Hello world!
5 years ago
Friday, December 18, 2009
A Silent Spin on a BIG SONG! HALLELUJIAH!
This is reported to be "Silent Monks" but it appears it's clever high school students portraying (singing) Silent Monks as they 'sing' the Hallelujiah Chorus! I thought we could all use a smile and it's wonderful music with which to get into the Christmas mood. ENJOY!
Maybe even me. I hope so.
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
234 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 234 of 234I'm not impressed that our legal system no longer respects Blackstone. It's just another of the ways that we've deteriorated from the original intent of the founding of this nation. Clearly, in the beginning of the nation, his religious principles were welcomed -- by the very men who wrote the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
You may not be impressed with legal system our founding fathers have given us, but the men who ratified the Constitution did not think there should be religious tests for public office holders. That would make the exclusion of papists, as suggested by Blackstone, problematic. It seems you have now accepted the authority of the Britannica in reference to its modern assessment of Blackstone. He was never a binding reason for any decision in a U.S. court. Because of his eloquence, he was more an ornament to any ratio decidendi.
The fact is Islam is comprised of practicing Muslims, and all this arose in the context of your telling us two weeks ago your notion of what a “good” Muslim is, namely, someone who seeks violent vengeance rather than adopting the Western Christian idea (of turning the other cheek?).
No, you are again twisting things and doing it by focusing on the individual rather than the religion.
There are religious practitioners; the religion itself is only an abstraction, understood differently among those who practice it., and even among those who denigrate it.
It should be obvious what I meant, and to anyone with less of an axe to grind I'm sure it would be. A "good" member of a religion is one who OBEYS ITS DICTATES. A "good" member of Islam is one who OBEYS THE KORAN AND THE OTHER AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS.
I fully understood that at the time of writing. Your understanding of the Koran and its teachings may differ from that of many who practice them.
The Koran does not teach anything remotely like turning the other cheek.
I was not saying it did. If you weren’t grinding an ax, you might know that.
The Koran DOES teach violence against enemies.
So does the Bible. They way moderate Muslims understand these passages is markedly different from that of rightwingers who use them to demonize the Muslim faith.
There are "liberal" or nominal Muslims who don't follow the Koran and do merely want to live peaceably among their neighbors and they are the ones I said were "good" by our standards, for which I did not have a specifically Christian context in mind.
I knew that that is what you were saying.
Why are you having so much trouble following these obvious points? I'm asking seriously. I shouldn't have to be explaining all this. There is nothing difficult about any of it, only with your strange ways of misconstruing it all.
I am not having trouble following your points. Why do you have trouble understanding that I understood that?
Useful discussion that furthers understanding of the issues is facilitated by not allowing to go unchallenged blatant distortion and misrepresentation of one’s position, as you have done here, Faith, with mine. I do not say, nor have I ever said, that your religion is unconstitutional. The statement I endorse is that freedom of religion is the right of everyone---of Christians no more than anyone else. That statement is in full accordance with the Constitution. That Christians have a privileged place is not in accordance.
How naive of you. There happen to be some serious conflicts between belief systems that you are ignoring. Christians MUST declare that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes and MUST work to ensure that society does not legitimize it as an "alternative lifestyle." This is NOT denying homosexuals Constitutional rights. But because we hold this position you regard US to be acting unConstitutionally, and that is what I meant and again I can't understand why it isn't obvious to you. This is the leftist PC line. OUR beliefs must be restricted as unconstitutional.
Your understanding of U.S. law is naïve. Only a law enacted by Congress can be said to be unconstitutional. No individual can properly be said to act in an unconstitutional manner by opposing legislation that protects the rights of homosexuals. It is your inalienable right to oppose any proposed legislation. Nonetheless, many, if not most, Christians support homosexual rights. You can denigrate this support, as you please, with the usual rhetoric, e.g., it’s legitimizing a sinful alternative lifestyle, but courts have ruled in favor of homosexual rights. Why is it so hard for you understand that both the courts and you are acting legally and that your religion or sect is not unconstitutional by reason of its dissent from the law? The good news is: Christianity is not unconstitutional, nor can any act of Congress make it so.
