letter to george bush, seeking clarification on christian living

jaydee · Nov 12, 2004

Yup, you'd be a lot safer getting your moral advice from The Cat in the Hat.

MikeD · Nov 12, 2004

That email was usually addressed to "Dear Dr. Laura."

MD

Skookum · Nov 13, 2004

MikeD said:
That email was usually addressed to "Dear Dr. Laura."

MD

watch out i could smite you if i wanted to pal.....

JRogers · Nov 13, 2004

This email is pretty old; I've seen it on this site before and in other places in other forms.

Though there is some merit to what it says, the underlying principle ignores a few thousand years of religious thought and some basic Christian ideas in order to make its point.

punkassean · Nov 13, 2004

but it's a good point none the less.

ALEXIS_DH · Nov 13, 2004

JRogers said:
This email is pretty old; I've seen it on this site before and in other places in other forms.

Though there is some merit to what it says, the underlying principle ignores a few thousand years of religious thought and some basic Christian ideas in order to make its point.

yeah, the point of the infalibility (or howevers its spelled) of the bible, and the protestantism theorem of everything of the "literal word of god".

my question for you is, under the protestant absolutist POV...
how can a few thousand of years of christian thought change the outcome, IF the basic principle of protestantism, is the "bible = factual word of god".

how does thinking about it, changes the fact that its the word of god and ost application??

MikeD · Nov 13, 2004

JRogers said:
This email is pretty old; I've seen it on this site before and in other places in other forms.

Though there is some merit to what it says, the underlying principle ignores a few thousand years of religious thought and some basic Christian ideas in order to make its point.

Well, it's not really directed to Christians; it was directed to Dr. Laura, who used her 'Jewish faith' as a defense of here anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Applying it to Christianity ignores the New Testament, and I'm sure Andyman can chime in on what the New Testament means to these rules.

MD

JRogers · Nov 13, 2004

MikeD said:
Well, it's not really directed to Christians; it was directed to Dr. Laura, who used her 'Jewish faith' as a defense of here anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Applying it to Christianity ignores the New Testament, and I'm sure Andyman can chime in on what the New Testament means to these rules.

MD

I assume you meant "Old" and not "New" in the first part of the second sentence. Basically, what I mean is that most Christians do not consider the Bible to be infallible or the literal word. Allegory, metaphor and other devices are used throghout. Holding that it is literal word is a hard proposition in today's society. ALEXIS, I'm not really sure what you are saying but there is a wide variety of interpretation in Protestant views of the Bible. But, we have to pick and choose, based on merits, what words mean what. So, essentially, one could find a way to argue (correctly or not, I make not judgments here) that the commandment against homosexuality is still valid while the other stuff (stoning people etc.) is not. In the NT, there are other passages that can be used both ways, for and against homosexuality.

Also, the NT (in Christian thought) has superceded the OT to some extent. Thought the latter can be used for certain things and is still utilized for teaching and justification, its rules do not really apply in many instances (check out the early church contraversies to see this clearly played out. Paul presents and resolves a significant and telling dilemma: do Christians need to be circumcised like Jews? His answer is that they do not, which effectively diminishes the OT and makes its laws no longer the guide for religious life).

As for Dr. Laura, I really don't know what she says, so I make no judgments. I have a few main points. First, this letter has limited application to Christians and its validity as a response depends on what arguments are being made to begin with. Second, this letter does not prove anything. It only makes an equation of "if A is true and B is near A, then B is true," which does not necessarily make sense. Essentially, though there is a compelling statement made, it doesn't prove or disprove anything by trivializing the intricacy of religious thought. Think of it this way: you can accept some of the views of a particular philosophy or religion but reject others based on merit. The argument that you must reject the entire philosophy because there are a few things you disagree with doesn't work. Well, it does work if you just argue without any reason and just use the "that's what it says" argument.

If nothing else, remember this: Jews and Christians, no matter how much they hold the Bible to be true, pick and choose what they believe, even if they consider the entire work the "word of God." NO denomination takes a literal view of the entire thing (meaning the actual text of the Bible), no matter what they say. Therefore, we cannot assume that they do and argue against them on that assumption. Interpretation is always involved. We can reconcile this with certain religions because their interpretations and later writings become, effectively or literally, canonical and have the same authority as the originial text.

Man, I need to stop responding to these "Christianity" threads. I just go crazy and write small essays. I dunno, I just really like the topic so it's hard not to respond. Keep in mind that I am not a believing member of a church. I am just trying to present a little more balance.

