Question for Americans....
Emma
Here's a puzzle. Rahm Emanuel is lighting the national menorah
outside the Whitehouse. I personally have nothing against that.
We don't have separation of church and state in the UK, and
I'm fine with that.
But, America does have separation. So
how come a menorah is okay but a Christmas tree or
nativity scene etc. in a public place is not okay?
I think Christmas trees have to be renamed "Holiday"
trees in America?
So has the menorah been renamed?
Why not just forget all this petty stuff and have
a menorah, Christmas tree, nativity scene etc. if that's
what you want?
On the other hand, it seems odd to have a menorah and
yet ban a Christmas tree.
--
~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Emma
>
>
What about calling it the "Seven-branched Holiday Candelabrum"?
Then nobody would ever guess it's a religious symbol!
Or has somebody already thought of that?
Rob Strom
> Here's a puzzle. Rahm Emanuel is lighting the national menorah
> outside the Whitehouse. I personally have nothing against that.
> We don't have separation of church and state in the UK, and
> I'm fine with that.
>
> But, America does have separation. So
> how come a menorah is okay but a Christmas tree or
> nativity scene etc. in a public place is not okay?
> I think Christmas trees have to be renamed "Holiday"
> trees in America?
No; that's just right-wing snark. They are
angry that some folks wanting to be
more inclusive say "Happy Holidays"
instead of "Merry Christmas" around this
time, so they invent an imaginary theory that Jews
and liberals are attacking Christmas
and want to ban it. Or else they're
upset that public schools can't
have official Christmas celebrations.
>
> So has the menorah been renamed?
No, neither has the Christmas tree (see below).
>
> Why not just forget all this petty stuff and have
> a menorah, Christmas tree, nativity scene etc. if that's
> what you want?
>
> On the other hand, it seems odd to have a menorah and
> yet ban a Christmas tree.
It's not banned; that's just a right-wing myth.
The White House is the President's *residence*;
as citizens they can put whatever they want on
their lawn, just as I can. I have a menorah in
my window. They have both a Christmas tree
and a menorah.
Both are on the Ellipse at the south of the house.
They have a famous Easter Egg hunt
at Easter, and probably lots of other stuff.
If they celebrate any Muslim holidays though, I'm
sure the right-wing will snip that out of
context and use that as proof the President
is a secret Muslim.
Here's a link to the lighting of the unbanned,
unrenamed Christmas tree;
http://tinyurl.com/ycxz63a
--
Rob Strom
Emma
Rob Strom says...
But it's called the *national* menorah and (from
the link that you gave me) the
*national* Christmas tree. So this is a
public tree and menorah, isn't it?
Who paid for them? Was it public money?
I doubt very much if your President paid for the
menorah and the Christmas tree, so it's not
equivalent to your own private menorah.
So why can't your schools buy these religious
symbols with public money?
Emma
>
>
>But it's called the *national* menorah and (from
>the link that you gave me) the
>*national* Christmas tree. So this is a
>public tree and menorah, isn't it?
>Who paid for them? Was it public money?
>
I've just looked at the website for the menorah
and it had a ceremony in Congress and your
air force sang. How can this not be a national
occasion?
As you know, I have no problem with it, but you
do have a problem with publically funded religions,
so you must surely see that this is contrary to
your own interpretation of your Constitution.
Rob Strom
> In article <hg3k3d02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Emma says...
>
>
>
> >But it's called the *national* menorah and (from
> >the link that you gave me) the
> >*national* Christmas tree. So this is a
> >public tree and menorah, isn't it?
> >Who paid for them? Was it public money?
>
> I've just looked at the website for the menorah
> and it had a ceremony in Congress and your
> air force sang. How can this not be a national
> occasion?
>
> As you know, I have no problem with it, but you
> do have a problem with publically funded religions,
> so you must surely see that this is contrary to
> your own interpretation of your Constitution.
>
It may technically be a violation, but
since the President has public commemorations
of every religion, ethnic group,
marketing group (National Cheese Growers day or whatever),
nobody could put up an argument that
by doing a menorah lighting or whatever
that the President is "establishing" or
favoring Judaism as a national religion.
Obviously if this were done for the majority
religion to the exclusion of anything else,
then people could put up such an argument.
The President does about half a dozen
ceremonial events per day, so several
thousands every year. (I was fortunate
to be a part of one in 1962, when
President Kennedy did a personal
recognition of the 40 Science Talent
Search winners. I was actually upset
with him at the time, since he had
turned down the proposal to do an
atmospheric nuclear bomb testing
moratorium.) So it's unlikely that
a significant segment of the population
feels cheated here.
As far as the air force singing on
public money is concerned, I'm not
sure. I think these folks are paid
a fixed fee to be available
for ceremonies, whether they do any
particular ceremony or not, so I'm not sure
extra funds are expended to do
menorah lightings. I'm sure that
when there's a Muslim ceremony,
the rightwingers will get on Fox
News saying that this is unprecedented
and treasonous and a proof
that the President is a Muslim
fifth-columnist.
--
Rob Strom
Snow
I don't think it would be all that big of a deal if Obama was a
Muslim. I really no problems with people who have the Muslim faith..
Last time I checked, they still said Yehoshua was a prophet, sounds
about right to me.
Snow
> As far as the air force singing on
> public money is concerned, I'm not
> sure. I think these folks are paid
> a fixed fee to be available
> for ceremonies, whether they do any
> particular ceremony or not, so I'm not sure
> extra funds are expended to do
> menorah lightings.
Yes, military is an enlistment and they are paid according to pay
grade during time of service.
I'm sure that
> when there's a Muslim ceremony,
> the rightwingers will get on Fox
> News saying that this is unprecedented
> and treasonous and a proof
> that the President is a Muslim
> fifth-columnist.
>
> --
> Rob Strom
I still don't get what the big deal is about that... but.. their is
nothing in the constitution that prevents religious cerimonies and in
fact, Congress can no legislate against any religious practice, First
Amendment.
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>
>It may technically be a violation, but
>since the President has public commemorations
>of every religion, ethnic group,
>marketing group (National Cheese Growers day or whatever),
>nobody could put up an argument that
>by doing a menorah lighting or whatever
>that the President is "establishing" or
>favoring Judaism as a national religion.
>
>Obviously if this were done for the majority
>religion to the exclusion of anything else,
>then people could put up such an argument.
Well this is what I don't understand about your
country; put up religious symbols in schools or
on public property, and certain sections of your
public go ballistic. Do a similar thing in the
Whitehouse (a publically owned property)
with different religious symbols, and call them *national*
events, and everyone is fine.
It's just not consistent.
>The President does about half a dozen
>ceremonial events per day, so several
>thousands every year. (I was fortunate
>to be a part of one in 1962, when
>President Kennedy did a personal
>recognition of the 40 Science Talent
>Search winners. I was actually upset
>with him at the time, since he had
>turned down the proposal to do an
>atmospheric nuclear bomb testing
>moratorium.) So it's unlikely that
>a significant segment of the population
>feels cheated here.
I thought the objection was based on the
fact that religious symbols should not be
displayed on publically owned properties though.
If it's just a case of feeling cheated, then
,for instance, schools could ensure that
as well as a Christmas tree they have a menorah
and all other religious symbols. In other words,
as long as they are inclusive, religion is fine.
That seems to be your argument as far as the
Whitehouse is concerned.
(You met President Kennedy? That must have been
a wonderful occasion!)
>As far as the air force singing on
>public money is concerned, I'm not
>sure. I think these folks are paid
>a fixed fee to be available
>for ceremonies, whether they do any
>particular ceremony or not, so I'm not sure
>extra funds are expended to do
>menorah lightings. I'm sure that
>when there's a Muslim ceremony,
>the rightwingers will get on Fox
>News saying that this is unprecedented
>and treasonous and a proof
>that the President is a Muslim
>fifth-columnist.
But the fact that he doesn't have Islamic
ceremonies means that this is not an inclusive
sort of thing afterall. So even that argument is
out the window.
Emma
And one more thing, Rob...
I don't see how Americans can really criticize
Italian crucifixes when there is a menorah and
Christmas tree on publically owned property in the
US.
Emma
Snow says...
>
>
>I still don't get what the big deal is about that... but.. their is
>nothing in the constitution that prevents religious cerimonies and in
>fact, Congress can no legislate against any religious practice, First
>Amendment.
Yet the courts say otherwise, don't they?
Aren't public places forced to remove religious symbols?
Emma
Snow says...
>
>
> I really no problems with people who have the Muslim faith..
>Last time I checked, they still said Yehoshua was a prophet, sounds
>about right to me.
That doesn't make sense. You think Islam is okay
because it shares one teeny tiny part of your own
belief?
In that case you should think Satanism is okay,
because they believe in Satan and so do you.
Rob Strom
> In article <520358ac-7f64-4ac6-8f4d-29df29bdb...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
>
>
> >It may technically be a violation, but
> >since the President has public commemorations
> >of every religion, ethnic group,
> >marketing group (National Cheese Growers day or whatever),
> >nobody could put up an argument that
> >by doing a menorah lighting or whatever
> >that the President is "establishing" or
> >favoring Judaism as a national religion.
>
> >Obviously if this were done for the majority
> >religion to the exclusion of anything else,
> >then people could put up such an argument.
>
> Well this is what I don't understand about your
> country; put up religious symbols in schools or
> on public property, and certain sections of your
> public go ballistic.
Let's try to get it back into the context of
government promotion of religion,
which is what the constitution prohibits.
If a public school (or hypothetically the Italian schools)
had religious symbols from around the world in
its display, there might be some grumbling,
but they could argue that it's a legitimate
educational purpose, identifying
cultures from around the world. That would not be
a case if there was a crucifix hung all
year round and no other symbols.
Similarly the White House could argue that
they're not promoting any religion, since they
reach out to all of them. There might be
some grumbling from the non-religious
that they are being ignored, but there
are plenty of White House ceremonies
honoring secular activities and/or
activities disparaged by some religions.
...
>
> >The President does about half a dozen
> >ceremonial events per day, so several
> >thousands every year. (I was fortunate
> >to be a part of one in 1962, when
> >President Kennedy did a personal
> >recognition of the 40 Science Talent
> >Search winners. I was actually upset
> >with him at the time, since he had
> >turned down the proposal to do an
> >atmospheric nuclear bomb testing
> >moratorium.) So it's unlikely that
> >a significant segment of the population
> >feels cheated here.
>
> I thought the objection was based on the
> fact that religious symbols should not be
> displayed on publically owned properties though.
This is ambiguous because it's the
President's residence.
>
> If it's just a case of feeling cheated, then
> ,for instance, schools could ensure that
> as well as a Christmas tree they have a menorah
> and all other religious symbols.
If the Italian schools you brought up in
another thread had put up a row
of religious symbols from around the world,
there probably would not have been the
controversy. Certainly they could not
argue that they were promoting
any particular religion. Perhaps
anti-religious folks might argue that
they were promoting religion over non-religion
(also prohibited) -- but perhaps if they
included the logo of the Brights
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bright_Logo.png)
even that objection would be avoided.
So we wouldn't have prayer in schools
or Christmas trees by themselves,
or crucifixes as in the Italian schools.
Either they *show* all religions but
celebrate none (i.e. "holiday parties"
that some Christians actually get more
angry about than if they ignored
Christmas and everything else
altogether) or they don't do religion at all.
The White House loves to connect
to people, so they try to do equal-opportunity
reaching out.
> In other words,
> as long as they are inclusive, religion is fine.
> That seems to be your argument as far as the
> Whitehouse is concerned.
>
> (You met President Kennedy? That must have been
> a wonderful occasion!)
It was, but my parents had to make me promise
not to use the occasion to argue with him
about his refusal to sign onto the
H-bomb atmopheric test moratorium.
...
>
> But the fact that he doesn't have Islamic
> ceremonies means that this is not an inclusive
> sort of thing afterall. So even that argument is
> out the window.
Why do you say this? Even George W Bush
had Eid and Ramadan ceremonies/proclamations, and
an Eid commemorative stamp was issued
during his administration!
--
Rob Strom
Snow
> In article <58a07e8c-0fdf-4127-810a-5e9a745c7...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Snow says...
>
>
>
> > I really no problems with people who have the Muslim faith..
> >Last time I checked, they still said Yehoshua was a prophet, sounds
> >about right to me.
>
> That doesn't make sense. You think Islam is okay
> because it shares one teeny tiny part of your own
> belief?
> In that case you should think Satanism is okay,
> because they believe in Satan and so do you.
But I don't worship Satan or Yehoshua, I worship YAHWEH. I choose to
respect other peoples beliefs and find this is keeping the the
teachings of the Good News... So, I don't care if somebody worships
Satan because it is not much difference then worship of Jesus... both
are idolatry.
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
I worship the SPIRIT of YAHWEH and judge for myself what is right.
The scriptures teach:
Isa 55:7 Let the wrong forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
thoughts. Let him return to Yahweh, who has compassion on him, and to
our Elohim, for He pardons much. 8 “For My thoughts are not your
thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares Yahweh. 9 “For as
the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your
ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.
Rev 22:11 “He who does wrong, let him do more wrong; he who is filthy,
let him be more filthy; he who is righteous, let him be more
righteous; he who is set-apart, let him be more set-apart.
Eze 3:27 “But when I speak with you, I open your mouth, and you shall
say to them, ‘Thus said the Master Yahweh.’ He who hears, let him
hear. And he who refuses, let him refuse, for they are a rebellious
house.
Mat 10:14 “And whoever does not receive you nor hear your words, when
you leave that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.
We are not suppose to go around attacking people in endless strife as
many people do on these ng's. We are to allow people to practice the
religion of their own choice... because that choice was given to them
by none other then the Almighty. Who am I to condemn another mans
practice when we have one judge and one creator over all.
No.. I am to do what is right and be an example for others... that is
the Torah and the Prophets.
randy
"Emma"
> And one more thing, Rob...
> I don't see how Americans can really criticize
> Italian crucifixes when there is a menorah and
> Christmas tree on publically owned property in the
> US.
Emma, you've been right all along. It's terribly inconsistent and
unbalanced. The link Rob posted suggested Obama saw the lighting of the
"Christmas Tree" as some kind of universal symbol for the nation--not
limited to Christianity. How ridiculous is that?
"Before the tree was lit, Obama said the Christmas story is a Christian one
but its lesson is universal.
"It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition that
has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season of
brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said."
I think that it is very difficult for our country to try to represent all
its citizens, with all its faiths, using symbols that express our exclusive
Christian heritage. Now you know why I've long called myself a "theocrat."
The Bible says we are to have "no other gods before Him." We should not be
ashamed of our Christian heritage. At the same time, if our country is no
longer Christian in reality, we do have to acknowledge that there are those
of other faiths who have rights equal to our own.
randy
Linda Lee
It would to you since your allegedly 'messianic' faith has no role for
Yahashua` the Messiah in it, and you also claim he was "only a
prophet" ( http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/f15309b6dab272c6
).
In fact, your beliefs are more in line with Islam than with Messianic
faiths. So why don't you just call yourself a Muslim? Because they
call the God of Abraham Allah, instead of Yahweh?
Linda Lee
> On Dec 15, 1:02 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <58a07e8c-0fdf-4127-810a-5e9a745c7...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > Snow says...
>
> > > I really no problems with people who have the Muslim faith..
> > >Last time I checked, they still said Yehoshua was a prophet, sounds
> > >about right to me.
>
> > That doesn't make sense. You think Islam is okay
> > because it shares one teeny tiny part of your own
> > belief?
> > In that case you should think Satanism is okay,
> > because they believe in Satan and so do you.
>
> But I don't worship Satan or Yehoshua, I worship YAHWEH. I choose to
> respect other peoples beliefs and find this is keeping the the
> teachings of the Good News... So, I don't care if somebody worships
> Satan because it is not much difference then worship of Jesus... both
> are idolatry.
>
Another quote worthy of saving from Snowjob. You know equating worship
of Christ to worship of Satan would be highly offensive to Christians,
so where is that alleged respect you just falsely claimed again that
you afford those of other beliefs?
And you don't care if people worship Satan, another sentiment not
surprising coming from you who is an antichrist.
The prophet Isaiah prophesied that the Gentiles would worship
Yahashua` the Messiah as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(Israel):
Isa. 11:1 says, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of
Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots".
'Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible' regarding Isa. 11:1
("And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a
Branch shall grow out of his roots"): - "The Chaldee paraphrase reads
this, There shall come forth a King from the sons of Jesse, and the
Messiah (or Christ) shall be anointed out of his sons' sons."
Isa. 11:10 continues saying of the Messiah, "And in that day there
shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign ["signal"]
of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be
glorious".
The word here translated 'seek' - Heb. 1875 - is defined "A primitive
root; properly to tread or frequent; usually to follow (for pursuit or
search); by implication to seek or ask; specifically to worship".
SPECIFICALLY TO WORSHIP.
GOD says OF HIMSELF in Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and
of supplications: and they shall look upon ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED,
and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and
shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his
firstborn.
Rob Strom
> "Emma"
>
> > And one more thing, Rob...
> > I don't see how Americans can really criticize
> > Italian crucifixes when there is a menorah and
> > Christmas tree on publically owned property in the
> > US.
>
> Emma, you've been right all along. It's terribly inconsistent and
> unbalanced. The link Rob posted suggested Obama saw the lighting of the
> "Christmas Tree" as some kind of universal symbol for the nation--not
> limited to Christianity. How ridiculous is that?
Since the Christmas tree is originally European in origin
and not Christian, all he's doing is saying that symbols morph --
not ridiculous at all.
>
> "Before the tree was lit, Obama said the Christmas story is a Christian one
> but its lesson is universal.
Isn't its lesson universal?
> "It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition that
> has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season of
> brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said."
But isn't that true? At Christmas season, groups of
all religions go around giving charity drives, folks
ring bells on the street, people talk about peace
on earth and goodwill towards men. Do you
think that's an exclusive message?
>
> I think that it is very difficult for our country to try to represent all
> its citizens, with all its faiths, using symbols that express our exclusive
> Christian heritage. Now you know why I've long called myself a "theocrat."
> The Bible says we are to have "no other gods before Him." We should not be
> ashamed of our Christian heritage. At the same time, if our country is no
> longer Christian in reality, we do have to acknowledge that there are those
> of other faiths who have rights equal to our own.
You are confusing Obama sending a message to the country
on the occasion of Christmas (or Chanukah) and him
actually making an exclusivist celebration of a holiday. He wouldn't
do that. He'd morph the Christmas messaqe into a lesson for all,
(peace, charity), and the Chanukah one as well
(hope, freedom of religion). Sounds like the right thing
for a President to be doing.
--
Rob Strom
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>On Dec 14, 8:33=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Well this is what I don't understand about your
>> country; put up religious symbols in schools or
>> on public property, and certain sections of your
>> public go ballistic.
>
>Let's try to get it back into the context of
>government promotion of religion,
>which is what the constitution prohibits.
>
>If a public school (or hypothetically the Italian schools)
>had religious symbols from around the world in
>its display, there might be some grumbling,
>but they could argue that it's a legitimate
>educational purpose, identifying
>cultures from around the world. That would not be
>a case if there was a crucifix hung all
>year round and no other symbols.
But why can't schools have religious celebrations
like the President? Why can't your schools
emulate that?
So lighting a menorah, or singing carols, and so
on.
I'm only suggesting that schools should be free
to do whatever is done on public property by
the President.
>Similarly the White House could argue that
>they're not promoting any religion, since they
>reach out to all of them. There might be
>some grumbling from the non-religious
>that they are being ignored, but there
>are plenty of White House ceremonies
>honoring secular activities and/or
>activities disparaged by some religions.
OK, so schools could reach out to all religions,
couldn't they?
Personally, if I was a teacher in America and somebody
objected to a Christmas tree or carol singing, I would point
out that there is a national Christmas tree on public property
(the Whitehouse).
So I wouldn't be doing anything that is not practised
by the President.
If schools are taken to court over this, then why aren't
Presidents.
It's double standards, isn't it?
If my school was taken to court, then I would take the
President to court! (Blimey, I'm surprised nobody has
done that! You Americans love taking each other to court!)
If I can't do it, then neither can he!
This would prove how petty your laws are on this.
>>
>> I thought the objection was based on the
>> fact that religious symbols should not be
>> displayed on publically owned properties though.
>
>This is ambiguous because it's the
>President's residence.
I would see what you mean if this was his private
menorah/Christmas tree within his residence. It's a
national menorah and national Christmas tree though.
That says that it's for the public.
>> If it's just a case of feeling cheated, then
>> ,for instance, schools could ensure that
>> as well as a Christmas tree they have a menorah
>> and all other religious symbols.
>
>If the Italian schools you brought up in
>another thread had put up a row
>of religious symbols from around the world,
>there probably would not have been the
>controversy. Certainly they could not
>argue that they were promoting
>any particular religion. Perhaps
>anti-religious folks might argue that
>they were promoting religion over non-religion
>(also prohibited) -- but perhaps if they
>included the logo of the Brights
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bright_Logo.png)
>even that objection would be avoided.
What a strange group. As if you need a group
to promote the natural world! The natural world
is all around us. We can hardly avoid it.
>So we wouldn't have prayer in schools
>or Christmas trees by themselves,
>or crucifixes as in the Italian schools.
>
>Either they *show* all religions but
>celebrate none (i.e. "holiday parties"
>that some Christians actually get more
>angry about than if they ignored
>Christmas and everything else
>altogether) or they don't do religion at all.
The Whitehouse is *celebrating* though.
They have singing, and stories for the children.
I see that the different states all send their
good wishes.
>The White House loves to connect
>to people, so they try to do equal-opportunity
>reaching out.
Yes, celebrations. The sort of thing that is banned
in your schools. You said it would be okay in schools
if it was just educational, but the President is going
beyond that.
>> In other words,
>> as long as they are inclusive, religion is fine.
>> That seems to be your argument as far as the
>> Whitehouse is concerned.
>>
>> (You met President Kennedy? That must have been
>> a wonderful occasion!)
>
>It was, but my parents had to make me promise
>not to use the occasion to argue with him
>about his refusal to sign onto the
>H-bomb atmopheric test moratorium.
Would you really have mentioned that though?
How old were you at the time?
>>
>> But the fact that he doesn't have Islamic
>> ceremonies means that this is not an inclusive
>> sort of thing afterall. So even that argument is
>> out the window.
>
>Why do you say this? Even George W Bush
>had Eid and Ramadan ceremonies/proclamations, and
>an Eid commemorative stamp was issued
>during his administration!
Ah yes, I remember now. Those commemorative stamps
were produced immediately after 9/11. I think that was
truly terrible.
Emma
Snow says...
>
>> > I really no problems with people who have the Muslim faith..
>> >Last time I checked, they still said Yehoshua was a prophet, sounds
>> >about right to me.
>>
>> That doesn't make sense. You think Islam is okay
>> because it shares one teeny tiny part of your own
>> belief?
>> In that case you should think Satanism is okay,
>> because they believe in Satan and so do you.
>
>But I don't worship Satan or Yehoshua, I worship YAHWEH. I choose to
>respect other peoples beliefs and find this is keeping the the
>teachings of the Good News... So, I don't care if somebody worships
>Satan because it is not much difference then worship of Jesus... both
>are idolatry.
>
>the Torah and the Prophets.
Hmmmm... are you sure you always show respect for others
beliefs here?
Rob Strom
> In article <6904669e-53a6-49ab-a14d-f8e55f8ab...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
...
>
> But why can't schools have religious celebrations
> like the President?
Tree lightings/menorah lightings aren't religious celebrations.
They are "we affirm our solidarity with Christians/Jews/whatever
around the world, and we share the message of
peace/charity/freedom/whatever associated with this religion".
Schools *do* sort of do this. When my kids were
in 1st grade I came to class and showed
the (then mostly non-Jewish) children what
Chanukah was and what
chanukiot and dreidels looked like.
It wasn't a religious celebration; it was an educational
session. We didn't say the prayer. It was
show-and-tell.
> Why can't your schools
> emulate that?
> So lighting a menorah, or singing carols, and so
> on.
>
> I'm only suggesting that schools should be free
> to do whatever is done on public property by
> the President.
They do. Putting a crucifix in a classroom isn't
the same as that. Saying a prayer isn't the
same as that. What we did was
educational: "There are these people
called Jews and they do thus-and-so
at Chanukah time; this is how the
holiday originated", not "Now we
will stand together and praise God
for commanding us to light the lights".
...
>
> OK, so schools could reach out to all religions,
> couldn't they?
They do.
They teach *about* religions. And of course
they have these "holiday" concerts that
many Christians complain about more
than if we did nothing!
>
> Personally, if I was a teacher in America and somebody
> objected to a Christmas tree or carol singing, I would point
> out that there is a national Christmas tree on public property
> (the Whitehouse).
> So I wouldn't be doing anything that is not practised
> by the President.
The school doesn't represent the nation the way
the President does.
The President lives in the White House; he
is symbolically every American, so he
shows the symbols of every group. He's
Irish on St. Patricks Day and Puerto Rican
on Puerto Rican pride day and so on.
I'm sure your Queen does the same thing:
isn't there a Buckingham Palace
Christmas tree *and* menorah
*and* Ramadan celebration?
>
> If schools are taken to court over this, then why aren't
> Presidents.
Schools aren't taken to court over things like
Christmas carols, especially when they
sing songs from all faiths and countries.
They're taken to court over sectarian prayer.
You must see the difference.
> It's double standards, isn't it?
The President wouldn't do anything
to suggest that the whole nation
was to participate in sectarian prayer.
...
>
> >This is ambiguous because it's the
> >President's residence.
>
> I would see what you mean if this was his private
> menorah/Christmas tree within his residence. It's a
> national menorah and national Christmas tree though.
> That says that it's for the public.
The President is a national leader and makes
parts of his residence sharable with the public.
The whole concept is symbolic of democracy.
Instead of a King in a palace that he owns
and bequeaths to his heirs,
the President lives in a house that
the nation as a whole pays for. He
invites the public to tour parts of
the house and to share in ceremonies
on the grounds.
...
>
> >If the Italian schools you brought up in
> >another thread had put up a row
> >of religious symbols from around the world,
> >there probably would not have been the
> >controversy. Certainly they could not
> >argue that they were promoting
> >any particular religion. Perhaps
> >anti-religious folks might argue that
> >they were promoting religion over non-religion
> >(also prohibited) -- but perhaps if they
> >included the logo of the Brights
> >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bright_Logo.png)
> >even that objection would be avoided.
>
> What a strange group. As if you need a group
> to promote the natural world! The natural world
> is all around us. We can hardly avoid it.
I'm not sure that they're promoting the natural
world so much as the idea that the natural
world is to be studied by natural means: i.e.
they are people who reject preternatural
explanations of things.
>
> >So we wouldn't have prayer in schools
> >or Christmas trees by themselves,
> >or crucifixes as in the Italian schools.
>
> >Either they *show* all religions but
> >celebrate none (i.e. "holiday parties"
> >that some Christians actually get more
> >angry about than if they ignored
> >Christmas and everything else
> >altogether) or they don't do religion at all.
>
> The Whitehouse is *celebrating* though.
> They have singing, and stories for the children.
> I see that the different states all send their
> good wishes.
>
> >The White House loves to connect
> >to people, so they try to do equal-opportunity
> >reaching out.
>
> Yes, celebrations. The sort of thing that is banned
> in your schools. You said it would be okay in schools
> if it was just educational, but the President is going
> beyond that.
No, they are exactly educational and commemorative,
not religious. He wouldn't invite people to
join him in a prayer or anything like that.
Obviously when he lit the menorah, he didn't
say "thank you God for rescuing us". Instead, he
uses the occasion as an excuse to give
a speech on some principle, like charity
(on Christmas) or freedom (on Chanukah)
that reflects what he considers to be an American value.
...
> >> (You met President Kennedy? That must have been
> >> a wonderful occasion!)
>
> >It was, but my parents had to make me promise
> >not to use the occasion to argue with him
> >about his refusal to sign onto the
> >H-bomb atmopheric test moratorium.
>
> Would you really have mentioned that though?
> How old were you at the time?
I was 16 and probably had no more sense
of what the proper way to behave at the
right social setting was than someone
like vince does today.
My parents would always have to give
me very specific lists of do's and don'ts
for situations like this.
>
>
>
> >> But the fact that he doesn't have Islamic
> >> ceremonies means that this is not an inclusive
> >> sort of thing afterall. So even that argument is
> >> out the window.
>
> >Why do you say this? Even George W Bush
> >had Eid and Ramadan ceremonies/proclamations, and
> >an Eid commemorative stamp was issued
> >during his administration!
>
> Ah yes, I remember now. Those commemorative stamps
> were produced immediately after 9/11. I think that was
> truly terrible.
>
No, they were produced in August 2001, which would
be over a month before 9/11. You're thinking of the
second issue that came in 2002, and it was not
"truly terrible" at all. Deliberately suppressing
the renewal of the stamp would have been
both morally and diplomatically wrong, since it
would have publically sent a message that
we were fighting Islam, not al-Qaida terrorism.
You're also undermining your own argument,
which was that publically subsidized
religious ceremonies should
be OK as long as they're inclusive,
because now you're suggesting that
they shouldn't be *that* inclusive!
--
Rob Strom
Snow
> >But I don't worship Satan or Yehoshua, I worship YAHWEH. I choose to
> >respect other peoples beliefs and find this is keeping the the
> >teachings of the Good News... So, I don't care if somebody worships
> >Satan because it is not much difference then worship of Jesus... both
> >are idolatry.
>
> >No.. I am to do what is right and be an example for others... that is
> >the Torah and the Prophets.
>
> Hmmmm... are you sure you always show respect for others
> beliefs here?
I try my best but some people won't agree to disagree. I would just
as soon never ever see another post from Linda.. talk to linda or even
speak of linda but the woman does stalk my every post when she's not
getting ready for her pagan holy day of x mass
Aaron
>
>Here's a puzzle. Rahm Emanuel is lighting the national menorah
>outside the Whitehouse. I personally have nothing against that.
>We don't have separation of church and state in the UK, and
>I'm fine with that.
>
>But, America does have separation. So
>how come a menorah is okay but a Christmas tree or
>nativity scene etc. in a public place is not okay?
Since the Obamas lit the National Christmas tree, it seems that your
information is not correct.
Churches and synagogues place various symbols in public places. It
becomes illegal when the place is a government facility and the
placement makes the statement that the government is establishing a
state religion. Obviously these leave gray area so things keep having
to go to court when Christians keep overstepping the religious
freedoms of other people. (I only say "Christians" there because
Christians are the only violators that I have seen in the US.)
>I think Christmas trees have to be renamed "Holiday"
>trees in America?
No. That was a rumor based on a memo circulated in the National
Forestry Service offices during the Bush administration. The memo was
retracted right away because it was foolish. If you call it a
"holiday tree" it is still a Christmas tree, not a Chanukah tree.
>
>So has the menorah been renamed?
>
>Why not just forget all this petty stuff and have
>a menorah, Christmas tree, nativity scene etc. if that's
>what you want?
>
>On the other hand, it seems odd to have a menorah and
>yet ban a Christmas tree.
It seems odd to get so confused.
But the UK is a bit different, and I suppose Americans can be
confusing sometimes. We have separation of church and state here, but
some people keep trying to divert public funding to support their own
religion. People seem to support freedom of religion when people of
their own religion is being allowed to do what they want, but oppose
it when people of other religions do what they want. It would be
better if we had neither a National Christmas Tree or National
Menorah. I hate to see my tax money wasted just so that politicians
can exploit and mock other people's religious beliefs to advance their
careers.
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>On Dec 15, 12:45=A0pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> But why can't schools have religious celebrations
>> like the President?
>
>Tree lightings/menorah lightings aren't religious celebrations.
But that's not what you said when I suggested America should
have Christmas trees in schools.
And I don't know how you can say a menorah is not part
of a religious celebration.
What is it then?
>They are "we affirm our solidarity with Christians/Jews/whatever
>around the world, and we share the message of
>peace/charity/freedom/whatever associated with this religion".
>
>Schools *do* sort of do this. When my kids were
>in 1st grade I came to class and showed
>the (then mostly non-Jewish) children what
>Chanukah was and what
>chanukiot and dreidels looked like.
>
>It wasn't a religious celebration; it was an educational
>session. We didn't say the prayer. It was
>show-and-tell.
OK, so Christmas trees in schools are educational and
affirming solidarity with Christians, aren't they?
>> Why can't your schools
>> emulate that?
>> So lighting a menorah, or singing carols, and so
>> on.
>>
>> I'm only suggesting that schools should be free
>> to do whatever is done on public property by
>> the President.
>
>They do.
They do? Sing carols? Light menorahs?
...now I'm even more confused!
>Putting a crucifix in a classroom isn't
>the same as that.
But I think it is. It's exactly the same as
putting a menorah in a classroom (or outside the
Whitehouse). They're both religious symbols.
>Saying a prayer isn't the
>same as that. What we did was
>educational: "There are these people
>called Jews and they do thus-and-so
>at Chanukah time; this is how the
>holiday originated", not "Now we
>will stand together and praise God
>for commanding us to light the lights".
I don't think your President was being educational
as far as the menorah is concerned. I don't think he
said anything.
Two Rabbis and a politician were
pictured lighting the menorah though. So 2 religious
representatives must surely constitute a religious
celebration?
>> OK, so schools could reach out to all religions,
>> couldn't they?
>
>They do.
>
>They teach *about* religions. And of course
>they have these "holiday" concerts that
>many Christians complain about more
>than if we did nothing!
But you don't like those sort of concerts either.
You don't like religion in schools at all.
You don't like multi-faith concerts, nor
single faith concerts.
>> Personally, if I was a teacher in America and somebody
>> objected to a Christmas tree or carol singing, I would point
>> out that there is a national Christmas tree on public property
>> (the Whitehouse).
>> So I wouldn't be doing anything that is not practised
>> by the President.
>
>The school doesn't represent the nation the way
>the President does.
>
>The President lives in the White House; he
>is symbolically every American, so he
>shows the symbols of every group. He's
>Irish on St. Patricks Day and Puerto Rican
>on Puerto Rican pride day and so on.
Puerto Rican pride day? Aren't they Americans?
Why are they showing pride for Puerto Rico?
Oh my goodness, you're not making the same mistake
as our blooming liberal government, are you?
And embracing multiculture?!
Anyway, I sort of understand your point that the
President is symbolically every American... but then
a school represents every American too, because all
Americans go to school.
>I'm sure your Queen does the same thing:
>isn't there a Buckingham Palace
>Christmas tree *and* menorah
>*and* Ramadan celebration?
Not as far as I know.
I wouldn't be surprised if our Prime Minister
ingratiates himself with Muslim voters though.
He probably has some sort of Ramadam-do at
Downing Street.
...Oh, is the President trawling for votes when he's
suddenly becoming everso Puerto Rican?
>> If schools are taken to court over this, then why aren't
>> Presidents.
>
>Schools aren't taken to court over things like
>Christmas carols, especially when they
>sing songs from all faiths and countries.
>
>They're taken to court over sectarian prayer.
>You must see the difference.
Hmmm... well this isn't what you said before.
You said American children don't have Christmas
services in schools.
So a Christmas service is okay if they throw in
a couple of songs from other faiths?
That's what our multicultural areas do in Britain, and
you didn't seem to like that either.
>> >This is ambiguous because it's the
>> >President's residence.
>>
>> I would see what you mean if this was his private
>> menorah/Christmas tree within his residence. It's a
>> national menorah and national Christmas tree though.
>> That says that it's for the public.
>
>The President is a national leader and makes
>parts of his residence sharable with the public.
>
>The whole concept is symbolic of democracy.
>Instead of a King in a palace that he owns
>and bequeaths to his heirs,
>the President lives in a house that
>the nation as a whole pays for. He
>invites the public to tour parts of
>the house and to share in ceremonies
>on the grounds.
Actually, that's the same as the Palace.
I own it!
>> >> (You met President Kennedy? That must have been
>> >> a wonderful occasion!)
>>
>> >It was, but my parents had to make me promise
>> >not to use the occasion to argue with him
>> >about his refusal to sign onto the
>> >H-bomb atmopheric test moratorium.
>>
>> Would you really have mentioned that though?
>> How old were you at the time?
>
>I was 16 and probably had no more sense
>of what the proper way to behave at the
>right social setting was than someone
>like vince does today.
>
>My parents would always have to give
>me very specific lists of do's and don'ts
>for situations like this.
I see.
I'm not sure you would have shown the same restraint
with President Bush :-)
That would have been an interesting meeting :-)
>> >> But the fact that he doesn't have Islamic
>> >> ceremonies means that this is not an inclusive
>> >> sort of thing afterall. So even that argument is
>> >> out the window.
>>
>> >Why do you say this? Even George W Bush
>> >had Eid and Ramadan ceremonies/proclamations, and
>> >an Eid commemorative stamp was issued
>> >during his administration!
>>
>> Ah yes, I remember now. Those commemorative stamps
>> were produced immediately after 9/11. I think that was
>> truly terrible.
>>
>
>No, they were produced in August 2001, which would
>be over a month before 9/11. You're thinking of the
>second issue that came in 2002, and it was not
>"truly terrible" at all. Deliberately suppressing
>the renewal of the stamp would have been
>both morally and diplomatically wrong, since it
>would have publically sent a message that
>we were fighting Islam, not al-Qaida terrorism.
I see the dilemma. Nevertheless, who would have
known? They could have been quietly withdrawn.
I just think that it was incredibly
insensitive to release stamps celebrating
a religion that had so recently caused mass murder in
your country.
The victims' families should have come first.
>You're also undermining your own argument,
>which was that publically subsidized
>religious ceremonies should
>be OK as long as they're inclusive,
>because now you're suggesting that
>they shouldn't be *that* inclusive!
Oh, I don't think they should be inclusive
at all. I would have Christianity and Judaism
and nothing else.
I'm just trying to understand how a President
can behave (officially) so differently towards
religion than other public sector employees.
You argue (on behalf of the President) that religion
is fine if it's inclusive, but you don't make that
argument for any other public institution.
So your head of state can promote religions, but
others can't.
Rob Strom
> In article <bc3fabbc-f50f-493e-9425-e3774dc26...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
> ...
> >> But why can't schools have religious celebrations
> >> like the President?
>
> >Tree lightings/menorah lightings aren't religious celebrations.
>
> But that's not what you said when I suggested America should
> have Christmas trees in schools.
They can if they're in an area where students
might not know what a Christmas tree is
and they want to teach the fact that there
is a religion called Christianity where
people put up these things.
Then it would serve an educational purpose.
There are few areas in my country where
that would be the case for Christmas trees.