And actually, it's not that "Christians" are to have a privileged place so much as that BIBLICAL DOCTRINE has or should have a privileged place in our laws and in our courts, in our public life and in our government as well, as it used to have.
Christian extremists demand that the law of their god, including the Ten Commandments, made the law for all Americans, hence claiming a privileged status for their religion. Only a naïve understanding of the Constitution can support the notion that such an establishment of religion is constitutionally acceptable, or ever was.
However, I'm glad if you believe that our allegiance to God is not to be regarded as unconstitutional, but as a matter of fact what you always end up denouncing is our beliefs and not supporting them.
To straighten out your twisted logic: Your allegiance to your god is not illegal because no law that is constitutional can make it so, Blackstone notwithstanding. I have not denounced any Christian beliefs as such---just beliefs with fiercely politicized ramifications.
Please note here that I have not at any point argued on the basis of my CHRISTIAN beliefs that freedom of religion for Catholics and Muslims should possibly be restricted, but only on the basis of the potential for POLITICAL THREAT AGAINST THE NATION in their beliefs, which is how I understood Blackstone's point. And also, please keep in mind that I'm arguing this point hypothetically, based on what Blackstone said, and still haven't arrived at a settled opinion of my own. I realize it's a lot to ask of you to keep these refinements in mind, but you do pretend to high enough intelligence for the task, so I hold you to it
Concluded
I make no high pretensions for myself, but I understand the delicate distinction you are attempting to enunciate. However, Blackstone was not that subtle. To quote him, “If once they [papists] could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.” That is a justfication of second-class citizenship.
You imply that you accord to Christians complete freedom for OUR beliefs, but if you personally have no objections to our preaching against homosexuality or abortion or whatnot in the pulpit or anywhere else, since this is a tenet of our biblical belief, you should at least recognize that others on the left disagree with you about that and the hate crime laws are very definitely tending toward muzzling us, on pain of prison terms.
I have no objection to what your evangelical sect preaches. Freedom of speech is a tenet of my liberalism. However, that does not include verbal abuse or insults based on a person’s perceived membership in a certain social group. The truth is hate crime laws in the United States are designed to protect against criminal acts motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. As such they have a useful purpose. I like to think that all decent folk would be in support of such legislation. But that’s just me. It’s okay to say that homosexuals deserve the death penalty; it’s not okay to carry it out on your own, or incite others to do so.
Concerning the rule for bloggers, it only makes sense that a blog host would want the headline topic to be attended to before any tangents are pursued. And I would completely understand as well if Z wanted to have a rule that such lengthy discussions as you and I get into be prohibited. That's her right as the owner of the blog. She merely needs to state it as a rule. I think her blog does quite well without us, frankly. We are merely indulging ourselves. If she happens to enjoy it, great.
I didn’t think the rule I generously offered would be a cause for much dispute. Z, I think, knows that discussion is best when not under strict control, and that her blog is the richer and more interesting for it. She has acknowledged as much. As I said previously, I thought the performance of the Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus was charming, even with the politicization of it by posters---thanks, Z.
Faith: OK psi bond you just seem to me to be going out of your way to confuse the issues I've been doing my best to clarify. I'm done. Happy 2010 and I'll see you later.
As I made clear before, hape a happy, healthy new year!
Yeah, it’s a darn shame you couldn’t enlighten me. I’m incorrigible and unreceptive to the truth, huh?
Or else you can’t read me right.
For a rightwinger, confusion occurs when a liberal won’t agree that he’s right.
Obviously my efforts to clarify made no difference. We're just repeating ourselves now.
I'm done. Happy 2010 and I'll see you around.
You seem to have answered my previous ending post and I didn't see your answer until now. I came back to try to give it a more neutral tone. Too late. Oh well. See you around.
The Bible absolutely DOES NOT teach violence against enemies! Even the Old Testament doesn't, it merely records wars of the past. The New Testament teaches in fact the exact opposite, to love them and bless them.
THE KORAN ON THE OTHER HAND SPEAKS STRAIGHT TO THE READER AND COMMANDS HIM TO KILL HIS ENEMIES.
Obviously my efforts to clarify made no difference. We're just repeating ourselves now.
