wil said:
Perhaps it was. But if you read your post again, you might find that others could take it a different way, one in which you are not in admiration of the Amish, but rather just shy of patronizing their ways.
v/r
Joshua
A Word Whose Time Has Come To An End
- Thread starter lunamoth
- Start date
Perhaps it was. But if you read your post again, you might find that others could take it a different way, one in which you are not in admiration of the Amish, but rather just shy of patronizing their ways.
v/r
Joshua
Now about that love thy neighbor business-only gripe I've got re Jesus' message is he didn't leave behind a bunch of teachings re tools to use to make that more likely vs. Gautama the Buddha for instance whose whole fous in teaching was to provide tools for such. Heck, we all know it's easier said than done re to "love" as our personal fears and hatreds tend to disunify us from ourselves and others. In fact, I dare say that one of the motivations behind the now fairly long-standing interfaith dialogue movement between Christian clerics/laity and other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism is both the recognition of delight in our common spiritual cores (while recognizing and accepting differences) and the delight taken in learning from each other to enrich our own practices. These Christian dialoguers understand that for instance learning how Buddhist meditative practices can assist them in seeing through and releasing mental habits which reinforce those aforementioned afflictive states (while continuing to allow Jesus to be your shepherd) only enables a greater ability to love thy neighbor and serve God-doesn't make them less "Christian." In fact, if such practices drawn from other traditions were introduced as "generic" tools not "name-brand", (in fact they were often just "discoveries" of ways in which "reality" functions at times that later came to be "copyrighted" in association with religions springing up around them but I digress
), those who freak re labels might be less alarmed and see their value to their personal Way. At the end of any day, what we should ask of what "tool" we use and how we use it is simply, "did it enable me to love God and my neighbor better?"
As to changing perspectives of theological teachings in the face of science or other more secular discoveries, there too we tend to become overly rigid and entrenched with our beliefs believing that there is no room for change without sacrificing what it means to us to be "Christian." But to show another model re that you only need to look to the Dalai Lama who for a number of years has hosted dialoging conferences not only with other religious groups but also with scientists and has even been quoted as saying that if science "proved" that something Buddhism believed was not actually true then Buddhism would need to alter that belief. In other words, he recognizes that the essence of his religion is not to be found in the specific details of beliefs but at the very core. To him science and the possible challenge it may present to a specific belief is not heresy but rather possible impetus for a religion to change and grow. He doesn't sweat whether in doing so it makes him "non-Buddhist."
So if folks want to be Christian while enriching themselves with the gifts of humanity outside their immediate circle, it ain't "heretical" in my opinion unless it detracts from Jesus' basic message.
Lunamoth, if I remember right in a thread once you stated it was all about love and the rest was commentary. That's so profoundly true.
have a good one, earl
), those who freak re labels might be less alarmed and see their value to their personal Way. At the end of any day, what we should ask of what "tool" we use and how we use it is simply, "did it enable me to love God and my neighbor better?"As to changing perspectives of theological teachings in the face of science or other more secular discoveries, there too we tend to become overly rigid and entrenched with our beliefs believing that there is no room for change without sacrificing what it means to us to be "Christian." But to show another model re that you only need to look to the Dalai Lama who for a number of years has hosted dialoging conferences not only with other religious groups but also with scientists and has even been quoted as saying that if science "proved" that something Buddhism believed was not actually true then Buddhism would need to alter that belief. In other words, he recognizes that the essence of his religion is not to be found in the specific details of beliefs but at the very core. To him science and the possible challenge it may present to a specific belief is not heresy but rather possible impetus for a religion to change and grow. He doesn't sweat whether in doing so it makes him "non-Buddhist."
So if folks want to be Christian while enriching themselves with the gifts of humanity outside their immediate circle, it ain't "heretical" in my opinion unless it detracts from Jesus' basic message.
