I do not believe that the Old Testament prophets and the Book of Revelation predict events in our time. Prophets have always spoken to their contemporaries about their actions and their consequences in their own time: because you are doing x, y is going to happen. The Book of Revelation isn’t about fortune telling, it’s about hope and faith and the glory of the Lamb. So I believe John the Revelator was speaking of figures in his own time when he spoke of the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet. I am sure that his intended readers understood perfectly his imagery, not only as a rich and wonderful depiction of the Kingdom of Heaven, but as code words alluding to events in the Roman Empire of his day.
And let’s be clear: I have not read any of the Left Behind books, and God willing I never will find myself having to sit through any of the Left Behind movies.
I have stated this all up front so that you will know that I do not think that George Bush is the Anti-Christ.
But let’s just look at the Anti-Christ/False Prophet imagery for a second. The Anti-Christ is supposed to be a leader that deludes us into thinking that bad is good and good is bad. He would charm us into following him into doing unspeakable acts, say, torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment, ghost detainees, or murder. The Anti-Christ would be supported by the False Prophet, who would create a false religion to pervert God’s will. This false religion would make us hate instead of love, applaud war instead of peace. It would paint its enemies, say, homosexuals, Muslims and liberals, as undeserving of God’s love, nor ours. This religion would wreak death (the death penalty, war, poverty, disease) instead of life (peace, compassion for the imprisoned, food for the hungry, health care for the sick).
The religion of the False Prophet would become intertwined with the governmental power of the Anti-Christ, quite the opposite of the historic separation of Church and State in the U.S. Government leaders would be qualified for their roles by virtue of their religion (Harriet Myers anyone?). The false religion would defend the immoral actions of the government, while the government would enforce the false morality of the false religion.
We would be blinded by our unquestioning belief that God is on our side. The Anti-Christ would never display any uncertainty and never admit any mistakes, but would assure us that we must “stay the course”. The False Prophet would tell us that it is our divine destiny, as prophesied by the Word of God, to engage in a cleansing war that will bring God’s Kingdom to us on earth. Not only must we fight this war, we must provoke it. Achieving peace in, say, the Middle East, would be to oppose God’s will. War is good and peace is bad.
I don’t believe in the millennial eschatology of the likes of LaHaye, but if I did, I would be expecting the rapture any day now.
“Prophets have always spoken to their contemporaries about their actions and their consequences in their own time: because you are doing x, y is going to happen.”
This is true, but nearly every biblical prophesy has two natures, proximate and distant. That is, they have short-term meaning for the initial audience as well as a long-term meaning that part of God’s larger plan. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no premillenialist Evangelical. I’m an amillenial partial preterist Catholic. As such, I believe that some events of Revelation have already happened and others are yet to happen. Some of the latter might be the long-term meaning of short-term events that already happened. Make sense?
Bob, I am just shaking my head here. Your link on kidnapping has this to say:
“Italian officials have firmly denied playing any role in the abduction or knowing about it beforehand. But current and former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation, said the CIA briefed its counterparts at the Italian military intelligence agency ahead of time.
After the case became public, CIA officers involved in the decision to apprehend Nasr told their superiors that the Italian intelligence agency cleared the operation with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. But there appears to be no documentation that would support the claim that he was aware of the case should a public dispute erupt between Italy and the United States, according to two U.S. sources.
Several former intelligence officials said such documentation, on such a sensitive subject, would probably not exist. “The price of doing business is if you get caught, you’re on your own,” said one former intelligence official….
…Investigators said they had uncovered no hard evidence that Egyptian or Italian agents were involved in the abduction, although Nasr later told his family that the two men who seized him spoke “perfect Italian….” ”
We really don’t know what is going on here yet and probably won’t for a very long time, it is a mystery, at least for now. Further, the “sources” interviewed by the Post “were not authorized to discuss the operation,” remain unnamed and cannot be verified.
Your second link on false imprisonment was concerning RENDITION.
Your third link on murder has to do with independent contractors helping in the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, not the government and no one has condoned their actions, however, if independent contractors feel threatened what would you have them do?
What is this “false religion” which is being created? Who has espoused that “homosexuals, Muslims and liberals,”are “undeserving of God’s love, nor ours?” (This is more of your crap that somehow “Progressive” Christians, like Angel, bless her heart, can identify sin and still love the sinner but if a “Conservative” Christian identifies sin in someone’s life and professes to love the sinner, well, that just can’t be! They are haters who think that people who sin are undeserving of God’s love!!! :0) Why does it not surprise me that now you want to label us, also, with not believing Muslims or liberals are deserving of God’s love!? You know, actually you do raise an arguable point that none of us are…none of us do deserve God’s love, that’s what grace is.
