heaven. I pray every night for the strength to rise above the evils of this world. Yes, we live in inequities and sin, but who says we/I enjoy it. Who says we/I won't enjoy Heaven.
No offense to Art Gish, but I think that that quote is silly. He points out the sins that people have (money, greed, war), all the while, sinning himself (passing judgement).
Secondly, I never said gays couldn't get to Heaven. The act of homosexuality is wrong, dogmatically dictated by the Catholic Church, but the Church does not condemn gays to hell. God does (if he sees fit).
Third, Gish lumps all people as one. Only God can comprehend the individuality of all people, judging them on a unique basis considering all circumstances. With that said, any and all comments like that are absurd. No one can comprehend another man's thoughts much less God's decisions.
Rough quote for you and Gish:
'Man only sees the actions of other men, God sees the intentions of all men.'
MCM,
I accept your concession.
A clarification: The Art Gish reference was based upon my memory and not an exact quote. I think it was the gist of the idea, but perhaps you should direct any irritation towards me and not Gish, in case I'm wrong.
Having said that, neocon said:
"He points out the sins that people have (money, greed, war), all the while, sinning himself (passing judgement)."
I would point out that
1. it is a prophet's duty to point out the sins of the people and
2. it is not a sin to pass judgement, the Bible tells us we will make judgements in all things. It crosses over in to sinnishness, it seems to me, when one has a harsh, judgemental attitude, but it's not making a judgement itself that is a sin.
{Those who point to Jesus': "Judge not, lest you be judged," are leaving out the context: the person with a log in their eye criticizing the person with a speck in their eye. Remove the log, Jesus says, and then you will be able to see clearly to assist the one with the speck.)
"Do you really think because I have strong beliefs and vocalize them - means I'm not worthy?"
Not at all. I'm saying where we place our trust and treasure, that is where our heart is.
In OT Israel, the Israelis kept clamoring for a king and a military like all the other nations, so they might be protected. It just wasn't safe to "do nothing."
God suggested they rely upon God and not a military, but they rejected trusting in God.
I'm not condemning them. It's easy to understand, with all those nasty phillistines and midianites and the like out there. It wouldn't have been responsible for them to "just" rely upon God.
The rich young man wasn't a bad person. By his testimony, he'd kept all the commandments. But one thing he lacked, Jesus said. Go, sell all you have, give it to the poor and join with me...
The man couldn't do it. The Israelis couldn't do it. It is part of human nature not to feel safe relying upon the unseen. I'm not condemning them.
I'm raising the question, as I believe Art Gish did, what if we get to heaven and don't like it? Jesus is too different from what I'd pictured?
I've had some staunch Religious Right wingers say in a snit to me, If it turned out Jesus actually WERE like you think, I wouldn't want any part of his kingdom!
And finally, while this is a fallen and sinful world, Jesus taught us to live and pray, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH, as it is in heaven..."
Will the Dems or Reps get us there? No, of course not. Ought we be about the business of Kingdom living nonetheless? I say yes and bet you agree.
Don't get me wrong, I get what you and Gish are saying. I do think we are on the same team, just different titles.
I for one truly enjoy these conversations.
>The rich young man wasn't a bad person. By his testimony, he'd kept all the commandments. But one thing he lacked, Jesus said. Go, sell all you have, give it to the poor and join with me...
If keeping the commandments made us good, we'd all be able to work our way to salvation. Also, I don't think God said he kept the commandments, scripture says the young man said he, himself, kept them all.
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
So, if he were to die right then, he would be perfect and enter Heaven on his merits without the need of grace? That's not realistic. That is key to understanding where he was spiritually. He was not willing to admit that he needed to repent. So, it makes sense that Jesus revealed it to us clearly by asking him to do something - to put his faith into action. The result: he talked one way, and acted another. He did not have faith. I think that's 'the one thing' that Jesus implies that he lacked. If that's not the case, which 'one thing' did he lack?
>sell all you have, give it to the poor and join with me...
Was it the selling, the giving it to the poor, or the joining with Him? That's three right there!
Eleutheros:
>That's why no Christian, progressive nor liberal, dares to state the criteria to be used to interpret the Bible before we ever open the cover.