Lunamoth, if I remember right in a thread once you stated it was all about love and the rest was commentary. That's so profoundly true.
have a good one, earl
flowperson
Oannes
Quahom1 said:
Q... excellent point. I believe that this is what is happening today before our eyes, but many are trying to cover-up the truths of the process by hurling bible verses at those who try to point that out. Calling such people "heretics" or "blasphemers" solves nothing in the moment except for enhancing the self-gratification of the name callers. I don't view my role in life as one who causes hostility or fear...so I guess I'll butt out for now.
The powers of the thought processes of human beings are only beginning to be understood...and those who fear change are threatened the most by that...so they always tend to try to revert discussions to the far away past.
flow....
flowperson
Oannes
juantoo3 said:Kindest Regards, Flow!
I want to agree with you in post 15, and I tried, up to here:
Now, I feel a need to be cautious with semantics. Depending what one means with the term "religion," this statement I quoted could mean a lot of different things. If I take the term religion to mean a search for G-d, and G-d is eternal and unchanging, then the path religion points up should not change either. Perhaps this is why the term "wisdom of the ages?"
Juan:
I know that the term "relative" sets off alarm bells for some...but like it or not, science has demonstrated that we exist in a relativistic environment. Everything in the web of life which G-d created is connected. While religion must grow and dynamically interact with the human species over time to be useful and relevant to life, the growth and dynamism of religion is very slow over time and acts as a governing brake on the tendency for human progess to outstrip its time tested moral underpinnings.
We are only now beginning to understand the severe damage that we have collectively done to G-d's Creation over the centuries, and especially in the last 150 years or so. This is just a fancy explanation to point out why conservatives and liberals are such vocal combatants these days.
IMHO, the current turmoil caused by the interfacing of novel scientific understandings and technologies based upon these findings is forcing us all to re-evaluate where we've been as a species... and more importantly the choices facing us as to where we are going as a species. There's no right or wrong in all of this...only a lot of feeling around in the darkness for the "right" door handles so that the greatest good may be done for the largest numbers of us in the future. Thanks for your thoughts.
flow....
flowperson said:Q... excellent point. I believe that this is what is happening today before our eyes, but many are trying to cover-up the truths of the process by hurling bible verses at those who try to point that out. Calling such people "heretics" or "blasphemers" solves nothing in the moment except for enhancing the self-gratification of the name callers. I don't view my role in life as one who causes hostility or fear...so I guess I'll butt out for now.
The powers of the thought processes of human beings are only beginning to be understood...and those who fear change are threatened the most by that...so they always tend to try to revert discussions to the far away past.
flow....
Or maybe, bible verses are what is used to unlock the truth, and those that wish to ignore the truth are the ones being blocked.
Depends on one's perspective.
Dor
Bible Thumper
Actually I do not fear anything in this world. I know exactly where I am going to be and who I am going to be with. If that happens tonight or in 45 yrs makes no difference to me. If it is through death or the rapture makes no difference to me.flowperson said:The powers of the thought processes of human beings are only beginning to be understood...and those who fear change are threatened the most by that...so they always tend to try to revert discussions to the far away past.
flow....
The only ones I see that are afraid are the ones that want to change God, the bible and believe they are bigger than it all.
I do not fear change I cringe with the thought of how many lost people die daily. 1.7 deaths per second.
If you think the world is getting better then I need some of your rose colored glasses.
I die daily...I like the rose colored glasses, but haven't had to put them on. I look at the amount of charitable work being done around the world. I look at the kids I see that have such heady questions and ideals and are ready to do the work required to position themselves to be movers and shakers of our future. I look at the incredible dialogue between religions and countries that is achieved without violence. I look at how education and awareness reduces negative behaviour.
The growth and change that is occurring is phenomenal...can't even find my rose colored glasses.
Really this question poses two points for consideration:
1 - If, as Scripture statres, Christ charged the Apostles with His mission, and they chose their successors, do they or their successors have the right to say what the mission is, and what it is not?
If the answer is 'yes' then Part 2 kicks in:
2 - How should those entrusted with the mission regard and respond to those who, knowingly or otherwise, seek to derail the mission? What steps can they take, if any, to preserve its integrity?
If the answer to Part 1 is 'no' -
This opens a can of worms. The 'no' was a result of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which treats all knowledge as fallible and insecure - therefore the Magisterium (for example) or the fathers of any denomination have no more idea of the content and meaning of Scripture than anyone else.
