I have to say that I find the direction of this thread to be somewhat distasteful. Suzianne is not the problem here, and yet she is being assailed as though she were the second coming of Torquemada (or RJHinds. I'm not sure which is worse).
The fact that she has certain beliefs about the bible and Christianity, in and of itself, is of no consequence to anybody. The only thing that should be of concern to anyone is to what end she directs those beliefs. And we have consistently seen that Suzianne has been one of the greatest champions of social justice among the Christians on this site. If it is her faith that motivates her in that direction, then even though I don't personally agree with it, I say she is welcome to it. She certainly has company in that regard, with people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dorothy Day, for example, or, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, the Amish and Hutterite communities. I would certainly rather keep company with any of them than with an atheist like Ayn Rand.
If a questionable belief can direct her toward noble ends, then I say there is something to be said for it in relation to "correct" beliefs that seem to produce nothing but rampant inequality, chronic alienation and ecological devastation - as our modern world seems prone to do. The source of someone's inspiration is secondary in comparison to the end to which that inspiration is put. For myself, I choose to spend my time battling those who use their Christianity for socially regressive means. People like Rick Santorum (or RJHinds. I'm not sure which is worse). I care very little for the fact that they believe in God. As they say, it neither breaks my bones, nor picks my pocket. If they use that belief to further socially progressive ends, then I say they're welcome to it. If they use it to further socially regressive ends, only then do we have a problem.
Originally posted by kirksey957truth is truth.
Would you find it ridiculous to say that there are parts of the Bible that take precedence over other parts of the Bible. For example, does the Sermon on the Mount offer more of the essence of the faith than the Book of Ezra?
I will concede that the reader may hold one passage above others. That is personal preference, not something to build a faith (or a non-faith) on.
The Bible is the Word of God. If you don't think so, then you have no business building your faith on any of it.
Originally posted by rwingettThanks, Rob.
I have to say that I find the direction of this thread to be somewhat distasteful. Suzianne is not the problem here, and yet she is being assailed as though she were the second coming of Torquemada (or RJHinds. I'm not sure which is worse).
The fact that she has certain beliefs about the bible and Christianity, in and of itself, is of no consequence to ...[text shortened]... o it. If they use it to further socially regressive ends, only then do we have a problem.
Oh, btw, Rick Santorum is a right bastard, in my opinion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadJesus believed in scripture. His teachings obviously come from someone well-versed in it. I think Christianity has to take the whole package, otherwise it's just some 50/50 wishy-washy belief system. If you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, you have to understand the prophecies in the OT at the very least. And this means accepting the scriptures.
And why do you think that? How do you define 'Christian' in order to make that so?
Suppose somebody believes Jesus was the son of God, and they try to follow Jesus' teachings, but do not believe the Bible is the Word of God. Why are they not Christians in your view?
Originally posted by SuzianneSometimes the Scriptures give us ambiguity. The virgin birth for example. Some people believe that everything rests on this tenet of the faith.
Jesus believed in scripture. His teachings obviously come from someone well-versed in it. I think Christianity has to take the whole package, otherwise it's just some 50/50 wishy-washy belief system. If you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, you have to understand the prophecies in the OT at the very least. And this means accepting the scriptures.
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy people view political figures as the Christian ideal has always boggled my mind. Religion is but a tool to them.
Thanks, Rob.
Oh, btw, Rick Santorum is a right bastard, in my opinion.
I no more think Romney is a good Mormon than I do Obama a good Christian.
Originally posted by whodeyRoger Williams was a prominent Protestant theologian in the 17th century. His view on the separation of church and state (from Wikipedia):
Why people view political figures as the Christian ideal has always boggled my mind. Religion is but a tool to them.
I no more think Romney is a good Mormon than I do Obama a good Christian.
Williams had read their writings, and his own experience of persecution by Archbishop Laud and the Anglican establishment and the bloody wars of religion that raged in Europe at that very time convinced him that a state church had no basis in Scripture. Clearly he had arrived at this conclusion before he landed in Boston in 1631 because he criticized the Massachusetts Bay system immediately for mixing church and state. He declared that the state could legitimately concern itself only with matters of civil order, but not religious belief. The state had no business in trying to enforce the “first Table” of the Ten Commandments, those first commandments that dealt with the relationship between God and persons. The state must confine itself to the commandments that dealt with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, honoring parents, and so forth. He regarded any effort by the state to dictate religion or promote any particular religious idea or practice to be “forced worship”. And he colorfully declared that “forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God”. He would write that he saw no warrant in the New Testament to use the sword to promote religious belief. Indeed, he said that Constantine had been a worse enemy to true Christianity than Nero because Constantine’s support had corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. In the strongest language he described the attempt to compel belief to be rape of the soul, and he spoke of the “oceans of blood” shed as a result of trying to command conformity. He believed that the moral principles found in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, but he observed that well ordered, just, and civil governments existed where Christianity was not present. All governments were required to maintain civil order and justice, but none had a warrant to promote any religion.
Originally posted by SuzianneWell that depends on what you mean by 'scripture'. Clearly Jesus didn't 'believe in' the new Testament as it didn't exist. And I disagree with your claim that it is clear that Jesus thought the Old Testament was the word of God. He was well versed in the Jewish writings, but not only do they include books not found in the OT, but being well versed in something does not mean you believe it to be the word of God.
Jesus believed in scripture. His teachings obviously come from someone well-versed in it.
I think Christianity has to take the whole package, otherwise it's just some 50/50 wishy-washy belief system.
But whose package must you take, and what gives you the right to say that your package is the only one deserving of the title 'Christianity'?
If you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, you have to understand the prophecies in the OT at the very least.
No, you don't.
And this means accepting the scriptures.
No, it doesn't.
Originally posted by rwingettIt is of great consequence when she becomes all discriminatory and starts declaring that nobody who believes otherwise can be called 'Christian'.
The fact that she has certain beliefs about the bible and Christianity, in and of itself, is of no consequence to anybody.