Would the NEA possibly censor anti-racism literature?
Published by tramsek July 17th, 2006 in UpdatesIf youââ?¬â?¢ve read the previous blog posts, you will have heard how the NEA leadership requested (demanded) that we move our ââ?¬Ë?gay marriageââ?¬â?¢ booklets to the back of the table (out of public view). An interesting point to note is that right next to the anti ââ?¬Ë?gay marriageââ?¬â?¢ booklets were anti-racism booklets. Because the Bible is the word of God the Creator of the universe, we know that marriage is between one man and one woman. In the same way we know that there is only one race: the human race. Our booklet entitled ââ?¬Å?Where did the Races come from?ââ?¬? explains from Genesis that we are all related to Adam and Eve. Weââ?¬â?¢re all related to each other because there is only one race, strictly speaking. We also know from Genesis that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The interesting thought is, what if a racist had strolled by our booth and saw our contention that racism is wrong (just like our contention that ââ?¬Ë?gay marriageââ?¬â?¢ is wrong). What if that racist was so offended that our booklet explains that a ââ?¬Ë?whiteââ?¬â?¢ person can marry a ââ?¬Ë?blackââ?¬â?¢ person with no offense to God? And what if that racist stormed up to the NEA leadership offices and demanded that the Creation Science Educatorsââ?¬â?¢ Caucus move their ââ?¬Ë?anti-racismââ?¬â?¢ booklet to the back table, out of view? Do you think the NEA would comply with that demand? I think not. Since racism is politically incorrect, the NEA would probably wax eloquent to this person on how to be ââ?¬Ë?tolerantââ?¬â?¢ and ââ?¬Ë?celebrate diversityââ?¬â?¢, etc. He would probably either be laughed out of the office or thrown out.
But in our case, since ââ?¬Ë?gay marriageââ?¬â?¢ is politically correct (as least in liberal circles), the offended person was granted his request and we were threatened if we didnââ?¬â?¢t acquiesce to their demand. Do you see the double standard? Apparently their commitment to ââ?¬Ë?toleranceââ?¬â?¢ only goes so far. They are intolerant of intolerance, their philosophy is self-refuting.
I would not hesitate to answer a resounding “Yes!”. They promote racism by saying black is black and white is white, but that diversity is good where we stay segregated among ourselves and recognise the differences. Not too often will the mention be made about the similarities.
I asked early, but how exactly were you threatened? Clearly they did not take away your both, censor you (unlike you with this blog), or were even mean to you?
Bob,
Please! You have no investment in this forum beyond your words, so to compare any supposed censorship you may have experienced with the convention’s attempt to censor Bill Craig is ludicrous. Likely your mail was deleted by the spam filter before Bill Craig could restore it. Try posting it again and email Bill right away.
The request to remove material is itself an attempt to censor it. The implicit threat is always to remove a booth from the convention; the booth provider has a significant financial investment in attending the convention.
Good thing I wasn’t there to witness this or i would have gotten all over the convention for it. I mean come on. Since when is it even illegal to offend somebody. Please! Plus, if offends you, then stay away. Forcing someone to remove a product just because it doesn’t agree with someone elses views is rediculous. I extremely doubt that if another both had products supporting or even encouraging homosexuality, that any normal, straight person who was offended wouldn’t have a single say in the matter. Why, because the gay person has freedom of speech. Thats their excuse. I’m gonna have to attend this convention someday. I’ll probably wind up getting thrown out if I catch this kinda behavior. This realy makes me angry. Anyway, God Bless AiG for doing what their doing. Keep it up guys.
But… they didn’t make you remove it, right? They asked, you refused, and that was the end of the story, according to a previous entry in this very blog. The organization thought it might be good to not display materials that get a lot of people heated up on both sides of the issue, which seems to be a valid observation and logical response. But all they did was ask. Seems like mountain/molehill territory.
And Foxx, dude… you need to take a deep breath. I certainly don’t claim to speak for your Lord, but I kinda doubt he wants you breaking up meetings in His name.
