Many people wonder how enlightened Socialists/Progressives/Humanists/Secularists can embrace both the Mohammedans and Homosexuals. In and of itself seems paradoxical as the groups are as different as night and day, until you view it through this lens.
"He (the Devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs—pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse."
Lewis, C. S. (2009). Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics) (p. 186). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition.
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thou Shalt Not Kill?
Today I am marking the occasion of my one thousandth post with something I have been sitting on for a while.
For some time the use of the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", by persons promoting an agenda or way of life outside of religion has really bothered me. And the people I often see using it fall into one of two groups.
Group A - The "I really hate religion, because the rest of the coffee house revolutionaries hate religion, but we will use religious words to shame those stupid superstitious believers to support our cause" (anti-capital punishment, animal rights and/or anti-military)
Group B - Members of religious communities, groups or organizations that have been duped by or sympathetic to Group A.
Now the problem really is not that they use the phrase per se, but that they use it out of context and out of time; for the phrase had a different understanding by people in the time which the phrase had been translated from the original text and in that texts original language. (btw, this is not relativism of the Bible, that will come in modern times)
The passage I am referring to is Exodus 20:13, in which we as lineal readers and the children of Israel in linear time are first made aware of the Commandment from God "Thou shalt not kill" and most people understood what it meant from the time of Moses leading his people out of Egypt to about the middle of the 20th century. Then comes modern and post-modern theological and linguistic relativism and people interpret this to mean what ever suits them; to someone who opposes capital punishment it means that criminals should not be executed for the most heinous crimes, to animal rights activists it means that people should not hunt or slaughter animals for food and to those who oppose the military or warfare it means that wars should never be fought, regardless of justification and in the most extreme cases those who mourn trees and plants that they claim humans have murdered.
This is where context and translation comes into play. The word for “kill” used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is ratsach (raw-tsakh') a primitive root that means to kill a human, murder or manslaughter. It does not translate into “Thou shalt not kill animals for their tasty meat or hides for your use”, for it was understood that we had been given dominion over animals by God (Genesis 1:26) and that the people of the Old Testament and Covenant sacrificed animals to J*****h in the temples. So PETA can stop with this non-sense straight away.
Those against capital punishment say “you can do as you please with animals, but you must leave these criminals be"; well, the problem with that is that God had also covered the whole capital punishment thing early on in the Old Testament – “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:6) – “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” (Numbers 35-33). In fact in the Old Testament there are sixteen offences that where capital crimes punishable by death, the catch is God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities, courts of law and governments and not by vigilantes or mobs.
There will be those who will say "capital punishment went out the window with Jesus and the New Testament"...ah not really. "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me." (St. Luke 19:27 - The Parable of the Pounds) and "Now what will the lord do to these workmen? He will come and put them to destruction and give the garden to others." (St. Luke 20:15-16 - The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen). Saints Peter and Paul deferred to the right of Civil Government to promulgate law and order, even unto their own executions. For a more concise and compelling arguments on this subject may I suggest this article here…
And as to the argument that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, prohibits warfare and combat, I don’t believe that it prohibits either. Starting in Genesis 14, when the Patriarch Abraham arms his men (all 318 of them) and conducts a guerrilla war against Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; they having attacked other nations in the region, including Sodom and in those attacks had captured plunder and prisoners, among them Lot, Abraham's nephew. So, early on in the Bible we have our first case of a “Just War” in freeing innocent civilians taken as plunder. In Exodus 15, Moses and the people of Israel sing unto the Lord and praised Him for personally destroying Pharaoh and the army of Egypt as it gave pursuit to return Israel to bondage...so God does have a use for war in the defence and liberation of his people.
Many may accuse me of being bloodthirsty, conflicted or un-Christian, but nothing can be further from the truth. I see what has been written and see the turmoil that our civilization has thrown itself into by abandoning these laws and commandments for some ideal of humanity, and those who consider themselves great humanitarians support the execution the most innocent and defenceless people (without the benefit of trial or advocacy), all the while humiliating, dehumanizing and devaluing their victims. I will not call names or cast epithets at these people as they do so unto others, neither shall I hold my tongue when I see something wrong happening (it's the Yankee in me), nor will I pretend to judge anyone for that is not my place, I am just using my God given right to voice my opinion.
