Definition of Christian

[TSherbs]

Celibacy in the sense of a religious practice is not the same as deciding to remain single or not married.


Jesus was discussing unmarried celibacy for God. He described it as living the life of a "eunuch" for "the sake of the kingdom of heaven." He says to the audience, "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” In other words, "This is fine for some people." The passage is both about not having sex AND denying it for God. It says so, in plain words.

Yes, who is able…….Ted.

Yes! Finally, got you to acknowledge what Jesus is saying. But why you say he does not mean it as a religious practice is beyond me (he says, "for the kingdom of heaven"). This is what I mean as "resistance." For some reason you keep resisting (dragging your feet, slow to acknowledge) the common clear meaning of what Jesus--your savior--says in some places about giving away one's money, living as with virtually nothing, or even being celibate....if one chooses. Jesus either asks the persons to do some of this, or he states to his audience that that choice is fine. This is what I have repeatedly called voluntary poverty or monastic vows.

Here's that post.

Here it is again.

[Chuck Naill]

Your interpretation is incorrect, Ted. How many times do you need it pointed out?

[TSherbs]

Your interpretation is incorrect, Ted.

I quoted.

*You* interpreted, or you quoted Willard's interpretations, putting other meanings onto the words. You even dissembled, first stating that there was a mission, then backpedaling and telling me that I was wrong to say that there was a mission. This is your rope-a-dope approach to defending your interpretations: you interpret and interpret and sermonize and sermonize and deny and project (telling me that *I* go down rabbit holes--ha!) and whatever else you can do in the hopes that others will simply tire of the dodging and feinting.

I even showed you exactly the words that demonstrate that Jesus was condoning the giving up of sex (celibacy) in service of God (a practice, as such), and you merely move on to the next spin attempt without comment.

I don't actually care a whit what you believe, but I do care when you misrepresent the text to others. You like to claim special Willard-status for your interpretations. I'd be careful how much you submit your intelligence, common sense, and independence to this other person's point of view. Every point of view has its flaws.

[Chuck Naill]

You can ask anyone and they will explain the passage you have been using does not represent a strategy that Jesus expected or endorsed for his apprentices. I didn’t need anyone to explain. You want to believe poverty and traveling light is what he meant. Common sense should have prevented you from such an interpretation. However, please don’t allow me to misinform all of this people that are in ministry or Jesus and who are getting their marching orders from an atheist.

Willard’s field of scholarship in philosophy and discipleship makes him a teacher with whom anyone interested could use. His sermon on the hill teaching is significant.


I’m assuming you read books. We know you can copy and paste links with the best of them. Can we also presume the posted links are from sources you trust and are behind your pontificating?

[TSherbs]

Can we also presume the posted links are from sources you trust...

Chuck, I posted from biblegateway, which offers about a dozen translations of every book and chapter. I did not quote interpretation. That's what *you* have been doing.

And yes, I trust biblegateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/

If you mean that Catholic page that I cited on various treatments of "poverty," yes I did cite that. Do I "trust it"? I trust it 100% to represent their views, yes. *I* don't trust it at all to represent *my* views because those authors accept Jesus as divine, God as real, and holy apostolic succession as legitimate. I believe none of these things, but I did not cite the page as evidence of *my* thinking. I used it to point out that the Catholic Church appears to (this layperson's representation of church teachings) disagree with your sweeping dismissal of sacrifice of property and wealth (and sex) as a legitimate methods of serving God. And we know, of course, about the Catholic monastic traditions. I assume that I don't have to footnote that fact.

[TSherbs]

I’m assuming you read books.

asshat comment

[Chuck Naill]

Interpretation is not the same as translation, Ted. Can you find any sources that thinks as you do about the verses you posted, I would love to read them.

Jesus never asked his students, as a matter of practice, to be poor. The matter of practice is to put down whatever that’s keeping you from entering the KOG. It’s going to vary from person to person. There is nothing anti Jesus about money. In a different parable he championed risk, being savvy, and purchasing something of great worth. You can do any of those things if you give all your money away. If your money is your idol, give it away. If your eye offends, pluck it out. The import of this teaching is the transformation of the spirit in man, not his money or eyes.

I told you what one of the most famous former monks ever said about monasteries and also he told you why, they are not a practice Jesus suggested and there no scriptural support. When he discovered what Paul wrote to the Roman Disciples, he then went on to begin the Reformation. Surely, to goodness, you’re familiar with preaching about “saved by grace, not of works lest any man should boast”. Luther was trying to please God by joining a monastery and discovered he had erred.

[TSherbs]

Interpretation is not the same as translation, Ted. Can you find any sources that thinks as you do about the verses you posted, I would love to read them. Never crossed my mind. You can look, if you are interested. You seem to "read" more than I do (or so you suggest in that gratuitous, unchristian smear).


Jesus never asked his students, as a matter of practice, to be poor. No one said that he did (straw man). This has become repetitive and boring.

[Chuck Naill]

Never crossed my mind.

Yes, and it shows.

[Chuck Naill]

From First Peter 4:
"Since Jesus went through everything you’re going through and more, learn to think like him. Think of your sufferings as a weaning from that old sinful habit of always expecting to get your own way. Then you’ll be able to live out your days free to pursue what God wants instead of being tyrannized by what you want."

As I have been posting, the apprentice learns to think like Jesus. Notice that those early believers were suffering. Why would Jesus require suffering people to give up their resources? He wouldn't.

More importantly, notice that when a person gives up getting things their way, freedom rushes in to save the day.

There is a pattern in what Jesus said and what his apprentices wrote from their own experiences. Like us, they wanted their own way and were able to achieve a freedom from the endless cycle of self-gratification.

Church back then were small groups of disciples meeting in homes where people shared words and meals. Collections were to help the poor. All things they owned were in common. This is why it is referred to as koinonia. I've always found a beauty in such simplicity.

[TSherbs]

Never crossed my mind.

Yes, and it shows.

asshat redux

go fuck yourself

[dneal]

Over the years (10) that I have been here, participation on the "Politics, Religion, and Society" threads has declined to barely a trickle. I am curious as to why.

Maybe because some participants do not have the emotional intelligence or self control to not devolve to this:




asshat redux

go fuck yourself

[TSherbs]

Maybe because some participants do not have the emotional intelligence or self control to not devolve to this:




asshat redux

go fuck yourself

ah, once again, the boring trick of the troll who behaves all fuckoff and then objects to being told to fuckoff

classic agit troll pattern

Seney will come in here soon, too, for the one-two alter-ego punch....

[dneal]

Facts don't care about your feelings, and neither do I.

They do knock you off your moral high-horse, which is delicious.

[TSherbs]

That's another classic troll pattern that you and Seney share: behave abysmally, and then call those who object, arrogant. Right out of the troll playbook. Even Chuck has started doing it.

[dneal]

If it is, you're still falling for it.

Your attempts are pathetic - e.g: "excellent post"

[TSherbs]

More evidence of belief decline in America:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/508886/belief-five-spiritual-entities-edges-down-new-lows.aspx

[Chuck Naill]

How about experience, is that also in decline. How about knowledge?? Is knowing out of vogue?

What silly comments. Anyone with a smidgeon of experience reading Matthew could tell you that American evangelism isn’t New Testament discipleship. If you read the gospels and idea of poverty and monastic traditions would be laughed at.

What is falling out of fashion, needs to fall out of fashion, Ted.

It is easier for a camel to go through the Eye of the Needle than a person who thinks they know it all to enter the Kingdom of God.

[TSherbs]

How about experience, is that also in decline. How about knowledge?? Is knowing out of vogue?

What silly comments.

What is "silly" about seeing the falsehoods of Chrisitan faith (or any religion, for that matter)? What is "silly" about not believing in the "miracles" of Jesus? More and more persons in America are rejecting these beliefs and so-called "truths."

Another example here of how you don't "judge"?

[Chuck Naill]

It’s silly for anyone to make up their minds about anything for which they cannot prove to anyone if they tried. Better just to admit you can’t say.

What is really odd is to engage in a topic for which you have only a smattering of experience and argue that your interpretations are correct. Then, make your your mission to correct those that actually know something.

[TSherbs]

It’s silly for anyone to make up their minds about anything for which they cannot prove to anyone if they tried. Better just to admit you can’t say.

What, like the claim that Jesus walked on water or raised Lazarus from the dead.? Like believing that kind of irrational claim? Or better yet, like the claim that Jesus was made in Mary's womb without sex with a man?

[Chuck Naill]

Have you, in your vast knowledge, decided it couldn’t have occurred?

What about poverty? Have you proved Jesus wanted his students poor?

[TSherbs]

I'm not sure that believers in the details of the life of Jesus as described in the New Testament should be accusing others of claiming "silly things," really.

[TSherbs]

Have you, in your vast knowledge, decided it couldn’t have occurred? You can't be serious, right? I might "claim" that the Martian army planted Jesus on earth to fool us into killing each other in righteous fury, and....what....I get to ask you to "prove" that this isn't true from your "vast knowledge" of the history of earth from 2000 years ago? Get fucking real, Chuck.


What about poverty? Have you proved Jesus wanted his students poor? Like you restarted your argument with dneal over Covid, you actually want to re-hash this dispute? I'm not interested, and you won't bait me back onto that topic.

Every time you say something insipid about *me* either directly to me or to someone else, expect to get some shit from me, Chuck. And yes, I am very direct and unsubtle about it.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted, get a hold of yourself and stop the “what about this” nonsense .

You do not understand or have experience in this area. Being a PK shows. You are not a scientist, a theologian, or anything else that would make your input anything but second hand information, and no knowledge.

[TSherbs]

Have you, in your vast knowledge, decided it couldn’t have occurred? "Vast knowledge" of how human uterine reproduction requires the joining of of two gametes--one from a male human and one from a female human--and then implantation and placental development? That "vast knowledge" I learned in middle school. It really doesn't take much study or sophistication in modern times to know how human embryos are made, especially 2100 years ago in the belly of a Mediterranean paesant woman. Yes, I am certain (absolutely) how Mary got pregnant: she had sex with a man. I am not certain that it was her husband because, well, perhaps Mary had been sleeping around. She was human, after all, and we know how humans can be, sexually. Just take a look at some of the old Testament stories for evidence of such.

[Chuck Naill]

Should we remind you of our abortion conversations? Now you become a biologist?

[TSherbs]

Ted, get a hold of yourself and stop the “what about this” nonsense .

You do not understand or have experience in this area. Being a PK shows. You are not a scientist, a theologian, or anything else that would make your input anything but second hand information, and no knowledge.

Fuck off, Chuck. Don't claim special knowledge here, unless, of course, you're just trying to demonstrate that attitude of superior Christian insider status. This isn't church here, nor Sunday school, nor Confirmation class.

[TSherbs]

Should we remind you of our abortion conversations?


Ted, get a hold of yourself and stop the “what about this” nonsense .

How do you write these two things so close to each other?

[TSherbs]

Now you become a biologist?

It doesn't take a "biologist" to understand meiosis and reproduction. It's BASIC knowledge, Chuck.

[TSherbs]

I like to think about Mary's pregnancy this way: It is estimated that 117 billion humans have lived on the planet (all time). I am very, very certain that scientists and geneticists would also claim with certainty (from their "vast knowledge") that for all 117 billion of those humans, each was made genetically from the haploid gamete of a woman and the haploid gamete of a male, and that for the vast, vast majority of them those gametes were brought into proximity in a female's vagina via sex. Okay, okay. Except for one exception: Mary, mother of Jesus.

So, for Christian believers in this "miracle" story, the score card is such:

vaginal reproduction via heterosexual sex: 116, 999, 999,999 (minus the IVF pregnancies)

miracle virgin birth: 1

So, Chuck, those claiming that even that one "miracle" birth claim is very, very, very, very likely untrue and just religious mythology don't have to do any "proving" of anything. It's quite the other side's job.

[Chuck Naill]

I understand, but your opinion would have killed Jesus as an unplanned pregnancy.

At least you are admitting that your advocate murder of innocence.

[Chuck Naill]

All I hope for is to say is,’you really and truly don’t have a clue. Maybe something is beyond your comprehension.’

[TSherbs]

I understand, but your opinion would have killed Jesus as an unplanned pregnancy.

Oh that's hogwash, for fuck sake. You're just getting pissy now because I have pointed out the hypocrisy of a Christian believer in miracles calling someone else "irrational".

[Chuck Naill]

Lol! I’m really not doing anything, Just pointing out the obvious flaws, .Ted. I’m not selling Jesus.

[TSherbs]

Lol! I’m really not doing anything, Just pointing out the obvious flaws

The "flaws" of my stating that there was no "virgin birth"? This points out the "flaws" of that position? You couldn't point out a "flaw" in that position if you tried. That's why you dodge and change topics and write gobbledy gook: to flood the zone with shit (as they say) to make it look like you are making a point when really you are making no point at all.

[TSherbs]

All I hope for is to say is,’you really and truly don’t have a clue. Maybe something is beyond your comprehension.’

Yes, believing that Moses parted the Red Sea and that Jesus walked on water is beyond my rational "comprehension." I'm not sure that you should be saying of miracle deniers that they "don't have a clue." You should think about that one, and who is being more "irrational" or "narrow" in their thinking.

[Chuck Naill]

All I hope for is to say is,’you really and truly don’t have a clue. Maybe something is beyond your comprehension.’

Yes, believing that Moses parted the Red Sea and that Jesus walked on water is beyond my rational "comprehension." I'm not sure that you should be saying of miracle deniers that they "don't have a clue." You should think about that one, and who is being more "irrational" or "narrow" in their thinking.

No, I understand that miracles are a difficult topic. It is just not something that connects me to Jesus. Personally, what he said and how he lived and taught are profound. To distill every law down to two things is amazing. It is amazing today.

Also, I am not as interested in physical miracles as I am spiritual transformation. I really want to experience what he was teaching, and I fail more often than succeed, but I am progressing. His teaching focused on love and learning to relax, stop carrying the load. Some have turned it into work, but that obviously wasn't his doing. Because of these misunderstandings, the whole thing is ruined and not enjoyed for its potential to give people a good life and learn what it means to be a good person.

I was accused of something recently. It was in public. Later the person asked me to forgive him, but the experience left me distressed. I remembered Jesus talking about not taking into account a wrong suffered. At no time was I unset with the person, just enduring the pain of accusation. It took me a few days to get over. I know that accusations can be very difficult to endure. We all experience them, and some experience worse for decades. So, in perspective, my experience is nothing, but it was good to feel the sting and handle it without anger or defending myself.

[TSherbs]

All I hope for is to say is,’you really and truly don’t have a clue. Maybe something is beyond your comprehension.’

Yes, believing that Moses parted the Red Sea and that Jesus walked on water is beyond my rational "comprehension." I'm not sure that you should be saying of miracle deniers that they "don't have a clue." You should think about that one, and who is being more "irrational" or "narrow" in their thinking.

No, I understand that miracles are a difficult topic. It is just not something that connects me to Jesus. ...

Then, don't call people "clueless" about them when they reject them.

[Chuck Naill]

Miracles appear as unbelievable or fables because usually people define everything in terms of the five senses, what they can experience. If one has never personally investigated or considered actions outside of the physical, they are clueless. To dismiss something or a topic because you have not tried to understand, and experience isn't rational.