We do do it for menorahs
and Indian religion and suchlike though.
We would have to be careful to make
sure we're not implying that "we"
the class, or the school, celebrate
the holiday we're teaching about.
>
> And I don't know how you can say a menorah is not part
> of a religious celebration.
>
> What is it then?
When I "taught menorah" as a guest in my
kids' 1st grade, it was part of a lesson.
At that time, my child was the only
Jewish kid in the class and the
other kids probably had never heard
of Chanukah. There would be no
need for a corresponding lesson on
what Christmas is.
...
> >It wasn't a religious celebration; it was an educational
> >session. We didn't say the prayer. It was
> >show-and-tell.
>
> OK, so Christmas trees in schools are educational and
> affirming solidarity with Christians, aren't they?
In those days, there wouldn't have been any educational
purpose of having a lesson like the one I gave on menorahs.
What would I say?
That there's a holiday called Christmas celebrated
by a religion called Christianity that commemorates
the birthday of their leader called Jesus? They
*know* this already!!! Why am I having this lesson?
...
> >> I'm only suggesting that schools should be free
> >> to do whatever is done on public property by
> >> the President.
>
> >They do.
>
> They do? Sing carols? Light menorahs?
There's a bit of a distinction. School children
*have* to be there. They are a captive audience.
Now we do sing carols in school. We showed
the menorah without lighting it. The carols
included carols of many different religions.
So we taught about different religions without
implying that some are "ours" and others
are "alien".
Now the President does similarly, but
the audience is not captive. So I can
have things like separate Christmas
and Chanukah and Eid stuff without forcing them
to be all together, since people can
go to any or both or neither as they wish.
>
> ...now I'm even more confused!
>
> >Putting a crucifix in a classroom isn't
> >the same as that.
>
> But I think it is. It's exactly the same as
> putting a menorah in a classroom (or outside the
> Whitehouse). They're both religious symbols.
I don't think that the Italian crucifix was
a portable thing used as part of a school
lesson explaining what a crucifix was
to people who have never heard of one.
It was a fixture indicating "this is
a Christian building".
...
> >Saying a prayer isn't the
> >same as that. What we did was
> >educational: "There are these people
> >called Jews and they do thus-and-so
> >at Chanukah time; this is how the
> >holiday originated", not "Now we
> >will stand together and praise God
> >for commanding us to light the lights".
>
> I don't think your President was being educational
> as far as the menorah is concerned. I don't think he
> said anything.
I'm sure he gave a speech (I'll have to look it up).
He probably didn't light the menorah, because
he didn't know how, and delegated it to
someone who did, exactly as my kids'
1st grade teacher delegated the menorah
lesson to me.
>
> Two Rabbis and a politician were
> pictured lighting the menorah though. So 2 religious
> representatives must surely constitute a religious
> celebration?
No. Nobody could be confused into thinking
that the President was *endorsing* Judaism
or claiming to be Jewish. The celebration
was religious for the rabbis and for the
audience. (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
curmudgeon who has sold his religious
principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
He is Obama's chief of staff.) But it's impossible
to get from that ceremony that the President
is endorsing Judaism, especially within
the wider context of all different ceremonies.
Perhaps if your Italian school had a crucifix
nailed up on Mondays, a menorah on
Tuesdays, a star-and-crescent on Wednesdays,
a Buddha statue on Thursdays, and
a photograph of Lenin on Fridays, you'd
be able to argue that the meaning of
the crucifix was part of a message of
inclusion rather than part of a message
of Christian exclusivism, but I don't
think that in the actual context it was.
...
>
> But you don't like those sort of concerts either.
>
> You don't like religion in schools at all.
> You don't like multi-faith concerts, nor
> single faith concerts.
I just participated in a multi-faith concert.
(not as part of a school program).
I think there'd be less argument in schools
if the concerts were held in January instead
of December, and then nobody would
be quarreling about whether they
were Christmas concerts in disguise.
...
>
> >The President lives in the White House; he
> >is symbolically every American, so he
> >shows the symbols of every group. He's
> >Irish on St. Patricks Day and Puerto Rican
> >on Puerto Rican pride day and so on.
>
> Puerto Rican pride day? Aren't they Americans?
> Why are they showing pride for Puerto Rico?
You're wrong in 2 ways:
First of all, Puerto Rico is part of America.
Second of all, even if it was not (as in fact,
Ireland is not part of America) we have
pride days for the countries/regions of *origin*
of Americans, at least for the largest
groups: Irish, Italians, Africans,
Puerto Ricans, Jews, Chinese.
>
> Oh my goodness, you're not making the same mistake
> as our blooming liberal government, are you?
> And embracing multiculture?!
Not a mistake.
>
> Anyway, I sort of understand your point that the
> President is symbolically every American... but then
> a school represents every American too, because all
> Americans go to school.
We try to teach about all those cultures, including
a few that we don't see too much of,
but have historical importance
(especially Pilgrims and Indians
at Thanksgiving time).
>
> >I'm sure your Queen does the same thing:
> >isn't there a Buckingham Palace
> >Christmas tree *and* menorah
> >*and* Ramadan celebration?
>
> Not as far as I know.
Presumably, as a German, she would
do German day?
...
>
> ...Oh, is the President trawling for votes when he's
> suddenly becoming everso Puerto Rican?
The President is a politician, and even when
he doesn't trawl for votes, he's certainly
making sure he doesn't offend any major
groups. (Of course, Republicans go out
of their way to be offended no matter what,
so I think he should stop ingratiating himself to them.)
...
> >> Presidents.
>
> >Schools aren't taken to court over things like
> >Christmas carols, especially when they
> >sing songs from all faiths and countries.
>
> >They're taken to court over sectarian prayer.
> >You must see the difference.
>
> Hmmm... well this isn't what you said before.
> You said American children don't have Christmas
> services in schools.
We don't. Music programs that include
Christmas carols among other types
of songs aren't "Christmas services".
> So a Christmas service is okay if they throw in
> a couple of songs from other faiths?
It's not a Christmas service. I've seen Christmas
services -- they have the full Kyrie Eleison, Gloria,
all of that stuff, plus communion.
They will sing things like "Carol of the Bells",
"Little Drummer Boy", and so forth, plus
some seasonal winter songs, Chanukah
music, and possibly some other ethnic
songs. No way could this be mistaken
for a religious service.
...
...
>
> I see.
> I'm not sure you would have shown the same restraint
> with President Bush :-)
> That would have been an interesting meeting :-)
I probably would have refused to shake his hand, for sure.
...
> >No, they were produced in August 2001, which would
> >be over a month before 9/11. You're thinking of the
> >second issue that came in 2002, and it was not
> >"truly terrible" at all. Deliberately suppressing
> >the renewal of the stamp would have been
> >both morally and diplomatically wrong, since it
> >would have publically sent a message that
> >we were fighting Islam, not al-Qaida terrorism.
>
> I see the dilemma. Nevertheless, who would have
> known? They could have been quietly withdrawn.
No!!
There's no such thing as "quietly" in politics.
>
> I just think that it was incredibly
> insensitive to release stamps celebrating
> a religion that had so recently caused mass murder in
> your country.
I am unaware that any religion had caused mass murder in my country.
> The victims' families should have come first.
I am unaware that any stamp would have injured
the victims' families at all.
>
> >You're also undermining your own argument,
> >which was that publically subsidized
> >religious ceremonies should
> >be OK as long as they're inclusive,
> >because now you're suggesting that
> >they shouldn't be *that* inclusive!
>
> Oh, I don't think they should be inclusive
> at all. I would have Christianity and Judaism
> and nothing else.
That's what I mean by undermining your argument.
If you had just 2 religions and nothing else, then
that would have raised constitutional issues
that the government was showing favoritism,
and the courts would have wound up throwing
all religious ceremonies out.
>
> I'm just trying to understand how a President
> can behave (officially) so differently towards
> religion than other public sector employees.
>
> You argue (on behalf of the President) that religion
> is fine if it's inclusive, but you don't make that
> argument for any other public institution.
> So your head of state can promote religions, but
> others can't.
>
He can't promote religions. He can welcome
all religions and give speeches about their
special days but if it ever started looking
as though he were officially favoring one
over another, there would be trouble.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Emma, you've been right all along. It's terribly inconsistent and
> unbalanced. The link Rob posted suggested Obama saw the lighting of the
> "Christmas Tree" as some kind of universal symbol for the nation--not
> limited to Christianity. How ridiculous is that?
"Since the Christmas tree is originally European in origin
and not Christian, all he's doing is saying that symbols morph --
not ridiculous at all."
Don't confuse the symbol with the meaning Christians have given to it.
> "Before the tree was lit, Obama said the Christmas story is a Christian
> one
> but its lesson is universal.
"Isn't its lesson universal?"
It is not universal in the sense of diversity. It is the exclusive answer
for the whole universe, yes.
> "It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition
> that
> has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season
> of
> brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said."
"But isn't that true? At Christmas season, groups of
all religions go around giving charity drives, folks
ring bells on the street, people talk about peace
on earth and goodwill towards men. Do you
think that's an exclusive message?"
The Christmas message is not just one of good works and charity. It is
rather giving credit to the exclusive source of all spirituality and all
charity that God Himself recognizes--the Christ child. "I am the way, the
truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me." (Jesus)
"You are confusing Obama sending a message to the country
on the occasion of Christmas (or Chanukah) and him
actually making an exclusivist celebration of a holiday. He wouldn't
do that. He'd morph the Christmas messaqe into a lesson for all,
(peace, charity), and the Chanukah one as well
(hope, freedom of religion). Sounds like the right thing
for a President to be doing."
It isn't the right thing for the President to take an exclusively Christian
message and morph in into a false message fit for a secular society, with a
meaning that it didn't have. Many American media productions have turned
Christmas into a time of good will for all, and I don't dispute that. But
that isn't the Christmas message, and Obama shouldn't have obscured that
message. It is an exclusive message of salvation *only* by Christ--not by
good works alone.
But Rob, if you want to do good works in the name of Christ, ie by doing
things in accordance with his spirit in your soul, you're entitled to do all
the good works you want, and still call it part of the Christmas message.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"...
> "Since the Christmas tree is originally European in origin
> and not Christian, all he's doing is saying that symbols morph --
> not ridiculous at all."
>
> Don't confuse the symbol with the meaning Christians have given to it.
That's true. Symbols change. But by the same token,
don't confuse the sectarian Christian meaning of
Christmas with the non-sectarian use by the President.
>
> > "Before the tree was lit, Obama said the Christmas story is a Christian
> > one
> > but its lesson is universal.
>
> "Isn't its lesson universal?"
>
> It is not universal in the sense of diversity. It is the exclusive answer
> for the whole universe, yes.
Only conservative Christians think that. But just
as you folks took the Germans' Christmas tree
and gave it a different meaning, others can
do the same with your Christmas story.
> ...
> "But isn't that true? At Christmas season, groups of
> all religions go around giving charity drives, folks
> ring bells on the street, people talk about peace
> on earth and goodwill towards men. Do you
> think that's an exclusive message?"
>
> The Christmas message is not just one of good works and charity.
Maybe yours isn't, but other people think differently.
...
>
> "You are confusing Obama sending a message to the country
> on the occasion of Christmas (or Chanukah) and him
> actually making an exclusivist celebration of a holiday. He wouldn't
> do that. He'd morph the Christmas messaqe into a lesson for all,
> (peace, charity), and the Chanukah one as well
> (hope, freedom of religion). Sounds like the right thing
> for a President to be doing."
>
> It isn't the right thing for the President to take an exclusively Christian
> message and morph in into a false message fit for a secular society, with a
> meaning that it didn't have.
And now you contradict what you said earlier.
If it was OK for Christians to take the tree, which had originally
a pagan message, and morph it into a symbol of something else,
then it is OK for the President to generalize a narrowly
exclusive message to a broader message.
And you are wrong to call it a false message. "Peace on
earth, goodwill towards men" is not a false message,
just because you wish that everyone would be Christian,
and the speaker of the message is willing to give it
to all.
> Many American media productions have turned
> Christmas into a time of good will for all, and I don't dispute that. But
> that isn't the Christmas message, and Obama shouldn't have obscured that
> message. It is an exclusive message of salvation *only* by Christ--not by
> good works alone.
By that logic, the Christmas tree has its original meaning, and
Christians shouldn't have adopted it for **their** false new religion.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Don't confuse the symbol with the meaning Christians have given to it.
"That's true. Symbols change. But by the same token,
don't confuse the sectarian Christian meaning of
Christmas with the non-sectarian use by the President."
I don't. I just don't agree with it.
> It is not universal in the sense of diversity. It is the exclusive answer
> for the whole universe, yes.
"Only conservative Christians think that. But just
as you folks took the Germans' Christmas tree
and gave it a different meaning, others can
do the same with your Christmas story."
Yes, Christians can use any generic symbol to represent their religion.
> The Christmas message is not just one of good works and charity.
"Maybe yours isn't, but other people think differently."
Yes, the world is not in agreement. But I do believe there is such a thing
as universal moral values.
> It isn't the right thing for the President to take an exclusively
> Christian
> message and morph in into a false message fit for a secular society, with
> a
> meaning that it didn't have.
"And now you contradict what you said earlier.
If it was OK for Christians to take the tree, which had originally
a pagan message, and morph it into a symbol of something else,
then it is OK for the President to generalize a narrowly
exclusive message to a broader message."
No, symbols are just symbols, and can be given meaning to the group choosing
to use them. But the Christian religion is not a symbol to be applied as any
group wishes. If liberal Christians wish to give Christianity a secular
meaning, then it is not Christian in the original sense. For Christianity
that would amount to heresy. For Jews it would amount to idolatry, if Jews
converted the meaning of the Ten Commandments to the freedom to choose
whatever religion one wishes.
"And you are wrong to call it a false message. "Peace on
earth, goodwill towards men" is not a false message,
just because you wish that everyone would be Christian,
and the speaker of the message is willing to give it
to all."
When you take Christian statements out of its Christian context, you pervert
its message. Christianity has never been about good works alone. That's
because nobody can purge the evil from them purely by doing good works. We
require a spiritual cleansing, not just to do good works that are pure, but
also so that what evil we do can be forgiven and repented of.
randy
Rob Strom
>
...
>
> > It is not universal in the sense of diversity. It is the exclusive answer
> > for the whole universe, yes.
>
> "Only conservative Christians think that. But just
> as you folks took the Germans' Christmas tree
> and gave it a different meaning, others can
> do the same with your Christmas story."
>
> Yes, Christians can use any generic symbol to represent their religion.
You co-opt other symbols but criticize others for co-opting yours.
Not good.
>
> > The Christmas message is not just one of good works and charity.
>
> "Maybe yours isn't, but other people think differently."
>
> Yes, the world is not in agreement. But I do believe there is such a thing
> as universal moral values.
So do I, and that is why I criticize conservative Christians for
rejecting them.
...
>
> "And now you contradict what you said earlier.
> If it was OK for Christians to take the tree, which had originally
> a pagan message, and morph it into a symbol of something else,
> then it is OK for the President to generalize a narrowly
> exclusive message to a broader message."
>
> No, symbols are just symbols, and can be given meaning to the group choosing
> to use them. But the Christian religion is not a symbol to be applied as any
> group wishes.
You are once again applying a double standard.
You're effectively saying "we Christians can re-interpret
anything we want to give it a Christian meaning; but
once we do, you can't re-interpret our stuff".
> If liberal Christians wish to give Christianity a secular
> meaning, then it is not Christian in the original sense. For Christianity
> that would amount to heresy. For Jews it would amount to idolatry, if Jews
> converted the meaning of the Ten Commandments to the freedom to choose
> whatever religion one wishes.
My point to Emma was that the President making a speech
to the nation on the occasion of Christmas *is not* a
Christian religious service. It is both a welcoming
of Christians, saying that Christians count as part of
the American culture (just as he does for Jews, Muslims, and others
on other occasions), and a chance to give a
speech with a broad meaning from everyone ("here's
an idea from Christianity which perhaps everyone
can profit from").
>
> "And you are wrong to call it a false message. "Peace on
> earth, goodwill towards men" is not a false message,
> just because you wish that everyone would be Christian,
> and the speaker of the message is willing to give it
> to all."
>
> When you take Christian statements out of its Christian context, you pervert
> its message.
Perhaps, but there is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black about
this,
since the entire religion is a distortion of ours! Remember how
Christians even claim that our Bible is the first half of theirs,
and yet give completely new meanings to everything in it???
> Christianity has never been about good works alone. That's
> because nobody can purge the evil from them purely by doing good works.
That's a Christian view; I don't believe that at all.
> We
> require a spiritual cleansing, not just to do good works that are pure, but
> also so that what evil we do can be forgiven and repented of.
I don't believe this either.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Yes, Christians can use any generic symbol to represent their religion.
"You co-opt other symbols but criticize others for co-opting yours.
Not good."
Not at all. I criticize those who use symbols applied in their *Christian*
sense in order to pervert it. For example, I would criticize Satanists who
use the Christian cross to turn it upside down as a symbol of Christian
blasphemy. I would criticize Mormons for using the NT Bible and twist it to
apply to Joseph Smith, instead of to the tribe of Joseph.
> If liberal Christians wish to give Christianity a secular
> meaning, then it is not Christian in the original sense. For Christianity
> that would amount to heresy. For Jews it would amount to idolatry, if Jews
> converted the meaning of the Ten Commandments to the freedom to choose
> whatever religion one wishes.
"My point to Emma was that the President making a speech
to the nation on the occasion of Christmas *is not* a
Christian religious service...."
But everybody knows Obama claims to be a Christian. As such he is presenting
truths about Christmas, as he sees it. He is not just presenting universal,
secular truths on a holiday that happens to be Christmas.
"It is both a welcoming
of Christians, saying that Christians count as part of
the American culture (just as he does for Jews, Muslims, and others
on other occasions), and a chance to give a
speech with a broad meaning from everyone ("here's
an idea from Christianity which perhaps everyone
can profit from")."
I have no problem with his promoting universal values for all faiths in
America. I just protest his claiming this is the true meaning of Christmas.
> When you take Christian statements out of its Christian context, you
> pervert
> its message.
"Perhaps, but there is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black about
this,
since the entire religion is a distortion of ours! Remember how
Christians even claim that our Bible is the first half of theirs,
and yet give completely new meanings to everything in it???"
No, we are claiming that Judaism became Christianity. We are not claiming
that today's Judaism is really Christianity! We are not claiming that
ancient Jews specifically identified Jesus as Messiah, since Jesus had not
yet come. We are simply interpreting that Messiah to be Jesus, *after the
fact.*
> Christianity has never been about good works alone. That's
> because nobody can purge the evil from them purely by doing good works.
"That's a Christian view; I don't believe that at all."
Spirituality must be a part of your good works, or your good works will not
truly be "clean" in the sight of God. As I've long said, good works must be
a *partnership* between God and us. We must have His spirit in our lives, in
order to make our works pure in His sight.
> We
> require a spiritual cleansing, not just to do good works that are pure,
> but
> also so that what evil we do can be forgiven and repented of.
"I don't believe this either."
Well, either it's true or it's not. That's the Christmas message, Rob. You
can partner together with God, have His spirit indwell you, and do good
works that are pleasing to Him. Then your works will remain in your memory
forever. It just requires acceptance that Jesus was the Messiah. His life
example is what God expects from every man.
randy
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>>>
>> >Tree lightings/menorah lightings aren't religious celebrations.
>>
>> But that's not what you said when I suggested America should
>> have Christmas trees in schools.
>
>They can if they're in an area where students
>might not know what a Christmas tree is
>and they want to teach the fact that there
>is a religion called Christianity where
>people put up these things.
>
>Then it would serve an educational purpose.
>
>There are few areas in my country where
>that would be the case for Christmas trees.
>We do do it for menorahs
>and Indian religion and suchlike though.
>
>We would have to be careful to make
>sure we're not implying that "we"
>the class, or the school, celebrate
>the holiday we're teaching about.
Well I've looked up some court cases. Apparently,
Christmas trees and other religious symbols are
fine in schools and public places in America, as long
as they are accompanied by other symbols eg.
A Christmas tree must be accompanied by a Santa!
A menorah must be accompanied by a Christmas tree,
and so on.
>> And I don't know how you can say a menorah is not part
>> of a religious celebration.
>>
>> What is it then?
>
>When I "taught menorah" as a guest in my
>kids' 1st grade, it was part of a lesson.
>
>At that time, my child was the only
>Jewish kid in the class and the
>other kids probably had never heard
>of Chanukah. There would be no
>need for a corresponding lesson on
>what Christmas is.
OK, but if the teacher had wanted to display the
menorah, she would have to include a Christmas
tree etc. in the display.
Otherwise it would be unconstitutional.
So I hope you remembered to mention Frosty the Snowman in your
talk somewhere!
>> >It wasn't a religious celebration; it was an educational
>> >session. We didn't say the prayer. It was
>> >show-and-tell.
>>
>> OK, so Christmas trees in schools are educational and
>> affirming solidarity with Christians, aren't they?
>
>In those days, there wouldn't have been any educational
>purpose of having a lesson like the one I gave on menorahs.
>
>What would I say?
>
>That there's a holiday called Christmas celebrated
>by a religion called Christianity that commemorates
>the birthday of their leader called Jesus? They
>*know* this already!!! Why am I having this lesson?
Because you would be showing solidarity with Christians!
Just like President Obama.
My children do Christmas in their schools in a big way,
yet the vast majority of the children celebrate Christmas at home.
So it's not educational, and those from non-Christian backgrounds
are showing solidarity.
>> >> I'm only suggesting that schools should be free
>> >> to do whatever is done on public property by
>> >> the President.
>>
>> >They do.
>>
>> They do? Sing carols? Light menorahs?
>
>There's a bit of a distinction. School children
>*have* to be there. They are a captive audience.
But non-Christians and non-Jews can't really
escape a Christmas tree and menorah in a public
place.
That's why Frosty the Snowman has to share the
space with a Christmas tree in all other public
spaces. The Whitehouse is the exception for some
reason.
>
>> ...now I'm even more confused!
>>
>> >Putting a crucifix in a classroom isn't
>> >the same as that.
>>
>> But I think it is. It's exactly the same as
>> putting a menorah in a classroom (or outside the
>> Whitehouse). They're both religious symbols.
>
>I don't think that the Italian crucifix was
>a portable thing used as part of a school
>lesson explaining what a crucifix was
>to people who have never heard of one.
>
>It was a fixture indicating "this is
>a Christian building".
Italians have crucifixes in every public place though.
In law courts too. I suppose it is different to
your talk about a menorah, but it's not saying
"this is a Christian building". It's saying
"Our culture is based on Christian values".
That's just stating a fact.
>
>> Two Rabbis and a politician were
>> pictured lighting the menorah though. So 2 religious
>> representatives must surely constitute a religious
>> celebration?
>
>No. Nobody could be confused into thinking
>that the President was *endorsing* Judaism
>or claiming to be Jewish. The celebration
>was religious for the rabbis and for the
>audience. (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
>if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
>curmudgeon who has sold his religious
>principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
>He is Obama's chief of staff.)
Oh. But he's a Democratic party politician, isn't he?
> But it's impossible
>to get from that ceremony that the President
>is endorsing Judaism, especially within
>the wider context of all different ceremonies.
>
>Perhaps if your Italian school had a crucifix
>nailed up on Mondays, a menorah on
>Tuesdays, a star-and-crescent on Wednesdays,
>a Buddha statue on Thursdays, and
>a photograph of Lenin on Fridays, you'd
>be able to argue that the meaning of
>the crucifix was part of a message of
>inclusion rather than part of a message
>of Christian exclusivism, but I don't
>think that in the actual context it was.
>
You're probably right, but Italy isn't founded
on the same principles as the USA. They don't
pretend to be inclusive. The President recently
said that Italy doesn't aspire to be multicultural.
>> But you don't like those sort of concerts either.
>>
>> You don't like religion in schools at all.
>> You don't like multi-faith concerts, nor
>> single faith concerts.
>
>I just participated in a multi-faith concert.
>(not as part of a school program).
>
>I think there'd be less argument in schools
>if the concerts were held in January instead
>of December, and then nobody would
>be quarreling about whether they
>were Christmas concerts in disguise.
Maybe President Obama should light the menorah
in June then.
>>
>> >The President lives in the White House; he
>> >is symbolically every American, so he
>> >shows the symbols of every group. He's
>> >Irish on St. Patricks Day and Puerto Rican
>> >on Puerto Rican pride day and so on.
>>
>> Puerto Rican pride day? Aren't they Americans?
>> Why are they showing pride for Puerto Rico?
>
>You're wrong in 2 ways:
>First of all, Puerto Rico is part of America.
Ah yes. Puerto Rico isn't really on my radar at all.
I remember now. Padraic mentioned this.
I remember it's one of your colonies.
Even so, Bermuda is one of our colonies, but I
don't want a publically funded Bermuda pride event
here.
(Although, if there were enough votes in it, I'm
sure our Prime Minister would be draped in their
flag and shimmying around Trafalgar Square with a
snare drum!)
>Second of all, even if it was not (as in fact,
>Ireland is not part of America) we have
>pride days for the countries/regions of *origin*
>of Americans, at least for the largest
>groups: Irish, Italians, Africans,
>Puerto Ricans, Jews, Chinese.
Do you pay for that? Is it all paid for by taxes,
or privately funded?
Our previous London mayor was a spendthrift idiot
who funded all sorts of ridiculous minority celebrations.
He's gone now, thank goodness!
If someone wants a Polish Gay Day, or whatever, they should
pay for it themselves, IMO.
I have no problem with private celebrations, but
I don't like my taxes being used for them.
>>
>> >I'm sure your Queen does the same thing:
>> >isn't there a Buckingham Palace
>> >Christmas tree *and* menorah
>> >*and* Ramadan celebration?
>>
>> Not as far as I know.
>
>Presumably, as a German, she would
>do German day?
Absolutely not!
They changed their German name!
>> >No, they were produced in August 2001, which would
>> >be over a month before 9/11. You're thinking of the
>> >second issue that came in 2002, and it was not
>> >"truly terrible" at all. Deliberately suppressing
>> >the renewal of the stamp would have been
>> >both morally and diplomatically wrong, since it
>> >would have publically sent a message that
>> >we were fighting Islam, not al-Qaida terrorism.
>>
>> I see the dilemma. Nevertheless, who would have
>> known? They could have been quietly withdrawn.
>
>No!!
>
>There's no such thing as "quietly" in politics.
It happens all the time.
>> I just think that it was incredibly
>> insensitive to release stamps celebrating
>> a religion that had so recently caused mass murder in
>> your country.
>
>I am unaware that any religion had caused mass murder in my country.
But Rob, you always mention President Bush's Christian
religion in relation to his decisions. So you must surely
recognize Islam killed 3000 people in America.
>> The victims' families should have come first.
>
>I am unaware that any stamp would have injured
>the victims' families at all.
I'm sure it must have caused a lot of hurt. America was officially
endorsing and celebrating the ideology that slaughtered thousands
of its people.
Are there American Christmas stamps, btw?
Rob Strom
> In article <d8828dfb-e644-4319-9fa1-804224181...@l2g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
...>
> >We would have to be careful to make
> >sure we're not implying that "we"
> >the class, or the school, celebrate
> >the holiday we're teaching about.
>
> Well I've looked up some court cases. Apparently,
> Christmas trees and other religious symbols are
> fine in schools and public places in America, as long
> as they are accompanied by other symbols eg.
> A Christmas tree must be accompanied by a Santa!
> A menorah must be accompanied by a Christmas tree,
> and so on.
For schools, the principle is that it's supposed
to relate to the function of a school: teaching
*about* religion is fine, teaching the sociological
fact that people have many different kinds of
religions is fine, being exclusive isn't.
...>
> >At that time, my child was the only
> >Jewish kid in the class and the
> >other kids probably had never heard
> >of Chanukah. There would be no
> >need for a corresponding lesson on
> >what Christmas is.
>
> OK, but if the teacher had wanted to display the
> menorah, she would have to include a Christmas
> tree etc. in the display.
> Otherwise it would be unconstitutional.
There was no "display" analogous to
a crucifix on the wall. The menorah
was brought in for the day and then
returned.
It was show-and-tell, in effect.
...>
> >In those days, there wouldn't have been any educational
> >purpose of having a lesson like the one I gave on menorahs.
>
> >What would I say?
>
> >That there's a holiday called Christmas celebrated
> >by a religion called Christianity that commemorates
> >the birthday of their leader called Jesus? They
> >*know* this already!!! Why am I having this lesson?
>
> Because you would be showing solidarity with Christians!
> Just like President Obama.
Obama isn't teaching school; he's giving
one of a number of speeches on the
theme: America: land of opportunity for everyone.
This is the one for Christians.
He's not trying to explain to Americans what Christmas
is -- that's too patronizing and out of place.
>
> My children do Christmas in their schools in a big way,
> yet the vast majority of the children celebrate Christmas at home.r
Celebrating Christmas should be done at home;
explaining to the non-Christian kids what Christmas
is is what should be done in school.
> So it's not educational, and those from non-Christian backgrounds
> are showing solidarity.
School should be educational; Presidential ceremonies don't have to
be.
...
>
> >There's a bit of a distinction. School children
> >*have* to be there. They are a captive audience.
>
> But non-Christians and non-Jews can't really
> escape a Christmas tree and menorah in a public
> place.
Sure you can.
You don't have to visit the white house lawn unless
you *want* to see the tree or the menorah.
...
> >I don't think that the Italian crucifix was
> >a portable thing used as part of a school
> >lesson explaining what a crucifix was
> >to people who have never heard of one.
>
> >It was a fixture indicating "this is
> >a Christian building".
>
> Italians have crucifixes in every public place though.
> In law courts too. I suppose it is different to
> your talk about a menorah, but it's not saying
> "this is a Christian building". It's saying
> "Our culture is based on Christian values".
> That's just stating a fact.
But there are many cultures in Italy now, and
Italy has decided to join Europe, so it
is choosing to be multi-cultural.
I don't think Italian schools need to have a permanently
affixed crucifix to convey the message that
most Italians are Christians.
> > ... (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
> >if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
> >curmudgeon who has sold his religious
> >principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
> >He is Obama's chief of staff.)
>
> Oh. But he's a Democratic party politician, isn't he?
He is. Just not a very nice one.
...>
> >Perhaps if your Italian school had a crucifix
> >nailed up on Mondays, a menorah on
> >Tuesdays, a star-and-crescent on Wednesdays,
> >a Buddha statue on Thursdays, and
> >a photograph of Lenin on Fridays, you'd
> >be able to argue that the meaning of
> >the crucifix was part of a message of
> >inclusion rather than part of a message
> >of Christian exclusivism, but I don't
> >think that in the actual context it was.
>
> You're probably right, but Italy isn't founded
> on the same principles as the USA. They don't
> pretend to be inclusive. The President recently
> said that Italy doesn't aspire to be multicultural.
It's too late. They spent a good bit of the 19th
century uniting all these totally different
cities. And now they've joined the
Union Europeenne. So they have to
buy a little bit into multiculturalism.
> ...
>
> >I think there'd be less argument in schools
> >if the concerts were held in January instead
> >of December, and then nobody would
> >be quarreling about whether they
> >were Christmas concerts in disguise.
>
> Maybe President Obama should light the menorah
> in June then.
If it were purely educational, he should.
In any case, we don't get a lot of good cheer
at Christmas season, because the religious
argue that we've watered down Christmas,
and the anti-religious argue that
a Christian holiday is being shoved in our face.
The best compromise is for the religious
to do their religious thing on their own time
and on their own grounds, and in public
we can be religiously neutral,
giving lip-service to all without observing any.
...
>
> Ah yes. Puerto Rico isn't really on my radar at all.
> I remember now. Padraic mentioned this.
> I remember it's one of your colonies.
>
> Even so, Bermuda is one of our colonies, but I
> don't want a publically funded Bermuda pride event
> here.
I think these things are mostly private, but
*de minimis* public. That is, private organizations
hire people to make floats and pump up
balloons and whatever, but the city pays
the costs of security and directing traffic
and cleaning up the confetti after the
parade is over.
Don't the British do any kind of parades?
Like Guy Fawkes day and St Patricks
day and Scottish Bagpipe day and
Welsh Rarebit day and
Falkland Island pride day???
...
> If someone wants a Polish Gay Day, or whatever, they should
> pay for it themselves, IMO.
> I have no problem with private celebrations, but
> I don't like my taxes being used for them.
>
See above.
...
> >> I see the dilemma. Nevertheless, who would have
> >> known? They could have been quietly withdrawn.
>
> >No!!
>
> >There's no such thing as "quietly" in politics.
>
> It happens all the time.
Not here.
Republicans made an uproar over one time during
the campaign when Obama wasn't wearing
a flag lapel pin.
>
> >> I just think that it was incredibly
> >> insensitive to release stamps celebrating
> >> a religion that had so recently caused mass murder in
> >> your country.
>
> >I am unaware that any religion had caused mass murder in my country.
>
> But Rob, you always mention President Bush's Christian
> religion in relation to his decisions.
Huh???????
I don't!!
I think virtually all of President Bush's decisions
were as *un*-Christian as could be!!!
> So you must surely
> recognize Islam killed 3000 people in America.
No. Osama bin Laden and his Saudi tools did.
Not Islam.
>
> >> The victims' families should have come first.
>
> >I am unaware that any stamp would have injured
> >the victims' families at all.
>
> I'm sure it must have caused a lot of hurt. America was officially
> endorsing and celebrating the ideology that slaughtered thousands
> of its people.
No they weren't.
This was an Eid stamp, not a Jihad against America stamp.
>
> Are there American Christmas stamps, btw?
>
Yes. Since the 1960s.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Yes, Christians can use any generic symbol to represent their religion.
>
> "You co-opt other symbols but criticize others for co-opting yours.
> Not good."
>
> Not at all. I criticize those who use symbols applied in their *Christian*
> sense in order to pervert it. For example, I would criticize Satanists who
> use the Christian cross to turn it upside down as a symbol of Christian
> blasphemy. I would criticize Mormons for using the NT Bible and twist it to
> apply to Joseph Smith, instead of to the tribe of Joseph.
>
Christians use the Jewish Bible and re-interpret it to meaning
a temporary system of law leading up to a divine messiah.
>
> But everybody knows Obama claims to be a Christian. As such he is presenting
> truths about Christmas, as he sees it. He is not just presenting universal,
> secular truths on a holiday that happens to be Christmas.
No. He's speaking as President, not as a Christian preacher.
He is presenting universal secular truths that match with
Christian teachings.
...
>
> I have no problem with his promoting universal values for all faiths in
> America. I just protest his claiming this is the true meaning of Christmas.
I don't recall his taking a position on *the true* meaning of
Christmas.
It is *one* lesson that people of all faiths can take from
the Christmas stories.
...
>
> "Perhaps, but there is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black about
> this,
> since the entire religion is a distortion of ours! Remember how
> Christians even claim that our Bible is the first half of theirs,
> and yet give completely new meanings to everything in it???"
>
> No, we are claiming that Judaism became Christianity. We are not claiming
> that today's Judaism is really Christianity! We are not claiming that
> ancient Jews specifically identified Jesus as Messiah, since Jesus had not
> yet come. We are simply interpreting that Messiah to be Jesus, *after the
> fact.*
But you did that by re-defining what it means to be Messiah.
Jesus was never King, did not re-unite the nation, did not
usher in an era of peace. You call him Messiah anyway
because you retroactively redefine what Messiah is supposed
to mean.
>
> > Christianity has never been about good works alone. That's
> > because nobody can purge the evil from them purely by doing good works.
>
> "That's a Christian view; I don't believe that at all."
>
> Spirituality must be a part of your good works, or your good works will not
> truly be "clean" in the sight of God. As I've long said, good works must be
> a *partnership* between God and us. We must have His spirit in our lives, in
> order to make our works pure in His sight.
And as I've long said, that's a Christian view; I don't believe that
at all.
>
> > We
> > require a spiritual cleansing, not just to do good works that are pure,
> > but
> > also so that what evil we do can be forgiven and repented of.
>
> "I don't believe this either."
>
> Well, either it's true or it's not.
It's not.
> That's the Christmas message, Rob. You
> can partner together with God, have His spirit indwell you, and do good
> works that are pleasing to Him. Then your works will remain in your memory
> forever. It just requires acceptance that Jesus was the Messiah.
No.
> His life
> example is what God expects from every man.
I don't quarrel too too much with Jesus' example; I think
modern conservative Christians deviate much more
from Jesus' life example than do I and most Jews.
(I don't think he would have hunted game and
put the heads up on his mantelpiece --yuck!!)
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"Christians use the Jewish Bible and re-interpret it to meaning
a temporary system of law leading up to a divine messiah."
Yes, Christians use the Jewish Bible based on their *Christian*
understanding--and not based on the competing Jewish understanding. But we
accept that the Jewish Bible was inspired and true, just as the Jews do. And
we accept it as meaning just what it said. Jews today may have moved away
from ancient understanding of the text, or they remain in basic agreement
with it. Christians are no different. They seek to accept the Jewish
Scriptures just as the ancient Jews did. Where they differ is a matter of
reading *back into the text* things that came to be understood *after the
fact.*
Jews do not co-opt the feast days of ancient Israel, for example. We accept
the Feast of Passover, Succoth, etc. just as they were in ancient times. Nor
do Christians try to turn today's Jewish celebrations into Christian
celebrations. They may take place coincidentally with Jewish festivals, but
only for the purpose of showing how they were fulfilled--not how they were
understood in their original settings.
"I don't recall his taking a position on *the true* meaning of
Christmas."
I provided you a quote, albeit without the internet source...
(quote)
"It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition that
has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season of
brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said.
(unquote)
"It is *one* lesson that people of all faiths can take from
the Christmas stories."
Perhaps. But for Christians it's a blatant, insidious dilution of the
message. We know that's what liberal theology has been doing to Christian
truth for many generations. And that background is plainly in sight.
randy
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>...>
>> >We would have to be careful to make
>> >sure we're not implying that "we"
>> >the class, or the school, celebrate
>> >the holiday we're teaching about.
>>
>> Well I've looked up some court cases. Apparently,
>> Christmas trees and other religious symbols are
>> fine in schools and public places in America, as long
>> as they are accompanied by other symbols eg.
>> A Christmas tree must be accompanied by a Santa!
>> A menorah must be accompanied by a Christmas tree,
>> and so on.
>
>For schools, the principle is that it's supposed
>to relate to the function of a school: teaching
>*about* religion is fine, teaching the sociological
>fact that people have many different kinds of
>religions is fine, being exclusive isn't.