MikeD · Nov 13, 2004

No, I meant 'New.' As in, the letter only addresses the Old Testament, which is to say if it's applied to Christianity, it is ignoring the New Testament's role in Christian thought.

MD

JRogers · Nov 13, 2004

MikeD said:
No, I meant 'New.' As in, the letter only addresses the Old Testament, which is to say if it's applied to Christianity, it is ignoring the New Testament's role in Christian thought.

MD

Sorry. I read it wrong. Thought you meant that Christianity ignores the OT, which is pretty close to what you meant.

jaydee · Nov 13, 2004

JRogers said:
Man, I need to stop responding to these "Christianity" threads. I just go crazy and write small essays. I dunno, I just really like the topic so it's hard not to respond. Keep in mind that I am not a believing member of a church. I am just trying to present a little more balance.

JRogers, don't stop responding to these threads. You probably have about the best perspective I've seen here on these types of issues. I may take exception to the occasional point you make, but that's just my humble agnostic opinion, and you are usually able to crush me. Keep up the thought-provoking responses.

Andyman_1970 · Nov 13, 2004

Man, it's late and I got to get up at "O dark thirty" tomorrow.

I'll post my thoughts and view points tomorrow, interestingly enough I've been studying a very similar idea (which I don't quite have my mind wrapped around).

Anyway, tomorrow it is...................

Changleen · Nov 14, 2004

I saw a great article today which contrasted Bush's policies to the stated political postions of his church, Suprise suprise, they were 100% in opposition. This would be fine, a good thing even, if Bush had not used his 'belief' to leverage such support and had not so many people bought into it. So in reality, Bush uses his 'Christian morals' to garner support, but neither goes to Church, nor actually takes ANY (ZERO) of his his 'choosen religion's' standpoints to heart in his ANY of his policy... Once again I am dismayed at the utter lack of a thought process or critical thinking displayed by the average voter.

Andyman_1970 · Nov 14, 2004

MikeD said:
Well, it's not really directed to Christians; it was directed to Dr. Laura, who used her 'Jewish faith' as a defense of here anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Applying it to Christianity ignores the New Testament, and I'm sure Andyman can chime in on what the New Testament means to these rules.

MD

I addressed a similar post to this several months ago regarding all those OT quotes. I'll take some time and comment on this anyway.

First, I want to say that even though I appear to be "hard" on Christianity I want to clarify that I have issues with the traditionalism and apparent hypocrisy that has manifested itself in modern evangelical Christianity in the US today. That said, it's easy for anyone to "tear down" something, it's quite another thing to work to change or influence something, which I am trying to do.

Now on with the show..........

The use of the OT quotes as "ammo" to try to corner a Christian are uninformed at best with regards of Christianity and it's tenents.

First, as disciples of Jesus, we are to take His "yoke" (which was a rabbi's interpretation of Torah) upon us and live this out. Essentially what is Jesus' "yoke"? Mark 12:28-34, Loving the Lord your God, and Loving your neighbor as yourself. So for a Christian when we take Jesus' yoke upon us we become Torah observant, of sorts. Because Jesus was a rabbi with S'mikah (which Jewish history records and affirms, the rabbi part at least) He could make new interpretation of Torah. So from a Christians point of view, these commands from the Torah while full of valuable lessons and pictures of the Messiah, are irrelevant from the point of view of living them out.

Second, I have a real issue with those who "take the Text literally" and yet don't. Example: many evangelicals believe that baptism by immersion is the only accurate way to baptize someone (I would agree) however these folks also tend to look at the tithe as something that is relevant for today in 2004 - which Biblically it clearly isn't (the Tithe was never currency, it was always grain/produce/animals). So on the one hand these people desire to be Biblically accurate with Baptism (a good thing) and yet "think" they are being Biblically accurate with the tithe (which their not) they are only reguritating what a pastor said instead of really studying the issue. So those who think they take the Text literally really don't.

Third, passages like the spoils of war in Deut. 21 and about slaves in Ephesians 6 seem somewhat barbaric and backwards (this includes the passages cited in the OP), but for their time, when they were given, they were very progressive. Treating a woman you captured as your wife and letting her go (not selling her as a slave) if she wanted to go was revolutionary for the time. The same for Paul's passage for slaves. It's funny those same people who say they take the Bible literally don't think they should have slaves and yet Paul asserts that it's not a problem to have them, from a literal point of view.