The Church (along with most Christian denominations and all religious traditions) rejected the Philosophy of the Enlightenment and inistsed that man can know truth with certainty - not his own, but Gods (or, in Buddhist terms - he can be become Enlightened).
Modernity insists that Scripture (be it western or eastern) is neither Inspired nor Revealed (nor Enlightened), its just what people reckoned at the time. It's a wise man's stab in the dark.
The point is that Post-modernity insists upon the right of the individual to interpret any text as she or he reads it, without ever questioning any knowledge or insight into the topic at hand ... whilst at the same time insisting that the individual can have no sense of certainty that what they think they've read is what is on the page, any more than the original author had any idea of certitude about what he wrote - whatever meaning you read into scripture is entirely a matter of personal taste and opinion.
So modernity is caught in an impasse - you are free to interpret scripture as you will, but it's pointless because it's not revelation or anything close. It's all very warm and lovely and cuddly - but in reality its meaningless and a pointless exercise.
Thomas
1 - If, as Scripture statres, Christ charged the Apostles with His mission, and they chose their successors, do they or their successors have the right to say what the mission is, and what it is not?
If the answer is 'yes' then Part 2 kicks in:
2 - How should those entrusted with the mission regard and respond to those who, knowingly or otherwise, seek to derail the mission? What steps can they take, if any, to preserve its integrity?
If the answer to Part 1 is 'no' -
This opens a can of worms. The 'no' was a result of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which treats all knowledge as fallible and insecure - therefore the Magisterium (for example) or the fathers of any denomination have no more idea of the content and meaning of Scripture than anyone else.
The Church (along with most Christian denominations and all religious traditions) rejected the Philosophy of the Enlightenment and inistsed that man can know truth with certainty - not his own, but Gods (or, in Buddhist terms - he can be become Enlightened).
Modernity insists that Scripture (be it western or eastern) is neither Inspired nor Revealed (nor Enlightened), its just what people reckoned at the time. It's a wise man's stab in the dark.
The point is that Post-modernity insists upon the right of the individual to interpret any text as she or he reads it, without ever questioning any knowledge or insight into the topic at hand ... whilst at the same time insisting that the individual can have no sense of certainty that what they think they've read is what is on the page, any more than the original author had any idea of certitude about what he wrote - whatever meaning you read into scripture is entirely a matter of personal taste and opinion.
So modernity is caught in an impasse - you are free to interpret scripture as you will, but it's pointless because it's not revelation or anything close. It's all very warm and lovely and cuddly - but in reality its meaningless and a pointless exercise.
Thomas
2 things.
Where does one find this list of successors? There were 12 and then are there 12 lists (or eleven) or 1, or did they split successors as Jesus did?
Who is this Modernity that INSISTS? I think that history, archeology, and intellectual study of the books has revealed much about the origins of various texts...and there is much yet to be revealed. I think that some of the texts that have been deemed Scripture were inspired, others were revealed, others were enlightened, others were laws, others were records, others were fables, others were 'news', others were satire...
Hi Lunamoth -
I'm not a reader of Spong, but it does appear as if he insists that the truth and validity of scripture can only be measured according to secular scientific criteria - and if science can't explain it, then it's a superstition that needs be done away with.
In which case he has surrendered to the Philosophy of Relativism.
(In which case 'love' can't be explained nor 'proven' to the satisfaction of laboratory conditions, so let's wipe that off the board to start with.)
Spong seems to assert that God can be proven or disproven by science.
Science is purely concerned with quantitative values - what can be measured. If God can't be measured, then God doesn't exist?
The Catholic Church believes, teaches, and insists that there is no contradition between the content of the supernatural (faith) and the content of the natural (science) as God is the author of both - both must be reasonable.
But as science has proven itself, throughout history, to be unfolding, altering, rewriting, changing, adapting, adopting, revising itself, to new knowledge, and that the tenets of Revelation, throughout history, to have remained constant, and remains so in spite of all manner of secular illumination, then she wisely sides with Revelation, and applies her reasoning faculty to science accordingly.