I suppose I don't really see why having a Christmas
tree and singing a few carols is "being exclusive".
Plenty of non-Christians celebrate Christmas.
Sadly, it's no longer an exclusively religious thing.
For many people, it's just a cultural festival.
Especially here, where hardly anyone goes to church
anymore.
The American obsession with keeping even a cultural
symbol like a Christmas tree out of schools, is just
beyond me.
>> >In those days, there wouldn't have been any educational
>> >purpose of having a lesson like the one I gave on menorahs.
>>
>> >What would I say?
>>
>> >That there's a holiday called Christmas celebrated
>> >by a religion called Christianity that commemorates
>> >the birthday of their leader called Jesus? They
>> >*know* this already!!! Why am I having this lesson?
>>
>> Because you would be showing solidarity with Christians!
>> Just like President Obama.
>
>Obama isn't teaching school; he's giving
>one of a number of speeches on the
>theme: America: land of opportunity for everyone.
>
>This is the one for Christians.
>
>He's not trying to explain to Americans what Christmas
>is -- that's too patronizing and out of place.
But Christians themselves hear the Christmas story
every year. So it's not patronising.
If Christians can't talk about Christmas in your
schools, then that's hardly America land of
opportunity for *everyone*.
>> My children do Christmas in their schools in a big way,
>> yet the vast majority of the children celebrate Christmas at home.r
>
>Celebrating Christmas should be done at home;
>explaining to the non-Christian kids what Christmas
>is is what should be done in school.
Presumably you still talk about menorahs to Jewish
children though. I don't think you can assume that
if a child is from a particular religious background,
they understand the significance of all the religious
objects.
Children from a Christian background here are
not always aware that Jesus should be the centre of the
celebration rather than Santa! So the Christmas story
still needs to be taught to them.
>> >There's a bit of a distinction. School children
>> >*have* to be there. They are a captive audience.
>>
>> But non-Christians and non-Jews can't really
>> escape a Christmas tree and menorah in a public
>> place.
>
>Sure you can.
>
>You don't have to visit the white house lawn unless
>you *want* to see the tree or the menorah.
So for that period of time you are excluded from the
Whitehouse.
>>
>> Italians have crucifixes in every public place though.
>> In law courts too. I suppose it is different to
>> your talk about a menorah, but it's not saying
>> "this is a Christian building". It's saying
>> "Our culture is based on Christian values".
>> That's just stating a fact.
>
>But there are many cultures in Italy now, and
>Italy has decided to join Europe, so it
>is choosing to be multi-cultural.
There are many cultures in Italy (far fewer
than the UK though), but they don't hold
with multiculturalism. They're like France in
that respect.
>I don't think Italian schools need to have a permanently
>affixed crucifix to convey the message that
>most Italians are Christians.
It's not meant to convey that message though.
It conveys the message that the culture is Christian
and everyone has to integrate into that.
>> > ... (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
>> >if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
>> >curmudgeon who has sold his religious
>> >principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
>> >He is Obama's chief of staff.)
>>
>> Oh. But he's a Democratic party politician, isn't he?
>
>He is. Just not a very nice one.
I'll have to take your word for that because I don't
know anything about him.
>> >I think there'd be less argument in schools
>> >if the concerts were held in January instead
>> >of December, and then nobody would
>> >be quarreling about whether they
>> >were Christmas concerts in disguise.
>>
>> Maybe President Obama should light the menorah
>> in June then.
>
>If it were purely educational, he should.
>
>In any case, we don't get a lot of good cheer
>at Christmas season, because the religious
>argue that we've watered down Christmas,
>and the anti-religious argue that
>a Christian holiday is being shoved in our face.
>
>The best compromise is for the religious
>to do their religious thing on their own time
>and on their own grounds, and in public
>we can be religiously neutral,
>giving lip-service to all without observing any.
Ironically, if you had more public Christianity it
would probably whither on the vine. So I'm not
sure why I'm promoting the idea...
>> Ah yes. Puerto Rico isn't really on my radar at all.
>> I remember now. Padraic mentioned this.
>> I remember it's one of your colonies.
>>
>> Even so, Bermuda is one of our colonies, but I
>> don't want a publically funded Bermuda pride event
>> here.
>
>I think these things are mostly private, but
>*de minimis* public. That is, private organizations
>hire people to make floats and pump up
>balloons and whatever, but the city pays
>the costs of security and directing traffic
>and cleaning up the confetti after the
>parade is over.
>
>Don't the British do any kind of parades?
>Like Guy Fawkes day and St Patricks
>day and Scottish Bagpipe day and
>Welsh Rarebit day and
>Falkland Island pride day???
Oh, don't get me started on this one!
I can feel my blood pressure rising, because
we have had a decade of promoting every minority
festival known to man, and a decade of suppressing
our own! Grrrrrr..... blooming socialists!
I only realized it was happening a few years ago.
It was all very subtle. But then it became not so
subtle...
Now we have a lovely new **Conservative** Mayor Boris
Johnson (have I mentioned Mr Gorgeous at all?!)
who promoted St Georges Day so enthusiastically this year
that people were coming up to him in the street and
thanking him personally!
Here he is...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23665639-boris-johnson-plans-a-st-georges-week.do
English nationalism (like German nationalism) has been very
feared by our socialist government.
So that's why I was wondering if you were going down
the same road with minority pride days.
And Gay Days?
What is that all about?! Why do they need a parade
for that?
That's a private matter!
I've changed my mind about homosexuality with regard
to Christianity (I no longer see it as sinful) but I still
don't want to see a Gay Pride parade.
>> >> I see the dilemma. Nevertheless, who would have
>> >> known? They could have been quietly withdrawn.
>>
>> >No!!
>>
>> >There's no such thing as "quietly" in politics.
>>
>> It happens all the time.
>
>Not here.
>
>Republicans made an uproar over one time during
>the campaign when Obama wasn't wearing
>a flag lapel pin.
I don't remember that.
Anyway, I meant that there are lots of secret
policies. We don't find out about them for years.
They could have quietly withdrawn the stamps, and
nobody would have known anything for years.
>> >> I just think that it was incredibly
>> >> insensitive to release stamps celebrating
>> >> a religion that had so recently caused mass murder in
>> >> your country.
>>
>> >I am unaware that any religion had caused mass murder in my country.
>>
>> But Rob, you always mention President Bush's Christian
>> religion in relation to his decisions.
>
>Huh???????
>
>I don't!!
>
>I think virtually all of President Bush's decisions
>were as *un*-Christian as could be!!!
Ah, yes, you're right. You do say that.
>> So you must surely
>> recognize Islam killed 3000 people in America.
>
>No. Osama bin Laden and his Saudi tools did.
>
>Not Islam.
Islamic terrorism doesn't appear out of nowhere, Rob.
The words of the Koran inspired it.
>> >> The victims' families should have come first.
>>
>> >I am unaware that any stamp would have injured
>> >the victims' families at all.
>>
>> I'm sure it must have caused a lot of hurt. America was officially
>> endorsing and celebrating the ideology that slaughtered thousands
>> of its people.
>
>No they weren't.
>
>This was an Eid stamp, not a Jihad against America stamp.
Same thing.
Suzanne
> Here's a puzzle. Rahm Emanuel is lighting the national menorah
> outside the Whitehouse. I personally have nothing against that.
> We don't have separation of church and state in the UK, and
> I'm fine with that.
>
> But, America does have separation. So
> how come a menorah is okay but a Christmas tree or
> nativity scene etc. in a public place is not okay?
> trees in America?
>
>
> Why not just forget all this petty stuff and have
> a menorah, Christmas tree, nativity scene etc. if that's
> what you want?
>
> On the other hand, it seems odd to have a menorah and
> yet ban a Christmas tree.
>
> ~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
Hello Emma,
In America, we have politics that involve liberal people and
conservative people, within both political parties.
The ones that are in control in recent times are the liberal part of
the Democrats. There are Democrats
that do not agree with the liberal ones. But they are
elected by the people who vote Democrat. So to an
extent, they have to please their constituents, you
understand, in order to get elected again. So they
have to make compromises. A person that is in
politics has to walk a balanced line and try to please
as many as is possible. On the other hand, they
were elected to do something, other than just be
tight-rope walkers, if you follow me. : )
When you read about our politics in another area
of the world, you are getting information from our
media which then filters through your media. So
as you might figure out, the truth is not always
apparent. The truth is, America did not decide to
do the things that you mention, the liberal voting
Democrats are currently ruling. However, there
are some issues that the more conservative
Democrats are standing up for that they do not
like. It takes sheer intestinal fortitude to stand up
for what is right. We have a wonderful TV
Evangelist here by the name of Charles Stanley
of "In Touch" Ministries. He starts every show
with this,
"Do God's will, and leave the consequences to
Him."
I feel this is the best way for anyone, in any field
to do, even politics. But I believe there is another
thing concerning the politicians and that is that in
the Bible we are told by the Lord to pray for all
of those in authority over us. The Bible indicates
that our prayers order the steps of kings. The
politicians will not know what to do if the people
do not pray for them, really. When I hear some
moan and groan over whatever politician is in
power, if they go on a while I will ask that person,
"Say, have you ever prayed for him/her?" Some
will look at me like I am asking them to pray for
the devil. : ) But I am not asking that they pray
that the person prosper in doing what is wrong,
but that they will pray for that person to be led
by the Lord. Granted, some of them are not a
very spiritual bunch, but some of them are. Each
person, no matter how wrong they might appear
politically, have consciences that God can reach
them through, even if they do not profess any
kind of faith or even know that God is leading
them. He can influence them if people follow the
Lord's command to us to pray for them. A
person might not even understand why he should
pray for a person that politically is of a different
persuasion than himself, but by his putting his
faith in God's word and resting upon it to do what
it says, the Lord will reward that person's trust of
his commands enough to do what he asks them
to do.
>
Best Regards,
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <2c8214a3-1945-46d8-b470-0f13cd432...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 13, 12:59=A0pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> Here's a puzzle. Rahm Emanuel is lighting the national menorah
> >> outside the Whitehouse. I personally have nothing against that.
> >> We don't have separation of church and state in the UK, and
> >> I'm fine with that.
>
> >> But, America does have separation. So
> >> how come a menorah is okay but a Christmas tree or
> >> nativity scene etc. in a public place is not okay?
> >> I think Christmas trees have to be renamed "Holiday"
> >> trees in America?
>
> >angry that some folks wanting to be
> >more inclusive say "Happy Holidays"
> >instead of "Merry Christmas" around this
> >time, so they invent an imaginary theory that Jews
> >and liberals are attacking Christmas
> >and want to ban it. Or else they're
> >upset that public schools can't
> >have official Christmas celebrations.
>
>
>
> >> a menorah, Christmas tree, nativity scene etc. if that's
> >> what you want?
>
> >> On the other hand, it seems odd to have a menorah and
> >> yet ban a Christmas tree.
>
>
> >The White House is the President's *residence*;
> >as citizens they can put whatever they want on
> >their lawn, just as I can. I have a menorah in
> >my window. They have both a Christmas tree
> >and a menorah.
>
> the link that you gave me) the
> *national* Christmas tree. So this is a
> public tree and menorah, isn't it?
> Who paid for them? Was it public money?
>
> I doubt very much if your President paid for the
> menorah and the Christmas tree, so it's not
> equivalent to your own private menorah.
>
> So why can't your schools buy these religious
> symbols with public money?
>
> --
> ~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~- Hide quoted text -
>
Mostly, Emma, this is because of the ACLU. They
are a group that seem to be hell-bent on destroying
the moral fiber of the country in my opinion, and in
the opinion of many. They sound so moderate, saying
that they are there to help the civil liberties of people.
They don't appear to be that way at all when you
see some of the things they have done. They continue to bring this law
suit and that law suit against people's
moral rights. They seem to want a country without
religion at all. America is supposed to be formed in
order for people to have freedom of religion so they
try to pretend that having a cross at a location violates
that idea. They are wrong. The American ideal is
not freedom "from" religion, but freedom "of" religion.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <520358ac-7f64-4ac6-8f4d-29df29bdb...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
>
>
> >It may technically be a violation, but
> >since the President has public commemorations
> >of every religion, ethnic group,
> >marketing group (National Cheese Growers day or whatever),
> >nobody could put up an argument that
> >by doing a menorah lighting or whatever
> >that the President is "establishing" or
> >favoring Judaism as a national religion.
>
> >Obviously if this were done for the majority
> >religion to the exclusion of anything else,
> >then people could put up such an argument.
>
> country; put up religious symbols in schools or
> on public property, and certain sections of your
> Whitehouse (a publically owned property)
> with different religious symbols, and call them *national*
> events, and everyone is fine.
>
> It's just not consistent.
>
> >The President does about half a dozen
> >ceremonial events per day, so several
> >thousands every year. (I was fortunate
> >to be a part of one in 1962, when
> >President Kennedy did a personal
> >recognition of the 40 Science Talent
> >Search winners. I was actually upset
> >with him at the time, since he had
> >turned down the proposal to do an
> >atmospheric nuclear bomb testing
> >moratorium.) So it's unlikely that
> >a significant segment of the population
> >feels cheated here.
>
> fact that religious symbols should not be
> displayed on publically owned properties though.
>
> ,for instance, schools could ensure that
> as well as a Christmas tree they have a menorah
> as long as they are inclusive, religion is fine.
> That seems to be your argument as far as the
> Whitehouse is concerned.
>
> a wonderful occasion!)
>
> >public money is concerned, I'm not
> >sure. I think these folks are paid
> >a fixed fee to be available
> >for ceremonies, whether they do any
> >particular ceremony or not, so I'm not sure
> >extra funds are expended to do
> >menorah lightings. I'm sure that
> >when there's a Muslim ceremony,
> >the rightwingers will get on Fox
> >News saying that this is unprecedented
> >and treasonous and a proof
> >that the President is a Muslim
> >fifth-columnist.
>
> But the fact that he doesn't have Islamic
> ceremonies means that this is not an inclusive
> sort of thing afterall. So even that argument is
> out the window.
>
> ~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
While American's want freedom "of" religion (not
freedom "from" religion) they don't want anyone
interfering with what their children are raised by
them to believe. They know that when that child
becomes an adult they may choose their own way
that they want to believe, but the parents are duty
bound to raise their child in the way that they
believe the Lord wants them to be raised spiritually.
The Jews have endured awful persecution, and
now the Christians religious beliefs are being
persecuted in America. There is a point at which
religious toleration should stand publically, but
taking away crosses from national cemetaries
such as I witnessed in one of our states in the
past year, is persecution and intolerance of
the religion of the majority of the Americans. The
Star of David is also subject to such and the ones
opposing the Christians oppose any expression
of one's faith. That is not toleration and it is not
allowing freedom of religion, it is persecution.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <520358ac-7f64-4ac6-8f4d-29df29bdb...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
>
>
> I don't see how Americans can really criticize
> Italian crucifixes when there is a menorah and
> Christmas tree on publically owned property in the
> US.
>
> ~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
Emma, Americans as a group do not criticize this,
it is only some who say they are Americans who
do this. I agree with what you are saying in this
post. Many agree with you who are Americans,
so when you write "Americans oppose....etc.,"
that does not represent America.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <695cad38-604a-4874-a3d5-82e79f6df...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Snow says...
>
>
>
> >I still don't get what the big deal is about that... but.. their is
> >nothing in the constitution that prevents religious cerimonies and in
> >fact, Congress can no legislate against any religious practice, First
> >Amendment.
>
> Yet the courts say otherwise, don't they?
> Aren't public places forced to remove religious symbols?
>
> --
> ~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
I hope people are listening to you, Emma. You
are right. There are some injustices going on at
some of the court levels that is ignoring the idea
of freedom of religion, rather than freedom from
religion.
>
Suzanne
randy
"Suzanne"
> >I still don't get what the big deal is about that... but.. their is
> >nothing in the constitution that prevents religious cerimonies and in
> >fact, Congress can no legislate against any religious practice, First
> >Amendment.
> Yet the courts say otherwise, don't they?
> Aren't public places forced to remove religious symbols?
"I hope people are listening to you, Emma. You
are right. There are some injustices going on at
some of the court levels that is ignoring the idea
of freedom of religion, rather than freedom from
religion."
Once again, the prohibition was against the establishment of a State
religion, barring any Christian denomination from gaining a position of
political supremacy. There is nothing that said the U.S. could not be
considered a "Christian country." If so, then the government can view itself
as Christian and pass Christian laws without establishing any particular
church denomination.
randy
Emma
Suzanne says...
>>
>Mostly, Emma, this is because of the ACLU. They
>are a group that seem to be hell-bent on destroying
>the moral fiber of the country in my opinion, and in
>the opinion of many. They sound so moderate, saying
>that they are there to help the civil liberties of people.
>They don't appear to be that way at all when you
>see some of the things they have done. They continue to bring this law
>suit and that law suit against people's
>moral rights. They seem to want a country without
>religion at all. America is supposed to be formed in
>order for people to have freedom of religion so they
>try to pretend that having a cross at a location violates
>that idea. They are wrong. The American ideal is
>not freedom "from" religion, but freedom "of" religion.
>>
So if you have freedom of religion and a school is
100% Christian, then it should be possible to have
Christianity in that school, shouldn't it?
Emma
Suzanne says...
>
>>I hope people are listening to you, Emma. You
>are right. There are some injustices going on at
>some of the court levels that is ignoring the idea
>of freedom of religion, rather than freedom from
>religion.
>>
Hi Suzanne, how are you? I haven't seen you here for
a while.
I get very confused by the American law. It doesn't
seem to be consistent. If the President can light a
menorah, then I don't see why schools can't have
a similar ceremony or a Christmas celebration.
Rob's argument is that school children are a captive
audience, so they have to be protected, whereas
Americans can choose to visit the President's ceremonies.
I don't really accept that argument because, in Britain,
children who don't want to celebrate Christmas in
schools can opt out. Although few do. That's because
everyone can enjoy it. Most people like to sing
carols and hear the Christmas story.
I can't really see how it affects anyone negatively.
Emma
Suzanne says...
>
>>
>There is a point at which
>religious toleration should stand publically, but
>taking away crosses from national cemetaries
>such as I witnessed in one of our states in the
>past year, is persecution and intolerance of
>the religion of the majority of the Americans. The
>Star of David is also subject to such and the ones
>opposing the Christians oppose any expression
>of one's faith. That is not toleration and it is not
>allowing freedom of religion, it is persecution.
>>
You can't have crosses in a cemetary??
Gosh.
That's dreadful.
Emma
Suzanne says...
>
>>
>> And one more thing, Rob...
>> I don't see how Americans can really criticize
>> Italian crucifixes when there is a menorah and
>> Christmas tree on publically owned property in the
>> US.
>>
>>
>it is only some who say they are Americans who
>do this. I agree with what you are saying in this
>post. Many agree with you who are Americans,
>so when you write "Americans oppose....etc.,"
>that does not represent America.
>>
OK.
I suppose I tend to assume that the majority
are against religion in schools, because that is
the situation in your schools at the moment.
Whereas in the past, American schools said prayers
(I think) and read from the Bible.
Emma
Suzanne says...
Actually, that's a good reminder to pray for
our politicians.
In my church, prayers are said for the Queen and
government, but I'm afraid I'm not always praying
at that point because I'm busy thinking of other
things; my attention wanders. Yet, you're
right, it is very important to pray for them.
I'll have to be more focussed.
Just lately I've begun to despair for my country,
but you've reminded me that we can turn things
around through prayer.
Did you know that it was only through a Christian revival
in the 1700's that Britain avoided a revolution
like they had in France? That's what the historians
think.
randy
"Emma"
> I get very confused by the American law. It doesn't
> seem to be consistent. If the President can light a
> menorah, then I don't see why schools can't have
> a similar ceremony or a Christmas celebration.
> Rob's argument is that school children are a captive
> audience, so they have to be protected, whereas
> Americans can choose to visit the President's ceremonies.
> I don't really accept that argument because, in Britain,
> children who don't want to celebrate Christmas in
> schools can opt out. Although few do. That's because
> everyone can enjoy it. Most people like to sing
> carols and hear the Christmas story.
> I can't really see how it affects anyone negatively.
When the gospel is just a sweet national tradition, and offends nobody, it
is often accepted, just like a holly wreath, or a Christmas tree, as some
kind of decoration or expression of sentimentalism. It is when Christianity
begins to press itself upon the human conscience that men and women begin to
take offense, and insist on removing all symbols of Christian commitment.
When I was raised as a child, both Christianity and Halloween were accepted
as equal American traditions, even though both appear to be opposites in
terms of moral views. That was because they were viewed less as moral
imperatives, and more as cute little reflections upon past observances,
without any serious moral commitments. I as a teenager would get drunk and
party whether it was Christmas or New Years Eve. It was a celebration of
*America,* a celebration of *individual* rights, rather than a celebration
of Christian living.
But when the Christian religion began to experience some awakening in around
1970, I was brought to a place where I had to make a personal decision about
the way our society was going. It was becoming less Christian, as religion
became more of a rote ceremony, and as outsiders who were nonChristian came
into our society. The interest in pursuing selfish interests and selfish
pleasures ran wild, at the cost of moral values, and ran opposed to
Christian values. The only way to stop this excessive individualism and
selfishness was by reevalutating my commitment as a Christian and by
establishing a full devotion to religious values.
That is when I noticed that secular law began to appear arbitrary on the
subject of "separation." Apparently many others were renewing their
religious commitments, as I was, in this hedonistic, individualistic
environment. Many elements in our society did not want to experience this
Christian renaissance and renewed moral recommitment that many of us were
experiencing. They preferred to continue down the path of individual
liberties and independence from moral values.
randy
Suzanne
> In article <94b62059-d99d-4b80-88f0-8aa57c954...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
Only private schools are all Christian.
Public schools have mixed religions.
When I was growing up, people were
tolerant of all religions. This is what I
had in mind, Emma.
>
Suzanne
Rob Strom
That is a very hateful and antagonistic opinion.
I am a long-time supporter of the ACLU, and
I would suggest that you thank them and if
possible support them with some contributions
rather than make unsupported vitriolic
accusations against them here.
Thanks to the ACLU, accused people get fairer trials,
there is a watchdog against official racial and
religious bias, abusive warrantless searches
of private property are avoided, and people
are not persecuted for the expression of opinions.
If you're in the majority religion, or if you're
a supporter of the government, perhaps you
don't notice the protections of the ACLU,
but if you're in a minority religion, or if
you speak out against the government,
you benefit that they are working
to enforce the civil liberties we are
guaranteed.
Our rights are only theoretical unless there
are people standing watch to detect
when they're violate and to fight to
defend them.
...
> They don't appear to be that way at all when you
> see some of the things they have done.
Like what?
> They continue to bring this law
> suit and that law suit against people's
> moral rights.
Like what?
> They seem to want a country without
> religion at all.
This statement is totally false. They have
defended many religious people of many
religions.
> America is supposed to be formed in
> order for people to have freedom of religion so they
> try to pretend that having a cross at a location violates
> that idea. They are wrong. The American ideal is
> not freedom "from" religion, but freedom "of" religion.
And you are free to have a cross or any other religious
symbol. And your children are free to be in an environment
where they don't feel out of place either for
having a cross (if it's a primarily non-Christian place)
or for having a different symbol (if it's a primarily
Christian place).
God bless the ACLU.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> In article <5f9993a0-75bb-430e-a844-e61f155e3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
...
> >For schools, the principle is that it's supposed
> >to relate to the function of a school: teaching
> >*about* religion is fine, teaching the sociological
> >fact that people have many different kinds of
> >religions is fine, being exclusive isn't.
>
> I suppose I don't really see why having a Christmas
> tree and singing a few carols is "being exclusive".
We do sing the carols. The tree doesn't make
sense since everyone knows that Christians
do this and it doesn't need to be taught.
>
> Plenty of non-Christians celebrate Christmas.
> Sadly, it's no longer an exclusively religious thing.
> For many people, it's just a cultural festival.
> Especially here, where hardly anyone goes to church
> anymore.
>
> The American obsession with keeping even a cultural
> symbol like a Christmas tree out of schools, is just
> beyond me.
You can teach about Christmas and give
concerts of music including Christmas music
without having a tree.
> ...
>
> >Obama isn't teaching school; he's giving
> >one of a number of speeches on the
> >theme: America: land of opportunity for everyone.
>
> >This is the one for Christians.
>
> >He's not trying to explain to Americans what Christmas
> >is -- that's too patronizing and out of place.
>
> But Christians themselves hear the Christmas story
> every year. So it's not patronising.
>
This isn't "the Christmas story". This is
"There are many Christians in our country,
let's make them feel welcome here."
> If Christians can't talk about Christmas in your
> schools, then that's hardly America land of
> opportunity for *everyone*.
Of course they can talk about Christmas in the
schools. But they don't need to talk about
it as much because everybody knows what
Christmas is already. It would be like
telling kids what a television is. It's
not discriminating against kids with
televisions that we don't have lessons
to teach what a television is; it's because
they already know. So instead we
give lessons about times in the past
when there was no television, or
remote places where there is no television.
In the schools they'll teach
more sophisticated things like when
the Reformation happened and who
led the Crusades, and when the different
schisms happened. It's not like
Christianity is neglected in the lessons.
>
> >> My children do Christmas in their schools in a big way,
> >> yet the vast majority of the children celebrate Christmas at home.r
>
> >Celebrating Christmas should be done at home;
> >explaining to the non-Christian kids what Christmas
> >is is what should be done in school.
>
> Presumably you still talk about menorahs to Jewish
> children though. I don't think you can assume that
> if a child is from a particular religious background,
> they understand the significance of all the religious
> objects.
>
> Children from a Christian background here are
> not always aware that Jesus should be the centre of the
> celebration rather than Santa! So the Christmas story
> still needs to be taught to them.
We don't teach "shoulds" about any religion.
We teach them that there are Jews, and they
celebrate these holidays, and there are Hindus
and they celebrate those holidays, and
there are Catholics and they celebrate those.
We don't say that Christians *ought* to
celebrate religion this way rather than that;
that would be far out of place for a school.
...
> >> But non-Christians and non-Jews can't really
> >> escape a Christmas tree and menorah in a public
> >> place.
>
> >Sure you can.
>
> >You don't have to visit the white house lawn unless
> >you *want* to see the tree or the menorah.
>
> So for that period of time you are excluded from the
> Whitehouse.
You're not excluded. You can choose to
visit and see the tree or not visit and not see the tree.
It's a little like the Museum of Natural History.
For 3 months they had an Einstein exhibit.
If Einstein makes you vomit, you can choose
not to go to the museum in those 3 months.
That's not the same as saying that
the museum "excludes" Einstein-haters.
...
>
> There are many cultures in Italy (far fewer
> than the UK though), but they don't hold
> with multiculturalism. They're like France in
> that respect.
If you have many different groups of people
living in your country, it's nicer to make
them feel welcome rather than saying
"we liked it better before you came here,
and we'd be happier if you left".
>
> >I don't think Italian schools need to have a permanently
> >affixed crucifix to convey the message that
> >most Italians are Christians.
>
> It's not meant to convey that message though.
> It conveys the message that the culture is Christian
> and everyone has to integrate into that.
Nobody has to integrate into anything, so
if it conveys that message, you will insult people.
>
> >> > ... (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
> >> >if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
> >> >curmudgeon who has sold his religious
> >> >principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
> >> >He is Obama's chief of staff.)
>
> >> Oh. But he's a Democratic party politician, isn't he?
>
> >He is. Just not a very nice one.
>
> I'll have to take your word for that because I don't
> know anything about him.
He's just a very, very tough negotiator, and an
extremely Machiavellian character. When
he's right, you want him on your side,
and when he's wrong, you don't want him against you.
...
> >Don't the British do any kind of parades?
> >Like Guy Fawkes day and St Patricks
> >day and Scottish Bagpipe day and
> >Welsh Rarebit day and
> >Falkland Island pride day???
>
> Oh, don't get me started on this one!
> I can feel my blood pressure rising, because
> we have had a decade of promoting every minority
> festival known to man, and a decade of suppressing
> our own! Grrrrrr..... blooming socialists!
I'm not sure what's wrong with having
minority festivals. And you do have
your own, like the Queen's birthday,
and the Queen Mother's birthday, and
Guy Fawkes, and so on, right?
...
> So that's why I was wondering if you were going down
> the same road with minority pride days.
>
> And Gay Days?
> What is that all about?! Why do they need a parade
> for that?
It's because for years they were forced to be
invisible, were discriminated against,
and were sometimes beaten up
for fun by street people.
...
> >Republicans made an uproar over one time during
> >the campaign when Obama wasn't wearing
> >a flag lapel pin.
>
> I don't remember that.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3196
>
> Anyway, I meant that there are lots of secret
> policies. We don't find out about them for years.
>
> They could have quietly withdrawn the stamps, and
> nobody would have known anything for years.
No!! How can you quietly withdraw the stamp?
The minute somebody goes to the post office
and asks for the stamp, and gets told that
it's been withdrawn, the secret is out.
...
>
> >This was an Eid stamp, not a Jihad against America stamp.
>
> Same thing.
Not at all. Any more than the immoral war in Vietnam
was a "Christian" attack, merely because the US
and its soldiers are mostly Christian.
--
Rob Strom
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>On Dec 18, 9:42=A0pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <5f9993a0-75bb-430e-a844-e61f155e3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>
>> I suppose I don't really see why having a Christmas
>> tree and singing a few carols is "being exclusive".
>
>We do sing the carols. The tree doesn't make
>sense since everyone knows that Christians
>do this and it doesn't need to be taught.
But everyone knows what carols are too. They
don't need to be taught.
So carols are being sung in your schools because
it's a Christmas celebration. In which case, why
not have a tree?
>> Plenty of non-Christians celebrate Christmas.
>> Sadly, it's no longer an exclusively religious thing.
>> For many people, it's just a cultural festival.
>> Especially here, where hardly anyone goes to church
>> anymore.
>>
>> The American obsession with keeping even a cultural
>> symbol like a Christmas tree out of schools, is just
>> beyond me.
>
>You can teach about Christmas and give
>concerts of music including Christmas music
>without having a tree.
>
But why would you want to? I mean, why celebrate
Christmas with Christmas music without
having a tree? What is it about the tree that offends?
If anything is going to offend other religions, I would
have thought it would be the Christian worship.
Yet you're okay with singing Christian carols but
only object to the tree, which actually has far less
religious significance.
>>
>> Children from a Christian background here are
>> not always aware that Jesus should be the centre of the
>> celebration rather than Santa! So the Christmas story
>> still needs to be taught to them.
>
>We don't teach "shoulds" about any religion.
>
>We teach them that there are Jews, and they
>celebrate these holidays, and there are Hindus
>and they celebrate those holidays, and
>there are Catholics and they celebrate those.
>
>We don't say that Christians *ought* to
>celebrate religion this way rather than that;
>that would be far out of place for a school.
I thought you were saying that you don't need to
teach *about* Christianity to children from a
Christian background.
Well we definitely need to teach about Christianity
here, despite the fact that the majority identify
with it. That's because they don't bother going to
church. If the schools didn't teach it, half the
country would grow up thinking we're celebrating
Santa's birthday!
>> >> But non-Christians and non-Jews can't really
>> >> escape a Christmas tree and menorah in a public
>> >> place.
>>
>> >Sure you can.
>>
>> >You don't have to visit the white house lawn unless
>> >you *want* to see the tree or the menorah.
>>
>> So for that period of time you are excluded from the
>> Whitehouse.
>
>You're not excluded. You can choose to
>visit and see the tree or not visit and not see the tree.
>
>It's a little like the Museum of Natural History.
>For 3 months they had an Einstein exhibit.
>If Einstein makes you vomit, you can choose
>not to go to the museum in those 3 months.
>That's not the same as saying that
>the museum "excludes" Einstein-haters.
>
Hmmm... I suppose so.
>> There are many cultures in Italy (far fewer
>> than the UK though), but they don't hold
>> with multiculturalism. They're like France in
>> that respect.
>
>If you have many different groups of people
>living in your country, it's nicer to make
>them feel welcome rather than saying
>"we liked it better before you came here,
>and we'd be happier if you left".
Actually, we would be happier if some of them
left.
...But how do you phrase that nicely?
>> >I don't think Italian schools need to have a permanently
>> >affixed crucifix to convey the message that
>> >most Italians are Christians.
>>
>> It's not meant to convey that message though.
>> It conveys the message that the culture is Christian
>> and everyone has to integrate into that.
>
>Nobody has to integrate into anything, so
>if it conveys that message, you will insult people.
But yes, they do have to integrate. By law in France,
and by social pressure in Italy. Although I think
Italy is considering bringing in laws too.
>> >> > ... (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
>> >> >if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
>> >> >curmudgeon who has sold his religious
>> >> >principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
>> >> >He is Obama's chief of staff.)
>>
>> >> Oh. But he's a Democratic party politician, isn't he?
>>
>> >He is. Just not a very nice one.
>>
>> I'll have to take your word for that because I don't
>> know anything about him.
>
>He's just a very, very tough negotiator, and an
>extremely Machiavellian character. When
>he's right, you want him on your side,
>and when he's wrong, you don't want him against you.
I see. Well he seems like the right sort of person
to be a politician then!
>> >Don't the British do any kind of parades?
>> >Like Guy Fawkes day and St Patricks
>> >day and Scottish Bagpipe day and
>> >Welsh Rarebit day and
>> >Falkland Island pride day???
>>
>> Oh, don't get me started on this one!
>> I can feel my blood pressure rising, because
>> we have had a decade of promoting every minority
>> festival known to man, and a decade of suppressing
>> our own! Grrrrrr..... blooming socialists!
>
>I'm not sure what's wrong with having
>minority festivals. And you do have
>your own, like the Queen's birthday,
>and the Queen Mother's birthday, and
>Guy Fawkes, and so on, right?
>
Festivals should be inclusive and British.
I don't want my taxes paying for a blooming Eid
celebration in Trafalgar Blooming Square!
That is a minority event and not at all inclusive.
Everyone can celebrate Guy Fawkes night and
St Georges Day and the Royal occasions though.
>>
>> And Gay Days?
>> What is that all about?! Why do they need a parade
>> for that?
>
>It's because for years they were forced to be
>invisible, were discriminated against,
>and were sometimes beaten up
>for fun by street people.
I still don't see how a parade helps that.
The people who hate gays are not suddenly going
to change their mind because of a gay parade.
It seems to be almost a provocation. Far better
to live quietly like everyone else and prove they
are no different.
>> >Republicans made an uproar over one time during
>> >the campaign when Obama wasn't wearing
>> >a flag lapel pin.
>>
>> I don't remember that.
>
>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3D3196
I can only see a list of archives on that page.
>> Anyway, I meant that there are lots of secret
>> policies. We don't find out about them for years.
>>
>> They could have quietly withdrawn the stamps, and
>> nobody would have known anything for years.
>
>No!! How can you quietly withdraw the stamp?
>
>The minute somebody goes to the post office
>and asks for the stamp, and gets told that
>it's been withdrawn, the secret is out.
No, no, no. They wouldn't *say* it's been withdrawn.
They would say it's "no longer available". Or something
like that. That's what our government does.
Then they would have denied that it had anything to do
with the terrorist attack or Islam. They would just
deny everything.
Later on, through the Freedom of Information Act, we
would discover that they decided to withdraw it and
keep it all quiet. But by that time, nobody would care.
Rob, surely this all sounds familiar? I'm sure my
government isn't alone in this. Barefaced lying is
the stock-in-trade of politicians!
Emma
Ah, are you saying that a Christian revival made non-Christians
keen to stamp out Christianity in your schools?
Now I understand.
I couldn't work out why Christianity was the norm in your
schools until a generation or so ago, and now it's
been pushed out. But yes, of course America has been through a revival
since then. Christianity in America today is very
different, I suppose. More evangelical and right wing.
In which case, you're probably also saying that Christianity in
Britain is so weak that it isn't a threat to anyone.
I think you're absolutely right. Most parents here like
Christianity in schools, despite the fact that few go to
Church. Maybe they want their children to have the sort of
Christian education that they had, but they don't want to be bothered
to do it themselves.
That's probably why the government here keeps building faith
schools, and few people mind. Church of England and Catholic
schools are very popular. Whereas religion in American schools is
feared.
Actually, Christianity is losing millions of people here.
It's so sad. It declines every year. Despite the Alpha course,
there is no revival. Not a glimmer. The only full churches
are the new immigrant churches, some of which practise a scary sort of
Christianity. It's very intolerant. It's mixed with witchcraft and
lots of exorcism.
Did you hear about the churches in Uganda that want to
execute homosexuals? Horrible. That's the sort of thing I mean.
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>That is when I noticed that secular law began to appear arbitrary on the
>>subject of "separation." Apparently many others were renewing their
>>religious commitments, as I was, in this hedonistic, individualistic
>>environment. Many elements in our society did not want to experience this
>>Christian renaissance and renewed moral recommitment that many of us were
>>experiencing. They preferred to continue down the path of individual
>>liberties and independence from moral values.
> Ah, are you saying that a Christian revival made non-Christians
> keen to stamp out Christianity in your schools?
> Now I understand.
Yes, I hesitate to explain it all based on my own personal experience. Yet
what I experienced seems to have been experienced across the country as a
whole. Yes, Christianity had been somewhat repressed and far too
comfortable. It really is a religion that needs to be stirred by real human
needs, and not left comfortable, ignoring all of the needy people in our
world.
> I couldn't work out why Christianity was the norm in your
> schools until a generation or so ago, and now it's
> been pushed out. But yes, of course America has been through a revival
> since then. Christianity in America today is very
> different, I suppose. More evangelical and right wing.
The "right wing" thing is really a label fastened upon our revival by those
who stand opposed to it. They are those who stand to lose the most from
moral reform, pornographers, those who cheat in business, those who cheat on
their wives, those who like to take advantage of vulnerable people to make
money, etc. Of course immorality as such involves far more people than just
these.
It was when religion began to coalesce around a particular political message
that it began to actually threaten change in our society. Issues like
abortion and homosexuality were just a couple of the hotter subjects in this
"moral" debate. But it meant changes in both political parties. In the
Democratic Party it at first mean a serious decline. But when the Republican
Party seemed to ignore moral issues more associated with the Democratic
Party, the pendulum swung back towards Clinton, and now towards Obama. With
the Republicans the moral message is to keep corrupt government off the back
of private business, and so put more people back to work. With the Democrats
the moral message is to force the wealthy to share more of their wealth with
the rest of America, and to avoid agendas that largely favor big business at
the expense of everybody else.
> In which case, you're probably also saying that Christianity in
> Britain is so weak that it isn't a threat to anyone....