You've made a good point. Many folks didn't *really* see Jesus when he was in front of them because He didn't meet their criteria for what a Savior should be. Why? Remember that Jesus was the word made flesh. So, it logically follows that many will not take scripture at face value either. Scripture determines scripture. Some will say, "That doesn't make any sense!" But let's not forget the role of the Holy Spirit in communicating truth. Many people try to speak for God, but only God can speak for God. The reality - just as Jesus walked among them - is what it is. The reality of the truth of scripture speaks for itself.
>Well, as I said, God in the OT sometimes has the Israelis killing off their enemies down to the children. Jesus in the NT tells us to love our enemies. That is problematic for me.
How can that be consistent with His Nature? It's definitely worth thinking about. I don't think we should dismiss it too quickly though. Here are some things to ponder: Sin is deceptive. It is unmerciful. When it comes to fruition, the end result of it is death.
>But beyond examples like that, it comes down to the fact that the Bible itself nor God, God's Self, never tells me to take the 66 books of The Bible TM literally and inerrantly, so why would I?
Do we have any precedent for NOT believing it is inerrant? Why are so many people taking this position? I guess I'm confused why people doubt the inerrancy of scripture because there's nothing in scripture to tell us otherwise. (Many people dismiss Jonah and the whale, but Jesus refers to it as fact - Matthew 12:40) Again, scripture determines scripture. External cultural influences do not determine what is and what isn't scripture.
>>Roger said:
"Subjectivity replaces objectivity as the guide to life."
>Is that an objective opinion on your part or subjective? I'd tend to disagree here, as well.
The rise of deconstructionist thinking shows us that it is already here. If word meanings are subjective and not objective, we're in trouble. Why are we typing on here if communication by words is suspect? Why when we were talking about scripture that words such as perversion and unnatural don't seem to shed light on the specifics of sin? Knowing what sin is and what it does, is there anything worse than telling people (knowingly, or unknowingly) that sin isn't really sin? As it was stated on here earlier, if sin isn't that important, then why did Jesus go to the cross?
Note: I'm not saying that those believers that hold a different view are not Christians. I'm saying that particular view of scripture is troubling because of its results that were mentioned earlier.
Prayerfully consider what I'm saying. If the Bible is not inerrant, how do you know the Jesus that is recorded in the NT is accurate? If God can't ensure that His word is accurately brought to man through the Holy Spirit, then that is problematic - not for us, but for God.
"If the Bible is not inerrant, how do you know the Jesus that is recorded in the NT is accurate?"
How did Elijah know that God's word was accurate? By God's revelation thru the Spirit (if that's the language you prefer to use).
How do you know when to interpret "dashing babies heads against rocks" as applicable to you and when to turn the other cheek is applicable to you? God's revelation.
I trust in God's revelation and the logic given to us by God to do okay by us. Won't be perfect because of our own fallibility, but it will do okay.
And my question to you (and if you answered it, I apologize, I'm finding your answers a little difficult to cipher...I'm a little rusty on my religiousese) is what do you do with the fact that the Bible as we know it is not self-endorsing? That it doesn't say "You must believe these 66 books"?
Also, I don't get what you mean when you say: "If word meanings are subjective and not objective"...who says word meanings are subjective? I believe words definitely have objective meanings. Again, in our fallen world, communication will have its limitations but we ought to strive to maintain objectively defined words.
This is why I cringe and shout when someone like Bush defines peacemaking to include bombdropping. "Peacemaking" HAS a meaning and it is an abuse of objective language to include "war-making" within the definition of "peacemaking."
Seems to me.
>I trust in God's revelation and the logic given to us by God to do okay by us. Won't be perfect because of our own fallibility, but it will do okay.
But it's not ok. We have some people in the church saying that God says that certain things are sin, another group says that it is not. They can't both be right. There can't be an activity that is sinful, and yet not. Sin can't ever result in a healthy relationship ... if God is indeed Holy.
>And my question to you (and if you answered it, I apologize, I'm finding your answers a little difficult to cipher...I'm a little rusty on my religiousese) is what do you do with the fact that the Bible as we know it is not self-endorsing? That it doesn't say "You must believe these 66 books"?
