Occupy Wall street and the betrayal of Christians

[Christarchist]

You were building strawman that were becoming a bit of a distraction, I wanted to re-focus the discussion to the thread topic.

I apologize if I misrepresented your views. That is never my intention. If you'll point out where I did that, I would appreciate it.

 

[Drunk On Love]

American foreign policy has been no different to any power hungry invader and no different to the terrorists of this world.

Al Qaeda can only dream of matching the death count caused by our foreign policy. That's why I'm holding my nose and voting for Ron Paul. He is the only who will actually do anything to change it. Obama is virtually identical to Bush in this area. This comes from a person who has sympathies with many of the complaints of Occupy Wall Street too. I also voted for Obama in the last election as well. If someone like Gingrich wins the Republican nomination I might be forced to vote for Obama again though unfortunately.

 

[Zongerfield]

I apologize if I misrepresented your views. That is never my intention. If you'll point out where I did that, I would appreciate it.

Doing so will only further derail an already reductive dialogue.

But since it's Christmas, what are you unclear about that you need me to clarify for you?

I am a Christian. I believe in a literal and inerrant bible. God is violent and vengeful in the bible, he is also a loving father and benevolent creator.

What some people see as contradiction, I see as complexity underlying the true wonderment of God.

We're not supposed to have all the answers. In fact, we really only need one: Jesus Christ is our lord and savior.

What else do you need to know?

In any event, I forgive you and I will pray for you.

 

[Christarchist]

Doing so will only further derail an already reductive dialogue.

I'm sorry if you consider it reductive. I thought we were getting into the heart of what it means to be an obedient servant. That is a topic of great interest to me and I don't feel that I can make decisions about my actions or attitude without considering it.

But since it's Christmas, what are you unclear about that you need me to clarify for you?

Well, you said I was using straw man arguments. That implies that I misrepresented your views. I asked you to point out where I had done so. I don't like it when people misrepresent my views and I don't want to do it to others. Other than that, I'd asked some specific questions in my previous post. If you don't want to answer them, that's fine, but I hope you've at least considered them.

I am a Christian. I believe in a literal and inerrant bible. God is violent and vengeful in the bible, he is also a loving father and benevolent creator.

What some people see as contradiction, I see as complexity underlying the true wonderment of God.

We're not supposed to have all the answers. In fact, we really only need one: Jesus Christ is our lord and savior.

What else do you need to know?

I'm a Christian too, and I believe God is complex as well. I just don't understand how you can give the words of Paul greater weight than the words of Jesus without being idolatrous.

I kind of agree with you about only needing one answer. But I also think that our response to that answer is very important. We're not saved by our works. Salvation is a separate issue. My question then becomes what is an appropriate response to salvation through the sacrifice of Christ? Surely we're expected to behave in a way that would please him. If nothing else, don't we want to behave in a way that would please him because we love him?

If so, then I have to figure out what pleases him. I can decide what I want that to be and then page through the NT looking for a proof-text to support that idea, or I can put aside my biases and listen to him closely and be willing to hear whatever he's telling me. I can find a reference that seems to support what I already think, or I can look at his example, even if it's hard to accept.

Both his teachings and his example are consistently self-sacrificial. Vengeance belongs to God, not to us. The closest thing you can come to vengeance in the NT (other than the Judgment scene in Revelation and surely we have no part to play in that vengeance) is when Jesus drove the money-changers (bankers) out of the temple. The greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor and when he said that, just like today, there were people who wanted to wiggle out of that second one. So Jesus explained that your neighbor isn't just someone who agrees with you or someone who is easy to love. He told us about the good Samaritan (despised by the Jews) who took care of a man in need at his own expense when the religious leaders, who felt completely justified, I'm sure, passed by on the other side. This is a clear message. We may not be able to figure it all out, but if we can't understand the two most important commandments, what does that say about how well we know him? Pretty much anywhere you go in the gospels, the same message is repeated. I find it difficult to ignore that.

I think we need to ask ourselves if Jesus really meant what he said or not. Because he talks unceasingly about loving one another (even our enemies), taking care of the poor (he doesn't qualify it) and serving others. The servant is not above his master. If he washed the disciples feet, we should be willing to humble ourselves as much. If he died on a cross, we should be willing to sacrifice for others or we're placing ourselves above our master.

I know a lot of people who say they take a literal view of the Bible. That's great and I have no problem with it. But the problem is that taking it literally means selling everything you have and giving it to the poor; turning the other cheek; loving your enemies (like he did, praying for them while they murdered him and not fighting back). Few of us do those things.

