Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length


 

News:

For Western Civ Forum support announcements, please click here.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Fit2BThaied

Pages: [1]
1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_nobel_text

What a travesty. Dr. King rolls over in his grave. No war was ever just, divively righteous. The efforts by Augustine, Aquinas, et al, were in vain - their theory never tested nor proven in 1,600 years. Catholics, apply your doctrine from your catechism. Protestants, from the commands of Jesus. Or agree that this is one time I'm not wrong. ;) ;D

2
According to a report on Yahoo, here are the statements by Barak Obama to which Dr. James Dobson, M.D., objects to:

""Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if w expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

So, which passages of the Bible are normative for Christian ethics: Leviticus, or Matthew and Luke?

3
I hope your media sources are covering the incredible mass protests in Myanmar (Burma).  Led by tens of thousands of robed Buddhist monks, the people of Myanmar are flooding the streets of cities like Rangoon (Yangoon) and Mandalay, up to 100,000 strong, every day. 

Much good support is being provided by our President and First Lady, George and Laura Bush.  They have pressured the leaders of Asia, and the Secretary General of the UN and his chief aides, to do everything possible to support the nonviolent movement that is headed by Aung Saan Suu Kyi, The Lady of Burma whose father liberated Burma from Great Britain after the second world war.  The generals who head the military junta of Myanmar are some of the world's worst thugs, but it is unlikely that they will gun down thousands and thousands of peaceful Buddhist monks, while the world watches with videocams and mobile phone cameras.

China, which usually supports the Myanmarese generals, may be reluctant to approve a violent purge because all eyes are on China for the 2008 Olympics. 

What is your favorite media saying about this ongoing event?

4
The New Testament commands disciples, in James 5:16, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."  Catholics do this to a priest, and priests confess their sins to other priests, but Protestants believe that all Christians are saints and priests.

In Matthew 18:15, Jesus commands us what to do: "If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Footnote [a]: Some manuscripts do not have against you.

Our administrator, Donald Baker, has pointed out that most 'demands for apologies' are vengeful in nature, trying to publicly retaliate and force a confession in order to 'get even,' and I agree that's often the case.

Years ago, Bill Gaither taught in Basic Youth Conflicts that there is a proper way to confess one's sin against another person.  Without mentioning anything wrong that the other person did, you just go to them, admit your own sin by naming the offense, and beg for forgiveness, not even expecting to receive forgiveness.  Good advice.

Humans are terrible at confessions.  Sometimes the most that a politician will admit, when he's been caught red-handed with his hand in the cookie jar, is little more than "Mistakes were made," or his spokesperson will admit, "Some prior statements are now inoperative."  :)

Is there something about internet forums where we think the Scriptural commands to love our brothers and our enemies, to confess our sins, and to treat other humanoids with respect, have been suspended?  I think not, but I'm often wrong.  And surely, I'm guilty of violating those commands on this forum, and I apologize.

 

5
From James 2: Faith and Deeds
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

The doctrine championed by Martin Luther and other heroes of the Reformation included not only "Sola Scriptura," but "Sola Fe," meaning that a person is saved by faith alone.  Now, it obvious that Paul preached that the Law of Moses saved nobody, and that you cannot be saved by relying on works alone.  Nowhere, however, do I find a statement that man is saved by faith alone.  Rather, the passage quoted above clearly seems to state that faith alone is dead, if not accompanied by good works.  In other words, the New Testament seems to expressly say that you are not saved by faith alone.

Comments? 

6
Donald Baker has quoted this Scripture several times: "12 "Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"....which is part of I Corinthians 6:12, which then concludes, "—but I will not be mastered by anything."

What does that mean?  The NIV translation, above, puts certain critical phrases in quotations, with this footnote: "Paul is quoting some in the Corinthian congregation who boasted that they had a right to do anything they pleased (see verse 13, and I Cor 7:1 and I Cor 10:23).  The apoostle counters by observing that such 'freedom' of action may not benefit the Christian...."

For example, let's say there's something in New Testament Scripture that is clearly commanded.  Of course, my favorites would include "Love your enemies" and "Live at peace with all men" "peace....against such, there is no law."  Therefore, not everything is permissible, is it? 

Consider the context, which is I Corinthians 6, about sexual immorality.  Yes, I know that chapter includes some strange condemnation against raping slaves, or something else unclear (don't rape slaves, however!).   Surely Paul is not telling the Corinthians (who lived in one of the most immoral cities of that age) that it's permissible to commit all kinds of sexual sins.