I wasn't really saying anything about Britain. I attended the lovliest
pentecostal church in Watford, and felt the same kind of moral commitment we
have in our own church.
> I think you're absolutely right. Most parents here like
> Christianity in schools, despite the fact that few go to
> Church. Maybe they want their children to have the sort of
> Christian education that they had, but they don't want to be bothered
> to do it themselves.
> That's probably why the government here keeps building faith
> schools, and few people mind. Church of England and Catholic
> schools are very popular. Whereas religion in American schools is
> feared.
I think perhaps America has lost its sense of history. Education in Europe
began, I think, with a mixture of law and religion. The whole idea of
morality comes from religion, and without it I don't think we could move
beyond tribal warfare. Other religions try to accomplish this as well. I
just don't find that Judaism moved anywhere beyond its own little ethnic
group. And I don't find that Islam has proved to be anything other than a
conquest-by-force religion.
> Actually, Christianity is losing millions of people here.
> It's so sad. It declines every year. Despite the Alpha course,
> there is no revival. Not a glimmer. The only full churches
> are the new immigrant churches, some of which practise a scary sort of
> Christianity. It's very intolerant. It's mixed with witchcraft and
> lots of exorcism.
> Did you hear about the churches in Uganda that want to
> execute homosexuals? Horrible. That's the sort of thing I mean.
I'm not against putting immoral people to death if the society is clearly
theocratic. People cannot expect to know better when they grow up under
conditions that they had no control over. I do think of homosexuality as
abhorent and disgusting. And I also see it as insidious and poisonous in a
society. When a society is clear about what is acceptable and what is not,
then those who refuse to abide by norms of a society can be held more
accountable. But sure, in a secularistic society like my own, I wouldn't
advocate going out with a machete and hacking gay people to death. Not at
all. On the contrary, I befriend them, without showing any support
whatsoever for their lifestyle. They're human beings with unique gifts, all
created in the image of God. But I don't really want them around my friends
and loved ones.
randy
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>
>> Ah, are you saying that a Christian revival made non-Christians
>> keen to stamp out Christianity in your schools?
>> Now I understand.
>
>Yes, I hesitate to explain it all based on my own personal experience. Yet
>what I experienced seems to have been experienced across the country as a
>whole. Yes, Christianity had been somewhat repressed and far too
>comfortable. It really is a religion that needs to be stirred by real human
>needs, and not left comfortable, ignoring all of the needy people in our
>world.
Yes, it does seem to perform better under pressure.
Christianity is growing in the parts of the world where
it's most persecuted.
>> I couldn't work out why Christianity was the norm in your
>> schools until a generation or so ago, and now it's
>> been pushed out. But yes, of course America has been through a revival
>> since then. Christianity in America today is very
>> different, I suppose. More evangelical and right wing.
>
>The "right wing" thing is really a label fastened upon our revival by those
>who stand opposed to it. They are those who stand to lose the most from
>moral reform, pornographers, those who cheat in business, those who cheat on
>their wives, those who like to take advantage of vulnerable people to make
>money, etc. Of course immorality as such involves far more people than just
>these.
>
>It was when religion began to coalesce around a particular political message
>that it began to actually threaten change in our society. Issues like
>abortion and homosexuality were just a couple of the hotter subjects in this
>"moral" debate. But it meant changes in both political parties. In the
>Democratic Party it at first mean a serious decline. But when the Republican
>Party seemed to ignore moral issues more associated with the Democratic
>Party, the pendulum swung back towards Clinton, and now towards Obama. With
>the Republicans the moral message is to keep corrupt government off the back
>of private business, and so put more people back to work. With the Democrats
>the moral message is to force the wealthy to share more of their wealth with
>the rest of America, and to avoid agendas that largely favor big business at
>the expense of everybody else.
I suppose Christianity is represented on both sides of your
politics but maybe your right wing are more evangelical?
So American Christianity has become associated with right wing
politics.
>> In which case, you're probably also saying that Christianity in
>> Britain is so weak that it isn't a threat to anyone....
>
>I wasn't really saying anything about Britain. I attended the lovliest
>pentecostal church in Watford, and felt the same kind of moral commitment we
>have in our own church.
I would imagine that the church in Watford was mainly Pakistani
Christians?
Was the service in English?
These sort of churches are (mostly) the only ones that are growing.
They have their own sort of Christianity that I don't really understand.
They are a lot more conservative than English Christians though.
That's a good thing in some ways, but maybe not so good in other ways.
>
>I think perhaps America has lost its sense of history. Education in Europe
>began, I think, with a mixture of law and religion. The whole idea of
>morality comes from religion, and without it I don't think we could move
>beyond tribal warfare. Other religions try to accomplish this as well. I
>just don't find that Judaism moved anywhere beyond its own little ethnic
>group. And I don't find that Islam has proved to be anything other than a
>conquest-by-force religion.
Well I keep saying that Jews should evangelize, but it's
just not in their culture.
>
>I'm not against putting immoral people to death if the society is clearly
>theocratic. People cannot expect to know better when they grow up under
>conditions that they had no control over. I do think of homosexuality as
>abhorent and disgusting. And I also see it as insidious and poisonous in a
>society. When a society is clear about what is acceptable and what is not,
>then those who refuse to abide by norms of a society can be held more
>accountable. But sure, in a secularistic society like my own, I wouldn't
>advocate going out with a machete and hacking gay people to death. Not at
>all. On the contrary, I befriend them, without showing any support
>whatsoever for their lifestyle. They're human beings with unique gifts, all
>created in the image of God. But I don't really want them around my friends
>and loved ones.
Oh my goodness, Randy, you don't see anything wrong
with putting homosexuals to **death**?!! I'm sure you
don't mean that!!
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> "Christians use the Jewish Bible and re-interpret it to meaning
> a temporary system of law leading up to a divine messiah."
>
> Yes, Christians use the Jewish Bible based on their *Christian*
> understanding--and not based on the competing Jewish understanding.
That's exactly what it means to re-interpret it.
> But we
> accept that the Jewish Bible was inspired and true, just as the Jews do.
No you don't; you think it's obsolete and superseded.
> And
> we accept it as meaning just what it said. Jews today may have moved away
> from ancient understanding of the text, or they remain in basic agreement
> with it. Christians are no different. They seek to accept the Jewish
> Scriptures just as the ancient Jews did. Where they differ is a matter of
> reading *back into the text* things that came to be understood *after the
> fact.*
They also differ about the laws being temporary until a
divine messiah came to supersede them.
Regardless of how faithful you think modern Jews are to
the ancient understanding of the text, it is impossible
to suppose that Jews ever understood the law
to be saying "this is temporary".
>
> Jews do not co-opt the feast days of ancient Israel, for example. We accept
> the Feast of Passover, Succoth, etc. just as they were in ancient times.
No you don't. Christians don't observe these holidays.
> Nor
> do Christians try to turn today's Jewish celebrations into Christian
> celebrations.
Suzanne did (not the lady who posts here, but
Seldon's wife, the daughter of your former pastor).
...
>
> "I don't recall his taking a position on *the true* meaning of
> Christmas."
>
> I provided you a quote, albeit without the internet source...
> (quote)
> "It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition that
> has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season of
> brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said.
> (unquote)
Nothing in this quote says that this is the true meaning of Christmas.
It says it's a tradition that everyone -- Christian or not -- could do
well to follow.
>
> "It is *one* lesson that people of all faiths can take from
> the Christmas stories."
>
> Perhaps. But for Christians it's a blatant, insidious dilution of the
> message.
Brotherhood and generosity are insidious??
Not to the people *I* know as Christians. Only to
the conservative crazies, who have looked on
the public stage ever more ridiculous (holding
up military appropriations to delay healthcare;
praying on the floor of the senate that one of the 60
democratic votes for cloture on healthcare
would die or become incapacitated and be
unable to show up for his vote).
> We know that's what liberal theology has been doing to Christian
> truth for many generations.
Luckily, liberal theology will take over and send
conservative theology to the nether regions
where it belongs!
--
Rob Strom
Suzanne
have opposed and what they have accomplished, Rob.
>
> I am a long-time supporter of the ACLU, and
> I would suggest that you thank them and if
> possible support them with some contributions
> rather than make unsupported vitriolic
> accusations against them here.
>
track record is public and well-know, if they observe
that the group has opposed morality.
>
> Thanks to the ACLU, accused people get fairer trials,
> there is a watchdog against official racial and
> religious bias, abusive warrantless searches
> of private property are avoided, and people
> are not persecuted for the expression of opinions.
> If you're in the majority religion, or if you're
> a supporter of the government, perhaps you
> don't notice the protections of the ACLU,
> but if you're in a minority religion, or if
> you speak out against the government,
> you benefit that they are working
> to enforce the civil liberties we are
> guaranteed.
>
morals. They do not represent the civil liberties of all
of the people.
>
> Our rights are only theoretical unless there
> are people standing watch to detect
> when they're violate and to fight to
> defend them.
>
>
>
> > They don't appear to be that way at all when you
> > see some of the things they have done.
>
> Like what?
>
child pornography, legalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage,
etc.
>
> > They continue to bring this law
> > suit and that law suit against people's
> > moral rights.
>
> Like what?
>
the ACLU about in the Supreme Court, etc.
>
> > They seem to want a country without
> > religion at all.
>
> This statement is totally false. They have
> defended many religious people of many
> religion
>
how they have dealt with morality in the USA.
>
> > America is supposed to be formed in
> > order for people to have freedom of religion so they
> > try to pretend that having a cross at a location violates
> > that idea. They are wrong. The American ideal is
> > not freedom "from" religion, but freedom "of" religion.
>
> And you are free to have a cross or any other religious
> symbol. And your children are free to be in an environment
> where they don't feel out of place either for
> having a cross (if it's a primarily non-Christian place)
> or for having a different symbol (if it's a primarily
> Christian place).
>
is based on Christian and Jewish principles. These principles
and the people that believe them, are now being persecuted
in America, which is founded on those principles. What could
be more sacred or personal than a man's grave that has a cross
or a Star of David on it? How is that going to hurt society to see
a cross on a grave?
>
For fear of law suits, now employers tell their employees that
deal with the public that they can't say "Merry Christmas" but
they can only say "Happy Holidays." Yet everyone that is not
even necessarily a church goer enjoys the spirit of giving that
the Christmas season embraces.
>
> God bless the ACLU.
>
Open your eyes and find out more.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Dec 18, 9:42 pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <5f9993a0-75bb-430e-a844-e61f155e3...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
> > >For schools, the principle is that it's supposed
> > >to relate to the function of a school: teaching
> > >*about* religion is fine, teaching the sociological
> > >fact that people have many different kinds of
> > >religions is fine, being exclusive isn't.
>
> > I suppose I don't really see why having a Christmas
> > tree and singing a few carols is "being exclusive".
>
> We do sing the carols. The tree doesn't make
> sense since everyone knows that Christians
> do this and it doesn't need to be taught.
>
the Christmas celebration?
>
> > Plenty of non-Christians celebrate Christmas.
> > Sadly, it's no longer an exclusively religious thing.
> > For many people, it's just a cultural festival.
> > Especially here, where hardly anyone goes to church
> > anymore.
>
> > The American obsession with keeping even a cultural
> > symbol like a Christmas tree out of schools, is just
> > beyond me.
>
> You can teach about Christmas and give
> concerts of music including Christmas music
> without having a tree.
>
A Christmas Carol? Your words just seem to be
saying "Bah! Humbug!"
>
> > >Obama isn't teaching school; he's giving
> > >one of a number of speeches on the
> > >theme: America: land of opportunity for everyone.
>
> > >This is the one for Christians.
>
> > >He's not trying to explain to Americans what Christmas
> > >is -- that's too patronizing and out of place.
>
> > But Christians themselves hear the Christmas story
> > every year. So it's not patronising.
>
> This isn't "the Christmas story". This is
> "There are many Christians in our country,
> let's make them feel welcome here."
>
not Christians. It's the date on the calendar when
Christmas happens. It's at a certain season and it is
a Christian holiday.
>
> > If Christians can't talk about Christmas in your
> > schools, then that's hardly America land of
> > opportunity for *everyone*.
>
> Of course they can talk about Christmas in the
> schools. But they don't need to talk about
> it as much because everybody knows what
> Christmas is already. It would be like
> telling kids what a television is. It's
> not discriminating against kids with
> televisions that we don't have lessons
> to teach what a television is; it's because
> they already know. So instead we
> give lessons about times in the past
> when there was no television, or
> remote places where there is no television.
>
year, but at Christmas time, which is a special
date on the calendar, and a special nationally
celebrated holiday, and a special school holiday
that all people, even non-Christian children get
to take, it is the appropriate time and place to
have this celebration, even in the schools that
give the holiday to all. There is nothing evil taught
by the Christmas message at all.
>
> In the schools they'll teach
> more sophisticated things like when
> the Reformation happened and who
> led the Crusades, and when the different
> schisms happened. It's not like
> Christianity is neglected in the lessons.
>
and Vasco De Gama, and Queen Victoria, we certainly
can learn about the birth of Jesus Christ in school. He
is a historical person.
>
> > >> My children do Christmas in their schools in a big way,
> > >> yet the vast majority of the children celebrate Christmas at home.r
>
> > >Celebrating Christmas should be done at home;
> > >explaining to the non-Christian kids what Christmas
> > >is is what should be done in school.
>
> > Presumably you still talk about menorahs to Jewish
> > children though. I don't think you can assume that
> > if a child is from a particular religious background,
> > they understand the significance of all the religious
> > objects.
>
> > Children from a Christian background here are
> > not always aware that Jesus should be the centre of the
> > celebration rather than Santa! So the Christmas story
> > still needs to be taught to them.
>
> We don't teach "shoulds" about any religion.
>
who was a real person would totally agree with
her. He was against the worship of men and stood
for the worshipping only of the Lord.
>
> We teach them that there are Jews, and they
> celebrate these holidays, and there are Hindus
> and they celebrate those holidays, and
> there are Catholics and they celebrate those.
>
school of the birth of Christ, since they also believe
basically the same. We are not a Hindu nation. My
Jewish friends in school never opposed the Christian
celebration of Christmas and we never opposed the
celebration of Hannukah. We were very supportive and
accomodating about each to one another.
>
> We don't say that Christians *ought* to
> celebrate religion this way rather than that;
> that would be far out of place for a school.
>
> > >> escape a Christmas tree and menorah in a public
> > >> place.
>
> > >Sure you can.
>
> > >You don't have to visit the white house lawn unless
> > >you *want* to see the tree or the menorah.
>
> > So for that period of time you are excluded from the
> > Whitehouse.
>
> You're not excluded. You can choose to
> visit and see the tree or not visit and not see the tree.
>
> It's a little like the Museum of Natural History.
> For 3 months they had an Einstein exhibit.
> If Einstein makes you vomit, you can choose
> not to go to the museum in those 3 months.
> That's not the same as saying that
> the museum "excludes" Einstein-haters.
>
> > than the UK though), but they don't hold
> > with multiculturalism. They're like France in
> > that respect.
>
> If you have many different groups of people
> living in your country, it's nicer to make
> them feel welcome rather than saying
> "we liked it better before you came here,
> and we'd be happier if you left".
>
are not discriminatory.
>
>
> > >I don't think Italian schools need to have a permanently
> > >affixed crucifix to convey the message that
> > >most Italians are Christians.
>
> > It's not meant to convey that message though.
> > It conveys the message that the culture is Christian
> > and everyone has to integrate into that.
>
> Nobody has to integrate into anything, so
> if it conveys that message, you will insult people.
>
>
> > >> > ... (The politician was Rahm Emanuel,
> > >> >if I remember correctly -- who is a cynical
> > >> >curmudgeon who has sold his religious
> > >> >principles to the god of pragmatism long ago.
> > >> >He is Obama's chief of staff.)
>
> > >> Oh. But he's a Democratic party politician, isn't he?
>
> > >He is. Just not a very nice one.
>
> > I'll have to take your word for that because I don't
> > know anything about him.
>
> He's just a very, very tough negotiator, and an
> extremely Machiavellian character. When
> he's right, you want him on your side,
> and when he's wrong, you don't want him against you.
>
> > >Like Guy Fawkes day and St Patricks
> > >day and Scottish Bagpipe day and
> > >Welsh Rarebit day and
> > >Falkland Island pride day???
>
> > Oh, don't get me started on this one!
> > I can feel my blood pressure rising, because
> > we have had a decade of promoting every minority
> > festival known to man, and a decade of suppressing
> > our own! Grrrrrr..... blooming socialists!
>
> I'm not sure what's wrong with having
> minority festivals. And you do have
> your own, like the Queen's birthday,
> and the Queen Mother's birthday, and
> Guy Fawkes, and so on, right?
>
> > the same road with minority pride days.
>
> > And Gay Days?
> > What is that all about?! Why do they need a parade
> > for that?
>
> It's because for years they were forced to be
> invisible, were discriminated against,
> and were sometimes beaten up
> for fun by street people.
>
Some of those that are gay also celebrate the Christmas
season, put up a tree and give gifts, etc.
>
> > >Republicans made an uproar over one time during
> > >the campaign when Obama wasn't wearing
> > >a flag lapel pin.
>
> > I don't remember that.
>
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3196
>
>
>
> > Anyway, I meant that there are lots of secret
> > policies. We don't find out about them for years.
>
> > They could have quietly withdrawn the stamps, and
> > nobody would have known anything for years.
>
> No!! How can you quietly withdraw the stamp?
>
> The minute somebody goes to the post office
> and asks for the stamp, and gets told that
> it's been withdrawn, the secret is out.
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > >This was an Eid stamp, not a Jihad against America stamp.
>
> > Same thing.
>
> Not at all. Any more than the immoral war in Vietnam
> was a "Christian" attack, merely because the US
> and its soldiers are mostly Christian.
>
> --
>
Suzanne
Rob Strom
...
>
> > > Mostly, Emma, this is because of the ACLU. They
> > > are a group that seem to be hell-bent on destroying
> > > the moral fiber of the country in my opinion,
>
> > That is a very hateful and antagonistic opinion.
>
> It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact of what they
> have opposed and what they have accomplished, Rob.
>
Not an opinion? (You originally said it was your opinion!)
Statement of actual fact?
Please give me a quote from an ACLU spokesperson
saying that they are hell-bent on destroying the
moral fiber of the country.
In the alternative, please give me the quote from
an established mindreader that this is their goal.
Otherwise, please retract. God forbids you
to go out as a slanderer, and if Christianity
is true, you are in danger of mortal sin.
> > I am a long-time supporter of the ACLU, and
> > I would suggest that you thank them and if
> > possible support them with some contributions
> > rather than make unsupported vitriolic
> > accusations against them here.
>
> No one makes "vitriolic accusations" to a group whose
> track record is public and well-know, if they observe
> that the group has opposed morality.
>
You, Suzanne, just did.
You said they are hell-bent on destroying morality,
and that is unsubstantiated, and you should instead
be on your knees thanking God for all that
the organization has done for you.
> > Thanks to the ACLU, accused people get fairer trials,
> > there is a watchdog against official racial and
> > religious bias, abusive warrantless searches
> > of private property are avoided, and people
> > are not persecuted for the expression of opinions.
> > If you're in the majority religion, or if you're
> > a supporter of the government, perhaps you
> > don't notice the protections of the ACLU,
> > but if you're in a minority religion, or if
> > you speak out against the government,
> > you benefit that they are working
> > to enforce the civil liberties we are
> > guaranteed.
>
> I'm not in a minority religion. The group is against
> morals. They do not represent the civil liberties of all
> of the people.
I think you are in a minority religion, and
the ACLU supports you anyhow.
>
> > Our rights are only theoretical unless there
> > are people standing watch to detect
> > when they're violate and to fight to
> > defend them.
>
> That's why I oppose them, Rob.
Examples?
>
> > > They don't appear to be that way at all when you
> > > see some of the things they have done.
>
> > Like what?
>
> Abortion on demand. Legalization of pornography, including
> child pornography, legalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage,
> etc.
The ACLU does not lobby for legislation. Please quote
where the ACLU has lobbied for abortion on demand,
legalization of pornography, legalization of child pornography,
for starters.
>
> > > They continue to bring this law
> > > suit and that law suit against people's
> > > moral rights.
>
> > Like what?
>
> Go to the ACLJ to find out the things they have to fight
> the ACLU about in the Supreme Court, etc.
No, you made the accusation, it is your job
to substantiate it, not to ask me to do your
research for you.
>
> > > They seem to want a country without
> > > religion at all.
>
> > This statement is totally false. They have
> > defended many religious people of many
> > religion
>
> It's not an untrue statement. It's a true statement about
> how they have dealt with morality in the USA.
Please quote a statement of an ACLU spokesman
saying they want a country without religion at all.
You can't just go out and make horrific allegations
suggesting that a group is against morality,
against religion, and for legalization of child pornography,
and expect to get away with it. I want to
see your evidence. God forbid, what if you
died tomorrow, and the gatekeepers of heaven
asked you for your evidence? I think you
would be trembling in your boots!
...
> No, Rob, we are not free to display those symbols.
Yes you are.
> Our nation
> is based on Christian and Jewish principles. These principles
> and the people that believe them, are now being persecuted
> in America, which is founded on those principles. What could
> be more sacred or personal than a man's grave that has a cross
> or a Star of David on it? How is that going to hurt society to see
> a cross on a grave?
I've physically visited gravesites with all kinds of symbols
in it including crosses and stars of David.
>
> For fear of law suits, now employers tell their employees that
> deal with the public that they can't say "Merry Christmas" but
> they can only say "Happy Holidays."
Please cite a situation where the ACLU supported
a lawsuit saying that a private company dealing
with the public can't say "Merry Christmas".
I put it to you that you're making it up.
...
>
> Open your eyes and find out more.
>
YOU made the accusation -- YOU defend
it or retract.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> On Dec 19, 8:11 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > We do sing the carols. The tree doesn't make
> > sense since everyone knows that Christians
> > do this and it doesn't need to be taught.
>
> You can't enjoy it, so you begrudge others of enjoying
> the Christmas celebration?
Where did I say I begrudge others of enjoying
the Christmas celebration?
We just don't do Christmas in public schools in America,
that's all. We're not singling out Christmas:
we don't celebrate *any* religious holidays
in public schools in America -- we teach
about them.
...
> > You can teach about Christmas and give
> > concerts of music including Christmas music
> > without having a tree.
>
> Well, Hello Scrooge. Haven't you ever read Dickens'
> A Christmas Carol? Your words just seem to be
> saying "Bah! Humbug!"
Suzanne: I have performed in 3 productions of
"A Christmas Carol". Once as Fezziwig,
once as Ghost of Christmas Past and once
as "Joe". My son composed background
music for one of the non-musical productions
(the one where I played Fezziwig).
I have posted multiple times on this newsgroup
about how American conservative Christians
should pay *more* attention to Dickens'
interpretation of the Christian message,
by giving more attention on a national
scale to the poor, sick, and needy.
That is hundreds of times more valuable
than putting religious celebrations of
Christmas in public schools where
they don't belong.
> ...
>
> > This isn't "the Christmas story". This is
> > "There are many Christians in our country,
> > let's make them feel welcome here."
>
> No, Rob. It's not a vendetta against people who are
> not Christians. It's the date on the calendar when
> Christmas happens. It's at a certain season and it is
> a Christian holiday.
I don't understand what you're saying here. I was
saying that our President welcomes all groups,
including Christians, and has a tree on the
White House lawn at Christmastime, and
he gives a positive message. Just not
the Christian religious story.
...
> > Christmas is already. It would be like
> > telling kids what a television is. It's
> > not discriminating against kids with
> > televisions that we don't have lessons
> > to teach what a television is; it's because
> > they already know. So instead we
> > give lessons about times in the past
> > when there was no television, or
> > remote places where there is no television.
>
> You can do all of those things any time of the
> year, but at Christmas time, which is a special
> date on the calendar, and a special nationally
> celebrated holiday, and a special school holiday
> that all people, even non-Christian children get
> to take, it is the appropriate time and place to
> have this celebration, even in the schools that
> give the holiday to all. There is nothing evil taught
> by the Christmas message at all.
I don't know how to make it clearer: in America,
schools teach *about* religion, but they
don't *celebrate* religions, whether it's
Christmas at Christmastime or Ramadan
at Ramadan time. Students will, at
an appropriate age, learn about all these
religions and holidays.
>
> > In the schools they'll teach
> > more sophisticated things like when
> > the Reformation happened and who
> > led the Crusades, and when the different
> > schisms happened. It's not like
> > Christianity is neglected in the lessons.
>
> If we can learn about Thomas Alva Edison in school,
> and Vasco De Gama, and Queen Victoria, we certainly
> can learn about the birth of Jesus Christ in school. He
> is a historical person.
I'm not sure historians agree, but that
doesn't matter. Schools
will teach about what Christians *believe about*
the birth of Jesus, just as they will teach
what Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims
believe, and also what various ancient
religions that are no longer practiced
used to believe, such as the Greek,
the Romans, the Native Americans,
and the Egyptians.
...
>
> > > Children from a Christian background here are
> > > not always aware that Jesus should be the centre of the
> > > celebration rather than Santa! So the Christmas story
> > > still needs to be taught to them.
>
> > We don't teach "shoulds" about any religion.
>
> She has an excellent point. St. Nicholas, himself,
> who was a real person would totally agree with
> her. He was against the worship of men and stood
> for the worshipping only of the Lord.
That wouldn't be teaching "shoulds". It would
be teaching what different theologians taught.
They will teach that the Arians believed
one thing, the Docetists another, and that
the Nicene Council made yet another
view into the orthodox one, and that
modern Unitarians and Mormons have
yet another view. So that's not teaching
a "should". It's teaching a fact about
what different historical movements
*believed* about what people should do.
Once you start teaching that you
"should" believe the Trinity, or
worship Jesus, or whatever, you're
going beyond the authority of
the school, and you're preferring
one religious viewpoint over another.
>
> > We teach them that there are Jews, and they
> > celebrate these holidays, and there are Hindus
> > and they celebrate those holidays, and
> > there are Catholics and they celebrate those.
>
> Catholics do not oppose non-Catholic presentations in
> school of the birth of Christ, since they also believe
> basically the same. We are not a Hindu nation.
We're a many-religious nation, and therefore,
we teach *about* all religions and holidays,
but *encourage* no one of them in preference
to any other.
> My
> Jewish friends in school never opposed the Christian
> celebration of Christmas and we never opposed the
> celebration of Hannukah. We were very supportive and
> accomodating about each to one another.
You had Chanukah celebrations in public school?????
Did you grow up in America after the Schempp case?
...
>
> > If you have many different groups of people
> > living in your country, it's nicer to make
> > them feel welcome rather than saying
> > "we liked it better before you came here,
> > and we'd be happier if you left".
>
> Visitors usually want to see the local culture and
> are not discriminatory.
We were not talking about visitors; we were
talking about people *living* in Italy
who may or may not be Catholic
having to see crucifixes in *public* schools.
...
>
> > > It's not meant to convey that message though.
> > > It conveys the message that the culture is Christian
> > > and everyone has to integrate into that.
>
> > Nobody has to integrate into anything, so
> > if it conveys that message, you will insult people.
>
> Christian celebration is not an insult to anyone.
Did you read Emma's paragraph? It said
"It conveys the message that
---the culture is Christian, and
---everyone has to integrate into that."
...
>
> > > And Gay Days?
> > > What is that all about?! Why do they need a parade
> > > for that?
>
> > It's because for years they were forced to be
> > invisible, were discriminated against,
> > and were sometimes beaten up
> > for fun by street people.
>
> This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas.
> Some of those that are gay also celebrate the Christmas
> season, put up a tree and give gifts, etc.
Did you read Emma's question? She was not asking
about Christmas. She was asking about why
Americans hold Gay Pride days.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> In article <48785517-8843-4b79-b1e9-258168bc0...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
...
>
> >We do sing the carols. The tree doesn't make
> >sense since everyone knows that Christians
> >do this and it doesn't need to be taught.
>
> But everyone knows what carols are too. They
> don't need to be taught.
Singing Christmas carols as part of a diverse
program of seasonal music doesn't constitute
a religious celebration. They're not saying
you should be Christian; they are combined
with other music from other religions
(since Chanukah is around the same time),
and it's not part of a religion program,
but rather part of the music program.
What is being taught is how to sing
(for the singers) or how to play
instruments (for the orchestra). They
are using that particular music, since
it entertains the audience.
If the program were less diverse,
e.g. a collection of Christian hymns,
focussing on Jesus and not being
diverse with Chanukah and other
holiday music, then there probably
would be complaints. But it
always is diverse, and there
usually aren't complaints (well
sometimes from conservative
Christians that it's too diverse).
> So carols are being sung in your schools because
> it's a Christmas celebration. In which case, why
> not have a tree?
Carols are being sung in our schools because
it's a winter concert, and we sing and
play seasonal
music, and a lot of the music
we sing and play is Western music,
and a lot of Western music is Christian.
We don't throw out pieces because
they're Christian (otherwise we'd
be doing a disservice by depriving
them of most of Bach's repertoire
among other things). But just
because we play Bach doesn't mean
that we're turning our concert
into a religious service.
...
> >You can teach about Christmas and give
> >concerts of music including Christmas music
> >without having a tree.
>
> But why would you want to? I mean, why celebrate
> Christmas with Christmas music without
> having a tree? What is it about the tree that offends?
We're giving seasonal concerts.
>
> If anything is going to offend other religions, I would
> have thought it would be the Christian worship.
> Yet you're okay with singing Christian carols but
> only object to the tree, which actually has far less
> religious significance.
Christmas carols are a legitimate part of
Western music, and we teach members
of the chorus and orchestra to sing/play
it, and student audiences to appreciate it.
There is an educational purpose to
a concert including Christmas carols that makes it
separate from "celebrating Christmas"
that just isn't the case for a Christmas tree.
Besides, at the end of the concert,
the carols are done, whereas trees
would normally be up for a long time.
The White House doesn't have a captive
audience, so it doesn't have to worry
that it's "indoctrinating religion" if
it has a real Christmas tree lighting
or Chanukah lighting or whatever.
It would only have to worry if
people would notice that year after
year particular religions or cultures
were excluded. Then there would
be complaints.
Of course with this President,
there were complaints from
the right wing when the President
gave a speech about staying
in school and it was broadcast
to children. Remember our
right wing thinks that
the President is simultaneously
a communist atheist,
a fascist, and a Muslim,
and that any message however
innocuous is going to
secretly reprogram our children.
...
>
> >We don't say that Christians *ought* to
> >celebrate religion this way rather than that;
> >that would be far out of place for a school.
>
> I thought you were saying that you don't need to
> teach *about* Christianity to children from a
> Christian background.
You do, and in upper grades where they
learn Western History, they learn a lot about
Christianity, from its origins through the
stories of the various councils and
creeds, and the various splits, and how
church and state became intertwined
in the middle ages, and separated
after the enlightenment.
What I was saying is that you don't
have to teach something as fundamental
as the fact that Christians decorate
trees with light bulbs and tinsel and
put them in their homes.
> Well we definitely need to teach about Christianity
> here, despite the fact that the majority identify
> with it. That's because they don't bother going to
> church. If the schools didn't teach it, half the
> country would grow up thinking we're celebrating
> Santa's birthday!
Schools can fill gaps in knowledge of facts,
but not gaps in faith. It's a fact that Nicene Council
was held in 325 CE, and that they
established thus and so doctrine, and
that the Eastern Church later split off
because they didn't accept the Filioque,
and that Unitarians don't accept the Trinity.
It's *not* a fact that Unitarians are wrong
and Jesus is really son of God. *That*
is a matter of faith, and schools don't teach
matters of faith. If you want your children
to learn your faith, send them to Sunday School,
but don't expect public schools to teach it for them.
...
> >If you have many different groups of people
> >living in your country, it's nicer to make
> >them feel welcome rather than saying
> >"we liked it better before you came here,
> >and we'd be happier if you left".
>
> Actually, we would be happier if some of them
> left.
>
As I said it would be nicer if you didn't
convey that unwelcomeness to them.
> ...But how do you phrase that nicely?
You can't, because it's not a nice sentiment.
You'd wind up being like certain American Southerners,
some of whom I met as a youth, when they
spoke to me in sweet magnolia-blossom tones,
and behind my back they thought I was
a dirty, "n"-loving Jew (and expressed
this openly when I wasn't around). Yuck.
(Thankfully some of this is changing, but
unfortunately some of it is not. In the
50s, which is when the events I'm thinking
of happened, many even very cultured
southerners would be this way.)
...
>
> >Nobody has to integrate into anything, so
> >if it conveys that message, you will insult people.
>
> But yes, they do have to integrate. By law in France,
> and by social pressure in Italy. Although I think
> Italy is considering bringing in laws too.
They're wrong, and no they don't have to integrate.
Not in the sense you mean, which is *assimilate*
and drop their different customs.
> ...
>
> >I'm not sure what's wrong with having
> >minority festivals. And you do have
> >your own, like the Queen's birthday,
> >and the Queen Mother's birthday, and
> >Guy Fawkes, and so on, right?
>
> Festivals should be inclusive and British.
> I don't want my taxes paying for a blooming Eid
> celebration in Trafalgar Blooming Square!
You're contradicting yourself. It sounds as
if you're saying they should be *exclusive*
and British, not inclusive. If they're inclusive,
all kinds of different ceremonies
could be held in Trafalgar Blooming Square.
...
> >> And Gay Days?
> >> What is that all about?! Why do they need a parade
> >> for that?
>
> >It's because for years they were forced to be
> >invisible, were discriminated against,
> >and were sometimes beaten up
> >for fun by street people.
>
> I still don't see how a parade helps that.
>
> The people who hate gays are not suddenly going
> to change their mind because of a gay parade.
> It seems to be almost a provocation. Far better
> to live quietly like everyone else and prove they
> are no different.
It conveys the message that they're everywhere.
...
> >No!! How can you quietly withdraw the stamp?
>
> >The minute somebody goes to the post office
> >and asks for the stamp, and gets told that
> >it's been withdrawn, the secret is out.
>
> No, no, no. They wouldn't *say* it's been withdrawn.
> They would say it's "no longer available". Or something
> like that. That's what our government does.
>
> Then they would have denied that it had anything to do
> with the terrorist attack or Islam. They would just
> deny everything.
I agree that governments lie much of the time, but disagree
that we should be encouraging this to be the
standard operating procedure.
>
> Later on, through the Freedom of Information Act, we
> would discover that they decided to withdraw it and
> keep it all quiet. But by that time, nobody would care.
It would be a scandal, and it means that large
groups of people would wind up being suspicious
that the government was lying even when it
was telling the truth.
>
> Rob, surely this all sounds familiar? I'm sure my
> government isn't alone in this. Barefaced lying is
> the stock-in-trade of politicians!
Maybe, but you're trying to turn it into a virtue --
a tool for all occasions. Once you do
that, you're on a slippery slope towards
being a Republican, and you know that
is Biblically forbidden.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Emma"
randy
> Yes, it does seem to perform better under pressure.
> Christianity is growing in the parts of the world where
> it's most persecuted.
I'm not of course recommending persecution so Christianity can grow! ;) But
I am suggesting that when Christianity really attempts to apply itself
morally to real problems in our society those who are evil will try to
resist it. And quite frankly, the greater number of people tend to be soft
towards moral laxity, out of concern that they also will feel restricted in
their immoral activities.
So Christianity will always be on the cutting edge in its message, because
it will always be cutting across interests in our society that are immoral
or corrupt. And there will always be large numbers of people resistant to
our message, even though they may be sympathetic towards a more general
moral message. Stating right up that Christianity is the *only way* is not
going to win points in any society that tolerates several religions. But if
it is the truth, then it will bring light to that society and increase the
influence of morality in that society.
> I suppose Christianity is represented on both sides of your
> politics but maybe your right wing are more evangelical?
> So American Christianity has become associated with right wing
> politics.
Yes, the Democratic Party has taken its stand on individualism, and freedom
from religious dogmatism. And so it has distinguished itself from any notion
of its being a "Christian" party, although it clearly solicits the support
of Christians. Its Chrisitan message is therefore a social message,
attempting to bring fairness to all social groups.
In the Republican Party a stand has been taken on issues that are distinctly
Christian issues, issues such as on abortion and on homosexuality. And the
idea of a homogenized society, where all individuals are treated equally,
without regard to sexual interests, is not a Christian concept. Neither is
the idea that all society should equally receive rewards, both Christian and
nonChristian behaviors. The conservative idea of keeping government small,
and letting market forces determine our direction has seemed to be more
Christian to conservative Christians. But the pendulum keeps swinging.
> I would imagine that the church in Watford was mainly Pakistani
> Christians?
> Was the service in English?
Not at all. It was a Black pastor, but both black and white in the
congregation. It was fully English. I didn't see any Pakistanis. We sang a
number of the songs we sing in our own church here in the States.
> Well I keep saying that Jews should evangelize, but it's
> just not in their culture.
Jews have no message for nonJews. Their whole religion was predicated upon
their own separation from other nations. If their message is to draw people
in from other nations into their own nation, that message is unrealistic. A
religion shouldn't just build up a single nation. A religion, rather, should
speak to all nations in their own context.
> Oh my goodness, Randy, you don't see anything wrong
> with putting homosexuals to **death**?!! I'm sure you
> don't mean that!!
No, a we live in a modern apostasy away from religion. God does put people
to death. In the future society God has on earth, He will not permit
homosexuals. He will consign them to Hell. Do you now wish to accuse God of
not living up to your standards?
As I said, in a less than ideal society no gay person should be put to
death. But in a State where it is unanymously agreed on by all that gay
people should not be allowed, they should not be allowed in. And if they
blew a hole through our defenses, and marched in with some kind of
pornographic parade, yes I might tolerate their being shot and killed.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
>
> "Christians use the Jewish Bible and re-interpret it to meaning
> a temporary system of law leading up to a divine messiah."
> Yes, Christians use the Jewish Bible based on their *Christian*
> understanding--and not based on the competing Jewish understanding.
"That's exactly what it means to re-interpret it."
The point is more complex than that. The Old Testament prophesied the coming
of a messiah without much specificity, and without the intention of bringing
him into immediate focus. Christians chose to find that Jesus fulfilled
those prophecies. But both Jews and Christians accept what the Jewish
Prophets said, and recognize that it was ambiguous and not interested in
immediate application.
The application of messianic prophecy in the Jewish Bible was therefore
strictly peripheral in effect, and both Jews and Christians can agree on
that. Looking at this from a Christian pov does not alter this fact!
> But we
> accept that the Jewish Bible was inspired and true, just as the Jews do.
"No you don't; you think it's obsolete and superseded."
