God's Politics

God's Politics


Ryan Rodrick Beiler: CT on ‘Bush’s Heresy’

posted by God's Politics

For those who’ll accuse me of Bush-bashing, the headline was Christianity Today‘s. Ted Olsen has an interesting round-up of conservative bloggers, mostly criticizing recent statements by Bush about his theology of foreign policy:



And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it’s hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It’s idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom.


Olsen’s accompanying commentary, including the question, “Are we all a bunch of heretics?” is worth some critical discussion. And for the Sojourners magazine prequel, read our 2003 article, “Dangerous Religion.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(69)
post a comment
Moderatelad

posted July 24, 2007 at 12:36 pm


It’s idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief.
So – if I understand you, you don’t believe that people ‘long to be free’. If that is the cast – let’s remove Emma’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty that has ‘…your huddled masses yearing to be free, the wretched refuse from your…’.
Ryan – in the future, write the article – don’t just reference other articles and link to them. I believe you have more talent that this – use it.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm


I think their ultimate point is that “American exceptionalism” is not congruent with the Gospel. Such a stance assumes that we represent the “arm of God” as opposed to our being humble servants.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 24, 2007 at 1:08 pm


It’s a little bit of truth mixed with a little bit of bad theology. Freedom from governmental or religious oppression is rahter obviously desirable, and to the extent that we can provide it, it is certainly not running afould of God.
However, freedom is not a gift from the almighty. It is not promised or implied by any scriptural text. In fact, Christianity is slavery to God. So in that sense, it is heresy.
Bush has also said that he believes Muslims will go to heaven, which is obviously heretical, and that Jesus is his favorite philosopher, which is a ridiculous thing to say.
However, I’m sure theologians would have a field day with the assertion that Social Security reform for workers under 55 represents a violation of the command to honor our mother and father.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm


Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2007 1:08 PM
Christianity is slavery to God.
I don’t recall ever hearing a Pastor saying that from the pulpit. I have heard the term ‘Bond Servant’. Paul I believe said that he was a ‘slave’ but that was the way he viewed it.
The Scriptures talk more about the Freedom that we find in our faith more than slavery.
Have a great day!
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:11 pm


I don’t recall ever hearing a Pastor saying that from the pulpit. I have heard the term ‘Bond Servant’. Paul I believe said that he was a ‘slave’ but that was the way he viewed it.
The slavery in the Scripture was referring to what was happening in that day, an economic situation. A law in the Old Testament said that if a slave, after seven years, still wanted to stay with his master he would have his ear pierced. That’s what Paul was talking about.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:13 pm


I agreed with you up to this point.
We don’t know who will go to heaven and who will not – it’s not for us to say.
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” 841
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.” 847, Catechism of the Catholic Church
I know that, in general, you don’t accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, but calling the statement that Muslims will go to heaven (not ‘all,’ ‘most,’ or ‘a few’) heresy is an opinion that is not shared by all Christians. (You know how liberal the Catholic Church is!)
“When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, [Billy] Graham says: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t … I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.” Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham’s view, only God knows who is going to be saved.” http://heartkept.com/blog/?page_id=17
I would look a lot closer at bush’s motivation for making that statement, rather than take it at face value.
“On the question of salvation, Bush has also adopted a nuanced position. In a Houston Post interview in 1994, as he was beginning his first run for governor, he suggested that heaven is open only to those who have accepted Jesus as their savior. Though to many Christians that is a basic article of faith, the comment caused a small furor among Jews in Texas and threatened to become a bigger problem when Bush considered running for president.”
Cooperman, A. (Sept. 16, 2004). Openly religious, to a point. Washington Post, A01.
(multiple URLs blocked by BeliefNet)
Seek peace and pursue it.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:13 pm


Mod,
The scriptures are full of dichotomies. The least become the most. The weak become the strong. The slave become the free.
We are required to obey God, to do his work, and without pay. So, I agree with Paul on this one.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:15 pm


Mod,
The scriptures are full of dichotomies. The least become the most. The weak become the strong. The slave become the free.
We are required to obey God, to do his work, and without pay. So, I agree with Paul on this one.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:15 pm


kevin s.
My last post was in response to this statement:
“Bush has also said that he believes Muslims will go to heaven, which is obviously heretical”
Peace!



report abuse
 

Another nonymous

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:28 pm


Paul called himself a “doulos,” or bond-servant, of God. The only other option was being a bond-servant of sin. If you’re a servant to one, you’re free as regards the other. (Romans 6:20-22)
Freedom is a complicated term, because it means being free from something, not just free in the abstract to do whatever you want (in which case you’re not free, but a slave to your own wants).
The real question is whether, in pursuing military solutions, one is acting out of freedom from sin, or manifesting bondage to it. This is not a trivial question for anybody who takes their faith seriously, and I’ve already posted frequently concerning my own beliefs in this regard.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:34 pm


Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 24, 2007 2:15 PM
“Bush has also said that he believes Muslims will go to heaven, which is obviously heretical”
They believe that they go to ‘heaven’ and some will be given 70 virgins. (prostitutes I have been told is the more correct inturpertation – if you are going to pleasured for all eternity, you don’t want to teach them – you want them trained) If I were the Pres. I would publically say that they were going to heaven – you want to publically say where they are really going and have to deal with the whole religion. There are times that the person in the office of the Pres. has my permission to lie.
Just for the record – I believe that the place they (Islamic people) are going is a little warmer then they think it will be. The will be seperated from an Almighty, All Loving God and that to me alone would be hell.
If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead. You shall be saved.
- No Muslim can say that – none. -
Allah is not Jehovah.
Blessings to all!
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm


“The real question is whether, in pursuing military solutions, one is acting out of freedom from sin, or manifesting bondage to it”
This is only the real question for those who believe that it is sinful to wage war.
Neuro,
I do not concur with the teachings of the Catholic church, but I have never understood the church to teach that those who have not accepted Christ as their savior are saved.
If you are approaching this from a perspective that we ought not to make definitive statements because we cannot precisely know that heart of another person, that is fair enough…



report abuse
 

Another nonymous

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:48 pm


“This is only the real question for those who believe that it is sinful to wage war.”
Exactly, and that is what I believe. More and more fervently all the time.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:48 pm


I agree w/ another Nonymous. We are most certainly not free in that we have absolute freedom to chart our own course. We either serve sin or we serve love. It’s really that simple. If we had true freedom there would be a third option. There is not one and for once Kevin S and I agree on something.
I think Hell just froze over.
p



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted July 24, 2007 at 2:54 pm


“If you are approaching this from a perspective that we ought not to make definitive statements because we cannot precisely know that heart of another person, that is fair enough…”
That is, more or less, my understanding of what the Church teaches regarding non-Christians, but it has more to do with God’s love than the heart of another person.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 24, 2007 at 4:10 pm


“That is, more or less, my understanding of what the Church teaches regarding non-Christians, but it has more to do with God’s love than the heart of another person.”
As a (nominal) open-theist, I think it is a function of both. However, I am aware that there are those who disagree, and see salvation as a function of God’s choosing. This viewpoint (advanced by the reformed perspective) does gel with the notion that we ought not question who does and does not go to heaven, because we cannot know who God has chosen.
For me, that is a problem with Calvinism, the idea that salvation status is unknowable.



report abuse
 

carl copas

posted July 24, 2007 at 4:34 pm


kevin s: “This viewpoint (advanced by the reformed perspective) does gel with the notion that we ought not question who does and does not go to heaven, because we cannot know who God has chosen.
For me, that is a problem with Calvinism, the idea that salvation status is unknowable.”
Like Payshun, I find myself in rare agreement with kevin s. To claim that a human being can know absolutely who will and who will not be saved is to commit blasphemy in my opinion.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted July 24, 2007 at 5:31 pm


This is an interesting discussion topic that Ted Olson pulled together. I agree that God wants us to be free; free to choose justice over injustice, free to choose righteousness over unrighteousness, free to choose love over hate, free to live our lives worshipping him without fear of retribution from our fellow man. Without this freedom there is no virtue.
Where I differ with Bush is that the U.S. government is therefore entitled to deliver freedom by any means necessary and that this somehow justifies going to war.
I would think that most people on Sojo would agree with this. But this philosophy also has implications for Sojo. Olson alludes to it here:
“This hits on what I think is the biggest question for western Christians right now: Should Christians in democracies work to make governmental actions reflect biblical priorities? If God loves human “freedom,” should we then get the government to act for “freedom” worldwide? If God loves the poor, should we get the government to enact polices aimed at reducing (or eliminating) poverty?”
Just because God has given us instructions on what is good, and what is proper behavior, and what causes are just doesn’t mean that using the power of the state to bring about the desired results is the morally correct thing to do.



report abuse
 

cheyenne bodie

posted July 24, 2007 at 5:37 pm


You can always count on carl copas for trotting out the old logical prance. carl, you really need new material.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 25, 2007 at 2:27 am


“Like Payshun, I find myself in rare agreement with kevin s. To claim that a human being can know absolutely who will and who will not be saved is to commit blasphemy in my opinion.”
I believe that is because you are listening to everyone but the God and his word . You can not know for sure, but about yourself . If you love God , accept him in your life as your God , and your savior .
The rest is a journey , don’t let anyone tell you different my friend .