Tom H
The comments were posted to the board, then deleted afterwards. They were not caught in any spam filter. What happened is that on a later post, you all got called on it, and put the posts censored from that entry, as well as my posts back on to the board.
However, a post where I asked which version of Christianity should be taught is still missing.
But you’re right though that I should compare my experience with actual censorship here at AIG with that of the NEA people. Why? First, I, again, I was the victim of real censorship, while the AIG was not, despite the alleged implict threat to come and get them you believe exist too.
Second, unlike the NEA who clearly state their opposition to homophobic prejudice and biogtry, Tramsek, speaking for the AIG, bragged that AIG is not afraid of other opinions and do no censor them. Yet, AIG got caught do that.
If someone really wanted to censor you here, they surely wouldn’t suddenly replace the “deleted” comments. A much more effective method would be to pretend that they never existed. That, however, didn’t happen.
Seeing as how AiG is an evangelical Christian ministry, it understands that God is quite serious when He says: “…and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8 (KJV)
Lying is never okay, even if it is for apologetics. Because, by its very nature, lying is sinful and anti-God, and so a lie can never be used for a Christ-like cause.
You weren’t lied to and you aren’t being censored. You’re being paranoid and inventing the concept that someone is out to get you as you struggle to defend your worldview.
And one more thing, my friend. You disregarded the already-stated conclusion that it is quite likely your “previous post” was simply lost in filtration. And so if you really want to put it to the test, ask it again.
You appeared to have, in a sense, asked it above. “Which version of Christianity should be taught?” Believe it or not, there is only one Christianity. Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses…that is not Christian. Now, you’re probably thinking that I am just making this up. But the fact is, all three of those denominations (Catholicism being the world’s single biggest “religion”) contain countless ideas that are counter-Biblical, and any semi-serious student of the Bible or secular history could see that. Of course, people WITHIN those denominations would disagree, but if you look at the historical record and try reading the Bible (not the ridiculous Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, either. Get a Bible and read it for yourself without the peanut gallery interjecting at every turn), you’ll see the ONLY Christianity.
Which Christianity should be taught? The only one that exists. BIBLICAL Christianity. If it is against what the Bible says, it isn’t Christian. The Bible is the supreme and only authority of what “Christianity” truly is.
Okay, let’s try this again. I know the comments could bot have been lost in filtration because if you go back and read the thread, people respond to them, people note they were deleted, and people praised the AIG staff for bring them back.
Yeah, and because the Bible says do not lie, Christians would never lie. I mean the fact Christians have committed even graver sins to propagate their faith, like burning people at the stake, massacring them by the hundreds of thousands, and the like is irrelevant.
As for my “worldview”, science has survived other challenges to its validity and it will survive the Creationist craze. And my science is based off facts and evidence, not postmodernist nonsense like “axioms” and “interpretation”, though watching Christian fundamentalists resort to Postmodernism is always fun.
Finally, for all your talk about “biblical christianity” the reality is there over 33,000 versions of Christianity that claim to be correct. And since God has yet to tell me which one is correct, I’ll leave it you.
Which form of Christianity is correct? And why should I believe your interpretation of the bible over the rest? And reading the bible is not the answer, if fact, reading the bible got us to this problem as people interpret the text different and then went off and spun off their own sects.
Sir, you are merely engaging in argument by outrage. “Oh, look at what all these terrible Christians did.” What “Christians” did in the name of God does not make Him any more or less real. God never sanctioned the medieval crusades, the inquisition, etc. Those were done at the commands of people - NOT God. Thus, they ARE 100% irrelevant.
There are no hypocrites in Christ’s true church. The Bible makes it clear that there are many people who claim the title of “Christian,” but will be damned for their hypocrisy and unrepentant hearts in the end. So that IS what I’m saying - no true Christian would openly lie to you like that to simply provide some apologetics point.
Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV) says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
It is interesting that you say that “science has survived” the creationist craze, seeing as how the typical secularist view is that “science” is breaking off the “shackles” of the theism of the past. You cannot have it both ways. You know what HAS survived for thousands of years? God’s Word. Skeptics have hammered away, and in time their attacks change and wear down. But the Bible has remained unchanged.
