Debatable
September 30, 2004 | 21 Comments
Mister Thorne proposes a line of questioning for tonight’s presidential debate:
Let’s start by asking them about their acceptance speeches, and what they said about God in those speeches. Now, picture this:
MODERATOR: Mr. Kerry, in your acceptance speech, you said, “I want to pray humbly that we are on God’s side.” I’m sure the people in the audience here, and those watching from home or listening somewhere would like to know this: how can you tell the right side of God from the wrong side?
* * *
MODERATOR: Mr. Bush, in your acceptance speech you referred to
September 30th, 2004 @ 5:58 pm
Why do you cling to the old dispensation to pose your arguments? Leviticus 16 is what you should be focused on as it tells us the two ways that Christ would one day atone for the sins of all those who believe in him. This is illustrated by the sacrifice of the two goats, both of which constitute one sin offering. The new dispensation in the New Testament tells us to “love our neighbors as ourselves.” You see, vast changes occurred with the coming of Christ and the dissolution of the law. No longer did man have to try to save himself by keeping the law, now he only had to do believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved. Do you have Christ in your heart? If not, you would be wise to ask Him to enter it today. One day you will kneel before His judgement seat and acknowledge Him as Lord. And it will be a judgement seat at that time. Today he sits on His mercy seat. Take advantage of it.
Solomon
September 30th, 2004 @ 6:35 pm
Solomon,
You’re missing the point entirely. Focus, man, focus.
September 30th, 2004 @ 6:53 pm
I sit on my mercy seat every day. I courtesy flush, too.
September 30th, 2004 @ 8:44 pm
If Bush is against “the sin of slavery,” then I guess we can rest easy about risk of the draft being reinstated. His religious convictions wouldn’t allow him to enslave others, right?
(I don’t give a damn what the supreme court said; the draft is slavery.)
September 30th, 2004 @ 9:59 pm
Solomon, I need an explanation. If the coming of Christ means dissolution of the law, then how come Christians are always talking about the Bible being a guide for secular law? Why do they seek laws against such things as abortion? On what basis do they support laws against theft, pornography, homosexual marriage, bigamy, adultery, even murder? What’s all this BS from Shrub about the evils of homosexual marriage if there are no laws? Bush isn’t a good Christian and doesn’t understand the Bible, or what?
According to you there are no laws. According to Frank on another thread, every sin is equal. On what basis can a Christian determine that anything is illlegal, or how it should be punished? It really sounds like you guys just pick and choose the laws that satisfy your prejudices. Don’t like homos –then no homosexual marriage. Feel a little extreme and reactionary stoning your children to death for ‘dissing you, afraid to go to jail –then leave the stoning to the Muslims and write them off as savages. In fact though, much legal progress, from legalized birth control to the deligitimization of slavery, has usually come from secular pressure, and been opposed by large numbers of Christians. If there has been no law since Jesus, how come it took about 1900 years to end slavery in the Christian world?
Let’s take this to the logical conclusion –why should anything be illegal when you only have to believe in the Lord Jesus to be saved? I mean, if in the instant Hitler realized his actions to off himself were irrevocable, and just before he died, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, the he was saved, was he not? So why shouldn’t everyone do whatever they feel like doing and then turn their souls over to Jesus? What difference does it make if you kill someone during this short life when your belief in Jesus means you’re saved for all eternity?
September 30th, 2004 @ 11:56 pm
Solomon’s reply is just Christian Argument #22331 “The Hebrew Scriptures Don’t Count.” This argument is rebuffed and its hypocrisy is evident when you consider the Trinity and John’s gospel about the Word being with and being God. By these premises, the conclusion is that the Hebrew Scriptures would be the word of Christ too.
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot about Matthew 5:18-19. Don’t worry Christians, I know you forget about that scripture too.
October 1st, 2004 @ 1:15 am
White Evangelical or Born-Again Protestants by State (1 page PDF, 27 July 2004):
This is a survey done by the same group (the Annenberg Public Policy Center) showing that viewers of The Daily Show (Comedy Central) are more politically aware than viewers of Jay Leno or David Letterman.