report abuse
 

Donny

posted July 25, 2007 at 7:38 am


You are Bush-bashing without a shadow of a doubt.
Next time you peruse Christianity Today, why not cut and paste an article that reaffirms the truth that conservative views of 2007 are far more like the beliefs of the Apostles and the teachings of Christ Jesus.
That would be the overwhelming majority of articles in CT.
The “anything goes” Wicca-related actions and beliefs of “Progressive” ideology shows it for what it is. It is anything but connected to the faith delievered to the Saints.
(I’ll be interested to see how long my comment stays up here at B-N.)
Bush-bashing by any other name is Bush bashing.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 25, 2007 at 8:06 am


Well, Donny, I think you outdid yourself. I wasn’t aware that the faith once delivered to the saints was so tied in with a particular political ideology and philosophy.
Thanks for setting me straight on that. I’ll remember that the next time I think of the lies that got us into Iraq; the performance of Attorney General Gonzales at the Senate Judiciary hearing yesterday, which one Senator as much as said amounted to pejury; and the Bush Administration’s systematic manipulation of scientific data (all clear violations of one of the Ten Commandments, if I recall–aren’t they part of the “faith once delivered”?).
I’ll consider your other comments on the day we have a Wiccan running for President.
Bush bashing? There’s a difference between bashing and legitimate criticism. You have two problems, Donny. The first is that it seems you can’t tell the difference between the two. The second is that even if you could, you wouldn’t want to hear the legitimate criticisms anyway.
Cheers!
D



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm


Donny:
The “anything goes” Wicca-related actions and beliefs of “Progressive” ideology shows it for what it is. It is anything but connected to the faith delievered to the Saints.
Me:
You mean like lexio divina, contemplative prayer, the desert fathers, those wiccan people. Donny I mean this in the nicest way possible. But seriously stop worshipping ideology, please. Worship Jesus alone.
p



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted July 25, 2007 at 1:40 pm


Donny!
Where have you been?
Welcome back.



report abuse
 

kiva

posted July 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm


people, go look up what the word “saved” means, biblically. It isn’t used in the sense of being ‘rescued’ as so many xtians want to believe (so they can reduce their death anxiety in this place of existence). it means “to be made whole.” That’s it. If you pursue god, you can be made whole, no matter what your faith.
Jesus said Love your god and love your neighbor as yourself. that’s it, folks. The rest is church dogma and human-created.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 25, 2007 at 2:12 pm


Posted by: kiva | July 25, 2007 1:42 PM
Jesus said Love your god and love your neighbor as yourself.
IO believe the compleat quote would me…
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. (big “G” God)
have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 25, 2007 at 2:49 pm


But seriously stop worshipping ideology, please. Worship Jesus alone.
I couldn’t have said it any better.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 25, 2007 at 2:49 pm


“people, go look up what the word “saved” means, biblically. It isn’t used in the sense of being ‘rescued’ as so many xtians want to believe (so they can reduce their death anxiety in this place of existence). it means “to be made whole.”
In many instances, salvation refers to deliverance. We are delivered from sin, and all its trappings (including death). While I would not deny that we are made whole by God, to ignore this message of salvation is to dsiregard scripture.
“If you pursue god, you can be made whole, no matter what your faith.”
Depends on how broadly you define the pursuit of God. Insofar as you pursue him by embracing Christ’s vicarious death, then you are correct. However, this belief would largely inform your faith. You cannot believe Christ cleansed you of sin, while holding that the Koran is essentially true. That is untenable. So the question is a bit more complicated.
I would posit that obedience to the Koran is obedience to man-made teaching. The God of the Islam is no God at all. As such, to love Allah is not to pursue God.
“Jesus said Love your god and love your neighbor as yourself. that’s it, folks. The rest is church dogma and human-created.”
Again, this depends on how broadly you define “love you God”. If you mean that we must be obedient to his word and accept his gift on the cross, you are correct. I will agree that humans have added dogma to the equation, but there is quite a bit to the Bible that is not Dogma at all.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm


Hmmm, so now, even speaking of George W(armonger) Bush’s ACTUAL RECORD is Bush bashing!!!



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 25, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Kev S:
In many instances, salvation refers to deliverance. We are delivered from sin, and all its trappings (including death). While I would not deny that we are made whole by God, to ignore this message of salvation is to dsiregard scripture.
Me:
In part it refers to deliverance. It also refers to letting go. Salvation did not come to Zacheus’ house until he let go of his ill gotten gains. The act of salvation is bigger than merely delivering us from the eternal impact of sin. Salvation is first and foremost about union w/ God. (granted I am a contemplative so my thoughts on this will differ) but it seems that God sent Christ to unite us w/ himself because he loved us. That’s bigger than delivering us from death (even though that’s huge and part of the main reason for his coming.) The bigger aspect of his coming was to make us one w/ God. That for me is salvation.
p



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 25, 2007 at 3:53 pm


“I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom.”
What a CROCK, coming from W’s mouth. THIS from a man who wants to alter the Constitution so that SOME Americans won’t fall under its protections. Some “freedom” THAT – NOT!



