Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on February 21, 2006, 02:37:03 PM
-
[I apologize if the following thread is just dead boring for everyone else]
Howdy Nash,
I'm going to chop this up into a number of replies for ease of reading...
You wrote in another thread:
But what that leaves us with is theologians cherry picking the bible for a set of criteria that would justify war, and then a theologian (in this case you) coming down in support of a particular war based on what is clearly a questionable interpretation of how this war actually meets that criteria.
With the utmost of respect, just war theory is hardly the result of "Cherry Picking" the bible. The clear teaching of scripture is that magistrates have been given the power to wage war, and indeed in the New Testament, the profession of "soldier" is not an occupation forbidden to Christians as say Thief or Prostitute would be. This would not be the case if the primary calling of soldiers (waging war) was a violation of God's commands in the same way that stealing things and having sex outside of marriage is.
For instance, when a group of soldiers ask John the Baptist the open-ended question "What should we do?" in Luke 3:14 he answers "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." Notice he does not command them to find a new vocation, in fact he tells them to be content with the salary they receive in their present profession. What they must do, however, is to stop acting sinfully in their calling and using the power they have unlawfully.
In Matthew 8:9-10 Jesus commends the faith of a Centurion even as the Centurion has used his authority as a commander of men as an analogy for Christ's heavenly power. In Acts 10, we see another Centurion, Cornelius praised as a godly man. Both of these men were saved, and neither of them was told he must leave his trade or that his calling worked against his faith. Contrast that with verses dealing with occupations like "Thief" - "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. (Eph. 4:28) Thieves are expressly told that they will not inherit the kingdom, and that this is a vocational choice that has to be repented of (1 Cor. 6:10). Obviously an argument along the lines of well "soldiers don't hurt other people like thieves do" is ridiculous on the face of it. Their profession involves killing other people, and yet that killing is not called murder and the kingdom of heaven is not closed to them in the same way it is to the unrepentant murderer. (Rev. 21:8)
Historically, the churches that came out of the Reformation including my own denomination have always accepted this, confessing for instance: "It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion." (Westminster Confession, circa 1648)
The statements in the Second Helvetic [i.e. Swiss] Confession which were put together by Swiss Reformed (Protestant) churches and formed their doctrinal expression are even stronger, they condemned the Anabaptist belief in non-involvement in the state and absolute pacificism [The Anabaptists should not be confused with modern day Baptists. The Anabaptists were the fore-runners of groups like the Amish and Mennonites]:
"War. And if it is necessary to preserve the safety of the people by war, let him wage war in the name of God; provided he has first sought peace by all means possible, and cannot save his people in any other way except by war. And when the magistrate does these things in faith, he serves God by those very works which are truly good, and receives a blessing from the Lord.
We condemn the Anabaptists, who, when they deny that a Christian may hold the office of a magistrate, deny also that a man may be justly put to death by the magistrate, or that the magistrate may wage war, or that oaths are to be rendered to a magistrate, and such like things.
The Duty of Subjects. For as God wants to effect the safety of his people by the magistrate, whom he has given to the world to be, as it were, a father, so all subjects are commanded to acknowledge this favor of God in the magistrate. Therefore let them honor and reverence the magistrate as the minister of God; let them love him, favor him, and pray for him as their father; and let them obey all his just and fair commands. Finally, let them pay all customs and taxes, and all other such dues faithfully and willingly. And if the public safety of the country and justice require it, and the magistrate of necessity wages war, let them even lay down their life and pour out their blood for the public safety and that of the magistrate. And let them do this in the name of God willingly, bravely and cheerfully. For he who opposes the magistrate provokes the severe wrath of God against himself."
[Second Helvetic Confession, circa 1566]
So far from being "Cherry Picking" or novel this doctrine is both scriptural and was the long accepted viewpoint for Protestant Christians. Variations of it also exist within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Just war has long been regarded as part of God's Common Grace, in that without it life in a fallen and sinful world would be even viler and more unjust, and all men would be at the mercy of the most evil and wretched states states. If you think the state of the world is bad now, just consider what life would be like if states did not have the right to defend themselves against unprovoked aggression, theft, and violence.
- SEAGOON
-
Nash, you also wrote:
It seems to me that spiritual leaders, even if giving themselves a green light to support a war based on an interpretation of the bible, should then make sure that the criteria they bind themselves to be doubly, triply, and quadruply checked and met by the facts. In other words, spiritual leaders should error on the side of peace by default. That's just my opinion of course, and I don't wanna tell you guys how to do your jobs or anything.
Erhm, but here's what the guys who actually do your job said today:
"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights."
This came from a coalition of American churches representing the World Council of Churches and includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches. It was the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade. They denounced the war, "accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
Also, on Friday, "the U.S. National Council of Churches - which includes many WCC members - released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."
I know that you would prefer that kind of statement from clerics, but allow me to give a little background on why I'm not on the same page.
Both the NCC and WCC are eccumenical groups made up largely of theologically liberal churches. [Their most theologically conservative member, the Orthodox church in America has been complaining about their stances for years.] For instance, the WCC has as members some of the most liberal protestant denominations including the Episcopalians (whom you will recall recently ordained a professing Gay Alcoholic, Gene Robinson, to the position of Bishop of New Hampshire) and the United Churches of Christ who also allow for the ordination of gay clergy. They are notable for the kind of denominations they don't include, namely the most theologically conservative and evangelical denominations (For instance the Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance & Evangelical Free Churches are not members). There is a more conservative association of denominations called the National Association of Evangelicals
Generally speaking their member denominations do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, or that belief in Him is necessary in order to be saved, most of them have long been preaching a social gospel which consists of the message that we have to be nice to one another, and build a more just world through the right application of liberal political ideas for years. In other words their theology is for the most part simply a religious mimicry of the progressive wing of the popular culture. As a result, the membership in most of these churches has been dwindling for years. They have money, names, and power, but they are all declining. They close down more churches than they open.