Your statement that:
“This religion would wreak death (the death penalty, war, poverty, disease) instead of life (peace, compassion for the imprisoned, food for the hungry, health care for the sick).”
Is ridiculous, sorry, but I’m calling it as I see it and I don’t think you’d want me to be less than honest. In that first, we must suppose that there has been a false religion created or implemented (would I be correct to assume that you mean the “Conservative Christian Religion?”), and there hasn’t, secondly we’d have to accept that the liberal or Progressive view of politics which supports abortion on demand, mercy killings (or at least they have little to say in defense of those who cannot speak for themselves but have left no formal documentation showing that they wish to die if they are in a particular set of circumstances, such as the Shiavo case), throwing money at governments who do not use said money on aid to feed the poor but rather use it for their own selfish wants, and implements socialized health care as the solution for Americans so that they can all receive the same level of CRAPPY health care after having been forced to wait for MONTHS to visit a Doctor or receive the medical procedures which might save their lives.
These are political issues in which you believe you are right and set out to demonize anyone who doesn’t believe the same as you as bigoted, hating, unforgiving, death mongers, or to make it simple for you, Republicans. You continue to pretend that you are a tolerant, loving, forgiving “Progressive” Christian who only seeks peace and unconditional love while showing your complete intolerance, unloving and unforgiving attitude toward any Christian who does not hold the same political views that you hold. I think I should rephrase my previous new Progressive Christian motto to that of: “If I perceive, in my politically myopic mind, that you Conservative Christians are judging people, whether I am right or wrong, I WILL JUDGE YOU.” Just for YOU, of course, Bob, not all Progressive Christians are as judgmental, I am finding.
Who has claimed that “war is good and peace is bad!?”
I suppose that in order to support the war on terrorism one would first have to believe that we have a terrorist enemy. Bob, do you believe we have a terrorist enemy? I do not endorse kidnapping, false imprisonment or murder, Bob, however, I am realistic enough to not put on my rose colored glasses every morning and think that the world would be just fine if that evil George Bush and that imperialist United States of America would just clear out of Iraq and leave those fine and gentle radical Muslim “freedom fighters” alone Eyeroll.
“..secondly we’d have to accept that the liberal or Progressive view of politics which supports …”
I discovered I didn’t complete my thought, so here is its completion:
…wreaks life and is better than the Conservative view of politics which you seem to claim wreaks death.
I expect the rUpture to occur *any* day now.
W isn’t the anti-christ, but I’m keeping an eye on that Kirk Cameron dude.
The rapture is false, because if we’re raptured into the sky, isn’t that sort of cruel for those of us who are afraid of heights? God wouldn’t do that to us.
Well done Bob… is this view something you picked up from your pastor or something you discovered on your own? Your understanding of Revelation is right on!
Revelation was written during the time of Domitian and shortly after the eruption of Vesuvius. John’s audience would have known about Vesuvius and about the moral degradation of the Roman Empire. Pompeii was the original “sin city” and represented the corruption of the Empire. John writes about the earth shaking, stars falling from heaven, the earth falling, darkness covering a third of the earth, and evil persons being destroyed by fire… all events that actually happened as the result of volcanic eruption. This natural disaster becomes a great image of the “end”. It comes without warning and the devastation is complete. Like all the prophets, John warns that you never know when the end will come for you so be prepared.
Concerning the antichrist, 1 John 2:18 says, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour.” The antichrist is not a specific person but can be anyone who opposes the will of God in Christ Jesus. More specifically, one who teaches a Gospel contrary to the teachings of Jesus and puts themselves in the role of savior. Revelation is not only a condemnation of a person (Domitian = 666) but also a culture that promotes evil disguises as good and lies proclaimed as truth. As Jesus said, you will distinguish the difference by the fruit that is born. If you want to know if someone is an antichrist just look at their deeds and the results of those deeds.
I grew up in an “end-times” climate, and I used to wonder why the anti-Christ was always going to be a Democrat or liberal. People were so tied to Republican politics that they couldn’t possibly imagine that the end times might possibly be brought about by a Republican.
I’ve never really thought about Revelation in that way; a decade or more of looking at something in one way pretty much blinds you to any other possibilities. Many dispensationalists don’t realize that there are other ways of looking at things; I’ll probably always remember the preacher at my college’s Wesley Foundation explaining the term “dispensationalism” to people who were completely clueless about it.
On a semi-related note, I’ve seen people use the “end-times” argument as an excuse to not take care of the earth. Seriously.
Jacke: “Progressive” Christians, like Angel, bless her heart
I am not a Progressive Christian, though I find nothing wrong with being one.
