| Author |
Message |
    
ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (Alianne)
Starlite Member
Username: Alianne
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 07:07 pm: | 
|
YOUR WORDS ZAHEER:"the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies." ZAHEER, In reply, I must tell you there is Christendom who teaches the Trinity since the fourth century and there is Christianity that teaches what Jesus taught; that there is no such thing as the trinity.
|
zaheer - uddin (Zaheer)
Starlite Member
Username: Zaheer
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
CHRISTIANITY: AN OVERVIEW
By Gary Miller
If this booklet were written to announce my conversion to Christianity, no Christian would complain that it is too blunt. So if I must reject an aspect of Christianity in a succinct form, let me not be accused of bluntness either. A Muslim believes in the religion of Jesus but sees mainline Christianity as a religion constructed about Jesus. Our protest is against two excesses: The apotheosis of Jesus and the most frequent missionary tactic directed toward Muslims.
Part One
Christians and Muslims who learn something of one another's religion find that a crucial issue is the nature of Jesus. The majority of Christians deify Jesus while Muslims say that he was no more than a prophet of God, a faultless human being. The doctrine of the Trinity avows that three distinct co-equals are God. In particular, Jesus is said to be God the Son, or the Son of God. As the Muslim questions details of this theology, the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies.
So the Muslim seeks clarification of the teaching and asks at every step: "How could that be so?" For example, we insist that the term "Son of God" cannot have a literal interpretation. Sonship and divine nature would be necessary attributes of such an actuality, but these are incompatible. The first describes a recipient of life while the second describes One who received life from no one. These are mutually exclusive requirements then. To be a son is to be less than divine, and to be divine is to be no one's son.
As a discussion proceeds, it is the Christian who will eventually take refuge in the response: "These are things that we cannot understand." His assessment of the Muslim's problem becomes his own confession. The Christian explanation becomes self-defeating so there is a change of tactic.
He complains that the Muslim refuses to accept what cannot be understood. But the modified approach is a diversion. Now the concepts of verification and understanding are confused. To illustrate: Chemical reactions may be verified but the atom is not thereby understood. Facts are catalogued but not always explained. This distinction is the key to our concise reply. It is the Muslim who must redirect the discussion. Our primary issue is more basic than resolving the incongruities of Trinitarian doctrine. Rather than ask how the Trinity can be so, we should ask why it must be so. We ask, "Why must Jesus be divine? Can we verify the necessity of this belief?"
The Muslim Position
A few centuries ago, European Philosophers commonly felt that a conjecture was proven if it could be shown to be equivalent to an assertion made by Aristotle. Unfortunately, such an approach stopped short of challenging Aristotle and discovering truth. Similarly, testing the Trinitarian case on what people have said about Jesus stops short of establishing the integrity of the authorities and the truth of the matter.
Our purpose here is no more than the illustration that belief in the Trinity can only be based on Church authority. Many Christians admit that this is the case while others insist that the teaching was elaborated by Jesus himself. "Let them produce their proof," is the repeated admonition of the Quran, that is, "provide the documentation that Jesus himself claimed unqualified deity," (Quran 21:24). Unless this evidence can be produced, authorities are subject to challenge. Then the Christian may not evade the Muslim's questions concerning understanding. The Christian will have no justification for maintaining an illogical position, unless he is content to rely on the opinions of men. If he will probe no deeper than this, the Christian-Muslim dialogue is finished.
For Christians, the only documents accepted as reporting the words of Jesus are the accounts given in the Bible. We leave the Muslim attitude toward the Bible for part II of this essay and find our motivation now in the Quranic verse, "Say: 'O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." (Quran 5:68). Christians are advised to support their claims by citing their books. Thus Muslims believe that no saying of Jesus can be produced which shows him grasping at equality with God. The primary issue is not whether Jesus is God. The first question is whether he said that he was equal to God.
Methodology
The Bible record of sayings credited to Jesus is quite meager. After allowance for duplication in the four gospel accounts, these sayings could be printed in two columns of a newspaper. None of this handful of texts is an explicit claim of deity. All quotations are implicit, that is, they require interpretation. We are told what Jesus said and then told what he meant. So our methodology takes an obvious form.
It is not our intention or obligation to reinterpret the Bible. We are satisfied to merely verify that Christian interpretations are insufficient, ambiguous, or impossible. We mean to argue: 1) that where the meaning of a quotation is clear, it is still insufficient to prove that Jesus claimed equality with God; 2) that other quotations cited are open to various interpretation, ambiguous; 3) and that still other quotations have been given interpretations that are impossible. This means the evidence is either inadequate, inconclusive, or unacceptable, respectively.
Insufficient Evidence
The virgin birth of Jesus and the miracles he demonstrated are cited by some as proof of his divinity. The insufficiency of the premise is obvious. We need only read the Biblical account of Adam's creation, without father or mother, and the accounts of miracles associated with the prophet Elisha (Genesis and 2 Kings chapters 4,5,6). In the case of these two men, no Christian asserts their divinity, yet each has a qualification in common with Jesus.
Some maintain that Jesus was God because the Hebrew Scriptures predicted his coming. The inadequacy here is only slightly less apparent. The ancient Hebrew Scriptures are also cited as predicting the role of John the Baptist (Malachi chapter 4). These three arguments are mentioned to show that the ready claims of Christian betray a selective or forgetful recall of scripture. They know the fact of virgin birth as well as they know the account of Adam's origins, yet they interpret the first and overlook the second.
