Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Me least of all...

17 Comments:

Jack H said...: So basically, it's a Sodom thing.

J; August 04, 2006 12:03 AM
Eric said...: I guess so... not 50, not 45, not 20, nor even 10... but if there be but 4... send in the troops and evacuate them quickly.

--Genesis 18:20-33, for those of you wearing the "huh?" face...; August 04, 2006 12:13 AM
Al-Ozarka said...: I don't know how this connects, but this post brings to mind the Sermon on the Mount strategy employed by the Christian Left.

They seem to miss the whole point of the Sermon and it's real affects on people.

While they use it to basically say, "look how much more spiritual I am than the Christian Right", in reality the Sermon was nothing more than a mirror thrust before the face of humankind revealing it's pitiful, lost condition.

After all--nobody's perfect! The Sermon on the Mount makes that PERFECTLY clear. It's the NT version of God's law.; August 04, 2006 10:18 AM
Eric said...: I'll add two cents to your offering, D...

BenT posed a legitimate question Wednesday...

"I know the old testament had its share of violence, but I thought the New was pretty much "peace, love and harmony." "

And he's right! But the basic message of the Old is no different than that of the New.

In truth, God hasn't changed one bit since Old Testament days. Nor has his message. Perhaps the reason Jesus was so thoroughly rejected was because His message was the complete opposite of what the religious leaders of the day expected. God was a consuming fire, full of vengence upon the enemies of Israel-- full of chastisment for Israel when she stepped out of line, but overall He was Israels God and protector. When Jesus said, 'love your enemies, pray for those who despitefully use you and curse you...' it was not a new teaching. It's clear from the Gospels, and from Jesus' own lips that the whole law is bound up in two commandments... Love the Lord your God with all your mind, heart, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

God hadn't changed. His message hadn't changed. Jesus didn't preach a new message. What Jesus DID preach was a no-nonsense, bare-boned and boiled-down take on the same age-old message. Jesus spent His time teaching to children, in a language children could understand, the message, 'this is how our father wants us to live. Don't worry about whether you're going to end up in heaven or hell... I'm going to take care of that. You just worry about accepting my solution, and doing the things I've told you.'

The whole, 'Turn the other cheek' thing was not new. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' was not new. They are simply the rules of play explained in the simplest of terms for children who seemed unable to grasp the rules as explained by the pharisees, the saducees, the scribes, the elders...

It's like God decided to step in and say, "No, no... you've got it all wrong. THIS is what I meant. Now, go out and spread the word. AND PLAY NICE!!! Even when it hurts to do so... ESPECIALLY when it hurts to do so."; August 04, 2006 11:53 AM
Dan Trabue said...: But the basic message of the Old is no different than that of the New.

Agreed.

In truth, God hasn't changed one bit since Old Testament days.

Agreed.

Perhaps the reason Jesus was so thoroughly rejected was because His message was the complete opposite of what the religious leaders of the day expected.

Agreed. You are right on that far. But then you went on to say:

God was a consuming fire, full of vengence upon the enemies of Israel

And I think this is where we start to part ways. Or maybe not.

God IS a consuming fire, ready to avenge the oppressors of the poor, the weak, the sick. This is clear from OT and NT teachings.

And Jesus taught us that this vengeance is God's. We are to be about the business of loving our neighbors, loving our enemies even! Overcoming evil with good.

This isn't what the Israelis expected. They expected a Messiah to come in on a warhorse, raining death down on their enemies. When Jesus came reminding them of what the OT taught (to love our enemies) and to fulfill the OT with this better understanding and teaching of what we are to do, the Jewish leaders rejected that image of God.

The Jews and Romans alike found this Third Way of Jesus to be a threat, interestingly enough. Enough of a threat that just leaving Jesus alone wouldn't do. No. They had to get rid of this threat.

So, maybe we're not disagreeing. I certainly agree that Jesus came to tell them,

'this is how our father wants us to live. Don't worry about whether you're going to end up in heaven or hell... I'm going to take care of that. You just worry about accepting my solution, and doing the things I've told you.'