So at their councils and meetings the primary issues they deal with are not theological, but political, and their statements are overwhelmingly supportive of the liberal political position on any subject. I could have guessed in advance where they would come down on the war in Iraq, detentions, and so on.
I, on the other hand, belong to a denomination (the PCA) that is not a member of the WCC and which split from the larger Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1973 over issues like the authority of the Bible, and whether our primary emphasis should be on preaching the Gospel of Christ Crucified for Sinners, and soliciting faith in Him, or getting embroiled in every political cause celebre'. The denomination we split from has gone on to major in national politics, and position themselves invariably on the left in almost every political and moral issue. They've supported abortion, gay rights, no nukes, and have condemned big tobacco, and Israel. They've even gone so far as to send a delegation to speak to Hamas.
Of course there is an equal danger that theologically conservative denominations like mine will simply become the opposite side of the coin and end up making their primary concern conservative politics.
Personally, I have stood against every attempt to do that in our denomination, even voting at Presbytery and General Assembly against expressly political overtures whose political aims I have agreed with. This is because I am absolutely committed to the principle that meddling in politics is not what the church was created to do, it is not our business, and just as the church does not want the State telling it what it may and may not believe and preach, we were not vested with the authority to legislate in the political arena. Or as Chapter 3 of the Book of Church Order puts it:
"Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is twofold. The officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order; and they exercise it sometimes jointly in Church courts, after the form of judgment, which is the power of jurisdiction.
The sole functions of the Church, as a kingdom and government distinct from the civil commonwealth, are to proclaim, to administer, and to enforce the law of Christ revealed in the Scriptures.
The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)."
So I am appalled that the church, as the church, would gather together solely to promote a political agenda and tell politicians how they should legislate. I was as appalled by the WCC statements as I was by some of the comments at the King Funeral, and not because they were politically liberal, but because they were a prostituting of one's calling to be a minister of the gospel. For heaven's sake, if you feel your calling is to promote a political agenda, then become a politician or a member of the media, but don't turn the pulpit into a party political soapbox.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Of course there is an equal danger that theologically conservative denominations like mine will simply become the opposite side of the coin and end up making their primary concern conservative politics.
............................. ............................. ............................
So I am appalled that the church, as the church, would gather together solely to promote a political agenda and tell politicians how they should legislate. I was as appalled by the WCC statements as I was by some of the comments at the King Funeral, and not because they were politically liberal, but because they were a prostituting of one's calling to be a minister of the gospel. For heaven's sake, if you feel your calling is to promote a political agenda, then become a politician or a member of the media, but don't turn the pulpit into a party political soapbox.
Well said. This has been my major complaint with the S. Baptist association for years. Our guiding principles should be leading us as far away from political arenas as possible, yet some of them just cant stay out of the spotlight.
-
All part of the PC Programming that we're indoctrinating our citizens with.
Religious Leaders get special dispensation from the media and the audience for outrageous political statements and behaviour.
Cause it's Not PC to criticise, belittle, marginalize or poke fun at the Church. And this includes Islamic 'churhes'.. most recent example being the horriffic silence in this country's media regarding the Cartoon Fiasco.
-
Fer cryin' out loud, is there a book-on-tape version?
-
I think there is a 40 CD set available at Cracker Barrel. :eek:
-
Hey, I started out with a warning that the thread would be dead boring.
Sorry, its an occupational hazard, I'm used to never having to deal with any issue in less than 30 mins or 3 pages of single spaced 12 point type, and I'm not bright enough to be able to answer anything succinctly.
-
Exactly which members of the WCC and NCC do not believe in the deity of Christ?
-
Hello Midnight,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly which members of the WCC and NCC do not believe in the deity of Christ?
Let's take the United Churches of Christ as an example. It is possible to be a UCC pastor and deny all of what are considered the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith without fear of ecclesiastical discipline. As such, the denomination has ceased to make this a "standing or falling issue." If you are quirky enough to actually believe that Jesus is God, well that's fine, but if you don't, that's fine too. Almost every theological issue, no matter how central it is to the what the Jude called "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" is considered something you can have your own private opinion on by denominations like the UCC. As one UCC pastor frankly put it: "We have significant numbers of clergy who don't believe in God." In fact, there are major portions of the UCC which believe that saying "Jesus is Lord" (which is a biblical doctrine Paul affirms is taught by the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:3) one is being "divisive" and "judgmental."
In any event, here is an article from a Northern NJ newspaper that shows just how far from a uniform belief in the foundational teachings of scripture the UCC has come (the UCC readily admits that they have no doctrinal consensus or means of ensuring any belief) and then a link to a article discussing briefly the theological implications of that:
Denomination debates declaration of Jesus' divinity
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
By JOHN CHADWICK
STAFF WRITER
It's a bedrock belief of Christianity - not a topic for debate.
Until now.
A venerable Protestant denomination - at the behest of some of its conservative members - is preparing to vote next month on a measure declaring that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and making it mandatory for clergy to accept his divinity.
It may seem like a slam dunk, but delegates for the 1.3 million-member United Church of Christ may reject the resolution. Several Bergen County pastors, who aren't delegates to the convention, said they expect the measure to fail.
"Religiously speaking, it sounds like apple pie," said the Rev. Raymond Kostulias of the First Congregational Church of Park Ridge. "But there is a judgmental quality to it that implies very strongly that those who do not agree with us are condemned or damned or hopeless - and that's exactly the thing that UCC is against."
Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which traces its independent mind-set back to the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock, is one of the most liberal and non-hierarchical Protestant churches in the nation.
The denomination, in its official statements, accepts Christ as savior and head of the church, but also approves of balancing Christian doctrine with personal conscience.
"If you join the UCC, you are not given a list of things and asked, 'Do you believe in this?' " said the Rev. Sherry Taylor, who represents the New Jersey churches in the denomination's central Atlantic conference. "There are no tests of faith."
But that brand of Christian liberalism is increasingly under attack from conservatives seeking to reassert the authority of the Bible. The Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, for example, face the threat of schism over gay rights. And the Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI, has emphasized a more orthodox vision of church teachings.
The handful of United Church of Christ churches that submitted the resolution - including a congregation in Woodbridge - say Christ's divinity is the biggest issue facing the denomination.
The three-page resolution declares that the United Church of Christ is now ridiculed by critics as "Unitarians Considering Christ."
The Woodbridge pastor said the denomination has to get back to basics.
"The whole point of this is that many of these people have a very fuzzy idea of faith in God," said the Rev. Albert W. Kovacs of the Hungarian Reformed Church. "We have significant numbers of clergy who don't believe in God."
A Haworth pastor said the conservatives have a point, though he added that the resolution is unenforceable and a waste of time.
"If you don't offer a risen Christ, you're not offering hope," said the Rev. David Boda-Mercer of First Congregational Church of Haworth. "If people are looking for answers, and they come to us and get a vague non-answer, but great food and musical programs, then I don't think we're helping them."
But others in the denomination disagree. Many Christians, they say, reject a literal interpretation of the Bible and lead full spiritual lives.
"We have people with all sorts of beliefs of what Christianity is - just like society does," said Barb Powell, a spokeswoman for the Cleveland-based denomination. "The difference is that our polity allows us to talk about it and discuss it with one another."
About 1,000 delegates - lay people and clergy - will vote on the measure declaring that the UCC is a "decidedly Christian denomination where Jesus is the Lord." It also requires all of the denomination's clergy to adhere to the doctrine. The convention, or synod, will be held July 1-5 in Atlanta.
The United Church of Christ was created in 1957, merging the Congregational churches associated with the Pilgrims with several other smaller, more conservative denominations made up of German, Hungarian and Swiss immigrants.
The denomination recently launched a provocative advertising campaign - "God is Still Speaking" - portraying the church as an alternative to conservative Christianity.
One commercial showed a church using bouncers to turn away a seemingly gay couple and racial minorities seeking to worship.
"Jesus never turned anyone away," the ad says. "Neither do we."
Conservatives within the denomination object to the campaign. Kovacs, the Woodbridge pastor, said his first complaint is with the title.
"They say, 'God is still speaking, he said. "I believe he's already spoken."
* * *
What it means
What's new: Conservative members of a venerable Christian denomination say the church isn't following the basic beliefs.
What's next: The United Church of Christ will vote in July on a measure by conservatives declaring that Jesus is the Lord.
What they're saying: "We have significant numbers of clergy who don't believe in God." - The Rev. Albert W. Kovacs of Woodbridge
Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary commented on the controversy, here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=125
- SEAGOON
-
Thank you for the response.. I checked the UCC website and read their constitution.
The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.
???
-
So Jesus is their CEO?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Thank you for the response.. I checked the UCC website and read their constitution.
???
MT,
All of the churches in the WCC are likely going to have some sort of statement of faith that refers back to the faith of the denomination at the time of its founding. For instance, the Anglican Church (which Americans know as the Episcopal Church) still technically has the 39 articles as its statement of faith. The 39 articles today would be considered both "fundamentalist" and "Calvinistic." Now those of you familiar with the Church of England at all, especially the Brits on the board probably couldn't point you to a single Vicar who is a fundamentalist or a Calvinist. In fact it would be a stretch these days to find an Anglican priest who believes that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and yet the 39 articles of his own denomination read:
"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved"
So, while the ancient confessional statements on the websites at the denominational headquarters aren't going to be explicitly Unitarian, that is often the defacto theology of much of the clergy in the denomination. For instance, this extract is from an actual overture to the UCC General Synod from members of that denomination:
Our status as a Christian denomination and our loyalty to Jesus as Lord needs to be clarified since it is well known that there are UCC pastors and churches that do not adhere to the Lordship and divinity of Jesus, so much so in fact that the UCC is often referred to as “Unitarians Considering Christ.”
Obviously there is considerable debate even in strongly Christocentric and theologically conservative denominations, but unlike in WCC member denoms those debates are not over something as central as the Deity of Christ.
Please understand MT, the first Christian denomination I ever belonged to after my conversion was a mainline Presbyterian denomination. The pastor frequently denied the fundamentals of the faith from the pulpit, including the deity of Christ, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, and frequently referred to God as our "Mother." I left that denomination after a few months, because even as a new Christian, I recognized that that wasn't the teaching of Scripture or the historic Christian faith.
- SEAGOON
-
Suprise suprise suprise, nash didnt reply.
-
I'm a little confused here, I need some clarification. I'm just seeing some quotes, and I'm not sure of the context in some cases.
Are you saying that some of the UCC considers Christ to be Lord, as in they believe in the Trinity, and that all the separate parts of God are in fact God; and that other parts disbelieve this, seeing Jesus instead as a Mohammed type figure?
Or are you saying that all of them recognize Jesus AS God, and that there are no separate entities, no Trinity? And then the ones that dont, simply dont believe in God period?
-
Hi SOA,
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I'm a little confused here, I need some clarification. I'm just seeing some quotes, and I'm not sure of the context in some cases.
Are you saying that some of the UCC considers Christ to be Lord, as in they believe in the Trinity, and that all the separate parts of God are in fact God; and that other parts disbelieve this, seeing Jesus instead as a Mohammed type figure?