Now to pursue our case indirectly. Does the Bible quote Jesus as claiming equality with God? Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms "son of man", "son of God", "Messiah", and "savior". But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as "son of man" (Ezekiel chapter 3). Jesus himself speaks of the peacemakers as "sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). Cyrus the Persian is called "messiah" at Isaiah 45:1. The duplicity of translators is manifested here, for they inevitably render only the meaning of the word "Messiah" which is "anointed". Where other Bible verses seem to refer to Jesus, they prefer to transliterate "Messiah" or the Greek equivalent "Christ". In this way they hope to give the impression that there is only one Messiah. As for "savior", the word is applied to other than Jesus (2 Kings 13:5). Christians choose to cite the forty-third chapter of Isaiah as proof that there is only one savior. Again, translators have tried to obscure the fact that God is the only savior in the same ultimate sense that He is our only nourisher and protector, though men also have these assigned tasks. By over specifying this pronouncement in Isaiah they hope to have us believe that God equals savior and Jesus equals savior therefore Jesus equals God. The conspiracy of modern translation is easily demonstrated. The King James Bible of 1611 is everywhere available. Compare it to a more recent translation, say the New American Bible of this century. In the earlier version we find 2 Kings 13:5 contains the word "savior", but in the newer version the synonymous word "deliverer" has been substituted. In fact, "saviours", the plural, will be found at Obadiah 21 and Nehemiah 9:27. Here again, by substituting a different word, the connotation of divinity tied to the word "savior" has been guarded in modern versions by less than honest translation.
Once more we have exhibited the insufficient warrant of arguments offered: Those terms said to connote divinity are used of individuals other than Jesus.
There is a quotation that should be mentioned here also. At John 8:58 it is reported that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am". Even if Jesus meant to claim by these words that he was alive before Abraham was, is this sufficient ground to say that he was divine? If Jesus lived in heaven then came to earth it might mean something remarkable, but it would not be enough to establish him as God incarnate. Additionally, it should be noted that these words are open to other interpretation. Christians do not imagine that the prophet Jeremiah had a pre-human existence and so they find a suitable way of interpreting the words of Jeremiah 1:5 which portray such a situation, if taken literally, Why not apply a similar understanding in the case of John 8:58?
Ambiguous Evidence
Some scholars have insisted that in this statement of Jesus just discussed, he appropriated for himself a divine title. In Exodus chapter 3, it is reported that God told Moses "I am what I am," as most English Bibles translate the Hebrew text. At John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I am," as most English Bibles translate the Greek text. But here is the key to another deception. The original of the first text is in Hebrew while the original of the second is in Greek. All but a few of Jesus' words were recorded in Greek. For two hundred years before the time of Jesus the Jews used a Greek translation of their Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. This work translated the key phrase "I am" of Exodus as HO ON. However, the words of Jesus, "I am", have been given to us in Greek as EGO EIMI. If the gospel writer of John 8:58 wanted to tell his Greek-speaking audience that Jesus had imitated God he would have used the familiar words of the Septuagint, otherwise the point would be lost. The evidence of John 8:58 is far from conclusive.
There is another Greek word to consider which betrays suppression or neglect of evidence. At John 10:30 Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one." The Greek word translated "one" is HEN. Certain scholars have insisted that the only possible understanding of this word is "one in essence or nature". One need not be a Greek scholar to refute this unjustified claim. A counter example is sufficient. The same word is used by Jesus in John 17:11,21,22,23, as he includes his disciples in this oneness, whatever its meaning.
The most widely translated sentence on earth is said to be Jesus' statement of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son..." While Christians wish to say that the word "only-begotten" gives Jesus special status among all the "sons of God", again there is a problem if ambiguity. The same word translated as "only-begotten" is found at Hebrews 11:17. In this verse the word refers to Isaac. The Bible itself shows that Isaac's older brother Ishmael outlived his father (Genesis 25:9). Therefore, at no time was Isaac, strictly speaking, the only-begotten son of Abraham. Recognizing this, Christian scholars qualify the meaning of the word in this case and give it a less than literal interpretation. But if the meaning is subject to interpretation here, why not also in the passage of John 3:16? Once more the possibility of ambiguity means that John 3:16 is inconclusive evidence.
Whether or not Jesus really used the term "Father" when speaking of God is another controversy. But here our point is again, that suck use is inconclusive evidence that God was literally Father to Jesus. All Christians use the term when addressing God. The Jews themselves used the term (John 8:41). Jesus told them that the devil was their father (John 8:44). Of course, he was not speaking literally.
Certain scholars stress the verse of Mark 14:36 where Jesus speaks the Aramaic word for Father, "Abba". They insist that this implies a very unique relationship between Jesus and God. This displays a- schizophrenic forgetfulness. For favorite scripture passages are Romans 8:14 and Galatians 4:6 where every Christian is said to use this term of address for God.
Impossible Evidence
An episode is recounted in the twentieth chapter of John and a certain Thomas is quoted as saving, "My Lord and my God." In interpreting this, Christians maintain that Thomas was addressing Jesus by both of these titles. The Muslim would have no objection to the term "Lord". As the Bible explains, the word means "master" and Sarah is said to have called her husband Abraham by this title (Peter 3:6). The suggestion that Thomas addressed Jesus as literally being God is a different matter. Jesus has already pointed out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves address men as "gods" (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6). This would allow for Thomas' use of the term. However, Paul gave new rules in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods "...yet for us there is but one God, the Father.... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." Christians apply this verse to sort out the ambiguities of Thomas' expression. But now we are left with an unorthodox doctrine, namely that Jesus is the Father. This ancient heresy has been branded by the Church as Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or Sabellianism. The impossibility of an orthodox interpretation of Thomas is now apparent.
The distinction between Father and Son is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. This distinction is blurred again when John 14:9 is pressed into service. Here Jesus' reply to a man named Philip is recorded as, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." A strictly literal explication would mean the unacceptable doctrine that Jesus is the Father. So interpreters say that "Father" is here equivalent to "God". However, we cannot possibly be obliged to understand that Jesus meant to say that seeing him was exactly the same as seeing God because he was God. Our reason is found in the contrariety of John 5:37. Here he told a crowd about the Father saying, "You have neither heard His voice at any time not seen his form."
The Total Evidence Did the Jews Understand?