Axioms have always been a part of science, as have evidential analysis (which involve interpretation). Science cannot work without axioms. The fact that you think that science can work without axioms is not only simply not true, but even secular scientists would tell you so. You have been the victim of indoctrination. You believe something not because there is evidence, but because you were told about it by someone that society calls “an expert.”
Your post also tells me that, like most skeptics, your knowledge of the Bible most likely comes from a Google search on “Bible contradictions” or listening to SecularWeb. There are numerous denominations, true, but a denomination is not a “version.” If you read about what various denominations believe and truly gain a knowledge of the Bible, you’ll see that the differences in all Biblical-based denominations don’t vary on the major doctrines and even many of the smaller ones, for God’s Word is God’s Word. Most denominations are based on political and social changes, NOT on vast theological differences like many people think.
God never commanded you to be a Baptist, a Methodist, etc. He commanded you to repent and trust in Christ, not to join a church. So, as I said, BIBLICAL Christianity is, by definition, the only “version” Christianity.
I’m not going to get involved into a large debate with you and your friend Paul (see a few blog posts down). I am a busy man and I presume that you are, as well. But as I told him, I shall tell you: It doesn’t matter that you believe Hell doesn’t exist. That doesn’t change reality, and on judgment day all of your faulty science and philosophy won’t change a thing.
So that brings me to your motive: why do atheists like to go around to Christian websites and flame them with attacks? You may not consider it flaming, but look at what you’ve done. You come on here, you accuse the blog moderator of censoring you like some communist (which I suggest you take up with the AiG main staff if you sincerely believe that you have been. You may disagree with their views, but they’re some of the warmest and most concerned apologists I’ve ever seen. AiG isn’t afraid of opposing views - if they were, they wouldn’t engage in highly-public debates and open forums), and you attack peoples’ faith.
I know some very sincere atheists who seem to want to believe that God exists, but struggle intellectually. Most, however, seem to have no real intellectual problem. It’s a MORAL problem. To acknowledge that God is God is to become accountable to God. Thus, the atheist in this case cannot “find God” like a bank robber can’t find the police station.
I suggest that you actually spend a few hours reading AiG articles before you come here to group up on we “ignorant, closed-minded” Christians and try to inject your humanist gospel and make it seem like you’re obviously so much more enlightened and informed than everyone else. I further suggest that you really start thinking about eternity. Satan, who the Bible calls the “father of lies,” has told you one of the greatest lies of all: that he doesn’t exist. But your lack of knowledge about God’s reality and your disbelief won’t help you on judgment day.
You and I are both going to die. Does that scare you? Who among us hasn’t feared death at some point? I used to be scared of death. But my fear was misplaced. The fear of death shouldn’t be about ceasing to exist as an entity. The fear of death should regard the fear of Hell. Since becoming a Christian, I no longer fear death. If I died right now, I would be fine with it. Being ready to die and wanting to die are two different things; I don’t have a death wish. But let me ask you: Are you ready to die? Probably not.
But Philippians 1:21,23 (KJV) says, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:”
No matter what you or I do, we’re going to die. I’m not trying to scare you into belief. It’s simply a fact. We’re going to die. We’re under God’s death sentence. Now, if all of us Christians are wrong, what have we lost? Nothing. Like the atheists, we’ll all be victims of the great equalizer. If you’re wrong, however, it’s Hell - forever.
Christians aren’t trying to make you mad. We want to open your eyes to the truth before it’s too late.
I won’t be debating any further, but please, heed my words. I will pray for you.
What ââ?¬Å?Christiansââ?¬? did in the name of God does not make Him any more or less real. God never sanctioned the medieval crusades, the inquisition, etc. Those were done at the commands of people - NOT God. Thus, they ARE 100% irrelevant.
Hmmmmmm… interesting. Ken Hamm never misses a chance to bring up the argument that evolution was responsible for the Nazis’ “selective breeding” experiments. Guess it just works one way though…
Paul, I believe that’s called hypocrisy.