Your reiterated insinuation is that, upon reading your simple clarifications, any person of ordinary intelligence would agree with your views---yet I am the one who is said to be insulting.
The fact is you are mostly repeating yourself, distorting my words to contrive phony arguments against me, and I am responding with expanded restatement and fresh material.
The Bible absolutely DOES NOT teach violence against enemies! Even the Old Testament -doesn't, it merely records wars of the past. The New Testament teaches in fact the exact opposite, to love them and bless them.
Love them and bless them? Instead, you stress your conviction that vilifies Muslims, contending that no good person can possibly be a faithful Muslim, according to your understanding of Islam.
Rather than being a mere record of ancient wars, the Bible tells history largely as an edifying tale in which those who worship God can count on him to come to their aid for killing, and even slaughtering, their enemies.
The Old Testament is filled with commands from God to Moses, Joshua, David, and many others, to kill their enemies. For instance, Deuteronomy 20:1 says, "When you go out to fight your enemies and you face horses and chariots and an army greater than your own, do not be afraid. The LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, is with you! (NLT)"
Sometimes God even commanded the unmerciful annihilation of evil nations. Deuteronomy 2:33-34 says, " But the LORD our God handed him over to us, and we crushed him, his sons, and all his people. We conquered all his towns and completely destroyed everyone--men, women, and children. Not a single person was spared (NLT)"
The Bible even commands the killing of rape victims. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 says, “Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you (NLT).”
It does not matter that the rape victim may have been too frightened for her life to scream, or may have been prevented from doing so---the community, the collective, must be cleansed of the evil within it.
THE KORAN ON THE OTHER HAND SPEAKS STRAIGHT TO THE READER AND COMMANDS HIM TO KILL HIS ENEMIES.
But, on the other hand, not to kill enemies that are peaceable.
You seem to have answered my previous ending post and I didn't see your answer until now. I came back to try to give it a more neutral tone. Too late. Oh well. See you around.
You evidence a recidivist pattern of promoting extreme unconstitutional legislation (first, discrimination against adulterers and homosexuals, and then against Catholics) for the glory of your god, and then backing away from them.
I believe no law-abiding, hard-working citizen belonging to a biblically-reviled group should be penalized on account of zealots, their strict reading of the Bible, and their fierce extortionist prophecy of God’s collective condemnation upon us all.
Ah, well.
Hasta la vista, Faithful.
Faith: God commanded ancient Israel to kill certain enemies, and the reason was that they deserved punishment. They weren't allowed to possess the Promised Land until the Canaanites' sin had reached the level where they deserved punishment. Much of the Old Testament history is for the purpose of teaching the reader that sin will be punished, it gives a picture of sin and punishment, foreshadowing the final judgment. You, of course, prefer to complain about God's judgments, so I guess there's no way to teach you anything, you'll have to learn it the hard way sorry to say.
Distortion Alert: God's judgments don't trouble me; what does violence, as it were, to my sense of fairness as a liberal is collective judgment. Civilized nations do not support collective judgment. That is, we have no laws to penalize an entire family or race for the criminal acts of one among their number.
Much of the Bible is clearly intended to indoctrinate the lesson that, when God is on your side, you are invincible to your enemies. The Koran propagates a similar message.
Nothing in the Bible commands US to kill anyone, and in fact the opposite. And love includes exposing dangerous plots and warning people that certain behaviors will have dire consequences. Of course, again, I understand that you prefer your own opinions about what love means, and again will have to learn what it really means the hard way.
Bible bullying and intimidation like this that you are wont to indulge in, Faith, are out of step with the Christian spirit---gosh, you may have to learn that the hard way, soooo sorry to say.
The Bible is an abstraction, the text of which has been edited, deciphered, interpreted, represented, extrapolated, and modernized in myriad ways. Historically, many religious individuals have read the Bible as a warrant for killing the perceived enemies of God---from the heretic Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who held that the sun is just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies, to the octogenarian Giles Corey as a warlock in the 17th century and abortion providers in the 21st century.
God has commanded his followers to kill those who work on the Sabbath, a violation of the Fourth Commandment. Exodus 31:15: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death (NIV).
