Any thoughts? **************************************************** 03-18-07, 08:44 AM Airedale [QUOTE]newnickname: 'The thesis I want to post on the door of our nation’s cathedral are the following:
-Kindness and generosity are the characteristics of Christ
Too limiting. I would inject "two of many characteristics" of the Messiah.
-One cannot kill for Jesus
True, if one means "killing for killing's sake". That said, if I as a Christian happened to be employed by a government to protect its citizenry, I might possibly kill as an act of self-defense. Still, believers need to look at each circumstance on a case-by-case basis and examine their consciences. Also, if I were hunter needing to kill game to provide for my family, that too would be Scripturally okay.
-The new Jerusalem is not real estate
False. The above statement says more about the writer's disbelief in Scripture.
-Jesus did not teach capitalism
Hmmm, Jesus certainly used economic examples in his parables, but no, he isn't recorded as teaching a specific economic system.
-The free market is not the “good news”
This strikes me as a loaded statement that's pretty vague. But if the writer means euangelion doesn't have to do with financial success ("name it and claim it"), I agree.
-Punishment does not save
Again, a rather cryptic statement. What kind of punishment? Save from what? Saved to be what? Still, as a biblical theist, I'd rewrite that to say something like it is beyond rebellious, sinful man's natural abilities to save himself from the Divine punishment he has earned.
-The word of God is not a book
It's not an either-or equation. Yeshua exegeted the Godhead to man via both his Incarnation and the Spirit-inspired written word.
-One honest person can impact more than a multitude
True... and often there's not an immediate cause-effect. Sometimes it may take centuries for a godly man's character to be recognized, ;in some cases it may take God making known the God-fearer's righteous deeds on the other side of the grave.
-Comfort is not our birthright.
Who is "our"? But, yes, Scripture teaches fallen man's summum bonum is not ease but a stewardship whereby we are given our finite earth-life's blood to spend wisely (worshiping and enjoying the Lord forever).
Coram deo, Aire
03-19-07, 12:08 PM VelvetVoice I would agree with Aire except for the one thing about the new Jerusalem, and I think the differences are merely semantic in nature. This list needs a little more meat to be meaningful.
John the Baptizer and Jesus say in Matthew 3 and 4 " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus says that He is the kingdom in several other places, see Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." Also, one of my favorites Matthew 13:52 " And Jesus said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old." It is clear that the kingdom is here and now, but not yet in its fullness, like in Glory.
Also, there are a lot of miles, physical and spiritual, between me and the White House. Who's going to listen to me and my opinions? What can I do to end this useless war? Nothing.
Speaking of which, not only have I no influence on the world, how many of you can say that I have any influence on what you think about Christians? I would venture to say I only have made you think the worst. How do you propose that "we" change the world's view of Christians and Christianity when there is not even one that "you" admire and hold as a good and godly view? Just like there are an infinite number of atheists and their views, there seem to be an endless number of "Christian" views. One soul at a time, and I will consider it a great victory if I've changed even one mind here to view us in a better light.
03-19-07, 12:25 PM juanruiz
quote: I will consider it a great victory if I've changed even one mind here to view us in a better light.
Why us? This is one of the problems: Christians tend to see themselves as a group, not individuals. Thus, they will be judged by the worst of them. I know a lot on Christians I admire, not because they are Christians, but good people. I attempt to judge the individuals by themselves, not what group they may belong to.
03-19-07, 12:37 PM VelvetVoice That's just it. Whenever people refer to Christians, as in Sam Harris' book, he lumps us all together, all Abrahamic religions. I am all for being judged by men for my own actions. But that doesn't happen, and will never happen. You see, you did it too. I tried to show that in my post.
03-19-07, 12:45 PM babthrower NNN had said: One cannot kill for Jesus
Aire replied:
quote: True, if one means "killing for killing's sake".
Then Aire goes on to cite examples which every people in the world, except possibly the Jains, would accept as ethical killing.
But unfortunately for all of us, the temporizing that goes on in religions when matters of power are involved are more like:
"Well, our intelligence sources tell us that they will be launching a full-scale attack on us very soon, a sneaky, secret attack, and so it is our Christian duty to launch a preemptive attack!"
or
"We know that they are determined to spread their evil and godless ways and corrupt our clean and virtuous youth; so we must go to their heartland and destroy them."
Or, topping them all,
"Somebody bombed a symbol of our nation's wealth and power, and in the process killed 3,000 of our people. We have to retaliate. Terrorists were behind it but don't know to which nation they belonged or if one nation was behind it. But Iraq looks good for it, and Hussein has been getting unruly, so we'll suddenly decide we don't like the way he treats women. Besides we need another toehold in the area."
And so on.
When I hear such sanctimonious rationalizations, I think of the figure, Jesus, who is said to be the model of all Christian virtues. Most Christians believe he is the god himself.
If he were the god himself, then he could have come to earth as the greatest, most powerful Roman emperor of all time. He could have used his armies to spread throughout the world, establishing holy nations and holy, godly kingdoms by force.
But he didn't.
Think he was trying to tell us something?
03-19-07, 12:46 PM Sarai As I said in the other thread, Sam Harris does not lump all religious people together. He writes a fair amount on religious moderates and states clearly that religious people have also done a number of good things.
The point, however, is that as soon as you say that we should respect your faith even though it is not based on evidence, that gives a fanatic the exact same base to stand on. A fanatical Muslim who believes that God would reward him for killing you, a civilian, in a terrorist attack, has as much evidence proving his faith as you do. Where do we draw the line on what is "reasonable" to believe and what is not?
03-19-07, 01:10 PM VelvetVoice Bab: I'd be against someone who made such statements too. But I bet that most of you still think I'm a Bush supporter.