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 25, 2007 at 3:59 pm


“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead. You shall be saved.”
Um, thanks (?) for the preaching, moderatelad. I tried to say the exact same thing on one of the Sexual orientation discussion boards and got shot down with words to the effect that queers need not apply.
Guess that ‘qualification’ needs to be amended to “If you are betterosexual and confess with your mouth …” eh?
Your hatred of Muslims is palpable and onerous, btw.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted July 25, 2007 at 4:20 pm


I suggest no one respond to people who don’t bother to write a name or nickname. It’s too confusing to know who is who. If you don’t respond to them they’ll go away.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 25, 2007 at 4:22 pm


Posted by: | July 25, 2007 3:59 PM
Your hatred of Muslims is palpable and onerous, btw.
I have no hatred for Muslims. NOW – I do have a problem with those who follow Islam and cause terror around the world killing innocent people including others who are also Islamic.
Do I believe that they are going to the same location – ‘heaven’ as those who follow Christ? No I do not and neither do they.
Allah and Jehovah are not the same deity.
I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion in the US just like other religions. Too bad that Christians do not have the same right in most countries where Islam is the dominate religion.
I read nowhere in the NT that the Almight, (dare I say ‘one true God’) gives me the right to murder an individual after I have told them about what Christ did for all of us if they refuse to convert to Christianity. Not so in the Koran.
I would rather sing Onward Christian Solders today if you can find it in a hymnal. (the PC crowd has done a great job of removing that one) If you can find it – read the lyrics. Nowhere does it call for the killing of the unbeliever.
They march ‘like’ an army not ‘as’ an army with banners, the Cross, Hope, Confidance, Love and Charity. Not AK47 swords and spears and IED’s.
Be blessed -
.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm


Not only is Bush a heretic, but a liar. In one of Joe Klein’s recent columns:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642884,00.html
Recently, in his desperation, starting with his speech at the Naval War College on June 28, he has been telling an outright lie, and he repeated it now, awkwardly, in Cleveland: “The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based upon liberty.”
That is not true. The group doing the most spectacular bombings in Iraq was named al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia by its founder, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, now deceased, in an attempt to aggrandize his reputation in jihadi-world. It is a sliver group, representing no more than 5% of the Sunni insurgency. It shares a philosophy, but not much else, with the real al-Qaeda, which operates out of Pakistan.

AND… Bush is a leppoard that changes his spots! Apprently he ran in 2000 under a non-inteventionist, anit-nation building platform! Google the Book “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” By Ron Paul and check the Amazon site for it- read the reviews. (Can’t post multiple links!)



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 25, 2007 at 5:21 pm


The “That is not true” paragraph is Joe Klien’s words, not mine.



report abuse
 

kiva

posted July 25, 2007 at 9:19 pm


you people crack me up with the bible inerrancy…if it’s written in the bible, it must be true….there is nothing further from the truth…
go read M. Scott Peck’s stages of spiritual development…you are firmly in stage II.
and i’ll use small ‘g’ all i want when referencing god…the God that simply refers to the sacred…not to the earthly father replacement christianity has created so they can feel better about their existential trappings.
The idea of christ ‘dying for your sins’ didn’t become essential until the middle ages. The early christians – half of which were gnostic – just didn’t see it as important.
as a theology prof once told me, “From the time jesus died, the speed to which things tobogganed into heresy is *astonishing*.”



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 25, 2007 at 10:37 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | July 25, 2007 5:19 PM
It shares a philosophy, but not much else, with the real al-Qaeda
I don’t know. To me sharing the same ‘philosophy’ kinda puts them in the same boat. They might not be on the same oar but are rowing the same direction.
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 25, 2007 at 10:43 pm


Posted by: kiva | July 25, 2007 9:19 PM
Whoa – little too much caffeen?
“G” or “g” – fine, your call.
I believe that both Peter and Paul taked about Christ dying for the sins of the world. That is a little earlier on the time line than the Medievil Days. Christ saying that he is going to the ‘Father’ I believe says it all. You can believe what you want and I can respect that. But I can do the same.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 25, 2007 at 11:23 pm


To me sharing the same ‘philosophy’ kinda puts them in the same boat. They might not be on the same oar but are rowing the same direction.
First thing you need to know about the Middle East: The various factions hate each other as much as they hate Israel, the United States or anyone else, so they may end up fighting each other at some point. Some months ago I read a piece on the wire at work about the goings-on in Lebanon; a Sunni cleric referred to the Shi’a political party Hezbollah, which literally means “Party of God,” as the “party of the devil.”