It is. The words were inspired, and looked forward to an ultimate resolution
over this failure with the Law. The failure of the Law, therefore, does not
mean the words were uninspired. It was just a temporary setback, a failure
meant to demonstrate the need for a non-human solution.
"They also differ about the laws being temporary until a
divine messiah came to supersede them."
Yes, but both Jews and Christians believe that the Law was inspired and
effective in its original ancient setting. How it applies today is what we
disagree about.
"Regardless of how faithful you think modern Jews are to
the ancient understanding of the text, it is impossible
to suppose that Jews ever understood the law
to be saying "this is temporary"."
Right. There are elements, I agree, that are eternal. But the covenant had
to change, because the elements of the Law themselves were subject to being
outdated. Offering animal sacrifices, and choosing only certain foods, were
open to being outdated, don't you agree?
> Jews do not co-opt the feast days of ancient Israel, for example. We
> accept
> the Feast of Passover, Succoth, etc. just as they were in ancient times.
"No you don't. Christians don't observe these holidays."
Right. But we do agree that in their original ancient setting they were
valid holidays. And we believe they were *required* for Israel to observe.
> Nor
> do Christians try to turn today's Jewish celebrations into Christian
> celebrations.
"Suzanne did (not the lady who posts here, but
Seldon's wife, the daughter of your former pastor)."
Suzanne did kind of do that, I agree. Messianic Jews do try to blend in with
Jews, sort of sitting on both sides of the fence, in Christianity and in
Judaism. I would've addressed that with her, had there not been such a fuss
created between her parents and me (thanks to you).
> "It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition
> that
> has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season
> of
> brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said.
> (unquote)
"Nothing in this quote says that this is the true meaning of Christmas.
It says it's a tradition that everyone -- Christian or not -- could do
well to follow."
Obama is wrong to suggest that Christmas *should've come* to represent more
than any one holiday or religion--even if its true.
> Perhaps. But for Christians it's a blatant, insidious dilution of the
> message.
"Brotherhood and generosity are insidious??"
Not taken alone. But taken in the context of Christian dilution, the
confusion of Christmas with other religions is indeed insidious and
malicious.
"Not to the people *I* know as Christians. Only to
the conservative crazies, who have looked on
the public stage ever more ridiculous (holding
up military appropriations to delay healthcare;
praying on the floor of the senate that one of the 60
democratic votes for cloture on healthcare
would die or become incapacitated and be
unable to show up for his vote)."
No, Christians don't wish evil upon anybody. But it may be in the best
interest of everybody if some of the 60 Democrats in the Senate decided to
let the debate extend past Christmas and the New Year. This rush to
radically change our system seems reckless and sneaky. And quite frankly,
there are serious questions about whether this will reduce or increase the
federal deficit. The OMB figures need revisiting.
> We know that's what liberal theology has been doing to Christian
> truth for many generations.
"Luckily, liberal theology will take over and send
conservative theology to the nether regions
where it belongs!"
Thankfully, you're not a prophet. Have a merry Christmas anyway, Rob. (And I
do mean that sincerely.)
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
>
>
> > "Christians use the Jewish Bible and re-interpret it to meaning
> > a temporary system of law leading up to a divine messiah."
> > Yes, Christians use the Jewish Bible based on their *Christian*
> > understanding--and not based on the competing Jewish understanding.
>
> "That's exactly what it means to re-interpret it."
>
> The point is more complex than that. The Old Testament prophesied the coming
> of a messiah without much specificity, and without the intention of bringing
> him into immediate focus. Christians chose to find that Jesus fulfilled
> those prophecies. But both Jews and Christians accept what the Jewish
> Prophets said, and recognize that it was ambiguous and not interested in
> immediate application.
No. Christians don't accept that the Torah is binding (even on Jews),
whereas Jews do.
...
>
> > But we
> > accept that the Jewish Bible was inspired and true, just as the Jews do.
>
> "No you don't; you think it's obsolete and superseded."
>
> It is. The words were inspired, and looked forward to an ultimate resolution
> over this failure with the Law.
I said "inspired and true", whereas you seem to think
it's equally valid to say "inspired and no longer true".
If the words say "these statutes shall be for a thousand generations",
then anyone who says they're obsolete after a few dozen is
not treating them as inspired.
...
>
> "They also differ about the laws being temporary until a
> divine messiah came to supersede them."
>
> Yes, but both Jews and Christians believe that the Law was inspired and
> effective in its original ancient setting. How it applies today is what we
> disagree about.
If the words "these statutes shall be a law for a thousand generation"
was true then, then it should be a law now. If you don't think
it's a law now, then "a thousand generations" was false then.
> ...
>
> Right. There are elements, I agree, that are eternal. But the covenant had
> to change, because the elements of the Law themselves were subject to being
> outdated. Offering animal sacrifices, and choosing only certain foods, were
> open to being outdated, don't you agree?
Just as the constitution of the US provides means of amendment,
the torah provided means of being re-interpreted to adjust
to different times and places -- by elders and courts.
To be sure, reform and orthodox disagree on how this
reinterpretation should be done, but they agree that
the principles taught in the law have to be applied,
whereas for Christians everything can be excused
as being "nailed to the cross".
> > Jews do not co-opt the feast days of ancient Israel, for example. We
> > accept
> > the Feast of Passover, Succoth, etc. just as they were in ancient times.
>
> "No you don't. Christians don't observe these holidays."
>
> Right. But we do agree that in their original ancient setting they were
> valid holidays. And we believe they were *required* for Israel to observe.
Then for you the Bible is about the past, whereas for us they
are also about now.
> ...
>
> "Suzanne did (not the lady who posts here, but
> Seldon's wife, the daughter of your former pastor)."
>
> Suzanne did kind of do that, I agree. Messianic Jews do try to blend in with
> Jews, sort of sitting on both sides of the fence, in Christianity and in
> Judaism. I would've addressed that with her, had there not been such a fuss
> created between her parents and me (thanks to you).
I disavow any responsibility for any fuss created between her parents
and you.
You should have followed Christian principles and confronted
both Suzanne and her mother. Instead, you allowed yourself
to be bullied by her mother into avoiding Suzanne entirely.
And notice that you contacted Seldon afterwards by email,
and he rudely ignored you too. Everything about their
behavior screams "we lied, but we don't want to talk about
the truth".
...
> > "It represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country - a tradition
> > that
> > has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season
> > of
> > brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens," he said.
> > (unquote)
>
> "Nothing in this quote says that this is the true meaning of Christmas.
> It says it's a tradition that everyone -- Christian or not -- could do
> well to follow."
>
> Obama is wrong to suggest that Christmas *should've come* to represent more
> than any one holiday or religion--even if its true.
>
He did not use any "should have" word. He said the tradition
***has*** come to represent a season of brotherhood and
generosity. And this is totally true.
And saying "X is wrong to say Y -- even if it's true" is un-Christian.
The truth shall make you free, so this made the President
and his listeners more free, which is a good thing.
> > Perhaps. But for Christians it's a blatant, insidious dilution of the
> > message.
>
> "Brotherhood and generosity are insidious??"
>
> Not taken alone. But taken in the context of Christian dilution, the
> confusion of Christmas with other religions is indeed insidious and
> malicious.
Saying that people of all religions have something to
learn from the positive lessons of the Christmas message
is not at all insidious or malicious.
>
> "Not to the people *I* know as Christians. Only to
> the conservative crazies, who have looked on
> the public stage ever more ridiculous (holding
> up military appropriations to delay healthcare;
> praying on the floor of the senate that one of the 60
> democratic votes for cloture on healthcare
> would die or become incapacitated and be
> unable to show up for his vote)."
>
> No, Christians don't wish evil upon anybody.
Tom Coburn prayed on the floor of the Senate
that someone wouldn't be able to show up
for the cloture vote in the Senate.
I agree that he's not a Christian. However,
his biography says that he's served
as a deacon in a Southern Baptist church.
He actually was ordained into the deaconhood.
So you can see how far the devil
has infiltrated into conservative "Christian"
circles.
> But it may be in the best
> interest of everybody if some of the 60 Democrats in the Senate decided to
> let the debate extend past Christmas and the New Year.
Passed in the senate this morning!!!
> This rush to
> radically change our system seems reckless and sneaky.
It's being going on since Truman. Some rush.
It leaves private insurance in place. No public option. Some radical
change.
> And quite frankly,
> there are serious questions about whether this will reduce or increase the
> federal deficit. The OMB figures need revisiting.
It reduces the deficit. But sadly, it reduces it ***less*** than it
should,
because Medicare buy-in and the public option were stricken
from the bill by bloody sodomite
***********conservatives***********!!!!!
I can't stand it when they fight every bloody cost-cutting measure
possible and then complain that it costs too much.
They're stomping on the country just to make Obama look bad.
Horses and Republicans just go "neigh". We will never forget
this when the next elections come up.
> ...
> Thankfully, you're not a prophet. Have a merry Christmas anyway, Rob. (And I
> do mean that sincerely.)
I don't celebrate Christmas, but thanks for the good wishes anyway,
and the same to you.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> The point is more complex than that. The Old Testament prophesied the
> coming
> of a messiah without much specificity, and without the intention of
> bringing
> him into immediate focus. Christians chose to find that Jesus fulfilled
> those prophecies. But both Jews and Christians accept what the Jewish
> Prophets said, and recognize that it was ambiguous and not interested in
> immediate application.
"No. Christians don't accept that the Torah is binding (even on Jews),
whereas Jews do."
There must be some kind of disconnect here. I agree with you--Christians and
Jews are not agreed on the notion that the Torah is binding *today.* What
I've beens saying is that we both agree that the Torah was completely
binding in its original, ancient context. Both groups consider the Jewish
Scriptures to have been inspired and binding upon Israel.
> It is. The words were inspired, and looked forward to an ultimate
> resolution
> over this failure with the Law.
"I said "inspired and true", whereas you seem to think
it's equally valid to say "inspired and no longer true".
If the words say "these statutes shall be for a thousand generations",
then anyone who says they're obsolete after a few dozen is
not treating them as inspired."
We disagree on their *continued* application, yes. But we both believe the
words "these statutes shall be for a thousand generations" were literally
true. It's just that Christians believe they were words spoken on the
*condition* of Israel's observance--not binding *regardless of* Israel's
infidelities. Nevertheless, we both believe these words to have been
inspired and true--no matter how we interpret the words.
> Yes, but both Jews and Christians believe that the Law was inspired and
> effective in its original ancient setting. How it applies today is what we
> disagree about.
"If the words "these statutes shall be a law for a thousand generation"
was true then, then it should be a law now. If you don't think
it's a law now, then "a thousand generations" was false then."
As I said, this is a difference over interpretation. There is a legitimate
debate, I think, over whether these words are based on the condition of
Israel's observance, or not. We both agree that Israel has access to an
eternal covenant. We just disagree that this "eternal covenant" extends to a
conditional Law. Israel's eternal hope rests, I believe, on the resurrection
of Christ, and not on a conditional Law. Had the Law continued unabated, it
would indeed have lasted for thousands of generations, if not for eternity.
But obviously, such a Law could not continue forever, since mankind is weak,
sinful, and mortal. All hope must, I think, be placed in Christ's
resurrection, which is the only hope of resurrection that I think merits
historic consideration.
"Just as the constitution of the US provides means of amendment,
the torah provided means of being re-interpreted to adjust
to different times and places -- by elders and courts."
Well yes. It in fact provided a strategy to survive its own ultimate death!
It was not really "reborn," as much as it was repackaged, or reconstituted,
into an entirely new covenant, which cannot even be said to be "the Law"
anymore. The new covenant of Christ contains the same hope, the same
prophecies, and the same righteousness as the Law. But it is not the Law.
Its hope is not based on a contract of observance between God and Israel.
Rather, it is based on the transferance of Christ's spirituality to
ourselves, with the hope that we will share in his own ability to rise from
the dead and receive immortal bodies.
"Then for you the Bible is about the past, whereas for us they
are also about now."
The truths contained in the Law are also instructional for us today, because
the same quality of righteousness, and the same quality of spirituality,
applies under the new covenant of Jesus.
> Suzanne did kind of do that, I agree. Messianic Jews do try to blend in
> with
> Jews, sort of sitting on both sides of the fence, in Christianity and in
> Judaism. I would've addressed that with her, had there not been such a
> fuss
> created between her parents and me (thanks to you).
"I disavow any responsibility for any fuss created between her parents
and you."
The truth is the truth--no matter how much you may "disavow" it. You are, in
fact, a major element in our falling out. We have never had as good a
relationship since. They don't respond to any e-mails (if in fact they
receive my e-mails).
"You should have followed Christian principles and confronted
both Suzanne and her mother. Instead, you allowed yourself
to be bullied by her mother into avoiding Suzanne entirely."
I do think you are partly right about my need to boldly confront things that
we both agree are wrong in them. I give you credit for that. But obviously,
we're not in agreement on everything. I do think Suzanne's Messianic Judaism
is too "Jewish." And I do think they think they had a responsibility to
defend Seldon's Jewish background if, in fact, he wished to publicly
proclaim it as true.
What I don't agree with is the need to constantly badger people with
requests for personal information after they have already backed down and
withdrawn from the debate.
"And notice that you contacted Seldon afterwards by email,
and he rudely ignored you too. Everything about their
behavior screams "we lied, but we don't want to talk about
the truth"."
I *honestly* don't think there was any lie about Seldon's Jewishness, as you
yourself seemed to have discovered. But I agree with you that their refusal
to address real concerns was less than dignified. On the other hand, we
should also recognize the historic hostility that exists between Jews and
MJs.
> Obama is wrong to suggest that Christmas *should've come* to represent
> more
> than any one holiday or religion--even if its true.
"He did not use any "should have" word. He said the tradition
***has*** come to represent a season of brotherhood and
generosity. And this is totally true."
I suggest to you that Obama's implication is that Christmas has become more
secular and *should be* applied in a secular way. I don't see how you can
see it as otherwise. He was, after all, not just stating facts. Rather, he
was using a festive occasion to celebrate Christmas' universal values, which
in my judgment is positively wrong. It is the view of liberal theologians,
and not the view of conservative Christians.
> No, Christians don't wish evil upon anybody.
"Tom Coburn prayed on the floor of the Senate
that someone wouldn't be able to show up
for the cloture vote in the Senate.
I agree that he's not a Christian. However,
his biography says that he's served
as a deacon in a Southern Baptist church.
He actually was ordained into the deaconhood.
So you can see how far the devil
has infiltrated into conservative "Christian"
circles."
It is a matter of God's judgment as to who should be removed from the Senate
by death. Tom Coburn may indeed be a Christian, calling into question
whether it would be good for God to do this or not. If he thinks so, I can
understand his position. I may or may not agree, but I can understand and
accept that this is his opinion. You're consigning him to "the nether
regions," or calling him a "nonChristian" would likewise be *your* opinion.
> But it may be in the best
> interest of everybody if some of the 60 Democrats in the Senate decided to
> let the debate extend past Christmas and the New Year.
"Passed in the senate this morning!!!"
Maybe they drank too much the previous night!
> This rush to
> radically change our system seems reckless and sneaky.
"It's being going on since Truman. Some rush.
It leaves private insurance in place. No public option. Some radical
change."
Well, it's not done yet. At least one Congressman has changed parties, to
become a Republican. If this becomes a trend, we may find more Democrats
bailing in the process of reconciling the House and the Senate versions. At
least I hope so. This isn't my kind of philosophy, and I'm not sure the
American people are any more than sheep being led to the slaughter (or to
bankruptcy).
> And quite frankly,
> there are serious questions about whether this will reduce or increase the
> federal deficit. The OMB figures need revisiting.
"It reduces the deficit. But sadly, it reduces it ***less*** than it
should,
because Medicare buy-in and the public option were stricken
from the bill by bloody sodomite
***********conservatives***********!!!!!"
As I said, the OMG figures need to be revisited. What I heard is that some
of the figures are being inappropriately applied inconsistently. As I
understand it, half a trillion dollars is being used to both reduce the
deficit and increase the deficit *at the same time!*
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-care-increase-federal-deficit/
"Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget
Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for
double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate
health care bill."
So when you have a thousand pages of bill, including "payoffs" to reluctant
Democrats, yes, I find this to be a "rushed job!" ********notwithstanding!
"I can't stand it when they fight every bloody cost-cutting measure
possible and then complain that it costs too much."
Maybe instead of just reading Democratic sources, you should read some more
objective sources, especially the figures coming from the OMB?
> Thankfully, you're not a prophet. Have a merry Christmas anyway, Rob. (And
> I
> do mean that sincerely.)
"I don't celebrate Christmas, but thanks for the good wishes anyway,
and the same to you."
I don't really celebrate Christmas, like we used to when there were little
"rugrats" running around. We don't even exchange gifts anymore, nor have we
had time this year to put up decorations. But the spirit is within me,
because for me the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of Jesus himself. In
that spirit I do sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas!
randy
Rob Strom
>
> "No. Christians don't accept that the Torah is binding (even on Jews),
> whereas Jews do."
>
> There must be some kind of disconnect here. I agree with you--Christians and
> Jews are not agreed on the notion that the Torah is binding *today.* What
> I've beens saying is that we both agree that the Torah was completely
> binding in its original, ancient context. Both groups consider the Jewish
> Scriptures to have been inspired and binding upon Israel.
Part of those words that you agree were binding were
words that say that they must continue to apply
for a thousand generations.
...
>
> "I said "inspired and true", whereas you seem to think
> it's equally valid to say "inspired and no longer true".
> If the words say "these statutes shall be for a thousand generations",
> then anyone who says they're obsolete after a few dozen is
> not treating them as inspired."
>
> We disagree on their *continued* application, yes. But we both believe the
> words "these statutes shall be for a thousand generations" were literally
> true. It's just that Christians believe they were words spoken on the
> *condition* of Israel's observance--not binding *regardless of* Israel's
> infidelities.
Then you don't accept the Bible as written.
Otherwise I could say I accept that the New Testament is true too.
Only that it only applied until the death of the last disciple.
If I said that, would you accept that I believe that the NT is true?
> Nevertheless, we both believe these words to have been
> inspired and true--no matter how we interpret the words.
In this sense, every word of the NT is true, only
I interpret it as meaning self-destruct in 50CE.
...
> "If the words "these statutes shall be a law for a thousand generation"
> was true then, then it should be a law now. If you don't think
> it's a law now, then "a thousand generations" was false then."
>
> As I said, this is a difference over interpretation. There is a legitimate
> debate, I think, over whether these words are based on the condition of
> Israel's observance, or not.
If you say that, then you can call anything a legitimate debate.
...
>
> "Then for you the Bible is about the past, whereas for us they
> are also about now."
>
> The truths contained in the Law are also instructional for us today, because
> the same quality of righteousness, and the same quality of spirituality,
> applies under the new covenant of Jesus.
The truths contained in the NT are also instructional for us today;
some of
them (the words of Paul) are very valuable to instruct us what *not*
to do.
...
>
> "I disavow any responsibility for any fuss created between her parents
> and you."
>
> The truth is the truth--no matter how much you may "disavow" it. You are, in
> fact, a major element in our falling out.
Not in the slightest.
It's interesting how in politics conservative Christians argue for
people
taking responsibility for their own actions, but in
real life they don't follow these principles at all!
Carol has to take responsibility for her own choice
to be first threatening and then nasty and cold
when it looked like you weren't caving to her threats.
I am not responsible for either her feelings or
her behavior.
> We have never had as good a
> relationship since. They don't respond to any e-mails (if in fact they
> receive my e-mails).
They're nasty liars and it shouldn't bother you in the
slightest that you and your congregation have
seen the backs of them. Of course that we
can pray that they repent and try to reconcile,
but people like this are often way too arrogant
to see the faults in themselves -- they
are too busy lecturing others on theirs.
...
>
> I do think you are partly right about my need to boldly confront things that
> we both agree are wrong in them. I give you credit for that. But obviously,
> we're not in agreement on everything. I do think Suzanne's Messianic Judaism
> is too "Jewish." And I do think they think they had a responsibility to
> defend Seldon's Jewish background if, in fact, he wished to publicly
> proclaim it as true.
>
> What I don't agree with is the need to constantly badger people with
> requests for personal information after they have already backed down and
> withdrawn from the debate.
The reason it looked like badgering is that they kept
making excuse after excuse. It was perfectly
legitimate after his saying he was "orthodox"
to ask to clarify whether it meant nominally
versus yeshiva-trained, and it was perfectly
legitimate to ask where he went to yeshiva.
Just as it was perfectly legitimate for me
to ask "Rabbi" Opalek where he
got his smicha.
> "And notice that you contacted Seldon afterwards by email,
> and he rudely ignored you too. Everything about their
> behavior screams "we lied, but we don't want to talk about
> the truth"."
>
> I *honestly* don't think there was any lie about Seldon's Jewishness, as you
> yourself seemed to have discovered.
We never were disputing that; we were disputing his
claim that he was "raised Orthodox", and Carol's
updating that it meant yeshiva-trained.
> But I agree with you that their refusal
> to address real concerns was less than dignified. On the other hand, we
> should also recognize the historic hostility that exists between Jews and
> MJs.
You aren't Jewish. That's why you asked the questions first.
Then they *asked* me to ask the questions instead and then
they refused to answer! They're just playing with you,
trying to assert their dominance over you.
>
> > Obama is wrong to suggest that Christmas *should've come* to represent
> > more
> > than any one holiday or religion--even if its true.
>
> "He did not use any "should have" word. He said the tradition
> ***has*** come to represent a season of brotherhood and
> generosity. And this is totally true."
>
> I suggest to you that Obama's implication is that Christmas has become more
> secular and *should be* applied in a secular way. I don't see how you can
> see it as otherwise.
He never said Christmas *should* be applied in a secular way.
He said there were good messages in Christmas that
apply even to non-Christians and that was true. You should
learn to understand why other people could read implications
differently from how you do.
> He was, after all, not just stating facts. Rather, he
> was using a festive occasion to celebrate Christmas' universal values, which
> in my judgment is positively wrong.
What is wrong with it? Everybody does it. I hope you don't
think President Obama is the first person to have done it.
For that matter, Dickens' play does the same thing.
> It is the view of liberal theologians,
> and not the view of conservative Christians.
Please name a conservative theologian
who (a) believes in celebrating Christmas
at all (the extreme ones think Christmas
is pagan and don't do it), but (b) thinks
that using the occasion of the holiday
to send festive messages about
peace and charity to non-Christians
is wrong.
Presumably you don't like the Salvation Army
either, because you think it's wrong to imply that
helping the poor is a specifically Christmas-y theme?
>
> > No, Christians don't wish evil upon anybody.
>
> "Tom Coburn prayed on the floor of the Senate
> that someone wouldn't be able to show up
> for the cloture vote in the Senate.
> I agree that he's not a Christian. However,
> his biography says that he's served
> as a deacon in a Southern Baptist church.
> He actually was ordained into the deaconhood.
> So you can see how far the devil
> has infiltrated into conservative "Christian"
> circles."
>
> It is a matter of God's judgment as to who should be removed from the Senate
> by death. Tom Coburn may indeed be a Christian, calling into question
> whether it would be good for God to do this or not.
He's a disgusting devil for not rejecting that
idea out of hand, much less inviting the
whole Senate to join him.
No way on earth do I accept that Tom Coburn is
a Christian in good standing.
He may have gotten a degree from deacon school,
but that doesn't change my view.
> If he thinks so, I can
> understand his position. I may or may not agree, but I can understand and
> accept that this is his opinion.
We weren't debating whether it was his opinion.
I was saying that it was indeed his opinion,
and that he's very un-Christian to promote it!!
> You're consigning him to "the nether
> regions," or calling him a "nonChristian" would likewise be *your* opinion.
I have extensively studied Christianity, and I think that
this is not even a close call.
He's in effect saying "I pray that one of the Democratic
senators dies or gets sick or gets into a car accident
on the way over here". If any real Christian here
wants to defend it (yes I know Vince will), let him do so.
...
> > This rush to
> > radically change our system seems reckless and sneaky.
>
> "It's being going on since Truman. Some rush.
> It leaves private insurance in place. No public option. Some radical
> change."
>
> Well, it's not done yet. At least one Congressman has changed parties, to
> become a Republican. If this becomes a trend, we may find more Democrats
> bailing in the process of reconciling the House and the Senate versions. At
> least I hope so. This isn't my kind of philosophy, and I'm not sure the
> American people are any more than sheep being led to the slaughter (or to
> bankruptcy).
What exactly in this bill conflicts with your philosophy?
>
> > And quite frankly,
> > there are serious questions about whether this will reduce or increase the
> > federal deficit. The OMB figures need revisiting.
>
So you don't believe the OMB.
> "It reduces the deficit. But sadly, it reduces it ***less*** than it
> should,
> because Medicare buy-in and the public option were stricken
> from the bill by bloody sodomite
> ***********conservatives***********!!!!!"
>
> As I said, the OMG figures need to be revisited. What I heard is that some
> of the figures are being inappropriately applied inconsistently. As I
> understand it, half a trillion dollars is being used to both reduce the
> deficit and increase the deficit *at the same time!*http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-...
> "Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget
> Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for
> double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate
> health care bill."
blah blah blah fox news whatever.
...
>
> "I can't stand it when they fight every bloody cost-cutting measure
> possible and then complain that it costs too much."
>
> Maybe instead of just reading Democratic sources, you should read some more
> objective sources, especially the figures coming from the OMB?
Huh??? I watched this on CSPAN!
The OMB is neutral.
>
> > Thankfully, you're not a prophet. Have a merry Christmas anyway, Rob. (And
> > I
> > do mean that sincerely.)
>
> "I don't celebrate Christmas, but thanks for the good wishes anyway,
> and the same to you."
>
> I don't really celebrate Christmas, like we used to when there were little
> "rugrats" running around. We don't even exchange gifts anymore, nor have we
> had time this year to put up decorations. But the spirit is within me,
> because for me the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of Jesus himself. In
> that spirit I do sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas!
Ah! So no Christmas tree in your house! No Christmas shopping!
No holly wreaths! No mistletoe!
We can keep posting to Usenet tomorrow then!
--
Rob Strom
Suzanne
> In article <11f363ce-4509-4931-851a-429b32697...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Suzanne says...
>
>
>
> >>I hope people are listening to you, Emma. You
> >are right. There are some injustices going on at
> >some of the court levels that is ignoring the idea
> >of freedom of religion, rather than freedom from
> >religion.
>
> Hi Suzanne, how are you? I haven't seen you here for
> a while.
>
>
> I get very confused by the American law. It doesn't
> seem to be consistent. If the President can light a
> menorah, then I don't see why schools can't have
> a similar ceremony or a Christmas celebration.
>
created on Jewish-Christian ideals. It seems to me
that some in this country are trying so hard to be
tolerant of other religions, that they have thrown the
baby out with the bathwater. If they attack the base
that we are built on and take that away from us,
which is what they have done by disallowing the cross,
and also the Star of David to be displayed in cemeteries,
and in buildings, they are taking away that which caused
us to be tolerant of other religions in the first place.
>
I did not vote for Obama for political reasons, but that is
as far as it goes because he still is my president, and I
have prayed for him to be led by the Lord. I don't know
what his reasons are for what he does, but to give him
the benefit of the doubt, I would assume that he has the
opinion that since this is a democracy and many kinds of
people live here, he wants to represent them all, the best
that he knows how to do. As for what he means by his
statements about the Christmas tree are concerned, he
seemed to be saying that when Christians celebrate the
birth of our Lord, it is infectious to all people all over the
earth, at least to also want to have the spirit of giving,
and love toward one another. I guess he sees the
Christmas tree as being that kind of symbol.
>
> Rob's argument is that school children are a captive
> audience, so they have to be protected, whereas
> Americans can choose to visit the President's ceremonies.
>
if he means that the parents' opinions should matter,
too, towards their own child. Someone that feels the
responsibility to raise their children in the best possible
way, should have a say-so about what their young
child is going to be in a position to be influenced by,
or be exposed to. However, there is the rest of the
public to be considered, too. The majority of the
population does celebrate Christmas, so some
need to be accomodating, especially to the
country that provides a peaceful place to live. You
don't strike at the foundation of something and
expect it to stand. If Rob means that we should not
celebrate Christmas, then I don't agree with him.
>
> I don't really accept that argument because, in Britain,
> children who don't want to celebrate Christmas in
> schools can opt out. Although few do. That's because
> everyone can enjoy it. Most people like to sing
> carols and hear the Christmas story.
> I can't really see how it affects anyone negatively.
>
saying. And speaking of that let me say,
MERRY CHRISTMAS, to all to whom it applies, and
peace and goodwill to all others and happy holidays
to them as well.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <aeeb62ae-1f01-49af-8cfe-31ba79adb...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Suzanne says...
>
>
>
> >There is a point at which
> >religious toleration should stand publically, but
> >taking away crosses from national cemetaries
> >such as I witnessed in one of our states in the
> >past year, is persecution and intolerance of
> >the religion of the majority of the Americans. The
> >Star of David is also subject to such and the ones
> >opposing the Christians oppose any expression
> >of one's faith. That is not toleration and it is not
> >allowing freedom of religion, it is persecution.
>
> You can't have crosses in a cemetary??
> Gosh.
> That's dreadful.
>
people are upset about it.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <287b3659-f12a-41c6-9dc1-e7349320b...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> Suzanne says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> And one more thing, Rob...
> >> I don't see how Americans can really criticize
> >> Italian crucifixes when there is a menorah and
> >> Christmas tree on publically owned property in the
> >> US.
>
> >Emma, Americans as a group do not criticize this,
> >it is only some who say they are Americans who
> >do this. I agree with what you are saying in this
> >post. Many agree with you who are Americans,
> >so when you write "Americans oppose....etc.,"
> >that does not represent America.
>
> OK.
>
> I suppose I tend to assume that the majority
> are against religion in schools, because that is
> the situation in your schools at the moment.
> Whereas in the past, American schools said prayers
> (I think) and read from the Bible.
>
basic part of our country is composed of people that
are very merciful and forgiving, and tolerant. Those
kinds of people don't make headlines. So when you
hear of people that live here who might be out of the
ordinary, those are the ones that get the limelight in
the newspapers, and that is what a country gets
judged by, abroad, I suppose.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In article <ecd6273c-55e6-4ad2-b09d-163abc479...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
1700's avoiding such a thing, but everyone here has
heard about the success of revivals in your country.
Preachers here talk about them all the time. Our
country, now that you mention revival really, really
needs revival. I remember our pastor saying one time
in a prayer, "Lord, please send revival, and Lord, let
it begin with me." That's a good reminder to me that
when I ask for revival that I begin with myself doing
what things I know the Lord wants me to do,.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
for revival in my country. : )
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
that the Lord engineered your life in such a way that you would
come out of the place you were in, that you describe, and that you
found the joy of serving him the way that you do now.
>
Suzanne
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> I agree with you--Christians and Jews are not agreed
> on the notion that the Torah is binding *today.*
And yet you say we are under the law.
Oh, wait, that's right. You pick and choose which ones.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Christians, keep the faith -- but not from others!
randy
"Suzanne"
randy
"Thanks Randy, that really is a good word. What a wonderful thing
that the Lord engineered your life in such a way that you would
come out of the place you were in, that you describe, and that you
found the joy of serving him the way that you do now."
In the words of the great hymn...
"Through many dangers, toils and snares...
we have already come.
T'was Grace that brought us safe thus far...
and Grace will lead us home."
Thanks Suzanne, life is tough but it's worth it.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> There must be some kind of disconnect here. I agree with you--Christians
> and
"Part of those words that you agree were binding were
words that say that they must continue to apply
for a thousand generations."
Part of the words you fail to agree were inspired are those words making the
promise of a thousand generations *conditioned upon* Israel's faithfulness
under the Law. In other words, the promise of a "thousand years" does not
hold up in the actual scenario, in which Israel's fails to be faithful to
God. And this is what *inspired* Scriptures say.
> The truth is the truth--no matter how much you may "disavow" it. You are,
> in
> fact, a major element in our falling out.
"Not in the slightest.
It's interesting how in politics conservative Christians argue for
people
taking responsibility for their own actions, but in
real life they don't follow these principles at all!"
On the contrary, I take full responsibility for the role I played in this
disagreement. I'm just stating, quite honestly, that you played a major role
in my falling out with my pastors. Lest you feel too much guilt, let me just
say that I don't believe my expastors and I have any hostility between each
other. I just want you to know why there are limits to how far I will go
with this kind of thing. I still do not regret having taken a stand on the
issue. I agree with you that they had a responsibility to back up their
public statements with documented facts--or cease and desist.
"They're nasty liars and it shouldn't bother you in the
slightest that you and your congregation have
seen the backs of them...."
It's this kind of emotional attack that I want to refrain from. People can
make any statement they like in public, particularly if it's true. It's just
that when challenged to support their statements with documented proof, they
need to provide that proof or back down. They did seem to back down.
"Just as it was perfectly legitimate for me
to ask "Rabbi" Opalek where he
got his smicha."
Yes, I agree it's okay to ask these people. It is not, however, okay to
conclude they are "liars" simply because they refuse to engage in what they
think will be a fruitless argument.
> I *honestly* don't think there was any lie about Seldon's Jewishness, as
> you
> yourself seemed to have discovered.
"We never were disputing that; we were disputing his
claim that he was "raised Orthodox", and Carol's
updating that it meant yeshiva-trained."
Yes, you never proved any of it was a "lie." Yet you assert, without proof,
that it was a lie!
"You aren't Jewish. That's why you asked the questions first.
Then they *asked* me to ask the questions instead and then
they refused to answer! They're just playing with you,
trying to assert their dominance over you."
No, they already had a dominant position over me in my church. They didn't
need to assert anything, nor did they find in the end they had real
dominance over anybody in our church, with regard to personal views. I think
they probably found that our church deserved its reputation for being
divisive and independent, unfortunately. Expressing personal opinions is
not, in my view, "divisive."
> I suggest to you that Obama's implication is that Christmas has become
> more
> secular and *should be* applied in a secular way. I don't see how you can
> see it as otherwise.
"He never said Christmas *should* be applied in a secular way..."
I'm sorry, that was his implication. He was actually exulting in this
reality, that Christianity has this multicultural, secular impact. And I
agree with you, all of this is not necessarily a bad thing. I like Christmas
to share some values with the nonChristian world. But I disagree with his
dilution of Christianity as an exclusive source of salvation. That's what
concerns me--nothing more.
> It is the view of liberal theologians,
> and not the view of conservative Christians.
"Please name a conservative theologian
who (a) believes in celebrating Christmas
at all (the extreme ones think Christmas
is pagan and don't do it), but (b) thinks
that using the occasion of the holiday
to send festive messages about
peace and charity to non-Christians
is wrong."
That is a false impression created about my statement. I'm not saying that
Christmas should not communicate secular values. I'm saying that
conservative Christianity maintains the exclusivity of its salvation in
Christ, all the while embracing universal values of peace and brotherhood.
Obama was not just communicating universal values. He was actually changing
the exclusive nature of the Christian message to a largely universalistic
message of diversity and tolerance. He places the value of Christ alongside
the value of Buddha and perhaps even Mohammad.
> It is a matter of God's judgment as to who should be removed from the
> Senate
> by death. Tom Coburn may indeed be a Christian, calling into question
> whether it would be good for God to do this or not.
"He's a disgusting devil for not rejecting that
idea out of hand, much less inviting the
whole Senate to join him."
Actually you've said some pretty vile things about him, as well. And you
tend to consign certain Christians to the "nether world." What's different
about your approach from the approach Tom Coburn took?
> Well, it's not done yet. At least one Congressman has changed parties, to
> become a Republican. If this becomes a trend, we may find more Democrats
> bailing in the process of reconciling the House and the Senate versions.
> At
> least I hope so. This isn't my kind of philosophy, and I'm not sure the
> American people are any more than sheep being led to the slaughter (or to
> bankruptcy).
"What exactly in this bill conflicts with your philosophy?"
I posted in another thread my rejection of the "socialist" elements in this
bill. It is a radical change in the way we do business, much as Social
Security was. And although I've admitted to you that I do agree with certain
elements of "socialism," where they are warranted, I'm wondering how far we
can go before we are actually encouraging certain "nonChristian behaviors"
and rewarding them with undeserved financial support.
I think my real protest regards the *degree* to which all Americans must go
in helping people on the street, or anywhere they live. If our private
economic initiative is being stifled by a government that imposes the
redistribution of our wealth to nonproductive causes, we will encourage
idleness and nonproductivity, as well as give an unfair advantage to our
trade competitors.
> > And quite frankly,
> > there are serious questions about whether this will reduce or increase
> > the
> > federal deficit. The OMB figures need revisiting.
"So you don't believe the OMB."
No, I'm saying the OMB itself has admitted there are serious revisions that
needs to be made in regard to whether it can be determined that either a
surplus or a deficit will result.
> As I said, the OMG figures need to be revisited. What I heard is that some
> of the figures are being inappropriately applied inconsistently. As I
> understand it, half a trillion dollars is being used to both reduce the
> deficit and increase the deficit *at the same
> time!*http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-...
> "Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget
> Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for
> double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate
> health care bill."
"blah blah blah fox news whatever."
brilliant response, Rob! not...
"The OMB is neutral."
That is my point!!
> I don't really celebrate Christmas, like we used to when there were little
> "rugrats" running around. We don't even exchange gifts anymore, nor have
> we
> had time this year to put up decorations. But the spirit is within me,
> because for me the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of Jesus himself. In
> that spirit I do sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas!
"Ah! So no Christmas tree in your house! No Christmas shopping!
No holly wreaths! No mistletoe!"
This year we had too many injuries and not enough time to put them up. It
would've been nice, but I tend to be, what's the word, "iconoclastic."
"We can keep posting to Usenet tomorrow then!"
I have no real holy days, Rob. The holiest day for me is today. This is the
day we should be serving the Lord.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I agree with you--Christians and Jews are not agreed
>> on the notion that the Torah is binding *today.*
> And yet you say we are under the law.
> Oh, wait, that's right. You pick and choose which ones.
I've never said we're under the Law. Where are you getting your information?
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > There must be some kind of disconnect here. I agree with you--Christians
> > and
> > Jews are not agreed on the notion that the Torah is binding *today.*...
>
> "Part of those words that you agree were binding were
> words that say that they must continue to apply
> for a thousand generations."
>
> Part of the words you fail to agree were inspired are those words making the
> promise of a thousand generations *conditioned upon* Israel's faithfulness
> under the Law.
Because you wrote those words, whereas the words I was
quoting appear in the Bible.
> In other words, the promise of a "thousand years" does not
> hold up in the actual scenario, in which Israel's fails to be faithful to
> God. And this is what *inspired* Scriptures say.