It also proves that that Dostoevsky got it backwards, and that Only with God are all things possible, because you can cite him as an excuse for any bad behavior. Lying, murder, terrorism are always okay, provided God says so. I mean look at religous terrorist groups, they kill far more people than the atheist/communist ones.
That is an interesting and often-heard claim, HG. Only, it’s entirely untrue. Over 100 million Christians have been martyred for their faith worldwide in the past 100 years alone. Stalin’s kulak liquidation program (pre-World War II) killed over 20 million of his own people. Take all of communism, evolutionist-based Nazism and so forth, and you have far more deaths, by the tens of millions, than people ever killed during the supposedly-”Christian” operations of the middle and early Enlightenment ages. The people killed by communism and evolutionist Nazism: there weren’t even NEAR that many people in the global population during the middle ages.
Plus, most “Christian” terrorist groups are small and domestic, like the nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics in “God’s name.” Those murders, tragic and un-Christian as they are, are small in number compared to the grand scheme of things. Almost all religious-based atrocities committed in the modern world by terror groups are based on Islam, which we evangelical Christians contend is a false belief system, as is Roman Catholicism, the primary culprit of the middle ages.
What NJG said is right. Your claim on this point is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with God’s existence. It is merely argument by outrage.
Nonsense, you just have a short memory. Christian groups have been just as vicious as Islamic ones. For example, 71% of Lebanese suicide attacks were done by Christians verus 21% by communist (atheists). Also, a decade ago, Christian Serbs and Croatians massacred Bpsnians and each other by the Tens of Thousands, all in the name of their religion. Who kicked the Albanians out of Kosovo? Thats right, Christian Serbs.
As for Stalin, remember when he still believed it was a ruler’s duty to prepare his subjects for the next life, a belief that influenced his later massacre. Plus, his atheism is best described as a rebellion against God, not a denial of him/her/it. The first chapter of Stalin’s Hangmen has a good description of his religious nature. Many of the communists maintained a religous, abeit without God, view towards life that influenced their later actions. Djilas and Tito in Yugoslavia are the best example, but religious influence explains the difference between Vietnam and Cambodia’s reactions towards their class enemies.
The Vietnamese were followers of Confuscious (sp?), hence they believed that their opponents could be reeducated, hence they were brutual, but restrained. However, Pol Pot, being former Buddahist, believe that suffering inflicted was sufffering earned, thus they were not checked.
Also Protestants were not above attacking others throughout their history. The whole religious wars that tore Europe asunder were between Protestants and Catholics. In the US, Protestants often attacked Catholics, one of the goofier examples being the 1839 Baltimore Nunnery riot, where Protestants went off and tried to sack Catholic convents when an insane women told them that the Catholic church was out to get her. Also Christian terrorists just tend to fail more than Islamic ones. They are not less lethal because of religion, but stupidity.
Also, regarding the Hitler and evolution thing, keep in mind that Nazis were often Christians, and evolution’s common origins for mankind clashed with official Nazi doctrine. Not to mention Hitler stated in Mein Kampf that the earth was thousands of years old, a doctrine I believe that is known as Young Earth Creationism.
Paul and HG,
You really should read the articles on this website, they have already answered the tired argument of “Christians” doing horrible things. They have stated many times that the Bible’s teachings are completely inconsistent with these violent acts, unlike the evolutionary beliefs which Hitler and Stalin embraced.
Jordan, I really don’t have a dog in this particular fight. I used the best example I could think of, but truth is, I believe people will find an excuse to kill one another regardles of their religion or lack thereof.
But I must point out in response to your post above, that the Christians who did those “horrible things” read the same Bible you read abnd came away with their own interpretation. So while your interpretation says they are inconsistent, others have found them perfectly in line with God’s will.
Conversely, if you’ve ever read The Communist Manifesto you know that there is not a word in there — not one word — about killing people or enslaving people or any such thing.
Point is, some idiots read the Bible long ago and thought it told them to kill Jews. Later, some other idiots read Darwin and they thought it told them to kill even more Jews. Yet no one is arguing that we should throw out Christianity because it was once used to justify murder… only that we throw out Darwinism.