Surprisingly enough, it is often conceded that individual verses are insufficient, inconclusive, or even unusable in the case made for the divinity of Jesus. However, there are those who insist that while any given verse may be deficient, it is the total collection of all such verses that proves the case. This betrays a misunderstanding of the reasoning process. Each verse must prove something, or it is dispensable. Given a verse, we must demand to know exactly what it does prove, and why. Christian exegesis, the traditional explanation of scripture, has been exposed as incredible within the church itself. It has been shown to be enthymemic in the extreme. That is, premises and conclusions are not clearly stated. (Exactly what is meant by the "redemption of man" is still not clear to this date. [This article was written in 1983]) Whether we probe the roots or the outgrowth of the system, the structure becomes vague. (See for example, THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, a Christian publication.)
A final argument has been offered based on the understanding of the Jews. Christians have said that our rebuttal given here is unimportant because the Jews understood Jesus to grasp at equality with God. They cite John 5:18, ' ...because ... (he) was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." They pass over the verses that follow immediately, where Jesus subjected himself to God, naming those things which God gave him.
They cite the tenth chapter of John where the Jews tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy. The point of the reply Jesus made is neglected. He demonstrated to those Jews, by quoting their own scripture, that they had no grounds for their accusation.
Curiously enough, in their haste to put claims on the lips of Jesus, part of the Christian church constructs a very confused story. The Hebrew scriptures made reference to a Messiah and the Church says this can only mean an incarnate God and so when Jesus spoke of himself as Messiah he was blaspheming because no man can be God, according to Hebrew scriptures ... or so the reasoning seems to flow together in confusion.
There is a legal point to be made here. If the a understood that the Messiah was to be a man who was equal to God then a man who claimed to be the Messiah could only be condemned as a false messiah. He could not be condemned on the grounds that he uttered a statement which must always be blasphemous in itself. At some future time, the true Messiah would have to speak the very same words without being condemned. When certain Jews declared Jesus' words as blasphemy they could only have meant to condemn him as a false messiah. Any supposed connection between the word "Messiah" and the attribute of divinity has no bearing on this matter. (The fact is, the Jews have never believed that the promised Messiah would be a man who is equal to God.)
In the second chapter of Mark, Jesus tells a man, "Your sins are forgiven." The customary interpretation takes the side of the Jews then present, who asked, "Who can forgive sins but God Alone?" But the verse at John 12:49, among others, explains very well how a man could make such a statement. In this verse Jesus denies any personal initiative. (See also John 8:40; 14:10.) The argument based on Jewish understanding makes the assumption that the Jews understood Jesus. A more viable hypothesis is simply that the enemies of Jesus misunderstood him. In fact Jesus repeatedly alludes to this (e.g. Mark 4:11, 12). It is interesting to note that today Jewish scholars find virtually no objections to anything Jesus said. (See the reference under Jesus in the UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.)
Conclusion
We have not merely used the Bible to suit ourselves. Verses have been cited without any commitment as to their veracity. It has been our intention only to show the defects in the Christian stand which says: "Jesus claimed to be equal to God." If we decoct the mixture said to establish that stand, we find inferior ingredients, weak evidence and specious reasoning. Our position has been narrowed enough to make almost any Christian response a step toward the Muslim’s position. We have cited the most quoted and clear scriptures, so if any others are brought forward, the Christian admits the deficiency of previous arguments, and thus makes a short list even shorter ... the list of quotations said to prove his case. Or, if the Christian builds a case on something other than the words attributed to Jesus, he repeats exactly what we first protested: mainline Christianity is based on what people have said about Jesus.
Afterword
We asked, "Why must Jesus be divine?" By this we meant to ask why a Christian believes so. If the question is asked without reference to the foregoing discussion, a Christian will answer that Jesus must be divine if his death is to be sufficient atonement for the sins of mankind. In the Christian scheme of redemption, it is held that sacrificial death was necessary that men might be saved. Ask why the death of any man would be insufficient and the Christian replies that all men are imperfect. Ask why they are imperfect and we are told that this is an inheritance from our fathers. Jesus had no father. By their own scheme he would have been an unblemished sacrificial victim. Nevertheless, they still require that he be divine to suit the role of redeemer. So we ask, "Did God die?" He quickly replies, "No, only the man Jesus died." Jesus is said to be a God-man and it was the human component that died. But now he has said that the death of a man has atoned for sin. The Infinite is required for this ritual of sacrifice but the Infinite is not actually sacrificed.
There are many missionary tactics directed by Christians toward Muslims. The bulk of these stands immediately condemned by the Bible which speaks about their Master's path being straight (Luke chapter 3, Matthew chapter 7). Missionary strategies have included enticement with money, women, alcohol and social status. These methods may lead people, but do they lead by a straight path? A complete exposure of such activities would be a worthwhile document, but this in not our concern here. Christian authors who deal with the Quran and the Bible in order to win converts are the subject now.
Disputing the Quran
Attacks on the Quran have abounded since the Book's first appearance. In fact, in a remarkable verse the Quran invites examination; "Have they not considered the Quran? If it was from other than God, surely they would find in it many inconsistencies," (4:82). While many theories have been offered to explain the Quran's origin, "today no sensible person believes these theories. This leaves the Christian in some difficulty," in the words of the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. We want to also mention that no theory has yet been suggested that is not already commented on within the Quran itself ... the book replies to its critics.
When a verse of the Quran is said to be in error, the Muslim's natural urge is to correct the inaccurate interpretation. But we perform more efficiently if we are realistic. There is a difference in attitude between those who study the Quran and those who assault the Quran. A sincere questioner has open-mindedly accepted the challenge of the verse 4:82. But most often the missionary both attacks and distorts the Quran, while pretending to be reasonable. This opponent is not interested in the proper understanding of any given verse. So, we may best proceed as outlined in Part I: We demonstrate only that the so-called difficulty of any Quranic verse originates in an interpretation which has not considered sufficiency, ambiguity, or acceptability.
We need only to show: (1) that a given interpretation is inadequate to build a case; (2) or that the meaning of words has been overly restricted and is not the only meaning possible; (3) or that a meaning has been given which is actually impossible.
