Addressing Theocracy: Just the Facts
[For the record: I do not believe Jesus votes Republican. I simply thought the image above was an appropriate illustration for the topic that follows.]
If you’re old enough to remember Dragnet, you should also remember Joe Friday and one of his signature lines: “Just the facts.” Long before the amazing science employed by the fictional members of the CSI crews in Las Vegas, New York, and Miami, Joe knew the value of objective analysis when it came to solving crimes.
And so it should be, I think, when we debunk the arguments of those who seek theocracy, who want their religion to form the basis of national law.
Recently, I started reading In Defense of the Religious Right, by Patrick Hynes, a political consultant and conservative blogger. Though I haven’t yet gotten deep into the book, one of the recurring themes so far is that today’s predominantly cruel caricaturization of the Religious Right is generally unfair and inaccurate. From the introduction …
“In researching this book, I had the pleasure of interviewing a number of leaders of the Religious Right. Their friendliness and frankness underscored my preexisting notions of Christian conservatives as wholesome, kind, convivial folks; the complete opposite of the sweaty, angry, poor, and stupid creatures of left-wing mythology.”
Fair enough. Mr. Hynes has a point. I, too, have had an opportunity to spend a great deal of time with Christian conservatives, and generally, they are as he describes them: “wholesome, kind, convivial folks.” Sure, there are a few major jerks and crackpots among them (reference: Fred Phelps), but these psychotics no more define the entire movement than Fidel Castro defines the political left.
Accordingly, I felt duly chastised when our good friend Stan took me to task for dismissing his latest missive. From Stan’s reply …
“… it makes sense that if there’s discomfort with a certain interpretation that it’s discredited as off-the-wall opinion. After all, then it can be invalidated and people can sleep again. That does appear to be the goal here. Invalidate Stan’s message so we don’t have to face what he says …
“I’d rather be the kind of person that searches out a matter before dismissing it, which is what I hope each of you do. That, my friends, is why I show up and post substantive comments with support for my positions. I hope and pray that someone will ‘get’ what I’m saying. Anyone up to that task? C’mon centralists, what do you think about the substance of the overall post?”
Now, I know there are TMV readers who will wonder why I continue to give Stan so much attention. You might be thinking, “Just ignore him and he’ll go away.” Unfortunately, I can’t do that.
As I’ve written before, I grew up in a home where many of Stan’s beliefs (and many of the justifications for his beliefs) were considered Truth. As I aged and began to read and explore new ideas and different perspectives, I developed a passion for a broader, more-inclusive world view and a corresponding desire to disprove certain elements of my upbringing.
“Certain elements” is the operative phrase, for I still recognize Christ as Son of God; His sacrifice as a redeeming moment in history; and I still pray to Him regularly. What I don’t accept is my birth-family’s hard-line rejection of all other beliefs; their teaching (at times implicit, at times explicit) that doctrinal purity is more important than living and working productively with those who have different views.
And for those reasons, I must challenge Stan’s argument that “6,000 years of God’s law trumps the Constitution.” Sure, Stan is only one person, and a relative unknown person at that, but there are just too many like him (who confuse faith with government) to simply and safely leave them unanswered.
Thus I attempt on the next page to address Stan and those like him, as they would be addressed, as Joe Friday would have encouraged us to address them, with “just the facts.”
Editor’s Notes: Stan’s comments are in block-quote form, to which the emphases (bold italics) were added. I do not answer, here, all of Stan’s recent points, but focus on the elements that (a) seemed most critical to his overall argument and (b) were substantially refutable on as factual a basis as possible.
God’s election of Israel began in the book of beginnings known as Genesis. Genesis 12 onward reveals Abraham/Isaac/Israel to be the focal point, and they begin to come into being during this time. They grow from individual to family to tribe, all the while being identified as God’s elect people. History now reveals them to be the Saxon people, or Isaac’s sons (‘saac’s sons), and America is the gathering place for the “lost†10 tribes of Israel.