I'm curious what aspect of the Sermon on the Mount D thinks we've missed...; August 04, 2006 12:54 PM
Erudite Redneck said...: I'm not sure why it is so crucial that God "not change." He's God. Not a concrete block. But I cede the point.

I have agree with the following, regarding the Sermon on the Mount:

"While they use it to basically say, 'look how much more spiritual I am than the Christian Right,' in reality the Sermon was nothing more than a mirror thrust before the face of humankind revealing it's pitiful, lost condition."

I don't know or know of anyone who points to the Sermon on the Mount in an effort to come off as "more spiritual" than someone else. The whole point of the Sermon on the Mount, to me, is to show the impossible possibility of living a holy, love-dripping, grace-oozing, self-sacrificial life of love with our fellow man.

Here's how to live, Jesus was saying. Aim for it. Then, daily, when you fail, repent. Then aim for it, then repent, because you will fail! But you MUST aim for it. And when you fail, repent.

Ad infinitum!

Shame on anyone who misuses the Sermon on the Mount to try to be "better" than anyone else. And shame on anyone who dismisses its precepts as impossible and therefore not to be taken seriously.; August 04, 2006 2:19 PM
Al-Ozarka said...: Jesus was telling us how we CAN"T live.

Until Satan is bound and the multitude is no longer in the world ruled by the prince and power of the air.

Yes--it was a Sermon on how we SHOULD live. But every person went away with knowing the fact that each of them is incapable of living a pure life.

When there are those around us who reject the truths he spoke that day, who threaten our neighbor with annihilation (is that even a word?), we have a duty towards that neighbor.

Capitulation and avoidance of responsibility is not a display of love.

Not a symptom of great strength.

A sign of weakness.

It is no display of love that lets savages rule and murderers continue to murder.

It is no display of love to choose to believe the lies of an enemy who has displayed nothing but lies, hate and violence towards others.

It is the ultimate foolishness.; August 04, 2006 10:51 PM
Ms.Green said...: ER said: I'm not sure why it is so crucial that God "not change." He's God. Not a concrete block. But I cede the point

God doesn't change because what would He change? He is perfect and holy. What else could He change to????

There are in reality some things God cannot do because to do them would go against His holy and perfect nature. God can't sin.

Unlike the Muslim god, who can do whatever he wants whenever he wants - he can lie. He can promise you something and then change his mind.

I am so glad to know that my God is not the god of Islam.; August 04, 2006 11:38 PM
Dan Trabue said...: "Jesus was telling us how we CAN"T live."

Daddio, are you seriously saying we ought to not follow the lessons of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount???; August 05, 2006 8:47 AM
Dan Trabue said...: You know, maybe Daddio's confession is at the root of what seems to separate those identified as the Christian Left from those identified as the Christian Right.

I don't think D really thinks we ought not follow the commandments in the Bible. After all, the Right has spent much time and effort opposing the sin (according to them) of gay marriage. They constantly harangue us all about sexual sins of all sorts. Some of them dwell upon the sin of drinking alcohol.

The religious right definitely has commands they believe the Bible teaches us we MUST obey.

But for some reason, the commands on the sermon on the mount are "guidelines, really, moreso than rules..." Ways that we'll be living eventually, but would be foolish to try to follow now.

Whereas the Left thinks that all the commands are equally valid, but we tend to especially follow the teachings of Jesus, as he IS our Lord, after all. The Sermon on the Mount are lessons for us to embrace here and now. As Jesus did, leaving us an example. As the early church did. As ER (and Daddio, in his own way) pointed out, we're not going to follow them perfectly, but we ARE to follow them.

Am I right about the Right in general, or is it just Daddio and a few others thinking this way?; August 05, 2006 10:11 AM
Erudite Redneck said...: In my experience, those on the Right tend to look at the Sermon on the Mount, conclude that it's impossible, so they therefore do not try.

Those on the Left, in my experience, tend to look at the Sermon on the Mount, acknowledge that it's impossible, and decide that trying, and failing, and trying, and failing, is even MORE critical to the Christian life.

No one ever said being a Christian would help you win a war, or be a financial success, or ANYTHING in this world. In fact, the exact opposite is generally true.