Reference and Resources:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07523&version=kjv
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2585
http://www.christendomisfightingback.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
†
For some time the use of the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", by persons promoting an agenda or way of life outside of religion has really bothered me. And the people I often see using it fall into one of two groups.
Group A - The "I really hate religion, because the rest of the coffee house revolutionaries hate religion, but we will use religious words to shame those stupid superstitious believers to support our cause" (anti-capital punishment, animal rights and/or anti-military)
Group B - Members of religious communities, groups or organizations that have been duped by or sympathetic to Group A.
Now the problem really is not that they use the phrase per se, but that they use it out of context and out of time; for the phrase had a different understanding by people in the time which the phrase had been translated from the original text and in that texts original language. (btw, this is not relativism of the Bible, that will come in modern times)
The passage I am referring to is Exodus 20:13, in which we as lineal readers and the children of Israel in linear time are first made aware of the Commandment from God "Thou shalt not kill" and most people understood what it meant from the time of Moses leading his people out of Egypt to about the middle of the 20th century. Then comes modern and post-modern theological and linguistic relativism and people interpret this to mean what ever suits them; to someone who opposes capital punishment it means that criminals should not be executed for the most heinous crimes, to animal rights activists it means that people should not hunt or slaughter animals for food and to those who oppose the military or warfare it means that wars should never be fought, regardless of justification and in the most extreme cases those who mourn trees and plants that they claim humans have murdered.
This is where context and translation comes into play. The word for “kill” used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is ratsach (raw-tsakh') a primitive root that means to kill a human, murder or manslaughter. It does not translate into “Thou shalt not kill animals for their tasty meat or hides for your use”, for it was understood that we had been given dominion over animals by God (Genesis 1:26) and that the people of the Old Testament and Covenant sacrificed animals to J*****h in the temples. So PETA can stop with this non-sense straight away.
Those against capital punishment say “you can do as you please with animals, but you must leave these criminals be"; well, the problem with that is that God had also covered the whole capital punishment thing early on in the Old Testament – “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:6) – “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” (Numbers 35-33). In fact in the Old Testament there are sixteen offences that where capital crimes punishable by death, the catch is God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities, courts of law and governments and not by vigilantes or mobs.
There will be those who will say "capital punishment went out the window with Jesus and the New Testament"...ah not really. "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me." (St. Luke 19:27 - The Parable of the Pounds) and "Now what will the lord do to these workmen? He will come and put them to destruction and give the garden to others." (St. Luke 20:15-16 - The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen). Saints Peter and Paul deferred to the right of Civil Government to promulgate law and order, even unto their own executions. For a more concise and compelling arguments on this subject may I suggest this article here…
And as to the argument that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, prohibits warfare and combat, I don’t believe that it prohibits either. Starting in Genesis 14, when the Patriarch Abraham arms his men (all 318 of them) and conducts a guerrilla war against Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; they having attacked other nations in the region, including Sodom and in those attacks had captured plunder and prisoners, among them Lot, Abraham's nephew. So, early on in the Bible we have our first case of a “Just War” in freeing innocent civilians taken as plunder. In Exodus 15, Moses and the people of Israel sing unto the Lord and praised Him for personally destroying Pharaoh and the army of Egypt as it gave pursuit to return Israel to bondage...so God does have a use for war in the defence and liberation of his people.
Many may accuse me of being bloodthirsty, conflicted or un-Christian, but nothing can be further from the truth. I see what has been written and see the turmoil that our civilization has thrown itself into by abandoning these laws and commandments for some ideal of humanity, and those who consider themselves great humanitarians support the execution the most innocent and defenceless people (without the benefit of trial or advocacy), all the while humiliating, dehumanizing and devaluing their victims. I will not call names or cast epithets at these people as they do so unto others, neither shall I hold my tongue when I see something wrong happening (it's the Yankee in me), nor will I pretend to judge anyone for that is not my place, I am just using my God given right to voice my opinion.
Reference and Resources:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07523&version=kjv
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2585
http://www.christendomisfightingback.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
†
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration
It seems that the news of this noble project has been limited to blogs and Christian media. Due to this limited exposure there are few who have read or signed the Manhattan Declaration.
A summary of the declaration is found on the main page of it's web-site
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I urge everyone to read the full declaration, to add thier electronic signature to it and to spread the word about this important document so that others may sign it and it could have a greater impact on politicians, churches and society.