One who claims, “Nothing in the Bible commands US to kill anyone,” cannot have literally read the Bible. The millions of innocent Americans, Christians and non-Christians, working on Sunday at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, movie theaters, and many other places of business must be put to death to satisfy the perfect law of God (Psalms 19:7: “The law of the Lord is perfect.”). Should we teach our children thus?
One of the things that Love means, according to my humble understanding, is comfort for the rape victim (not taking her to the town gate and stoning her to death, as commanded in Deuteronomy 22). This conflicting humanist principle, you may have to learn the hard way, Faith, is only common sense to most of America.
Why can't you read? The OT commanded the ISRAELITES to put people to death for certain violations of the law. It does not address the reader, but is a spelling out of the Law of Moses to the people of God of the Old Testament. And the New Testament completely changed all that for those who are in Christ. Sheesh.
You're on a kick of misrepresenting everything but this is the only point I want to answer.
Why can't you read? The OT commanded the ISRAELITES to put people to death for certain violations of the law. It does not address the reader, but is a spelling out of the Law of Moses to the people of God of the Old Testament. And the New Testament completely changed all that for those who are in Christ. Sheesh.
The OT could not have commanded the ISRAELITES to put people to death because it wasn’t written then. The OT books were written and collected together after the battles told therein were over. You are obviously confused, Faith. Sheesh!
Jesus said he’d come not to overturn the OT but to fulfill it. He evidently thought he was completing the OT when he said it was not only the act of adultery that was a sin, but the thought of it, also.
You're on a kick of misrepresenting everything but this is the only point I want to answer.
You’re into making your customary heavy-handed, holier-thaan-thou accusations---I did not misrepresent or misquote anything in my citations of the OT. It may be a hard thing for you to understand, as well as for many other Americans, but it is true that the Bible literally says, “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.” Denying the Bible says that is indeed to misrepresent it.
No, the Pentateuch was written in Moses' time. You are listening to the liberal revisionists. It was certainly preached to the people in Moses' time. It was God's Law specifically given to them and they got the message in Moses' time and they acknowledged it and agreed to abide by it.
Yes, Jesus was elucidating God's Law with His Sermon on the Mount. He was showing the inner meaning of the Law. What's your point? I thought we were talking about punishments. The inner meaning of the Law shows us how very hard it is to obey, in fact it conclusively shows every one of us that we HAVEN'T obeyed it, and are therefore under God's wrath. But Jesus prescribed no earthly punishments. The OT punishments were for Israel, to maintain them as a pure nation until the Messiah was to come, AND to teach us how GOD regards the sins in question and what sort of punishment HE considers them to deserve. But then Jesus died to pay for our sins so that we wouldn't have to endure God's wrath.
You have been misrepresenting the Bible -- which of course is natural since you aren't a believer in it and reject the Christian understanding of it, but it IS a misrepresentation -- and you have been misrepresenting me.
And again, the Sabbath was given specifically to the Jews. The New Testament makes it clear that in Christ we are set free from all the observances of the OT. The Sabbath now has a spiritual meaning for believers.
Wikipedia says: “Jewish, Messianic, and Hebrew religious tradition ascribes authorship of the Torah to Moses through a process of divine inspiration. This view of Mosaic authorship is first found explicitly expressed in the Talmud, dating from the 1st to the 6th centuries CE, and is based on textual analysis of passages in the Torah and the subsequent books of the Hebrew Bible. The Zohar, the most significant text in Jewish mysticism, states that the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and that it was used as the blueprint for Creation. According to dating of the text by Orthodox rabbis the revelation of the Torah to Moses occurred in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai. Contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE). Scholarly discussion for much of the 20th century was principally couched in terms of the documentary hypothesis, according to which the Torah is a synthesis of documents from a small number of originally independent sources.”
No matter how you re-interpret and manipulate scripture, Faith, to fit your argument, it is only common sense that the battle predated the biblical account of it written for instructional purposes.
If the “OT punishments were for Israel”, why do rightwing Christian zealots want homosexual and adulterers to be punished here on earth?