Per earlier comments that Stan left at Central Sanity, the “history†on which he relies can be traced to an early 20th-century book titled Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright, by J. H. Allen. A Google search turns up a variety of background on this book, including sources that refute it.
One of those refuting sources focuses on a later-published book, The United States and Britain in Prophecy, by Herbert W. Armstrong, who apparently plagiarized a fair portion of Allen’s book.
Both books (and Stan) focus on the belief that the “Lost Tribes of Israel†are actually Anglo-Saxons rather than Jews. This school of thought – known in certain circles as “British Israelism†or “Anglo Israelism†– is thoroughly analyzed and debunked here. It ultimately appears to be little more than the arrogant nationalistic desires of an old minority sect of Brits and their American-immigrant counterparts.
Granted, Brits and Americans are not the first people to believe their nations were or are the centerpiece of divine destiny. If you haven’t yet had a chance to read it, spend some time with the middle section of American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips.
For additional refutation of Anglo Israelism, check here, and for a challenge of the presumed etymology of “Saxon,” check the Online Etymology Dictionary, where one commenter (on an earlier Stan post at CS) found that “The Saxons were named after the weapon they used: the Old Norse word ‘sax’ means ‘knife, short sword, dagger,’ and is possibly related to the Proto-Indo-European root of ‘saw.’
… the question remains about Jesus’ message when He showed up on the scene of human history. The underlying question is this: What Kingdom was intact that necessitated a new “gospel†or order by which it was to function? The answer is simple: The Kingdom already set in motion back in Genesis/Exodus. He’s not redefining the Kingdom with His message in Matthew through John, He’s just redefining the order by which it is to operate. He’s upsetting the power structure by rightfully placing government upon His shoulders, and the Pharisees hated Him for it.
Certainly, the Pharisees had a set of beliefs, a spiritual Kingdom they recognized, and they apparently longed for the return of the Jews’ own nation state. But the “Kingdom intact†at the time was that of the Romans – a kingdom that Jesus clearly treated as separate and distinct from what he was teaching when he instructed his followers to give to the Roman government (Caesar) what belonged to them, and give to God what belonged to Him.
Furthermore, it’s difficult to read the Gospels – all four of them, all the way through – and walk away believing that the Pharisees “hated” Jesus for attempting to place the Roman government “upon his Shoulders.†Rather, the Pharisees (some of them, at least) took exception to Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah. Granted, Jesus’ divinity claim may have threatened those Pharisees’ sense of standing, not to mention their beliefs about Jewish history and prophecy. And yes, some of the Pharisees are depicted as collaborative with the Roman government; for instance, in the series of events described in the Gospel of John, Chapter 18. But there is reason to question the accuracy of that portrayal. Moreover, as we read in Chapter 18 of John’s Gospel: When the Apostle Peter attempted to make Christ’s cause a political stand – drawing a sword and striking “the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear†– Jesus stopped Peter from going further, surrendered Himself to the combined cohort that had come to arrest Him, and went on to make the ultimate sacrifice. So where in this various evidence can Stan, or anyone else, draw the conclusion that Jesus’ ultimate goal was a political one, when Jesus consistently acted in an apolitical manner?
[Editor's Note: The prior paragraph was revised from the originally published version to better reflect updated information. Reference Holly's notes in the comments section: here and here.]
The prevailing assumption within Christendom is that the new Kingdom nation is that of the church, but according to Matthew 10:5-23 that nation was the House of Israel, long departed from the region and into the British Isles by this point in time.
Stan’s reference here is entirely misleading. Nowhere in the cited passage does Jesus make reference to the House of Israel as having been “long departed from the region,†much less any reference to “the British Isles.†In fact, in the key verses (5 and 6), Jesus’ explicit instruction is to avoid “the way of the Gentiles.†At that time, the British Isles (and the routes to them) would have been predominantly Gentile.