October 1st, 2004 @ 2:22 am
This just in: Jesus was blown off his mercy seat during a hurricane while vacationing in the Bahamas and was last seen floating face down in the Rio Grande river somewhere in Texas. Although Texas Border Patrol agents have pulled a Jesus from the river, it appears that Jesus is obviously a fake. Apparently this Jesus is much shorter than previous reports, couldn
October 1st, 2004 @ 4:59 am
The “religious un-decided.” Haha.
October 1st, 2004 @ 7:50 am
Solomon: Is there even a remote chance that the human brain invents
very complex stories to avoid its own death? That humans have been
denying death ever since they became conscious? That we adjust what
we ‘know’ until it matches our brain’s viewpoint?
For example, in 1997, a group of 39 perfectly intelligent computer
programmers were convinced that a spaceship had come with comet
Hale-Bopp, and they killed themselves to go with it. This was their
idea of Jesus and his mercy ship, and here is the website they left
to explain: http://www.wave.net/upg/gate/index.htm
This is an update of their story
http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/25/heavens.gate/
October 1st, 2004 @ 9:48 am
Hi hermesten,
Don’t misunderstand what I said in the other thread. I never said the law was cancelled or no longer applies in any way. I said because of Christ’s completion of the law the strict enforcement of the law’s punishment was no longer in force. I used the example of Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus did say to her, after the accusers had left, “neither do I condemn you.” However, he also told her to “go and sin no more.” He didn’t tell her “Hey, the law no longer applies go commit adultery all you want.”
The law is still God’s standard for holiness. It still illustrates to us our utter inability to live up to God’s standard. And it still serves it’s original purpose of showing us our need for grace. The portions of the law that deal with our relationship to God are usually no longer observed because the New Testament (the completion of the law) instructs us to worship God in spirit and in truth, not worship according to the strict rules of the Mosaic law. The rules that apply to our relationships to one another are still the best way to conduct ourselves.
October 1st, 2004 @ 11:14 am
Frank, I’m not disputing your contentions, but I’m more confused than ever. What I’m trying to figure out is how a Christian decides that, say, abortion is a “sin” and there should be a law against it (when to my knowledge, abortion is not even mentioned in the Bible), but that adulterers and disobedient children should not be stoned to death when the Bible clearly identifies such behavior as a sin, and proscribes a punishment of death.
You’re saying all the sins of Leviticus are still sins, and the law still applies, but “strict enforcement of the law’s punishment” is no longer in force? Is that right? So then, what is “strict enforcement.” Are you saying the laws are still enforced, but, say, an adulterer should be jailed or fined instead of stoned to death? Or are you saying that sometimes an adulterer will be punished and sometimes not? On what basis do you appropriate the apparatus of the State for legal sanction, impose one punishment over another, or decide a sin won’t be punished at all? When you appropriate the apparatus of the State to codifiy a Biblical “sin,” on what basis are you entitled to impose punishment for this sin on a non-believer, or for that matter, even a believer?
So, to belabor: adultery is still a sin? Theft is still a sin too, right? And murder? Dissing your parents? Coveting your neighbors ass? Believing in false Gods (so all non-Christians are sinners aren’t they?)? Making a graven image? Lying (or at least “bearing false witness”)? So which of these sins should be “illegal” under federal, state, and local laws? How should they be punished? What is the basis for using the apparatus of the State to enforce laws against abortion, homosexual marriage, sodomy, or selling on Sunday, and not for disrespecting parents. Why not stone adulterers to death?
October 1st, 2004 @ 11:29 am
Oops, “prescribes” not “proscribes.”
October 1st, 2004 @ 5:01 pm
Hermesten:
When Christ came to earth, it was not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Only He could do that. But now the bar is raised even further. Now, not only is the deed a sin, but also the thought. Christ left the law to be a tool by which we could measure how far we are away from hitting the mark. It is designed to make you look within yourself and discover that you indeed do need a Savior. Without one you are lost forever. The law also lets us know how very much Christ has done for us, i.e that even the leasst breaking of the law would doom you. The NT summarizes the law in this way: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strengtn. This is the first and great commandment. A second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself”.
Do you love the Lord your God? Do you love your neighbor as yourself?