Jesus says clearly in the New Testament that he came not to change the law given to Moses, but to fulfill it. Therefore, your argument that the laws of the Old Testament are not applicable to Christians is only wishful thinking:
Matthew 5:17-19:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Clearly, for Jesus, God’s law is not law for Jews only.
The issue from which you have diverted attention is that the Bible did, in fact, call on people to kill. Some in our society have taken that call seriously and become criminals.
You have been misrepresenting the Bible -- which of course is natural since you aren't a believer in it and reject the Christian understanding of it, but it IS a misrepresentation –
If I misrepresent the Bible, then it ought not to be read literally.
You misrepresent the Koran, which is natural since you’re not a Muslim.
and you have been misrepresenting me.
Your holier-than-thou behavior misrepresents Christianity.
And again, the Sabbath was given specifically to the Jews. The New Testament makes it clear that in Christ we are set free from all the observances of the OT. The Sabbath now has a spiritual meaning for believers.
The observance of the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments. If, as you claim, it is meant to be God's law only for Jews, why do many Christians want the Ten Commandments put up in public spaces, and get belligerent about it?
Why then do they say that blue laws for the restriction of business on the Sabbath are right and proper in the U.S., where there are few Jews?
You trust the "scholars" -- I don't. One of those "scholars" even admitted that the reason he dated the Book of Daniel so late, although it was written clearly describing the time of the Babylonian captivity, is that he simply did not believe in prophecy so he figured it MUST have been written after the events actually occurred that Daniel had prophesied. With that kind of thinking influencing "scholarship" you might as well ignore it all. The way the book is written it is very clear it was written before the events prophesied.
If the “OT punishments were for Israel”, why do rightwing Christian zealots want homosexual and adulterers to be punished here on earth?
Your typical lie, psi bond, typical misrepresentation. Nobody has suggested "punishment" at all.
You are confusing Jesus' Sermon on the Mount with the Law at Sinai. Jesus' fulfillment of the Law means that we are no longer damned by that law. HE fulfilled it all so WE can be set free from it. We are also not damned by disobedience of the Sermon on the Mount but we will be rewarded or demoted according to our obedience of it.
The Ten Commandments are fine as law for a nation of unbelievers. They demonstrate God's Law on which all human laws should be based. The Sabbath is somewhat problematic in all this, of course. There are Christians who think we should obey a Sabbath still and others who understand the New Testament to have explained the Sabbath as simply living in and for Christ.
You trust the "scholars" -- I don't. One of those "scholars" even admitted that the reason he dated the Book of Daniel so late, although it was written clearly describing the time of the Babylonian captivity, is that he simply did not believe in prophecy so he figured it MUST have been written after the events actually occurred that Daniel had prophesied. With that kind of thinking influencing "scholarship" you might as well ignore it all. The way the book is written it is very clear it was written before the events prophesied.
Controversy occurs. According to Wikipedia,
The dating and authorship of Daniel has become a matter of debate. The traditionalist view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BCE, whereas most Biblical scholars maintain that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BCE and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred(ex eventu). According to Christian websites, the Septuagint or LXX (Hebrew to Greek translations of the Old Testament) was completed around 285 BCE and includes the Book of Daniel, therefore Daniel could not have been written in the 2nd century but before. Modern scholarship however, does not support this claim. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica article on the Septuagint: "Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE."
It is established that Daniel became an adviser to Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of Babylon from 605 to 562 BCE. However, I think neither of us is qualified to properly assess the linguistic studies and other biblical scholarship involved in these august deliberations on dating.
If the “OT punishments were for Israel”, why do rightwing Christian zealots want homosexual and adulterers to be punished here on earth?
Your typical lie, psi bond, typical misrepresentation. Nobody has suggested "punishment" at all.
That it is a lie is a lie. Many Christians believe it is only right to deny homosexuals the same rights and protections as heterosexuals have. They come on blogs with arguments trying to justify that. Some show that they think it right to harass or kill homosexuals with their own hands. And some of these zealots favor legislation like the proposed Ugandan bill and would like to see similar legislation here.
Pastor Steven Anderson heads the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. One of his frequent subjects of scorn is homosexuality and Anderson teaches his followers to not only hate gays, but advocates that they be punished and executed with the death penalty.