GENERAL NOTE:
I do rather grow wearisome of those who insist that The Church (for example) has not changed in 2,000 to 'keep pace' with society/culture.
I have yet, on these pages, to read any discussion on the origin and source of Scripture, for example, that comes anywhere close to the level of scholarship displayed by theologians - especially the Protestant, whose scriptural studies are a source of some catholic embarrasment.
The J source, the E, D and P? for example? Did Moses exist? Who was the author of Deuteronomy? How are we to view 'Inspiration' and 'Revelation'?
Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Text Criticism, Genre Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism...
If someone wants to discuss cutting-edge scriptural theology - might I suggest they read Dei Verbum (Catholic Constitution on Revelation, 1965) and we'll get to it...
Thomas
I'm not a reader of Spong, but it does appear as if he insists that the truth and validity of scripture can only be measured according to secular scientific criteria - and if science can't explain it, then it's a superstition that needs be done away with.
In which case he has surrendered to the Philosophy of Relativism.
(In which case 'love' can't be explained nor 'proven' to the satisfaction of laboratory conditions, so let's wipe that off the board to start with.)
Spong seems to assert that God can be proven or disproven by science.
Science is purely concerned with quantitative values - what can be measured. If God can't be measured, then God doesn't exist?
The Catholic Church believes, teaches, and insists that there is no contradition between the content of the supernatural (faith) and the content of the natural (science) as God is the author of both - both must be reasonable.
But as science has proven itself, throughout history, to be unfolding, altering, rewriting, changing, adapting, adopting, revising itself, to new knowledge, and that the tenets of Revelation, throughout history, to have remained constant, and remains so in spite of all manner of secular illumination, then she wisely sides with Revelation, and applies her reasoning faculty to science accordingly.
GENERAL NOTE:
I do rather grow wearisome of those who insist that The Church (for example) has not changed in 2,000 to 'keep pace' with society/culture.
I have yet, on these pages, to read any discussion on the origin and source of Scripture, for example, that comes anywhere close to the level of scholarship displayed by theologians - especially the Protestant, whose scriptural studies are a source of some catholic embarrasment.
The J source, the E, D and P? for example? Did Moses exist? Who was the author of Deuteronomy? How are we to view 'Inspiration' and 'Revelation'?
Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Text Criticism, Genre Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism...
If someone wants to discuss cutting-edge scriptural theology - might I suggest they read Dei Verbum (Catholic Constitution on Revelation, 1965) and we'll get to it...
Thomas
Me thinks most of us here are lay people, trying to learn more and grow, not all or many of us have languages and years of study behind us, or letters after our names... despite this I have brought up info on the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronimists, and Priestly writings of scripture. Most of these were replied with in disdain as I was indicating that Moses didn't bring back the texts in full, maybe didn't write the books...there was no interest in discussion of possibilities...is there now?
As for Spong, I can't hold a candle to his credentials...not to say education and decades of experience in the church is everything, but I would think scholarly folks would consider reading the actual works before condemnig an author based on others opionions....but again, I'm not that well versed in the protocol of the educated.
THE RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SHELBY SPONG, D.D.
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark
John Shelby Spong, scholar, author and bishop, is the most published member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He is the author of fourteen books. His published articles now number in excess of ninety....
Born in 1931 in Charlotte... was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1952 and received his Master of Divinity degree in 1955 from the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia. That seminary and St. Paul's College have both conferred on him honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees. He served as rector of St. Joseph's Church in Durham, North Carolina from 1955 to 1957; rector of Calvary Parish, Tarboro, North Carolina from 1957 to 1965; rector of St. John's Church in Lynchburg, Virginia from 1965 to 1969; and rector of St. Paul's Church in Richmond, Virginia from 1969 to 1976. He was consecrated bishop on June 12, 1976.
Bishop Spong has served on a wide variety of diocesan committees and commissions, including being editor of The North Carolina Churchman, president of the Standing Committee and three times deputy to General Convention. He has been president of the Alumni Association of his seminary and a trustee, both of his seminary and of St. Paul's College. He has also been president of the New Jersey Council of Churches.