The way I have rationally approached miracles is to consider that if God created the universe and established laws of operation, he is not then bound by those laws of nature. One can argue that God didn't create the universe and that chance and time was the causation. I find that unsatisfying.

I do not think the Bible is a science book meant to explain how things began, but to explain God's intent. I find his laws to be the best way for people to live if they want to have a good existence and become good people. Any rational person can see that not following those rules result in human misery.

This is not to defend Christianity. It is meant to expand the mind to include more possibilities than the five senses.

[Chuck Naill]

Some of the questions I’ve fielded here remind me of the same Jesus was asked.

He once commented that what people wanted were signs. The Jewish leaders were trying to figure him out by comparing him to their perceptions and interpretations.

[TSherbs]

The way I have rationally approached miracles is to consider that if God created the universe and established laws of operation, he is not then bound by those laws of nature....

This isn't rational argument. You are redefining what "rational" means to suit your purpose. You are merely positing the existence of an all-powerful deity without any rational support for that premise. You are beginning with the premise that actually should be the conclusion of your argument. You must first establish the legitimacy of your premise that there is a god that operates beyond the world of physical laws. This fallacy (poor reasoning) is commonly called "begging the question," or in Latin petitio principii).

Again, I would not call persons "clueless" who simply refuse to commit this logical error in a discussion about God. This is the "leap of faith" that most people just admit: "I believe because I believe." But to call this "rational," and to call not believing "clueless," is exactly what I am objecting to here. It smacks of a believer's arrogance and smug superiority.

[Chuck Naill]

You can test Jesus arguments on what it means to have a good life and to be moral. It has suited some to suggest there is no rational morality. This allows all sorts of dilemmas that we see today where everyone does what suit themselves. It’s how slavery and abortion exist in a society that considers moral.

I challenge you to do what Jesus said regarding your neighbor for one month. Set up the parameters any way you want.

Yes, you are clueless on this topic. The others more often you just do what you prefer and call the rest of us uneducated or worse. You don’t have a more responsible or respectful presence here than anyone else. You do win the prize for being whining.

[TSherbs]

You can test Jesus arguments on what it means to have a good life and to be moral. It has suited some to suggest there is no rational morality. This allows all sorts of dilemmas that we see today where everyone does what suit themselves. It’s how slavery and abortion exist in a society that considers moral.

I challenge you to do what Jesus said regarding your neighbor for one month. Set up the parameters any way you want.

Yes, you are clueless on this topic. The others more often you just do what you prefer and call the rest of us uneducated or worse. You don’t have a more responsible or respectful presence here than anyone else. You do win the prize for being whining.

Where, anywhere here, do you address the point in my post?

My point (our point) was about what is "irrational" because *you* accused me of being "irrational". I pointed out the definition of that word and how your example of what you called "rational" was actually a form of flawed logic.

And by the end of your post you are calling me a whiner? This is what I mean about your rope a dope approach to discussions here: you make assertions and then run from them as quick as you can when someone gives you pushback. And then you bring up three other topics as smokescreen.

Which topic are you actually calling me "clueless" on here, because I seem to be well are of your discussion dynamic and I read all your posts. The belief in miracles? The quest for living a good life? You actually believe I am "clueless" on these basic topics?

Or are you just fucking around here?

[dneal]

The way I have rationally approached miracles is to consider that if God created the universe and established laws of operation, he is not then bound by those laws of nature....

This isn't rational argument. You are redefining what "rational" means to suit your purpose. You are merely positing the existence of an all-powerful deity without any rational support for that premise. You are beginning with the premise that actually should be the conclusion of your argument. You must first establish the legitimacy of your premise that there is a god that operates beyond the world of physical laws. This fallacy (poor reasoning) is commonly called "begging the question," or in Latin petitio principii).

Again, I would not call persons "clueless" who simply refuse to commit this logical error in a discussion about God. This is the "leap of faith" that most people just admit: "I believe because I believe." But to call this "rational," and to call not believing "clueless," is exactly what I am objecting to here. It smacks of a believer's arrogance and smug superiority.

It actually is a rational argument. St Anselm’s ontological argument is rational too, for example, although it rests on unprovable assumptions.

[Chuck Naill]

We live in a time where a college student could get an A in an ethics class and remain totally without an ethical bone in their body.

[dneal]

It happens. Lots of folks claim to be Christians too - but you rarely see it in practice.

[Chuck Naill]

Most onlookers would be surprised to learn how a follower of Jesus should or ought to live. One needs to remember that Jesus was hunted down and executed. He wasn't living like others thought he should. However, he was a person who was moral, and his morality was practical, not only academic.

And we know from scripture that God is spirit and those that worship him do so by connecting their spirit to his. We also learn he looks at the inside of a person, not what the outside might appear. Those deadbeats mentioned in a different thread may be better off than those who think serving in the military made them a better person. The migrants drowning trying to cross a river with razor wire may be better off than the governor of Texas.

[TSherbs]

We live in a time where a college student could get an A in an ethics class and remain totally without an ethical bone in their body.

especially if they call themselves "Christian," no?

[Chuck Naill]

2010, Sinead O'Conner:
"O'Connor stated:

Well, you know, I guess I wish everyone the best, and I don't know anything about the man, so I'm not going to rush to judge him on one thing or another, but I would say he has a scientifically impossible task, because all religions, but certainly the Catholic Church, is really a house built on sand, and it's drowning in a sea of conditional love, and therefore it can't survive, and actually the office of Pope itself is an anti-Christian office, the idea that Christ needs a representative is laughable and blasphemous at the same time, therefore it is a house built on sand, and we need to rescue God from religion, all religions, they've become a smokescreen that distracts people from the fact that there is a holy spirit, and when you study the Gospels you see the Christ character came to tell us that we only need to talk directly to God, we never needed Religion...

Asked whether from her point of view, it is therefore irrelevant who is elected to be pope, O'Connor replied

Genuinely I don't mean disrespect to Catholic people because I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe in the Holy Spirit, all of those, but I also believe in all of them, I don't think it cares if you call it Fred or Daisy, you know? Religion is a smokescreen, it has everybody talking to the wall. There is a Holy Spirit who can't intervene on our behalf unless we ask it. Religion has us talking to the wall. The Christ character tells us himself: you must only talk directly to the Father; you don't need intermediaries. We all thought we did, and that's ok, we're not bad people, but let's wake up... God was there before religion; it's there [today] despite religion; it'll be there when religion is gone.[168]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor

[Chuck Naill]

We live in a time where a college student could get an A in an ethics class and remain totally without an ethical bone in their body.

especially if they call themselves "Christian," no?

Not really. You are looking at actions that you either agree with or not. A person acting as an advocate for the unborn could be considered a bad person. Or, a person not supporting all aspects of gender care might be vilified. Even a person protesting what you think might not fit into you standard.

Who is truly a good person? What is a good life? Those are the question you should be asking. Those are the questions the ancients have asked, and the philosophers have sought to understand. Socrates wrote that a good life is more important than life itself. He also discussed the inner life, the one you don't see in me nor do I see in you. Jesus said, "unless your rightness exceeds that of the religious folks, you can't enter the KOG. He was talking about the rightness of the soul, for which you think does not exist.

[TSherbs]

We live in a time where a college student could get an A in an ethics class and remain totally without an ethical bone in their body.

especially if they call themselves "Christian," no?

Not really. You are looking at actions that you either agree with or not.

Well, sort of. I was thinking of rape, murder, abuse, lying, and stealing. And yes, I do not "agree" with those actions, even when Christians do them. Even Christian churches, elders, deacons, and ministers do these things. Even parishioners.

[TSherbs]

...
He was talking about the rightness of the soul, for which you think does not exist.

Depends on how you mean "soul". As a kind of poetic or metaphorical term for our character and inner thoughts, yes I believe in it. But if you mean some sort of divine and immortal consciousness, no, I do not believe in this. But of course we non-believers and non-Christians understand what Christians are talking about when they talk about their souls. We are not "clueless" on the subject, and just as many non-believers may be interested in improving their characters and behaviors as Christians are. The entire Buddhist religion, for example, is based on a quest for perfection and wholeness, and not by dying, but rather by living rightly.

Should I call you "clueless" if you don't read about that? I wonder if you spent as many years going to Buddhist temples and Buddhist retreats and classes as I spent in church services and classes? I kind of doubt it.

[TSherbs]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

[Chuck Naill]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it.

I believe had subsequent generations of believers continued in the stream of as those in the first century and had Rome not adopted Christianity as it's official religion, we both would have had a different experience. Religion is always vulnerable to legalism. Rules replace relationship. This is what got Jesus killed. How do you put to death a person who taught his disciples to love their enemies? He threatened the status quo. He threatened the power of the religious authorities. It is no different today. The pastors are treated as though they are spiritually superior. Jesus wreaked havoc with that system, and I suspect he would today. I've experienced this my entire time as a follower. If I said the things I have posted here in most churches, I would be asked to leave. It matters not that I could point out that Jesus only commission was for his students to make students.

Tithes and offerings were invented in 1878. Dallas Willard mentioned in one of his books that the ABC's of American churches is attendance, buildings, and cash. Discipleship in American churches is indoctrination into tithing, serving in church activities, and general membership responsibilities. It is not to become an apprentice of Jesus.

Outsiders will look at someone as say they are not acting like a Christian. Their idea of a Chrisitan is based on something they have been taught to think. An apprentice does not look like anything expect someone who is in the process of learning. It may never manifest itself externally. We simply do not know others well enough to understand the battles going on inside. They may be experiencing a transformation, but not appear to be doing as well as someone brought up in a more positive environment.

What I have been posting is transformative for anyone and everyone. Like Socrates, it is about self-examination. Socrates said his wisdom was that he understood his lack of wisdom. For him a good life is better than life. It made me think a good life is better than a long life. I was reading A.W. Tozer yesterday talking about how the Christian life is in secret, that it can be practiced even if the government bans the practice.

Notice I have said nothing about becoming a member, tithing, working for the church, or following a four-step process to salvation. I have not discussed having your sins forgiven and go to heaven when you die. Now, when I read the four gospels and the subsequent apostolic writings, what I see is a steady and pervasive process of becoming like Jesus. The miracle is inside. It is real and anyone can experience. I do believe this is what allowed Christianity to prosper.

As Willard noted, trying to love like 1 Corinthians 13 will not work by trying. This kind of love occurs when we learn to give everything to Jesus and trust, relax. Then, when we look at others, we have the sort of compassion Jesus showed to others. Like I've said, I've been working through this since 1979 and I wise enough to know I am not wise.

[Chuck Naill]

Let's consider the Ten Commandments, or as I like to call them, the rules for the road. What if we saw them as a way to have the best quality of life possible? What if we came to see the concept of the Sabbath as rest and relaxation? Paul said the law was given to keep the people of God in the way of salvation. What is salvation? Is it a good condition to be out of harm? I think it is. If you don't agree, does it mean being untruthful, sleeping with your neighbor's spouse, or stealing is going to produce a better life?

Jesus and Paul summed up the law in loving God and others as yourself. That's pretty simple. Think about the burdens of life, how we strive and work to get where we need to be or want to go. What if we didn't need all that sweating. Jesus said, man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. God thinks rest and reliance is good.

Even for those not interested, surely this, if true, sounds liberating. We've been taught to think of it as religion. It's actually relationship. If Genesis teaches anything, it is two things, God wanted relationship, but gave his creation a choice. Slaves don't have choices.

[TSherbs]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it....

Let's be clear, though. My point was that I don't consider Jesus to have been divine, nor that he had any special access to a "God", etc. He was simply a profound, mystical seer, whose teachings caught on and endured. Fortunately, the words and wisdoms of several such profound seers still exist for us today to draw upon, and more may come. Spiritual insight did not end with the teachings of this man.

The rest of what you write is more "Christian" interpretation in its purpose and not convincing to me. You and I would likely disagree very much on even what the parables mean.

[Chuck Naill]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it....

Let's be clear, though. My point was that I don't consider Jesus to have been divine, nor that he had any special access to a "God", etc. He was simply a profound, mystical seer, whose teachings caught on and endured. Fortunately, the words and wisdoms of several such profound seers still exist for us today to draw upon, and more may come. Spiritual insight did not end with the teachings of this man.

The rest of what you write is more "Christian" interpretation in its purpose and not convincing to me. You and I would likely disagree very much on even what the parables mean.

I emboldened the part for which I can agree. I also agree with his influence being significant, as you noted.

[TSherbs]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it....

Let's be clear, though. My point was that I don't consider Jesus to have been divine, nor that he had any special access to a "God", etc. He was simply a profound, mystical seer, whose teachings caught on and endured. Fortunately, the words and wisdoms of several such profound seers still exist for us today to draw upon, and more may come. Spiritual insight did not end with the teachings of this man.

The rest of what you write is more "Christian" interpretation in its purpose and not convincing to me. You and I would likely disagree very much on even what the parables mean.

I emboldened the part for which I can agree. I also agree with his influence being significant, as you noted.

ok.

You have criticized me recently, and repeatedly, for excerpting your quotes. I want you to understand that I do this for the same reason that you bolded, and I have no objection to that. But your reply went on to discuss several other topics that I did not bring up, nor that I am interested in discussing. I just want to be clear, so that you don't end up taking a swipe at me about it later. I don't even mind that you disagree with something that you highlight. Just don't hold it against me if I don't pay attention to other things that you then bring up that aren't on the topic that I have focused on. Other people can respond to them if they want.

[Chuck Naill]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it....

Let's be clear, though. My point was that I don't consider Jesus to have been divine, nor that he had any special access to a "God", etc. He was simply a profound, mystical seer, whose teachings caught on and endured. Fortunately, the words and wisdoms of several such profound seers still exist for us today to draw upon, and more may come. Spiritual insight did not end with the teachings of this man.

The rest of what you write is more "Christian" interpretation in its purpose and not convincing to me. You and I would likely disagree very much on even what the parables mean.

I emboldened the part for which I can agree. I also agree with his influence being significant, as you noted.

ok.

You have criticized me recently, and repeatedly, for excerpting your quotes. I want you to understand that I do this for the same reason that you bolded, and I have no objection to that. But your reply went on to discuss several other topics that I did not bring up, nor that I am interested in discussing. I just want to be clear, so that you don't end up taking a swipe at me about it later. I don't even mind that you disagree with something that you highlight. Just don't hold it against me if I don't pay attention to other things that you then bring up that aren't on the topic that I have focused on. Other people can respond to them if they want.

I thought you wanted to change how we interact? Your clipping phrases began with you, not me. I did it to make a point and I think you now understand. I did mention what you said, the emboldened section, and didn't embolden your comments about his influence. I addressed your post and commented that I agree with portions. You countered so that I wouldn't think we now agreed overall.

On the abortion thread you began with, "do you understand..." as if I don't understand. I make this point so that you can appreciate some of the ways you choose to communicate results in some of the replies you are given. Not tit for tat, just being plain as you.

[TSherbs]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it....

Let's be clear, though. My point was that I don't consider Jesus to have been divine, nor that he had any special access to a "God", etc. He was simply a profound, mystical seer, whose teachings caught on and endured. Fortunately, the words and wisdoms of several such profound seers still exist for us today to draw upon, and more may come. Spiritual insight did not end with the teachings of this man.