What is Paul permitting?  Donald, I have never understood how you apply this verse, especially when you think it's okay to not be a pacifist, and that I am 'unequally yoked' to extreme pacifism when you are unyoked to a gunslinging mindset... ;D

I don't know what you mean by your use of this snippet from I Corinthians 6, Donald.  Can you interpret that passage, preferably using the conservative Southern Baptist methods of literal interpretation?  Thanks.  Just kidding about gunslinging.... :)

7
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

There probably is no reliable, accurate translation of the Greek text into English in the modern world.  John Howard Yoder, the famous Mennonite scholar, devoted all of chapter 10 of The Politics of Jesus to this text.  Here are some of his summary statements:

"Until the crisis of Naziism struck into the heartland of Protestant theological scholarship, there was little question about the centrality and adequacy of Romans 13:1-7 as the foundation of a Christian doctrine of the State.....New Testament exegesis has long since abandoned such a simple concept."

1. The New Testament speaks in many ways about the problem of the State; Romans 13 is not the center of this teaching.
2. In the structure of the epistle, chapters 12 and 13 in their entirety form one literary unit.  Therefore the text 13:1-7ึ cannot be understood alone.
3. The subordination that is called for recognizes whatever power exists, accepts whatever structure of sovereignty happens to exist.  The text does not affirm a divine act of institution or ordination of a particular government.
4. The instructions to the Romans are to be subject to a government in whose administration they had no vote.  The text cannot mean that Christians are called to do military or police service.
6..The authority of government is not self-justifying.
God is not said to create or institute or ordain the powers that be, but only to put them into order, and tell them where is their place.


You don't agree with me or with J. H. Yoder, so go ahead, please, and explain Romans 13:1-6 or 1-7 in a way that is consistent with Romans 12.  Explain it in a way that makes the American Revolution holy or unholy, and do the same for Nazi Germany and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, please.  Don't forget Romans 12, which contains direct orders to Christians to not take revenge.

8
Only today have I read this article that I truly consider to be heretical and abominable, as well as ignorant. 

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859

First, Falwell starts with an Old Testament Scripture and applies it wrongly, doesn't even see the simplest literal difference within the text (and I think the late Jerry Falwell always claimed to be a literalist).  Note that while verses 2 to 8a use verb forms (to be born, to die, to plant, to refrain, etc.), verse 8b switches to a prepositional phrase: a time OF war and a time OF peace.  Did Falwell, with his honorary doctorate and his exalted position at a Christian uni or seminary, notice it?  No, I'll bet he never noticed it. That method of exegesis is not of Jesus.

Further, it's likely that Falwell was a dispensationalist, or at least that like most of us, he believed that these 'time..times...times..' can refer to different eras, epochs, or dispensations in history, when the rules and circumstances change drastically.

Further, you can see that Falwell is confused about nation and faith, as if the USA is a Christian fundamentalist theocracy.  As another responder to this article pointed out, was God pro-war during the War of the Spanish Succession, or the Boer War, or the War of the Roses?  Which argument of Falwell's here would have been used by the chaplains of Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh?

Here's a pivotal point in Falwell's essay where he takes a leap of ignorance: "However, if one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option."  Well, yes, sometimes when Israel was a theocracy, before Saul was king, before the Judges couldn't control the warring tribes - yes, then God was the leading general of genocide, and faithful Israelites were supposed to kill every man that pisseth against the wall (literal translation by King James Version). However, the religion of shalom went on to a 2,500 period of almost perfect pacifism in practice!  That was not a violent religion, that Jewish religion, until about 1900 AD, when they got greedy for real estate again.   

As he goes on, Falwell makes the common error of not even knowing what our job is.  Christians are not commanded to do all of God's work, such as vengeance/revenge.  We are not supposed to wield any metal sword since Jesus told Peter as the first example, "Basta!  Put that sword away!"  I am using the Spanish basta in the sense of "too much already; no more!"

Falwell erroneously applies the fact that Jesus comes back in both Revelation 1 and 19, and out of the mouth of Jesus comes a sharp two edged sword with which Jesus smites the earth/heathen.  The Word of God (which Jesus is) is sharper than any two edged sword.  If Jesus wishes to make a genocide of heathen that makes the Nazi Holocaust look like a picnic, that's His job, not yours and mine.  His command "occupy till I come" did not mean "kill till I come."    Note that Falwell, like most Christian warmongers, starts by mentioning that peace is a divine imperative, and then spends the rest of the sermon telling us that here and now, we have to kill those cursed enemies.  Contradictory!

