Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Religion and Philosophy Clergy enlisted to aid imposing martial law

Scout:

My post to a knight,was NOT intended to allow or disallow
posting from him/her.....I never used the word Qualified
you did,I was referring to being Justified "by God" and
sanctified "by God" to expound on the MEANING of the scriptures.

CHB.qualifies people to post on anything here....

God sanctifies with the Holy Ghost to expound on the scriptures
in a relevant manner......IMHO

2Wins: It isn't "BS",it's serious,I try not to disparage
anyones religion,and am not interested in tearing asunder any
thing you believe,and expect like treatment in return...

Fermi:

1 Cor: 15-50,Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.......

let me guess your attempt at facetious???

My honest "personal"opinion...

Mike D.

Mike - I appreciate the sentiment but each time you engage in this conversation you do disparage others. You profess an absolutest position and subsequently marginalize those who do not agree with you, even those within your own faith. I believe you do not intend to do it and perhaps you don't realize you're doing it, but it's happening man. No flame intended, just straight up talk about, yes, a serious subject.

Grassroots,

Senator Craig is not gay. He has never been gay. He just has a wide stance. He pleaded guilty because the Press was hounding him. He has retracted the guilty plea.

I'm not being facetious. I have never been facetious!

Justified or qualified, it's all semantics. Cease and desist with the disparagement of others' "justifications". Thank you for your immediate cooperation.

Scoutgal
Moderator

Man, I haven't seen a Scripture fight like this one in years! Barbed verses flying furiously back and forth make me want to duck lest I inadvertently become impaled on a "love thy neighbor"!

Let me just say that the way I learned it (and I spent a lot of time in Scripture studies), it is very dangerous to quote the Bible out of context. It's meant to be taken as an integral whole, not picking and choosing, but putting it all together to spell "s-a-l-v-a-t-i-o-n".

Just my two cents' worth.

I have always had concern when the Bible is used as a source document with the assertion that it is inerrant. My concern is this: I am not a scholar of Aramaic, Greek, or Latin, and therefore am unqualified to translate it. Even if I accept that the Bible is divinely inspired (remember I am a lawyer, so this is asserting a "given" for the sake of argument, not necessarily from personal belief), I have a hard time believing that all translators/interpreters were inerrant in their translation (otherwise, how could there be so many discrepancies in editions?). Humans, I believe, are fallible. Since the Bible is a product of human effort, it therefore must, necessarily, be fallible (in its production, if not intent). Any of our interpretations of the text are, likewise, subject to our human fallibility, regardless of our humble and sincere intent. Then there is the additional reality, often overlooked, that Jesus sometimes spoke in irony or parable to make a point without intending that his words (in context) were expected to be taken literally (as in "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - he really was not encouraging anyone to cast stones). I believe the reference in Luke 22:36-38 to be just such an instance, which is borne out by the context. I believe what he was really saying is this: going out and buying a sword will do you no good, as it is contrary to all of the points I have been making. Why else would he enjoin them to "buy two!" (they're small?).

I was raised for much of my youth in what could be probably considered a "snake-handling" right-wing Christian church during a peak era of the abortion debate (the late 70's- early 80's.)

Although the radicalism that I encountered in my youth has played a significant role in my personal decision to stay away from a church of any stripe, I still remember my former Christian Pastor imploring his followers to obey the rule of America's secular government, even before the "law of God".

Could this be another case of Christians being influenced by their leaders to obey the law of the secular nation that they live in?

Mal, urging Christians to obey the law of the secular nation they live in, even BEFORE ANY "spiritual law" or "natural law" forces us to reach several rather sobering conclusions:

1) There are men on earth whose word is more important than the WORD OF GOD, to wit: GEORGE W. BUSH

2) If the law of the secular nation I live in is sometimes more important than the Word of God, then that implies that God is not infallible, nor is the Bible inerrant because why else would the word of mankind take precedence?

3) If we are to be obedient to the word of man over the Word of God please explain why this does NOT make of us idolators each and every one.

In summation, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible has been subjected to review and to redaction on several hundred occasions and there is no doubt in my mind that an early prototype "preocon" committee decided that it was necessary to include a passage in which the ignorant masses were admonished that their rulers were to be obeyed and that the failure of said ecclesiastical committee to allow placement of such a passage might have jeopardized the book's survival in several key regions.

Think of it as the government of the time requiring a "federal warning label" that warns readers to obey the government regardless of what is said in this book.

JeffH in Occupied TX

Good points Jeff,

What about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s?

In the end, I think we probably are a nation of idolaters, heathens and secularists in addition to being a nation of believers. Isn’t that a nice balance considering the alternative?

Mal - When I read your post above this came to mind immediately. With few exceptions this was the rule to follow. In fact, it is indicitive of a move away from New Testament authority for Christians. The mainstream Christian followed the NT with authority, using the teachings of Jesus as a guide to living life. In the past 50 years - it began before but began picking up speed - a movement back to Old Testament authority became vogue, prompting Christian sects to look to the more extreme nature of Biblical history as a guide to living. It has been shown over the past handful of years that this current White House is largely influenced by a group referred to as Dominionists, a group that believes OT authority is the place to begin where life on earth is concerned. In effect, they have pushed the extremism we see today and ironically, that extremism has made its way into mainstream sects such as the Southern Baptists for example, and become the acceptable norm among a large majority of Christians in this nation. I think it's safe to say that the arguement for a Christian Nation is part and parcel of this movement, leaving behind the reality that the founding members of this nation understood while Christians populated this then new nation, they must protect the structure from any religious body outright and declare a secular nation in an effort to keep in-fighting amongst the sects out of decision making processes. Had religion been directly infused in the beginning, we would have seen a big fight between the many sects over primacy and Biblical authority, much like the one we are seeing today.