Bob: I will respond on actual post later when I have more time!
Angel, I think your little heart still ought to be blessed, if you don’t mind.
“On a semi-related note, I’ve seen people use the “end-times” argument as an excuse to not take care of the earth. Seriously.”
Yes. The American government. (Now somebody’s going to make me provide the link… OK, forget it.)
Jacke,
What about *my* “progressive” heart?
I was willing to ask for blessings on Angel’s little heart when I thought she was a Progressive, so why wouldn’t I ask for blessings on your little heart too, wildwest? I agree with Angel, there’s nothing wrong with being a Progressive. I just disagree with your politics, that’s all, and think all Christians should treated with respect regardless of their political views, up to a point, of course. I’m not talking extremists here, just people.
Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Bless your heart.
What? You have no liberty? :0
Fer Tony, wash yer nose, there’s something brown on it.
Hey, Tony? I got a question fer ya.
You know the love of God, as you have said in the past, is like rain and people can’t avoid it? Does the love of God fall on all these anti-Christs?
Ah wuz jest wundrin’ ’bout thet whal Ah’z settin’ here in mah house coat an awl, eatin’ mah bon bons an watchin’ tha early local news.
Sorry, Ah thank Ah’m havin’ me wun a them thar moods ur sumthin’. Yew no, tha kind whar Ah cain’t seem tew resist startin’ sumthin’? :0
The Antichrist and the False Prophet?
Bob, in the I am a Christian Too blog, posted this piece that echos some thoughts that I’ve been having lately. As a progressive Christian I believe that Biblical prophecy speaks to us today not because God was ‘foretelling’ events…
“You know the love of God, as you have said in the past, is like rain and people can’t avoid it? Does the love of God fall on all these anti-Christs?”
At least two arguments could be made. 1) According to Acts and the final chapter of John, the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to “call, gather, enlighten, and sanctify”. We are told in the Gospels that the only unforgivable sin is a sin against the Holy Spirit. The role of the antichrist is to lead people away from Christ and bring them to a pseudochrist. This is a sin against the Holy Spirit. Simply put, the antichrist leads people to false gods and idols. A false god could be tangible but more often is an “ism” or an ideal. Check out the false gods and false prophets in Galatians, 1 John, and 1 Corinthians. Like today, the ancient antichrists claim to be followers of Jesus but their words and actions are totally contrary to the teaching of Jesus.
On the other hand, 2) Paul writes in Romans that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Does this mean that God’s love and grace come even to the antichrists? I would argue that my sins (or the sins of the antichrists) could not possibly invalidate the work of Christ. If they did, then I would have to say that I am more powerful then Christ for I have the power to undo what Christ has done. But no human has that power. My belief in Baal would not nullify the work of Christ… Christ’s redemption is real regardless of how I feel about it or even if I choose not to believe it. The rain still falls!
I will go with argument 3): leave to God the business of God. Only God will ultimately decide who is redeemed and who is not. Nowhere in the Gospels do I find an imperative to judge. But I do find that the Holy Spirit calls me to love others as I am loved and forgive others as I have been forgiven. On judgment day I don’t think we will be asked how committed we were to defending the law by passing judgment, rather I think we will be accountable for the love and forgiveness we have shown… or not shown… to others.
Why, Tony, I’m impressed, that was a very thoughtful and good answer to a needling question. Well done!
First, let me say that I do believe in the “End Times” and “The Rapture.” I have ever since my teens when I sat down to seriously study the Book of Revelation. I do believe that Revelation speaks to past, present, and future events. I also believe that we are living in the “End Times.” Where we are in that, only God knows.
While I do not believe Bush is the anti-christ, I do believe a lot of the “bad is good and good is bad” is going on. The Bible doesn’t stutter. Jesus didn’t stutter. We know as followers of Christ that we are to be following the example of Jesus. Period. I see a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike saying different.
Anyway, it was definitely a thoughtful post even if I didn’t agree with every aspect of it. I do think you hit a few things on the head though.
What do you mean when you say, “The Bible doesn’t stutter. Jesus didn’t stutter.”? I don’t know what that means.
What I mean by that is that Jesus is quite plain in the things that He said. He even gave us examples through parables to even better explain what He was saying so that there would be no reason for anyone not to understand exactly what He was saying. He isn’t hard to understand.
Actually, none of the Bible is hard to understand. It is MEN who make it hard to understand by claiming it says what they want it to say instead of what it actually says.
In Luke Chapter 8 we read:
9 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, 10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.
I read this and conclude that the disciples did not know what Jesus was talking about and had to ask Jesus to explain himself. And further, that Jesus does not intend for everyone to understand what he says. He says very clearly that he speaks in parables so that some people won’t get it. Is this an example of Jesus or the Bible stuttering?