Or are you saying that all of them recognize Jesus AS God, and that there are no separate entities, no Trinity? And then the ones that dont, simply dont believe in God period?
What is implied in the overture and the quotes is that many members and clergy in the UCC do not believe that Jesus is God - the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity and that many concur with popular belief that he was simply an enlightened sage who said some good things. They also do not believe that saving faith in Him is absolutely necessary to salvation.
The fact that the overture was even thought necessary indicates that many UCC pastors have come to fear that their church is becoming functionally indistinguishable from the Unitarian Universalists in its faith and practice. A combing through of UCC member church websites can produce a lot of evidence that that is in fact the case.
Anyway, this is getting a little on the surreal side. Arguing that the UCC is non-doctrinal, non-fundamentalist, and theologically liberal and politically oriented (and predictably in a liberal direction) is rather like arguing whether the sky is blue. No one in their right mind would argue that they were conservative, inerrantist, or fundamentalist.
I mean here is a list of the resolutions before the latest Synod:
"1. Another World is Possible: A Peace With Justice Movement in the United Church of Christ
2. Calling on the United Church of Christ to Declare Itself to Be a "Fair Trade" Denomination
3. Calling for a Study of Divestment of Church Funds from Companies that Profit from the Perpetuation of Violence and Injustice in Israel and Palestine
4. Establishing Representative and Senatorial Synods
5. For the Common Good
6. For the International Criminal Court
7. In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All
8. In Support of Fair and Just Compensation for Lay Employees of the United Church of Christ
9. In Support of Ministries to our Campuses of Higher Education
10. Marriage Equality
11. Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman
12. Promoting Peace for All in the Sudan
13. Religious Freedom for Native Hawaiian Prisoners
14. Saving Social Security from Privatization
15. Selective Divestment from Companies Involved with Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Building of the "Security Fence," and the Israeli Settlements Within the Palestinian Territory
16. Tear Down the Wall
17. The United Church of Christ Is a Christian Church
18. The Cross Triumphant as the Symbol of the United Church of Christ"
Most of them are political rather than ecclesiastical, and sound like the talking points from the next MOVEON.ORG conference. How on earth, for instance, is "Saving Social Security from Privitization" the work of the courts of the church? And when you have a serious debate over 17 going on in your church, the fat lady (oops I'm sorry, "full figured woman") is definitely singing.
- SEAGOON
-
So ........... they dont believe the Bible is real then? Because it just refutes the Gospels to say Jesus isnt God. Or do they even beleive in God? They sound more like Agnostics to me than Christians. Wait, how can they even be "Christian"??? The root there is "Christ", and Christian implies a believer or follower of Christ. So what exactly are they if they refute Jesus' own words and the teachings of both Him and His disciples??
Besides Confused that is.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
So ........... they dont believe the Bible is real then?
I believe the bible is real... I've seen several copies.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I believe the bible is real... I've seen several copies.
LOL
We can always count on you to keep things in perspective. :aok
-
Very interesting read Seagoon!
Having been forced S. Baptist enviroment by my mother while I was a small child. I've now become atheist towards churchs (in general). I normally deter from reading such news items & posts. But you sucker me into reading; making it interesting to read.
Thank you..
-
Being force fed a S. Baptist diet as a child doesnt mean you have to stop thinking as an adult. I disagree with many things in the direction the association has taken over the last 20 years or so, but I still believe in the core.
-
Just out of curiosity, how much of the bible do you think is the true words of Jesus and his teachings and how much has been changed over time?
A. 100% true
B. 75% true
C. 50% ture
D. Less than 50% true
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Forced to answer with a simplistic statement?
100%
However, the reality isnt simplistic. The only things that have changed are the languages. But with change of language comes (sometimes) change of words. The meaning is still there, but where Hebrew is very broad, takes in very large concepts with very few syllables and REQUIRES you to use context to interpret, Greek is less so, Latin even more specific, and then you get to English. In English words are very specific in meaning, but one word can have various meanings depending on context. So its almost like we've come full circle, only its been through several incarnations. To truly understand the modern versions, you have to read it with an understanding of original intent. Again, different Hebrew scholars will interpret the same word different ways. It's imperative that you not focus on just one verse when seeking translation, but on entire passages. Even then it often still requires us to take the modern version and hold it up to the older ones in order to form a proper translation of meaning.
Thats why instead of saying one READS the Bible, we say that one STUDIES the Bible. I think all the original meanings are still there. Sometimes its not as clear as it should be through word choice though.
-
So there was no editing done during the King James rewrite?
-
Some things are written differently yes, but I havent seen any passages that are so changed that their meaning is lost. Do you have specific examples you are concerned with?
Of course Seagoon is probably better suited to answer that, he's the scholar. I'm just a dilettante with some interest in history and linguistics.
-
Hi SOA,
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
So ........... they dont believe the Bible is real then? Because it just refutes the Gospels to say Jesus isnt God. Or do they even beleive in God? They sound more like Agnostics to me than Christians. Wait, how can they even be "Christian"??? The root there is "Christ", and Christian implies a believer or follower of Christ. So what exactly are they if they refute Jesus' own words and the teachings of both Him and His disciples??
Besides Confused that is.
To really give you a complete answer to this requires a review of the history of Protestant liberal theology since the early 1800s, so forgive me if I smash a lot of history utterly flat and give you a quick synopsis.