The principle of the trustworthiness of scripture is throughout. For example: John 5:39. Where are the principles that would lead us otherwise? God could have made all of this crystal clear by stating plainly that there would be a book that would be ascribed to Him but it would be faulty..."be careful on how you read it - my Spirit will lead you to the truthful parts" (Which by the way is what the Mormons believe, so much so that they end up neglecting most of the Bible and wrote their own scriptures - the Book Of Mormon! -> yet another example of the dangers of breaking scripture; John 10:35). Instead, Jesus said, "Thy word is truth." without any qualifications. (John 17:17) Note, we are sanctified by the truth - sanctified from what? Sin.
>Also, I don't get what you mean when you say: "If word meanings are subjective and not objective"...who says word meanings are subjective? I believe words definitely have objective meanings. Again, in our fallen world, communication will have its limitations but we ought to strive to maintain objectively defined words.
These days there are deconstructionists such as Stanley Fish and his followers. It's a very frustrating and dangerous belief as they can almost remove meaning from any text if they choose to do so. I agree with you, but we need to be aware that there are these folks out there and they do have academic credibility - for some unknown reason. ;)
>This is why I cringe and shout when someone like Bush defines peacemaking to include bombdropping. "Peacemaking" HAS a meaning and it is an abuse of objective language to include "war-making" within the definition of "peacemaking."
Maybe this relates to the aspects of the OT that you are struggling with. For a healing thing to take place, sometimes a temporary unpleasant thing has to take place. Like a cut, it hurts - but it heals and leaves a scar. Like the pain of the cross for Jesus, which now is our eternal spiritual healing! (1 Peter 2:24) The cross makes just as much sense.
"We have some people in the church saying that God says that certain things are sin, another group says that it is not."
We have that already, even within groups that claim to take the bible literally.
How about if I ask a couple of questions to determine where we are, step by step?
1. YOU don't take every word of the Bible literally, right? You aren't killing gays and disrespectful children. You probably are eating pork and shrimp. You already interpret the bible in ways that mean you don't take some parts of it literally, right?
(And be clear: I'm not condemning you for it, I think everyone does this, as they should. It's just that not everyone owns up to doing it, or they call it something other than "not taking parts of the bible literally.")
Dan:
>1. YOU don't take every word of the Bible literally, right? You aren't killing gays and disrespectful children. You probably are eating pork and shrimp. You already interpret the bible in ways that mean you don't take some parts of it literally, right?
(And be clear: I'm not condemning you for it, I think everyone does this, as they should. It's just that not everyone owns up to doing it, or they call it something other than "not taking parts of the bible literally.")
Terminology is confusing, especially when it is used regarding Biblical interpretation. I don't read literally - as it is understood to be a wooden, unreasonable method. Actually, I don't think anybody reads anything completely literally. Language can be symbolic, and there are all kinds of aspects of language that require our minds to look at context to figure out what it is really trying to be communicated. For example, what about the dragon with a tail that took out 1/3 of the stars? (Revelation 12:4) That's not referring to a beast so big that its tail could touch 1/3 of all of the stars in the universe. It's a symbol for Satan deceiving 1/3 of the Angels of Heaven to disobey God. So, we figure out what the symbols mean and believe it, literally. I believe that the latter actually happened. Then there's poetry, there isn't a spiritual 'sister' out there called 'Wisdom' (Proverbs 7:4). However, where the Bible is referring to historical events in a specific understood time period, we have no other evidence that it's not actually what it says it is. Was the Cross real, in all it's horrific details, or was it merely a symbol of suffering? Did He actually appear to all those folks after He was resurrected, or was it a parable of things to come? We have no evidence from scripture itself (or outside sources, for that matter) to reasonably lead us in any other direction than that it and many other aspects of scripture are historical fact.
Okay, I think we're agreeing then that no one really reads the bible literally. As you've suggested, we don't because it's not all intended to be taken literally.
Reasons for not taking it all literally include:
1. Poetic phrasing
2. Specific symbology
3. Parabolic stories
Right so far? Would you also include:
4. Cultural differences?
(for instance, the Bible does not come out and condemn slavery as it existed in bible times, but we all are agreed that it is wrong now. Women were thought of and spoken of as chattel in the Bible, but we no longer think so now.)