report abuse
 

kiva

posted July 26, 2007 at 2:12 am


Paul never met Jesus, nor heard him teach. Paul thought the second coming of jesus was imminent, and wrote accordingly, trying to get all this churches in line. Peter is also an interpreter. I thought it was CHRISTianity. Not Paulism or Peterism or Johnism.
Christ was the poet….all others are just people trying to interpret it. Doesn’t make any of it true.
Seriously, you believe what the bible says just because it’s in there? Do you know nothing of how it came to be? How the story of jesus was “cleaned up” so as to simplify it at promote orthodoxy? That Irenaeus is the father of orthodoxy and sought to destroy any document that did not promote what he deemed appropriate? That Constantine followed suit? That many people of that time saw the cannibalization ritual of eating the body and blood of christ as just that – cannibalism…and likely borrowed from a pagan ritual?
Do some reading on the history of the canonization of the bible…it will blow your mind. However, you appear to enjoy the illusion of certainty.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 26, 2007 at 3:35 am


“you people crack me up with the bible inerrancy…if it’s written in the bible, it must be true….there is nothing further from the truth…”
Why? Because you say so?
“go read M. Scott Peck’s stages of spiritual development…you are firmly in stage II.”
Oh, because M. Scott Peck says so.
“and i’ll use small ‘g’ all i want when referencing god..”
Have fun.
“.the God that simply refers to the sacred…”
You capitalized ‘God’ again. Now you’re being coy.
“not to the earthly father replacement christianity has created so they can feel better about their existential trappings.”
Now christianity has created God? Explain.
“The idea of christ ‘dying for your sins’ didn’t become essential until the middle ages. ”
This isn’t true. There is scriptural support for this very concept.
“The early christians – half of which were gnostic – just didn’t see it as important.”
Half? Do you have a citation for any of this? Dan Brown, perhaps?
“as a theology prof once told me, “From the time jesus died, the speed to which things tobogganed into heresy is *astonishing*.””
Nice asterisks.
“Paul never met Jesus, ”
So?
“Paul thought the second coming of jesus was imminent, and wrote accordingly,”
Not really. He did think the second coming was imminent, but there is no evidence that this was a primary influence on his writing.
” I thought it was CHRISTianity. Not Paulism or Peterism or Johnism.”
Do you deny that the new testament is truth? Do you count them as fiction? Your capitalization games don’t begin to address this question.
“Christ was the poet..”
No he wasn’t.
“.all others are just people trying to interpret it. Doesn’t make any of it true.”
Then why are the gospels true?
“Seriously, you believe what the bible says just because it’s in there?”
Nope.
“Do you know nothing of how it came to be?”
I know quite a bit about how it came to be. Do you?
“How the story of jesus was “cleaned up” so as to simplify it at promote orthodoxy?”
How so? Which orthodoxy?
“That Irenaeus is the father of orthodoxy and sought to destroy any document that did not promote what he deemed appropriate?”
You’re on a limb here.
“That Constantine followed suit?”
And off the tree entirely.
“That many people of that time saw the cannibalization ritual of eating the body and blood of christ as just that – cannibalism…and likely borrowed from a pagan ritual?”
What are you talking about?
“Do some reading on the history of the canonization of the bible…it will blow your mind.”
Apparently it blew yours.
“However, you appear to enjoy the illusion of certainty.”
Says the pot to the kettle.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 26, 2007 at 8:29 am


Posted by: kiva | July 26, 2007 2:12 AM
Paul never met Jesus, nor heard him teach.
That is not true. He met the Savior on the road to Dimascuss. Several people wittnessed the event but did not understand what was happening. But that most likly is something that you would take issue with?
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 26, 2007 at 8:32 am


Sojo -
You have to get a new graphic. Isn’t this the 3rd or 4th time you have used the Bush face on the bust of some Roman Emperor? There has to be more creative juices flowing at Sojo than to reuse old material.
Just a thought -
.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted July 26, 2007 at 8:51 am


Mod,
I suppose the graphic is fitting, since Roman emperors were champions of democracy, too. That makes sense.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 26, 2007 at 3:54 pm


don’t know. To me sharing the same ‘philosophy’ kinda puts them in the same boat. They might not be on the same oar but are rowing the same direction.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 25, 2007 10:37 PM

Who cares? If we don’t hold our politicians to accuracy and truth even in the little things, where will we hold them?



