In light of all the Bush/Religion bashing going on... [Archive]

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 06:48 PM

Agreed. Don't you wish your politicians would try to be raising the bar, rather than lowering it all the time? And shouldn't Politicians be playing a MAJOR role in the direction and quality of US culture?
I honestly dont really find it as that much of an issue, and Im not christian or catholic or anything. Im just an apethist (i think i made that word up). I find that the republicans and their values tend to coencide with thier christian beliefs and I dont have any issue with those beliefs and I am generally conservative, so its a fit. I find that democrats will pander to whatever will get votes, be it religion, welfare, tax cuts, abortions...Its just not genuine in my eyes. I place alot of emphasis on what makes a man, and being consistent is improtant in my eyes when choosing a leader. This is not about John Kerry flip flopping as much as it is about his entire base as a human in politics. With republicans, you usually know what you're going to get, with Democrats, its a crap shoot. I will say that I honestly did not mind bill clinton in alot of ways, because, though I disagreed with some of his views, he was just a dude who was the president. He got caught "lying" but not about something any man wouldnt. I just dont get that most of the time from Democrats and I just cant support VERY liberal people because its too far from what I feel is right.

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 06:49 PM

Same sh!t, different pile.
So then, enough with the Bush bashing on religion. Thats the point of the thread.

Silver

10-20-2004, 06:57 PM

So then, enough with the Bush bashing on religion. Thats the point of the thread.

I'll stop when we have an Attorney General who doesn't feel the need to get anointed with cooking oil when he takes office.

You make it sound like Bush's religious beliefs exist independent of everything else. If they did, I wouldn't make an issue out of it.

MikeD

10-20-2004, 07:08 PM

Slow today?
If a catholic endorses abortion, he's in the wrong as a catholic. Says the pope. If he's not a serious catholic, he's a pandering liar, if he's just going against it, thats (a).

There's a line between personally doing what you think is morally right/endorsing what you think is morally right and legally forcing others to do what you think is morally right.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about man's laws, other than what's ceasar's is ceasar's, and what's god's is god's. Although I'm not a Christian, I can't see Jesus petitioning Congress to make anything at all illegal. I can see him ignoring everything about the government and going to where people are hurting and trying to ease their pain, and lead them by example instead of condemning them for what they have done.

Frankly, I can't understand that how, if you truly believe in salvation by Christ, you can function in the modern world. If I really, really understood that life was the merest transitory part of an eternal existence, and I knew the way to make that eternity blissfull instead of painful, I wouldn't be much worried about anything at all...I'd be living off scraps and trying my hardest to help the most wretched people I could find in any way I could. I'd be accosting people in the streets wearing my rags, trying to tell them that they're on the wrong track, and they should join me...in other words, I'd be a homeless lunatic, and happy about it.

MD

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 07:08 PM

You make it sound like Bush's religious beliefs exist independent of everything else. If they did, I wouldn't make an issue out of it.
So you'd rather have a guy that's either (a) or (b)?

Silver

10-20-2004, 07:11 PM

So you'd rather have a guy that's either (a) or (b)?

That's the choice you get in the US. If you don't like, move somewhere civilized :D

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 07:13 PM

There's a line between personally doing what you think is morally right/endorsing what you think is morally right and legally forcing others to do what you think is morally right.

I don't recall Jesus saying much about man's laws, other than what's ceasar's is ceasar's, and what's god's is god's. Although I'm not a Christian, I can't see Jesus petitioning Congress to make anything at all illegal. I can see him ignoring everything about the government and going to where people are hurting and trying to ease their pain, and lead them by example instead of condemning them for what they have done.

Regardless of what Jesus said or did, If he's a Catholic, a true Catholic, what the Pope says goes. If you're a true christian and given the opportunity to stop the murder of a million babies a year, you stop it.

Changleen

10-20-2004, 07:50 PM

If you're a true christian and given the opportunity to stop the murder of a million babies a year, you stop it.So no one of note in power in ANY country right now is a 'true christian' - least of all the Pope, who's sitting on a **** pile of cash which could be used for causes other than anothr coat of gold paint for the vatican.

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 07:53 PM

So no one of note in power in ANY country right now is a 'true christian' - least of all the Pope, who's sitting on a **** pile of cash which could be used for causes other than anothr coat of gold paint for the vatican.

Hey, he's the pope. Only he knows...

I dont make the rules.

Changleen

10-20-2004, 07:56 PM

Hey, he's the pope. Only he knows...what a great scam Catholicism is.

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 08:00 PM

what a great scam Catholicism is.
I agree.
I bet youre a scientologist though.

Changleen

10-20-2004, 08:03 PM

If I 'believe' in anything, which I try not to, I believe in M-Theory.