Through the scripture we were blessed with being privy to much, if not most, of what Jesus said to his Disciples as well as the parables he spoke to the people, unlike the people of His day. During the time when Jesus was here on earth telling parables to the people, the people didn’t have the New Testament, which goes into great detail. That is, if people don’t single out only the Words Jesus spoke and exclude all of the clarification and in depth scripture which he laid on the hearts of His Disciples. You know the Disciples were all hand picked and anointed by Christ, Himself, to lay the groundwork of the early Church, and that groundwork was well documented in scripture, Tony. I believe that God gave us everything we need to know in His Holy Word.
You’re right about the parables, Tony. Their purpose was to obscure, not clarify.
A little update on Bob’s “kidnapping” charge:
Below are excerpts from:
http://tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120905F
“The twisted logic works like this: Removing a terrorist from the streets of Milan (yes, a bit roughly) is worthy of indignation, but physical abuse carried out by the Egyptians is totally irrelevant. Bush and Berlusconi are the bad guys, while Mubarak is the hero. Basically, according to the lectures of the Italian press, you can torture a terrorist who is planning terror missions and funding terror groups, but you cannot kidnap him. This position is emblematic of the anti-American sentiment that dominates the Italian press, which does not see reason in anything the Bush administration does, even when a criminal is finally expelled in whatever fashion from our country.”
and:
“When representatives of places like Cuba and Iran come to town for an official visit and someone dares to raise the constant abuse of human rights in those countries, the anti-American press defends Castro and the mullahs citing, in the name of cultural relativism, that we have to respect the practices occurring in other countries. The rest of the world can do what CIA agents in Milan cannot.”
J. I don’t understand your response so let me restate my position assuming I did not make my point clear.
All Christians use the Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, as the authoritative Word of God. That applies to conservatives and progressives alike. But we differ on where in Scripture that authority lies.
For some, usually conservatives, the authority is in the written text itself. I saw a bumper sticker once that read: “God said it! I believe it! End of discussion!” For some this is all that is required for faith. And that is fine for them.
But for others, myself included, the text isn’t enough. I want to know why Jesus said what he said. I want to know the context and the vernacular use of the language of the day. I want to know the idioms. My faith isn’t stronger then the literalist but it is enriched by a deeper pursuit of the truth. My inquiry does not lead to confusion, stuttering, or misinterpretation of the text but to greater appreciation and deeper understanding.
Our focus has been Revelation and the antichrists but for the sake of clarity let me give a simple illustration. I think we all know the story of the parable known as the Good Samaritan. A “God said it… I believe it” approach to the parable would conclude that we’re supposed to be nice to people and help them out whenever we can. So we have hundreds of hospitals called “Good Samaritan Hospital” around the world. This understanding assumes parables are morality tales that instruct us how to live.
But as one who stutters, I believe the parables are not about us but about God. They are not morality tales but descriptions of how God works. So I approach the parable of the Good Samaritan by asking “what is Jesus telling me about God?” The expanded text reveals that Jesus was approached by a lawyer who asked what one must do in order to inherit eternal life. The lawyer asked the question in order to “test” Jesus. He knew the answer according to the Jewish faith which is to remain faithful to the law, do everything the law requires. So the story is told.
In the story there is an unidentified naked person lying in a ditch. The fact that the person is naked is important because without the clothing you cannot tell the ethnic or religious character of the person. You cannot tell if the person is a Jew or a Samaritan. A Priest and a Levite come down the road. Two important persons in the life of the Jewish community and two people known for keeping the law. The audience in Jesus’ day would have known that. They also would have known that their law kept them from helping the man in the ditch because to touch a dead person or a bleeding person is defilement. They’re not bad guys. Remember the original question is, “What must I do to be saved?” And the lawyer responded that salvation was through the law. Now Jesus is showing that the man lying in the ditch is not saved by the law, rather the law justified the rejection of one who was in need of salvation.
But there’s more. Samaritans were disdained by the Jews. They were half-breeds who were the scum of the earth. And yet it is the Samaritan who saves the man in the ditch. He is free from the law to act with compassion and mercy. The Jews of Jesus’ day would be very offended by this story.
Every parable has Christ in it. In this parable Christ is the Samaritan; the one rejected by the Jews, disdained, and killed because he put compassion and mercy before the law. The guy in the ditch is us… we are the ones in need of salvation. Go back to the original question, “What must I do….?” OK… what did the man in the ditch do? Die! Was he saved because he believed in the Samaritan? No, he thought the Samaritan was his enemy. Did he “decide” to follow the Samaritan? No, The Samaritan picked him up and carried him off. Am I saved by the law or doing the right things… or through God’s compassion and mercy?
