David Poe sent me this today …
The New York Times …
Wayward Christian Soldiers
By CHARLES MARSH
Published: January 20, 2006
IN the past several years, American evangelicals, and I am one of them, have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history. But at what cost to our witness and the integrity of our message?
Recently, I took a few days to reread the war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to the Iraq war. That period, from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, is not one I will remember fondly. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president’s war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.
Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. “We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible,” said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers.” In an article carried by the convention’s Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that “American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular “Left Behind” series, spoke of Iraq as “a focal point of end-time events,” whose special role in the earth’s final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that “God is pro-war” in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004.
The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president’s decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian “just war” theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.
Some preachers tried to link Saddam Hussein with wicked King Nebuchadnezzar of Biblical fame, but these arguments depended on esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament book of II Kings and could not easily be reduced to the kinds of catchy phrases that are projected onto video screens in vast evangelical churches. The single common theme among the war sermons appeared to be this: our president is a real brother in Christ, and because he has discerned that God’s will is for our nation to be at war against Iraq, we shall gloriously comply.
Such sentiments are a far cry from those expressed in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974. More than 2,300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries signed that statement, the most significant milestone in the movement’s history. Convened by Billy Graham and led by John Stott, the revered Anglican evangelical priest and writer, the signatories affirmed the global character of the church of Jesus Christ and the belief that “the church is the community of God’s people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology.”
On this page, David Brooks correctly noted that if evangelicals elected a pope, it would most likely be Mr. Stott, who is the author of more than 40 books on evangelical theology and Christian devotion. Unlike the Pope John Paul II, who said that invading Iraq would violate Catholic moral teaching and threaten “the fate of humanity,” or even Pope Benedict XVI, who has said there were “not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq,” Mr. Stott did not speak publicly on the war. But in a recent interview, he shared with me his abiding concerns.
“Privately, in the days preceding the invasion, I had hoped that no action would be taken without United Nations authorization,” he told me. “I believed then and now that the American and British governments erred in proceeding without United Nations approval.” Reverend Stott referred me to “War and Rumors of War, ” a chapter from his 1999 book, “New Issues Facing Christians Today,” as the best account of his position. In that essay he wrote that the Christian community’s primary mission must be “to hunger for righteousness, to pursue peace, to forbear revenge, to love enemies, in other words, to be marked by the cross.”
What will it take for evangelicals in the United States to recognize our mistaken loyalty? We have increasingly isolated ourselves from the shared faith of the global Church, and there is no denying that our Faustian bargain for access and power has undermined the credibility of our moral and evangelistic witness in the world. The Hebrew prophets might call us to repentance, but repentance is a tough demand for a people utterly convinced of their righteousness.
Charles Marsh, a professor of religion at the University of Virginia, is the author of “The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today.”
January 21st, 2006 at 1:58 am
The original is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/opinion/20marsh.html
Registration’s required, but it’s free and not too annoying as far as registrations go.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:00 am
Wow, this guy lays it on the line, doesn’t he? He is exactly right about increasingly isolating ourselves, not only from the “global church”, but in many other ways as well. The attitude that W has taken of “My way or the highway” doesn’t allies make in most other parts of the world.
I am going to copy this and email to my sisters. They will have a fit- hee hee. They are sooo ingrained in the Republican/evangelical mentality this will really piss them off. Maybe we can have some heated political conversations like you spoke of between you and your Mom in that recent interview…
Thanks for sharing this- hope your tour is going fantastic so far. Enjoy your weekend :)
Molly
January 21st, 2006 at 2:31 am
Yikes, I didn’t know that David could write so well. I should have known.
:) bw….
They are all wrong after all. We have to find a way out of those trenches and a Way to set Humankind straight on these Futile Acts of War. No one really wins here. We must work towards getting the World to realize this.
bw
January 21st, 2006 at 2:33 am
Excuse me, David didn’t write that, but none the less, he’s still a brilliant Writer. :) Thanks for sending it in David. We Need All the Support We Can get!!!!
:)
January 21st, 2006 at 3:21 am
the christian “leaders” in this country are not making it very easy for us christians to actually make an impact and be taken seriously. if you are reading this, please disregard basically everything that jerry falwell, pat robertson, and the other crazy people are saying. they do NOT represent me or the majority of christians in the world. this is the reason why no one takes me seriously anymore. i’m sorry for them.