Nationally, he has been a theological consultant to the Episcopal Radio and Television Foundation, a consultant to the Standing Liturgical Commission and a member of the Overseas Review Committee of the national church. In 1973 he was elected by General Convention to a six-year term on the Executive Council, the highest governing body of the Episcopal Church, other than the General Convention. In 1986, under Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, he was appointed to serve on the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health. He currently serves on the House of Bishop's Theology Committee.
Bishop Spong has always had an active interest in sports and was at one time a play-by-play announcer for radio stations in Tarboro, North Carolina, and Lynchburg, Virginia, covering football, basketball and baseball. He also served as sports editor for The Daily Southerner in Tarboro. In 1991 he was elected the Quatercentenary Scholar at Emmanuel College of Cambridge University and in 1993 was a guest lecturer at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.
Academic Credentials:
A.B. University of North Carolina
Degree in Philosophy, Minor in Zoology
Phi Beta Kappa
M.Div. Virginia Theological Seminary
Special Study:
St. Luke’s School of Theology, Sewanee, Tennesse 1961
Union Seminary, New York, 1988
Yale Divinity School, New Haven, 1989
Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990
Magdalen College, Oxford University, 1992
Fellow, Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, 1992
Elected Quatercentenary Scholar
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997
Christ Church, Oxford University, 1997
Scholar in Residence
Honorary Degrees
Doctor of Divinity, St. Paul’s College, 1976
Doctor of Divinity, Virginia Theological Seminary, 1977
Doctor of Humane Letters, Muhlenberg College, 1998
Dor
Bible Thumper
wil said:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Matthew 24:24 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.[/FONT]
So we are told even the elect can be decieved. So it is highly possible Spong did not always pass off the same false doctrines he does now.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1Corinthians3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]21 Therefore let no one boast in men.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Ok we are also told not to worry about if the world views someone as wise.
Namaste Dor,
I agree 100% with everything you've said...and who knows where those false prophets may lurk...they may be the ones that are steering folks away from Spong...and onto some other false prophet...
You are wonderful for quoting the bible and finding scripture to prove your point, I would think you would always double check the book before you believed, passed on what someone else said about what is written in the bible. That is why I question why folks talk bad about someone that they haven't read.
I always wonder what sets these people off. Priests and Ministers who after 30-40 years in the church suddenly change their stripes...what did they learn, what caused the rift? Sort of like these CIA/military guys who after a 20 year career and more ribbons and citations you can shake a stick at...when they write a tell all book...suddenly they are a lunatic...how does that happen?
Hi Wil -
Me thinks most of us here are lay people, trying to learn more and grow, not all or many of us have languages and years of study behind us, or letters after our names...
I can have no complaint in that area. I have no letters after my name either, and I endorse the ethos of CR that allows anyone to post without first presenting academic qualifications ... BUT ... I do hold the right to suggest that this does not allow people to fly in the face of the facts. No-one is obliged to accept the findings or the scholarship of another, but one is at least obliged to accept that such exists.
despite this I have brought up info on the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronimists, and Priestly writings of scripture. Most of these were replied with in disdain as I was indicating that Moses didn't bring back the texts in full, maybe didn't write the books...there was no interest in discussion of possibilities...is there now?
Well I'm no expert, but if there's anything in particular, then yes. In fact I'm inclined to agree that Moses was not the sole author of the Pentateuch and what he might have written has passed through many hands.
The disdain you met is precisely the point I was trying to make - although I will admit that trying to get a creationist to allow the possibility of the world being over 6,000 years old is never easy...
The difference is whether one says "it's doubtful Moses wrote the Pentateuch as we have it, therefore the whole thing's a complete crock..." or, "if, contrary to what we have traditionally accepted, the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, what is going on, theologically?"
Or perhaps - who is the theological genius behind Deuteronomy?
Modern Catholic scholarship accepts the finding of Historical Criticism et al, but does not necessarily accept the theories that spring from it ... there's the critical difference, as it were.
but I would think scholarly folks would consider reading the actual works before condemnig an author based on others opionions
I was basing my comments on his '12 thesis' that's why I prefaced my quote with the statement that I'm not a reader of Spong.