My experience has often been that Christians who question will find their answers in the same place they found their questions. Frequently they have studied the Muslim commentaries of the Quran (TAFSEER), and when they find an obscure point, they bring it to Muslims hoping that we are unaware of research and explanation already done on the matter centuries ago.
What does the Quran say About the Bible?
Certain missionary writers intend to tell not only Christians about the Quran, but Muslims also by their eristic methods they build a flimsy case in order to provoke controversy where none exists. They tell us that the Quran says the Bible is accurate. They tell us that the Quran accuses Christians of changing the texts of their scriptures. The Quran does not make either of these assertions. By pointing to disagreements between the Quran and the Bible they hope to make difficulty. By arguing for preservation of ancient Biblical texts they intend to cause still more confusion for Muslims. However, these tactics can only work if we admit the premises on which they stand ... and we do not.
First, the Quran states that Christians have access to the truth in their scriptures. But it does not catalogue the sixty-six small books called the Bible and label them as accurate. In fact it condemns those who would claim divine inspiration for something composed by a man. Part of the Bible, as will be seen, falls into this category.
Second, the Quran does not accuse Christians of deliberately tampering with the original texts of their scriptures. Rather, it accuses them of manipulating the understanding of their scriptures. The deceptive translations mentioned in part I illustrate this practice.
In short, the Muslim believes that the Bible contains the words of God, and more words besides these.
Is Total Acceptance of The Bible Deserved?
The last sentence of the preceding section states the Muslim's attitude toward the Bible. It is actually the attitude of many Christians. It is only a certain collection of Christians (the Fundamentalists) who maintain that ALL of the Bible originated with God. Adherence to this belief is unwarranted for at least four reasons; (1) It is not claimed within the Bible itself; (2) It is an unworthy attitude; (3) It is not self-consistent; (4) It is logically impossible.
(1) ... The Bible nowhere names itself. The word "Bible" is not in the Bible. Sixty-six books have been bound as one without any divine command to do so. Compare, for example, the opening of the book of Jonah: "The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying …" and the opening remarks of the writer of the third gospel account: "... it seemed fitting for me ... to write it out... ," (NEW AMERICAN BIBLE). The first book claims divine inspiration, while the second author makes no such claim.
By trading on the vagueness of the words "scripture" and "book" the Fundamentalists try to make a case for the Bible's total inspiration. For example, they quote 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul wrote to Timothy, "... all scripture is inspired of God ..." In the first place, it still remains to establish the authority of Paul ... did he speak for God here? But the real trickery is in the isolation of this verse. In the sentence before this. Paul indicated what he considered as scripture, namely, that which Timothy studied as a child. When Timothy was a child the last twenty seven books of the Bible had not been written.
The antepenultimate verse of today's Bible seems to conclude the whole of the Bible, as it warns against adding or subtracting contents in "this book". However. "this book" can only refer to this last book of the Bible and not to the Bible itself. The reason is clear: Any Christian reference will acknowledge that other books of the Bible were written after this one, that is, the last book in today's Bible was not the last one written. In fact, exactly which books should form the contents of the Bible was still being debated three hundred years after Jesus.
(2) ... The official position of Fundamentalist churches is really a modification of the blunt statement: "The Bible is the perfect word of God." While they consider the modification only slight, it is actually ruinous. They say that the Bible is "inerrant in the original manuscripts". If all contradictions in the Bible could be explained away as misunderstandings, why would they rely on this excuse? By taking this position they admit to errors in the Bible. These are said to be only small copying errors made over the centuries as the scriptures were recopied. They have disregarded the advice of Jesus who said that carelessness in the little things means carelessness in large matters (Luke 16:10). Yet the unworthy statement about today's Bible is really: "The Bible contains small mistakes but no big ones."
(3) ... There are abundant copying errors in the Bible, the conflicting statistics of Ezra 2:5 and Nehemiah 7:10, for example. On the one hand the Fundamentalist admits this to be the case and excuses it as a minor copying error. On the other hand, he puts his trust in the statement of Isaiah 40:8 which says, "The word of our God stands forever." This verse does not go on to accept minor details due to flaws in the transcription of His word. According to this verse, if God says it, it does not get lost. But mistakes of transcription means something of the original has been lost. It is inconsistent to excuse error and simultaneously disallow error. The only solution is to drop the notion of total divine inspiration of the Bible.
(4) ... Total inspiration is illogical because it is both disavowed and disproved within the Bible. At 1 Corinthians 7:25 the Bible writer specifically says that he is about to make a statement which did not originate with God ... inspiration is disavowed. In the first chapter of Titus we have a counter example which disproves total divine inspiration. Paul quoted the famous Epimenides paradox, specifying that the speaker himself was a Cretan: "Cretans are always liars ...". He then says that the man spoke the truth. But when the statement is spoken by a Cretan it is definitely not true. If it was true then at least once, a Cretan was not a liar, in which case the statement is false. The conclusion is the denial of the assumption, so the statement is not true. The writer Paul at least on this occasion, was without divine guidance for he did not discern this subtlety.
Conclusion
The Christian who would preach to Muslims must first be prepared to allow us to clearly establish our own position. Otherwise he confronts a man of straw but misses the target of genuine Islam. His comparisons of the Bible and the Quran are most often seen to be shallow and misleading. As with the matter discussed in part I, our most fruitful debates will be those that consider Why not How. If the Christian wishes to prove his stand, he must justify it after explaining it. Conversely, if he would attack out stand he must understand it correctly before we can be asked to justify it.
Finally, this is not an attack on the Bible. It is an attack on an unjustified attitude held by some concerning the Bible. Again, the Muslim believes the Bible to contain God's words, but he does not accept the entire contents as such. Deciding which portions deserve our acceptance is not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of consistency. Those portions, and only those portions, which are self-consistent, compatible with reason, and self-proclaimed as divinely revealed deserve our consideration.