Dear Paul, HG, Bob, et. al., We’re obviously not going to change your mind any more than you’ll change ours. But whereas we might feel sad for you because of where you’re headed, you simply hate us. There is only one truth. Whether you find it, learn it and accept it is your choice. Once you’ve hardened your heart the door is closed and your path is chosen. To call oneself Christian doesn’t make one so. It’s a way of life, not a title. Nobody is perfect in this life and we’re all inclined to stray and make mistakes. The difference is does one realize it and repent for it.
As Jordan stated, there is some really good reading here. But if your mind is set it won’t mean anything to you, and all you’re doing by visiting here is harassing us. Oh, how indignant you would be if we were to go into your realm and condemn you in like manner!
JRN,
What on Earth makes you think I “hate” you?!?! Good Lord, where did that come from??? I thought we were having an interesting discussion, and you consider my posting an opposing view “harrassment”??
oy…
How do you know that your interpretation of the Communist Manifesto is accurate? My interpretation of the Bible is just as obvious and straightforward as yours is regarding the Communist Manifesto. The obvious and straightforward interpretation of evolutionary beliefs is that only the fit should survive. Under this belief, why would things like racism and be unacceptable?
Darwinism should be thrown out because it is simply not true (note works from AiG, ICR, etc.), not because of how it has been used. How it has been used is merely a response to how secularists claim that Christianity has been used. I concur, Christianity has been misused by fallible human beings. Is that God’s doing? No. Does it affect His existence, or the infallibility of the Bible? No.
Also, your record of history is intriguing, but does not appropriately reflect ACTUAL history. It may be semi-accurate, but it is embellished. I don’t deny that “Christian” groups have misused the Bible to justify their actions. But just because someone misinterprets the Bible doesn’t mean that various interpretations are always valid. Anyone who has a thorough understand of scripture can see this. You may just call that claim MY interpretation, but if you really cared to study theology instead of just attacking people, you would see it, too.
Stalin was an atheist. His kulak liquidation was to eliminate the upper-class farmers to pave the way for a classless society based on pure Marxism. It had nothing to do with his theology. Even Mussolini was technically an atheist (he once publicly concluded that because God did not strike him dead on command, God did not exist). Hitler was a Roman Catholic during his younger years, but by World War II he was apathetic to God. In some cases, he claimed to be godlike. None of the Nazi leaders were practicing Christians; they were too absorbed in their own power. Hitler was motivated by “race mythology,” not faith. Heinrich Himmler, the S.S. leader who actually orchestrated the Holocaust, was a lapsed Roman Catholic and based his theory on Darwinism and social Darwinism. If you read speeches given at the Reichstag in the early 20th century (pre-World War I, mind you), you’ll find that many of the leaders there advocated social Darwinism and the elimination of the Jews, long before Hitler. Many of the Nazi regulars were Christians, sadly brainwashed with the promise of glory for Germany, economic revival and striking back for the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles.
If you recall the Bosnian conflict, that was a byproduct of the Cold War. The U.S.S.R. had taught atheism and Darwinism for over 80 years, repressing religious freedom and sending those who disagreed to the gulags. Some of the resulting Baltic armies were Christian (or at least claimed to be), some were Islamic, some were atheist. You cannot go pointing fingers when all groups were guilty of war crimes at some level.
Protestants have committed atrocities, too; I concede that. In fact, I never disputed it. That, however, was not the infamous middle ages. It was Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment. The Catholic v. Protestant conflict was really focused in England during the high and late periods of the middle ages, in which England transferred from Catholic (e.g., Bloody Mary’s mass execution of Protestants) to Protestantism. Catholic-inspired violence didn’t stop there, however. Read about Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, conveniently placed around the time that the King James Version of the Bible was being translated from Byzantine manuscripts.
Today, most of Europe officially remains Catholic, which is still the world’s largest religion.
To say that there are just as many “Christian terrorists” as Islamic terrorists is simply wrong.
As for Hitler’s young Earth creationism, again, it is irrelevant. Above, I discussed Hitler’s true view towards theology, which is clear from documentary evidence and eye-witness testimony that came out of Berlin during World War II. Take a look into the personality profile that the Office of Strategic Services (precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency) conducted of Hitler in the World War II era.