The rest of what you write is more "Christian" interpretation in its purpose and not convincing to me. You and I would likely disagree very much on even what the parables mean.

I emboldened the part for which I can agree. I also agree with his influence being significant, as you noted.

ok.

You have criticized me recently, and repeatedly, for excerpting your quotes. I want you to understand that I do this for the same reason that you bolded, and I have no objection to that. But your reply went on to discuss several other topics that I did not bring up, nor that I am interested in discussing. I just want to be clear, so that you don't end up taking a swipe at me about it later. I don't even mind that you disagree with something that you highlight. Just don't hold it against me if I don't pay attention to other things that you then bring up that aren't on the topic that I have focused on. Other people can respond to them if they want.

I thought you wanted to change how we interact? Your clipping phrases began with you, not me. I did it to make a point and I think you now understand. I did mention what you said, the emboldened section, and didn't embolden your comments about his influence. I addressed your post and commented that I agree with portions. You countered so that I wouldn't think we now agreed overall.

On the abortion thread you began with, "do you understand..." as if I don't understand. I make this point so that you can appreciate some of the ways you choose to communicate results in some of the replies you are given. Not tit for tat, just being plain as you.

??

I said that I did not mind that you used the bold. Please continue to do so. And I will do the same.

[Chuck Naill]

It may surprise you to know that I believe that the man Jesus was a great mystical seer. I believe that the early Christian mystics understood Jesus best. I just don't believe in the traditional divine interpretations of son of God and heaven and miracles, etc (those, to me, are added in by the credulous as legend grew). But as a mystic seer into the paths of compassion and peace and love, Jesus was brilliant and real. His message and presence affected dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people. That wasn't nothing! Humanity has been blessed with these seers periodically, and probably other great ones have been lost to history.

It is encouraging to read what you wrote. I agree with most of it....

Let's be clear, though. My point was that I don't consider Jesus to have been divine, nor that he had any special access to a "God", etc. He was simply a profound, mystical seer, whose teachings caught on and endured. Fortunately, the words and wisdoms of several such profound seers still exist for us today to draw upon, and more may come. Spiritual insight did not end with the teachings of this man.

The rest of what you write is more "Christian" interpretation in its purpose and not convincing to me. You and I would likely disagree very much on even what the parables mean.

I emboldened the part for which I can agree. I also agree with his influence being significant, as you noted.

ok.

You have criticized me recently, and repeatedly, for excerpting your quotes. I want you to understand that I do this for the same reason that you bolded, and I have no objection to that. But your reply went on to discuss several other topics that I did not bring up, nor that I am interested in discussing. I just want to be clear, so that you don't end up taking a swipe at me about it later. I don't even mind that you disagree with something that you highlight. Just don't hold it against me if I don't pay attention to other things that you then bring up that aren't on the topic that I have focused on. Other people can respond to them if they want.

I thought you wanted to change how we interact? Your clipping phrases began with you, not me. I did it to make a point and I think you now understand. I did mention what you said, the emboldened section, and didn't embolden your comments about his influence. I addressed your post and commented that I agree with portions. You countered so that I wouldn't think we now agreed overall.

On the abortion thread you began with, "do you understand..." as if I don't understand. I make this point so that you can appreciate some of the ways you choose to communicate results in some of the replies you are given. Not tit for tat, just being plain as you.

??

I said that I did not mind that you used the bold. Please continue to do so. And I will do the same.

Okay!

[Chuck Naill]

Since I am discussing my interpretations of scripture and how they define what it means to be a Christian, I want to focus on the only directive Jesus gave his followers.

Matthew 28-18-20 simply stated says that all power had been given to Jesus in the heavens and Earth. This heaven and Earth phrase reminds me of his prayer which says, "your kingdom come, your will be done in the Earth as it is already occurring in the heavens.

Next he instructs them to make disciples, https://bible.org/seriespage/2-understanding-meaning-term-disciple

He instructs them to teach them to be obedient to all that he said to do.

There is more, but I'll stop there. If someone wanted to understand in the intent of Jesus for his students, this would provide the knowledge.

The question many now ask, has this apprenticeship program been implemented?

This is from Dr. Willard and explains what becoming a disciple of Jesus would look like,
"If you’re going to be a disciple…You have to have a teacher.
That’s the deepest part of our problem in the whole area of character transformation in Christlikeness. You have to have a teacher but in our circles of Christianity, Jesus as teacher has disappeared from our horizon.
We’re left to struggle with passages like this and just try, perhaps sporadically. That’s where the Charlie Daniels song comes in.
A lot of Christians feel that way because they have tried.
Read I Corinthians 13 and say, “I’m going to be like this” and they get angrier and angrier.
We are deeply wedded to things like “anger.”
Paul says lay it aside. What do you do without it?
How do you live like Jesus said?

How do you live if you’re going to do the things Jesus said?
That’s where the teacher comes in. Discipleship when Jesus was here was learning from Him to do what He did.
Everything that Jesus said if for us to do and we can learn how to do it. But, we cannot do it by trying only. Trying will make us bitter and angry. We will fall back in the habit patterns the govern us because we have not been transformed inwardly.

Discipleship is about being transformed inwardly and that’s why we need Jesus as teacher."

[dneal]

At least you finally admit they’re just your interpretations.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, my interpretations within the boundaries of scriptural relevance involved in the topic.

[dneal]

You don’t understand the topic. Read the original post.

[Chuck Naill]

You don’t understand the topic. Read the original post.

"I was raised a Catholic but I haven't been to a church in a long while. As I read and learn, I started to question and I no longer believe in divinity of Jesus. I still believe in God. What does that make me?"

What does it make him or her? Is that the question, @dneal? Okay, if you agree, what does Jesus say a 'Christian' is according to the scriptures? It is an apprentice/disciple/student according to Matthew 29-18-20 which is what I posted in #813

Maybe you don't understand the topic.

[dneal]

I understood and replied to the topic years before you arrived. Jar is more of a biblical scholar than you'll ever hope to be.

The topic regards Jesus' divinity, and if it's a requirement to be part of "club Christian" (as jar puts it).

Why do you have to put 'Christian' in quotes, when claiming what Jesus says. Did he use that word, or did you have to interpret it as being there? Does he claim divinity in the passage you cite, or did you have to interpret that as well?

[Chuck Naill]

I understood and replied to the topic years before you arrived. Jar is more of a biblical scholar than you'll ever hope to be.

The topic regards Jesus' divinity, and if it's a requirement to be part of "club Christian" (as jar puts it).

Why do you have to put 'Christian' in quotes, when claiming what Jesus says. Did he use that word, or did you have to interpret it as being there? Does he claim divinity in the passage you cite, or did you have to interpret that as well?

I don't know Jar and if he is a better scholar that me, so what? Really, dude!! My interest is apprenticeship. That you participated before me has what value? You rep power is 15 and mine in 9. Does that make you feel superior? You Little Man Syndrome is in full view this morning.

It is obvious from what Jesus said, he considered himself to be a part of the Trinitarian community of God the Father, the son, and the HS. I provided ample evidence and showed that even the scribes and pharisees understood what he was saying.

I no longer use Christain to describe myself. I used it here because the OP included it in his title page. I provided the Greek word for disciple, apprentice, or student. Christian was first used in Antioch to distinguish the new society from Judaism.

Many of the apostle's work was to deal with the Jews trying to force circumcising practices and sabbath observances upon the new non-Jew disciples of Jesus.

Christianity is not a club. Never was.

[Chuck Naill]

I've always been drawn to the exchange Jesus had with one of the two people crucified with him. One of the men simply asked that he be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom. Jesus said he would and that they would be together. This has always stood out as the most simple of ways to participate with Jesus. Jesus didn't tell him to go and forgive anyone, pay back what he stole, or give away his money. The man died having never been water baptized.

We don't know if the man considered Jesus to be God. What we do know is he thought Jesus to be innocent of any crime worthy of being crucified. If a condemned man hanging on a cross can get in on what Jesus is doing, surely anyone can.

[dneal]

What does any of that have to do with trinity doctrine?

[Chuck Naill]

In the NT, God is referred to as a father. Jesus is the son of God and man. The helper is the HS aka Spirit of Christ aka Spirit of God. Since God is represented as "unembodied" power, the true worshipper do so in spirit and truth. The KOG becomes a reality by which a disciple is spiritually transformed to live and do as Jesus did and does.

[dneal]

You still haven’t grasped the premise. Can one be a Christian if they do not believe in Jesus’ divinity?

[Chuck Naill]

You still haven’t grasped the premise. Can one be a Christian if they do not believe in Jesus’ divinity?

I have actually grasped the premise. It begs for a definition of a Christian, whatever that means, which has become meaningless. What is someone who considers themselves a Chrisitan who does not think Jesus is God? What is the draw for them. I am not a mind reader.

My interest is taking the primary source, the NT, and trying to help the OP see what the first students thought and perhaps why the Jewish sect grew into a way that transformed the world's cultures, governments, and answered philosophical questions.

Another question is, if a person is seeking God, will God respond? I think he will. Everyone, you, me, and others here are on some sort of path. I like to think that God will use any path a person is on to find him if that person is truly seeking to know him. The apostolic book to the Hebrews (the Jewish people) reads, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

What did Jesus say? “The person who knows my commandments and keeps them, that’s who loves me. And the person who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and make myself plain to him.” Note he said, "who knows my commandments". What were his commandments? There were two commandments, to love God with you heart, soul, mind, and body and your neighbor as yourself.

Then, "Because a loveless world,” said Jesus, “is a sightless world. If anyone loves me, he will carefully keep my word and my Father will love him—we’ll move right into the neighborhood! Not loving me means not keeping my words. The message you are hearing isn’t mine. It’s the message of the Father who sent me."

What does Jesus say is important?

[welch]

You still haven’t grasped the premise. Can one be a Christian if they do not believe in Jesus’ divinity?

(Repeating myself, a little) This was the Big Question for early Christians, and Christianity, as a movement, has always had people who are not certain. The great emperor, Constantine I, called a council of bishops to settle the question, and even the resulting Creed of Nicea was vague enough that people did not all agree. That is plain church history and political and social history. Officially, an orthodox Christian is one who affirms the Creed, but even in the 4th Century CE, Greek-speakers and Latin-speakers had slightly different notions of what the Creed meant, and how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit hung together as one. And, note, the eastern side of the Empire was much stronger, in every sort of way, than the western, Latin-speaking, side. The Latin side could not quite follow the Greek side. In general, Nicea, and its follow-up councils, meant to say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one...three "moments", or three "persons", or three "powers" or three somethings. So confusing that Thomas Paine wrote, approximately, "I believe in one God, and not two, three, or four..."

Just how there can be "God the three-in-one", as one of my Methodist hymns had it, well, only theologians seem to worry. By now, in-the-pews Christians often think of Christ in different ways. I'm a fourth-generation Methodist, and I always thought of Jesus as a son of God, just like I was a son of my father. I was not disturbed when, in Byzantine history classes, I read about a variety of early Christians who thought that Jesus was a human who was taken and elevated to be Son of God.

Can a Christian fail to believe that Jesus is divine? Plenty do. Maybe most, in that they don't know or care about the Creed of Nicea.

[Chuck Naill]

You explain why "Christian" has become meaningless. Also, there is a failure on the part of those institutions which represent God, to think of this topic as knowledge. Jesus taught in a way that demonstrated he had knowledge. With knowledge comes truth and with truth the authority to act.

It is common to hear someone on the outside of knowledge in this area to say, it is faith. Something you hope to be true. This is not knowledge, but conjecture. Knowing something meant a method existed for gaining that knowledge and when you have it, you can act. We treat knowledge seriously and give it responsibilities. A professor and a dentist is expected to know and act according to the knowledge they have obtained.

Jesus claimed he was the way (method) and the truth. Nobody, no matter who, can overlook what he thought and then said. They don't have to agree, but they must acknowledge he makes that claim.

The Trinitarian Community is easy to understand. Jesus oft repeated that he did nothing on his own part. It was what he saw his father doing and saying. To his students, he oft said they would be doing the same as he had. This is the kingdom life he taught. As a helper or friend, the Holy Spirit was provided to those students. He said the HS would remind them of what he had taught them to do. Again, as plain as day for anyone taking the time to read the primary source.

An apprentice of Jesus will, over time, gain knowledge and have experiential truth revealed as they settle into the process. It can be tested. We know if we are loving others as we love ourselves and we learn if doing so produces a good life. God said, "test me".

Do it and if it doesn't work, forget it. If you find a better way, try it.

[Chuck Naill]

A question for the OP. Would you expect that a person who did believe Jesus is God to have the same experience as the one who did not?

[Chip]

Gimme that ol' time religion. . .

https://i.imgur.com/OcU2riK.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

"Resistance to the calling on Christians to address economic, governmental, and social issues intelligently and with spiritual force arises within some churches from a number of misunderstandings. One is that you can develop Christian moral character without dealing with the social setting. This is simply impossible because we all live in a social world, and we cannot be people who love our neighbors and practice thoroughgoing integrity if we accept practices that harm them or fail to advance and support social and legal conditions that help them with their vital needs. Another misunderstanding has to do with the gospel itself and with the mission of Christ and his people in the world. According to some, the only thing that matters for the Christian is forgiveness of sins and securing heaven in the afterlife. This ‘salvation’, as now erroneously understood, is a private matter. It is “Just between me and God.” It, it is frequently thought today, has nothing to do with Character development in individuals, much less with rectifying conditions of life in this world. Hence it might be private. This world is a hopelessly lost cause, that story goes. Our only concern must be to get as many people to heaven in the afterlife as possible. We train ministers to do that, not to understand and teach what is right about economic and other social conditions. But the gospel presented by Christ and the New Testament has to do with leading an eternal kind of life now in the Kingdom of God, heaven after death being a natural outcome of the life we have now received. We are called into discipleship to Christ that unavoidably leads us increasingly into the character of Christ, with effects on our social setting that are world transforming. A final misunderstanding in some church settings is that to deal with economic and social issues is “political,” and that our Christian leaders are not to be political. There is a small element of truth here. The Christian spokesperson aims to help Christians and all others understand the economic and other dimensions of society. Their primary task is not to initiate political/economic change, but to bring understanding and truth to our lives in our world. But Christians may, and often have (Wilberforce, M. L. King) worked explicitly for political and economic change. That was essential to their discipleship in the Kingdom of God. There is nothing wrong, ungodly, illegal or unconstitutional about that. The First Amendment is about something Congress cannot do. It is not about what Christians will not and cannot do. (We now live under the influence of a gigantic myth about a “wall of separation” between “church and state.” It has been generated and elaborated from a few phrases, scattered here and there, with no legal standing or force.) Though the teaching of pastors and Christian spokespersons will certainly have social consequences, and including consequences for the economy, that is not (in the usual case) what the Christian teacher/minister is trying to bring about. They usually leave those consequences to the actions of those to whom they bring understanding, and to God who is always at work in our world." https://dwillard.org/articles/economic-wisdom-and-human-flourishing

[Chip]

It was only a matter of time:

https://i.imgur.com/5TcZrbj.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

Richard Petty falling off his horse...