As for God being incapable of change, that's just a box I'm not willing to stuff God into. Concepts of holiness are human concepts by definition. Which, actually, raises another point:

While I think it's odd to think of God as "static," I do *get* the real idea behind the assertion that God doesn't change. Rather, it's humankind's concepts of God that have changed pretty radically over time, from tribal deity, to angry judge, to intolerant perfectionist, to source of justice and author of peace, to Jesus's loving father. God being a God who meets people where they are, any of the above concepts of Him, sought or conjured in faith, have been enough to engage His grace. IMHO.; August 05, 2006 2:57 PM
Eric said...: "But for some reason, the commands on the sermon on the mount are "guidelines, really, moreso than rules..." Ways that we'll be living eventually, but would be foolish to try to follow now."

Can you name someone on the Right who actually believes this? I understand the distrust and the antagonistic nature of the battle being waged between Right and Left... but no Christian on the Right, that I know of, believes this.

If I take issue with members of the Left, or rather, the Democratic party [Obama, Hillary, Kerry, etc, ad nauseum], it's their lack of understanding... their lack of genuine biblical knowledge. They say things trying to get that elusive Christian vote, and in the process resort to scriptures they nothing of. And it's glaringly obvious.

It's not just a fellow Christian's different take on what this or that verse says; it's almost always a blunder of monumental proportions. And for that reason I doubt the sincerity of their testimony... In short, what comes out of their mouths tells me they are NOT Christian.

Gotta scoot.... I'll follow up on this a little later.; August 05, 2006 7:09 PM
Erudite Redneck said...: See, brother, this is the chasm itself. For I assert the exact same thing, replacing "Left" with "Right". In all seriousness. May we all look UP, and neither left nor right, when the time comes!

If I take issue with members of the Left (Right), or rather, the Democratic party [Obama, Hillary, Kerry, etc, ad nauseum] (GOP, etc. etc.), it's their lack of understanding... their lack of genuine biblical knowledge. They say things trying to get that elusive Christian vote, and in the process resort to scriptures they nothing of. And it's glaringly obvious.

It's not just a fellow Christian's different take on what this or that verse says; it's almost always a blunder of monumental proportions. And for that reason I doubt the sincerity of their testimony... In short, what comes out of their mouths tells me they are NOT Christian.

Delay. Not. Bush. Not. Etc. Not. Dobson. NOT.

GOD help. Us. All.; August 05, 2006 9:51 PM
Eric said...: Delay? Bush? Dobson? I don't know if ANY of these men are saved. I won't say I don't care, because I do.

Both us recognize that our individual understanding of God's word and message differs in some areas; areas some would label 'fundamental.' We look at the scriptures through the prism of our own political ideologies...

You, as a liberal, see homosexuality as luck of the genetic draw, rather than a personal choice, or an aberration. And as a result, your interpretation of scripture leans to that conclusion. I'm no different. I know what I believe and why I believe it. As do you. So how do we get past this?

For myself, I know that Obama, Hillary, and Kerry-- specifically those three --have taken liberties with scripture that no honest read could possibly justify. Honestly, I am less concerned with their politics than I am with their sloppy and often treacherous use of scripture. Yes, their politics concern me... but of greater concern is the appearance of validation, or holiness they hope to gain in the eyes of the public, all to further their political aspirations. And the Right is no better.

For me, the scariest part is they often achieve what their hoping for from people who are either ignorant of God and scripture altogether, or too willing to grant them a pass; a B for effort, so to speak, all because they like the candidate caught in a scriptural faux pas. It's an honest mistake, right? But therein lies yet another dilemma-- if a candidate can't even get the spiritual stuff right, how can they be expected to get right those material things that touch on the spiritual... like abortion rights?

Some will accuse me of judging... the whole 'judge not lest ye be judged bit,' but I still contend that we MUST make judgments as to whether to follow or have fellowship with others. It is not our place to condemn anyone, and I pray my judgments don't tilt in that direction, but we MUST judge. Why else would the scriptures say, 'you will know a tree by the fruit it bears'?