James tells us not to just be hearers of the word (Christ) but doers. If we're his body -- his hands and feet in the world today -- we need to act like him.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Huh.

 

[Christarchist]

.

 

[mzungu]

Doing so will only further derail an already reductive dialogue.

But since it's Christmas, what are you unclear about that you need me to clarify for you?

I am a Christian. I believe in a literal and inerrant bible. God is violent and vengeful in the bible, he is also a loving father and benevolent creator.

What some people see as contradiction, I see as complexity underlying the true wonderment of God.

We're not supposed to have all the answers. In fact, we really only need one: Jesus Christ is our lord and savior.

What else do you need to know?

In any event, I forgive you and I will pray for you.

So much hate. So much arrogance.

Woe to those that speak in the stead of God; For their aims may be not to further God's word but to further their ambitions of power and rule over others.

If there is a God and he is a kind and good god; Then He will definitely be on the side of OWS!

I WISH YOU ALL IN CF A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR

​

 

[Zongerfield]

I'm sorry if you consider it reductive. I thought we were getting into the heart of what it means to be an obedient servant. That is a topic of great interest to me and I don't feel that I can make decisions about my actions or attitude without considering it.

Different threads are for different topics, this one is primarily about OWS. That said, now that you've explained yourself a little more I can see where you are coming from.

I'm a Christian too, and I believe God is complex as well. I just don't understand how you can give the words of Paul greater weight than the words of Jesus without being idolatrous.

Where did I say I gave greater merit to one verse over another?

This is part of what I was hinting at with the strawman.

Part of understanding Christ is understanding the complexity in both the NT and the OT (I value them both equally).

From my vantage point, all verses carry equal weight. And all have meaning (even if that meaning is self-contradictory or nebulous to the fallible mind of man). Thus, one must fight the urge to value one above all else or to water down God's wisdom into one plain, simple, Christian platitude.

I understand why some Christians find this appealing, but for me it's not the way to interpret the word of God. There is so much more to God than love thy neighbor (or later on, thy enemy). And you may disagree with this and that's okay.

Where we find agreement, and the blessing of our Lord, is through salvation: accepting Jesus as our lord and savior.

 

[Christarchist]

Where did I say I gave greater merit to one verse over another?

This is part of what I was hinting at with the strawman.

I didn't say you were because you came right out and stated that. But when you look at a situation and find one reference in a letter from Paul and conclude that that verse will be your guiding principle on how to handle that situation when there are countless scriptures in the gospels which support a different guiding principle, it appears that you're giving Paul more weight than Jesus.

Part of understanding Christ is understanding the complexity in both the NT and the OT (I value them both equally).

From my vantage point, all verses carry equal weight. And all have meaning (even if that meaning is self-contradictory or nebulous to the fallible mind of man). Thus, one must fight the urge to value one above all else or to water down God's wisdom into one plain, simple, Christian platitude.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If we look at the Bible and it seems to tell us one thing in 2 Thessalonians and it seems to tell us the opposite in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we have to decide how to reconcile the two. The only way I know of doing this is to have a plumb line by which every verse that I try to interpret must be aligned. That plumb line is Christ. If my understanding of a verse contradicts his teaching and his example in any way, then I'm not understanding correctly and I have to go back, read again, study, pray, examine the context, and learn as much about it as I can with an open mind. So when I go back to 2 Thesselonians, I consider what was going on.

If you look at the historical context, you'll find that the church in Thesselonica had a problem. Paul's visit to them had been interrupted and he had not taught these new believers everything he wanted to teach them. They had a misunderstanding about the second coming of Christ and believed it was just around the corner. In fact, some of them were refusing to work because they didn't think they needed to because Jesus was about to return! If they didn't plant seed for the harvest because they thought they weren't going to need food, they were failing to work based not on their unavoidable circumstances, but based on a misunderstanding of how to anticipate the second coming of Christ. These people were placing an unnecessary burden on others and making the church look bad. Paul warned them against this.

With this historical context, do you think that Paul is telling all Christians everywhere for all time that we should withhold assistance from those who are down on their luck, or is he telling the people in Thesselonica that they need to continue to live their lives responsibly as they wait for Christ's return?

In the context of Christ's teaching and example, which makes more sense? When you place 2 Thesselonians in its historical context and then hold it up against that plumb line, which interpretation makes more sense?

The latter interpretation still has application today and is still relevant and spiritually significant. Harold Camping could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment if he'd known this historical context when he predicted that Christ would return on May 21 and many of his followers would not have ended up getting unemployment benefits.