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 08:14 PM

If I 'believe' in anything, which I try not to, I believe in M-Theory.
I just dont piss in the sink. I dont know why :confused:

Batman

10-20-2004, 10:26 PM

HAHA, A Republican attacking Kerry's choice of words? That's beyond laughable!

"To be honest, I'm really not that concerned..."

BurlyShirley

10-20-2004, 11:23 PM

HAHA, A Republican attacking Kerry's choice of words? That's beyond laughable!

odd that you laughed then... :confused:

genius.

MikeD

10-20-2004, 11:37 PM

Regardless of what Jesus said or did, If he's a Catholic, a true Catholic, what the Pope says goes.

As true as that may be, it's a pretty bizarre thing when you think about it.

Oddly enough, though, Kerry's probably representative of a large portion of the US Catholic population...disenfranchised with the establishment, in opposition to many of its dictates, but not willing to drop the identity yet.

MD

Batman

10-20-2004, 11:38 PM

It can't be helped, it's just so ridiculous.

Anyone else see Daily Show tonight? :thumb:

ALEXIS_DH

10-21-2004, 12:19 AM

well, catholicism its not as rigid you put is BS.
its quite a liberal religion compared to most other major religions.
you can have your interpretation, and not be 100% with the pope, and still you can call yourself a catholic.

ALEXIS_DH

10-21-2004, 12:24 AM

by the rigid of your standard, then no christian is a true christian, since there are like a million kinds of christians, and most with contradictory positions. thus only one or very few of them are right.

thus, chances are they are all(or at least most) full of chit.

i mean, protestants are full of it, since the bible somewhere talks about communion, and they dont do it. catholics are full of it as well, since the bible doesnt talk about the pope as such, nor defines a person with his rights.
i dont know much abuot the orthodox, in any of their presentations, but i bet they are full of it as well.

the only "religion" that is not full of chit is atheism, since the only requirement is to not believe in god. it just isnt posible to partially believe it, or to interpret it differently. but no candidate would accept it, in the US and most fundamentalist nations at least, it will make him out of race inmediately.

ALEXIS_DH

10-21-2004, 12:38 AM

uh, and dubya is less of a protestant than kerry a catholic!!!!!
(following the mine is better than yours).

christianism as dubya takes it, is a literal interpretation of the bible, and the 10 commandments. and he has signed more executions than any other. where is the dont kill? and no crap here about they are criminals and chit. no matter what they were, or if they deserved, they were killed and bush aproved in opposition of the bible where it says no killing. (and frying somebody in the chair aint no self-defense either)

MikeD

10-21-2004, 12:58 AM

David killed Goliath, didn't he? He was a pretty popular guy...

"thou shalt not kill" is perhaps better translated as "thou shalt not murder," I'd think, given the fact that lots of biblical heroes kill. Of course, then, the definition of 'murder' comes into question.

To top that, the New Testament *should*, as I understand it, supercede 100% of the old testament. Jesus was something new, right? God's redemtion of mankind...and a break from the Hebrew traditions (at least it was decided this way after the fact...)

MD

Damn True

10-21-2004, 03:26 AM

To top that, the New Testament *should*, as I understand it, supercede 100% of the old testament. Jesus was something new, right? God's redemtion of mankind...and a break from the Hebrew traditions (at least it was decided this way after the fact...)

MD

That is exactly the case:

In Prophecy:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Hbr 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

..and in the word of Jesus:

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:20)

Damn True

10-21-2004, 03:37 AM

But....

CHRIST'S USE OF THE BIBLE
Jesus Christ assumed the absolute authority of the Old Testament as God's word. Along these lines, Roger Nicole has written:

At the very threshold of his public ministry, our Lord, in his dramatic victory over Satan's threefold onslaught, rested his whole defense on the authority of three passages of Scripture. He quoted the Old Testament in support of his teaching to the crowds; he quoted it in his discussions with antagonistic Jews; he quoted it in answer to questions both captious and sincere; he quoted it in instructing the disciples who would have readily accepted his teaching on his own authority; he referred to it in his prayers, when alone in the presence of the Father; he quoted it on the cross, when his sufferings could easily have drawn his attention elsewhere; he quoted it in his resurrection glory, when any limitation, real or alleged, of the days of his flesh was clearly superseded. Whatever may be the differences between the pictures of Jesus drawn by the four Gospels, they certainly agree in their representation of our Lord's attitude toward the Old Testament: one of constant use and of unquestioning endorsement of its authority.1
Christ's approach to the Hebrew Scriptures was uniformly an acceptance of its claim to divine authority. When he quoted from it to establish anything, he considered the case closed, and that was the end of the matter. In John 10:34, he quotes Psalm 82:6, saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods?" In this passage, he refers to the Psalms as the law, indicating that he took for granted that the authority of the Psalms was on an equal footing with that of the law of Moses. Note the element of finality in this passage. Once He has cited this authority, the discussion is over. In Matthew 12:3 he asks in wonder, "Have you not read?", while in Matthew 22:29 Jesus said to the Sadducees, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

