Hasbeen99, what do you make of this?

Heaven forbid. I just don't have the energy to do it all myself.

 

Your incomplete understanding of the whole ministry of Christ makes you unqualified to criticize those who follow Him. It is like watching a CSI episode and then attacking the police for not doing a good job with forensics.

 

The gifts just keep on coming.

 

EDIT- For Hasbeens...

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

I apologize for not getting to this sooner. As CGF said, I was out of town for a couple of weeks, and it's taken me a few days to get caught up here at work.

I found most of that article to be a collection of half truths, misinterpretations and ignorance with lots of emotional window dressing for the sole purpose of guilt-inducing manipulation. Ironically, because of that, she's largely no better than the hypocrites she's calling out.

She does make some good points, however, many of which I've been struggling with for some time (mainly regarding the war in Iraq), and the "religious right" seems to be in dire need of some humility. She's not wrong about that. I've been seriously second-guessing my support for our president lately, too. That's why I abstained from voting this year.

I find it fascinating that Jesus never really addressed social concerns or governments, rather He taught with the sole purpose of winning the heart of the individual. His motivations were the eternal, and He knew that everything around Him -- the Romans, the poverty, the persecution, even Israel -- were all temporal. He also knew that the best way to build a foundation for lasting and wide-swept change wasn't to start at the top and work down, but to start at the bottom and work both out and up.

 

I feel like vp for asking this, but aside from the initial one that a few people jumped on, were there any half truths or misinterpretations that jumped out at you?

I felt like it was one of the more christian writings I've ever read.

 

What she wrote was: Let me tell you about the Christ I know. He was conceived by an unmarried woman.

According to the Biblical account, this is true. Joseph & Mary were betrothed--engaged--when she became pregnant. Joseph went through with the marriage after being assured by an angel that the child was of God himself.

I think the writer makes tons of valid points. She is obviously just as passionate about her views as the "religious right" is about theirs.

I also think the assertion that you can't understand Christ if you're not a Christian is ridiculous. Try, "You can't understand witchcraft unless you're a witch. You can't understand Vishnu if you're not a Hindu. You can't understand Satan if you're not a Satanist." Pure bullshit.

 

Trying to attack followers of a certain religion by using a few scripture passages out of context in order to make your point is also BS.

 

Moi? How am I attacking anyone? Just pointing out a few facts & expressing a viewpoint--& very politely, too.

 

First example:

That lesson was directed at people choosing money over submission to God's will, not necessarily as a condemnation to the rich. A misapplication of the reference, IMO.

Second example:

What "temple" is she referring to? The United States? If so, how does she define "innocent"?

Third example:

This sounds nice and righteous, and fear-mongering to boot, but the impression she gives is that this is something new. The 'sheep' have been led astray since probably the 2nd or 3rd century by governments and churches alike.

Fourth example:

Really? Which ones? He offered to spare Sodom for the sake of a few righteous souls, except there weren't any after Lot's family escaped. As far as her 15,000 number, those are total estimated civilian casualties. The problem is, nobody has worn a uniform over there since April 2003, and even then, many of the enemy fought in civvies. Hard to tell the goats from the sheep if everyone's wearing wool.

Fifth example:

I agree, but she's giving the impression the coalition is leveling the whole country to bring a few bad guys to justice (kill 'em all -- let God sort 'em out!), inferring the Christian thing to do would be to leave Iraq alone because there are a few "righteous" souls there, which isn't the case at all. The coalition hasn't been perfect in avoiding innocent death, no. But they're not killing indiscriminately, either.

Sixth example:

Another righteous sounding rhetorical question, and totally ridiculous, IMO. Did any of the free countries in the world today ask God how much they'd have to pay to be free? God knows the price that will be paid, but He doesn't set it. Man does that through the outcome of the free will of countless thousands.

Seventh example:

Wrong. Logic and faith go hand-in-glove.

Eighth example:

She appears to be implying that it is the responsibility of the United States to fulfill this mission, when nothing is farther from the truth, despite the fact we have a confessing Christian as president. Jesus' influence and teachings have always been commissioned to His individual disciples, that it may not be hindered by boundaries or politics, but shared through personal relationships, servitude and love. That has been His plan from the beginning.

Ninth example:

Many of those denominations were also so focused on legalism that the concept of grace was all but forgotten. We're talking about people who think electricity is from Satan -- hardly shining examples of the "light yoke" of Christ.

Tenth example:

Broad brush generalization and conspiracy theory. Certainly some churches fall into that accusation, but not all. Probably not even most.

Eleventh example:

So do a lot of other things. The normality of everyday life can. Again, this is nothing new. There's a reason Jesus often went off by Himself to pray and meditate, and that was in the first century when things like radio, television, the telephone, and the internet weren't even dreamt of by man.

Like I said before, many of the points she makes I agree with. These were just the points I didn't.