“You’re a Christian? Hitler was a Christian, and a young Earth creationist!” Though that is misleading and only partially true, it, too, is irrelevant. Guilt by association doesn’t change reality.
As for what JRN said, I agree with it completely except for the point on hatred. I don’t get the idea that these secularists hate us (many do, but for this particular discussion with these guys, I don’t get that impression). They do, however, hate our worldview (mostly because they think it is holding society and science back). And we hate their worldview (because we feel it is misleading people straight to Hell). Hating views is not equivalent to hating the person.
Jordan,
I’m not “interpreting” the CM, I’m saying that nowhere in it does it say we should kill people or enslave them or whatever. I mean, that’s not “interpretation”, it’s just reading. The words are not there. There are plenty of points that can be argued as to their interpretation, but that’s not one of them.
Steve,
Thanks for the history. I’ve never thought any of those tyrants’ actions had anything to do with religion, or philosophy, or anything else except power. They simply latch on to whatever “hook” works for them.
And I don’t hate you OR your worldview. I DO think it is holding society and science back, but… “hating” a worldview? seems an odd concept. I don’t hate it, I just think it’s silly and wrong.
That’s exactly what I’m saying! I am also “just reading” when I read the Bible, the same way you do with the CM.
So when the Bible says we should stone aldulterers to death, or people who mix fibers in their clothing should be executed, you take that literally? Or you interpret it in context…? See, the words are there, in the Bible, but it’s up to you, or your Pastor or whomever, to interpret what they mean to Christians today. Whereas, my point with the CM is, the words are not there.
If I may, and I surely do not intend to branch off into another realm of debate, but Old Testament law is the excuse that a lot of people give for regarding the Bible as archaic, brutal, etc. I could direct you to hundreds of resources on this, or I could ramble on and on myself, but to try and make it as simple as possible: Old Testament law was given to the Jews. Why? It was a test of their faith. And yes, everything written there is very literal. Allow me to explain.
Old Testament theology is clear that in the very beginning, there was no “religion.” Everyone was originally monotheistic and under the one true God. There was no “spiritual competition.” All of that came with rebellion against God in a post-fall world. The Jews knew that Yahweh existed. They saw His miracles first-hand over and over again; His existence was never in question. In Biblical theology, when we talk about struggling with faith, it is more often referring to trusting in God rather than believing that He exists. The Bible says in the Book of Romans that the evidence that God is real and the Creator is so obvious, that you have to foolishly suppress the truth in your own heart time and time again and deliberately ignore it to possibly conclude that He isn’t there. So, in this case, “faith” has to do with trusting God to deliver His promises.
The Old Testament, as well as many parts of the New Testament, are filled to the brim with accounts of God testing peoples’ faith. The ancient Jews wandered in the desert for over 40 years to make a 200 or so mile long trek; it was not because they walked slowly. God led them in circles because they continually disobeyed Him and refused to trust Him. Had they done what He commanded, they could have made that journey, with every one of the Jews, in about a month or less. It turned into 40 years due to their lack of trust in God.
Someone with a poor understanding of Old Testament theology might read it and say, “Wow, this is really stupid. Why does God care about these countless pages of random instructions and goofy rules?” He did it to test their peoples’ in Him. Would they do what the God of the universe says and trust it to be right, or would they make their own way? People have been making their own way ever since the fall in Eden, and we’ve been paying the consequences ever since.
God abhors sin. He hates it more than anyone hates anything. Because the ancient Jews (and the ancient world all-together, I suppose) were very stubborn, God used hard-line tactics to reach them and imprint His law and will onto their hearts as individuals and as a society. So, stoning an adulterer is one such method. Because God loathes adultery, those who willingly and openly disobeyed Him were killed for it. In one example, God commanded that work is not to be done on the Sabbath, for God would provide the food for the Israelites. One man disobeyed and went out to collect sticks on the Sabbath, despite God’s direct order not to do so. Like God had promised, He delivered to the people who followed Him as needed. But the man who disobeyed Him, for his open distrust of God, was executed.