These passages are indicative of the underlying attitude that Christ had, that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). A number of times He emphatically states that the Scripture must be fulfilled. In Matthew 5:17,18, he says "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets." Here, He puts together the law and the prophets, indicating that they are equal in authority. After the resurrection, in Luke 24:25- 27, he states, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." In the same chapter, verses 44 and 46, Jesus says, "These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me." Here Jesus treats as equal in authority the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, which were the technical terms for the three parts of the Hebrew Bible.

Jesus treats the Old Testament in such a way as to assume that their inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture. In Matthew 22:45, the argument Jesus presents hinges on a single word of the text, while in Matthew 22:32, his argument hangs on the tense of a word.

Jesus felt free to juxtapose two entirely separate verses of the Scriptures in Matthew 22:36-40, which states:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said unto him, "`Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.' This is the first great commandment. And the second is like unto it, `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'"
The first of these quotations is from Deuteronomy 6:4,5, while the other is from Leviticus 19:18. These two separate verses, although from completely different sections of the Pentateuch, are treated as equally authoritative. In fact, Christ quoted all parts of the Scriptures in the same way: the law, the prophets, and the writings. Moreover, He accepted without question the historicity of everything in the Hebrew Bible. He accepted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He took for granted the trustworthiness of the accounts in the Bible of creation, of the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, of Noah's flood, of God's covenant with Abraham, of Daniel's prophecy, of all of the historical books, and of Jonah's episode of three days in a great fish. In all cases, Jesus was very matter-of-fact about accepting these things.2

In Luke 16:19-21, Jesus makes very clear the finality of the authority of the Old Testament. Here he concludes that "if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (v. 31). Here, he puts together Moses and the prophets, and makes a very definite statement about their final authority. He makes a similar statement in John 5:46,47: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Here, Jesus equates His word with that of Moses. According to Him, the teaching of the Old Testament is on a par with His own teaching.

MikeD

10-21-2004, 09:35 AM

But....

CHRIST'S USE OF THE BIBLE
Jesus Christ assumed the absolute authority of the Old Testament as God's word. Along these lines, Roger Nicole has written:

Although he cites it during his life, as a good Jew would have, doesn't his death and sacrifice seem to override the old stuff once it's happened? His blood being a 'new covenant' and all? I think it's at least a valid point...and perhaps also just a convenient one, to help dissolve all the contradictions.

An evangelical friend of mine once told me the Old Testament was 'god's law' and the New was 'god's grace,' which supplanted the old. That's where I'm basing this line of thought...I'm no biblical scholar myself. But it seems some christians think this way.

MD

MD

Silver

10-21-2004, 09:43 AM

Although he cites it during his life, as a good Jew would have, doesn't his death and sacrifice seem to override the old stuff once it's happened? His blood being a 'new covenant' and all? I think it's at least a valid point...and perhaps also just a convenient one, to help dissolve all the contradictions.

An evangelical friend of mine once told me the Old Testament was 'god's law' and the New was 'god's grace,' which supplanted the old. That's where I'm basing this line of thought...I'm no biblical scholar myself. But it seems some christians think this way.

MD

MD

Yeah, but then you get into the fact that Jesus didn't say a whole lot about stuff like homosexuals. He was really into the whole love thing, when he wasn't busy whipping moneylenders out of the temple (funny that, Jesus didn't like commerce in the house of the Lord. Whoa...)

So if you want your fire and brimstone, you have to go the the OT, or head north to Paul, both of which have some wierd ass stuff you have to try to explain...

golgiaparatus

10-21-2004, 09:56 AM

Bush is Catholic?!

Not a good one though eh? Didn't the pope tell him, in person, that he needed to back off of the Iraq war Iraq (this was before the invasion if I remember correctly).

See I would have guessed GW was Southern Babtist.

BurlyShirley

10-21-2004, 09:59 AM

Bush is Catholic?!

:confused: No.

Kerry is catholic, bush is wiccan.

golgiaparatus

10-21-2004, 10:06 AM

:confused: No.

Kerry is catholic, bush is wiccan.

Ahh I must have misread...

Bush is Wiccan? Thats funny :D

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 10:13 AM

Not really. Find me a spot where Jesus advocated control of the government. I don't remember him trying to get his disciples into political jobs...

