August 17, 2004

• Now that it's been hijacked, would someone crash it into a building or something? Thanks a bunch :>
• I thought the last bit was interesting, where he was talking about what he would say to each of the candidates. For John Kerry, it's his pro-choice stance that he identifies as most troublesome, and for George Bush there is a whole raft of things, but he doesn't, and I wonder if this was conscious or not, frame capital punishment or the Iraq war in the all life is sacred way that he framed his thoughts on John Kerry. Is this a real difference in the way he sees abortion, as opposed to preemptive war and state sanctioned murder, or am I reading too much into it. I'm not sure.
• Thanks for this post, f8x. This is one type of religious conservative whose voice tends to get shouted down by the extremists. I have a dear friend who's a Southern Baptist pastor, and he's been fighting the good fight for decades to try to get the church to focus less on who's screwing and more on who's hungry. I believe he'd appreciate something like this.
• Ah, but Tony Campolo is a dangerous man: he doesn't preach the Gospel. He is also misinformed, and adheres to bad theology because he supports the Palestinians (albeit with a creepy ulterior motive). Do you fear the Rapture? Well, do you, punk?
• Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked ! When was this??
• f8x: good find. I was just wondering yesterday why so few evangelicals show any dissent. It is good to read the thoughts of a person who can manage to be both evangelical and rational. polychrome: I think this is a serious failing of American Christians, one which only the Catholics (institutionally) really get right. It seems usually based on the idea that capital punishment is more okay since the guilty party committed a crime while the poor little baby didn't. But Jesus seemed pretty clear when lecturing against casting stones and stuff. It annoys me when people dig deep into the Old Testament to rationalize behavior. Jesus makes more sense as a revolutionary, overthrowing the old guard and instituting (via the beatitudes, etc.) the new law. He lay out pretty clearly a model for life and that it is not an easy one should not mean it can be undercut (via OT rationalization).
• The editor's note on that second link creeps me right the fuck out.
• Yeah, well, Jesus was a wine guzzling socialist so I can't help but think that the rapture pack are in for a bit of a shock, somewhere along the line.
• As an aside, I read something striking. It was an account of a conversation between Keynes and someone else, in the aftermath of WWI...ah, here it is "Jan Christian Smuts wrote about how he and Keynes sat at night and "rail[ed] against the world and the coming flood. And I tell him that this is the time for Grigua’s prayer (the Lord to come himself and not to send his Son, as this is not a time for children). And then we laugh, and behind the laughter is [Herbert] Hoover’s horrible picture of thirty million people who must die unless there is some great intervention."
• The word "hijack" has been hijacked.
• Well then, LET'S ROLL!
• Well, Skrik, I certainly feel the overwhelming weight of the narrow literalness out there, "It should be obvious even to a child that the Bible teaches not only the fact of creation, but the method as well." I ask, "which bible? who's bible?" Oh crap, that question must make me a dangerous man too! Pffft, David W. Cloud and his ilk are asshats, dangerous ones at that.
• I can't seem to get f8x's link (alas), but if everything I read in Skirk's links is true, dude, I am down with this Campolo character. [apparently, they sold T-shirts with like, weird drawings n'shit at a booth where Campolo spoke. The End is Nigh, I tell you what.]
• Awesome link f8x! ))) As a left leaning Christian it's always been rough trying to explain to other Christians why in the world I would be a Democrat. My dad is actually a minister so you can imagine just how republican my house can get. Yet we are middle-class and many times hurt by the policies put forth by republicans. Campolo was able to explain viewpoints I've always held better than I ever could. I'd be interested to here yours (or any other Christian monkeys) opinion on his thoughts about Women in pastoral positions and his questions about God's acceptance of people who have not outright accepted Jesus in their hearts (babies, mentally retarded, etc).
• f8x - Campolo reminds me of good Christians I've met with whom an agnostic like myself could discuss beliefs without rancor. How refreshing, since those we mostly hear about lately are the ones who claim to know for sure how their God thinks. And, as one who looks for spiritual progression, even if it isn't in the Christian mold, those discussions were really helpful. Thanks for pointing out this link.
• Shrik's posted link explains well what I think of this "Gospel-preaching, bible-believer. The interview is thus, rubbish. Just my two cents.