Are we still together? Then how about:
5. There are passages that were written to specific people for specific purposes that are not always taken literally?
(For instance, "don't eat shrimp, "kill gays," "dash children's heads against the stones," that sort of thing)
Can we agree that for all of these reasons (and maybe others), some biblical passages are not to be taken as morally binding but more as reporting of history and important stories?
OK. During NT times the area was under Roman martial law. It would have been unwise, disasterous, to use force to settle any conflict because Rome might see it as the beginning of aggression or rebellion. It's consistent with the Bible as whole because Rome wasn't there in the OT when it was OK to bash heads and smite with the edge of the sword.
So all that pacifism we SEEM to see in the New Testament was really just the culture of the day and is not to be taken literally.
Stop yer rabble-rousing, you heathen trouble-maker.
And the "Love your enemies" that we SEEM to hear Jesus teach is...what now? How do YOU interpret "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"?
You have a glorious time giving me grief, tell me a bit o' your beliefs, big brother!
During Roman times they did have folk who'd rise up against the Romans. You ever hear of the Zealots in the Bible? You ever see Ben Hur? Life of Brian?
In that context, Jesus stood up to the Romans and their Jewish cohorts but he rejected the Zealots way and he rejected the cowering way and embraced the way of the cross (to borrow a religious phrase) and encouraged his followers to do so as well.
Or at least that's how the story is reported in the Bible. What's your take on it all? What do you do with Jesus' teachings?
Dan:
>5. There are passages that were written to specific people for specific purposes that are not always taken literally?
(For instance, "don't eat shrimp, "kill gays," "dash children's heads against the stones," that sort of thing)
To what specific passages do you want to refer?
Roger:"Scripture determines scripture."
(If that's not circular reasoning ....!)
Dan:"I trust in God's revelation and the logic given to us by God to do okay by us." "How did Elijah know that God's word was accurate? By God's revelation thru the Spirit"
Guys, I gotta say that you desperately need to step back and have a beer with me and Jesus and take a look at what you all sound like.
Hugely differing views: gays are an abomination, gays ought to be celebrated; war on Iraq is offensive to Jesus, bomb a mosque for Jesus; welfare is God's hand at work, welfare is sin; etc (need I go on). And yet ALL of you say that it is God revealing the truth to you. What?? I God a schizophrenic bafoon who can't make up His mind?
Or is there another explaination? It seems to me and Jesus (He's nodding his agreement) that all of you are running around with God sock puppets on your fist "revealing" [nod, nudge, wink] its divine will to you. All of you, including GW Bush. Yes, in all essential ways you are identical to W becaue he too has a sock puppet telling him to invade Iraq and spy on his own people.
A bit away from all the din and cacophany of the cheesy vetriloquists acts with God sock puppets, (since many of you defer to logic) I will submit to you that the real way that matters stand must surely, surely lie otherwhere.
Dan:"Or at least that's how the story is reported in the Bible. What's your take on it all? What do you do with Jesus' teachings?"
Oh, my take is rather dismal and is in no wise as entertaining as yours.
I AM an old Heathen, and I thank God for it.
I don't find any convincing evidence that there was a single historical Jesus. And even if there were, I think the last verse in the Gospel of John must surely sum it up:
" And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
That is, the part that was written and did survive from antiquity doesn't tell the real story, that was contained in the part John alludes to that never got written.
Else, perhaps, Jesus is much like the Sphinx in the flick "Mystery Men". So mysterious and enigmatic that surely there's something profound behind it, but we durst not admit that we don't really understand it, or indeed that it really makes sense in the first place.
So far there hasn't been enough beer in the world to get the straight story out of Him.
Ellie, you gotta go with what works for you.
I feel okay with my understanding of Jesus and I'll have to go with works for me.
But by all means, you, me and Jesus can get together over a beer and laugh at all our muddle-headed ideas sometime.
I have to warn you though, I'm still Baptist enough to be a tea-totaller. You and Jesus can share mine.
"It seems to me and Jesus (He's nodding his agreement)"
Ellie, is your Jesus a sock puppet, too?
I said:
(For instance, "don't eat shrimp, "kill gays," "dash children's heads against the stones," that sort of thing)
And Roger asked:
"To what specific passages do you want to refer?"