Peter and John when they are before the Sanhedrin they say "there is no other Name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" they are "borrowing" this from Ceasar and asserting that Jesus is this Name not Ceasar. They were not trying to take a political office, but they did make some very politically subversive statements when talking about Jesus.

Silver

10-21-2004, 10:16 AM

Peter and John when they are before the Sanhedrin they say "there is no other Name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" they are "borrowing" this from Ceasar and asserting that Jesus is this Name not Ceasar. They were not trying to take a political office, but they did make some very politically subversive statements when talking about Jesus.

Did they ever run for a seat on the Sanhedrin? :D

zod

10-21-2004, 10:29 AM

...when he wasn't busy whipping moneylenders out of the temple (funny that, Jesus didn't like commerce in the house of the Lord. Whoa...)

Surely you are not attacking the idea of tithes and "love offerings" as being against the mindset of Jesus??

If you are then please remember that the commerce that was taking place in the Temple when Jesus flipped his lid was secular and some of it was very unholy.

fluff

10-21-2004, 10:30 AM

I've often wondered why God needs so much money.

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 10:32 AM

To top that, the New Testament *should*, as I understand it, supercede 100% of the old testament. Jesus was something new, right? God's redemtion of mankind...and a break from the Hebrew traditions (at least it was decided this way after the fact...)

With all dude respect Mike, this is not the case Jesus didn't come to start something new, He never makes that assertion. Jesus never broke from the Jewish tradition, He was a Torah observant Jew, if He had not been, He would have been a false Messiah.

The early church was almost entirely Jewish, they went to Temple, they went to the Synagouge on Saturdays (that was their Sabbath), they were Torah observant, but they also had faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Christianity when it first started was essentially a sect of Judaism, and it wasn't until about 300 AD when Constantine declared it the state religion of Rome that it split from it's Hebrew background. This idea of Christianity being "something new" is an entirely Greek/Western idea and is counter to the Scriptures.

zod

10-21-2004, 10:34 AM

It's pretty simple fluff, Churches cannot exist without it. Missions to spread the Gospel cannot exist without it. In a secular world where money makes things happen the Church needs money.

On a higher level it is a test of faith. Giving your ten percent to the Lord is supposed to come back to you 10-fold according to the words of Jesus.

Tenchiro

10-21-2004, 10:36 AM

I've often wondered why God needs so much money.

The pope likes a fresh golden throne from time to time.

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 10:37 AM

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said unto him, "`Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.' This is the first great commandment. And the second is like unto it, `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'"
The first of these quotations is from Deuteronomy 6:4,5, while the other is from Leviticus 19:18. These two separate verses, although from completely different sections of the Pentateuch, are treated as equally authoritative. In fact, Christ quoted all parts of the Scriptures in the same way: the law, the prophets, and the writings. Moreover, He accepted without question the historicity of everything in the Hebrew Bible. He accepted the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He took for granted the trustworthiness of the accounts in the Bible of creation, of the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, of Noah's flood, of God's covenant with Abraham, of Daniel's prophecy, of all of the historical books, and of Jonah's episode of three days in a great fish. In all cases, Jesus was very matter-of-fact about accepting these things.2

In Luke 16:19-21, Jesus makes very clear the finality of the authority of the Old Testament. Here he concludes that "if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (v. 31). Here, he puts together Moses and the prophets, and makes a very definite statement about their final authority. He makes a similar statement in John 5:46,47: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Here, Jesus equates His word with that of Moses. According to Him, the teaching of the Old Testament is on a par with His own teaching.

Exactly my point, if Jesus had done anything differnt than this, if He had denied the authority of the Torah, He would have been a false Messiah (which I beleive He was not)

zod

10-21-2004, 10:37 AM

The pope's got a golden toliet!!!!!

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 10:44 AM

Although he cites it during his life, as a good Jew would have, doesn't his death and sacrifice seem to override the old stuff once it's happened? His blood being a 'new covenant' and all? I think it's at least a valid point...and perhaps also just a convenient one, to help dissolve all the contradictions.

The "new covenant" referred to in the NT book of Hebrews is better (or more accuratly) translated as a "renewed covenant" which is different than a new one.

An evangelical friend of mine once told me the Old Testament was 'god's law' and the New was 'god's grace,' which supplanted the old. That's where I'm basing this line of thought...I'm no biblical scholar myself. But it seems some christians think this way.

Yes this is the was some Christians think, mostly american evangelicals (myself being one), however this is not an entirely Biblical line of thought. People were "saved" in the OT by grace just as people are today through Jesus, nothing changed, God did not change the "how" to get into right standing with Him, it's always been grace. Everything Jesus says is commentary on the Old Testament, not the other way around as some would believe. This kind of thinking is IMO a direct result of Christianity divorcing itself of it's Hebrew roots.