• I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and when I was a child that meant something very different than it means today. I came from a "moderate" church (whose values today would be viewed as hopelessly left-wing). My pastor (who was in his 80s and 90s by the time I had him) was among the first in Texas to delete "obey" from the wedding vows and was totally supportive of the civil rights movement in Texas. He taught us that the Bible had been translated from the original, and that meant that there was *no* perfect reading - he knew Greek and Latin and Hebrew, so he would say "So and so translates this in this way, while such and such translates it like this." He led us to make up our minds about the meaning of scripture, and taught us how to "read" the Bible thoughtfully. This was Bible study, not Bible reading. The pastor at the church today believes that the New King James version is the Word of God, and that if you translate it differently from him you are wrong. This church cares nothing about social justice issues, and put the "obey" back into the marriage vows. My church has definitely been hijacked, so I stopped going a long time ago. Interestingly enough, over the same time period, the church has gone from many hundreds of members to around 50 members. As they became more judgemental, more and more people were either "not worthy" of membership or voluntarily left.
• He taught us that the Bible had been translated from the original, and that meant that there was *no* perfect reading - he knew Greek and Latin and Hebrew, so he would say "So and so translates this in this way, while such and such translates it like this." This part is incorrect. The idea that the Bible we have today is a translation of "the original" (a problematic notion in itself) is not one taken seriously by most scholars. What we have is a translation of a copy of (a number of copies) of the original. We have thousands of fragments, and among those fragments, no two are totally alike (aside from tiny snippets). So, yeah, while he'd be right to point out translation problems, the matter is even more complex than that: it depends upon which source material any given sect decides Yahweh likes best.
• As an agnostic myself, ditto on what Path said. Well done, f8x.
• Smo: And all the worse when one considers how heavily Western churches relied on Augustine of Hippo for interpretation of scripture to provide doctrine, given he couldn't read Greek, and hence worked from (often not terribly good) Latin translations.
• "Augustine the Hippo"? Whatever, rodgerd! Yeah, I'm real sure that he worked on the Bible - with his friends Jerome the Purple Caterpillar and Gregory the Cantankerous Llama. Later they all went over to Anselm's place for a beer. You know - Anselm the Sexy Armadillo? Honestly, where you christ-boys come up with this fuck-crazy shiz is totally beyond me.
• Ah - "of" Hippo. Shit :(
• It's okay quidnunc, you made me snort hot tea first thing in the morning. Have a banana.
• Skrik's first link is scary stuff. The fact that kwonsar agrees with it's views tells me all I need to know about kwonsar. f8x: Great link. Campolo seems like the kind of Christian I can respect.
• You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
• genial: My thoughts on women in leadership are fairly uncertain. As it's not something that I think about often, I haven't really looked into the matter enough to have a good, informed opinion on it. As for God's acceptance of those who have no *chance* to accept Christ as their saviour, I believe He holds them blameless.
• That's what my Southern Baptist upbringers always said, too, f8xmulder--"age of accountability" and all that, which made it possible for them to say babies didn't go to hell, and later extended to pagans who hadn't been told about Christ. Problem was, I don't think there's any biblical justification for that doctrine. Quite the opposite in fact--"for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." A canny PR move, though, on the part of the religious. However, apparently once you show up and tell a tribesman in Africa everything he's ever been taught about anything in his culture is wrong, and he must accept Jesus or burn, then all bets are off, despite the fact he's likely to react the same way you would if a missionary told you to worship the Almighty Chicken or face an eternity of pecking. Luckily, as Brother Chick illustrates so well, the mere mention of Jesus is enough to convert hardened Moslems and Catholics on the spot. ;) Personally, I think you only gain paradise if you die courageously in battle.
• TP: It's true that this is one quandary some people have about the tenets of Christianity. But, going by that principle, no one in the OT, including the prophets and other good peeps, would be saved. How does God reconcile the fact that there simply have been, are, and will be people who will not have heard of the name Jesus Christ, much less the Gospel of his life, death, and resurrection? Romans 7:7-13 is the key: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." In other words, without knowledge of the law, or indeed any law being present, sin does not live in the body. Thus babies who die, mentally retarded individuals, and those who by some other dint of un-knowledge, are not subject to the woes of sin, since they are without the law. Colossians 2:13 says: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ." If we were dead in our sins before, that implies that we were alive in Christ before that. Before the "age of accountability", perhaps, as some people like to call it? Sin springs to life when we have knowledge of the law, but before the knowledge there is life. Given the number of times Jesus mentions being like children (Matthew 18:3-6) it's remarkable that so many people wonder about how God feels about little children who have died and stand before Him. I believe He welcomes them with open arms.