Philosophically, the enlightenment in Europe switched the emphasis from God at the center of the universe, to man ("homo mensura" was the Latin motto - Man is the Measure of All Things) therefore the Bible began to be thought of not as God's revelation to Man, but man writing about God. The age also brought in considerable scepticism regarding the miraculous. By the 19th century, the Protestant theological world had broken basically into three camps:
The first was made up of fideists who believed that preserving Christianity required the moving of faith into a separate realm outside of the reality of sense experience (hence Kant's noumenal/phonomenal distinction). This realm of faith was real but unknowable in the way that we can directly experience the physical universe. The only way this other realm could be known was via faith. The Bible therefore was a product of the forays of faith into the noumenal realm.
The second was made up of people who believed Christianity, and all religions, was a cultural phonomenon that had developed in history. At the heart of it were some genuine historical occurences (i.e. there were twelve tribes of Israel, there was a Rabbi named Jesus who was executed by the Romans) but all of the supernatural and doctrinal elements were glosses and inauthentic additions. They believed that if there was a Creator, he was for the most part unknowable.
The third were the orthodox, whose view of theology was basically the same of that of the Apostles, Church Fathers, and Reformers. They believed the Bible was God's inerrant revelation to Man, that it was an accurate record of God's continuing work of redemption, and that there was no radical disconnect between God and his creation. They believed that the regenerating and illuminating work of God the Holy Spirit was necessary to believe and rightly understand the scriptures, but that the scriptures themselves were authentic.
Group three, won't concern us for the most part, they continued on to become the foundation of the modern bible believing evangelical denoms.
Group two eventually ended up taking over most of the schools of theology in Europe, and their quest became to explain the development of the bible and find "the historical Jesus." They also felt that the primary value of the bible lay in its setting forth a moral system for men to follow. They believed that the kingdom of heaven could be established on earth via the social implementation of Christian ideals. They set to work implementing their moral viewpoints through reform and legislation (Victorian society was to a great extent a result of this viewpoint) and working to "demythologize" (to use Bultmann's phrase) the bible. A Christian in their eyes was simply a modern man who, while thinking the bible was literature rather than history, sought to live by what he felt was the ethical code contained in it. A belief in the deity of Christ or miracles was not necessary to this definition. Christianity became less a faith, than an ethic, and a Christian was someone who was one outwardly. Needless to say, this led to a massive increase in hypocrisy, as men "acted" moral in public, and followed their baser desires whenever they could.
The social outworking of their theology was initially popular but the first world war exploded most of their presuppositions, i.e. that men were basically good, or that Christian values coud build a "heavenly" society on earth. Four years of senseless slogging through mud and carnage as "Christian" kingdoms sought to destroy one other persuaded people of that. Which is one of the reasons the twenties were the "roaring twenties" - many, particularly the young, simply abandoned the hopeless, "lets all act uptight and moral even though we don't believe" formula. Unfortunately the "history of religions" school continued its hold on the religion departments of universities and mainline seminaries.
Eventually, the liberal mainline denominations became a mixture of groups one and two, fideists who believed you "felt" your way through religion and who had no time or patience for doctrine, and rationalists who doubted the veracity of the Bible. This produced a synthesis in which the modern Christians in these denominations mostly read their own presuppositions into a bible they hold to be errant and the combination of man's thoughts and heavenly wisdom (where they divide the two depends on who you ask). They also tend to be universalists in terms of salvation, or believe one goes to heaven by being Good. They also tend to be pluralists accepting all religions, even contradictory ones, and believing God has spoken through all of them in some sense. Therefore they are increasingly willing to mix all religions in with traditional Christianity to form what one liberal theologian called "the diverse and harmonious salad of faith."
In fact Christianity for many liberal Christians is just a religious expression of their own core philosophy. If you were a socialist you read the bible in the light of Marxism and became a "Liberation theologian" if you were a Feminist you read the bible that way and so on, it became more about Man creating God in his own individual image - God as man writ large so to speak, rather than man being saved, shaped, and molded through the witness of scripture by the God of the bible. That's why politics play such a huge part in the modern liberal denoms, Christianity has become a way of expressing your social and political beliefs.
Book on tape to follow...
- SEAGOON
-
By cherry picking I mean the choosing of those passages in the Bible that support the views of your particular religion/denomination/whatever over the passages supporting those beliefs held by other religions/denominations/whatever. For when it comes to scripture, it's almost a free-for-all. Like roller derby or mud wrestling.
A cut/drag:
According to some Christians, both Jesus and Paul forbade all violence, and therefore all war (Mt. 5:39 & Lk. 6:29; Mt. 26:51-53; Rom 12:17-21). One early thinker (Tertullian) goes so far as to say that although God previously allowed some warfare, Jesus "unbelted every soldier". Tertullian therefore demanded the "immediate abandonment" of military service by Christians. But neither John the Baptist, Jesus, nor the early Christians forbade soldiering (Lk. 3:14, 7:1-10; Matt. 8:5-13; Acts 10:1-8,22), and for Jesus, war is just a part of how things are (Mk 13:7; Matt 24:6; Lk 14:31-32, 21:9). Paul, in his letter to the Romans says that God uses rulers to punish evil by use of 'the sword' (Rom. 13:1-4). Elsewhere, God commands rulers to rescue the weak and needy (Ps. 82:2-4). The care of a people is committed to those in authority, and their business is to watch over the common good of the people entrusted to them. In a sinful, fallen world, sometimes they must sadly use force to protect people.
So..... we've got a vast array of people, all coming up with wildly differing interpretations of the very same muse.
What connects them all is not the object of their study, sadly, but the rigorous adherence to their own interpretation of it. It turns out that the Bible doesn't bring people together... it's just an ice breaker.
I don't question the conviction that you have for the interpretation you've landed on, and am woefully under-qualified to judge whether it's the correct one. There are so many; an example being that when I pointed out that the largest gathering of Churches just came out and condemned this war, you said that ABC Group of Churches was unworthy of note, and that XYZ Group of Churches was worthy of note.