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 10:52 AM

I just want to say before I get into this, finally there is a thread I can "sink my teeth into............." :cool:

Yeah, but then you get into the fact that Jesus didn't say a whole lot about stuff like homosexuals. He was really into the whole love thing, when he wasn't busy whipping moneylenders out of the temple (funny that, Jesus didn't like commerce in the house of the Lord. Whoa...)...

Jesus does address sexual immorality, which if anything "widens" the understanding of what sexual immorality is, that it is not just the physical action but also the heart and the mind..............see Jesus was into all this holisitc stuff way before it was cool..............He is an eastern teacher ya know.

So if you want your fire and brimstone, you have to go the the OT, or head north to Paul, both of which have some wierd ass stuff you have to try to explain...

Jesus speaks plenty about judgement and Hell, He mentions Hell more than Paul does. Paul's stuff about "election" and stuff like that needs to be read in the light of Israel and not "The Church" as many do today. Once you look at Paul's stuff from the Hebrew perspective and understanding, and in light of the context of what was happening in the churches he was addressing, it becomes less "wacky" and more a commentary on the different social conditions of where he was.

Silver

10-21-2004, 11:26 AM

Jesus does address sexual immorality, which if anything "widens" the understanding of what sexual immorality is, that it is not just the physical action but also the heart and the mind..............see Jesus was into all this holisitc stuff way before it was cool..............He is an eastern teacher ya know.

Ah yes, but we don't make the lingerie section of a Sears catalog illegal, do we? Or prevent people who have pleasured themselves when they were younger (or still do to this day, I've moved on, but I'm sure you can find someone with a department store catalog fetish) from getting married.

I've said before that I wouldn't have any problem with religion if it was like AA, and I think this is one of those cases. Your religion has a problem with being gay? Don't be gay, or don't be religious, then. But don't try to make it illegal for others who don't share your beliefs.

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 12:00 PM

Ah yes, but we don't make the lingerie section of a Sears catalog illegal, do we? Or prevent people who have pleasured themselves when they were younger (or still do to this day, I've moved on, but I'm sure you can find someone with a department store catalog fetish) from getting married.

The point is not to "insulate" yourselves (if you're a Christian) from those things (lingerie section of the Sears catalog) the point is to use the sex drive God gave you the way He created it to be used (which is not limited to procreation).

I've said before that I wouldn't have any problem with religion if it was like AA, and I think this is one of those cases. Your religion has a problem with being gay? Don't be gay, or don't be religious, then. But don't try to make it illegal for others who don't share your beliefs.

Granted there are from the Christian perspective Truths (note the capital T), but to "require" those who are not Christian to abide by them is funny to me. How does someone who has never heard of the Bible of God or anything like that suppose to know that XYZ is wrong? For me, several of the people I work with (for an example) use some pretty harsh language, but I'm not so "sensitive" that I require them to abide by my "standards", in effect they don't know any better, which is fine with me. Now if someone were to claim to be a follower of Jesus and use that language I would have a problem and confront them.

Homosexuals for example, I really don't have a problem with, I disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't take a judgemental tone with them. Now this Gay bishop, this I have a problem with, here is someone who claims to "speak" for God and yet lives in a way directly contrary to how God created us to live..............that I don't get.

Silver

10-21-2004, 12:24 PM

Homosexuals for example, I really don't have a problem with, I disagree with their lifestyle, but I don't take a judgemental tone with them. Now this Gay bishop, this I have a problem with, here is someone who claims to "speak" for God and yet lives in a way directly contrary to how God created us to live..............that I don't get.

C'mon. He's part of a church that was founded on divorce. Kinda throws that whole sexual purity thing out the window... :D

Andyman_1970

10-21-2004, 12:31 PM

C'mon. He's part of a church that was founded on divorce. Kinda throws that whole sexual purity thing out the window... :D

True, church history aside, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus wouldn't it stand to reason that you would believe His teachings? As Christians we are disciples (Hebrew Talmidim), which means that our whole lives should be focused on knowing what our rabbi knows (Jesus), doing what our rabbi does, so that we can become like our rabbi, that is what a disciple is.

So if we are to know and live out what our rabbi knew and did (which was entirely based on the Old Testament, as there was not New Testament when Jesus was around), why would someone who claims to be His disciple knowingly live a life (not just sporadically, but the contiual pattern) contrary to the Messiah he claims he's a follower of? Like I said, I just don't get it...........

MikeD

10-21-2004, 12:35 PM

You've seen Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part I" I assume...

On one of the tablets Moses breaks, which had some extra commandments on it, was inscribed: "Thou shalt have thy cake, and also eat it."