No, nothing in scripture says that.
...
>
> "Not in the slightest.
> It's interesting how in politics conservative Christians argue for
> people
> taking responsibility for their own actions, but in
> real life they don't follow these principles at all!"
>
> On the contrary, I take full responsibility for the role I played in this
> disagreement. I'm just stating, quite honestly, that you played a major role
> in my falling out with my pastors. Lest you feel too much guilt,
... I don't feel any guilt at all.
...
>
> "They're nasty liars and it shouldn't bother you in the
> slightest that you and your congregation have
> seen the backs of them...."
>
> It's this kind of emotional attack that I want to refrain from.
I'm not emotional in the slightest.
Carol was toying with you, and tried to do the same to me.
"How come I haven't heard from Rob? Is he afraid to talk to me?"
(and then I do email her and she ignores me).
> People can
> make any statement they like in public, particularly if it's true. It's just
> that when challenged to support their statements with documented proof, they
> need to provide that proof or back down. They did seem to back down.
She wasn't asked to provide "documented proof", just
where did Seldon go to yeshiva.
>
> "Just as it was perfectly legitimate for me
> to ask "Rabbi" Opalek where he
> got his smicha."
>
> Yes, I agree it's okay to ask these people. It is not, however, okay to
> conclude they are "liars" simply because they refuse to engage in what they
> think will be a fruitless argument.
A single question is not an "argument". An argument is
if either Carol or Opalek answered the question and then I were to
reply
"oh, but that's not a real yeshiva".
And if you remember, I wasn't even initially skeptical about Opalek.
He appeared to be running a bona fide charitable organization,
and had done scholarly work about Jewish origins of Christianity,
and unlike Seldon (who appeared to distort Judaism either
intentionally or out of ignorance) may very well have been
some kind of a rabbi at one time. It was only after I found him
on email and he responded to my question about his smicha
with a long discussion about why should I want to know that
I became skeptical of him too.
>
> > I *honestly* don't think there was any lie about Seldon's Jewishness, as
> > you
> > yourself seemed to have discovered.
>
> "We never were disputing that; we were disputing his
> claim that he was "raised Orthodox", and Carol's
> updating that it meant yeshiva-trained."
>
> Yes, you never proved any of it was a "lie." Yet you assert, without proof,
> that it was a lie!
At some point their evasions become evidence in themselves.
You had previously committed yourself to researching the question.
If I am ever in Oregon, I will try to find the answer to this
question.
>
> "You aren't Jewish. That's why you asked the questions first.
> Then they *asked* me to ask the questions instead and then
> they refused to answer! They're just playing with you,
> trying to assert their dominance over you."
>
> No, they already had a dominant position over me in my church. They didn't
> need to assert anything, nor did they find in the end they had real
> dominance over anybody in our church, with regard to personal views. I think
> they probably found that our church deserved its reputation for being
> divisive and independent, unfortunately. Expressing personal opinions is
> not, in my view, "divisive."
They believed that anything other than blind obedience and
unquestioning belief is argumentative and divisive.
That is itself a contradiction to Jesus' message that
the truth shall set you free.
>
> > I suggest to you that Obama's implication is that Christmas has become
> > more
> > secular and *should be* applied in a secular way. I don't see how you can
> > see it as otherwise.
>
> "He never said Christmas *should* be applied in a secular way..."
>
> I'm sorry, that was his implication.
How did you become the reader of implications?
> He was actually exulting in this
> reality, that Christianity has this multicultural, secular impact.
Saying that Christianity has lessons for non-Christians
is not the same as saying that Christians
shouldn't observe Christianity in the traditional way.
> And I
> agree with you, all of this is not necessarily a bad thing. I like Christmas
> to share some values with the nonChristian world. But I disagree with his
> dilution of Christianity as an exclusive source of salvation. That's what
> concerns me--nothing more.
That is not something he said in his Presidential speeches.
You are quarreling with something he said outside
of that to a reporter.
And actually, Jesus *also* said that non-Christians are saved,
and I hope you're not also claiming that he was wrong to have
so said.
>
> > It is the view of liberal theologians,
> > and not the view of conservative Christians.
>
> "Please name a conservative theologian
> who (a) believes in celebrating Christmas
> at all (the extreme ones think Christmas
> is pagan and don't do it), but (b) thinks
> that using the occasion of the holiday
> to send festive messages about
> peace and charity to non-Christians
> is wrong."
>
> That is a false impression created about my statement. I'm not saying that
> Christmas should not communicate secular values.
You said that the President was wrong to say that
there are lessons in Christianity for non-Christians,
such as peace and charity.
> I'm saying that
> conservative Christianity maintains the exclusivity of its salvation in
> Christ, all the while embracing universal values of peace and brotherhood.
> Obama was not just communicating universal values. He was actually changing
> the exclusive nature of the Christian message to a largely universalistic
> message of diversity and tolerance. He places the value of Christ alongside
> the value of Buddha and perhaps even Mohammad.
He didn't say anything like that in his speech.
>
> > It is a matter of God's judgment as to who should be removed from the
> > Senate
> > by death. Tom Coburn may indeed be a Christian, calling into question
> > whether it would be good for God to do this or not.
>
> "He's a disgusting devil for not rejecting that
> idea out of hand, much less inviting the
> whole Senate to join him."
>
> Actually you've said some pretty vile things about him, as well. And you
> tend to consign certain Christians to the "nether world." What's different
> about your approach from the approach Tom Coburn took?
What's different about Tom Coburn asking Senators to
pray that a Senator won't be able to appear for a vote
(which when the vote is this important, would only
happen due to accident, severe illness, or death) versus
my saying that Coburn is unChristian for doing so?
I'm not sure why you don't understand this.
He's hoping that something bad will happen
to a Senator; I'm hoping that Coburn
will repent and turn away from his sin.
...
> "What exactly in this bill conflicts with your philosophy?"
>
> I posted in another thread my rejection of the "socialist" elements in this
> bill. It is a radical change in the way we do business, much as Social
> Security was.
We've had Social Security for a long time, so it's
no longer radical. And, as you know, there's
not even a public option nor a Medicare extension,
just private insurance.
I think you don't believe that people should be insured
at all. I think you hold the unChristian belief
that sickness is a punishment for sin, and
that by having risk pools at all so that the
healthy pool their money to use it for the benefit
of whichever of them becomes sick is thwarting
God's purpose. I pray that you eventually
see the error of your ways. Jesus not only
believed in helping the sick and poor, but
he healed the sick himself. For free. And
told his disciples to do the same. Without
warning them that they might be "enabling"
sinful behavior that caused the sick people
to become sick.
> And although I've admitted to you that I do agree with certain
> elements of "socialism," where they are warranted, I'm wondering how far we
> can go before we are actually encouraging certain "nonChristian behaviors"
> and rewarding them with undeserved financial support.
See what I mean? Your sentence implies that (a) the
sick are sick because of nonchristian behavior, and (b)
that the poor don't deserve financial support.
Both parts of the above are un-biblical.
I don't understand how any Christian could object
to Obama's program (other than that it doesn't
go far enough).
>
> I think my real protest regards the *degree* to which all Americans must go
> in helping people on the street, or anywhere they live. If our private
> economic initiative is being stifled by a government that imposes the
> redistribution of our wealth to nonproductive causes, we will encourage
> idleness and nonproductivity, as well as give an unfair advantage to our
> trade competitors.
Where did Jesus say this???????????????????????
Or any part of the Bible?
You're quoting "Supply Side Jesus" again, not Jesus.
...
>
> No, I'm saying the OMB itself has admitted there are serious revisions that
> needs to be made in regard to whether it can be determined that either a
> surplus or a deficit will result.
They didn't tell the Senate that, no.
...
>
> "The OMB is neutral."
>
> That is my point!!
The OMB gave its report. When sodomites complain
that the bill doesn't save enough when they are
the ones largely responsible (along with a few
conservative dems) for eliminating the features
that would have saved more, they are like
the bullies that push your fists against
your face and taunt you with "why are you
hitting yourself?"
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Part of the words you fail to agree were inspired are those words making
> the
> promise of a thousand generations *conditioned upon* Israel's faithfulness
> under the Law.
"Because you wrote those words, whereas the words I was
quoting appear in the Bible."
That's patently absurd. I could quote at least one hundred references to the
conditional nature of the Law. It *would have continued* for 1000
generations, except there were *conditions* required in order for this to
happen.
> "They're nasty liars and it shouldn't bother you in the
> slightest that you and your congregation have
> seen the backs of them...."
> It's this kind of emotional attack that I want to refrain from.
"I'm not emotional in the slightest."
Yes you are. Calling people "nasty liars" is an emotional outburst, Rob!
"Carol was toying with you, and tried to do the same to me.
"How come I haven't heard from Rob? Is he afraid to talk to me?"
(and then I do email her and she ignores me)."
Get over it. I don't think Carol was "toying" with me. She's a very nice
lady. She probably assumed I wouldn't challenge a thing, since most churches
expect some measure of politeness in their congregations.
> "Just as it was perfectly legitimate for me
> to ask "Rabbi" Opalek where he
> got his smicha."
> Yes, I agree it's okay to ask these people. It is not, however, okay to
> conclude they are "liars" simply because they refuse to engage in what
> they
> think will be a fruitless argument.
"A single question is not an "argument". An argument is
if either Carol or Opalek answered the question and then I were to
reply
"oh, but that's not a real yeshiva"."
Don't take me for a fool. Many "single questions" are or appear to be
"baiting" tactics. Sometimes you can "smell" an argument coming just with
the kind of question being asked.
"And if you remember, I wasn't even initially skeptical about Opalek.
He appeared to be running a bona fide charitable organization,
and had done scholarly work about Jewish origins of Christianity,
and unlike Seldon (who appeared to distort Judaism either
intentionally or out of ignorance) may very well have been
some kind of a rabbi at one time. It was only after I found him
on email and he responded to my question about his smicha
with a long discussion about why should I want to know that
I became skeptical of him too."
Not my point. You are calling these people liars when you still don't have
any proof that they lied. I'm talking about their claim to having an
orthodox background. All I'm really clear about is that they're assuming
you're going to fight over any answer they may give you. And they would
probably be right.
"At some point their evasions become evidence in themselves.
You had previously committed yourself to researching the question.
If I am ever in Oregon, I will try to find the answer to this
question."
Feel free. There are more important things in life. The answers to these
questions would not make any difference in my life, regardless.
"They believed that anything other than blind obedience and
unquestioning belief is argumentative and divisive."
I don't believe that for a minute. They may have had certain authoritarian
idiosyncrasies, but they certainly weren't despots! When they spoke God's
word, they assumed that others would judge their words by the Scriptures.
What they stated as fact about their personal lives I believe were spoken
honestly, even if it turns out they made mistakes.
> "He never said Christmas *should* be applied in a secular way..."
> I'm sorry, that was his implication.
"How did you become the reader of implications?"
I provided a quote and a reference to an interview with Obama, in which
Obama clearly spells out his religious skepticism. He sits on the more
liberal side of the Christian fence, believing that religious dogmatism is a
scary thing. It would be better to pray together with a Moslem than to claim
Jesus is the only way of salvation. At least that's how the interview came
across to me. (But you have to read the whole interview.)
> He was actually exulting in this
> reality, that Christianity has this multicultural, secular impact.
"Saying that Christianity has lessons for non-Christians
is not the same as saying that Christians
shouldn't observe Christianity in the traditional way."
But that is what he explicitly said he wants to avoid, the *certainty*
element of Christianity! That is not traditional Christianity. That is
liberal Christianity.
> And I
> agree with you, all of this is not necessarily a bad thing. I like
> Christmas
> to share some values with the nonChristian world. But I disagree with his
> dilution of Christianity as an exclusive source of salvation. That's what
> concerns me--nothing more.
"That is not something he said in his Presidential speeches.
You are quarreling with something he said outside
of that to a reporter."
Do you think it matters one whit to me whether he said it to a public crowd
or in private? Whether he said it in his sleep? The point is, what Obama
describes his beliefs to be are what explains his statements. If he explains
himself to be theologically liberal, then his statements about Christmas
must be understood from that pov.
"And actually, Jesus *also* said that non-Christians are saved,
and I hope you're not also claiming that he was wrong to have
so said."
I've told you several times now that I believe nonChristians can be saved
without becoming Christians in this life. I only assert the traditional
belief that it is only *by Christ* that all men are saved (whether they
become Christians in this lifetime or in the next). Christ is the exclusive
means by which men are saved. It's just that God does not expect people to
become Christians if they do not hear clearly from God that Jesus is His
Son. Sometimes this has to do with hard-heartedness, sometimes with a
difficult upbringing, and sometimes due to the failure of Christians in
their testimony.
> That is a false impression created about my statement. I'm not saying that
> Christmas should not communicate secular values.
"You said that the President was wrong to say that
there are lessons in Christianity for non-Christians,
such as peace and charity."
No, I didn't say that. My concern is that we put forward a universalistic
message about Christmas *in place of* the message of exclusive salvation by
the merit of Christ. It may be debateable about whether Obama meant that,
but in view of his overall liberal theological bent, I do think he is
attacking the more conservative side of Christianity. And this has been
demonstrated in his opposition to the "Christian Right."
Have to go,
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Part of the words you fail to agree were inspired are those words making
> > the
> > promise of a thousand generations *conditioned upon* Israel's faithfulness
> > under the Law.
>
> "Because you wrote those words, whereas the words I was
> quoting appear in the Bible."
>
> That's patently absurd. I could quote at least one hundred references to the
> conditional nature of the Law.
Really?
I've never seen even one.
Please choose what you believe to be the most unambiguous
*two* of these hundred, and post them here.
...
>
> > "They're nasty liars and it shouldn't bother you in the
> > slightest that you and your congregation have
> > seen the backs of them...."
> > It's this kind of emotional attack that I want to refrain from.
>
> "I'm not emotional in the slightest."
>
> Yes you are. Calling people "nasty liars" is an emotional outburst, Rob!
No. Had you been in the room when I typed this, you
would have seen that I was as cool and detached as
a Zen Buddhist priest.
>
> "Carol was toying with you, and tried to do the same to me.
> "How come I haven't heard from Rob? Is he afraid to talk to me?"
> (and then I do email her and she ignores me)."
>
> Get over it. I don't think Carol was "toying" with me. She's a very nice
> lady.
I don't agree that she was nice at all.
> She probably assumed I wouldn't challenge a thing, since most churches
> expect some measure of politeness in their congregations.
I don't think that you were in the slightest bit impolite. I don't
understand the connection between her expectation of
politeness and her unwarranted assumption that you
wouldn't *query* (not *challenge*) a thing.
You were probably quiet, deferential, said "please" and "thank you",
and waited you turn to speak, and didn't interrupt her, so
I don't get the point about politeness.
And you have seen my letter, and it was oozing with politeness.
>
> > "Just as it was perfectly legitimate for me
> > to ask "Rabbi" Opalek where he
> > got his smicha."
> > Yes, I agree it's okay to ask these people. It is not, however, okay to
> > conclude they are "liars" simply because they refuse to engage in what
> > they
> > think will be a fruitless argument.
>
> "A single question is not an "argument". An argument is
> if either Carol or Opalek answered the question and then I were to
> reply
> "oh, but that's not a real yeshiva"."
>
> Don't take me for a fool. Many "single questions" are or appear to be
> "baiting" tactics. Sometimes you can "smell" an argument coming just with
> the kind of question being asked.
Their sense of smell is screwed up, and I'm not taking you]
for a fool. Just because *some* (not *many*) questions
can be baiting tactics doesn't mean that most or all are,
and certainly the ones we asked weren't.
I even prefaced my communications with both of them
with a promise that I *wouldn't* follow up.
>
> "And if you remember, I wasn't even initially skeptical about Opalek.
> He appeared to be running a bona fide charitable organization,
> and had done scholarly work about Jewish origins of Christianity,
> and unlike Seldon (who appeared to distort Judaism either
> intentionally or out of ignorance) may very well have been
> some kind of a rabbi at one time. It was only after I found him
> on email and he responded to my question about his smicha
> with a long discussion about why should I want to know that
> I became skeptical of him too."
>
> Not my point. You are calling these people liars when you still don't have
> any proof that they lied.
I'm going by probabilities. Carol is 95% sure to be lying
about knowing that Seldon went to yeshiva. She is certainly
lying in saying that she doesn't want to answer questions
because she's worried that giving an answer would
make him subject to attacks from his 40-years-ago
coreligionists.
> I'm talking about their claim to having an
> orthodox background. All I'm really clear about is that they're assuming
> you're going to fight over any answer they may give you. And they would
> probably be right.
Why would I fight over any answer they may give me? (Except
if they give me non-answers like Carol's attempt to talk about
Sid Roth, who even if he had gone to yeshiva -- which he hadn't --
wouldn't say a thing about Seldon's Orthodox upbringing.)
For somebody who doesn't want me to make guesses
about Carol, you're sure making guesses about me.
>
> "At some point their evasions become evidence in themselves.
> You had previously committed yourself to researching the question.
> If I am ever in Oregon, I will try to find the answer to this
> question."
>
> Feel free. There are more important things in life. The answers to these
> questions would not make any difference in my life, regardless.
You criticize me for guessing without having the data, and now
you appear to be criticizing me for trying to get the data.
You had originally committed to get the data yourself.
>
> "They believed that anything other than blind obedience and
> unquestioning belief is argumentative and divisive."
>
> I don't believe that for a minute. They may have had certain authoritarian
> idiosyncrasies, but they certainly weren't despots! When they spoke God's
> word, they assumed that others would judge their words by the Scriptures.
I did, and they were wanting.
> What they stated as fact about their personal lives I believe were spoken
> honestly, even if it turns out they made mistakes.
No. I think Carol told you that Seldon was as Orthodox as they
come just to make you go away. She would probably have
told you he had smicha if she had know what that was.
Suzanne definitely said things about her husband's
celebration of Pesach that couldn't possibly have been true.
>
> > "He never said Christmas *should* be applied in a secular way..."
> > I'm sorry, that was his implication.
>
> "How did you become the reader of implications?"
>
> I provided a quote and a reference to an interview with Obama, in which
> Obama clearly spells out his religious skepticism.
That interview was not part of the speech that you were attacking.
...
>
> "Saying that Christianity has lessons for non-Christians
> is not the same as saying that Christians
> shouldn't observe Christianity in the traditional way."
>
> But that is what he explicitly said he wants to avoid, the *certainty*
> element of Christianity! That is not traditional Christianity. That is
> liberal Christianity.
Traditional Christianity *is* liberal Christianity. In fact Jesus
was much more radical than most liberals are today.
...
> "That is not something he said in his Presidential speeches.
> You are quarreling with something he said outside
> of that to a reporter."
>
> Do you think it matters one whit to me whether he said it to a public crowd
> or in private? Whether he said it in his sleep?
It should, if you're attacking his message. Otherwise it's
the "halo effect" of distortion. If you agree with someone's
philosophy, everything they say is good, even if it isn't.
And if you disagree, everything they say is bad, even if
it isn't.
> The point is, what Obama
> describes his beliefs to be are what explains his statements. If he explains
> himself to be theologically liberal, then his statements about Christmas
> must be understood from that pov.
No. The statements he makes about Christmas has to be
judged on their own merit. If you would have approved of
them had Billy Graham said them, you shouldn't disapprove
when the President says the same thing.
Reminds me of John McCain complaining about Al Franken's
"audacity" in not granting extra time to Joe Lieberman in
the Senate. He said this was way over the top impolite
and totally unprecedented -- he had never
seen such a thing in his decades in the
Senate. Of course C-SPAN was able
to provide a tape of an early refusal to grant extra time,
where the person doing the refusing was .... John McCain!!
>
> "And actually, Jesus *also* said that non-Christians are saved,
> and I hope you're not also claiming that he was wrong to have
> so said."
>
> I've told you several times now that I believe nonChristians can be saved
> without becoming Christians in this life. I only assert the traditional
> belief that it is only *by Christ* that all men are saved (whether they
> become Christians in this lifetime or in the next). Christ is the exclusive
> means by which men are saved. It's just that God does not expect people to
> become Christians if they do not hear clearly from God that Jesus is His
> Son.
Nobody even knows what the phrase "Jesus is his son" means.
Emma has made it clear that Christians who already are committed
are happy to agree with it even though nobody knows what it means.
But you can't expect a non-Christian to understand what it means
if nobody tells him.
> Sometimes this has to do with hard-heartedness, sometimes with a
> difficult upbringing, and sometimes due to the failure of Christians in
> their testimony.
It has to do with the fact that a lot of Christianity entails
saying "yes" to sentences that not only are improbable
(like the virgin birth) but meaningless (like Jesus is
God's son or the holy spirit proceedeth both from the
Father and the son).
>
> > That is a false impression created about my statement. I'm not saying that
> > Christmas should not communicate secular values.
>
> "You said that the President was wrong to say that
> there are lessons in Christianity for non-Christians,
> such as peace and charity."
>
> No, I didn't say that.
You did.
Your exact words in one post were:
"It isn't the right thing for the President to take an exclusively
Christian
message and morph in into a false message fit for a secular society,
with
a meaning that it didn't have."
Your exact words in another post were:
"But for Christians it's a blatant, insidious dilution of the
message."
--
Rob Strom
Emma
>
>
>I'm not of course recommending persecution so Christianity can grow! ;) But
>I am suggesting that when Christianity really attempts to apply itself
>morally to real problems in our society those who are evil will try to
>resist it. And quite frankly, the greater number of people tend to be soft
>towards moral laxity, out of concern that they also will feel restricted in
>their immoral activities.
>
>So Christianity will always be on the cutting edge in its message, because
>it will always be cutting across interests in our society that are immoral
>or corrupt. And there will always be large numbers of people resistant to
>our message, even though they may be sympathetic towards a more general
>moral message. Stating right up that Christianity is the *only way* is not
>going to win points in any society that tolerates several religions. But if
>it is the truth, then it will bring light to that society and increase the
>influence of morality in that society.
Yes, it gets more and more difficult to
promote Christian morality because my country especially
has moved away from it. Even the basic building blocks
of a stable society like marriage, family life and so on,
are no longer universally accepted. Virtually anything goes
now.
>
>Yes, the Democratic Party has taken its stand on individualism, and freedom
>from religious dogmatism. And so it has distinguished itself from any notion
>of its being a "Christian" party, although it clearly solicits the support
>of Christians. Its Chrisitan message is therefore a social message,
>attempting to bring fairness to all social groups.
Well, fairness to all social groups *is* a Christian
message, isn't it?
>In the Republican Party a stand has been taken on issues that are distinctly
>Christian issues, issues such as on abortion and on homosexuality.
Christian issues involve far more than that though.
>And the
>idea of a homogenized society, where all individuals are treated equally,
>without regard to sexual interests, is not a Christian concept.
>Neither is the idea that all society should equally receive rewards, both
>>Christian and nonChristian behaviors.
I suppose we want to deter some behaviours, but we have laws
for that.
I think you're talking about healthcare, but we disagree about
this because I think it's a basic human right. Just like
education and food and shelter. There are some things that we
don't withhold from anyone whether they are irresponsible or
destitute or just plain criminal or whatever.
We'll just have to disagree about that though.
>
>> I would imagine that the church in Watford was mainly Pakistani
>> Christians?
>> Was the service in English?
>
>Not at all. It was a Black pastor, but both black and white in the
>congregation. It was fully English. I didn't see any Pakistanis. We sang a
>number of the songs we sing in our own church here in the States.
Ah, well that's the sort of thing I meant.
Pentecostal churches in London and certain other areas,
tend to be black/or other ethnic minority churches.
Their communities are still very religious, unlike the
rest of Britain.
>> Well I keep saying that Jews should evangelize, but it's
>> just not in their culture.
>
>Jews have no message for nonJews.
Well that's not true. I've got some Jewish books that
have helped me a lot.
There are plenty of Christian denominations that could
learn a lot from Judaism. There are some Christian
interpretations of scripture that are completely wrong.
I could have gone down an entirely different path if I
hadn't learned the real interpretations. The interpretations
that Jesus himself knew!
>> Oh my goodness, Randy, you don't see anything wrong
>> with putting homosexuals to **death**?!! I'm sure you
>> don't mean that!!
>
>No, a we live in a modern apostasy away from religion. God does put people
>to death. In the future society God has on earth, He will not permit
>homosexuals. He will consign them to Hell. Do you now wish to accuse God of
>not living up to your standards?
I don't see condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible.
I now think that it's been read *into* the Bible. It's a cultural
thing, IMO. Or a human thing eg. picking on difference.
>As I said, in a less than ideal society no gay person should be put to
>death. But in a State where it is unanymously agreed on by all that gay
>people should not be allowed, they should not be allowed in. And if they
>blew a hole through our defenses, and marched in with some kind of
>pornographic parade, yes I might tolerate their being shot and killed.
Whoa! I can't believe you're saying that!
I don't believe in the death penalty for anyone, but for
a sexual behaviour it's just unbelievably cruel and extreme.
That's the sort of thing they do in Iran, Randy, not in
America!
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>...Stating right up that Christianity is the *only way* is not
>>going to win points in any society that tolerates several religions. But
>>if
>>it is the truth, then it will bring light to that society and increase the
>>influence of morality in that society.
> Yes, it gets more and more difficult to
> promote Christian morality because my country especially
> has moved away from it. Even the basic building blocks
> of a stable society like marriage, family life and so on,
> are no longer universally accepted. Virtually anything goes
> now.
Yes, there is always this inclination in our society to move away from
Christian ethics, in the interest of human liberty from moral constraints.
It's a battle that always has to be waged, if we are to *remain* a moral
people. In fact I believe the attempted separation of religion and State in
my own society is evidence of this move *away from* Christianity. Christians
are left feeling marginalized and left an object of ridicule by the
majority.
> Well, fairness to all social groups *is* a Christian
> message, isn't it?
Yes, we can be fair to all groups without sanctioning evil, immoral
practises, without sacrificing principles of righteousness and justice. We
do not have to give place to Islamic radicals in our society in order to
retain our principles of "Christian" fairness.
>>In the Republican Party a stand has been taken on issues that are
>>distinctly
>>Christian issues, issues such as on abortion and on homosexuality.
> Christian issues involve far more than that though.
Yes, those are just the "hot button" issues right now in my own political
system.
>>And the
>>idea of a homogenized society, where all individuals are treated equally,
>>without regard to sexual interests, is not a Christian concept.
>>Neither is the idea that all society should equally receive rewards, both
>>>Christian and nonChristian behaviors.
> I suppose we want to deter some behaviours, but we have laws
> for that.
Emma, the *laws are changing!* They are becoming more tolerant of deviant
behaviors, and prosecuting those who continue calling them deviant
behaviors.
> I think you're talking about healthcare, but we disagree about
> this because I think it's a basic human right. Just like
> education and food and shelter. There are some things that we
> don't withhold from anyone whether they are irresponsible or
> destitute or just plain criminal or whatever.
It's a slippery slope, in my opinion. Once people have to funnel their
health care through the government, the government then acquires the ability
to ration that care, and decide who deserves it. Universal health care is
not really universal justice. To make godly people pick up the tab for
ungodly people is positively unjust. As for "rationing" care, I believe your
State retirement system is looking more like ours, forcing you to go from 60
years old to 65? That is what I call "rationing care!"
> We'll just have to disagree about that though.
That's okay. I do respect your sentiment in delivering care for all,
universally. In some respect Christians should care not for their own, but
for others as well. I just don't believe our money should go to reinforce
bad behavior. But mercy and compassion are very good attributes for any
society to have, and you have them.
> Ah, well that's the sort of thing I meant.
> Pentecostal churches in London and certain other areas,
> tend to be black/or other ethnic minority churches.
Yes, even the pentecostal movement here in the U.S. began about 100 years
ago in a Black church. But if you consider the history of revivalist
Christian movements, they often *have to* begin outside of the mainstream.
In England revivalist movements had to take place by those who were not
captive to intransigent Anglican control. Otherwise there would be no
Quakers or Baptists or Methodists. And the Anglican Church itself would have
no means by which to reform itself.
> Their communities are still very religious, unlike the
> rest of Britain.
That's why there's always this need for reform and for revival.
Unfortunately, the day could come when the State overall wants nothing more
to do with religious revival. The Bible actually predicts a time will come
when a universal antichristian movement will take place, attempting to
permanently remove the Christian gospel from impacting our societies.
>>Jews have no message for nonJews.
> Well that's not true. I've got some Jewish books that
> have helped me a lot...
That's not what I mean. I'm helped by Jewish materials every day, namely by
the Jewish Scripture--Genesis through Malachi.
> There are plenty of Christian denominations that could
> learn a lot from Judaism. There are some Christian
> interpretations of scripture that are completely wrong.
Don't sell Christianity short, just because there are a few errors here and
there. There have been brilliant Christian scholars down through the
centuries, and they have visited these issues ad nauseum. The Jews have
absolutely nothing over on us. If anything, the Jews want to warp our
message and our interpretations, because they believe Christians are their
persecutors! In that respect, I believe they actually distort their own
Scriptures, to their own loss!
> I could have gone down an entirely different path if I
> hadn't learned the real interpretations. The interpretations
> that Jesus himself knew!
I don't think you just get that from "Jewish influence."
> I don't see condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible.
> I now think that it's been read *into* the Bible. It's a cultural
> thing, IMO. Or a human thing eg. picking on difference.
No, the laws of Moses condemn homosexuals to death. It doesn't take a
brilliant interpretor of the Hebrew language to understand that! The same
laws that condemn homosexuals also condemn those who practise bestiality,
and those who practise infanticide. Why do you reinterpret those laws?
I do agree that more leniency is needed in more secular societies, where the
Christian gospel has been watered down. In that case, children grow up to
not know the clear moral distinctions between good and evil behavior. In
that case, we *must* be more lenient, until a message can come into that
society and penetrate those who have been propagandized to believe
differently.
> Whoa! I can't believe you're saying that!
> I don't believe in the death penalty for anyone, but for
> a sexual behaviour it's just unbelievably cruel and extreme.
> That's the sort of thing they do in Iran, Randy, not in
> America!
I'm a part of God's Kingdom, Emma. I'm sad you can't say likewise.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"What's different about Tom Coburn asking Senators to
pray that a Senator won't be able to appear for a vote
(which when the vote is this important, would only
happen due to accident, severe illness, or death) versus
my saying that Coburn is unChristian for doing so?"
Their is no significant difference, and that is the point. Why do you
condemn Tom Coburn as an evil man just because he finds guys like you to be
evil? I don't personally think either of you are acting in a good spirit.
> I posted in another thread my rejection of the "socialist" elements in
> this
> bill. It is a radical change in the way we do business, much as Social
> Security was.
"We've had Social Security for a long time, so it's
no longer radical. And, as you know, there's
not even a public option nor a Medicare extension,
just private insurance."
I realize that. My concern is that when we are proposing such a radical
change, we must not push it through too quickly, particularly when the
Republicans are being completely sidelined. This is ignoring the
representatives of many important states, and involves many Americans who do
not think this process can be rushed through and properly represent all
Americans.
"I think you don't believe that people should be insured
at all."
No, I think insurance is a godly, Christian thing, when it is operated on
Christian principles. To universally insure everybody, regardless of how
irresponsible they act, is unfair to those responsible people who are being
asked to foot their bill!
"I think you hold the unChristian belief
that sickness is a punishment for sin..."
No, it is a Christian belief, and a Jewish belief (in ancient times), that
human sin causes illness and death. God does punish the immoral. It only
seems arbitrary because there are many factors, involving human awareness,
that go into God bringing an individual or nation under judgment. There is
no question in my mind that AIDS is directly related to God's displeasure
with homosexuality. It doesn't mean that *all people* who contract AIDS are
being punished for their sins however. In our world, God has determined that
people are victimized by the free decisions of human beings. It may not seem
fair, but that is just how God has chosen to magnify the importance of the
moral decisions we make. We do produce victims when we make bad decisions.
But God can somehow bring recovery to all by the gospel of Christ.
"...Jesus not only
believed in helping the sick and poor, but
he healed the sick himself. For free. And
told his disciples to do the same. Without
warning them that they might be "enabling"
sinful behavior that caused the sick people
to become sick."
Jesus came at a particular moment in Israel's history, when he determined to
divide the sheep from the goats. He showed he was willing to heal all, all
the while knowing that the bulk of Jewish society would reject him as their
Messiah. Then, within a single generation, Jerusalem and its temple went up
in smoke. Judgment came. We are to try to be good to all. But we are not to
abandon principles of morality which alone will sustain our society.
> I think my real protest regards the *degree* to which all Americans must
> go
> in helping people on the street, or anywhere they live. If our private
> economic initiative is being stifled by a government that imposes the
> redistribution of our wealth to nonproductive causes, we will encourage
> idleness and nonproductivity, as well as give an unfair advantage to our
> trade competitors.
"Where did Jesus say this???????????????????????
Or any part of the Bible?"
My goodness, you are indeed ignorant of the New Testament, aren't you? Here
are only a couple of examples...
2 Thessalonians 3:11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness,
mere busybodies, not doing any work.
12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do
their work in quietness and to earn their own living.
13 Brethren, do not be weary in well-doing.
14 If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man,
and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives
himself.
4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be
in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
5 For each man will have to bear his own load.
I understand that what Paul is teaching here is that there are
responsibilities that we have as individuals, and yet we have a
responsibility to reach out to help our neighbor as well. That is as
"Jewish" as it comes, as far back as when Cain asked if he was his brother's
keeper. We should reach out to help those with answers that we alone have.
However, that is not to say others can sit back in their easy chairs and
wait for us to bring them food!
Jesus said that "as you give so it will be give to you." We need to not only
give to others less fortunate than ourselves, but those we give to also need
to understand that if they give nothing, neither will they receive anything.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
>> That's patently absurd. I could quote at least one hundred references to
>> the
>> conditional nature of the Law.
> Really?
> I've never seen even one.
> Please choose what you believe to be the most unambiguous
> *two* of these hundred, and post them here.
I've already done that. The fact you refute them does not mean I have not
posted them. The conditional nature of the Law is well-known. It is a
contract that was meant to be perpetual...until Israel failed in its part of
the agreement. It was designed to be for a "thousand generations," and yet
could end in a single rebellious generation. And it did.
>> Yes you are. Calling people "nasty liars" is an emotional outburst, Rob!
> No. Had you been in the room when I typed this, you
> would have seen that I was as cool and detached as
> a Zen Buddhist priest.
Suppressing your hostility does not mean you weren't emotional on the
inside! ;)
>> Get over it. I don't think Carol was "toying" with me. She's a very nice
>> lady.
> I don't agree that she was nice at all.
You don't know her. I sat next to on Sunday mornings in the adult Bible
study class on a regular basis. Very pleasant person--a very nice Christian
lady.
>> She probably assumed I wouldn't challenge a thing, since most churches
>> expect some measure of politeness in their congregations.
> I don't think that you were in the slightest bit impolite. I don't
> understand the connection between her expectation of
> politeness and her unwarranted assumption that you
> wouldn't *query* (not *challenge*) a thing.
I don't think I was being impolite either. It's just that many churches do
not expect open challenges of any sort. They do happen, of course. This was
one of those times.
> And you have seen my letter, and it was oozing with politeness.
I've told you repeatedly that I've had no problem with your letter, with
your asking questions. The *only thing* that bothers me about your approach
is your tendency to claim my ex-pastors are "liars" simply because they've
backed down from any discussions with you. I'd feel good about your
questions, even if you got a non-response. I do.
>> Don't take me for a fool. Many "single questions" are or appear to be
>> "baiting" tactics. Sometimes you can "smell" an argument coming just with
>> the kind of question being asked.
> Their sense of smell is screwed up, and I'm not taking you]
> for a fool. Just because *some* (not *many*) questions
> can be baiting tactics doesn't mean that most or all are,
> and certainly the ones we asked weren't.
I know you well enough to know you have a solid sense of *adult* control
over your emotions. You aren't sloppy in your discussions, and are very
reasonable. But you certainly understand that suspicion in either Christians
or Jews can be an *irrational* thing! Jews find it very difficult to think
through Christian beliefs because they've been terrorized at different times
in Christian history. They find it difficult to give Christians an hour of
civil discussion because their relatives have been persecuted, badgered, and
killed. Christians are no less suspicious about those who want to dilute
their moral concerns, and diminish the importance of exclusive salvation in
Christ.
> I'm going by probabilities. Carol is 95% sure to be lying
> about knowing that Seldon went to yeshiva. She is certainly
> lying in saying that she doesn't want to answer questions
> because she's worried that giving an answer would
> make him subject to attacks from his 40-years-ago
> coreligionists.
I don't accept that premise. Your 95% figure is totally arbitrary. How do
you know that Seldon hasn't already experienced some serious problems in
discussions with his ex-coreligionsits? If so, it would be natural for him
to explain that to Carol, and for Carol to defend his wish to keep a low
profile with Jews like this!
On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable to question if Carol did
presume to know that Seldon attended a yeshiva. If she discovered that he
really had not done so, then yes, she is guilty of a kind of lie, the lie of
presumption. She still has the right to back out of an "emotional" argument
that has caused here to act defensively and convey mistruths.
> Why would I fight over any answer they may give me? (Except
> if they give me non-answers like Carol's attempt to talk about
> Sid Roth, who even if he had gone to yeshiva -- which he hadn't --
> wouldn't say a thing about Seldon's Orthodox upbringing.)
I expect the messianic movement to produce more Orthodox Jewish converts in
the future. Then we will see how they juxtapose Christian beliefs with their
former Orthodox beliefs. Until that time, we have only these questionable
cases of Orthodox Jews converting to Christianity. So I suppose we'll just
have to "wait and see?"
> You had originally committed to get the data yourself.
I can't ever definitely guarantee I will get the data. I did commit to take
certain definitive actions, and I did. If God stops the process, I'm not
going to fight Him! ;)
> No. I think Carol told you that Seldon was as Orthodox as they
> come just to make you go away. She would probably have
> told you he had smicha if she had know what that was.
> Suzanne definitely said things about her husband's
> celebration of Pesach that couldn't possibly have been true.
I helped you as best I could Rob. I started this whole discussion because it
seemed divinely coincidental that I had been on this messianic ng all these
years, and suddenly realized I had a mother of messianics in my midst. So I
sent you info on their Pesach celebration, and otherwise gave you the
benefit of the doubt. I'm only disturbed about your wish to accuse people
who have backed down. We just don't know. And if you're right that Carol and
Suzanne are all that ignorant, I think by now they've been doing their
studies and may some day get back to you. That's my hope, anyway.