So that leaves us with this:
Amongst the many possible interpretations of the Bible, you support but one. That's all fine and good. Because it's sorta required, and a matter of faith that I deeply respect.
But what I can do is question the values that your interpretation represents, and hold those values up to scrutiny.
I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders justifying war.
"Blessed are the peacemakers for they are God’s children." J.C.
Yet somehow, the light of Jesus gets catapulted through an ecclesiastical prism that shatters that light into millions of shards not unlike shrapnel from a grenade. From this, from some, we get "Just War."
Fancy that.... a Christian "Just War" theory.
I don't like the fact that you or any spiritual leader would support it. Instead, I want our politicians to make that call, and make it soberly and objectively and with as much study, advice, consent..... double checking, triple checking, no-fingers-crossed-behind-your-back smashing their face into a WALL I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it-before-I-voted-for-it desperation before they ever EVER come to the conclusion that it's necessary to send the best of us into war. That's what I want of them. Not our spiritual leaders.
I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders justifying war.
I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders obfuscating and passively condoning torture.
I don't like that they would seek to eke out some kind of moral equivalency through mirroring an outrage over cartoons, minimalizing it as "human pyramids" or "a few boots" as if that were even close to the extent of it.
For what does it say when..... you know, my dog knows, and even the meth addict down the street knows that folks are getting completely messed the eff up! And that you, a man of God, wants us only to believe that it involves nothing more serious than an innocent game of twister?
With the entire picture that is Abu Gharib and Guantanamo available for everyone to see, along with the help of a dictionary and thesaurus, what in the world would have you attempt to couch the torture in such soft and misleading terms? What would lead a man of the cloth to go out of their way for this?
I don't like that our spiritual leaders say one thing, then do the opposite.
You discredit my pointing out that the largest gathering of churches has come out against this war by saying that they're so-called Liberal. You go on to say that it's wrong for Churches to make political statements. Interesting take, because...
Who the hell has even HEARD of a Liberal Church? I know they probably exist, but man... What about Dobson? What about Justice Sunday? What about Rove crediting Bush's win to the Church? What about Meirs, Frist, abortion, Shiavo, Intelligent Design? If there are Liberal churches with political voices, I'd sure as hell like to hear them. Just for balance's sake, ya know?
Basically.... you shy away from saying that the Church has anything to do with politics, and then say that in such cases that it does, it's a Liberal thing. What? Am I supposed to be in a coma?
War, torture, politics. Not religion's domain.... or at least any religion I want any part of.
-
Very brief:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 10:2,3
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pretty much sums up the state of Christian religions.
Discarding or playing down the parts of the bible that disagrees with their viewpoints.
-
It's funny how fundamentalist christians let a book written 2000 years ago dictate their actions while accusing fundamentalists of other religions for doing the same.
In MY book, all fundamentalists don't belong to this millenium and are a shame to the entire human race.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
It's funny how fundamentalist christians let a book written 2000 years ago dictate their actions while accusing fundamentalists of other religions for doing the same.
In MY book, all fundamentalists don't belong to this millenium and are a shame to the entire human race.
How so?
And actually, the Old Testament is far older that 2000 years. It also forms the basis for 3 major religions. "Fundamentalist" has come to be a bad word because some violent wackos choose to focus only on small parts of text as their guiding principles while CLAIMING that they follow strictly to the word. Your implication is that a document written in a prior time is not relevant to OUR time?
Edit
Never mind, you arent American so the rest of my post is irrellevant.
If what you say is true, then we should throw out the documents we base our laws and govornments on because they were all written in a prior age and arent relevant. And they are based on even older ideas. And so on. Nice theory.
-
Answer this question, SOF2.
Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?
IMPORTANT EDIT: the capital 'Q' for quran while bible received only a little 'b' was unvoluntary. As gallons of blood have been spilled thanks to both books, they both deserve the smallest font readable.
-
Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the Quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?
Bullseye deSelys! Short, sweet and prefecty to the point.
Which is why IMO mankind would be so much better off without organized religion. Especially the type that have endowed themselves with a selfserving "mission" to tell everyone else how they should live.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Answer this question, SOF2.
Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?
IMPORTANT EDIT: the capital 'Q' for quran while bible received only a little 'b' was unvoluntary. As gallons of blood have been spilled thanks to both books, they both deserve the smallest font readable.
You really think if there had been no religion or if there was no religion now the world would be peaceful?
War and killing is a human thing, we will find reason to do it, without religion, we would find something else like people not having blue eyes.
Typical I guess for you “tolerant” types, have to blame something, and it can't be people so it has to be that religious book, or gun, etc.
Real tolerant of you there, will you staff your tolerance camps with Germans this time too?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Answer this question, SOF2.
Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?
IMPORTANT EDIT: the capital 'Q' for quran while bible received only a little 'b' was unvoluntary. As gallons of blood have been spilled thanks to both books, they both deserve the smallest font readable.
Hehehe, thats funny. You want to blame BOOKS for people killing each other? First of all, supposing either book advocated violence in the spread of its respective religion (which they dont, but this is your argument), your statement is the same as saying if I watch a violent movie and then commit a murder you can lay the blame for my actions on the movie.
Ludicrous. We are responsible for our own actions. Besides, neither book advocates anything like what you suggest.
To answer your question though, BOTH clerics are not only nuts, they are dangerous. They take specific quotes out of context and twist the words and their meanings to suit their needs, and then try to cloak their behavior with the mantle of righteousness. People have been doing it for centuries, and its still working. That doesnt mean it has anything to do with the Truth.