Are you really unaware of these? Or do you want to just deal with some specifics? Fair enough:
On Shrimp and Lobster:
"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"
Leviticus 11:10
(you know, an abomination like being gay)
On killing gays:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:18
(don't get any bad ideas)
on killing babies:
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts...Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
1 Samuel 15:2,3
[the "dashing babies' heads against rocks" was actually a Psalmist's blessing which might be confused for a godly blessing, but wasn't necessarily - Psalm 137:9]
These would be some passages that I find contradictory to my notion of God's plan for us, sort of like the slavery passages.
First the shock about the illiteral dragon and now you're telling me you don't DRINK? Oh, my liver and lights!
That dragon was very dear to me in the scriptural bestiary, and now you're refusing the very wine of Cana, casting away all the really juicy bits of scripture in your modernistic zeal. Dan, come let us reason together! Eleu's shine is pure distilled essence of cloaca, and surely a minor sacrament at the very least. I think you need an intervention - things have gone much, much too far.
"Ellie, is your Jesus a sock puppet, too?"
Heavens, no! He's real. I'm the sock puppet.
"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works."
These would be some passages that I find contradictory to my notion of God's plan for us, sort of like the slavery passages.
This sounds to me like you have an argument or disagreement with God. I believe it might be good if you would find a quiet place alone with a good study Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to direct your thoughts and mind into an understanding of what those passages mean. We are told that if we lack wisdom and want it, we can seek it and find it if we seek in earnest.
Hmmm, I was sure that Butler's Lives 1956 version had assured me that the cloaca of a dragon was where the fire was brewed, but now I can't find the reference and I'm doubting myself.
Eleu's shine is dragon-fire-in-the-bones, I'd be willing to bet, wherever it's brewed. No wonder God spends more time at his house than mine. Me, I'm forced by geography to tipple with lesser things, but let me keep refilling my glass and maybe I'll be able to make better sense of all this commentary.
Eustace said:
"This sounds to me like you have an argument or disagreement with God."
Not deliberately.
Of course, I'm mortal and God is God. There certainly is an element of the Mystery that will have to be present due to my own limitations.
I'm just saying:
1. That God has never told me to take the 66 books of the Bible literally - just as you don't take them literally.
2. We ought to take God's revelation to us seriously (even though we may be wrong because of the aforementioned limitations in our understanding and intellect).
3. MY understanding of God, as revealed in Jesus and by the Holy Spirit, is that God is a God of Love first and foremost. God is a God of Justice and Peace. That we are to follow in Jesus' steps and take his Truths pretty literally.
4. In so doing, I find that some of the OT passages that talk about God telling us to kill babies don't square with the revelation of Jesus.
5. But I don't find this problematic, as we don't take all of the OT literally, anyway due to the aforementioned reasons.
Could I be wrong? Could God have told the Israelis to kill babies? Sure, I reckon.
But I also know for a fact that Jesus has told me to love my enemies, do good to those who hate me, to do unto others as I'd have them do unto me.
The OT stuff may be a bit of a mystery to me and that's okay with me. I'll go with the clear instructions now and wait for a better understanding on the mysterious stuff later. Seems reasonable and biblical enough to me.
Let me put it another way for Roger and Eustace:
You both seem concerned for me and others that we're not taking God's word literally - however you determine that notion.
But I'd say that I'm concerned for a Church that does not take Jesus' teachings literally.
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
"Love your enemiese. do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also..."
These are all fairly straightforward teachings. Commandments, if you will. Do you take these literally?
And, I believe you'll say, "Of couse we do BUT we also interpret these words through Jesus' other teachings and the teachings of the whole Bible. Well, me too.
And nowhere in the whole Bible am I commanded to wage war against my enemy. On the contrary, in the OT, the Israelis were commanded to not rely upon a military but upon God.
And THAT I DO think applies to us, it doesn't conflict with Jesus' teachings and is consistent with the whole Bible.
So I don't really understand your concern (although it is appreciated) and your notion that I'm relying upon political solutions. Wouldn't the one who's relying on the World's Largest Military (TM) be the ones relying upon a political solution?
MCM,
I'm with you in thinking Dragon's are cool. On a peripheral note: Did you know that I named Eustace after a dragon?