[Chuck Naill]

"The interim president and chief executive of the Southern Baptist Convention’s powerful executive committee resigned Thursday over the discovery that he had falsified academic credentials on his résumé.

The leader, Willie McLaurin, a former pastor in Tennessee, held multiple other leadership positions in the denomination before becoming the committee’s interim leader in February 2022. He has used the honorific “Dr.” in various publications and biographies, including those issued by the Southern Baptist Convention.

“McLaurin’s education credentials that he presented in his résumé are false,” the committee’s chair, Philip Robertson, said in a statement."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/us/southern-baptist-willie-mclaurin-resignation.html

[Chip]

Political Christianity Has Claws

David French
Opinion Columnist
Aug. 24, 2023

On Friday, Aug. 18, a man named Travis Ikeguchi shot and killed Laura Ann Carleton in Cedar Glen, Calif. On Monday, the San Bernardino County sheriff Shannon Dicus said, “Investigators determined that prior to the shooting the suspect tore down a Pride, or rainbow, flag that was hanging in front of the store and yelled many homophobic slurs toward Carleton.” Ikeguchi was subsequently killed in a standoff with the police.

The police highlighted elements of what appears to be Ikeguchi’s feed on X, the site formerly called Twitter, and noted that it included a picture of a burning Pride flag with the text “What to do with the LGBTQP flag?” (As of Thursday morning, a representative from the San Bernardino county sheriff’s office said the account, which has since been suspended, had not yet been confirmed as the shooter’s.) I went to the feed as well and found it chilling, and not simply because of the obvious hatred for L.G.B.T. Americans. It was chilling to me in part because it wasn’t substantially different from the sentiments I see and hear all the time from right-wing Christians in the age of Trump.

Mixed in with the account’s strident anti-L.G.B.T. rhetoric and conspiracy theories were posts endorsing Christianity, including some that would otherwise suggest a compassionate heart. The account reposted, for instance, a post that read: “When your heart is hurting and you have nothing left to pray, speak the name of Jesus. When the tears fall and no one else can see, whisper His name.” The account also reposted a meme that declared, in part, “God has chosen you to make you a blessing to many.” Yet not far from that post was another, which took the words “Pride Month” and gradually blurred out the letters at either end, leaving only the word “demon” highlighted in the middle.

Again, these posts were so disturbing to me precisely because they weren’t that extreme compared to rhetoric common among the religious right. Matt Walsh, a prominent conservative Christian, declared his perceived leftist opponents “goblins” and their anger “satanic.” A prominent MAGA pastor, Mark Burns, told a cheering crowd that he’s declaring war on every “demonic, demon-possessed Democrat that comes from the gates of hell.” In a conversation with the T.P.U.S.A. founder Charlie Kirk, the prominent evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll labeled what he called “soft beta male woke Christianity” as “demonic,” a characterization Kirk called “perfect.” Kirk, another self-proclaimed Christian, posted this tidbit on his own feed just yesterday: “Whiteness is great. Be proud of who you are.”

And do not believe for a moment that such vitriol is limited to prominent pastors or pundits. I consistently encounter even small-town citizens and public officials who tell their own stories of encountering hatred after defying Christian political or legal demands. Crossing the Christian right increasingly means facing threats, intimidation and, in rare cases, even deadly violence.

Threats, intimidation and violence aren’t exclusive to the right, of course. But there is something particularly painful and puzzling when such expressions of hatred come from people who claim to follow Jesus, the prince of peace. What is happening? Simply put, America is increasingly beset by a version of cultural and political Christianity that bears little resemblance to the faith as described in the Bible. It seems as if there’s an almost mathematical equation at work — when you combine theology and ideology but subtract virtue, you’ve created a formula for viciousness and strife. Raise the stakes to an existential or eternal level, remove the restraints of kindness and self-control, and watch the worst of humanity emerge.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Christian faith is the way Scripture treats both theology and virtue. The Bible is of course a complex theological book. But when it comes to identifying whether a person is in the grip of the “flesh” (i.e., worldly sinfulness) or exhibiting the influence of the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t emphasize theology but rather something much more simple: virtue and vice. In other words, even the most impeccable theological understandings are meaningless if they don’t result in Christian character.

The key verses come from the Apostle Paul, in the book of Galatians. He describes how “the flesh desires what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh.” What does “the flesh” desire? Here Paul condemns sexual immorality and idolatry, but also other sins, including “hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions” and “envy.” And what of the spirit, what is the evidence that God is at work in your life? Paul’s list does not include a single statement of theological belief, but rather a series of simple virtues, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” In other words, when you encounter another person — regardless of what they say about their religious beliefs — you can discern their true character by such traits. Joy and gentleness should earn our attention and respect; hatred and jealousy are red flags, even in those who can quote every line of scripture.

This is a constant theme in the Bible. As Jesus said, “every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit.” The conclusion is simple — beware the hateful, the people drawn to strife; embrace those who are kind and peaceful. Of course none of us are perfect, but those who follow Jesus should be marked by those virtues. Which leads me to ask discouraging questions: Do those virtues mark the most prominent political Christians today? Do those virtues characterize political Christianity in the age of Trump? The answers are self-evident.

At a time of extraordinary partisan polarization, a Christian message should demand that we love our enemies. (And what is love? Among other things, as we learn in Corinthians, “Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not arrogant, is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not irritable, and does not keep a record of wrongs.”) Moments of political conflict such as this one should cause the church to blaze forth with countercultural radiance — a soothing balm in a sea of strife. But the dominant tone of contemporary American political Christianity is close to the opposite. It’s angry. It’s punitive. In many ways it positively delights in strife. The Christianity it embodies isn’t so much Christianity at all, but rather a religiously flavored authoritarianism that is proving to be red in tooth and claw, a political and cultural movement that embraces the “works of the flesh,” supposedly to accomplish the will of God.

Political Christianity embodies the logic of religious war. It sees threats to American faith primarily outside the church, creating a sense of siege. It casts kindness as weakness, creating incentives for aggression. And since it casts conflicts in the most existential of terms — its political opponents are not misguided fellow citizens, but literally demonic — it raises the temperature to the boiling point. As the popular Christian author Eric Metaxas told Donald Trump in November 2020, in the midst of the president’s efforts to overturn the election: “I’d be happy to die in this fight. This is a fight for everything. God is with us.”

This relentless hunt for enemies outside the church is a prime reason for the remarkable demonization of the L.G.B.T. community, a hatred that Laura Ann Carleton likely heard expressed by her killer in her final moments of life. A far lower percentage of L.G.B.T. Americans seem to identify as evangelical than the public at large. They are, in many ways, the perfect “them” against whom political Christians rally the “us.”

Indeed, I spoke not long ago at a small gathering Christian pastors. When I asked for questions, I was struck by the fact that the first few were all about legal and cultural issues surrounding transgender Americans. I was happy to do my best to answer them, but I was struck by the immediate turn to that issue, beyond any other. I asked whether any of the pastors present had one or more transgender members in their congregations. I didn’t see a single hand go up. I next asked if any of them believed that a substantial number of men in their churches regularly consumed pornography. Every hand shot up immediately.

To be clear, many of these pastors understood that political Christianity was paying inordinate attention to the L.G.B.T. community; the questions they asked were on behalf of their congregants. But it was impossible to miss the fact that so many minds were preoccupied with challenges to traditional Christian teaching from outside the church that seemed more distant and theoretical; and so few were focused on responding to immediate, near-universal challenges within its walls.

When I was a younger Christian, I used to love theological debates and devour theological books. But now I’m much less interested in theology, and I’m far more interested in virtue. If theology minus virtue can equal violence, then perhaps theology plus virtue can enable justice.

Look again at the fruit of the spirit. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are incompatible with oppression. And while exhibiting that fruit does not guarantee that others will love or respect you, it does help us obey one of our highest calls: to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/24/opinion/political-christianity-has-claws.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[TSherbs]

Nick Kristof has an article in the NYT about the church turning off its potential followers, particularly younger ones. The public face of Christianity is looking remarkably outdated, bigoted, neurotic, and hypocritical...even just dumb.

Christianity, by force of its intimidating past and western social ubiquity, has enjoyed a free pass from the really tough scrutiny of collective outrage and ridicule. Those days are over. Now it just looks like an emperor in no clothes and the populace is willing to laugh.

[Chuck Naill]

I've read both op-eds.

I've been trying to provide a scriptural description of what the early followers of Jesus considered as a definition of apprenticeship to Jesus. When I read both articles, it occurred to me that what both writers were reporting didn't match the New Testament description of a follower of Jesus. While these articles can be very useful, they are useful in the sense that they demonstrate what has been invented as the gospel message is in fact nothing close to what Jesus and the writers had in mind.

Since the Pastors are not disciples, the people in the pews are not going to know it is even a possibility.

The early church met in homes, shared a meal, took care of the orphans and widows and poor. Had a plural form of leadership which included males and females. Didn't "tithe" and didn't see changing the culture as what they were about. They perceived having all things in common. They shared with the foreigner and took them in as a native. The message was the immediate availability of the Kingdom of God.

I am actually pleased these types of opinions are being expressed. Maybe someone will consider reading what Jesus said rather than what someone thinks he said.

[TSherbs]

from WaPo, on leaving the Christian "church":



washingtonpost.com
Opinion I left the church — and now long for a ‘church for the nones’
Perry Bacon Jr.
Aug. 21st, 2023

I ’m currently a “none” or, more precisely, a “nothing in particular.” But I want to be a something.
“None” is the term social scientists use to describe Americans who say they don’t belong to or practice a particular religious faith. This bloc has grown from about 5 percent of Americans in the early 1990s to nearly 30 percent today. Most nones aren’t atheists but what researchers call “nothing in particulars,” people who aren’t quite sure what they believe.

The majority of nones once identified themselves as Christians. About 40 percent of adults between 18 and 29 are nones, and so are plenty of people over 65 (about 20 percent). About one-third of those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 are religiously unaffiliated, as are about 15 percent of people who backed Donald Trump. Nearly 40 percent of Asian Americans and more than 25 percent of White, Black and Latino Americans are nones. People without and with four-year college degrees are about equally likely to be nones. This group includes Americans from all regions of the country, including more than one-fifth in the “Bible Belt” South.
In their new book, “The Great Dechurching,” Jim Davis, Michael Graham and Ryan Burge estimate that about 40 million Americans used to attend church but don’t now.

I could not have imagined when I was a kid or even a decade ago that I would be in this group.
During my childhood in Louisville, my father was one of the assistant pastors at a small Charismatic church that my uncle still runs. Our family was at church every Sunday. Members often stopped by our house during the week to get advice from my father. His way of teaching me to drive was sitting in the passenger seat as we went to the midweek Bible studies he led.
Before I left for college, the congregation passed around a collection plate where they gave me several hundred dollars to congratulate and support me in my new adventure.

Once on campus, I attended church more than my peers, while enjoying the freedom of not being in services every Sunday. But in my 20s and into my 30s, I developed a religious life that wasn’t based on my father’s. I was a member of a few nondenominational churches. (These were much smaller but similar in style to the churches run by prominent pastors such as Joel Osteen and Rick Warren.) I was at times quite involved: acting as a chaperone when the church youth group went on a trip; hosting a church-based small group at my house; even giving a sermon once.

I was never totally confident that there is one God who created the Earth or that Jesus Christ was resurrected after he was killed. But belonging to a congregation seemed essential. I thought religion, not just Christianity but also other faiths such as Judaism and Islam, pushed people toward better values. Most of the people I admired — from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to my parents — were religious. And I figured I might as well stick with Christianity, the creed I was raised in.
The churches I attended avoided politics, but I wasn’t out of step with them ideologically. Women served as pastors; there wasn’t any overt opposition to, say, gay rights or abortion. I suspect they were full of people who voted for Democrats. My childhood church in Louisville is overwhelmingly Black; the churches I attended as an adult are in the heavily left-leaning D.C. area and had a lot of attendees who worked in government and nonprofit jobs.

The weekend after Trump was elected in 2016, I remember one of the pastors declaring in his sermon that our church would remain a place that welcomed refugees and other immigrants. Everyone clapped.

But in the years after Trump entered office, left-leaning Gen X and older millennial Americans in particular abandoned church in droves, according to Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University and an expert on the nones. And I eventually became part of that group.

I didn’t leave church for any one reason. Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, I was reading more leftist Black intellectuals. Many of them either weren’t religious or were outright skeptical of faith. They didn’t view Black churches as essential to advancing Black causes today, even though King and many other major figures in the 1960s civil rights movement had been very devout. I started to notice there were plenty of people — Black and non-Black — who were deeply committed to equality and justice but were not religious.

At the same time, my Republican friends, many of whom had been very critical of Trump during his campaign, gradually became more accepting and even enthusiastic about him. While my policy views had always been to the left of these friends’, our shared Christianity had convinced me that we largely agreed on broader questions of morality and values. Their embrace of a man so obviously misaligned with the teachings of Jesus was unsettling. I began to realize that being a Democrat or a Republican, not being a Christian, was what drove the beliefs and attitudes of many Christians, perhaps including me.

And I couldn’t ignore how the word “Christian” was becoming a synonym for rabidly pro-Trump White people who argued that his and their meanness and intolerance were somehow justified and in some ways required to defend our faith.

I also came to a more nuanced understanding of my own life story. I had adopted the view from my parents and relatives that my rise from a middle-income household in which neither parent had a bachelor’s degree to Yale University and prestigious journalism jobs could have happened only with divine intervention. Perhaps that’s true. But an alternative explanation for my success was that I was the child of supportive, middle-class parents; they got me into some of the best schools in Louisville; and I did well in grade school, college and my jobs afterward.
Finally, something happened at church itself. One of the men who had been in the church group I hosted had sought to lead one himself. But a church higher-up told him he could participate in church activities but not lead anything because he is gay. I had not realized the church had such a policy. I learned that my church would also generally not conduct weddings for same-sex couples.
So between early 2017 and early 2020, I went from someone who clearly defined himself as a Christian and attended the same church most Sundays to someone who wasn’t sure about Christianity but was still kind of shopping for a new religious home and going to a service every few weeks. I wasn’t fully comfortable with the idea of vetting churches by their views on policy issues. I had never really done that before. (Perhaps I should have.)

“Your experience is very typical. Most people who disaffiliate do not cite a single precipitating factor. It’s more of a fading away from religion rather than a dramatic break,” said Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life.

On this front, the pandemic was kind of a relief. Churches were mostly closed. I couldn’t continue my halfhearted search for a new one. I watched an Easter service online in April 2020, during the early stages of the pandemic. But over the past two years, I’ve been to church only a handful of times — even skipping Easter services.

What has kept me away is having a child. If I were childless, I think I would join a church to be a part of its community, and I would ignore the theological elements I’m not sure about. But my 3-year-old is getting more inquisitive every day. I don’t want to take her to a place that has a specific view of the world as well as answers to the big questions and then have to explain to Charlotte that some people agree with all of the church’s ideas, Dad agrees with only some and many other people don’t agree with any.

I know I’m missing out on a lot, and I worry about denying Charlotte the church experience. Most sermons, theology aside, emphasize universal values such as kindness and generosity. I try to be a nice person, but weekly reminders and being part of a group that’s also trying to act in a compassionate manner are helpful. The churches I belonged to as an adult didn’t have a ton of Republicans, people in blue-collar jobs or people without college degrees, but there were some. So I met people who aren’t like me. People under 30 aren’t really in churches, but being a member of a church would be a great way for me to connect with more people over 50. (I’m 42.) I love live music and people singing collectively.