Christian belief reduces to this: The Jews have cherished an incorrect notion of the Messiah. That is, while Jews expect someone who is only son of God in a figurative sense, Jesus told the Jews that the Messiah was literally the son of God. In this frame of mind, the Christian can point to every Biblical account of Jews being angry with Jesus and claim that this new truth was the cause of their upset.
But there are important facts to consider. The concept of the Messiah was gradually formed by the Jews and opinions differed. While several men had already been called Messiah, son of God, son of man, in scripture, the Jews came to expect a preeminent Messiah, a victorious leader through whom their nation would be a blessing to all the world.
Our suggestion is this: Suppose instead that Jesus meant to tell the Jews that while he also deserved to be called Messiah, he was not to fulfill their unrealistic and misunderstood expectations. Now several mysteries are clarified. Jesus could not have meant to claim status for he charged his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the true Messiah (Luke 9:21). Notice how he dissuaded a man who may have had mistaken ideas (Matthew 8:20). While many Jews believed that the Messiah would inherit his kingly rights from David, Jesus pointed out the difficulty of this interpretation (Matthew 22:43). Note also that today's Jewish scholars have indicated that "son of God" is given its Christian meaning not by Jesus, but by Paul. (See "son of God" in reference 3.)
Meanwhile, some Jewish aspects have been adopted. Paul incited Christians to find symbolic meaning in scripture (1 Corinthians chapter 10). So we have impossible parallels like that of Matthew 2:15 which quotes a fragment of Hosea 11:1,2 and thus likens Jesus to an idolatrous nation! We have the unprecedented case of a prophet who supposedly would die then to return to fulfill all things expected of him. While acts 3:20-23 promises the return of Jesus, Christians understand that the prophecy yet to be fulfilled before he can return is actually only a reference to Jesus... as though Jesus was the one predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 18. The scripture quoted here by the disciple Peter reports that God told Moses about the future prophet "like you from among their brothers". While Jesus was unlike Moses in being leader of a nation, Christians believe that he will be victorious on his second visit. However, they do not usually expect him to acquire a human father, a wife and children and then die of old age like Moses. Moreover. "from among their brothers seems to indicate not an Israelite, but a relative of that nation.
There is another historical figure who fits the role as the prophet promised by Moses better than Jesus. He was not an Israelite, but Jesus said that God's special favours would be taken from Israel and given to a nation which would become fruitful (Matthew 21:43). It was Jacob or Israel the man himself, who prophesied that the kingdom would be the possession of the family of his son Judah until the coming of "the one whose it is" (Genesis 49:10). While Christians see this one as Jesus, look again at these words. When I give a man something and tell him to keep it until the owner comes, do I mean to say that the item belongs to one of his descendents? This would hardly be a natural understanding.
The many Quranic and Biblical references to the last prophet are a new subject, a satisfying discussion that inexorably leads to the Messenger who brought Islam to a nation and through them to all nations. (Quran 6:89,90).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1977, The Lockman Foundation La Habra, California.
2. THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE; 1978, Edited by John Hick; Westminster.
3. UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1948, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Co. Inc.; New York, N.Y.
4. NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1967, The Catholic University of America; Washington D.C.
5. THE KORAN INTERPRETED; 1964, Arthur J. Arberry; Oxford University Press; Oxford.
to read more about christianity click
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/index.php?category=25
|
zaheer - uddin (Zaheer)
Starlite Member
Username: Zaheer
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 09:28 pm: |
|
to read more about christianity click
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/index.php?category=25 |
Jasmine Andrea Snow (Snowprincess)
Starlite Member
Username: Snowprincess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 03:46 pm: |
|
To read the article that is mentioned as an example in the above discussion, *** Read the Bible to Understand It ***
Watchtower_1957 2/15 p. 100. I have provided a link:
http://www.thestarlitecafe.com/poems/90/poem_721209.html |
Jasmine Andrea Snow (Snowprincess)
Starlite Member
Username: Snowprincess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 03:34 pm: |
|
BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING
Having cleared out the obstacles to understanding, the person who would understand God's Word must then seek the basis for understanding.
First, one must love righteousness and be searching for the truth. Such persons are, as the Bible says, "rightly disposed for everlasting life."-Acts 13:48, NW.
Understanding will not be given wicked persons. God's Word foretold for our day: "The wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but they that are wise shall understand." (Dan. 12:10, AS) The wise ones who understand are not the worldly wise but those wise in the Scriptural sense-those who love righteousness and devote themselves to serving Jehovah God.
Secondly, as a basis for understanding, one must have the desire to be obedient to God's Word. Those who are merely seeking to gratify their curiosity and have no desire to do God's will cannot be blessed with understanding. As Jesus said: "Not everyone saying to me, 'Master, Master,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will."-Matt. 7:21, NW.
Third, to lay a foundation for understanding that is sound, one must be willing to compare any religious instruction he receives with the Scriptures. Can it be proved by the Bible? If not, then reject it. God's command is: "Make sure of all things." The Bible commends those who do this, such as the Beroeans of whom the scripture says: "Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest readiness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." They examined even the teaching of the apostle Paul, checking it carefully with the Scriptures. So lay the right kind of foundation for understanding by following the Bible counsel: "Prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and complete will of God."-1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 17:11; Rom. 12:2, NW.
Reference w57 6\1 325-328; AIDS TO UNDERSTANDING
Now that obstacles have been cleared away and a good foundation laid for understanding there is more: Avail yourself of the right kind of aids to understanding.
A fine aid to understanding is a modern speech translation of the Bible. How much clearer they are than the King James Version of 1611! For details as to how modern translations will help your understanding see The Watchtower of February 15, 1957. As an example, note this scripture at Acts 8:33, as found in the King James Bible: "In his humiliation his judgment was taken away." What does this mean? Does it mean Jesus lost his power of judgment at the time of his humiliation? A modern translation makes the meaning clear: "During his humiliation justice was taken away from him." (NW) How different! How easy to understand! So a modern translation, such as the New World Translation just quoted, will be an invaluable aid to understanding the Bible.