January 21st, 2006 at 6:12 am
Ohhhh Sheiky. You just love churning the pot, don’t ya. ;)
(That’s why we love you.)
I’m tired (damn you green tea!), so bear with me.
General blanket statement: no faith has the right to put a people/culture/society/etc., between the proverbial “rock and hard place.” I don’t care what the “enemy” has done. The core of most faiths is loving kindness- at least in theory… Where in that idealism (admittedly), can one justify fighting?
What strikes me as worrisome is that we (wo/men) think we’ve got it all sussed out. That we know that God “hates those who oppose him.” If God hates, doesn’t that make Him/Her/It flawed? Think about it. Hate comes from anger, and anger descends from hurt- usually from feelings of rejection. The very idea of God feeling anything… is that absurd to anyone else? It’s that personifying aspect that we (wo/men) assert into the concept of Deity… that’s where danger happens. It’s sets the stage for God to suddenly become a pawn. And if the follower (no matter the faith) wants to be a “good” parishioner, s/he will do that which will “please” God. In many ways, religion is just another way of trying to control people- not completely, but a very good encouragement. To go against that which is being construed as the purpose of a faith (i.e., politics), suddenly makes those resistant, taboo and evil. A sort of blind faith for the Sacred Pawn?s appeasing then takes over.
I think that?s what?s going down now in the churches of this nation. Everyone?s so concerned with their version of the Sacred Pawn (and consequently the lines this leads to), and converting all other thought-schools to their side. All who oppose, are made into enemies. Fighting within faith erupts. And a whole new cycle begins.
Personally, I feel that God is _________. There is certainly a division between that which is God in it?s purest level, and the God that wo/men interact with. Like the Hindus believe (I can?t remember the specific school), Brahman (God) is something that must be directly experienced, something that words fail utterly in describing. But if It is all encompassing, that leaves such a big gap between It and man. That?s where the Deity with attributes (feelings/personification) comes into play (it has a specific name, but I can?t remember the Sanskrit term). That?s the version we understand. For me, communing with this level of God isn?t really recognizing God. It?s more of a I?ll scratch your back if you give me _____, kinda thing. It?s not really transcendence?g more of an as is state. No movement. Isn?t the very definition of religion (any means to seek God) transcendence? Shouldn?t we strive for that?
Transcendence to me is this: holding compassion for those who need it the most. The ones that infuriate you to the very last of you inhibitions. To argue or hate them is only fueling their cause. The worse thing one can do in a fight (of any size), is to martyr your enemy. That gives rise to more revolts, more wars. More hate.
It?s always circles.
Anyway. That?s enough outta this chicklet tonight.
I need to get my happy bum out of bed for text book shopping in a few hours. (uh, yeehaw)
Keep safe Duncan and crew.
I?m glad you have internet access. :)
I?ll see you all soon!
Susann
January 21st, 2006 at 7:07 am
Those who have the power always have the risk of sucumbing to it. This couldn?Lt be different with the power of communication and influencing masses. It?Ls all a matter of knowing how to manipulate and… doing so. Does this means that all evangelicals are mean or dumb? No, of course not. Does this mean they shouldn?Lt be respected? No, of coure not! (And I am a jewish fellow). I don?Lt believe in right or wrong, I believe in DOING right and doing wrong. They surely are forgetting that if they?Lre that religious, they surely believe in God, and of course, in the end of their life, they?Lll face God… just then they?Lll realize how bad and unfair it is to support and feed war and strike other people?Ls beliefs. May God have mercy on them.
January 21st, 2006 at 7:13 am
…AND NOW… I?LLL ASK SOMETHING DUNCAN OR ANYONE ELSE CAN ANSWER IF THEY KNOW… PLEASE.
I searched White Limo at amazon.com and found it pre-released. But as I bought Rufus Wainwright?Ls “Want Two” via internet, when I ordered it, it had a description of it?Ls itens and songs. It said: cd/dvd and showed the songs of each one.
In White Limo I found at amazon.com this doesn?Lt happen, it only says it?Ls an audio cd and then it lists the audio tracks. Does this mean Duncan?Ls DVD will be sold separated? How is it called?
Thank you for the attention.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
If anyone’s interested, the name of the Hindu school that I wrote about earlier is Vedanta. For further info about “levels” of God, look up Hirguna Brahmen (God w/o attributes) and Isv’ara, or Saguna Brahman (God w/ attributes).