Fourth, I have a problem with those who do not examine the context in which the Text was given and yet apply some great doctrinal truth from it. Example: Paul's letters, in 1 Timothy, unless you know what was going on in Ephesus (where Timothy was when Paul was writing his letter to him) the commands about overseers and deacons seem arbitrary and demeaning to women. But once you learn about the Artemis worship (her temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world) and the Gnostic cult of Eve, all those verses that look like they are putting women off make perfect sense - for Ephesus that is. I can't understand why some abritrarily assume this is meant for us in 2004. Most Christians would quote you 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, teaching........". The problem quoting that passage and using it as a "proof text" is when Paul wrote that to Timothy, the New Testament hadn't been cannonized yet, so he was referring to the Old Testament..............it's funny how you never hear THAT in church.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on this whole taking the Bible literally deal. Now do I believe it is the inspired Word of God (as orginally transcribed), I sure do. However, the Bible also tells us to "test everything" and God gave us a brain for a reason. The rabbi's understood the Scriptures that Creation was God creating "light" and separating it from "dark" and the rest of the Text is God teaching us how to separate light from dark...........teaching us how, not a list of rules................I think the Bible is the story of God teaching people to use their brains to discern what's light and dark.

Skookum · Nov 14, 2004

Andyman_1970 said:
I addressed a similar post to this several months ago regarding all those OT quotes. I'll take some time and comment on this anyway.

First, I want to say that even though I appear to be "hard" on Christianity I want to clarify that I have issues with the traditionalism and apparent hypocrisy that has manifested itself in modern evangelical Christianity in the US today. That said, it's easy for anyone to "tear down" something, it's quite another thing to work to change or influence something, which I am trying to do.

Now on with the show..........

The use of the OT quotes as "ammo" to try to corner a Christian are uninformed at best with regards of Christianity and it's tenents.

First, as disciples of Jesus, we are to take His "yoke" (which was a rabbi's interpretation of Torah) upon us and live this out. Essentially what is Jesus' "yoke"? Mark 12:28-34, Loving the Lord your God, and Loving your neighbor as yourself. So for a Christian when we take Jesus' yoke upon us we become Torah observant, of sorts. Because Jesus was a rabbi with S'mikah (which Jewish history records and affirms, the rabbi part at least) He could make new interpretation of Torah. So from a Christians point of view, these commands from the Torah while full of vlauable lessons and pictures of the Messiah, are irrelevant from the point of view of living them out.

Second, I have a real issue with those who "take the Text literally" and yet don't. Example: many evangelicals believe that baptism by immersion is the only accurate way to baptize someone (I would agree) however these folks also tend to look at the tithe as something that is relevant for today in 2004 - which Biblically it clearly isn't (the Tithe was never currency, it was always grain/produce/animals). So on the one hand these people desire to be Biblically accurate (a good thing) and "think" they are being Biblically accurate (which their not) they are only reguritationg what a pastor said. So those who think they take the Text literally really don't.

Third, passages like the spoils of war in Deut. 21 and about slaves in Ephesians 6 seem somewhat barbaric and backwards (this includes the passages cited in the OP), but for their time when they were given they were very progressive. Treating a woman you wanted from an enemy you defeated as your wife and letting her go (not selling her as a slave) if she wanted to go was revolutionary for the time. The same for Paul's passage for slaves. It's funny those same people who say they take the Bible literally don't think they should have slaves and yet Paul asserts that it's not a problem to have them, from a literal point of view.

Fourth, I have a problem with those who do not examine the context in which the Text was given and yet apply some great doctrinal truth from it. Example Paul's letters, in 1 Timothy, unless you know what was going on in Ephesus (where Timothy was when Paul was writing his letter to him) the commands about overseers and deacons seem arbitrary. But once you learn about the Artemis worship (her temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world) and the Gnostic cult of Eve, all those verses that look like they are putting women off make perfect sense - for Ephesus that is. Why do some abritrarily assume this is meant for us in 2004? Most Christians would quote you 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, teaching........". The problem was when Paul wrote that to Timothy, the NT hadn't been cannonized yet, so he was referring to the OT..............it's funny how you never hear THAT in church.

huh?....

Andyman_1970 said:
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on this whole taking the Bible literally deal. Now do I believe it is the inspired Word of God (as orginally transcribed), I sure do. However, the Bible also tells us to "test everything" and God gave us a brain for a reason. The rabbi's understood the Scriptures that Creation was God creating "light" and separating it from "dark" and the rest of the Text is God teaching us how to separate light from dark...........teaching us how, not a list of rules................I think the Bible is the story of God teaching people to use their brains to discern what's light and dark.

oh... ok...