I am not advocating organized religion of any kind. In fact, I agree that in many ways they have not done any more good for our race than any other organization we have put together. Sometimes their actions have been far from good. Let me try to put it in a way you can comprehend.
In previous times, before modern technology, military couriers were tasked with vital roles. Not only carrying orders from one unit to another, but also carrying messages to "the other side". Their safety was supposedly guaranteed, their person inviolate. Many couriers delivered their messages orally. Thus it was required that not only they have good memories, but that they be absolutely trustworthy. Imagine what would happen if such a courier decided to twist the words of his message to prolong a war instead of shortening it? To make demands instead of offering concessions? The courier was given alot of power, whether it was realized or not.
In the same way, clerics both Christian and Moslem have betrayed their calling and taken it upon themselves to twist the message. The original intent is still there. The original MESSAGE is still there. But some messengers have decided to give their own message instead of the one they were supposed to deliver.
Whatever you choose to belive though, you cant blame a book for what people do. People would find a reason to wage war and take land and commit murder without religion, without the Bible, and without the Quoran.
-
I'm pretty sure the only important bit in the whole bible is that god said :
'Do whatever you like just DON'T EAT FROM THAT APPLE TREE! ya hear me?'
and what did we go and do?
-
Hi deSelys,
Originally posted by deSelys
Answer this question, SOF2.
Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?
I know that this question was addressed to SOF2, but because presumably I'm the pastor in the example, I hope you won't mind if I answer your question as well.
I know that the distinction here will probably not get through, but I'll try to make it anyway.
The Imam says it is Allah's will as expressed through his prophet in the Quran and the Hadiths, that Muslims fight against the hated infidel apes and pigs [Sura 5.60, etc], wherever they find them. They must first be cleansed from the Dar-El-Islam, and then the Dar-El-Harb must be subjugated. In carrying out the will of Allah, you may conduct Martyrdom operations (suicide attacks) and fight even though there is no hope of survival, for the reward of all who die fighting for Islam is to pass immediately into heaven there to eternally satisfied by one's own 72 houris
Now, I want to point out how different the message I "the wacked out fundy" preach is from that message.
First off, I do not teach that it is God's will as taught in the bible that you fight, kill, and subjugate Muslims, simply because they are Muslims. Furthermore, I don't regard them as "apes and pigs" fundamentally less worthy. They too are created in the image of God and carry the imago dei in them. Consequently, to unlawfully shed their blood is just as bad as it would be to unlawfully shed the blood of any human being. I do not regard them as much different from myself prior to 1993, and I have stated such in sermons: "The Muslim is no more unworthy of salvation and certainly no more lost than we were when God called us to faith in Jesus." Fighting them is not a religious duty, heck when it comes to our religious duty, we are not even allowed to hate them. I preach that the duty of Christians is to carry the message of the Good News to them even if that means that we get killed in the process. Finally, suicide is self-murder, no Christian has the right to kill himself, and certainly doing so in the process of killing civilians makes one both a murderer AND a self-murderer, it is doubly wrong. Finally, I preach that salvation comes through saving faith in Christ, not works, and that faith is the umerited gift of God. Our salvation is not based on our worthiness or even our good works in the least degree. So yes, even if someone is a soldier who did not abuse his position, or act unjustly, merely doing that contributes nothing to our salvation.
Now, regarding the Civil magistrate, I confess in part:
"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." [Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3]
Therefore, since it is obvious that Jihadis intend violence to the person of all non-Muslims, that they desire to interefere with and ultimately prevent the propogation of all non-Muslim religions, and that is it their stated aim to subjugate the world under Sharia law that would make Christian freedom impossible, I believe it is the duty of the civil magistrate to protect us against them and that includes waging war in our defense. I do not believe that Christians in the military are sinning in any sense when they perform this duty provided they are not abusing the authority given to them and observing the UCMJ to the best of their ability.
Now DeSelys, if you would, point out to me where I'm exactly the same or worse than the Imams, because I'll admit, I'm confused.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Nash,
Good to hear from you.
I'm just going to intersperse my replies to your statements if that's ok. I'm developing the early stages of Rheumatoid Arthritis in my hands, so typing for a long time (or using my Logitech Twisty Joystick) is beginning to get painful.
Originally posted by Nash
By cherry picking I mean the choosing of those passages in the Bible that support the views of your particular religion/denomination/whatever over the passages supporting those beliefs held by other religions/denominations/whatever.
Not necessarily. I wasn't born or raised in the church, I didn't have an inclination to one Christian tradition over the other. I was converted through the simple message of the gospel, and went through a massive change of perspective and ethics, and then had a chance to simply choose which tradition most accurately taught the doctrines contained in scripture. So my theologizing wasn't done after the fact. I didn't so to speak, try to find what I already believed in scripture, I let scripture teach me what to believe. I may have come to the wrong conclusions, but I didn't search the bible for passages supporting pre-existing beliefs.
So..... we've got a vast array of people, all coming up with wildly differing interpretations of the very same muse.
While Tertullian was a good apologist, but he wasn't exactly smackdab in the mainstream of Christian thought. Tertullian was a Montanist, a radical sect that also believed that God continued to speak through prophets in their midst, and which also encouraged certain gnostic practices like celebacy. Tertullian himself wrote that celebacy was the highest form of Christian life and that marriage was inherently sinful and akin to adultery. I 'd have to say he was as wrong and unbiblical about war as he was about sex.
In the Bible, the main things are the plain things. The fundamentals regarding the way of salvation for instance are abundantly clear and most evangelical denominations, and literally millions of Christians are agreed on them.
What connects them all is not the object of their study, sadly, but the rigorous adherence to their own interpretation of it. It turns out that the Bible doesn't bring people together...