Okay. That’s all.
I hate it when I can’t think of specifics!
(Had to muster around in my notes from class. :guilty grin:)
But in my search, I found this really interesting (totally unrelated) Vedanta concept: the root of the Universe is vibratory. Therefore, Life and Death are only separated by different vibrations.
COOL!
Yay brain food!
:D
Susann
January 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
No one really knows if there is really a God.
We must go by other forces of Nature, life. I’d like to think there is, but who knows really?
There may not be One. There may be many. :)
bw
January 21st, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Sorry about leaving a reply that is not on topic. But I just wanted to send Duncan a photo my friend David took of us (I’ll call it the bikini bootcamp gang) in Tulum one night on the beach. It was a great night anyway and an incredible thing to get found (we were lost) by your group and then discover that the guy playing guitar is one of my favorite musicians. Anyway we will be at the show in Denver at the Bluebird Theatre (we saw you there a few years ago as well). Let me know how to email the photo.
Heidi
January 21st, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I agree Ms. Wuzzy-Michele.
I don?t know if God exists. I would like to think so?g but on the level of indifference, or Hirguna. When I think about God, I see it more like the Taoists do… as some kind of Universal harmony that I and every thing beyond myself, is a part of. And if you think about it, that exists. Example: without death, there would be no birth. It?s in that paradoxical balance, that I get the best handle on what my human brain (a biased filter) can call God.
I go to forest preserve a lot for this reason. It?s my way of regaining some sort of harmony that I lose in daily life. When I walk, I see the utter complexity of the simplistic balance. The very veins of a leaf… that?s spirit. The rooting of the trees. The meeting of branches and the conversation of wood creaking in the wind. That?s totally beyond myself. But I?m built similarly?g just looking at my body… I see the same structure. My toes reach to balance me, and my voice is found when intertwinig with others. I see spirit within me too. And not just by physical whatnots. It?s in concepts, ideas, words and silence.
I?m actually struggling with Buddhist/Taoist and Pagan ideals as of current. If we (wo/men) are expressions of the great harmony of the Universe (something I?ve felt for a long time), wouldn?t it be insulting to the great harmony to attain enlightenment? Or can it be argued that enlightenment/non-enlightenment is just another expression of harmony? That perhaps it really doesn?t matter either way, because in the end we are all enlightened (nirvana = samsara)?
La sigh. I really didn?t mean to go this long. But God is hard.
It?s arduous and impossible to keep words small when attempting to find answers.
For the things that make you say yes, that?s it.
(Therefore gray is the best color of mind ever!)
But it?s only just ideas… They?re the only enemies round here. ;)
Much love. (sorry again for the length!)
Susann
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:41 am
I agree with siksika. When “Christians” misrepresent my faith and make statements about what we all supposedly believe, it saddens me. But we should all remember that the actions of a believer of a certain faith, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, etc, have nothing to do with the validity of that faith. War isn’t something that God takes pleasure in. No way.
War is awful. But it’s hard for any of us to say with any certainty that we should or should not be at war right now. Our government has information we don’t. We don’t have access to most of that information. How can we judge whether or not war is necessary? How can we say that our government is right or wrong? We’re stuck with only pieces of information given to us by the media. Do you believe everything the media says without question? I hope not. I really wish we were not at war. But I cannot say with 100% certainty that we shouldn’t be at war.
Let me ask a question. Let’s say you’re walking down the street with a group of friends, and as you pass an alley, you glance down it and see a man trying to rape a woman. What would you do? Would you do something about it, or think to yourself, “What did that guy ever do to me?” One thing undisputed about Suddam Hussein is that he did horrible things to countless numbers of his own citizens. Should we stand by and let that happen?
Let me raise a second point. After the attacks of 9-11, everybody was blaming the government. We should have done something before it happened. We should have taken out Bin Laden before he could attack us. So, we knew that Suddam helped terrorists, and also that when the opportunity arose, he would attack the US, regardless of whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction. What happened when we went and took out Suddam first? Everybody’s angry! There are celebrities in commercials talking about “What did Saddam do to us?” Protests all over the place. I think it’s hypocritical. What would have happened if the government decided NOT to go to war and Suddam attacked us?
So, can I say we should definitely, conclusively be at war? No, I personally can’t. But what are the odds that the hypothetical guy in that alley who appears to be trying to rape that woman is actually defending himself from an attack by the woman? Not very likely.