To say that the Bible stutters, is confusing or challenging, is not disrespectful or unfaithful. It challenges me to dig deep and often to live with the question rather than jump to some unintended conclusion.
And it is this deeper understanding of Scripture that leads progressives like myself to speak out against a President who tortures in order to end torture, who uses white phosphorus against people suspected of engaging in chemical warfare, who manipulates the press in order to bring about freedom of the press, and who arrogantly lies over and over again in order to tell us the truth.
And it is this deeper understanding of Scripture that leads Christian progressives to speak out against injustices and defend the last, the lost, the least… and the homosexual in our society. We do so because we see that that is what Jesus did and that is what he is calling us to do.
I appreciate your insight, Tony, and agree with much of it, though you deviate a little from the actual parable, you say the man in the ditch was dead, but he wasn’t. Now, perhaps he would have died if the Samaritan had not “saved” him but he did not die. Secondly, you say:
“I believe the parables are not about us but about God. They are not morality tales but descriptions of how God works. So I approach the parable of the Good Samaritan by asking “what is Jesus telling me about God?” ”
Even if you interpret the parable as being what Jesus is telling us about God rather than a moral story about how we should help others, the scripture tells us that we are to take on the mind of Christ. So, if you believe that the Samaritan represents God, then we would be required to behave as much like the Samaritan (God) as possible, though we will be incapable of being as caring, merciful and loving as God, as we are only capable of being that when Christ works through us, not of our own power.
You also claim to speak out against a “President who tortures” though it has never been, and still is not, U.S. policy to torture prisoners. Therein lies our difference. You believe the President endorses and supports the use of torture, I do not. It is also questionable, what you say about white phosphorus, but I will have to address that another time, it’s late and I’m tired. Thank you though for your thoughtful, response, I appreciate the effort you put into your answer, I know that it takes time to craft a thorough answer such as the one you posted. Now, that is the kind of discussion Christians sould have, a respectful one.
All Christians, whether they accept the label of “Progressive” or “Conservative,” should be defending the last, the lost and the least. Why are homosexuals in a separate category from the last, the lost or the least, or for that matter, the first, the found and the best? I don’t get your meaning there?
Tony, last night I was tired. After I wrote my response to you, I thought about what you were replying to, somewhere in the course of your response you confounded rather than clarified the issue.
I think you understand what I view as a dilemma regarding the inerrancy of the Scripture. I have mentioned it in the past, but in case you have forgotten I will attempt to repeat it without going on a long rant…I think it can be summed up by this statement: People choose not to believe that the Bible was able to be kept pure by men who God ordained, or at least allowed to record or translate it, because they claim the people who recorded it or translated it are mere men, at the same time, they choose to interpret the Bible based upon what they themselves or other mere men have told them is erroneous or wrong about the Bible. This is the dilemma. I am asked to believe the word of men FAR REMOVED from the time period wherein the Bible was written or translated over the word of men who the Bible tells me were inspired by God, Himself, to write it, and over the power of God to keep it pure. I cannot justify that. You claim that:
“For some, usually conservatives, the authority is in the written text itself. I saw a bumper sticker once that read: “God said it! I believe it! End of discussion!” For some this is all that is required for faith. And that is fine for them.”
I believe this is an erroneous assumption. Because I believe that the Bible is inerrant does not mean that I believe, or others believe, that ONLY the Bible is the authority. I have pointed this out before, for some reason you and other Progressives cannot resist the temptation to over simplify the beliefs of the “Conservative” Christian. Well, it is a tempting thing for man to label men, but that still does not make it right, God knows I have done it myself, though I try very hard not to. I happen to believe that God speaks to us in many ways, often in ways which I, or you, or the general population, do not even recognize but for you to assume that just because some people believe in an inerrant Bible, or because you read a *bumper sticker* slogan that anyone believes that the Bible is the ONLY authority, I believe is an error. Did you stop the driver of the car which had that bumper sticker and ask for clarification of his/her views? Do you listen and consider what Conservatives say to you? Do you ask questions in an effort to better understand why they believe the way they believe? Do you consider each person to be an individual with their own variations on the theme of Christianity? Or do you write them off as “Conservative” Christians who worship the Bible rather than God, poor, silly things?