I did a little research on this passage and found a thoroughly sourced document that goes into much more detail than I can here, and I can't post a link to it, but at the end the author explains what I'm trying to say about interpretation better than I can:

It is important to understand this verse within its original context and within the total biblical teaching on work which is conditioned by other biblical elements suggestive of leisure. In a paper on hermeneutics which included an application to Aristotle’s writings, Sylvester (1990, p. 292) wrote that “Ideas do not come freeze-dried in vacuum-sealed pouches, conveniently ready to heat and serve as operational constructs. Instead, ideas are deeply embedded in the flux and flow of history.” This principle is also applicable to biblical texts. Care is needed in presenting biblical verses in leisure textbooks so that the historical and literary context of the verses is explained along with the place of these verses in the overall biblical understanding of work and leisure. Such care is especially needed in today’s society when students have little familiarity with biblical texts. Finally, summaries of biblical themes are more helpful than the quotation of isolated verses when explaining biblical concepts such as work.

I understand why some Christians find this appealing, but for me it's not the way to interpret the word of God. There is so much more to God than love thy neighbor (or later on, thy enemy). And you may disagree with this and that's okay.

I agree that there's more, but I don't believe there's anything that contradicts it or supersedes it (along with loving God). Jesus said the entirety of the law hangs on these two. They sum up the law. He told us what's most important.

Where we find agreement, and the blessing of our Lord, is through salvation: accepting Jesus as our lord and savior.

Amen! Zongerfield, I can tell you're a devout believer. I don't challenge your beliefs out of contrariness or malice. I appreciate our dialogue and hope that you'll consider what I've said in the spirit it's intended. The word of God is more complex than any human mind can comprehend. I agree with you there. But I think we who love him should always strive to know him better, even if we'll never arrive at full understanding. It's impossible to learn and grow without being willing to question our pre-conceptions. I also agree that the Bible must be interpreted as a whole. That means I can't select an isolated passage and not look at how it fits into the overarching themes present in the whole. I'm glad that we have some common ground.

Since you agree with me that the Bible shows us the many facets of an infinitely complex God, do you also agree that we must have some method to understand how each example and teaching applies to us? If we don't use Christ as our plumb line, what do we use?

 

[mzungu]

Part of understanding Christ is understanding the complexity in both the NT and the OT (I value them both equally).

From my vantage point, all verses carry equal weight. And all have meaning (even if that meaning is self-contradictory or nebulous to the fallible mind of man). Thus, one must fight the urge to value one above all else or to water down God's wisdom into one plain, simple, Christian platitude.

I understand why some Christians find this appealing, but for me it's not the way to interpret the word of God. There is so much more to God than love thy neighbor (or later on, thy enemy). And you may disagree with this and that's okay.

Where we find agreement, and the blessing of our Lord, is through salvation: accepting Jesus as our lord and savior.

So basically with this attitude you have reason to find justification for any action good or bad; Just like they used the Bible to justify slavery in the past. OK Gotcha!!!

 

[Zongerfield]

I didn't say you were because you came right out and stated that. But when you look at a situation and find one reference in a letter from Paul and conclude that that verse will be your guiding principle on how to handle that situation when there are countless scriptures in the gospels which support a different guiding principle, it appears that you're giving Paul more weight than Jesus.

I don't think I came out and stated that. However, I felt it was most applicable given the context of the discussion (more on this below).

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If we look at the Bible and it seems to tell us one thing in 2 Thessalonians and it seems to tell us the opposite in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we have to decide how to reconcile the two. The only way I know of doing this is to have a plumb line by which every verse that I try to interpret must be aligned. That plumb line is Christ. If my understanding of a verse contradicts his teaching and his example in any way, then I'm not understanding correctly and I have to go back, read again, study, pray, examine the context, and learn as much about it as I can with an open mind. So when I go back to 2 Thesselonians, I consider what was going on.

I would say that yes, context is key. But one shouldn't restrict his/her interpretation of scripture strictly to a historical context.

That is to say that a "historical context" can be as rife with barbs and tripwires (misinformation, speculation, human error, etc.) as any other context.

There are numerous lenses one can view the bible through, and each of these have the potential to effect the way one renders a verdict on particular verse, chapter, book, etc.

The key is then to consider as many contexts as possible, but also, to consider the context of the situation or subject one is describing, observing, attempting to apprehend.

To explicate, how we define OWS as a movement, as a group of individuals attempting to agitate for social, political and economic change, will impact (to varying degrees) the biblical framework we use to make sense of it.