Of paramount importance in understanding God's Word is God's holy spirit, his invisible active force. By it the Bible was written: "You know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private release. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." Since the Bible was written under God's spirit, only his spirit can bring about understanding: "No one has come to know the things of God, except the spirit of God. Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them."-2 Pet. 1:20, 21; 1 Cor. 2:11, 12, 14, NW.
Now what did the Bible foretell concerning the operation of God's spirit during this "time of the end"? That his spirit would be upon his organization of faithful followers of Christ Jesus and that through them spiritual food would be brought to the people. This agency for dispensing Bible-explaining spiritual food is called the "faithful and discreet slave." Christ foretold: "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time? Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings."-Matt. 24:45, 47, NW.
Note that Christ foretold that he would use, not a multitude of organizations, but rather one organization to dispense spiritual truths, appointing this "slave" "over all his belongings."
This "faithful and discreet slave," then, is not an individual man but a company following the example of Christ; it is the united company of the anointed followers of Christ. They are identified by the prophet: "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen."-Isa. 43:10, AS.
Through this "servant" or group of anointed witnesses, God's spirit under the direction of Christ has made available today a wealth of aids to make the Bible understandable. The Watchtower is one of these aids. There are many others, such Bible study aids as the volumes "Let God Be True" and You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World.
Even with all the aids that are available no one can understand the Bible unless he engages in private study, for "the heart of the righteous studieth to answer." He must also associate with others of God's organization, for Christ's rule is: "Where there are two or three met together in my name, there I am in their midst."-Prov. 15:28, AS; Matt. 18:20, NW.
The Bible can be understood. First clear out the obstacles. Build up a sound basis for understanding. Then avail yourself of the aids to understanding.
Whatever virtue there is and whatever praiseworthy thing there is, continue considering these things.-Phil. 4:8, NW.
|
Jasmine Andrea Snow (Snowprincess)
Starlite Member
Username: Snowprincess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 03:30 pm: |
|
OBSTACLES TO UNDERSTANDING
In his insidious efforts to blind mankind Satan has raised up many obstacles to understanding. Knowing what they are, you are equipped to avoid them. There are five main obstacles.
Viewing the Bible as a mere history book is a great obstacle to understanding. History the Bible is, yes. But it is also prophecy, that is, history written in advance. Historical events concerning God's nation of Israel are really prophetic pictures for our benefit today, just as the Bible says: "For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope." And as Christ's apostle put it concerning the things that happened to the Israelites: "Now these things went on befalling them as examples and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the accomplished ends of the systems of things have arrived." View the Bible as prophecy and instruction for our day.-Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11, NW.
Selfish motive is the second obstacle to understanding. Some persons go to the Bible, seeking formulas to get what they want-peace of mind, happiness and contentment. Such persons put their own desires above God's will. They have the wrong motive. The right motive is this: "Let your will come to pass," God's will. Those who use the Bible to advance their own interests, to increase their popularity or to make themselves appear learned must overcome the obstacle of selfish motive before they can understand God's Word.-Matt. 6:10, NW.
The third obstacle to understanding is the tendency to rely on human wisdom. In all other things human wisdom might prevail. But the Bible is unique. God does things differently from man. And it is not his will that human wisdom should open up his prophetic Word. Concerning God's will Christ's apostle wrote: "It is written: 'I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and I will shove the intelligence of the intellectual aside.' Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?" Why has the Bible's Author chosen to "shove the intelligence of the intellectual aside"? As the Bible writer says: "In order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God."-1 Cor. 1:19, 20, 29, NW.
Human wisdom puffs one up. If God allowed men to use their wisdom to fathom his Word, they would boast of their accomplishment. Never could that be! All glory must go to God. Hence the Bible is written in symbolic language for the very purpose that selfish, wicked and egotistical men might not know the holy will of God. The Son of God knew his Father's will and said: "Do not give what is holy to dogs." On another occasion he said: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes. Yes, O Father, because to do thus came to be the way approved by you."-Matt. 7:6; 11:25, 26, NW.
Not understanding God's rejection of the world's intellectuals, men highly educated in this world's wisdom may feel that they should be able to understand the Bible. When they fail to understand it they wrongly blame the Bible, calling it inconsistent, foolishness or mythical. Relying on human wisdom is a great obstacle.
Reference w57 6\1 325-328 from the Watchtower Library; Do You Understand the Bible?
|
Jasmine Andrea Snow (Snowprincess)
Starlite Member
Username: Snowprincess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 03:26 pm: |
|
MANY persons keenly wish to understand God's Word. They want to know the will of the Creator. Yet, at the same time, they find the Bible difficult to understand. This has distressed many lovers of righteousness, and they rightly wonder why God's Word should be a Book so little understood. To understand why the Bible is so little understood is to take a major step toward understanding God's Word itself.
One of the major reasons why God's Word is an unknown Book is that the god of this world, Satan the Devil, is a god of darkness. Small wonder that the Bible prophecy for this day has come true: "Darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people." Concerning the effect of Satan's influence over the earth, an early Christian wrote: "If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." Since "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one," even the masses of professing Christians have been misled and blinded by the Bible's chief enemy, Satan the Devil.-Isa. 60:2, AS; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4; 1 John 5:19, NW.
Despite Satan's efforts to blind mankind to the Bible, the time would come for God's Word to be understood. The Bible's Author instructed his prophet Habakkuk: "Write the vision clearly upon the tablets, that one may read it on the run. For the vision is a witness for the appointed time, and speaks of the end, and does not lie." God's Word thus discloses that there is an appointed time for the understanding of his prophetic Book.-Hab. 2:2, 3, AT.
When is this time? It is called the "time of the end." God told his prophet Daniel: "Thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end." Since 1914 we have been living in the "time of the end," this set length of time also called the "last days," that is, the last days of Satan's world of darkness. Hence now is the most momentous time in human history. Now the prophetic visions penned by God's prophets are being opened up to the understanding of the true followers of Christ Jesus.-Dan. 12:4, AS.
Article_Reference w57 6\1 325-328 from the Watchtower Library; Do You Understand the Bible?
|
Jasmine Andrea Snow (Snowprincess)
Starlite Member
Username: Snowprincess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 01:12 pm: |
|
Question, Who is the Anti-christ?
RELIGIOUS ANTICHRISTS
Christ Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in a unique way, distinctive from all other humans. Said he: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." "No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man." "I am God's Son." And God himself repeatedly bore testimony to the same, as at the Jordan when Jesus was baptized, and when Jesus and three of his apostles were on the mount of transfiguration.-John 8:58; 3:13; 10:36, NW; Matt. 3:17; 17:5.
It follows that all who deny this claim of Christ Jesus, be they devotees of Oriental religions, atheists, deists or agnostics, are antichrists. Regarding all such, Christians are warned that they "cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons," and that there is no harmony between Christ and Belial. (1 Cor. 10:21; 2 Cor. 6:15, NW) Included also would be all professed Christian clergymen who say, as did one Boston, Massachusetts, Congregational minister: "I make bold to say that Jesus claims nothing for himself that is not universally true of the ideal or divine nature inherent in all of us," and that Jesus was no more a son of God than were such pagan philosophers as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.
Further, since all those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are antichrists, it follows that all who claim that Jesus was incarnated, merely clothed with flesh, are antichrists, for such deny that Jesus actually came in the flesh. Plainly we are told that "the Word became flesh," and that he was "produced out of a woman." Had he been merely incarnated he could have dispensed with a human mother. And had he been both human and divine upon the earth he would not have hungered after fasting, nor would he have needed rest after a journey or after a strenuous day; neither could he have died as man's ransomer, for what is divine is immortal.-John 1:14; Gal. 4:4, NW.
Others identify themselves as antichrists by their denying Jesus' office as Ransomer and High Priest. John the Baptist termed Jesus "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!" Jesus himself said that he came "to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many." John tells us that "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." Peter states that Christians were ransomed "with precious blood," "even Christ's." And Paul's letters are replete with references to Christ's sacrificial merit, such as, "God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved." Yes, even the Hebrew prophets foretold that Jesus would bear the sins of many.-John 1:29; Matt. 20:28; 1 John 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rom. 5:8, 9, NW; Isa. 53:12.
Yet in spite of the fact that God's Word so magnifies the atoning work of Christ, many professed clergymen of Christendom deny that the blood of Christ has any saving power. Thus one Denver, Colorado, Baptist clergyman said, at the turn of the century, that the teaching of the atonement is "repugnant to the moral sense," that "strictly speaking, the death of Christ was not necessary to human salvation," and that "the Bible nowhere says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believers." Certainly all who subscribe to such theories are antichrists, even though they may claim to be Christian ministers.
Further, all professed Christians who have apostatized, who exalt themselves, who manifest the spirit of rebellion or who show hatred to their Christian brothers are properly termed antichrists. Regarding such Paul said: "Oppressive wolves will enter in among you . . . and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." He also referred to such as "the man of lawlessness," "the son of destruction," who "is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called 'god' or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god." Jesus foretold that in our day some of his professed followers would beat their fellow slaves and eat and drink with the drunken, and called such the "evil slave." The facts show that all such antichrists have manifested themselves, for much false doctrine is being taught in the name of Christianity, there is much self-exaltation and creature worship and there is much ill will manifested toward sincere followers of Christ by some who profess to be their brothers.-Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thess. 2:3, 4; Matt. 24:48-51, NW.Article_reference w55 6\15 357-360; Identifying the Antichrist
|
Jasmine Andrea Snow (Snowprincess)
Starlite Member
Username: Snowprincess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
ANTICHRIST IN A TWOFOLD SENSE
Before we can properly identify the antichrist, however, it is necessary that we first properly identify Christ. Just who was Christ? Christ, like its Hebrew equivalent, Messiah, means "anointed one." It calls to mind the high priests and kings of the nation of Israel who were anointed with a specially prepared oil to serve in their official capacities as representatives of Jehovah God. The prophet Daniel had foretold the coming of the Anointed One, and the apostle Peter identified him as Jesus, saying to him: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."-Matt. 16:16, NW; Dan. 9:25.
It appears that "antichrist" has a twofold meaning. As its name indicates, it is anti or opposed to Christ. And it also has the thought of false or pseudo Christ, in the place or stead of Christ. While, as we have seen, some have attempted to apply the term to a certain individual, or organization, the foregoing scriptures, together with the physical facts, indicate that all persons, organizations or groups that falsely claim to represent Christ, that arrogate to themselves the Messianic role or that oppose Christ and his followers can properly be termed antichrists, even as Jesus said: "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters." (Matt. 12:30, NW) Interesting in this connection is the observation made by McClintock & Strong's Cyclopædia that "the just conclusion seems to be that Antichrist is not to be confined to any single person or power, but is essentially a great principle or system of falsehood having various manifestations, forms of working and degrees."
Incidentally, let it be noted that the truth regarding the antichrist is not mere milk but is solid spiritual food; strong meat that can be assimilated fully only by those who have advanced to maturity, only by "those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong."-Heb. 5:13, 14, NW.
Article_reference w55 6\15 357-360; Identifying the Antichrist
Who or what is the antichrist-a person, an organization or merely an evil principle? When did the antichrist first appear, what are the characteristics of antichrist, and what will mark the end of antichrist?
THE term antichrist has been applied to various persons, organizations and teachings. Some called the dissolute and murderous Roman emperor Nero, who so cruelly persecuted Christians and is believed to have caused the death of the apostle Paul, antichrist. Others applied the term to Domitian, who banished the apostle John to the isle of Patmos. Some termed Mohammed the antichrist, while many of the reformers, such as the Waldenses, the Hussites and the Lollards, applied the term to the papacy.