I'm not a reader of von Balthasar either - but having read a few precis of his theological position, I would not hesitate to recommend him.
Thomas
Me thinks most of us here are lay people, trying to learn more and grow, not all or many of us have languages and years of study behind us, or letters after our names...
I can have no complaint in that area. I have no letters after my name either, and I endorse the ethos of CR that allows anyone to post without first presenting academic qualifications ... BUT ... I do hold the right to suggest that this does not allow people to fly in the face of the facts. No-one is obliged to accept the findings or the scholarship of another, but one is at least obliged to accept that such exists.
despite this I have brought up info on the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronimists, and Priestly writings of scripture. Most of these were replied with in disdain as I was indicating that Moses didn't bring back the texts in full, maybe didn't write the books...there was no interest in discussion of possibilities...is there now?
Well I'm no expert, but if there's anything in particular, then yes. In fact I'm inclined to agree that Moses was not the sole author of the Pentateuch and what he might have written has passed through many hands.
The disdain you met is precisely the point I was trying to make - although I will admit that trying to get a creationist to allow the possibility of the world being over 6,000 years old is never easy...
The difference is whether one says "it's doubtful Moses wrote the Pentateuch as we have it, therefore the whole thing's a complete crock..." or, "if, contrary to what we have traditionally accepted, the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, what is going on, theologically?"
Or perhaps - who is the theological genius behind Deuteronomy?
Modern Catholic scholarship accepts the finding of Historical Criticism et al, but does not necessarily accept the theories that spring from it ... there's the critical difference, as it were.
but I would think scholarly folks would consider reading the actual works before condemnig an author based on others opionions
I was basing my comments on his '12 thesis' that's why I prefaced my quote with the statement that I'm not a reader of Spong.
I'm not a reader of von Balthasar either - but having read a few precis of his theological position, I would not hesitate to recommend him.
Thomas
Dor
Bible Thumper
Well I for one have read some of Spong. I have read enough to know that I have no desire to read him. I will read anyone and I will give them some benifit of the doubt over translations etc. As soon as someone starts trying to tear down everything in the Bible is when I say wait a sec and then blow them off.
As for what makes someone change there stripes after years. Well no one knows. But we see it all the time. Just sometimes it is more subtle than others.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Like the word trinity, the words heresy, heretic, and orthodox are not in the bible. Yet they are concepts that can be compared with it. As I read it Jesus (pbuh) is both a heretic and an ortho-heretic... meaning that he chooses and he chooses rightfully. So then I aspire to be a heretic, an ortho-heretic, and NOT an orthodox'er. That is: I choose therefore I am, and it is NOT necessarily a requirement to even think (dox). Contrary to Descartes, I can choose when to think and when not to think.
I predict the majority here will claim to be a Christian or a follower of Christ, and yet will also choose to disagree with me... thus solidifying my point. Also, anyone who says 'Namaste' is equally picking and choosing from a person. If a person picks and chooses from one person then he picks and chooses from a history of many persons as documented in the bible.
The 'UCMJ' is also not mentioned in the Bible but it certainly can be compared with it. The two major difference are: 1) There is no military with a chain of command where Faith is placed in a lower rank, such as a child. Whereas the bible teaches to place Faith in the will of those who are lesser. 2) There is no teaching in the bible where a person is NOT responsible for whom and what they choose to place Faith in. Whereas the UCMJ teaches that a subordinate is NOT held responsible if he follows the orders of a superior. Thus the UCMJ is NOT the bible and when it comes to Faith I find that the two are nearly the opposite.
For example: with Jesus (pbuh) or God (swt) a person with lesser capability, knowledge, and insight can ask and receive. Whereas in a military it is the higher rank that is doing the asking and receiving. In a military it is NOT an option for the lower rank to choose from orders, whereas with God (swt) it is. In a military chain of command the higher rank is enabled by the required actions of the lower rank, yet God's power does NOT require the backs of people to exist.