As far as I am concerned, I do not see where you have countered, in your reply, anything I said in my very brief comment. Are we not, through the scripture, privy to more information surrounding what Christ sought to communicate than the people of His time learned or did not learn through parables? Do you deny that the Disciples were all “hand-picked” by Christ? Do you believe there are now situations in the world that were not discussed, or some very similar situation, not addressed in the Bible and therefore there is NOT a lesson regarding everything of this world in the Bible? Do you believe that there is other literature written by men which is deserving of HIGHER regard and full of MORE profound wisdom than the Bible? You didn’t really respond to my post, what you did was try to, in ever the elitist manner, point out that for you the Bible serves to “challenge(s) me to dig deep and often to live with the question rather than jump to some unintended conclusion.” Then you go on to IMPLY why this, evidently, enlightened state of being that Progressives hold exclusively over Conservatives, allows “Progressives” to have a deeper understanding than “Conservatives,” causing you to question Presidential policies which don’t exist, in the first place. Well, aren’t you the special and more “holy,” intelligent one than all those misguided “Conservative” Christians!? Geesh, you know, I really don’t know why I even bother to try to communicate with some of you.
I would still like to know why, when describing mankind and the human condition and how we need to be “defending the last, the lost and the least,” that homosexuals are somehow in a separate category from the rest of mankind, further, how do you “defend” them? That was also an interesting choice of words. I think I might have said, “show compassion to,” “aid,” “help,” “reach out to,” tell me, why did you choose “defend?” And even further, why did you bring up the issue of homosexuals at all? You seem to introduce completely alien topics into what was being discussed, well, you are welcome to, of course, I just wonder why you wanted to start running down all these different paths rather than simply reply to my comment.
I’m sorry I upset you. Homosexuals are not separate from the last, the lost, and the least, they are the last, the lost, and the least; a not so exclusive club to which we all belong at some time in our lives. My point was simply to show through the Word of God that Jesus calls all of us to respond to… what ever world we find ourselves in… to respond with love and compassion rather than legalism. A point that is lost if we are not challenged to dig deeper… or, in your words, discover the mind of Christ. Legalism leads to division and death; love results in wholeness and health.
Regarding white phosphorus:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/11/16/afx2341690.html
Excerpts:
“‘It’s part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like we use any other conventional weapon,’ said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.
Whitman said he had no knowledge of any civilian victims of attacks with white phosphorus.
‘We don’t target any civilians with any of our weapons, and to suggest US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would be wrong,’ he said.
‘We don’t target civilian populations. We go to great lengths to do everything possible to prevent civilian casualties, and collateral damage to property,’ he said….”
“…another Defense Department spokesman highlighted that WHITE PHOSPHOROUS HAS BEEN USED BY ARMIES AROUND THE WORLD FOR THE PAST CENTUREY. (emphasis mine)
A yellowish substance with a pungent smell similar to garlic, white phosphorous erupts spontaneously into fire when exposed to oxygen, releasing a dense white smoke.
Incandescent particles of white phosphorus can cause deep, painful chemical burns, said GlobalSecurity.Org, a Washington group that gathers information on military subjects….”
“…A report on the battle of Fallujah published in April in the army journal Field Artillery said white phosphorous ‘proved to be an effective and versatile munition’ in Fallujah.
‘We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosives),’ said the report.
‘We fired ’shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out,’ it said.
‘We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective AND SAVED OUR WP FOR LETHAL MISSIONS,’it said….” (emphasis mine)
White phosphorus is used in lethal missions and as a smoke screen, not to target civilian populations. If you are going to put a bullet in a terrorist during time of war and you use White phosphorus as a means to flush them out, along with armies around the world for the past century, I just can’t have a problem with it, these terrorists were marked for death anyway. Again, this is an instance wherein the rest of the world is ignored when it uses white phosphorus as a weapon, and Lord only knows how these other armies in the world for the past century have used it, but if the U.S. uses it as a smoke screen or in strictly lethal missions it is suggested or implied by anti-war people that we are delivering chemical agents to a large population of Iraqis. Most of the articles I found in my Google search of the news were Middle Eastern reports, why would I be surprised that you might give them more credence than what you give the U.S.?
As far as upsetting me, you didn’t. I thought I was having a discussion. I agree that we are to respond with love and compassion rather than legalism. Where the problem lies if that if anyone identifies sin as sin then some “Progressives” take that to mean that we are responding with legalism, judgment and condemnation. It should not be our intent to “defend” the rights of other sinners to sin, rather we should be reaching out in love and rebuke. You know, I don’t make excuses for other sin, so I am not hypocritical in this manner. My Bible tells me that homosexuality is a perversion, it also identifies many other sins, it directs us to hate sin and repent and turn from it. What does your Bible say, I mean, before mere men get a hold of it and tell us all why it’s wrong and why they are so much more intelligent and holy than the Word of God? We won’t agree on this issue, I’m sure, but I can’t understand why we stop at “defending” the sin of homosexuality, why don’t we “defend” all of the other sin identified in the Bible? Why stop there?