Anderson began a recent sermon by saying, “The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals”
“The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers”
Anderson then went on to paint homosexuals as child molesters, including Congressman Barney Frank.
“I’m not going to stand by and let a faggot run the church. It’s bad enough that we have a bunch of faggots running the government.”
Anderson also took aim at the United Methodist Church saying, “10percent of their preachers are queers—-they got a dyke and faggot behind the pulpit.”
Concluded
In his sermon on August 16, 2009, entitled, “Why I Hate Barack Obama,” Anderson viciously attacked President Obama in the name of God, preaching to his congregation that God wanted them to hate Obama and that as a supporter of abortion rights, he was a murderer who deserved the death penalty, just like the gays.
“God Hates Barak Obama, I hate Barack Obama. I hate Him. God wants me to Hate Barack Obama.” “Someone who commits murder should get the death penalty, said Pastor Anderson.
Anderson says he is not actually calling for people to take up arms against gays or President Obama, but according to the violent and hate-filled words of the Pastor, God wants them to be put to death with the death penalty. Hence, anyone acting on his words would, presumably, be doing God’s work.
You are confusing Jesus' Sermon on the Mount with the Law at Sinai. Jesus' fulfillment of the Law means that we are no longer damned by that law. HE fulfilled it all so WE can be set free from it. We are also not damned by disobedience of the Sermon on the Mount but we will be rewarded or demoted according to our obedience of it.
The particular theology you subscribe to, the “faithful word” you follow, teaches you that. A literal reading does not. Rather, it teaches that the law is not to be trifled with, neither in the OT or in Jesus' sermons.
The Ten Commandments are fine as law for a nation of unbelievers. They demonstrate God's Law on which all human laws should be based. The Sabbath is somewhat problematic in all this, of course. There are Christians who think we should obey a Sabbath still and others who understand the New Testament to have explained the Sabbath as simply living in and for Christ.
The Ten Commandments are not fine as constitutional law for a nation of Christians and non-Christians like America. The man-made laws in the U.S. should not and constitutionally cannot command worship of the God of Israel, keeping the Sabbath, not taking the name of God in vain, nor prohibit coveting one's neighbor's wife or his ass, as the uncensored Tenth Commandment has the cheek to do. Congress can make no laws regarding religious devotion and government control of unexpressed thoughts
So, like sects deciding when to observe the Sabbath, Christians are not in agreement on whether the Laws of God in the OT are only for Jews, and even whether to continue to observe the Sabbath. Seventh Day Baptists have observed Sabbath on Saturday since the mid-17th century, and influenced the similar but larger Seventh-day Adventist group toward that doctrine in the mid-19th century. They and others believe that keeping seventh-day Sabbath is a moral obligation, arising out of the Ten Commandments, honoring God as creator and deliverer.
We are also not damned by disobedience of the Sermon on the Mount but we will be rewarded or demoted according to our obedience of it.
The particular theology you subscribe to, the “faithful word” you follow, teaches you that. A literal reading does not. Rather, it teaches that the law is not to be trifled with, neither in the OT or in Jesus' sermons.
You are wrong. A literal reading is in fact very clear that we have been freed from the law -- the New Testament itself, not "theology:"
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Colossians 2: 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
=========================
This Anderson you quote is a fringe pastor, not someone who represents the Christian community. Most Christians agree that homosexuals should not be given the status of heterosexuals, but that's not an argument for punishment.
I was unclear about the Christian views of the Sabbath. From the beginning it was Sunday and never Saturday that Christians observed. Some treat that as a Sabbath but it wasn't treated that way by the early church. Those who observe a Saturday Sabbath are, again, fringe groups, and apostates by Christian standards.
Again, I reject the scholars. Daniel is clear on the face of it.
The NT passages you quote are postmortem theology, devised after the crucifixion of Jesus. That the only law needed is belief in Jesus; divinity is Christian theology. Perhaps, a theocracy would work in that way, but a democratic civil society cannot function with such an understanding of the law.
This Anderson you quote is a fringe pastor, not someone who represents the Christian community.
He represents the Christian community congregated at Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. One would hope he is a fringe pastor, but keep in mind that Hitler, whose speeches had similar hateful themes, was also once on the fringe.