I know I could be a member of a congregation if I really wanted to. I could attend a Christian church on Sundays and teach my daughter about other beliefs the rest of the week. Or make churchgoing something I do alone.

People have told me to become a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarian churches I have attended had overwhelmingly White and elderly congregations and lacked the wide range of activities for adults and kids found at the Christian congregations that I was a part of. But they have a set of core beliefs that are aligned with more left-leaning people (“justice, equity and compassion in human relations,” for example) without a firm theology.

I’ve also thought about starting some kind of weekly Sunday-morning gathering of nones, to follow in my father’s footsteps in a certain way, or trying to persuade my friends to collectively attend one of the Unitarian churches in town and make it younger and more racially diverse.
But I’ve not followed through on any of these options. With all my reservations, I don’t really want to join an existing church. And I don’t think I am going to have much luck getting my fellow nones to join something I start. My sense is that the people who want what church provides are going to the existing Christian churches, even if they are skeptical of some of the beliefs. And those who aren’t at church are fine spending their Sunday mornings eating brunch, doing yoga or watching Netflix.

An organization called Sunday Assembly, founded in Britain in 2013, has tried to launch nonreligious congregations around the world, including in the United States, but has struggled to gain much traction.

America today is a nation of believers (about 70 percent say they have some religious faith) who don’t regularly attend religious services (only 30 percent go to services at least once a month). I’m the reverse: a person without clear beliefs about God who wants to go to something like church frequently anyway.

The Saturday farmers market in my neighborhood and a weekly happy hour of Louisville-area journalists provide some of what church once did for me: consistent gatherings of people with some shared values and interests. I’ve made new friends through both. And there are plenty of other groups and clubs I could join.

But none of those gatherings provide singing, sermons and solidarity all at once.
My upbringing makes me particularly inclined to see a church-size hole in American life. But as a middle-aged American in the middle of the country, I don’t think that hole is just in my imagination. Kids need places to learn values such as forgiveness, while schools focus on math and reading. Young adults need places to meet a potential spouse. Adults with children need places to meet with other parents and some free babysitting on weekends. Retirees need places to build new relationships, as their friends and spouses pass away.

Our society needs places that integrate people across class and racial lines. Newly woke Americans need places to get practical, weekly advice about how to live out the inclusive, anti-racist values they committed to during the Trump years. The anti-Trump majority in the United States needs institutions that are separate from the official Democratic Party, which is unsurprisingly more focused on winning elections than on creating a sense of community for left-leaning people.

There are lots of organizations trying to address those needs. But strong churches could address them all. That isn’t some fantasy or nostalgia. Many Americans, including me, were once part of churches that were essential parts of our lives. It’s strange to me that America, particularly its left-leaning cohort, is abandoning this institution, as opposed to reinventing to align with our 2023 values.

I can easily imagine a “church for the nones.” (It would need a more appealing name.) Start the service with songs with positive messages. Have children do a reading to the entire congregation and then go to a separate kids’ service. Reserve time when church members can tell the congregation about their highs and lows from the previous week. Listen as the pastor gives a sermon on tolerance or some other universal value, while briefly touching on whatever issues are in the news that week. A few more songs. The end. An occasional post-church brunch.

During the week, there would be activities, particularly ones in which parents could take their kids and civic-minded members could volunteer for good causes in the community.
I don’t expect the church of the nones to emerge. It’s not clear who would start it, fund it or decide its beliefs. But it should.

And personally, I really, really want it to. Theologically, I’m comfortable being a none. But socially, I feel a bit lost.

I really hope in a few years that Charlotte and I are something in particular.



---Perry Bacon Jr. is a Washington Post columnist. Before joining The Post in May 2021, Perry had stints as a government and elections writer for Time magazine, The Post's national desk, theGrio and FiveThirtyEight. He has also been been an on-air analyst at MSNBC and a fellow at New America. He grew up in Louisville and lives there now.

[kazoolaw]

^^^
And so the soul longs for God.

[Chuck Naill]

I read what you posted Ted. He never stated he had had any sort of relationship with Jesus or that he knew of anyone who did. He never said he had decided to become an apprentice of Jesus. Anyone who has read the New Testament would know what I am referring to. These two elements are basic fundamentals of the new Jewish sect that became known as Christianity.

I feel compassion for the writer, and I know how he feels. The combination of Evangelical embrace of Trump and the way they didn't protect themselves from the virus or take vaccines is enough not to want to be associated with them, but if we disassociate ourselves from them, we will not fully understand them. The Evangelical system includes charismatic, Pentacostal, the Social Gospel of MLK, and all of the other Protestant denominations. These systems depend on the ABC's of ministry or attendance, buildings, and cash. Those things can be measured. A pastor wants to do more, that must have more cash and tithers. They are not going to produce the sort of people who learn as Jesus students because it will not produce cash and is not measurable.

As someone said, in the US we have invented a religion and will have to live with it. Tithing was invented circa 1878. I have seen how several of these mega churches operate. It is possible to go to a church with thousands of members, give your 10%, and be in a small group, then experience something in your life, stop being able to attend, and no one will know you're not there. It pains me to say, but your membership or attendance is to do what the pastor thinks and get in on what he is doing. If you speak up, you will be asked to keep your opinions to yourself, even if what you say is based on scripture. Frankly, I am surprised as many people still go to these places as they do. It was interesting the author of what you posted said his uncle "ran" the church.


I would personally love to meet with other apprentices frequently for a meal or discussions so that others might know they have the option of becoming apprentices and experiencing the sort of life Jesus promised. I have thought about opening up my home and may do so at some point. Right now, what I need to do is simply live as an apprentice. I don't need to change the church. I don't need to change you or Chip. I don't have to live up to your standard of what you think a Christain is.

My position is one of practicality. If something works, I know it is real. If I am motivated by love and compassion, I will know it. If I am learning and progressing, I will know it. I can do this and never enter another church building.

I will venture a guess that 99 percent of those attending weekly church meetings have never heard or been taught was Jesus taught. They may have read it but redefined it as new member class material or how to participate in what the pastor thinks is important. It will include tithing and attendance. It will include telling other how to be save and go to heaven when you die. You will not hear about Spiritual Formation or the transformation of the mind. You will not be taught how to become an apprentice of Jesus because it is not something you can measure, and it doesn't produce good church members.

[TSherbs]

The Pope is weighing in on the debate about proper Christian faith: Pope is worried some American Catholics are substituting politics for faith (https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-vatican-conservatives-abortion-us-bbfc346c117bd9ae68a1963478bea6b3)

[Chuck Naill]

Not one mention of scripture, only Catholic doctrine. The Bible is the most popular and unread book ever written.

[Chuck Naill]

An example of how things are in America. This is from John Kilpatrick. You can look up his name. I attended a revival at his church in 1996.

From 2018:

“I am not being political, but I don't see how President Trump bears up under it," Kilpatrick said in his sermon. "He is as strong as I've ever seen a man be. But here's what the Holy Spirit said to me last night and what He said for me to tell you. He said, 'Tell the church that so far, Trump has been dealing with Ahab. But Jezebel's fixing to step out from the shadows.' That's what the Lord said to me.

"He said, 'Pray for him now, because he said there's about to be a shift, and the Deep State is about to manifest, and it's going to be a showdown like you can't believe.' So, I'm coming to you as a prophet, as a man of God, and I'm telling you, it's time to pray for the president."

[dneal]

What does that have to do with trinity doctrine? Your TDS is flared up something awful today.

[Chuck Naill]

What does that have to do with trinity doctrine?

Nothing to do with the trinity doctrine. Do I need to address the Trinitarian Community again?

What it does address is how Evangelicals embraced Trump and, in the process, alienated themselves from those attending or wanting a place to worship free of politicalization.

As Ted is pointing out, people are leaving in droves from places that have lost their way, or worse, never were what Jesus commanded them to do.

[dneal]

Don’t you have a political christian thread for your Trump rants?

[Chuck Naill]

If you’re going to try and control the narratives, make sure you follow your own lead. Or, just troll as usual.

[dneal]

You're confusing "controlling narratives" with pointing out you can't follow topics, but you being confused is a common occurrence.

[Chuck Naill]

You haven’t any idea what you’re talking about.

[dneal]

Sure I do. This thread is about trinity doctrine as a requirement for the definition of Christian. Is Jesus' divinity a key component?

Many denominations historically have rejected the notion, and others codified it.

You, on the other hand are mumbling about Trump. If there's anyone who doesn't know what they're talking about, it's clearly you.

[Chuck Naill]

No, this isn't the topic. It is about what defines "Christianity". The OP asked if he/she were still a Christain because they didn't believe Jesus was God.

Many denominations do exist. Many are not scripturally based but based on traditions.

No, I am pointing out that leaders within the church are combining belief in Jesus with supporting a political candidate.

Are you now saying you identify as a Christian?

[dneal]

You apparently don’t grasp the meaning of “divinity”.

You need a new mentor, it seems.

[Chuck Naill]

What do you think it means?

[Chuck Naill]

It’s important we focus on what Jesus thinks than what I or anyone thinks. If I read Plato, his words come first. If I read or listen to Trump or Biden, their words come first

[Chuck Naill]

Where does experience come into play? Maybe someone doesn’t know anything about scripture or theology, but they take what they know Jesus said and experience a life change? Do we discount it based on science says that can’t happen?

[dneal]

*yawn*

[Chuck Naill]

I knew you were not serious and just wanted to allow you to publicly demonstrate that you’re interested in trolling.

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading Luke 10 this morning. The story of an exchange between a religion professor and Jesus. The professor asks Jesus what was required to have eternal life. I have missed this exchange because I know the rest of the event. This educated Jew understood the availability of eternal life. The quality of life is being defined here. This Jewish teacher well understood the Leviticus 19 passage. He understood he was to love his neighbor as he loved himself. When he answered thus, Jesus said, "do this and you will live".

It has been posted here that people are choosing to not be affiliate with religion. I understand, but this exchange is not about attaining knowledge or theology, but about how one wakes each morning and decides to live their lives and not about church membership or being a Christian or Muslim, or anyone other member.

Notice Jesus didn't mention anything about the forgiviness of sin to get eternal life.

[Chuck Naill]

Israel is attacked because of the police actions shooting up a mosque last April during Ramadan and Passover. I was curious to learn about the genetic makeup of Palestinians. Some sources say the ancient Jewish and Samaritan indigenous people.

[Chuck Naill]

Always loved this quote, “Does that mean," asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"

"Not at all," smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop. "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

[dneal]

Israel is attacked because of the police actions shooting up a mosque last April during Ramadan and Passover. I was curious to learn about the genetic makeup of Palestinians. Some sources say the ancient Jewish and Samaritan indigenous people.

Ever hear of Canaan?

You need a new bible mentor.

[Chuck Naill]

Few if any concern for Palestinians is being voiced, many, I am discovering, are Jewish or mixed like Samaritan's. Historically, Jewish peasants who converted to Christianity and later Islam. From 2008-2020 there have been over 5000 Palestinian deaths compared to less than 300 Israeli.

I've asked myself, given the history we have of Jesus, how, as an apprentice, should I treat this situation? If those ancient Jewish peasants were the first to become Chrisitan, I would not be surprised to learn because of the demographics of Jesus followers.

"26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[a] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[b] might boast in the presence of God." I Corinthians 1:26-29

Today the modern Evangelical even thinks that Israel has a special deal with God. They wouldn't say it, but that is the way it is treated. Not many consider the same message to others would be presented to the Jewish people. These ideas are generated by "end time prophetic" beliefs where Jesus comes back and the Jews except their Messiah. I am personally okay with whatever plans God has; my focus is on being apprenticed to Jesus.

Jesus was Jewish of course yet he used the hated Samaritan as an example of a neighbor and later met with a Samaritan woman. He was accused of being a friend of sinners and a drunk.

[dneal]

Chuck, none of that has anything to do with this topic.

If you want to post anti-semitic rhetoric about the Israel/Palestine conflict, just start a thread.

[Chuck Naill]

Ironically the same person that cannot see racism can't understand what is and is not antisemitic. I see a pattern.

What I am posting directly relates to the topic because of the Jewish roots of becoming a student of Jesus. Both Jesus and Paul spoke honestly about the Jewish religion and Paul had a hard time with Judizers. Paul was at one time a persecutor of the new Jewish sect.

Discovered this from 130 CE, it provides a firsthand account of the early society of Jesus.
https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010522_diogneto_en.html

[dneal]

Ironically the same person that cannot see racism can't understand what is and is not antisemitic. I see a pattern.

I agree 100%. This is delicious on many levels, and you'll never understand why.

[Chuck Naill]

Ironically the same person that cannot see racism can't understand what is and is not antisemitic. I see a pattern.

I agree 100%. This is delicious on many levels, and you'll never understand why.

You don't want to understand why, and it explains your error on so many levels. You appear to be a captive of your preferences rather than being able to reason that what you think might need to be reconsidered. You're stuck.

[dneal]

A lot of nonsense proving my point. Not surprising, but thanks anyway.

[kazoolaw]

.

Discovered this from 130 CE, it provides a firsthand account of the early society of Jesus.
https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010522_diogneto_en.html

Didn't know that the Jesuits(Society of Jesus) were around in 130 Christian Era. You sure?

[Chuck Naill]

.

Discovered this from 130 CE, it provides a firsthand account of the early society of Jesus.
https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010522_diogneto_en.html

Didn't know that the Jesuits(Society of Jesus) were around in 130 Christian Era. You sure?


I use the phrase as any gathering of apprentices of Jesus. I got the usage from Dr. Willard and liked the application for any group of students of Jesus.

[kazoolaw]

Curious why the adoption of the name of a Catholic religious order of priests?

[Chuck Naill]

Our use is not the same as what you posted, "Society of Jesus". As you quoted, I wrote, "a firsthand account of the early society of Jesus". The early followers were closely involved with one another. This persists today in some areas. I think their involvement was not our usual experience of being around other believers once a week.

Yesterday and today, I am studying the Palestinian Christians and other peoples including Samaritans. I found this interesting:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-evangelicals-get-wrong-about-israel-and-the-palestinians
https://www.telosgroup.org/

If we want to understand the definition of a Christian, looking back 2000 years will help. What I posted helps me understand that believers lived in different cultures while maintaining their allegiance to what Jesus and the first apprentices taught. For me, this is a guide that I find practical, learn to do what Jesus prescribed. These people were societies within any political structure for which they found themselves.

Today American Evangelicals are calling for Christians to stand for Israel. However, is the call to stand with the Jewish people or a political institution? The difference matters IMHO. I stand with the Jewish people and the Palestinian people in the same way I stand for the Ukrainian people who have had their country ravaged by Russia. I do not support what the pollical powers have done in humiliating the Palestinian people or increasing settlements. Nor the Trump deal which left them out of the negotiations. Do you?

Also, between 1948 and '67 Palestinian Christians were forced out along with other peoples. Just this year an Israel politician introduced a bill to imprison anyone proselytizing Jewish people toward Christianity. It didn't pass, but you can appreciate the sentiment that some feel.