One more thing that troubles me, Tony. Why do you claim that homosexuals ARE “the last, the lost and the least?”
Again, this makes no sense to me, this seems to set them apart as a special breed or something. Are they not the same as any other? Are their rights restricted? Do they not have all the same HUMAN, CIVIL, rights that I have? What makes them different than me? If they did not identify themselves as homosexuals, who would know!? I don’t go around town wearing my sexuality on my sleeve, making certain that everyone knows I am a heterosexual and PROUD OF IT. Why is it even a consideration? Because they CHOOSE to make it a consideration, that’s why. They CHOOSE to set themselves apart from other people. My whole life does not revolve around the fact that I am a heterosexual, why does their whole life seem to evolve around their sexuality? WHO CARES!? They can set up household and live however they want to live, it’s their business, Homosexual ACTIVISTS have another goal other than just living out the American dream, pursuing life, liberty and happiness, they want endorsement and accolades, they want to be treated as though they are a separate race, they are not.
Tony, first my apologies for not coming back sooner to see if you had responded. I have been busy creating my sister a new blog and it has kept me busy. I just got it fully completed today. Second, the answer is within the chapter. It is fully explained. Just read past the verse where they ask Jesus to explain to his explanation.
Now you and Jacke may return to your discussion. I didn’t mean to interupt.
You didn’t interrupt anything, Angel. I’m at a loss for words….
Why, Tony?
Yes, why, Tony? I am actually curious as well. I guess I must have responded in a way that you weren’t expecting, but honestly it was the only sincere answer I could give. The Bible didn’t stutter and neither did Jesus. The disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying and he explained it perfectly to them. I understand what He said, so I figure you do too. I may be wrong, but it doesn’t seem hard to grasp.
Like, I wasn’t discussing these issues, or trying to, with Tony so that I could “win,” but I was just wondering, since he refuses to reply or answer any of my questions does that mean he concedes the argument and I win a prize or something? I like chocolate, just about any kind will do but I do prefer milk chocolate over dark chocolate though I know that dark chocolate was recently discovered to have health benefits, but I digress. I also like the gem stone garnet because it is my birthstone, so if your going to have one of those little tiara thingys made up be sure to “liberally” apply the garnets. Let’s see, colby cheese…my favorite color is green, like Kermit the Frog, and I like frogs, too, btw…hmmmm…oh, favorite flower? Calla lilies, I grow them in my perennial garden…fruit baskets are okay, I especially like pears and oranges…cashews are my favorite nuts…well, that’ll give you a start, if you have any other questions, jest let me know….
I think he’s just still licking his wounds after the last Jackettack!
Jacke, I showed your last statement to a colleague who loves both George Dubya and chocolate. I thought maybe you were my colleague in disguise. No, she’s not you, but she found your request for chocolate amusing!
So, you thought I was kidding!?
No, I thought you were her!
She must be a highly intelligent and beautiful woman.
Since we’ve already gotten completely off the subject, look what I just discovered. Cal Thomas is *not* overreacting! I LOVE it!! From MediaMatters.org:
Cal Thomas: “War on Christmas” crusaders “might be more objectionable” than those saying “Happy Holidays”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512140015
Nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas decried the “effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a ‘Merry Christmas.’ ” While Thomas did not single anyone out by name, among those who have most aggressively promoted the notion of a “War on Christmas” are fellow Fox News personalities Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson and religious figures such as Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights president William A. Donohue and Moral Majority Coalition founder Rev. Jerry Falwell.
In his December 13 syndicated column, Thomas, a conservative Christian, wrote: “The effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a ‘Merry Christmas’ might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the ‘Happy Holidays’ mantra required by some store managers.” Thomas wrote:
I have never understood why so many Christians feel the need to see and hear “Merry Christmas” proclaimed to them at stores by people who may not believe its central message. While TV personalities, junk mail letters and some of the ordained bemoan the increasing secularization of culture; perhaps some teaching might be helpful from the One in whose behalf they claim to speak.
[...]
I do not care if a mall employee wishes me a “Merry Christmas,” or not, or if mall managers favor snowpersons over manger scenes, or erect trees they call “holiday” and not “Christmas.” It isn’t about their observing this event, giving us a “religious rush” and creating a false sense of security that culture is better than it is. It is about people who believe in this historic event observing it in a way that recalls the birth of the Savior of the world (not the savior of the bottom line): silently, wondrously and worshipfully.
On the December 13 edition of Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, Thomas again voiced his concern:
CAVUTO: You’re saying that, you know, the John Gibsons, the Sean Hannitys, the others are going too far in this thing. What do you mean?