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:19 am
I’m a Christian and I think Mr. Marsh his correct. Reminds me of the middle ages and the selling indulgences to expiate sins and people stockpiling them BEFORE they sinned just to have on hand for convenience to give to the church. Wasn’t that whole thing about money and power? But then I would argue that wasn’t the REAL church acting but a false one just as Bush isn’t a real Christian but a false one just as most of Christianity in America is false (AKA “Left Behind” series).
Aniti-Christ should be translated as “parallel”-Christ, meaning one who looks good but is really evil. The biggest threat to Christians isn’t from outside the church but rather those on the inside that LOOK LIKE THEY BELONG but really don’t (aka in Revelation the “anti”-Christ “looked like a lamb but had the voice of a dragon”).
I take Duncan’s use of “strong-armed Christians” to be referring to these type of people Mr. Marsh describes.
A GREAT author to read on this subject is Erich Fromm. Check out “The Heart of Man: It’s Genius for Good and Evil” and “The Art of Loving”.
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I think that our very Dear Country that we live in does not take a look at the Full-Picture. (i.e. The Others in the World) Many a times, the Leaders in Power are just thinking about themselves first, citizens second. They don’t concern themselves with future ramifications of the Actions they take today. This is where the “Problems” lie. America has caused many of our own problems, which we have today. This is what needs to be reassessed by the folks in power and certainly by us, being Citizens’ of this country. Our Voices all must be heard. So much, we are to blame upon ourselves, from not thinking about the Actions we are taking today and how they will affect the World tomorrow. Everything has effects. Hopefully the decisions we make today will make the World a better place for everyone, not just some. There are many, many Narrow Minded People the World over, who need to re-examine these issues. For the many individuals of the World, who are weak, not by their own choosing, or lack of education, they must depend on other members of their Societies. We must come to realize that fighting each other and blowing each other up Solves NOTHING!!!!! The world is ours to share and to be able to live in peace together in. This is the Harmony and Inner Peace we must seek to find. The answers are not easy ones. We must strive to think of our neighbors first, and stop being so concerned about ourselves. By this I mean, other populations, Countries all over. We are truly all in this together, whether you wish to believe it or not. America needs to think of how Today’s Actions will affect Our Tomorrow, and for all of our own sakes, stop making these Repeated Mistakes. We are feeding the fire.
bw
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
If you fans haven’t had a chance to read the review of the new album on Spin.com … don’t. I’ve never been so angry in my adult life. Who does this woman thing she is? Sorry to ruin a perfectly good Sunday.
January 22nd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
thebutangjedi, you said it. That lady has no taste. But critics will be critics, their statements never really have value anyway. From what I’ve heard so far, this album is gonna be sweet. If anyone knows this lady, please slap her for me.
January 22nd, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I firmly stand by the bumper sticker on my car that reads: “FREEDOM OF RELIGION MEANS ALL RELIGIONS”
I get tired of (most) of the christian religions who say, “I don’t want you pushing your views on my child. But, here is a bible and a list of scriptures that enforce the “fact” that we NEED prayer in school, GOD in the pledge of allegience, ect…” It’s called hypocracy (sp?) and It makes me ill.
One thing I’ve always believed is that Bush got his presidency by pandering to the religious right. “I’m a christian, I pray, I love god, woe be to ye who are not and do not.” It’s no secret that he actually asked Pat Robertson (among a number of christian leaders) for advice before and during the iraq war. By using the christian leaders as advisors, he basically GAVE them a whole bunch of power (politcal and moral) at their disposal and every whim. They know this, he knows this….
The biggest problem for bush is now all this coming back to bite him in the ass. When a church or leader doesnt agree with something he does, they remind him of all they’ve done for him. It’s a one way street… either you are with god and his “disciples” or you’re not…. there is NO middle ground…. period. It’s gangster mentality….. “we helped you and we will call you when we need you…. if you don’t help us at that moment….. it could be very, very bad for you.”
sorry….. ending my rant, now.
January 22nd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
This is way off topic, but I have a question. Are there going to be forums again here at DS.com? It would be cool to get them back.
January 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Very well put. I especially liked how he threw in the evangelical’s titles as he quoted their war sentiment.