Some Palestinian Christians were prohibited from celebrating the Christmas Holidays in Bethlehem.

The current attacks were blamed on Israel's Police attacking Muslims at a mosque in April 2023 for two days.


"“We sort of imported this conflict into our own culture, and into our churches, into our own politics,” Deatherage told me, as two WeWorkers played table tennis nearby. “We’ve created these ways of engaging it that are very one sided—they’re zero sum. So if I’m pro-Israeli, I’m by default anti-Palestinian. If I’m pro-Palestinian I’m, by default, anti-Israeli. That’s the kind of space for engaging it right now. So we’ve come around and suggested that maybe there’s a third way.” He’s also trying to reach a pro-Palestine constituency that demonizes Israel. He argues that a good future for Israelis requires a good future for the Palestinians."

"The conflict, he says, has become a domestic issue in American politics, especially among evangelicals raised with a pro-Israel narrative. “It’s the software that’s pre-loaded into us in certain segments of the evangelical church that we just kinda grow up thinking that whatever happened in the Middle East in contemporary affairs is definitely God working something out there,” Deatherage said. “And that we gotta bless Israel. We gotta stand with Israel. We gotta be with Israel because they’re God’s people, and God’s project, right?”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/10/evangelicals-israel-palestinians-telos-225704/

Yet, Paul in Romans depicted two Israels and the "grafted in outsiders", like me. Some in Paul's time became disciples of Jesus and some or most didn't. Some tried to make the new followers of Jesus follow Jewish Law including circumcision. Paul struggled with these "Judaizers" throughout his many travels. Jesus struggled with the same people. He said, unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. The way I interpret Paul saying "all Israel will be saved" is that both the insiders (Jewish people) and outsiders (Gentiles) will comprise God's people. I find nowhere in scripture any other teaching that provides a special deal for one group or another.

Last night a question came to mind. When a Jewish person during Jesus's time decided he was the Messiah, did they forfeit Abraham's land, seed, and blessing? I find no Biblical support for that idea. Was Paul no longer a Jew because he became an apprentice of Jesus?

[kazoolaw]

With all respect, that’s a lot words avoiding a simple question.
No matter: precision of language is no longer a goal or virtue.

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz, I never avoid. I attempted simply to explain that my use of “society” has nothing to do with the group for which you referred. No connection. I had never heard of Society of Jesus before your post.

[Chuck Naill]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/friend-to-palestinians-and-jews_b_1128290

[kazoolaw]

Kaz, I never avoid. I attempted simply to explain that my use of “society” has nothing to do with the group for which you referred. No connection. I had never heard of Society of Jesus before your post.

And now that you know?

[TSherbs]

Kaz, I never avoid. I attempted simply to explain that my use of “society” has nothing to do with the group for which you referred. No connection. I had never heard of Society of Jesus before your post.

And now that you know?

Know what? That Ignatius did not actually even call his group "Society of Jesus"? That the phrase was used a century earlier by a pope for a military group on crusade? (and of course, not in English). That at first to be called a "Jesuit" was derogatory?

[kazoolaw]

All, or any, of those things.
Jesuits refer to themselves as the Society of Jesus: https://www.jesuits.org/about-us/the-jesuits/
All of your references are Roman Catholic: do you think Chuck meant to align himself with Roman Catholics, or an RC religious order?

[TSherbs]

All, or any, of those things.
Jesuits refer to themselves as the Society of Jesus: https://www.jesuits.org/about-us/the-jesuits/
All of your references are Roman Catholic: do you think Chuck meant to align himself with Roman Catholics, or an RC religious order?


??

He answered this already. Of course he did not.

Although I am not a true Christian, my understanding is that one cannot be a Christian and not be in "alignment," at least partially, with other Christians, especially not with the earliest ones. I struggle to see your point in focusing on this. I looked up the phrase: Willard uses it a few times. Always seemed clear what he meant: a new order on original values. And by "order," no, I don't mean the narrow sense of a Catholic "Order."

Perhaps *you* would like to comment on what *you* make of the echoing of this phraseology from Ignatius' group. What difference could it make, to you?

[TSherbs]

After all, the earliest Protestants were Catholics, as Jesus was a practicing Jew. The through-line is indelible. All of these things, therefore, echo each other at times.

[TSherbs]

Additionally, I have posted several times that I consider monastic living (mostly Catholic, historically, but that doesn't matter to me) the truest form of following Jesus (voluntary poverty, devotion, meditation, service to the needy).

[dneal]

Perhaps *you* would like to comment on what *you* make of the echoing of this phraseology from Ignatius' group. What difference could it make, to you?

An odd "suggestion" followed by a good question.

Hmm.

Indeed, what comment is relevant to an exchange between Kaz and Chuck? Refereeing the exchange probably isn't one of them. And what difference could it make to you?

Maybe this belongs in Chip's "weird" thread.

[kazoolaw]

All, or any, of those things.
Jesuits refer to themselves as the Society of Jesus: https://www.jesuits.org/about-us/the-jesuits/
All of your references are Roman Catholic: do you think Chuck meant to align himself with Roman Catholics, or an RC religious order?


??

He answered this already. Of course he did not.

Although I am not a true Christian, my understanding is that one cannot be a Christian and not be in "alignment," at least partially, with other Christians, especially not with the earliest ones. I struggle to see your point in focusing on this. I looked up the phrase: Willard uses it a few times. Always seemed clear what he meant: a new order on original values. And by "order," no, I don't mean the narrow sense of a Catholic "Order."

Perhaps *you* would like to comment on what *you* make of the echoing of this phraseology from Ignatius' group. What difference could it make, to you?

TS-
You can be counted on to miss what is there to be seen: "...precision of language is no longer a goal or virtue."
What does Chuck using "society of Jesus" mean to me? It means he didn't know that the term pre-existed his usage or that it means something entirely different than he intended. Chuck used a term used by the Jesuits, and many others, to identify themselves. Using a term with a widely accepted definition as meaning something entirely different causes confusion. I don't think he would knowingly align himself with a Roman Catholic religious order, particularly in light of comments you and he have made about the Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal.
You agree with Chuck and I that he didn't mean to align himself with Jesuits. Chuck can consider continuing to use the term after weighing any misunderstanding or confusion it may create. [My quick look at Dr. Willard's usage found the term in quotation marks.]
Which brings me back to my point: precision of language is no longer a goal or virtue. No theology required.

[TSherbs]

Your post is simply about precision of language? In a chat forum on fountain pens?

Well, ok then. You even wrote a grammatical error while you were criticizing Chuck's imprecise language use. We all fall short of our virtues.

[dneal]

I think he “made” a grammatical error.

[kazoolaw]

Your post is simply about precision of language? In a chat forum on fountain pens?

Well, ok then. You even wrote a grammatical error while you were criticizing Chuck's imprecise language use. We all fall short of our virtues.

TS-
You’ve made it clear over the years that neither precision of language nor clarity of thought are priorities for you.

[TSherbs]

Your post is simply about precision of language? In a chat forum on fountain pens?

Well, ok then. You even wrote a grammatical error while you were criticizing Chuck's imprecise language use. We all fall short of our virtues.

TS-
You’ve made it clear over the years that neither precision of language nor clarity of thought are priorities for you.



all ad hominem

Why would you ask me any questions on any thread if all you end up doing is devolving to ad hominem jibes? I have little choice but to treat your future posts as insincere attempts to draw people in for criticism or mockery. Chuck seems to have limitless tolerance for this kind of exchange, but I am done with it. You were the last member on these back pages I was giving a chance to show some interest in change in tone. I see that you are not. Conversation with you is over.

[dneal]

TS-
You’ve made it clear over the years that neither precision of language nor clarity of thought are priorities for you.



all ad hominem

But not untrue.



Why would you ask me any questions on any thread if all you end up doing is devolving to ad hominem jibes? I have little choice but to treat your future posts as insincere attempts to draw people in for criticism or mockery. Chuck seems to have limitless tolerance for this kind of exchange, but I am done with it. You were the last member on these back pages I was giving a chance to show some interest in change in tone. I see that you are not. Conversation with you is over.

TSherbs injects himself into a discussion, tries to shift it to something irrelevant, questions why someone is interested in the irrelevant, and gets offended when the irrelevance is pointed out. Bizarrely, there’s more.

“Conversation over”, he declares.

The “what is the point” question remains.

[kazoolaw]

Your post is simply about precision of language? In a chat forum on fountain pens?

Well, ok then. You even wrote a grammatical error while you were criticizing Chuck's imprecise language use. We all fall short of our virtues.

TS-
You’ve made it clear over the years that neither precision of language nor clarity of thought are priorities for you.



all ad hominem

Why would you ask me any questions on any thread if all you end up doing is devolving to ad hominem jibes? I have little choice but to treat your future posts as insincere attempts to draw people in for criticism or mockery. Chuck seems to have limitless tolerance for this kind of exchange, but I am done with it. You were the last member on these back pages I was giving a chance to show some interest in change in tone. I see that you are not. Conversation with you is over.

”I have little choice but…”
You have every choice available to you, including those you have already made. You expressed your surprise/disdain/incredulity that I am in favor of precision of language in this forum. You’ve indicated that’s not a priority for you. Why, then would you be offended when I repeated your position? You made that choice, but you don’t get to make the the choice for others to ignore that. When you made the statement that any citizen over 18 with a heartbeat should be able to vote you seemed surprised that I pointed out that you would include the senile and mentally ill as qualified voters. Did you say what you meant? Was your thought expressed clearly?
You retreat behind “ad hominem” to deflect from analysis of your posts. I’ve ascribed no evil intent or character flaw to you. I think words have meaning, and should be used with some attempt at clarity.
Something about the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

[Chuck Naill]

Again, I wrote, "a firsthand account of the early society of Jesus”. Not, “Society of Jesus”. For someone so particular about language, it should be obvious the two do not mean the same unless “society “ and “Jesus” are not to be used together in the same sentence without sowing confusion for some.

[kazoolaw]

You are free to use the same three words in the same order and mean two different things. How do you pronounce “society” differently from “Society?”

[Chuck Naill]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]You are free to use the same three words in the same order and mean two different things.

Okay, so how did you get confused? The "s" in society was lower case in my post. I am honestly trying to address your concern.

[Chuck Naill]

All, or any, of those things.
Jesuits refer to themselves as the Society of Jesus: https://www.jesuits.org/about-us/the-jesuits/
All of your references are Roman Catholic: do you think Chuck meant to align himself with Roman Catholics, or an RC religious order?


??

He answered this already. Of course he did not.

Although I am not a true Christian, my understanding is that one cannot be a Christian and not be in "alignment," at least partially, with other Christians, especially not with the earliest ones. I struggle to see your point in focusing on this. I looked up the phrase: Willard uses it a few times. Always seemed clear what he meant: a new order on original values. And by "order," no, I don't mean the narrow sense of a Catholic "Order."

Perhaps *you* would like to comment on what *you* make of the echoing of this phraseology from Ignatius' group. What difference could it make, to you?

Thank you, Ted. I could have used early communities, affiliations, ecclesia, or gatherings. I thought of another term, "way" that is both generic and proper. Jesus said he was the way or path. Early believers referred to their path as The Way. "Kingdom is another such term that can refer to a basileus or refer to a specific kingdom as in Kingdom of God. When Jesus said to "first seek the Kingdom of God and his kind of right living", he was referring to a specific sort of rule and dominion.

You interpretation of Dr. Willard's use in the same as mine. I do not think he was referring to a specific group based on the context for which he used it. I have benefitted greatly from reading Dallas Willard. His interpretations resonate with me, and his language is always full of grace and understanding of the human condition. Eugene Peterson is the same. 90 percent of the time I only use The Message Bible, not to be confused with the message of the Bible.

I believe the confusion stems form not considering the context, which is a common mistake on these topics.

[Chuck Naill]

So, I looked up Society of Jesus and found, “The Society of Jesus” founded in the 1500’s, certainly not associated with early societies of Jesus, but 1500 years later.

[kazoolaw]

You are free to use the same three words in the same order and mean two different things. How do you pronounce “society” differently from “Society?”





Okay, so how did you get confused? The "s" in society was lower case in my post. I am honestly trying to address your concern.

You first seemed surprised that you had appropriated a term with an entirely different religious connotation. I understand that you adopted that phrase without knowing it has long been in use, with a different meaning and history.
Despite using the exact same words, used in the exact same order, which are pronounced exactly the same, you insist there is no possibility of confusion.
You share that theory of language with a famous literary figure:
“When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I said choose it to mean-neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

[kazoolaw]

So, I looked up Society of Jesus and found, “The Society of Jesus” founded in the 1500’s, certainly not associated with early societies of Jesus, but 1500 years later.

The problem is, as you point out, the Society of Jesus has approximately 500 years of history with its name.

[Chuck Naill]

So, I looked up Society of Jesus and found, “The Society of Jesus” founded in the 1500’s, certainly not associated with early societies of Jesus, but 1500 years later.

The problem is, as you point out, the Society of Jesus has approximately 500 years of history with its name.


I didn't say there was a problem, Kaz.

Have you ever considered where and why the Jesuits used the concept of "society" to describe their community? They no doubt didn't expect someone to attribute ownership of the concept to them exclusively. Unbeknownst to you, you have stumbled upon what the church is, not a monastic community, but an everyday common ordinary society living in whatever political or cultural environment they find themselves.

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, so how did you get confused? The "s" in society was lower case in my post. I am honestly trying to address your concern.

You first seemed surprised that you had appropriated a term with an entirely different religious connotation. I understand that you adopted that phrase without knowing it has long been in use, with a different meaning and history.
Despite using the exact same words, used in the exact same order, which are pronounced exactly the same, you insist there is no possibility of confusion.
You share that theory of language with a famous literary figure:
“When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I said choose it to mean-neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”


No surprise here. I was happy to learn the idea of society was recognized as late as the 1500's. Do you know if "community or Christ" is taken? Now I am confused, why do you think " has long been in use, with a different meaning "? How is the meaning different in your view?

Actually, my theory of language would have told me a lower case "s" was not to be referencing a specific group. Also, "early" would have told me the context was not something occurring in 1500. Early would, in the context of the statement and topic, would refer to the first century. Then, you have to ask yourself, were there societies of disciple of Jesus in the first century? If so, my use would be what anyone with a smattering of sense about the topic understand as valid.

[kazoolaw]

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put CN’s posts together again.
Good night Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

Common sense, can.

It was common in that era as in today for a mingling of societies. The societies of Jews, Gentiles, Romans, Christians, Hellenistic people’s existence and practices of their individual cultures within the larger political strata is well documented.

The idea that a word, society, needs to belong to one group is the substance of a trolls folly, humpty. 🥸

[kazoolaw]

Post 897: The First Law of Holes illustrated.

[Chuck Naill]

And you have a law degree? Was it of the mail order variety?

[dneal]

And you have a law degree? Was it of the mail order variety?

That's it?

"You got your law degree in the mail?"

C'mon Chuck, surely you can come up with something better than that.

It's like canned 1950's sitcom humor - but the laugh track is only playing in your head.

Pitiful.

[Chuck Naill]

It will always dissatisfy those on the outside to understand the society that is available to apprentices of Jesus. They come from all demographics, denominations, genders, and backgrounds.