report abuse
 

Hali

posted July 26, 2007 at 6:23 pm


Moderatelad wrote:
“They believe that they go to ‘heaven’ and some will be given 70 virgins. (prostitutes I have been told is the more correct inturpertation – if you are going to pleasured for all eternity, you don’t want to teach them – you want them trained)”
First of all, I would like to think that you are just woefully, incredibly ignorant, rather than willfully breaking the commandment not to bear false witness. Your assertion is patently false. Most Muslims translate that passage as “pure souls” – which, if you know ANYTHING about Islam, is the antithesis of their view of prostitutes.
“If I were the Pres. I would publically say that they were going to heaven – you want to publically say where they are really going and have to deal with the whole religion. There are times that the person in the office of the Pres. has my permission to lie.”
Your permission? Who are you to give permission? How about God’s permission?
“Allah is not Jehovah.”
Allah is Arabic for God, and Arab Christians use the name Allah for God. Do you believe that Arab Christians are going to hell, too? (Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.)



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 27, 2007 at 1:53 am


“Most Muslims translate that passage as “pure souls” – which, if you know ANYTHING about Islam, is the antithesis of their view of prostitutes.”
But surely you are aware of the interpretation that Modlad describes? He didn’t just make it up.
“Your permission? Who are you to give permission? How about God’s permission?”
I think you know what he means. Are you going to call Bush out for saying what he did? I certainly understand his comment regaring Muslims, given his position, which is not to say that I agree with what he said. What is your take on his comments?
“Allah is Arabic for God, and Arab Christians use the name Allah for God. Do you believe that Arab Christians are going to hell, too? (Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.)”
Modlad has said nothing that indicates that he believes Arabic Christians are going to hell. I don’t understand why you would even make that statement.
I think you are also smart enough to know that the Arab term for God has different meanings, depending on context. The “Allah” of Islam is a false God. That Arab Christians use the same name for God does not have any bearing on this conversation, unless you are trying to play ‘gotcha!’ games.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 27, 2007 at 3:51 am


Modlad,
For you to assume that he is in hell puts you in the place of God. Your belief cannot put him in hell and neither did you say it did. But it’s foolishness and presumptiousess to say who is and who is not in hell. Only God can do that. So I would offer a caution there. I could just as easily think Damher is in heaven but I don’t know.
Kevin,
Yes it does because Modlad said:
“Allah is not Jehovah”
Then Hali corrected him in pointing out what Allah means. Then you brought up the idea that Allah is not Jehovah when all three Abrahamic religions have different names for God. Allah is a name for God. It’s just as valid as Jehovah or El, El Elyon or… You are going to have explain the difference btwn Allah the name for God and Allah the false God.
Not only that but Modlad did do a very poor job of comparing people that use the name of Allah for worship of Yaweh vs what you believe to a be a false religion. I will leave that determination to God alone. I know my faith but I see no need to judge all of Islam as false. That would be foolish and limiting to the greatness of God. God reveals himself in almost everything. It’s foolish to assume that God would only reveal himself in Christianity. Not only that but it’s also completely unbiblical.
p



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 27, 2007 at 5:21 am


It’s foolish to assume that God would only reveal himself in Christianity. Not only that but it’s also completely unbiblical.
p
Too bad you were not there 2000 years ago / You could have saved much sacrifice .
Actually I think you were there .



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 27, 2007 at 8:38 am


Posted by: Payshun | July 27, 2007 3:51 AM
God reveals himself in almost everything. It’s foolish to assume that God would only reveal himself in Christianity. Not only that but it’s also completely unbiblical.
Sorry – as I read my Bible – I do not see anywhere that God sent His Son to the world to die for the sins of all and reconcile His creation to Himself. But also made provision that those who reject Christ as Savior can establish a relationship with Him via another way so to bypass the Savior. I believe that the Bible still says, “I am the way the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by Me.” (my memory of what the KJV says – I believe that it qualifies as Red Letter for those who need that donotation) Do you also believe that those who follow Budha will be in Heaven with those who claim Christ as Savior?
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 27, 2007 at 12:05 pm


I have a series of questions then. Did God reveal himself to Moses, David, Samuel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Deborah, Habukkuk and others? Was Jesus there then in the form and method you describe? Did he have to be? The answer to that last question is no.
God’s ultimate revelation is the Christ. No Christian desputes that but to say that God did not reveal himself before Christ or w/o the physical walking Christ is wrong. God revealed himself in creation, God revealed himself to the Jews, the Egyptians, the Babylonians… all w/o a physical Christ to show the way.
p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 27, 2007 at 12:19 pm


Both Mick and Mod somehow tie the word reveal w/ the word salvation. They are not the same thing at all.
p