Many times in Jewish history, the Jews turned from God and turned to idolatry and sin. God would punish them, often by sending foreign invaders to rule over them. As they turned back to God, He liberated them. This process was repeated multiple times. God was more harsh in the Old Testament times because the people were more stubborn. But God is unchanging. He hates the sames evils now as He did then. What does change is His methodology (as society changes). Jesus Christ - God in human form - provided the ultimate sacrifice so that peoples’ guilt could be taken away and so that they no longer needed harsh regulations to be reached. Instead, God became one of them to show them the way.
You can argue semantics all you want, but this is what the Bible clearly teaches. If you don’t believe me, try looking into some scholarly Bible study materials.
Yes, Steve, I actually knew all of that. Believe it or not I have studied religion a bit, not as much as you I’m sure, but a bit. I would ask you to go back and read the discussion that preceeded my last post, because your response is totally off-topic. I wasn’t trying to make a point that the words of the Bible are outdated or any such thing (though of course I think they are). In fact your observation proves my point — that the words are there in the Bible, but we must understand the context in which they were written, we must interpret them to see how they apply to our lives today.
This whole discussion has gotten off track a bit I think, but I was just trying to make Jordan understand a point about “interpretation”.
(I feel kinda bad that you typed all that when you didn’t need to. Ah well.. good for the soul I guess…)
Aye, I knew it was fairly off topic. But that’s okay. I felt that I needed to convey that point, anyway.
Anyway, how can you think that the Bible is outdated if it was never “in” date? If it is not the inspired word of the God of the universe, was it ever justified? Was it ever appropriate? Or was society just not up-to-date yet? And if that is the case, then who is to say that what we, or you, think is correct today won’t someday be considered “primitive” and “barbaric?” So who is right? How would you know? What is the standard of correctness? I, for one, believe the God of the universe more than men. He alone is the standard of right and wrong.
But to address the aforementioned, the point was that God hates sin. God demands trust. God is unchanging. So, if God was against a certain act in the Old Testament, He’d surely be against it today. The difference is, instead of being killed for it, people are now commanded to repent and trust in Christ.
A central doctrine of the faith is that God is perfect. So, how could He ever change His attitude towards something? If He did, that would imply that He was wrong the first time; that simply cannot be. So if God said something was sinful then, it is still sinful now. That is what we need to understand as we apply the Old Testament to our lives today.
This is much like the Communist Manifesto, only the manifesto has been changed by the communists themselves, whereas the Bible remains as-is. Now, take a look at what Vladimir Lenin, founder of the U.S.S.R., did. He killed many, many, people. He brutally executed the Romanov family (children included) and much of the Russian czarist government. With the help of his deputies, Stalin and Trotsky, he waged civil war, slaughtered countless numbers of his own people and took over Russia.
Now look up the “secret speech” given by Khrushchev about Stalin. He accused Stalin of being much more radical than Lenin. He said that Lenin was true to Marxism, but that Stalin took it beyond the line. But, both Stalin and Lenin killed many of their own people. Stalin saw it as his duty as a communist and so did Lenin. So why the differentiation? The words may not literally be there in the communist manifesto, but the ideas certainly are. Marx, in other documents, repeatedly discussed the elimination of not only capitalism, but capitalists themselves.
Aye, I knew it was fairly off topic. But that’s okay. I felt that I needed to convey that point, anyway.
And how can you say that the Bible is outdated if it was never “in date?” If it is not the inspired word of God, and society is on an upward climb to a higher evolutionary destiny, then how could it ever be in date? Would it not just be a barbaric semblance of the past - a fleeting memory of an uncivilized time? What then happens if, one day, your views and ideas today are seen as the ignorant barbarism of the past?
So who is right? How would you know? What is the standard of correctness? I, for one, believe the God of the universe more than men. He alone is the standard of right and wrong.
To address the other point, the point was that God hates sin. God demands trust. God is unchanging. So, if God was against a certain act in the Old Testament, He’d surely be against it today. The difference is, instead of being killed for it, people are now commanded to repent and trust in Christ.