On the Faithful Word Baptist website, one finds the following invitation:
We are a local New Testament church reaching the Phoenix Area with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Don't expect anything contemporary or liberal. We are an o ld-fashioned, independent, fundamental, King James Bible only, separated Baptist church and not ashamed to say so. Faithful Word Baptist Church is a young, family-oriented church. We would love to get to know you personally at one of our services!
According to Pastor Anderson, “In God’s foresight, he supplied the English-speaking people with a perfect preservation of his word, the King James Bible.” According to him, fundamentalist preachers who “all over America go back to ‘the’ Greek to correct or augment the King James Bible” are producing “bogus revelations”
He calls others false prophets, and you call him the same. And everyone believes he himself is right.
Most Christians agree that homosexuals should not be given the status of heterosexuals, but that's not an argument for punishment.
Denial of equal rights is a means of punishment. Pastor Anderson says, as you have said in this thread, that homosexuals deserve the death penalty. So, presumably, anything less is also deserved and is considered merciful.
I was unclear about the Christian views of the Sabbath. From the beginning it was Sunday and never Saturday that Christians observed. Some treat that as a Sabbath but it wasn't treated that way by the early church. Those who observe a Saturday Sabbath are, again, fringe groups, and apostates by Christian standards.
A literal reading of Genesis indicates clearly that the seventh day of the week, Saturday, is the day of rest that everyone is obliged to observe. Including non-Christians, according to some Christian zealots, who are not unclear about what they believe.
Again, I reject the scholars. Daniel is clear on the face of it.
But the dating of Daniel is not clear on the face of it. The author of Daniel makes erroneous statements about the history of the 6th century BCE, which would be incredible on the part of one who had really lived through that period.
I doubt that you are qualified to reject the scholars' work out of hand. Someone who vehemently rejects the work of generations of scholars of evolutionary biology is hardly credible when she similarly rejects the diligent work of supposedly “liberal” biblical scholars.
Sigh. I never proposed that CHRISTIAN theology was to govern a civil society; I SPECIFICALLY said the OLD TESTAMENT law applied to that.
Everyone believes he himself is right, so there's no point in discussing anything ever, is there?
You trust the scholars; I trust the Bible. We'll see who's right in the end.
We'll also see who's right about evolutionary biology.
Sigh. I never proposed that CHRISTIAN theology was to govern a civil society;
In Faith, the point you cherry pick from my post, it should be clear, is not something I claimed you had said.
I SPECIFICALLY said the OLD TESTAMENT law applied to that.
Specifically, how does one get legislation in America requiring all citizens to worship the God of Israel (First Commandment)? Can American society remain civil if freedom of religion is thus abolished?
Everyone believes he himself is right, so there's no point in discussing anything ever, is there?
It is worth determining, during the course of discussion, which positions are defensible by reason alone, and which need to rely on holier-than-thou posturing, a profusion of personal attacks, willful misrepresentation, and other disingenuous tactics.
The remark of mine that you cherry pick and strip of context---“everyone believes he himself is right”---was a reference, not to issues in general, but to clashing religious doctrines (e.g., what’s the proper day of the week to observe the Sabbath), of which there is, I think, little point in serious discussion.
You trust the scholars; I trust the Bible. We'll see who's right in the end.
No serious discussion of an issue of importance can be ended by appealing for a deus ex machina to appear. Or by imagining an otherworldly scenario in which the final answers are supplied, like in a math textbook with the solutions at the back.
On earth, no one can know with certainty who’s right, for no dead person has ever come back to talk to us concerning the dating of the authorship of the Book of Daniel---assuming that is something well-known by dead folks.
However, the author of Daniel is ignorant in many ways about the history of the 6th century BCE, but, on the other hand, shows an accurate knowledge of the Greek period down to and including the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude authorship in the 2nd century BCE, the period of which the author shows accurate knowledge.
We'll also see who's right about evolutionary biology.
It is likely that scientific explanations will always make more sense to a rational mind than the young-earth biblical account of creation, which places the earth at the center of the universe, with the attendant sun and visible stars made as visual aids for the human inhabitants.
Post a Comment