+
A summary of the declaration is found on the main page of it's web-site
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I urge everyone to read the full declaration, to add thier electronic signature to it and to spread the word about this important document so that others may sign it and it could have a greater impact on politicians, churches and society.
+
Friday, September 4, 2009
Seekers and Church Architecture
In Previous posts I had mentioned the effect of architecture in the conversion experience, I am glad to find it is not just me who made this a component of their journey to faith.
Architecture of a Church can be as settling to the eye of a believer or seeker as the Gospel is to the ear or the Sacraments to the soul, the problem is that most churches abandoned traditional architecture about the same time as the "liturgical reforms" and "post-modern theology".
Now for those of you in the UK and Europe, you have not encountered the problem of new architectural models in your churches for several reasons.
The percentage of Christian population is in freefall and there is no new church construction.
Most of your churches were built centuries ago and for the most part have been well maintained.
Most of Europe has not experienced the denominationalism like there has been in the USA
Here in the United States we suffer from rampant commercialism and "newness" syndrome that keeps us building new, cookie-cutter, turn-key box buildings that look more like the local mall or shopping plaza, library or medical building and less like a church. This is due, in part to the rise of the non-denominational mega-church that will want you to feel that warm fuzzy feeling of the mall and none of the fuss of traditional religion.
On the other hand you have those churches that were built in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's when the architects were trying too hard to look futuristic or dropping mind-altering drugs or into that really bad Brady Bunch suburbia split level multipeaked multisurfaced avocado green and mustard yellow tripe.
There are those who say that it is not the building but what is inside that makes the difference, and this is true to a point, but there needs to be a difference in the style of building from where we live to where we work to where we shop to where we worship. If you are a delivery driver or a taxi driver or a police officer, you wouldn't want to drive and own the same type of vehicle you work with all day, would you? If you are a dentist or chiropractor or a nurse you wouldn't want your home to look like the medical office building where you work, would you? Why then would you want your church to look the same as where you buy your lumber or groceries?
In keeping with my policy of minimizing the negative and accentuating the positive, I now present you with, in what is in my opinion, inviting, comfortable and seeker friendly church architecture.
Reference and Resources:
http://ohioanglican.blogspot.com/2007/03/this-is-unreal.html
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enUS227US227&um=1&q=modern+church+architecture&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20 http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A=167438&M=200906,00.html
http://www.theckn.com/uploads/THY_SPACE-article.pdf
http://www.cune.edu/resources/docs/Issues/fall2006/5article1.pdf
Architecture of a Church can be as settling to the eye of a believer or seeker as the Gospel is to the ear or the Sacraments to the soul, the problem is that most churches abandoned traditional architecture about the same time as the "liturgical reforms" and "post-modern theology".
Now for those of you in the UK and Europe, you have not encountered the problem of new architectural models in your churches for several reasons.
Here in the United States we suffer from rampant commercialism and "newness" syndrome that keeps us building new, cookie-cutter, turn-key box buildings that look more like the local mall or shopping plaza, library or medical building and less like a church. This is due, in part to the rise of the non-denominational mega-church that will want you to feel that warm fuzzy feeling of the mall and none of the fuss of traditional religion.
On the other hand you have those churches that were built in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's when the architects were trying too hard to look futuristic or dropping mind-altering drugs or into that really bad Brady Bunch suburbia split level multipeaked multisurfaced avocado green and mustard yellow tripe.
There are those who say that it is not the building but what is inside that makes the difference, and this is true to a point, but there needs to be a difference in the style of building from where we live to where we work to where we shop to where we worship. If you are a delivery driver or a taxi driver or a police officer, you wouldn't want to drive and own the same type of vehicle you work with all day, would you? If you are a dentist or chiropractor or a nurse you wouldn't want your home to look like the medical office building where you work, would you? Why then would you want your church to look the same as where you buy your lumber or groceries?
In keeping with my policy of minimizing the negative and accentuating the positive, I now present you with, in what is in my opinion, inviting, comfortable and seeker friendly church architecture.
Reference and Resources:
http://ohioanglican.blogspot.com/2007/03/this-is-unreal.html
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enUS227US227&um=1&q=modern+church+architecture&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20 http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A=167438&M=200906,00.html
http://www.theckn.com/uploads/THY_SPACE-article.pdf
http://www.cune.edu/resources/docs/Issues/fall2006/5article1.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)