I do not think the issue is that so much that these evangelists support the war (though, that is in fact another issue), but that they are doing in in god’s name. Same thing as when they say being gay is against god. There are not many places in the bible that actually support that. Most of the places that do also offer instructions for slaves and remind us that a woman on her period is unclean, as are any chairs she sits in and any man she lies with or who happens to sit in the her “dirty chair.” Oh, how far we have come. Now, there are plenty of places in the bible one can find reasons not to go to war. Just off the top of my head, there’s that whole “Thou shalt not kill” thing. But you don’t see people throwing around THESE bible verses. People are always going to twist the bible, or anything else for that matter, to support what they are trying to say. They will leave out or completely ignore the parts that disprove their statements or twist the words of others to support them. At the risk of sounding like an after-school special on the church channel, I think anyone who uses religion to hurt another person in ANY way is the real “evil.”
- Russell
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:11 am
No forums here… holler at sheikfreik.com for all your discussion board needs.
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I always thought that fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous. If our intentions in the middle east were based not on a credible evidence on nuclear proliferation and the intent to use on the United States and allied nations, but rather to smite those who beleive not in Christianity or any other Bible based faith, then we as a government are no better than al Qaeda. I realize that the majority of Americans claim to be Christian, but I remind everyone that the people destroyed by terrorist attack or there survived family’s on 9/11/2001 were likely not all Christian. Bullets and bombs do not discriminate or spare based on anything, let alone religious beliefs. A nation has been attacked, not a church. If any Christian speaks in favor of death, they must remove themselves of that title, and if they do not, other Christians should remove it from them, for they are Christian in name only.
~David
January 24th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Russell, it’s alright. Most people don’t understand certain books of the Bible, like Leviticus for example. But like anything, you have to actually study it to understand it. You don’t just know Calculus, you have to learn the math that comes before it, or else it’s just jibberish. That stuff confused me too when I first heard it, but now I understand what it means. If this wasn’t a blog I would go into it a little more for you, but it’s actually very cool stuff.
About the Thou shalt not kill thing. It seems like you’re saying we shouldn’t be in a war because we shouldn’t be killing anyone. Now I’m not comparing this war with World War II, or saying we’re justified in this war, but should we have not done anything about Hitler and watch even more millions be killed? I think we did the right thing. The Bible says not to commit murder, it doesn’t say not to defend yourself, or not help protect your fellow human beings.
There are groups that call themselves Christian groups. But you can tell the genuine ones by the love they show. Don’t let the negative ones influence your view of the faith itself.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Duncan,
As a devout Catholic and moderate (with a conservative slant), I have sometimes believe your political leanings to be consistent with an uninformed, bleeding-heart liberal ignorance.
But I must say that on many faith-based discussions, and your respect for the Catholic faith (b/c of how you grew up and your family’s tie to it) and other religions (yourself, a buddhist) your authentic intention shows through… as a believer of truth. I firmly believe the article was, for the most part, on point. I question whether we should have gone into Iraq but I think it’s a complicated issue and not an oversimplified debate of should or should not. Hindsight being what it is… we’re now in a complete mess with soon-to-be 1,500 dead (Americans). I still wrestle with it (the decision to go), and I certainly like to side with the Vatican on most issues because they are peace above all else. It’s just difficult.
Thanks and look forward to visiting with you in Chicago.
The best,
David
January 24th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Hey Susann,
I?ve been trying to formulate my response to your question: wouldn?t it be insulting to the great harmony to attain enlightenment? for days and have come to the conclusion that I would have to write a book to do so, and perhaps, someday, I will ?g but not anytime soon. At any rate, Nichiren Daishonin said it better (and more concisely) than I ever will in a letter which has come to be known as On Attaining Buddhahood in this Lifetime. Well, he actually wrote it in Japanese, but there is a very nice translation here: http://sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/wnd/concord/pages.view/3.html.
My short answer to your question is that I actually think it would be more of an insult to your own potential and a great loss to the world for you to hold yourself back on the journey you have obviously begun. Most folks are handicapped by the delusion that they already know everything (I speak from experience), so you?ve made a good start. I hope don?t sound too much like your grandmother or a guidance counselor, but I guess maybe I am ; ).