>> But that is what he explicitly said he wants to avoid, the *certainty*
>> element of Christianity! That is not traditional Christianity. That is
>> liberal Christianity.
> Traditional Christianity *is* liberal Christianity. In fact Jesus
> was much more radical than most liberals are today.
Not historically accurate. That is a revisionist form of Christian belief,
or *liberal Christianity.* Of course liberal Christianity is going to
believe that original Christian teachings were liberal. But historically,
the church formed dogmas that were what we call "conservative Christianity"
today.
>> The point is, what Obama
>> describes his beliefs to be are what explains his statements. If he
>> explains
>> himself to be theologically liberal, then his statements about Christmas
>> must be understood from that pov.
> No. The statements he makes about Christmas has to be
> judged on their own merit. If you would have approved of
> them had Billy Graham said them, you shouldn't disapprove
> when the President says the same thing.
> Reminds me of John McCain complaining about Al Franken's
> "audacity" in not granting extra time to Joe Lieberman in
> the Senate. He said this was way over the top impolite
> and totally unprecedented -- he had never
> seen such a thing in his decades in the
> Senate. Of course C-SPAN was able
> to provide a tape of an early refusal to grant extra time,
> where the person doing the refusing was .... John McCain!!
I'm not in the least surprised! ;)
You know what I'm hearing today from the "liberal media" is that liberal
Democrats are flabbergasted over the "mean-spiritedness" of Republicans
towards Democratic proposals. Of course these same liberal Democrats have
only to remember their own "mean-spiritedness" when they relentlessly
attacked Bush and Cheney in their political proposals.
>> I've told you several times now that I believe nonChristians can be saved
>> without becoming Christians in this life. I only assert the traditional
>> belief that it is only *by Christ* that all men are saved (whether they
>> become Christians in this lifetime or in the next). Christ is the
>> exclusive
>> means by which men are saved. It's just that God does not expect people
>> to
>> become Christians if they do not hear clearly from God that Jesus is His
>> Son.
> Nobody even knows what the phrase "Jesus is his son" means.
> Emma has made it clear that Christians who already are committed
> are happy to agree with it even though nobody knows what it means.
> But you can't expect a non-Christian to understand what it means
> if nobody tells him.
I think that's my point, that people can receive from God eternal life even
though they don't quite understand the explanation of how that can take
place. God's Son means "God in the flesh." God assumed a human form, which
necessarily draws a distinction between God in heaven and God on earth, God
in all the universe, and God in one place on the earth. This forms a
dialogue between the two, even though they share the same essence.
So when we say (in the orthodox sense) "God's Son," what we're really
talking about is God consigning Himself in some way to an earthly sphere of
judgment, so that what Christ did on the earth represented what God wanted
to do from heaven.
Salvation had to take place this way, Christians say, because in order for
spirituality to return to mankind, it had to reappear in human flesh in
perfect form. Not only so, but this perfect example of spirituality, Christ,
had to be divine and capable of giving his spirituality to us, ignoring
things we have done inconsistent with this commitment. Our commitment to
Christ thus had to be seen as greater than the sum total of all our sins.
And I think this is borne out when our commitment to Christ yields true
repentance (though not perfection).
> Your exact words in one post were:
> "It isn't the right thing for the President to take an exclusively
> Christian
> message and morph in into a false message fit for a secular society,
> with
> a meaning that it didn't have."
> Your exact words in another post were:
> "But for Christians it's a blatant, insidious dilution of the
> message."
Yes, it's wrong for a President of the United States to apply his liberal
beliefs to a Christian message that is understood by conservative Christians
to be a *certain* and *exclusive* message of salvation for those who repent
and accept his spirituality.
randy
Suzanne
> Here's a puzzle. Rahm Emanuel is lighting the national menorah
> outside the Whitehouse. I personally have nothing against that.
> We don't have separation of church and state in the UK, and
> I'm fine with that.
>
> But, America does have separation. So
> how come a menorah is okay but a Christmas tree or
> nativity scene etc. in a public place is not okay?
> I think Christmas trees have to be renamed "Holiday"
> trees in America?
>
> So has the menorah been renamed?
>
> Why not just forget all this petty stuff and have
> a menorah, Christmas tree, nativity scene etc. if that's
> what you want?
>
> On the other hand, it seems odd to have a menorah and
> yet ban a Christmas tree.
>
> --
> ~*~*~*Emma*~*~*~http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>
You have a good point. What they are trying to do is bend over
backwards to let other symbols stand,
but you can bend over backwards to the point that
you will fall down.
>
The Constitution insures that we have freedom
"of" religion, and not freedom "from" religion. Some
are trying to make it be freedom "from" religion.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
man cometh to the Father, except by me."
"Saved" means one that has accepted
the fact that Jesus has died for his (the
person's) sins and that the person has given their life to Jesus by
trusting that his way is best. It is not a doctrine of
earning one's way into heaven, it is by grace through faith in the
Savior for having paid for the person's sins. But the person works for
Jesus, out of gratitude to him for what he has done for us as being
out Savior when he paid for our sins on the cross, which we each
accept by faith.
>
> > > It is the view of liberal theologians,
> > > and not the view of conservative Christians.
>
> > "Please name a conservative theologian
> > who (a) believes in celebrating Christmas
> > at all (the extreme ones think Christmas
> > is pagan and don't do it), but (b) thinks
> > that using the occasion of the holiday
> > to send festive messages about
> > peace and charity to non-Christians
> > is wrong."
>
birth of Christ. Charles Stanley is a conservative theologian and
every preacher that I know of in my church, and I don't know a single
one of them that think that celebrating the birth of
Christ is pagan.
sinned, was it the person healed, or the parents. Jesus said it was
neither, but that this healing was done in order
to show the glory of God. On other
occasions he did say generally what you said, but that was not
covering all illnesses. He also showed that at times some will be
living a life of plenty, not based on themselves or their deportment
but based on his judgment for another previous person.
He says for example that sometimes some will reap where another has
sown. If my grandfather has followed the Lord with the promise before
him that his life counts and that his children and his children's
children will benefit from his obedience, those are examples of things
I (and you) will benefit from where we have not done anything,
ourselves, to prosper. That also can mean physically and with health.
Another example, when the children of Israel came back to Israel
after the Exodus from Egypt, others had planted and grown the land,
but they came in to take over a land already flowing with milk and
honey that someone else had established.
>
> > And although I've admitted to you that I do agree with certain
> > elements of "socialism," where they are warranted, I'm wondering how far we
> > can go before we are actually encouraging certain "nonChristian behaviors"
> > and rewarding them with undeserved financial support.
>
> See what I mean? Your sentence implies that (a) the
> sick are sick because of nonchristian behavior, and (b)
> that the poor don't deserve financial support.
>
> Both parts of the above are un-biblical.
>
> I don't understand how any Christian could object
> to Obama's program (other than that it doesn't
> go far enough).
>
harvest their stem cells is wrong. It has been proven and testified to
in congress that this is needless. Many have shown that their own stem
cells can be used. Stem cells can also be obtained from the umbilical
cords of
human births that are simply discarded. It's also wrong to cause
people (like myself) that are against abortion to pay for those that
are not
against it, so that they can have abortions. Forcing doctors to have
to give abortions is wrong if they have a conscientious objection to
it. Forcing pharmacists to dispense medicine for the morning after
pill is wrong if they
have an objection to it, as many of them do. There are many moral
reasons not to go for the agenda that
the Far Left has. Also the Far Left has ignored the other people in
their own party that are against what they stand for.
>
> > I think my real protest regards the *degree* to which all Americans must go
> > in helping people on the street, or anywhere they live. If our private
> > economic initiative is being stifled by a government that imposes the
> > redistribution of our wealth to nonproductive causes, we will encourage
> > idleness and nonproductivity, as well as give an unfair advantage to our
> > trade competitors.
>
> Where did Jesus say this???????????????????????
>
charity helps such as welfare and food stamps. Some need more. They
need
a rehabilitation program. Some of the street people need help because
they are mentally challenged. We have no help in many places for
people with that kind of problem. But mixed in with street people that
can't help themselves are the ones that can help themselves and won't.
What would probably solve all of this is revival in America.
>
Suzanne
Rob Strom
> On Dec 28, 9:14 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:> On Dec 27, 10:52 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>
>
> > And actually, Jesus *also* said that non-Christians are saved,
> > and I hope you're not also claiming that he was wrong to have
> > so said.
>
> Jesus did not say that non-Christians are saved. He said, in fact, "no
> man cometh to the Father, except by me."
As Vince likes to say, you have to read all passages in context.
In context "except by me" means "except by following my
teaching", not "except by believing in my death and resurrection".
Jesus' definitive message about how the wheat are
separated from the chaff is given in Matthew 25,
the parable of the sheep and the goats.
> "Saved" means one that has accepted
> the fact that Jesus has died for his (the
> person's) sins and that the person has given their life to Jesus by
> trusting that his way is best.
You are using a technical definition of saved, but most
people just use it as a shorthand to mean "judged
worthy of heaven". To see who's judged worthy of
heaven, you should look at the parable of the
sheep and the goats.
That parable makes it very clear that it is those who
feed the hungry and visit the sick and in general,
care for "the least of these" who go to the right
and are "saved" in this sense, that they don't
go to the place of condemnation. If you
want to reserved the word "saved" for
your technical meaning, I'll use the word
"non-condemned" instead.
Some of those very clearly didn't even
know that the good deeds that they were
getting non-condemned for were being
done for the King. ("And when did
we see thee hungry and feed thee?") Some of
these were from parts of the world where
Jesus was unknown or poorly known
("Before him will be gathered all the nations").
> It is not a doctrine of
> earning one's way into heaven, it is by grace through faith in the
> Savior for having paid for the person's sins.
No! You've just mixed up Jesus' teachings
about getting into heaven with those of
Paul (book of Romans) and the later Protestants!
...
> > > "Please name a conservative theologian
> > > who (a) believes in celebrating Christmas
> > > at all (the extreme ones think Christmas
> > > is pagan and don't do it), but (b) thinks
> > > that using the occasion of the holiday
> > > to send festive messages about
> > > peace and charity to non-Christians
> > > is wrong."
>
> I'm a conservative Christian. I believe that we should celebrate the
> birth of Christ. Charles Stanley is a conservative theologian and
> every preacher that I know of in my church, and I don't know a single
> one of them that think that celebrating the birth of
> Christ is pagan.
Actually, the US was settled by
Puritans (among others), and they
rejected (and for a while forbade) the celebration of
Christmas. According to Wikipedia,
"Most Anabaptists, Quakers, Congregational and
Presbyterian Puritans regarded the day as an abomination
while Anglicans, Lutherans, the Dutch Reformed and other
denominations embraced the holiday and
joined Roman Catholics in celebrating it."
In short, American Christendom was pretty much split
over celebrating Christmas early in our history. Only
in the 19th century with American works such
as "The Night before Christmas" and English
ones such as "A Christmas Carol" did celebration
of this holiday become commonplace. But even
today some very conservative denominations reject
it because of its pagan origin and because of its
not being mentioned in the Christian Bible.
But what I really wanted a response from was
part (b) of what I said above: for those who *do*
celebrate Christmas, how many oppose
the idea of the President using the occasion
of the holiday to give a message of
peace and charity that can be applied to
people of all faiths?
...
>
> > What's different about Tom Coburn asking Senators to
> > pray that a Senator won't be able to appear for a vote
> > (which when the vote is this important, would only
> > happen due to accident, severe illness, or death) versus
> > my saying that Coburn is unChristian for doing so?
>
> > I'm not sure why you don't understand this.
> > He's hoping that something bad will happen
> > to a Senator; I'm hoping that Coburn
> > will repent and turn away from his sin.
I hope you'll agree with me that it was very wrong
and a violation of "don't use God's name in vain"
for Senator Coburn to use his Senate speech
to invite his fellow senators to pray that someone
in the 60-vote Democratic majority might
be unable to show up for the cloture vote.
...
> > I think you don't believe that people should be insured
> > at all. I think you hold the unChristian belief
> > that sickness is a punishment for sin, and
> > that by having risk pools at all so that the
> > healthy pool their money to use it for the benefit
> > of whichever of them becomes sick is thwarting
> > God's purpose. I pray that you eventually
> > see the error of your ways. Jesus not only
> > believed in helping the sick and poor, but
> > he healed the sick himself. For free. And
> > told his disciples to do the same. Without
> > warning them that they might be "enabling"
> > sinful behavior that caused the sick people
> > to become sick.
>
> There was a case that Jesus healed that the disciples asked which one
> sinned, was it the person healed, or the parents. Jesus said it was
> neither, but that this healing was done in order
> to show the glory of God.
In short, the disciples (as was often the case in
the NT stories) got it wrong and had to be corrected
by Jesus. Jesus healed the sick and
gave charity to the poor and didn't
assume, as Randy did, that healing
and charity were harmful because most
of the poor and sick needed to face
the consequences of something bad
that they had done.
> On other
> occasions he did say generally what you said, but that was not
> covering all illnesses. He also showed that at times some will be
> living a life of plenty, not based on themselves or their deportment
> but based on his judgment for another previous person.
The point is, both the teachings of God in the Jewish Bible
("do not withhold your hand from the poor") and of Jesus
in your Christian Bible, teach that it is our *duty*
to help both the sick and the poor. The idea of
Randy, that charity and health insurance are bad
things because most of the time the poor and the sick
are that way due to their own failings their
poverty and illness are just punishments that
God has appointed to them, is in my very
strong opinion, un-Biblical. Not merely unjustified
by the Bible, but actually condemned in the
strongest terms, since Sodom itself was
condemned, not just for acts of homosexual rape,
but for xenophobia and indifference to the poor.
Although the word "sodomy" has changed
over the years to be exclusively about sex,
actually the word is better applied to those
who preach xenophobia and indifference to
the needy among us, since that is how the
prophet Ezekiel teaches about the sin of Sodom.
> He says for example that sometimes some will reap where another has
> sown. If my grandfather has followed the Lord with the promise before
> him that his life counts and that his children and his children's
> children will benefit from his obedience, those are examples of things
> I (and you) will benefit from where we have not done anything,
> ourselves, to prosper. That also can mean physically and with health.
> Another example, when the children of Israel came back to Israel
> after the Exodus from Egypt, others had planted and grown the land,
> but they came in to take over a land already flowing with milk and
> honey that someone else had established.
All this is true, but it does not invalidate my point that
alleviating poverty and relieving sickness (and pooling
resources into insurance risk pools to make it
possible for this to happen) is Biblically permitted
and possibly even (for a sufficiently wealthy society)
Biblically *mandated*.
This is taught in both the Jewish Bible that
I follow and in the Christian one that you follow.
...
>
> > I don't understand how any Christian could object
> > to Obama's program (other than that it doesn't
> > go far enough).
>
> Stem cell research involving embryos that are started in order to
> harvest their stem cells is wrong.
I'm not sure that this is one of the top 10 elements of
the President's program but:
Often the embryos are created as a side effect
of IVF, for example. Do you oppose IVF? Do
you oppose harvesting stem cells from embryos
created as a side effect of IVF?
> It has been proven and testified to
> in congress that this is needless.
Actually, that is not true. The stem cell ban under President Bush
greatly inhibited research opportunities.
> ... It's also wrong to cause
> people (like myself) that are against abortion to pay for those that
> are not
> against it, so that they can have abortions.
But there is already the Hyde amendment, under which
federal tax money is not used to pay for abortions. The
President has supported the Hyde amendment, so
it is unfair to criticize this as a feature of the President's policy.
> Forcing doctors to have
> to give abortions is wrong if they have a conscientious objection to
> it. Forcing pharmacists to dispense medicine for the morning after
> pill is wrong if they
> have an objection to it, as many of them do.
There is always an issue of how to deal with conscientious objection.
Conservatives are inconsistent on this point, since they
are not willing to allow conscientious objectors to particular
wars to excuse themselves from their military obligations
without penalty.
> There are many moral
> reasons not to go for the agenda that
> the Far Left has. Also the Far Left has ignored the other people in
> their own party that are against what they stand for.
We were discussing the Obama policy (and originally
the Obama health care policy), not the Far Left.
President Obama is a centrist, barely a liberal,
much less a member of the "Far Left". I think
it has been really disingenuous of conservatives
to lie and insinuate that he is a radical or
a socialist or a member of any kind of extremist
group.
If you'll notice, he hired Bush's Secretary of Defense,
an economic staff with ties to very conservative
Wall Street interests, and gave up on both
single-payer health care and even the
public option in the health care reform debate.
Some "Far Left"!
>
> > > I think my real protest regards the *degree* to which all Americans must go
> > > in helping people on the street, or anywhere they live. If our private
> > > economic initiative is being stifled by a government that imposes the
> > > redistribution of our wealth to nonproductive causes, we will encourage
> > > idleness and nonproductivity, as well as give an unfair advantage to our
> > > trade competitors.
>
> > Where did Jesus say this???????????????????????
>
> I think what he is meaning is that there are people that abuse the
> charity helps such as welfare and food stamps.
There are always people who abuse charity, but that is
not an argument for not giving charity. It is an excuse
used by people who want to either avoid giving
charity themselves or to support some agenda
such as the American conservative agenda that
is actually unbiblical. Reagan made this
idea popular with his speeches about
"welfare Cadillacs", using the occasional
abuses as an excuse to defend his policies
of laissez-faire indifference to the poor.
> ... But mixed in with street people that
> can't help themselves are the ones that can help themselves and won't.
> What would probably solve all of this is revival in America.
We need a revival of health care and welfare reform, I agree.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> "What's different about Tom Coburn asking Senators to
> pray that a Senator won't be able to appear for a vote
> (which when the vote is this important, would only
> happen due to accident, severe illness, or death) versus
> my saying that Coburn is unChristian for doing so?"
>
> Their is no significant difference, and that is the point.
That's absolutely insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He's praying for someone to die, and I'm condemning him,
and you think those are morally comparable?!?!?!?!?!
> Why do you
> condemn Tom Coburn as an evil man just because he finds guys like you to be
> evil? I don't personally think either of you are acting in a good spirit.
>
I'm not condemning Coburn because he finds me evil.
I'm condemning Coburn because he stood up in the
senate and prayed that someone like Senator Byrd
would die or fall seriously ill or get into an accident
on the way to the Senate and not be able to vote!!!!!
...
> "We've had Social Security for a long time, so it's
> no longer radical. And, as you know, there's
> not even a public option nor a Medicare extension,
> just private insurance."
>
> I realize that. My concern is that when we are proposing such a radical
> change,
***We are not proposing any kind of a radical change!!!!!***
> we must not push it through too quickly,
**************SIXTY*****************
************BLOOMING************
**************YEARS***************
****************ISN'T***************
*************QUICKLY**************
> particularly when the
> Republicans are being completely sidelined.
The Republicans have not been sidelined.
They have been allowed to enter the chamber.
Nobody has cut their microphones.
They have in fact put over 200 amendments
into this bill in committee.
Ironically, this is a bipartisan bill!
Nobody has stopped them from giving input,
and certainly nobody has stopped them from
voting for it.
It's absolutely outrageous that they grouped
together and even DeMint admitted they
would vote no on even things they agreed
with, just so that the bill would fail
and it would "break" Obama and become
his "Waterloo". They made a pact to
say no to absolutely everything.
And now they have the gall to try to get people
like you to say that WE sidelined THEM??????????????
???????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????
Woe unto you, Republicans, hypocrites!!!!!
You serpents, you brood of vipers,
how are you to escape being sentenced to hell???
...
>
> "I think you don't believe that people should be insured
> at all."
>
> No, I think insurance is a godly, Christian thing, when it is operated on
> Christian principles.
Which is what the Obama health care bill is
(although it's been watered down).
> To universally insure everybody, regardless of how
> irresponsible they act, is unfair to those responsible people who are being
> asked to foot their bill!
It is the nature of insurance. For the most part,
poverty and sickness are not acts of irresponsibility.
>
> "I think you hold the unChristian belief
> that sickness is a punishment for sin..."
>
> No, it is a Christian belief, and a Jewish belief (in ancient times), that
> human sin causes illness and death. God does punish the immoral. It only
> seems arbitrary because there are many factors, involving human awareness,
> that go into God bringing an individual or nation under judgment. There is
> no question in my mind that AIDS is directly related to God's displeasure
> with homosexuality.
That is ridiculous, and unChristian, and unBiblical.
By that logic, syphilis is directly related to God's displeasure
with heterosexuality.
> It doesn't mean that *all people* who contract AIDS are
> being punished for their sins however. In our world, God has determined that
> people are victimized by the free decisions of human beings. It may not seem
> fair, but that is just how God has chosen to magnify the importance of the
> moral decisions we make. We do produce victims when we make bad decisions.
> But God can somehow bring recovery to all by the gospel of Christ.
This is ridiculous nonsense. If you think that people shouldn't
get health care because we're enabling their sins, and they
should just pray to be magically healed by becoming Christians,
we have nothing more to talk about. I will just make sure
that this kind of thinking is marginalized and made politically
irrelevant. I want my children treated by doctors, not
Christian faith-healers, and I want their risks to be mitigated
by insurance, not by sodomites who think that anything
that happens to them is the just result of God or Fate. Yuck.
...
> Jesus came at a particular moment in Israel's history, when he determined to
> divide the sheep from the goats. He showed he was willing to heal all, all
> the while knowing that the bulk of Jewish society would reject him as their
> Messiah. Then, within a single generation, Jerusalem and its temple went up
> in smoke. Judgment came. We are to try to be good to all. But we are not to
> abandon principles of morality which alone will sustain our society.
The principles of morality which will sustain our society is
to get rid of bloody conservative Republicans and consign
them to where Jesus consigned all the other goats.
>
> > I think my real protest regards the *degree* to which all Americans must
> > go
> > in helping people on the street, or anywhere they live. If our private
> > economic initiative is being stifled by a government that imposes the
> > redistribution of our wealth to nonproductive causes, we will encourage
> > idleness and nonproductivity, as well as give an unfair advantage to our
> > trade competitors.
>
> "Where did Jesus say this???????????????????????
> Or any part of the Bible?"
>
> My goodness, you are indeed ignorant of the New Testament, aren't you? Here
> are only a couple of examples...
>
> 2 Thessalonians 3:11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness,
> mere busybodies, not doing any work.
I didn't ask where the Bible said idleness was bad; I asked where
it said don't help the poor because you'd be encouraging idleness.
Also I didn't mean to use such a broad definition of "Bible"
as to include 2 Thessalonians.
I meant something written by God or a prophet or Jesus.
...
>
> Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
> 3 For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives
> himself.
> 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be
> in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
> 5 For each man will have to bear his own load.
Ditto.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "What's different about Tom Coburn asking Senators to
> pray that a Senator won't be able to appear for a vote
> (which when the vote is this important, would only
> happen due to accident, severe illness, or death) versus
> my saying that Coburn is unChristian for doing so?"
> Their is no significant difference, and that is the point.
"That's absolutely insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He's praying for someone to die, and I'm condemning him,
and you think those are morally comparable?!?!?!?!?!"
Absolutely. Do you compare Tom Coburn praying to *God* for something to
happen with him taking an axe to someone personally? There is no significant
difference between Tom Coburn's words and your words, because they are both
mean-spirited words. At least Tom Coburn is leaving judgment in the hands of
God, whereas you compare him with the devil. He is using hard words to
express heart-felt convictions, while you are simply condemning him as
hell-bent. Would your wish that he go to Hell mean that you are actually
capable of doing that?
"I'm not condemning Coburn because he finds me evil.
I'm condemning Coburn because he stood up in the
senate and prayed that someone like Senator Byrd
would die or fall seriously ill or get into an accident
on the way to the Senate and not be able to vote!!!!!"
People should indeed fear the Lord, because the Lord is indeed capable of
striking people down who oppose Him. I just don't equate the political
activities of Democrats with attempts to oppose the Lord. Yet you seem to do
that regularly with regard to Republicans. You accuse them of doing Jesus
wrong, and of being infiltrated by the devil. So no, I don't see you as
being any different from Tom Coburn.
> I realize that. My concern is that when we are proposing such a radical
> change,
***We are not proposing any kind of a radical change!!!!!***
The mind boggles. If you don't think the recent proposals for change in our
health care system have not been "radical," you just aren't facing reality.
At best you are redefining the meaning of "radical."
> we must not push it through too quickly,
"**************SIXTY*****************
************BLOOMING************
**************YEARS***************
****************ISN'T***************
*************QUICKLY**************"
We are really trying to *rush through* a bill that is over a 1000 pages long
before it is even posted long enough for the people to see it. You don't
even know how radical it may be, because you haven't even *read it,* have
you? If you have connections I know nothing about, and you have speed-read
through this, I will apologize.
> particularly when the
> Republicans are being completely sidelined.
"The Republicans have not been sidelined."
Their proposals have completely been ignored. There has been virtually no
negotiation on health care reform. It is all Obama's way, and all the
Democrats' way. But the Democrats can't even agree on what they think will
fly with their constituents. Otherwise, the deal would've been done over the
backs of the Republicans a long time ago.
"They have in fact put over 200 amendments
into this bill in committee."
The Republicans want to delay and stop the process, because it is being
*rushed through!*
"Ironically, this is a bipartisan bill!"
Baloney. Republicans have been almost unanymous in opposing "Obamacare."
> To universally insure everybody, regardless of how
> irresponsible they act, is unfair to those responsible people who are
> being
> asked to foot their bill!
"It is the nature of insurance. For the most part,
poverty and sickness are not acts of irresponsibility."
That's not true. There are victims of circumstances, but all people bring
misery on themselves due to their own irresponsible behavior. No one else
should foot the bill, unless it comes by a process of mercy and restoration.
Insurance is often used to cover up irresponsible behavior without any
change in behavior being required!
> No, it is a Christian belief, and a Jewish belief (in ancient times), that
> human sin causes illness and death. God does punish the immoral. It only
> seems arbitrary because there are many factors, involving human awareness,
> that go into God bringing an individual or nation under judgment. There is
> no question in my mind that AIDS is directly related to God's displeasure
> with homosexuality.
"That is ridiculous, and unChristian, and unBiblical.
By that logic, syphilis is directly related to God's displeasure
with heterosexuality."
No, that's a gross misrepresentation of what I'm saying. You're arguing how
*you think* God should judge sin if indeed He punishes sin. I'm saying that
He does punish sin, all the time. But I'm *not* explaining exactly *how* He
punishes sins. It is as complex as the private relationship God has with
each one of His people.
"This is ridiculous nonsense. If you think that people shouldn't
get health care because we're enabling their sins, and they
should just pray to be magically healed by becoming Christians,
we have nothing more to talk about...."
Again, you're confusing what God *can do* with the way He actually does
things. I'm not an advocate of Faith Doctrine, in which you just claim
something in Jesus' name, and you're automatically healed. For faith healing
to work you may have to have a gift of being a healer, and you must also
have a direct revelation from God about each incident. People do not have a
magic formula to do anything they want simply by chanting the mantra
"Jesus."
> 2 Thessalonians 3:11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness,
> mere busybodies, not doing any work.
"I didn't ask where the Bible said idleness was bad; I asked where
it said don't help the poor because you'd be encouraging idleness.
Also I didn't mean to use such a broad definition of "Bible"
as to include 2 Thessalonians.
I meant something written by God or a prophet or Jesus."
Paul was a prophet. Jesus equally called people to individual
responsibility. Everything Paul taught was based on what Jesus himself
taught.
randy
Suzanne
> On Dec 31, 2:24 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 9:14 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:> On Dec 27, 10:52 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > And actually, Jesus *also* said that non-Christians are saved,
> > > and I hope you're not also claiming that he was wrong to have
> > > so said.
>
> > Jesus did not say that non-Christians are saved. He said, in fact, "no
> > man cometh to the Father, except by me."
>
> As Vince likes to say, you have to read all passages in context.
> In context "except by me" means "except by following my
> teaching", not "except by believing in my death and resurrection".
> Jesus' definitive message about how the wheat are
> separated from the chaff is given in Matthew 25,
> the parable of the sheep and the goats.
>
the truth, and the life, and you trusting in you is not the way or
the truth or the life. If a person has not received Jesus as being
the payment for all of their sins, then that person has not received
him as their Savior.
>
> > "Saved" means one that has accepted
> > the fact that Jesus has died for his (the
> > person's) sins and that the person has given their life to Jesus by
> > trusting that his way is best.
>
> You are using a technical definition of saved, but most
> people just use it as a shorthand to mean "judged
> worthy of heaven". To see who's judged worthy of
> heaven, you should look at the parable of the
> sheep and the goats.
>
righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees,
a person will not enter into heaven at all. There is only
one way that a person's righteousness can exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, and that is
that he has to exhange his own righteousness for HIS
righteousness. A person that has Jesus as his Savior,
is a person who is covered by Jesus' righteousness.
Rob, when you realize that you can never be good
enough to go to heaven on your own merits, then a
person realizes that he needs Jesus' righteousness. He
can only get that by putting all his trust in Jesus Christ,
and him alone for salvation. Then the Bible says that
the Lord will impute righteousness to that person. God
will then see that person has being pardoned. From then
on, that person will be then living in the righteousness of
the Son, rather than in his own righteousness, which he
can never achieve.
"All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned
every one to his own way, And the Lord hath laid ON HIM,
the iniquity of us all." - Isaiah 53
>
> That parable makes it very clear that it is those who
> feed the hungry and visit the sick and in general,
> care for "the least of these" who go to the right
> and are "saved" in this sense, that they don't
> go to the place of condemnation. If you
> want to reserved the word "saved" for
> your technical meaning, I'll use the word
> "non-condemned" instead.
> Some of those very clearly didn't even
> know that the good deeds that they were
> getting non-condemned for were being
> done for the King. ("And when did
> we see thee hungry and feed thee?") Some of
> these were from parts of the world where
> Jesus was unknown or poorly known
> ("Before him will be gathered all the nations").
>
and wailing and gnashing of teeth and that there
will be those that say they have followed him, but
he will say to them "I never knew you." No one can
"know him" apart from the Holy Spirit. A person
can't have the Holy Spirit as an indwelling presence
unless he has accepted Jesus to be the payment
for all of his sins. That means that you accept him
as being your Savior. He's not your Savior unless
he has saved you.
>
> > It is not a doctrine of
> > earning one's way into heaven, it is by grace through faith in the
> > Savior for having paid for the person's sins.
>
> No! You've just mixed up Jesus' teachings
> about getting into heaven with those of
> Paul (book of Romans) and the later Protestants!
>
But I was speaking to you from what Jesus said.
>
\> > > > "Please name a conservative theologian
as a person comes along and offers a better suggestion
or a challenge. I've read people trashing this country
and our founding fore-fathers. There are plenty of
references to God as the Creator and to Jesus as the
Son of God among the early founding fathers of this
country.
>
> But what I really wanted a response from was
> part (b) of what I said above: for those who *do*
> celebrate Christmas, how many oppose
> the idea of the President using the occasion
> of the holiday to give a message of
> peace and charity that can be applied to
> people of all faiths?
>
to take that occasion to extend peace to people of
all faiths, but without giving the reason for the season,
which is Christ, what good would it do, since it is a
Christian holiday? A president can still extend peace
to people of all faiths all through the year, not just at
Christmas time. So the whole point of extending peace
to all at Christmas time conveys a belief in Christ to
others who live around the world who are not Christians.
What he had in his mind didn't come across so clearly
to those within his country, in my opinion.
>
> > > What's different about Tom Coburn asking Senators to
> > > pray that a Senator won't be able to appear for a vote
> > > (which when the vote is this important, would only
> > > happen due to accident, severe illness, or death) versus
> > > my saying that Coburn is unChristian for doing so?
>
> > > I'm not sure why you don't understand this.
> > > He's hoping that something bad will happen
> > > to a Senator; I'm hoping that Coburn
> > > will repent and turn away from his sin.
>
> I hope you'll agree with me that it was very wrong
> and a violation of "don't use God's name in vain"
> for Senator Coburn to use his Senate speech
> to invite his fellow senators to pray that someone
> in the 60-vote Democratic majority might
> be unable to show up for the cloture vote.
>
pray specifically for something. It seems to me it would
be better for a person to state in prayer to the Lord what
way he wants a vote to go, but then add to it, "but not if
that is against your will, Lord." It seems also to me that
it would be better to state to the Lord what your requests
are, and then leave that to Him to decide how to bring
that result about. It could be that the Lord wanted those
who were against what he was asking, that he could
change the hearts of those, rather than keeping them
from voting. However, the man was stating, the best
way that he knew of at that moment what he wished the
Lord to do. The Lord, though, could see into that man's
heart and understand what he really was asking for, and
that is victory in the vote. We see the outward appearance,
but God sees into someone's heart. While I might not think
what he prayed "appeared" to be appropriate, and while I
might say that humanly, I agree with what you are saying,
I guess what really matters is what God thinks about what
he said.
group of people always see that they will get a
handout, they might not want to do anything to
get into a better way of living. I've seen many
abuse the social programs that are meant to
help them. On the other hand, Jesus said that
the poor you will always have with you. Yet the
Bible also says that if a man won't work, let him
not eat. Those people that won't work, though,
have little children who do need to eat. So, it
seems that any way you figure it, you still will
have poor people that need help to some
extent unless you come up with a plan that will
help them to no longer be poor. So people come
up with a social plan and a charity given out by
the government. Yet that will cause a society to
be too dependent upon the government. As you
see, no matter what you do, it's like trying to fill a
leaky bucket. The Lord helps us in the middle of all
of that.
Does it say that the government should do it, or the people,
themselves? People decide by voting. The majority have
voted that there be social helps handed out by the
government. Randy should state his opinion without censure,
and so should you express what you feel, too. The rest of
us will hear you and you both will have gotten people to
be introduced to the issues. There is always a new wave of
people new to the issues who need to hear the problems.
We also need more people worshipping the Lord and praying
for his help. The nation needs revival.
>
> > He says for example that sometimes some will reap where another has
> > sown. If my grandfather has followed the Lord with the promise before
> > him that his life counts and that his children and his children's
> > children will benefit from his obedience, those are examples of things
> > I (and you) will benefit from where we have not done anything,
> > ourselves, to prosper. That also can mean physically and with health.
> > Another example, when the children of Israel came back to Israel
> > after the Exodus from Egypt, others had planted and grown the land,
> > but they came in to take over a land already flowing with milk and
> > honey that someone else had established.
>
> All this is true, but it does not invalidate my point that
> alleviating poverty and relieving sickness (and pooling
> resources into insurance risk pools to make it
> possible for this to happen) is Biblically permitted
> and possibly even (for a sufficiently wealthy society)
> Biblically *mandated*.
>
results. It can swing the other way though, and we can
come up with many who live on welfare, etc., and that is
not good, either. So the pendulum has to swing sometimes
between the two party system of ideas of the politicians'
world. A good balance has to be maintained and that is
how we maintain it, by going between the two ideas that
you and Randy have.
>
> This is taught in both the Jewish Bible that
> I follow and in the Christian one that you follow.
>
Everybody does not agree with what it says about
everything, but some things are really clear that all
would agree about I think. It helps if you are reasoning
with someone to mention a Bible verse that illustrates
what you are saying. Yet, as I asked the question above,
it doesn't state how the poor should be helped, whether
it is with each individual gift, or with the individual vote.
In fairness to Randy, I don't think he would oppose a
charity that the people, themselves contributed to. I
get the impression that he doesn't want it to be
government run. That is really a different issue than
what you are saying, I believe. I don't want the gov. to
always be in control of everything. On the other hand
there are things we have voted on in this country that
are excellent and I think that Social Security was a really
good thing and should be protected. I don't think that the
Lord would like abortion on demand to be legalized, so
there are things that are immoral that some people want
to do.
>
> > > I don't understand how any Christian could object
> > > to Obama's program (other than that it doesn't
> > > go far enough).
>
> > Stem cell research involving embryos that are started in order to
> > harvest their stem cells is wrong.
>
> I'm not sure that this is one of the top 10 elements of
> the President's program but:
>
to prevent the immoral part of stem cell research. Some
aborted babies have lived and they have been used in
experiments. They eventually die. Some scientists want
to start human embryos in order to harvest their stem
cells. If you don't remember, Bush had a bunch of them
who had already been started and he allowed that those
could remain since they already were living, but that no
new embryos should be started. Obama did away with
his decisions and now they can do that again, apparently.
Yet, people have testified to congress that it is a useless
thing to do since people can now be helped with their
own stem cells from their own bodies. Many have been
already helped with that way. His agenda is very much
a socialist platform, I believe, and I don't think that is what
we need.
>
> Often the embryos are created as a side effect
> of IVF, for example. Do you oppose IVF? Do
> you oppose harvesting stem cells from embryos
> created as a side effect of IVF?
>
side effect, but a direct result of trying to start life in
a petri dish? Yes, I do oppose this. Scientists have
testified in congress that there is simply no reason to
do such a thing as this. Politicians that speak ill against
those who oppose this are lying. They were supposed
to be in congress when the scientists were testifying that
there is no need in this practise of starting babies in
petri dishes in order to harvest stem cells. The umbilical
cords of every baby born has stem cells in it and that is
just going to be discarded. An umbilical cord that gets
separated from a newborn baby is a plentiful option. But
the person themselves can have their own stem cells
harvested and used, successfully.
>
> > It has been proven and testified to
> > in congress that this is needless.
>
> Actually, that is not true. The stem cell ban under President Bush
> greatly inhibited research opportunities.
>
Bush is the first president ever to have authorized stem
cell research, but under moral guidelines. Don't listen to
political claims saying otherwise. Bush vetoed the "embryonic
stem cell research" bill, and not stem cell research, itself.
Here is his speech about it:
----------------------
PRESIDENT BUSH:
"Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time
tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an
issue that is one of the most profound of our time.
The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos
is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table
discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as
scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is
agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children
or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the
church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith,
coming to different conclusions.
Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell
research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral
conclusions.
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax
dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from
human embryos.
A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of
a process called in vitro fertilization which helps so many couples
conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life
outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted
in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children or if they are
unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage, others are destroyed. A
number have been donated to science and used to create privately
funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive
mother and born and are today healthy children.
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists
believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that
could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible
diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer, from Parkinsons to
spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet
certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique
potential.
A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of
a process called in vitro fertilization which helps so many couples
conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life
outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted
in the mother.
Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful,
the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not
survive during long storage, others are destroyed. A number have been
donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell
lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born
and are today healthy children.
Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists
believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that
could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible
diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to
spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet
certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique
potential.
You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other
than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are
discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many
scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also
promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are
already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on
embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have
the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will
come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best
and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely
shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the
research is directed toward the greatest public good.