[kazoolaw]

And you have a law degree? Was it of the mail order variety?

Lay your shovel down, enjoy a day of rest.

[Chuck Naill]

And you have a law degree? Was it of the mail order variety?

Lay your shovel down, enjoy a day of rest.


:focus:

[Chuck Naill]

From Iran and my idea of church.

“These house churches are usually comprised of no more than 10 to 15 believers. On a given day, they arrive, one by one, at a small apartment or some other nondescript location. After the last one enters, the door closes and locks, and they all take a deep breath and relax, greeting each other warmly.

A few minutes later, the little gathering begins to sing — very softly, accompanied by a quietly strummed guitar. They are cautious, not wanting their voices to be heard beyond the apartment’s thin walls. But soon, with closed eyes and hands lifted heavenward, they are lost in praise and worship music. Later a teaching from a biblical passage is offered and a communion service takes place. And finally, after more conversation they leave, one by one.”

https://www.hudson.org/religious-freedom/good-news-iran-million-new-christian-believers-lela-gilbert

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding Mike Johnson, I have to ask, what Bible is he using? This is a good example of my argument that definitions matter. Clinging to a book that you have decided fits your political world view is dangerous. Besides fostering inhumanity again individuals, it can destroy a nation based on all men being equal forever.

" On October 25, after three weeks of being unable to unite behind a speaker after extremists tossed out Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican conference coalesced behind Representative Mike Johnson (R-LA) in part because he was obscure enough to have avoided scrutiny.

Since then, his past has been unearthed, showing interviews in which he asserted that we do not live in a democracy but in a “Biblical republic.” He told a Fox News Channel interviewer that to discover his worldview, one simply had to “go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.”

Johnson is staunchly against abortion rights and gay rights, including same-sex marriage, and says that immigration is “the true existential threat to the country.” In a 2016 sermon he warned that the 1960s and 1970s undermined “the foundations of religion and morality in the U.S.” and that attempts to address climate change, for example, are an attempt to destroy capitalism.

Like other adherents of Christian nationalism, Johnson appears to reject the central premise of democracy: that we have a right to be treated equally before the law. And while his wife, Kelly, noted last year on a podcast that only about 4% of Americans “still adhere to a Biblical worldview,” they appear to reject the idea we have the right to a say in our government. In 2021, Johnson was a key player in the congressional attempt to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election. "

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/october-29-2023?utm_source=substack&publication_id=20533&post_id=138405619&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=87nb3

[kazoolaw]

CN, adopting his worldview from the Book of HRC.

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz

Considering the posted direct emboldened quotes and his reference to a Biblical Republic, do you agree? Is the US a Bible Republic? If so, should it be in your opinion?

[kazoolaw]

I see HRC’s reference to a Biblical Republic, not Johnson’s. I defer comment until I see any Johnson reference in context.
Isn’t the Bible your worldview?

[dneal]

Just to clarify, it's HCR.

HRC is a different animal entirely, although I'm sure Chuck is fond of her too.

[kazoolaw]

You are correct.
Trying not to be triggered by that transposition.
Yikes!

[Chuck Naill]

It is a direct quote, guys.

[kazoolaw]

To be clearer: what is the source for HCR’s “Biblical Republic?”

[kazoolaw]

Using Google, I entered the search term |"biblical republic" + johnson| Apparently this is the quote generating the "biblical republic" term:

"You know, we don’t live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. OK? It’s not just majority rule. It’s a constitutional republic. The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like. What’s happened, Alex, over the last 60 or 70 years, is that our generation has been convinced that there is a separation of church and state. Most people think that that’s part of the Constitution, but it’s not. Remember, I’m a constitutional lawyer.” – Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, in a 2016 interview. (emphasis added)

See the video also at X: https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1717342823572259075?s=20

As you see, Johnson never used the term attributed to him, instead describing the US as a "constitutional republic". This is a common description of the American form of democracy. https://americanheritage.org/the-american-principle-practice-and-morality-of-a-constitutional-republic/ Not a religious term.

Recall that not every use of quotation marks signals someone is repeating the exact words of a source. Consider scare quotes: "Scare quotes enclose a word or a phrase in quotation marks or “scare quotes” to indicate that it is being used ironically or in a nonstandard way (conveying a meaning other than the usual)."
https://editorsmanual.com/articles/quotation-marks/

All of which is a long way of saying it's best to go to the source, regardless of the political persuasion of the author.

[dneal]

HCR apparently spreads misinformation, not unlike HRC.

[Chuck Naill]

For me, and as a disciple of Jesus, I see the scriptures as applicable to me and not to everyone else. I choose to follow what was handed down to Moses and validated by Jesus as the way to live life well, to be a good person. Using these "rules for living", I would not be able to steal native people's lands, mistreat women and children, hate homosexuals, transitioning people, enslave people, cheat, murder, dishonor my ancestors, not love God, or treat others as I would hope they would not treat me.

Having said this, I cannot force others to live by those standards. I can construct laws that carry the spirit of those laws and prescribe a system so that citizens are compelled to follow them and make then applicable to everyone. For example, perjury is lying under oath which is a form of not bearing false witness. People go to jail of stealing, murder and suffer the penalties of adultery if caught.

However, it is not against the law to be a homosexual in the United States, presently. It is not against the law to have peaceful protests, usually. As the founders wrote and Abraham Lincoln and Suffragists used, all men and later women, former slaves, are created equal. This equality is foundational to our way of living. It means we have to compromise or learn to compromise with others. It doesn't mean we have to compromise ourselves. We are free to live as we choose under the idea that all American are created equal and free to do what makes them happy.

I would not want to live in a society in which the idea of equality is not allowed or where one person's interpretation of a book is applied to everyone. Even a casual reading of the New Testament shows that what Jesus taught, and the other writers wrote later was applicable to those who made the decision to follow Jesus and become his apprentice. Jesus didn't change the message to accommodate the tax collector or the sex worker. He also didn't condemn. The idea was that anybody and everyone had access to God's agenda if they so choose. This would result in their inside living to reflect the same kind of being right Jesus portrayed. Not everyone wants this or should they. Since God respects dignity of everyone to decide for themselves, I follow the same path.

[kazoolaw]

I guess that’s 4 paragraphs to concede that it wasn’t a “direct quote.”

And an outline of CN’s Biblical worldview. His exercise of the 2nd Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Which we all enjoy. Even politicians.

[Chuck Naill]

I have finally discovered why American Evangelical’s can support Donald Trump.

I’ve been introduced to Christian Zionism. For them, the state of Israel represents an interpretation of Old and New Testament prophecies.

Anything that supports Israel is God’s will and it doesn’t matter by what means and by whom it is accomplished.

The fact that Israel is a secular state makes no difference since eventually all of them will turn to God.

[Chuck Naill]

Another connection point. The New Apostolic Reformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

For everyone considering supporting Trump, even if you are not affiliated, this sort of thing should give you pause. It reminds me of "Shephardship". that became a part of Penecostal and Charismatic Churches in the '70's. It is related to Dispensationalism.

What is amazing is that it is Biblically untenable. The root cause is that people who attend these churches do not read the scriptures. They listen to these people and consider them God's spokespeople. They are more dangerous than Trump. Trump is a pawn since he needs their votes and support.

[welch]

Using Google, I entered the search term |"biblical republic" + johnson| Apparently this is the quote generating the "biblical republic" term:

"You know, we don’t live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. OK? It’s not just majority rule. It’s a constitutional republic. The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like. What’s happened, Alex, over the last 60 or 70 years, is that our generation has been convinced that there is a separation of church and state. Most people think that that’s part of the Constitution, but it’s not. Remember, I’m a constitutional lawyer.” – Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, in a 2016 interview. (emphasis added)



This indicates that Johnson ought to read what James Madison wrote against Patrick Henry's proposal that Virginia should fund "Teachers of the Christian Religion". That's his "Memorial and Remonstrance", from 1785. Madison wrote that it would mix the church and government, to the harm of both.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163

The Church of England had mostly dis-established itself by supporting the monarchy and Parliament during the Revolution. Henry had pushed a bill that would have funded Anglican, Presbyterian, and Baptist preachers. The "Memorial" is Madison's thinking behind the "Congress shall make no law..." amendment. By it, states were forbidden to re-establish a religion after the then-current establishments were taken down. One by one, all states removed their religious establishments.

Johnson seems to know little about the earlier constitutions or the Founders, who wrote the Declaration and led the US to Independence, or the Framers, who wrote the Federal Constitution. I don't know why he might claim that "The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like", or what evidence he has. Other than that he boasts that he is a constitutional lawyer.

One of the best books I've read on the meaning of the Constitution is Ratification, by Pauline Maier. She takes the reader through the battles in each state ratification convention, working her story from (officially recorded) debates, plus letters, plus newspaper summaries. Johnson should at least have read Maier, as well as Gordon Wood's Creation of the American Republic. In Wood, the Founders often quote or refer to John Locke -- as did the defenders of Parliament, by the way. Johnson seems to have projected his own religion back to 18th Century American political thinkers.

Maier: https://www.amazon.com/Ratification-People-Debate-Constitution-1787-1788-ebook/dp/B003UYURJC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=23HOT3WBP0RHY&keywords=pauline+maier+ratific&qid=1700003743&sprefix=pauline+maier+ratific%2Caps%2C86&sr=8-1

Wood: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gordon+wood+creation+of+the+american+republic&crid=3CZ6JAAFQBJUD&sprefix=gordon+wood+%2Caps%2C96&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_2_12

One might almost ask: is Johnson any more of a constitutional lawyer than Hugh Laurie is a doctor because he played one on TV? Yes, that's an overstatement, but, lordie, lordie, (as my Methodist grannie would say), how do we know that Johnson knows anything?

[TSherbs]

One might almost ask: is Johnson any more of a constitutional lawyer than Hugh Laurie is a doctor because he played one on TV? Yes, that's an overstatement, but, lordie, lordie, (as my Methodist grannie would say), how do we know that Johnson knows anything?

I believe that Johnson does know what he is talking about. Here, he is dissembling. Like many ambitious politicians, he is a bullshitter. I am not going to bother to explain his dissembling and dodging and mixing of terms and definitions (his bullshit isn't worth it). But I think that he knows exactly what the Constitutional truth is and how his statement is an act of mis-direction and forkedtonguery. He is just willing to dissemble to serve his vision of a nation and set of laws based in Christian principles (his version of them, anyway).

[kazoolaw]

Using Google, I entered the search term |"biblical republic" + johnson| Apparently this is the quote generating the "biblical republic" term:

"You know, we don’t live in a democracy because a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. OK? It’s not just majority rule. It’s a constitutional republic. The founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like. What’s happened, Alex, over the last 60 or 70 years, is that our generation has been convinced that there is a separation of church and state. Most people think that that’s part of the Constitution, but it’s not. Remember, I’m a constitutional lawyer.” – Newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, in a 2016 interview. (emphasis added)




Johnson seems to know little about the earlier constitutions or the Founders, who wrote the Declaration and led the US to Independence, or the Framers, who wrote the Federal Constitution.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
-George Washington's Farewell Address

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams, Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798

Those pesky Founding Fathers and their inconvenient truths.

[Chuck Naill]

More inconvenient truths, Washington owned 137 humans.

[kazoolaw]

I believe that Johnson does know what he is talking about. Here, he is dissembling. Like many ambitious politicians, he is a bullshitter. I am not going to bother to explain his dissembling and dodging and mixing of terms and definitions (his bullshit isn't worth it). But I think that he knows exactly what the Constitutional truth is and how his statement is an act of mis-direction and forkedtonguery. He is just willing to dissemble to serve his vision of a nation and set of laws based in Christian principles (his version of them, anyway).

Reading between the lines:




I believe that Johnson does know what he is talking about. {blah-blah-blah}dissembling. {blah-blah-blah}bullshitter. I am not going to bother to explain his dissembling and dodging and mixing of terms and definitions {because a week later I still won't cite any specifics.} {blah-blah-blah}mis-direction and forkedtonguery. He is just willing ...to serve his vision of a nation and set of laws based in Christian principles {which I disagree with but won't state here}

But we can see that he got the Constitutional republic part correct, eh?

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz, provide us with with your definition of a constitution republic.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, are you going to answer my question from Post 908?

For ease of reference and for this discussion, I generally agree that a constitutional republic
is “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices…for a limited period, or during good behavior.” A constitutional republic follows a written constitution of laws by which the people, their representatives, and the government agree to abide. A republic differs from a pure or direct democracy, as Madison explains in Federalist Paper 14, which is governed directly by the whole body of citizens who “meet and exercise the government in person.”

[Chuck Naill]

I’ll answer any spirituality based question regarding Jesus.

[kazoolaw]

Does the Jesus of the Bible reflect your worldview?

[Chuck Naill]

He did describe how the world works, if that’s your question. If people would do what he prescribed, it would be transformative in that we would learn how to live life well.

[kazoolaw]

Nope, not my question.
I’ll check back if you decide to answer the entire question.

[Chuck Naill]

I answered as I interpreted the question. It was oddly presented, but I took a chance.

[kazoolaw]

Still dodging.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes.

[Chuck Naill]

I read this from HCR this morning. I have a question after the quote.

"Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone reported today that one of those MAGA Republicans, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), spoke freely Tuesday night at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., at a celebration for the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. Although the address was being livestreamed, Johnson apparently believed he was speaking privately. He told the audience that the Lord called him to be “a new Moses.”

Johnson, an evangelical Christian, told the audience that the U.S. is “engaged in a battle between worldviews” and “a great struggle for the future of the Republic.” He said he believed far-right Christians would prevail.

Did Jesus or any of the apostles ever say anything resembling these remarks from Johnson?


Any reader of history knows various world views have always existed. There were several world views present when Jesus walked in Palestine. Did he ever try to simplify the world view into one? What he did is to let others know the Kingdom of God was now an option. Those that did followed and those that didn't, didn't.

[kazoolaw]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.

[dneal]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


Chuck, I think I found you a better mentor.

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


What battle do you think Jesus was referring? Was it a physical or spiritual battle. It would help if you would post the verses you have in mind.

Why would Christians be hated?

Why would families turn on their Christian relatives?

I am trying to understand your point in posting what you did in response to the Mike Johnson's quote. Mike Johnson is trying to force his religion on everyone. Do you think Jesus intent was to make everyone follow his teachings whether they were Christians or not. Would you want to be under the rules of a religion for which you did not agree?

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


Chuck, I think I found you a better mentor.

No, I'm good....LOL!!

[Chuck Naill]

For example, Jesus knew that if one were to become his student, they would suffer because they would live their lives as he would if he were them. They would come to act as he did. We need to be reminded that Jesus suffered because he came up against the Jewish politics of his day. Those Jewish leaders had control and Jesus was a threat. He said that unless your being right exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you can't get in on what the Father is doing. Just like him, when you begin to talk about what he said within the Evangelical communities in the US, you might be asked to leave. They have invented a religion and now must live with it. This was true in Jesus' day and we know what happened.

No where does Jesus say to impose what he prescribed upon those that aren't interested. He didn't push. His message was not "go to heaven when you die". His message are that the Kingdom of God was now within the grasp of anyone whose intent was to take it into their lives.