Higher criticism today discredits the reality God's Word gives to the antichrist. Thus Harper's Bible Dictionary (1952), under the heading "Antichrist," states: "The concept of a conflict between the forces of good and evil appeared in a very early Babylonian myth, became a dominant part of Persian thought, and made its way into Jewish beliefs and Christian doctrine concerning the Second Advent." However, those having faith in the Bible as God's Word do not trace the antichrist to a Babylonian myth but to the garden of Eden where God said that he would put enmity between the seed of his organization, "the woman," and that of the serpent, Satan the Devil.-Gen. 3:15.
The term "antichrist(s)" is found but five times in the Bible and only in the writings of the apostle John. Identifying the antichrist of his day, John wrote: "Many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." And also further identifying the antichrist: "Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist."-2 John 7; 1 John 2:22, 18, NW.
Jesus foretold the coming of antichrist: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones." And so did the apostle Paul: "Let no one seduce you in any manner, because [the day of Jehovah] will not come unless the falling away comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction." Like John, Paul showed that "the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work," in his day, and that it was "according to the operation of Satan."-Matt. 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:3, 7, 9, NW. |
John William McGrath III (Ompapa)
Starlite Member
Username: Ompapa
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Most Christians do not have a clue as to what Cristianity is all about... Other than rhetoric on Sunday morning telling us how to 'behave'... Jesus said to constantly search within for the Kingdom of God and 'Ye will surely find it'... The antiChrist in most cases stands on the pulpit and does not even know the negative impact he has on the world! Ompapa |
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 02:13 pm: |
|
i've written my own bible. unfortunately, i've found it is also full of contradictions. |
Martin Howard (Martin)
Starlite Member
Username: Martin
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 04:09 pm: |
|
I read the bible extensively for 17 years and acted upon it's commands etc. wholeheartedly and 100 percent. But I will guarantee you that I am not doing the will of God (not according to the Christian bible) and alas, that is one religion in a world of many. Albeit, I have seen much.....
as everyone has. |
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 03:00 pm: |
|
sadly, the whole God's ways are mysterious thing, is always the last resort of those claiming to do His will when they are most obviously not. |
Martin Howard (Martin)
Starlite Member
Username: Martin
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 02:41 pm: |
|
agreed. |
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 05:07 am: |
|
why bother reading the bible then |
Martin Howard (Martin)
Starlite Member
Username: Martin
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 08:21 pm: |
|
CEEJ,
You're exactly right. It says the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. And the wisdom of God is foolishness to man. Now....that's way over my head. Go figure.
Martin |
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 09:59 am: |
|
well, you seem to have a definition of the anti-christ. there are others. how there could be anyone that all the world loves 100% ever is a mystery to me. i'm not sure there is a specific verse that says this or if it's meant to be taken literally or not. actually, if you take a literal interpretation of the bible, revelation makes absolutely no sense. |
Martin Howard (Martin)
Starlite Member
Username: Martin
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 01:49 pm: |
|
I just read some of the article, but need to go back and read it extensively. The word "AntiChrist" being thrown around loosely is just a result of the fact that many masses of people don't have a clue about what the bible's sayin'. The antichrist in the bible is described in extensive detail and to a tee. There are many, many scriptures that touch upon this subject. I ain't seen no one around yet that completely fits the bill. Just for starters, the
whole world is got to love the guy and that's only one descriptive category. As far as using the bible for a club instead of a two edged sword
won't really cut it either. The words have to pierce deep into the heart of a person (that's what the sword does, not the club). Matter of fact, these days, I see alot of people that never read a bible verse that are more rightous in the eyes of that God than a lot of whom profess to Christianity. I'm also not makin' that a blanket statement either.
I'm completely with Jimbo on the subject of right and wrong. That's a real good point. |
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
Hey, good article CJ! Thanks. I would have missed it.
The gambit may very well work. In any event it will be an interesting game.
The technique of using their own dogma and buzz words to divide and defeat worked pretty good for the Republicans. It seems to me if the Liberals are going to get any yardage out of it they would be advised to stick the label "Antichrist" on Cheny rather then Bush. At least Cheny has some bit of stage presence that could be twisted to fit the label. Bush is pretty much a blank when it comes to stage presence. Actually Rice would be the best choice except for the danger of the Republicans countering with the race reply.
I look forward to much entertainment the next four years. Perhaps at some point I will find out why neither side is comfortable with simply using the notion of "right" vs "wrong" in both the moral and pragmatic sense for their public representations. It seems to me that the few times Bush weakly declared "it was the right thing to do" his approval ratings jumped and the other side was thrown into fits of frantic disarray. If it were all boiled down to doing what we must do from time to time with care that we do the "right" thing in the "right" manner, choices for citizens at the voting booth would be a great deal easier.
Jimbo
|
John William McGrath III (Ompapa)
Starlite Member
Username: Ompapa
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 08:59 am: |
|
If love prevailed, no prophet, savior, or intermediary would have come to earth... I have contemplated perfection as static, with the fall ocurring when God "moved" Can "Perfection" be dynamic? My own personall thoughts on the subject... When we were all one there could be no discontent... Any thought in conciousness by "GOD" was a creation and all is consciousness... Therefore now there were two Gods and on and on... God may be trying to gather 'Himself' up again into ONE... Again my meanderings. Love, Ompapa |
Anita Stith Tafolla (A_r_tafolla)
Starlite Member
Username: A_r_tafolla
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 12:58 am: |
|
I have just read the news article CJ gave us the link for. I would recommend that others do the same. It is that most unusual thing - a balanced story.
However, if your time is limited, put it aside until you have more time. This is a fairly long article ... and cannot be fully appreciated unless it is read as a total.
You may not agree with parts of it ... I know I didn't ... but it's not a rabble-rousing, hatred-filled sort of thing. It asks questions that many of us should be asking ourselves. As I said, I'd recommend your reading it.
"The Opposite of War isn't Peace, it's Creation."
Jonathan Larson
|
CEEJ (Carljohn)
Starlite Member
Username: Carljohn
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 08:38 am: |
|
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0449/041208_news_antichrist.php
+
food for thought, or fought for thood?
|
|