A central doctrine of the faith is that God is perfect. So, how could He ever change His attitude towards something? If He did, that would imply that he was wrong the first time; that simply cannot be. So if God said something was sinful then, it is still sinful now. That is what we need to understand as we apply the Old Testament to our lives today.
Much like the Communist Manifesto, only it has been changed BY the communists, whereas the Bible remains as-is. I’m sure that you’ve read the Manifesto before. Now, take a look at what Vladimir Lenin, founder of the U.S.S.R., did. He killed many, many, people. He brutally executed the Romanov family (children included) and much of the Russian czarist government. With the help of his deputies, Stalin and Trotsky, he waged civil war, slaughtered countless numbers of his own people, and took over Russia.
Now look up the “secret speech” given by Khrushchev about Stalin. He accused Stalin of being much more radical than Lenin. He said that Lenin was true to Marxism, but that Stalin took it beyond the line. But, both Stalin and Lenin killed many people. Stalin saw it as his duty as a communist and so did Lenin. So why the differentiation? The words may not literally be there in the communist manifesto, but the ideas certainly are. Marx, in other documents, repeatedly discussed the elimination of not only capitalism, but capitalists themselves.
As for the Bosnian conflict, the CIA found the Serbian Orthodox Christians conducted 90% of the atrocities, all without reference to evolution.
I am sorry for taking so long. I’m struggling to get my actual reply posted on here. It keeps running into errors and moderation flags.
(And people said that it was just secularists having this problem. :::Laughs::: )
In any case, I’ll try to get it on here as soon as possible.
Here’s a source for the 90% report claim. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950312/ai_n10188567
Anyway, the other parts of the report, regarding the Serbian leadership being involved have been proven true by their confessions and convictions at the Hague and mountains of other intelligence.
The relevance to this debate is two fold. First, it corrects someone else’s mistaken beliefs, though given your clear lack of understanding of the conflict i.e. confusing the Baltics with the Balkans, stating their was an christian, atheist, and Islamic sides, and then babbling about the USSR’s educational practices, which given Tito was an American ally and split with Warsaw Pact in 1948 is irrelevant, I am not surprised that you’re a Christian.
Second point regarding this debate, is where was God? Seriously, all those people were being raped, massacred, and tortured, by people claiming to be his followers, and yet he did nothing. Seems to me A) God is a sadist, which given his history of Nazi style atrocities in the Old Testament is possible B) Didn’t care or supported the rape of infidel girls, or C) isn’t real. It’s hard to say which is worse from your perspective, but that’s life.
(In case the previous attempt didn’t go through)
Pardon: my Balkins error wasn’t so much typographical as it was me typing in a hurry without taking the time to think about geography. I admit that it was an error on my part. I didn’t think about the geography properly.
But we all make mistakes. We’re not, say, God.
That said, the rest of my contentions stand.
1. There is more to suffering than that - take a _good_ ‘look’ at the Cross of Christ and never bother making that wherewasGod/suffering arguement again.
2. Following _Christ_’s example, anyone who cannot subscribe to and act on the simplest interpretation of ‘love your enemies’ is not a Christian (including your 90% of serbian Christians - remember, ‘narrow is the gate and few there be that find it.’)
(I’m the real Steve, by the way. The Christian Steve. As I covered in a post that has not yet made its way onto here, the one who posted the pro-humanist material is not me.)
My replies on this and another board have yet to appear. I’ve contacted the moderators, so we’ll see what happens.
That last “Steve” was not the Steve who has been posting (me). I wrote out a long reply, but it was taken away by the spam filters. No matter.
I encourage people to examine the evidence themselves.
In Christ,
-Steve
God condemned Adam to die for his sin, and we all die and suffer as a result. Men are responsible for much of the suffering in the world. Tough — suck it up. Even though we offend God daily, He still provides us with rain, sunshine crops, etc. No doubt He could cut any of those off if he chose.
And yes, God sent His son to die for our sins while we were still obnoxiously offensive to Him in order to give us future eternal life and future freedom from sin.