I also want to point out that harmony doesn?t just happen (as anyone who has ever heard me sing can attest). If you bring together a group of musicians, no matter how talented or well trained, if they are each playing a different tune in a different key at a different tempo, all you get is cacophony which can be fun, and not that there?s anything wrong with doing your own thing. There is plenty of room here in the infinite universe for great solo artists (such as our own beloved buddhaboy [hi Duncan! Are you ignoring me? Intentionally? Because this is starting to feel like one of those challenges… Do the words escalation tactics mean anything to you? Don?t say I didn?t warn you. You should probably also know that I chant a LOT {all that time on my hands, ya know? ; |)}]). Getting back to the point, even a good soloist needs other folks to back him/her up, and in order to make that work it helps if they can agree what the heck they are playing. Once you have some basic structures in places, someone who knows what he/she is doing (leaving yours truly out in the cold, as per usual [sigh]), can improvise to his/her hearts content.
Well, I seem to have made a pretty good start on my book, so I?ll just end by saying that you write really beautifully. That passage about walking in the woods was like poetry. It took me right out of my concrete block into a peaceful place and made me long for spring. I don?t know if any of that helps or even makes sense for that matter. Perhaps I should have signed myself in as:
thebumblingbodhisattva
tehehehehe…
January 25th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Dr. Pepper, I was rasied Catholic, so I have seen all types. I don’t let the outspoken ones who twist the Word negatively influence me. I am a little sour on the religion as a whole, as my whole life I heard priests saying things like “Every other religion isn’t wrong, but we’re the RIGHT one.” Anyway, letting the people who get on TV spoil my view of anyone would just be wrong. That would be like saying I think all black people are ignorant because of Al Sharpton. TV is TV. I think anyone who knows how to read a book knows to take it with a grain of salt :)
As far as Leviticus is concerned, that’s one of the only parts of the Bible I can think of that has an anti-homosexual reference “Man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman” or something like that? I am confused, though. What, exactly, did you mean by studying it to understand it? Do you mean that it needs to be taken in a historical context (to be blunt, and a little rude: archaic)? Or something else? And for the killing thing… I don’t really have an answer… I don’t think anyone should be doing any harm to anyone else, but I know that is unrealistic. I know Christians (and most religions) should NOT support killing for ANY reason. But I know that is not really pramagtic, either.
I do look forward to what you have to say. And, I agree, it is easy to tell the geniune Christians from the showy ones. And I have nothing but respect for them.
- Russell
January 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
It is refreshing to see someone put in such a clear-to-the-point way an issue that has become such an elephant to discuss. I could say much about this, but won?t ?gor at least will try not to. We do live in a very biased political and cultural society, when we should be instead in an ethical and just one (dream on, I guess? Nope. Come on! Just like Lennon said in his song Imagine).
Regarding this topic, one of the things that depresses me the most is the fact that people can be so one-sided in terms of religion. For me religion is like our nationality or the language we are taught where we grow up. And without trying to be sacrilegious or to offend anyone, I think that ultimately all religions are the same in essence: a quest for enlightenment and meaning in this life, just spoken in different tongues and with different symbols. But bottom down, they are all inherently the same, so why all the fuzz? Why do people are always mine is better than yours? I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND EVERYONE to either read the book or watch the PBS series called Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers, . Campbell was an American writer on mythology and comparative religion, and this book/interview puts it down-and-easy in such a pleasant way. I think it should be required reading for everyone. Seriously! For those scared of big words, this book is not academic at all in the sense that is just a conversation between two people and not a boring discourse. Ultimately, it is sad to see people fight wars and make incisive statements about others in the name of God. Religion is about having a personal code of ethics, I think.
And to close down, I got this in my weekly horoscope last week, which I think sums all up very well:
”Without question, ethical monotheism,” (replied Peter Watson, author of *Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud.), was “The idea of one true god. The idea that our life and ethical conduct on earth determines how we will go in the next world. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history.” Personally, I disagree with his curious assessment. I think history’s most terrible idea is the theory that some groups of people are smarter and better and deserve more rights than others.
True that!
January 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Oh, one last thing….
I do not think that the answer is to not have religion at all. Instead, to accept that religion is everyone’s own thing, and should not be forced onto another. I myself are Catholic, and while I do not actively practice in a way, I do believe that there is “something” big
January 28th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Hi Russell. Let me explain what I mean by studying it to understand it. Certain parts of the Bible are difficult to understand without having a strong knowledge of the Bible as a whole. Also, archeology, history and cultural backgrounds give many things clarity. So let me give an example.