Actually, what should connect Christians is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that makes them all members of the body of Christ. They are all also connected by a shared belief in the faith taught in the Bible and are together in their willingness to submit to the Lordship of Christ and declaration that He alone is their savior. Believe it or not, I've managed to share and experience that common fellowship with Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Independents, and so on, even though doctrinally we differ at many points.
an example being that when I pointed out that the largest gathering of Churches just came out and condemned this war, you said that ABC Group of Churches was unworthy of note, and that XYZ Group of Churches was worthy of note.
No, I said that the WCC was theologically liberal and committed to liberal political expression and social action. I don't believe it is the place of the church as the church to be charging around declaring their support for political candidates or causes and mingling the kingdoms of Christ and Caesar, I could care less whether they are conservative or liberal in their politics. I did point out though, that since the liberal church has essentially "demythologized the gospel" and think salvation is the universal right of all men, they don't have much left to do but dabble in social action and politics. You can't spend all your time with bingo, softball leagues, and rumage sales.
Amongst the many possible interpretations of the Bible, you support but one. That's all fine and good. Because it's sorta required, and a matter of faith that I deeply respect.
But what I can do is question the values that your interpretation represents, and hold those values up to scrutiny.
I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders justifying war.
"Blessed are the peacemakers for they are God’s children." J.C.
Yet somehow, the light of Jesus gets catapulted through an ecclesiastical prism that shatters that light into millions of shards not unlike shrapnel from a grenade. From this, from some, we get "Just War."
Nash, respectfully, I'm going to suggest that you like to hear religious leaders saying what you already agree with and don't like to hear things from them you don't like. So you like the statements from the WCC because theologically and politically they are speaking your language so to speak.
But there are countless places I could point out where Jesus says things that I'm sure you wouldn't like either, about the exclusivity of salvation through Him, about sin, about the necessity of repentance, about the reality of Hell for the unbelieving and about how someday He promised to return to judge, there he comes as the Holy warrior. How does this vision of Jesus at the final judgment strike you for instance: Rev. 19:11-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev.%2019:11-21&version=50)
I don't like the fact that you or any spiritual leader would support it. Instead, I want our politicians to make that call, and make it soberly and objectively and with as much study, advice, consent..... [snip]That's what I want of them. Not our spiritual leaders.
Nash, I speak here as a private citizen, and a player of AH2, last time I checked I am not your Pastor. I'm not saying I'm glad about that, just pointing out the fact.
I don't get together with other Pastors and elders in the courts of the church to make declarations about war or economics or Supreme Court Nominees and when other pastors in my denomination try, I vote against it. I have made no "thus sayeth the Lord" pronouncements about the occupation of Iraq. In my private judgment the overall war against the Islamic Jihad is necessary, and yes it is something that our Civil Magistrates have to do.
I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders justifying war.
I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders obfuscating and passively condoning torture.
I don't like that they would seek to eke out some kind of moral equivalency through mirroring an outrage over cartoons, minimalizing it as "human pyramids" or "a few boots" as if that were even close to the extent of it.
For heavens sake Nash, the abuses at Abu Ghraib were wrong, British soldiers were wrong to dispense extra-judicial "punishment" - both should be prosecuted as clear infractions of their respective codes of military justice. That's my stated belief. HOWEVER, neither of them should be the cause of the civil magistrate giving up the fight against the Jihadis or made available as propaganda tools for the use of the enemy. Also, neither of them are the exact equivalent of men who as an act of faith torture and saw the heads off of their prisoners pretty close to 100% of the time.
You know what I will admit, I DON'T WANT THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE TO STOP FIGHTING TO DEFEND ME AND MINE FROM THE JIHADIS. I want them to win the war against them, I want them subdued, and sat upon once again. Ultimately I want their ideology to be dismantled root and branch in so far as we are able, just as we dismantled Nazism in Germany.
With the entire picture that is Abu Gharib and Guantanamo available for everyone to see, along with the help of a dictionary and thesaurus, what in the world would have you attempt to couch the torture in such soft and misleading terms? What would lead a man of the cloth to go out of their way for this?
I talk to military men every day, I've discussed Abu Ghraib and interrogation techniques, there is a reason why the Clinton administration sent prisoners to ARAB nations for interrogation. More political prisoners die in ARAB jails each day than died during the history of American oversite at Abu Ghraib. We are excessively mild by comparison. Most of our methods are not significantly worse than what goes on in SERE training for our own personnel. Abuses aimed at humiliation are wrong, I don't like war, and I wish people never needed to be interrogated. I'm glad I'll never have to do it.
But Nash, before you go condemning every American soldier as fascist torturing scum, tell me exactly how would you go about extracting information from a Jihadi? Time him out repeatedly? Threaten to give him a prayer rug with an ugly pattern?
Who the hell has even HEARD of a Liberal Church? I know they probably exist, but man... What about Dobson? What about Justice Sunday? What about Rove crediting Bush's win to the Church? What about Meirs, Frist, abortion, Shiavo, Intelligent Design? If there are Liberal churches with political voices, I'd sure as hell like to hear them. Just for balance's sake, ya know?
You don't hear about them much, because the media is no more outraged by their political declarations than you are. Think about it the WCC made it's declaration, but they media couldn't care less because to them its good news, and good news seldom gets air time.
But there are countless examples, the King funeral for instance. There we had liberal preachers in a political liberal church stand up and lambaste the administration repeatedly. Clinton, Al Gore, and Kerry were all invited to come stump on Sunday at several large liberal churches. Heck many of these churches do active "get out the vote" work for the DNC without anyone considering taking away their tax exempt status. This kind of image is actually quite a common one at campaign time:
(http://www.takeup.org/images/kerry_pulpit.jpg)
Anyway, can't type anymore (and there was great rejoicing)
- SEAGOON