Changleen · Nov 15, 2004

The rabbi's understood the Scriptures that Creation was God creating "light" and separating it from "dark" and the rest of the Text is God teaching us how to separate light from dark...........teaching us how, not a list of rules................I think the Bible is the story of God teaching people to use their brains to discern what's light and dark.

(Please read this carefully!) Does/would that (for you personally) also allow for the possible eventual conclusion that God, as described in scripture, does not exist?

binary visions · Nov 15, 2004

Changleen said:
(Please read this carefully!) Does/would that (for you personally) also allow for the possible eventual conclusion that God, as described in scripture, does not exist?

Are you just prodding the animal with a sharp stick, hoping for some kind of response here?

Given the acceptance that God did, in fact, provide us with these things (a brain, ability to reason, etc.) - isn't that also accepting that God exists?

Andyman can clearly hold his own and answer for himself, but it seems silly to me that your first question on that interesting commentary was, "since God says we can think for ourselves, does that mean that we could, in fact, reject God?"

Thanks, Homer. "Hey Flanders, I've got a question for you. Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He himself could not eat it?"

The age-old question, since God is limitless, can God actually do/create something beyond His powers. Moot point, nobody cares - the point is neither interesting or defensible. It's simply intellectual masturbation.

My 2 cents.

Andyman_1970 · Nov 15, 2004

binary visions said:
Are you just prodding the animal with a sharp stick, hoping for some kind of response here?

Given the acceptance that God did, in fact, provide us with these things (a brain, ability to reason, etc.) - isn't that also accepting that God exists?

Andyman can clearly hold his own and answer for himself, but it seems silly to me that your first question on that interesting commentary was, "since God says we can think for ourselves, does that mean that we could, in fact, reject God?"

Thanks for the post Binary I appreciate the comments.

Changleen, I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to "prove" something to you, Binary's comments on your post are more than adequate.

However in your post you quote me mentioning about what the ancient rabbi's believed the Scritpures were for. The deal is your applying your Western/Greek mind and way of thinking to a very Eastern/Hebrew concept and way of thinking (i.e. the rabbi's I quote).

In our Western way of thinking we try to prove the existence of God where the Hebrew/Eastern thought the existence of God is assumed. The Western way of thinking sees faith as intellectual, they express their faith in creeds and doctrine and list proof text to support their beliefs. The Eastern/Hebrew mind sees faith as relational and personal. They express their faith in terms of a relationship with God rather than a rationalization. In the Tanakh (the Old Testament), the Talmud (the Oral Torah) and the Mishnah (rabbinic commentary on the Torah) you never see anything that seeks to prove God, to prove He exists - the understanding (at least one of them) is (from the Text) is that the whole earth "proves" God exists.

So you can see where there would be a problem trying to use Western logic to "prove" something that is not a Western concept.

binary visions said:
Thanks, Homer. "Hey Flanders, I've got a question for you. Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He himself could not eat it?"

The age-old question, since God is limitless, can God actually do/create something beyond his powers. Moot point, nobody cares - the point is neither interesting or defensible. It's simply intellectual masturbation.

Your Simpsons quote is too funny. Excellent point with the can God do something beyond His powers comment. :thumb:

Kornphlake · Nov 15, 2004

Andyman, where did you go to school? Out of genuine curiosity, I've only met a handfull of people who are as well versed in ancinet scripture and biblical customs as you seem to be.

Andyman_1970 · Nov 15, 2004

Kornphlake said:
Andyman, where did you go to school? Out of genuine curiosity, I've only met a handfull of people who are as well versed in ancinet scripture and biblical customs as you seem to be.

Dude thanks for the props...........seriously that is totally encouraging!!! :thumb:

I'll be honest with you I got my Aeronautical Engineering Degree in Missouri, everything I know about the Hebrew stuff you see me quote is from self study from the last 2 1/2 years. I read alot of the Talmud and Mishnah, I have a few friends who are Messianic Jews/Gentiles that I study with (I'm not "Messianic" BTW), and I spend time at the local synagogue library. I read alot of historical stuff regarding Christianity and Judaism.

I've considered taking some distance learning courses from a seminary, but then I realized that rhymes with cemetary...........LOL. Instead after the first of the year I'm going to study under a rabbi here in town and learn Hebrew.

Anyway, I'm just a regular dude......................