Well, actually after a Boy who became a Dragon?
In one of the Narnia books, there's an obnoxious little boy named Eustace Scrubb (Actually, the book begins, "His name was Eustace Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." if memory serves correctly). In it, Eustace is eventually turned in to a dragon by his own stubborn refusal to play nicely.
He eventually repents.
No reflection upon our friend Eustace here, though.
First line in Voyage of the Dawn Treader:
"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it."
BUT, do you know why this fate befell him? Read down several lines further...
"(His parents) were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes."
!!!!!
The word of St. Clive. He who has ears, let him hear.
St. Clive doesn't fit neatly in to any of our boxes (not a bad thing, seems to me). He gave "liberals" hell at times, but many of his writings would also give pause to many of his conservative boyfriends if they'd read them.
Depends on your interpretation. ;-). Does a taste for spankings fit into the liberal or conservative category?
Since we're so far off topic we can't even see it on the horizon anyway - what did you think of the movie?
On topic? We don't need to stay on no steenkin' topic!
I'm a HUGE Lewis fan and would you believe that I've not seen it yet?!
I can't believe it either! What's up with that?
Have you seen it (mcm, or anyone)? What's your review?
Perhaps I've allowed it to slide by thus far (I WILL see it before it leaves the theaters) because this is my least favorite of the Narnia stories. Now, Dawn Treader...THERE's a story!
Any of them with Reepicheep in them and I'll be there on Day 1.
I loved it, and I usually hate movies on principle, and especially movies made of my favourite books. One of the benefits of it being a short book was that they could fit almost everything into the movie, so there weren't horrible big gaps in the story line.
The Witch's clothes were bizarre. Somebody was getting a little over-arteestic, I think. But I still loved it.
They could do a heck of a job with the Monopods with the computer animation, couldn't they?
Hey, Eleutheros is Jesus still at your place? If so, get my tea ready, I'm on my way! Ya'll didn't drink up all the brew did ya? I was hoping for a taste.
Roger said:
“The stuff you're struggling with is the OT law...”
Don't know that I'm struggling with it so much as just believe it is what it is (and isn't what it isn't)...
And he also said:
“Romans 7:7-12 says that the Law is holy, just, and good, that it is not sinful...”
But you don't believe that and I also don't believe that the Law as laid out in parts of the OT is holy, just or good. That's just my point.
We DON'T believe that eating shrimp is a sin or an abomination (and especially not grilled Japanese style with teriyaki sauce!). We don't believe it is a sin to plant two crops in one field. We don't believe that it is a sin to wear polyester (well, maybe...) And yet the OT Holiness Code (those passages in Leviticus that we're dealing with here) tell us they are sins and, as noted already, sometimes even abominations!
Then Roger said:
“you have tried to dismiss the sin along with the consequences...”
Yep. As have you, unless you don't eat shrimp or BBQ, don't wear any kind of interwoven fiber (polyester), don't shop at banks (usury is a no-no), don't have tattoos (OK, I bet you probably don't have one, that like me, you're of the wrong generation), don't trim your hair wrongly, etc, etc.
And also:
“So, if you in turn don't like the punishments for this sin in the OT law - and say they are sinful, you are in turn saying that law is sinful as well.”
Do YOU think that we should NOT stone gays and disrespectful children? If you think we shouldn't, does that mean that you think the law is sinful?
Then Roger mentioned three aspects of law (ceremonial, civil and moral) and suggested that some laws are no longer observed because the were either ceremonial and civil, and I say “fair enough.” My question to Roger, et al, then is: How do you know which rules were ceremonial, civil or moral?
Roger also asked:
“Why is it that people always want to single out the aspects of the law that focused on homosexuality?” to which I reply that I don't.
As I've pointed out, the OT talks about rules for waging warfare (not relying upon a standing army or big weaponry, but on God), and many, many rules for dealing with wealth and poverty (the Jubilee laws, for instance) and I've talked about these rules a good bit here at this blogspot.
Roger, how about we take this a step at a time? How about starting here:
"Moral laws/principles don't change."
I think I agree here (depending upon what exactly you mean by it).
And so, if that is the case, then was Jesus laying down (and repeating from older sources) a moral law when he said, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and "Love your enemies"?