THOMAS: I don’t mention any names.
CAVUTO: Come on. Come on.
THOMAS: Hey, look, we shouldn’t expect store clerks who are about the bottom line to wish whoever or whatever a “Merry Christmas,” a “Happy Ramadan,” a “Happy Hanukkah.” They’re there to make money, and the fact that they’ve cashed in on Christmas, which is about not the bottom line but the savior of the world. Not about lights on the tree, but the light of the world. And not about Xboxes, but about our sin boxes, if you will. Let them do what they do. But the people who actually revere the person who is supposed to be the reason for the season have a special way of worshipping and adoring him that have nothing to do with the crass commercialism –
CAVUTO: Yeah. But, Cal, this is not about the person behind the cash register, the person who’s stocking toys. This has to do with the organizations themselves, the Wal-Marts and the big stores that seem to have an inherent policy not to say the words, “Merry Christmas.”
THOMAS: I don’t care, Neil! I don’t care what they say! Their holidays are on April 1, April Fools’ Day, OK? I won’t mess with them if they don’t mess with me. Let them do whatever they want. They’re stores! They’re selling stuff! They’re increasing the bottom line.
CAVUTO: Cal, you’re a deeply religious man. I know you personally, and you’re one of the most decent guys I know. Now, do you, when you go searching for Christmas cards and have a tough time finding Christmas cards, or go to stores and have a tough time even hearing the word “Christmas,” does that bug you as a religious guy?
THOMAS: [laughs] Not at all, Neil. I’m not expecting it there. I hear it in church. That’s fine. That’s no problem for me.
[...]
CAVUTO: If they’re not saying it now, does that at all make a difference to you? Or are they just giving in to what was always their secular gut?
THOMAS: Look, I believe there are cultural problems in this country. I believe that, you know, people are celebrating Howard Stern being able to say whatever he wants, and they’re trying to censor other language. I think people ought to be free to express themselves — religiously, politically, matters of faith, matters of non-faith — in the public square. I believe in all of those things. But we’re talking about a very specific thing here, Neil, and that is whether just the mention by a store clerk or in the public square of the phrase “Merry Christmas,” or even the word “Christmas,” is reflective of something deeper. I don’t think you can necessarily make that case.
wildwest, I agree with Thomas, to a point. I understand his point, it’s just that it bothers me that store managers feel that out of political correctness that they must request their employees not say “Merry Christmas” AT ALL. It isn’t so much that I need to hear “Merry Christmas” from a store employee, it’s the idea that if a customer who does celebrate CHRISTmas (and over 80% of Americans claim to be Christian) outright says “Merry Christmas” to an employee that that employee cannot return that phrase. I mean, what’s up with that? It’s a free speech issue more than a need to hear “Merry Christmas” from an employee, the employer has restricted his employees rights, well, sure, an employer restricts rights of his/her employees every day, but this just seems over the top to me. I guess if an employer feels that his employees are too stupid to say a generic Happy Holidays to those of whom they are unsure how to address and a Merry Christmas in return for a Merry Christmas then we have a whole other problem for a whole ‘nother topic, huh? Don’t cha jest hate stoopid peeple? Lol.
Dang it! I’m still thinking about this. What does it say about our society that store managers have got the idea that it is *offensive* to mention Christmas when more than 80% of our population claims to be Christian???
I totally support business owners rights to instruct their employees on store policies, as a conservative, but what statement does this make???
I also totally support the idea that we should be sensitive to other people, but while we’re being so super sensitive to the less than 20% of our population that claims some other faith than Christianity who is being sensitive to Christian’s feelings? Oh, I forgot, that’s DIFFERENT. *ahem*
And ANOTHER thing, who does this *Bob* guy think he is trying to write blog entries designed to lead us by the nose into discussing issues of his choice!? Humph! Who does he think he is, anyway!? :0
Wildwest – thanks for the “war on Christmas” info…nice to see that not all conservatives are jumping over the cliff with O’Reilly et al. As for businesses and their policies, ever read Dilbert? If any stores really tell their employees that (and if any do I’m sure it’s a very small minority) then it sounds more like a pointy-haired boss thing rather than some dark conspiracy.
Jacke – if you want to pay my monthly web hosting fee, you can write about whatever you want! (Well, actually you already can, since I haven’t deleted a non-spam comment yet.)
Nah, I was just teasing you, Bob. And yeah, I already can, if not here, at my own blog. See how that works?
Bob, I think the only conspiracy is on the part of O’Reilly & Co.
Jacke, I’ve been to your blog, and it is brutal.
It wasn’t intended to be brutal, just honest. Maybe it’s brutally honest? :/
Not honestly brutal?