Ciaran

10-21-2004, 06:39 PM

Dang, there are some really good points being made here. Some of which are prompting me to learn my Bible better. I am also no biblical scholar, but I am a christian and recovering catholic. I don't know everything and I screw up a lot, but I try to remember a few things as said christian...

Love God.

Love your fellow man... meaning BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, dang it!

And that when Jesus accused the religious leaders of being corrupt and all, that the modern equivalent would possibly be the catholic church. Jesus, I trust... Churches I do not. Why? Because churches are made by man, and man is corrupt. We are not all going to make the right decision all the time. And by our very nature we are sinners. Which means that we do bad things. But it's all good because Jesus FORGIVES us.

For what it's worth, I don't worry about the world all that much. I like to whine and bitch but I try not to take the world too seriously. God has it covered. Yes I fight for truth and try to do what is right (to me), and encourage others to do so as well but I am not going to beat myself up when I screw up and sin again.

Not sure if I have a point here, I just felt that I had to express these thoughts.

This thread brought to you by Burly "No middle ground" Surly.

Lexx D

10-21-2004, 06:49 PM

This thread brought to you by Burly "No middle ground" Surly.
:thumb: Perfect

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 08:56 AM

I am also no biblical scholar,

Don't worry about that, on the :monkey: you don't need to be a Biblical scholar to rant about things religious on here.................most who do make wild comments about the Bible aren't scholars either........... ;)

but I am a christian and recovering catholic.

I like that, a recovering Catholic............

And that when Jesus accused the religious leaders of being corrupt and all, that the modern equivalent would possibly be the catholic church.

I would not just limit corruption to Catholic churches, spend any amount of time watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network and you immediatly get this sick feeling in your stomach, like this is not right. How can these people spend SO much money a gaudy TV set and productions when SO many people not only here in the US, but for example in the Sudan are starving to death. Most of the time I think the point is missed in churches, the point is NOT Christianity, THE POINT is being a Christian, a follower of Jesus.

Anyway, I'm trying my hardest not to let this thread die off, it's been one of the better religious ones we have had in a while, so come on people, help my Friday here at work just fly by with your comments.................

fluff

10-22-2004, 09:06 AM

Anyway, I'm trying my hardest not to let this thread die off, it's been one of the better religious ones we have had in a while, so come on people, help my Friday here at work just fly by with your comments.................

OK, when's it OK for a Christian to kill, and when should they turn the other cheek?

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 09:27 AM

OK, when's it OK for a Christian to kill, and when should they turn the other cheek?

Here's a start:

Exo 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill. Not meaning any sort of creatures, for there are some to be killed for the food and nourishment of men, and others for their safety and preservation; but rational creatures, men, women, and children, any of the human species, of every age, sex, condition, or nation; no man has a right to take away his own life, or the life of another; by this law is forbidden suicide, or self-murder, parricide or murder of parents, homicide or the murder of man; yet killing of men in lawful war, or in defence of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, or the execution of malefactors by the hands or order of the civil magistrate, and killing a man at unawares, without any design, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law; but taking away the life of another through private malice and revenge, and even stabbing of a man's character, and so all things tending to or designed for the taking away of life, and all plots, conspiracies, and contrivances for that purpose, even all sinful anger, undue wrath and envy, rancour of all mind, all malice in thought, word, or deed, are contrary to this precept, see Mat_5:21 and which, on the other hand, requires that men should do all they can for the ease, peace, and preservation of the lives of men: this is the sixth command, but, in the Septuagint, the strict order in which this and the two following precepts lie is not observed, rehearsing them thus, "thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill"; and so in Mar_10:19 the order is inverted.

BurlyShirley

10-22-2004, 09:33 AM

Andyman,

Is it wrong to bang dead chicks according to the bible?

fluff

10-22-2004, 09:41 AM

Here's a start:

Exo 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill. Not meaning any sort of creatures, for there are some to be killed for the food and nourishment of men, and others for their safety and preservation; but rational creatures, men, women, and children, any of the human species, of every age, sex, condition, or nation; no man has a right to take away his own life, or the life of another; by this law is forbidden suicide, or self-murder, parricide or murder of parents, homicide or the murder of man; yet killing of men in lawful war, or in defence of a man's self, when his own life is in danger, or the execution of malefactors by the hands or order of the civil magistrate, and killing a man at unawares, without any design, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law; but taking away the life of another through private malice and revenge, and even stabbing of a man's character, and so all things tending to or designed for the taking away of life, and all plots, conspiracies, and contrivances for that purpose, even all sinful anger, undue wrath and envy, rancour of all mind, all malice in thought, word, or deed, are contrary to this precept, see Mat_5:21 and which, on the other hand, requires that men should do all they can for the ease, peace, and preservation of the lives of men: this is the sixth command, but, in the Septuagint, the strict order in which this and the two following precepts lie is not observed, rehearsing them thus, "thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill"; and so in Mar_10:19 the order is inverted.