Yeah, Jesus could have come in power. But then, we'd be just peons in a hierarchy doing what we are told. Does that strike you as fair either?
Sarai-Yes, I will read the book. It's going to take some time for me to get to it though. I have a backlog!
I'm not asking you to respect my faith. I am merely the messenger. Read these passages in Matthew 11:18-20 and Luke:34-36, and you will understand the meaning of "wisdom is vindicated by her actions". Listen to me only if I do what the Lord would have me do. And that necessarily means that YOU must know what Scripture says.
The fanatical Muslim, or Christian, is acting in a way that does not reflect Scripture. I can't make anyone "reasonable" nor can I draw a line on right and wrong for anyone else. I have no secret powers over anyone. And there is that "we", to who or whom are you referring?
quote: Originally posted by VelvetVoice: The fanatical Muslim, or Christian, is acting in a way that does not reflect Scripture.
Not in his belief. In his belief, in his interpretation of scripture, he is following it.
quote: I can't make anyone "reasonable" nor can I draw a line on right and wrong for anyone else. I have no secret powers over anyone.
No, but as long as human beings make it politically incorrect (or, in some countries, an offense punishable by death) in public life to suggest that someone's faith is dangerous, unethical or unreasonable, it will be much more likely that such ideas will continue to proliferate. This is particularly true in the Muslim world, where religion has not been "watered down" or been opened up to criticism to the extent that it has been in the west.
03-19-07, 01:22 PM Sarai
quote: Originally posted by VelvetVoice: Bab: I'd be against someone who made such statements too. But I bet that most of you still think I'm a Bush supporter.
You may be right that some people assume that, but it would be an unreasonable thing to assume. The vast majority of the population in the US is Christian. Therefore, both the Democrats and the Republican party are made up, mostly, of Christians. To assume that Christian=Republican would be a rather uninformed and incorrect belief.
This is exactly why reason is important.
03-19-07, 01:31 PM VelvetVoice Sarai: Again, if you read the Scripture, you will find that his actions are incorrect. Can you get into the mind of a fanatic? There is a chemical or societal flaw or something, not caused by Scripture. You can't blame Scripture on misinterpretation. That's like saying ANY evil is caused by Scripture.
quote: No, but as long as human beings make it politically incorrect (or, in some countries, an offense punishable by death) in public life to suggest that someone's faith is dangerous, unethical or unreasonable
According to Sam Harris then, he says that ANY faith is dangerous, unethical or unreasonable. At least that seems like the message I'm hearing. You're right back to the same thing, oppression of freedom of thought, only in the other direction.
03-19-07, 01:43 PM babthrower VV said: "... Jesus could have come in power. But then, we'd be just peons in a hierarchy doing what we are told. Does that strike you as fair either?"
Exactly my point. If Jesus is in fact god, then he came to show the way. He chose not to show the way of enforcing by might. He could have lined the roadways with the crucified bodies of those who didn't follow him, as the Roman emperors did.
He could have set up prison camps for those who broke his rules, and tortured them into submission, and launched his mighty armies against non-Christian nations, killing those who would not convert at sword-point.
These behaviors to-day are more typical of fundamentalist Muslim nations, and it is true their prophet was more militant.
But haven't we all seen Christian preachers who would dearly love to have the nation's might at their disposal, so that they could settle a few scores?
And don't lots of fundamentalist Christians seem to fall for these 'lines'? (I'm not including any of you here, VV, Aire, Honilov, DD.)
I just think Christians should be aware that such leaders are, for want of a better term, anti-Christs.
03-19-07, 02:14 PM juanruiz
quote: But then, we'd be just peons in a hierarchy doing what we are told. Does that strike you as fair either?
How many Christian churches still function in this way today?
03-19-07, 04:46 PM doñadiana Probably too many. The Church is long over-due for a major adjustment to get it back on track.
DD
03-19-07, 07:27 PM frankvan
quote: According to Sam Harris then, he says that ANY faith is dangerous, unethical or unreasonable. At least that seems like the message I'm hearing. You're right back to the same thing, oppression of freedom of thought, only in the other direction.
There's nothing wrong with saying that faith without evidence is dangerous, or that the danger of unreliable beliefs is that they can often result in tragic consequences. I sure wouldn't recommend reliance on ancient guidebooks to govern 21st century life. Of course, you're free to think whatever you like best, but you need some stronger evidence than quotes from the scriptures to convince me of much of anything.
BTW, I know there are Christian Democrats, as well as Christian Republicans, but I wonder how many Republican atheists we can scrounge up?
03-20-07, 04:57 AM tsaeb Jesus did come in power, and he claimed that God gave him the power to lay down his life and to pick it up again. Paul wrote about the demonstration of the power. In the scriptures, power is not always worldly, political power.
03-20-07, 12:13 PM VelvetVoice Sarai: You need to better define "civilized society". This term is too vague, and we have no examples of one either. There is no such thing.
Frank: Is the oppression of a freedom (in this case freedom of thought or freedom of religion) okay with you, for any reason? Like I said before, my only job here is to be the messenger, not to set up rules on God's behalf. And you're doing it too, using the "we" word.
Anyone who has read my posts will know my very narrow definition of who a Christian is. America is definitely not a Christian nation.
03-20-07, 11:02 PM Sarai Civilized society = modern society. Human beings in the 21st century. You know, us. I think that was pretty clear with "we," but since you wanted more detail... Smile
03-21-07, 05:55 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by VelvetVoice: Like I said before, my only job here is to be the messenger, not to set up rules on God's behalf.
Roll Eyes I could go on about this quip but suffice it to say that I am alive and well and still participating here. Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