.. the disciples asked Jesus if the Kingdom would be restored to Israel in Acts 1:6. Jesus didn’t correct the substance of their question because it was substantively correct. After all, He’d just spent a great deal of time instructing them on the Kingdom (Acts 1:3) so they were asking intelligent questions based on what they’d learned from Christ Himself. What He told them is that they wouldn’t know the timing of all this, and they needed to start spreading this gospel by which the Kingdom would be governed.
Wrong again. In the cited verses, Jesus never speaks of the Gospel as a device by which a political Kingdom would be governed.
In fact, where Stan interprets Jesus’ refusal to answer the apostles’ question as acceptance of the “substance†of their question, Jesus’ refusal could just as easily be interpreted as correction. Consider the translated text …
(6) So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?†(7) He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; (8) but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.â€
In other words, “Don’t get distracted by talk of restoring the Kingdom or when such things will happen; focus instead on sharing my story around the world.â€
Granted, that’s as much one individual’s interpretation as Stan’s is, and since I promised to stick to facts, I should not label one of these interpretations as superior to the other. What I will say is that the latter, apolitical interpretation seems the most consistent with Jesus’ earlier apolitical admonition about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s, etc.
As gospel settlers, they’d start in Jerusalem, move outward to Judea, Samaria, and finally to the uttermost part of the earth. Not “uttermost parts†(plural), but “uttermost part†(singular). And they wouldn’t just DO witnessing, they were to BE witnesses. Become something…a holy nation built on Christ…predominantly Israel…open to gentile nations through conversion…culminating in the uttermost part of the earth. Start colonizing on the foundation of Christ, and in the process drive out demons, heal the sick, and raise the dead. The final place of colonization is the west coast of America, for that is the furthest landmass from Jerusalem settled by Isaac’s sons. It is truly the uttermost part for a settler beginning their journey in Jerusalem. Everything converges in America, and the time is soon for the revelation of the Kingdom in its fullness. We are in the end game.
Stan relies heavily on the singular vs. plural translation of “part.†However, out of 10 translations, the jury is split and that’s hardly worth hanging an argument on. Furthermore, Jesus is encouraging the disciples to be “witnesses†for him, not colonizers. Twice selecting a form of “colonize†in this excerpt, Stan is (without due support) putting his own words in Jesus’ mouth.
The long-term purpose of God is found in Revelation 21, and it’s found with the name of “New Jerusalem†… [which] consists of 12 foundations named after the apostles, and walls with gates named after the 12 tribes of Israel. The foundation of the Kingdom is the New Covenant, but the container of this Kingdom is still found within the 12 tribes of Israel. Walls and foundations are different, and the only thing being preached by the church today is the foundational truths of the gospels, but not the walls that reveal the container for the Kingdom.
Stan’s first mistake here is a common mistake made by many evangelicals in assigning “long-term†prophecy traits to the book of Revelation, ignoring the opening of that book where John writes the following …
(1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, (2) who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (3) Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
Note the phrases: “must soon take place†and “the time is near.†Those who want Revelation to be about some distant point in the future might argue that time is irrelevant to God, that a millennium is no more than a blink of His eye. OK – but then why didn’t John say that? Why did he, instead, not once but twice emphasize the imminence of the prophecy? In a similar vein, why would he state later (Verse 11) that his message was delivered not to all churches in all times but instead, specifically, to the churches in existence in his time?
Stan’s second mistake is insisting on a physical rather than spiritual manifestation of the Kingdom. If his interpretation were correct, why – later in the same chapter of Revelation to which he points us (Verse 22) – would the very symbol of spirituality in the city (the temple or sanctuary) be singled out as non-physical? “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.†Those words – across all translations – seem to clearly suggest that worship is an individual experience, between each of us and our God, not a national or state experience.
Jesus did say “my Kingdom is not of this worldâ€, but that’s a statement of origin, not location. He didn’t say “my Kingdom is not IN this worldâ€, He said it’s not OF this world.