Matthew 5:17-21
October 1st, 2004 @ 5:01 pm
Hermesten:
When Christ came to earth, it was not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Only He could do that. But now the bar is raised even further. Now, not only is the deed a sin, but also the thought. Christ left the law to be a tool by which we could measure how far we are away from hitting the mark. It is designed to make you look within yourself and discover that you indeed do need a Savior. Without one you are lost forever. The law also lets us know how very much Christ has done for us, i.e that even the leasst breaking of the law would doom you. The NT summarizes the law in this way: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strengtn. This is the first and great commandment. A second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself”.
Do you love the Lord your God? Do you love your neighbor as yourself?
Matthew 5:17-21
October 1st, 2004 @ 6:44 pm
Solomon, I’m not even questioning your contention about what I’ll just call “grace.” What I’m trying to get you or Frank to tell me is how Christians use the Bible, OT or NT, to decide what laws and what punishments should be appropriated to the State. So far you have not even tried to answer this question.
To answer yours: No, I don’t love God 1) for the same reason I don’t love Santa –he doesn’t exist; and 2) if he did exist, he would be the author of evil, and I can’t see myself loving a being with the power to do absolutely anything, that chose, among other things, to create a world where children are raped, abused, tortured, and murdered. And no, I don’t love my neighbor as myself, and neither does anyone else in the world. In fact, given the nature of man the whole notion is absurd, and can’t stand even the most casual examination.
October 4th, 2004 @ 10:11 am
hermesten — The mosaic law, in it’s only earthly application, was specifically intended for the Israelite theocracy of the OT. More specifically it was designed to point to humanity’s need for grace (which I know you understand). It is also true that the entirety of the mosaic law is no longer in effect because of the completed work of Jesus. Paul said, in his letter to the Romans, that we are no longer under the law but under grace. Now that statement was made to the church. It did not apply to the state. He was letting the church know that the penalties outlined in the law were not to be enforced as they once had because of God’s grace. Now …
With regard to the laws enforced by the state (and this is what you’ve been asking about all along, I think). Christians use the OT as a guide for laws because, even though the OT theocratic penalties no longer apply, the principles for living do still apply. They are still God’s standard for perfection. The framework through which Christians would apply these laws in also in Romans. Paul describes earthly governments as God’s instrument of justice. Laws exist to restrain evil. The parts of the OT law that deal with our relationships with one another and the prohibitions against encroaching on one anothers rights are a great guide for our laws. I think we all would agree it’s a good thing to prohibit theft, and murder, and so on.
While adultery should have no legal penalty (such as jail time) it should remain one of the acceptable grounds for divorce (as is stated in Scripture). Abortion should be illegal, not because it is explicity prohibited in Scripture, but because the principles for it’s prohibition exist there. Murder is our taking someone elses life. Scripture indicates that unborn babies are, in fact, people and not just some unviable tissue mass. So it is not a leap at all to understand that killing an unborn baby is murder just as much as killing an adult is murder.
October 4th, 2004 @ 10:49 am
Frank, you’ll have to direct me to the passage that indicates unborn babies are people –I suspect that the Scripture on this topic is subject to quite a bit of interpretation. In the past, a fetus wasn’t generally considered a baby until “quickening,” and I suspect that whatever Scripture you can site provides no basis for defining a zygote as a baby. I reject, for lack of a better term, what I will call “Biblical authority,” but I too believe that at some point before birth a fetus becomes a “baby” –though I don’t think this happens at fertilization. So if I am correct in my assumptions about Scripture in this regard, I could be a devout Christian and still support limited abortion.
Most of the contentious issues that relate to Christian application of Biblical authority regard the regulation of sexual behavoir –things like adultery, cohabitation, masturbation, birth control, homosexuality, and pornography. I’m not inclined to include abortion in this category because by generation of another human being it moves beyond activity between consenting adults. We could also include things like “Blue Laws,” which I am old enough to have experienced, though I’m not aware of any such laws in existence today. And then there is the matter of slavery, which the Bible condones, a fact which was used by southern Christians to justify their own application of slavery.
I believe you said you are Catholic, so I would ask by what right the Catholic Chruch seeks to impose on my wife and I a prohibition of measures to prevent pregnancy? Yet the Catholic Church in Ireland, and here (less effectively) long prevented the sale of condoms based on a Catholic interpretation of Scripture that is by no means universal among Christians. More to the point, on what Scriptural basis does a Christian determine what constititues pornography, what laws, if any, should regulate it’s distribution, and how the creation or possession of it should be punished? I’ve heard fundamentalists advocate the death penalty for possession of pornography.
Why should there be no legal penalty for adultery? What is the Scriptural basis for this position? What should the penalties be for having an abortion? What is the Scriptural basis for one punishment over another? If an unborn baby is a person, and killing it is murder, what is the Scriptural basis for punishing an aborting mother any differently that any other premeditated murderer?
October 4th, 2004 @ 11:31 am
hermesten — Passages that indicate the person-hood of unborn babies include the passage in Jeremiah where God states to Jeremiah, “while you were in the womb I knew you.” Also, God chose Jacob over Esau as the instrument for His plan while the two were yet in the womb. You are correct in saying that you could be a Christian and still support some forms of abortion. I know a few. However, I would contend that they do so based on a gross misinterpretation of Scripture or on the basis of ignoring Scripture to suit their own belief system.
You are wrong when you state that the Bible “condones” slavery. It does no such thing. It neither condones nor condemns the practice. It does, however, speak to the nature of a relationship between a slave and his or her master. And this is done, not in support of the practice but merely in assent to the knowledge that the practice existed and was wide-spread at the time Scripture was written. This was necessary because many masters and slaves became Christians and the Bible spoke to their conduct in one of the primary earthly relationships they had. You are correct in saying many Christians used “slavery” passages in Scripture to justify the practice. But they, too, did so out of a gross misinterpretation of Scripture in an effort to support their own agenda.
No, I am not a Catholic, you may have me confused with someone else who posts here. I do not subscribe to their notion that opposes birth control and do so because they cannot show Scriptural support for that belief. They merely point to a papal decree that outlaws the practice.
I don’t know what “fundamentalists” you’ve heard advocating the death penalty for the possession of pornography, but I’ve never run across them. Nor would I support such a penalty.
Finally, I see no Scriptural distinction between the murder of an adult and the murder of an unborn child. I think the two should be considered the same. Abortion should be outlawed just as any other form of murder is outlawed. Anyone who kills an unborn child should be punished in the same fashion as any other murderer.
October 4th, 2004 @ 4:19 pm
Frank,
I meant “condone” in the sense that it doesn’t disapprove of slavery. And I have had Christians I work with tell me unequivocally that the Bible approves of slavery, by virtue of the fact that it speaks to the master/slave relationship as you have cited, and does not condemn it. I just don’t find it very credible that an ominpotent God could issue commands against “graven images” “adultery” “theft” and “false worship” but didn’t think it was important to tell his children that they couldn’t own each other.
“While you were in the womb I knew you” tells us nothing about the status of a zygote. There is nothing incompatible with the two passages you cite and the ancient belief that a fetus was imbued with a soul at quickening, and at that point became a human being.
The specific fundamentalist I was referring to is named Bob Enyart and he had a “Christian” TV show that was broadcast in Oklahoma (and elsewhere I believe). I don’t think he could utter more than a couple of sentences without the word “homosexual” and he advocated the death penalty for both homosexual behavior and the possession of pornography. Also, there are a number of Christian groups, such as the Chalcedon Foundation, that advocate elimination of our constitution and the imposition of Biblical Law. This is one of the reasons I am motivated to ask you these questions. I just can’t see how the Bible is any better guide to law making than reason and common sense. And I think you say as much when you speak to all the different ways the Bible is misinterpreted. If in fact, your interpretation differs from someone else’s, the only way you can settle the issue is through reason and common sense.
I commend you on your willingness to specify that a woman killing her unborn child should be executed (where that is the law) just like any other premeditated murderer. I often ask this question, I rarely get a forthright answer.
October 16th, 2004 @ 11:05 am
Solomon:
I’ve reviewed Leviticus 16. It says nothing about the laws will change. Rather, it discusses “regulations that are to be observed for all time to come.”
Consider the story where Jesus tells the people, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” After the crowd disperses, he tells the woman (accused of adultery), “Go and sin no more.”
He didn’t tell her that adultery was no longer a sin, that homosexuality was no longer a sin, that eating shrimp and lobster were no longer sins. Nothing of the sort. He’s reported to have had said something to the effect that none of the old laws were to be changed.
Leviticus 16 says nothing about Jesus. Methinks you’re trying to interpret it in such a way that you can get away with violations of the laws set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.