The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world
toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and
the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest
standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.
Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions,
because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus
destroys its potential for life.
Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique
genetic potential of an individual human being.
As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental
questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore
something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be
destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for
research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bio-
ethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of
Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters
from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought,
prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread
disagreement.
On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher
told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an
embryo, not yet an individual but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has
the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop
on its own.
An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization.
"Make no mistake,'' he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way
you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a
heavy heart if we use these,'' he said, "because we are dealing with
the seeds of the next generation.''
And to the other crucial question – If these are going to be destroyed
anyway, why not use them for good purpose? – I also found different
answers.
Many are these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create
life and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can
be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.
Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life and the fact
that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on
it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions
about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a
difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in
all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all
its stages.
As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also
lay vast ethical mine fields.
As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we
increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We
have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932
when Alduous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in
what he called a hatchery.
In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos
in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling
and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these
issues very carefully.
Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of
moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant
to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning.
Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the
next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer
stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case
you need another heart or lung or liver.
I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at
the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life
for our convenience.
And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is
equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised
by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most
noble ends do not justify any means.
My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a
strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the
potential for incredible good – to improve lives, to save life, to
conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones
may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends
whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written
me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family
has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all
Americans, I have great hope for cures.
I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry
about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I
have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life
in America and throughout the world.
And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no
one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has
generated.
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered
great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not
lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research
offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must
proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem
cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have
already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate
themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.
I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for
research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death
decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great
promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This
allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research
without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer
funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human
embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through
aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta,
adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral
dilemma. This year your government will spent $250 million on this
important research.
I will also name a president's council to monitor stem cell research,
to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations and to consider
all of the medical and ethical ramifications of bio-medical
innovation.
This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists,
lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Cass,
a leading bio-medical ethicist from the University of Chicago.
This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our
nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important
issues.
As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect
and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.
I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right
one.
Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America. "
This came from this Washington Post website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_080901.htm
>
>
> > ... It's also wrong to cause
> > people (like myself) that are against abortion to pay for those that
> > are not
> > against it, so that they can have abortions.
>
> But there is already the Hyde amendment, under which
> federal tax money is not used to pay for abortions. The
> President has supported the Hyde amendment, so
> it is unfair to criticize this as a feature of the President's policy.
>
I certainly do criticize his overturning of the embryonic
stem cell research. I am NOT opposed to stem cell
research but I am opposed to embryonic stem cell
research.
>
> > Forcing doctors to have
> > to give abortions is wrong if they have a conscientious objection to
> > it. Forcing pharmacists to dispense medicine for the morning after
> > pill is wrong if they
> > have an objection to it, as many of them do.
>
> There is always an issue of how to deal with conscientious objection.
> Conservatives are inconsistent on this point, since they
> are not willing to allow conscientious objectors to particular
> wars to excuse themselves from their military obligations
> without penalty.
>
Sorry, but there are many Democrats who are also opposed to
abortion and also embryonic stem cell research. It raises
important issues about the ethics in bio-medical research.
Scientists have already proven that a person's own stem
cells can be of help to him.
>
> > There are many moral
> > reasons not to go for the agenda that
> > the Far Left has. Also the Far Left has ignored the other people in
> > their own party that are against what they stand for.
>
> We were discussing the Obama policy (and originally
> the Obama ...
>
Obama is from the Far Left. He has one of the most, if not
the most liberal voting records.
>
As you can see from what Bush said in his speech, he is certainly
not uninformed, and his decision was taken very seriously and
weighed out considerably to try to do what was moral and what
was right. He did approve of those embryos that already existed,
as you can read.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
ones like the Far Left proposes who are being ignored
as well. The Far Left would like people in the general
public to think that all Democrats think like they do, but
they do not represent all in that party.
>
> "They have in fact put over 200 amendments
> into this bill in committee."
>
> The Republicans want to delay and stop the process, because it is being
> *rushed through!*
>
a reflection of what Jesus taught. He set people straight, who
didn't understand things. The few times he stated his own
opinion, he notified the reader that he was giving his opinion.
Yet, the Lord included Paul's opinion in the Bible.
>
Suzanne
>
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>> >If you have many different groups of people
>> >living in your country, it's nicer to make
>> >them feel welcome rather than saying
>> >"we liked it better before you came here,
>> >and we'd be happier if you left".
>>
>> Actually, we would be happier if some of them
>> left.
>>
>
>As I said it would be nicer if you didn't
>convey that unwelcomeness to them.
>
>
>> ...But how do you phrase that nicely?
>
>You can't, because it's not a nice sentiment.
>
>You'd wind up being like certain American Southerners,
>some of whom I met as a youth, when they
>spoke to me in sweet magnolia-blossom tones,
>and behind my back they thought I was
>a dirty, "n"-loving Jew (and expressed
>this openly when I wasn't around). Yuck.
>
>(Thankfully some of this is changing, but
>unfortunately some of it is not. In the
>50s, which is when the events I'm thinking
>of happened, many even very cultured
>southerners would be this way.)
Rob, I just wanted to cut to this part of the
conversation because I want to ask you a question.
First of all, I'm sorry to hear about the above.
That's horrible. I can't imagine how that must have
felt.... were you shocked? I suppose it made you wary of
visiting that part of the world?
But when I talk about hoping that some minorities
leave our shores, I'm not talking about irrational
hatred, I'm talking about extremists like this
(and I can feel my blood pressure rising just posting
this!)
I know you are a great believer in free speech, but this is
a planned march through the very town that receives the dead bodies
of our servicemen! How could this be more offensive?!
If it goes ahead, there will be trouble.
These are the sort of people who should leave the country.
>> >No!! How can you quietly withdraw the stamp?
>>
>> >The minute somebody goes to the post office
>> >and asks for the stamp, and gets told that
>> >it's been withdrawn, the secret is out.
>>
>> No, no, no. They wouldn't *say* it's been withdrawn.
>> They would say it's "no longer available". Or something
>> like that. That's what our government does.
>>
>> Then they would have denied that it had anything to do
>> with the terrorist attack or Islam. They would just
>> deny everything.
>
>I agree that governments lie much of the time, but disagree
>that we should be encouraging this to be the
>standard operating procedure.
Well, I'm not suggesting they should lie.
>> Later on, through the Freedom of Information Act, we
>> would discover that they decided to withdraw it and
>> keep it all quiet. But by that time, nobody would care.
>
>It would be a scandal, and it means that large
>groups of people would wind up being suspicious
>that the government was lying even when it
>was telling the truth.
I suppose I assume that the government is lying most
of the time. I would be surprised if they were proven
to be telling the truth *at all*.
I don't really think any government at any time has
been especially honest.
>> Rob, surely this all sounds familiar? I'm sure my
>> government isn't alone in this. Barefaced lying is
>> the stock-in-trade of politicians!
>
>Maybe, but you're trying to turn it into a virtue --
>a tool for all occasions. Once you do
>that, you're on a slippery slope towards
>being a Republican, and you know that
>is Biblically forbidden.
It's Biblically forbidden to be a Republican? :-)
I didn't know that! :-)
Anyway, I suppose I'm saying that there are discrete ways of
doing things.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about.. discretion.
randy
"Suzanne"
randy
> Paul was a prophet. Jesus equally called people to individual
> responsibility. Everything Paul taught was based on what Jesus himself
> taught.
"I agree with you about Paul, Randy. What things he says are
a reflection of what Jesus taught. He set people straight, who
didn't understand things. The few times he stated his own
opinion, he notified the reader that he was giving his opinion.
Yet, the Lord included Paul's opinion in the Bible."
There is a great effort here by people like Linda and Snow, who want to
destroy Paul's credibility as an apostle. How important Paul is in the
purposes of the Lord, though! How terrible it would be if the opposition
could simply eliminate certain individuals from the Bible, David, Solomon,
Ezra, Nehemiah, or any one of the prophets! God chose certain individuals to
completely change the landscape. But these changes have only taken place
with great confirmation, according with all the prophets, and with all of
Scripture.
Paul indeed brought his own individuality into his ministry. And yet it was
his great purpose to commit himself to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so
that he would finish the work to which God called him, namely building the
Gentile church and making Israel jealous. He succeeded.
randy
Rob Strom
> In article <5d163567-634c-4b6d-96b2-2fa19cbae...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
...
>
> Rob, I just wanted to cut to this part of the
> conversation because I want to ask you a question.
>
> First of all, I'm sorry to hear about the above.
> That's horrible. I can't imagine how that must have
> felt.... were you shocked? I suppose it made you wary of
> visiting that part of the world?
Not as much as seeing a movie called Easy Rider.
>
> But when I talk about hoping that some minorities
> leave our shores, I'm not talking about irrational
> hatred, I'm talking about extremists like this
> (and I can feel my blood pressure rising just posting
> this!)
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6923700/O...
>
> I know you are a great believer in free speech, but this is
> a planned march through the very town that receives the dead bodies
> of our servicemen! How could this be more offensive?!
> If it goes ahead, there will be trouble.
>
I think you're being politically correct and complaining about
the wrong thing.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a non-violent
anti-war demonstration with people carrying
symbolic coffins down the street. And, despite
the headline, there's nothing wrong with the
reaction of the other side: "The people of Wootton Bassett
are decent, quiet, pragmatic people and **they'll stay
at home** instead (of reacting to the march)." Good!
Instead of complaining that some horrible taboo
is being broken because people are walking
down the very streets where returning
soldiers are paraded, why not complain
about the real outrage: namely, that
the parade is sponsored by
al-Muhajiroun -- a terrorist organization
that has *absolutely no pacifist
sympathies whatever* and which has lauded
the September 11th terrorists,
called for extermination of Jews,
and been involved in actual suicide
terror attacks!!!
The hypocrisy and double-standard
evil of a hate group and terrorist
group marching for peace is
what should be triggering your
outrage, not the fact that they're
violating some silly taboo about
where and how it is cricket
to hold peace marches.
> These are the sort of people who should leave the country.
They're the sort of people who should be arrested and
locked up, but not for silly reasons like parading
without a permit or for speech and conduct unbecoming
an English gentleman, but for substantive
reasons like murder and conspiracy to commit murder!!
...
>
> >I agree that governments lie much of the time, but disagree
> >that we should be encouraging this to be the
> >standard operating procedure.
>
> Well, I'm not suggesting they should lie.
Saying that the stamp was withdrawn for
reasons unknown when the stamp was
withdrawn for reasons known would be a lie.
...
>
> >> Rob, surely this all sounds familiar? I'm sure my
> >> government isn't alone in this. Barefaced lying is
> >> the stock-in-trade of politicians!
>
> >Maybe, but you're trying to turn it into a virtue --
> >a tool for all occasions. Once you do
> >that, you're on a slippery slope towards
> >being a Republican, and you know that
> >is Biblically forbidden.
>
> It's Biblically forbidden to be a Republican? :-)
> I didn't know that! :-)
It is. Of course the word "Republican" has
a different meaning in England, namely
someone who is opposed to the Monarchy.
I don't think it's Biblically forbidden to be
*that* kind of a Republican. In fact, I
might be that kind of a Republican myself,
although I suppose I'm not against
a figurehead head of State who
doesn't actually have any *duties*.
> Anyway, I suppose I'm saying that there are discrete ways of
> doing things.
> Yes, that's what I'm talking about.. discretion.
No. I'm against *that* sort of discretion.
You see it even in English children's books.
The characters in Winnie the Pooh even
have that indirect form of speech that
the English seem to think is a virtue
but which comes out to my ear as evasive
at best and dishonest at worst.
I guess I'm used to people who
talk like Shmuley Boteach!
--
Rob Strom
Suzanne
> In article <5d163567-634c-4b6d-96b2-2fa19cbae...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >If you have many different groups of people
> >> >living in your country, it's nicer to make
> >> >them feel welcome rather than saying
> >> >"we liked it better before you came here,
> >> >and we'd be happier if you left".
>
> >> Actually, we would be happier if some of them
> >> left.
>
> >As I said it would be nicer if you didn't
> >convey that unwelcomeness to them.
>
> >> ...But how do you phrase that nicely?
>
> >You can't, because it's not a nice sentiment.
>
> >You'd wind up being like certain American Southerners,
> >some of whom I met as a youth, when they
> >spoke to me in sweet magnolia-blossom tones,
> >and behind my back they thought I was
> >a dirty, "n"-loving Jew (and expressed
> >this openly when I wasn't around). Yuck.
>
and they happened to be Jewish. I'm a Southerner,
and people that I know would not be as you are
describing. It's sort of like that statement, you can't
tell a book by it's cover. Rob is short-changing the
people that live in the South of the USA. In fact, we
have many people living there from up North. In
Florida, a huge part of the population are from the
North and have retired in Florida because they like
the climate and the people so much. So I am really
surprised at what Rob has said this day in time.
>
>
> >(Thankfully some of this is changing, but
> >unfortunately some of it is not. In the
> >50s, which is when the events I'm thinking
> >of happened, many even very cultured
> >southerners would be this way.)
>
> Rob, I just wanted to cut to this part of the
> conversation because I want to ask you a question.
>
> First of all, I'm sorry to hear about the above.
> That's horrible. I can't imagine how that must have
> felt.... were you shocked? I suppose it made you wary of
> visiting that part of the world?
>
> But when I talk about hoping that some minorities
> leave our shores, I'm not talking about irrational
> hatred, I'm talking about extremists like this
> (and I can feel my blood pressure rising just posting
> this!)
>
Republican. Most people vote according to the
man that is running and do their best to choose
the one that they think will be best for the country.
That's why we have a Republican president at
times, and a Democrat at other times.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
are against Paul, and I am aware of that. They don't
seem to hate me because I do like Paul. : ) They
are very considerate about what I believe, in fact.
I express what I believe the Lord wants me to say,
and then trust him with the outcome. I guess that for
the sake of those who are not Christians who are
interested in Christianity and what we believe, the
one main thing that I want to extend to them is that
Jesus loves them and wants them to receive him as
their Savior, and put their trust in him completely
about salvation, and follow him. I don't really want
to argue with Christians about differences in their
theologies, unless someone makes a great issue
out of something. I do my best to tell them what I
believe is right, but then I let go and trust the Lord
with the outcome. You know, sometimes people
will not understand what you believe, but the Lord
can bring what you say up to them later at the right
time. I've heard people say, "Oh...now I know what
he was talking about! I didn't understand earlier,"
for example. If you have explained something to
someone and it is right and from the Lord, the
Holy Spirit will back it up and be able to bring it
to mind to them, when he is helping someone to
have spiritual growth. What I am saying is that I
try to explain to someone in the best way that I
know how to do, what I believe the Lord places
on my heart to say. But then I try to remember to
leave the rest to the Lord. When you are telling
people something from the Lord, He is also a
participant in their hearts as you speak and he
continues to work in their hearts after you have
left.
>
If someone were to not believe there even was
a King David, or his son, Solomon, also a king,
or even Paul, I still pay attention to what things
the Lord wants me to say, and tell people what
he has placed on my heart.
>
Suzanne
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>On Jan 4, 7:42=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rob, I just wanted to cut to this part of the
>> conversation because I want to ask you a question.
>>
>> First of all, I'm sorry to hear about the above.
>> That's horrible. I can't imagine how that must have
>> felt.... were you shocked? I suppose it made you wary of
>> visiting that part of the world?
>
>Not as much as seeing a movie called Easy Rider.
>
Oh. I don't know that movie.
I'm not sure why a movie would worry you more though.
>>
>> But when I talk about hoping that some minorities
>> leave our shores, I'm not talking about irrational
>> hatred, I'm talking about extremists like this
>> (and I can feel my blood pressure rising just posting
>> this!)
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6923700/O...
>>
>> I know you are a great believer in free speech, but this is
>> a planned march through the very town that receives the dead bodies
>> of our servicemen! How could this be more offensive?!
>> If it goes ahead, there will be trouble.
>>
>
>I think you're being politically correct and complaining about
>the wrong thing.
Huh? I'm *never* politically correct!
>There's absolutely nothing wrong with a non-violent
>anti-war demonstration with people carrying
>symbolic coffins down the street.
Ah yes, there is, in an area like this one.
As the bereaved families say, it's like spitting on the
graves...
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/149748/-British-soldiers-are-like-Nazis-says-hate-cleric
> And, despite
>the headline, there's nothing wrong with the
>reaction of the other side: "The people of Wootton Bassett
>are decent, quiet, pragmatic people and **they'll stay
>at home** instead (of reacting to the march)." Good!
There will be a riot. This is the same Islamic group that
caused in near riot in Luton last year.
>Instead of complaining that some horrible taboo
>is being broken because people are walking
>down the very streets where returning
>soldiers are paraded, why not complain
>about the real outrage: namely, that
>the parade is sponsored by
>al-Muhajiroun -- a terrorist organization
>that has *absolutely no pacifist
>sympathies whatever* and which has lauded
>the September 11th terrorists,
>called for extermination of Jews,
>and been involved in actual suicide
>terror attacks!!!
They're already banned here though.
They just change their name to something else.
And of course, the current group deny all of the above.
What more can we do, other than deport the lot of them?
And our current, useless liberal government would never
do that!
>The hypocrisy and double-standard
>evil of a hate group and terrorist
>group marching for peace is
>what should be triggering your
>outrage, not the fact that they're
>violating some silly taboo about
>where and how it is cricket
>to hold peace marches.
But they're already being prosecuted for the Luton
demonstration. They don't openly advocate murder,
so they can't be prosecuted for that.
They're being prosecuted for a lesser charge...
>> >I agree that governments lie much of the time, but disagree
>> >that we should be encouraging this to be the
>> >standard operating procedure.
>>
>> Well, I'm not suggesting they should lie.
>
>Saying that the stamp was withdrawn for
>reasons unknown when the stamp was
>withdrawn for reasons known would be a lie.
>
"Unavailable" doesn't mean "unknown".
It just means: "I'm not going to tell you."
>>
>> >> Rob, surely this all sounds familiar? I'm sure my
>> >> government isn't alone in this. Barefaced lying is
>> >> the stock-in-trade of politicians!
>>
>> >Maybe, but you're trying to turn it into a virtue --
>> >a tool for all occasions. =A0Once you do
>> >that, you're on a slippery slope towards
>> >being a Republican, and you know that
>> >is Biblically forbidden.
>>
>> It's Biblically forbidden to be a Republican? :-)
>> I didn't know that! :-)
>
>It is. Of course the word "Republican" has
>a different meaning in England, namely
>someone who is opposed to the Monarchy.
>I don't think it's Biblically forbidden to be
>*that* kind of a Republican. In fact, I
>might be that kind of a Republican myself,
>although I suppose I'm not against
>a figurehead head of State who
>doesn't actually have any *duties*.
I think I know what you're hinting at :-)
No need though. William is at last being trained
up as King. No King Charles! Thank the good Lord!
>> Anyway, I suppose I'm saying that there are discrete ways of
>> doing things.
>> Yes, that's what I'm talking about.. discretion.
>
>No. I'm against *that* sort of discretion.
>
>You see it even in English children's books.
>The characters in Winnie the Pooh even
>have that indirect form of speech that
>the English seem to think is a virtue
>but which comes out to my ear as evasive
>at best and dishonest at worst.
>
>I guess I'm used to people who
>talk like Shmuley Boteach!
Oh :-) I can take Shmuley in small doses only :-)
I tend to agree with his politics, but he's far too loud!
Anyway, being economical with the truth is sometimes
sensible.
Emma
Suzanne says...
>
>>
>A lot of my friends are American Southerners,
>and they happened to be Jewish. I'm a Southerner,
>and people that I know would not be as you are
>describing. It's sort of like that statement, you can't
>tell a book by it's cover. Rob is short-changing the
>people that live in the South of the USA. In fact, we
>have many people living there from up North. In
>Florida, a huge part of the population are from the
>North and have retired in Florida because they like
>the climate and the people so much. So I am really
>surprised at what Rob has said this day in time.
Yes, I'd heard that a lot of your elderly retire to
Florida.
I get the impression that Florida is not the typical
southern state though? As you say, it has a mix of
people.
I suppose it's places like Alabama and Texas that
have the reputation for being quite intolerant.
Or is that unfair?
Maybe I read the wrong books, but I get that impression
from what I read/see.
vince garcia
>
> In article <fa6e5059-f2da-4797...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
> >
> >On Jan 4, 7:42=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Rob, I just wanted to cut to this part of the
> >> conversation because I want to ask you a question.
> >>
> >> First of all, I'm sorry to hear about the above.
> >> That's horrible. I can't imagine how that must have
> >> felt.... were you shocked? I suppose it made you wary of
> >> visiting that part of the world?
> >
> >Not as much as seeing a movie called Easy Rider.
> >
>
> Oh. I don't know that movie.
>
> I'm not sure why a movie would worry you more though.
It's a 60s cult classic w/peter fonda and dennis hopper, two doper
bikers who travel across country to sell some drugs. They get blown away
by some hicks in a pickup.
>
> >>
> >> But when I talk about hoping that some minorities
> >> leave our shores, I'm not talking about irrational
> >> hatred, I'm talking about extremists like this
> >> (and I can feel my blood pressure rising just posting
> >> this!)
> >>
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6923700/O...
Good for you!!!!
* Loves this kind of talk from such a practical person and bishop in
rob's own church *
randy
"Suzanne"
randy
"There are some people in here that I really like who
are against Paul, and I am aware of that. They don't
seem to hate me because I do like Paul. : ) They
are very considerate about what I believe, in fact.
I express what I believe the Lord wants me to say,
and then trust him with the outcome..."
Sounds like a good philosophy to me! :)
randy
Rob Strom
> On Dec 31 2009, 9:37 am, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:> On Dec 31, 2:24 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > As Vince likes to say, you have to read all passages in context.
> > In context "except by me" means "except by following my
> > teaching", not "except by believing in my death and resurrection".
> > Jesus' definitive message about how the wheat are
> > separated from the chaff is given in Matthew 25,
> > the parable of the sheep and the goats.
>
> "Except by me" does not mean by works, Rob. Jesus is the way,
> the truth, and the life, and you trusting in you is not the way or
> the truth or the life. If a person has not received Jesus as being
> the payment for all of their sins, then that person has not received
> him as their Savior.
I don't see how you reconcile that statement with
the parable of the sheep and the goats that
explicitly says your eternal reward is based
on what you do for the least of your brothers.
...
> > You are using a technical definition of saved, but most
> > people just use it as a shorthand to mean "judged
> > worthy of heaven". To see who's judged worthy of
> > heaven, you should look at the parable of the
> > sheep and the goats.
>
> I'm saying what Jesus said. Jesus said that unless your
> righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees,
> a person will not enter into heaven at all. There is only
> one way that a person's righteousness can exceed the
> righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, and that is
> that he has to exhange his own righteousness for HIS
> righteousness.
You are the second person in these discussions
who thinks that the expression 'your righteousness
must exceed that of the scribes and pharisees'
describes an exceptionally high
and virtually unattainable standard of righteousness.
On the contrary, Jesus was extremely critical
of the scribes and pharisees, calling them
out for hypocrisy, claiming they preach one
thing and do another. Quite a few people's
righteousness could exceed the righteousness
of the scribes and pharisees described
in the NT stories.
As I said, Jesus explicitly gave the
parable of the sheep and the goats
to give his opinion of who gets into heaven.
> A person that has Jesus as his Savior,
> is a person who is covered by Jesus' righteousness.
> Rob, when you realize that you can never be good
> enough to go to heaven on your own merits, then a
> person realizes that he needs Jesus' righteousness.
I don't think you can find a place where Jesus
said you can never be good enough to go
to heaven on your own merits. And the
parable I refer to definitely is a place
where Jesus says that people will be
gathered from all nations and separated
into two groups, and the "sheep" *do*
go to heaven on their own merits.
> He
> can only get that by putting all his trust in Jesus Christ,
> and him alone for salvation. Then the Bible says that
> the Lord will impute righteousness to that person.
The NT says that if someone visits the sick
and feeds the hungry, righteousness will
be imputed to him.
...
> can never achieve.
> "All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned
> every one to his own way, And the Lord hath laid ON HIM,
> the iniquity of us all." - Isaiah 53
>
Don't see how anything in Isaiah 53 has anything
to do with Jesus or the NT.
...
> > Some of those very clearly didn't even
> > know that the good deeds that they were
> > getting non-condemned for were being
> > done for the King. ("And when did
> > we see thee hungry and feed thee?") Some of
> > these were from parts of the world where
> > Jesus was unknown or poorly known
> > ("Before him will be gathered all the nations").
>
> The Bible also says that there shall be weeping
> and wailing and gnashing of teeth and that there
> will be those that say they have followed him, but
> he will say to them "I never knew you." No one can
> "know him" apart from the Holy Spirit. A person
> can't have the Holy Spirit as an indwelling presence
> unless he has accepted Jesus to be the payment
> for all of his sins. That means that you accept him
> as being your Savior. He's not your Savior unless
> he has saved you.
That's not at all what it says in the parable.
The parable says nothing about "indwelling
presence" -- which sounds like something
Randy would say (I never heard that
expression until I read his posts, and
I was confused because he originally
spelled it as "inwelling"). It says
that you go to heaven if you help
the sick and the poor.
...
>
> > No! You've just mixed up Jesus' teachings
> > about getting into heaven with those of
> > Paul (book of Romans) and the later Protestants!
>
> I believe that Paul is one of the greatest of the Apostles.
> But I was speaking to you from what Jesus said.
I don't recognize any of the points you make
as coming from anything Jesus said.
...
> > But what I really wanted a response from was
> > part (b) of what I said above: for those who *do*
> > celebrate Christmas, how many oppose
> > the idea of the President using the occasion
> > of the holiday to give a message of
> > peace and charity that can be applied to
> > people of all faiths?
>
> I think that Christmas is a grand time for a president
> to take that occasion to extend peace to people of
> all faiths, but without giving the reason for the season,
> which is Christ, what good would it do, since it is a
> Christian holiday? A president can still extend peace
> to people of all faiths all through the year, not just at
> Christmas time. So the whole point of extending peace
> to all at Christmas time conveys a belief in Christ to
> others who live around the world who are not Christians.
No, it's to say that here is a holiday which celebrates
a religion which conveys a message that can resonate
even with people who are not Christians, and the
message is peace and justice.
> What he had in his mind didn't come across so clearly
> to those within his country, in my opinion.
>
I don't think anybody misunderstood it except for
conservatives, and it's hard for me not to
take the position that these folks prefer
to interpret anything the President says
in the worst possible light.
...
> > I hope you'll agree with me that it was very wrong
> > and a violation of "don't use God's name in vain"
> > for Senator Coburn to use his Senate speech
> > to invite his fellow senators to pray that someone
> > in the 60-vote Democratic majority might
> > be unable to show up for the cloture vote.
>
> OK...there is a trend that people are saying one should
> pray specifically for something. It seems to me it would
> be better for a person to state in prayer to the Lord what
> way he wants a vote to go, but then add to it, "but not if
> that is against your will, Lord." It seems also to me that
> it would be better to state to the Lord what your requests
> are, and then leave that to Him to decide how to bring
> that result about. It could be that the Lord wanted those
> who were against what he was asking, that he could
> change the hearts of those, rather than keeping them
> from voting. However, the man was stating, the best
> way that he knew of at that moment what he wished the
> Lord to do.
If the best way Coburn could think of to pray was
to hope that some Democrat wouldn't show up
for the vote, there is something seriously wrong with Coburn.
Could you imagine the reaction from conservatives
if when Rush Limbaugh was in the hospital we would
say "let's pray together that he dies"? And then
when people got indignant (as they should)
we would make the
excuse "oh well, the Lord knew that what we
really wanted was to have less lying demagoguery
and perhaps He will rephrase our prayer"?
No. There's no excuse for Coburn praying
that a Democrat won't be able to show up
for the vote.
> The Lord, though, could see into that man's
> heart and understand what he really was asking for, and
> that is victory in the vote. We see the outward appearance,
> but God sees into someone's heart. While I might not think
> what he prayed "appeared" to be appropriate, and while I
> might say that humanly, I agree with what you are saying,
> I guess what really matters is what God thinks about what
> he said.
What God is likely to think about what he said is
that he was using the Lord's name in vain.
...
>
> > In short, the disciples (as was often the case in
> > the NT stories) got it wrong and had to be corrected
> > by Jesus. Jesus healed the sick and
> > gave charity to the poor and didn't
> > assume, as Randy did, that healing
> > and charity were harmful because most
> > of the poor and sick needed to face
> > the consequences of something bad
> > that they had done.
>
> I think that what Randy has in mind is that if a
> group of people always see that they will get a
> handout, they might not want to do anything to
> get into a better way of living. I've seen many
> abuse the social programs that are meant to
> help them. On the other hand, Jesus said that
> the poor you will always have with you.
Jesus and the Hebrew Bible both say
help the poor. They don't say don't help
the poor because they might become
too used to handouts.
> Yet the
> Bible also says that if a man won't work, let him
> not eat.
I think you're confusing the letters of Paul
with the words of God and Jesus.
...
> > The point is, both the teachings of God in the Jewish Bible
> > ("do not withhold your hand from the poor") and of Jesus
> > in your Christian Bible, teach that it is our *duty*
> > to help both the sick and the poor. The idea of
> > Randy, that charity and health insurance are bad
> > things because most of the time the poor and the sick
> > are that way due to their own failings their
> > poverty and illness are just punishments that
> > God has appointed to them, is in my very
> > strong opinion, un-Biblical. Not merely unjustified
> > by the Bible, but actually condemned in the
> > strongest terms, since Sodom itself was
> > condemned, not just for acts of homosexual rape,
> > but for xenophobia and indifference to the poor.
> > Although the word "sodomy" has changed
> > over the years to be exclusively about sex,
> > actually the word is better applied to those
> > who preach xenophobia and indifference to
> > the needy among us, since that is how the
> > prophet Ezekiel teaches about the sin of Sodom.
>
> Does the Bible say how we should take care of the poor?
> Does it say that the government should do it, or the people,
> themselves?
It says that nations (e.g. Sodom) and individuals
(e.g. the people in the parable of the sheep and goats)
will be judged based on whether helping the poor happened.
There is a principle of game theory called the prisoner's
dilemma whereby someone discovers that he can
get away with not paying their fair share of a public
duty (e.g. helping the poor). To make a long story
short, an individual will say "let my neighbor
help instead of me", and then the poor
don't get enough help because too many
individuals are doing the same. Replacing voluntary
contributions by mandated government help
is a mathematically known effective way of
avoiding this problem. The Jewish Law
says that helping the poor is a commandment,
not an option, so a mandatory tax is biblically
consistent. Conservative opposition is
sometimes based upon various pretexts
but eventually it boils down to lots
of people actually holding Randy's
unbiblical idea that the poor don't
deserve the help anyway.
...
> We also need more people worshipping the Lord and praying
> for his help. The nation needs revival.
I am hoping that the election of Democrats brings about
revival of exactly these kinds of biblical principles.
...
>
> I agree with you that the answer is in the Bible.
> Everybody does not agree with what it says about
> everything, but some things are really clear that all
> would agree about I think. It helps if you are reasoning
> with someone to mention a Bible verse that illustrates
> what you are saying. Yet, as I asked the question above,
> it doesn't state how the poor should be helped, whether
> it is with each individual gift, or with the individual vote.
> In fairness to Randy, I don't think he would oppose a
> charity that the people, themselves contributed to.
If people aren't forced to contribute, it's very easy
for some to cheat and not give their due share,
especially if they are able to use pretexts like
Randy's of "oh, they probably are poor because
they're lazy and helping them is just reinforcing
laziness".
>... I don't think that the
> Lord would like abortion on demand to be legalized, so
> there are things that are immoral that some people want
> to do.
But the health care bill doesn't fund abortion on demand.
And failing to help the sick and poor is a thing
that is immoral that some people, especially
conservative Republicans (these days) seem to
want to do.
...
[I'm going to defer stem cell debate to another thread.]
...
>
> > > Forcing doctors to have
> > > to give abortions is wrong if they have a conscientious objection to
> > > it. Forcing pharmacists to dispense medicine for the morning after
> > > pill is wrong if they
> > > have an objection to it, as many of them do.
>
> > There is always an issue of how to deal with conscientious objection.
> > Conservatives are inconsistent on this point, since they
> > are not willing to allow conscientious objectors to particular
> > wars to excuse themselves from their military obligations
> > without penalty.
>
> Sorry, but there are many Democrats who are also opposed to
> abortion and also embryonic stem cell research.
I'm not sure how this addresses the point I raised.
Why aren't conservatives even-handed about issues
of conscientious objection when the objectors are
on the other side?
...
>
> > We were discussing the Obama policy (and originally
> > the Obama ...
>
> Obama is from the Far Left. He has one of the most, if not
> the most liberal voting records.
Uh, no.
Obama is decidedly centrist.
He is to the right of Bernie Sanders, to the right of Al Franken,
to the right of Jay Rockefeller, of Schumer, to say nothing
of liberal pundits such as Rachel Maddow.
He is even to the right of Howard Dean, who is
rather centrist himself.
He goes out of his way to try to bargain with the right,
he has avoided prosecuting the war crimes of
the Bush administration, and has included
Republicans in his administration.
--
Rob Strom
Emma
>
>
>Yes, there is always this inclination in our society to move away from
>Christian ethics, in the interest of human liberty from moral constraints.
>It's a battle that always has to be waged, if we are to *remain* a moral
>people. In fact I believe the attempted separation of religion and State in
>my own society is evidence of this move *away from* Christianity. Christians
>are left feeling marginalized and left an object of ridicule by the
>majority.
But do you find that even Christians are moving away from
Christian morality?
I think I've mentioned this before, but some of our friends
are beginning to make excuses for behaviour that they would
never have accepted, say, 10 years ago. I think that's
because their own children are rejecting Christian morality.
So, in an attempt to reconcile that, they're suddenly trying to
make excuses for their children eg. trying to
persuade everyone that marriage isn't actually in
the Bible.
It seems to me (although I wouldn't say this to them)
that they're trying to avoid the shame by lowering
their own standards.
Yet a decade ago, it would have been shameful for
a couple in the Church to be living together rather than
getting married. Nobody made excuses for it or tried
to explain it away using theology. It angers me because
it cheapens Christianity. It makes it too easy.
How is this viewed in your church?
>>>And the
>>>idea of a homogenized society, where all individuals are treated equally,
>>>without regard to sexual interests, is not a Christian concept.
>>>Neither is the idea that all society should equally receive rewards, both
>>>>Christian and nonChristian behaviors.
>
>> I suppose we want to deter some behaviours, but we have laws
>> for that.
>
>Emma, the *laws are changing!* They are becoming more tolerant of deviant
>behaviors, and prosecuting those who continue calling them deviant
>behaviors.
Americans have been prosecuted for calling
something "deviant"?
Are you sure?
>It's a slippery slope, in my opinion. Once people have to funnel their
>health care through the government, the government then acquires the ability
>to ration that care, and decide who deserves it. Universal health care is
>not really universal justice. To make godly people pick up the tab for
>ungodly people is positively unjust. As for "rationing" care, I believe your
>State retirement system is looking more like ours, forcing you to go from 60
>years old to 65? That is what I call "rationing care!"
Men here have always retired at 65, but women could retire
at 60. Now women have to work until 65. I don't really
have a problem with that because women actually live longer.
>> Ah, well that's the sort of thing I meant.
>> Pentecostal churches in London and certain other areas,
>> tend to be black/or other ethnic minority churches.
>
>Yes, even the pentecostal movement here in the U.S. began about 100 years
>ago in a Black church.
I didn't know that.
> But if you consider the history of revivalist
>Christian movements, they often *have to* begin outside of the mainstream.
>In England revivalist movements had to take place by those who were not
>captive to intransigent Anglican control. Otherwise there would be no
>Quakers or Baptists or Methodists. And the Anglican Church itself would have
>no means by which to reform itself.
Yes. True.
Actually, the black Pentecostal churches are often (not always)
a force for good here because they're keeping Christianity
alive.
>> Their communities are still very religious, unlike the
>> rest of Britain.
>
>That's why there's always this need for reform and for revival.
>Unfortunately, the day could come when the State overall wants nothing more
>to do with religious revival. The Bible actually predicts a time will come
>when a universal antichristian movement will take place, attempting to
>permanently remove the Christian gospel from impacting our societies.
Well, over here, I think the EU fulfils that role.
America is probably way, way behind us on that.
>>>Jews have no message for nonJews.
>
>> Well that's not true. I've got some Jewish books that
>> have helped me a lot...
>
>That's not what I mean. I'm helped by Jewish materials every day, namely by
>the Jewish Scripture--Genesis through Malachi.
Yes, but the Jewish books help me understand the
Bible. That's what I meant.
>> There are plenty of Christian denominations that could
>> learn a lot from Judaism. There are some Christian
>> interpretations of scripture that are completely wrong.
>
>Don't sell Christianity short, just because there are a few errors here and
>there. There have been brilliant Christian scholars down through the
>centuries, and they have visited these issues ad nauseum. The Jews have
>absolutely nothing over on us. If anything, the Jews want to warp our
>message and our interpretations, because they believe Christians are their
>persecutors! In that respect, I believe they actually distort their own
>Scriptures, to their own loss!
I'm not selling *Christianity* short. I said,
*some Christian denominations* could learn a lot
from Judaism.
We've all read the posts from the extreme Messianics
who think they're practising some pure form of
Judaism.
>> I don't see condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible.
>> I now think that it's been read *into* the Bible. It's a cultural
>> thing, IMO. Or a human thing eg. picking on difference.
>
>No, the laws of Moses condemn homosexuals to death. It doesn't take a
>brilliant interpretor of the Hebrew language to understand that! The same
>laws that condemn homosexuals also condemn those who practise bestiality,
>and those who practise infanticide. Why do you reinterpret those laws?
I've been convinced by the arguments that say it isn't
there.
Also, from a commonsense point of view, why should
we be worried about homosexuals? I mean, they don't
harm anyone else. That's not to say that I want to
see Gay pride marches, because I don't.
It's just too vulgar. IMO, it's a private thing and
should be kept that way.
>> Whoa! I can't believe you're saying that!
>> I don't believe in the death penalty for anyone, but for
>> a sexual behaviour it's just unbelievably cruel and extreme.
>> That's the sort of thing they do in Iran, Randy, not in
>> America!
>
>I'm a part of God's Kingdom, Emma. I'm sad you can't say likewise.
I don't think that's Christian at all.
There's nothing in the Christian scripture that calls
for the death penalty.
If you're going to kill homosexuals then why not
kill someone for divorce/remarriage, or adultery, etc?