You see them as a collection of disenfranchised innocents, who've fallen on tough times through no fault of their own. A bunch of helplessly impoverished do-gooders trying change an oppressive economic system. Victims of corporate greed and avarice who've been abused and exploited.

Hence you quote Jesus, "Blessed are the poor," etc.

I see the near opposite when I see OWS.

Hence I find Proverbs 10:4 more fitting:

"He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich."

Who's right and who's wrong?

That only God truly knows.

 

[Christarchist]

I don't think I came out and stated that. However, I felt it was most applicable given the context of the discussion (more on this below).

I guess I was unclear. I meant that you didn't state it outright. I was basing my statement on your actions.

I would say that yes, context is key. But one shouldn't restrict his/her interpretation of scripture strictly to a historical context.

I wouldn't and didn't suggest that anyone should.

That is to say that a "historical context" can be as rife with barbs and tripwires (misinformation, speculation, human error, etc.) as any other context.

Can be, but I feel much safer in my interpretations after I've studied this historical context than I would by just guessing or basing my interpretation on what a particular denomination teaches or any other method that leaves out the historical context. What do you think of the context I discussed?

There are numerous lenses one can view the bible through, and each of these have the potential to effect the way one renders a verdict on particular verse, chapter, book, etc.

The key is then to consider as many contexts as possible, but also, to consider the context of the situation or subject one is describing, observing, attempting to apprehend.

This is a given, for me.

To explicate, how we define OWS as a movement, as a group of individuals attempting to agitate for social, political and economic change, will impact (to varying degrees) the biblical framework we use to make sense of it.

You see them as a collection of disenfranchised innocents, who've fallen on tough times through no fault of their own. A bunch of helplessly impoverished do-gooders trying change an oppressive economic system. Victims of corporate greed and avarice who've been abused and exploited.

This is an oversimplification of my view. I do believe OWS is, in part, a reaction to the situation you describe above, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Hence you quote Jesus, "Blessed are the poor," etc.

I see the near opposite when I see OWS.

Since you said you place importance on considering the context of the situation, this statement leads me to ask you how much you know about them. Have you looked at not only what the media tells you about them, but what they say about themselves? A lot of people judge Christians harshly and many times it's because they haven't really looked deeply into it for themselves. Have you done this? Your statement below makes me wonder.

Hence I find Proverbs 10:4 more fitting:

"He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich."

This makes me think you're under the impression that the OWS protesters are lazy and don't want to work. I think I asked you before if you've read their grievances. They've been grossly misrepresented in the corporate media. The corporate media is highly motivated to discredit them for reasons that should be obvious. Isn't it worth finding out what they're really all about?

 

[mzungu]

For all intents and purposes; Americanised Christianity has so disassociated itself from the global Christianity that I consider it to be a different Sect irrespective of whether it is evangelical, Baptist etc. The Churches that adhere to the old worlds doctrines from the mother Church (Catholic, Orthodox) are exempt as they are in essence very little influenced by Americanisation of religion.

I find it shocking that in this day and age, children are taught to be Anti Science! The only result such attitudes will have is to relegate the US back to the middle ages where superstition and persecution was rife!

Science deals with the physical world and religion with faith! They are incompatible only when one delves into the other's territory.

Let us not compare apples to transistors!

 

[oliverb]

Science deals with the physical world and religion with faith! They are incompatible only when one delves into the other's territory.

No, they're not.They're incompatible only in the minds of those who want them to be.

Belief in God and science are not incompatible

Dr Francis Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project and is one of the world’s leading scientists. His work represents the most advanced study of DNA, the code of life. He is also a man of faith.

Collins believes that faith in God and scientific knowledge are not mutually exclusive, but indeed are in harmony

 

[Cromulent]

No, they're not.They're incompatible only in the minds of those who want them to be.

Belief in God and science are not incompatible

Dr Francis Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project and is one of the world’s leading scientists. His work represents the most advanced study of DNA, the code of life. He is also a man of faith.

Collins believes that faith in God and scientific knowledge are not mutually exclusive, but indeed are in harmony

To believe that they are in harmony, you have to compromise either your science, or your religion.

 

[oliverb]

To believe that they are in harmony, you have to compromise either your science, or your religion.

No, you don't.
The following well written excerpt discusses the Bahá’í faith, but it applies to millions of Christians as well...me included.


Harmony of Science and Religion - Bahai Faith | Baha'i Faith | United States Official Website

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion. Instead they believe science and religion are two systems of knowledge. Each operating within it's own sphere, they are fundamentally in harmony, mutually reinforcing, and are both necessary to advance civilization.

The Faith teaches that religion without science soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism – and unchecked material progress will never lead to true prosperity.