Another short thought:
"Isn't it odd though that people in our culture bring up certain parts of the OT to complain but ignore others?"
Not really. People in most cultures (including church-y ones) ignore the parts of the Bible (OT and NT) that interfere with their beliefs.
I disagree. I have yet to see a rally (political or otherwise) anywhere in the world where people who steal have demanded that society accept their behavior as normal.
Maybe it was covered (or tried to) and all of the reporters notes and footage was stolen so it never got broadcast. :)
I'm sorry Roger, you disagree with what?
And will you give your thoughts on my response to your moral laws don't change thought?
I'm sorry Roger, you disagree with what?
--->People in most cultures (including church-y ones) ignore the parts of the Bible (OT and NT) that interfere with their beliefs.
And will you give your thoughts on my response to your moral laws don't change thought?
We've covered a lot of ground here and I wonder why you haven't addressed all of my concerns on the previous posts. I appreciate your concern for thoroughness, however that dictates that you also be worried about the logical problems with your previous arguments.
>"Moral laws/principles don't change."
I think I agree here (depending upon what exactly you mean by it).
And so, if that is the case, then was Jesus laying down (and repeating from older sources) a moral law when he said, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and "Love your enemies"?
True.
"I wonder why you haven't addressed all of my concerns on the previous posts..."
Only so much time to deal with all these comments. That's why I thought we could break it down to one thought at a time. Feel free to bring up a question or topic you specifically want addressed and I'll try.
On your answer to my question: You say yes, that Jesus' teaching to love our enemy etc is a direct moral law that we are to obey, right?
Then how do we get from that to participating in war-making?
(And let's assume that you can make a case that as far as the Bible is concerned, God doesn't prohibit nations from going to war. But that point aside, how do you get from believing that we have a moral law from Jesus hisself to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, to waging war against our enemies?)
>Then how do we get from that to participating in war-making?
(And let's assume that you can make a case that as far as the Bible is concerned, God doesn't prohibit nations from going to war. But that point aside, how do you get from believing that we have a moral law from Jesus hisself to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, to waging war against our enemies?)
Why don't we hold police officers to that standard? Why do we want to hold armies to that standard? (Well, the police are under local authority and the army is under the commander-in-chief. Let's make sure that politics and power are not tainting our viewpoints.) There's a difference between vengeance and protection. Of course, at that point we need to make sure that our motives are pure...but to make a blanket statement, no, that's not realistic given the reality of the world we live in.
Where in scripture is the principle that you are trying to enforce here? Namely, that Jesus' statement is a formula that applies to people in authority over groups of people - those groups that have been given the task to restrain evil and maintain the moral-social order? Does restraining evil ever require forceful action on our part? Yes, it certainly does. For example, by your definition: the police find out who broke into someone's house, they go to their address and arrest them (because they might do it again), handcuff them, put them in a police car and off they go to jail to await the next step. That's 'waging war against our enemies' by the principle that you're trying to enforce. Of course with war, the stakes are higher - and it should not be taken lightly. Like I said, we need to be careful that our motives are pure and we're not being vindictive.
"Where in scripture is the principle that you are trying to enforce here? Namely, that Jesus' statement is a formula that applies to people in authority over groups of people..."
The principle, it seems to me, is just as I've said, Jesus repeated and clear instructions for his followers to Love their enemies, do good to those who hate us, etc.
I have no opinion (from a religious point of view) on what those who don't follow Jesus do - whether they believe in violence or not. If you want to suggest that some people can legitimately use violence to solve problems, fine.
What I'm saying is that followers of Jesus have specific instructions that we ought to follow if we wish to be followers of Jesus.
What say ye?
Woo Hoo!!! 200 comments and just shy of 35,000 words!!! Yes, I did a word count and came up with 34 thousand something. Yes, I'm bored. Alright Dan, I'm ready for you to post a new conversation piece.
Neocon...get a life!
(Did that push us over the 35,000 words?!)
>(Did that push us over the 35,000 words?!)
Me next...do I get to post last!?