In the book of Numbers, chapter 21, the Israelites are complaining to Moses about God bringing them out of Egypt only to die in the wilderness. They say that there’s no bread or water, and that they’re sick of the bread God gives them (called Mana). They are basically saying God can’t cut it, and that they’d rather be back in Egypt as slaves. So God sends a plague of poisonous serpents, and they bite the Israelites and many die while others are dying. Realizing why it happened, they come to Moses and say, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that He take away the serpents from us.” And Moses prayed for the people. So then God says, “Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.” And that’s what Moses does, and just as God said, everyone who looked to the serpent lived.
What in the world was the point of all that? Well let me tell you. Actually, let Jesus Himself tell you. In the Gospel of John, chapter 3, Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man (a title of the Messiah) be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” So He’s saying that the incident in the wilderness is prophetic of what was going to happen to Him. How’s that? Well, the serpent is symbolic of sin because of the serpent in the garden of Eden. That’s an easy one. It’s made of brass because brass is a symbol of judgment. That’s from knowing the set up of the Tabernacle and the duties of the Levitical priests. So what God did is put sin judged on a wooden pole, and whoever looked to it for their lives would live. So also, Jesus is sin judged for us, crucified on a cross of wood, that if we look to Him for our eternal lives, we will indeed live. Why would He do that for us? Let’s look at the very next, famous verse; “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” We don’t earn it, we can’t pay for it, but it’s by faith that we’re saved. We just recognize our condition, that we’re not perfect, and that Jesus gave His life for us.
It’s all about the Love man. Peace!
January 31st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
From the beginning, I believed that the pending conflict with Iraq didn’t meet the criteria for just war. I do believe there is such a thing as just war. What always stands out for me when I contemplate Falwell, Robertson, etal. is that I’m more of a Christian libertarian than I am a Christian conservative. Even so, I only use those labels for convenience sake, because I like what Marsh highlighted from the Lausanne Covenant of 1974:
“the signatories affirmed the global character of the church of Jesus Christ and the belief that ‘the church is the community of God?s people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology.’”
So, I greatly hesitate to attach qualifiers to my faith in Christ. But, alas, the fact that human beings are created to be in association with one another, it seems appropriate to qualify how you believe we OUGHT to associate with one another. My faith determines my worldview and thereby my philosophy of human interaction.
I realize this is somewhat off the subject, but it certainly plays into the mindset that serves as the impetus for the Falwells and Robertsons of the world. It takes a lot of hubris for one man or one organization so say that they speak for God. What about the sobriety and humility of the Gospel?
I find it interesting that DS posted this. What is your take as a Buddhist?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
OH my. I just was avoiding my carb’s chapter for Nutrition…
and I wind up here (imagine!).
Buddhababe…
I’m so very so sorry that I didn’t see your reply to my Q! (terribly disappointed with my non-commitment to such an awesome subject) Since I last posted my goo here, I’ve sorta accepted that it?s within the Great Harmony to attain enlightenment- not for self betterment or for the sheer experience. It’s simply okay because there is unenlightenment. And for one to exist, so must the other. In all actuality, both are the same expression. Just differing perceptions.
Personally, I don’t have the patience within myself, for myself to attain. Instead, I’d rather hangout in the woods and see the original nature of paradox. That seems to tingle my head more than anything these days (looks at the Nutrition book on the coffee table).
I’ve recently realized that I’ve spent so much time thinking beyond the body, that I’ve forgotten how fantastical bodily existence is.
So, I’m opting to sit with that for a while.
But just a while. ;D
Thank you again for your reply and web address!
I will read it for sure!
April 26th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I was just surfing by & I want to say that I needed to read what was on this page. Many times after hearing the likes of Michael Savage on the radio and all the negative media and comments a Muslim can feel overly aware of hatred directed at us. It has never been my opinion that people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston etc are striving to be truly righteous, but striving to appear righteous for political clout. The problem is they are the ones getting all the press. I am happy I surfed by here and was able to read this page. It helps me shake off some of the hate I feel is heaped on me from mean spirited preachers. May the good you do find its way back to you all.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:48 am
buy valium online
buy valium online
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 am
buy valium online
buy valium online
September 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Duncan-I think you are amazing! Your music is wonderful and I really admire your work. I had seen you in February in Chicago at the Double Door and loved it. I can’t wait to hear what is coming up and will be hoping to see you again soon in concert.