Loopholes ahoy!

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 10:13 AM

I'll take weird questions for 200 Alex...................

Andyman,

Is it wrong to bang dead chicks according to the bible?

Per the Old Testament if you want to remain ritually "clean" that would not be a good idea. But if this chick is your wife, that might be within the bounds of marraige.................... :D

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 10:14 AM

Loopholes ahoy!

Those crazy Jews and their loopholes............... :thumb:

ohio

10-22-2004, 12:28 PM

Giving your ten percent to the Lord is supposed to come back to you 10-fold according to the words of Jesus.

That's a hell of a pyramid scheme Jesus has going...

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 12:58 PM

It's pretty simple fluff, Churches cannot exist without it. Missions to spread the Gospel cannot exist without it. In a secular world where money makes things happen the Church needs money.

A sad but true analysis..........what ever happened to faith?

On a higher level it is a test of faith. Giving your ten percent to the Lord is supposed to come back to you 10-fold according to the words of Jesus.

Uh I'll need chapter and verse on that...............

zod

10-22-2004, 02:17 PM

A sad but true analysis..........what ever happened to faith?

I don't think it is a sad analysis. God knows that the world revolves around money and knows that in order for the gospel to be spread it will require money. As for faith, giving your income and/or TALENTS is part of his testing your personal faith. You know the "no man can have two masters" bit. I think tithes are a part of Him seeing who you want as your master, money or Him.

Uh I'll need chapter and verse on that...............

OK, you got me there, the tenfold thing is very philosophical and based on the circle of titheing which cannot be tied to verse specifically. It is based in denominational teaching more than straight verse. I personally use the term tenfold very figuratively as I don't feel there is no way to truly measure what you get back. For instance, I am also not saying that if you give $10 to God he's gonna give you a C-note back. Persoanlly I don't believe it works like that. I am saying He will reward you in some way/ways WELL BEYOND what you gave to him. The $100 out of $10 is a message preached by many preachers here in the South(the church my wife grew up in for one) and I do not agree with what they are saying to their congregation.

As for receiving more back than what you gave (I know, it doesn't say tenfold)
Malachi 3:10
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

I personally do not believe the give 10% rule that my Church and most Churches throw around. The Bible itself specifically states to give an amount you feel you need to give. But it needs to be what you feel is layed upon your heart by God. For some it is 10% as is the case for my wife whom grew up in a freewill baptist family. For her the 10% financial tithe is very serious, it is what she feels God wants from her and she gives it happily. For another it might be 3% or maybe 25%. But it needs to be given without sourness or reluctancy.

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 03:06 PM

First, Zod this is done with all due respect and in no way am I tryin to do a "smackdown" or anything like that.

I don't think it is a sad analysis. God knows that the world revolves around money and knows that in order for the gospel to be spread it will require money. As for faith, giving your income and/or TALENTS is part of his testing your personal faith. You know the "no man can have two masters" bit. I think tithes are a part of Him seeing who you want as your master, money or Him.

I find it sad that so many ministries spend so much time asking for money and being so focused on money rather than having faith that God will provide and step out like those Levite preists did when crossing the Jordan.

I think way too many churches and ministries get wrapped up in money and as such some very un-Biblical teachings have resulted (which I address below).

As for receiving more back than what you gave (I know, it doesn't say tenfold)
Malachi 3:10
"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

This is probably one of the most misused verses that preachers use every Sunday. First, the tithe in no way kept the Temple or local synagouge running, Temple tax and synagouge dues took care of that. Second, the tithe was used for only two purposes, take care of the Levites as they could own no land, and take care of the poor, alien, fatherless, widow in the community. Another note about the tithe that you'll never hear, read Deut. 14, it talks about taking the tithe once a year and taking your family to Jerusalem for a feast. How many pastors from the pulpit say, take one month's tithe and take your family out for a huge meal.......I've heard none, and yet they claim to teach about a Biblical tithe. Also, other than Deuteronomy 14 where it says you can trade your produce/grain/animal in for cash because you live too far away from Jerusalem for the feast I mentioned, no where is the tithe cash money, no where.

The deal with this verse in Malachi 3 is that when it was written Israel was going through a famine, so when you put this passage in it's context both Biblically and historically, the point was not give money to God and see what He'll do. The point was, the "robbing God thing" was not taking care of the poor (which MANY times God identifies with in the Bible), and the admonishon was He'll open up Heaven and bless you if you care for who God cares about.