Isn't it ironic that you said I read the Bible literally and now it appears you're claiming a more rigid, literal interpretation than me! :)
You are subscribing to a worldview that is un-livable - that is unless you live in a city, state, nation that needs no law enforcement. If so, tell me where. That's certainly paradise on earth. :) Jesus said (if the word is indeed inerrant and we can trust that he did say that) that "in this world we would have trouble" - so I think it behooves us all to not obey things literally but to understand the context. For this, the context is a sinful world where fallen man resides, and that cannot be argued away.
I would ask you why Jesus thinks all his believers should not infiltrate the police, and military - and not be salt and light in those areas - but this is getting tiresome. I guess I'll boil the whole discussion down to this: if we are obeying Jesus' words just because He said so, and we don't really know why we should or the benefit of it, then that is trying to please God by our works and results in no good thing. If we look at scripture and ask Him to reveal what His plan and will is for us specifically, and for Him to show us truth, He will. And we will serve Him and we will know specifically why - because He has shown us - as His Spirit works and moves in us.
And Roger, it always comes down to this when I talk with more conservative believers than myself (if we talk long enough):
It comes down to the notion that I'm taking Jesus TOO literally! This from the "literalists" (and, for the record, I distinctly said you, nor anyone, takes the bible literally - just that some people claim to). It's not practical in this world, they say. Jesus wouldn't want us to ... whatever.
I'm a biblical literalist in that I try to take the Truths of the Bible literally. The facts can be all well and good, but it comes down to the truths. Do we believe them? Do we think they mean what it seems they mean?
And where Jesus has clearly said (I'll not repeat it), I have a hard time getting around it. He said what he said and unless you try to change meanings of words ("Well, when Jesus said we ought to love our enemies, he meant sometimes that we have to kill them to best love them..." that kind of thing), then I only know how to take those many teachings one way.
But not only that, I happen to truly BELIEVE that Jesus' way is the best way, the right way. I believe that a soft answer turns away wrath. I believe that Jesus' teaching is the best way to live our lives. I have no great desire to try to explain my way out of those teachings. It makes sense to me.
Could it be scary? Deadly, even? Sure. But we've already been promised that. And life can be deadly and scary whether or not we follow Jesus' teachings.
Do you think that Gideon thought God was nuts when God told Gideon to reduce his troop size down to 300 men against the gazillion Phillistines? Was he scared? I'd tend to think so.
But the teachings are there. Love our enemies. Do good to those who hate us. Pray for those who'd harm us. Turn the other cheek. Go the second mile. Take up your cross and follow me. Follow in his steps.
Brother Jimmy, would you lead the congregation in a dozen or so verses of Just As I Am, as we all pray for understanding and guidance? (Sorry, I said no evangelizing here, didn't I?)
Well, you've already seen what I have to say. I believe it. Because he said so, but not JUST because he said so. It makes sense to me.
You have to follow your God the best you can, and I'll do likewise. And I'll be in Scotland afore ye.
What do you believe Dan? Do you believe about Jesus, or do you believe in Jesus? Do you know Jesus' teachings, or do you know Jesus? Do you have a relationship with Him?
*Honestly*, you sound as if you're trying to live 'right' ... in your own strength! If you try to follow God's teachings (or Jesus' words if you will) - you'll end up lost. For works don't save us, our relationship with Jesus does. Your perfunctory recitation of the Gospel without being able to explain why you know what you know sincerely concerns me.
Print this out and put it somewhere prominant if you care about the future of the church:
"Ultimately, the rejection of inerrancy leads to vast differences in one's theology in general. Subjectivity replaces objectivity as the guide to life. Salvation becomes little more than a leap of faith, rather than a confident belief in God's promises. The mission of the church is reduced to restoring the economic and social order, rather than proclaiming the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God. Evangelistic efforts are replaced by social enterprises. In every case where the doctrine of inerrancy has been forsaken, evangelical zeal has faded and churches have grown cold. It is not long before such churches begin to die."
(Why do those churches die? Because many of the attendees most likely are not born-again - therefore the Spirit is not throughout.)
Just in the time I debated here, a lot of this was born out in your comments.
You said:
Roger:
"only those that have acted in faith on God's word are qualified to talk about the truthfulness of it - and Him...."
Says who?
No evangelizing on my blog, please.
Ellie is a big boy and seems to know more about more stuff than just about anyone I know. He's a free agent heathen with plenty of God and Grace to spare.
Post a Comment