Stan’s re-interpretation here is both a painfully contorted splitting of hairs and simply inconsistent with the plain-language of the originating verse across numerous translations.
Critically important is the second sentence of that verse (John 18:36), emphasis added: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.â€
Jesus’ words are remarkably consistent with his actions earlier in the same chapter which we discussed earlier in this refutation, namely, when the Apostle Peter attempted to seemingly make Jesus’ cause a political stand, drawing a sword and striking “the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear†– Jesus stopped him.
The bottom line – for Stan and anyone else who attempts to make Christianity a political cause and thereby transform our nation into a theocracy – the facts are evident: You not only violate our Constitution, you ignore what Jesus taught us.
27 Responses to “Addressing Theocracy: Just the Facts”
The Religious Right, to me ( and they may be nice people should you meet them on the street) are mostly dogged literalists who tend to force-comply open-ended teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, Forgetting the simple inviolate fact that the Bible was enscribed by non- Christians, conveniently and the plain fact some things get lost in translation or counter what was written ion a previous “book”. Most Christians I would wager in those days were illiterate.Hence the “fish” symbol scratched on the walls of Roman Sewers. The Bible itself is rife with inconsistencies, and condoned many horrific behaviors like slave ownership and mysoginy. There is also a lot of good solid wisdom in there as well to be sifted out of the ramblings. Most on the RR only cling to the New Testament, fine, but that disavows the whole lineage of Jesus and story of the Isrealites. Not saying it’s a bad read, just needs to be taken with a Lot of salt.
Pete, I admire your tenacity in hunting down Bible passages with which to debate Stan, but I’ve grown weary of prophets like him.
Let him preach to those who find him credible.
Let the Pope preach to those who think he’s infallible.
But confine the preaching to churches or homes and leave my government alone!
I surprised myself managing to read the whole thing. You must pardon me, but to me this is all “house politics”. It’s all well and good that Christians discuss what Jesus said or meant, what God wants, but it’s a discussion that’s utterly meaningless to anyone else. Oh I can find it sort of ironic that some Christians manage to interpret the Bible to mean anything they want (let’s take the Old Testament so we can reject homosexuality, but let’s take the New Testament so we can still eat pork) but it’s still castles in the sky for me. To care what Jesus meant and what God wants you have to:
1. Believe in a God.
2. Believe in the Christian version of God.
It’s ok I guess that someone believes that the Supreme Truth is in a book written thousands of years before by men, believing it to be the Word of God, even if you don’t have any actual proof of it. It’s strange to me that you could be so convinced that YOUR God is the RIGHT God, despite knowing that, had you been born in India, or African, or Japan or Iran, you’d very likely believe something completely different with the same conviction (and the same proof), but as a non-religious person, I suppose I will never come to understand it.
Fine, so that’s what you believe. You still live in a nation of laws. It’s a democracy for now, so if a majority of citizens want the US to be an official Christian State, that’s totally their right. You’ll have to change the Constitution, but there are mechanisms for that. I see nothing wrong with the matter, as long as it’s a democratic process. Well, that’s a bit of an overstatement; I would think it sad if the US fell into religious fundamentalism, but if it were done at the wish of the majority of the population, well that’s democracy. Each nation has a right to decide it’s own future. So Stan, if you’re reading, if you believe the US is destined to be God’s land, go ahead, move the people in that direction. I’ll watch, from a safe distance….since I somehow suspect Atheists wouldn’t be treated in a very “Christian” way in you’re “Christian USA”.
Thanks to all for the comments so far: hanginjohnny, domajot, and Lynx. I think we’re all generally on the same page and I kinda suspected, going into this, that I’d be preaching to the choir, so to speak. But one of the reasons I took the time to address Stan with his own technique, from his own sources, was not so much because of Stan or what he believes, but because I hear versions of these arguments from “waverers” all the time — i.e., people who are on the fence. Thus, my hope was to arm all of us with enough specific information so that when we encounter one of those waverers (who might be leaning over the precipice of buying into Stan-like arguments), we can provide them with rational arguments for their consideration. Save one wavering soul at a time, save a nation. Or something like that.