I bought into this whole tithe deal hook line and sinker when I first became a Christian. But the more I studied not only the Text, but also the context in which things were written (historically and culturally), it's pretty evident the tithe is irrelevant for Christians today. It tends to get my dander up when I hear a pastor assert that as a Christian under grace should give more than a Jew under the Law (which I would argue was grace also) and try to guilt people into tithing by teaching them its "Biblical".

But it needs to be given without sourness or reluctancy.

I'm totally down with that................

zod

10-22-2004, 03:26 PM

First, Zod this is done with all due respect and in no way am I tryin to do a "smackdown" or anything like that.

It's never a smackdown as long as it is conducted in a nice manner, which you have done.

I find it sad that so many ministries spend so much time asking for money and being so focused on money rather than having faith that God will provide and step out like those Levite preists did when crossing the Jordan.

I think way too many churches and ministries get wrapped up in money and as such some very un-Biblical teachings have resulted (which I address below).

I agree that many churches get tied up in this as you are stating, but I still feel the church needs money to prosper and cannot exist without it, that the gospel cannot be spread as effeciently without it. Some churches therefor spend an excessive amount of time on the subject and even misrepresent. It is still our(believers) responsibility to do what we feel needs to be done to support our church(es) and missionaries. Some of that will be in money form and some will be in talents. The person who comes to church on Sunday and then gives nothing back in out of sync IMHO. Now that being said MANY pastors need to have more faith in their congregation than to waste valuable pulpit time overly talking about money.

I bought into this whole tithe deal hook line and sinker when I first became a Christian. But the more I studied not only the Text, but also the context in which things were written (historically and culturally), it's pretty evident the tithe is irrelevant for Christians today. It tends to get my dander up when I hear a pastor assert that as a Christian under grace should give more than a Jew under the Law (which I would argue was grace also) and try to guilt people into tithing by teaching them its "Biblical".

As for Malichi I knew you would bring up that argument and I was well aware of it and was actually made aware of what you have said by my very own preacher. However just b/c that was directed toward a distinct group we can still take a message from it and use it. While I don't agree with you that tithes are irrelevant I do agree that they are often recieved through an improper message. See how long a church would exist if nobody gave money on Sunday.

zod

10-22-2004, 03:43 PM

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 03:49 PM

Oh, one more thing Andy.....so you understand. I am not using the word tithe in the traditional sense as tithe literally means tenth and typically has to do soley with money in modern times.. Maybe giving would be a better word to use.

I agree it is a better word. So many times I have heard pastors say that the tithe (in it's full Biblical sense, not just a tenth) is relevant to Christians today and do the guilt trip deal.............. :angry:

I'm totally down with giving, I give out the wazoo, and not just money, but I make sure it goes to those in need that God cares about not some big haired preacher. I go by what John the Baptist said "if someone does not have a coat and you have two, give him one", my wife and I have gone though all our stuff and tried to do that..............I think that's called distributive justice.

Andyman_1970

10-22-2004, 04:04 PM

The person who comes to church on Sunday and then gives nothing back in out of sync IMHO.

I agree.

As for Malichi I knew you would bring up that argument and I was well aware of it and was actually made aware of what you have said by my very own preacher.

Am I that predicable? LOL

However just b/c that was directed toward a distinct group we can still take a message from it and use it. While I don't agree with you that tithes are irrelevant I do agree that they are often recieved through an improper message. See how long a church would exist if nobody gave money on Sunday.

With all due respect, with this understanding why do we as Christian not observe say the Jewish dietary Law? Why don't we kill unbelievers like Joshua did? Jesus said He came not to abolish Torah, and the early church were Torah observant Jews, even the "anti-Law" Paul (which I would argue he wasn't anti-Law)

For me, when we don't look at the Text as being directed towards a distinct group of people and try to make blanket assertions that A or B is ok, but B and C out of the Bible are not, we get in that "pick and chose" mentality. My pastor for instance uses the passage out of Timothy to argue women should not be deacons/elders, ok fine. If that's how you want to look a the Text literally, then why are women allowed to speak in church, or not have their heads covered? The arguement becomes well because this or that was going on at the church in Corinth so that's not applicable to us today. Ok, well Paul told Timothy that stuff about women because of the worship of Artimus and the Gnostic Eve cults in Ephesus that had the women (decendants of the Amazons) running the show, men were not equal. That's why Paul wrote that stuff to Timothy, not as some cold doctrinal "truth" to apply across the board.

Anyway that's where I'm coming from, I try not to divorce the Text from it's historical and cultural contexts. Most Christians look at the Old Testament through the "lens" of the New Testamant, I do the opposite, I look at the New Testament through the "lens" of the Old Testament.

This is cool having a discussion like this on the :monkey: I enjoy it. :thumb: