Pope Benedict XVI to Resign

[sd'sker]

Ironically, the people complaining most about the "war on religion", don't believe in freedom of religion, they believe in freedom of their own religion. Rest of the religions be damned.

 

Stakes escalated last week when, to the frustration of some lawmakers, the Islamic School of Greater New Orleans applied for federal funds under the voucher program. Republican state Rep. Kenneth Havard objected to the Islamic School's request for 38 government-paid student vouchers, saying he opposed any bill that "will fund Islamic teaching," the Associated Press reports.

"I won't go back home and explain to my people that I supported this," he said.

 

"It'll be the Church of Scientology next year," Democratic state Rep. Sam Jones told AP.

 

The Islamic School of Greater New Orleans withdrew its request for vouchers before the bill went to vote.

 

Critics have pointed out that while the potential diversion of federal funds toward a Muslim school generated controversy among legislators, the state was already slotted under the new voucher program to provide millions of dollars to schools run by Christian churches.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1593995.html

and to me, that is the most important part of the separation of church and state. once the gov't picks a favorite religion, all other religions are effectively banned. that is the whole point of the establishment clause, to protect everyone's ability to believe what they want.

[JJ Husker]

Is there a difference between implicit (internal, unspoken) and explicit (external, spoken) glorifying of Him, His story, His life, the lessons He taught us and wants us to learn?

 

Should people have to explicitly state that they are doing "good act X" because I want you to know about Jesus and to learn of His life? Or can't they just go into doing "good act X" with the motive, rationale, purpose (not due to requirement, but naturally) to inspire people to live like He did?

 

If by doing "good act X", you change a person, a family, or a community, isn't that what matters? Aren't you proclaiming His glory by implicitly wanting to share His love and then being driven to explicitly change the lives of people?

 

 

There is a difference, and both are necessary and beneficial. We also see both in Jesus' ministry, and in the early church.

 

Jesus and His disciples glorified and worshiped by fulfilling physical needs, and also by proclamation (through speech and expression). For example, we see Jesus rescue the woman caught in adultery from her persecutors, and afterwards we see Him proclaim to her "sin no more". He came as our sacrifice and our substitute so we could live life abundantly - that includes both salvation and eternity spent in fellowship with Him, which requires to be proclaimed and spoken to be understood, and also includes active life here and now, which requires physically blessing and serving people in response to their needs.

 

So, if I clothe the naked and feed the starving, but they leave not knowing who Jesus is, I have served and blessed them, but to what end? Surely not to the ultimate end of the abundant life, because they have left not knowing the truth about their need for a savior, or knowing their inability to do things without the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Conversely, if I proclaim the gospel by preaching, yet do not take care of their physical needs, I have blessed them by revealing truth to them, but to what end? Surely not to the ultimate end of abundant life, because I have ignored blatant and obvious steps to help them live well.

 

 

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

[Landlord]

Is there a difference between implicit (internal, unspoken) and explicit (external, spoken) glorifying of Him, His story, His life, the lessons He taught us and wants us to learn?

 

Should people have to explicitly state that they are doing "good act X" because I want you to know about Jesus and to learn of His life? Or can't they just go into doing "good act X" with the motive, rationale, purpose (not due to requirement, but naturally) to inspire people to live like He did?

 

If by doing "good act X", you change a person, a family, or a community, isn't that what matters? Aren't you proclaiming His glory by implicitly wanting to share His love and then being driven to explicitly change the lives of people?

 

 

There is a difference, and both are necessary and beneficial. We also see both in Jesus' ministry, and in the early church.

 

Jesus and His disciples glorified and worshiped by fulfilling physical needs, and also by proclamation (through speech and expression). For example, we see Jesus rescue the woman caught in adultery from her persecutors, and afterwards we see Him proclaim to her "sin no more". He came as our sacrifice and our substitute so we could live life abundantly - that includes both salvation and eternity spent in fellowship with Him, which requires to be proclaimed and spoken to be understood, and also includes active life here and now, which requires physically blessing and serving people in response to their needs.

 

So, if I clothe the naked and feed the starving, but they leave not knowing who Jesus is, I have served and blessed them, but to what end? Surely not to the ultimate end of the abundant life, because they have left not knowing the truth about their need for a savior, or knowing their inability to do things without the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Conversely, if I proclaim the gospel by preaching, yet do not take care of their physical needs, I have blessed them by revealing truth to them, but to what end? Surely not to the ultimate end of abundant life, because I have ignored blatant and obvious steps to help them live well.

 

 

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

 

 

 

What point are you trying to make, because my post had nothing to do with the idea of self glorification, which is what Jesus is talking about.

[carlfense]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

 

I would guarantee you won't get the same strict interpretation of the Constitution from the atheists on this board. They're already well on the way to morphing freedom of religion, as in the government can't interfere with your practice of religion, to freedom from religion, as in they don't want to see or hear about your religion, especially if it is Christian.

Do you find it equally interesting that people who think that only the text of the Constitution matters (and that we shouldn't fill in the blanks, so to speak) are complaining about a literal reading of the Bible?

 

That looks to be a two way street.

[carlfense]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

Interesting . . . so you're saying that we should ignore the actual text and focus on interpretation . . . ?

 

 

Which human being decides which parts of the bible are real and which aren't? I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about which parts of the word of god can be ignored by christians.

[carlfense]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

 

I would guarantee you won't get the same strict interpretation of the Constitution from the atheists on this board. They're already well on the way to morphing freedom of religion, as in the government can't interfere with your practice of religion, to freedom from religion, as in they don't want to see or hear about your religion, especially if it is Christian.

 

I completely disagree with that statement. I agree wholeheartedly with freedom of religion. The government should not interfere with your ability to worship. However, posting the ten commandments in a federal building or a public park is government sponsoring religion.

 

Ironically, the people complaining most about the "war on religion", don't believe in freedom of religion, they believe in freedom of their own religion. Rest of the religions be damned.

 

Stakes escalated last week when, to the frustration of some lawmakers, the Islamic School of Greater New Orleans applied for federal funds under the voucher program. Republican state Rep. Kenneth Havard objected to the Islamic School's request for 38 government-paid student vouchers, saying he opposed any bill that "will fund Islamic teaching," the Associated Press reports.

"I won't go back home and explain to my people that I supported this," he said.

 

"It'll be the Church of Scientology next year," Democratic state Rep. Sam Jones told AP.

 

The Islamic School of Greater New Orleans withdrew its request for vouchers before the bill went to vote.

 

Critics have pointed out that while the potential diversion of federal funds toward a Muslim school generated controversy among legislators, the state was already slotted under the new voucher program to provide millions of dollars to schools run by Christian churches.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1593995.html

THIS! Absolutely.

 

The government should support and endorse my religion . . . but I'm terrified of creeping Sharia.

[JJ Husker]

Is there a difference between implicit (internal, unspoken) and explicit (external, spoken) glorifying of Him, His story, His life, the lessons He taught us and wants us to learn?

 

Should people have to explicitly state that they are doing "good act X" because I want you to know about Jesus and to learn of His life? Or can't they just go into doing "good act X" with the motive, rationale, purpose (not due to requirement, but naturally) to inspire people to live like He did?

 

If by doing "good act X", you change a person, a family, or a community, isn't that what matters? Aren't you proclaiming His glory by implicitly wanting to share His love and then being driven to explicitly change the lives of people?

 

 

There is a difference, and both are necessary and beneficial. We also see both in Jesus' ministry, and in the early church.

 

Jesus and His disciples glorified and worshiped by fulfilling physical needs, and also by proclamation (through speech and expression). For example, we see Jesus rescue the woman caught in adultery from her persecutors, and afterwards we see Him proclaim to her "sin no more". He came as our sacrifice and our substitute so we could live life abundantly - that includes both salvation and eternity spent in fellowship with Him, which requires to be proclaimed and spoken to be understood, and also includes active life here and now, which requires physically blessing and serving people in response to their needs.

 

So, if I clothe the naked and feed the starving, but they leave not knowing who Jesus is, I have served and blessed them, but to what end? Surely not to the ultimate end of the abundant life, because they have left not knowing the truth about their need for a savior, or knowing their inability to do things without the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Conversely, if I proclaim the gospel by preaching, yet do not take care of their physical needs, I have blessed them by revealing truth to them, but to what end? Surely not to the ultimate end of abundant life, because I have ignored blatant and obvious steps to help them live well.

 

 

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

 

What point are you trying to make, because my post had nothing to do with the idea of self glorification, which is what Jesus is talking about.

BBBXII asked the question in bold. I thought your answer (in bold) somewhat contradicted what Jesus tells us to do in Matthew 6:1. How do you suggest to clothe the naked and feed the starving and, at the same time, let those you help know about Jesus while, also at the same time, having your charitable deed done in secret? Even Jesus told multiple people that he healed to not tell anyone about it. Is Jesus really just talking about "self glorification" or are we to take his words at face value and keep these actions secret?

[JJ Husker]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

Interesting . . . so you're saying that we should ignore the actual text and focus on interpretation . . . ?

 

 

Which human being decides which parts of the bible are real and which aren't? I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about which parts of the word of god can be ignored by christians.

Hmmm......so you're saying we should ignore the interpretation and focus on the actual text....? Interesting two way street indeed.

 

As to which human being decides, I think each person has to take their best shot at it. And, since really getting to the bottom of things would involve all of our time and to some extent be futile due to our limited understanding, some people get help from their religious organization, theologians, etc. that have more time invested in studying it. It really isn't a matter of deciding which parts to ignore. It's more an issue of determing how they get applied and figuring out things that can seem to contradict each other.

[Junior]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

Interesting . . . so you're saying that we should ignore the actual text and focus on interpretation . . . ?

 

 

Which human being decides which parts of the bible are real and which aren't? I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about which parts of the word of god can be ignored by christians.

Hmmm......so you're saying we should ignore the interpretation and focus on the actual text....? Interesting two way street indeed.

 

 

Um... Yes, that is what we are saying. Not that interesting of a two way street.

[Landlord]

BBBXII asked the question in bold. I thought your answer (in bold) somewhat contradicted what Jesus tells us to do in Matthew 6:1. How do you suggest to clothe the naked and feed the starving and, at the same time, let those you help know about Jesus while, also at the same time, having your charitable deed done in secret? Even Jesus told multiple people that he healed to not tell anyone about it. Is Jesus really just talking about "self glorification" or are we to take his words at face value and keep these actions secret?

 

 

 

 

Here's a brief commentary on verses 2-4. Essentially, Jesus is teaching not to be double-hearted, insincere or have motives outside of what you're actually doing. It's perfectly fine and pleasing to do things in public and in view (which Jesus himself did) if you're of pure heart.

 

 

2. When thou doest alms He expressly reproves a long established custom, in which the desire of fame might not only be perceived by the eye, but felt by the hands. In places where streets or roads met, and in public situations, where large assemblies were wont to be held, they distributed alms to the poor. There was evident ostentation in that practice: for they sought crowded places, that they might be seen by multitudes, and, not satisfied with this, added even the sound of trumpets.⁴²⁵ They pretended, no doubt, that it was to call the poor, as apologies are never wanting: but it was perfectly obvious, that they were hunting for applause and commendation. Now, when our service is rendered to the eyes of men, we do not submit our life to the judgment and approbation of God. Justly, therefore, does Christ say, that those persons, who exhibit themselves in this manner, have their reward: for they whose eyes are held by such vanity cannot look upon God.

 

For the same reason, all who are desirous of vain-glory are called hypocrites. Profane authors gave the name of ὑποκριταὶ, hypocrites, to those who personated assumed characters in plays and on the stage; and Scripture has applied this term to men who are double in heart and insincere.⁴²⁶ There are various kinds of hypocrites. Some, though conscious of being very wicked, impudently give themselves out for good men before the world, and endeavor to conceal their vices, of which they have an inward conviction. Others allow themselves to proceed to such a pitch of audacity, that they venture to claim even perfect righteousness before God. Others do good, not from a desire to do what is right, nor on account of the glory of God, but only to obtain for themselves fame and a reputation for holiness. This last mentioned class Christ now describes, and he properly calls them hypocrites: for, having no proper object in view in the performance of good works, they assume a different character, that they may appear to be holy and sincere worshippers of God.