As always, definitions are everything.
If one defines the “Religious Right” to be those Americans who happen to be both religious and conservative, then criticism of this group of Americans is way overblown. If there’s nothing wrong with being religious and nothing wrong with being conservative, then surely it follows that there’s nothing wrong with being relgious and conservative.
However, most Americans do not define the “Religious Right” in that manner, and I believe, the leaders of the “Religious Right” themselves would admit that they’re more than just relgious people who hold conservative views.
First off, let’s be very clear what “right” means in the “Religious Right.” We generally think of “right” as meaning “conservative.” However, it should be very clear to everyone that the “conservativism” that the Religious Right advances is associated with social conservatism, not fiscal conservatism. You don’t often (if ever) hear leading members of the Religious Right extolling free market capitalism and rolling back the state. On the contrary! Many who joined the Religious Right movement in the 1970′s were former Democrats with culturally conservative but economically populist positions.
The mission of the Religious Right has never been to advance smaller government/free market capitalism conservatism as advocated by Barry Goldwater in the 1960s but to advocate using the goverment as a tool to bring America back to its Christian roots. At first, this agenda focused on reversing Supreme Court judgements on school prayer and abortion, which many social conservatives believed was a violation of state’s rights. But in the 1980s and 1990s, this agenda went well beyond simply a support for state’s rights, and moved towards using the government (both at the state and federal level) to force their religious views on others–either by advocating that government be used to foster their religious views or to forcibly prevent others from engaging in lifestyle activities that they felt violated Christian teachings (pornography, promiscuity, homosexuality, defying traditional gender roles, defying authority, gambling, drug use).
The leaders of the Religious Right rejected the smaller government conservatism of Goldwater, and Goldwater, in turn, spoke out openly against Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, fearing that their religious agenda was steering the Republican Party away from its smaller government roots:
In conclusion, whether we criticize the Religious Right should depend on what exactly we mean by the term “Religious Right.” For me personally, and for many other Americans, “Religious Right” does not refer to the entire group of Americans who happen to be both religious and conservative. It refers to a radical movement that has been attempting to use the force of government to promote their narrow religious and prevent others from engaging in lifestlyes that they oppose. And by doing this in the name of conservatism, they have perverted the meaning of the word “conservative” to the point where Goldwater (who was pro-choice and supported and the right of gays to serve in the military) would probably not be welcome within the conservative movement were he still alive today.
You link to Stan’s complaning comment. It seems to me that the subsequent comment, by someone called suzeliv, has it right. Here is that reply in full:
It’s not that you might or MIGHT NOT be right Stan that bothers a lot of us. It is that YOU don’t see any other position but the one you support. That, my friend, is the problem. We can have no serious learning sessions when one party thinks only THEY have the Divine One’s ear. I only wish God spoke to me. How much easier my life would be.
In the comment subsequent to that, Stan himself claims his confidence in his position is a point in his favor. He compares himself to doctor who has confidence in a diagnosis. Even leaving aside the fact that medicine is based on physical evidence, this is a poor argument. Doctors do, after all, sometimes make mistakes in diagnosis.
I don’t blame Stan for having confidence in himself. But I don’t see why his subjective experience of confidence is supposed to be an objectively compelling argument. Shouldn’t I be equally moved by a dedicated atheist?
I hope that HTML works.
nicrivera,
I concur with your distinction, and I think Stan definitely falls in the catgory of Christian (and apparently conservative) who would not welcome Goldwater into today’s movement. The distinction you draw is also important because I consider myself a Christian conservative, albeit one that longs for Goldwater’s influence to be re-recognized.
George Sorwell,
I had preicsely the same reaction to the Susan-Stan exchange.
Actually, we Pharisees didn’t hate Jesus at all – just thought he wasn’t worth bothering with. We do hate what the Church did with such a nice Jewish boy.
Holly,
I don’t think you’re a Pharisee, nor would you have been in Jesus’ time.
Seriously, too often, today’s Christians wrongly consider the Pharisees as indicative of all the Jews of the time — much like today many Republicans think all Democrats = Michael Moore, and many Democrats think all Republicans = Rush Limbaugh.
The reality of course is that the Jews of the time were divided on Jesus, much like the global population, Jews and non-Jews, are today. Some followed him. Some rejected him. Some hated him. Some loved him. Some were neutral. And I imagine most didn’t pay any attention to him, because they were too busy, like many of us, just doing their damnedest to get buy.
OK — that really departs from the factual into the conjectural. And yes, I know your remark was facetious, but I couldn’t help myself.
*smh* @ Holly
Thanks Pete!
All Jews living today are the physical (or in the case of converts, spiritual) descendants of the Pharisees, who are the good guys of that era, the founders of Rabbinic Judaism and authors of the Talmud. You can read our ethical sayings in Pirke Avot http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html .
Holly,
Wow! I didn’t know that. Thank you so much for sharing. I guess we can all learn something new.
So, do you agree with my general take then, that Pharisees/Jews of the time were probably split on their reaction to Jesus — or not? I’m sincerely curious.
I’m also curious about Rabbinic Jews today and their views on Jesus. I mean, let’s face it, Jesus lashed out at certain Pharisees rather cruelly — calling them serpents, etc. Granted, they weren’t very nice to him in return, advocating if not participating in the events that eventually led to his killing. So I guess I’m trying to get a read on whether or not this is all viewed as an unfortunate “battle” of ideas gone awry, between one man and a handful of other men, or was it a broader “battle” between the Jews that followed Jesus and those that followed the Pharisees.
Clearly — none of that should matter today. Me as Christian and you as Jew need not and should not engage in the same type of “battle,” nor do we need to think ill of each other, which I know we don’t. To the contrary.
But for historical perspective — and to learn — I am (again) interested.
Finally, if you want to take the discussion off line, that’s cool, too. You have my email. Just let me know.
“We do hate what the Church did with such a nice Jewish boy.”
Well said Holly, as much as we differ I agree on that one with ya 1000%.
Holly,
I also must confess some embarrasment and regret. Reading back on my first response to your first comment, I was so sure of my understanding of history, believing that the Pharisees were only a minority/marginalized group, when clearly that was NOT the case. I relied on misinformation, pulling a real “Stan” in this case; and I am red-faced for it. I hope you’ll accept my apology.
PS — Maybe you can also teach me some about the Sadducees (sp?) as well?
oh snap…where did the LOL go after the end of the *smh*?
sheesh it’s been that kinda week.
btw holly, the new chapter for the event was INSANE! i loved it!
What – Pyst and I agree on something?
Pete: Most Pharisees/Jews of the time were not aware that Jesus existed. Most of those who were aware of Jesus’ existence rejected the early Christians’ belief that he was the Messiah. One reason that Paul sought out the Gentiles when Jesus preached to and for Jews is that, basically, the Jews didn’t buy it. A good bit of the NT descriptions of Jesus’ arrest and execution exaggerate/invent Jewish involvement. The Romans murdered thousands of Jews during this period.
More info here: http://jlresources.blogspot.com/2005/05/tolerance-interfaith-relations.html
Yeah, a lot of it is who you get your history from. John the Evangelist wasn’t the most impartial or friendly source on the intricacies of Jewish politics. The Sadducees were the guys with the real stick up their backs; interesting that they get hardly a mention.
Hey what can I say? It happens hehe.
This conversation lost me. How could this be the Jews vs Jesus’s followers, when the followers were Jews? In fact the early converts among Gentiles were required to accept the laws of Judaism (be circumcised) before being accepted as Christians. It was first very much a Jewish sect, i.e. one that thought that Jesus was the Messiah.
If you follow the books of the New Testament in historical order, you can see how the mores change according to the changes within the Christian experience. It was when the prophets moved further afield to find new converts that it dropped its Jewish identity. Only then did it become Jews vs Christians.
I wonder how Stan explains this evolution in Christian thinking. Was God changing his mind as time wore on? Did God switch teams?
I don’t mean to be disrespectful.
The Bible can be a wonderful source of inspiration and a gateway to a transcendental spirituality. But I’m losing patience with the Stans, who feel it is a message from above just for them, i.e. their own interpretation of the great mysteries.
Exactly, domajot. Exactly.
I’m a sucker for punishment, so I’m jumping back into the fray.
Pete, you’ve done a masterful job defining the differences between “religious right” and other types of Christians today. Admittedly I am not looking for a broader more inclusive world view, nor am I seeking to disprove anything related to my upbringing in the Faith. Faith and doubt are polar extremes, and faith is what pleases God. Call me a nut, but I feel that Jesus is still the way, the truth, and the life, not just a way, a truth and a life. In that, I think it reveals the fundamental differences between “types” of Christians if you will…some seeing the Bible as absolute and relevant, others seeing it as more subjective and nebulous thus allowing it to be explained away or compartmentalized to less prominent corners of our lives.
With that said, the prosecution rests at this time. I’ve presented the case, you’ve presented a defense. I could rebut and in turn garner another rebuttal from you…and we’d bore the reader to tears. It now comes down to having ears to hear what the Lord is saying to America as a people. I trust the readers won’t lose sight of that in the middle of our politics, and now it’s time for the jury to vote. Based on what I see above, the jury isn’t slanted in my direction (on this website). But the ultimate test of anything is time, and that my friends will be the tell-all as to what’s right and what’s wrong. In the meantime, study well beyond what has been presented here, for your future may depend on it.
In defense of a nation…
Stan Grant
http://www.stanforpresident.com
Stan-
It is quite possible, even appropriate, to have faith in Jesus but question the validity of your self-appointment as his true representative/lawyer/
spokesman/channeler.
domajot
I completely agree with you. As stated, it’s now time for the jury to vote and my sincere hope is that it’s based on in-depth study way beyond any “evidence” (pro or con) or opinion presented here. In your questioning of one’s validity (primarily mine), it’s you who gets to wrestle with the elements of what I’ve presented and come to your own conclusions.
- STAN
In a related vein, I was reminded by a PBS documentary of the now halted practice by Mormons to baptize dead people, including many Jews, into their faith.
At least they realized and acknowledged the pain they had caused to the unsuspecting families of the baptized Jews.
The theme of faith based arrogance runs through many stories of devout believers. A dose of humility is a welcome virtue.
I saw most of the PBS Mormon documentary on both evenings – it’s pretty good. You can visit the site at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/ and watch it again. You can read the transcript of today’s WP online chat with the producer here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/27/DI2007042701597.html?hpid=sec-religion?hpid=sec-religion
domajot: The Early Christians began as a small band of Jewish heretics.
Holly,
I was attempting to put a historical perspective on the subject of Christianity.
I don’t hink the early Christians can be easily tagged by a one sentence descriptive. (‘Heretic’, of course, depends on a certain perspective, much like ‘traitor’)
First of all, Jesus was not the only prophet preaching, and there were several bands of prophets and followers, each with their own message. Some of them had no relation to Jesus at all.
In the first decades after Jesus died, there were divergent sects all calling themselves Christians, but with widely differing theological beliefs. For a long time, though, all of them self-identified as Jews. Some called themselves Christians while believing that Jesus was merely a reformer of Judaism, not the son of God or the Messiah at all. Then there were the Gnostics – a very wide range.
It took a long time for a formal church authority to emerge and solidify the now accepted Christian belief system.
I also don’t believe that Jews were ever a totally united front.
There were divergent schools of Judaic thought as well. Looking back, we tend to focus more on the school that prevailed.