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 27, 2007 at 1:52 pm


God revealed himself in creation, God revealed himself to the Jews, the Egyptians, the Babylonians… all w/o a physical Christ to show the way.
Creation – no argument – but only those who call Him Lord I believe understand that He is the Creator.
Jews – no argument, they are his chosen people.
Egyptians – In the form of the Angel of Death – but the Jews were there and directly involved.
Babylonians – I think you are talking about the hand writing on the wall at the feast. But then again – the Jews were there and directly involved.
Budah – no evidence and they believe ‘creation’ happened differently than the Gensis story.
God has reveiled Himself to His children and others have been wittnesses to that fact.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 27, 2007 at 2:32 pm


Why in tarnation does it MATTER whether or not Muslims are in heaven or not? 1) It’s possible to believe in the one true God almighty and not be saved – check James 2:19 2) The purpose of Sojouners is NOT missions. It’s the application of ethical social justice- hopefully rooted in a Christian worldview- but carried out in the way we advocate a just and fair world for people. And btw, it’s God’s nature do do so -check Matt 5:44-45. 3) To slander anyone for any reason, is a sin, no matter the fact that thier religion may be false or not. 5) Jehovah is a name in and of itself that has dubious origins and is a bit cotrivsersial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah
Furthermore 6) the Israeli citiznes of today -Jews AND Arabs- are going to go to HELL unless they confess Christ!
So I dunno- the conservative evangelicals on this board- of which I’ve had plenty of interaction with in my day- seem to be thinking they are scoring rhetorical points when in fact they aren’t saying much of anything.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 27, 2007 at 2:39 pm


Jews – no argument, they are his chosen people.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 27, 2007 1:52 PM
Check your history. The Church has taught since the early days that Israel is actually the Church itself. That didn’t change until the advent of J N Darby in the 1800′s.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 27, 2007 at 3:05 pm


” It’s foolish to assume that God would only reveal himself in Christianity. Not only that but it’s also completely unbiblical.”
God reveals himself in the mountains and the trees. That does not mean we worship the mountains and the trees.
“1) It’s possible to believe in the one true God almighty and not be saved – check James 2:19″
Yes.
” 2) The purpose of Sojouners is NOT missions. It’s the application of ethical social justice- hopefully rooted in a Christian worldview-”
If it claims to be an evangelical organization, that should be part of the deal. What do you mean by “hopefully”?
“6) the Israeli citiznes of today -Jews AND Arabs- are going to go to HELL unless they confess Christ!”
Who is disputing this?
“So I dunno- the conservative evangelicals on this board- of which I’ve had plenty of interaction with in my day- seem to be thinking they are scoring rhetorical points when in fact they aren’t saying much of anything.”
I’m not entirely sure what you are saying.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 27, 2007 at 3:41 pm


It is also my understanding that ‘It is God’s desire that none should perish’. So in His infinate love and compassion. I believe that those who did not hear the Good News in this life will be able to make a decision to accept or reject Christ prior to the Final Judgement. But of those who have heard and rejected Him – they have sealed their own fate. Will UBL be in heaven with the faithful who claim Christ as Savior – I would have to say no. (I take no pleasure in that either) Do I believe that he will go to what his faith claims as ‘heaven’ I believe that he thinks so. But the way I read my Bible – not sure that one is going to happen as there is only One True God.
Kevin Wayne – I will take this weekend and lookup church history and J N Darby. Thanks for the challenge.
Most likly going to stay of the site this weekend – I think I need sometime away and reflect a bit. (yeh right – we’ll see how long that lasts)
Blessings on all -
.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 27, 2007 at 5:35 pm


Mod,
Job and Abraham were not Jewish. Yet God revealed himself to them.
U said:
Creation – no argument – but only those who call Him Lord I believe understand that He is the Creator.
Me:
I will not speculate on what others think when it comes to God’s revelation of himself. I find it kind of strange that you think you have the wisdom to do so. Many of the Shamans from many different Indian nations worship the Great spirit and considering the similarities btwn many of their spiritual traditions and the Hebrew and Sufi prophets I can’t say w/o question that God did not reveal himself to them.
I see the same thing w/ Sufi mystics like Rumi and others. They knew Jesus in ways that conservative evangelicals really need to learn.
you said:
Jews – no argument, they are his chosen people.
me:
yet the majority rejected Christ. Do you think God stopped revealing himself because of that rejection? I don’t, I think God/Jesus loves too much.
You:
Egyptians – In the form of the Angel of Death – but the Jews were there and directly involved.
Me:
Still missing the point. God still reveals himself to all people. Look at Job, he was a non-Jew living in the bronze age. Look at Nineveh and Jonah, yes he was a Jew and intimately involved but God still revealed himself to the Nazis of their day. God still reveals and he doesn’t use Jesus alone to do so.
God revealed himself and fought for psycho king Neb despite the fact that he really did not know what the heck he was about. I could keep going here. God doesn’t just reveal himself to Jews. He is no respector of persons. He will save whom he saves and help whoever he wants. The Jews are no more special than you or me. God loves equally.
p