One paragraph merely states what Falwell considers to be the obvious: "It is apparent that our God-authored freedoms must be defended."  Who is he addressing: Muslims in the Sudan, Christians in Rwanda, Christians in Iraq, Germans in Nazi Germany?  Of course, this deceased American preacher was addressing patriotic American Christians in the USA, and it was apparent to him then (January 2004) that 'we' had to go kill Muslims in Iraq in order to defend...what, the Bible?  No, for His sake we are slaughtered all the day long.  To defend what, American capitalism and imperialism and oil control?  Oh, our freedoms, that must be what we defend..........but guess what - the Bill of Rights is secular, not sacred!  We don't live in a theocracy for which God commands us to kill.

Sorry for the diatribe here, but Jesus does not currently command His disciples to go murder or kill for the USA or for Nazi Germany or Rwanda.  God commands us to teach all Christians to obey all things whatsoever....JESUS commanded us to do.  Those are our 'marching orders,' so to speak, and I hope you understand that the only true Gospel is.........the gospel of peace.  Blessed upon the mountain are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace.  To which we might add, "cursed in the gutter be the feet of those who preach a false gospel of war."  Now, if you think I'm preaching a false gospel, please prove it by showing that the true gospel commands us to kill and murder.  Thank you, God bless you, etc. 


9
Since skiguy challenged this point of mine in another thread (regarding judging Muslims for their sins, and by my inferrence, he seems to think that we have the divine right to execute God's judgment upon non-believers), here's the passage.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (New International Version), " 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside..."

Who knows of a New Testament command that contravenes or limits this Scripture?  Am I quoting out of context?  Did Paul not write that?

10
Today's sermon and lectionary reading were from Luke 15, about the prodigal son.  When preaching it, the pastor always has to decide who the bad guy is (and not enough, in my opinion, about who the good guy is).

We know the Pharisees thought the tax collectors and Jesus' other dinner guests were the bad guys.  Sometimes we accuse the Pharisees of being the bad guys, although in some respects, we are the Pharisees, today.  Of course, the prodigal son was very bad.  Was his father a bad father?

Of course, it seems everybody wants to beat up on the elder son, who stayed at home and was obedient.  However, I found another place where Jesus says a servant should not be overly praised for merely doing his job (obedience).

Was the prodigal son finally good to repent, and did he truly repent?  Was the father good/righteous to forgive, and to love his younger son?  Was the elder son good to be obedient, and not out of line to say, "Hey Dad, what do I get for being a good boy?"

11
Matthew 28:19-20 (King James Version): Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Is this just a call for the Billy Graham types and missionaries to present the front door of the Christian life, nothing more than preaching how one becomes saved? 

35 years ago, a state director of church training told a group of pastors and religious educators that, while he was no theologian, he understood the main verb in the Greek text was "make disciples."  The NIV agrees: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."  The imperative verb translated as "Go ye" in the King James can be a participial phrase, 'as you are going...'

The Amplified Bible says, "Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you..."

I take a reactionary, Anabaptist view based upon obedience to commands: the Great Commission is primarily a command to teach the commands of Jesus, teaching Christians to obey all of Jesus' commands.

What do you think?

12
We've already covered a couple of topics, so let me throw a few more subjects out, for us to consider, if we wish:

Sex outside of marriage
Euthaniasia (mercy killing)
The wickedness of the tongue; gossip; slander; libel
Collateral damage in warfare
Social justice issues: economic inequalities; treatment of the poor by Christians
Prejudice: racial, social, religious, economic
Masturbation, adultery in the heart
Christian involvement in politics
Little white lies
Hateful thoughts toward other people

We've joked about 'stirring the pot' with issues, and we don't want these discussions to injure our fellowship.  On which of these would you like to start a topic?

13
General Discussion / True Evangelical Faith, per Menno Simons
« on: October 12, 2006, 09:58:40 AM »
The man who leant his name to the Mennonite denomination said several memorable things, and here's one:

"True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute; it serves those that cause it harm; it binds up that which is wounded; it has become all things to all people."
- Menno Simons

 

Pages: [1]