The scriptures are compiled in a handbook produced by believers for believers. Thinking it is a prescription for the unaffiliated has led to all sorts of problems.

[kazoolaw]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


What battle do you think Jesus was referring? Was it a physical or spiritual battle. It would help if you would post the verses you have in mind.

Why would Christians be hated?

Why would families turn on their Christian relatives?



Let's take your questions in two parts.

Verses referred to include:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword..."
Matt 10:34-36. See also, Matt 10:21-23.
"And you shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren..."
Luke 21:16-17. See also, Mark 13:12.

There is certainly a spiritual battle and, to the extent believers are beaten and killed, a physical battle.

Christians are hated because for believing and following Jesus:
"You will be hated by all because of My name..." Matt 10:21
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you..." John 15:18-19
Christians are hated by some as heretics.

Families turn on Christian family members for some of the same reasons that others do: rejecting Jesus teaching "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one come to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6), being called to a different life style, different cultures, not wanting to be told there is evil and sin in the world, not wanting to be "told what to do,"
etc

[kazoolaw]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


I am trying to understand your point in posting what you did in response to the Mike Johnson's quote. Mike Johnson is trying to force his religion on everyone. Do you think Jesus intent was to make everyone follow his teachings whether they were Christians or not. Would you want to be under the rules of a religion for which you did not agree?

Part 2

I have seen nothing that indicates to me that Michael Johnson is "trying to force his religion on everyone.
The claimed "biblical republic" quote turns out to have been a reference to a "constitutional republic." I've pointed this out in Post 913 above. And outlined what I think a constitutional republic is in Post 925.

Some of those on the left are aghast and agog at the mention of God and religion by someone holding public office. For years God was a routine part of public discourse. For example the following from a highly thought of political figure after listing a number of blessings upon America:
"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy... And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union."

Back to Jesus, it was His desire that all would believe. He knew that not everyone would, but each of us has that choice.

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


What battle do you think Jesus was referring? Was it a physical or spiritual battle. It would help if you would post the verses you have in mind.

Why would Christians be hated?

Why would families turn on their Christian relatives?



Let's take your questions in two parts.

Verses referred to include:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword..."
Matt 10:34-36. See also, Matt 10:21-23.
"And you shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren..."
Luke 21:16-17. See also, Mark 13:12.

There is certainly a spiritual battle and, to the extent believers are beaten and killed, a physical battle.

Christians are hated because for believing and following Jesus:
"You will be hated by all because of My name..." Matt 10:21
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you..." John 15:18-19
Christians are hated by some as heretics.

Families turn on Christian family members for some of the same reasons that others do: rejecting Jesus teaching "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one come to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6), being called to a different life style, different cultures, not wanting to be told there is evil and sin in the world, not wanting to be "told what to do,"
etc



Okay, I thought those were the scriptures you were referring.

Have you experienced persecution as a Christian? Have you known anyone who has experienced persecution in the US?

Have you experienced persecution from your family for being a Christian? Have you ever had a different interpretation of scripture from the church you attended? How were you treated?

Do you feel as an American the freedom to be a Christian? Have you ever been prevented from following Jesus?

If abortion is wrong for you, should it be wrong for all Americans? If so, why?

Do you consider Mike Johnson a type of Moses and why?

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus did not teach that all worldviews would blend into one, but that there would a battle.
Jesus spoke of Christians being hated, persecuted, and put to death.
Jesus spoke of foes of Christians being within their own families.


I am trying to understand your point in posting what you did in response to the Mike Johnson's quote. Mike Johnson is trying to force his religion on everyone. Do you think Jesus intent was to make everyone follow his teachings whether they were Christians or not. Would you want to be under the rules of a religion for which you did not agree?

Part 2

I have seen nothing that indicates to me that Michael Johnson is "trying to force his religion on everyone.
The claimed "biblical republic" quote turns out to have been a reference to a "constitutional republic." I've pointed this out in Post 913 above. And outlined what I think a constitutional republic is in Post 925.

Some of those on the left are aghast and agog at the mention of God and religion by someone holding public office. For years God was a routine part of public discourse. For example the following from a highly thought of political figure after listing a number of blessings upon America:
"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy... And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union."

Back to Jesus, it was His desire that all would believe. He knew that not everyone would, but each of us has that choice.



Yes, he gave people a choice.

My concern has been that some have placed their hope on politics rather than Jesus. What Jesus taught was could not coincide with the Jewish religion of his day, but he never tried to change the religion or politics. His message was the immediate availability of the Kingdom of Gos. Based on this, how should we as American Christians exist?

[Chuck Naill]

Christian Nationalism is a known movement. The movement attempts to make America into a Christain Nation. Some think in the beginning it was. No where in scripture did the Jews or later Christians try to change outsiders into Jews and Christians. The assimilations of these people into whatever culture they found themselves was what is historical.

American enslavement of Africans and their forced migration is contrary to what Jesus taught. When he and the later writers walked the Earth, they were not involved in social change. However, for those who decided to become students, they did change, but inwardly. This was the true message of Jesus teaching. Then and now people have misunderstood his teaching, and frankly, I didn't come to appreciate it until 2013.

Peter 2:20 is instructive, "For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God." American Christianity is not respected for a reason. I wish it were not so, because the true message might not ever penetrate those who have suffered at the hands of people who refer to themselves as Christians. If Christians suffer because or their bad actions, it is one thing. If they suffer for being righteous, this is very different.

This is from circa 130 AD, https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010522_diogneto_en.html

[kazoolaw]

Trying to track CN's questions:

Okay, I thought those were the scriptures you were referring. And I assume that you agree that I've cited them accurately.

Have you experienced persecution as a Christian? Have you known anyone who has experienced persecution in the US? "Persecution" is a broad term. I've not been beaten or killed. I've been ridiculed, had a judge enter an order to show cause why I should not have to pay the costs of a criminal prosecution of religious abortion protesters, been told by a former teacher-of-the-year that my child was likely to commit suicide because we attended a conservative Baptist church, been described as too simple-minded to understand science. To my knowledge, I've not been targeted by an FBI investigation in connection with my representation of abortion protesters. I would say that the targeting memo of the FBI is persecution. California's response to opposition to the COVID shut down orders by churches would qualify in my mind. As would attempts to tax the number of driveways a church has, along with targeting the non-profit status of churches and religious schools.


Have you experienced persecution from your family for being a Christian? Have you ever had a different interpretation of scripture from the church you attended? How were you treated? I'll not involve my family, but am familiar with individuals being cut off for their religious beliefs, both temporarily and permanently.
Yes, I've had a different view of Scripture on certain issues including the role of Christians in politics. My treatment depended on the individual I differed with.

Do you feel as an American the freedom to be a Christian? Have you ever been prevented from following Jesus? Freedom? If you mean without adverse consequences, no. Not prevented, as I'm still here.

If abortion is wrong for you, should it be wrong for all Americans? If so, why? If murder is wrong for all Americans, then yes. Note the use of "murder" not "killing." There are legal defenses to the charge of murder.

Do you consider Mike Johnson a type of Moses and why? It's not an analogy I'd personally make, because there's much more to Moses' story than the Red Sea. But I can see a parallel to a leader in a time of crisis.

[kazoolaw]

Christian Nationalism is a known movement. The movement attempts to make America into a Christain Nation. Some think in the beginning it was. No where in scripture did the Jews or later Christians try to change outsiders into Jews and Christians.

This is from circa 130 AD, https://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010522_diogneto_en.html

Christian Nationalism is best known among those afflicted with TDS, and an allergy to anything religious being raised in the public sphere.

Actually there is a history of Jewish evangelism. And, of course, there is a long history of evangelism by Christians to bring nonbelievers to Christianity.

You cite Pope Francis presumably as support for your position. This Pope is very politically active, using the Roman Catholic Church to influence political issues.

[dneal]

Note to Chuck's mentor: Chuck thinks Jesus didn't advocate for the spreading of his message to outsiders.

[kazoolaw]

Yes.
First to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. Romans 1:16
Not a mentor, just a guy.

[dneal]

I see the confusion and the humor, and it makes for a good line; but I was actually referring to Chuck's actual mentor (really Chuck himself).

He has argued himself into quite the corner.

[kazoolaw]

Was obviously too nuanced for this old guy.
Well done.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck knows that the message of Jesus was intended for anyone and everyone. However, only a student would be expected to do what he commanded. See the difference? Maybe not.

A non-student could decide to attempt to follow the commands and might even achieve some success, but more often it leads to legalism. There is a difference between trying to be good and the spiritual formation process whereby one actually becomes to be a good person. As a student or apprentice, we practice making mistakes, but over time experiencing a transformation. This cannot be accomplished by forcing someone or the US to become a Christian nation. However, pushing, besides an arrogant act, appeals to the physical man where it is more important to look good than be good.

What both of you are not understanding is, Jesus didn't push. What Christian Nationalists are doing is pushing an outward or physical adherence to what they perceive Jesus said. Often, he didn't say it at all. For example, the pregnant lady in Texas that is being prohibited from gaining an abortion is a good example of how pushing someone to except a particular view is pushing her to accept something you think is true. Whereas if she were a disciple, her perspective may be the same or not. Either way, it is up to her to decide.

Spiritual formation is the transformation of the inner person. This is behind what Jesus said about the difference in keeping the law against having sex with your neighbor's wife and not doing it, but wanting to. He said giving a good outward appearance while being corrupt internally was the "righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.


I was reading an op-ed this morning about how the Ivy League school leaders got themselves in trouble. They were unable to call genocide wrong. This reminded me of Dallas Willard's Book, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge and his teaching. The same people who would say genocide is wrong support ending the lives of the unborn and see no connection.

[kazoolaw]

I think using “student” apparently as synonymous with “believer” is misleading. I studied both Buddhism and Hinduism from intellectual curiosity, but was never interested in becoming an adherent of either philosophy. There is a distinction between learning and believing.

[dneal]

I think using “student” apparently as synonymous with “believer” is misleading. I studied both Buddhism and Hinduism from intellectual curiosity, but was never interested in becoming an adherent of either philosophy. There is a distinction between learning and believing.


I think Chuck has found the "True" religion (as Twain puts it). He's studying it because his belief in it is unmovable. That mentor / student metaphor is apparently a predominant note in this particular flavor of "Club Christian" - as jar puts it, and to bring this back to the spirit of the OP.

[Chuck Naill]

The Greek word is mathetes or a learner, a pupil, or student used in Matthew 28.

Anyone can say they are a believer using the English definition, but not the Greek which carries the connotation of believing in, clinging to, and placing one's reliance upon. If one were to claim they were in an apprenticeship to become a plumber, we would expect more than belief in the Master Plumber. We would expect them to have knowledge and be able to perform as the Master had taught them.

I have also studied Buddhism, but not to practice, but the idea of practicing is something I prefer.

Let's consider a professional apprenticeship, does one submit to such a program as an intellectual curiosity, or to learn how to become a master? Also, in an apprenticeship one stays under the master for a period of time. This is what Jesus was referring to. He also said that his students would become witnesses. Kaz will be able to appreciate what a witness in a court room provides because they have had experience and have knowledge of a thing.

[kazoolaw]

Yes, one needs belief to study and practice.

[Chuck Naill]

I agree, otherwise, what would one know what to practice. Discipleship is a Spirit led process whereby the student learns to live their lives as Jesus would if he were them. Perhaps Buddhism is similar. If the concept of practice were to be introduced into American Evangelical experiences, I think this would make a significant change.

[kazoolaw]

CN,
Saw this today and thought of your question in Post 941:

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/nashville-tennessee-mother-muslim-family-accused-of-assaulting-son-for-converting-to-christianity-middle-tn

[Chuck Naill]

I can't imagine why.

[Chuck Naill]

I've been camped out on a concept over the past several days that involved the young woman in Texas who was seeking to abort her child who is very sick. What I have tried to do is rethink how we as disciples could respond. I've referred back to encounters Jesus had with women and men who were not well thought of. The woman caught sleeping with her neighbor, the Samaritan Woman at the well, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, and others. Jesus didn't focus on their actions. He addressed their spiritual condition which brought them to the point of, as a result of his announcement of the availability of the Kingdom of God.

For years I have heard sermons focus on physical actions. Actions including smoking, drinking, being promiscuous, lying, cheating, getting angry, etc. It occurred to me that if a person gave up cigarettes, they would not be any better off. The Kingdom of God is not giving up a habit. When a person decides to take Jesus up on what he said, the inner transformation, would achieve whatever the Father wanted accomplished.

Therefore, I am not concerned about the lady in Texas getting or not getting the abortion as a primary concern. I am in no position to condemn her. Just as Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery. He just told her not to continue to do things that would get her in trouble, but his not condemning allowed her to reconsider. If this woman was the same woman that later washed his feet with her hair, she experienced love at a level she had never known.

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading a PhD Thesis comparing Dallas Willard's teaching compared to Evangelical teachings over the last 100 plus years. Since the 1800's the rise of the dominance of Dispensationalism and Pre-Millennialism has given rise to the practice of converting people to Christianity if they came to agree with doctrines and followed the rules. This is because of interpretations of passages including Revelation. This has led Evangelicals to believe that the Kingdom of God on Earth is when people are taught or forced to obey God. It could be that when Mike Johnson says his world view comes from the Bible, he is simply saying he agrees with the Bible. His conversion could simply be an agreement with what the Bible says, or how it has been portrayed to him.

Dr. Willard grew up in this Dispensational teaching. What he teaches is that conversion takes place over time and involves a spiritual formation process that obeys what Jesus prescribed for his students. Dallas also and often mentioned what Jesus called the "righteousness of the Scribes and Pharacees", an outward appearance without an inward transformation.

Having had a similar path as Dallas Willard, all of this is familiar and why since 2013 I have progressed toward the apprenticeship to Jesus model. This puts me at odds with the churches because this sort of process will not lead to greater church growth, tithing, and bigger buildings. That said, it isn't my task to change anyone. The reason I wanted to post this is so it can be better understood why Evangelicals can support Donald Trump. be for Israel at the expense of Palestine and try to enforce a Christian Nationalistic agenda. This is why a Mike Johnson is seen as a good thing. Like Jerry Falwel Jr. what sort of person they are doesn't matter. After all, they believe Jerry Jr. is a "sinner saved by grace". They don't expect his spirit/soul to be being transformed so that he naturally comes to do what Jesus prescribed.

[Chuck Naill]

The recent inability of the Ivy League University Presidents to respond to questions with absolute condemnation underscores that Dr. Willard is correct in his observations that Moral Knowledge has disappeared. If moral knowledge is knowing how to treat others, this can be better understood. Having no moral knowledge allow a male student to get an A in an ethics class and showing disrespect to a female classmate.

[TSherbs]

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, both the Methodist and Catholic Churches are struggling with and arguing over (internally) whether openly non-heterosexuals can be full participatory "Christians" in their memberships and receive all the blessings and benefits that a heterosexual has access to. It looks like the Vatican is expanding recognition of gay "unions," and it looks like the Methodist church is undergoing a schism in the US. This is no issue at the UU church I have periodically attended over the last two years: the pastor is openly bisexual, and her first homily was, in part, on this topic. Other organizations have had much more of a struggle over this, which is not surprising.

[kazoolaw]

Is “UU” Unitarian Universalist?