 

3. Let not thy left hand know By this expression he means, that we ought to be satisfied with having God for our only witness, and to be so earnestly desirous to obey him, that we shall not be carried away by any vanity. It frequently happens, that men sacrifice to themselves rather than to God. Christ therefore wishes, that we should not be distracted by indirect thoughts, but go straight to this object, that we may serve God with a pure conscience.

<a name="ix.lii-p15.1" style="color: rgb(136, 0, 0);">

 

4. That thy alms may be in secret This statement appears to be opposed to many passages of Scripture, in which we are commanded to edify the brethren by good examples. But if we attend to the design of Christ, we must not give a more extensive meaning to the words.⁴²⁷ He commands his disciples to devote themselves to good works purely, and without any ambition. In order to do this, he bids them turn away their eyes from the sight of men, and to reckon it enough that their duties are approved by God alone. Such simplicity of views does not at all interfere with anxiety and zeal to promote edification: and, indeed, a little before, he did not expressly forbid them to do good before men, but condemned ostentation.

[BigRedBuster]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

Interesting . . . so you're saying that we should ignore the actual text and focus on interpretation . . . ?

 

 

Which human being decides which parts of the bible are real and which aren't? I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about which parts of the word of god can be ignored by christians.

Hmmm......so you're saying we should ignore the interpretation and focus on the actual text....? Interesting two way street indeed.

 

 

Um... Yes, that is what we are saying. Not that interesting of a two way street.

 

 

If you don't believe in the Bible, why do you say that? Why do you care?

[JJ Husker]

As usual the atheists, and one played fundamentalist, claim because our interpretation is not theirs, therefore we are wrong. I would recommend a quick look at the much more recent US C.onstitution, and see how far you get using the same interpretations

Interesting . . . so you're saying that we should ignore the actual text and focus on interpretation . . . ?

 

 

Which human being decides which parts of the bible are real and which aren't? I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about which parts of the word of god can be ignored by christians.

Hmmm......so you're saying we should ignore the interpretation and focus on the actual text....? Interesting two way street indeed.

 

 

Um... Yes, that is what we are saying. Not that interesting of a two way street.

Ummm not sure if you were keeping up with the discussion but that comment was directed at the US Constitution. I'm pretty sure you'll find that the actual text of the USC has been interpreted so poorly in many cases that some things no longer resemble the actual text in the least. To some degree it pretty much depends which side of the issue you are on as to what is right or wrong or absolute truth.That has happened in religion as well but sometimes the actual words just don't fully or properly address the situation a person is trying to apply it to. There has to be room for interpretation and applied understanding. If the Bible says Jesus said "so and so", well I believe he said that but it is still up to some discernment exactly what those words mean and, on various issues, it may not mean exactly the same thing. If you don't comprehend that, I'm not sure how to explain it any better.

[Junior]

Leviticus 11:10-11 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you, and they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in abomination.

 

I'm not sure what part of these passages need to be interpreted, it's pretty clear what they want... yet you admit to eating shellfish (and liking it). I'm curious as to your "interpretation".

[Landlord]

Leviticus 11:10-11 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you, and they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in abomination.

 

I'm not sure what part of these passages need to be interpreted, it's pretty clear what they want... yet you admit to eating shellfish (and liking it). I'm curious as to your "interpretation".

 

 

Junior, I'm asking this honestly - do you have any knowledge of the idea of the old and new covenants? And the differences between ceremonial and moral law in the Old Testament?

[Junior]

Leviticus 11:10-11 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you, and they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in abomination.

 

I'm not sure what part of these passages need to be interpreted, it's pretty clear what they want... yet you admit to eating shellfish (and liking it). I'm curious as to your "interpretation".

 

 

Junior, I'm asking this honestly - do you have any knowledge of the idea of the old and new covenants? And the differences between ceremonial and moral law in the Old Testament?

 

I have a bit of knowledge of it. Can't claim to fully know the story, but I know that the new testament was in some ways a replacement for some teachings of the old. Jesus' death did away with old laws in the OT. However, I've never understood why some things from the old remain valid and some don't. And I've never been adequately shown which parts of the old testament we are to disregard and which we are to adhere to.