report abuse
 

Hali

posted July 28, 2007 at 1:16 am


kevin s:
“I think you are also smart enough to know that the Arab term for God has different meanings, depending on context. The “Allah” of Islam is a false God. That Arab Christians use the same name for God does not have any bearing on this conversation, unless you are trying to play ‘gotcha!’ games.”
Tkalam araby, ya kevin? You conservatives don’t get nuances well enough to try to pull that relativistic, conceptual crap ;)
Allah does not depend on context. Allah is God, period. The God of Abraham. The God of Isaac and Ishmael. The God of Moses. The God of Jesus. Moderatelad tried to claim that Muslims don’t worship the same God. That is false. If you persist in making that claim, you are bearing false witness against one billion of your neighbors.
Are you aware that you are blogging on Beliefnet? You’re only a couple of mouse clicks away from seeking the truth, if you’re really interested in it (though sometimes I truly wonder whether you are…or whether getting the last word in on an internet discussion is more important to you) ;)
Fii amanillah…



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm


Kevin Wayne – I will take this weekend and lookup church history and J N Darby. Thanks for the challenge.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 27, 2007 3:41 PM

Here let me give you a bit of assistance from an author that most likely wouldn’t agree with my conclusions: Zola Levitt
http://www.levitt.com/essays/israel-church.html
The predominant view has been that the Church is the “new” Israel, a continuation of the concept of Israel which began in the Old Testament.”
So Levitt agrees that it has been the “predominant view” -just not necessarily his view. He further states:
“The other view, we believe, is clearly taught in the New Testament, but it has been suppressed throughout most of Church history.”
So again, he agrees that most of Christianity hasn’t gone along with his view, but he falls back on the old “the true view has been suppressed” argument.
Furthemore, Leavitrt admits:
Replacement Theology was already around before the end of the First Century, but did not become the official position of professing Christian leadership until Augustine popularized the concept, primarily in THE CITY OF GOD, in the latter part of the Fourth Century.”
Here he actually ADMITS that the view of the Church being the continuation of Israel was around quite possibly duing the lifetime of the apostles!
But what I would like to know is: what evidence is there that there was ever any competing views? We know that the church got together and voted on things like the Trinity and what books would be in the Bible, but I’m not aware there was ever any controversy over the nature of Israel in the NT age.
Answer: It wasn’t. Everyone agreed the church was Israel until now.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Kevin Wayne

posted July 28, 2007 at 2:15 pm


This adreesses that there were differing views early on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 28, 2007 at 2:17 pm


To clarify what I just wrote, the Wikipedia link points to the fact that there were differing millenial views, but not that there were differing views on the nature of Israel. Sorry for the confustion.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 29, 2007 at 3:16 am


“Allah does not depend on context. Allah is God, period”
Not if it refers to a false God.
“Moderatelad tried to claim that Muslims don’t worship the same God. That is false.”
I disagree. To worship a God means doing what he asks. Muslims reject God’s gift of eternal life. Rejecting God’s only son is not an act of worship. The religion is based upon a rejection of God’s gift.
“If you persist in making that claim, you are bearing false witness against one billion of your neighbors.”
Muslims? No, I am not.
“Are you aware that you are blogging on Beliefnet? You’re only a couple of mouse clicks away from seeking the truth,”
This is a profoundly weird thing to say.
“(though sometimes I truly wonder whether you are…or whether getting the last word in on an internet discussion is more important to you) ;)”
Let’s cut to the chase. Do Muslims who do not embrace Christ have real, eternal life or no? You make a stand, and I’ll let you have the last word.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 29, 2007 at 6:01 pm


I disagree. To worship a God means doing what he asks. Muslims reject God’s gift of eternal life. Rejecting God’s only son is not an act of worship. The religion is based upon a rejection of God’s gift.

That being the case, say the same for the unsaved Jews.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 29, 2007 at 8:13 pm


“That being the case, say the same for the unsaved Jews.”
Same goes for unsaved Jews.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 30, 2007 at 7:46 pm


Same goes for unsaved Jews.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 29, 2007 8:13 PM
Good. Now what was the point you wer trying to make? :)



report abuse
 

kiva

posted August 2, 2007 at 3:31 am


excellent use of ad hominem arguments….that’s what people use when they have no answer…so, get back to me when you actually read something other than the bible for a reference..
start with M. Scott Peck’s Stages of Spiritual Growth from Further Along the Road Less Traveled
then Elaine Pagels’ Beyond Belief
then anything by Marcus Borg, particularly “meeting jesus again for the first time”
however, as you are clearly a stage II person, it all won’t make much sense to you…
good luck..



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.