Furthermore, if we look more closely to Matthew 7:1-5 we see that it has a qualifier in verse 2, 'For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.' This verse isn't an admonishment against judgment, but rather, the MANNER in which we judge! Are our judgments hypocrital? Are our judgments steeped in bigotry and hatred?

We must also consider to whom the verse is directed in verse 5... 'Thou hypocrite...'

So how do we judge righteously while still loving our neighbors as ourselves? Because THAT is what our Lord commands us to do.

As to the whole Left and Right thing... I have no doubt there are self-proclaimed liberals out there who are genuinely saved. But are they in God's will when they defend abortion? Or gay marriage? Not according to God. One can defend a woman's right to choose for herself what she will do with her unborn child, but a Christian cannot allow that woman to walk into an abortion clinic without begging her to reconsider... without humbling him/herself before God and begging that the unborn child be spared... without begging that the doctor be delayed in traffic... anything! to save the life of that child. Any one-- Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, or Republican --who claims to love Almighty God, and Christ Jesus, and doesn't do all in his/her power to defend that life is one of two things... a liar, or a Christian gravely out of fellowship with the God who gave him/er life.; August 05, 2006 11:45 PM
Al-Ozarka said...: Dan....ER.....you both need to meet a bonafide member of the Christian Right.

You might, then have a CLUE as to how they both LIVE and BELIEVE.

And there are MANY different lifestyles and beliefs among us.

But we all agree on holiness and the pursuit of the same.

The difference between the Christian Left and the Right--to me--seems to be that the left accepts, condones, and accomodates immorality.

Immorality is proven to be harmful to society.

The left seems to not hold people accountable unless the issue has political implications.

The left chooses which parts of the Bible to accept based on personal intellect.

The left accuses the right of dismissing the parts of the Bible it holds sacred but in reality the left selectively does exactly the same thing (I think I've given proof of that).

The left dismisses the parts of scripture the right holds sacred (even though the right's interpretation of said scripture is socially beneficial)

I could go on and on and on....; August 06, 2006 6:43 PM
Dan Trabue said...: "Can you name someone on the Right who actually believes this?"

well, Daddio brought it up by what he was saying "Jesus was telling us how we CAN"T live." And I was asking him specifically what he meant by that whole comment. It sounded like he was saying that we can't live the sermon on the mount and it would be "foolish" to try to do so.

Perhaps I misread him.

Nonetheless, I hear folk all the time say things like "The Sermon on the Mount is not possible in today's world," "Loving one's enemy in a post-9/11 world just isn't feasible..." etc, etc.

They seem to be saying that it's not wise for us to try to live that way now, and therefore we don't need to obey those commands.

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of people who call themselves conservative think thusly.

If you're really interested, I could look up Dobson, Mohler, Robertson, et al and see if I can verify statements to that effect (I'm pretty sure I've read Mohler and Robertson say as much...); August 06, 2006 7:30 PM
Dan Trabue said...: Daddio said:

"you both need to meet a bonafide member of the Christian Right."

I'll do you one better, D. I WAS a member of the Christian Right...right up through my twenties. But then all the traditional/conservative lessons I was taught over the years finally began to sink in and I saw that the Religious Right was wrong - even by their own standards.

I take the Truths of the Bible literally and had to leave the Religious Right because they didn't. They had very little use for the actual teachings of Jesus, building instead a religion based upon opposition to adultery, drinking, smoking and gambling.

All positions that are marginal or absent from biblical teaching and - especially - Jesus' teachings.

D, I noticed you rarely answer my questions - how about these two: DO you think we ought to follow the teachings of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount or are they beyond our ability to follow? Is it actually "foolish" to follow those teachings?

You also said:
"The difference between the Christian Left and the Right--to me--seems to be that the left accepts, condones, and accomodates immorality."

Perhaps you ought to visit a progressive church sometime, learn about us. We don't condone immorality. We spend a great deal of time discussing the very same sins that Jesus talked about, how they are found right within us and within our culture and how can we work, by God's grace to build, "God's kingdom come, God's will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."

Don't confuse the fact that we don't dwell on the same set of sins that you dwell upon with not being in opposition to sin and our own lost condition.; August 06, 2006 10:51 PM