DRB · Nov 16, 2004

Kornphlake said:
Andyman, where did you go to school? Out of genuine curiosity, I've only met a handfull of people who are as well versed in ancinet scripture and biblical customs as you seem to be.

Andyman, I've said this of only a few others. You are a credit to your faith.

Andyman_1970 · Nov 16, 2004

DRB said:
Andyman, I've said this of only a few others. You are a credit to your faith.

Thanks DRB..............I enjoy posting on here with you guys/gals (Jr. Bullit).

I also post over on a Christian Forum (not to be negative or "tear down" mind you) but you guys for the most part seem more open to the ideas I present than most Christians on that board.

It's always nice after having a frustrating discussion over there to come here and post. On the Christian board I'm just another Christian, over here I stick out like a sore thumb..........which is cool.

Kornphlake · Nov 16, 2004

Andyman_1970 said:
Dude thanks for the props...........seriously that is totally encouraging!!!

I'll be honest with you I got my Aeronautical Engineering Degree in Missouri, everything I know about the Hebrew stuff you see me quote is from self study from the last 2 1/2 years. I read alot of the Talmud and Mishnah, I have a few friends who are Messianic Jews/Gentiles that I study with (I'm not "Messianic" BTW), and I spend time at the local synagogue library. I read alot of historical stuff regarding Christianity and Judaism.

I've considered taking some distance learning courses from a seminary, but then I realized that rhymes with cemetary...........LOL. Instead after the first of the year I'm going to study under a rabbi here in town and learn Hebrew.

Anyway, I'm just a regular dude......................

Your devotion to your own faith and willingness to give credit to the truth where credit is deserved is refreshing. I've met too many close minded christians, even among my own faith, your remarks about literal and logical understanding of the bible are right on. I am LDS myself, I attended 4 years of what we call seminary during high school (an hour long class we attend daily before school), I did the mormon missionary thing, graduated from Brigham Young University with something like 30 credit hours in religion courses... Still I don't have the grasp of the ancient texts that you have, and to have gotten that understanding through personal study is commendable.

N8 v2.0 · Nov 16, 2004

Andyman_1970 said:
Thanks DRB..............I enjoy posting on here with you guys/gals (Jr. Bullit).

I also post over on a Christian Forum (not to be negative or "tear down" mind you) but you guys for the most part seem more open to the ideas I present than most Christians on that board.

It's always nice after having a frustrating discussion over there to come here and post. On the Christian board I'm just another Christian, over here I stick out like a sore thumb..........which is cool.

You seeme to be an exception to all the other Southern Baptists I know...

JRogers · Nov 16, 2004

Andyman_1970 said:
In our Western way of thinking we try to prove the existence of God where the Hebrew/Eastern thought the existence of God is assumed. The Western way of thinking sees faith as intellectual, they express their faith in creeds and doctrine and list proof text to support their beliefs. The Eastern/Hebrew mind sees faith as relational and personal. They express their faith in terms of a relationship with God rather than a rationalization. In the Tanakh (the Old Testament), the Talmud (the Oral Torah) and the Mishnah (rabbinic commentary on the Torah) you never see anything that seeks to prove God, to prove He exists - the understanding (at least one of them) is (from the Text) is that the whole earth "proves" God exists.

So you can see where there would be a problem trying to use Western logic to "prove" something that is not a Western concept.

Good observations. If anyone wants to see a quick and easy example/exemplification of this evidenced in common texts, look in Ecclesiastes/Qohelet. For all the author's questioning of God, his nature and the nature of the world, the simple existence of God is never called into question. The author asks provoking questions: how can evil exist in the world? Why do we suffer? Why is there injustice? But, he never questions the existence of the divine. That is not the goal of the work, or even really a question that makes sense in the mind of the author. Though perhaps not the best written book, it is thought provoking and compelling if you are religious or not. Comparing myself to Qohelet, I can better understand how someone might be able to hold unquestionable faith and how they can reconcile that with facts that my mind might construe as incompatible with the existence of God.

Andyman_1970 · Nov 16, 2004

Kornphlake said:
I've met too many close minded christians, even among my own faith......

The funny thing is, the Scriptures speak directly against this kind of mindset.

letter to george bush, seeking clarification on christian living

Eastcoast Softcore

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

bikey's is cool

talks too much

Turbo Monkey

Tirelessly Awesome

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

talks too much

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

talks too much

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Paranoid Member

Eastcoast Softcore

Turbo Monkey

bikey's is cool

Paranoid Member

The voice of reason

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

unemployed bum

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

talks too much

Turbo Monkey