• I stand (or sit rather inertially) corrected. And for what it's worth, I think it's an admirable policy. Unfortunately, in Texas and Arkansas, we don't apply the same standards of accountability when it comes to our own eternal judgement. But we're only human, after all.
• "Skrik's first link is scary stuff. The fact that kwonsar agrees with it's views tells me all I need to know about kwonsar." Rocket88, What's so scary? Really. Am I scary? Are you afraid of people who don't agree with you? Are you afraid of dissension? Are Christians not allowed to disagree with Campolo? You seem presumptuous and certainly annoying. But that's just me.
• We can go on and on about theological issues, but I consider Skrik's links to be particularly troubling in the WorldNetDaily article's bashing of Campolo for ministering to Bill Clinton, which, in my opinion is nothing more or less than a modern example of a Pharisee condemning Jesus for ministering to the likes of prostitutes and tax collectors. As soon as the large group of fundamentalists start making a clear effort to behave more like Jesus than judgmental Pharisees, their cause would be greatly advanced. Christ's most important teachings, the TRUE fundamentals of Christianity lie in the new commnandment: Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. The Beatitudes are an elaboration of those commandments. Where is "Blessed are the Judges, for they shall happily condemn conscientious believers trying to serve God and their fellow man"? Instead, what we see are such things as blessed are the meek, the peacemakers, the merciful. And would not many Christians consider Clinton's infidelity an indication that he is, ultimately, poor in spirit? Whether I agree or disagree with his theological perspectives on such issues as ecumenism or creation, and whether I agree or disagree with his sociopolitical stance on the Israel/Palestine thornbush (Farah is woefully conflating theology with politics; that conflation may be a core aspect of such things as Wahabbism, but it has no place in Christian discourse) has no bearing on the fact that I consider Campolo to be quite courageous, ministering to Clinton when asked. Would Farah have deigned to reply, had Clinton asked for guidance? Modern Pharisees, indeed.
• f8x - yeah, but not all sects agree with yours. The thing that made we start looking for a creed that made sense was my experience trying to become a member of the Lutheran church when I was a teen. In their confirmation class, the minister (a really sweet guy)was quite sure that those who didn't have the opportunity to accept Christianity and be baptized were condemned. Even little babies who died at birth, or whatever. (I was a teen, so that was especially upsetting.) And, what I found in trying out other Christian sects was they all had beliefs that made as little emotional sense to me.
• My thoughts on women in leadership are fairly uncertain. As it's not something that I think about often, I haven't really looked into the matter enough to have a good, informed opinion on it. As for God's acceptance of those who have no *chance* to accept Christ as their saviour, I believe He holds them blameless. f8x, this is not a personal attack on you, but the attitude you express here is, I believe, indicative of what is wrong with American conservative Christianity today. Your preacher says one thing, and your bible says another, but what do you say? Can you form an opinion without research or repeating what someone else said? What does your gut tell you about, in this case, women in leadership? As for one's salvation status, I know a number of evangelicals who are deeply disturbed by theological uncertainty: they want everyone damned or saved, with no third option. Those people passing out leaflets at the mall don't really care if you're saved or not; as long as you get exposed to the word, God will sort you into one of two slots, and end the ambiguity. I've mentioned elsewhere that American-style evangelical pentacostal fundamentalism, while Christian in basis, has only been around for 160 years, and like most new religions, lacks the subtlety and maturity you find in older faiths and philosophies. The inability to act without external authority, and the reliance on legalism to resolve problems, seems to be in direct opposition to the spirit of Jesus' teachings.
• I'm about halfway through The Power of Myth, Bill Moyer's interview with the late, great Joseph Campbell. It so @#%! r0XoRz. Seriously it puts bible discussions in a much more comfortable area for me - all that virgin birth and ascension and such is a metaphor . . . ahhhh . . that's the stuff. oh, and I ♥ path
• Power of Myth is amazingly good. Metaphors and myths are powerful elements of our psyche that persist despite the veneer of civilization. (I hope you're watching, rather than reading, the interviews, as the book leaves out a bunch of stuff.)