Science and religion both describe reality, and reality is one. It is not possible for something to be scientifically false and religiously true. Contradictions are attributed to human fallibility. Science trains our minds to discover hidden realities. Religion helps us uncover the meaning and proper uses of scientific discovery.

Bahá’ís believe that only in the revelation of God can humanity find a system of values that puts such developments into perspective. Religion offers answers to those questions of morals, human purpose, and our relationship to God that science cannot approach.

 

[Cromulent]

No, you don't.
The following well written excerpt discusses the Bahá’í faith, but it applies to millions of Christians as well...me included.


Harmony of Science and Religion - Bahai Faith | Baha'i Faith | United States Official Website

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion. Instead they believe science and religion are two systems of knowledge. Each operating within it's own sphere, they are fundamentally in harmony, mutually reinforcing, and are both necessary to advance civilization.

The Faith teaches that religion without science soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism – and unchecked material progress will never lead to true prosperity.

Science and religion both describe reality, and reality is one. It is not possible for something to be scientifically false and religiously true. Contradictions are attributed to human fallibility. Science trains our minds to discover hidden realities. Religion helps us uncover the meaning and proper uses of scientific discovery.

Bahá’ís believe that only in the revelation of God can humanity find a system of values that puts such developments into perspective. Religion offers answers to those questions of morals, human purpose, and our relationship to God that science cannot approach.

That's just an opinion, and one I wouldn't agree with.

To make the bible line up with known scientific fact, you have to ignore large chunks of it, pretend they're allegorical, or employ a healthy dose of doublethink. The earth was not created in seven days, it is not 6000 years old, there was never a global flood, and humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

 

[oliverb]

That's just an opinion, and one I wouldn't agree with.

To make the bible line up with known scientific fact, you have to ignore large chunks of it, pretend they're allegorical, or employ a healthy dose of doublethink. The earth was not created in seven days, it is not 6000 years old, there was never a global flood, and humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

You have a very distorted and blinkered view of faith.

 

[Christarchist]

That's just an opinion, and one I wouldn't agree with.

To make the bible line up with known scientific fact, you have to ignore large chunks of it, pretend they're allegorical, or employ a healthy dose of doublethink. The earth was not created in seven days, it is not 6000 years old, there was never a global flood, and humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

Large chunks of the Bible are allegorical. The Bible is a spiritual text, not a scientific text. Science teaches me about God's creation from a physical perspective. The Bible teaches me a about God's creation from a spiritual perspective. I wouldn't expect people writing thousands of years ago to know anything about the big bang or DNA. And they wouldn't need to in order to write about the spiritual matters of the Bible. The existence of science doesn't threaten my faith, because science is no less miraculous than the allegorical explanations that the writers of the Bible use to express spiritual truths. They're two different ways of understanding two different aspects of creation.

When Galileo proved that the earth revolves around the sun, a lot of people were pretty upset. But people eventually got past the verses in the Bible that they'd interpreted to mean that it had to be the other way around. It's taking a lot longer on some of these other scientific issues, but some Christians recognize that what is empirically factual is empirically factual and that God's revelation doesn't come only through the pages of a book written thousands of years ago. He reveals himself through his creation and through scripture. If they appear to contradict each other, the obvious conclusion to draw is that we've misunderstood scripture.

Jesus spoke in parables. I see no reason to think the rest of the Bible must be completely literal and I sure see no reason to interpret it as a science lesson.

 

[oliverb]

Large chunks of the Bible are allegorical. The Bible is a spiritual text, not a scientific text. Science teaches me about God's creation from a physical perspective. The Bible teaches me a about God's creation from a spiritual perspective. I wouldn't expect people writing thousands of years ago to know anything about the big bang or DNA. And they wouldn't need to in order to write about the spiritual matters of the Bible. The existence of science doesn't threaten my faith, because science is no less miraculous than the allegorical explanations that the writers of the Bible use to express spiritual truths. They're two different ways of understanding two different aspects of creation.


Jesus spoke in parables. I see no reason to think the rest of the Bible must be completely literal and I sure see no reason to interpret it as a science lesson.

You understand.

There is all kinds of literature in the Bible, including history, creation stories, poetry, praise, allegory (the wonderful book of Hosea), the coded "prophecies" of apocalypse, etc. It was never intended to be considered "literally" true as we expect of history in our modern world. The meaning is not always in the words, but frequently behind the words.

God is ineffable, God's love, and mercy, and judgement are ineffable. We can not describe God literally in our words, but we can speak of God and know Him by indications of His presence in our lives.