Note that Faith is a weighty matter of Law per Matthew 23:23. Circle that one in RED and if your translation says 'faithfulness' then please correct the translation back to 'Faith'. An all volunteer military does benefit by placing Faith in people to choose whether to join and agree to service... 1 bit of vote to throw away 8 years is better than 0 bits. Furthermore some countries benefit by having the military leaders under civilian control, albeit again only 1 or 2 bits of voting power every 2-8 years. In my opinion that 2 bits needs to increase to hundreds of k-bits per year from everyone including the least of people on the street. A direct democracy... people must have the power to pick and choose more, joining together to make decisions. I submit that people should be allowed to be heretics as Jesus (pbuh) was a heretic. Whereas in a military with a chain-of-command the lower rank has no voting power at all except within the authority that has not been removed. The sub-ordinates are in a state of servitude rather than being choosing servants. It is the difference between slavery and employment. It is the difference between oppression and faith. So whoever tries to compare the UCMJ with the Bible will get nothing but thorns from me. I know them both and the two are not alike. A good equivalency of the UCMJ is that from a military such as North Korea, which is a fine example of the UCMJ at its best... a tool for control. The people in a military may be good and wishing to serve good, but that does not make a military organization an example of anything remotely resembling that taught in the bible. Shame on whoever says it is.
I predict the majority here will claim to be a Christian or a follower of Christ, and yet will also choose to disagree with me... thus solidifying my point. Also, anyone who says 'Namaste' is equally picking and choosing from a person. If a person picks and chooses from one person then he picks and chooses from a history of many persons as documented in the bible.
The 'UCMJ' is also not mentioned in the Bible but it certainly can be compared with it. The two major difference are: 1) There is no military with a chain of command where Faith is placed in a lower rank, such as a child. Whereas the bible teaches to place Faith in the will of those who are lesser. 2) There is no teaching in the bible where a person is NOT responsible for whom and what they choose to place Faith in. Whereas the UCMJ teaches that a subordinate is NOT held responsible if he follows the orders of a superior. Thus the UCMJ is NOT the bible and when it comes to Faith I find that the two are nearly the opposite.
For example: with Jesus (pbuh) or God (swt) a person with lesser capability, knowledge, and insight can ask and receive. Whereas in a military it is the higher rank that is doing the asking and receiving. In a military it is NOT an option for the lower rank to choose from orders, whereas with God (swt) it is. In a military chain of command the higher rank is enabled by the required actions of the lower rank, yet God's power does NOT require the backs of people to exist.
Note that Faith is a weighty matter of Law per Matthew 23:23. Circle that one in RED and if your translation says 'faithfulness' then please correct the translation back to 'Faith'. An all volunteer military does benefit by placing Faith in people to choose whether to join and agree to service... 1 bit of vote to throw away 8 years is better than 0 bits. Furthermore some countries benefit by having the military leaders under civilian control, albeit again only 1 or 2 bits of voting power every 2-8 years. In my opinion that 2 bits needs to increase to hundreds of k-bits per year from everyone including the least of people on the street. A direct democracy... people must have the power to pick and choose more, joining together to make decisions. I submit that people should be allowed to be heretics as Jesus (pbuh) was a heretic. Whereas in a military with a chain-of-command the lower rank has no voting power at all except within the authority that has not been removed. The sub-ordinates are in a state of servitude rather than being choosing servants. It is the difference between slavery and employment. It is the difference between oppression and faith. So whoever tries to compare the UCMJ with the Bible will get nothing but thorns from me. I know them both and the two are not alike. A good equivalency of the UCMJ is that from a military such as North Korea, which is a fine example of the UCMJ at its best... a tool for control. The people in a military may be good and wishing to serve good, but that does not make a military organization an example of anything remotely resembling that taught in the bible. Shame on whoever says it is.
Namaste cyberpi, I'm not understanding what you are trying to say, please elaborate.
In regards to Spong, as I understand it, from a fundamental perspective we've read his writings, deem them hogwash and him a heretic. My question, does that also apply to Thomas Jefferson? Surely this swath is cast equally, the man rewrote the gospels. Are we ready to toss out all of his writings as well?